Sure. We don't want *every* libertarian to move to NH. The point is not to create a utopia. The point is to show that voluntary solutions to problems are better than coercive solutions to problems. Once we've done that, we'll need the libertarians everywhere else to lead the change to more freedom for everyone.
dbreeze didn't say that because it's not true. The biblical quote is: 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV - "For the love of money is the root of all evil". The only people who say "Money is the root of all evil" are people who can't read, and people who are pushing the idea is there is something wrong with money.
How do you refuse connections while you still have a published nameserver address? No, the correct solution here is to publish relays.ordb.org as a nameserver with an IP address of 127.0.0.1. You'll still have to serve up the NS record, but you can set a larger TTL to keep it cached.
No, you set the NAME SERVER for the zone to 127.0.0.1. Yes, it still means that you need to hand out the nameserver address, but you can set it to a big TTL so it will be cached for a long time.
The real problem is if you used your top-level domain for the name of the zone. If so, then the only way to recover that domain name is to return positive results on every query.
I didn't know about the 127.0.0.1 nameserver trick, so after I had stopped running dews.crynwr.com for a few months and was still getting all the queries, I set it to return false positives. And yes, people stopped using it VERY QUICKLY after that.
Yep. He's in technical sales. He told me "I recommend Microsoft products whenever they're appropriate, and Linux whenever it's appropriate and my customers love me."
If you don't do what your boss says you get fired.
Actually, this isn't true. The nature of large organizations gives you a bit of flexibility at every level. You *can* do things according your conscience rather than your orders, at least a little bit. Do you think slaves were cooperative with their masters? And yet masters were able to BEAT and even KILL their slaves, yet slaves still were people and still acted according to their consciences. Go read some history.
True about the compatibility. On the other hand, many people trusted the FSF to maintain the GPL in a fashion they approved, and... a number of people didn't approve of the GPLv3. If they used the default GPLv2 licensing grant language, then they can end up having to license their code under a license they don't like and didn't choose. The Ms-RL doesn't have license successor language. You use the Ms-RL and Microsoft can't change your license. The FSF can, and has. There can be advantages to breaking compatibility.
Dude, you gotta read the pre-processor definitions. Have you never read any submissions to the International Obfuscated C Code Competition?? It specifically defines: ""Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution." In other words, once you contribute code, you MUST grant a license to any patents that cover that code. Lots of Open Source licenses have equivalent text -- and some lawyers argue that the BSD license contains an implicit patent license which functions identically.
Question: would you rather have a license that *you* can understand and trust, or a license which you don't really understand but which you believe a court will understand? Because there is surely a trade-off going on.
Other than the fact that you don't mention the trade-off, your analysis is reasonable and factual.
Given "MS finds a way to apply product B's patented tech to product A" I suspect that most judges would rule against them. Judges HATE IT when they think you're trying to fool them.
And anyway, why are you defending software patent holders? They're all evil -- every one of 'em.
Any reciprocal license is by definition incompatible with the GPL. So what you're really asking is "Is it possible for there to be a better recpirocal license than the GPL?", which *I* am not prepared to answer in the negative.
You're asking for legal advice, but lawyers are only allowed to give advice to their clients and non-lawyers aren't allowed to give legal advice. Thus, you're not going to get a useful answer to your question. Here's a useless answer: if you sue a contributor to a project licensed under the Ms-PL for infringing your patent, you lose your license to the portion of that software written by that contributor. You could still use the software, but you would have to reimplement that contributor's code in a manner that doesn't infringe their copyright.
2) There's a risk in writing a succinct license in that you might not cover each and every case in detail. Yes, by being so succinct, Microsoft is taking a risk that the judge might not accept the facial meaning of each clause.
3) Among other things, they're short and readable. Specifically, they don't name a jurisdiction. This is VERY GOOD for international projects. How would you like to have to sue somebody in Santa Clara simply because you contributed to an MPL-licensed code and they infringed it?
4) Why do you think you can't trust us? If you think the licenses don't comply with the Open Source Definition, you should say exactly why, rather than attempt to raise FUD. As postmaster@opensource.org I can definitively state that your email address above is not on the license-discuss mailing list -- if you don't participate in the process, why should anybody believe your criticism of the result?
Microsoft can push supposed open source licenses that restrict user freedom.
I've read the license, and I don't see any restriction on user freedom that isn't present in other Open Source licenses. For example, the license doesn't give you permission to use the Microsoft trademark -- but the Apache Software License also denies you permission to use the Apache trademark. Big whoop. You don't have the freedom to sue somebody for infringing your patent. The GPL denies that freedom, too. Is that a freedom you want?? If so, you're no friend of Open Source! You can't strip out legal notices. The BSD denies you that freedom as well.
I just don't understand what freedoms you are being denied that no other Open Source licenses deny you. Explain, please.
How do you expect to get a patent grant to cover your USE of the software unless the license governs USE? Would you be happier if you didn't have a patent grant?
all Open Source means is that the distributor does not hide the source from the outside world.
Even *Microsoft* doesn't believe THAT load of tripe. Go read the The Open Source Definition. A few cranks try to argue that Open Source can be used independently of the OSD, but the rest of the community shouts them down.
No part of that says that you are legally allowed to either redistribute, modify or use the software, or do pretty much anything with the source other than just look at it.
Errr, you're thinking of Source-Available Software. Open Source comes with a guarantee of compliance with the Open Source Definition.
In order for the patent grant to give you permission to use the software even if it's patented, the license must govern use of the software. Or would you rather NOT have the patent grant? (I didn't think so.)
Be disappointed if you want, but I don't find any license-discuss contributions by whineymacfanboy@gmail.com. Where were you when the bread was rising?
The "free market" does nothing to help me here, because cell phone manufacturers have no interest in helping these third parties do their business, and would much prefer to sell their own overpriced chargers.
I'm not sure this is exactly what is happening. It's much more likely that cell phone manufacturers are in the habit of doing things the way they currently doing things, and don't have sufficient reason to change. Why should they change? The other guys should change to match them! That's part of the problem with every standardization effort: what do you standardize on? If you standardize on a poor design, then everyone suffers. If you don't standardize, then the poor designs get weeded out because the manufacturers suffer from higher costs. If any one of the designs was obviously better than any other, everyone would switch. They haven't, which implies that the benefits are lower than the cost.
The regulation that free markets need is to keep violence out. Governments purpose is to prevent theft, murder, rape, and the threats of same. Any regulations beyond that makes the market less free.
Okay, you've named Standard Oil. I name AT&T. You named AT&T. Oops, that one counts for me, since its monopoly (and guaranteed profits) was granted by the federal government in exchange for universal service. You name Microsoft. I would point out that Microsoft has been unable to prevent Linux from entering its market so I have to question whether it's really a monopoly. But let's grant that one to you. I name National Grid, which is a monopoly provider of local electric service (At least in New York State, you can buy your current from competing suppliers, but the wiring is still a government-created monopoly). Your turn.
Er, well, and some of us know enough about economics to realize that free markets manage society better than politicians. Some day you'll learn enough about economics to realize that political markets aren't magical dreamlands where everything is the way you want it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. We don't want *every* libertarian to move to NH. The point is not to create a utopia. The point is to show that voluntary solutions to problems are better than coercive solutions to problems. Once we've done that, we'll need the libertarians everywhere else to lead the change to more freedom for everyone.
dbreeze didn't say that because it's not true. The biblical quote is: 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV - "For the love of money is the root of all evil".
The only people who say "Money is the root of all evil" are people who can't read, and people who are pushing the idea is there is something wrong with money.
Right. That's why they should have set their nameserver for relays.ordb.org to 127.0.0.1. Turns it into the email admin's problem, not theirs.
How do you refuse connections while you still have a published nameserver address? No, the correct solution here is to publish relays.ordb.org as a nameserver with an IP address of 127.0.0.1. You'll still have to serve up the NS record, but you can set a larger TTL to keep it cached.
No, you set the NAME SERVER for the zone to 127.0.0.1. Yes, it still means that you need to hand out the nameserver address, but you can set it to a big TTL so it will be cached for a long time.
The real problem is if you used your top-level domain for the name of the zone. If so, then the only way to recover that domain name is to return positive results on every query.
I didn't know about the 127.0.0.1 nameserver trick, so after I had stopped running dews.crynwr.com for a few months and was still getting all the queries, I set it to return false positives. And yes, people stopped using it VERY QUICKLY after that.
Yep. He's in technical sales. He told me "I recommend Microsoft products whenever they're appropriate, and Linux whenever it's appropriate and my customers love me."
Indeed. And yet a LOT of people think that the Microsoft employees are little automotons, Billy Clones, who have no ideas or ambitions of their own.
Actually, this isn't true. The nature of large organizations gives you a bit of flexibility at every level. You *can* do things according your conscience rather than your orders, at least a little bit. Do you think slaves were cooperative with their masters? And yet masters were able to BEAT and even KILL their slaves, yet slaves still were people and still acted according to their consciences. Go read some history.
We've gotten exactly two pieces of email on this issue.
True about the compatibility. On the other hand, many people trusted the FSF to maintain the GPL in a fashion they approved, and ... a number of people didn't approve of the GPLv3. If they used the default GPLv2 licensing grant language, then they can end up having to license their code under a license they don't like and didn't choose. The Ms-RL doesn't have license successor language. You use the Ms-RL and Microsoft can't change your license. The FSF can, and has. There can be advantages to breaking compatibility.
Dude, you gotta read the pre-processor definitions. Have you never read any submissions to the International Obfuscated C Code Competition?? It specifically defines: ""Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution." In other words, once you contribute code, you MUST grant a license to any patents that cover that code. Lots of Open Source licenses have equivalent text -- and some lawyers argue that the BSD license contains an implicit patent license which functions identically.
Question: would you rather have a license that *you* can understand and trust, or a license which you don't really understand but which you believe a court will understand? Because there is surely a trade-off going on.
Other than the fact that you don't mention the trade-off, your analysis is reasonable and factual.
Given "MS finds a way to apply product B's patented tech to product A" I suspect that most judges would rule against them. Judges HATE IT when they think you're trying to fool them.
And anyway, why are you defending software patent holders? They're all evil -- every one of 'em.
Any reciprocal license is by definition incompatible with the GPL. So what you're really asking is "Is it possible for there to be a better recpirocal license than the GPL?", which *I* am not prepared to answer in the negative.
You're asking for legal advice, but lawyers are only allowed to give advice to their clients and non-lawyers aren't allowed to give legal advice. Thus, you're not going to get a useful answer to your question. Here's a useless answer: if you sue a contributor to a project licensed under the Ms-PL for infringing your patent, you lose your license to the portion of that software written by that contributor. You could still use the software, but you would have to reimplement that contributor's code in a manner that doesn't infringe their copyright.
1) These licenses aren't substantially the same.
2) There's a risk in writing a succinct license in that you might not cover each and every case in detail. Yes, by being so succinct, Microsoft is taking a risk that the judge might not accept the facial meaning of each clause.
3) Among other things, they're short and readable. Specifically, they don't name a jurisdiction. This is VERY GOOD for international projects. How would you like to have to sue somebody in Santa Clara simply because you contributed to an MPL-licensed code and they infringed it?
4) Why do you think you can't trust us? If you think the licenses don't comply with the Open Source Definition, you should say exactly why, rather than attempt to raise FUD. As postmaster@opensource.org I can definitively state that your email address above is not on the license-discuss mailing list -- if you don't participate in the process, why should anybody believe your criticism of the result?
I've read the license, and I don't see any restriction on user freedom that isn't present in other Open Source licenses. For example, the license doesn't give you permission to use the Microsoft trademark -- but the Apache Software License also denies you permission to use the Apache trademark. Big whoop. You don't have the freedom to sue somebody for infringing your patent. The GPL denies that freedom, too. Is that a freedom you want?? If so, you're no friend of Open Source! You can't strip out legal notices. The BSD denies you that freedom as well.
I just don't understand what freedoms you are being denied that no other Open Source licenses deny you. Explain, please.
How do you expect to get a patent grant to cover your USE of the software unless the license governs USE? Would you be happier if you didn't have a patent grant?
By what mechanism are they going to extend Open Source? By granting EVEN MORE FREEDOMS than we do?
Examples? (put up or shut up.)
Even *Microsoft* doesn't believe THAT load of tripe. Go read the The Open Source Definition. A few cranks try to argue that Open Source can be used independently of the OSD, but the rest of the community shouts them down.
Errr, you're thinking of Source-Available Software. Open Source comes with a guarantee of compliance with the Open Source Definition.
In order for the patent grant to give you permission to use the software even if it's patented, the license must govern use of the software. Or would you rather NOT have the patent grant? (I didn't think so.)
Be disappointed if you want, but I don't find any license-discuss contributions by whineymacfanboy@gmail.com. Where were you when the bread was rising?
The "free market" does nothing to help me here, because cell phone manufacturers have no interest in helping these third parties do their business, and would much prefer to sell their own overpriced chargers.
I'm not sure this is exactly what is happening. It's much more likely that cell phone manufacturers are in the habit of doing things the way they currently doing things, and don't have sufficient reason to change. Why should they change? The other guys should change to match them! That's part of the problem with every standardization effort: what do you standardize on? If you standardize on a poor design, then everyone suffers. If you don't standardize, then the poor designs get weeded out because the manufacturers suffer from higher costs. If any one of the designs was obviously better than any other, everyone would switch. They haven't, which implies that the benefits are lower than the cost.
Neither have governments; if you'll notice both governments are specifying different standards.
The regulation that free markets need is to keep violence out. Governments purpose is to prevent theft, murder, rape, and the threats of same. Any regulations beyond that makes the market less free.
Okay, you've named Standard Oil. I name AT&T. You named AT&T. Oops, that one counts for me, since its monopoly (and guaranteed profits) was granted by the federal government in exchange for universal service. You name Microsoft. I would point out that Microsoft has been unable to prevent Linux from entering its market so I have to question whether it's really a monopoly. But let's grant that one to you. I name National Grid, which is a monopoly provider of local electric service (At least in New York State, you can buy your current from competing suppliers, but the wiring is still a government-created monopoly). Your turn.
(sorry for the delayed response; holidays).
Er, well, and some of us know enough about economics to realize that free markets manage society better than politicians. Some day you'll learn enough about economics to realize that political markets aren't magical dreamlands where everything is the way you want it.