Wall St. Journal says this is a *future* service
on
Juno And Privacy
·
· Score: 1
The future service, "The Juno Virtual Supercomputer Project" is designed so Juno can sell unused time and space on its customers' hard drives to third parties. The story says in the future free subscribers may have to sign up, but it isn't in place yet.
"It's a new way to derive revenue from a subscriber base of millions of users we already have," says the CEO. The story is here , but sub req'd. Natch.
So, if your dad uses Juno, don't give him a heart attack.
I installed RedHat 6.2 and was very proud that I *finally* got it up and running by myself and then almost immediately got root owned by some one in Germany. (I love that Gnu/Linux shows you what's happening though...a big contrast to problems in Windows, which someone in the office was experiencing simultaneously).
I had no knowledge of what to do about it, couldn't find any man page on point, and had no one to ask, so I wiped it off the box and started over.
Now I'm reading reading reading about security *before* I go online again. What I don't understand is: why doesn't anybody warn you in bold letters about shutting down telnet, etc.? Linux is too powerful for newbies unless someone helps us fast and early to know what to watch out for. It needs to be in the installation manual, not online, so you aren't root-owned while you're reading the documentation pages.
If no one will do that, if anyone would set up a site for a manual for newbies, I'd surely help write for it.
It's a Catch22 with Gnu/Linux...you can't get it up and running until you know something about it, and you can't really get to know something about it or even comprehend it until it *is* up and running. At least I can't. I specifically bought RedHat as a distro so I could get help from another human. But they only help you install and after that you are on your own. If you then call and ask how to shut off things, they won't help at all, because they "only help with installation"...It's astonishingly user-hostile, compared to the proprietary software world. I'm puzzled as to how they plan to make their business work out, unless they just don't care about individual users and are focused solely on businesses. Maybe it costs too much to help users and that's why they draw the line where they do.
Having griped until I feel better, I think it's important to say this: that the whole point of Gnu/Linux is to eventually know what you are doing. You can't just make it totally click and point and still have the real value of Gnu/Linux. I understand that and am willing to do my time to get the knowledge base I need. But what we really need is help at the beginning to get started and set up, safely. And newbies need to be able to ask questions, specific questions, from someone who knows, because the documentation is never exactly your distro or your situation. Plus there will never be a manual that explains everything to everyone well, with no need for questions. Proprietary software folks know that and set up for it. I mention this because of all the comments about how annoying newbie questions are. Questions are how you learn.
So why not set up a site where newbie questions can be asked and answered? Not just with FAQs, but with a way to email a question. Dell has a great system for that. You do get a FAQ as your first answer, and usually that's enough because they are so thorough (as in "check to make sure your computer is plugged in") and well-written, but if you still need help, you can write back and get it. That way we newbies won't ruin things by asking stupid questions anywhere else. And if we stray off the reservation and ask a question in the wrong venue, you can just point us to that site. It's clear from all the comments that no such site currently exists. Again, speaking for myself, I absolutely volunteer to help anyone who sets up such a site. Just post where to go and I'll be there, seriously committed.
Why? Because I have lived it and know how great the need is for this. And because though I never intended to study computer science, and shouldn't have to go too far down that road before I can use an OS, I understand that open/free is valuable and would gladly contribute what I can.
I also understand that there is a chasm between newbies and programmers and we speak and think in different ways, so what helps *you* with no trouble is hard for me. On the other hand, you probably don't know much about the law, and I work in that field. I can usually read a judge's ruling and know what it means, while you might be puzzled, because you don't know the lingo and lack experience in the field and so would need to ask someone what it all means. Even smart people need to ask for explanations in a field that isn't their own. You could see that clearly when the media was thrashing about with court rulings in the recent US election. Just clueless and misleading coverage as a result. If the person you asked for an explanation answered: "Just read the law", would that help? I say no, because you lack the knowledge to understand what the law means and how it works out in real life. It's no different with computer knowledge. We do need help understanding what it all means and how it works out in real life because we lack the background and experience to get it on our own. Most of us also lack the time and the interest to actually learn how to program. Should that be required to use Gnu/Linux? If not, then where is that helping hand for us Windows refugees?
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/
It's aptly named, and you can download. I had no background in computing but was determined to learn Linux, and I thrashed around for a long time trying to understand it and was about to give up when a techie at RedHat told me about linuxnewbie.org. After that, it was a pleasure. Why? Because they tell you what to do when things go wrong. And they always do if you have no background in computing. I simply love this site. It's written in my language as opposed to technical-speak, so I can learn. After this site, I could read the other help manuals and make some sense out of them.
Re: I can't believe this needs to be said again
on
FSF Europe Founded
·
· Score: 1
I find it hard to believe you don't understand this already, but just in case you are being sincere: you are free to do whatever you want with your own code. You just can't use *his* software and do whatever you want with it.
I noted on your site, you offer software under a BSD license and have posted the following restriction: "I've put up some source code here for all who are interested. Everything here is under the BSD License, which means that you're free to do almost anything with it except change the license."
...um.."except change the license" is a restriction. The GPL is a restriction too. You can do anything you want with GPL code except change the license. And you are free to release your own software under any license you like. He doesn't dictate that. You do. And you did release it under another license. So what is your beef? He has a simple right to say what happens to his own software (using *his* to include all those who have contributed to FSF and feel as he does).
What kind of hypocrisy is this talk about "freedom"? Your upset because you can't use his software to enhance your own and make money off his work? Is he not free? Everyone should be free but him? He has to take his own creation and do what you want with it? If you don't like his license, make your own software, use any other license you like, and leave rms in peace. He isn't bothering you...just saying what you can do with his own stuff. That ought to be right up your alley, since you say the same thing about yours.
All the rms bashing is very puzzling. What is it *really* about? I hope you think that over. What the man has done is extraordinary. Just compare his site with your own (nothing mean-spirited in what I am writing intended...just truthful). Is it an American thing, to attack whoever accomplishes something? Whatever one thinks of him and his foundation, he/it/they have produced a body of work that even you wish you could use...of course he has set it up so that you can't use it and then shut it off to others who want to use it down the road, and that annoys you, but I wish you'd just leave the poor guy alone. He is also a human being, you know. No doubt he reads some of this type of thing occasionally. This endless bashing is his reward for nearly two decades of effort? If I'm sick of reading it, how must he feel? And yet he persists...
Come on...enough, already. Go your own way, but let him alone to do the same. He will go down in history, without a doubt. Will you? If the honest answer is: No, then maybe a little humility is in order. Has it occurred to you maybe you don't really understand the legal purpose of the GPL? IMO,it is the legal foundation stone on which everything was built and, more importantly, maintained and protected. Look past your nose and you'll get it. Your characterization of his views isn't a bit accurate, by the way. I also think it is strange that your site says on the homepage that your software is both Free and Open. Hmmm. I think it'd be good if you'd take a longer gander at his site.
And for all the people who endlessly post "he's a communist", he's stated publicly he isn't...so what is *that* all about?
Disclaimer: IANAProgrammer, so pls. excuse any ignorance in the question, but I really got scared reading the article. All I want to know is: how do you turn NetInfo et al off? Am I wrong? If so, why?
I am currently trying to switch to GNU/Linux precisely because Windows has so many similar "features" running behind your back. Isn't it precisely because Windows builds in abilities to network info that viruses are so easy? Why, then, isn't the OS X just a new enabler? What am I missing here?
Is there a way to turn all the data amassing features off? Is NetInfo just on the server version? Why can't someone crack in and find out all your passwords, where you've been, etc.?
If you can turn it off or bypass...pls. explain in detail, with specifics.
Disclaimer: IANAL, "just" a paralegal, but I'm not seeing what you are in this bill. Here's why:
First, if you go to an article in the Village Voice, linked to on the "for the ban" page linked to in the original story, you find some hilarious examples of notes that have been posted on the web...for pay. Here's an example, notes from a class on Hamlet:
"FROM STUDY24-7.COM:
Boston University
English: Hamlet--Act II, III (Part V)
"ACT III, SCENE 1
"The 1st soliloquoy [sic]--can't commit suicide *damned
"The 2nd soliloquoy--maybe it was the Devil to damn me
"The 3rd soliloquoy--To be or not to be (kill myself?)
"Constantly mentioning conscience
"How does this and "enterprises of great pitch & moment" fit into suicide?
"Enterprises = momentous acions [sic]."
This and similar gems here:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0003/hussey-mcp herson.shtml
Looks like you're better off going to class.
Secondly, according to the article in the Voice, VC companies are hiring college kids, getting them to stay up late typing and posting lecture notes on the web. Then the copyright on the notes belongs not to the kid, who has to sign them away to the company in order to get paid, not to the professor, but to the company. The student gets a fee. The professor gets nothing (except maybe humiliated, along with the University, when he sees the above as a reflection of what he taught.)
Here's a segment from the article, explaining the process:
"More than 10 online companies now offer free notes for thousands of lectures in over 100 universities and colleges. These ventures, the largest being StudentU.com and Versity.com, recruit 'campus team leaders' or 'campus operations managers' from the student body, who then locate notetakers and market the service on campus. Trained by the company, notetakers have an average GPA of 3.0, must post lecture notes within 24 hours (and arrange for a substitute scribe if they fall ill), and relinquish any claims to copyright, all for a paycheck. (StudentU will pay $400 per semester in spring 2000; Versity pays a per-lecture fee of $8 to $12 an hour.)
"'It beats waiting tables or bartending on the weekends. It's not a lot of money, but it helped me live in a nicer apartment. I'm earning money while I study and am helping my classmates,' says Phillips, who earned $600 last semester."
Assuming the above facts are true, the purpose of bill appears to be to try to address these issues. Barlow wrote once that if *anyone* were going to make money from his writing, he certainly felt it ought to be him. The bill is saying exactly the same thing, namely that the professor, not the school, not a VC company, owns the copyright. Actually, the professor already does own the copyright. The bill just says what will happen if someone infringes it. The professor's free to give it away, GPL it, whatever. Students can still share notes, for free, with their friends. At least this is my understanding.
If I posted something clueless about coding, you'd probably get annoyed and express it, and rightly so, because I don't know enough to sound off around this group on that subject. The point is, I *know* I don't. But when it comes to legal issues, there's more, lots more, to it than meets the eye on first impression. I'm not saying don't think and read and post...just realize that there's depths to the field, just like in your field, and take the time -- and it does take time --to really understand the law. I wish/. would hire a lawyer to help with this kind of story. Then we could all use our Fridays nights better than we did tonight.
Some really exciting writing is going on here:
http://www.tank20.com/v4/tank20.html
What's new about an ebook is: text and graphics and sound and video all together. If you have read "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud, you'll know what I mean. If not, by all means read it and connect the dots.
Also here's a site that can take you some places you've never been: http://www.eliterature.org
Try especially some of Rob Wittig's wonderfully inventive stuff, which you can link to from eliterature.org and I think you'll change your mind about whether the net has resulted in innovative writing.
There is an entirely new artform being born...don't miss it.
Your bio says you are an intellectual property lawyer. It may be easy for an IP lawyer to fall in love with UCITA...though there are plenty of lawyers who haven't.
For anyone interested in reading what some of them have to say, you can go to IEEE-USA (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) site on UCITA: www.ieeeusa.org/grassroots/ucita/index.html or to www.4cite.org or to Cem Kaner, Esq.'s page at www.badsoftware.com. (The latter site is down for a bit because of changing ISPs.) There is also a very thorough list of links on this subject here:http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/ucitapg.html
All the above folks do understand the law.
As for the discussion here, my point was that choice-of-law clauses do matter. Nothing you said changes that truth. We're not here to argue the virtues or flaws of UCITA at the moment. I think it's quite clear that it does matter what state contracts are enforced in, which is precisely why companies like to choose the state. As an IP lawyer, I'm sure you would agree at least to that.
My chief point was that people who criticize Richard Stallman for being so "picky" and "dogmatic" don't realize that he is clearly aware of these legal issues and is trying to respond within the framework of the current legal system...which he didn't write but must make use of. All the attacks on him and imputing of wrong motives to him because of his stand are amazingly off-base. In other words, though folks could argue back and forth on whether a UCITA state such as Virginia is a better forum (as is implied by your saying that UCITA's provisions are "better than prior law"... if that were true, then the logical thing would be to want to choose that state), the fact remains that choice-of-law clauses do matter and so Stallman's position in this case is based on reality and not on some power trip.
There's another Linux Today article, an interview with Guido van Rossum of PythonLabs on this in which he says the "choice of law" clause is the sticking point, an issue he calls a technicality. But read the law itself and ask yourself if you agree...or if Stallman is doing exactly the intelligent thing:
Here's the final paragraph of the interview, from:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09 -07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
"GVR:The sad thing is that all of this is based on technicalities: Stallman agrees that Python is free software, but a technicality in the licenses prevents compatibility. The choice of law clause in the CNRI license, which is causing the incompatibility, is very common is software licenses, and CNRI doesn't want to drop it because the validity of the general disclaimers in the license may depend on it. At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL. Even though the state of Virginia does no such thing!"
Oh, no? Here are a few excerpts from Virginia's UCITA law, which goes into effect in July 2001, I believe, and the link where you can read the whole thing, if you wish:
" 59.1-501.5(b) If a term of a contract violates a fundamental public policy, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the impermissible term, or limit the application of the impermissible term so as to avoid a result contrary to public policy, in each case to the extent that the interest in enforcement is clearly outweighed by a public policy against enforcement of the term."
Later the law adds this:
" 59.1-501.13. (2) The limitations on enforceability imposed by unconscionability under 59.1-501.11 and fundamental public policy under 59.1-501.5 (b) may not be varied by agreement."
and then this:
" 59.1-501.14(c) Whether a term is conspicuous or is unenforceable under 59.1-501.5 (a) or (b), 59.1-501.11, or 59.1-502.9 (a) and whether an attribution procedure is commercially reasonable or effective under 59.1-501.8, 59.1-502.12, or 59.1-502.13 are questions to be determined by the court."
What I understand this to mean is that you can enter into any contract you want with whatever license terms you choose, but if the court feels it violates public policy in Virginia, and your opponent had the foresight to include a choice of law clause specifying Virginia, the court can elect to throw out your contract or license... So...do choice-of-law clauses matter?
And is Stallman crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
Agorics' Cancun might be your answer
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 1
"That said, if you or somebody you know has code in KDE whose copyright we really are violating, please speak up and send an email to kde@kde.org so that we may fix the issue. In case of doubt, we have compiled three documents: one listing all modules in KDE and the license it follows[2], one listing all copyright holders in all code inside of the KDE CVS[3], and one with all copyright holders email addresses[4]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00062 .html
[2] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/l icensing.html
[3] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/c opyright-lines.html
[4] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/e mail-addresses.html."
IANAL, but I am a paralegal and I do understand this issue of copyright. What Stallman wrote was *legally* correct...forgiven is a legal term and that's how he used it. And by attaching the paragraph quoted above, KDE is responding correctly under the current legal system by asking all to contact them. In short, Stallman was right to point out this legal issue and all the rest is just emotions. He is super correct on legal things involving the GPL. And in today's legal climate, he is sooooo right to be careful of copyright issues. Remember the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, folks?
Whether he could say it better is another issue, and considering everything involved, a lesser one, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a new way to derive revenue from a subscriber base of millions of users we already have," says the CEO. The story is here , but sub req'd. Natch.
So, if your dad uses Juno, don't give him a heart attack.
I had no knowledge of what to do about it, couldn't find any man page on point, and had no one to ask, so I wiped it off the box and started over.
Now I'm reading reading reading about security *before* I go online again. What I don't understand is: why doesn't anybody warn you in bold letters about shutting down telnet, etc.? Linux is too powerful for newbies unless someone helps us fast and early to know what to watch out for. It needs to be in the installation manual, not online, so you aren't root-owned while you're reading the documentation pages.
If no one will do that, if anyone would set up a site for a manual for newbies, I'd surely help write for it.
It's a Catch22 with Gnu/Linux...you can't get it up and running until you know something about it, and you can't really get to know something about it or even comprehend it until it *is* up and running. At least I can't. I specifically bought RedHat as a distro so I could get help from another human. But they only help you install and after that you are on your own. If you then call and ask how to shut off things, they won't help at all, because they "only help with installation"...It's astonishingly user-hostile, compared to the proprietary software world. I'm puzzled as to how they plan to make their business work out, unless they just don't care about individual users and are focused solely on businesses. Maybe it costs too much to help users and that's why they draw the line where they do.
Having griped until I feel better, I think it's important to say this: that the whole point of Gnu/Linux is to eventually know what you are doing. You can't just make it totally click and point and still have the real value of Gnu/Linux. I understand that and am willing to do my time to get the knowledge base I need. But what we really need is help at the beginning to get started and set up, safely. And newbies need to be able to ask questions, specific questions, from someone who knows, because the documentation is never exactly your distro or your situation. Plus there will never be a manual that explains everything to everyone well, with no need for questions. Proprietary software folks know that and set up for it. I mention this because of all the comments about how annoying newbie questions are. Questions are how you learn.
So why not set up a site where newbie questions can be asked and answered? Not just with FAQs, but with a way to email a question. Dell has a great system for that. You do get a FAQ as your first answer, and usually that's enough because they are so thorough (as in "check to make sure your computer is plugged in") and well-written, but if you still need help, you can write back and get it. That way we newbies won't ruin things by asking stupid questions anywhere else. And if we stray off the reservation and ask a question in the wrong venue, you can just point us to that site. It's clear from all the comments that no such site currently exists. Again, speaking for myself, I absolutely volunteer to help anyone who sets up such a site. Just post where to go and I'll be there, seriously committed.
Why? Because I have lived it and know how great the need is for this. And because though I never intended to study computer science, and shouldn't have to go too far down that road before I can use an OS, I understand that open/free is valuable and would gladly contribute what I can.
I also understand that there is a chasm between newbies and programmers and we speak and think in different ways, so what helps *you* with no trouble is hard for me. On the other hand, you probably don't know much about the law, and I work in that field. I can usually read a judge's ruling and know what it means, while you might be puzzled, because you don't know the lingo and lack experience in the field and so would need to ask someone what it all means. Even smart people need to ask for explanations in a field that isn't their own. You could see that clearly when the media was thrashing about with court rulings in the recent US election. Just clueless and misleading coverage as a result. If the person you asked for an explanation answered: "Just read the law", would that help? I say no, because you lack the knowledge to understand what the law means and how it works out in real life. It's no different with computer knowledge. We do need help understanding what it all means and how it works out in real life because we lack the background and experience to get it on our own. Most of us also lack the time and the interest to actually learn how to program. Should that be required to use Gnu/Linux? If not, then where is that helping hand for us Windows refugees?
So, how about it? Anyone?
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ It's aptly named, and you can download. I had no background in computing but was determined to learn Linux, and I thrashed around for a long time trying to understand it and was about to give up when a techie at RedHat told me about linuxnewbie.org. After that, it was a pleasure. Why? Because they tell you what to do when things go wrong. And they always do if you have no background in computing. I simply love this site. It's written in my language as opposed to technical-speak, so I can learn. After this site, I could read the other help manuals and make some sense out of them.
I noted on your site, you offer software under a BSD license and have posted the following restriction: "I've put up some source code here for all who are interested. Everything here is under the BSD License, which means that you're free to do almost anything with it except change the license."
What kind of hypocrisy is this talk about "freedom"? Your upset because you can't use his software to enhance your own and make money off his work? Is he not free? Everyone should be free but him? He has to take his own creation and do what you want with it? If you don't like his license, make your own software, use any other license you like, and leave rms in peace. He isn't bothering you...just saying what you can do with his own stuff. That ought to be right up your alley, since you say the same thing about yours.
All the rms bashing is very puzzling. What is it *really* about? I hope you think that over. What the man has done is extraordinary. Just compare his site with your own (nothing mean-spirited in what I am writing intended...just truthful). Is it an American thing, to attack whoever accomplishes something? Whatever one thinks of him and his foundation, he/it/they have produced a body of work that even you wish you could use...of course he has set it up so that you can't use it and then shut it off to others who want to use it down the road, and that annoys you, but I wish you'd just leave the poor guy alone. He is also a human being, you know. No doubt he reads some of this type of thing occasionally. This endless bashing is his reward for nearly two decades of effort? If I'm sick of reading it, how must he feel? And yet he persists...
Come on...enough, already. Go your own way, but let him alone to do the same. He will go down in history, without a doubt. Will you? If the honest answer is: No, then maybe a little humility is in order. Has it occurred to you maybe you don't really understand the legal purpose of the GPL? IMO,it is the legal foundation stone on which everything was built and, more importantly, maintained and protected. Look past your nose and you'll get it. Your characterization of his views isn't a bit accurate, by the way. I also think it is strange that your site says on the homepage that your software is both Free and Open. Hmmm. I think it'd be good if you'd take a longer gander at his site.
And for all the people who endlessly post "he's a communist", he's stated publicly he isn't...so what is *that* all about?
I am currently trying to switch to GNU/Linux precisely because Windows has so many similar "features" running behind your back. Isn't it precisely because Windows builds in abilities to network info that viruses are so easy? Why, then, isn't the OS X just a new enabler? What am I missing here?
Is there a way to turn all the data amassing features off? Is NetInfo just on the server version? Why can't someone crack in and find out all your passwords, where you've been, etc.?
If you can turn it off or bypass...pls. explain in detail, with specifics.
Thanks.
First, if you go to an article in the Village Voice, linked to on the "for the ban" page linked to in the original story, you find some hilarious examples of notes that have been posted on the web...for pay. Here's an example, notes from a class on Hamlet:
"FROM STUDY24-7.COM: Boston University English: Hamlet--Act II, III (Part V)
"ACT III, SCENE 1
"The 1st soliloquoy [sic]--can't commit suicide *damned
"The 2nd soliloquoy--maybe it was the Devil to damn me
"The 3rd soliloquoy--To be or not to be (kill myself?)
"Constantly mentioning conscience
"How does this and "enterprises of great pitch & moment" fit into suicide?
"Enterprises = momentous acions [sic]."
This and similar gems here: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0003/hussey-mcp herson.shtml
Looks like you're better off going to class.
Secondly, according to the article in the Voice, VC companies are hiring college kids, getting them to stay up late typing and posting lecture notes on the web. Then the copyright on the notes belongs not to the kid, who has to sign them away to the company in order to get paid, not to the professor, but to the company. The student gets a fee. The professor gets nothing (except maybe humiliated, along with the University, when he sees the above as a reflection of what he taught.)
Here's a segment from the article, explaining the process:
"More than 10 online companies now offer free notes for thousands of lectures in over 100 universities and colleges. These ventures, the largest being StudentU.com and Versity.com, recruit 'campus team leaders' or 'campus operations managers' from the student body, who then locate notetakers and market the service on campus. Trained by the company, notetakers have an average GPA of 3.0, must post lecture notes within 24 hours (and arrange for a substitute scribe if they fall ill), and relinquish any claims to copyright, all for a paycheck. (StudentU will pay $400 per semester in spring 2000; Versity pays a per-lecture fee of $8 to $12 an hour.)
"'It beats waiting tables or bartending on the weekends. It's not a lot of money, but it helped me live in a nicer apartment. I'm earning money while I study and am helping my classmates,' says Phillips, who earned $600 last semester."
Assuming the above facts are true, the purpose of bill appears to be to try to address these issues. Barlow wrote once that if *anyone* were going to make money from his writing, he certainly felt it ought to be him. The bill is saying exactly the same thing, namely that the professor, not the school, not a VC company, owns the copyright. Actually, the professor already does own the copyright. The bill just says what will happen if someone infringes it. The professor's free to give it away, GPL it, whatever. Students can still share notes, for free, with their friends. At least this is my understanding.
If I posted something clueless about coding, you'd probably get annoyed and express it, and rightly so, because I don't know enough to sound off around this group on that subject. The point is, I *know* I don't. But when it comes to legal issues, there's more, lots more, to it than meets the eye on first impression. I'm not saying don't think and read and post...just realize that there's depths to the field, just like in your field, and take the time -- and it does take time --to really understand the law. I wish /. would hire a lawyer to help with this kind of story. Then we could all use our Fridays nights better than we did tonight.
What's new about an ebook is: text and graphics and sound and video all together. If you have read "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud, you'll know what I mean. If not, by all means read it and connect the dots.
Also here's a site that can take you some places you've never been: http://www.eliterature.org
Try especially some of Rob Wittig's wonderfully inventive stuff, which you can link to from eliterature.org and I think you'll change your mind about whether the net has resulted in innovative writing.
There is an entirely new artform being born...don't miss it.
For anyone interested in reading what some of them have to say, you can go to IEEE-USA (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) site on UCITA: www.ieeeusa.org/grassroots/ucita/index.html or to www.4cite.org or to Cem Kaner, Esq.'s page at www.badsoftware.com. (The latter site is down for a bit because of changing ISPs.) There is also a very thorough list of links on this subject here:http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/ucitapg.html
All the above folks do understand the law.
As for the discussion here, my point was that choice-of-law clauses do matter. Nothing you said changes that truth. We're not here to argue the virtues or flaws of UCITA at the moment. I think it's quite clear that it does matter what state contracts are enforced in, which is precisely why companies like to choose the state. As an IP lawyer, I'm sure you would agree at least to that.
My chief point was that people who criticize Richard Stallman for being so "picky" and "dogmatic" don't realize that he is clearly aware of these legal issues and is trying to respond within the framework of the current legal system...which he didn't write but must make use of. All the attacks on him and imputing of wrong motives to him because of his stand are amazingly off-base. In other words, though folks could argue back and forth on whether a UCITA state such as Virginia is a better forum (as is implied by your saying that UCITA's provisions are "better than prior law" ... if that were true, then the logical thing would be to want to choose that state), the fact remains that choice-of-law clauses do matter and so Stallman's position in this case is based on reality and not on some power trip.
Here's the final paragraph of the interview, from: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09 -07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
"GVR:The sad thing is that all of this is based on technicalities: Stallman agrees that Python is free software, but a technicality in the licenses prevents compatibility. The choice of law clause in the CNRI license, which is causing the incompatibility, is very common is software licenses, and CNRI doesn't want to drop it because the validity of the general disclaimers in the license may depend on it. At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL. Even though the state of Virginia does no such thing!"
Oh, no? Here are a few excerpts from Virginia's UCITA law, which goes into effect in July 2001, I believe, and the link where you can read the whole thing, if you wish:
" 59.1-501.5(b) If a term of a contract violates a fundamental public policy, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the impermissible term, or limit the application of the impermissible term so as to avoid a result contrary to public policy, in each case to the extent that the interest in enforcement is clearly outweighed by a public policy against enforcement of the term."
Later the law adds this:
" 59.1-501.13. (2) The limitations on enforceability imposed by unconscionability under 59.1-501.11 and fundamental public policy under 59.1-501.5 (b) may not be varied by agreement."
and then this:
" 59.1-501.14(c) Whether a term is conspicuous or is unenforceable under 59.1-501.5 (a) or (b), 59.1-501.11, or 59.1-502.9 (a) and whether an attribution procedure is commercially reasonable or effective under 59.1-501.8, 59.1-502.12, or 59.1-502.13 are questions to be determined by the court."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+fu l+SB372ER
What I understand this to mean is that you can enter into any contract you want with whatever license terms you choose, but if the court feels it violates public policy in Virginia, and your opponent had the foresight to include a choice of law clause specifying Virginia, the court can elect to throw out your contract or license... So...do choice-of-law clauses matter?
And is Stallman crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
http://www.agorics.com/cancun.html
"That said, if you or somebody you know has code in KDE whose copyright we really are violating, please speak up and send an email to kde@kde.org so that we may fix the issue. In case of doubt, we have compiled three documents: one listing all modules in KDE and the license it follows[2], one listing all copyright holders in all code inside of the KDE CVS[3], and one with all copyright holders email addresses[4] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00062 .html
[2] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/l icensing.html
[3] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/c opyright-lines.html
[4] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/e mail-addresses.html."
IANAL, but I am a paralegal and I do understand this issue of copyright. What Stallman wrote was *legally* correct...forgiven is a legal term and that's how he used it. And by attaching the paragraph quoted above, KDE is responding correctly under the current legal system by asking all to contact them. In short, Stallman was right to point out this legal issue and all the rest is just emotions. He is super correct on legal things involving the GPL. And in today's legal climate, he is sooooo right to be careful of copyright issues. Remember the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, folks?
Whether he could say it better is another issue, and considering everything involved, a lesser one, IMO.