This DOES violate the GPL; section 3b requires that they provide the source code to any third party (but they can charge for it).
Wrong. The GPL requires that the distributor of a binary make the source to that binary available. If you obtain a binary from Svensoft, then Svensoft is the distributor of that binary to you, and they are compelled by the GPL to make source available to you. BUT if you turn around and give the binary to someone else, well, guess what Mr. Distributor, you're going to have to make the source available too.
BUT, your account for access to the binaries and source code has the restriction: if you redistribute, the account is closed. No restrictions are placed on the source itself (anyone else who gets your code is free to redistribute it), so it remains GPL.
Once Svensoft has given you the code, they're done. They could drop off the face of the earth and the GPL couldn't care less because they fulfilled their distribution of the code to you. As long as you got the source before they closed your account (and you would have to have gotten it in order to redistribute!) then they've obeyed the GPL.
Except that in this case "X" is "get the software". If you already got the software and the source (which you would have to have done, in order to redistribute it), then Svensoft is absolved of any further responsibility to you. Nowhere does it say that you must have infinite access to an infinite number of copies of the source.
In fact, if you look at it this way, the source becomes even more free after you release your copy and lose your investment, because the recipients will have nothing to lose for exercising their rights.
Really, as the cost to you for redistribution of the source is the subscription fee you lose, you should charge that much for redistribution of the source (as the GPL clearly allows you to do).
I'd wager that as long as the cost to you of distribution was no more than the initial outlay to receive your copy (ie, they don't sue you or otherwise take extra money) then the FSF won't see this as a restriction against distribution (if you hadn't paid this up front, you wouldn't have had the source or the license to distribute it).
If they're distributing it to third parties (and I'd be surprised if anyone thought that buying a subscription to Sveasoft's forums made them an employee of the company), then the GPL applies.
Then the GPL applies to recipients of the binaries. Only those third parties involved need apply.
If I sell YOU a copy of the libGPLfoo.so.1 binary with the restriction that if you want to upgrade, you cannot transfer its source to anyone else, then you can request that I give YOU that source. You are then free to redistribute that source, but doing so bans you from receiving libGPLfoo.so.2 (and thus the right to its source). At no point were you restricted from obtaining.1's source or redistributing.1's source, and thats all the GPL cares about, because thats the only GPL'd binary you had.
No, as a distributor, you have to offer some means of obtaining that source code. If it was redhat, it would be enough to give him redhat's FTP mirror list. In this case though, unless these subscriptions are transferrable (which they appear to not be) then it is not enough to just say "get it from this company" because that company will not give it to them.
If you give someone GPL'd code, you become the distributor, and by the letter of the license, YOU have to make the source available somehow.
Now, its not necessary that you have to be the host of the source, or you have to actually touch the source itself, but if for some reason you cannot see to it that your users cannot get the source, you cannot comply with the GPL. Pointing someone to some other FTP site is enough*, until that FTP site goes down.
* the fsf states that since not everyone has internet access, you are supposed to comply with a demand for physical media.
Well, you were distributed version 1 of the executable and received version 1 of the source. If having a license for version 1 was eternally binding for all future versions of the software, why have I been buying windows upgrades, when I could be using Win XP with my 3.11 license? This would also wreak havoc with people who fork projects from before a license change to keep a free version alive *cough*X.org*cough*.
The question, really, is: does giving you the source code to version X once absolve them of any further contact with you? As a user of their binary, you got the source code from them, so their distribution requirement is fulfilled. Is only giving you the source once a restriction on the redistribution of the source?
This iteration process is probably the most broken part of the patent process. If the patent filed in 1994 was invalid, how can any part of it be valid in the 2000 patent? It fails the 1 year limit for filing the patent. Anything that's dated more than 1 year before the accepted patent's filing date should be valid prior art.
Two things can happen, either the patent can be invalid, or the patent can be too broad. if an independent claim is invalid, all dependent claims are invalid as well. If the judge decides the scope is too broad, then the independent claim is restricted to only be valid with one or more of the dependent claims.
In this case, if the judge finds that software updates aren't patentable, then none of the dependent claims matter. But, the judge can find that claim 1 is too broad, (perhaps theres prior art for that claim) in which case he may find that the addition of an HTML viewer is novel and patentable.
I was talking about increasing the money in people's hands in the long term. Eventually Joe has to pay back the $500+interest, at which point he's poorer than he started out.
Rarely do you see personal loans that increase the receiver's long term wealth. Most larger loans are car loans or house mortgages, in which the person gains a car or a house worth $x, while paying $x+(x*interest) for it. In some cases, the house might appreciate in value, but typically over a longer term than the life of the mortgage.
And then there's "bad debt" where the person is unable to repay the loan, and the bank loses its money, and the person doesn't have the money (and probably loses anything else of value) leaving both the person and the bank worse off. Plenty of business-starting loans end up this way.
Any system that decides to ignore people who don't fit its narrow world view is a FAILURE. If nobody cared about the guy with the british passport, would the flight have been saved? Would the arrests in Texas have been made if all the agents were out tailing Pakistanis or Iraqis?
As for CAPPS II, it had a whole host of problems rather than just collecting public data into a single place. Color coding was designed to be loose so that the person could move you up if you "looked" suspicious, or asked questions (in fact, IIRC, asking questions automatically escalated you). The database was not available for review or correction (the fact that our government insists on using bad data scares me more than anything else. But then again the whole Iraq mess proves that our government thrives on error). The list only goes on from there. That underpaid screener who just got laid off? They took your entire identity with them, and now have themselves a "raise". No auditing of usage of the data is almost as bad as the lack of review of the data.
bt is a pretty poor choice for this overall. It's designed for swarming popular files, and the more popular the file, the better it works.
If you want to demand an episode of Pinwheel, though, you better hope theres at least one other retro kids' tv addict out there or you'll be without seeds, and no video on or after your demand.
And the instant you walked out your door, no less than 8 burgulars who ripped out their tags months ago will show up in your backyard, their RFID detectors finding the house empty.
Even if the RFID data is encrypted, its presense alone is enough for most uses.
First, does it keep track of where I've used it? If so, then I want this used in my favor by allowing me access to this log to ensure that my identification has not been compromised.
Second, can site A find out that I also use site B?
Third, is there any more information stored than my credentials? (for example credit card #s, SSN etc.) Not only that, but will sites use this as a key for tracking additional information? (perhaps you should consider returning an "identified" or "not identified" response, with no additional information.) (Sites that keep my CC# without giving me a way to delete them piss me off. This means you, Amazon, you and your collection of every expired CC I've ever used there.)
I think thats a pretty good start. That pretty much covers my privacy concerns as well as exploit/misuse concerns.
The hilarious part is that in the paper (Houston Chronicle) today, theres an entire article on how the number of people registering as independent is increasing.
Obviously both parties are pissing people off so much that they'd rather just leave.
The paper completely misses the point, calling these people "prizes" to be won back by the parties during the coming months leading up to the election.
why shouldn't we help to gov't out a little, and make their information gathering a little easier?
Make it easier? I thought thats what strapping electrodes to peoples balls were for. After all thats probably how we found out that terrorists are planning on attacking this november, planning to use fire trucks in an attack, planning to use telepathic death rays in an attack, I'll tell you anything oh god make the pain... wait, why wasn't this blacked out of the transcript?
You get the picture. By revealing that they use torture tactics to obtain their information, the government has successfully made all of their information suspect. How many lies have we sucked up just because the guy wanted the broomstick out of his ass?
Well, if he knew about it, I'd have preferred that he have the people involved arrested, present the evidence (it didn't just come to him in a dream, did it?) to a court of law, and have a dozen citizens of this country decide whether or not the evidence indicates that the people were committing a crime.
This is, after all, the way Justice worked in this country for over two centuries. And I'd die to protect that for those who follow me.
They couldn't answer me this, so I cancelled my membership and joined the NRA.
And clearly the Boy Scouts should be all for protecting gun rights. We'll rename it the NRA2. Also the Plumber's Local should be all for protecting gun rights. We'll rename it the NRA3.
At which point do you fail to understand the redundancy here? If you want all your rights protected, you support both the NRA and the ACLU and cover all your bases. Why should the ACLU spend its hard-earned money to lobby against gun control when the NRA is already all over it and has the situation under control?
You're reading it wrong. That it was quoted out of context is indeed correct, but there is more than one idea here, and only the concept in bold really applies to this discussion. The rest of it is really just icing on the cake, and I'm glad you posted it.
Jefferson is disgusted that the government would attempt to censor books by banning their publication (are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold), or by prosecution of their reader (that a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate), or by censure by the church And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens...Is a priest to be our inquisitor).
So in all, we have that: 1) it is mortifying that the sale of a book can be called into a court of law. 2) Censorship by the government insults us by implying we are not rational and therefore unable to decide for ourselves what to read or not read. 3) Censure by religion is blasphemous by nature, implying the religion fears this or that idea reveals the weaknesses within that religion. After all, if you worship an all powerful God, what does he care about some book someone wrote?
A little bit? They've already taken miles more than the inch you seem to believe. We're dealing with an administration that calls the Supreme Court's decision that YES they MUST give American Citizens their Constitutionally protected trial before imprisoning them indefinitely, as our administration has done in at least two occasions, a "setback".
A setback. Imagine that, over 200 years of procedural justice being The American Way, and Bush puts it in the shitter. Face it, Bush is fighting a war here, and his enemies include Justice and Truth. Is this a war that can be won? Should Bush win?
Guess how many times the provision allowing access to Library records was used. Never.
Says who? The FBI? You're trusting them to tell the truth? We know they've used online records of book purchases, so why not library records too? And remember, using these powers is secret, so its not like they would tell you if they did.
Slashdot Mirror
This DOES violate the GPL; section 3b requires that they provide the source code to any third party (but they can charge for it).
Wrong. The GPL requires that the distributor of a binary make the source to that binary available. If you obtain a binary from Svensoft, then Svensoft is the distributor of that binary to you, and they are compelled by the GPL to make source available to you. BUT if you turn around and give the binary to someone else, well, guess what Mr. Distributor, you're going to have to make the source available too.
Right, and the code IS distributed under the GPL.
BUT, your account for access to the binaries and source code has the restriction: if you redistribute, the account is closed. No restrictions are placed on the source itself (anyone else who gets your code is free to redistribute it), so it remains GPL.
Once Svensoft has given you the code, they're done. They could drop off the face of the earth and the GPL couldn't care less because they fulfilled their distribution of the code to you. As long as you got the source before they closed your account (and you would have to have gotten it in order to redistribute!) then they've obeyed the GPL.
Except that in this case "X" is "get the software". If you already got the software and the source (which you would have to have done, in order to redistribute it), then Svensoft is absolved of any further responsibility to you. Nowhere does it say that you must have infinite access to an infinite number of copies of the source.
Legal is one thing, violating the GPL is another.
In fact, if you look at it this way, the source becomes even more free after you release your copy and lose your investment, because the recipients will have nothing to lose for exercising their rights.
Really, as the cost to you for redistribution of the source is the subscription fee you lose, you should charge that much for redistribution of the source (as the GPL clearly allows you to do).
I'd wager that as long as the cost to you of distribution was no more than the initial outlay to receive your copy (ie, they don't sue you or otherwise take extra money) then the FSF won't see this as a restriction against distribution (if you hadn't paid this up front, you wouldn't have had the source or the license to distribute it).
If they're distributing it to third parties (and I'd be surprised if anyone thought that buying a subscription to Sveasoft's forums made them an employee of the company), then the GPL applies.
.1's source or redistributing .1's source, and thats all the GPL cares about, because thats the only GPL'd binary you had.
Then the GPL applies to recipients of the binaries. Only those third parties involved need apply.
If I sell YOU a copy of the libGPLfoo.so.1 binary with the restriction that if you want to upgrade, you cannot transfer its source to anyone else, then you can request that I give YOU that source. You are then free to redistribute that source, but doing so bans you from receiving libGPLfoo.so.2 (and thus the right to its source). At no point were you restricted from obtaining
No, as a distributor, you have to offer some means of obtaining that source code. If it was redhat, it would be enough to give him redhat's FTP mirror list. In this case though, unless these subscriptions are transferrable (which they appear to not be) then it is not enough to just say "get it from this company" because that company will not give it to them.
If you give someone GPL'd code, you become the distributor, and by the letter of the license, YOU have to make the source available somehow.
Now, its not necessary that you have to be the host of the source, or you have to actually touch the source itself, but if for some reason you cannot see to it that your users cannot get the source, you cannot comply with the GPL. Pointing someone to some other FTP site is enough*, until that FTP site goes down.
* the fsf states that since not everyone has internet access, you are supposed to comply with a demand for physical media.
Well, you were distributed version 1 of the executable and received version 1 of the source. If having a license for version 1 was eternally binding for all future versions of the software, why have I been buying windows upgrades, when I could be using Win XP with my 3.11 license? This would also wreak havoc with people who fork projects from before a license change to keep a free version alive *cough*X.org*cough*.
The question, really, is: does giving you the source code to version X once absolve them of any further contact with you? As a user of their binary, you got the source code from them, so their distribution requirement is fulfilled. Is only giving you the source once a restriction on the redistribution of the source?
This iteration process is probably the most broken part of the patent process. If the patent filed in 1994 was invalid, how can any part of it be valid in the 2000 patent? It fails the 1 year limit for filing the patent. Anything that's dated more than 1 year before the accepted patent's filing date should be valid prior art.
Something like that.
Two things can happen, either the patent can be invalid, or the patent can be too broad. if an independent claim is invalid, all dependent claims are invalid as well. If the judge decides the scope is too broad, then the independent claim is restricted to only be valid with one or more of the dependent claims.
In this case, if the judge finds that software updates aren't patentable, then none of the dependent claims matter. But, the judge can find that claim 1 is too broad, (perhaps theres prior art for that claim) in which case he may find that the addition of an HTML viewer is novel and patentable.
I was talking about increasing the money in people's hands in the long term. Eventually Joe has to pay back the $500+interest, at which point he's poorer than he started out.
Rarely do you see personal loans that increase the receiver's long term wealth. Most larger loans are car loans or house mortgages, in which the person gains a car or a house worth $x, while paying $x+(x*interest) for it. In some cases, the house might appreciate in value, but typically over a longer term than the life of the mortgage.
And then there's "bad debt" where the person is unable to repay the loan, and the bank loses its money, and the person doesn't have the money (and probably loses anything else of value) leaving both the person and the bank worse off. Plenty of business-starting loans end up this way.
And the money goes out in the form of business loans, home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit and so forth.
This creates debt, not more money.
Eventually all of this money plus some has to be returned.
So to review: $500 tax credit for working class Joe: $500. $500 loan from some bank at 1% total interest: -$5. Which does Joe want?
Profiling Doesn't
Work.
Any system that decides to ignore people who don't fit its narrow world view is a FAILURE. If nobody cared about the guy with the british passport, would the flight have been saved? Would the arrests in Texas have been made if all the agents were out tailing Pakistanis or Iraqis?
As for CAPPS II, it had a whole host of problems rather than just collecting public data into a single place. Color coding was designed to be loose so that the person could move you up if you "looked" suspicious, or asked questions (in fact, IIRC, asking questions automatically escalated you). The database was not available for review or correction (the fact that our government insists on using bad data scares me more than anything else. But then again the whole Iraq mess proves that our government thrives on error). The list only goes on from there. That underpaid screener who just got laid off? They took your entire identity with them, and now have themselves a "raise". No auditing of usage of the data is almost as bad as the lack of review of the data.
How long before we use them to compress CD rips?
I think mp3 has finally met its match!
bt is a pretty poor choice for this overall. It's designed for swarming popular files, and the more popular the file, the better it works.
If you want to demand an episode of Pinwheel, though, you better hope theres at least one other retro kids' tv addict out there or you'll be without seeds, and no video on or after your demand.
And the instant you walked out your door, no less than 8 burgulars who ripped out their tags months ago will show up in your backyard, their RFID detectors finding the house empty.
Even if the RFID data is encrypted, its presense alone is enough for most uses.
Or just think about yourself trying to explain how the pedos used the RFID tags to find out who had wandered off by themselves.
First, does it keep track of where I've used it? If so, then I want this used in my favor by allowing me access to this log to ensure that my identification has not been compromised.
Second, can site A find out that I also use site B?
Third, is there any more information stored than my credentials? (for example credit card #s, SSN etc.) Not only that, but will sites use this as a key for tracking additional information? (perhaps you should consider returning an "identified" or "not identified" response, with no additional information.) (Sites that keep my CC# without giving me a way to delete them piss me off. This means you, Amazon, you and your collection of every expired CC I've ever used there.)
I think thats a pretty good start. That pretty much covers my privacy concerns as well as exploit/misuse concerns.
The hilarious part is that in the paper (Houston Chronicle) today, theres an entire article on how the number of people registering as independent is increasing.
Obviously both parties are pissing people off so much that they'd rather just leave.
The paper completely misses the point, calling these people "prizes" to be won back by the parties during the coming months leading up to the election.
why shouldn't we help to gov't out a little, and make their information gathering a little easier?
Make it easier? I thought thats what strapping electrodes to peoples balls were for. After all thats probably how we found out that terrorists are planning on attacking this november, planning to use fire trucks in an attack, planning to use telepathic death rays in an attack, I'll tell you anything oh god make the pain... wait, why wasn't this blacked out of the transcript?
You get the picture. By revealing that they use torture tactics to obtain their information, the government has successfully made all of their information suspect. How many lies have we sucked up just because the guy wanted the broomstick out of his ass?
Well, if he knew about it, I'd have preferred that he have the people involved arrested, present the evidence (it didn't just come to him in a dream, did it?) to a court of law, and have a dozen citizens of this country decide whether or not the evidence indicates that the people were committing a crime.
This is, after all, the way Justice worked in this country for over two centuries. And I'd die to protect that for those who follow me.
They couldn't answer me this, so I cancelled my membership and joined the NRA.
And clearly the Boy Scouts should be all for protecting gun rights. We'll rename it the NRA2. Also the Plumber's Local should be all for protecting gun rights. We'll rename it the NRA3.
At which point do you fail to understand the redundancy here? If you want all your rights protected, you support both the NRA and the ACLU and cover all your bases. Why should the ACLU spend its hard-earned money to lobby against gun control when the NRA is already all over it and has the situation under control?
You're reading it wrong. That it was quoted out of context is indeed correct, but there is more than one idea here, and only the concept in bold really applies to this discussion. The rest of it is really just icing on the cake, and I'm glad you posted it.
Jefferson is disgusted that the government would attempt to censor books by banning their publication (are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold), or by prosecution of their reader (that a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate), or by censure by the church And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens...Is a priest to be our inquisitor).
So in all, we have that:
1) it is mortifying that the sale of a book can be called into a court of law.
2) Censorship by the government insults us by implying we are not rational and therefore unable to decide for ourselves what to read or not read.
3) Censure by religion is blasphemous by nature, implying the religion fears this or that idea reveals the weaknesses within that religion. After all, if you worship an all powerful God, what does he care about some book someone wrote?
"Give back a little bit"?
A little bit? They've already taken miles more than the inch you seem to believe. We're dealing with an administration that calls the Supreme Court's decision that YES they MUST give American Citizens their Constitutionally protected trial before imprisoning them indefinitely, as our administration has done in at least two occasions, a "setback".
A setback. Imagine that, over 200 years of procedural justice being The American Way, and Bush puts it in the shitter. Face it, Bush is fighting a war here, and his enemies include Justice and Truth. Is this a war that can be won? Should Bush win?
Guess how many times the provision allowing access to Library records was used. Never.
Says who? The FBI? You're trusting them to tell the truth? We know they've used online records of book purchases, so why not library records too? And remember, using these powers is secret, so its not like they would tell you if they did.