Simply put, the GPL and related licenses work because they don't attempt to modify existing contracts. Any sort of "GNU Employment License" (hereinafter GEL) would modify any in-place employment contracts, potentially interfering or even voiding those contracts.
A far better solution might be to encourage companies to modify any IP or noncompete agreements to exclude open-source. Then again, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms that less-scrupulous employers (the sort who want to own everything you do in your free time, as well) would prefer to keep sealed up.
The company has to avail itself of the privileges of transacting business in Minnesota for it to be liable. The classic example is purchasing a car in North Carolina, driving it to Florida -- where the engine blows up -- and then attempting to recover under Florida law. The dealer did not avail him- or herself of the privileges of conducting business in Florida, so he is only liable under North Carolina's laws.
It seems intuitive to me (but IANAL) that buying a computer from a Minnesota dealer provides you with associated costs and benefits peculiar to that jurisdiction. Therefore, purchasing a computer from a dealer in Minnesota qualifies you to be joindered into the suit. This would certainly apply to purchasing on-site, and probably purchasing mail-order or over the Web from a Minnesotan dealer.
It would probably also apply to a mail-order or Internet-order deal as well in which a Minnesota resident purchased a computer from a company outside of Minnesota, as long as that company satisfied the "minimum contact" requirements so that long-arm jurisdiction may be invoked. Usually, simply selling to a client in another state isn't enough, but websites may or may not qualify as active solicitation of business -- it's still a grey area, insofar as I know.
If "Old West-style wanted posters" aren't to be classified as threats, then anything short of "Ready, aim, fire!" is going to be protected.
The First Amendment doctrine was created in the 20th century, and is by no means the last word on free speech. Our current conception is ruled by the Brandenburg ruling, which overruled previous Court decisions, such as Gitlow and Holmes' work in Debs, that subversive advocacy was not necessarily protected speech.
I would agree that, for example, the Debs ruling went too far in restricting political speech. But the Nuremberg ruling swings too far in the other direction. By focusing entirely on the semantics of the speech and not on the communicative intent (as per Habermas), the court has made incitement to murder legal, as long as that incitement is carefully phrased.
Providing personal information about an individual, and then accusing them of murder, is at least theoretically actionable as libel. But note the end of the story on the trial: "[The name of] Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was killed by a sniper in 1998 at his home near Buffalo, N.Y.... was crossed out on [the] Web site later that same day." This certainly suggests that the site was acting as an incitement to murder and information clearinghouse for those who were killing doctors.
The court's ruling ignores the face of domestic terrorism, which is organized on a blueprint called "leaderless resistance." According to this doctrine, members of anti-governmental terrorist groups will arm themselves, train, and prepare for revolution on their own. When given appropriate signals or information, such as that provided on the Nuremberg website, the terrorists will begin anti-governmental activities alone.
The important aspect to leaderless resistance is that the people who provide the information do not need to know to whom they are speaking, or what methods they will use to carry out their goals. Unfortunately, the court today decided that they are no longer able to tell the difference between speech designed to discuss an interest, and speech designed to kill a person. This means that the means of leaderless resistance have been legitimated by those most likely to become its targets.
I only hope for an ultimate reversal by the Supreme Court.
"I am become a fisher of men. Now, what kind of line do I use for a 240 lb. Pharisee?"
Slashdot Mirror
A far better solution might be to encourage companies to modify any IP or noncompete agreements to exclude open-source. Then again, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms that less-scrupulous employers (the sort who want to own everything you do in your free time, as well) would prefer to keep sealed up.
Hmmm....
It seems intuitive to me (but IANAL) that buying a computer from a Minnesota dealer provides you with associated costs and benefits peculiar to that jurisdiction. Therefore, purchasing a computer from a dealer in Minnesota qualifies you to be joindered into the suit. This would certainly apply to purchasing on-site, and probably purchasing mail-order or over the Web from a Minnesotan dealer.
It would probably also apply to a mail-order or Internet-order deal as well in which a Minnesota resident purchased a computer from a company outside of Minnesota, as long as that company satisfied the "minimum contact" requirements so that long-arm jurisdiction may be invoked. Usually, simply selling to a client in another state isn't enough, but websites may or may not qualify as active solicitation of business -- it's still a grey area, insofar as I know.
Any lawyers care to take this one up?
The First Amendment doctrine was created in the 20th century, and is by no means the last word on free speech. Our current conception is ruled by the Brandenburg ruling, which overruled previous Court decisions, such as Gitlow and Holmes' work in Debs, that subversive advocacy was not necessarily protected speech.
I would agree that, for example, the Debs ruling went too far in restricting political speech. But the Nuremberg ruling swings too far in the other direction. By focusing entirely on the semantics of the speech and not on the communicative intent (as per Habermas), the court has made incitement to murder legal, as long as that incitement is carefully phrased.
Providing personal information about an individual, and then accusing them of murder, is at least theoretically actionable as libel. But note the end of the story on the trial: "[The name of] Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was killed by a sniper in 1998 at his home near Buffalo, N.Y. ... was crossed out on [the] Web site later that same day." This certainly suggests that the site was acting as an incitement to murder and information clearinghouse for those who were killing doctors.
The court's ruling ignores the face of domestic terrorism, which is organized on a blueprint called "leaderless resistance." According to this doctrine, members of anti-governmental terrorist groups will arm themselves, train, and prepare for revolution on their own. When given appropriate signals or information, such as that provided on the Nuremberg website, the terrorists will begin anti-governmental activities alone.
The important aspect to leaderless resistance is that the people who provide the information do not need to know to whom they are speaking, or what methods they will use to carry out their goals. Unfortunately, the court today decided that they are no longer able to tell the difference between speech designed to discuss an interest, and speech designed to kill a person. This means that the means of leaderless resistance have been legitimated by those most likely to become its targets.
I only hope for an ultimate reversal by the Supreme Court.
"I am become a fisher of men. Now, what kind of line do I use for a 240 lb. Pharisee?"