A quad-pumped FSB might make sense, although I doubt that the PM is actually all that memory-hungry, as the old P6s weren't, and neither were the Athlons.
A longer pipeline is virtually the definition of the P4 - it has one of the (if not the) longest pipelines in desktop processors anywhere. A long pipeline is what causes low IPC.
I really doubt that they'll lengthen the PM's pipeline much. Look at the Athlon XP -> Athlon 64 evolution - the pipeline was only stretched by a couple of clock cycles.
This is a curious point for Intel, as processors can't continue to get faster in a simple way - the heat issues are just too large right now. The PM will probably start getting the standard tricks that others are playing - hyperthreading, like the P4s, integrated memory controller, maybe even an L3 cache. But definitely not a long pipeline - that was the P4's mistake.
Do a search for "copper kAm" and you'll find the $20/kAm figure. You're neglecting a ton of the production cost, and considering the *raw* copper cost is just $9/kAm, an additional $10/kAm for the rest of the cable is entirely reasonable. They don't just lay bare copper in the ground, after all. Most of the HTS figures they give show the rest of the cable costing about $10/kAm as well.
The $50/kAm figure for HTS cable is the final cost for the full cable, ready to lay in the ground.
As for the resistance loss vs refrigeration requirements, it's important to remember exactly how cheap liquid nitrogen is. *Very* cheap. In fact, going much higher in temperature really isn't economically important! I haven't seen any figures on "maintenance cost", but considering the resistive losses for copper can be large (at 1000A with the resistance of copper for a 0.8" diameter cable being ~0.02 ohms/1000', you're talking roughly 60W lost per meter) the refrigeration costs are going to be quite manageable.
But it's the recurring cost that's a big deal: at kiloampere levels, the power burned off by copper resistance starts to become more expensive than the cost of cooling. Since superconductors have strictly zero resistance, the cooling cost is fixed as the current scales, whereas it's linear in copper. At some point it becomes more economical.
The problem with high-Tc superconductors is that they have a current limit as well, and it's quite moderate, so the scale isn't quite there yet, when you work out all of the factors involved.
There are other reasons to switch, though: simply physical size: in Detroit, where they're replacing copper with superconducting cable in a few areas, they're replacing 18,000 pounds of copper with 250 pounds of superconductor - they replaced 9 cables with 3, and left 6 empty cable lines. This gives them 3 times the energy capacity without having to dig new cable lines at all.
The capacity issue is really what's been driving cities to replace them, though - digging new power lines, especially in cities, is simply ludicrously expensive, and so any option to replace with higher capacity lines without digging is a win.
So yes, really, they will replace copper with superconductors... and they have, actually. Copenhagen was the first, if memory serves. All of them quoted the capacity increase without digging as being the main reason. Per kA, it's probably more expensive, but the costs savings from not digging will probably make it cheaper over the lifetime of the cable.
Thankfully there are others who aren't as paranoid as you are about physics we don't quite understand theoretically, but do understand phenomenologically, as we already have power lines made out of this stuff.
Here are several press releases about it: Copenhagen, Chicago, and Detroit already are laying high-Tc superconducting cable. They're already in use at Copenhagen. And that was in 2001.
The mass and resistive loss savings by going to superconductors can easily pay for the excess cooling equipment and cost, if the scale is right. And when you're talking about kilo-amperes, that scale is right.
I clarified: "No, I said I WISH I could figure this thing out!"
The look on his face was priceless. "You fucking bastard!" He'd apparently forgotten about giving me the wish earlier, from one of his characters.
Unclever GM. The classic response there is, of course, "OK. You are now capable of figuring this thing out." To be nice, give them a bonus to intelligence or something. Heh.
Or, of course, the classic response...here. (Check the two previous for better examples).
I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?
Cute, but silly - any good experimentalist can put a strong restriction on the existence of a "tooth fairy" (i.e. a being which replaces baby teeth with money) with a simple video camera left up overnight over every child on the planet.
You can then, of course, come up with strange restrictions as to why this didn't work, which can then be further tested, which will lead to weirder restrictions, etc. Basic science.
However the bit with God is entirely different, because the initial postulate (that which created the Universe) is untestable, lacking any other examples. Anything which happens in this Universe must be explainable in terms of this Universe (... duh... basically the definition of 'explainable', basically a reflexive property of the Universe) but the causal connection "why" can't be determined, lacking any other Universes as controls. If you define God as "that which created everything", then it's strictly impossible.
You can't prove or disprove the idea of a God, nor can you even place restrictions on it, because you don't have controls. Basic experiment design.
On Linux, it's a highly manual process, entering WEP keys on the command line.. using seperate tools to scan for access points.. This part totally sucks in Linux today.
Take a look at ifplugd/waproamd: both of those are beautiful, beautiful tools to manage WEP keys and access points. It still needs a GUI to add a new access point, but honestly that's something that could be coded up in less than a day's work.
For me, now, Linux is far, far better at handling the wireless stuff - ifplugd detects the loss of connection, signals to waproamd to start scanning, then immediately pops the connection back up again when I'm in range of an access point that it can connect to (preferentially favoring the ones I've listed).
Windows is a disaster: it constantly "forgets" that if it jumps from one wireless network (work) to another (home), it needs to release/renew the DHCP lease, even if the DHCP lease it had is still valid. The only way I ever manage to get it to work is to do ipconfig/release, ipconfig/renew in a command line. I can imagine trying to explain *that* to a normal Windows user. Linux was definitely the harder of the two to set up, but it's far more of a pleasure to use.
NiMH batteries are actually very low energy density: an alkaline battery has like 3400-4000 mAh (for low discharge currents - an alkaline's main problem is its high internal resistance, which means pathetically low energy density for high discharge currents).
Lithium batteries have the energy density of alkalines (3000 or so mAh), and even higher discharge currents than NiMH, but not rechargable in the AA packages (Yes, lithiums are best for digital cameras).
AAA alkaline and lithiums will easily hold 1000 mAh - without even being well-designed (NiMH AAAs typically hold between 400-700 mAh).
Thus, once your reactor has been running for a few years, all of the inner structure, the lithium tanks and so on, are medium-level radioactive waste.
The thing is that almost all low-Z radioactive nuclei are either violently radioactive with very short half-lives or pathetically radioactive. Basically comes from having so few nucleons - it's difficult to be "mildly" unstable and yet still give off a hefty amount of energy when you decay. Either you're going to fall apart or you're not.
Thus, fusion radioactive waste is not really the same as fission radioactive waste. Fission radioactive waste is eternal, on human timescales, and the radiation level never really goes down. Fusion radioactive waste can just sit somewhere for a few decades, and it's done. Yes, it might be very radioactive - but it has a much, much shorter half-life (years, rather than megayears).
Company X is only allowed to be paid for distributing the application, much like a courier, or to offer warranty insurance. If Company X is "selling" the GPL product, THEY are violating the rights of the copyright holders, who can sue. And what damages might any one of the copyright holders ask for...? Perhaps just "show us your source" - and court costs.
This is correct.
Company X might be "selling" is very expensive ROM or CD media. They can NOT be "selling" the program therein contained using only the the rights granted to them by the GPL. There is then no problem with the consumer re-selling that same physical CD."
This is also correct.
I'm really missing where you're disagreeing with anything I said. There's nothing that requires Company Y to distribute the source code they received from Company X. All they're doing is selling a physical object that they received.
Sale of an object does not imply transfer of copyright. This is a given. But 'right of first sale' does not require a sale - it requires a lawfully made copy, that's all. And it allows you to transfer or dispose of it as you wish.
Otherwise I couldn't throw away a hard drive containing GPLed binaries without the source. Someone else could pick it up, and I wouldn't've been distributing the source with it!
However removing words from the book to form a new message IS a Derived Work subject to "Fair Use". While selling a single altered copy might be fair, buying thousands of books for $10, altering them to make them "better", and selling for $50 would questionably violate the rights of the copyright holder.
Maybe. But no stupid idiot has done this yet, and so right now you can in fact rip out words from a book and sell the altered book. And I would be worried if one tried to restrict fair use and right of first sale because of this possibility.
Nowhere does the copyright holder grant permission for the program to be sold.
You don't need to. The right of first sale section says that this applies to all copies legally made under this title - a copy of a GPL program distributed with the source is legally made, therefore the person who receives it can sell it, regardless of how they got it, and however they want to - with the source, without the source, carved up and dressed like a Smurf. "First sale" is a shorthand.
regardless of what a lawyer might say, the situation described violates the intent of the GPL:
Well, kindof. If I buy a Linksys router with GPL firmware inside of it and I sell it, I shouldn't be required to include everything in the sale (nor could I!). However, having some requirement in the GPL which says that you are required to distribute the source to someone who requests it who obtained the binary via legal means might be an appropriate clause. This puts the restriction on the person who first sold it. However, the GPL is intended to make it as easy as possible to release software under the GPL, and this makes it harder. But, it wasn't really written for a time with prolific access to the Internet...
My contention is that a copy of GPL sofware is not "a copy made lawfully under this title," it's a copy made lawfully under a license.
Title 17 describes copyright. A copy made within the restrictions of Title 17 is the copy they're talking about - which is a copy made under a license. Same thing. (All lawfully made copies of a copyrighted work are made under a license).
specifically because of the business model used to distribute it.
Yah, true, but courts very often like to put specific restrictions on stuff like this to avoid making themselves appeal-fodder. To be honest, I would prefer if the right of first sale extend to everything, including GPL distributed software, because it's just fair use.
That's why I think the GPL needs to be clarified... and why Company Y is skating on thin ice!
I don't really agree here. Company Y isn't doing anything wrong, and there's no way to place restrictions on Company Y without impeding fair use, and for me, fair use will always trump free software concerns. Stay out of my basement, Bill Gates! The concern should be Company X, and the provision of the GPL that only requires distributing source to those you distribute the binary to. And I think there might be many other places where that clause applies more directly, so clarifying it might be messy.
No. Beacuse a digital audit trail cannot be read by people and 'verified'.
A paper trail can't be read by someone who can't read, either! You have to have some minimum skill of technology, and the problem isn't to make it accessible to everyone. That's impractical. Certainly in the first days of voting a paper trail would've been useless to most people!
The important point is to have the audit trail large enough such that it is reviewable by enough people that their authenticity can't be questioned because of the scale required. You can't insist that the trail be verifiable to everyone, because that's not practical, and it's also not required.
If you know of some other cheap, reliable mechanism for a physical human-readable audit trail, let me know.
This is silly. A blind man can't read a ballot - he has to trust what a person who can see says about the way someone voted. He does not worry about the entire seeing world conspiring against him because the scale is too ridiculous. You do not need a human-readable audit trail - you need one that can be read by a significant fraction of the population. If you specify the designs of the storage media and data reader, the format of the data, and everything else, you're fine. It's ridiculous to fervently adhere to paper.
I'll design a voting system that prints out a paper trail in Swahili. I'm sure that'll make people happy.
Certainly a few hundred voter cards could be fordged without huge problem, but to do this on a massive scale would take a huge conspiricy and people (in general) are poor at keeping secrets. So, your point isn't really relevant.
Only if it's a direct forge. Florida had a paper trail, and we perfectly well know exactly how difficult it was to determine that. I'll still call that a "forge" since I doubt many Democrats would have agreed to 'hanging chads' from the other side of the fence. Couple that with its fragility, as well. Paper audit trails can be destroyed by fire, water, and even just plain sunlight. I doubt most citizens would care that they could've read the votes that were destroyed in some stupid problem.
Can we please start saying "not having an audit trail" rather than a paper trail? While paper is nice and comfortable, it's not exactly reliable, and definitely not easy to back up. While many people say "oh, no, you don't want copies of the election results", in my opinion, considering most counties' election rules don't even allow for revoting, I think the foundation of our kind of government being taken out by a fire at one location, or a flood, is really quite silly. One can definitely imagine some sort of write once, read many medium which is used to store the results. Have the format be open, and the circuitry for the reader be available, and you're fine. You could even make the results available after the election to the public quite easily.
(Note that the argument "need to have something that even Aunt Martha can understand" doesn't hold water with me. Not everyone knows how to read. No matter what, you will cut out a significant fraction of the population by imposing any skill - the problem is not to have everyone be able to see the results, just to have a large enough fraction of the populace able to see the results. How many people could identify a forged paper trail anyway?)
Not having a cryptograpphicly/tamper resistand sound way of ensuring the right software is running
Yah, of course, the correct answer is to not have software running in the first place. Just do it on bare metal, and then no one would worry, because there would be no people like us saying "this isn't safe". Sigh. Why they're using Windows XP Embedded terminals for something that can be done with maybe 4 quad flip flops, I will never understand.
Ditto with the ATMs, as well. Do it on bare metal. Then when you want to improve it, improve the base design, don't reimplement it again. Full-blown computers are for the sloppy.
On the other hand, you can get a robust PC from a major manufacturer for something under $1,000 US
No PC is robust. No PC can be robust because of the sheer number of components - PCs are reliable in the statistical sense - failures are infrequent, most timings remain within spec the majority of the time, and in general the software is error-tolerant (meaning it reboots rather than ignites). I doubt a PC has a bathtub curve failure rate (on all its failures).
software development will be cheaper because windows programmers are more available than embedded programmers.
This, of course, is true, but it can be stated in a different way - crappy programmers are easier to find than good programmers. OK, that's a little harsh - but you don't want Windows programmers to program an ATM, because they've got the same problem the hardware has - they're reliable on a statistical basis only. There is, of course, no bathtub curve for software (nothing ages) but you can apply a lot of the same techniques. One, called 'sneak analysis' (or something like that, I can't quite remember - it's got 'sneak' in it though) basically consists of saying "What if this fails?" for every component on the board and making sure it's an isolated failure, and possibly a recoverable one, rather than taking out several other circuits on the board. The exact same mechanism can be used for software - literally try to find every call that can fail, and make it fail, and see what happens.
Of course, the real problem is that for the manufacturer, nothing really needs to be reliable at all. All they need is to make sure that the ATM doesn't cost them an excessive amount of money with failures. The fact that it's an ungodly inconvenience to the users is totally outside of their perspective.
(Ah, the beauties of a free market - you'll never get 'cheap' and 'good' - you'll get 'cheap' and 'good enough'. Note that completely similar conditions led to the meat packing industry's regulations. The only problem is that software failures aren't nearly as vomit-inducing. Both, however, are capable of destroying people's lives.)
Granted, what I'd love to see is an "ATM certification" or something like that - where the ATM itself and the software has been put through the wringer, and didn't fail. I would specifically go out of my way to find and use one of those.
Right, you can sell copies. Media. Not the software itself
That's right. And whoever receives those copies/media, can sell them again, and they do not have to follow the GPL. They just can't copy it and distribute the copies without following the GPL.
If Company Y receives 5000 ROMs from Company X, and receives 5000 copies of the GPL and source code, and sells all those 5000 ROMs without the GPL, they're fine. If they make 1 copy and distribute it without the source, they're screwed.
Company X is not the copyright holder.
Does Title 17 make any distinction for right of first sale? I didn't see any. It wouldn't make sense, either, because the person who receives the sold copy ("Company Z") is perfectly allowed to sell the object too.
Note the top of Title 17 section 109:
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title
is who is allowed to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of the object. Company X made a copy, completely lawfully made under Title 17. They're the owner of that copy (not of the material, of the copy) - they can sell it to Company Y (but only if they distribute the source, as otherwise they weren't allowed to make the copy), but Company Y can sell it to Company Z, because they didn't make a copy.
It should be noted that if this wasn't allowed, technically you would not be allowed to throw away CD-ROMs of GPLed software without taping the source or the offer of source to them.
The problem comes with what you're saying: what is ownership? Unfortunately Title 17 isn't specific in what ownership is, though what it is not they give a few examples of in 109(d): it's not rental, lease, or loan. You'd have to make a pretty big stretch to say that it's not "giving it away" either. And the GPL doesn't make it not "giving it away" - it still is. The GPL is just a license for copying.
Note also that for those things under 109(d), you can't, for instance, throw them away, and that makes sense.
Point 3 of the GPL reiterates several times that the sourcecode/offer must "accompany the work".
Company Y is not obligated to follow the GPL, because they are allowed to sell the ROM for other reasons - right of first sale.
distribute the exact work that Company X gave them
The GPL isn't part of the work. It can't be - Company X did not right the GPL, nor do they have the right to change it - it's FSF's property.
Right of first sale also does not say that you have to distribute the original exactly as you got it. It says you can sell it. Fair use also says that you can use the GPL for toilet paper if you want, or burn it into smithereens, and still sell the rest.
I can sell a video game without the instruction manual, and I can sell a book with twenty-four pages torn out of it. Hell, I could sell a book that strategically has words cut out of it in order to form a hidden message. The only thing I'm not allowed to do is copy that material - hence the original word, "copyright" - the right to copy. Those rights and ideas don't change with free software. The copyright holder can do nothing past the first sale.
Fair use/right of first sale are one of the best consumer protection rights in the world. You absolutely, completely need to protect them as vigorously as possible, even if they have odd side effects like this.
The court did not, however, invalidate software licenses in general, or state broadly that all license agreements are to be considered sales. It only outlined the conditions under which the transfer of software is considered a sale. Because the transfer of money is explicitly limited by the GPL, it does not meet these criteria. Nothing in the GPL allows Company X (or anyone other than the original copyright holder) to sell the software!
A sale isn't a transfer of copyright - the copyright holder retains all rights.
In fact, it states explicitly that one may only charge for the actual cost of copying and distribution of the media containing the software
Read more carefully, in the Preamble - I don't think courts would say that the GPL restricts costs at all.
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)
and later
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee
Now, again, whether or not that is considered a "sale" or whether or not the GPL is carefully worded to avoid a "sale", I don't know.
However, the other point is that the basic idea of the right of first sale is that only the person "breaking" copyright (the one who's creating more copies than originally existed) needs to actually get permission from the copyright owner. Passing around physically copies, however, does not need permission.
Again, the best example is the one the grandparent post gave, in a ROM chip. You can also think of it as a router - if I buy a Linksys router with Linux inside, and they include a copy of the GPL and the source code inside, if I sell that router to my neighbour, nothing requires me to sell the router+GPL+source code, rather than just the router. The copyright holders have no jurisdiction over me at all, clearly (and I hope they wouldn't!)
Now is this really a 'loophole'? Not in the classical loophole sense - the grandparent just pointed out that the GPL only requires you to send source code to people who you distribute to, directly. Since first sale limits your ability to control what they do, they could throw away the GPL and the source and happily pass it on to the next person.
I think it would be very touchy if it were pure software, which is probably why the grandparent listed ROMs rather than pure software. In the case of physical ROMs, I'd have to say that argument is pretty tight.
Ah, resorting to sharp words when, in fact, you don't even resort to a simple Google search and calmly realize you're wrong.
3) Company Y, when it releases the binary, must release it under the same license as when they recieved it. This is stated in the copy of the GPL they recieved with the original program.
One link:The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement.
Company Y is breaking the terms of the GPL and must cease distributing the binary entirely.
Distributing the binary? They're not distributing the binary. They sold it. One - the only copy they had, and the copyright holder (Company X) can't control what Company Y does with what they physically bought (either a CD-ROM, or a ROM as the grandparents suggest).
To quote Eben Moglen (who co-authored the GPL)
"There's no exclusion of rights to use copyrighted works to copyright holders," he said. "You don't need a copyright license to read the newspaper you bought today. It's a characteristic of copyright law -- nobody can control anything more than the first sale."
All the GPL does is prevent redistribution of new copies of the program. Existing copies that were distributed according to the license can end up anywhere - in my hands, in your hands, the Moon, or in a Capuchin monkey - all regardless of whatever the hell the copyright holder wanted. Nobody can control anything more than the first sale.
No, they aren't. That's the other point. Company Y has no obligations under the GPL, because the right of first sale says they need no permission to distribute it.
That's really what the GPL says. It says "We'll give you permission to copy and distribute this, if you follow one of the three rules we lay down here." The right of first sale says that the copyright holders have no standing to say such a thing. In legal terms, the holders of a copyright lose their control over that particular instance of their material after the first sale. That doesn't mean you can copy it and distribute it (that would be creating new instances, which of course need new licenses) but you can, of course, sell it to whomever you want.
Look, seriously, just go read the Wiki entry for the GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL). It specifically mentions right of first sale, and fair use, multiple times.
Re:Intermingling of fact and definition
on
Sedna May Have A Moon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Inner Oort Cloud object
Is this really valid terminology? I've always heard Kuiper Belt, and as the Oort cloud is mainly comets (and is un-freaking-godly huge: 50,000 AU) whereas the Kuiper Belt, where this is, is 30-50 AU.
Last I heard, the Kuiper belt is basically the last rocky objects that formed, and then the Oort cloud is way the hell out there, and it may not even be contiguous (i.e. there might be a gap of 'nothing' between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud). No way to know, of course, as there's no direct observation of the cloud.
Not criticizing, just curious. Astronomers make up new designations every few weeks, so it's a little hard to keep up.:)
No, you can't, because it's unlikely that you OWN a copy of Windows. You can sell your media. But the LICENSE that you paid for restricts your ability to transfer it (the licenst to use what's on the media) to another party.
Yah. That's what I said. My copy of it. That is, the CD. Now, Microsoft will say that the person that I sold the CD to doesn't have the right to use it, because they didn't buy a license directly from Microsoft. Let's just pretend Microsoft's license is valid (it likely is not).
This is totally different than the GPL case because the GPL does not place any restrictions on the use of the program, so the person who was sold the media containing GPL software, without the GPL source or any access to it, can still use it, but the person who sold the GPL software has no requirement to give the source, by right of first sale.
Bad analogy. Move on.
No, it's pretty good. I can sell my CD of Windows XP Home, that I bought, without the license, and there's nothing Microsoft can do to stop me. Likewise, I can sell my copy of Red Hat Linux 7.1, which I bought, without the source, and there's nothing Red Hat or the FSF can do to stop me.
Microsoft's license says you have to have purchased a license (since it's not transferrable) in order to use it - that might be questionable. But the GPL specifically says that it doesn't restrict the use of the Program.
Oh, that explains it - the GPL FAQ must apparently contradict the words of the person who helped write it, and is the most vociferous in defending it (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL):
It is claimed by some, including Eben Moglen, that the GPL is a license, not a contract[3].
Oh, and right on that same page?
The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement. It does not mean that the rules of the GPL do not apply to you and that you may thus use the software however you like. The default is the restrictions of copyright law, not the anarchy of the public domain.
Very clear, but what about the GPL? Which is it? A license or a contract? First, the name tells you what the authors intended: General Public license. It doesn't say General Public contract or even General Public license contract. So they intended it to be a license, not a contract.
Now go and actually read USC Title 17, section 109. You'll note where it says that you don't need the damned copyright holder's permission to sell the physical object containing the copyrighted works.
There is no loophole in the GPL.
Of course there is - places where copyright law doesn't apply. Thank God it's a license and not a contract, too, otherwise you'd have to agree to it and you'd have to be legally allowed to enter into a contract.
That licence is in the form of a contract.
No, that license is in the form of a license.
common law does not allow you to transfer your ownership
Read Title 17. Go do it. Now. You can't transfer the copyright, no, of course not. But you can sell the physical object, regardless of whether or not the copyright holder gives a rat's ass.
It is claimed by some, including Eben Moglen, that the GPL is a license, not a contract[3]. These people claim that the license is a unilateral grant, and therefore would be considered a waiver rather than a contract. Confusion often arises when people think that the GPL is solely enforceable as a contract, and not by copyright law, which leads to misconceptions such as the GPL being unenforceable because the person never agreed to it.
and
The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement. It does not mean that the rules of the GPL do not apply to you and that you may thus use the software however you like. The default is the restrictions of copyright law, not the anarchy of the public domain.
Good enough for you? If not, from here, USC Title 17, Sec. 109.
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Phonorecord, of course, was extended to copyrighted works - see the many explanations of Title 17, etc. Here's a good explanation:
A legal principle that limits a rightsholder's rights to control content after it has been sold for the first time. According to first sale doctrine, lawful ownership of an item, such as a music CD or a book, is not the same as owning the copyright of the item. The owner of the item may lend, resell, give away and or/destroy the copyrighted item but is not granted the right to copy the item in its entirety. The transfer of the copy does not include the transfer of the content's copyright. The legal principle applies to physical items as well as digital content that is downloaded over the Internet.
Good enough?
Maybe you should actually read the inside jacket of a book sometime and find out what "rights" you have to the material.
I don't give a crap what the inside of a book jacket says - they cannot take away the right of first sale, because the right of first sale specifically says it can't - note the "without the authority of the copyright owner." They say "You're not allowed", I say "I don't have to ask your permission."
Yes, it is and there is plenty of case law and just plain common fucking sense to support this.
Find one example saying that a purchaser of an item containing copyrighted material can't sell the physical item to whomever he wants. Not make copies of the copyrighted material. Not make copies of the item. Just sell the item and all the copyrighted material within.
I note you didn't quote any.
Copyright holders have enough rights as it is. Don't give them the right to pry into the way that I used the object that I bought from them.
Slashdot Mirror
Quad-pumped FSB, longer pipeline
A quad-pumped FSB might make sense, although I doubt that the PM is actually all that memory-hungry, as the old P6s weren't, and neither were the Athlons.
A longer pipeline is virtually the definition of the P4 - it has one of the (if not the) longest pipelines in desktop processors anywhere. A long pipeline is what causes low IPC.
I really doubt that they'll lengthen the PM's pipeline much. Look at the Athlon XP -> Athlon 64 evolution - the pipeline was only stretched by a couple of clock cycles.
This is a curious point for Intel, as processors can't continue to get faster in a simple way - the heat issues are just too large right now. The PM will probably start getting the standard tricks that others are playing - hyperthreading, like the P4s, integrated memory controller, maybe even an L3 cache. But definitely not a long pipeline - that was the P4's mistake.
Do a search for "copper kAm" and you'll find the $20 /kAm figure. You're neglecting a ton of the production cost, and considering the *raw* copper cost is just $9/kAm, an additional $10/kAm for the rest of the cable is entirely reasonable. They don't just lay bare copper in the ground, after all. Most of the HTS figures they give show the rest of the cable costing about $10/kAm as well.
The $50/kAm figure for HTS cable is the final cost for the full cable, ready to lay in the ground.
As for the resistance loss vs refrigeration requirements, it's important to remember exactly how cheap liquid nitrogen is. *Very* cheap. In fact, going much higher in temperature really isn't economically important! I haven't seen any figures on "maintenance cost", but considering the resistive losses for copper can be large (at 1000A with the resistance of copper for a 0.8" diameter cable being ~0.02 ohms/1000', you're talking roughly 60W lost per meter) the refrigeration costs are going to be quite manageable.
Interesting. Is copper really that expensive?
... and they have, actually. Copenhagen was the first, if memory serves. All of them quoted the capacity increase without digging as being the main reason. Per kA, it's probably more expensive, but the costs savings from not digging will probably make it cheaper over the lifetime of the cable.
Yes, actually. It's about $20-25/kAm right now.
But it's the recurring cost that's a big deal: at kiloampere levels, the power burned off by copper resistance starts to become more expensive than the cost of cooling. Since superconductors have strictly zero resistance, the cooling cost is fixed as the current scales, whereas it's linear in copper. At some point it becomes more economical.
The problem with high-Tc superconductors is that they have a current limit as well, and it's quite moderate, so the scale isn't quite there yet, when you work out all of the factors involved.
There are other reasons to switch, though: simply physical size: in Detroit, where they're replacing copper with superconducting cable in a few areas, they're replacing 18,000 pounds of copper with 250 pounds of superconductor - they replaced 9 cables with 3, and left 6 empty cable lines. This gives them 3 times the energy capacity without having to dig new cable lines at all.
The capacity issue is really what's been driving cities to replace them, though - digging new power lines, especially in cities, is simply ludicrously expensive, and so any option to replace with higher capacity lines without digging is a win.
So yes, really, they will replace copper with superconductors
but we're not going to be making power lines
Thankfully there are others who aren't as paranoid as you are about physics we don't quite understand theoretically, but do understand phenomenologically, as we already have power lines made out of this stuff.
Here are several press releases about it: Copenhagen, Chicago, and Detroit already are laying high-Tc superconducting cable. They're already in use at Copenhagen. And that was in 2001.
The mass and resistive loss savings by going to superconductors can easily pay for the excess cooling equipment and cost, if the scale is right. And when you're talking about kilo-amperes, that scale is right.
I clarified: "No, I said I WISH I could figure this thing out!"
The look on his face was priceless. "You fucking bastard!" He'd apparently forgotten about giving me the wish earlier, from one of his characters.
Unclever GM. The classic response there is, of course, "OK. You are now capable of figuring this thing out." To be nice, give them a bonus to intelligence or something. Heh.
Or, of course, the classic response...here. (Check the two previous for better examples).
I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?
Cute, but silly - any good experimentalist can put a strong restriction on the existence of a "tooth fairy" (i.e. a being which replaces baby teeth with money) with a simple video camera left up overnight over every child on the planet.
You can then, of course, come up with strange restrictions as to why this didn't work, which can then be further tested, which will lead to weirder restrictions, etc. Basic science.
However the bit with God is entirely different, because the initial postulate (that which created the Universe) is untestable, lacking any other examples. Anything which happens in this Universe must be explainable in terms of this Universe (... duh... basically the definition of 'explainable', basically a reflexive property of the Universe) but the causal connection "why" can't be determined, lacking any other Universes as controls. If you define God as "that which created everything", then it's strictly impossible.
You can't prove or disprove the idea of a God, nor can you even place restrictions on it, because you don't have controls. Basic experiment design.
On Linux, it's a highly manual process, entering WEP keys on the command line.. using seperate tools to scan for access points.. This part totally sucks in Linux today.
Take a look at ifplugd/waproamd: both of those are beautiful, beautiful tools to manage WEP keys and access points. It still needs a GUI to add a new access point, but honestly that's something that could be coded up in less than a day's work.
For me, now, Linux is far, far better at handling the wireless stuff - ifplugd detects the loss of connection, signals to waproamd to start scanning, then immediately pops the connection back up again when I'm in range of an access point that it can connect to (preferentially favoring the ones I've listed).
Windows is a disaster: it constantly "forgets" that if it jumps from one wireless network (work) to another (home), it needs to release/renew the DHCP lease, even if the DHCP lease it had is still valid. The only way I ever manage to get it to work is to do ipconfig
NiMH batteries are actually very low energy density: an alkaline battery has like 3400-4000 mAh (for low discharge currents - an alkaline's main problem is its high internal resistance, which means pathetically low energy density for high discharge currents).
Lithium batteries have the energy density of alkalines (3000 or so mAh), and even higher discharge currents than NiMH, but not rechargable in the AA packages (Yes, lithiums are best for digital cameras).
AAA alkaline and lithiums will easily hold 1000 mAh - without even being well-designed (NiMH AAAs typically hold between 400-700 mAh).
Thus, once your reactor has been running for a few years, all of the inner structure, the lithium tanks and so on, are medium-level radioactive waste.
The thing is that almost all low-Z radioactive nuclei are either violently radioactive with very short half-lives or pathetically radioactive. Basically comes from having so few nucleons - it's difficult to be "mildly" unstable and yet still give off a hefty amount of energy when you decay. Either you're going to fall apart or you're not.
Thus, fusion radioactive waste is not really the same as fission radioactive waste. Fission radioactive waste is eternal, on human timescales, and the radiation level never really goes down. Fusion radioactive waste can just sit somewhere for a few decades, and it's done. Yes, it might be very radioactive - but it has a much, much shorter half-life (years, rather than megayears).
Company X is only allowed to be paid for distributing the application, much like a courier, or to offer warranty insurance. If Company X is "selling" the GPL product, THEY are violating the rights of the copyright holders, who can sue. And what damages might any one of the copyright holders ask for...? Perhaps just "show us your source" - and court costs.
This is correct.
Company X might be "selling" is very expensive ROM or CD media. They can NOT be "selling" the program therein contained using only the the rights granted to them by the GPL. There is then no problem with the consumer re-selling that same physical CD."
This is also correct.
I'm really missing where you're disagreeing with anything I said. There's nothing that requires Company Y to distribute the source code they received from Company X. All they're doing is selling a physical object that they received.
Sale of an object does not imply transfer of copyright. This is a given. But 'right of first sale' does not require a sale - it requires a lawfully made copy, that's all. And it allows you to transfer or dispose of it as you wish.
Otherwise I couldn't throw away a hard drive containing GPLed binaries without the source. Someone else could pick it up, and I wouldn't've been distributing the source with it!
However removing words from the book to form a new message IS a Derived Work subject to "Fair Use". While selling a single altered copy might be fair, buying thousands of books for $10, altering them to make them "better", and selling for $50 would questionably violate the rights of the copyright holder.
Maybe. But no stupid idiot has done this yet, and so right now you can in fact rip out words from a book and sell the altered book. And I would be worried if one tried to restrict fair use and right of first sale because of this possibility.
Nowhere does the copyright holder grant permission for the program to be sold.
You don't need to. The right of first sale section says that this applies to all copies legally made under this title - a copy of a GPL program distributed with the source is legally made, therefore the person who receives it can sell it, regardless of how they got it, and however they want to - with the source, without the source, carved up and dressed like a Smurf. "First sale" is a shorthand.
regardless of what a lawyer might say, the situation described violates the intent of the GPL:
Well, kindof. If I buy a Linksys router with GPL firmware inside of it and I sell it, I shouldn't be required to include everything in the sale (nor could I!). However, having some requirement in the GPL which says that you are required to distribute the source to someone who requests it who obtained the binary via legal means might be an appropriate clause. This puts the restriction on the person who first sold it. However, the GPL is intended to make it as easy as possible to release software under the GPL, and this makes it harder. But, it wasn't really written for a time with prolific access to the Internet...
My contention is that a copy of GPL sofware is not "a copy made lawfully under this title," it's a copy made lawfully under a license.
Title 17 describes copyright. A copy made within the restrictions of Title 17 is the copy they're talking about - which is a copy made under a license. Same thing. (All lawfully made copies of a copyrighted work are made under a license).
specifically because of the business model used to distribute it.
Yah, true, but courts very often like to put specific restrictions on stuff like this to avoid making themselves appeal-fodder. To be honest, I would prefer if the right of first sale extend to everything, including GPL distributed software, because it's just fair use.
That's why I think the GPL needs to be clarified... and why Company Y is skating on thin ice!
I don't really agree here. Company Y isn't doing anything wrong, and there's no way to place restrictions on Company Y without impeding fair use, and for me, fair use will always trump free software concerns. Stay out of my basement, Bill Gates! The concern should be Company X, and the provision of the GPL that only requires distributing source to those you distribute the binary to. And I think there might be many other places where that clause applies more directly, so clarifying it might be messy.
No. Beacuse a digital audit trail cannot be read by people and 'verified'.
A paper trail can't be read by someone who can't read, either! You have to have some minimum skill of technology, and the problem isn't to make it accessible to everyone. That's impractical. Certainly in the first days of voting a paper trail would've been useless to most people!
The important point is to have the audit trail large enough such that it is reviewable by enough people that their authenticity can't be questioned because of the scale required. You can't insist that the trail be verifiable to everyone, because that's not practical, and it's also not required.
If you know of some other cheap, reliable mechanism for a physical human-readable audit trail, let me know.
This is silly. A blind man can't read a ballot - he has to trust what a person who can see says about the way someone voted. He does not worry about the entire seeing world conspiring against him because the scale is too ridiculous. You do not need a human-readable audit trail - you need one that can be read by a significant fraction of the population. If you specify the designs of the storage media and data reader, the format of the data, and everything else, you're fine. It's ridiculous to fervently adhere to paper.
I'll design a voting system that prints out a paper trail in Swahili. I'm sure that'll make people happy.
Certainly a few hundred voter cards could be fordged without huge problem, but to do this on a massive scale would take a huge conspiricy and people (in general) are poor at keeping secrets. So, your point isn't really relevant.
Only if it's a direct forge. Florida had a paper trail, and we perfectly well know exactly how difficult it was to determine that. I'll still call that a "forge" since I doubt many Democrats would have agreed to 'hanging chads' from the other side of the fence. Couple that with its fragility, as well. Paper audit trails can be destroyed by fire, water, and even just plain sunlight. I doubt most citizens would care that they could've read the votes that were destroyed in some stupid problem.
Not having a paper trail
Can we please start saying "not having an audit trail" rather than a paper trail? While paper is nice and comfortable, it's not exactly reliable, and definitely not easy to back up. While many people say "oh, no, you don't want copies of the election results", in my opinion, considering most counties' election rules don't even allow for revoting, I think the foundation of our kind of government being taken out by a fire at one location, or a flood, is really quite silly. One can definitely imagine some sort of write once, read many medium which is used to store the results. Have the format be open, and the circuitry for the reader be available, and you're fine. You could even make the results available after the election to the public quite easily.
(Note that the argument "need to have something that even Aunt Martha can understand" doesn't hold water with me. Not everyone knows how to read. No matter what, you will cut out a significant fraction of the population by imposing any skill - the problem is not to have everyone be able to see the results, just to have a large enough fraction of the populace able to see the results. How many people could identify a forged paper trail anyway?)
Not having a cryptograpphicly/tamper resistand sound way of ensuring the right software is running
Yah, of course, the correct answer is to not have software running in the first place. Just do it on bare metal, and then no one would worry, because there would be no people like us saying "this isn't safe". Sigh. Why they're using Windows XP Embedded terminals for something that can be done with maybe 4 quad flip flops, I will never understand.
Ditto with the ATMs, as well. Do it on bare metal. Then when you want to improve it, improve the base design, don't reimplement it again. Full-blown computers are for the sloppy.
On the other hand, you can get a robust PC from a major manufacturer for something under $1,000 US
No PC is robust. No PC can be robust because of the sheer number of components - PCs are reliable in the statistical sense - failures are infrequent, most timings remain within spec the majority of the time, and in general the software is error-tolerant (meaning it reboots rather than ignites). I doubt a PC has a bathtub curve failure rate (on all its failures).
software development will be cheaper because windows programmers are more available than embedded programmers.
This, of course, is true, but it can be stated in a different way - crappy programmers are easier to find than good programmers. OK, that's a little harsh - but you don't want Windows programmers to program an ATM, because they've got the same problem the hardware has - they're reliable on a statistical basis only. There is, of course, no bathtub curve for software (nothing ages) but you can apply a lot of the same techniques. One, called 'sneak analysis' (or something like that, I can't quite remember - it's got 'sneak' in it though) basically consists of saying "What if this fails?" for every component on the board and making sure it's an isolated failure, and possibly a recoverable one, rather than taking out several other circuits on the board. The exact same mechanism can be used for software - literally try to find every call that can fail, and make it fail, and see what happens.
Of course, the real problem is that for the manufacturer, nothing really needs to be reliable at all. All they need is to make sure that the ATM doesn't cost them an excessive amount of money with failures. The fact that it's an ungodly inconvenience to the users is totally outside of their perspective.
(Ah, the beauties of a free market - you'll never get 'cheap' and 'good' - you'll get 'cheap' and 'good enough'. Note that completely similar conditions led to the meat packing industry's regulations. The only problem is that software failures aren't nearly as vomit-inducing. Both, however, are capable of destroying people's lives.)
Granted, what I'd love to see is an "ATM certification" or something like that - where the ATM itself and the software has been put through the wringer, and didn't fail. I would specifically go out of my way to find and use one of those.
Right, you can sell copies. Media. Not the software itself
That's right. And whoever receives those copies/media, can sell them again, and they do not have to follow the GPL. They just can't copy it and distribute the copies without following the GPL.
If Company Y receives 5000 ROMs from Company X, and receives 5000 copies of the GPL and source code, and sells all those 5000 ROMs without the GPL, they're fine. If they make 1 copy and distribute it without the source, they're screwed.
Company X is not the copyright holder.
Does Title 17 make any distinction for right of first sale? I didn't see any. It wouldn't make sense, either, because the person who receives the sold copy ("Company Z") is perfectly allowed to sell the object too.
Note the top of Title 17 section 109:
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title
is who is allowed to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of the object. Company X made a copy, completely lawfully made under Title 17. They're the owner of that copy (not of the material, of the copy) - they can sell it to Company Y (but only if they distribute the source, as otherwise they weren't allowed to make the copy), but Company Y can sell it to Company Z, because they didn't make a copy.
It should be noted that if this wasn't allowed, technically you would not be allowed to throw away CD-ROMs of GPLed software without taping the source or the offer of source to them.
The problem comes with what you're saying: what is ownership? Unfortunately Title 17 isn't specific in what ownership is, though what it is not they give a few examples of in 109(d): it's not rental, lease, or loan. You'd have to make a pretty big stretch to say that it's not "giving it away" either. And the GPL doesn't make it not "giving it away" - it still is. The GPL is just a license for copying.
Note also that for those things under 109(d), you can't, for instance, throw them away, and that makes sense.
Point 3 of the GPL reiterates several times that the sourcecode/offer must "accompany the work".
Company Y is not obligated to follow the GPL, because they are allowed to sell the ROM for other reasons - right of first sale.
distribute the exact work that Company X gave them
The GPL isn't part of the work. It can't be - Company X did not right the GPL, nor do they have the right to change it - it's FSF's property.
Right of first sale also does not say that you have to distribute the original exactly as you got it. It says you can sell it. Fair use also says that you can use the GPL for toilet paper if you want, or burn it into smithereens, and still sell the rest.
I can sell a video game without the instruction manual, and I can sell a book with twenty-four pages torn out of it. Hell, I could sell a book that strategically has words cut out of it in order to form a hidden message. The only thing I'm not allowed to do is copy that material - hence the original word, "copyright" - the right to copy. Those rights and ideas don't change with free software. The copyright holder can do nothing past the first sale.
Fair use/right of first sale are one of the best consumer protection rights in the world. You absolutely, completely need to protect them as vigorously as possible, even if they have odd side effects like this.
The court did not, however, invalidate software licenses in general, or state broadly that all license agreements are to be considered sales. It only outlined the conditions under which the transfer of software is considered a sale. Because the transfer of money is explicitly limited by the GPL, it does not meet these criteria. Nothing in the GPL allows Company X (or anyone other than the original copyright holder) to sell the software!
A sale isn't a transfer of copyright - the copyright holder retains all rights.
In fact, it states explicitly that one may only charge for the actual cost of copying and distribution of the media containing the software
Read more carefully, in the Preamble - I don't think courts would say that the GPL restricts costs at all.
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)
and later
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee
Now, again, whether or not that is considered a "sale" or whether or not the GPL is carefully worded to avoid a "sale", I don't know.
However, the other point is that the basic idea of the right of first sale is that only the person "breaking" copyright (the one who's creating more copies than originally existed) needs to actually get permission from the copyright owner. Passing around physically copies, however, does not need permission.
Again, the best example is the one the grandparent post gave, in a ROM chip. You can also think of it as a router - if I buy a Linksys router with Linux inside, and they include a copy of the GPL and the source code inside, if I sell that router to my neighbour, nothing requires me to sell the router+GPL+source code, rather than just the router. The copyright holders have no jurisdiction over me at all, clearly (and I hope they wouldn't!)
Now is this really a 'loophole'? Not in the classical loophole sense - the grandparent just pointed out that the GPL only requires you to send source code to people who you distribute to, directly. Since first sale limits your ability to control what they do, they could throw away the GPL and the source and happily pass it on to the next person.
I think it would be very touchy if it were pure software, which is probably why the grandparent listed ROMs rather than pure software. In the case of physical ROMs, I'd have to say that argument is pretty tight.
Ah, resorting to sharp words when, in fact, you don't even resort to a simple Google search and calmly realize you're wrong.
3) Company Y, when it releases the binary, must release it under the same license as when they recieved it. This is stated in the copy of the GPL they recieved with the original program.
One link:The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement.
Company Y is breaking the terms of the GPL and must cease distributing the binary entirely.
Distributing the binary? They're not distributing the binary. They sold it. One - the only copy they had, and the copyright holder (Company X) can't control what Company Y does with what they physically bought (either a CD-ROM, or a ROM as the grandparents suggest).
To quote Eben Moglen (who co-authored the GPL)
"There's no exclusion of rights to use copyrighted works to copyright holders," he said. "You don't need a copyright license to read the newspaper you bought today. It's a characteristic of copyright law -- nobody can control anything more than the first sale."
All the GPL does is prevent redistribution of new copies of the program. Existing copies that were distributed according to the license can end up anywhere - in my hands, in your hands, the Moon, or in a Capuchin monkey - all regardless of whatever the hell the copyright holder wanted. Nobody can control anything more than the first sale.
No, they aren't. That's the other point. Company Y has no obligations under the GPL, because the right of first sale says they need no permission to distribute it.
That's really what the GPL says. It says "We'll give you permission to copy and distribute this, if you follow one of the three rules we lay down here." The right of first sale says that the copyright holders have no standing to say such a thing. In legal terms, the holders of a copyright lose their control over that particular instance of their material after the first sale. That doesn't mean you can copy it and distribute it (that would be creating new instances, which of course need new licenses) but you can, of course, sell it to whomever you want.
Look, seriously, just go read the Wiki entry for the GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL). It specifically mentions right of first sale, and fair use, multiple times.
Inner Oort Cloud object
:)
Is this really valid terminology? I've always heard Kuiper Belt, and as the Oort cloud is mainly comets (and is un-freaking-godly huge: 50,000 AU) whereas the Kuiper Belt, where this is, is 30-50 AU.
Last I heard, the Kuiper belt is basically the last rocky objects that formed, and then the Oort cloud is way the hell out there, and it may not even be contiguous (i.e. there might be a gap of 'nothing' between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud). No way to know, of course, as there's no direct observation of the cloud.
Not criticizing, just curious. Astronomers make up new designations every few weeks, so it's a little hard to keep up.
No, you can't, because it's unlikely that you OWN a copy of Windows. You can sell your media. But the LICENSE that you paid for restricts your ability to transfer it (the licenst to use what's on the media) to another party.
Yah. That's what I said. My copy of it. That is, the CD. Now, Microsoft will say that the person that I sold the CD to doesn't have the right to use it, because they didn't buy a license directly from Microsoft. Let's just pretend Microsoft's license is valid (it likely is not).
This is totally different than the GPL case because the GPL does not place any restrictions on the use of the program, so the person who was sold the media containing GPL software, without the GPL source or any access to it, can still use it, but the person who sold the GPL software has no requirement to give the source, by right of first sale.
Bad analogy. Move on.
No, it's pretty good. I can sell my CD of Windows XP Home, that I bought, without the license, and there's nothing Microsoft can do to stop me. Likewise, I can sell my copy of Red Hat Linux 7.1, which I bought, without the source, and there's nothing Red Hat or the FSF can do to stop me.
Microsoft's license says you have to have purchased a license (since it's not transferrable) in order to use it - that might be questionable. But the GPL specifically says that it doesn't restrict the use of the Program.
GPL FAQ which is posted on the FSF website
Oh, that explains it - the GPL FAQ must apparently contradict the words of the person who helped write it, and is the most vociferous in defending it (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL):
It is claimed by some, including Eben Moglen, that the GPL is a license, not a contract[3].
Oh, and right on that same page?
The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement. It does not mean that the rules of the GPL do not apply to you and that you may thus use the software however you like. The default is the restrictions of copyright law, not the anarchy of the public domain.
Want more? Enjoy.
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling
Very clear, but what about the GPL? Which is it? A license or a contract? First, the name tells you what the authors intended: General Public license. It doesn't say General Public contract or even General Public license contract. So they intended it to be a license, not a contract.
Now go and actually read USC Title 17, section 109. You'll note where it says that you don't need the damned copyright holder's permission to
sell the physical object containing the copyrighted works.
There is no loophole in the GPL.
Of course there is - places where copyright law doesn't apply. Thank God it's a license and not a contract, too, otherwise you'd have to agree to it and you'd have to be legally allowed to enter into a contract.
That licence is in the form of a contract.
No, that license is in the form of a license.
common law does not allow you to transfer your ownership
Read Title 17. Go do it. Now. You can't transfer the copyright, no, of course not. But you can sell the physical object, regardless of whether or not the copyright holder gives a rat's ass.
Fool.
How about straight from the Wiki, and one of the two people who wrote the GPL:
Reference.
It is claimed by some, including Eben Moglen, that the GPL is a license, not a contract[3]. These people claim that the license is a unilateral grant, and therefore would be considered a waiver rather than a contract. Confusion often arises when people think that the GPL is solely enforceable as a contract, and not by copyright law, which leads to misconceptions such as the GPL being unenforceable because the person never agreed to it.
and
The actual situation is simple: if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to copy or distribute the software released under it, except through fair use, first sale or other defenses to copyright infringement. It does not mean that the rules of the GPL do not apply to you and that you may thus use the software however you like. The default is the restrictions of copyright law, not the anarchy of the public domain.
Good enough for you? If not, from here, USC Title 17, Sec. 109.
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Phonorecord, of course, was extended to copyrighted works - see the many explanations of Title 17, etc. Here's a good explanation:
A legal principle that limits a rightsholder's rights to control content after it has been sold for the first time. According to first sale doctrine, lawful ownership of an item, such as a music CD or a book, is not the same as owning the copyright of the item. The owner of the item may lend, resell, give away and or/destroy the copyrighted item but is not granted the right to copy the item in its entirety. The transfer of the copy does not include the transfer of the content's copyright. The legal principle applies to physical items as well as digital content that is downloaded over the Internet.
Good enough?
Maybe you should actually read the inside jacket of a book sometime and find out what "rights" you have to the material.
I don't give a crap what the inside of a book jacket says - they cannot take away the right of first sale, because the right of first sale specifically says it can't - note the "without the authority of the copyright owner." They say "You're not allowed", I say "I don't have to ask your permission."
Yes, it is and there is plenty of case law and just plain common fucking sense to support this.
Find one example saying that a purchaser of an item containing copyrighted material can't sell the physical item to whomever he wants. Not make copies of the copyrighted material. Not make copies of the item. Just sell the item and all the copyrighted material within.
I note you didn't quote any.
Copyright holders have enough rights as it is. Don't give them the right to pry into the way that I used the object that I bought from them.