That's completely untrue.
The total GST paid is only 10% on top of the final value of the good.
If I as a business buy a widget for $11 from a supplier then:
-The GST component is $1 which the supplier sends to the tax man
-The supplier gets to keep $10.
-I note that I've paid $1 GST on purchases
If I then sell that widget to you for $33 dollars:
-The GST component is $3, but I have a credit for $1 from above so I send $2 to the taxman.
-I get to keep $31
The final sale price was $33. $3 (2 from me, 1 from my supplier) goes to the taxman which is 10% of the final non-gst amount. No matter how many times it is sold that remains true.
As far as I can tell to the extent that GST has already been paid no additional GST revenue should be gained. Whatever the GST componenant of the sale is will be offset by the GST that the seller paid. The government will only recieve additional revenue if the seller if there is added 'value'.
This is only really relevant to people operating as businesses, there's no burden on Joe Average.
The issue here is that some such businesses were charging customers GST anyway but not including it in the listing price on eBay and thereby trying to hit people for an extra 10% over what they expected to be paying.
Would be to have a "dismiss" link for the Word of the day and Quote of the day entries so they can be made to go away but automatically reappear again tomorrow.
I quite like them, but after I've absorbed them I don't need to have them cluttering up the page for the rest of the day.
Is that to some extent CSIRO seem to be using the patent system for what it was designed for. They have 'invented' something and are now trying to licence it to make money directly from that invention.
To me this seems purer than a company patenting something and then using that patent as a means to create an artificial monopoly and lock out competitors.
$4 does sound like quite a lot per unit but I wonder if they can do that because they are only on one end of the patent equation.
I'm sure MS, IBM etc would like to charge obscene amounts for a patent they own too but as they are on both the selling and buying end of such deals they maybe cautious about inflating the accepted price of patent licencing?
If they are going to take money off me and use it for research then I think they _should_ try and recoup the invested money back, especially from foreign corporations who didn't contribute to the research in the first place.
Giving away the tech that I helped pay for wouldn't help me at all. It would only help a few specific companies in a specific area. Much better if they can get a return on the investment and then reduce the need for me to make additional contributions by more self funding.
Price fixing generally involves colluding and coming up with a particular price.
One only has to look at the vastrange of prices the various vendors charge for their distributions to know that it is false at face value.
Without collusion I don't see how there can be any fixing and I don't see any collusion here.
The FSF wrote a licence for whatever reasons make sense to them.
Each vendor independantly chooses to use the licence for their own reasons.
One of those reasons is surely because it helps provide an efficient (cheap) development model but I don't see that as price fixing. Novell, Red Hat, the FSF etc etc aren't getting around a table and discussing price. The vendors are just choosing an efficient software source for themselves and the FSF isn't doing anything related to pricing at all.
Lister: Hey, it hasn't happened, has it? It has "will have going to have happened" happened, but it hasn't actually "happened" happened yet, actually. Rimmer: Poppycock! It will be happened; it shall be going to be happening; it will be was an event that could will have been taken place in the future. Simple as that. Your bucket's been kicked, baby.
They can still patent things in America (and other such countries) if they want and can still cross licence (or pony up licence fees just like everyone else) if they want to distribute in such countries.
All it means is that for their local market, and other similar markets, they don't have to worry about these artificially created monopolies. Their market is freer and they can spend more of their resources actually being productive and making things and less resources overcoming artificially created hurdles.
Simply stated, it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL.
but, simply stated, that is catagorically 100% untrue. As the parent to this post suggests the GPL and GPL'd items have no such power to automatically GPL anything. If you unknowingly (or even intentionally) use a GPL'd item in a way that you are not allowed then you have simply violated copyright on that item.
If it did emerge as a problem you may choose to resolve it by GPLing your stuff but that is by no means the only way. The parts of your work that are entirely your own creation (ie the text) are not a derived work of the font even if the compound document is.
Personally I'd be happy to operate in the belief that a reasonable interpretation of the GPL allows me to use the font like that and if it became an issue (which could only happen if the fonts copyright holder decided it was an issue) I'd just use another font. It is difficult to see how there would be any real cause for damage from my use of the font in the meantime.
Of course I've more or less just reiterated what the parent poster said.....but that's because he's so right:)
IBM's big enough to deal with both and it seems that IBM and Opera still have a healthy relationship. Their co-operation on xhtml+voice stuff seems interesting. The voice control in the latest Opera beta for Windows is pretty cool. It might not replace the good old mouse and keys for most of us anytime soon but I'm sure there are circumstances where it can be a real boon.
Isn't OS X, which he seems to say is a platform, built upon a unixish BSD?
I don't see why the same thing can't happen with Linux. It's going to take some work for sure. Luckily people do seem to be working in that generaldirection...
This gist, however, is clear that Linus believes roughly the same thing:
"It says: 'Get off my coat-tails, you free-loader'. And I can't really argue against that."
No, what's clear is that Linus doesn't have a counter argument to offer that would be compelling to Larry. That doesn't mean Linus is "defensive" of proprietary file formats or against reverse engineering. He's merely well rounded enough to see someone elses view and that he can't do much to change it.
It's the observation that for every article about "Moore's Law" some asshole will be oblivious to the fact that language is rarely so precise and insist that there's a singular, precise definition of the word "law" that makes it's usage inappropriate in "Moore's Law".
It seems odd for someone to have worked so much on what is essentially an interop layer with non-free software if that were the case. It seems to me that he's into stopping people being locked in to non-free software which seems fairly honourable.
Also from what I remember from the Tivo hacking he also seemed quite sensitive and pragmatic in respect to not releasing anything that would harm Tivo's business model for guide data.
Perhaps the "he thinks anyone using non-free software is living in sin" is an asinine comment from Larry McVoy rather than an asinine belief of Tridge. (It might also be badly worded, it makes more sense in context if you replace "using" with "writing").
I have a little trouble with IBM's stand on this in terms of motivation. What business edge would this give to them?
Perhaps they are finding they are spending increasingly large amounts of resources on patent related costs that are fundamentally unproductive. Obviously they use the patent system to their advantage as it is but a fair amount of the patent related lawyering and checking they do must be overhead they would happily do without.
It just so happens that they saw a way to both benefit (themselves) and help the community
It's worth pointing out that their involvement also makes them part of the community. Sure they have their own agenda and motivations but so does every community member. As long as they have a stake in Linux and other Open Source technologies then that will benefit the rest of the community.
Slashdot Mirror
That's completely untrue.
The total GST paid is only 10% on top of the final value of the good.
If I as a business buy a widget for $11 from a supplier then:
-The GST component is $1 which the supplier sends to the tax man
-The supplier gets to keep $10.
-I note that I've paid $1 GST on purchases
If I then sell that widget to you for $33 dollars:
-The GST component is $3, but I have a credit for $1 from above so I send $2 to the taxman.
-I get to keep $31
The final sale price was $33. $3 (2 from me, 1 from my supplier) goes to the taxman which is 10% of the final non-gst amount. No matter how many times it is sold that remains true.
As far as I can tell to the extent that GST has already been paid no additional GST revenue should be gained. Whatever the GST componenant of the sale is will be offset by the GST that the seller paid. The government will only recieve additional revenue if the seller if there is added 'value'.
This is only really relevant to people operating as businesses, there's no burden on Joe Average.
The issue here is that some such businesses were charging customers GST anyway but not including it in the listing price on eBay and thereby trying to hit people for an extra 10% over what they expected to be paying.
Well, there you go.
Would be to have a "dismiss" link for the Word of the day and Quote of the day entries so they can be made to go away but automatically reappear again tomorrow.
I quite like them, but after I've absorbed them I don't need to have them cluttering up the page for the rest of the day.
Is that to some extent CSIRO seem to be using the patent system for what it was designed for. They have 'invented' something and are now trying to licence it to make money directly from that invention.
To me this seems purer than a company patenting something and then using that patent as a means to create an artificial monopoly and lock out competitors.
$4 does sound like quite a lot per unit but I wonder if they can do that because they are only on one end of the patent equation.
I'm sure MS, IBM etc would like to charge obscene amounts for a patent they own too but as they are on both the selling and buying end of such deals they maybe cautious about inflating the accepted price of patent licencing?
If they are going to take money off me and use it for research then I think they _should_ try and recoup the invested money back, especially from foreign corporations who didn't contribute to the research in the first place. Giving away the tech that I helped pay for wouldn't help me at all. It would only help a few specific companies in a specific area. Much better if they can get a return on the investment and then reduce the need for me to make additional contributions by more self funding.
Well that makes sense, surely everyone else would be too embarrassed to call themselves an "i-technology magazine publisher".
I suppose it could be worse, they could be an "i-technology e-magazine net-publisher".
I'm sure my copy of the book specifically mentions Asperger's syndrome.
Price fixing generally involves colluding and coming up with a particular price. One only has to look at the vast range of prices the various vendors charge for their distributions to know that it is false at face value.
Without collusion I don't see how there can be any fixing and I don't see any collusion here.
The FSF wrote a licence for whatever reasons make sense to them.
Each vendor independantly chooses to use the licence for their own reasons.
One of those reasons is surely because it helps provide an efficient (cheap) development model but I don't see that as price fixing. Novell, Red Hat, the FSF etc etc aren't getting around a table and discussing price. The vendors are just choosing an efficient software source for themselves and the FSF isn't doing anything related to pricing at all.
cough cough cough .
Welcome to the 21st century.
As time goes by whatever value it has gets hidden behind more and more horse shit.
What a load of horse shit!
They can still patent things in America (and other such countries) if they want and can still cross licence (or pony up licence fees just like everyone else) if they want to distribute in such countries.
All it means is that for their local market, and other similar markets, they don't have to worry about these artificially created monopolies. Their market is freer and they can spend more of their resources actually being productive and making things and less resources overcoming artificially created hurdles.
If it did emerge as a problem you may choose to resolve it by GPLing your stuff but that is by no means the only way. The parts of your work that are entirely your own creation (ie the text) are not a derived work of the font even if the compound document is.
Personally I'd be happy to operate in the belief that a reasonable interpretation of the GPL allows me to use the font like that and if it became an issue (which could only happen if the fonts copyright holder decided it was an issue) I'd just use another font. It is difficult to see how there would be any real cause for damage from my use of the font in the meantime.
Of course I've more or less just reiterated what the parent poster said.....but that's because he's so right
IBM's big enough to deal with both and it seems that IBM and Opera still have a healthy relationship.
Their co-operation on xhtml+voice stuff seems interesting. The voice control in the latest Opera beta for Windows is pretty cool. It might not replace the good old mouse and keys for most of us anytime soon but I'm sure there are circumstances where it can be a real boon.
Isn't OS X, which he seems to say is a platform, built upon a unixish BSD?
I don't see why the same thing can't happen with Linux. It's going to take some work for sure. Luckily people do seem to be working in that general direction...
It's the observation that for every article about "Moore's Law" some asshole will be oblivious to the fact that language is rarely so precise and insist that there's a singular, precise definition of the word "law" that makes it's usage inappropriate in "Moore's Law".
A giant tinfoil hat is what's called for.
It seems odd for someone to have worked so much on what is essentially an interop layer with non-free software if that were the case. It seems to me that he's into stopping people being locked in to non-free software which seems fairly honourable.
Also from what I remember from the Tivo hacking he also seemed quite sensitive and pragmatic in respect to not releasing anything that would harm Tivo's business model for guide data.
Perhaps the "he thinks anyone using non-free software is living in sin" is an asinine comment from Larry McVoy rather than an asinine belief of Tridge. (It might also be badly worded, it makes more sense in context if you replace "using" with "writing").
Obviously they use the patent system to their advantage as it is but a fair amount of the patent related lawyering and checking they do must be overhead they would happily do without.
I think the ABC have bought it but it isn't being shown for at least another month...