I will also add that I am running one of the more successful stores in my district, and in a good month we've got about 5 to 6 thousand dollars left on the store's bottom line. And that doesn't include the costs of running our home office.
If you think the retailers are gouging you then you are extremely uninformed.
You basically have no idea what you are talking about.
You claim that Troll Tech would have liked to use the LGPL, and were forced to use the GPL. This is absurd. Releasing under the LGPL would instantly kill their business plan-- the LGPL allows distribution of proprietary programs that are linked to libraries covered by it. The GPL doesn't. Troll wants to be able to say "if you want to distribute a proprietary application linked to Qt, you must pay us and use our commercial license."
No, our currency says "in God we trust." Note that it doesn't specify which god. My proof: the Supreme Court has ruled that this statement does not violate the first ammendment because it is not specific to any one religion.
I find it incredibly annoying that everyone uses "God" as the name of their particular diety. This practice allows people to believe that any reference to God is a reference to their god, and not the god worshipped by the speaker. --
When wolvie started bleeding while touching her, it wasn't from her... it was from the battle, which he hadn't yet healed from, and which had wounded him far worse than his healing factor made obvious. I think.
[...]
the comics have established that the claws are natural.
It showed her hand with the alloy claws coming out of the knuckles. --
No, there were two sets of bars. One between the fortress' inards and the jail and one between the jail and the cliff. Magneto bent the first set, and ripped the second set from the wall. --
At the end, Rogue temporarily "inherited" Wolverine's claws when he saved her by touching her. But the claws are not his power. His power is his ability to heal rapidly!
You're confusing the text of the GPL with the terms under which a program is licensed.
If I say "foo is distributed under the terms of the GPL, plus you have to pick my nose every time you copy it", that is not changing the GPL. That is changing the terms under which foo is licensed.
What I can't do is add a thirteenth section to the GPL saying "anytime you copy the Program you must pick the author's nose".
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Then there are those of us who concede that the presence or absence of God is something that inherently cannot be described by Science, and who thus realize that we must have faith in something that by definition cannot be measured or quantified.
I can't tell if you're an agnostic or if you're a theist who admits his dependence on faith (which is totally fine, BTW), but I'll throw this out anyway for an agnostic to answer:
How can you assert that God is unknowable if you think that God is unknowable?
"Please understand that if your school system does sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremonies and we are contacted by students and their families, we will most likely pursue litigation."
You later wrote:
I just wish they would treat conservative Christians with the same extreme views with which they treat everyone else.
I find it interesting that you see this as ACLU vs. conservative Christians instead of ACLU vs. Religious people. Where in the above statement did the ACLU mention Christianity?
Tell me, would you criticize a conservative christian who sued because s/he was forced to sit through a 20 minute graduation speech that glorified pagan gods?
You wrote:
Surely there is a case somewhere where the ACLU defended the rights of a conservative Christian to share their personal belief system in a highly public forum...
Since when is a graduation ceremony a "highly public forum" where anyone can voice any points of view at the microphone?
Methinks you want conservative christians (and no one else) to have the right to use the govt as a tool for spreading their faith.
The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the affirmative claim, so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here (aside from his nigh-religious clinging to this somehow mysterious and supernatural "meaning of existence"), I shall continue to believe otherwise.
"I'll believe otherwise" is not a rational response! You can't believe !P because there's no proof of P!
"Our existence is pointless" is not the default position in the absence of evidence for or against whether or not we have a purpose here in the universe!
The only rational position is "I'll reserve judgement until I see proof, seeing as both sides have none at the moment."
The object code output is a derived work, but the compiler itself would not be considered derived from the input file just because it can do something with it, since it can also do stuff with anything else in the range of the language it compiles.
You're right, it would take some extremely twisted logic to conclude that a compiler is based on whatever source code it happens to be compiling at the time.
I think I see where you're going with this. I don't consider a patch to be a derivative work of the source that it is patching simply because it modifies the source. I consider it to be a derivative work because whoever authored the patch put time, energy, and thought into creating something that is obviously a derivative work of the original source code, and then created the patch by extracting their changes from that derivative work.
Indeed, a "patch" that totally deletes all the original code and inserts its own could be applied to just about any code and perform its intended function correctly.
No offense, but I think in the process of trying to maintain your point you have completely changed the definition of a patch. The equivalent of
rm -rf originalstuff/* cp -a myunrelatedstuff/* originalstuff/
Is not a patch in the usual sense of the word, and I do not consider any code that does the equivalent of the above to be a derivative work of whatever code it is replacing.
I get the feeling your trying to catch me on certain extreme cases, most notably a 'patch' that can be applied to just about any source code. I would argue that such a patch would not be copyrightable anyway because it would have to remain extremely simple in order to successfully patch unrelated works. For example, something that replaced
void main()
with
int main()
is not copyrightable because it is so simple, so it can't have a copyright license anyway.
Of course, if someone created a patch that was supposed to be applied to 5 specific works (just as an example, and this is assuming that such a patch could exist), and in the process of creating the patch they put time, energy and effort into modifying each of the 5 works, I would argue that the patch is based on all 5 and the creator of the patch has some pretty severe legal problems if he's distributing it, unless all 5 works used the same copyright license and the patch used that license also.
At what point to you consider a patch to be a derived work? Where do you draw the line?
I think it's clear now that there is no simple answer to this question. Each case has to be considered individually, using a common sense definition of "based upon".
A generic rubric that applies to all cases does not exist. There is no solid, distinct line to be drawn.
A handwritten patch that doesn't include any context or other bits of the original is not derived from that work.
But, returning to the definition of a derivative work (us code title 17):
A ''derivative work'' is a work
based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
"Based upon" does not necessarily mean "includes".
So if you can create a handwritten patch without ever looking at the original source, that would probably be a separate work. Anything else IMHO is a derivative work.
Slashdot Mirror
I will also add that I am running one of the more successful stores in my district, and in a good month we've got about 5 to 6 thousand dollars left on the store's bottom line. And that doesn't include the costs of running our home office.
If you think the retailers are gouging you then you are extremely uninformed.
I manage a record store. Gross margin on CDs is in the low 30 percent.
The only thing we make a decent amount of money on is used product. There the margin approaches 60 percent.
You basically have no idea what you are talking about.
You claim that Troll Tech would have liked to use the LGPL, and were forced to use the GPL. This is absurd. Releasing under the LGPL would instantly kill their business plan-- the LGPL allows distribution of proprietary programs that are linked to libraries covered by it. The GPL doesn't. Troll wants to be able to say "if you want to distribute a proprietary application linked to Qt, you must pay us and use our commercial license."
Duh. Get a clue.
--
No, our currency says "in God we trust." Note that it doesn't specify which god. My proof: the Supreme Court has ruled that this statement does not violate the first ammendment because it is not specific to any one religion.
I find it incredibly annoying that everyone uses "God" as the name of their particular diety. This practice allows people to believe that any reference to God is a reference to their god, and not the god worshipped by the speaker.
--
Some LTE songs are part of their set... or they were when they played Maritime in March.
--
Damn you Rob! Have your party tomorrow night!
--
Do you have references to back up your bold claim? Or are you just making things up as you go along?
--
--
No, there were two sets of bars. One between the fortress' inards and the jail and one between the jail and the cliff. Magneto bent the first set, and ripped the second set from the wall.
--
I can't believe no one else has mentioned this!
At the end, Rogue temporarily "inherited" Wolverine's claws when he saved her by touching her. But the claws are not his power. His power is his ability to heal rapidly!
Doh!
--
Did I say nothing was being broadcast?
--
If I say "foo is distributed under the terms of the GPL, plus you have to pick my nose every time you copy it", that is not changing the GPL. That is changing the terms under which foo is licensed.
What I can't do is add a thirteenth section to the GPL saying "anytime you copy the Program you must pick the author's nose".
See the difference?
--
--
No on is broadcasting the work in question, only it's output, so that analogy doesn't apply.
--
--
I can't tell if you're an agnostic or if you're a theist who admits his dependence on faith (which is totally fine, BTW), but I'll throw this out anyway for an agnostic to answer:
How can you assert that God is unknowable if you think that God is unknowable?
(I'm a weak atheist, FWIW)
Simple-- they probably list the mp3s that each user is offering.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1798138.html? tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1005-200-1798138
You later wrote:
I find it interesting that you see this as ACLU vs. conservative Christians instead of ACLU vs. Religious people. Where in the above statement did the ACLU mention Christianity?
Tell me, would you criticize a conservative christian who sued because s/he was forced to sit through a 20 minute graduation speech that glorified pagan gods?
You wrote:
Since when is a graduation ceremony a "highly public forum" where anyone can voice any points of view at the microphone?Methinks you want conservative christians (and no one else) to have the right to use the govt as a tool for spreading their faith.
"Our existence is pointless" is not the default position in the absence of evidence for or against whether or not we have a purpose here in the universe!
The only rational position is "I'll reserve judgement until I see proof, seeing as both sides have none at the moment."
-brian (a weak atheist)
I think I see where you're going with this. I don't consider a patch to be a derivative work of the source that it is patching simply because it modifies the source. I consider it to be a derivative work because whoever authored the patch put time, energy, and thought into creating something that is obviously a derivative work of the original source code, and then created the patch by extracting their changes from that derivative work.
No offense, but I think in the process of trying to maintain your point you have completely changed the definition of a patch. The equivalent ofrm -rf originalstuff/*
cp -a myunrelatedstuff/* originalstuff/
Is not a patch in the usual sense of the word, and I do not consider any code that does the equivalent of the above to be a derivative work of whatever code it is replacing.
I get the feeling your trying to catch me on certain extreme cases, most notably a 'patch' that can be applied to just about any source code. I would argue that such a patch would not be copyrightable anyway because it would have to remain extremely simple in order to successfully patch unrelated works. For example, something that replaced
void main()
with
int main()
is not copyrightable because it is so simple, so it can't have a copyright license anyway.
Of course, if someone created a patch that was supposed to be applied to 5 specific works (just as an example, and this is assuming that such a patch could exist), and in the process of creating the patch they put time, energy and effort into modifying each of the 5 works, I would argue that the patch is based on all 5 and the creator of the patch has some pretty severe legal problems if he's distributing it, unless all 5 works used the same copyright license and the patch used that license also.
I think it's clear now that there is no simple answer to this question. Each case has to be considered individually, using a common sense definition of "based upon".A generic rubric that applies to all cases does not exist. There is no solid, distinct line to be drawn.
The rest of your post I agree with.
I think I can win that prize.
Moderators, do your duty.
So if you can create a handwritten patch without ever looking at the original source, that would probably be a separate work. Anything else IMHO is a derivative work.