The GPL doesn't say "public distribution", it says "distribution" (2b). Later on (4) it says: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
If corel is providing any software they licenced via the GPL as part of this beta test, then they are both copying and sublicensing under terms inconsistent with the GPL. According to the GPL, this terminates their own license, and continued use of that GPL'd software would be a violation of copyright law.
I like to download software from warez sites to try it out before I buy it. If I like it, then I usually buy it. Sure, this may violate the letter of copyright law, but as long as I do eventually buy it, what difference does it make?
Try telling THAT to a corporate lawyer. Now, if I were to snag a copy of a Corell product, and let my friends "Beta Test" it after signing a form which, in part, states that I own all the intellectual property contained therein, they'd have my ass in court the second they found out about it. Why should they get a break when it's the other way around?
Why wouldn't the GPL stand up in court? The whole reason that shrinkwrap licensing is so fruity is that you've already paid money for the software, then after the sale is concluded, you're supposedly bound into a contract; the theory against them is that the uniform commercial code grants you certain rights as a result of the purchasing transaction, which you didn't waive during the transaction itself.
The GPL, on the other hand, specifically states (paraphrasing a bit) "Nothing requires you to agree to this license, since you haven't signed it. However, nothing else grants you the right to use this software." Copyright law gives the author the right to exclude anyone from using the work (except for fair use, which wholesale copying usually isn't.) The GPL states the terms under which the author is willing to allow Joe Public to use his intellectual property.
The only possible hitch would be if you'd purchased GPL'd software; then it might be argued that the UCC grants you certian rights because you purchased it. (although with the new UTICA, there's no reason to believe it would be any less valid than any other software license agreement.) The fact that you are able to obtain any GPL'd software gratis seems to be to be pretty clear evidence that what you are purchasing is not the software per se, but rather the service of the distribution itself.
Yes, it's ironic that the GPL depends on the existence of intellectual property rights. My personal feeling is that RMS is fully aware of this, and probably loves the paradox. I know I do.
It seems that the BSD license is the communist one: "to each according to his needs (want the source? take the source), from each according to what he can provide (here's the source, take it)."
The GPL, on the other hand, says "Here's the source, here's the program. There's no marginal cost to me if you copy it, so I won't charge you for that. If you want to use it, though, you'll have to agree to my terms. Rather than demanding money in exchange for my work, you must give back any changes you make. Furthermore, you do not gain the right to exclude others from my property, to which I am only grant you license to use."
It's a contract establishing a consentual transaction between parties to establish the rights associated with intellectual property. Sounds pretty damn capitalist to me.
What's to object to in the ten commandments? Oh, I don't know, maybe the FIRST commandment? Not everyone believes your god exists, let alone would be deserving of any praise if he did.
Actually, dumbass, unauthorised copying IS stealing and there is EVERYTHING fscking wrong with it.
Theft means taking something away. If I copy it, you still have it. Violating copyright law IS illegal, MIGHT be unethical, but is NOT the same thing as theft. Legally it isn't considered theft, it's "copyright violation" and the word "theft" didn't even enter into it legislatively until the fairly recent NET act. (No Electronic Theft).
The trouble with this analysis is that it assumes that information is thrown out in the same manner by both MP3 and SDMI. This is not necesarily the case, and once "lost", you can never get it back.
Why are you so willing to take away people's freedoms?
I'm quite willing to take away your freedom to kill me in cold blood. I'm also willing to take away your freedom to tell me what I am allowed to do with knowledge in my own head.
Why is it that most people agree that monopolies are bad, but if someone claims to be the first one to do something, all of a sudden they have a "natural right" to a monopoly?
Guess what? the Earth puts out more CFCs in a year than we do by far - volcanic eruptions and the like. Last I heard, we were producing about 18% or so of the world's CFCs.
You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Volcanic eruptions put out chlorine, not CFCs. CFCs do not occur naturally.
What's next -- do they want to take over all of the email servers and have one central post-office run by the USPS? (The same people who fail to deliver some 20% of all letters!)
We live in a world of laws. Laws make it clear what is right and wrong.
We live in a world that has laws, and those laws have to be enforced by men with guns. Who's gonna do it. You? You, Lieutennant Weinburg? I have a greater responsiblity.... (appologies to Jack Nicholson)
Seriously, though, laws do not at all make it clear what is right and wrong. Laws make it clear what society will and will not tolerate. There is a very important distinction between these two conecpts. Namely, everyone should be able to (more or less) agree on what the law is. (Which is not the same as agreeing on what it should be). Not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.
The difference with, say, Microsoft Windows it that you go to the store, plunk down your $$$, take it home, and THEN discover you've already agreed to the license agreement. The GPL, on the other hand, says (words to the effect of) "nothing compels you to agree to this contract, since you didn't sign it. However, nothing else gives you the right to the program"
I think it's fairly agreed that the big defining point of the Amiga was the custom hardware. How is a completely different OS running on completely different hardware still "Amiga-like"?
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The issue with commercial software is that you have already -paid- for it; thus, under the uniform commercial code, people have certain expectations of what you can and can't do with it. So, they're changing the UCC.:P
Tripple DES is good enough. If it isn't, DES encrypt 5 times, or 7, or 9
Baaaad idea. Let the crypto people decide when adding rounds increases security. Even doing 3 DES rounds, if done improperly, can result in hardly-better security. Blindly chunking on extra passes is a great way to give yourself a false sense of security.
How about Corn Nuts' jingle? I was listening to the radio, and all of a sudden I hear these girls singing "Bust a nut! Bust a nut! Everybody loves to bust a nut!" Almost ran my car off the road laughing.
My dad introduced me to software piracy and the online world several years before that, with a TRS-80 Model 1 and a CompuServe account. At that point, piracy wasn't even illegal!
Hate to interrupt the reverie, but copyright law has been around a lot longer than computers.
Then all blocking software can just block encrypted content in general.
I'm a little bothered by the "use of crypto to hide a crime is a crime" part; it's already a crime to commit a crime. What do they hope to accomplish with that?
("probability argument" for religion) This is essentially Pascal's wager, which is a very poor reason to believe. There's more than one god to choose from--the choice isn't just "to believe in god" or "not to believe in god". If JVHV is god, but you "picked" Allah, you go to hell. OTOH, if Allah is god, but you "picked" JHVH, you at least get judged on whether you were generally a good person. If the ancient Greeks were right, then you just go to Hades no matter what you believe. This modified pascal's wager then says to pick the god for which the worst punishment exists for disbelief. Give your life to Cthullu!
But what sort of faith is faith founded on a pseudomathematical probabilistic argument? "Well, God, I didn't accept your son as my savior, but I tried to believe in you because probability theory suggested it was the best way to cut my losses..."
Relly, any GUI (Mac, WinX,...) is really no more complicated than the 75 window managers for *nix. Yes, there are Mac look and feel GUI's for Linux, which aren't that popular on Linux, hence my comment.
OS's control the hardware, resources, and other low level abstraction layers of a computer. Everything else is just user interface. Years of Microsoft and Apple trying to tell us that "Pixels Matter!" is brainwashing everyone into missing what is important in a OS.
Having used both a Mac and the "Mac look and feel GUI's for Linux", there's no comparison. It's a "Mac sort-of look" with none of the feel. Perhaps an actual mac look and feel wouldn't be popular for linux either, but what's out there just isn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL doesn't say "public distribution", it says "distribution" (2b). Later on (4) it says: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
If corel is providing any software they licenced via the GPL as part of this beta test, then they are both copying and sublicensing under terms inconsistent with the GPL. According to the GPL, this terminates their own license, and continued use of that GPL'd software would be a violation of copyright law.
I like to download software from warez sites to try it out before I buy it. If I like it, then I usually buy it. Sure, this may violate the letter of copyright law, but as long as I do eventually buy it, what difference does it make?
Try telling THAT to a corporate lawyer. Now, if I were to snag a copy of a Corell product, and let my friends "Beta Test" it after signing a form which, in part, states that I own all the intellectual property contained therein, they'd have my ass in court the second they found out about it. Why should they get a break when it's the other way around?
Why wouldn't the GPL stand up in court? The whole reason that shrinkwrap licensing is so fruity is that you've already paid money for the software, then after the sale is concluded, you're supposedly bound into a contract; the theory against them is that the uniform commercial code grants you certain rights as a result of the purchasing transaction, which you didn't waive during the transaction itself.
The GPL, on the other hand, specifically states (paraphrasing a bit) "Nothing requires you to agree to this license, since you haven't signed it. However, nothing else grants you the right to use this software." Copyright law gives the author the right to exclude anyone from using the work (except for fair use, which wholesale copying usually isn't.) The GPL states the terms under which the author is willing to allow Joe Public to use his intellectual property.
The only possible hitch would be if you'd purchased GPL'd software; then it might be argued that the UCC grants you certian rights because you purchased it. (although with the new UTICA, there's no reason to believe it would be any less valid than any other software license agreement.) The fact that you are able to obtain any GPL'd software gratis seems to be to be pretty clear evidence that what you are purchasing is not the software per se, but rather the service of the distribution itself.
Yes, it's ironic that the GPL depends on the existence of intellectual property rights. My personal feeling is that RMS is fully aware of this, and probably loves the paradox. I know I do.
It seems that the BSD license is the communist one: "to each according to his needs (want the source? take the source), from each according to what he can provide (here's the source, take it)."
The GPL, on the other hand, says "Here's the source, here's the program. There's no marginal cost to me if you copy it, so I won't charge you for that. If you want to use it, though, you'll have to agree to my terms. Rather than demanding money in exchange for my work, you must give back any changes you make. Furthermore, you do not gain the right to exclude others from my property, to which I am only grant you license to use."
It's a contract establishing a consentual transaction between parties to establish the rights associated with intellectual property. Sounds pretty damn capitalist to me.
You, sir are a genius!
What's to object to in the ten commandments? Oh, I don't know, maybe the FIRST commandment? Not everyone believes your god exists, let alone would be deserving of any praise if he did.
The trouble with this analysis is that it assumes that information is thrown out in the same manner by both MP3 and SDMI. This is not necesarily the case, and once "lost", you can never get it back.
I'm quite willing to take away your freedom to kill me in cold blood. I'm also willing to take away your freedom to tell me what I am allowed to do with knowledge in my own head.
Why is it that most people agree that monopolies are bad, but if someone claims to be the first one to do something, all of a sudden they have a "natural right" to a monopoly?
You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Volcanic eruptions put out chlorine, not CFCs. CFCs do not occur naturally.
function factorizeLargePrimeNumber(p) = {1,p}
Wow! What a breakthrough!
I'd love to see THAT figure cited.
>Sounds good to me, you in favor of this stuff?
When it comes to controlled substances, actually, yes. Yes I am.
We live in a world that has laws, and those laws have to be enforced by men with guns. Who's gonna do it. You? You, Lieutennant Weinburg? I have a greater responsiblity.... (appologies to Jack Nicholson)
Seriously, though, laws do not at all make it clear what is right and wrong. Laws make it clear what society will and will not tolerate. There is a very important distinction between these two conecpts. Namely, everyone should be able to (more or less) agree on what the law is. (Which is not the same as agreeing on what it should be). Not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.
The difference with, say, Microsoft Windows it that you go to the store, plunk down your $$$, take it home, and THEN discover you've already agreed to the license agreement. The GPL, on the other hand, says (words to the effect of) "nothing compels you to agree to this contract, since you didn't sign it. However, nothing else gives you the right to the program"
I think it's fairly agreed that the big defining point of the Amiga was the custom hardware. How is a completely different OS running on completely different hardware still "Amiga-like"?
The GPL covers this:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The issue with commercial software is that you have already -paid- for it; thus, under the uniform commercial code, people have certain expectations of what you can and can't do with it. So, they're changing the UCC. :P
Baaaad idea. Let the crypto people decide when adding rounds increases security. Even doing 3 DES rounds, if done improperly, can result in hardly-better security. Blindly chunking on extra passes is a great way to give yourself a false sense of security.
How about Corn Nuts' jingle? I was listening to the radio, and all of a sudden I hear these girls singing "Bust a nut! Bust a nut! Everybody loves to bust a nut!" Almost ran my car off the road laughing.
Hate to interrupt the reverie, but copyright law has been around a lot longer than computers.
Then all blocking software can just block encrypted content in general.
I'm a little bothered by the "use of crypto to hide a crime is a crime" part; it's already a crime to commit a crime. What do they hope to accomplish with that?
("probability argument" for religion)
This is essentially Pascal's wager, which is a very poor reason to believe. There's more than one god to choose from--the choice isn't just "to believe in god" or "not to believe in god". If JVHV is god, but you "picked" Allah, you go to hell. OTOH, if Allah is god, but you "picked" JHVH, you at least get judged on whether you were generally a good person. If the ancient Greeks were right, then you just go to Hades no matter what you believe. This modified pascal's wager then says to pick the god for which the worst punishment exists for disbelief. Give your life to Cthullu!
But what sort of faith is faith founded on a pseudomathematical probabilistic argument? "Well, God, I didn't accept your son as my savior, but I tried to believe in you because probability theory suggested it was the best way to cut my losses..."
Having used both a Mac and the "Mac look and feel GUI's for Linux", there's no comparison. It's a "Mac sort-of look" with none of the feel. Perhaps an actual mac look and feel wouldn't be popular for linux either, but what's out there just isn't it.