I originally read that as TRekkies. I spent the next few lines wondering what he had against Star Trek fans. (maybe he's just against Shatner... that would work either way)
The parent post's editing word "met" out of the clause "girl I had recently met" leaves quite a different impression. I actually had to back up to re-read the original post to make sure of what was originally said.
Not just insightful, but brilliant, because Europe is in control of the HTTP protocol the same way the US is in control of the internet root servers.
But I don't hear anyone in the US screaming about the European control of HTTP. Except perhaps Microsoft, but they don't complain.... they just Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
I think the internet definitely shouldn't be in the hands of a single government.
But "the internet" isn't in the hands of a single government. Each country has its own TLD to do with what it wishes. If people dont want to go to foo.co.UK, and instead prefer to go to foo.com, then it is a marketing issue. For that matter, with IPV6, there are enough addresses to give each country its own block and let them assign them however they want. (That would make it simpler to filter with too!)
I hate to sound this way, but as I recall "The Internet" was invented, etc. here in the US, and this is why US organizations are in control of it. (Not that advances haven't come from everywhere around the world, but the original addressing system and naming system started here.)
If the UN wants to control/tax/etc. the network, let them design their own protocol, with its own addressing system etc. (IPv8 anyone?) If there is ever anything worth while on it, I am sure that somebody will create a gateway to it, at which point the appropriate taxes, etc. can be collected.
Nothing against being safe, and sure in your safety. But, with one notable exception, as long as you don't copy code into your product you should be as safe running/developing on Linux, as you feel you are on Windows or MacOSX.
The exception is that you DO need to understand the licencing status of the libraries that you link into. Even that isn't much different from windows, etc. If you are using somebodies library to provide additional functionality, you need to be sure you can legally redistribute that library (or its runtime loader etc.) This is why most of the libraries in linux are released under the LGPL, which removes much of the viral aspects that you seem to fear.
As a lousy example, but one that I can speak for personally, I co-published a reference cd-rom a few years ago. The documents were all distributed as PDFs. In order to put the Acrobat viewer on our CD we paid Adobe $150 for a licence to redistribute the viewer. People could download it free, but the licence was worth it to make the cd self-contained. (This was '99, before you could assume that most everybody will have or be able to get the reader independantly.)
"...recently evaluated SugarCRM for use with an internal system we are building."
Since you are building an internal system, you are not required to do anything by the GPL anyway. As long as you don't distribute it externally, you can keep whatever secrets you want.
IIRC, Sveasoft cleared their current distribution policy with the FSF. In other words, just because you may not like it doesn't mean that it is violating.
For those who don't know, Sveasoft charges for support and access to their latest product. Under the GPL you are legally allowed to redistribute said GPL'd Sveasoft product, however doing so cancels your support contract with Sveasoft (and access to the latest from Sveasoft).
I believe that this hinges on the point that while you are required to provide source to anyone who you distribute a binary to, you are not necessarily required to provide binary to anybody in general.
But I'm very concerned with people being misinformed about the law and trying to be law abiding and nevertheless stumbling into violations. And even more than that, I think that it's important for people to know just how bad the law is right now, lest they not see the need for reform so that they can lawfully engage in the sorts of activities they'd like. (Of course, the proper reform would be internal;...
I found your discussion enlightening, Thank you. It leads me to ponder a couple of things that I find troublesome (above the rest) in your cited cases.
You quote that the law distinguishes between a copy which is tangible, vs. one which is transitory. (I assume that a transitory copy would be something like a radio reciever which reproduces the original audio extracted from the electromagnetic radio signal.) You then cite that the courts have held that the act of reading software (or data) from a disk to RAM is a tangible copy. While I have no problem with the tangibility of a hard drive platter, volitile RAM seems rather transitory to me. (flash, etc. would be more akin to the HD of course)
From this it would seem like a reasonible first step would be to lobby congress to define volitle RAM as transitory. It seems like this could help remedy many wrongs regarding EULAs, accessing web sites, etc. some of which you cited specifically.
or is this too simplistic, and I am misunderstanding....
OK, I have several cards in my wallet (Mastercard, Discover, AmEx). Assuming they all follow Visa's lead and incorporate this contactless tech., what happens when I wave my wallet with all three cards in it? Which card responds? is there a race condition?
I assume the terminal will only charge one card, but if I have to take the card out to make sure the preferred one registers, I might as well swipe it.
I am still steamed that Microsoft sucessfully (?) hijacked the term in the first place. Considering that it is a internet standard TLD designatator for network domains (originally... now just another TLD) it would seem that it should be off limits for trademark use as regards to computers.
Remember, trademarks are specific to a particular industry, and involve whether customer confusion would result. For example, it would be no problem if a fishing supplies manufacturer created a new fish harvesting device and trademarked it as the ".NET" fishing net, because that is in a different industry. But if I created software.net domain it now sounds like it MAY have something to do with MS's.NET due to it being in the same or related industry.
Put another way, I could not trademark "facial tissue" because it is a generic term. For similar reasons, "Kleenex (R)" has to try very hard to keep its trademark from becomming a generic term, or risk losing it altogether.
Michigan's version of the Use Tax actually requires you to pay the 6% on any item which wasn't sales taxed at an equal (or higher) rate. So, if you bought something in another state and paid only 4% sales tax, you are supposed to pay an additional 6% to Michigan. (for a total of 10%!!!)
IIRC, the international treaty that we are currently "harmonized" with, forbids having a registration requirement. I think the reasoning that the copyright is automatic is so that you don't have to re-register in every country to be able to be protected.
As someone else pointed out, the areas in Fl which have the optical scans tended to be the more rural areas, which tended to vote Bush across the whole country.
Remember that just because somebody registers as a Democrat/Republican/etc. doesn't mean that they will vote that way. Here in SE Michigan, Monroe specifically, there was a large voting block known as the Regan Democrats, just because even though they were registered Dems. they voted overwhelmingly for Reagan. My in-laws are very strong conservatives, but registered democrat for a while, because then they could vote in the democrat primary. They wanted a say in who the opposition was going to be.
If you want to talk about exit-polls, My parents won't even tell me who they vote for, do you really think they are going to tell a stranger outside the polls. In their case it is a matter of principle, they say. I have been given a similar impression about other people in their generation. In other cases I can see where, in a high crime / gang area, one might not want to attract attention for voting the "wrong" way.
I have been called for a pre-election poll, and the questions were far from "who are you voting for?" They were more like, "How do you feel about the current policy to [something negative]?" "Kerry has suggested that he would do [something positive], do you agree with this?" and only after 10 or so of these rather leading questions did they get to "Who are you going to vote for?" The obvious point was to try to sway my final answer, not to get an honest response.
The psychology journal page will behave erratically as it falls.
The home-decorating page will form into a lovely table centerpiece as it falls.
The sports page will arc through the air and land in a round waste-basket making a swoosh sound as it does so.
The paranormal journal page will either vanish in midflight or will hover with no visible means of support for a short time before it suddenly accellerates horizontaly making several sharp course changes before disappearing from sight.
Carburators have a float bowl which holds a relatively small amount amount of fuel. If the car is a manual, the grandparent post would be correct; the engine would continue turning due to being driven by the wheels, and fuel delivered by the venturi in the carb. could damage the catalytic converter.
Of course, if the car has a manual transmission, one could depress the clutch (neutral), or even better, after killing the engine, use the engine compression to assist braking.
Note as well, just because one doesn't have POWER brakes or POWER steering, doesn't mean you can't brake or steer. It only means that you have to work a bit harder at it.
It amazes me how often, when in a panic situation, people simply give up. (trying to steer, trying to brake, trying to think, etc.) What ever happened to "fight or flight?" Many seem to instead "play dead," which is often a self-fulfilling action.
Although I doubt that Microsoft would want the negative press that surrounds the critical bugs, it does make a convenient way to create forced obsolesence; have a 'vulnerability' that is only discovered after you have EOLed a particular version.
For example, "Gee, you can keep using win95/office97/etc., but we are no longer releasing security updates, so you are likely to get a virus or worm, if you do."
The original author always retains the right to do whatever he wants with his code. He can sell it, provide binaries without code, or anything else, even if he had previously released it under the GPL.
The problem only creeps in when the author accepts code submissions from others; what is the licence regarding that additional code?
This is exactly why the FSF insists that when you contribute to a FSF project that you give the original author/maintainer full rights to your contributed code. That way they never need to contact you to should issues surrounding licencing arise. (in other words, you gave them the code, no strings attached)
Of course none of this applies if the original author is linking/using preexisting GPL'd code in his new project. Then, the whole thing must be released.
It's a major security problem when people download
untrusted winamp skins on IRC.
The issue that I have with this is the lack of separation between data and code. I know that "skins" can be more than just a bitmap that gets applied to the window background, but why do they need to be? To begin with I don't see the need for the skin for an application to be able to execute code. Keep the data in the skin limited to a few bitmaps, tagged as to what they should be applied to.
I guess I am thinking like 'mod' files for the original Doom series (haven't messed with quake or later...), sure you could instruct it to place the walls in goofy places, and make them look different, but you couldn't give your character the ability to fly, etc. because you weren't writing code to be executed; you were only supplying data that the existing code would reference.
I reserve the right to be stupid about this, but it seems so simple.... so I might be missing something.
It is not legal to FORCE people to give up rights when merely using a product in a normal and expected way.
Perhaps true, but given the level of detailed work that IBM is doing with/for/to Linux I think it would be hard for IBM to claim that they didn't know and willingly allow the "infringing" code.(particularly so due to the SCO issue) Such contributions are a bit outside of "using a product in a normal and expected way."
Also remember, you do not need to agree to the GPL to use, only to distribute.
even simultaneous development in isolation is infringing, if they patent it first.
True, unless the item being patented was published prior to the patent application date. (IIRC. however there are all sorts of time limits that may come in here, as well as legal tricks involving revisions to the patent etc. that I admit are fuzzy to me). The big question is whether source code distributed on a web site would count as "published", historically this referred to a book or journal, or at least something a bit more tangible than a web site.
I wonder how many of the potentially infringing patents were granted after the patentented item was in the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
I originally read that as TRekkies. I spent the next few lines wondering what he had against Star Trek fans. (maybe he's just against Shatner... that would work either way)
The parent post's editing word "met" out of the clause "girl I had recently met" leaves quite a different impression. I actually had to back up to re-read the original post to make sure of what was originally said.
I hate to sound this way, but as I recall "The Internet" was invented, etc. here in the US, and this is why US organizations are in control of it. (Not that advances haven't come from everywhere around the world, but the original addressing system and naming system started here.)
If the UN wants to control/tax/etc. the network, let them design their own protocol, with its own addressing system etc. (IPv8 anyone?) If there is ever anything worth while on it, I am sure that somebody will create a gateway to it, at which point the appropriate taxes, etc. can be collected.
The exception is that you DO need to understand the licencing status of the libraries that you link into. Even that isn't much different from windows, etc. If you are using somebodies library to provide additional functionality, you need to be sure you can legally redistribute that library (or its runtime loader etc.) This is why most of the libraries in linux are released under the LGPL, which removes much of the viral aspects that you seem to fear.
As a lousy example, but one that I can speak for personally, I co-published a reference cd-rom a few years ago. The documents were all distributed as PDFs. In order to put the Acrobat viewer on our CD we paid Adobe $150 for a licence to redistribute the viewer. People could download it free, but the licence was worth it to make the cd self-contained. (This was '99, before you could assume that most everybody will have or be able to get the reader independantly.)
Since you are building an internal system, you are not required to do anything by the GPL anyway. As long as you don't distribute it externally, you can keep whatever secrets you want.
IIRC, Sveasoft cleared their current distribution policy with the FSF. In other words, just because you may not like it doesn't mean that it is violating.
For those who don't know, Sveasoft charges for support and access to their latest product. Under the GPL you are legally allowed to redistribute said GPL'd Sveasoft product, however doing so cancels your support contract with Sveasoft (and access to the latest from Sveasoft).
I believe that this hinges on the point that while you are required to provide source to anyone who you distribute a binary to, you are not necessarily required to provide binary to anybody in general.
I found your discussion enlightening, Thank you. It leads me to ponder a couple of things that I find troublesome (above the rest) in your cited cases.
You quote that the law distinguishes between a copy which is tangible, vs. one which is transitory. (I assume that a transitory copy would be something like a radio reciever which reproduces the original audio extracted from the electromagnetic radio signal.) You then cite that the courts have held that the act of reading software (or data) from a disk to RAM is a tangible copy. While I have no problem with the tangibility of a hard drive platter, volitile RAM seems rather transitory to me. (flash, etc. would be more akin to the HD of course)
From this it would seem like a reasonible first step would be to lobby congress to define volitle RAM as transitory. It seems like this could help remedy many wrongs regarding EULAs, accessing web sites, etc. some of which you cited specifically.
or is this too simplistic, and I am misunderstanding....
OK, I have several cards in my wallet (Mastercard, Discover, AmEx). Assuming they all follow Visa's lead and incorporate this contactless tech., what happens when I wave my wallet with all three cards in it? Which card responds? is there a race condition?
I assume the terminal will only charge one card, but if I have to take the card out to make sure the preferred one registers, I might as well swipe it.
I've heard, and witnessed, that the bag trick works to get a fussy card to read. I've also seen it done with a folded piece of paper around the card.
What I dont understand is why it works. Does anybody out there know?
I am still steamed that Microsoft sucessfully (?) hijacked the term in the first place. Considering that it is a internet standard TLD designatator for network domains (originally... now just another TLD) it would seem that it should be off limits for trademark use as regards to computers.
.NET due to it being in the same or related industry.
Remember, trademarks are specific to a particular industry, and involve whether customer confusion would result. For example, it would be no problem if a fishing supplies manufacturer created a new fish harvesting device and trademarked it as the ".NET" fishing net, because that is in a different industry. But if I created software.net domain it now sounds like it MAY have something to do with MS's
Put another way, I could not trademark "facial tissue" because it is a generic term. For similar reasons, "Kleenex (R)" has to try very hard to keep its trademark from becomming a generic term, or risk losing it altogether.
Michigan's version of the Use Tax actually requires you to pay the 6% on any item which wasn't sales taxed at an equal (or higher) rate. So, if you bought something in another state and paid only 4% sales tax, you are supposed to pay an additional 6% to Michigan. (for a total of 10%!!!)
Grrrrrrr......
IIRC, the international treaty that we are currently "harmonized" with, forbids having a registration requirement. I think the reasoning that the copyright is automatic is so that you don't have to re-register in every country to be able to be protected.
Let me see...
.53 rounds to 1, and 1 = 100/100 = 100%
53% = 53/100 = 0.53
IIRC, anything >=.5 is supposed to be rounded up,
therefore
QED
(It just depends on what precision you are rounding to!)
I don't know whether she does or not, but the person whose phone you just listed may not care for the slashdotting asking for Joan.
Ok, I'll bite...
As someone else pointed out, the areas in Fl which have the optical scans tended to be the more rural areas, which tended to vote Bush across the whole country.
Remember that just because somebody registers as a Democrat/Republican/etc. doesn't mean that they will vote that way. Here in SE Michigan, Monroe specifically, there was a large voting block known as the Regan Democrats, just because even though they were registered Dems. they voted overwhelmingly for Reagan. My in-laws are very strong conservatives, but registered democrat for a while, because then they could vote in the democrat primary. They wanted a say in who the opposition was going to be.
If you want to talk about exit-polls, My parents won't even tell me who they vote for, do you really think they are going to tell a stranger outside the polls. In their case it is a matter of principle, they say. I have been given a similar impression about other people in their generation. In other cases I can see where, in a high crime / gang area, one might not want to attract attention for voting the "wrong" way.
I have been called for a pre-election poll, and the questions were far from "who are you voting for?" They were more like, "How do you feel about the current policy to [something negative]?" "Kerry has suggested that he would do [something positive], do you agree with this?" and only after 10 or so of these rather leading questions did they get to "Who are you going to vote for?" The obvious point was to try to sway my final answer, not to get an honest response.
Those are easy....
The psychology journal page will behave erratically as it falls.
The home-decorating page will form into a lovely table centerpiece as it falls.
The sports page will arc through the air and land in a round waste-basket making a swoosh sound as it does so.
The paranormal journal page will either vanish in midflight or will hover with no visible means of support for a short time before it suddenly accellerates horizontaly making several sharp course changes before disappearing from sight.
Carburators have a float bowl which holds a relatively small amount amount of fuel. If the car is a manual, the grandparent post would be correct; the engine would continue turning due to being driven by the wheels, and fuel delivered by the venturi in the carb. could damage the catalytic converter.
Of course, if the car has a manual transmission, one could depress the clutch (neutral), or even better, after killing the engine, use the engine compression to assist braking.
Note as well, just because one doesn't have POWER brakes or POWER steering, doesn't mean you can't brake or steer. It only means that you have to work a bit harder at it.
It amazes me how often, when in a panic situation, people simply give up. (trying to steer, trying to brake, trying to think, etc.) What ever happened to "fight or flight?" Many seem to instead "play dead," which is often a self-fulfilling action.
Although I doubt that Microsoft would want the negative press that surrounds the critical bugs, it does make a convenient way to create forced obsolesence; have a 'vulnerability' that is only discovered after you have EOLed a particular version.
For example, "Gee, you can keep using win95/office97/etc., but we are no longer releasing security updates, so you are likely to get a virus or worm, if you do."
Perhaps I missed it but did anyone else find a price (even in oem qtys) for this device?
The problem only creeps in when the author accepts code submissions from others; what is the licence regarding that additional code?
This is exactly why the FSF insists that when you contribute to a FSF project that you give the original author/maintainer full rights to your contributed code. That way they never need to contact you to should issues surrounding licencing arise. (in other words, you gave them the code, no strings attached)
Of course none of this applies if the original author is linking/using preexisting GPL'd code in his new project. Then, the whole thing must be released.
I guess I am thinking like 'mod' files for the original Doom series (haven't messed with quake or later...), sure you could instruct it to place the walls in goofy places, and make them look different, but you couldn't give your character the ability to fly, etc. because you weren't writing code to be executed; you were only supplying data that the existing code would reference.
I reserve the right to be stupid about this, but it seems so simple.... so I might be missing something.
Perhaps true, but given the level of detailed work that IBM is doing with/for/to Linux I think it would be hard for IBM to claim that they didn't know and willingly allow the "infringing" code.(particularly so due to the SCO issue) Such contributions are a bit outside of "using a product in a normal and expected way."
Also remember, you do not need to agree to the GPL to use, only to distribute.
I wonder how many of the potentially infringing patents were granted after the patentented item was in the kernel.