I've assisted people installing and using Linux, but only done so if they were using one of the distros I'm familiar with. Am I "restricting" their GPL-given right to install other distributions? No, I'm providing something of additional value to them if they don't.
It's more like they install a server that you support with your preferred distro, and they install a few more servers with a different distro, and you barge in uninvited, tally up the unsupported servers, and charge them twice your normal rate for support of the other distros, whether they want it or not.
4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. ----
And "Installed System" is defined as:
The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer installs the Software.
And "The Software" is:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS (collectively, "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or "the Software").
"Systems" is:
The term "System" means the hardware on which the Software is installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work station, a blade or an engine, as applicable. The initial number of Installed Systems is the number of copies of the Software that Customer purchases.
The way the EULA is written, if you purchase the software (which means you agree to the support EULA), then you no longer have the right to install it on another server, even if you compiled the software from the freely distributable source. It places additional restrictions that contravene the GPL, by not making distinctions between servers participating in their support program, and non-participating servers.
But it's impossible under the current EULA to install one server, and get support for that server, and install another server that does not have support. You admitted that was the intent of the license yourself earlier.
It's more like "I will give you help learning Linux as long as you buy me a beer, but you can't make copies without buying me a one beer per copy and getting my help on those other copies"
All valid points. I should have said it mostly works now, because in my experience, it is getting a lot better than it was. I don't use KDE, so maybe it's not as fixed there.
If you aren't already doing it, you should file bug reports against the broken programs.
Your point seems valid, but wouldn't "detached and disinterested generosity" be the situation here?
If it isn't, then what could possibly ever qualify under that standard? This is about as detached and disinterested as it gets.
No one is just going to randomly give money without some interest, even if that interest is mostly altruistic.
What about the jars at the cashier's counter to pay for local kids with cancer's medical treatment. That surely isn't within the circle of family and friends. Is that taxable too?
The restrictions go past mere support. Red Hat is demanding additional payments for each time you exercise your rights under the GPL to install the software product on another server. Suppose I sell you GPL software with a support agreement that says you must pay me a royalty every time you distribute the software. How is that different?
Maybe you should learn to read. If you buy support on one machine, you can't install Red Hat on any additional machines without buying support for them too. Read the EULA. Read it again. Think about it.
You can't have some supported RH machines and some unsupported machines is the result. You either have all your machines supported or none of them.
It's entirely possible this study wasn't at all about video game violence. Often researchers will tell you a study is about something it isn't, so as to not skew the results with bias induced by your personal feelings of what the results "should" be.
This study may have been about human computer interaction, or the psychological aspects of dealing with something someone set up for you in a way that you don't like, or any one of a million things.
I've participated in a handful of studies back when I was in college, and I can say I think there were at least a couple that must have been studing something other than their overt purpose.
The misunderstanding came from the fact that there are actually two distinct ways to move text around. One is by hitting Ctrl-C/X/V or using the menus, that puts it on the clipboard, and you can paste it with similar options.
The other way is more like drag and drop, when you highlight something and middleclick or click both buttons on a 2-button mouse. That way isn't really copying and pasting. This has been around since the beginning of X afaik.
You can copy something, then highlight something else. Middle click to paste the highlighted text, and then hit ctrl-V or select paste from the menu to get the copied text. There are two distinct buffers. Try it sometime.
Some apps had bugs where they confused the two, most of those are fixed these days, anything that intermingles the highlight-middlebutton buffer with ctrl-X/V buffer should have a bug filed against it.
I don't think they'll do that, their OS revenue is not very much compared to their application software revenue.
No one would write Windows software anymore. Why would anyone limit their program to one platform when they could write their software to work with every major platform?
Red Hat has per-server licensing now. If you buy a copy, you are allowed to install it on one server only, unless you buy more support seats. They reserve the right to audit you for compliance too, and charge you penalties if you have more systems installed than licensed.
If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
In fact, I think it's a blatent violation. I guess the FSF doesn't want to enforce the rules on a company that has given so much to the community. I, however, don't think they should get special treatment. I appreciate all Red Hat has done, but that doesn't give them a right to violate copyright law.
That comment uses some weird logic. I don't think the IRS is going to consider the nebulous political benefit "consideration". That's the foundation of that argument, that the funds can't be considered gifts because the people donating were expecting this consideration in return.
What's next? Revoking United Way's tax exempt status because the people donating money get a better community in return?
The way I understand it, the gift laws are written so that you can get up to $10,000 from any person each year and have it considered a gift, exempt from taxes. So long as no one person gives more than $10,000, and the defense fund is set up in a way that it's not legally the "giver", then I think everything is alright.
Of course, I'm not a tax pro, but I think your link it more politics than it is sound tax advice.
Maybe the legal point is that puclic universities should not have trademarks, and thus shouldn't be worried about defending them.
It's a travesty that schools these days care more about sports merchandising revenue than about acedemics.
I think we should immediately institute a complete ban on sports-for-profit in public universities in the USA. Schools are not corporations, trademark protection should not apply to them.
VT's announced cost expressly included both the InfiniBand interconnects and the (massive) piped-water cooling system that, incidentally, accounts for most of the facility's projected electricity use.
That sounds like part of "the actual computer" to me.
You are correct, I'm not saying that I have any evidence that happened this particular time.
It happens though, and it's not unlikely something similar happened this time.
Security companies don't hide their preferential disclosure policies. Nearly all of them report vulns only to thier clients and the vendor, and have vague language in their policies like "responsible disclosure" clauses that let them sit on the flaw until the vendor bothers to get around to fixing it.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get two-way satellite that doesn't require a land line for upload.
I have Starband, it's about $800 startup fee, then $60 or so a month. Ping is a minimum of 600ms, so gaming is out of the question.
It's mostly only good for downloading files and browsing the web.
I've assisted people installing and using Linux, but only done so if they were using one of the distros I'm familiar with. Am I "restricting" their GPL-given right to install other distributions? No, I'm providing something of additional value to them if they don't.
It's more like they install a server that you support with your preferred distro, and they install a few more servers with a different distro, and you barge in uninvited, tally up the unsupported servers, and charge them twice your normal rate for support of the other distros, whether they want it or not.
Hah, funny, I'm wearing a fuckmicrosoft.com T-shirt right now. I found them on a random Google search.
The only problem with it is that on the back it says
"Free your mind,
and your OS will follow"
The comma is right over the "OS" part. So people always ask me "your O's will follow? What??"
Pretty funny.
I understand their motivation. Problems business model or pricing model viability are not an excuse to violate the GPL however.
Well, sorry for the ad hominem, but I took what you wrote as one also.
Here
4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
----
And "Installed System" is defined as:
The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer installs the Software.
And "The Software" is:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS (collectively, "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or "the Software").
"Systems" is:
The term "System" means the hardware on which the Software is installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work station, a blade or an engine, as applicable. The initial number of Installed Systems is the number of copies of the Software that Customer purchases.
The way the EULA is written, if you purchase the software (which means you agree to the support EULA), then you no longer have the right to install it on another server, even if you compiled the software from the freely distributable source. It places additional restrictions that contravene the GPL, by not making distinctions between servers participating in their support program, and non-participating servers.
And even if you did cancel support, they can still audit you for up to a year later and charge you fees for unsupported systems.
Isn't the loss of something of value the same as being required to pay for something?
Suffering an adverse effect if you do something sure sounds like a "restriction" to me.
But it's impossible under the current EULA to install one server, and get support for that server, and install another server that does not have support. You admitted that was the intent of the license yourself earlier.
It's more like "I will give you help learning Linux as long as you buy me a beer, but you can't make copies without buying me a one beer per copy and getting my help on those other copies"
All valid points. I should have said it mostly works now, because in my experience, it is getting a lot better than it was. I don't use KDE, so maybe it's not as fixed there.
If you aren't already doing it, you should file bug reports against the broken programs.
Your point seems valid, but wouldn't "detached and disinterested generosity" be the situation here?
If it isn't, then what could possibly ever qualify under that standard? This is about as detached and disinterested as it gets.
No one is just going to randomly give money without some interest, even if that interest is mostly altruistic.
What about the jars at the cashier's counter to pay for local kids with cancer's medical treatment. That surely isn't within the circle of family and friends. Is that taxable too?
The restrictions go past mere support. Red Hat is demanding additional payments for each time you exercise your rights under the GPL to install the software product on another server. Suppose I sell you GPL software with a support agreement that says you must pay me a royalty every time you distribute the software. How is that different?
Maybe you should learn to read. If you buy support on one machine, you can't install Red Hat on any additional machines without buying support for them too. Read the EULA. Read it again. Think about it.
You can't have some supported RH machines and some unsupported machines is the result. You either have all your machines supported or none of them.
The GPL stipulates that you can't place additional restrictions on the covered software.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Note that it doesn't say "unless they are buying support from you". It clearly says "you may not". Full stop.
It's entirely possible this study wasn't at all about video game violence. Often researchers will tell you a study is about something it isn't, so as to not skew the results with bias induced by your personal feelings of what the results "should" be.
This study may have been about human computer interaction, or the psychological aspects of dealing with something someone set up for you in a way that you don't like, or any one of a million things.
I've participated in a handful of studies back when I was in college, and I can say I think there were at least a couple that must have been studing something other than their overt purpose.
Cut-copy-paste works now.
The misunderstanding came from the fact that there are actually two distinct ways to move text around. One is by hitting Ctrl-C/X/V or using the menus, that puts it on the clipboard, and you can paste it with similar options.
The other way is more like drag and drop, when you highlight something and middleclick or click both buttons on a 2-button mouse. That way isn't really copying and pasting. This has been around since the beginning of X afaik.
You can copy something, then highlight something else. Middle click to paste the highlighted text, and then hit ctrl-V or select paste from the menu to get the copied text. There are two distinct buffers. Try it sometime.
Some apps had bugs where they confused the two, most of those are fixed these days, anything that intermingles the highlight-middlebutton buffer with ctrl-X/V buffer should have a bug filed against it.
I don't think they'll do that, their OS revenue is not very much compared to their application software revenue.
No one would write Windows software anymore. Why would anyone limit their program to one platform when they could write their software to work with every major platform?
Red Hat has per-server licensing now. If you buy a copy, you are allowed to install it on one server only, unless you buy more support seats. They reserve the right to audit you for compliance too, and charge you penalties if you have more systems installed than licensed.
Yeah, I don't see how that complies with the GPL either.
If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server.
During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
In fact, I think it's a blatent violation. I guess the FSF doesn't want to enforce the rules on a company that has given so much to the community. I, however, don't think they should get special treatment. I appreciate all Red Hat has done, but that doesn't give them a right to violate copyright law.
the term "Windows User Group" isn't as commonly used as its Linux counterpart
:)
You bet, that same search with Linux substituted for Windows gets 130,000 hits, compared to 3,000.
Maybe I'm just sheltered, but I don't see very many Window's User Groups sprouting up around the world.
That comment uses some weird logic. I don't think the IRS is going to consider the nebulous political benefit "consideration". That's the foundation of that argument, that the funds can't be considered gifts because the people donating were expecting this consideration in return.
What's next? Revoking United Way's tax exempt status because the people donating money get a better community in return?
The way I understand it, the gift laws are written so that you can get up to $10,000 from any person each year and have it considered a gift, exempt from taxes. So long as no one person gives more than $10,000, and the defense fund is set up in a way that it's not legally the "giver", then I think everything is alright.
Of course, I'm not a tax pro, but I think your link it more politics than it is sound tax advice.
Octane, we're gonna rock-tane, that thing called octane, it swings with performance!
Maybe the legal point is that puclic universities should not have trademarks, and thus shouldn't be worried about defending them.
It's a travesty that schools these days care more about sports merchandising revenue than about acedemics.
I think we should immediately institute a complete ban on sports-for-profit in public universities in the USA. Schools are not corporations, trademark protection should not apply to them.
VT's announced cost expressly included both the InfiniBand interconnects and the (massive) piped-water cooling system that, incidentally, accounts for most of the facility's projected electricity use.
That sounds like part of "the actual computer" to me.
You are correct, I'm not saying that I have any evidence that happened this particular time.
It happens though, and it's not unlikely something similar happened this time.
Security companies don't hide their preferential disclosure policies. Nearly all of them report vulns only to thier clients and the vendor, and have vague language in their policies like "responsible disclosure" clauses that let them sit on the flaw until the vendor bothers to get around to fixing it.