Phil Hughes started LJ and eventually gave it to Carlie Fairchild when he left for South America. I believe that Bob Young was a seed funder but I don't think the journal ever had that big a capitalization. Running a magazine about Linux in the face of the torrent of information about it on the Internet was never an easy thing. It's incredible that she was able to keep it going this long, and I wish Carlie luck in her future endeavors.
As far as I am aware, there are more Morse code users using the Amateur Radio frequencies today than before license reform. I certainly hear them on the air. Nlobody prohibits the use of Morse Code on Amateur frequencies. It's just not on the test any longer.
The Coast Guard in the US stopped monitoring for Morse distress calls in 1995, before Amateur license reform. Thus, not my fault.
I'm not sure I really understand the problem. Care to explain further?
No, I know they didn't copy the campaign. It's just that internal jargon leaked outside and became more popular. But I see that since then it's also gained a meaning in the software world: "no-code platform", and is the title of a Pearl Jam album which may be related to the medical term.
I remember before this usage a local hospital paged "Dr. Hasty" for an emergency resuscitation.
I had heard of "Code Blue" before. But I think you are missing the point that it's deliberately-created jargon meant to communicate between hospital staff without informing the patients and visitors of what's happening. So, the fact that outsiders don't know this is neither surprising nor a problem with their intelection.
Like 10-codes on police radio, other people eventually get a hold of it, until we get every idiot who operates a radio in the world saying "10-4" for "yes" as if there was some problem with the clarity of "yes" when said on the radio vs. "four".
Back in the early 2000's, I started an organization called No-Code International to get rid of Morse Code tests for ham radio licenses, world wide. We succeeded.
Startlingly, "no-code" has taken on another meaning since then. Apparently doctors and laymen wear necklaces with a token inscribed with the words "No Code", which means don't resuscitate me.
I am sympathetic with the desire to avoid the almost uniform bad outcomes from CPR, etc. However, I just happen to know a man who went into v-fib while sleeping, for no known reason, in his 50's. His wife noticed him snorting in his sleep, he happened to be in a brand new hotel with a newly-trained staff who had received CPR training, and had brand new AEDs. He required 4 shocks in all and was unconscious and intubated in intensive care. He recovered fully, received a pacemaker which had some start-up issues, but has had a full decade of quality life since then with no complications. So, I don't know what to think about DNR.
Hi, I'm Bruce Perens, the well known Open Source evangelist and a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR!!! I'd like to know just where I fit in your conspiracy theories. Tootles!
Vacuum-based muscles have a lower risk of rupture, failure, and damage, and they don't expand when they're operating, so you can integrate them into closer-fitting robots on the human body,
OK, if you want to read a story you'll never be able to forget, read about the little girl that was eviscerated by the suction of a pool filter and the action of her somewhat dense mommy. Or, on second thought, don't read that. It's too nasty.
There are risks to high suction next to the human body. Especially sick and weak ones.
The studio-transmitter links of the time were all analog, all NTSC, no security at all. The transmitters were all on the same tower. All one really had to do was get a hold of the STL hardware, set the channel, beam a signal from a nearby location, and roll tape.
It used to also be that you could set the brakes on a freight train with a walkie-talkie, by sending the right command to a device at the end of the train. It might even still be the case. Nobody considered that someone else could get on your frequency back then.
Kevin Finisterre had previously reported and documented GPL violations to me, which I enforced and got DJI to comply by distributing source for several programs and libraries. I did not charge DJI any money or ask for any proprietary software. One wonders if they have gotten annoyed with Kevin, though.
So, I am still at a loss why Eben Moglen, law teacher at Columbia, would bring this proceeding. The legal part seems so shaky, and if they prevail they make pariahs of themselves. Or have already made.
Here are all of SFC's stated defenses:
1. Petitioner's claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (this is standard for any such case)
1. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
2. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
3. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
4. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
One teaches at Boalt and I will try to engage him on it the next time I speak with him. The other was involved in the lower court case and thus probably won't say more.
release of the proprietary software under the GPL is the only remedy open to the proprietary software owners
This is never the case. There is no required performance in copyright infringement cases.
The defendant has to stop the infringement. They should no longer distribute infringing software (or perform it in case of AGPL) and if they technically are capable of updating software in the field to a non-infringing version they should do so. They can either do this by removing the GPL software from the product and replacing it with something else, or the can GPL the proprietary part. This is a choice.
Very often it is only necessary to separate the two pieces better. For example, people static link their proprietary stuff into busybox and uclibc. Someone just has to sit down with their programmers and teach them how to erect bright lines between the Open Source and proprietary stuff.
Subsequent to that they need to settle with the plaintiff. If they are using the Community Principles, the plaintiff is probably not asking for significant money. SFC asked one of my customers, a Fortune 100 company, for $5000! This was their cost to audit compliance. This is chicken feed next to what any legal-technical professional other than SFC would charge and does not include damages, which from any proprietary plaintiff would be north of USD$1M. SFC may charge the next folks more (they need some money to operate) but they are still the opposite of greedy.
In general, SFC wants to audit your new releases containing Open Source before release for a period of three years after settlement. This is the most difficult part of the settlement for most companies, but still really fair.
Given that the Supes already denied cert on the first case, I am not clear why you are so sanguine about the appeal in the second. Want to explain any more?
Why did anyone up-moderate this??? Git certainly has users. Anyone who thinks otherwise lives in a different reality.
Maybe you don't like Boost and C++, but they are very big among corporates. Hey, I don't like Java (and for that matter do not use Boost because I tend to write C+- when I use that language) but I acknowledge that there are billions of lines of Java written written.
QEMU is a component of virtualization systems and you may think you're not using it but odds are you are. uClibc is in pretty much all embedded Linux including Billions of wireless access points, etc.
And ultimately this is about the people behind the organizations. Bradley and Karen at SFC are behaving ethically and devote their whole lives to charity when they could each make 10 times more in industrry. Eben is behaving very much differently from the Eben we know for 25 years and we don't understand why. As the bloggers referenced in the story have noted, his optics are terrible.
Laches has two elements, delay and prejudice. The concept here is that if the plaintiff waits for the defendant to build public awareness of their use of the trademark and thus a valuable business in infringing the trademark and then the plaintiff sues, the plaintiff loses. The defendany has to demonstrate both delay and prejudice in order to win using a laches defense.
Not all infringements ever meet that standard and thus must be enforced early. I would indeed imagine that most infringements do not.
Actually, the appeals court in Oracle v. Google ruled that APIs could be copyrighted. We were previously interpreting based mainly by the finding in CAI v. Altai. As a result of the new finding, I do not believe that dynamic linking works as an insulator between GPL and proprietary software. There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not. I always felt that dynamic linking of proprietary and GPL was risky and never advised my customers and their attorneys to do it.
The point about having a build environment is that the AGPL3, which you use, is a sharing license, and if you only share unbuildable software that is in general an attempt to avoid what the license requires. There is not any rule saying you have to provide a Windows build environment, but you are supposed to provide all of the Makefiles, etc., and whatever internal tools you built that are necessary for compiling and installing the software. These are generally things that make a manufacturer-specific installable BLOB file.
Nobody is compelled to use GPL code. If sharing and license compliance is going to be a problem for your business, you are not part of the target user community of the developers, and please don't build it into your proprietary product.
People who have problems understanding this stuff are welcome to contact me privately at bruce at perens dot com. I don't charge and sometimes there is complexity and implication that I can clear up for you.
Software Freedom Conservancy has at least 46 member projects for whom they hold property as a corporation, provide a corporate veil against liability for the project and its develoers, provide legal advice, and act as a tax-exempt organization on behalf of the projects (a 501(c)3) so that the projects can receive donations which the donors write off of their income to reduce their overall tax load by a portion of the donation.
This is a big deal for the projects concerned.
So, where are those projects? Why do I not yet see the project's official comments on behalf of SFC, but only a few personal comments from projects that are not SFC members? Why haven't they grouped together and all signed a letter to the community in support of SFC?
In trademark law, one must either defend your name, or lose rights to it to the extent that you didn't defend it.
This is oft-quoted but incorrect. You do not lose your trademark by failure to defend it. You lose it if your trademark becomes generic. So, arguably Xerox could have difficulty enforcing their trademark if the defendants can prove that it has become synonymous with photocopying.
You do not have to go after all possible infringers in court. That would make trademarks horribly expensive and impractical to own.
Also, a trademark is for a specific category of products or services. So, Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds for compter software, but there is also a Linux Detergent (I kid you not) and it does not infringe on the software Linux because it is in a different trademark category.
The main problem with housing affordability is that the government offers essentially unlimited credit for housing. Of course housing in desirable areas is a limited resource. So the cost of housing in desirable areas would tend to reach a level that represents a substantial part of a well-educated person's entire lifetime economic productivity. So much of the voters net worth and the economy are tied up in housing values that we can't un-do the mess without crashing the economy.
As far as immigration is concerned, there will always be an argument about whether we want to let folks in, or send their jobs overseas. They don't stop working just because they haven't been allowed in the U.S., they work overseas in ways that compete with workers in our country.
Want to solve the world's problems? Educate people to have fewer children, worldwide. Pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today, pollution, war, economic problems, stems from overpopulation.
Even Twitter, which shamelessly profits from Trump's efforts to cause outrage both among his supporters and his opponents, can see their way to ban these three people. So the odds are they are commenting on more than just the housing situation.
The U.S. fought a war against fascists and fascism. My dad was a Jew who killed Nazis in Germany in our country's service. That might not be the last war on fascism that our country has to fight.
Many people pay a lot more than $75/month for electricity. I paid $140 last month. Currently I have solar heating panels for my swimming pool on the roof. If I were to install solar, it would probably be my own installation with an electrician to wire in the inverter and sign off the rest. I could bring a 5000 watt system up for well below $10K.
Slashdot Mirror
Phil Hughes started LJ and eventually gave it to Carlie Fairchild when he left for South America. I believe that Bob Young was a seed funder but I don't think the journal ever had that big a capitalization. Running a magazine about Linux in the face of the torrent of information about it on the Internet was never an easy thing. It's incredible that she was able to keep it going this long, and I wish Carlie luck in her future endeavors.
As far as I am aware, there are more Morse code users using the Amateur Radio frequencies today than before license reform. I certainly hear them on the air. Nlobody prohibits the use of Morse Code on Amateur frequencies. It's just not on the test any longer.
The Coast Guard in the US stopped monitoring for Morse distress calls in 1995, before Amateur license reform. Thus, not my fault.
I'm not sure I really understand the problem. Care to explain further?
No, I know they didn't copy the campaign. It's just that internal jargon leaked outside and became more popular. But I see that since then it's also gained a meaning in the software world: "no-code platform", and is the title of a Pearl Jam album which may be related to the medical term.
I remember before this usage a local hospital paged "Dr. Hasty" for an emergency resuscitation.
The organ donor is a corpse with a beating heart. The person died before the organs were harvested, and is no longer resident in that corpse.
I had heard of "Code Blue" before. But I think you are missing the point that it's deliberately-created jargon meant to communicate between hospital staff without informing the patients and visitors of what's happening. So, the fact that outsiders don't know this is neither surprising nor a problem with their intelection.
Like 10-codes on police radio, other people eventually get a hold of it, until we get every idiot who operates a radio in the world saying "10-4" for "yes" as if there was some problem with the clarity of "yes" when said on the radio vs. "four".
I suspect most medical professionals would find this deeply insulting.
And they can tell your organs are shot just by looking at you.
Back in the early 2000's, I started an organization called No-Code International to get rid of Morse Code tests for ham radio licenses, world wide. We succeeded.
Startlingly, "no-code" has taken on another meaning since then. Apparently doctors and laymen wear necklaces with a token inscribed with the words "No Code", which means don't resuscitate me.
I am sympathetic with the desire to avoid the almost uniform bad outcomes from CPR, etc. However, I just happen to know a man who went into v-fib while sleeping, for no known reason, in his 50's. His wife noticed him snorting in his sleep, he happened to be in a brand new hotel with a newly-trained staff who had received CPR training, and had brand new AEDs. He required 4 shocks in all and was unconscious and intubated in intensive care. He recovered fully, received a pacemaker which had some start-up issues, but has had a full decade of quality life since then with no complications. So, I don't know what to think about DNR.
Hi, I'm Bruce Perens, the well known Open Source evangelist and a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR!!! I'd like to know just where I fit in your conspiracy theories. Tootles!
Bruce
OK, if you want to read a story you'll never be able to forget, read about the little girl that was eviscerated by the suction of a pool filter and the action of her somewhat dense mommy. Or, on second thought, don't read that. It's too nasty.
There are risks to high suction next to the human body. Especially sick and weak ones.
The studio-transmitter links of the time were all analog, all NTSC, no security at all. The transmitters were all on the same tower. All one really had to do was get a hold of the STL hardware, set the channel, beam a signal from a nearby location, and roll tape.
It used to also be that you could set the brakes on a freight train with a walkie-talkie, by sending the right command to a device at the end of the train. It might even still be the case. Nobody considered that someone else could get on your frequency back then.
Kevin Finisterre had previously reported and documented GPL violations to me, which I enforced and got DJI to comply by distributing source for several programs and libraries. I did not charge DJI any money or ask for any proprietary software. One wonders if they have gotten annoyed with Kevin, though.
You only mean they don't create case law, right?
So, I am still at a loss why Eben Moglen, law teacher at Columbia, would bring this proceeding. The legal part seems so shaky, and if they prevail they make pariahs of themselves. Or have already made.
Here are all of SFC's stated defenses:
1. Petitioner's claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (this is standard for any such case)
1. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
2. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
3. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
4. Petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
One teaches at Boalt and I will try to engage him on it the next time I speak with him. The other was involved in the lower court case and thus probably won't say more.
This is never the case. There is no required performance in copyright infringement cases.
The defendant has to stop the infringement. They should no longer distribute infringing software (or perform it in case of AGPL) and if they technically are capable of updating software in the field to a non-infringing version they should do so. They can either do this by removing the GPL software from the product and replacing it with something else, or the can GPL the proprietary part. This is a choice.
Very often it is only necessary to separate the two pieces better. For example, people static link their proprietary stuff into busybox and uclibc. Someone just has to sit down with their programmers and teach them how to erect bright lines between the Open Source and proprietary stuff.
Subsequent to that they need to settle with the plaintiff. If they are using the Community Principles, the plaintiff is probably not asking for significant money. SFC asked one of my customers, a Fortune 100 company, for $5000! This was their cost to audit compliance. This is chicken feed next to what any legal-technical professional other than SFC would charge and does not include damages, which from any proprietary plaintiff would be north of USD$1M. SFC may charge the next folks more (they need some money to operate) but they are still the opposite of greedy.
In general, SFC wants to audit your new releases containing Open Source before release for a period of three years after settlement. This is the most difficult part of the settlement for most companies, but still really fair.
Given that the Supes already denied cert on the first case, I am not clear why you are so sanguine about the appeal in the second. Want to explain any more?
I work with more than one attorney who is much more dubious about the appellate court ruling. I don't think you can make so sure a bet yet.
Why did anyone up-moderate this??? Git certainly has users. Anyone who thinks otherwise lives in a different reality.
Maybe you don't like Boost and C++, but they are very big among corporates. Hey, I don't like Java (and for that matter do not use Boost because I tend to write C+- when I use that language) but I acknowledge that there are billions of lines of Java written written.
QEMU is a component of virtualization systems and you may think you're not using it but odds are you are. uClibc is in pretty much all embedded Linux including Billions of wireless access points, etc.
And ultimately this is about the people behind the organizations. Bradley and Karen at SFC are behaving ethically and devote their whole lives to charity when they could each make 10 times more in industrry. Eben is behaving very much differently from the Eben we know for 25 years and we don't understand why. As the bloggers referenced in the story have noted, his optics are terrible.
Laches has two elements, delay and prejudice. The concept here is that if the plaintiff waits for the defendant to build public awareness of their use of the trademark and thus a valuable business in infringing the trademark and then the plaintiff sues, the plaintiff loses. The defendany has to demonstrate both delay and prejudice in order to win using a laches defense.
Not all infringements ever meet that standard and thus must be enforced early. I would indeed imagine that most infringements do not.
Actually, the appeals court in Oracle v. Google ruled that APIs could be copyrighted. We were previously interpreting based mainly by the finding in CAI v. Altai. As a result of the new finding, I do not believe that dynamic linking works as an insulator between GPL and proprietary software. There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not. I always felt that dynamic linking of proprietary and GPL was risky and never advised my customers and their attorneys to do it.
The point about having a build environment is that the AGPL3, which you use, is a sharing license, and if you only share unbuildable software that is in general an attempt to avoid what the license requires. There is not any rule saying you have to provide a Windows build environment, but you are supposed to provide all of the Makefiles, etc., and whatever internal tools you built that are necessary for compiling and installing the software. These are generally things that make a manufacturer-specific installable BLOB file.
Nobody is compelled to use GPL code. If sharing and license compliance is going to be a problem for your business, you are not part of the target user community of the developers, and please don't build it into your proprietary product.
People who have problems understanding this stuff are welcome to contact me privately at bruce at perens dot com. I don't charge and sometimes there is complexity and implication that I can clear up for you.
Software Freedom Conservancy has at least 46 member projects for whom they hold property as a corporation, provide a corporate veil against liability for the project and its develoers, provide legal advice, and act as a tax-exempt organization on behalf of the projects (a 501(c)3) so that the projects can receive donations which the donors write off of their income to reduce their overall tax load by a portion of the donation.
This is a big deal for the projects concerned.
So, where are those projects? Why do I not yet see the project's official comments on behalf of SFC, but only a few personal comments from projects that are not SFC members? Why haven't they grouped together and all signed a letter to the community in support of SFC?
Please wake up, folks.
This is oft-quoted but incorrect. You do not lose your trademark by failure to defend it. You lose it if your trademark becomes generic. So, arguably Xerox could have difficulty enforcing their trademark if the defendants can prove that it has become synonymous with photocopying.
You do not have to go after all possible infringers in court. That would make trademarks horribly expensive and impractical to own.
Also, a trademark is for a specific category of products or services. So, Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds for compter software, but there is also a Linux Detergent (I kid you not) and it does not infringe on the software Linux because it is in a different trademark category.
The main problem with housing affordability is that the government offers essentially unlimited credit for housing. Of course housing in desirable areas is a limited resource. So the cost of housing in desirable areas would tend to reach a level that represents a substantial part of a well-educated person's entire lifetime economic productivity. So much of the voters net worth and the economy are tied up in housing values that we can't un-do the mess without crashing the economy.
As far as immigration is concerned, there will always be an argument about whether we want to let folks in, or send their jobs overseas. They don't stop working just because they haven't been allowed in the U.S., they work overseas in ways that compete with workers in our country.
Want to solve the world's problems? Educate people to have fewer children, worldwide. Pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today, pollution, war, economic problems, stems from overpopulation.
Even Twitter, which shamelessly profits from Trump's efforts to cause outrage both among his supporters and his opponents, can see their way to ban these three people. So the odds are they are commenting on more than just the housing situation.
The U.S. fought a war against fascists and fascism. My dad was a Jew who killed Nazis in Germany in our country's service. That might not be the last war on fascism that our country has to fight.
Here's an MSDS. This one says nothing about ecological impact. But I suppose it would form longer-lived organosilicates.
Many people pay a lot more than $75/month for electricity. I paid $140 last month. Currently I have solar heating panels for my swimming pool on the roof. If I were to install solar, it would probably be my own installation with an electrician to wire in the inverter and sign off the rest. I could bring a 5000 watt system up for well below $10K.