it's silly to compare an aesthetic field, such as music, with a functional field, such as programming
Music is not always artistic; it is often quite functional. I'd go so far as to say that most new music is more functional than artistic. Consider, for example advertisement jingles. If for some reason you insist that music is especially artistic, substitute any other creative process: architecture, drawing, etc. These are all things that increasingly use existing material; but in all cases, the idea that originality could be eliminated is facile.
I think it was worth pointing out that many composers have reused material to save time and fulfill a commision just like coders rely on libraries.
OK, but why bother? Of course some composers reuse old music sometimes. And some coders reuse code sometimes. The original question was one of absolutes.
It's truly disturbing to me how someone who put so much effort into writing a response could have completely failed to understand simple words like "all" and "any".
I predict that this will happen shortly after all composers simply re-arrange themes and phrases from previous musical pieces in order to create any new compositions and authors simply splice paragraphs from existing books to form new ones.
Yes, your analogy is better than gpp's, but he's right that the FF team is "getting away" with blaming it on extensions. Basically, they omit certain functionality and claim it can be achieved with an extension. And then when people complain about buggy extensions, those same extensions are all of a sudden "unsupported". Firefox fanbois want to have they're cake (fewer bugs thanks in part to less functionality) and eat it too (claim FF has features it doesn't).
That's why I use Opera. Not only are the features I want actually there; they're supported, too.
Both you and grandparent miss the genious of the Constitution. The reason it hasn't required more upkeep in the past 200+ years is/because/ it is so vague. Specificity results in obsolescence.
Consider if one of the powers granted to Congress was, "The ability to build roads, by which we mean paths of no more than 20 feet wide for the use of wagons, horses, and pedestrian traffic." Yeah, THAT would have stayed the test of time.
(PS: I think that part of the law is retarded, IMNSHO. Copyright (or, really, laws in general) shouldn't limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home.)
And tyranny by the majority is what -- that the majority disfavors nudity in public parks?
No, "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase that refers to the majority opinion making minority opinions illegal. For example, if the US, which is majority Christian, disenfranchised atheists, that would be "tyranny of the majority". A less extreme example along the same lines would be if only Christian churches were awarded non-profit status.
Majority rule always devolves to mob rule. Always.
The Constitution solves the problem by putting power in the hands of the majority...
Au contraire, the original Constitution did no such thing. Only the smallest portion of the power was given directly to the people (electing representatives). Senators were chosen only by state legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College. Supreme Court justices were appointed by the President (and for a life term!). If you want an example of "majority rule", the American Constitution provides a poor one.
It gets even worse when you start into the Amendments. Am. 1 through 10 are/specifically designed/ to prevent "tyranny of the majority". It is not the majority who benefit from Freedom of Speech; it is those who wish to broach an unpopular opinion. It is not those who toe the party line who need fear unreasonable searches and siezures; it is those who have crossed the government in some way. It is not law-abiding (the majority, surely) citizens who require protection from cruel or unusual punishments; it is criminals who have been convicted by a jury of their peers.
The word "democracy" comes from the Greek word for "mob rule". I, for one, am glad that I do not live in a democracy but rather a constitutional republic. In a democracy, you're only safe so long as you share the viewpoints of your neighbors.
Traditional copyright law only restricts distribution. The DMCA added other stuff (eg, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted work), but that's fairly recent and not universally applicable.
Why is it that most bushbashers[sic] aren't even from the united statES[sic]and[sic] they typicly[sic] spell worse then[sic] me?
LOL, that's five errors in one simple sentance!
I'm from the US (I'm a citizen of North Carolina). I'm currently in the US military (seven years this January). When you join the US military, let me know. And when you think one of my posts has more gramtical and spelling errors than yours, let me know. I'll be happy to given you a lesson in English grammar. I can do better drunk (which I am right now) than you could ever hope to do sober.
If you hadn't brough up the US v Verdugo-Urquidez case yourself, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But since you did bring it up, I have to assume you at least read the Abstract (because you'd never bring up a SCOTUS decision without actually reading it, right?). And since the Abstract specifically references the validity of the Fifth and Sixth Amendements wrt foreign citizens, I'm forced to conclude that you are a bald-faced liar.
Hmm, then this is what this bill is doing and the entire point of our conversation. except maybe that the constitution only applies to civilian unless a law does otherwise
I responded to you quetions wrt the bill by stating the fact of the Sixth Amendment. Your question in general was much broader than the specifics of the bill per se.
[Wrt the "full faith and credit"clause]>It only guarentees citizens thier rights.
False. The full faith and credit clause does not enumerate a right. It enumerates a duty of the government.
Yes, that particular duty is only due to citizens. So what?
Sure and it [the right to sue state governments] specificly says that only citizens enjoy that luxury.
False. It does NOT afford "citizens" that luxury. It specifically denied citizens in general that luxury.
Then we aren't reading the same cases.
I mentioned that is was brought up by another pesrson disagreing with me, but that was elsethread. The case I'm refering to is US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
Surely the constitution doesn't apply to Russian civilians, in russia.
In general, no. When they are detained by US officials, however, it does. Why? Simple: the Constitution does not confer rights to individuals (as those rights are, as per the Declaration of Independence, "inalienable"); it limits the power of officials of the government.
... [Y]ou want to establish Constitutional law not by the things which it actually says but by the things it doesn't.
I want to establish constitutional law by exactly what it (the constitution) says....
Well, it mentions citizens but not non citizens.. hmm.. were could this be leading?
You hypocrite!
[The Sixth Am.] doesn't specificly state that it encompasses foriegners...
Read you own words and weap, you hypocrite.
What it does do is distinguish between citizens and non citizens, states and federal authorities, and then goes on to guarentee rights held by citizens shall not be abridge.You seem to think I am trying to read "non-citizens don't count"
Parially tue. The Constitutions distinguishes (according to SCOTUS) between "citzens" and "people in general, citizen or no" (note that in my preference, I would afford all restrictions possible to government, regardless of the citizenship of the person afflicted). SCOTUS notes that phrases referencing "citizens" (duh) or "the people" refers only to citizens of the US; however, phrases referncing "person[s]" refers to any entity regardless of citizenship.
I would have the Fourth Amendment and the entirety of the Fourteenth apply to anyone (citizen or no) handled in any way by the US or stat governments. SCOTUS disagrees with me, though; according to them, the Forth and first part of the Fourteenth Ams. do not apply, but the Fifth, Sixth, and "Due Process" clause of the Fourteenth do apply.
Article 1 section 9 says, The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. So it is ok to take away habeas corpus. Hmm... whatelse does it say?
Yes, it does. The only time habeas corpus has ever been suspended was during the Civil War, and that was only winthin a small, specific area; it was to prevent Maryland from seceding and Washington, DC from being surrounded and cut off from the rest of the Union. However, it is legal to suspend it.
Article 4 section 2 says, Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Well, it mentions citizens but not non citizens.. hmm.. were could this be leading?
Go read a history book fer crine out loud. That's called the "full faith and credit clause". What it does is guarantee that a Virginia marriage license is valid in Missouri.
But the 11th amendment says, The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.So here we see the constitution claims that it doesn't automaticly guarentee rights to non-citizens.
That says that a German may not sue the state of New York. It also says that a Nebraskan may not sue the state of New York. I fail to see how this substantially differentiates "US citizens" from foreigners wrt the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.
The 14th amendment say
Here we get to some meat. Read on!
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
So clearly, the words "person" and "citizen" are NOT synonymous within the context of the Constitution; if they were, specifying the word "persons" and defining the specified subset as citizens would be redundant and misleading. Remember that... it's important.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Yep, that part only applies to citizens.
nor shall any state deprive any person [emphasis added] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [emphasis added again] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So while certain laws may be made abridging the rights of non-citizens, no state may take "life liberty, or property, without due process of law" from *any* person, whether that person is a citizen or not.
the 15th amendment make it even clearer by stating a difference between a state and the united states with respect to voting. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Simularly the 19th, 24th and 27th amendment further solidifies the difference.
I'm sorry. You must have forgotten to quote the part where it say, "The rights of non-citizens may be abridged on account of..." I can't seem to find it, but I'm sure you'll point it out.
And the recent scotus you are refering to made the reference that congress has to declare the suspension of writ of habeas corpus
No, it didn't. The SCOTUS ruling I'm refering to concerned a Mexican drug lord arrested in Mexico and tried in the US. He was denied a dismissal on 4th Am grounds (there was no warrant), but his right to 6th Am trial procedures was upheld. It is this decision which notes the difference between the words "person" and "the people" or "citizen" in the Constitution, and that difference was noted by Chief Justice Rehnquist. If you take issue with it, please take it up with him. I'm sure he'll appreciate your cliff-
So what? I was talking about the Sixth Amendment. Maybe you should actually read the Constitution some time.
Thank's for the nod to that case, though, since the, majority decision (by Chief Justice Rehnquist, a reactionary judge) found that the Fifth and Sixth Ams. have no restrictions wrt location of capture or citizenship.
The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures.
The Sixth Amendment doesn't say "except for terrorists". The Sixth Amendment doesn't say "only applies to citizens". In fact, a fairly recent SCOTUS case held that non-citizens captured on foreign soil/are/ granted Sixth Amendment rights.
Abiding by the Constitution is the only thing that keeps this country free. Don't try to destroy our freedom.
Oh, and I didn't answer your question because you didn't ask it of me. But now that you have, I shall: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus the government should at all times abide by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
Web kiosks, where the owner doesn't want to let folks put in a thumbdrive and reboot, starting an OS with a keylogger or worse.
[That] isn't relevant to GPL because no distribution is involved.
Image, if you please, that a young hacker named Root Mean Squared stops at this web kiosk to print out the latest paper from a friend of his at college. It's in PostScript format, of course, and the PS drivers for the printer at the kiosk have a bug...
I believe the web kiosk is/exactly/ the type of scenario that RMS and the FSF have in mind. Legally, that's not "distribution" under copyright (and thus copyleft), but rest assured, they'll try to find a way to eliminate that "bug" in the GPL if ever they have a chance.
Meta-data would have been fine. The "generator" or whatever HTML meta tags were allowed, for example. (I use the past tense because I'm no longer in a public relations-related area, so I haven't kept up on changes to policy.)
Hmm... Embedded in the meta-data would be perfectly reasonable.
The issue I had at work wasn't so much one of aesthetics, it was one of legality. I work for the government, and my particular area is restricted from having logos on our web pages which may be construed to advocate a third party entity. No "Valid HTML with a link to the W3C", no "Best viewed with Internet Explorer/Firefox" and certainly no "Powered by...".
That doesn't make any sense unless you selectively interpret it to fit what you want it to. There's no Freedom guaranteeing that a modified program will run on the original hardware. For one thing, the modified code might be buggy. For another, it might be too large. For a third, the hardware might be buggy.
Running modified code on the original hardware is convenient. It's probably what you want to do. It might even have been your inital goal. But calling it a "freedom" is just silly.
I think it's unprofessional. Would you want a watermark of the GIMP... coyote? whatever... and URL on your wedding pictures? Would corporations and design studios use your product? I doubt it. I don't think it's unreasonable for stuff I use at home, but I'd never use such a product at work. Come to think of it, I remember wanting to use a piece of free web code of some sort at work a few years back, and we decided not to because one of the license stipulations was that the logo appear on the page.
If you want to stipulate it in your free software, go ahead. I think it's probably a good way to form word-of-mouth for some stuff. But for a large portion of software (targetted at business, government), it's just not kosher.
- Voting machines, where you want to prevent misuse by unscrupulous folks (both end users and poll staff) - Cars and other devices where safety is a primary concern - Web kiosks, where the owner doesn't want to let folks put in a thumbdrive and reboot, starting an OS with a keylogger or worse.
Another idea about Tivo. There's a lot of talk about how devices like Tivo have to provide "significant non-infringing use" to be legal. If Tivo knows of a way to prevent their devices from being used to infringe and fails to implement it, they could be found negligent and therefor liable for damages. Is it better to have closed hardware or no hardware?
Slashdot Mirror
it's silly to compare an aesthetic field, such as music, with a functional field, such as programming
Music is not always artistic; it is often quite functional. I'd go so far as to say that most new music is more functional than artistic. Consider, for example advertisement jingles. If for some reason you insist that music is especially artistic, substitute any other creative process: architecture, drawing, etc. These are all things that increasingly use existing material; but in all cases, the idea that originality could be eliminated is facile.
I think it was worth pointing out that many composers have reused material to save time and fulfill a commision just like coders rely on libraries.
OK, but why bother? Of course some composers reuse old music sometimes. And some coders reuse code sometimes. The original question was one of absolutes.
It's truly disturbing to me how someone who put so much effort into writing a response could have completely failed to understand simple words like "all" and "any".
I predict that this will happen shortly after all composers simply re-arrange themes and phrases from previous musical pieces in order to create any new compositions and authors simply splice paragraphs from existing books to form new ones.
Yes, your analogy is better than gpp's, but he's right that the FF team is "getting away" with blaming it on extensions. Basically, they omit certain functionality and claim it can be achieved with an extension. And then when people complain about buggy extensions, those same extensions are all of a sudden "unsupported". Firefox fanbois want to have they're cake (fewer bugs thanks in part to less functionality) and eat it too (claim FF has features it doesn't).
That's why I use Opera. Not only are the features I want actually there; they're supported, too.
/A lot of the constitution worshipers are falling foul of asuming the constitution will ALWAYS be right in EVERY situation./
The Constitution doesn't say anything about right or wrong. It neither condones nor censures. It merely circumscribes the responses of the government.
Aggravated assault.
You apparently wouldn't know "libre" if it bit you in the ass.
Both you and grandparent miss the genious of the Constitution. The reason it hasn't required more upkeep in the past 200+ years is /because/ it is so vague. Specificity results in obsolescence.
Consider if one of the powers granted to Congress was, "The ability to build roads, by which we mean paths of no more than 20 feet wide for the use of wagons, horses, and pedestrian traffic." Yeah, THAT would have stayed the test of time.
Huh... ya' learn something new every day. Thanks.
(PS: I think that part of the law is retarded, IMNSHO. Copyright (or, really, laws in general) shouldn't limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home.)
And tyranny by the majority is what -- that the majority disfavors nudity in public parks?
/specifically designed/ to prevent "tyranny of the majority". It is not the majority who benefit from Freedom of Speech; it is those who wish to broach an unpopular opinion. It is not those who toe the party line who need fear unreasonable searches and siezures; it is those who have crossed the government in some way. It is not law-abiding (the majority, surely) citizens who require protection from cruel or unusual punishments; it is criminals who have been convicted by a jury of their peers.
No, "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase that refers to the majority opinion making minority opinions illegal. For example, if the US, which is majority Christian, disenfranchised atheists, that would be "tyranny of the majority". A less extreme example along the same lines would be if only Christian churches were awarded non-profit status.
Majority rule always devolves to mob rule. Always.
The Constitution solves the problem by putting power in the hands of the majority...
Au contraire, the original Constitution did no such thing. Only the smallest portion of the power was given directly to the people (electing representatives). Senators were chosen only by state legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College. Supreme Court justices were appointed by the President (and for a life term!). If you want an example of "majority rule", the American Constitution provides a poor one.
It gets even worse when you start into the Amendments. Am. 1 through 10 are
The word "democracy" comes from the Greek word for "mob rule". I, for one, am glad that I do not live in a democracy but rather a constitutional republic. In a democracy, you're only safe so long as you share the viewpoints of your neighbors.
Traditional copyright law only restricts distribution.
The DMCA added other stuff (eg, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted work), but that's fairly recent and not universally applicable.
Why is it that most bushbashers[sic] aren't even from the united statES[sic]and[sic] they typicly[sic] spell worse then[sic] me?
LOL, that's five errors in one simple sentance!
I'm from the US (I'm a citizen of North Carolina). I'm currently in the US military (seven years this January). When you join the US military, let me know. And when you think one of my posts has more gramtical and spelling errors than yours, let me know. I'll be happy to given you a lesson in English grammar. I can do better drunk (which I am right now) than you could ever hope to do sober.
You're a liar.
If you hadn't brough up the US v Verdugo-Urquidez case yourself, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But since you did bring it up, I have to assume you at least read the Abstract (because you'd never bring up a SCOTUS decision without actually reading it, right?). And since the Abstract specifically references the validity of the Fifth and Sixth Amendements wrt foreign citizens, I'm forced to conclude that you are a bald-faced liar.
I responded to you quetions wrt the bill by stating the fact of the Sixth Amendment. Your question in general was much broader than the specifics of the bill per se.
[Wrt the "full faith and credit"clause]>It only guarentees citizens thier rights.
False. The full faith and credit clause does not enumerate a right. It enumerates a duty of the government.
Yes, that particular duty is only due to citizens. So what?
Sure and it [the right to sue state governments] specificly says that only citizens enjoy that luxury.
False. It does NOT afford "citizens" that luxury. It specifically denied citizens in general that luxury.
Then we aren't reading the same cases.
I mentioned that is was brought up by another pesrson disagreing with me, but that was elsethread. The case I'm refering to is US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
Surely the constitution doesn't apply to Russian civilians, in russia.
In general, no. When they are detained by US officials, however, it does. Why? Simple: the Constitution does not confer rights to individuals (as those rights are, as per the Declaration of Independence, "inalienable"); it limits the power of officials of the government.
You hypocrite!
Read you own words and weap, you hypocrite.
What it does do is distinguish between citizens and non citizens, states and federal authorities, and then goes on to guarentee rights held by citizens shall not be abridge.You seem to think I am trying to read "non-citizens don't count"
Parially tue. The Constitutions distinguishes (according to SCOTUS) between "citzens" and "people in general, citizen or no" (note that in my preference, I would afford all restrictions possible to government, regardless of the citizenship of the person afflicted). SCOTUS notes that phrases referencing "citizens" (duh) or "the people" refers only to citizens of the US; however, phrases referncing "person[s]" refers to any entity regardless of citizenship.
I would have the Fourth Amendment and the entirety of the Fourteenth apply to anyone (citizen or no) handled in any way by the US or stat governments. SCOTUS disagrees with me, though; according to them, the Forth and first part of the Fourteenth Ams. do not apply, but the Fifth, Sixth, and "Due Process" clause of the Fourteenth do apply.
Article 1 section 9 says,
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. So it is ok to take away habeas corpus. Hmm... whatelse does it say?
Yes, it does. The only time habeas corpus has ever been suspended was during the Civil War, and that was only winthin a small, specific area; it was to prevent Maryland from seceding and Washington, DC from being surrounded and cut off from the rest of the Union. However, it is legal to suspend it.
Article 4 section 2 says,
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Well, it mentions citizens but not non citizens.. hmm.. were could this be leading?
Go read a history book fer crine out loud. That's called the "full faith and credit clause". What it does is guarantee that a Virginia marriage license is valid in Missouri.
But the 11th amendment says,
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.So here we see the constitution claims that it doesn't automaticly guarentee rights to non-citizens.
That says that a German may not sue the state of New York. It also says that a Nebraskan may not sue the state of New York. I fail to see how this substantially differentiates "US citizens" from foreigners wrt the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.
The 14th amendment say
Here we get to some meat. Read on!
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
So clearly, the words "person" and "citizen" are NOT synonymous within the context of the Constitution; if they were, specifying the word "persons" and defining the specified subset as citizens would be redundant and misleading. Remember that... it's important.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Yep, that part only applies to citizens.
nor shall any state deprive any person [emphasis added] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [emphasis added again] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So while certain laws may be made abridging the rights of non-citizens, no state may take "life liberty, or property, without due process of law" from *any* person, whether that person is a citizen or not.
the 15th amendment make it even clearer by stating a difference between a state and the united states with respect to voting. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Simularly the 19th, 24th and 27th amendment further solidifies the difference.
I'm sorry. You must have forgotten to quote the part where it say, "The rights of non-citizens may be abridged on account of..." I can't seem to find it, but I'm sure you'll point it out.
And the recent scotus you are refering to made the reference that congress has to declare the suspension of writ of habeas corpus
No, it didn't. The SCOTUS ruling I'm refering to concerned a Mexican drug lord arrested in Mexico and tried in the US. He was denied a dismissal on 4th Am grounds (there was no warrant), but his right to 6th Am trial procedures was upheld. It is this decision which notes the difference between the words "person" and "the people" or "citizen" in the Constitution, and that difference was noted by Chief Justice Rehnquist. If you take issue with it, please take it up with him. I'm sure he'll appreciate your cliff-
Thank's for the nod to that case, though, since the, majority decision (by Chief Justice Rehnquist, a reactionary judge) found that the Fifth and Sixth Ams. have no restrictions wrt location of capture or citizenship.
The Sixth Amendment doesn't say "except for terrorists". The Sixth Amendment doesn't say "only applies to citizens". In fact, a fairly recent SCOTUS case held that non-citizens captured on foreign soil /are/ granted Sixth Amendment rights.
Abiding by the Constitution is the only thing that keeps this country free. Don't try to destroy our freedom.
Oh, and I didn't answer your question because you didn't ask it of me. But now that you have, I shall: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus the government should at all times abide by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
You clearly hate the Constitution.
The Constitution guarantees a speedy, public trial. It guarantees that the accused by able to face his accuser. Why do you hate the Constitution?
Image, if you please, that a young hacker named Root Mean Squared stops at this web kiosk to print out the latest paper from a friend of his at college. It's in PostScript format, of course, and the PS drivers for the printer at the kiosk have a bug...
I believe the web kiosk is
Meta-data would have been fine. The "generator" or whatever HTML meta tags were allowed, for example. (I use the past tense because I'm no longer in a public relations-related area, so I haven't kept up on changes to policy.)
Hmm... Embedded in the meta-data would be perfectly reasonable.
The issue I had at work wasn't so much one of aesthetics, it was one of legality. I work for the government, and my particular area is restricted from having logos on our web pages which may be construed to advocate a third party entity. No "Valid HTML with a link to the W3C", no "Best viewed with Internet Explorer/Firefox" and certainly no "Powered by...".
That doesn't make any sense unless you selectively interpret it to fit what you want it to. There's no Freedom guaranteeing that a modified program will run on the original hardware. For one thing, the modified code might be buggy. For another, it might be too large. For a third, the hardware might be buggy.
Running modified code on the original hardware is convenient. It's probably what you want to do. It might even have been your inital goal. But calling it a "freedom" is just silly.
Yeah, I missed that line.
I think it's unprofessional. Would you want a watermark of the GIMP... coyote? whatever... and URL on your wedding pictures? Would corporations and design studios use your product? I doubt it. I don't think it's unreasonable for stuff I use at home, but I'd never use such a product at work. Come to think of it, I remember wanting to use a piece of free web code of some sort at work a few years back, and we decided not to because one of the license stipulations was that the logo appear on the page.
If you want to stipulate it in your free software, go ahead. I think it's probably a good way to form word-of-mouth for some stuff. But for a large portion of software (targetted at business, government), it's just not kosher.
Yes, the Tivo point is weak.
Voting machines belong to the government, and that's exactly whom I *don't* want modifying them.
- Voting machines, where you want to prevent misuse by unscrupulous folks (both end users and poll staff)
- Cars and other devices where safety is a primary concern
- Web kiosks, where the owner doesn't want to let folks put in a thumbdrive and reboot, starting an OS with a keylogger or worse.
Another idea about Tivo. There's a lot of talk about how devices like Tivo have to provide "significant non-infringing use" to be legal. If Tivo knows of a way to prevent their devices from being used to infringe and fails to implement it, they could be found negligent and therefor liable for damages. Is it better to have closed hardware or no hardware?