"Are you really unable to generalise from "give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD", or are you just astroturfing?"
I am asking an honest question.
Note the "Cool,..." that was to indicate that I was not argueing with what was stated in the quote I was replying to.
I know that the situation is/should be different in the case where I intentionally sell the original and keep the copy versus where I have the original stolen or destroyed and keep the copy. BUT, is it treated any differently under the law? If you are found with large numbers of albums ripped on your laptop and cannot produce the CDs, will they accept your honest statement that the CDs were stolen? Destroyed? What would you need to produce to prove this if they were willing to entertain this as a defence?
Could you provice the generalisation for us all though? Just to be clear...
"Well, the odds are, iTunes will come to your country, but I don't know when."
I would not be too sure of this, we are a small country and the big boys tend to dismiss us except to demand that we do not violate their copyrights. Never mind they will not sell us legal copies.
They may of course put us under Latin America and give us access to a spanish language site which most of us will not be able to understand.
"You don't need a law to allow you to do something."
See the quote:
"Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux"
Now, according to common definitions, they would need copyright law to make a proprietary Linux.
Please explain to us how they would make a proprietary Linux in the absence of copyright law.
I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion.
"When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony. If I give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD I am"
Cool, what if I keep the files after someone steals my original CD or LP, or if they are destroyed in a hurricane?
"Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?"
Either you ask this question/try to make this point a lot, or others are constantly doing so as well.
I do not mean to be rude or insulting, but it sounds a bit foolish and here is why...
You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?
"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''"
So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?
"*Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy."
Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?
Copyleft was created because of the belief that people should have access to code. This was standard operating procedure in the early days of computing from what I have read. When programs began to be copyrighted and code withheld, the idea of copyleft was brought forward to counteract the negative impact of the new practices.
Now, you may agree or disagree with people who hold these views, but you should be able to see how, from their point of view, they are being consistent. I am not saying the people responsible for creating the idea of copyleft hold these views mind you. I just think some people who like the idea of copyleft feel this way.
In fact, I often wonder if we are better off with copyleft copyrights on software that we would be if software were not subject to copyright, but that is just a mental excercise. Do you think we will ever be in that situation in your lifetime?
Please also note, that if people seeking to enforce the GPL were like the **AA or **A crowd, you would be likely to see headlines and stories like this:
Federal agents raid Cisco headquarters and manufacturing plants today!
[Federal agents seize all cisco products alleged to contain code in violation of copyrights (GPL code.)
Cisco also faces fines of up to $(big number) for each device found to contain code in violation of federal copyright laws.
There is also a possibility of jail time for those found to be responsible for these acts of piracy and theft.]
Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?
You know, perhaps apache and the orther well intentioned web server authors can fix this with a TOS.
N. You may not use this software to publish copyrighted articles which should not be indexed, summarised, and the results displayed publicly unless you indicate this via proper use of a robots.txt file on the server which you use to publish the material.
Could that help? Or would this make the software non-Free and start us down a path we do not want to go down.
Could this be fixed by ISPs putting in their TOS that you are not allowed to make any content available on the net unless you are willing to have it freely copied with a minimum of a copyleft license?
Would this work? If not, why not? If not, could it be made to work after a simple tweak?
"News agencies sell their raw-stories to news sites. Google can easily remove a news site from their news index, but excluding some articles from a news agency appearing on various news sites is difficult..."
So, the news agency should be suing the news site for not having robots.txt set up properly, not google. Yes? No?
But to short circuit the whole thing, how about the equivalent of robots.txt be developed for comment fields for all binary files and as a simple code to include in all text files?
"But the solution is not to restrict what business Service Providers go into, it's to make sure they clearly label what business they are in."
This would probably be a fine plan (I really mean that) if there were no monopolies involved anywhere in the chain. Once we have government granted monopolies or government regulated entities in the chain, all bets are off and we need sensible regulation, or we need to totally free the market.
Can anyone actually point to any large scale, totally free market?
"If I am a public company, it is my job to maximize profits for my shareholders."
Do we need to rethink this basic proposition with respect to corporations?
"I am not defending monopolies, and agree they stifle competition, which in turn limits societal progress, but to just say "forbid monopolies" is somewhat ridiculous."
You have monopolies which form and those which the government grants.
How about if a government grants a monopoly to a corporation, the shares of that corporation can only be owned by people (human beings) living in the area to which the monopoly applies AND that corporation can participate in no other markets - period!
Now as to those which form. Investigate if there was any hanky panky in the formation and monitor closely for misuse of the power held. If so, deal with it.
Problems with these thoughts?
"On a side note, if you want to look at what is really screwing things up, look at the history of corporate innovation."
Is this really a side note or a direct consequence of the first thing I quoted at the top of this post?
"I still say utilities should be government run and regulated. Let's see what's happened with deregulation:"
Hmmm, run I don't know. And regulated? When have they actually done a good job.
Now, in my country the government owns the electrical monopoly (you are not allowed by law to generate your own power even if the government power is substandard and not meeting your needs so long as it is there,) they own the telephone monopoly (actually one competitor just started up,) they own the water monopoly (you have to hook up to them and pay a minimum fede even if you do not use their water becuase you use your own well or rain water tank,) they own the national airline which had a local monopoly on scheduled flights until the last five years or so, and I could go on. I have heard figures that above 20% of the workforce is government employeed.
Do not go thinking this is a recipe for joy and hapiness.
If someone gives me a company that say, provides people with phone service and I'm the ONLY company providing that to those people"
Is it possible that the problem is that you are the ONLY company providing the service and not that it is a company providing the service?
How about if all governments were prohibited from purchasing products or services from less than three suppliers/providers. With no less that three suppliers from top to bottom in the chain.
I will agree though that since deregulation the airline service in the US is worse that I remember. Is this because there is still government regulation in the market? I think the FM airwaves are worse than they used to be as well. Some of these issues are very tough to wrap your head around if you care about honest results above your pet theories.
"Capitalism shot itself in the foot with deregulation and (as above posters have pointed out) allowing monopolies to run unchecked."
I will comment again that we need to be carefule with mixing the ideas of capitalism and free markets and if we mean both, somehow indicate that.
You are missing something which is the fact that the ISP business rides on top of another business for which they do have the monopoly. No?
How can this issue be corrected? Do we need a law that says if a company has a government granted monopoly in a market, they cannot participate in any other markets?
"And just how does this disprove capitalism? Are you saying that since some (not all) of the ISPs are tagging in order to give better throughput to their own products, that that is anti-capitalistic?"
And do these ISPs that will supposedly be doing the tagging all have no monopoly positions granted by some government entity somewhere?
I have not lived in the states since the 80s and before that the 70s but back then I seem to recall the local cable companies had monopolies. Is the market for cable and phone totally free and unregulated these days?
If not, you already have government regulation and you are arguing against someone who want's sensible regulation. I take it you want all regulation removed, not non-sensical regulation.
"The propaganda that capitalism is the most powerful medium for innovation, falls on its face here.
Capitalism with sensible government regulation is indeed the best path to rapid innovation."
Capitalism often goes hand in hand with free markets in people's minds. You will notice that we are talking of industries where the markets are not free but are, in fact, already government regulated.
That being the case, the regulation most definately should be sensible. I find that it often isn't.
[iPods don't come with free songs anywhere. So I don't think you're being "ripped off."]
Are you sure about this?
I am not being ripped off as I didn't buy an ipod, I am holding out for a nice player that does oggs at a reasonable price.
That being said, a good friend comes back from Miami/Ft Lauderdale and shows me an ipod his wife got him for a present. He tells me it came with an offer/certificate for $10 or $20 with of tunes. Was he wrong?
If not, is this not ripping off people in my country? One of the beefs a lot of us here have is that we are basically an extension of the US for a lot of purposes even though we are a different country. However, supposedly, we can't legally buy direct tv, xm etc. Personally I think our government ought to tell copyright holders that if they will not sell to us from US sources at US rates, they get no copyright protection in this country.
We have something similar but unrelated (to copyright) that happens to us as well. Many manufacturers insist on placing us under canada, or latin america. We are an english speaking country sitting on the doorstep of the US - something like fifry miles away at the closes point. We probably get most of our supplies from or throught south florida, yet are reps in panama and argentina etc of ten speak non-fluent english at best. Often, no matter how many times we complain, we get sent spanish product brochures and no english ones, etc. No fun.
What about that pepsi promotion I seem to remember something about? Weren't there some free itunes songs in there somewhere.
However, if I am wrong or misinformed, I am happy to be corrected.
People here import cokes and pepsis from the US even though there are local bottling companies for brands.
Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.
"The FSF doesn't make the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. All they care about is that it's a business. Not all businesses are corporations."
OK, so I may have erred in bringing the personhood of corporations into the discussion. Still, it is the busines's (correct usage? - checked harbrace but still not sure) program and not the employee's. Isn't this the essence of their position?
Let me set up a borderline case in line with what I think you may be getting at...
I take a gpl program. I modify it for my use. I make a private.deb of it and install it on my machine. I am going away for vacation so I arrange for a friend to stay at the house to look after things and feed the dogs. (A Rotti and two shepherds.) I don't give him my password but do set up an account on my machine for him to use to check his email etc while I am away.
OK, so the scene is set. Now, while I am away, he is using the machine and poking around the menus to see what programs I have installed and runs my modified program.
When I get back, can he demand my source code under the provisions of the GPL?
If not, please spell out the difference between this made up but very real example and the case if he had not been a friend but an employee and I had instructed him to use the program to do some of my work while I was away.
"Why does the FSF want the GPL to be more free for businesses than to its customers?"
Are you sure this is the FSF's doing? Isn't this the doing of the courts or the lawmakers who have held that a corporation is a legal person? So what are employees? Arms, legs, eyes, and ears of the corporation?
Even if I may not be in agreement with corporations being deemed people, How exactly would your viewpoint play out?
Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.
Seperately, if a company buys MS office and installs it on an employee's computer (actually the company's computer) is this a violation of copyright laws as the company is giving a copy to the employee?
"So, violating GPL by copying stuff without complying with the license is bad and wrong.
but
Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?"
Now, I am not going to discuss my views as to the legality of this "crack" but I do want to comment on your thinking.
Perhaps people think violating the GPL is bad because the result is that the code is no longer FREE and perhaps they think getting music from itunes without the DRM is ok becasue they believe music must be Free (libre.) They obviously don't believe it must be free (gratis) as they are PAYING FOR IT.
Slashdot Mirror
"Are you really unable to generalise from "give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD", or are you just astroturfing?"
..." that was to indicate that I was not argueing with what was stated in the quote I was replying to.
I am asking an honest question.
Note the "Cool,
I know that the situation is/should be different in the case where I intentionally sell the original and keep the copy versus where I have the original stolen or destroyed and keep the copy. BUT, is it treated any differently under the law? If you are found with large numbers of albums ripped on your laptop and cannot produce the CDs, will they accept your honest statement that the CDs were stolen? Destroyed? What would you need to produce to prove this if they were willing to entertain this as a defence?
Could you provice the generalisation for us all though? Just to be clear...
all the best,
drew
"Of course I understand it - I read it very carefully before choosing it for my own work."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
0 3/18/0315241&tid=117
4 39219&tid=117
Great, so did I. (This is an honest compliment, not a sarcastic statement. I like to give credit where credit is due.)
I have also been using CC BY-SA for my "artistic" work:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"Given the opportunity and means to do so, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't? I don't."
Seems thay have the means and the opportunity and choose to follow a different path.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/1
I do notice that you chose not to address some of the points I made such as this one:
"So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?"
or this one:
"Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?"
Please note, I am not trying to justify these points of view, just explain or discuss them. Would you care to?
all the best,
drew
Again, this was not me but a good friend.
"Well, the odds are, iTunes will come to your country, but I don't know when."
I would not be too sure of this, we are a small country and the big boys tend to dismiss us except to demand that we do not violate their copyrights. Never mind they will not sell us legal copies.
They may of course put us under Latin America and give us access to a spanish language site which most of us will not be able to understand.
all the best,
drew
" Sounds like the kind of situation that calls for a Fair Use backup copy to me, doesn't it?"
Sure, but how am I to prove my fair use in the face of an accusation that could put me in jail?
all the best,
drew
"You don't need a law to allow you to do something."
See the quote:
"Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux"
Now, according to common definitions, they would need copyright law to make a proprietary Linux.
Please explain to us how they would make a proprietary Linux in the absence of copyright law.
I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion.
all the best,
drew
"When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony. If I give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD I am"
Cool, what if I keep the files after someone steals my original CD or LP, or if they are destroyed in a hurricane?
all the best,
drew
"Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?"
Either you ask this question/try to make this point a lot, or others are constantly doing so as well.
I do not mean to be rude or insulting, but it sounds a bit foolish and here is why...
You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
You will note this from that link:
"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''"
So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?
"*Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy."
Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?
Copyleft was created because of the belief that people should have access to code. This was standard operating procedure in the early days of computing from what I have read. When programs began to be copyrighted and code withheld, the idea of copyleft was brought forward to counteract the negative impact of the new practices.
Now, you may agree or disagree with people who hold these views, but you should be able to see how, from their point of view, they are being consistent. I am not saying the people responsible for creating the idea of copyleft hold these views mind you. I just think some people who like the idea of copyleft feel this way.
In fact, I often wonder if we are better off with copyleft copyrights on software that we would be if software were not subject to copyright, but that is just a mental excercise. Do you think we will ever be in that situation in your lifetime?
Please also note, that if people seeking to enforce the GPL were like the **AA or **A crowd, you would be likely to see headlines and stories like this:
Federal agents raid Cisco headquarters and manufacturing plants today!
[Federal agents seize all cisco products alleged to contain code in violation of copyrights (GPL code.)
Cisco also faces fines of up to $(big number) for each device found to contain code in violation of federal copyright laws.
There is also a possibility of jail time for those found to be responsible for these acts of piracy and theft.]
Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?
all the best,
drew
"Without it, anyone could steal your code and use it how they wish. Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux and sell it and market it to take over."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drthedeep end&PHPSESSID=5a45ea245d366a6482b5cb2688c62720
No they couldn't, there would be no law to allow them to do so... Think about it.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"You can't mend a broken heart by pretending it's not broken."
Do you think it might if you were one of the Great Pretenders?
all the best,
drew
You know, perhaps apache and the orther well intentioned web server authors can fix this with a TOS.
N. You may not use this software to publish copyrighted articles which should not be indexed, summarised, and the results displayed publicly unless you indicate this via proper use of a robots.txt file on the server which you use to publish the material.
Could that help? Or would this make the software non-Free and start us down a path we do not want to go down.
all the best,
drew
Could this be fixed by ISPs putting in their TOS that you are not allowed to make any content available on the net unless you are willing to have it freely copied with a minimum of a copyleft license?
Would this work? If not, why not? If not, could it be made to work after a simple tweak?
all the best,
drew
http://www.peercast.org/
"News agencies sell their raw-stories to news sites. Google can easily remove a news site from their news index, but excluding some articles from a news agency appearing on various news sites is difficult..."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drthedeep end&PHPSESSID=895ce88a62b1eac346df2cd64a8a2a7b
So, the news agency should be suing the news site for not having robots.txt set up properly, not google. Yes? No?
But to short circuit the whole thing, how about the equivalent of robots.txt be developed for comment fields for all binary files and as a simple code to include in all text files?
Is this doable? Would it help?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"Assume the total amount of VOIP traffic that wants to move across a telco's network is some number. Let's call that number 11"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drtheonly one
I am right there with you, but have you asked Nigel for his opinion?
When is someone going to 12 though?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"But the solution is not to restrict what business Service Providers go into, it's to make sure they clearly label what business they are in."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drthedeep end
This would probably be a fine plan (I really mean that) if there were no monopolies involved anywhere in the chain. Once we have government granted monopolies or government regulated entities in the chain, all bets are off and we need sensible regulation, or we need to totally free the market.
Can anyone actually point to any large scale, totally free market?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
Would it be fair to say:
"A Free Market is necessary but not sufficient."
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drnippers
"If I am a public company, it is my job to maximize profits for my shareholders."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl
Do we need to rethink this basic proposition with respect to corporations?
"I am not defending monopolies, and agree they stifle competition, which in turn limits societal progress, but to just say "forbid monopolies" is somewhat ridiculous."
You have monopolies which form and those which the government grants.
How about if a government grants a monopoly to a corporation, the shares of that corporation can only be owned by people (human beings) living in the area to which the monopoly applies AND that corporation can participate in no other markets - period!
Now as to those which form. Investigate if there was any hanky panky in the formation and monitor closely for misuse of the power held. If so, deal with it.
Problems with these thoughts?
"On a side note, if you want to look at what is really screwing things up, look at the history of corporate innovation."
Is this really a side note or a direct consequence of the first thing I quoted at the top of this post?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"I still say utilities should be government run and regulated. Let's see what's happened with deregulation:"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drgoingno where
Hmmm, run I don't know. And regulated? When have they actually done a good job.
Now, in my country the government owns the electrical monopoly (you are not allowed by law to generate your own power even if the government power is substandard and not meeting your needs so long as it is there,) they own the telephone monopoly (actually one competitor just started up,) they own the water monopoly (you have to hook up to them and pay a minimum fede even if you do not use their water becuase you use your own well or rain water tank,) they own the national airline which had a local monopoly on scheduled flights until the last five years or so, and I could go on. I have heard figures that above 20% of the workforce is government employeed.
Do not go thinking this is a recipe for joy and hapiness.
If someone gives me a company that say, provides people with phone service and I'm the ONLY company providing that to those people"
Is it possible that the problem is that you are the ONLY company providing the service and not that it is a company providing the service?
How about if all governments were prohibited from purchasing products or services from less than three suppliers/providers. With no less that three suppliers from top to bottom in the chain.
I will agree though that since deregulation the airline service in the US is worse that I remember. Is this because there is still government regulation in the market? I think the FM airwaves are worse than they used to be as well. Some of these issues are very tough to wrap your head around if you care about honest results above your pet theories.
"Capitalism shot itself in the foot with deregulation and (as above posters have pointed out) allowing monopolies to run unchecked."
I will comment again that we need to be carefule with mixing the ideas of capitalism and free markets and if we mean both, somehow indicate that.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"Am I missing something..."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drmidlife rev
You are missing something which is the fact that the ISP business rides on top of another business for which they do have the monopoly. No?
How can this issue be corrected? Do we need a law that says if a company has a government granted monopoly in a market, they cannot participate in any other markets?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"And just how does this disprove capitalism? Are you saying that since some (not all) of the ISPs are tagging in order to give better throughput to their own products, that that is anti-capitalistic?"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drbeauty
And do these ISPs that will supposedly be doing the tagging all have no monopoly positions granted by some government entity somewhere?
I have not lived in the states since the 80s and before that the 70s but back then I seem to recall the local cable companies had monopolies. Is the market for cable and phone totally free and unregulated these days?
If not, you already have government regulation and you are arguing against someone who want's sensible regulation. I take it you want all regulation removed, not non-sensical regulation.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"The propaganda that capitalism is the most powerful medium for innovation, falls on its face here.
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drelectri cmoments&PHPSESSID=104e24143412435edf81a3308df6b85 b
Capitalism with sensible government regulation is indeed the best path to rapid innovation."
Capitalism often goes hand in hand with free markets in people's minds. You will notice that we are talking of industries where the markets are not free but are, in fact, already government regulated.
That being the case, the regulation most definately should be sensible. I find that it often isn't.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
[iPods don't come with free songs anywhere. So I don't think you're being "ripped off."]
h t_Term_Reform/Default
Are you sure about this?
I am not being ripped off as I didn't buy an ipod, I am holding out for a nice player that does oggs at a reasonable price.
That being said, a good friend comes back from Miami/Ft Lauderdale and shows me an ipod his wife got him for a present. He tells me it came with an offer/certificate for $10 or $20 with of tunes. Was he wrong?
If not, is this not ripping off people in my country? One of the beefs a lot of us here have is that we are basically an extension of the US for a lot of purposes even though we are a different country. However, supposedly, we can't legally buy direct tv, xm etc. Personally I think our government ought to tell copyright holders that if they will not sell to us from US sources at US rates, they get no copyright protection in this country.
We have something similar but unrelated (to copyright) that happens to us as well. Many manufacturers insist on placing us under canada, or latin america. We are an english speaking country sitting on the doorstep of the US - something like fifry miles away at the closes point. We probably get most of our supplies from or throught south florida, yet are reps in panama and argentina etc of ten speak non-fluent english at best. Often, no matter how many times we complain, we get sent spanish product brochures and no english ones, etc. No fun.
What about that pepsi promotion I seem to remember something about? Weren't there some free itunes songs in there somewhere.
However, if I am wrong or misinformed, I am happy to be corrected.
People here import cokes and pepsis from the US even though there are local bottling companies for brands.
all the best,
drew
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrig
Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.
.deb of it and install it on my machine. I am going away for vacation so I arrange for a friend to stay at the house to look after things and feed the dogs. (A Rotti and two shepherds.) I don't give him my password but do set up an account on my machine for him to use to check his email etc while I am away.
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drbesidem yself
"The FSF doesn't make the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. All they care about is that it's a business. Not all businesses are corporations."
OK, so I may have erred in bringing the personhood of corporations into the discussion. Still, it is the busines's (correct usage? - checked harbrace but still not sure) program and not the employee's. Isn't this the essence of their position?
Let me set up a borderline case in line with what I think you may be getting at...
I take a gpl program. I modify it for my use. I make a private
OK, so the scene is set. Now, while I am away, he is using the machine and poking around the menus to see what programs I have installed and runs my modified program.
When I get back, can he demand my source code under the provisions of the GPL?
If not, please spell out the difference between this made up but very real example and the case if he had not been a friend but an employee and I had instructed him to use the program to do some of my work while I was away.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"Why does the FSF want the GPL to be more free for businesses than to its customers?"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drbeauty
Are you sure this is the FSF's doing? Isn't this the doing of the courts or the lawmakers who have held that a corporation is a legal person? So what are employees? Arms, legs, eyes, and ears of the corporation?
Even if I may not be in agreement with corporations being deemed people, How exactly would your viewpoint play out?
Can you say how you think things should be? Please be specific if you will.
Seperately, if a company buys MS office and installs it on an employee's computer (actually the company's computer) is this a violation of copyright laws as the company is giving a copy to the employee?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"So, violating GPL by copying stuff without complying with the license is bad and wrong.
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=druncerta inty
but
Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?"
Now, I am not going to discuss my views as to the legality of this "crack" but I do want to comment on your thinking.
Perhaps people think violating the GPL is bad because the result is that the code is no longer FREE and perhaps they think getting music from itunes without the DRM is ok becasue they believe music must be Free (libre.) They obviously don't believe it must be free (gratis) as they are PAYING FOR IT.
Right?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"What's the point of an obfuscated Perl contest?"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drtheline s
i nes_64kb.m3u
I don't know, when you obfuscate perl, does it come out readable?
all the best,
drew
I kind of like perl though.
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
http://www.archive.org/download/drthelines/drthel