They only lack power because most people: A: do not read the agreement. B: can not understand the agreement if they read it. C: are presented with the contract after the transaction has already taken place, making it invalid because no value is transferred to the user. D: they lack a documentation trail, but so do verbal contracts, and they are enforced.
Thank you for the link. It provides a reference that even under GPLv3, "propagating" within a company is perfectly valid under normal operation due to section 2: Basic Permissions.
It is bad for specific, very large, very profitable, very influential corporations who currently happen to enjoy local and regional monopolies or duopolies.
That would be like receiving a bill from Microsoft for the cost of fixing a bug that you discovered and reported directly to them with due diligence.
The systems were left wide open, without any semblance of security, for who knows how long. They needed to look over those computers with a fine toothed comb and lock them down before he accessed them. Who knows how many other people accessed those same computers, accessed who knows what files, or even caused real damage and didn't get caught because they didn't leave nice little notes warning that they forgot to put passwords on those computers.
Don't let your shelf be lepton buy grammar Nazi. Ivy herd that aegis a indicator of no ledge, butt they or egg Sept tons. Aye can sea that you right quit well four sum won off yore generate ion.
One side says that the government should tax every American and just give that money to the RIAA because every American is a thieving pirate and the RIAA are entitled to their profits in exchange for extracting entertainment from artists before dumping their empty and abused bodies in a river. In addition, copyright infringement should default to "guilty until proven even more guilty" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" and be punishable by a life sentence of slavery. This is unfortunately not that far from the actual truth of the matter.
Consider starting from the reasonable stance where the government does not have the right to prop up a failing economic model of an industry that abuses the people it claims to represent and uses deception, diversion and outright fraud as a matter of course and that copyright infringement is subject to just and reasonable prosecution including damages not significantly greater than the actual harm caused.
From those two positions, every time a compromise is reached, you will slide closer and closer to the unreasonable nightmare scenario.
That is why we need the pirates who believe that information wants to be free. Not because they are right, but because we need them as a counterweight to unmitigated greed and malice on the other side.
It would have to be reworded from its current form. But as a contract, it can most definitely be held up in a court of law.
Under the current system: You may not distribute the work or any derivatives, but with the GPL you can if you provide the source code.
Under a contract based GPL|GPC (Gnu Public Contract) without copyright: You may distribute the work or any derivatives, but the GPC would restrict that right unless the source code is also provided. The GPC would have to be agreed to before receiving the software and may require some additional obligation for both parties, but it can be implemented.
The enforcement of contract law varies at a state level instead of a federal level as well.
The cost of "damage" from his intrusion was the cost to wage a PR war, investigate the intrusion and discover the retardation of massive security holes that never should have been there in the first place. All of that falls outside what one typically thinks about when they use the word "damage".
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That doesn't matter according to the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
The production and sale of pot in California affects the supply and demand within the state, and therefore affects the interstate illegal trade of pot.
It is the same reason that the interstate commerce clause can be used to jail you for building your own automatic weapon. Because by building it yourself, you didn't buy it from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state.
Insane? Absolutely. But that is how things work these days.
I was actually watching fox news when the correction came out.
It took them about 15 seconds to go from "She is a racist" to "Now she advocates class warfare" with unwavering vitriol and disgust on the anchors faces.
You just can not win against the propaganda machine.
Slashdot Mirror
You think 36 slides is bad?
My father modified an old 8mm reel camera to take stills.
I have a reel of 12 thousand slides.
Is it just me or does that guy look really, really creepy?
http://androidos.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/android-tablet-india-1.jpg
Yes, they are.
They only lack power because most people:
A: do not read the agreement.
B: can not understand the agreement if they read it.
C: are presented with the contract after the transaction has already taken place, making it invalid because no value is transferred to the user.
D: they lack a documentation trail, but so do verbal contracts, and they are enforced.
Doh! thats what I get for not RTFA and fact checking.
No... The game really is open source.
Not abstract enough...
http://firstpersontetris.com/
This story has shown me a terrifying game.
But not the one it indicated.
http://thumb-culture.com/2010/07/22/xbla-review-limbo/
What the hell?
Because it is to easy to read and write to a hard drive.
Thank you for the link. It provides a reference that even under GPLv3, "propagating" within a company is perfectly valid under normal operation due to section 2: Basic Permissions.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3CoworkerConveying
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Will the company distribute this software immediately?
That is a fairly simple question to answer.
Will the company ever want to distribute this software?
That is another matter entirely.
wrong. The company is a single entity.
The employee is part of that company.
So no, it isn't distribution.
Source code does not have to be shared.
The employee does not have the right to take it with him after leaving the company.
It is bad for specific, very large, very profitable, very influential corporations who currently happen to enjoy local and regional monopolies or duopolies.
But none of that is "damage".
That would be like receiving a bill from Microsoft for the cost of fixing a bug that you discovered and reported directly to them with due diligence.
The systems were left wide open, without any semblance of security, for who knows how long. They needed to look over those computers with a fine toothed comb and lock them down before he accessed them. Who knows how many other people accessed those same computers, accessed who knows what files, or even caused real damage and didn't get caught because they didn't leave nice little notes warning that they forgot to put passwords on those computers.
Do knot forge it too use spiel checker to catch simple miss steaks.
That why people under stained you beater.
Don't let your shelf be lepton buy grammar Nazi.
Ivy herd that aegis a indicator of no ledge, butt they or egg Sept tons.
Aye can sea that you right quit well four sum won off yore generate ion.
What I hate is when those bastards insert smiley-icons into code that I am emailing.
No I do not want a winking-smiley face in the middle of a method declaration.
Imagine there are two sides to a debate.
One side says that the government should tax every American and just give that money to the RIAA because every American is a thieving pirate and the RIAA are entitled to their profits in exchange for extracting entertainment from artists before dumping their empty and abused bodies in a river. In addition, copyright infringement should default to "guilty until proven even more guilty" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" and be punishable by a life sentence of slavery. This is unfortunately not that far from the actual truth of the matter.
Consider starting from the reasonable stance where the government does not have the right to prop up a failing economic model of an industry that abuses the people it claims to represent and uses deception, diversion and outright fraud as a matter of course and that copyright infringement is subject to just and reasonable prosecution including damages not significantly greater than the actual harm caused.
From those two positions, every time a compromise is reached, you will slide closer and closer to the unreasonable nightmare scenario.
That is why we need the pirates who believe that information wants to be free. Not because they are right, but because we need them as a counterweight to unmitigated greed and malice on the other side.
It would have to be reworded from its current form. But as a contract, it can most definitely be held up in a court of law.
Under the current system:
You may not distribute the work or any derivatives, but with the GPL you can if you provide the source code.
Under a contract based GPL|GPC (Gnu Public Contract) without copyright:
You may distribute the work or any derivatives, but the GPC would restrict that right unless the source code is also provided. The GPC would have to be agreed to before receiving the software and may require some additional obligation for both parties, but it can be implemented.
The enforcement of contract law varies at a state level instead of a federal level as well.
The cost of "damage" from his intrusion was the cost to wage a PR war, investigate the intrusion and discover the retardation of massive security holes that never should have been there in the first place. All of that falls outside what one typically thinks about when they use the word "damage".
In particular the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Some of our founding fathers thought that was sufficient.
That doesn't matter according to the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
The production and sale of pot in California affects the supply and demand within the state, and therefore affects the interstate illegal trade of pot.
It is the same reason that the interstate commerce clause can be used to jail you for building your own automatic weapon. Because by building it yourself, you didn't buy it from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state.
Insane? Absolutely. But that is how things work these days.
That is a good question. And it is one that there is no clear answer for.
A lot of people agree to click through EULA's, but that isn't the greatest example.
But perhaps more than you think.
I was actually watching fox news when the correction came out.
It took them about 15 seconds to go from "She is a racist" to "Now she advocates class warfare" with unwavering vitriol and disgust on the anchors faces.
You just can not win against the propaganda machine.
And the world I want is somewhere in between.
Where you have the reasonable expectation of privacy, but given sufficient evidence, the authorities can get a warrant.
You know, the kind of place that America was supposed to be?
Unfortunately this concept is rapidly loosing ground to the Police Statist agenda.
You can not fight an extremist with reasonable moderation.
If you do, any compromise will result in loosing ground.
You need an opposing extremist.
That way, a compromise may hopefully exist somewhere within the reasonable area between the two.