I am a big Tesla fan. But we should acknowledge that there are still some problems. Mainly that the spare-parts supply chain hasn't caught up with manufacturing, leaving cars inoperable for months while Tesla's own shops wait for parts. If you want right-to-repair, Tesla hasn't caught up to that by making diagnostic tools available or parts available to non-partner shops and end-users.
If lawyers were never wrong, we'd have no need for courts. Which means they're wrong half the time, or at least the adopt unsupportable arguments half of the time.
Case law has overridden him on the GPL question, thanks in part to my pro-bono testimony. But courts and lawyers still take him seriously. And me, sometimes.
The issue of the license text being infringing of FSF's copyright needs to be addressed. I doubt FSF is going to give permission for this use of their text. There is a possible 17 USC 102(b) argument, but most sources (Nimmer, Adams) disagree, and I don't know of any case law. This might require a full rewrite, and IMO OSI would face a risk of being a contributory infringer simply by hosting a copy of the current text on their site. The legal ambiguity of that might be sufficient reason for rejection.
I am most concerned with the second paragraph of section 13, and its conflict with OSD #9 and #6. The definition of how those pieces are coupled needs to be tighter. Management software, backup software, etc. may be used as part of the offering of a service, but they don't create a derivative work, nor are they combined into the same program. So, we get a restriction on works that are simply aggregated together (#9) or a restriction on use of the program if the data is backed up using a non-Open-Source backup program (#6).
You need the license to create a derivative work, whether you distribute that work or not. However, the language in the proposed license section 13 second paragraph goes beyond derivative works. So, this isn't a pure copyright license any longer. I am still reviewing the license, but I have problems with that paragraph and OSD #6 and #9.
They really don't care about unmodified versions. They do care if you add something to it. And their terms seem to capture all such additions. They have not yet submitted to OSI and I don't know if I'd recommend approval. I suspect I'd ask for some changes.
DISCOVR is at the L1 Lagrangian point, in deep space. I watched the Falcon 9 launch that. There have been a number of geosynchronous or geostationary satellites, as well, and the car is in a trans-martian orbit.
SpaceX charges about 1/3 what everyone else does for a commercial satellite mission and is a bargain for government missions too, despite their increased paperwork. Previous to SpaceX, the United States had a horrible situation where there was a space monopoly made of Boeing and Lockheed, previous competitors who got tangled in an industrial espionage situation and merged their space business rather than have the lawsuit of the century. The US Government and citizens lost, because they ended up having an expensive monopoly and on top of it they had to pay 1 Billion per year to the monopoly to assure they'd stay in business.
So far, SpaceX looks like they have the most viable path to space. There are a lot of "old space" businesses and government agencies that can't compete, so they FUD.
In theory, a rocket that cost 3 times as much (or more than that, in the case of the Shuttle) could afford to be safer for manned missions. In practice, it hasn't been.
Isn't it kanji, the Han Chinese derived alphabet, that gives the Japanese such trouble? And I would imagine the Chinese? It is not language but literacy, I think.
The Koreans were smart, and got rid of that, focusing on Hangeul. The Japanese got the worst of all worlds, so they have katakana (phonetic writing), hirigana (phonetic writing which serves the purpose of italics, but has entirely different glyphs than katakana), and kanji.
OK, I understand the "slap in the face" strategy long used by memory enhancement experts, and inherent in "the peg", imagery, and other memory routines. The problem with this is that readers will become trained to it, until it is no more difficult to read than other fonts. Morse and his engineer intended people to read Morse Code off of paper tape, but it soon became clear that people could read it simply by the sound of the machine. Similarly, people's brains will work out an optimal strategy for reading deliberately-crippled fonts, and then there will no longer be a memory effect.
Well, some of us are even the creators of some of the software on those phones as Open Source, for example Busybox is widely used, and we're quite competent to manage our own devices. The main reason is that we wan to be in control. Who wouldn't? We want to be able to run our own software, we want to be able to do things that the OS doesn't allow by default. Some of the most simple functions of the device seem to be locked away from normal applications, not always for the best reasons.
We also want to be able to load an alternate OS, like LineageOS, when it becomes available for our devices. Meaning we need to be able to re-write the firmware, which root can do.
Read the kernel list, and you will see legitimate viewpoints being discussed by the people who are authentic kernel contributors and actually have a right to determine the policies of their own project. The folks I have described are interlopers from outside of the kernel project who simply took an opportunity to publicize their already-established, and mostly-repugnant, views.
They self-designate. Just talk about gamergate online, and you will get feedback from the same people every time. And it's the people who were identified as gamergate perpetrators, spouting the same themes as they did with gamergate.
You can refuse to refer to people using the names that have been coined for their beliefs and activities if you want to, but I'm not going to consider that a virtue, just obfuscation.
So, you're going to claim to be a totally unbiased person with absolutely no sympathy for gamergate, right? Mark Kern's previous involvement with gamergate is really well documented in the press. MikeeUSA's previous repugnant conduct too. The noise about "rescind" is objection to having a code of conduct, all around the same themes as gamergate, and by the same people. No legitimate kernel dev wants anything to do with it, because they don't want to be identified with those folks.
Yes, and it's corroborated by the Motherboard article (which you didn't read before mouthing off), and no real kernel developer has come forward stating any intent to rescind. And if you don't like the fact that I'm a Social Justice Warrior, and proud of it, I could care less.
No country that wishes investment from other nations and a well-working economy is going to make it easy to back out of a contract (and thus also a license). Thus, the force of contracts in general goes back to common law in all nations and is ancient as laws go. Copyright, in contrast, is a relatively recent invention, being mostly unnecessary before the printing press. But licenses were based on the existing law of contracts when copyright was created.
I suspect that the time for that sort of action with regard to Linux has passed. The fate of SCO and the fact that Microsoft eventually threw in the towel and joined the Open Source party have their own dissuasive value. The size of the industry based upon Linux is much larger today than back in the day of SCO. And the implicit connection of CoC-objectors and deplorable conduct makes them poor poster children for an intellectual property campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a big Tesla fan. But we should acknowledge that there are still some problems. Mainly that the spare-parts supply chain hasn't caught up with manufacturing, leaving cars inoperable for months while Tesla's own shops wait for parts. If you want right-to-repair, Tesla hasn't caught up to that by making diagnostic tools available or parts available to non-partner shops and end-users.
It looks like the GPL copyright issue might be moot: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...
Actually, the GPL copyright issue might be moot. See this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...
If lawyers were never wrong, we'd have no need for courts. Which means they're wrong half the time, or at least the adopt unsupportable arguments half of the time.
Case law has overridden him on the GPL question, thanks in part to my pro-bono testimony. But courts and lawyers still take him seriously. And me, sometimes.
The issue of the license text being infringing of FSF's copyright needs to be addressed. I doubt FSF is going to give permission for this use of their text. There is a possible 17 USC 102(b) argument, but most sources (Nimmer, Adams) disagree, and I don't know of any case law. This might require a full rewrite, and IMO OSI would face a risk of being a contributory infringer simply by hosting a copy of the current text on their site. The legal ambiguity of that might be sufficient reason for rejection.
I am most concerned with the second paragraph of section 13, and its conflict with OSD #9 and #6. The definition of how those pieces are coupled needs to be tighter. Management software, backup software, etc. may be used as part of the offering of a service, but they don't create a derivative work, nor are they combined into the same program. So, we get a restriction on works that are simply aggregated together (#9) or a restriction on use of the program if the data is backed up using a non-Open-Source backup program (#6).
You need the license to create a derivative work, whether you distribute that work or not. However, the language in the proposed license section 13 second paragraph goes beyond derivative works. So, this isn't a pure copyright license any longer. I am still reviewing the license, but I have problems with that paragraph and OSD #6 and #9.
They really don't care about unmodified versions. They do care if you add something to it. And their terms seem to capture all such additions. They have not yet submitted to OSI and I don't know if I'd recommend approval. I suspect I'd ask for some changes.
But is there a case?
They don't care, because you need the license to modify the software, and they already have the source code for the unmodified version.
Legal language may not be subject to copyright. See 17 USC 102(b).
Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that
DISCOVR is at the L1 Lagrangian point, in deep space. I watched the Falcon 9 launch that. There have been a number of geosynchronous or geostationary satellites, as well, and the car is in a trans-martian orbit.
He revolutionized the space business too. Mr. binary isn't being rational.
SpaceX charges about 1/3 what everyone else does for a commercial satellite mission and is a bargain for government missions too, despite their increased paperwork. Previous to SpaceX, the United States had a horrible situation where there was a space monopoly made of Boeing and Lockheed, previous competitors who got tangled in an industrial espionage situation and merged their space business rather than have the lawsuit of the century. The US Government and citizens lost, because they ended up having an expensive monopoly and on top of it they had to pay 1 Billion per year to the monopoly to assure they'd stay in business.
So far, SpaceX looks like they have the most viable path to space. There are a lot of "old space" businesses and government agencies that can't compete, so they FUD.
In theory, a rocket that cost 3 times as much (or more than that, in the case of the Shuttle) could afford to be safer for manned missions. In practice, it hasn't been.
Darn snobbery. But at least the limit is only around 1800 glyphs for South Koreans.
Isn't it kanji, the Han Chinese derived alphabet, that gives the Japanese such trouble? And I would imagine the Chinese? It is not language but literacy, I think.
The Koreans were smart, and got rid of that, focusing on Hangeul. The Japanese got the worst of all worlds, so they have katakana (phonetic writing), hirigana (phonetic writing which serves the purpose of italics, but has entirely different glyphs than katakana), and kanji.
OK, I understand the "slap in the face" strategy long used by memory enhancement experts, and inherent in "the peg", imagery, and other memory routines. The problem with this is that readers will become trained to it, until it is no more difficult to read than other fonts. Morse and his engineer intended people to read Morse Code off of paper tape, but it soon became clear that people could read it simply by the sound of the machine. Similarly, people's brains will work out an optimal strategy for reading deliberately-crippled fonts, and then there will no longer be a memory effect.
I do this stuff pretty quickly. So yes, I can miss sarcasm tags.
We also want to be able to load an alternate OS, like LineageOS, when it becomes available for our devices. Meaning we need to be able to re-write the firmware, which root can do.
Read the kernel list, and you will see legitimate viewpoints being discussed by the people who are authentic kernel contributors and actually have a right to determine the policies of their own project. The folks I have described are interlopers from outside of the kernel project who simply took an opportunity to publicize their already-established, and mostly-repugnant, views.
They self-designate. Just talk about gamergate online, and you will get feedback from the same people every time. And it's the people who were identified as gamergate perpetrators, spouting the same themes as they did with gamergate.
You can refuse to refer to people using the names that have been coined for their beliefs and activities if you want to, but I'm not going to consider that a virtue, just obfuscation.
So, you're going to claim to be a totally unbiased person with absolutely no sympathy for gamergate, right? Mark Kern's previous involvement with gamergate is really well documented in the press. MikeeUSA's previous repugnant conduct too. The noise about "rescind" is objection to having a code of conduct, all around the same themes as gamergate, and by the same people. No legitimate kernel dev wants anything to do with it, because they don't want to be identified with those folks.
Yes, and it's corroborated by the Motherboard article (which you didn't read before mouthing off), and no real kernel developer has come forward stating any intent to rescind. And if you don't like the fact that I'm a Social Justice Warrior, and proud of it, I could care less.
No country that wishes investment from other nations and a well-working economy is going to make it easy to back out of a contract (and thus also a license). Thus, the force of contracts in general goes back to common law in all nations and is ancient as laws go. Copyright, in contrast, is a relatively recent invention, being mostly unnecessary before the printing press. But licenses were based on the existing law of contracts when copyright was created.
Nice to hear from you, Martin,
I suspect that the time for that sort of action with regard to Linux has passed. The fate of SCO and the fact that Microsoft eventually threw in the towel and joined the Open Source party have their own dissuasive value. The size of the industry based upon Linux is much larger today than back in the day of SCO. And the implicit connection of CoC-objectors and deplorable conduct makes them poor poster children for an intellectual property campaign.