Second, GPLv2 has explicit statements about giving the recipient permission to use, modify, redistribute etc. It doesn't give "copyright permission", it gives "permission", so the distributor has given permission to use, modify, etc. It would be hard for a judge to conclude that the distributor reserved the right to later claim it was illegal to use, modify, etc.
(The case law for the implicit patent licence uses the term "sell" rather than "give", because the cases in question were about a sale. Now, yes, there's the possibility that a judge could make this distinction, but my second point about the explicit wording in GPLv2 makes this very unlikely to be a problem.)
The pilot of a remote control model helicopter is usually in the vicinity. People can see them, they can be caught on camera.
A by-internet operated drone brings no such level of responsibility or accountability.
The price evolution is also a factor. When remote flying things were expensive, they were bought by people who liked flying things remotely. This brings in a higher average of skill and care. When they cost very little, they will be bought by people with little or no skill or care, and instead of enjoying flight, some will be using them for anti-social purposes (invading privacy, annoying people for fun, etc.).
If the distance is short, maybe an improvised whip would work.
High power water hose sounds like the best suggestion so far, but it's not something I'd have at hand.
I'd be very interested to know more about the legality of damaging drones. Laws against the flying of drones are kinda ineffective since by the time the cops got there, the drone will be gone and the operator might never have been visible.
Basically, you're safe if you just use MS's version, but as soon as you modify the code you've probably lost those protections, and if you think of re-using the code in another project then you've definitely lost your protections. That means MS can sue you.
Developers aren't marked from birth. The WWW took off because non-developers copied the html of various pages and made their own pages. Eventually some of them became developers. It's important to maintain at least some of these on-ramps.
I'm no web dev but I often view the page source (e.g. so I can download a video instead of viewing it in my browser) or use "inspect element" (e.g. to get rid of some bar at the top or bottom taking up too much screen or being too distracting).
For PR reasons, the sellers of this system pretend it's about highlighting certain employees to get raises, but HR meetings are much more often about the problem of cutting costs than about the problem of how to give out more raises, so it's easy to see how this will really be used.
When a company wants to cut its workforce, they will use this software to find which low- or medium-productivity employees are most likely to leave and then make some policy change they know will frustrate those employees so that some of them quit and the company doesn't have to pay any severance packages etc. This will generally lower employees' quality of life, but the company doesn't care because those employees were leaving anyway.
> Without some form of digital restrictions management, > how is movie rental supposed to work?
DRM can exist without W3C's blessing. The big players can even agree on a common interface without W3C's blessing.
My previous comment wasn't about whether DRM should exist (in my opinion, it shouldn't), it was about W3C not needing to bless DRM and call it part of an "open standard".
There's no contradiction in DRM-accepters supporting the campaign to get DRM removed from W3C's specifications of open standards.
W3C still has an important role: they're the standards body.
We've been telling governments for years to use open standards and HTML is often held up as a shining example. A lot of governments have even made commitments to using open standards but if W3C announces that DRM is part of HTML, then governments will accept DRM and they'll think/claim they're doing what we asked with regard to open standards.
So we need to keep telling W3C that we don't want DRM in HTML. And when W3C says "Oh, but Netflix really wants DRM", we just reply that this doesn't require blessing from W3C.
Reading and evaluating the licence would take hours. The GPL is complicated too, but it's a single licence, widely commented on and upheld in courts, used by hundreds of thousands of software packages. I'm not going to give each single-program licence the same time I've given to understand the GPL. (And, according to clause 6 of the TrueCrypt licence, this means I'm not allowed to even use TrueCrypt.) FSF's comments on licences are consistently thorough and faire, and for the TrueCrypt licence they're pretty clear:
"This license is nonfree for several reasons. It says that if you don't understand the license you may not use the program. It puts conditions on allowing others to run your copy. It puts conditions on separate programs that “depend on” Truecrypt. The trademark condition applies to “associated materials”. There are other points in the license which seem perhaps unacceptable (...)" https://gnu.org/licenses/licen...
But TrueCrypt (now unmaintained) was never released under any free software licence, so VeraCrypt can't be both based on TrueCrypt and be under the Microsoft Public Licence. Anyone know which info is accurate and why they make this conflicting claim?
Accommodating Netflix is often cited as a reason for pushing DRM into HTML5, but this is a fallacy. Leaving aside one's opinion of Netflix, or even the general existence of DRM, it's perfectly possible to have the big DRM companies to solve their problems by using a privately negotiated addition to the HTML5 standard. There's no reason to put it into HTML5.
Many lovers of free software have been pushing for open standards for years, but now we're headed to a situation where someone can request a HTML5-compliant DRM implementation. When we say "use open standards!", they'll reply they're using HTML5. And free software is frozen out completely.
What can one do? Well, the least one can do is sign FSF's petition:
Slashdot Mirror
Could one buy a second-hand smartphone, only turning it on to use Uber, and pay with a prepaid anonymous credit card?
(The problem of having to use their non-free application would of course still exist.)
I've never used it and don't have a smartphone, so forgive my ignorance.
> 39% change their passwords regularly
Am I the only one who finds that hard to believe?
(And for how many website accounts do they do this?)
First, it has the implied patent licence that gets created when you give someone something.
Here's the case law for the USA:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Impli...
Second, GPLv2 has explicit statements about giving the recipient permission to use, modify, redistribute etc. It doesn't give "copyright permission", it gives "permission", so the distributor has given permission to use, modify, etc. It would be hard for a judge to conclude that the distributor reserved the right to later claim it was illegal to use, modify, etc.
Here are the relevant sections:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2...
(The case law for the implicit patent licence uses the term "sell" rather than "give", because the cases in question were about a sale. Now, yes, there's the possibility that a judge could make this distinction, but my second point about the explicit wording in GPLv2 makes this very unlikely to be a problem.)
Case in point, GCC recently switched from being compiled with GCC to being compiled with G++.
(Although I think it's a tad too absolute to say that "best-practice C can be compiled with a C++ compiler", but nearly.)
The pilot of a remote control model helicopter is usually in the vicinity. People can see them, they can be caught on camera.
A by-internet operated drone brings no such level of responsibility or accountability.
The price evolution is also a factor. When remote flying things were expensive, they were bought by people who liked flying things remotely. This brings in a higher average of skill and care. When they cost very little, they will be bought by people with little or no skill or care, and instead of enjoying flight, some will be using them for anti-social purposes (invading privacy, annoying people for fun, etc.).
First, drones are made from harder materials.
Second, we can ban drones.
> Best way to disable a camera drone?
If the distance is short, maybe an improvised whip would work.
High power water hose sounds like the best suggestion so far, but it's not something I'd have at hand.
I'd be very interested to know more about the legality of damaging drones. Laws against the flying of drones are kinda ineffective since by the time the cops got there, the drone will be gone and the operator might never have been visible.
And the problems with MS's patent licence for this new .NET code are spelled out here:
http://endsoftpatents.org/2014...
Basically, you're safe if you just use MS's version, but as soon as you modify the code you've probably lost those protections, and if you think of re-using the code in another project then you've definitely lost your protections. That means MS can sue you.
Developers aren't marked from birth. The WWW took off because non-developers copied the html of various pages and made their own pages. Eventually some of them became developers. It's important to maintain at least some of these on-ramps.
I'm no web dev but I often view the page source (e.g. so I can download a video instead of viewing it in my browser) or use "inspect element" (e.g. to get rid of some bar at the top or bottom taking up too much screen or being too distracting).
And I forgot the other obvious purpose: highlighting good employees that can be given no raise and will still stay.
For PR reasons, the sellers of this system pretend it's about highlighting certain employees to get raises, but HR meetings are much more often about the problem of cutting costs than about the problem of how to give out more raises, so it's easy to see how this will really be used.
When a company wants to cut its workforce, they will use this software to find which low- or medium-productivity employees are most likely to leave and then make some policy change they know will frustrate those employees so that some of them quit and the company doesn't have to pay any severance packages etc. This will generally lower employees' quality of life, but the company doesn't care because those employees were leaving anyway.
The article just says that data is sent less often and that it's encrypted.
> Without some form of digital restrictions management,
> how is movie rental supposed to work?
DRM can exist without W3C's blessing. The big players can even agree on a common interface without W3C's blessing.
My previous comment wasn't about whether DRM should exist (in my opinion, it shouldn't), it was about W3C not needing to bless DRM and call it part of an "open standard".
There's no contradiction in DRM-accepters supporting the campaign to get DRM removed from W3C's specifications of open standards.
W3C still has an important role: they're the standards body.
We've been telling governments for years to use open standards and HTML is often held up as a shining example. A lot of governments have even made commitments to using open standards but if W3C announces that DRM is part of HTML, then governments will accept DRM and they'll think/claim they're doing what we asked with regard to open standards.
So we need to keep telling W3C that we don't want DRM in HTML. And when W3C says "Oh, but Netflix really wants DRM", we just reply that this doesn't require blessing from W3C.
FSF is almost the only organisation campaigning on this: https://www.defectivebydesign....
Reading and evaluating the licence would take hours. The GPL is complicated too, but it's a single licence, widely commented on and upheld in courts, used by hundreds of thousands of software packages. I'm not going to give each single-program licence the same time I've given to understand the GPL. (And, according to clause 6 of the TrueCrypt licence, this means I'm not allowed to even use TrueCrypt.) FSF's comments on licences are consistently thorough and faire, and for the TrueCrypt licence they're pretty clear:
"This license is nonfree for several reasons. It says that if you don't understand the license you may not use the program. It puts conditions on allowing others to run your copy. It puts conditions on separate programs that “depend on” Truecrypt. The trademark condition applies to “associated materials”. There are other points in the license which seem perhaps unacceptable (...)"
https://gnu.org/licenses/licen...
VeraCrypt's website says it's "based on TrueCrypt", but the licence page says it's released under the Microsoft (!) Public licence (which is a free software licence, incompatible with the GPL.)
But TrueCrypt (now unmaintained) was never released under any free software licence, so VeraCrypt can't be both based on TrueCrypt and be under the Microsoft Public Licence. Anyone know which info is accurate and why they make this conflicting claim?
Of course, using Microsoft's codeplex hosting, and Microsoft's licence raises doubts about the software given that Microsoft has already been caught handing data to the NSA and putting in backdoors for the NSA.
Accommodating Netflix is often cited as a reason for pushing DRM into HTML5, but this is a fallacy. Leaving aside one's opinion of Netflix, or even the general existence of DRM, it's perfectly possible to have the big DRM companies to solve their problems by using a privately negotiated addition to the HTML5 standard. There's no reason to put it into HTML5.
Many lovers of free software have been pushing for open standards for years, but now we're headed to a situation where someone can request a HTML5-compliant DRM implementation. When we say "use open standards!", they'll reply they're using HTML5. And free software is frozen out completely.
What can one do? Well, the least one can do is sign FSF's petition:
https://www.defectivebydesign.... ...and spread the word that we don't want DRM in W3C stanardards.