There is a strong propensity here on Slashdot, to think that agreements or EULAs are automatically legally binding.
Except for the few agreement-types explicitly named in the law, very few agreements with consumers are legally valid. Most are simply not.
I doubt that one single courtcase can be found, in which the court established that the act of clicking the "I agree" button meant that the consumer agreed.
Click-wrap "agreements" do not constitute "agreements".
That would fly in the face of 2500 years of legal history and legal proceedings; things that were first documented at the beginning of the Roman Republic and coined during the heydays of the Roman Empire the way they are today. These practices survived the Middle Ages and have reached us in modern times, with very few alterations.
Applying these ancient traditions, constitutes the job a judge does for most of his life. He lives and breathes by these ancient traditions.
If you buy a copy of Windows, the agreement occurs when you hand over the money to the computer shop clerk en he hands over the box. Then, there is "agreement" for the sale: "Box for money". Neither party can alter the terms of what has been agreed then.
Agreements are always "inter partes". The author is usually no party to the agreement, and since you have not dealt with the author, you can therefore not have an "agreement" with him.
Further, the copyrighted work may remind you of the author's statutory rights under copyright law, but it can certainly not extend them. The copyrighted work itself cannot be a party to an agreement anyway.
Further, it is simply too late to agree at that stage. The exchange has already taken place.
The GPL relaxes the author's statutory rights under certain conditions. There is no need for an "agreement" to effect this. The GPL is not about your right to use the software, but about the right to "distribute" it.
is definitely worth looking at. To some extent it does make sense: "Commoditize your complements." On the other hand, it should be a bit self-defeating as well, because your complements are doing the same to you; if they can. So, the whole thesis rests on the fact that it is more difficult to commoditize software, than it is to commoditize hardware. Or better, services (intimate knowledge of your customer's environment) is more difficult to commoditize than software.
Probably, this has always unknowingly been the reason why, as a developer, hence, service provider, I like free software.
So, we're busy and quite successful commoditizing Microsoft; which is nice. What would help me much more, however, is a commodity replacement for the SAP, Siebel, Oracle Financials, JDEdwards, Peoplesoft, Navision, Vantive and other ERP/CRM-type of applications. I would, out of pure self-interest, contribute heavily to this kind of software, if it would spare me from having to deal with these controlling behemoths.
Peru will not be able to sustain their souvereign decision to procure free software for their public administration.
The next time Peru will need a bailout from the IMF or the world bank, they will demand Peru to abolish this law, in the name of free trade.
Will Peru need a bailout somewhere in the future? You can bet on it. Either they will shoot in their own feet, or else someone else will make sure to sink the markets in which they trade their most important export products. That will bring Peru on their knees.
And then, M$ will supply condition for the bailout along with other mega-corporations that all have their own desiderata and demands.
... was indeed a problem, when I was 19. We've all gone through that. That's probably one of the reasons why you should be at college instead of at work at your age. It will spare you the frustrations.
I'm 32 now. When I look at 19-year olds now, I can see myself at that age. There's surely value in the ideas of 19-year olds, but I also understand why we don't take them all too seriously.
My advice is: go back to college, at least part time. Your time will come when it's time.
The policies governing Java technologies never blended well with open source/free software. Given recent events, we should not expect Java to become more open, on the contrary.
Law enforcement agencies will probably demand closed-source, backdoor-enabled encryption and security subsystems. Open source doesn't lend itself to that.
What is also a problem, is the fact that free software yields incredible consumer surpluses, but very little in terms of company profits. Since the government needs companies to make profits, so that they can levy taxes, they will not encourage free software.
The most dangerous assault will, however, come from the copyright cartels. They will not rest until computers fully implement digital rights management in unalterable binary-only distributions, with source code locked up.
In this light, It will become increasingly difficult to defend the values behind free software.
Does that imply a fully fledged Java VM that executes stored procedures in Java?
Is something like PLSQL a mandatory part of something we call a relational database?
Oracle has a maximum view on relational databases, because it is their instrument to dominate adjacent markets; just as the OS is for M$.
PLSQL is something created for the benefit of Oracle, not for the benefit of the customer, who gets stuck in a proprietary language and horrible design consequences.
The only true backing for money, is the ability to pay taxes with it.
So, money will keep its value as long as the government is able to impose and collect a sufficient amount of taxes across the economy. The government agency preserving the value of money is in the first place the IRS and only then the FED.
Money doesn't need any other backing.
You're alive, aren't you? That's because you've managed to eat in the past fiscal year? That's because you've had means of subsistence? How much? You don't want to tell us? So, we estimate that you've been able to make the equivalent of $20,000. You owe us now $6,000. Thanks. Unless you want to go to prison.
McNealy writes:"Web-enabled wireless phone will be able to recommend a nearby restaurant based on your fondness for French, Italian or Mexican cuisine -- and then make your reservation for you."
That means the phone will be in control; or better, the one who controls the phone, will be in control. Or better, the one who controls the script that runs the phone, will be in control.
McNeally's idea seems to revert to the one and same idea: yield control to your phone, your PC, your car, or any other device, who will turn into a benevolent dictator and take control in your best interest.
I'm sorry, Scott, it's just too easy. We will not yield control to your devices.
The reason that I think would be the most valid to form unions, is the fact that serious conflict will cost the worker relatively more that the employer, who can simply replace the worker.
While this observation holds true for the traditionally unionized workers, my experience says that this does not necessarily hold true in IT.
If you have written lots of applications or components for your employer, it will cost him a lot of money to get you replaced and to get to the point that the next guy can maintain your work; all of this, while you happily move to the next job or contract, often even at a better rate.
The classical tabular API to an existing database may be very bland and poor in terms of immediate usefulness, but at the same time very predictable.
It's indeed weird at first glance that you have a first API (a table structure) and then at least one second one to provide useful services to the application (OO schema).
But then again, if you have ever needed to re-use the same data for different purposes, you know why this impedance problem is worthwhile solving.
This separate, predictable default API is like a life insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a strong propensity here on Slashdot, to think that agreements or EULAs are automatically legally binding.
Except for the few agreement-types explicitly named in the law, very few agreements with consumers are legally valid. Most are simply not.
I doubt that one single courtcase can be found, in which the court established that the act of clicking the "I agree" button meant that the consumer agreed.
Hey, this criticism is unwarranted. The man is definitely not insane. I don't mind an executable of 10 Mb; but I do mind wasting space needlessly.
Click-wrap "agreements" do not constitute "agreements".
That would fly in the face of 2500 years of legal history and legal proceedings; things that were first documented at the beginning of the Roman Republic and coined during the heydays of the Roman Empire the way they are today. These practices survived the Middle Ages and have reached us in modern times, with very few alterations.
Applying these ancient traditions, constitutes the job a judge does for most of his life. He lives and breathes by these ancient traditions.
If you buy a copy of Windows, the agreement occurs when you hand over the money to the computer shop clerk en he hands over the box. Then, there is "agreement" for the sale: "Box for money". Neither party can alter the terms of what has been agreed then.
Agreements are always "inter partes". The author is usually no party to the agreement, and since you have not dealt with the author, you can therefore not have an "agreement" with him.
Further, the copyrighted work may remind you of the author's statutory rights under copyright law, but it can certainly not extend them. The copyrighted work itself cannot be a party to an agreement anyway.
Further, it is simply too late to agree at that stage. The exchange has already taken place.
The GPL relaxes the author's statutory rights under certain conditions. There is no need for an "agreement" to effect this. The GPL is not about your right to use the software, but about the right to "distribute" it.
is definitely worth looking at. To some extent it does make sense: "Commoditize your complements." On the other hand, it should be a bit self-defeating as well, because your complements are doing the same to you; if they can. So, the whole thesis rests on the fact that it is more difficult to commoditize software, than it is to commoditize hardware. Or better, services (intimate knowledge of your customer's environment) is more difficult to commoditize than software.
Probably, this has always unknowingly been the reason why, as a developer, hence, service provider, I like free software.
So, we're busy and quite successful commoditizing Microsoft; which is nice. What would help me much more, however, is a commodity replacement for the SAP, Siebel, Oracle Financials, JDEdwards, Peoplesoft, Navision, Vantive and other ERP/CRM-type of applications. I would, out of pure self-interest, contribute heavily to this kind of software, if it would spare me from having to deal with these controlling behemoths.
in their conditions for the next bailout.
Peru will not be able to sustain their souvereign decision to procure free software for their public administration.
The next time Peru will need a bailout from the IMF or the world bank, they will demand Peru to abolish this law, in the name of free trade.
Will Peru need a bailout somewhere in the future? You can bet on it. Either they will shoot in their own feet, or else someone else will make sure to sink the markets in which they trade their most important export products. That will bring Peru on their knees.
And then, M$ will supply condition for the bailout along with other mega-corporations that all have their own desiderata and demands.
This law will not last.
... was indeed a problem, when I was 19. We've all gone through that. That's probably one of the reasons why you should be at college instead of at work at your age. It will spare you the frustrations.
I'm 32 now. When I look at 19-year olds now, I can see myself at that age. There's surely value in the ideas of 19-year olds, but I also understand why we don't take them all too seriously.
My advice is: go back to college, at least part time. Your time will come when it's time.
If you fail to comply, you may very well be treated like a pirate or a terrorist.
The policies governing Java technologies never blended well with open source/free software. Given recent events, we should not expect Java to become more open, on the contrary.
Law enforcement agencies will probably demand closed-source, backdoor-enabled encryption and security subsystems. Open source doesn't lend itself to that.
What is also a problem, is the fact that free software yields incredible consumer surpluses, but very little in terms of company profits. Since the government needs companies to make profits, so that they can levy taxes, they will not encourage free software.
The most dangerous assault will, however, come from the copyright cartels. They will not rest until computers fully implement digital rights management in unalterable binary-only distributions, with source code locked up.
In this light, It will become increasingly difficult to defend the values behind free software.
Does that imply a fully fledged Java VM that executes stored procedures in Java?
Is something like PLSQL a mandatory part of something we call a relational database?
Oracle has a maximum view on relational databases, because it is their instrument to dominate adjacent markets; just as the OS is for M$.
PLSQL is something created for the benefit of Oracle, not for the benefit of the customer, who gets stuck in a proprietary language and horrible design consequences.
The only true backing for money, is the ability to pay taxes with it.
So, money will keep its value as long as the government is able to impose and collect a sufficient amount of taxes across the economy. The government agency preserving the value of money is in the first place the IRS and only then the FED.
Money doesn't need any other backing.
You're alive, aren't you? That's because you've managed to eat in the past fiscal year? That's because you've had means of subsistence? How much? You don't want to tell us? So, we estimate that you've been able to make the equivalent of $20,000. You owe us now $6,000. Thanks. Unless you want to go to prison.
Can you see why you need money? No gold involved.
McNealy writes:"Web-enabled wireless phone will be able to recommend a nearby restaurant based on your fondness for French, Italian or Mexican cuisine -- and then make your reservation for you."
That means the phone will be in control; or better, the one who controls the phone, will be in control. Or better, the one who controls the script that runs the phone, will be in control.
McNeally's idea seems to revert to the one and same idea: yield control to your phone, your PC, your car, or any other device, who will turn into a benevolent dictator and take control in your best interest.
I'm sorry, Scott, it's just too easy. We will not yield control to your devices.
The reason that I think would be the most valid to form unions, is the fact that serious conflict will cost the worker relatively more that the employer, who can simply replace the worker.
While this observation holds true for the traditionally unionized workers, my experience says that this does not necessarily hold true in IT.
If you have written lots of applications or components for your employer, it will cost him a lot of money to get you replaced and to get to the point that the next guy can maintain your work; all of this, while you happily move to the next job or contract, often even at a better rate.
The classical tabular API to an existing database may be very bland and poor in terms of immediate usefulness, but at the same time very predictable.
It's indeed weird at first glance that you have a first API (a table structure) and then at least one second one to provide useful services to the application (OO schema).
But then again, if you have ever needed to re-use the same data for different purposes, you know why this impedance problem is worthwhile solving.
This separate, predictable default API is like a life insurance.