He clearly has no comprehension of the meaning of freedom in America. If a collective of programmers wishes to pool their talents to create a greater good, how can this be against the US Constitution and Patent Law? The situation is analogous to Barn manufacturers sueing the Amish to prevent barn raisings!
If they got away with that no doubt they'd then sue any business which tried to make "barns" (and "barn derivatives).
No Darl, what you believe is in propping up a corupt system which destroys the rights of authors and inventors by forcing them to sign over their rights to their work to companies which in and of themselves, have no vested interest in said work, except to earn monetary profit.
In some cases this business model may even have destroyed people. More in the music industry than the proprietary software industry, but they all appear to be variations on the same theme.
SCO claims that the GPL violates existing copyright laws because it "grants" a copyright. But the GPL doesn't grant any copyright.
Copyright is automatic
In fact, it works as just the opposite. Instead of allowing any one person to claim an open project for themselves, it remains in a sense public property so long as the original source is cited and the code remains open for anyone to tinker with.
GPL software is not "public" it is owned by the copyright holder. They have granted conditional permission to distribute and modify the software through the GPL.
That's not the case with copyrights.
Copyright means that you need permission from the copyright holder to make copys and derived versions of a work. A copyright holder can attach a licence to their work stating what under what conditions they will allow copying to be made. This is an advantage to someone who wishes to make copies, since they can simply read the licence to find out the conditions, it is also an advantage to the copyright holder since people will only need to contact them if they want to make copies under situations not covered by the licence.
I can't remix a song and release it without paying for rights.
The payment of the money is the condition the copyright holder has requested. They could just as easily say "make sure my name stays on it", "send me a copy", "I want x% of any money you make", etc.
I can't go rewrite Lord of the Rings and publish it because it's copyrighted.
You can't do this because it's copyrighted and the copyright holder won't give you permission.
But I can download an OSS project, modify it, and then I HAVE to release my modifications if I want to publicly distribute my modifications to the source. It's not a copyright.
It is copyright, the terms and conditions are simply different. They have said you may modify and distribute, but you must make the source available to anyone you distribute the binary to and you must apply the GPL to your modifications. If you wish to distribute on some other basis you must agree that with the copyright holder(s) of the code you started with.
According to Darl, the GPL is designed to take profit incentive out of copyright ownership.
As others have mentioned "profit" does not imply "money".
Copyright is defined in the Constitution. In the case of Eldrid v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's description of copyright existing to an advancement of arts and sciences includes the possibility of profit as a motivation.
"Includes the possibility of" is rather different from "must include". Effectivly they are saying that "advancement" is a set of entities which includes "the possibility of profit as a motivation".
That's essentially the argument they're making. Copyright exists in order to profit of the copyrighted work, so they argue.
The truth is more that they exist to make a profit out of applying copyright in a certain way. Because they have been able to do this for a while they assume that that was the reason copyright exists and the only way copyright should ever been applied. When in actual fact copyright is a lot more versitile...
Just because the constitution defined copyright to help protect profit motives and thus speed along innovation, that does not mean we cannot use copyright law in a different way.
Did it? Where does this clause indicate "profit motive"? It appears quite general in scope as written.
Surely it's also obvious to you now that you've painted yourself into a corner with respect to the GNU Public License (GPL)? If you prevail and the GPL is declared invalid, as a distributor of many works (including Linux) which were formerly licensed under the GPL, The SCO Group would appear to be guilty of copyright infringement on a rather unprecedented scale. (Without the GPL Darl you can't distribute Linux or Samba.) If you fail, and the GPL is valid, you've released all your supposedly infringed works into the Open Source community under terms where you lose all ability to make infringement claims on pretty much any IP grounds. In which case any value of any intellectual property left in the corpses of your versions of Unix is pretty much gone.
In the latter case SCO is still up for copyright infringment. As a consequence of supplying GPL software without following the terms and conditions of the GPL. Which include telling whoever you supply it to that it is GPL software. Instead SCO have been distributing "SCO Linux" with a bogus (not endorsed by the copyright holders) licence.
Congress has the power to grant exclusive rights to a creation but has no power to legally mandate what the terms of those rights are. (See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City 383 US 1.)
To some extent they do, but it would tend to be along the lines of "you can't licence to certain parties".
Congress has the right to grant me a patent, and if I want to take that patented product and license it to whomever, there is nothing that Constitutionally prevents me from doing so.
The US Government would probably have something to say if you wanted to licence it to a Cuban company... But unless part of your licence is actually against the law they can't change it. e.g. requiring the licencee to break the law to accept the licence would be such a situation.
The argument that profit motive is the best way of ensuring the public good is fine, but it is essentially a non-sequitor in this case. If the Linux kernel contains SCO code then that code has to be legally removed.
The onus here is on SCO to identify such code and demonstrate that it is their code. Which they have failed to do so far.
It's pretty flawed, both in law and fact. McBride seems to be saying that all the efforts of US developers should go towards the revenue streams of US business,
Possibly even towards the revenue streams of businesses which exist now...
and that any effort that does not do so is dangerous and subversive. It looks like a kind of bizarre hybridization of capitalism and communism,
Possibly "corporate socialism".
and I would be preaching to the choir if I outlined the benefits of non-profit activity carried on in the name of the common good.
These benefits may include economic benefits
Legally, he's on pretty shaky ground. Constitutional limitations generally put fetters on the government, not on private citizens. Hence, while the First Amendment may limit the legislative power of Congress with respect to free speech, it doesn't (of itself) create an offence, tort, or other actionable wrong of limiting another's freedom of speech.
What it should do is prevent a law (or at least a law passed by the US Congress) being usable to limit someone's freedom of speach.
But, they are not trying to "undermine" all copyright and patents-- just those relating to information. And, "undermine" is a loaded word.
Especially given that the GPL relys entirely on copyright law. It uses the mechanism of allowing copyright holders to place restrictions on the copying and distribution of their works. With those restrictions being mutually exclusive with those restrictions proprietary software companies wish to use. Current copyright laws grant copyright holders a vast amount of autonomy in choosing what restrictions they place on their works.
Rather, the FSF appears to be trying to modify the current system into something that does not allow the hoarding of information.
Which may well be the reason Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution exists in the first place.
So, basically, Darl of SCO is saying that he realizes that SCO has distributed Linux under GPL after he knew about what he claims as his infringement of SCO IP. And because that distribution would negate all his claims of infringed IP, he has no other choice but to dispute the legality of the GPL.
Actually what he has to be disputing is the legality of copyright on GPLed code SCO has distributed. Disputing the legality of the GPL would effectivly be a foot shooting exercise for SCO. Regardless of if they won or lost the case they'd be admitting to commercial copyright infringement in a court. (Isn't copyright infringement for profit now a criminal matter too?)
Both SCO's case against IBM and the GPL rely on very broad use of the term "derivative work" which is used to assert licensing restrictions on such works. An example of this is if I write a program that links (statically or dynamically) to a GPL'd library, then if I wish to distribute my program, I must release it under the GPL. As such, the GPL forces its restrictions on my code, even though my code isn't based on the GPL'd code.
If you statically linked the library there would be no argument that you were including someone elses copyrighted code into your program and thus subject to any restrictions the copyright holder(s) might have placed on their software. There might be some "wiggle room" with dynamic linking if would be your responsibility to make your case with the copyright holder(s). Nothing is forcing you to use a GPL library. Your alternatives are to write some code yourself, use somebody else's code with a licence you don't have issues with or negotiate with the copyright holders of the GPL code.
While the scenarios are not exactly the same, I believe both rely on overly-broad definitions of what constitutes a derivative work. While I feel that SCO's case ought to be dismissed, I also believe the GPL needs to be modified to use a less broad definition of what is a derivative work.
The definition the GPL uses is that set by relevent statute and case law.
As the license exists now, it may indeed violate copyright law.
By definition it cannot...
Such modifications would mean the GPL is more likely enforcable under copyright law, and would make software licensed under the GPL more friendly to many commercial developers.
"Commercial" != "proprietary". Anyway copyright law in no way obliges copyright holders to be "friendly" to anyone. Just because some people think that software should only be distributed under licences which encourage the proprietary software business model does not mean that everyone agrees. There are probably a large number of (possible) software licences which are pro-proprietary software, anti-proprietary software or entirely neutral with respect to proprietary software.
There is no evidence that RH is against the US copyright system.
The GPL relys on copyright, specifically the US copyright system, since it was originally drafted in the US by an American. The simple matter of the GPL being incompatable with the proprietary software business model does not render it unenforcable. AFAIK nowhere is copyright intended to be about protecting business models. Copyright statutes (and the treaties on which they are based) state in effect that a copyright holder can control the making and distribution of copies in just about any way they see fit. The US Constitution states the the purpose of copyright (and any similar laws) is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Whilst GPL software can certainly be subjected to experimentation, review and critique which is an essential part of modern Western science the same cannot be said of proprietary software. The latter quite often coming with an EULA forbidding "reverse engineering" or any other examination/analysis. Proprietary closed source software looks far more questionable in the context of the US Constitution.
And the KEY to the matter is that the SCO v. IBM case is not about PATENTS (which RH and the FSF are against) but about COPYRIGHT
IIRC it was more about trade secrets and breach of contract. But they SCO have tossed around so much nonsense that maybe even they don't know any more.
It's kind of silly for someone to be arguing about "intellectual property" when they can't even get the basic facts underpinning their argument right:)
Gravity at Lagrange -- 0.0G (Artificial gravity through rotation gives relatively easy access to everything between 0 and 1G and beyond -- difficult to recreate on Mars)
You could just as easily stick people in a centrifuge on Mars as in orbit...
The letter argues that because the FSF takes a certain political view of copyrights, its copyright-related contracts are invalid and violate the US constitution.
The political views of the FSF are irrelevent anyway since for most of the code in question the FSF is not the copyright holder in the first place. Article 1, section 8 (as modified by any applicable ammendments) allows the US Congress to pass legislation which may include copyright for the purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". N.B. this clause is one of enablement not one of mandate. The writer argues that their political view of copyright is the correct one by making the unverified claim that the passage of various copyright statutes has boosted the US economy. Even if this is true, no evidence is presented that this is the case, the clause in the US constitution nowhere says "to boost the US economy.
Fortunately, we live in a country where one's political views don't generally affect the validity of the contracts we enter in.
There is no requirment that a copyright holder agree or disagree with the politics of the FSF or those of any other entity in order to release their work(s) under the GPL. Nowhere does the letter compare the text of the GPL with either copyright statutes of the US Constitution. Even though this would be the most convincing way to argue against it. Current copyright laws tend to grant copyright holders a lot of choice in how they may restrict distribution of their works. Thus in actual fact it's more prople like McBride who are anti-copyright. Since they want to have copyrights taken away from copyright holders when those copyright holders apply limitations which are inconvenient for those wishing wishing to use certain business models. Enabling copyright to be voided (for any reason at all) would weaken all copyrights.
Aside from all that, the Moon isn't bad at all as a launching point to the planets. You only need enough booster, catapult (thanks again, Heinlein!) or combination of the two to get into a couple-kilometer orbit.
Such an orbit will not be stable. Whilst the Moon does not have anything which qualifies as an "atmosphere" it does have mountains and differing densities of crust. Also you have Earth's gravity to add in.
But sometimes things don't function perfectly, and you need to know how to deal. Sometimes you don't have infinite money, and when you don't, NASA just gives up, whereas the Russians just fix problems with duct tape and it works.
Yeah, the Russian approach is apparently more dangerous, but so what?
Whilst the Russian approach might appear to be more dangerous 17 Astronauts have been killed by their vehicle, as opposed to 4 Cosmonauts.
An incremental approach would have been to build a Saturn 6 booster that was more powerful/cheaper to operate/reusable, and keep upgrading the parts to make it better.
Which was the approach the Russians took with their manned vehicles.
Instead, Shuttle dropped all of that and restarted with an almost completely different appproach.
Which turned out to be considerably more expensive and dangerous. Whereas Soyuz has a crew escape system which works at any altitude.
That's not called a tax cut, that's called conservative economics (real conservative, not what we have now). Tax cuts refer to, well, cutting taxes not reforming spending!
Or even worst cutting taxes whilst "reforming" is such a way as to increase wastage.
Couple it with libertarianism and you get a smaller more efficient government. However, because smaller, more efficient governments do not hand out as much entitlements the people always vote for larger, bigger, more expensive government while at the same time bitching about high taxes.
In order to get a smaller, more efficent, government some of the first cuts would have to be in government. It would be a little suprising if a group of people who routinely vote themselves increasing "entitlements" were to suddently start giving things up.
but apparantly this is only for the media, not the hardware that reads it. so this is not FAT software, but the act of pre-formatting media to the FAT format that is patented, or at least that is being enforced.
What's the point of this though? The only case where it could cause trouble is with a device which cannot format it's own media and thus needs preformatted media.
what M$ has done with bimbo's and IE is not just code reuse, they have not just used some of the same libraries again, they have tightly coupled, them together, so that they cannot easily be separated, parts of windows code was put into the IE libraries, were it doesn't belong in order to legitamise their claim that the two are so called integrated, butchered would be a better term,
Another way of describing this is that Microsoft have deliberatly written "sphagetti code". With all the associated problems of debugging and code maintenance.
this is why all of a sudden installing IE even without the "IE desktop", changed your system libraries. In addition inorder to further the same goals or out of shear incompetence, M$ have hooked the two together, via global variables and functions to the point where the one cannot exist with out the other.
The reason that Microsoft appear to have done this is to lock out third party addons. It has nothing to do with "integration" as seem from a user perspective.
This is not code reuse this is bad design, and infact the oppersite of structured programming, which is the basis of real code reuse.
A structured design also means that components, especially if they are in shared libraries, can be easily replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
He clearly has no comprehension of the meaning of freedom in America. If a collective of programmers wishes to pool their talents to create a greater good, how can this be against the US Constitution and Patent Law? The situation is analogous to Barn manufacturers sueing the Amish to prevent barn raisings!
If they got away with that no doubt they'd then sue any business which tried to make "barns" (and "barn derivatives).
No Darl, what you believe is in propping up a corupt system which destroys the rights of authors and inventors by forcing them to sign over their rights to their work to companies which in and of themselves, have no vested interest in said work, except to earn monetary profit.
In some cases this business model may even have destroyed people. More in the music industry than the proprietary software industry, but they all appear to be variations on the same theme.
SCO claims that the GPL violates existing copyright laws because it "grants" a copyright. But the GPL doesn't grant any copyright.
Copyright is automatic
In fact, it works as just the opposite. Instead of allowing any one person to claim an open project for themselves, it remains in a sense public property so long as the original source is cited and the code remains open for anyone to tinker with.
GPL software is not "public" it is owned by the copyright holder. They have granted conditional permission to distribute and modify the software through the GPL.
That's not the case with copyrights.
Copyright means that you need permission from the copyright holder to make copys and derived versions of a work. A copyright holder can attach a licence to their work stating what under what conditions they will allow copying to be made. This is an advantage to someone who wishes to make copies, since they can simply read the licence to find out the conditions, it is also an advantage to the copyright holder since people will only need to contact them if they want to make copies under situations not covered by the licence.
I can't remix a song and release it without paying for rights.
The payment of the money is the condition the copyright holder has requested. They could just as easily say "make sure my name stays on it", "send me a copy", "I want x% of any money you make", etc.
I can't go rewrite Lord of the Rings and publish it because it's copyrighted.
You can't do this because it's copyrighted and the copyright holder won't give you permission.
But I can download an OSS project, modify it, and then I HAVE to release my modifications if I want to publicly distribute my modifications to the source. It's not a copyright.
It is copyright, the terms and conditions are simply different. They have said you may modify and distribute, but you must make the source available to anyone you distribute the binary to and you must apply the GPL to your modifications.
If you wish to distribute on some other basis you must agree that with the copyright holder(s) of the code you started with.
According to Darl, the GPL is designed to take profit incentive out of copyright ownership.
As others have mentioned "profit" does not imply "money".
Copyright is defined in the Constitution. In the case of Eldrid v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's description of copyright existing to an advancement of arts and sciences includes the possibility of profit as a motivation.
"Includes the possibility of" is rather different from "must include". Effectivly they are saying that "advancement" is a set of entities which includes "the possibility of profit as a motivation".
What he seems to be arguing here is that it is unconstitutional to give inventions or works away without charging for them.
:) Anyway the GPL does not "give things away", the copyright holder retains their copyright.
Maybe he has his own copy of the US Constitution
That's essentially the argument they're making. Copyright exists in order to profit of the copyrighted work, so they argue.
The truth is more that they exist to make a profit out of applying copyright in a certain way.
Because they have been able to do this for a while they assume that that was the reason copyright exists and the only way copyright should ever been applied.
When in actual fact copyright is a lot more versitile...
Just because the constitution defined copyright to help protect profit motives and thus speed along innovation, that does not mean we cannot use copyright law in a different way.
Did it? Where does this clause indicate "profit motive"? It appears quite general in scope as written.
Surely it's also obvious to you now that you've painted yourself into a corner with respect to the GNU Public License (GPL)? If you prevail and the GPL is declared invalid, as a distributor of many works (including Linux) which were formerly licensed under the GPL, The SCO Group would appear to be guilty of copyright infringement on a rather unprecedented scale. (Without the GPL Darl you can't distribute Linux or Samba.) If you fail, and the GPL is valid, you've released all your supposedly infringed works into the Open Source community under terms where you lose all ability to make infringement claims on pretty much any IP grounds. In which case any value of any intellectual property left in the corpses of your versions of Unix is pretty much gone.
In the latter case SCO is still up for copyright infringment. As a consequence of supplying GPL software without following the terms and conditions of the GPL. Which include telling whoever you supply it to that it is GPL software. Instead SCO have been distributing "SCO Linux" with a bogus (not endorsed by the copyright holders) licence.
Congress has the power to grant exclusive rights to a creation but has no power to legally mandate what the terms of those rights are. (See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City 383 US 1.)
To some extent they do, but it would tend to be along the lines of "you can't licence to certain parties".
Congress has the right to grant me a patent, and if I want to take that patented product and license it to whomever, there is nothing that Constitutionally prevents me from doing so.
The US Government would probably have something to say if you wanted to licence it to a Cuban company... But unless part of your licence is actually against the law they can't change it. e.g. requiring the licencee to break the law to accept the licence would be such a situation.
The argument that profit motive is the best way of ensuring the public good is fine, but it is essentially a non-sequitor in this case. If the Linux kernel contains SCO code then that code has to be legally removed.
The onus here is on SCO to identify such code and demonstrate that it is their code. Which they have failed to do so far.
It's pretty flawed, both in law and fact. McBride seems to be saying that all the efforts of US developers should go towards the revenue streams of US business,
Possibly even towards the revenue streams of businesses which exist now...
and that any effort that does not do so is dangerous and subversive. It looks like a kind of bizarre hybridization of capitalism and communism,
Possibly "corporate socialism".
and I would be preaching to the choir if I outlined the benefits of non-profit activity carried on in the name of the common good.
These benefits may include economic benefits
Legally, he's on pretty shaky ground. Constitutional limitations generally put fetters on the government, not on private citizens. Hence, while the First Amendment may limit the legislative power of Congress with respect to free speech, it doesn't (of itself) create an offence, tort, or other actionable wrong of limiting another's freedom of speech.
What it should do is prevent a law (or at least a law passed by the US Congress) being usable to limit someone's freedom of speach.
But, they are not trying to "undermine" all copyright and patents-- just those relating to information. And, "undermine" is a loaded word.
Especially given that the GPL relys entirely on copyright law. It uses the mechanism of allowing copyright holders to place restrictions on the copying and distribution of their works. With those restrictions being mutually exclusive with those restrictions proprietary software companies wish to use.
Current copyright laws grant copyright holders a vast amount of autonomy in choosing what restrictions they place on their works.
Rather, the FSF appears to be trying to modify the current system into something that does not allow the hoarding of information.
Which may well be the reason Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution exists in the first place.
So, basically, Darl of SCO is saying that he realizes that SCO has distributed Linux under GPL after he knew about what he claims as his infringement of SCO IP. And because that distribution would negate all his claims of infringed IP, he has no other choice but to dispute the legality of the GPL.
Actually what he has to be disputing is the legality of copyright on GPLed code SCO has distributed. Disputing the legality of the GPL would effectivly be a foot shooting exercise for SCO. Regardless of if they won or lost the case they'd be admitting to commercial copyright infringement in a court. (Isn't copyright infringement for profit now a criminal matter too?)
We're going to hear nothing but bullshit from SCO until they go under, why even bother listening?
Because if they keep on and on without anyone to rebut them it's possible some people might think they actually have a point.
Both SCO's case against IBM and the GPL rely on very broad use of the term "derivative work" which is used to assert licensing restrictions on such works. An example of this is if I write a program that links (statically or dynamically) to a GPL'd library, then if I wish to distribute my program, I must release it under the GPL. As such, the GPL forces its restrictions on my code, even though my code isn't based on the GPL'd code.
If you statically linked the library there would be no argument that you were including someone elses copyrighted code into your program and thus subject to any restrictions the copyright holder(s) might have placed on their software. There might be some "wiggle room" with dynamic linking if would be your responsibility to make your case with the copyright holder(s).
Nothing is forcing you to use a GPL library. Your alternatives are to write some code yourself, use somebody else's code with a licence you don't have issues with or negotiate with the copyright holders of the GPL code.
While the scenarios are not exactly the same, I believe both rely on overly-broad definitions of what constitutes a derivative work. While I feel that SCO's case ought to be dismissed, I also believe the GPL needs to be modified to use a less broad definition of what is a derivative work.
The definition the GPL uses is that set by relevent statute and case law.
As the license exists now, it may indeed violate copyright law.
By definition it cannot...
Such modifications would mean the GPL is more likely enforcable under copyright law, and would make software licensed under the GPL more friendly to many commercial developers.
"Commercial" != "proprietary". Anyway copyright law in no way obliges copyright holders to be "friendly" to anyone. Just because some people think that software should only be distributed under licences which encourage the proprietary software business model does not mean that everyone agrees. There are probably a large number of (possible) software licences which are pro-proprietary software, anti-proprietary software or entirely neutral with respect to proprietary software.
There is no evidence that RH is against the US copyright system.
The GPL relys on copyright, specifically the US copyright system, since it was originally drafted in the US by an American. The simple matter of the GPL being incompatable with the proprietary software business model does not render it unenforcable. AFAIK nowhere is copyright intended to be about protecting business models.
Copyright statutes (and the treaties on which they are based) state in effect that a copyright holder can control the making and distribution of copies in just about any way they see fit.
The US Constitution states the the purpose of copyright (and any similar laws) is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Whilst GPL software can certainly be subjected to experimentation, review and critique which is an essential part of modern Western science the same cannot be said of proprietary software. The latter quite often coming with an EULA forbidding "reverse engineering" or any other examination/analysis.
Proprietary closed source software looks far more questionable in the context of the US Constitution.
And the KEY to the matter is that the SCO v. IBM case is not about PATENTS (which RH and the FSF are against) but about COPYRIGHT
IIRC it was more about trade secrets and breach of contract. But they SCO have tossed around so much nonsense that maybe even they don't know any more.
However, after visiting the site, the only word used is "patent," the only occurance of "copyright" is at the bottom of the page claiming that it's a © of Redhat.
:)
It's kind of silly for someone to be arguing about "intellectual property" when they can't even get the basic facts underpinning their argument right
Gravity at Lagrange -- 0.0G (Artificial gravity through rotation gives relatively easy access to everything between 0 and 1G and beyond -- difficult to recreate on Mars)
You could just as easily stick people in a centrifuge on Mars as in orbit...
The letter argues that because the FSF takes a certain political view of copyrights, its copyright-related contracts are invalid and violate the US constitution.
The political views of the FSF are irrelevent anyway since for most of the code in question the FSF is not the copyright holder in the first place. Article 1, section 8 (as modified by any applicable ammendments) allows the US Congress to pass legislation which may include copyright for the purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". N.B. this clause is one of enablement not one of mandate.
The writer argues that their political view of copyright is the correct one by making the unverified claim that the passage of various copyright statutes has boosted the US economy. Even if this is true, no evidence is presented that this is the case, the clause in the US constitution nowhere says "to boost the US economy.
Fortunately, we live in a country where one's political views don't generally affect the validity of the contracts we enter in.
There is no requirment that a copyright holder agree or disagree with the politics of the FSF or those of any other entity in order to release their work(s) under the GPL.
Nowhere does the letter compare the text of the GPL with either copyright statutes of the US Constitution. Even though this would be the most convincing way to argue against it.
Current copyright laws tend to grant copyright holders a lot of choice in how they may restrict distribution of their works. Thus in actual fact it's more prople like McBride who are anti-copyright. Since they want to have copyrights taken away from copyright holders when those copyright holders apply limitations which are inconvenient for those wishing wishing to use certain business models. Enabling copyright to be voided (for any reason at all) would weaken all copyrights.
Aside from all that, the Moon isn't bad at all as a launching point to the planets. You only need enough booster, catapult (thanks again, Heinlein!) or combination of the two to get into a couple-kilometer orbit.
Such an orbit will not be stable. Whilst the Moon does not have anything which qualifies as an "atmosphere" it does have mountains and differing densities of crust. Also you have Earth's gravity to add in.
But sometimes things don't function perfectly, and you need to know how to deal. Sometimes you don't have infinite money, and when you don't, NASA just gives up, whereas the Russians just fix problems with duct tape and it works.
Yeah, the Russian approach is apparently more dangerous, but so what?
Whilst the Russian approach might appear to be more dangerous 17 Astronauts have been killed by their vehicle, as opposed to 4 Cosmonauts.
An incremental approach would have been to build a Saturn 6 booster that was more powerful/cheaper to operate/reusable, and keep upgrading the parts to make it better.
Which was the approach the Russians took with their manned vehicles.
Instead, Shuttle dropped all of that and restarted with an almost completely different appproach.
Which turned out to be considerably more expensive and dangerous. Whereas Soyuz has a crew escape system which works at any altitude.
That's not called a tax cut, that's called conservative economics (real conservative, not what we have now). Tax cuts refer to, well, cutting taxes not reforming spending!
Or even worst cutting taxes whilst "reforming" is such a way as to increase wastage.
Couple it with libertarianism and you get a smaller more efficient government. However, because smaller, more efficient governments do not hand out as much entitlements the people always vote for larger, bigger, more expensive government while at the same time bitching about high taxes.
In order to get a smaller, more efficent, government some of the first cuts would have to be in government. It would be a little suprising if a group of people who routinely vote themselves increasing "entitlements" were to suddently start giving things up.
but apparantly this is only for the media, not the hardware that reads it. so this is not FAT software, but the act of pre-formatting media to the FAT format that is patented, or at least that is being enforced.
What's the point of this though? The only case where it could cause trouble is with a device which cannot format it's own media and thus needs preformatted media.
isn't patent barratry a patented business process held by SCO? if so, i believe you're infringing upon their IP rights... :>
Maybe Microsoft and SCO can be left to kill each other off...
what M$ has done with bimbo's and IE is not just code reuse, they have not just used some of the same libraries again, they have tightly coupled, them together, so that they cannot easily be separated, parts of windows code was put into the IE libraries, were it doesn't belong in order to legitamise their claim that the two are so called integrated, butchered would be a better term,
Another way of describing this is that Microsoft have deliberatly written "sphagetti code". With all the associated problems of debugging and code maintenance.
this is why all of a sudden installing IE even without the "IE desktop", changed your system libraries. In addition inorder to further the same goals or out of shear incompetence, M$ have hooked the two together, via global variables and functions to the point where the one cannot exist with out the other.
The reason that Microsoft appear to have done this is to lock out third party addons. It has nothing to do with "integration" as seem from a user perspective.
This is not code reuse this is bad design, and infact the oppersite of structured programming, which is the basis of real code reuse.
A structured design also means that components, especially if they are in shared libraries, can be easily replaced.