From press release: "key applications in computational mechanics, battlefield weather forecasting, and biological process modeling that are of great importance to the defense of the United States"
The military isn't allowed to HAVE biological weapons, so they're going to COMPUTE biological weapons instead.
Let's see... We know that NSA sponsored SELinux; which you can download from them. I understand that many people have checked it out and found no backdoors. Why would an agency with the job of breaking into people's computers help write a version of Linux you can't break into?
If I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3 how am I supposed to know whether the copyright holder wishes to freely distribute the work or not? If you require that the copyright holder explicitly tell you it is alright to copy the work then this is an infrigement of that person's right to speak. (Especially so when that speech is a direct political attack upon the notion of Intellectual Property.)
Most of the places I've worked the developers would've killed you if you touched their machines (and I would have been at the lead of the lynch mob). Some of them 'might' have let someone help them move the machine from office to office, if they knew the other person carnally.
Take, for example descramble ( http://www.joeysmith.com/~jwecker/descramble.mp3 ). There is no way in principle to know whether Joesph Wecker wishes to distribute this song freely or not, and I have not asked him. If you download this song you don't know if you are supporting his free speech right to be heard or you are violating his copyright.
It certainly isn't his responsibility to announce that it is ok for you to download this song. Requiring this of him would be a violation of his right to free speech. Copyright, as you have presented it (which for the sake of argument I will accept as the current state of affairs) gives me pause about whether to download the song or not. If Joe does in fact want to be heard then his free speech right to be heard has been chilled. This is clearly unconstitutional.
(Ignore, for the case of this example, the fact that Joesph Wecker is Australian. ALso, I'll figure out how to do URLs on/. some other day...)
If you're downloading something how are you supposed to know whether the copyrigbt holder wants you to download it or not? If the copyright holder is fine with your copying it then it would be a violation of their free speech to require them to tell you. This leaves the responsibility to the people who don't want you to copy it.
Seems to me that if a recording doesn't start out with an announcement of its' copyright restrictions then you cannot know whether you have done anything wrong, and that therefore you cannot be shown to have had intent to infringe.
Forget the license. Just hit SCO where it hurts -- their employees. Find every way you can to make the employees leave the company. It probably doesn't help to attack the employee personally. Be nice to the employee while making it very clear they ought to find a new job.
Look for every path to a real person you can find, and tell them to get out while the getting is good.
Is there a clause in the GPL which states this? Perhaps, but I don't remember one. I suspect that the long-term legacy of this bull will be just such a clause in the next release of the GPL.
"I cannot imagine any court of law ruling that, for example, you lose the license to Samba because you violate the license of transcode, merely because the two products' licenses happen to have the same text (the GPL) and are otherwise unrelated."
Hmmm... I haven't read the GPL in quite awhile, but I don't think there's a clause to stop them in it. Time for a new version?
There's little doubt that if a license says that when you violate the terms of the license you lose all license rights to any software with the same license then the courts would uphold the clause. (Exact wording to be determined...)
Slashdot Mirror
how do you determine when you are listening to somone's intellectual property and when you are listening to someone's free speech?
From press release: "key applications in computational mechanics, battlefield weather forecasting, and biological process modeling that are of great importance to the defense of the United States"
The military isn't allowed to HAVE biological weapons, so they're going to COMPUTE biological weapons instead.
Let's see... We know that NSA sponsored SELinux; which you can download from them. I understand that many people have checked it out and found no backdoors. Why would an agency with the job of breaking into people's computers help write a version of Linux you can't break into?
How about selling advertising? Subscribing is such a pain.
If I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3 how am I supposed to know whether the copyright holder wishes to freely distribute the work or not? If you require that the copyright holder explicitly tell you it is alright to copy the work then this is an infrigement of that person's right to speak. (Especially so when that speech is a direct political attack upon the notion of Intellectual Property.)
".. if i post here including my copyright, and somebody answers cutti"
I don't know. If you read my message can I sue you?
Most of that $8,250,000 was paid by Microsoft.
Read the complaint in Pacific Bell v. RIAA http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA.pdf where one of the defendents a Titan, a porno shop.
The movie industry is in California. This decision is by the Calafornia Supreme court.
There's no connection at all, right?
It's been done. Even better are the songs, such as Joesph Wecker's descramble.
Most of the places I've worked the developers would've killed you if you touched their machines (and I would have been at the lead of the lynch mob). Some of them 'might' have let someone help them move the machine from office to office, if they knew the other person carnally.
Wow! What a ploy for taking over the world! That'll put us colonials back into the can.
I have this picture of the worm writer sitting at home reading slashdot.
Keep working on it. We'll get a really good design for him before too long.
Take, for example descramble ( http://www.joeysmith.com/~jwecker/descramble.mp3 ). There is no way in principle to know whether Joesph Wecker wishes to distribute this song freely or not, and I have not asked him. If you download this song you don't know if you are supporting his free speech right to be heard or you are violating his copyright.
/. some other day...)
It certainly isn't his responsibility to announce that it is ok for you to download this song. Requiring this of him would be a violation of his right to free speech. Copyright, as you have presented it (which for the sake of argument I will accept as the current state of affairs) gives me pause about whether to download the song or not. If Joe does in fact want to be heard then his free speech right to be heard has been chilled. This is clearly unconstitutional.
(Ignore, for the case of this example, the fact that Joesph Wecker is Australian. ALso, I'll figure out how to do URLs on
If you're downloading something how are you supposed to know whether the copyrigbt holder wants you to download it or not? If the copyright holder is fine with your copying it then it would be a violation of their free speech to require them to tell you. This leaves the responsibility to the people who don't want you to copy it.
Seems to me that if a recording doesn't start out with an announcement of its' copyright restrictions then you cannot know whether you have done anything wrong, and that therefore you cannot be shown to have had intent to infringe.
What PRO-SCO stuff?
It's time to kill the company.
/. the company top to bottom.
Locate every employee of the company you can and nicely tell them that now is a good time to find another job.
I'll believe you. The stuff makes sense.
The only problem I have is that Darth Vader is doing it.
It wouldn't work, but the results sure would be funny.
Forget the license. Just hit SCO where it hurts -- their employees. Find every way you can to make the employees leave the company. It probably doesn't help to attack the employee personally. Be nice to the employee while making it very clear they ought to find a new job.
Look for every path to a real person you can find, and tell them to get out while the getting is good.
Go to the SCO support page and then to the bug reporting system and tell them to find a new job while there's still time.
Evil spammer.
let's just have us a lynching.
It's easy. You start out with a protest at the SCO headquarters. Things get a little out of control. A few SCO execs get strung up. No one's to blame.
Is there a clause in the GPL which states this? Perhaps, but I don't remember one. I suspect that the long-term legacy of this bull will be just such a clause in the next release of the GPL.
"I cannot imagine any court of law ruling that, for example, you lose the license to Samba because you violate the license of transcode, merely because the two products' licenses happen to have the same text (the GPL) and are otherwise unrelated."
Hmmm... I haven't read the GPL in quite awhile, but I don't think there's a clause to stop them in it. Time for a new version?
There's little doubt that if a license says that when you violate the terms of the license you lose all license rights to any software with the same license then the courts would uphold the clause. (Exact wording to be determined...)