As has been pointed out, it's more than annoyance. If someone was dumping 50 gallons of jello on your front porch every day, it would be more than annoyance, you'd have to waterproof your basement, set up fences to keep them out, maybe security cameras, etc.
Someone doing it once as a prank is one thing, someone doing it every day for years is a serious cost, with real monetary damage.
It's the same with spam. At some arbitrary point it crosses the line from being an annoyance, to something that must be dealt with using real resources and incurring lots of expense.
Why would a company pay thousands of dollars for software and then hand it over to their competitors for free by re-distributing it?
This basically happens all the time in commercial software!
Suppose I buy $100,000 software from a company that serves my industry niche. I'm supporting development of the software, and my competitior can go buy that exact same software, with the improvements my money paid for. If I want those improvements I have to pay more to upgrade.
Commercial software is just as fraught with problems spending money on software that benefits your competitors.
If is was a work for hire, then yes. It seemed clear to me that the poster seemed to draw some incorrect distinction between "public" and "private" distribution, apparently thinking that "private distribution" by selling it to other companies (I guess without advertising or retailing or putting it up for download) did not trigger GPL requirements.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to pick this apart, I think it's clear that the parent had this misconception.
We contract open source developers to add features we need to GPL software all the time. So far all those features make it into the mainline tree, so we don't have to worry about maintaining the code as patches either.
It's a very cheap way to get a whole lot of functionality that would cost a bundle to develop in-house (or buy proprietary software for, that might only partially fill our needs), the GPL developers get paid, and we get exactly the feature we want.
The GPL doesn't say you can't cash in, it only says you must give the same rights to the people you sell the work to as you have yourself.
This does make it more difficult to cash in using the traditional business models though.
Re:Release src only if publically release binary
on
Sun's Schwartz Attacks GPL
·
· Score: 4, Informative
but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.
Then you are violating the GPL. You can't sell it without distributing it, unless you have them using it on your servers somehow and never sent them any binaries. (i.e. the whole dot-bomb application service provider business model)
Don't use the words "fair use" in the generic sense you used them it. It will only serve to confuse the issue since those words have a specific legal meaning with regard to copyright law.
The last thing I want is some asinine law that manadates the retention of every stupid file for ten years.
Yeah, this one is funny.
--- "Reasonably Accessible" The term often means information that the party itself routienely accesses or uses or that is easily located and retrieved. By contrast, information stores only for disaster recovery is generally expensive to restore and is disorganized. ---
That's pretty damn accurate in a lot of companies!
It gives you an excuse to tell people to delete their mess of shit that is all over your server. Be it mail inbox with dozens of 10mb DOC files or their home directory that is constantly pushing quota.
Not likely, the last change to the PDF license was the ludricrous requirement that all those who implement PDF also implement the "evil bit".. that is the useless tags that forbid you from printing/saving/etc in acrobat (reader).
No one else paid attention to it. Since earlier versions of the spec didn't have the requirement, there's no way they can enforce it. Other than that stupid requirement, the spec has an open and free license.
Besides, only Adobe products implement javascript in PDFs to start with, so Adobe brought this on themselves. No other reader will allow this to happen.
Yes, normal Starband/DirectPC.. it's impossible to do ssh, VoIP, or VPNs. Just too high latency. 650ms if the packet goes through, 1300ms if it there is a retry. Those sort of round trips are not conducive to a lot of applications.
You are joking, but it's true. The fact that Firefox saves all the credit card numbres in plaintext that you enter on websites is considered a "feature".
Yep, I work in sheetfed/commercial packaging, not in periodicals. Periodicals are easy, you throw all your stuff away nearly every issue. We print files that were scanned from film that is up to 25 years old, with the digital files being up to 10 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been pointed out, it's more than annoyance. If someone was dumping 50 gallons of jello on your front porch every day, it would be more than annoyance, you'd have to waterproof your basement, set up fences to keep them out, maybe security cameras, etc.
Someone doing it once as a prank is one thing, someone doing it every day for years is a serious cost, with real monetary damage.
It's the same with spam. At some arbitrary point it crosses the line from being an annoyance, to something that must be dealt with using real resources and incurring lots of expense.
Stop anthropromorphizing evolution!
Yeah, evolution doesn't like it when you do that.
Do they have a book on basic use of HTML? :)
Well of course. Child porn, drug use, "terrorism", these are just tools of oppression, not anything the governments really give a fuck about.
How could anyone consider this anything but a blatent ad?
I think if a law or mandate requires implementing a patented technology, there should be compulsary licensing with a very low fee.
Is there any precedent for something like that? Lack of such a law would just encourage government corruption.
Why would a company pay thousands of dollars for software and then hand it over to their competitors for free by re-distributing it?
This basically happens all the time in commercial software!
Suppose I buy $100,000 software from a company that serves my industry niche. I'm supporting development of the software, and my competitior can go buy that exact same software, with the improvements my money paid for. If I want those improvements I have to pay more to upgrade.
Commercial software is just as fraught with problems spending money on software that benefits your competitors.
If is was a work for hire, then yes. It seemed clear to me that the poster seemed to draw some incorrect distinction between "public" and "private" distribution, apparently thinking that "private distribution" by selling it to other companies (I guess without advertising or retailing or putting it up for download) did not trigger GPL requirements.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to pick this apart, I think it's clear that the parent had this misconception.
We contract open source developers to add features we need to GPL software all the time. So far all those features make it into the mainline tree, so we don't have to worry about maintaining the code as patches either.
It's a very cheap way to get a whole lot of functionality that would cost a bundle to develop in-house (or buy proprietary software for, that might only partially fill our needs), the GPL developers get paid, and we get exactly the feature we want.
SElinux is in by default in FC3, RHEL4 and Centos4.
If that is indeed what is happening, then everything is peachy. It really doesn't sound like that is what is happening though.
Sure, but then you are more akin to the application service provider I mentioned.
Doesn't work.
8 5
If you have autocomplete on, it stores credit cards in plaintext. Period.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1882
Status: VERIFIED
Resolution: WONTFIX
See also duplicates:
Bug 207479
Bug 231681
Bug 243425
Bug 258031
bug 257455
Bug 258364
Bug 262705
Bug 271203
Bug 277113
Bug 287274
So this isn't some minor bug that slipped through the cracks. It's been reported a dozen times at least, and willfully ignored every time.
The GPL doesn't say you can't cash in, it only says you must give the same rights to the people you sell the work to as you have yourself.
This does make it more difficult to cash in using the traditional business models though.
but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.
Then you are violating the GPL. You can't sell it without distributing it, unless you have them using it on your servers somehow and never sent them any binaries. (i.e. the whole dot-bomb application service provider business model)
It's a right and duty to disobey an injust law. Otherwise it's just the Nuremberg Defense.
Don't use the words "fair use" in the generic sense you used them it. It will only serve to confuse the issue since those words have a specific legal meaning with regard to copyright law.
The last thing I want is some asinine law that manadates the retention of every stupid file for ten years.
Yeah, this one is funny.
---
"Reasonably Accessible" The term often means information that the party itself routienely accesses or uses or that is easily located and retrieved. By contrast, information stores only for disaster recovery is generally expensive to restore and is disorganized.
---
That's pretty damn accurate in a lot of companies!
It gives you an excuse to tell people to delete their mess of shit that is all over your server. Be it mail inbox with dozens of 10mb DOC files or their home directory that is constantly pushing quota.
Thanks for the info.
Since you plugged in your network card?
Not likely, the last change to the PDF license was the ludricrous requirement that all those who implement PDF also implement the "evil bit".. that is the useless tags that forbid you from printing/saving/etc in acrobat (reader).
No one else paid attention to it. Since earlier versions of the spec didn't have the requirement, there's no way they can enforce it. Other than that stupid requirement, the spec has an open and free license.
Besides, only Adobe products implement javascript in PDFs to start with, so Adobe brought this on themselves. No other reader will allow this to happen.
Yes, normal Starband/DirectPC.. it's impossible to do ssh, VoIP, or VPNs. Just too high latency. 650ms if the packet goes through, 1300ms if it there is a retry. Those sort of round trips are not conducive to a lot of applications.
You are joking, but it's true. The fact that Firefox saves all the credit card numbres in plaintext that you enter on websites is considered a "feature".
Yep, I work in sheetfed/commercial packaging, not in periodicals. Periodicals are easy, you throw all your stuff away nearly every issue. We print files that were scanned from film that is up to 25 years old, with the digital files being up to 10 years old.