Are you actually, seriously expressing a fear that a party, having been granted a license for a present version of a licensed good, is at risk of the licensor retroactively modifying the terms of the license presently granted?
Or are you saying that the creator might wish to change the license for future versions and distributions?
If the latter, of course this is true. The creator is not bound by the terms of their own license.
If the first, this is not well-trod legal ground at all. The courts takes the dimmest of views regarding such things, even when the legal agreement contains express terms to allow it.
You referred to the GPL as a contract, when it's not, it's a license. And I am the troll?
You supposed a fictional situation in which an upstream GPL license grantor attempts to revoke their license unilaterally outside of the allowed perpetual scope of the license's own termination clauses, declaring that "the case law is highly lacking," intending to create drama, and I am the troll?
Perhaps instead of telling the rest of us how silly and wrong we all are...
You are operating on the illusion that you're part of some larger, informed collective "we". You're not. You're just spreading FUD. It's shrill, and not pretty at all.
Licenses are not contracts. They do not require, for example, that consideration be exchanged. A license might be a term of a contract, but the license itself isn't one. Attempt to argue if you wish that the GPL (General Public License, hint hint) is a contract; attempt further to argue before the courts that your license isn't valid, because you haven't delivered consideration; God help you if you do.
The GPL is 23 years old. The gallery has been criticizing its "untested" nature for ages now.
As the GPL seems to be lacking a "throughout the known universe" clause, a judge might rule that it only applies in one country, or something equally "silly",...
This remark may as well apply to any attempt to engage the courts, no matter how settled the case law. It is therefore neither here nor there, don't you think? I think the basic reason that the GPL has stood so solidly is that even the most mercenary, cut-throat, outright malign attorney would not want to argue in court that they did not have a license to use someone else's work. I.e., since any attempt to attack the GPL at best puts the person doing the attacking in the position of being an illegal distributor of someone else's intellectual property, no one in their right mind would ever want to do that. You'd have to argue that the work was put into the public domain to get away with this; and that seems most incredibly unlikely to me.
If those graybeards I mentioned had spoken to a real lawyer,they would surely appreciate basic legal concepts such as whether or not a license and a contract are the same thing. Since this matter is elementary in nature to those who practice law, and is taught in law school, what have we learned here? Ah, I have the answer, and it is all three of the following things: 1) you are not one of the graybeards who's discussed the matter with a real lawyer, and 2) you are not a lawyer, and 3) listening to your uninformed speculations on the matter is not likely to provide me or anyone else with any insight.
What you mean is that you have a musing that there might be some theoretical line of attack. This is true in all legal matters, to one degree or another, even to a degree on settled constitutional matters. This does not contribute to the conversation at all.
And while you are quite right about the number of people who haven't spoken to a lawyer about these matters, you will also find plenty of graybeard technical folks who indeed have done so, and many times.
I can't see this working as a matter of copyright law, but I don't know the US way of doing things. To my mind, you'd only have grounds to sue for an infringement in respect of the copyright of which you are the owner...
Well, disregarding the triviality of submitting a small change to the upstream source, technically what is happening when you grab the source, change it, and then distribute it is that you are distributing a derivative work to which you are the owner.
So there will certainly be some cases where you can sue.
Not having read TFA, I wouldn't have anything to say about any legal conclusions the judge was getting at. But he was right for sufficiently large numbers of "we, the people." Certainly if no one considered privacy terribly valuable, we could not count on those same people in government office to consider privacy terribly valuable. The converse is also true: if everyone considered privacy terribly valuable, then we could count on those same people in office to consider privacy terribly valuable, now couldn't we? What we have is something in the middle, and I would say that it's most likely getting worse, and not better.
Anyway, there is a travesty in modern politics, where we the people blame our government for this and that, ever the while failing to acknowledge that we the people are the constituencies of the vary same government we blame. Our government's are reflections of ourselves. We, the people, need to grow up and recognize that.
Consider the following: who's more valuable, a school teacher or a superstar athlete? Most everyone will try to make some sort of argument giving the teacher the nod. But of the two, who will fill up a stadium of people willing to pay $70 each? There is an uncomfortable truth here, and it's not so nice as to what it says about us.
Well, I only read the summary. However, consider this excerpt:
If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count on government...
This sentence contains a false semantic distinction between people and government. I.e., it attempts to draw a distinction between 'we, the people' and government itself. That distinction isn't as true as you might hope.
It could be easily rephrased as follows: "If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count those very same people when in government office to consider privacy terribly valuable."
(which is still actually impossible, under current theories)
This may seem like a trivial, idle remark, but I sincerely appreciate the effort you made in saying "impossible, under current theories." There are too many peoplewho fall into either the linguistic or mental trap of treating current theory as the ground truth state of the universe.
But you'll have no way of telling whether a video is Goatse or not-Goatse until you watch it and collapse the state vector.
Ah, Schrodinger's Goatse. Brought to you be the intersection of quantum mechanics and 4chan. Where physics and the dark, underbelly of the internet meet, even brave men fear to tread.
This may be, but the practice is illegal. If a buyer buys two items, and both are defective, the store must take them back. Perhaps not without asking questions, but the implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose is not deniable by the store. It would be wise to always purchase items from stores like this with a credit card. Your credit card provider absolutely won't accept such behavior (on the behalf of the merchant).
Your side is engaged in a circular argument in bad faith bacause you guys don't want to see ANY government touched.
You're blowing over straw men. Which is to say, you're fabricating the position of the person you are speaking with in order to win points against some imaginary contest that doesn't exist. You should cut that out. It's disgraceful. Which is to say, hint, hint, that I don't at all think I want any of the above untouched. I want all of it touched, because I am serious about the budget.
As for your comment about taxes, 'raising taxes would almost certainly reduce revenue,' that's an argument about the Laffer curve. I don't think your argument is true. Not that I would agree with raising taxes. I just don't think we're on the side of the Laffer curve you think we're on.
It's more of an issue of hearing about the latest situational events in funda-lsamo-fascist states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others), and thence concluding that this is representative of "Muslims." It's not. It's a sour, specific brand of funda-islamo-fascism.
Those places are terrible, however, and what amounts to regionally endorsed practices there are evidence of a society still in its infancy. The Western world backed out of the sort of stuff after the Hundred Years War.
Slashdot Mirror
But the GPL license is specific.
Are you actually, seriously expressing a fear that a party, having been granted a license for a present version of a licensed good, is at risk of the licensor retroactively modifying the terms of the license presently granted?
Or are you saying that the creator might wish to change the license for future versions and distributions?
If the latter, of course this is true. The creator is not bound by the terms of their own license.
If the first, this is not well-trod legal ground at all. The courts takes the dimmest of views regarding such things, even when the legal agreement contains express terms to allow it.
I think you're just a troll..
You referred to the GPL as a contract, when it's not, it's a license. And I am the troll?
You supposed a fictional situation in which an upstream GPL license grantor attempts to revoke their license unilaterally outside of the allowed perpetual scope of the license's own termination clauses, declaring that "the case law is highly lacking," intending to create drama, and I am the troll?
Someone is indeed trolling here.
Perhaps instead of telling the rest of us how silly and wrong we all are...
You are operating on the illusion that you're part of some larger, informed collective "we". You're not. You're just spreading FUD. It's shrill, and not pretty at all.
Licenses are not contracts. They do not require, for example, that consideration be exchanged. A license might be a term of a contract, but the license itself isn't one. Attempt to argue if you wish that the GPL (General Public License, hint hint) is a contract; attempt further to argue before the courts that your license isn't valid, because you haven't delivered consideration; God help you if you do.
The GPL is 23 years old. The gallery has been criticizing its "untested" nature for ages now.
Get over it. Move on.
C//
As the GPL seems to be lacking a "throughout the known universe" clause, a judge might rule that it only applies in one country, or something equally "silly",...
This remark may as well apply to any attempt to engage the courts, no matter how settled the case law. It is therefore neither here nor there, don't you think? I think the basic reason that the GPL has stood so solidly is that even the most mercenary, cut-throat, outright malign attorney would not want to argue in court that they did not have a license to use someone else's work. I.e., since any attempt to attack the GPL at best puts the person doing the attacking in the position of being an illegal distributor of someone else's intellectual property, no one in their right mind would ever want to do that. You'd have to argue that the work was put into the public domain to get away with this; and that seems most incredibly unlikely to me.
If those graybeards I mentioned had spoken to a real lawyer,they would surely appreciate basic legal concepts such as whether or not a license and a contract are the same thing. Since this matter is elementary in nature to those who practice law, and is taught in law school, what have we learned here? Ah, I have the answer, and it is all three of the following things: 1) you are not one of the graybeards who's discussed the matter with a real lawyer, and 2) you are not a lawyer, and 3) listening to your uninformed speculations on the matter is not likely to provide me or anyone else with any insight.
So why go on?
What you mean is that you have a musing that there might be some theoretical line of attack. This is true in all legal matters, to one degree or another, even to a degree on settled constitutional matters. This does not contribute to the conversation at all.
And while you are quite right about the number of people who haven't spoken to a lawyer about these matters, you will also find plenty of graybeard technical folks who indeed have done so, and many times.
I can't see this working as a matter of copyright law, but I don't know the US way of doing things. To my mind, you'd only have grounds to sue for an infringement in respect of the copyright of which you are the owner...
Well, disregarding the triviality of submitting a small change to the upstream source, technically what is happening when you grab the source, change it, and then distribute it is that you are distributing a derivative work to which you are the owner.
So there will certainly be some cases where you can sue.
C//
I don't think you need to read case law to know that once you've granted someone a license, you can't simply take it away.
This remark was silly.
Total fertility rates of native born citizens in first world countries are all slightly lower than 2 per couple.
All we have to do is warm up the neutron bombs and carpet bomb the third world.
Problem solved.
(this comment is humor; this note included as an act of kindness for the humor-impaired).
Humans don't need to eat meat at all. Eggs and whey are not meat, and are superior proteins to meat.
The US GDP is $15,000 billion.
Percent = A / B * 100. = 4 / 15000 * 100 = .027%
So you were off by a factor of 100.
Although "three ten thousandth's is correct," and the number is the correct ratio (.0003). Which is indeed fairly small.
The depopulators don't need to worry. They will get what they want. The population replacement rate per 2 people in all first world countries is 2.
Right now, we're taking up the slack from other countries, but those countries will eventually first worldify.
If the money's flowing like it is for the superstar, then your school teacher is paid millions of dollars per year, right?
Not having read TFA, I wouldn't have anything to say about any legal conclusions the judge was getting at. But he was right for sufficiently large numbers of "we, the people." Certainly if no one considered privacy terribly valuable, we could not count on those same people in government office to consider privacy terribly valuable. The converse is also true: if everyone considered privacy terribly valuable, then we could count on those same people in office to consider privacy terribly valuable, now couldn't we? What we have is something in the middle, and I would say that it's most likely getting worse, and not better.
Anyway, there is a travesty in modern politics, where we the people blame our government for this and that, ever the while failing to acknowledge that we the people are the constituencies of the vary same government we blame. Our government's are reflections of ourselves. We, the people, need to grow up and recognize that.
Consider the following: who's more valuable, a school teacher or a superstar athlete? Most everyone will try to make some sort of argument giving the teacher the nod. But of the two, who will fill up a stadium of people willing to pay $70 each? There is an uncomfortable truth here, and it's not so nice as to what it says about us.
C//
Well, I only read the summary. However, consider this excerpt:
If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count on government...
This sentence contains a false semantic distinction between people and government. I.e., it attempts to draw a distinction between 'we, the people' and government itself. That distinction isn't as true as you might hope.
It could be easily rephrased as follows: "If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count those very same people when in government office to consider privacy terribly valuable."
That's an excellent point.
C//
(which is still actually impossible, under current theories)
This may seem like a trivial, idle remark, but I sincerely appreciate the effort you made in saying "impossible, under current theories." There are too many peoplewho fall into either the linguistic or mental trap of treating current theory as the ground truth state of the universe.
C//
But you'll have no way of telling whether a video is Goatse or not-Goatse until you watch it and collapse the state vector.
Ah, Schrodinger's Goatse. Brought to you be the intersection of quantum mechanics and 4chan. Where physics and the dark, underbelly of the internet meet, even brave men fear to tread.
It would be more just if they put him into a database banning him from all Walmarts.
I'm not really sure he'd be missing anything, though. :-P
And by "explicitly disclaiming them" you mean prominently displaying such a disclaimer on the product prior to purchase.
This is State law, but I think many States are the same this way.
You don't have to "enforce" it, because your credit card company will, by reversing the charge.
This may be, but the practice is illegal. If a buyer buys two items, and both are defective, the store must take them back. Perhaps not without asking questions, but the implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose is not deniable by the store. It would be wise to always purchase items from stores like this with a credit card. Your credit card provider absolutely won't accept such behavior (on the behalf of the merchant).
True enough.
Your side is engaged in a circular argument in bad faith bacause you guys don't want to see ANY government touched.
You're blowing over straw men. Which is to say, you're fabricating the position of the person you are speaking with in order to win points against some imaginary contest that doesn't exist. You should cut that out. It's disgraceful. Which is to say, hint, hint, that I don't at all think I want any of the above untouched. I want all of it touched, because I am serious about the budget.
As for your comment about taxes, 'raising taxes would almost certainly reduce revenue,' that's an argument about the Laffer curve. I don't think your argument is true. Not that I would agree with raising taxes. I just don't think we're on the side of the Laffer curve you think we're on.
C//
It's more of an issue of hearing about the latest situational events in funda-lsamo-fascist states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others), and thence concluding that this is representative of "Muslims." It's not. It's a sour, specific brand of funda-islamo-fascism.
Those places are terrible, however, and what amounts to regionally endorsed practices there are evidence of a society still in its infancy. The Western world backed out of the sort of stuff after the Hundred Years War.