You can have PC knowledge but that means we can be arrested as soon as you enter the US. Is that the risk worth hacking a gamebox?
What risk? The chance that you'll inadvertently visit the USA? It's not the sort of possibility that keeps me awake worrying at night.
Being on a blacklist until you come in the US so feds can crawl up your body to cuff and hold you for x(xx) days?
I think you're really out of touch with reality. "Until" I come to America??? Like that's something everyone does eventually?
naaaah..
I wish to be "free" to enter any country without those pesky rules of reverse engineering etc.., and, btw a criminal record of "hacking a gamebox" looks bad on your cv:o))
Well changing your behaviour in advance on the off chance that you might want to visit some country might pass for "free" in America. It sounds thoroughly chained to me.
I guess you're constantly closeted with a team of lawyers saying "so, if I do this will it cause problems if I ever visit Crete? How about Zimbabwe? Cuba?...."
I think you're partly right, but not exactly or maybe it's just the way it's worded:)
An employee is a separate person to the company or other employer that they work for (e.g. individual human or partnership of humans). The fact that a company is also a separate person from its owners (unlike the situation with an individual employer or a "normal" partnership) does not, I think, add any special blur to the line between employer and employee as you seemed to be saying it does (maybe just my mistaken interpretation of what you were saying).
If employees act on behalf of the employer to obtain software and install it on the employer's computers for use in the employer's business I don't think that would count as distribution of the software. But that isn't because the employee is in some way part of the employer.
A similar (in my view) position is if I have software installed on my computer and I let you use my computer - I don't think that counts as me "distributing" anyything on my computer to you. Equally an employee using software on the employer's computers has not had anything distributed to them - and the same applies if an independent contractor or a customer use the software on those computers. Consequently the GPL provisions concerning distribution do not apply.
If employees modify the software on the employer's computers I don't think that that means it has been distributed to them. Using the modified software again doesn't, in my opinion, involve distributing anything.
I do agree with Carnage4Life though that that isn't clear cut. It is very much a matter of interpretation.
In my view, if a business (again company or human makes no difference I think) gives software to an employee to install on their own computer at home, even if only for work purposes, then I think that probably is a distribution of the software and any terms in that situation that tried to restrict it to only for work purposes would probably thus be in conflict with the GPL. Again I don't think that's clear cut though.
As part of a copyright statement, adding, "if you choose to read past this line, you explicitly agree to abide by copyright contract X," a signed contract is not required, and the creator of the content can at that point assume full control of the use of that content. Legally.
You're wrong. If you walk into the shop and ask to buy the book and the shopkeeper says "no, I won't sell you this book but I wil let you read it subject to the following conditions..." and you agree to the conditions then that is binding. Equally he could give you a written contract to read and/or sign at that point. There doesn't have to be a signed contract.
But taht's only binding if you do agree to the terms before you buy the book, or more accurately as part of the process of buying the book. If you walk home with the book you purchased and then find written inside "ha ha, fooled you, you haven't bought this at all and you're bound by the following conditions if you want to read it..." then you can safely ignore that. It's your book, you bought it, you can read it, lend it to a friend, tear out pages, annotate it etc. You can't copy it and redistribute the copy, but that's about the only limit.
Once you've bought the book, without explicitly agreeing to any conditions, it's yours to read, you don't have to agree to any conditions to read it so your reading it can't be taken as agreement to the conditions. You can just ignore anything written inside that says you're not allowed to read it or can only read it on certain conditions. Even if you were to explicitly agree to any conditions at that point this would not create a binfing contract because there would be no consideration.
Is life imprisonment of "innocent" individuals any better?
Assuming that was a serious question... whether life imprisonment is worse than death ultimately depends on which seems worse to any given individual. In general though, most people (in particular advocates of the death penalty) think of death as worse, hence it's (arguable) value as an ultimate detterent. I'm not aware of any legal system that has the death penalty as a lesser penalty to life imprisonment so I think it's fair to say that the general view is that dying is worse than imprisonment and, following from this, that killing an innocent person is worse than imprisoning them for life. Just like imprisoning an innocent person is generally regarded as worse than speaking to them harshly:)
If you want another way of looking at it, I think you'll find most legal systems regard murder as a more serious crime than imprisonment.
Also, this is probably obvious but once you've killed someone you don't get to bring them back. If you sentence someone to life imprisonment and then a few years later reslise you were wrong you can let them out at that point. That doesn't undo the damage obviously but at least some remedial action is possible to mitigate the damage to that individual, not just to their next of kin.
Unless you cannot articulate your point without using vulgarity, then this should not be a problem.
Exactly the problem. If the point you're trying to make is a vulgar one then of course you won't be able to make it without being vulgar.
You might just as well say say of the European position "unless you cannot articulate your point without using expressions of hatred, then this should not be a problem."
What is your point? The usurpation of rights in the US by the federal government has no bearing on the legitimacy of the aforementioned "Canadian Charter". First of all slander is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States deals explicitly with the relationship the government has with the people. That relationship being defined by granting the government explicit powers.
Sorry, but you're confused there. The fact that it is a civil matter has no bearing on it. Slander and libel are laws applied by the government (judicial branch) with penalties enforced by the government (executive branch). The fact that they are enforced at the request of private citizens does not change that in the least. They are subject to the constitution just like any other laws. They are Acts of government, just like any other laws. Criminal or civil is irrelevant to this.
Remember, the DMCA covers encryption on copyrighted works.
People keep repeating this, where does it come from? The DMCA is not specifically about encryption. It is about technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works. Based on court cases so far we can safely say that encryption appears to count as one such technological measure, but that doesn't suddenly mean that it's the only measure. If it was meant to apply specifically to encryption then I think the language used would be very different.
Linux is technological, even if you don't like the particular techonology. Linux is used to control access to copyrighted works, including text files, programs, music, graphics, whatever. It isn't difficult to conclude that the security measures in Linux are technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced that posting this particular information would be contrary to the DMCA, I'm really not sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not encryption is involved, which is a complete red herring.
The line from the article is misleading, however: the author may understand the constitutional issue but misunderstand what the specific American law says.
That part of the article is talking about a European Union directive, it isn't about an American law at all. I agree it's misleading and confused though.
Yes...it would be a better world if no child were to go hungry and there would be world peace and we all lived in harmony. But we don't live in a John Lennon song, we live in the real world.
And you seem to think that the world would also be better if everyone (or at least everyone opposed to Bush) voted in accordance with your "realism" instead of their idealism, but that's not going to happen either so why are you whining about it?
I for one, as the author of the DSPL, the license that is going back for further discussion, would love to hear what slashdot people think about it. I can't comment on the others, but it is rather a departure from the traditional open source license...
Well, the whole executive committee and merit share holders thing gave the impression of over complexity to me and I doubt it'll be used widely, but I think that scheme is the heart of the licence so I'm sure you want to keep it:)
One particular point was it seemed to revolve around having elections for every public release of the software, so far as I could see this would mean holding elections for every bug fix. I'm probably reading it too strictly but then there doesn't seem much point in a (quite substantial) written licence unless it's expected to be strictly adhered to.
Is the thing about not being allowed to charge for the software itself important? If I understand correctly you mean I couldn't say "I will charge you $100 for this software" but I could say "I will charge you $100 for making a copy of this software for you" or something like that. If I've got that right, what's achieved by this and would you really want to be in the position of policing it?
The GPL's approach of letting people charge what they want seems to have much the same practical effect given than market forces will bring down the price of freely redistributable software unless you can add some extra value.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to include your interpretation of patent laws:
"While it is not in general illegal to produce or distribute software such as this that uses patented methods, it may be illegal to use such software for any purposes other than 'private experimentation'."
You might be right, I don't know, but I can't see you need to say it in the software licence just include the part about it being their responsibility to comply with the law. I don't know from reading it whether you were thinking of a particular jurisdiction (the USA maybe?) or all countries signed up to particular treaties or what. Stating what the law is "in general" in a licence that presumably may be used internationally doesn't seem like a good idea to me. You may be inadvertently misleading some people.
I think the part about being able to make derivatives licensed under the GPL was good, given the state of the "market" it seems good to me to allow redistribution under one of the leading licences but then I like the GPL and I expect some will disagree:)
Something I did find odd was that after specifying that derivatives could be under DSPL or GPL it then talks about pre-release versions being under a licence that prohibits further distribution, but with no real limits on what that licence might otherwise say - should this only be valid for a limited period or something?
I'm not sure on the effectiveness of the final clause about using the software as a library. So far as I can see you can take software not released as a library, adapt it so it is now a library, release that library yourself under the DSPL and then link to it in exactly the way that (it seems to me) you're trying to prohibit.
Okay, that was just a series of thoughts probably not entirely coherent that occurred to me as I read throught it. I hope I haven't sounded too negative, I guess I was looking for problems:) and I haven't spent hours poring over it of course so things I've seen as potential problems may be addressed better than I took in.
And if you're producing a proprietary product that either competes with a Microsoft offering or creates a market in which they might want to compete then in order to get access to the protocols you have to tell them enough about your plans to convince them that they're "viable", which itself will undermine your competitive position.
Yes, their argument seems to be either that even though they're not a cutomer of Teleglobe that Teleglobe should have an obligation to deliver access to their material OR that MAPS should not be permitted to publish a list of sites that they consider to be connected with spamming.
Assuming the facts presented above are true though, Teleglobs would appear to be culpable of claiming to follow a different policy to the one they have actually implemented. If so then their customers do have something legitimate to complain about. If the policy were clearly disclosed though there would be no issue, and I don't see how simply not transmitting someone else's message can be viewed as censorship.
[Stealing]
1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.
You will note that it makes no difference as to either the author keeping the original or not.
Of course it does. If he still has it then you haven't taken it.
Bend it any way you please. The wrongness of stealing goes beyong government law and gets into 'social','ethical,and 'moral' law. And it does indeed have detrimental effects. First for those who obey the law, and then those who break it. "Copy" all you want now. Just pray that the well never runs dry, because the "selfish" have killed the incentive to produce what ultimately is a 'want' item.
You are correct in saying that the fact that it is not stealing has no effect either on whether it is moral or on whether it is desirable, and of course vice versa.
For that very reason it's better to forget the attempt to manipulate through language and concentrate on what your actual point is. If I go round to your house and smash all the windows for no good reason then I've done something illegal, undesirable and unethical. You don't have to pretend that I've stolen your windows to make that point. Breach of copyright is not stealing, or murder or kidnapping. Focus on what your actual objections to it are and you'll get further than you will by trying to redefine "steal".
Re:Its slow because you use a IDE harddrive you du
on
Nautilus 1.0.5 Release
·
· Score: 1
If SCSI is no faster than IDE and Nautlius is slower than the Windows FM then logically you would expect Nautilus to run slower on IDE than the Windows FM does on IDE
Meant to say "...slower on SCSI than the Windows FM does on IDE", obviously.
Re:Its slow because you use a IDE harddrive you du
on
Nautilus 1.0.5 Release
·
· Score: 1
You might want to jump a little, I'm gonna throw some basic logic at you.
If the Windows file manager runs as fast on IDE as Nautilus does on SCSI, you can make two conclusions: (1) SCSI is not any faster than IDE, and Nautilus is just slower than the Windows FM. (2) SCSI is faster than IDE, and Nautilus is a lot slower than the Windows FM.
Is that what you call logic?
I do not see any sane way that from the premise "the Windows file manager runs as fast on IDE as Nautlius does on SCSI" that you could possibly conclude "SCSI is not any faster than IDE, and Nautlius is just slower than the Windows FM". If SCSI is no faster than IDE and Nautlius is slower than the Windows FM then logically you would expect Nautilus to run slower on IDE than the Windows FM does on IDE, which is incompatible with your opening premise.
Your second alternative conclusion is a valid possibility given the premise though.
It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back
Lots of things are dangerous to others including, not surprisingly, lots of things that are illegal.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with serial killer investigations.
There isn't a special secret court dealing with industrial pollution of water supply investigations.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with burglary investigations.
All these things are dangerous to others. What's so special about hacking that it needs these special measures?
In the Wired article it says "Gov. James Gilmore (R-Virginia), the commission 's chairman, said Wednesday that federal judges have been far too sluggish in approving search warrants and eavesdropping of online miscreants."
The courts aren't issuing warrants as easily as the government likes so their solution is to have a secret court who's decisions can't be scrutinised act as a rubber stamp instead.
IF he really said what the Wired article claims he did then is frightening that people who think like that can be allowed to work in positions of power and responsibility.
Lots of people use it. The differences between GMT and UTC are irrelevant so far as everyday life is concerned, so the population of the British Isles for a start, others in that time zone too. Pretty much anyone who needs to use a coordinated international time system, astronomers, pilots, etc.
It isn't routinely used by people outside of the GMT time zone of course, but then any new system you chose to introduce wouldn't even be used by them so that doesn't seem like much of a distinction.
It's your cd. It's your computer. You don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it.
Sorry, that should of course be "you don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it other than distribution of copies." Copyright law does prevent you from distributing copies of the software and the copyright owner can lawfully forbid you to do so, in fact by default you can't do so without their permission. They don't have any right to restrict your use of it though.
You walk into a shop, pick up a software package and say "I'd like to buy this please", the shopkeeper says "that'll be $200", you give him the money and walk out. That's a contract, there's offer acceptance and consideration.
Then you get home, open the box put the disk in the machine and suddenly it's telling you that you haven't bought anything after all and the person who made the software (not even the shop you bought it from) requires you to agree to these terms...
It's your cd. It's your computer. You don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it.
It's just far too late to start proposing terms at that stage. Consideration has already passed. If the shopkeeper had said at the begining "I'm afraid I can't sell you that sir, but I can licence it to you on the following terms..." then they'd be onto something, but of course the shopkeeper would find people were shopping elsewhere.
You have to propose the terms before consideration passes. The supposed terms in EULAs fail for want of consideration.
However, I gather UCITA, for whatever bizarre reason sets out to validate these "contracts" so where UCITA is valid all bets are off.
Re:Ok well I guess Mozilla is dead
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 1
I dont know what the average user wants? its so clear, look at Microsofts Internet Explorer, Bloated as hell, Look at AOL, Bloated as hell, ICQ, etc, This is what people use, so it must be what they want.
Give people what they want
I just don't understand what the purpose of this is from your point of view. If the average user has IE and that's what the average user wants then, well that's the average user taken care of. The only reason for developing something else aimed at the average user is surely if you believe that what they currently have is in some way not meeting their wants.
If the average user has IE and is happy with it then that's great, they're happy already.
It isn't a radical notion now. It was a radical notion then. The reason that it is no longer a radical notion is that those particular "fanatics" did achieve the changes they set out to achieve.
Discounting anyone acting now on the grounds that they are fanatics because they haven't succeeded yet whilst justifying anyone who succeeded in the past as not being a fanatic on the grounds that they actually did succeed in changing opinions is hopelesly circular.
I'm not ragging on open source it is just that touting Open Source awards given by Open Source people is like buying yourself a birthday present when no one cares enough to give you one. With all due respect, who outside the "Open Source World" gives a rat's shit?
Other than the fact that it was won by people involved in open source, the award is not in any sense an "Open Source Award".
It's an award for "Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being". There was no reason that it couldn't have been awarded to people working on closed source software. There doesn't seem to be any link between the Takeda Foundation and open source software. It doesn't seem to be in any way a foregone conclusion that this award would go to people working on open source software.
If you know of some reason to believe otherwise then say what it is, otherwise complaining about "Open Source Awards given by Open Source people" is totally irrelevant to the award under discussion here.
I was under the impression that lotteries unless in some way approved or licensed by the state government, and for that matter many other forms of gambling, were illegal in most states in the USA. I could be completely wrong there though. If lotteries are (in general) illegal in the USA then I guess it was taken that it didn't need any more explanation as to why this particular lottery was found to be illegal.
I guess they made a bad choice of jurisdiction to incorporate in, though it is difficult to believe that anyone would set up even a short term international lottery without taking extensive legal advice considering how widely laws vary on the matter.
perhaps an international i.d. card would have prevented the attacks in nyc and washington. national cards would not. these guys were legal aliens, and under the typical id card scenarios, wouldn't have been required to have cards.
Well how would an international id card help then? It would have correctly identified them as legal aliens with as much right to be there as anyone else. The only way I could see it helping would be if there there was a box for "occupation" and they put "terrorist".
Slashdot Mirror
You can have PC knowledge but that means we can be arrested as soon as you enter the US. Is that the risk worth hacking a gamebox?
..
:o))
What risk? The chance that you'll inadvertently visit the USA? It's not the sort of possibility that keeps me awake worrying at night.
Being on a blacklist until you come in the US so feds can crawl up your body to cuff and hold you for x(xx) days?
I think you're really out of touch with reality. "Until" I come to America??? Like that's something everyone does eventually?
naaaah
I wish to be "free" to enter any country without those pesky rules of reverse engineering etc.., and, btw a criminal record of "hacking a gamebox" looks bad on your cv
Well changing your behaviour in advance on the off chance that you might want to visit some country might pass for "free" in America. It sounds thoroughly chained to me.
I guess you're constantly closeted with a team of lawyers saying "so, if I do this will it cause problems if I ever visit Crete? How about Zimbabwe? Cuba?...."
I think you're partly right, but not exactly or maybe it's just the way it's worded :)
An employee is a separate person to the company or other employer that they work for (e.g. individual human or partnership of humans). The fact that a company is also a separate person from its owners (unlike the situation with an individual employer or a "normal" partnership) does not, I think, add any special blur to the line between employer and employee as you seemed to be saying it does (maybe just my mistaken interpretation of what you were saying).
If employees act on behalf of the employer to obtain software and install it on the employer's computers for use in the employer's business I don't think that would count as distribution of the software. But that isn't because the employee is in some way part of the employer.
A similar (in my view) position is if I have software installed on my computer and I let you use my computer - I don't think that counts as me "distributing" anyything on my computer to you. Equally an employee using software on the employer's computers has not had anything distributed to them - and the same applies if an independent contractor or a customer use the software on those computers. Consequently the GPL provisions concerning distribution do not apply.
If employees modify the software on the employer's computers I don't think that that means it has been distributed to them. Using the modified software again doesn't, in my opinion, involve distributing anything.
I do agree with Carnage4Life though that that isn't clear cut. It is very much a matter of interpretation.
In my view, if a business (again company or human makes no difference I think) gives software to an employee to install on their own computer at home, even if only for work purposes, then I think that probably is a distribution of the software and any terms in that situation that tried to restrict it to only for work purposes would probably thus be in conflict with the GPL. Again I don't think that's clear cut though.
As part of a copyright statement, adding, "if you choose to read past this line, you explicitly agree to abide by copyright contract X," a signed contract is not required, and the creator of the content can at that point assume full control of the use of that content. Legally.
You're wrong. If you walk into the shop and ask to buy the book and the shopkeeper says "no, I won't sell you this book but I wil let you read it subject to the following conditions..." and you agree to the conditions then that is binding. Equally he could give you a written contract to read and/or sign at that point. There doesn't have to be a signed contract.
But taht's only binding if you do agree to the terms before you buy the book, or more accurately as part of the process of buying the book. If you walk home with the book you purchased and then find written inside "ha ha, fooled you, you haven't bought this at all and you're bound by the following conditions if you want to read it..." then you can safely ignore that. It's your book, you bought it, you can read it, lend it to a friend, tear out pages, annotate it etc. You can't copy it and redistribute the copy, but that's about the only limit.
Once you've bought the book, without explicitly agreeing to any conditions, it's yours to read, you don't have to agree to any conditions to read it so your reading it can't be taken as agreement to the conditions. You can just ignore anything written inside that says you're not allowed to read it or can only read it on certain conditions. Even if you were to explicitly agree to any conditions at that point this would not create a binfing contract because there would be no consideration.
Is life imprisonment of "innocent" individuals any better?
:)
Assuming that was a serious question... whether life imprisonment is worse than death ultimately depends on which seems worse to any given individual. In general though, most people (in particular advocates of the death penalty) think of death as worse, hence it's (arguable) value as an ultimate detterent. I'm not aware of any legal system that has the death penalty as a lesser penalty to life imprisonment so I think it's fair to say that the general view is that dying is worse than imprisonment and, following from this, that killing an innocent person is worse than imprisoning them for life. Just like imprisoning an innocent person is generally regarded as worse than speaking to them harshly
If you want another way of looking at it, I think you'll find most legal systems regard murder as a more serious crime than imprisonment.
Also, this is probably obvious but once you've killed someone you don't get to bring them back. If you sentence someone to life imprisonment and then a few years later reslise you were wrong you can let them out at that point. That doesn't undo the damage obviously but at least some remedial action is possible to mitigate the damage to that individual, not just to their next of kin.
Unless you cannot articulate your point without using vulgarity, then this should not be a problem.
Exactly the problem. If the point you're trying to make is a vulgar one then of course you won't be able to make it without being vulgar.
You might just as well say say of the European position "unless you cannot articulate your point without using expressions of hatred, then this should not be a problem."
What is your point? The usurpation of rights in the US by the federal government has no bearing on the legitimacy of the aforementioned "Canadian Charter". First of all slander is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States deals explicitly with the relationship the government has with the people. That relationship being defined by granting the government explicit powers.
Sorry, but you're confused there. The fact that it is a civil matter has no bearing on it. Slander and libel are laws applied by the government (judicial branch) with penalties enforced by the government (executive branch). The fact that they are enforced at the request of private citizens does not change that in the least. They are subject to the constitution just like any other laws. They are Acts of government, just like any other laws. Criminal or civil is irrelevant to this.
Remember, the DMCA covers encryption on copyrighted works.
People keep repeating this, where does it come from? The DMCA is not specifically about encryption. It is about technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works. Based on court cases so far we can safely say that encryption appears to count as one such technological measure, but that doesn't suddenly mean that it's the only measure. If it was meant to apply specifically to encryption then I think the language used would be very different.
Linux is technological, even if you don't like the particular techonology. Linux is used to control access to copyrighted works, including text files, programs, music, graphics, whatever. It isn't difficult to conclude that the security measures in Linux are technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced that posting this particular information would be contrary to the DMCA, I'm really not sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not encryption is involved, which is a complete red herring.
The line from the article is misleading, however: the author may understand the constitutional issue but misunderstand what the specific American law says.
That part of the article is talking about a European Union directive, it isn't about an American law at all. I agree it's misleading and confused though.
Yes...it would be a better world if no child were to go hungry and there would be world peace and we all lived in harmony. But we don't live in a John Lennon song, we live in the real world.
And you seem to think that the world would also be better if everyone (or at least everyone opposed to Bush) voted in accordance with your "realism" instead of their idealism, but that's not going to happen either so why are you whining about it?
I for one, as the author of the DSPL, the license that is going back for further discussion, would love to hear what slashdot people think about it. I can't comment on the others, but it is rather a departure from the traditional open source license...
:)
:)
:) and I haven't spent hours poring over it of course so things I've seen as potential problems may be addressed better than I took in.
Well, the whole executive committee and merit share holders thing gave the impression of over complexity to me and I doubt it'll be used widely, but I think that scheme is the heart of the licence so I'm sure you want to keep it
One particular point was it seemed to revolve around having elections for every public release of the software, so far as I could see this would mean holding elections for every bug fix. I'm probably reading it too strictly but then there doesn't seem much point in a (quite substantial) written licence unless it's expected to be strictly adhered to.
Is the thing about not being allowed to charge for the software itself important? If I understand correctly you mean I couldn't say "I will charge you $100 for this software" but I could say "I will charge you $100 for making a copy of this software for you" or something like that. If I've got that right, what's achieved by this and would you really want to be in the position of policing it?
The GPL's approach of letting people charge what they want seems to have much the same practical effect given than market forces will bring down the price of freely redistributable software unless you can add some extra value.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to include your interpretation of patent laws:
"While it is not in general illegal to produce or distribute software such as this that uses patented methods, it may be illegal to use such software for any purposes other than 'private experimentation'."
You might be right, I don't know, but I can't see you need to say it in the software licence just include the part about it being their responsibility to comply with the law. I don't know from reading it whether you were thinking of a particular jurisdiction (the USA maybe?) or all countries signed up to particular treaties or what. Stating what the law is "in general" in a licence that presumably may be used internationally doesn't seem like a good idea to me. You may be inadvertently misleading some people.
I think the part about being able to make derivatives licensed under the GPL was good, given the state of the "market" it seems good to me to allow redistribution under one of the leading licences but then I like the GPL and I expect some will disagree
Something I did find odd was that after specifying that derivatives could be under DSPL or GPL it then talks about pre-release versions being under a licence that prohibits further distribution, but with no real limits on what that licence might otherwise say - should this only be valid for a limited period or something?
I'm not sure on the effectiveness of the final clause about using the software as a library. So far as I can see you can take software not released as a library, adapt it so it is now a library, release that library yourself under the DSPL and then link to it in exactly the way that (it seems to me) you're trying to prohibit.
Okay, that was just a series of thoughts probably not entirely coherent that occurred to me as I read throught it. I hope I haven't sounded too negative, I guess I was looking for problems
Good luck with your licence.
And if you're producing a proprietary product that either competes with a Microsoft offering or creates a market in which they might want to compete then in order to get access to the protocols you have to tell them enough about your plans to convince them that they're "viable", which itself will undermine your competitive position.
I think "last" was a typo for "least"
Yes, their argument seems to be either that even though they're not a cutomer of Teleglobe that Teleglobe should have an obligation to deliver access to their material OR that MAPS should not be permitted to publish a list of sites that they consider to be connected with spamming.
Assuming the facts presented above are true though, Teleglobs would appear to be culpable of claiming to follow a different policy to the one they have actually implemented. If so then their customers do have something legitimate to complain about. If the policy were clearly disclosed though there would be no issue, and I don't see how simply not transmitting someone else's message can be viewed as censorship.
[Stealing]
1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.
You will note that it makes no difference as to either the author keeping the original or not.
Of course it does. If he still has it then you haven't taken it.
Bend it any way you please. The wrongness of stealing goes beyong government law and gets into 'social','ethical,and 'moral' law. And it does indeed have detrimental effects. First for those who obey the law, and then those who break it. "Copy" all you want now. Just pray that the well never runs dry, because the "selfish" have killed the incentive to produce what ultimately is a 'want' item.
You are correct in saying that the fact that it is not stealing has no effect either on whether it is moral or on whether it is desirable, and of course vice versa.
For that very reason it's better to forget the attempt to manipulate through language and concentrate on what your actual point is. If I go round to your house and smash all the windows for no good reason then I've done something illegal, undesirable and unethical. You don't have to pretend that I've stolen your windows to make that point. Breach of copyright is not stealing, or murder or kidnapping. Focus on what your actual objections to it are and you'll get further than you will by trying to redefine "steal".
If SCSI is no faster than IDE and Nautlius is slower than the Windows FM then logically you would expect Nautilus to run slower on IDE than the Windows FM does on IDE
Meant to say "...slower on SCSI than the Windows FM does on IDE", obviously.
You might want to jump a little, I'm gonna throw some basic logic at you.
If the Windows file manager runs as fast on IDE as Nautilus does on SCSI, you can make two conclusions: (1) SCSI is not any faster than IDE, and Nautilus is just slower than the Windows FM. (2) SCSI is faster than IDE, and Nautilus is a lot slower than the Windows FM.
Is that what you call logic?
I do not see any sane way that from the premise "the Windows file manager runs as fast on IDE as Nautlius does on SCSI" that you could possibly conclude "SCSI is not any faster than IDE, and Nautlius is just slower than the Windows FM". If SCSI is no faster than IDE and Nautlius is slower than the Windows FM then logically you would expect Nautilus to run slower on IDE than the Windows FM does on IDE, which is incompatible with your opening premise.
Your second alternative conclusion is a valid possibility given the premise though.
It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back
Lots of things are dangerous to others including, not surprisingly, lots of things that are illegal.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with serial killer investigations.
There isn't a special secret court dealing with industrial pollution of water supply investigations.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with burglary investigations.
All these things are dangerous to others. What's so special about hacking that it needs these special measures?
In the Wired article it says "Gov. James Gilmore (R-Virginia), the commission 's chairman, said Wednesday that federal judges have been far too sluggish in approving search warrants and eavesdropping of online miscreants."
The courts aren't issuing warrants as easily as the government likes so their solution is to have a secret court who's decisions can't be scrutinised act as a rubber stamp instead.
IF he really said what the Wired article claims he did then is frightening that people who think like that can be allowed to work in positions of power and responsibility.
Lots of people use it. The differences between GMT and UTC are irrelevant so far as everyday life is concerned, so the population of the British Isles for a start, others in that time zone too. Pretty much anyone who needs to use a coordinated international time system, astronomers, pilots, etc.
It isn't routinely used by people outside of the GMT time zone of course, but then any new system you chose to introduce wouldn't even be used by them so that doesn't seem like much of a distinction.
It's your cd. It's your computer. You don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it.
Sorry, that should of course be "you don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it other than distribution of copies." Copyright law does prevent you from distributing copies of the software and the copyright owner can lawfully forbid you to do so, in fact by default you can't do so without their permission. They don't have any right to restrict your use of it though.
You walk into a shop, pick up a software package and say "I'd like to buy this please", the shopkeeper says "that'll be $200", you give him the money and walk out. That's a contract, there's offer acceptance and consideration.
Then you get home, open the box put the disk in the machine and suddenly it's telling you that you haven't bought anything after all and the person who made the software (not even the shop you bought it from) requires you to agree to these terms...
It's your cd. It's your computer. You don't have to agree to any further terms to do anything with it.
It's just far too late to start proposing terms at that stage. Consideration has already passed. If the shopkeeper had said at the begining "I'm afraid I can't sell you that sir, but I can licence it to you on the following terms..." then they'd be onto something, but of course the shopkeeper would find people were shopping elsewhere.
You have to propose the terms before consideration passes. The supposed terms in EULAs fail for want of consideration.
However, I gather UCITA, for whatever bizarre reason sets out to validate these "contracts" so where UCITA is valid all bets are off.
I dont know what the average user wants? its so clear, look at Microsofts Internet Explorer, Bloated as hell, Look at AOL, Bloated as hell, ICQ, etc, This is what people use, so it must be what they want.
Give people what they want
I just don't understand what the purpose of this is from your point of view. If the average user has IE and that's what the average user wants then, well that's the average user taken care of. The only reason for developing something else aimed at the average user is surely if you believe that what they currently have is in some way not meeting their wants.
If the average user has IE and is happy with it then that's great, they're happy already.
It isn't a radical notion now. It was a radical notion then. The reason that it is no longer a radical notion is that those particular "fanatics" did achieve the changes they set out to achieve.
Discounting anyone acting now on the grounds that they are fanatics because they haven't succeeded yet whilst justifying anyone who succeeded in the past as not being a fanatic on the grounds that they actually did succeed in changing opinions is hopelesly circular.
I'm not ragging on open source it is just that touting Open Source awards given by Open Source people is like buying yourself a birthday present when no one cares enough to give you one. With all due respect, who outside the "Open Source World" gives a rat's shit?
Other than the fact that it was won by people involved in open source, the award is not in any sense an "Open Source Award".
It's an award for "Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being". There was no reason that it couldn't have been awarded to people working on closed source software. There doesn't seem to be any link between the Takeda Foundation and open source software. It doesn't seem to be in any way a foregone conclusion that this award would go to people working on open source software.
If you know of some reason to believe otherwise then say what it is, otherwise complaining about "Open Source Awards given by Open Source people" is totally irrelevant to the award under discussion here.
I was under the impression that lotteries unless in some way approved or licensed by the state government, and for that matter many other forms of gambling, were illegal in most states in the USA. I could be completely wrong there though. If lotteries are (in general) illegal in the USA then I guess it was taken that it didn't need any more explanation as to why this particular lottery was found to be illegal.
I guess they made a bad choice of jurisdiction to incorporate in, though it is difficult to believe that anyone would set up even a short term international lottery without taking extensive legal advice considering how widely laws vary on the matter.
perhaps an international i.d. card would have prevented the attacks in nyc and washington. national cards would not. these guys were legal aliens, and under the typical id card scenarios, wouldn't have been required to have cards.
Well how would an international id card help then? It would have correctly identified them as legal aliens with as much right to be there as anyone else. The only way I could see it helping would be if there there was a box for "occupation" and they put "terrorist".