Luckily, now to the GPL cancer properties, MS has to make all of windows GPL right? I mean, this is what they have been warning would happen to people's code if the GPL tainted it right? Or am I off my rocker? ~;-)
Tell them that if they will let you install and lock down linux and work remotely, you will do family tech support gratis but that windows tech support is gonna cost. Offer a discount on windows tech support if they agree to sit by your side and not leave while you fix the problems. (And they have to listen to your rants and beefs.)
"IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it."
On LWN the other day someone made a point... and running with it, we need to call bunk on anyone showing TCO analysis in their favour while claiming to license the software and not sell it. TCL or TCR perhaps but not TCO... Not that I have ever seen Apple making TCO arguments, but perhaps I was not looking.
Why do we accept as a given that a market can be free when corporations and humans rather than just humans take part in the market? Corporations are creatures of state action and because they are artificial are not subject to the same penalties for violation of state laws that humans are.
1. register the copyright on something of your own. 2. misname it to something currently popular. 3. "leak" it out onto the p2p nets 4. watch same nets for signs of illegal activity 5. SUE 6. profit!!!
OK, I know. Too many steps and I left out the all important: ??? but still...
"Artist should also be subject to "three strikes", where all their works enter the public domain if they are caught three times snorting coke or doing whatever other criminal activities it seems the well-paid lawyers of the music industries get them very lenient punishments for."
Surely mean if they are accused, not if they are caught.
"If copyright is the least free, then licenses like BSD are *MORE* free than GPL, because they grant an even WIDER license to use the software than the GPL does."
Right, but what *important* rights/freedoms do they grant that the GPL doesn't? The right/freedom to get your users to eat dirt? That's the major one I keep seeing people wanting.
"Uh, yeah, that's correct, the people I'm referring to are the people who choose not to use MIT, Apache, BSD, MPL, GPL, LGPL, etc. You're correct. All the best."
Have a good one.
drew
Re:All-or-nothing mentality of the GPL is the prob
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 1
You are the first person I see that is making a point in keeping with the thoughts of the summary re the choosing of one of the three licenses over the GPL.
You know, if someone wants to interview me ever, depending on the balance of things, I may just insist that the resulting article be Free and copyleft.
"The GPL makes the user a distributor and if your business model depends on restricting what the user can do it is no surprise that you wouldn't base your creations on the license"
Right, instead, you will choose the MIT/Apache/BSD license for your code as the summary indicates. ???
"If you're talking about developing your own product and then choosing a license, from a business standpoint it does make sense that you would release it under a license that doesn't give everyone else free reign with it"
The story says:
"Before deciding to pull away from GPL, Haynie says Appcelerator surveyed some two dozen software vendors working within the same general market space. To his surprise, Haynie saw that only one was using a GPL variant. 'Everybody else, hands down, was MIT, Apache, or New BSD,' he says.
Somehow, I don't think the people you are speaking of are the ones choosing MIT, Apache, or New BSD over the GPL as those give everyone even more free reign than the GPL. ???
*IF* the performers and record companies get this, they lose the right to make covers under a statutory / compulsory type license and have to negotiate with the rights holders?
"That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders."
You would need to exempt the major shareholders from the pay back... ones with people on the board at least? Some top people would need to suffer some personally for the deed as well I would guess...
either do a reasonable job of proving some actual damage and then you only need to show a preponderance of evidence or however the lesser level is termed.
or go for statutory damages so you don't have to show any actual damage but then show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person deserves to pay the damages.
your choice.
why should you get a pass on both counts? especially when the statutory damages get large enough to ruin a person's life?
[ If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt./shrug (IE: external records, etc.)
First, this isn't a criminal trial. It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence." So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question. The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.]
I wonder if it would make sense to require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level where statutory damages are in play. After all, if one side doesn't have to prove they were damaged, perhaps they should have to prove the other side was wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. ???
"Not that I agree with this, but these companies that go under could argue that almost nothing you buy lasts forever, so your right to listen to (or watch) what you download should not last forever."
Cool, let the copyright expire when the ability to listen runs out... problem solved... (who wants this?)
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, here is one idea for him:
More Bang For Your Donation Buck!
Oh, wait, that's not his bag either is it?
drew
Luckily, now to the GPL cancer properties, MS has to make all of windows GPL right? I mean, this is what they have been warning would happen to people's code if the GPL tainted it right? Or am I off my rocker? ~;-)
Tell them that if they will let you install and lock down linux and work remotely, you will do family tech support gratis but that windows tech support is gonna cost. Offer a discount on windows tech support if they agree to sit by your side and not leave while you fix the problems. (And they have to listen to your rants and beefs.)
Give that a go and see if it helps any.
all the best,
drew
"IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it."
On LWN the other day someone made a point... and running with it, we need to call bunk on anyone showing TCO analysis in their favour while claiming to license the software and not sell it. TCL or TCR perhaps but not TCO... Not that I have ever seen Apple making TCO arguments, but perhaps I was not looking.
all the best,
drew
As a counter weight...
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html
What can you suggest.
(Naturally, it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all...)
all the best,
drew
Why do we accept as a given that a market can be free when corporations and humans rather than just humans take part in the market? Corporations are creatures of state action and because they are artificial are not subject to the same penalties for violation of state laws that humans are.
all the best,
drew
Yes, I know, but in some places you get a better payoff if it is registered...
hmmm.
1. register the copyright on something of your own.
2. misname it to something currently popular.
3. "leak" it out onto the p2p nets
4. watch same nets for signs of illegal activity
5. SUE
6. profit!!!
OK, I know. Too many steps and I left out the all important: ??? but still...
all the best,
drew
"Artist should also be subject to "three strikes", where all their works enter the public domain if they are caught three times snorting coke or doing whatever other criminal activities it seems the well-paid lawyers of the music industries get them very lenient punishments for."
Surely mean if they are accused, not if they are caught.
all the best,
drew
Yes, but it was Bach before your time.
Sorry.
"Copyrights cover creative works; it's patents that cover useful arts. Food is rendered uncopyrightable due to utility."
Fine. But really, is this anything but a "because we say so" argument?
drew
"I make my own cheese, but I don't name it anything, I eat it."
Well.... try naming it Bob first. It might taste better. Or perhaps Carrol would be more to your liking?
Kind of like inflammable huh? But not quite.
"If copyright is the least free, then licenses like BSD are *MORE* free than GPL, because they grant an even WIDER license to use the software than the GPL does."
Right, but what *important* rights/freedoms do they grant that the GPL doesn't? The right/freedom to get your users to eat dirt? That's the major one I keep seeing people wanting.
all the best,
drew
"Uh, yeah, that's correct, the people I'm referring to are the people who choose not to use MIT, Apache, BSD, MPL, GPL, LGPL, etc. You're correct. All the best."
Have a good one.
drew
You are the first person I see that is making a point in keeping with the thoughts of the summary re the choosing of one of the three licenses over the GPL.
all the best,
drew
~;-)
You know, if someone wants to interview me ever, depending on the balance of things, I may just insist that the resulting article be Free and copyleft.
all the best,
drew
"The GPL makes the user a distributor and if your business model depends on restricting what the user can do it is no surprise that you wouldn't base your creations on the license"
Right, instead, you will choose the MIT/Apache/BSD license for your code as the summary indicates. ???
all the best,
drew
"Which is exactly what most companies do. Which completely eliminates the "let's not reinvent the wheel" aspect of open source.
Writing these tiny libraries is not so simple, and can be a huge waste of time."
Hmm, but surely the first company to do so will then release under a MIT/Apache/BSD and the GPL version will simple fade away?
all the best,
drew
You say:
"If you're talking about developing your own product and then choosing a license, from a business standpoint it does make sense that you would release it under a license that doesn't give everyone else free reign with it"
The story says:
"Before deciding to pull away from GPL, Haynie says Appcelerator surveyed some two dozen software vendors working within the same general market space. To his surprise, Haynie saw that only one was using a GPL variant. 'Everybody else, hands down, was MIT, Apache, or New BSD,' he says.
Somehow, I don't think the people you are speaking of are the ones choosing MIT, Apache, or New BSD over the GPL as those give everyone even more free reign than the GPL. ???
all the best,
drew
How about:
*IF* the performers and record companies get this, they lose the right to make covers under a statutory / compulsory type license and have to negotiate with the rights holders?
Just a thought...
drew
"That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders."
You would need to exempt the major shareholders from the pay back... ones with people on the board at least? Some top people would need to suffer some personally for the deed as well I would guess...
all the best,
drew
well...
either do a reasonable job of proving some actual damage and then you only need to show a preponderance of evidence or however the lesser level is termed.
or go for statutory damages so you don't have to show any actual damage but then show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person deserves to pay the damages.
your choice.
why should you get a pass on both counts? especially when the statutory damages get large enough to ruin a person's life?
all the best,
drew
[ If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt. /shrug (IE: external records, etc.)
First, this isn't a criminal trial. It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence." So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question. The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.]
I wonder if it would make sense to require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level where statutory damages are in play. After all, if one side doesn't have to prove they were damaged, perhaps they should have to prove the other side was wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. ???
drew
"Not that I agree with this, but these companies that go under could argue that almost nothing you buy lasts forever, so your right to listen to (or watch) what you download should not last forever."
Cool, let the copyright expire when the ability to listen runs out... problem solved... (who wants this?)
drew
--
http://zotz.kompoz.com/