prizog: but in the US, [the GPL] does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program).
anthony_dipierro: Sure it does. It affects your rights as a user if you are not the owner of a lawfully obtained copy of the software.
In the case of the GPL, I can't think of a way where one would be able to run the software, but not be (or be authorized by (see the statute)) the owner of a lawfully obtained copy.
< SNIP stuff agreeing with what I said in the first place >
prizog: Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: If Microsoft's EULA is binding merely by running the software, then so is the GPL. The right to run the software is one of the rights given by the GPL. If you don't have a Section 117 right to run the software, then you must accept the GPL in order to run the software.
No, the GPL unilaterally grants that right, whether or not you agree to its other provisions -- RTFL, esp. section 0, para 2 and section 5 (noting the omission of the word run).
anthony_dipierro: Every EULA I've ever read granted additional rights, and removed others. The GPL is no exception. It grants additional rights, and removes others.
Except that it doesn't remove any rights you might otherwise have under copyright law.
prizog: Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Right. If you don't agree to the GPL, you are permitted to first sale rights. If you do agree to the GPL, those rights are taken away. It's just like any other EULA. It gives some rights, in exchange for others.
Consider the following handy chart:
Without GPL: Copying: Nope Modifying: Nope Redistributing: Nope Running: Yep. Selling the copy you bought: Yep. Making new copies and selling them under arbitrary terms: Nope
With GPL: Copying: Yep. Modifying: Yep. Redistributing: Yep. Running: Yep. Selling the copy you bought: Yep. Making new copies and selling them under arbitrary terms: Nope
If you do agree to the GPL, you still have the right of first sale, with respect to copies you obtained other than by copying (i.e. copies you bought on CD). Of course, the right of first sale simply doesn't apply to copies that you made yourself, since you had to agree to the terms of the GPL to make them. No rights are taken away -- you have more rights than you had before you agreed to the GPL (see chart above).
But you are clearly too stupid to understand this point (I saw another whole thread about this, and concluded that you were a moron, but I was already in this discussion), so I won't bother to argue it with you. I had roughly this same argument from another perspective with aozilla a while back, and s/he's a moron too.
Oops, I am a moron. I pasted in from an emacs buffer I was using to respond to another message. Please disregard all but the last 4 paragraphs of the post.
prizog: EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
anthony_dipierro: None of which changes the actual law.
Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.
prizog, quoting the GPL: "The act of running the Program is not restricted"
anthony_dipierro: That however does...
How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor, but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program). In Unfreedonia, maybe it's illegal to run a program without a license. So, the GPL allows one to run the program.
anthony_dipierro: So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.
anthony_dipierro: But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA.
Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right [first sale] to sell those lawfully made copies).
Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Your math is wrong -- you are assuming 13.7 million per year / 3 collsiions per year, instead of 13.7 million over the life of the Pinto (maybe ten years?). You are also assuming one death per collision, no additional injuries, no additional auto damage. In fact, on average, more than one person is killed in a fatal crash: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2002/809-439.pdf, and there are about ten injuries to each death in passenger cars. Below, you are assuming $10/year, rather than $10/car (I think I heard 7 years was an average life for a car). I think my life (and your life) is easily worth half a million bucks, especially considering the various other costs etc.
And I'm not sure where you get the $10/part number -- it seems to me as arbitrary as $1/part, but at least I have some source for that (even though you don't like him). Actually, I'm not sure where you get any of your numbers. But even if they're accurate, you are abusing them:
You write, "the probability of any fatal car accident being a rear-end collision is currently 1.87%", but that's in an average, modern car (i.e. one that presumably has been tested for the same design flaw the Pinto had), rather than a Pinto!
Finally, buying insurance does not keep one from being killed or injured.
prizog: EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
anthony_dipierro: None of which changes the actual law.
Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.
prizog, quoting the GPL: "The act of running the Program is not restricted"
anthony_dipierro: That however does...
How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor, but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program). In Unfreedonia, maybe it's illegal to run a program without a license. So, the GPL allows one to run the program.
anthony_dipierro: So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.
anthony_dipierro: But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA.
Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right [first sale] to sell those lawfully made copies).
Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Prizog: Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
anthony_dipierro: So it's no different from any other EULA.
EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist. Different courts have ruled variously on these claims.
The GPL does none of this. It doesn't explicitly acknowledge the existence of the above section (and it need not). And (perhaps in case that section is repealed or other countries don't have analagous laws), it explicitly unilaterally grants the rights to use the program, whether or not you agree to the terms of the license. So, there is a major difference between the GPL and EULAs.
Prizog: Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
anthony_dipierro: Where?
Section 0, second paragraph:
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 the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
anthony_dipierro: The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it?
That's an important question with respect to proprietary software, and an irrelevent one with respect to Free Software, including GPL-licensed software. Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
anthony_dipierro: The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
None of these things are "use" or "run". And, if you'll see above, section 0 *does* explicitly allow running the program.
I hope you don't find my claims about fire engines and firefighters unconvincing -- it doesn't take statistics to see that! As for the rest, maybe I'm wrong -- what seems logical often isn't. I don't have any statistics, because I can't find them on the NHTSA site.
"Even so -- in my state, at least, any person rear-ending another vehicle is always automatically the responsible party."
What if you don't want to buy auto insurance? Tough, it's mandatory in most states, and for good reason.
There are costs to car accidents, especially those involving fire, and not just to the Pinto owners. The other driver in the accident could be hurt by the flames (dunno how common this is). Firefighters have to put out the flames, and risk their asses dragging your burning children out of the back seat (ok, maybe a bit melodramatic). The other person's car is more likely to be more damaged. Because fire trucks must get there, the highway will probably be backed up longer.
So even if you feel lucky, you ought not to get to screw up everyone else's day.
...would have required several million dollars worth of retooling...
At least if stuff on the 'net is to be believed, moving the gas tank would have required retooling, but adding a piece of plastic to keep the bolts from going through the tank would not. If Dowie is right, the part was already installed on Canadian Pintos. And it was certainly possible for Ford to add them after the fact -- that's what they did in the recall.
Asking several million people to pay $1 each to save someone else's life (or to make themselves 0.0001% safer when driving) isn't something I'm entirely comfortable doing.
I am fairly comfortable with that. The way to do it is with regulation, so that all auto buyers must compete on a level playing field.
And remember, it's not just deaths -- it's also serious burns. Does it help for you to think of the $1 (OK, say $10) as burn insurance?
If the product is safer than average as a whole, however, it's still a safe product, and while taking measures to make it still safer is most certainly a Good Thing to do (so long as those measures are cost-effective), its producer should not be subject to such as Ford received for failing to do so.
But if there is a deadly flaw, and a $1 part can fix the problem, and the fix is not applied, then the company in question *should* be in deep trouble. The engineers should have gone to management (Boisjoly did in the Challenger case, and that was only 7 lives on the line), and they shuold have gotten the problem fixed. The managers should have known about the crash tests, and should have refused to release.
Certainly, if Dowie is to be believed, the Ford execs are culpable -- they campaigned for years against safety standards. The NHTSB is culpable too -- despite the thousands of people a year killed in rear-end collisions (far less than side or front, but still lots), they still don't require rear-end crash tests.
Sure, not that many people died in Pinto rear-end crashes, but those deaths were trivially preventable. And there are no good stats on the number of injuries caused by these crashes.
But Ford knew about the specific problem before the Pinto was released. They did crash tests which all showed this problem. They could have fixed it, but they didn't. The part would have cost a buck per car. And it was installed in Canadian Pintos anyway (their stricter safety standards required it). Ford's behavior was clearly unethical.
And you couldn't even bother to read _Pinto Madness_, where you would have learned to spell Mark Dowie's name right.
RealPlayer *does* release a player for GNU/Linux (but not Free Software), and MPlayer plays almost everything that Windows Media Player can. I think it can also play Vivo files.
The GPL is not a EULA! It's a copyright license. It lets you do things that normal copyright law does not allow. EULAs take away rights which normal copyright law does not. You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* a piece of GPL'd software. There is a massive difference.
You could have lied -- I don't think it would have been immoral. Or you could have waited until some European reposted it. Your choice. But I don't think you can say that Cox was trying to "force" Americans to lie. He was trying to cover his ass so he could travel to the US in the future w/o fear.
"I'm curious how government secrecy threatens your liberty."
One of the most fundamental freedoms is the right to choose how the government is run by voting. We can't know which policies are better if we don't know their effects. So, our voting is worthless. Additionally, secret government leads to abuses -- Star Chambers, etc. Just look at all the shit done under the guise of "national security."
I suppose you also don't have a problem with the firing of Ian Thomas -- the public didn't really need to know the effects of oil drilling on Caribou -- we should just trust Bush!
"Rock is cool but the struggle is better..." -- Indigo Girls
It would be nice to see LOTR. But I'm not about to sell out my principles in order to do it!
Re:Today, the WTO pulled the trigger on another 2.
on
Wipout Essay Results
·
· Score: 2
"They would be screwing you over with the polio and smallpox. Instead, the evil drug companies pretty much eliminated those diseases from the planet."
Smallpox, I don't know about, but I can tell you about Polio. The vaccine was invented by Jonas Salk, who was working for an university, funded by non-profits. He refused to patent it.
Drug companies today don't even have an incentive to create vaccines or cures -- treatments are much more profitable.
"Wait wait wait. YOU'RE telling me that you are willing to make the CIA LESS effective so that you can know if they're good or not? Please, tell me you're joking."
No, I am not joking. We make ordinary cops less effective than they could be by requiring warrants -- but we do this because the alternative is a threat to liberty. The CIA and the NSA, given their current level of secretiveness, are a threat to liberty.
Am I willing to risk lives for liberty? Of course! That's what people have been doing for ever; that's what the CIA claims to do (it probably puts its agents in danger all the time).
You have to make the source available from wherever the binaries are available from. So, if you provide the binaries from your box, and you provide the source from your box, then you would be OK, provided that the package containing the binaries mentioned that the source was available from there, and that it was easily possible to find the source. Does Kazaa have "addresses" like URLs? If not, how will the downloader find the source code?
Hi, I work for the Free Software Foundation on copyright and licensing issues. "The source is available on Kazaa/Grokster/gnutella" would not meet the obligations of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, here's another one! Wow, is someone selling a book on how to do these scams?
< SNIP anthony_dipierro backpedalling furiously >
prizog: but in the US, [the GPL] does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program).
anthony_dipierro: Sure it does. It affects your rights as a user if you are not the owner of a lawfully obtained copy of the software.
In the case of the GPL, I can't think of a way where one would be able to run the software, but not be (or be authorized by (see the statute)) the owner of a lawfully obtained copy.
< SNIP stuff agreeing with what I said in the first place >
prizog: Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: If Microsoft's EULA is binding merely by running the software, then so is the GPL. The right to run the software is one of the rights given by the GPL. If you don't have a Section 117 right to run the software, then you must accept the GPL in order to run the software.
No, the GPL unilaterally grants that right, whether or not you agree to its other provisions -- RTFL, esp. section 0, para 2 and section 5 (noting the omission of the word run).
anthony_dipierro: Every EULA I've ever read granted additional rights, and removed others. The GPL is no exception. It grants additional rights, and removes others.
Except that it doesn't remove any rights you might otherwise have under copyright law.
prizog: Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Right. If you don't agree to the GPL, you are permitted to first sale rights. If you do agree to the GPL, those rights are taken away. It's just like any other EULA. It gives some rights, in exchange for others.
Consider the following handy chart:
Without GPL:
Copying: Nope
Modifying: Nope
Redistributing: Nope
Running: Yep.
Selling the copy you bought: Yep.
Making new copies and selling them under arbitrary terms: Nope
With GPL:
Copying: Yep.
Modifying: Yep.
Redistributing: Yep.
Running: Yep.
Selling the copy you bought: Yep.
Making new copies and selling them under arbitrary terms: Nope
If you do agree to the GPL, you still have the right of first sale, with respect to copies you obtained other than by copying (i.e. copies you bought on CD). Of course, the right of first sale simply doesn't apply to copies that you made yourself, since you had to agree to the terms of the GPL to make them. No rights are taken away -- you have more rights than you had before you agreed to the GPL (see chart above).
But you are clearly too stupid to understand this point (I saw another whole thread about this, and concluded that you were a moron, but I was already in this discussion), so I won't bother to argue it with you. I had roughly this same argument from another perspective with aozilla a while back, and s/he's a moron too.
So, you get the last post. You're still a moron.
Oops, I am a moron. I pasted in from an emacs buffer I was using to respond to another message. Please disregard all but the last 4 paragraphs of the post.
prizog: EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
e s/2002/809-439.pdf, and there are about ten injuries to each death in passenger cars. Below, you are assuming $10/year, rather than $10/car (I think I heard 7 years was an average life for a car). I think my life (and your life) is easily worth half a million bucks, especially considering the various other costs etc.
anthony_dipierro: None of which changes the actual law.
Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.
prizog, quoting the GPL: "The act of running the Program is not restricted"
anthony_dipierro: That however does...
How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor, but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program). In Unfreedonia, maybe it's illegal to run a program without a license. So, the GPL allows one to run the program.
anthony_dipierro: So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.
anthony_dipierro: But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA.
Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right [first sale] to sell those lawfully made copies).
Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Your math is wrong -- you are assuming 13.7 million per year / 3 collsiions per year, instead of 13.7 million over the life of the Pinto (maybe ten years?). You are also assuming one death per collision, no additional injuries, no additional auto damage. In fact, on average, more than one person is killed in a fatal crash: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNot
And I'm not sure where you get the $10/part number -- it seems to me as arbitrary as $1/part, but at least I have some source for that (even though you don't like him). Actually, I'm not sure where you get any of your numbers. But even if they're accurate, you are abusing them:
You write, "the probability of any fatal car accident being a rear-end collision is currently 1.87%", but that's in an average, modern car (i.e. one that presumably has been tested for the same design flaw the Pinto had), rather than a Pinto!
Finally, buying insurance does not keep one from being killed or injured.
prizog: EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
anthony_dipierro: None of which changes the actual law.
Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.
prizog, quoting the GPL: "The act of running the Program is not restricted"
anthony_dipierro: That however does...
How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor, but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program). In Unfreedonia, maybe it's illegal to run a program without a license. So, the GPL allows one to run the program.
anthony_dipierro: So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.
anthony_dipierro: But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA.
Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
anthony_dipierro: You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right [first sale] to sell those lawfully made copies).
Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Prizog: Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
anthony_dipierro: So it's no different from any other EULA.
EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist. Different courts have ruled variously on these claims.
The GPL does none of this. It doesn't explicitly acknowledge the existence of the above section (and it need not). And (perhaps in case that section is repealed or other countries don't have analagous laws), it explicitly unilaterally grants the rights to use the program, whether or not you agree to the terms of the license. So, there is a major difference between the GPL and EULAs.
Prizog: Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
anthony_dipierro: Where?
Section 0, second paragraph:
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 the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
anthony_dipierro: The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it?
That's an important question with respect to proprietary software, and an irrelevent one with respect to Free Software, including GPL-licensed software. Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
anthony_dipierro: The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
None of these things are "use" or "run". And, if you'll see above, section 0 *does* explicitly allow running the program.
Absolutely.
Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
Of course, redistributing the code is another matter, and does require a license. But you were talking about use.
I hope you don't find my claims about fire engines and firefighters unconvincing -- it doesn't take statistics to see that! As for the rest, maybe I'm wrong -- what seems logical often isn't. I don't have any statistics, because I can't find them on the NHTSA site.
"Even so -- in my state, at least, any person rear-ending another vehicle is always automatically the responsible party."
Your state's laws are on crack.
What if I don't want to buy burn insurance?
What if you don't want to buy auto insurance? Tough, it's mandatory in most states, and for good reason.
There are costs to car accidents, especially those involving fire, and not just to the Pinto owners. The other driver in the accident could be hurt by the flames (dunno how common this is). Firefighters have to put out the flames, and risk their asses dragging your burning children out of the back seat (ok, maybe a bit melodramatic). The other person's car is more likely to be more damaged. Because fire trucks must get there, the highway will probably be backed up longer.
So even if you feel lucky, you ought not to get to screw up everyone else's day.
...would have required several million dollars worth of retooling...
At least if stuff on the 'net is to be believed, moving the gas tank would have required retooling, but adding a piece of plastic to keep the bolts from going through the tank would not. If Dowie is right, the part was already installed on Canadian Pintos. And it was certainly possible for Ford to add them after the fact -- that's what they did in the recall.
Asking several million people to pay $1 each to save someone else's life (or to make themselves 0.0001% safer when driving) isn't something I'm entirely comfortable doing.
I am fairly comfortable with that. The way to do it is with regulation, so that all auto buyers must compete on a level playing field.
And remember, it's not just deaths -- it's also serious burns. Does it help for you to think of the $1 (OK, say $10) as burn insurance?
If the product is safer than average as a whole, however, it's still a safe product, and while taking measures to make it still safer is most certainly a Good Thing to do (so long as those measures are cost-effective), its producer should not be subject to such as Ford received for failing to do so.
But if there is a deadly flaw, and a $1 part can fix the problem, and the fix is not applied, then the company in question *should* be in deep trouble. The engineers should have gone to management (Boisjoly did in the Challenger case, and that was only 7 lives on the line), and they shuold have gotten the problem fixed. The managers should have known about the crash tests, and should have refused to release.
Certainly, if Dowie is to be believed, the Ford execs are culpable -- they campaigned for years against safety standards. The NHTSB is culpable too -- despite the thousands of people a year killed in rear-end collisions (far less than side or front, but still lots), they still don't require rear-end crash tests.
Sure, not that many people died in Pinto rear-end crashes, but those deaths were trivially preventable. And there are no good stats on the number of injuries caused by these crashes.
But Ford knew about the specific problem before the Pinto was released. They did crash tests which all showed this problem. They could have fixed it, but they didn't. The part would have cost a buck per car. And it was installed in Canadian Pintos anyway (their stricter safety standards required it). Ford's behavior was clearly unethical.
And you couldn't even bother to read _Pinto Madness_, where you would have learned to spell Mark Dowie's name right.
RealPlayer *does* release a player for GNU/Linux (but not Free Software), and MPlayer plays almost everything that Windows Media Player can. I think it can also play Vivo files.
The GPL is not a EULA! It's a copyright license. It lets you do things that normal copyright law does not allow. EULAs take away rights which normal copyright law does not. You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* a piece of GPL'd software. There is a massive difference.
You could have lied -- I don't think it would have been immoral. Or you could have waited until some European reposted it. Your choice. But I don't think you can say that Cox was trying to "force" Americans to lie. He was trying to cover his ass so he could travel to the US in the future w/o fear.
No, another European could have reposted it.
You were free to post the changelog yourself as an American citizen. But you would risk prosecution under the DMCA. So, where's your mirror?
"I'm curious how government secrecy threatens your liberty."
One of the most fundamental freedoms is the right to choose how the government is run by voting. We can't know which policies are better if we don't know their effects. So, our voting is worthless. Additionally, secret government leads to abuses -- Star Chambers, etc. Just look at all the shit done under the guise of "national security."
I suppose you also don't have a problem with the firing of Ian Thomas -- the public didn't really need to know the effects of oil drilling on Caribou -- we should just trust Bush!
"Rock is cool but the struggle is better..." -- Indigo Girls
It would be nice to see LOTR. But I'm not about to sell out my principles in order to do it!
"They would be screwing you over with the polio and smallpox. Instead, the evil drug companies pretty much eliminated those diseases from the planet."
Smallpox, I don't know about, but I can tell you about Polio. The vaccine was invented by Jonas Salk, who was working for an university, funded by non-profits. He refused to patent it.
Drug companies today don't even have an incentive to create vaccines or cures -- treatments are much more profitable.
"Wait wait wait. YOU'RE telling me that you are willing to make the CIA LESS effective so that you can know if they're good or not? Please, tell me you're joking."
No, I am not joking. We make ordinary cops less effective than they could be by requiring warrants -- but we do this because the alternative is a threat to liberty. The CIA and the NSA, given their current level of secretiveness, are a threat to liberty.
Am I willing to risk lives for liberty? Of course! That's what people have been doing for ever; that's what the CIA claims to do (it probably puts its agents in danger all the time).
Disclaimer: I don't use Kazaa.
You have to make the source available from wherever the binaries are available from. So, if you provide the binaries from your box, and you provide the source from your box, then you would be OK, provided that the package containing the binaries mentioned that the source was available from there, and that it was easily possible to find the source. Does Kazaa have "addresses" like URLs? If not, how will the downloader find the source code?
Hi, I work for the Free Software Foundation on copyright and licensing issues. "The source is available on Kazaa/Grokster/gnutella" would not meet the obligations of the GPL.
I think you missed a few.