The GPL does not require you make the source availible to everyone. It requires you make the source availible to anyone to whom you provide the software. Really? Then why does section 3.B contain say that you must provide to "any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code"?
I don't think they're in violation unless they deny a request for the source code. You think wrong. The GPL says the notice must be published "conspicuously and appropriately".
But even if the GPL didn't say this, you'd still be wrong - because the GPL also says that you must *provide* the source. It does not say a request has to be made first.
In any resulting copyright case, do you *honestly* believe that a judge would say "oh, well they threw the letters in the garbage, that means they're not in violation"??!?!
Under copyright law, there is absolutely no requirement for them to provide the source code. Wrong. The OP received the binary in a product he purchased from them. By the terms in the GPL, they are required to make that source available Sorry, but exactly when did Title 17 begin including or referencing the GPL?!?!?
Copyright law does not say anything about providing source code. It merely says that you must have a license. It does not dictate what the license says, nor does it say you must follow the terms of the license.
If you get a license and then don't follow the terms, the copyright holder (or their agent) can sue you for breach of contract - but (again) copyright law says *nothing* about this.
For those of us in the civilized world, 70 degrees is roughly 1.2217 radians. Sheesh, who used degrees these days?! Anyone doing orienteering. Find me a compass that does radians.:)
The thing that really sucks about Motorola's USB charge support is that it does some sort of check, in software, before accepting a charger No, I don't think so. I've used generic chargers with my Motorola phone with no problem.
computers with appropriate drivers work fine; but generic USB chargers and computers without drivers get a little "unauthorized" message and no charge. The problem is the *computer*, not the phone, and it's a function of how USB manages power.
USB devices have two levels of power they can draw - one very tiny amount, and a larger amount (guess which one charging your phone requires?)
When a USB device is plugged in, it only gets the minimal amount. If it needs more, it has to negotiate for it... and operating systems do this with a driver. If you have no driver (or the amount of power requested would overload the USB bus), the request for the higher power level is denied, and the phone doesn't charge.
Generic USB chargers just accept the request, unless it's for more than they can put out... which might have caused your problem... but it's not the phone that's at fault. (The phone needs what it needs, so if the charger can't or won't supply it, there's nothing the phone can do about it.)
That's a bit obtuse. Why does it matter what media format the source is on? Because this is Prentice saying "BEND OVER CANADA, HOLLYWOOD WANTS TO RAPE YOU".
To be precise: they want to fuck Canadians over in favour of hollywood, but want to appear as though they're making a compromise.. so they make the compromise as useless as possible.
What are some specific points I could bring up and send back to my MP? How about that it's full of half-truths? Example:
expressly allow you to [...] make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes It expressly allows you to do this, but it also expressly forbids you from owning the tools to do it.
For example: All commercial videocassettes are protected by Macrovision. Bill C61 would expressly allow you to back them up, but expressly forbids you from owning anything that would actually do it.
So the only thing it "expressly" allows you to do is make backups of your own home movies, which you were already allowed to do.
But certainly, one has to believe that most would consider this at the very least to represent a serious conflict of interest given the nature of the trial. Gotta love the tentative language here--mosts and leasts and all. "One has to believe" no such thing. Exactly. I couldn't believe it when I read that. This judge has no more conflict than one who doesn't have a porn site.
Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. No. If you view the media soundbytes, it sure looks
Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky.
He asked the judge to define "sexual relations". The *judge* told him sexual relations means intercourse.
Now, you might have a different definition, but unless you are going to try to convince us that he had intercourse with Lewinsky, then you must admit that he did not commit perjury.
The point is, if you're caught connected to a tracker for a copyrighted torrent, it's valid to assume you're not there just to monitor it No, the point is, if you're not connected to a tracker, but their software says you are, you still get harrassed.
Unless you care to explain to me how an unmodified printer can connect to a tracker.
However it's quite obvious (from the use of your term "copyrighted torrent") that you have no idea what you're talking about. (Hint: if you mean a torrent in which the files are copyrighted, that would include *EVERYTHING*, including Fedora or Ubuntu ISOs.)
Yes, because technology never improves to make things smaller, faster, and less obtrusive, right?
That's why all cars only have 8HP, plane trips have a maximum distance of 300 yards, cell phones weigh nearly a kilogram and get 10 minutes of talk time, the smallest computer takes up several buildings and can only do 5000 math operations per second.
the "I didn't know the gun was loaded" excuse has a very bad track record. The thing is, this isn't even "I didn't know the gun was loaded." This is more like "I loaded the gun and pulled the trigger, but I didn't realize who I was pointing it at."
Also from the article:
Each song can played one time in its entirety with the built in flash player. Subsequent plays are limited to 30 seconds. So the "unlimited" number of plays are limted to 30 second clips.
A lot of people like to listen to a rolling window of the same 100 songs. It grows and changes over time, but you get hooked on a new band or a new album, and you want to hear that for a while. You pay 10 cents and then you're set. I think you need to read the article. What you're describing is not what this is about.
Here's they way Lala works:
Person pays $0.10. They listen to the track once. If they want to listen to that track a second time, they pay $0.10 again. Third time? That's another $0.10.
This isn't for everyone, that's for sure. You misspelled "anyone".
Theft does not legally constitute a change of ownership either. Congratulations for the circular reference. You just said that copyright infringement is theft because copyright infringement is theft.
Perhaps you could, address the arguments instead of providing a tautology?
The difference between theft and copyright infringment is that theft deprives the owner of the original.
The owner is not being deprived of the original, so therefore copyright infringement is not theft.
No, he is saying that the copyright holder has to compete with his own product. Besides being a huge stretch to interpret the poster's comment to mean that, this is a moot point - the copyright holder *already* has to compete with their own product in the form of used merchandise, rental market and borrowing (libraries, between friends, etc.)
Unless you're also going to say that borrowing a book or DVD from your library is also stealing?
Buying from a used bookseller or DVD shop? That would also be stealing then wouldn't it?
Taken to it's logical conclusion, if I buy something, but only buy one copy, that must be stealing as well, because it means that I won't purchase a second one!
Does that mean they are gone for good? I sure as hell hope so! I played with the CSS, and found that they are really kinda helpful if set to 1px. 4px was just horrible. Have you tried removing them with Stylish?
I use it to fix the ugly fonts and screwed line-height here, it works really well.
What they are being denied is the _exclusivity_ of the right to copy Really?
You're saying that the original copyright holder no longer holds the copyright?
That sounds pretty far-fetched. Can you point me to the legal statute that backs up your claim that a third party engaging in copyright infringement voids your copyright, because I have a very hard time believing that.
Not sure what point you're trying to make - your post is a perfect example of the difference between a cult an a religion.
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This is an example of a religion. If it was a cult, it would read something like this:
"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Slashdot Mirror
But even if the GPL didn't say this, you'd still be wrong - because the GPL also says that you must *provide* the source. It does not say a request has to be made first.
In any resulting copyright case, do you *honestly* believe that a judge would say "oh, well they threw the letters in the garbage, that means they're not in violation"??!?!
Copyright law does not say anything about providing source code. It merely says that you must have a license. It does not dictate what the license says, nor does it say you must follow the terms of the license.
If you get a license and then don't follow the terms, the copyright holder (or their agent) can sue you for breach of contract - but (again) copyright law says *nothing* about this.
OP is correct, and you are very, very wrong.
USB devices have two levels of power they can draw - one very tiny amount, and a larger amount (guess which one charging your phone requires?)
When a USB device is plugged in, it only gets the minimal amount. If it needs more, it has to negotiate for it... and operating systems do this with a driver. If you have no driver (or the amount of power requested would overload the USB bus), the request for the higher power level is denied, and the phone doesn't charge.
Generic USB chargers just accept the request, unless it's for more than they can put out... which might have caused your problem... but it's not the phone that's at fault. (The phone needs what it needs, so if the charger can't or won't supply it, there's nothing the phone can do about it.)
Could you provide a better link for it?
To be precise: they want to fuck Canadians over in favour of hollywood, but want to appear as though they're making a compromise.. so they make the compromise as useless as possible.
For example: All commercial videocassettes are protected by Macrovision. Bill C61 would expressly allow you to back them up, but expressly forbids you from owning anything that would actually do it.
So the only thing it "expressly" allows you to do is make backups of your own home movies, which you were already allowed to do.
Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky.
He asked the judge to define "sexual relations". The *judge* told him sexual relations means intercourse.
Now, you might have a different definition, but unless you are going to try to convince us that he had intercourse with Lewinsky, then you must admit that he did not commit perjury.
Unless you care to explain to me how an unmodified printer can connect to a tracker.
However it's quite obvious (from the use of your term "copyrighted torrent") that you have no idea what you're talking about. (Hint: if you mean a torrent in which the files are copyrighted, that would include *EVERYTHING*, including Fedora or Ubuntu ISOs.)
Yes, because technology never improves to make things smaller, faster, and less obtrusive, right?
That's why all cars only have 8HP, plane trips have a maximum distance of 300 yards, cell phones weigh nearly a kilogram and get 10 minutes of talk time, the smallest computer takes up several buildings and can only do 5000 math operations per second.
Here's they way Lala works:
Person pays $0.10. They listen to the track once. If they want to listen to that track a second time, they pay $0.10 again. Third time? That's another $0.10. This isn't for everyone, that's for sure. You misspelled "anyone".
I always get a giggle out of these "IQ" tests that require the use of javascript and cookies.
I guess if you visit their site with noscript, your IQ is so high it can't be measured!
Perhaps you could, address the arguments instead of providing a tautology?
The difference between theft and copyright infringment is that theft deprives the owner of the original.
The owner is not being deprived of the original, so therefore copyright infringement is not theft.
Unless you're also going to say that borrowing a book or DVD from your library is also stealing?
Buying from a used bookseller or DVD shop? That would also be stealing then wouldn't it?
Taken to it's logical conclusion, if I buy something, but only buy one copy, that must be stealing as well, because it means that I won't purchase a second one!
I guess it's a good thing for you that CmdrTaco has cancelled "/. the FPS" then, huh?
I use it to fix the ugly fonts and screwed line-height here, it works really well.
And you're right - it is much better at 1px.
You're saying that the original copyright holder no longer holds the copyright?
That sounds pretty far-fetched. Can you point me to the legal statute that backs up your claim that a third party engaging in copyright infringement voids your copyright, because I have a very hard time believing that.
"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."