"Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody."
I'm inspired by your slippery logic. Yes Skilling got a sentence on the high end of the scale for a white-collar crime and a person could get less for killing on the low end of the scale. It depends on the details of the crimes. Skilling cheated people on a very large scale so he got a big punishment. So what?
"Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?"
He doesn't see the need for them to violate any regulations but instead to obey them. Nobody but the straw man in your head is interested in creating redundant regulations.
"The point of the GPL is to use copyright to promote freedom until such time as copyright no longer prevents that freedom."
AMY Norville Barnes, you don't know a thing about that woman! You don't know who she really is! And only a numbskull thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about!
later
MOSES "An' only some kind a knucklehead thinks she knows things 'bout things she, uh -- when she don't, uh -- How'd that go?"
I think you'll find that content of the license would be quite relevant should the original author want to take legal action against somebody who he believes is violating the GPL. If the terms of the GPL applied automagically, there'd be no reason to write the GPL in the first place.
The GPL is an agreement between two parties and the fact that it invokes copyright law or wasn't negotiated doesn't change that.
"The intent of the author of the GPL is irrelevant, but not for the reason you say. The intent of the author is irrelevant because the grant of rights is from the copyright holder to the recipient. The intent of the author in releasing his work under the GPL could be relevant."
The intent of the author of the original code is also irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned before.
The GPLv2 author's "intent" is irrelevant in court.
To the extent that a word has not been specifically defined within the license, its common legal meaning will prevail.
The reason is that the license is intended to inform the potential licensee of his rights and restrictions before he agrees to it. If the "intent" was not clearly stated in the license and courts allowed it to apply anyway, the licensee's rights would be violated since he did not know what he was agreeing to.
Eclipse is one of the best Java IDEs there is, but not so great for any other language. Perhaps the designers got distracted by the idea of creating a platform instead of making the best IDE.
No, Microsoft is pretty smart about making money. Paying people to mod down a post on Slashdot that contains "M$" has no business case. There may be a lot of people on Slashdot who avoid using MS products but none of them do so because somebody replaced a "S" with a "$".
Is that really the case if the website was specifically designed for IE? Don't most of the problems occur when you've designed the site without regard to IE and then try to tweak it to make it compatible for IE?
Well, certainly the net has made plagiarism more convenient. As I recall, the problem students had in school wasn't a lack of information but a lack of study.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that's the way it was done for centuries all over the world and look at the result. Crime is unknown now .. oh wait.
"Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody."
I'm inspired by your slippery logic. Yes Skilling got a sentence on the high end of the scale for a white-collar crime and a person could get less for killing on the low end of the scale. It depends on the details of the crimes. Skilling cheated people on a very large scale so he got a big punishment. So what?
"Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?"
He doesn't see the need for them to violate any regulations but instead to obey them. Nobody but the straw man in your head is interested in creating redundant regulations.
"Start taking up responsibility for your own actions."
You mean he outsourced himself? Perhaps you should sober-up before climbing on your high horse.
Somebody makes a claim without supporting documentation and people ask them for it. You're unfamiliar with that convention?
I'm not in the habit of doing other people's research for them.
You haven't answered my questions but as far as Kerberos is concerned, my understanding is that Microsoft's implementation complies with the standard.
Why should implementing TCP/IP be a qualification for designing a new protocol? Were TCP/IP designers implementers of other network stacks?
"The point of the GPL is to use copyright to promote freedom until such time as copyright no longer prevents that freedom."
AMY
Norville Barnes, you don't know a thing about that woman! You don't know who she really is! And only a numbskull thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about!
later
MOSES
"An' only some kind a knucklehead thinks she knows things 'bout things she, uh -- when she don't, uh -- How'd that go?"
I don't need more, just court case citations.
"Often EULAs are legally unenforcable because the restrictions they attempt to create are superceded by statute."
For example?
Sure, it's not as if proprietary developers have ever been scolded on Slashdot.
I think you'll find that content of the license would be quite relevant should the original author want to take legal action against somebody who he believes is violating the GPL. If the terms of the GPL applied automagically, there'd be no reason to write the GPL in the first place.
The GPL is an agreement between two parties and the fact that it invokes copyright law or wasn't negotiated doesn't change that.
"The intent of the author of the GPL is irrelevant, but not for the reason you say. The intent of the author is irrelevant because the grant of rights is from the copyright holder to the recipient. The intent of the author in releasing his work under the GPL could be relevant."
The intent of the author of the original code is also irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned before.
I simply said that the author's intent is irrelevant, which it is.
Only while operating a laptop in a theater.
The GPLv2 author's "intent" is irrelevant in court.
To the extent that a word has not been specifically defined within the license, its common legal meaning will prevail.
The reason is that the license is intended to inform the potential licensee of his rights and restrictions before he agrees to it. If the "intent" was not clearly stated in the license and courts allowed it to apply anyway, the licensee's rights would be violated since he did not know what he was agreeing to.
No, RMS just didn't anticipate the TIVO scenario.
"The judge can only rule on copyright law"
No.
Does your company have a policy that requires you to go to the movies?
Perhaps Eclipse has improved in the last few years but when I used it last for C++ it couldn't even bring you to the definition of a function.
Eclipse is one of the best Java IDEs there is, but not so great for any other language. Perhaps the designers got distracted by the idea of creating a platform instead of making the best IDE.
No, Microsoft is pretty smart about making money. Paying people to mod down a post on Slashdot that contains "M$" has no business case. There may be a lot of people on Slashdot who avoid using MS products but none of them do so because somebody replaced a "S" with a "$".
Is that really the case if the website was specifically designed for IE? Don't most of the problems occur when you've designed the site without regard to IE and then try to tweak it to make it compatible for IE?
Well, certainly the net has made plagiarism more convenient. As I recall, the problem students had in school wasn't a lack of information but a lack of study.
The boy nerds doth protest too much, methinks.