Is there any way for us to know that you really work for the Dean campaign? Joe Trippi posted a couple comments in the last Dean story, and hasn't shown himself since.
A simple link to your slashdot profiles from a page on deanforamerica.com that isn't linked to from anything but your reply to me or anyone else who asks this question would serve as proof.
I disagree completely. I think the Bush ads will be much more effective since most people will know what he is talking about, while PATRIOT Is a non-issue to most people.
Well, the Democratic candidates can talk about the reasons for the war, which may have been less than perfect (I'm sure more will come out about this in the coming months). Anyway, I'm not an expert in how public opinion is changed.
First of all, I am liberal (but not a Democrat--I hate both parties, just not equally), and I know next to nothing about politics.
This guy can be turned directly into the scion of leftist antiwar evil with a few carefully placed TV ads
I honestly think that if the Democrat who wins the nomination (preferrably Dean or Kucinich for me) puts up a bunch of TV ads about the USA PATRIOT Act, they'll at least counter the anti-war stuff Bush's campaign would say.
The GPL is an inappropriate "license" for a jet engine. For instance, it says he must provide source code to those who he provides binaries. This can sort of be construed to mean that if he builds a jet for me, he must give me the architectural plans.
He should use a license more suited to content than code, such as the Creative Commons licenses.
In fact, since the algorithm would be completely open, it would probably be easier to subvert. I'm sure Google has enough trouble working against people who guess at their algorithms, so you could imagine the trouble when people know the algorithm. Then again, many of the people who attempt to subvert search engines are probably fans of open source, and, as you said, there might be more manpower to work against them. Merely comparing open and closed search engines, it's a hard sell either way, but in this case, Google wins because everyone knows Google.
1: The spam flames MS. Logically, the creator of the virus would want you to switch to something non-MS, and I gave Linux as an example. 2: Pursuing an agenda through exploiting security holes is not really pursuing an agenda. And no, I did not read the article, because washingtonpost.com won't let me use Mozilla to view it.
How do you know this person was trying to get people to switch to Linux (or anything non-MS)? S/he could just be an ordinary asshole, without a point to prove.
That is assuming he would be installing something new. He could merely maintain something someone else has set up. If he could find enough other interested people in the IT field he could create a non-profit org (as mentioned in the article), and then it would be more realistic to support machines for a given period of time (though not indefinitely).
Well, he does ask where he could find a lawyer that would actually understand the issues. I would recommend contacting the EFF--they should be able to put him in contact with a knowledgeable lawyer.
There are so many things you can do that do not necessarily require technology. These things are easier to give and easier to receive because people in need do not always have the means to support technological donations. It's the human touch that is important in charity.
This is true, but the submitter does have skills, and would rather utilize those skills than do something anyone can do. This is not dissimilar from lawyers doing pro-bono legal work.
If someone should try to press charges, where can I find a decent attorney that would actually understand the technology and what I was saying. (As I am now unemployed I'd very much so on a budget)
This seems like something the EFF could help you with. I would not expect them to pay for your defense, but they would help you find someone.
People incorporate public domain code into their programs all the time, and sometimes they GPL the programs. However, the public domain portion is still public domain, and I don't have to go out and find another public domain copy, not strictly, though I might want to check it to be sure I am safe.
Yes--especially since the person incorporating the code may have made one or two minor changes.
And by "modify and redistribute" in the grand parent, I was thinking making changes and selling them. You are correct--fair use applies mostly to private and educational use, and the GPL does not take away fair use. It is unnecessary for the GPL to state that it does not take away fair use, because laws already state that.
Here's where the GPL is stating the law incorrectly. First of all, fair use rights allow you to modify and distribute the program regardless of the copyright licence, so the GPL should not say that "nothing else grants you permission." In addition, the claimed GPLd work may be in the public domain or covered by another licence, and so again such a statement is false.
Fair use gives you the right to make backups for personal use and to allow friends and family to use the software, but that is all (it certainly does not allow you to redistribute a modified version of the program). Some of the code in the GPL'd product may be in the public domain or through another license, but you will have to find that code through alternate means, as the modifications made to that code and the other code unrelated to that code is only available under the GPL (assuming the project you're getting the code from is authorized to use the third-party code under the GPL).
Next, I believe they are wrong in saying that if you copy the program you are accepting the terms of the GPL. If you copy the program, you are violating copyright, not accepting the gpl.
You have an option--you can violate copyright, or adhere to the terms of the GPL (unless you are making a backup, which is allowed under fair use).
The court could possibly find some part of the GPL illegal (I don't have any idea what, and I think if they did MS would have had to buy the judge), but then, since the GPL requires all of its terms to be followed, or none of them, the work you created would fall back to normal copyright, in which nobody can reproduce it without your express consent. This was previously given under the GPL, with restrictions. It seems that you could logically place the same restrictions on a case-by-case basis anyway, so there is no logical case against the GPL.
We don't want to add a lot of
strength to those thousands of programs and web pages that say, "Use of this program indicates acceptance of these terms." Only deliberately agreeing to a contract should bind you to a contract.
Quoth the GPL:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.... (Section 5)
I know this is offtopic, and I already took the score down by 1 moderators:).
Awhile ago you mentioned one of the reasons desktop linux wouldn't catch on is due to the lack of Acrobat. I responded, but misunderstood what you meant.
I recently found that OpenOffice Writer (1.1 at least) can export files as PDFs. It isn't available in the File | Save As dialog, but it's available as a button in the function bar. I cannot compare the quality of Acrobat and OpenOffice Writer in this respect (I don't own a copy of Acrobat), but this feature of OpenOffice helped me tremendously in exporting SXW files to PDF. It does not appear to open PDF files, but the way the exporting is done, it still prompts you to save as SXW, and when a change needs to be made, you open the SXW file, save, and export as PDF.
And in a murder case where they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant for someone, but they can tell he did it, they should just ask the suspect if he did it and take him at his word? Of course they stretch their limits--they have to, or they wouldn't solve any crimes.
The "not much" that I refer to is because there are a relatively small number of police officers compared to the general public. They will only take an interest in me if they have cause to.
Yes, corporations can now find out where their employees are on company time. This is a good thing. However, company X can't track me if I don't work for company X.
Do you stretch your rights at all? Why shouldn't the government be allowed to as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any way for us to know that you really work for the Dean campaign? Joe Trippi posted a couple comments in the last Dean story, and hasn't shown himself since.
A simple link to your slashdot profiles from a page on deanforamerica.com that isn't linked to from anything but your reply to me or anyone else who asks this question would serve as proof.
I'm a Dean supporter, but I'm also a cynic.
Well, Dean will have to put his own spin on the anti-war stuff, because what you say certainly isn't the spin W will put on it.
See http://www.spamvertized.org/2004/dean-emailresults .html. The Dean campaign made an honest mistake, and fixed it.
Actually, there was a PO Box, but registered to his name, with led directly to his home address. However, I agree on your other points.
The GPL is an inappropriate "license" for a jet engine. For instance, it says he must provide source code to those who he provides binaries. This can sort of be construed to mean that if he builds a jet for me, he must give me the architectural plans.
He should use a license more suited to content than code, such as the Creative Commons licenses.
Heh. Ok--I was thinking there was a reference to some obscure movie or something.
I'm sorry. Can someone explain the "magic smoke" reference?
In fact, since the algorithm would be completely open, it would probably be easier to subvert. I'm sure Google has enough trouble working against people who guess at their algorithms, so you could imagine the trouble when people know the algorithm. Then again, many of the people who attempt to subvert search engines are probably fans of open source, and, as you said, there might be more manpower to work against them. Merely comparing open and closed search engines, it's a hard sell either way, but in this case, Google wins because everyone knows Google.
1: The spam flames MS. Logically, the creator of the virus would want you to switch to something non-MS, and I gave Linux as an example.
2: Pursuing an agenda through exploiting security holes is not really pursuing an agenda. And no, I did not read the article, because washingtonpost.com won't let me use Mozilla to view it.
How do you know this person was trying to get people to switch to Linux (or anything non-MS)? S/he could just be an ordinary asshole, without a point to prove.
That is assuming he would be installing something new. He could merely maintain something someone else has set up. If he could find enough other interested people in the IT field he could create a non-profit org (as mentioned in the article), and then it would be more realistic to support machines for a given period of time (though not indefinitely).
Well, he does ask where he could find a lawyer that would actually understand the issues. I would recommend contacting the EFF--they should be able to put him in contact with a knowledgeable lawyer.
If it was only for the United States it should, but fair use differs from country to country.
And by "modify and redistribute" in the grand parent, I was thinking making changes and selling them. You are correct--fair use applies mostly to private and educational use, and the GPL does not take away fair use. It is unnecessary for the GPL to state that it does not take away fair use, because laws already state that.
You have an option--you can violate copyright, or adhere to the terms of the GPL (unless you are making a backup, which is allowed under fair use).
The court could possibly find some part of the GPL illegal (I don't have any idea what, and I think if they did MS would have had to buy the judge), but then, since the GPL requires all of its terms to be followed, or none of them, the work you created would fall back to normal copyright, in which nobody can reproduce it without your express consent. This was previously given under the GPL, with restrictions. It seems that you could logically place the same restrictions on a case-by-case basis anyway, so there is no logical case against the GPL.
It seems like they could have at least mentioned Frank Abagnale, Jr.
I know this is offtopic, and I already took the score down by 1 moderators :).
Awhile ago you mentioned one of the reasons desktop linux wouldn't catch on is due to the lack of Acrobat. I responded, but misunderstood what you meant.
I recently found that OpenOffice Writer (1.1 at least) can export files as PDFs. It isn't available in the File | Save As dialog, but it's available as a button in the function bar. I cannot compare the quality of Acrobat and OpenOffice Writer in this respect (I don't own a copy of Acrobat), but this feature of OpenOffice helped me tremendously in exporting SXW files to PDF. It does not appear to open PDF files, but the way the exporting is done, it still prompts you to save as SXW, and when a change needs to be made, you open the SXW file, save, and export as PDF.
And in a murder case where they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant for someone, but they can tell he did it, they should just ask the suspect if he did it and take him at his word? Of course they stretch their limits--they have to, or they wouldn't solve any crimes.
The "not much" that I refer to is because there are a relatively small number of police officers compared to the general public. They will only take an interest in me if they have cause to.
Yes, corporations can now find out where their employees are on company time. This is a good thing. However, company X can't track me if I don't work for company X.
Do you stretch your rights at all? Why shouldn't the government be allowed to as well?