They said they are publishing the source, not that they intend to allow anyone to do anything with it. "Publishing" probably means allowing a few "experts" who are willing to jump through hoops and sign ferocious NDAs to "look but not touch". Most likely what they "publish" won't be what they compile from anyway.
"...if you've ever listened to npr (it is apparent that you haven't) you would know that they can be hardly characterized as "pro government.""
I listen to NPR a great deal and I would definitely characterize them as "pro-government". Don't confound "pro-government" with "pro-current administration".
"Linking to or framing of any material on this
site without the prior written consent of NPR is
prohibited."
which is still wrong. A link is a reference, not a copy, and therefor cannot infringe a copyright and therefor cannot be prohibited by a copyright owner.
I've been a satisfied customer of Newsguy (www.newsguy.com) for several years. I pay $40/year for all the news I want. I have no idea what their caps are, however, since I don't subscribe to any binary groups.
"Perhaps you could instead recognize your talent and use it to help people who do find it hard to do."
I'm a Debian maintainer and I wrote pppconfig to make it easy for users to configure ppp. What have you contributed?
It Isn't Really All That Hard
on
Windependence Day
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Except for a few months in 1996 when I had a NT box on loan from a customer (didn't care for it) my home and business have always been Windows-free (and Apple-free as well).
"...he liberated Zimbabwe from colonial rule (It used to be British Rhodesia). We in the US never learn about the African Revolutions of the 1960's and 70's."
Speak for yourself. Those of us who actually do know some history know that the government that Mugabe & Co. overthrew was established in rebellion against the British, who were about to grant Rhodesia its independence under black majority rule.
"Again, we in the US rarely hear about any of this."
I heard a great deal about it at the time: enough to have a pretty good idea what actually happened.
"The US backed the Angolan tribal warlord Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA faction for years, until he was finally killed in battle with the Angolan military."
The US Government dropped Savimbi the instant the Cold War ended. Their only interest in him was in denying Angola to the USSR.
"I personally don't know that much about Mugabe..."
"A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website"
Surely this is not the first time a tinhorn dictator has prosecuted someone for criticism of his government published outside his jurisdiction. How does the fact that it appeared on the Web make this case different?
"...or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe."
Do you seriously believe that any halfway democratic government would honor such a request?
You can claim you wrote _The Hunt for Red October_: lying is not illegal. However, if you swindle people out of money by falsely claiming authorship you will be in trouble whether the work in question is actually by Mary Shelley or Tom Clancy: fraud is a crime.
Re:Public Domain is too free for most creative wor
on
What Is Public Domain?
·
· Score: 2
"...there's nothing to stop him from rerecording them as his own work."
Except that doing so would be fraud.
"Not only that, but Sting would be free to copyright them, so I would have to get his permission before releasing an album of my own songs!"
Wrong. Waiving your copyright would not give anyone else the right to copyright it.
"For these reasons, when I wrote the Open Sourse Music License [rootrecords.org], I kept it as close to the GPL as possible,..."
You have deviated far from the spirit of the GPL with this:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy, but the fee shall be no
more than the cost of the media and associated
shipping charges, unless you obtain express
written permission from the original author(s).
"Using [OSS tools] entails following the GPL which adds all sorts of weird, non-obvious restrictions."
a) All OSS tools are not licensed under the GPL and b) The GPL places absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on use. You can use GPL software without agreeing to the license at all.
If anything, it is closed-source that is socialist, with its government-enforced monopolies.
"I'm only claiming that it is possible for free software to come with a EULA that you may not like."
By definition, an EULA restricts the rights of the end user. No Free Software license does so. Therefor Free Software does not come with an EULA at all.
"I assume you are talking about free software: even in this case, it is a monopoly. For example, the FSF can release the next version of, say, Emacs under a newer GPL license. If you do not agree with the terms of this license, you can only a) use an older version of Emacs or b) accept the license anyway."
Or c) Modify the older version to implement the features of the newer version (and distribute the result under the old license if I wish) or d) acquire a modified older version from someone else. Ever heard of Xemacs?
"The situation is exactly the same as a non-free product, except that you don't expect the FSF to distribute Emacs under a truly disgusting license."
No it isn't. A non-free product cannot be forked. [ Reply to This | Parent ]
"But this EULA business is pretty important - after all, isn't the GPL just a EULA, in a certain sense?"
No. The GPL is not a User License Agreement at all. From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution
and modification are not covered by this
License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted,...
And
You are not required to accept this
License,since you have not signed it.
Thus as long as you only _use_ a GPLd program the GPL does not apply to you at all.
"1. keeping the GPL even more court-defensible..."
No. The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you rights that copyright law reserves for the copyright owner, and does not require you to give up any rights that you would have in its absence. EULAs are civil contracts. They grant you no rights that you wouldn't have in their absence, and require you to give up rights that you otherwise would have.
Slashdot Mirror
"But they're may be licensing fees or other barriers that prevent small independant parties from participating in DRM."
I expect that is one of the primary purposes of DRM.
They said they are publishing the source, not that they intend to allow anyone to do anything with it.
"Publishing" probably means allowing a few "experts" who are willing to jump through hoops and sign ferocious NDAs to "look but not touch".
Most likely what they "publish" won't be what they compile from anyway.
You were quoting NPR, weren't you? That's fair use.
"...if you've ever listened to npr (it is apparent that you haven't) you would know that they can be hardly characterized as "pro government.""
I listen to NPR a great deal and I would definitely characterize them as "pro-government". Don't confound "pro-government" with "pro-current administration".
"First, what does the "P" stand for in "NPR"? As far as I know, our tax dollars support NPR 100%."
Very little of NPR's money comes from "tax dollars", and hasn't for many years.
"Hasn't any non-classified tax-funded work traditionally gone directly into the public domain, with no "copyright" issues to complain about?"
No. Traditionally the government has received a non-exclusive license and the grantee or contractor has retained all rights.
"...a direct copy-and-paste job like you did most certainly can be infringement."
Not when it is fair use, as this one clearly is.
"The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print."
You misunderstand. That is not the issue. A link is not a copy and therefor the copyright status of the subject material is irrelevant.
They still say
"Linking to or framing of any material on this
site without the prior written consent of NPR is
prohibited."
which is still wrong. A link is a reference, not a copy, and therefor cannot infringe a copyright and therefor cannot be prohibited by a copyright owner.
Horseshit. This is AR propaganda and it is all lies.
Nothing supplanted crossbreeding. Just because it doesn't get mentioned in the New York Times doesn't mean it isn't being done.
I've been a satisfied customer of Newsguy (www.newsguy.com) for several years. I pay $40/year for all the news I want. I have no idea what their caps are, however, since I don't subscribe to any binary groups.
"Perhaps you could instead recognize your talent and use it to help people who do find it hard to do."
I'm a Debian maintainer and I wrote pppconfig to make it easy for users to configure ppp. What have you contributed?
Except for a few months in 1996 when I had a NT box on loan from a customer (didn't care for it) my home and business have always been Windows-free (and Apple-free as well).
"When testing code, what procedures work best for you,..."
Make sure it compiles and runs and then upload it to Debian/unstable.
(Yes, I'm joking).
"...and do you feel that excessive testing hurts the development process at all?"
If didn't hurt why would you label it "excessive"?
"...he liberated Zimbabwe from colonial rule (It used to be British Rhodesia). We in the US never learn about the African Revolutions of the 1960's and 70's."
Speak for yourself. Those of us who actually do know some history know that the government that Mugabe & Co. overthrew was established in rebellion against the British, who were about to grant Rhodesia its independence under black majority rule.
"Again, we in the US rarely hear about any of this."
I heard a great deal about it at the time: enough to have a pretty good idea what actually happened.
"The US backed the Angolan tribal warlord Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA faction for years, until he was finally killed in battle with the Angolan military."
The US Government dropped Savimbi the instant the Cold War ended. Their only interest in him was in denying Angola to the USSR.
"I personally don't know that much about Mugabe..."
Then find out.
"A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website"
Surely this is not the first time a tinhorn dictator has prosecuted someone for criticism of his government published outside his jurisdiction. How does the fact that it appeared on the Web make this case different?
"...or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe."
Do you seriously believe that any halfway democratic government would honor such a request?
"You'll remember that massive cloning of potatoes led to the Irish potato famine?"
There was more to it than that.
"It seems that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum leads to weak, disease-riddled plants."
No. It just leads to identical plants with identical vulnerabilities.
"...sustainable farming...fair-trade...learn the truth of that."
There is no truth in politics.
Is Lindows still telling users to always log in as root and use no password?
You can claim you wrote _The Hunt for Red October_: lying is not illegal. However, if you swindle people out of money by falsely claiming authorship you will be in trouble whether the work in question is actually by Mary Shelley or Tom Clancy: fraud is a crime.
"...there's nothing to stop him from rerecording them as his own work."
Except that doing so would be fraud.
"Not only that, but Sting would be free to copyright them, so I would have to get his permission before releasing an album of my own songs!"
Wrong. Waiving your copyright would not give anyone else the right to copyright it.
"For these reasons, when I wrote the Open Sourse Music License [rootrecords.org], I kept it as close to the GPL as possible,..."
You have deviated far from the spirit of the GPL
with this:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy, but the fee shall be no
more than the cost of the media and associated
shipping charges, unless you obtain express
written permission from the original author(s).
"Using [OSS tools] entails following the GPL which adds all sorts of weird, non-obvious restrictions."
a) All OSS tools are not licensed under the GPL and b) The GPL places absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on use. You can use GPL software without agreeing to the license at all.
If anything, it is closed-source that is socialist, with its government-enforced monopolies.
"I'm only claiming that it is possible for free software to come with a EULA that you may not like."
By definition, an EULA restricts the rights of the end user. No Free Software license does so. Therefor Free Software does not come with an EULA at all.
"The compiler has an EULA."
The GNU C Compiler has no EULA. No Free Software does.
"I assume you are talking about free software: even in this case, it is a monopoly. For example, the FSF can release the next version of, say, Emacs under a newer GPL license. If you do not agree with the terms of this license, you can only a) use an older version of Emacs or b) accept the license anyway."
Or c) Modify the older version to implement the features of the newer version (and distribute the result under the old license if I wish) or d) acquire a modified older version from someone else. Ever heard of Xemacs?
"The situation is exactly the same as a non-free product, except that you don't expect the FSF to distribute Emacs under a truly disgusting license."
No it isn't. A non-free product cannot be forked.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
"But this EULA business is pretty important - after all, isn't the GPL just a EULA, in a certain sense?"
No. The GPL is not a User License Agreement at all. From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution
and modification are not covered by this
License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted,...
And
You are not required to accept this
License,since you have not signed it.
Thus as long as you only _use_ a GPLd program the GPL does not apply to you at all.
"1. keeping the GPL even more court-defensible..."
No. The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you rights that copyright law reserves for the copyright owner, and does not require you to give up any rights that you would have in its absence.
EULAs are civil contracts. They grant you no rights that you wouldn't have in their absence, and require you to give up rights that you otherwise would have.