> The study identified ideas for in-car information systems to help compensate > for the reduction in reaction time that affects many older drivers.
We get faster with age? That's great! But why would we want to compensate for it? So as not to have an unfair advantage over younger drivers? Too late. We already have that.
> Also, it is not a restriction on use of the software per se...
Yes it is, and with it your software will never be included in any major Linux distribution.
BTW is your suoervisor actually the author of any of the software? If not perhaps you could keep him happy by attaching his terms to the copies of the software distributed with the paper and then release it under your preferred terms elsewhere.
> Actually, what you need are more mid-level providers. Physician Assistants, > Nurse Practitioners, and the like are probably the future of front-line > medical care...
> and those costs are even higher when done by a law team during a discovery > process. Gets quite expensive when law teams are billing $1k per hour to do > discovery.
This is a very good point. The more data you have and the more poorly organized it is the more it costs you to honor discovery requests whether or not anything relevant is found. Thus there exists incentive to index your archive and minimize its size even if you are confident that it contains nothing that could be used against you.
> I think it might be this: they have no problem with you using and modifying their > software. They just don't want you to use the Mozilla or Firefox trademark after > you do so.
The law already covers that. Asking end users to agree not to violate the law is ridiculous.
> I'm not sure I would call it a EULA because that has a meaning to many people of adding > restrictions to software and we won't be doing that.
Quit implying that users are entering into a contract with you. Call it a "NOTICE". Leave off the "Agree" (or whatever) clicky. If you think you have to have a clicky (you don't) label it "Acknowledge".
The fact is, though, that you don't even need a notice.
If you sell iToys people (some of who do work which is actually productive, such as farming or scientific research) may find it amusing to criticize them. Get over it.
> If you want the government to protect your name, you have to play by their rules. One of > the rules is that you MUST, MUST, MUST control the quality of the software distributed > under that name.
There is no such requirement. You must "police" your trademark, but that merely means that you should sue anyone who uses it as a mark in trade without your explicit permission. The quality of that which you authorize is irrelevant.
> Don't like it? Run Iceweasel, whatever the hell that is. It may be something, it may be > nothing, you have no idea because they're not defending it as a trademark.
Bullshit. I know exactly what I am getting when I type "sudo apt-get install iceweasel" and it has nothing whatsoever to do with trademarks.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. What you describe is a notice. It is neither a license nor an agreement and requiring the user to "agree" to it makes no sense.
Mozilla told Debian that if they used the Firefox trademark they could not apply security patches. Debian chose to support its users.
> Not to run off and create some icethingie whose provenance is uncertain.
The provenance of Debian's Iceweasel is at least as certain as that of Mozilla's Firefox.
> Would you run any old Iceweasel that you downloaded from me? What if I'd put a virus > into it? How would you know? How could you stop me?
You figure that the Debian Iceweasel maintainers are putting backdoors in Iceweasel? But they would not do so if it was still called Firefox? Trademarks have magic protective powers? The fix is simple then: Debian needs to trademark Iceweasel. Everything will be ok then.
> All the points that may/may not apply based on location have notes to such affect, in > particular the export controls section says "obey and import and export laws that apply".
Why not have a section which says "obey laws that apply"? There are many that might, most of which are more likely to be enforced than the US encryption software export regulations. Why is there no section saying "Don't use Firefox to slander the Polish nation"?
> EULA's are of dubious legality and generally annoying, but I still support Mozilla > Corp.'s choice. In the US, such stupid things are necessary to protect your business.
No. What they need to do to protect their trademark is file suit against businesses that infringe it. Nothing an end user does with the software can infringe the trademark. Getting her to agree to an EULA has nothing to do with trademarks.
> They need control of their logos to stop perverted malignant distributions coming out...
The only way to do that is to take legal action against unauthorized use of the trademark. End users are irrelevant to that.
>...and as long as they control their logos their branded products may be subject to > inappropriate implied warranties and the like.
If they didn't sell it they cannot have any warrantee obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
> The study identified ideas for in-car information systems to help compensate
> for the reduction in reaction time that affects many older drivers.
We get faster with age? That's great! But why would we want to compensate for it? So as not to have an unfair advantage over younger drivers? Too late. We already have that.
He blew it. He sould at least have used a carbon-arc and hundreds of mirrors and lenses.
> Aren't we all just aqua-blue on the inside?
The bits I've seen were mostly pink and red.
> It still fails as persuasion for anyone with more than half a brain cell.
True, but Microsoft is satisfied with 99% of the market.
You may have loaded libheisenberg instead. They sometimes become entangled.
> Also, it is not a restriction on use of the software per se...
Yes it is, and with it your software will never be included in any major Linux distribution.
BTW is your suoervisor actually the author of any of the software? If not perhaps you could keep him happy by attaching his terms to the copies of the software distributed with the paper and then release it under your preferred terms elsewhere.
> BTW, there is OO COBOL out there.
OO is so twentieth century. Where is the functional COBOL?
Perhaps because they were sent as private emails and not posted as public comments?
People composing "Disagree" emails in an attempt to get them published here?
> Actually, what you need are more mid-level providers. Physician Assistants,
> Nurse Practitioners, and the like are probably the future of front-line
> medical care...
Here they are the present.
> Medical costs have been growing at a far far faster rate than inflation.
> Clearly, demand for doctors is outstripping supply by a lot.
You might want to look at where the money actually goes before leaping to conclusions.
Yes, of course organic should be a pre-med requirement. So should biochem.
And what is "wry" about organic chemistry?
> and those costs are even higher when done by a law team during a discovery
> process. Gets quite expensive when law teams are billing $1k per hour to do
> discovery.
This is a very good point. The more data you have and the more poorly organized it is the more it costs you to honor discovery requests whether or not anything relevant is found. Thus there exists incentive to index your archive and minimize its size even if you are confident that it contains nothing that could be used against you.
Exactly!
> I think it might be this: they have no problem with you using and modifying their
> software. They just don't want you to use the Mozilla or Firefox trademark after
> you do so.
The law already covers that. Asking end users to agree not to violate the law is ridiculous.
> I'm not sure I would call it a EULA because that has a meaning to many people of adding
> restrictions to software and we won't be doing that.
Quit implying that users are entering into a contract with you. Call it a "NOTICE". Leave off the "Agree" (or whatever) clicky. If you think you have to have a clicky (you don't) label it "Acknowledge".
The fact is, though, that you don't even need a notice.
As it was visible for 100 days, surely other observatories looked at it. Results?
Touchy, aren't we? Is your name Jobs?
If you sell iToys people (some of who do work which is actually productive, such as farming or scientific research) may find it amusing to criticize them. Get over it.
> If you want the government to protect your name, you have to play by their rules. One of
> the rules is that you MUST, MUST, MUST control the quality of the software distributed
> under that name.
There is no such requirement. You must "police" your trademark, but that merely means that you should sue anyone who uses it as a mark in trade without your explicit permission. The quality of that which you authorize is irrelevant.
> Don't like it? Run Iceweasel, whatever the hell that is. It may be something, it may be
> nothing, you have no idea because they're not defending it as a trademark.
Bullshit. I know exactly what I am getting when I type "sudo apt-get install iceweasel" and it has nothing whatsoever to do with trademarks.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. What you describe is a notice. It is neither a license nor an agreement and requiring the user to "agree" to it makes no sense.
> Debian are too idealistic.
Mozilla told Debian that if they used the Firefox trademark they could not apply security patches. Debian chose to support its users.
> Not to run off and create some icethingie whose provenance is uncertain.
The provenance of Debian's Iceweasel is at least as certain as that of Mozilla's Firefox.
> Would you run any old Iceweasel that you downloaded from me? What if I'd put a virus
> into it? How would you know? How could you stop me?
You figure that the Debian Iceweasel maintainers are putting backdoors in Iceweasel? But they would not do so if it was still called Firefox? Trademarks have magic protective powers? The fix is simple then: Debian needs to trademark Iceweasel. Everything will be ok then.
> All the points that may/may not apply based on location have notes to such affect, in
> particular the export controls section says "obey and import and export laws that apply".
Why not have a section which says "obey laws that apply"? There are many that might, most of which are more likely to be enforced than the US encryption software export regulations. Why is there no section saying "Don't use Firefox to slander the Polish nation"?
> EULA's are of dubious legality and generally annoying, but I still support Mozilla
> Corp.'s choice. In the US, such stupid things are necessary to protect your business.
No. What they need to do to protect their trademark is file suit against businesses that infringe it. Nothing an end user does with the software can infringe the trademark. Getting her to agree to an EULA has nothing to do with trademarks.
> They need control of their logos to stop perverted malignant distributions coming out...
The only way to do that is to take legal action against unauthorized use of the trademark. End users are irrelevant to that.
> ...and as long as they control their logos their branded products may be subject to
> inappropriate implied warranties and the like.
If they didn't sell it they cannot have any warrantee obligations.
There is nothing there that requires agreement. It's a notice, not a contract.
> Besides, I don't *want* to have to read and understand another license. There are enough
> licenses out there as it is for Free Software.
No end user ever needs to read or understand any Free Software license because no Free Software license places any restrictions on use.
End users don't need permission to use the Firefox brand name, any more than I need permission to use it here.