Why not? A computer's user interface isn't limited to physical reality.
Of course it is. It exists in physical reality, as does the rest of the computer, as does the user.
Why wold you feel that the interface between a user and a computer was less a part of "physical reality" than the interface between a car and its driver?
But the article (and, I think, Builder) was referring to players that _are_ all-region out of the box. This would seem to me to be in breach of contract whatever country they are bought in.
Then you would be wrong, in many countries cartels are illegal and coontracts unreasonably in restraint of trade, or otherwise for an illegal purpose, are void and unenforceable.
They're still going to prohibit exporting encryption software to a number of countries. What's the point of that? Surely they've realised now that EVERONE has access to encryption anyway.
Even if we pretend for a moment that Cubans, say are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on that wonderful American crypto software, they can obviously buy it via Europe.
Even having realised they've lost they still want to play the same stupid game. These regulations are totally ineffective, it's going to be a complete waste of resources to even pretend to police them.
Company A is suing group B to prevent group B from adding company A to a list. Once you distill it that far, it is an obvious restraint on free speech." The first amendment issue (freedom of speech) does not exist in this case. The amendment applies only to actions of governmental entities
The judiciary is one of the branches of government. They are forbidden from restricting free speech just like the other branches. Of course, it's their job to decide whether the action requested of them amounts to a restraint of free speech.
Whether it was slander depends on whether the allegations they've made are true, which I don't have the first hand knowledge to comment on.
What he said, however, was that slander is illegal. He did not say it is a crime. Committing a tort is illegal i.e. contrary to the law. He was correct in his statement that slander is illegal.
It always was, that's what the court was asked to determine.
what about Microsoft no longer selling anything in Germany?
They can do that, they can't stop other people from selling their products in germany though, that's the point.
What if they decide to close up shop entirely in Germany and no longer support their OS or any Microsoft applications in Germany?
They can do that too.
Or better yet, what if the Supreme Court here in the states decides that MS needs to be broken up and Billy says "Naw, screw it, I'll just close the company instead." And then does it.
Whether that was lawful or not would depend on the requirements of the court order, I would imagine that the two new companies would have to be formed but of course their members could then liquidate them. It's not a choice for Bill Gates though in any event, he gets to vote along with the other shareholders, but he probably would only retain shares in one company or the other.
Weeks later millions of people and numbers of businesses bitch to the government about how they can't get any support for their personal computers anymore.
I'm lost as to what your point is supposed to be, you just want to point out that a sufficiently big company that doesn't like the law of the land can make things difficult for people?
The real difference here is that Linux hackers are helping all corporations except those who sell proprietary software.
Completely untrue, corporations selling poprietary software can use Linux in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as anyone else can. For example, if they want to use Linux as a development platform for their proprietary softwre then the can go ahead and do so. I see no basis for claiming that they are not being helped where other companies are, or that they are being helped less.
All the high profile stuff is essentially a free implementation of stuff that's been done before. KDE is a CDE-workalike. Even though its better, its still nothing new. Same thing for GIMP, Apache, KDevelop, Blender, Gnumeric, Bonobo, KParts, Konqueror.
I take your point about the others, but what was the proprietary software that Apache imitated?
Also, wasn't Mosaic open source too? Okay, so it doesn't dominate the market but neither do proprietary trailblazers like Visicalc. Most open source software is derivative because, well most software in general is derivative.
I just think it's funny, more than anything else, that a silly throwaway comment has attracted such a large amount of moderation and comments about the moderation.
Now for that would you should get an 'insightful' too:)
That doesn't affect the original author (which is the person it was suggested could remove the code from their website). The author already has the right to distribute the code, they don't need to comply with any licence conditions in order to do so.
Now if the student was just grabbing up a group of friends or even using his/her own megaphone to pray, that would have been ok.
Assuming, of course, that the school is equally tolerant of people shouting any set of religious beliefs throgh a megaphone, not just those of a particular favored religion. Sound likely?:)
Well I guess there might be someone somewhere in London who pronounces it that way, never heard it said that way though. I should have thought if anywhere it would be America that would go for "um" instead of "ium", like Aluminum instead of Aluminium.
It is not, and probably never will be. However, obfuscating your identity during a criminal act is immoral and unethical
Nonsense. Committing the criminal act may be immoral and/or unethical (need to know what the act is and all circumstances to be able to say for sure) but obfuscating your identity in itself isn't, whether you're committing a criminal act or not.
Also, something that never seem to come up in discussions about the GPL: Who are you paying the support for? The author(s) of the software or the distributor of the software? Who is making the money?
Assuming you meant something like "who are you paying for the support?", obviously you pay the person who is providing the support. That might be the author, the distributor, the guy next door, anyone you think can provide the services you need.
In many cases you'd be paying a person to customise existing software to meet your specific needs. He/she would author some of the software, the extent depending on the degree to which existing components already meet your requirements. You wouldn't expect such a person to author it all, why reinvent the wheel?
Your turn. If you seek legal representation would you pay the people who first used / devised the arguments and strategies applied or would you pay the person who is using them for you?
Another reason why this is a good example is that money laundering itself as I understand it isn't illegal
Then your understanding is flawed.
It would be an exageration to say that money laundering is illegal everywhere, but it certainly should be in any FATF member country, try http://www.oecd.org/fatf/index.htm
Mine doesn't. I don't have a credit card and I can't see why I should need one just to get an ISP, if they don't get paid they can remove their service at any time.
I believe that in a Libel case in the US, its up to the person accused to prove that the allegations are lies, but I could be wrong there.
I would strongly suspect that you are wrong as it would undermine libel laws completely. If I accuse you of being a child molester then to ask you to have to prove that you have never molested a child would be an impossible task to set you. Where could you even begin, signed affidavits from every child you ever met?
There is currently NO right to Free Speech under UK Law
Correct, anything is lawful that isn't explicitly unlawful so unless actually forbidden by law you do have the right to speek freely but there are no limits in parliament's powers so no guarantee that they can't restrict speech anyway they please.
And a UK national isn't even a citizen - he's just a subject of the Royal family.
Nonsensical. You are correct that a British national is a subject of the crown (or of the queen if you like, certainly not of "the royal family") but that doesn't mean that he/she isn't also a "citizen", look the word up if you don't know what it means.
An EU directive, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Freedom of Speech rule into UK governance - HOWEVER, to get it to take effect, you'd have to bring your case all the way to the European Court, and, since there's no Free Speech rule in the UK, you'll never get that far...
What on earth is that supposed to mean? What do you think would happen to you first, and how would it be prevented by a free speech provision in British law? The British government can't (lawfully) prevent you from bringing such a case, and if they wish to act unlawfully then a free speech guarantee would be irrelevant anyway.
The MPAA is a multi-national and uses international copyright law to do this stuff. They can sue in every country that's part of the international law treaties, which means just about everywhere.
If they're alleging that publishing DCSS breaches copyright then it's the first I've heard of it. You mean they're claiming to have written it themselves and therefore to have copyright over it or what?
Reverse engineering does not breach copyright. The provision of tools that could be used to breach copyright (e.g. photocopiers, cd-recorders, pencils and paper) does not breach copyright.
I don't see how they could be argued to have any case at all in a country with conventional copyright laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? A computer's user interface isn't limited to physical reality.
Of course it is. It exists in physical reality, as does the rest of the computer, as does the user.
Why wold you feel that the interface between a user and a computer was less a part of "physical reality" than the interface between a car and its driver?
But the article (and, I think, Builder) was referring to players that _are_ all-region out of the box. This would seem to me to be in breach of contract whatever country they are bought in.
Then you would be wrong, in many countries cartels are illegal and coontracts unreasonably in restraint of trade, or otherwise for an illegal purpose, are void and unenforceable.
They're still going to prohibit exporting encryption software to a number of countries. What's the point of that? Surely they've realised now that EVERONE has access to encryption anyway.
Even if we pretend for a moment that Cubans, say are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on that wonderful American crypto software, they can obviously buy it via Europe.
Even having realised they've lost they still want to play the same stupid game. These regulations are totally ineffective, it's going to be a complete waste of resources to even pretend to police them.
Company A is suing group B to prevent group B from adding company A to a list. Once you distill it that far, it is an obvious restraint on free speech." The first amendment issue (freedom of speech) does not exist in this case. The amendment applies only to actions of governmental entities
The judiciary is one of the branches of government. They are forbidden from restricting free speech just like the other branches. Of course, it's their job to decide whether the action requested of them amounts to a restraint of free speech.
Whether it was slander depends on whether the allegations they've made are true, which I don't have the first hand knowledge to comment on.
What he said, however, was that slander is illegal. He did not say it is a crime. Committing a tort is illegal i.e. contrary to the law. He was correct in his statement that slander is illegal.
So unbundling is now legal in Germany
It always was, that's what the court was asked to determine.
what about Microsoft no longer selling anything in Germany?
They can do that, they can't stop other people from selling their products in germany though, that's the point.
What if they decide to close up shop entirely in Germany and no longer support their OS or any Microsoft applications in Germany?
They can do that too.
Or better yet, what if the Supreme Court here in the states decides that MS needs to be broken up and Billy says "Naw, screw it, I'll just close the company instead." And then does it.
Whether that was lawful or not would depend on the requirements of the court order, I would imagine that the two new companies would have to be formed but of course their members could then liquidate them. It's not a choice for Bill Gates though in any event, he gets to vote along with the other shareholders, but he probably would only retain shares in one company or the other.
Weeks later millions of people and numbers of businesses bitch to the government about how they can't get any support for their personal computers anymore.
I'm lost as to what your point is supposed to be, you just want to point out that a sufficiently big company that doesn't like the law of the land can make things difficult for people?
The real difference here is that Linux hackers are helping all corporations except those who sell proprietary software.
Completely untrue, corporations selling poprietary software can use Linux in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as anyone else can. For example, if they want to use Linux as a development platform for their proprietary softwre then the can go ahead and do so. I see no basis for claiming that they are not being helped where other companies are, or that they are being helped less.
All the high profile stuff is essentially a free implementation of stuff that's been done before. KDE is a CDE-workalike. Even though its better, its still nothing new. Same thing for GIMP, Apache, KDevelop, Blender, Gnumeric, Bonobo, KParts, Konqueror.
I take your point about the others, but what was the proprietary software that Apache imitated?
Also, wasn't Mosaic open source too? Okay, so it doesn't dominate the market but neither do proprietary trailblazers like Visicalc. Most open source software is derivative because, well most software in general is derivative.
Personally, I'll bet on OS/2 as the operating system of the future.
Well you certainly have more faith in it than IBM does.
Yep, and if the act itself isn't criminal then abetting it isn't abetting a criminal act.
I just think it's funny, more than anything else, that a silly throwaway comment has attracted such a large amount of moderation and comments about the moderation.
:)
Now for that would you should get an 'insightful' too
That doesn't affect the original author (which is the person it was suggested could remove the code from their website). The author already has the right to distribute the code, they don't need to comply with any licence conditions in order to do so.
is there any precedence for a non-signed licence being viable?
Yes. For a contract to be valid you need offer, acceptance and consideration. Plenty of contracts aren't put in writing let alone signed.
Now if the student was just grabbing up a group of friends or even using his/her own megaphone to pray, that would have been ok.
:)
Assuming, of course, that the school is equally tolerant of people shouting any set of religious beliefs throgh a megaphone, not just those of a particular favored religion. Sound likely?
Yes, it is the first amendment. He was quoting the first amendment.
If it wasn't for Microsoft, there wouldn't be a PC in almost every home.
Is there a PC in nearly every home? Not necessarily arguing, just surprised. What percentage is it then?
The trick would be preventing self-replicating nano-bots from evolving around their dependence.
Well I guess there might be someone somewhere in London who pronounces it that way, never heard it said that way though. I should have thought if anywhere it would be America that would go for "um" instead of "ium", like Aluminum instead of Aluminium.
It is not, and probably never will be. However, obfuscating your identity during a criminal act is immoral and unethical
Nonsense. Committing the criminal act may be immoral and/or unethical (need to know what the act is and all circumstances to be able to say for sure) but obfuscating your identity in itself isn't, whether you're committing a criminal act or not.
Also, something that never seem to come up in discussions about the GPL: Who are you paying the support for? The author(s) of the software or the distributor of the software? Who is making the money?
Assuming you meant something like "who are you paying for the support?", obviously you pay the person who is providing the support. That might be the author, the distributor, the guy next door, anyone you think can provide the services you need.
In many cases you'd be paying a person to customise existing software to meet your specific needs. He/she would author some of the software, the extent depending on the degree to which existing components already meet your requirements. You wouldn't expect such a person to author it all, why reinvent the wheel?
Your turn. If you seek legal representation would you pay the people who first used / devised the arguments and strategies applied or would you pay the person who is using them for you?
Another reason why this is a good example is that money laundering itself as I understand it isn't illegal
Then your understanding is flawed.
It would be an exageration to say that money laundering is illegal everywhere, but it certainly should be in any FATF member country, try http://www.oecd.org/fatf/index.htm
Mine doesn't. I don't have a credit card and I can't see why I should need one just to get an ISP, if they don't get paid they can remove their service at any time.
I believe that in a Libel case in the US, its up to the person accused to prove that the allegations are lies, but I could be wrong there.
I would strongly suspect that you are wrong as it would undermine libel laws completely. If I accuse you of being a child molester then to ask you to have to prove that you have never molested a child would be an impossible task to set you. Where could you even begin, signed affidavits from every child you ever met?
There is currently NO right to Free Speech under UK Law
Correct, anything is lawful that isn't explicitly unlawful so unless actually forbidden by law you do have the right to speek freely but there are no limits in parliament's powers so no guarantee that they can't restrict speech anyway they please.
And a UK national isn't even a citizen - he's just a subject of the Royal family.
Nonsensical. You are correct that a British national is a subject of the crown (or of the queen if you like, certainly not of "the royal family") but that doesn't mean that he/she isn't also a "citizen", look the word up if you don't know what it means.
An EU directive, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Freedom of Speech rule into UK governance - HOWEVER, to get it to take effect, you'd have to bring your case all the way to the European Court, and, since there's no Free Speech rule in the UK, you'll never get that far...
What on earth is that supposed to mean? What do you think would happen to you first, and how would it be prevented by a free speech provision in British law? The British government can't (lawfully) prevent you from bringing such a case, and if they wish to act unlawfully then a free speech guarantee would be irrelevant anyway.
The MPAA is a multi-national and uses international copyright law to do this stuff. They can sue in every country that's part of the international law treaties, which means just about everywhere.
If they're alleging that publishing DCSS breaches copyright then it's the first I've heard of it. You mean they're claiming to have written it themselves and therefore to have copyright over it or what?
Reverse engineering does not breach copyright. The provision of tools that could be used to breach copyright (e.g. photocopiers, cd-recorders, pencils and paper) does not breach copyright.
I don't see how they could be argued to have any case at all in a country with conventional copyright laws.