To take a Touretzkian view, this means that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are... though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device". Such a legal status would also resolve the question of "is code speech?" with the answer "yes and no".
Yes and this is the crucial point. Despite your bit about describing drills that can be implemented by machines, drill manufacturers are NOT trying to claim that their devices are expressive content that can be copyrighted for life+75 or whatever we're up to now.
If we get to the point where devices are being covered by copyright AND patents then we'll need to look at the whole mess and simplify it.
Software should be either copyrightable, or patentable, or something else as a unique combination of elements. Trying to protect it every which way is ridiculous.
I agree with you about his general "hate the company" attitude, but you seem to go beyond criticising that and suggest (if I'm reading you correctly) that he has some sort of obligation to adopt whatever political attitudes benefit his employer (or perhaps even whatever political attitudes are being advanced by his employer). That goes way beyond the obligations in any normal employment.
I don't know whether I should be happy that judges seem to be tapping the brakes on the kleptocracy, or sad that the judiciary is interfering with regulatory bodies appointed by (nominally) elected officials.
The judges are also appointed by (nominally) elected officials and their job is to interpret the laws. In this case they found that the FCC had not fully complied with the laws created by the (nominally) elected officials and as such that their actions were invalid. The (nominally) elected officials can go and change the laws if they so desire, or the FCC can try again. The judges seem to be doing their job.
Unfortunately, that's not true in Brazil - or a number of other countries (Britain, for example). TRUE, but uncomfortable, criticism, especially of government officials (though often extending to others with enough resources to sue) is a common theme.
Truth ("justification") is a complete defence to defamation in the UK.
I'd agree that there have been cases where juries have reached the wrong verdict. I'd also agree that the wealthy and powerful use threats of legal action to intimidate people who have spoken the truth. However, the law is still that truth is a complete defence to slander and libel.
"McBride said SCO has been diligent in providing the courts with samples of the code it believes IBM has contributed to Linux. He said IBM has not been as forthcoming."
What he said is actually true, just unhelpful. We already know what code IBM contributed to Linux, it's got IBM copyright notices all over it in the public archives. What IBM have been asking SCO to provide is details of what SysV copyrights IBM has infringed upon. That's what they haven't provided, most likely because there isn't any.
A closer (yet still imperfect) analogy would be a car you bought that wouldn't let you drive to strip clubs.
And a less imperfect (though still pretty silly) analogy would be a taxi company refusing to drive you to a place for the purpose of obtaining child pornography.
Any anaology that involved removing all references to illegal behaviour and insert innocuous behaviour (a strip club) in its place is going to distort the position, not provide insight.
What other profession contains members that are dedicated to its destruction?
The legal profession. Win or lose they let each other copy their arguments and strategy and modify them as required. Shocking self-destructive idea, I know.
In fact pretty much any trade or profession if you're talking about copyrights. Patents do get used in, say, plumbing and medicine but nobody would claim to have copyrighted a new cure for life + 80 years or whatever we're up to now.
If there is a group of people that will hate your product, and actively try and get around viewing your product. Why would they care if they piss you off? You are already mad.
Because typically the product that the advertiser is trying to sell is not pop up advertising. If many potential customers hate pop up adverts then that's a good reason for Dell, for example, not to use them. Saying "but they already hate pop ups, who cares what they think" is stupid if what you're trying to sell is computers (or almost anything else).
Oh come on... Isn't the resolution actually higher than that of our eyes?
Probably not, but if it was then wouldn't that be a good thing? I should have thought that that's the ideal that these sorts of projects strive towards.
In the UK the police like anyone else can fire in self defence or in defence of others, but they don't get to shoot at people just for running away. I can't imagine what the justification for that could be.
HALT! Or I'll be forced to yell HALT again, but louder!
As others have mentioned, there ARE armed police in the UK though we do try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. To address the above quoted portion of your comment, however, use of firearms against someone merely for failing to halt when instructed certainly is not permissible, police or not you'd be looking at a prison sentence for that. I have difficulty believing that even in the USA the police are permitted to shoot someone for not stopping when instructed to.
What are you talking about? CmdrTaco didn't write the article and he didn't write any of the text in the article summary. All he did was post something someone else submitted.
If you don't think that the comments amount to trolling then that's fair enough. However, suggesting that something can't be a troll as long as you're just repeating what someone else has said is silly.
You want to really understand what has motivated the company staff to rip off your government, and it will probably come down to the greed of one or two people. The guys involved were probably on a performance related bonus scheme, so had an incentive to increase their sales. Lot's of the people working on this project were probably unaware of the markup, unaware of what the requirements were, they were just doing what they had been told to do.
So? If a few of my co-workers and I go rob a bank and we're caught, is there a defense now of "it was just the greed of one or two people"? I just say that and they'll go fine my employer and that's the end of it?
Someone committed a multi-million dollar fraud. They do not seem to be being punished by the legal system. In fact they don't seem to even be being identified. I suspect the earlier posters were correct that the reason for this is that the crooks in question were acting in the course of their employment at a big company. I don't think that should be a valid defense. I certainly don't think your "greed of one or two people" line should be.
NEC Business Network Solutions, a subsidiary of NEC, the computer giant, agreed to plead guilty to two federal felony counts, one for wire fraud and one for antitrust violation, and to pay $20.7 million in fines and restitution.
Two felonies. What's your basis for claiming that they didn't do anything illegal?
Most software companies will try to avoid liability, pretty much like anyone else will. You also have to consider whether a particular company copuld afford to pay out if something went seriously wrong.
The main thing here really is that it's just not an issue relating to free software / open source in particular. It applies to proprietary software just the same. You sue IBM if they implemented the system, or Red Hat, or Microsoft or whoever you hired to implement your system and they may or may not have a whole host of liability disclaimers which may or may not prove valid in court. The question is, why do you think that this is an issue in relation to free / open source software in particular?
Has Microsoft ever done ANYTHING that/. has approved of?
Didn't they kill clippy?
Re:*Copyright law* prevents that, not the EULA.
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Re-introducing the Microsoft changes to the BSD code-bases would be distribution, and the BSD doesn't require derivative apps to allow free redistribution. Hence the whole difference between BSD and GPL licenses.
The EULA has nothing to do with it.
Likewise with the GPL. It's copyright law that prohibits redistributing code without permission. The GPL, like the Microsoft EULA, does not give you permission to redistribute the code under a BSD license. Consequently, unless you have some other permission, copyright law prohibits you from doing so.
"Virality" is equally meaningful or meaningless in both cases.
If these are prequels, then why does everything look more technologically advanced compared to the original trilogy??? I'm so confused...
I hate to make excuses for them, but I would guess that this is because the Empire is a time primarily of cultural and economic decay, not advancement. Probably a moral in there somewhere. And yeah, that "primarily" excuses one-offs like the Death Star being developed.
I'm from the UK. I don't think I've ever used the term "USian" because "American" seems to be pretty much universally recognised and clear enough in conversation. I'm sure I've never used the term "UKian" either but I've come across it often enough and never been offended by it nor have I ever noticed anyone else being offended by it. I can't really imagine what the supposed problem is.
With regard to "European", whilst EU citizens clearly ARE Europeans you're obviously right that lots of other people are too. Unlike the (IMHO) common presumption that "American" means "related to / citizen of the USA" I don't think there is a common presumption that "European" means "related to / citizen of the EU" so if you have been using the word that way I think it would be a good idea if you change your approach for clarity.
I think "EU citizen" or "citizen of the EU" is more common. "EUian" would work too though.
Back WHAT claim up? Are you saying that Stallman did NOT say what he said in that Dr. Dobb's article?
I think it's pretty obvious that he's saying that he's sceptical as to the accuracy of your paraphrasal of what Stallman said in an article that you admit you no longer have access to.
Frankly, you don't come over as someone who would be all that fussed about Greenpeace, so is it the tests?
Sort of a side issue, but you really don't have to be pro-Greenpeace to see something wrong with a country planting bombs on civilian ships. I honestly think I'd find that extremely distubing even if the ship had belonged to e.g. a group of neo-nazis or something.
Slashdot Mirror
To take a Touretzkian view, this means that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are ... though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device". Such a legal status would also resolve the question of "is code speech?" with the answer "yes and no".
Yes and this is the crucial point. Despite your bit about describing drills that can be implemented by machines, drill manufacturers are NOT trying to claim that their devices are expressive content that can be copyrighted for life+75 or whatever we're up to now.
If we get to the point where devices are being covered by copyright AND patents then we'll need to look at the whole mess and simplify it.
Software should be either copyrightable, or patentable, or something else as a unique combination of elements. Trying to protect it every which way is ridiculous.
I agree with you about his general "hate the company" attitude, but you seem to go beyond criticising that and suggest (if I'm reading you correctly) that he has some sort of obligation to adopt whatever political attitudes benefit his employer (or perhaps even whatever political attitudes are being advanced by his employer). That goes way beyond the obligations in any normal employment.
I don't know whether I should be happy that judges seem to be tapping the brakes on the kleptocracy, or sad that the judiciary is interfering with regulatory bodies appointed by (nominally) elected officials.
The judges are also appointed by (nominally) elected officials and their job is to interpret the laws. In this case they found that the FCC had not fully complied with the laws created by the (nominally) elected officials and as such that their actions were invalid. The (nominally) elected officials can go and change the laws if they so desire, or the FCC can try again. The judges seem to be doing their job.
Unfortunately, that's not true in Brazil - or a number of other countries (Britain, for example). TRUE, but uncomfortable, criticism, especially of government officials (though often extending to others with enough resources to sue) is a common theme.
Truth ("justification") is a complete defence to defamation in the UK.
I'd agree that there have been cases where juries have reached the wrong verdict. I'd also agree that the wealthy and powerful use threats of legal action to intimidate people who have spoken the truth. However, the law is still that truth is a complete defence to slander and libel.
I'm still going to buy the link. If I use chipperdog's free link then who can I sue if it doesn't work?
"McBride said SCO has been diligent in providing the courts with samples of the code it believes IBM has contributed to Linux. He said IBM has not been as forthcoming."
What he said is actually true, just unhelpful. We already know what code IBM contributed to Linux, it's got IBM copyright notices all over it in the public archives. What IBM have been asking SCO to provide is details of what SysV copyrights IBM has infringed upon. That's what they haven't provided, most likely because there isn't any.
A closer (yet still imperfect) analogy would be a car you bought that wouldn't let you drive to strip clubs.
And a less imperfect (though still pretty silly) analogy would be a taxi company refusing to drive you to a place for the purpose of obtaining child pornography.
Any anaology that involved removing all references to illegal behaviour and insert innocuous behaviour (a strip club) in its place is going to distort the position, not provide insight.
What other profession contains members that are dedicated to its destruction?
The legal profession. Win or lose they let each other copy their arguments and strategy and modify them as required. Shocking self-destructive idea, I know.
In fact pretty much any trade or profession if you're talking about copyrights. Patents do get used in, say, plumbing and medicine but nobody would claim to have copyrighted a new cure for life + 80 years or whatever we're up to now.
If there is a group of people that will hate your product, and actively try and get around viewing your product. Why would they care if they piss you off? You are already mad.
Because typically the product that the advertiser is trying to sell is not pop up advertising. If many potential customers hate pop up adverts then that's a good reason for Dell, for example, not to use them. Saying "but they already hate pop ups, who cares what they think" is stupid if what you're trying to sell is computers (or almost anything else).
Oh come on... Isn't the resolution actually higher than that of our eyes?
Probably not, but if it was then wouldn't that be a good thing? I should have thought that that's the ideal that these sorts of projects strive towards.
In the UK the police like anyone else can fire in self defence or in defence of others, but they don't get to shoot at people just for running away. I can't imagine what the justification for that could be.
HALT! Or I'll be forced to yell HALT again, but louder!
As others have mentioned, there ARE armed police in the UK though we do try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. To address the above quoted portion of your comment, however, use of firearms against someone merely for failing to halt when instructed certainly is not permissible, police or not you'd be looking at a prison sentence for that. I have difficulty believing that even in the USA the police are permitted to shoot someone for not stopping when instructed to.
What are you talking about? CmdrTaco didn't write the article and he didn't write any of the text in the article summary. All he did was post something someone else submitted.
If you don't think that the comments amount to trolling then that's fair enough. However, suggesting that something can't be a troll as long as you're just repeating what someone else has said is silly.
It's easier this way; the victims have a proven track record of paying up for outrageous demands.
You want to really understand what has motivated the company staff to rip off your government, and it will probably come down to the greed of one or two people. The guys involved were probably on a performance related bonus scheme, so had an incentive to increase their sales. Lot's of the people working on this project were probably unaware of the markup, unaware of what the requirements were, they were just doing what they had been told to do.
So? If a few of my co-workers and I go rob a bank and we're caught, is there a defense now of "it was just the greed of one or two people"? I just say that and they'll go fine my employer and that's the end of it?
Someone committed a multi-million dollar fraud. They do not seem to be being punished by the legal system. In fact they don't seem to even be being identified. I suspect the earlier posters were correct that the reason for this is that the crooks in question were acting in the course of their employment at a big company. I don't think that should be a valid defense. I certainly don't think your "greed of one or two people" line should be.
According to the article:
Two felonies. What's your basis for claiming that they didn't do anything illegal?
Most software companies will try to avoid liability, pretty much like anyone else will. You also have to consider whether a particular company copuld afford to pay out if something went seriously wrong.
The main thing here really is that it's just not an issue relating to free software / open source in particular. It applies to proprietary software just the same. You sue IBM if they implemented the system, or Red Hat, or Microsoft or whoever you hired to implement your system and they may or may not have a whole host of liability disclaimers which may or may not prove valid in court. The question is, why do you think that this is an issue in relation to free / open source software in particular?
You're not making any sense.
I don't know what his setup's like but I've got a similar size screen using a resolution of 1366 by 768 and text is perfectly readable.
I'm so sick and tired of all of this fearmongering.
Me too, it's leading to the introduction of things like identity cards.
Has Microsoft ever done ANYTHING that /. has approved of?
Didn't they kill clippy?
Re-introducing the Microsoft changes to the BSD code-bases would be distribution, and the BSD doesn't require derivative apps to allow free redistribution. Hence the whole difference between BSD and GPL licenses.
The EULA has nothing to do with it.
Likewise with the GPL. It's copyright law that prohibits redistributing code without permission. The GPL, like the Microsoft EULA, does not give you permission to redistribute the code under a BSD license. Consequently, unless you have some other permission, copyright law prohibits you from doing so.
"Virality" is equally meaningful or meaningless in both cases.
If these are prequels, then why does everything look more technologically advanced compared to the original trilogy??? I'm so confused...
I hate to make excuses for them, but I would guess that this is because the Empire is a time primarily of cultural and economic decay, not advancement. Probably a moral in there somewhere. And yeah, that "primarily" excuses one-offs like the Death Star being developed.
I'm from the UK. I don't think I've ever used the term "USian" because "American" seems to be pretty much universally recognised and clear enough in conversation. I'm sure I've never used the term "UKian" either but I've come across it often enough and never been offended by it nor have I ever noticed anyone else being offended by it. I can't really imagine what the supposed problem is.
With regard to "European", whilst EU citizens clearly ARE Europeans you're obviously right that lots of other people are too. Unlike the (IMHO) common presumption that "American" means "related to / citizen of the USA" I don't think there is a common presumption that "European" means "related to / citizen of the EU" so if you have been using the word that way I think it would be a good idea if you change your approach for clarity.
I think "EU citizen" or "citizen of the EU" is more common. "EUian" would work too though.
Back WHAT claim up? Are you saying that Stallman did NOT say what he said in that Dr. Dobb's article?
I think it's pretty obvious that he's saying that he's sceptical as to the accuracy of your paraphrasal of what Stallman said in an article that you admit you no longer have access to.
Frankly, you don't come over as someone who would be all that fussed about Greenpeace, so is it the tests?
Sort of a side issue, but you really don't have to be pro-Greenpeace to see something wrong with a country planting bombs on civilian ships. I honestly think I'd find that extremely distubing even if the ship had belonged to e.g. a group of neo-nazis or something.