Advertising code may well be derived from EU regulations and therefore the ban might in fact be europe-wide (although likely to be implemented slightly differently in different countries).
Fairly soon if you believe the news - some systems on trial already (eg. in the uk)
Plus, the main thrust of the judgement (according to news reports) seems to have been not that the software merely allowed, but that the defendants encouraged/incited the users' behaviour.
Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed.
So why are the medics trying to get tonsilectomy and appendectomy rates _down_ ?
Answer: they've figured out that _not_ messing around with something that isn't broken is less risky for the patient than trying to "fix" it - even if we can't figure out what it is there for.
"Or, [...] LMI
itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter. At which point you either rename it to something else, or you sublicense it. "
Pretty clear.
Like he says, it is about whether _you_ need the protection _from LMI_ - and that is all you are buying. LMI can't (and doesn't) offer to protect you from anyone else - for a start you could be in a completely different jurisdiction where they have no right to protect you.
Yes, but describing your Linux distribution as "GNU/Linux", eg. "Debian GNU/Linux" would require license, and trademark acknowledgement (in the documentation), for the Linux use.
FSF say "Please do not include any trademark acknowledgements in GNU software packages or documentation.".
So if you are eg. Debian, do you acknowledge or not ?
You do not have to buy a license to use the name Linux. You do have to buy a license to get trademark protection for your product name, iff it includes the word "Linux".
Totally wrong.
To get (registered) trademark protection for you product name you have to trademark it - just as with any product name.
To use "Linux" in your product name, you now have to pay. Period.
To quote the LMI site:
if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government.
If you make a billion dollars, you owe $5,000. If you make nothing, you owe $200
Bullshit.
RTF Licence.
If you turnover $2M and make $1M you owe $5K, if you turnover $2M and lose $1M... you owe $5K. Being a "non-profit" (the $200) is a completely different thing to not making a profit.
I mean it's either $5000 or start putting an (R) behind the word Linux. Really, how can anyone even think about starting a SME, when you have to pay those sort of fees to remove the (R) from your product
Read the site. It is nothing of the sort.
Attribution ((R) etc.) is required for everyone, whether you need to buy a sublicense or not - but different rules apply.
Sublicense is required for anyone - nothing to do with removing the (R) from the product.
if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI
To avoid the sublicense requirement you have to remove the "Linux" from the product name / company name / any other trademark usage.
If redhat do not sign up for one of these licenses then it has to be "RedHat" - not "RedHat Linux(R)" or "RedHat Linux".
That is _gross_ revenue - not profit. That isn't a big company. In fact under some definitions it wouldn't even be big enough to qualify as "small" (as in SME).
It would probably be only 5 or 6 people (based on UK averages). Each of those people is going to have to find $1000 for this - plus there is stuff to sign, so add legal costs (for review etc.). Plus reprinting costs etc. for adding the required attributions.
If we are talking about an open source start-up (possibly loss-making), with people working for less so they can contribute back to the community, this must be a kick in the teeth.
GTA was never (even before someone found some sex in it) rated for kids (at least in US or UK).
So how the f*** would kids be playing it ?
Oh, right, they're breaking the law, and/or being looked after by adults who break the law. And they have more agressive thoughts than kids who don't. No shit. Next week news that kids who break the law also tend to have less respect for authority...
Maybe we should ban kids from playing these games. Oh, wait...
No, second thoughts, maybe we should ban "psychologists" from pretending to be scientific researchers if they don't understand that self-selecting case/control groups invalidates any statistical results.
I said the problem was taking server OS to the desktop (which is what the article is about).
It is common _desktop_ hardware that is the issue. Why ? Eg. - developers of web apps targeting 2003 server pretty much need to run the OS on their desk/laptops.
Problems I know of:
Display drivers for odd resolutions (eg. for laptop lcds). ATI drivers do not (or at least did not) support 2003 (google "ATI driver information for Microsoft Windows Server 2003" or "nvidia display drivers 2003 server" - loads and loads of people having same problems ).
Also problems with some NICs and/or wireless cards (can't remember which otoh).
Yes, in some cases you can hack the XP driver installers to force install on 2003, but it isn't a supported driver that way - if it doesn't work or causes problems you are SOL.
Taking a server OS to wider range of desktop hardware is always going to hit the driver problem. Even if you are as big as Microsoft.
Try getting drivers for Windows 2003 - that is MS's _only_ current supported server OS (2000 is out of support now). There is nowhere near the range of drivers as for XP. Some hardware you can find unofficial drivers or hacks, some just plain will not work. In fact, Linux probably has same or better driver support than Windows 2003.
384k ?! And you've got compilers! For c++ no less.
You young things don't know how lucky you are.
When I started, 32k (including video ram remember) was massive and when 48k arrived, games programmers were wondering how they could possibly use it all.
You want respect for having to write your own allocator or not having a heap ?
- come back when you're hacking the video timing to change screen mode part way down a scan to get colour/resolution combinations that are "impossible" on the platform. That's the sort of game writing on small platforms that earns respect.
1. I haven't seen (or heard of) anything in a child porn law that makes an exception for being appropriate for viewer age. At least here, child porn is illegal, period.
2. parents seem to have got into plenty of legal trouble for other actions taken by kids on connections (downloading)
3. you are quite possibly in trouble anyway (certainly if it's rated movies) for _allowing_ your children to look at even legal porn
No, it applies to civilians as well as lawful combatants.
It doesn't apply to persons who are neither of the above, however, someone, obviously, has to decide what status individuals have - and this is supposed to be a "competent tribunal". Moreover, in advance of that decision, detainees are required to be treated as if GC applies.
So they do have rights under GC including fair trial rights to determine if they are in fact unlawful combatants. If / when it is determined that that is what they are, _then_ they can be summarily executed or whatever.
The US however thinks that people can be detained (indefinitely), afforded no rights, and labelled as unlawful combantants without any due legal process.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is UK.
Advertising code may well be derived from EU regulations and therefore the ban might in fact be europe-wide (although likely to be implemented slightly differently in different countries).
Fairly soon if you believe the news - some systems on trial already (eg. in the uk)
Plus, the main thrust of the judgement (according to news reports) seems to have been not that the software merely allowed, but that the defendants encouraged/incited the users' behaviour.
Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed.
So why are the medics trying to get tonsilectomy and appendectomy rates _down_ ?
Answer: they've figured out that _not_ messing around with something that isn't broken is less risky for the patient than trying to "fix" it - even if we can't figure out what it is there for.
It is being invested in wars elsewhere of course.
These wars are to protect our country from terrorist attack, locate and destroy WMDs, bring stability to the regions concerned, and lower oil prices.
All in all, clearly a thoroughly worthwhile investment.
PS: wanna buy a bridge ?
Yes, but describing your Linux distribution as "GNU/Linux", eg. "Debian GNU/Linux" would require license, and trademark acknowledgement (in the documentation), for the Linux use.
FSF say "Please do not include any trademark acknowledgements in GNU software packages or documentation.".
So if you are eg. Debian, do you acknowledge or not ?
You said exactly what I quoted - copy and pasted word for word: "... if you make ...".
You need to read the fee schedule. It states "gross revenue". Not "revenue" (as you misquote it). Not "net revenue". Not "profit".
I can have gross revenue of $1M and profit of $0. I sell $1M, but I make nothing. I owe $5k whether I make money or lose it.
Informative ? more like misleading.
The LMI website specifically states that you need to license whether you register trademark or not.
link
You do not have to buy a license to use the name Linux. You do have to buy a license to get trademark protection for your product name, iff it includes the word "Linux".
Totally wrong.
To get (registered) trademark protection for you product name you have to trademark it - just as with any product name.
To use "Linux" in your product name, you now have to pay. Period.
To quote the LMI site:
if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government.
Pretty clear.
So "GNU/Linux" becomes an impossible term - the Linux bit requires trademark acknowledgement, the GNU bit requires (well, requests) the opposite.
If you make a billion dollars, you owe $5,000. If you make nothing, you owe $200
Bullshit.
RTF Licence.
If you turnover $2M and make $1M you owe $5K, if you turnover $2M and lose $1M... you owe $5K. Being a "non-profit" (the $200) is a completely different thing to not making a profit.
it's fair to ask businesses who are making a profit off of linux to chip in
Which isn't what they are doing. They are asking for fees based on (projected) gross revenue. You have to pay whether you profit or not.
I mean it's either $5000 or start putting an (R) behind the word Linux. Really, how can anyone even think about starting a SME, when you have to pay those sort of fees to remove the (R) from your product
Read the site. It is nothing of the sort.
Attribution ((R) etc.) is required for everyone, whether you need to buy a sublicense or not - but different rules apply.
Sublicense is required for anyone - nothing to do with removing the (R) from the product.
if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI
To avoid the sublicense requirement you have to remove the "Linux" from the product name / company name / any other trademark usage.
If redhat do not sign up for one of these licenses then it has to be "RedHat" - not "RedHat Linux(R)" or "RedHat Linux".
"1 million in revenue" ($)
That is _gross_ revenue - not profit. That isn't a big company. In fact under some definitions it wouldn't even be big enough to qualify as "small" (as in SME).
It would probably be only 5 or 6 people (based on UK averages). Each of those people is going to have to find $1000 for this - plus there is stuff to sign, so add legal costs (for review etc.). Plus reprinting costs etc. for adding the required attributions.
If we are talking about an open source start-up (possibly loss-making), with people working for less so they can contribute back to the community, this must be a kick in the teeth.
Here in the UK movie and game ratings (BBFC) are backed by law, I assumed they also were in the US.
Even without the legal backing, you still have a self-selecting case group.
Kids ? GTA ?
GTA was never (even before someone found some sex in it) rated for kids (at least in US or UK).
So how the f*** would kids be playing it ?
Oh, right, they're breaking the law, and/or being looked after by adults who break the law. And they have more agressive thoughts than kids who don't. No shit. Next week news that kids who break the law also tend to have less respect for authority...
Maybe we should ban kids from playing these games. Oh, wait...
No, second thoughts, maybe we should ban "psychologists" from pretending to be scientific researchers if they don't understand that self-selecting case/control groups invalidates any statistical results.
I said the problem was taking server OS to the desktop (which is what the article is about).
It is common _desktop_ hardware that is the issue. Why ? Eg. - developers of web apps targeting 2003 server pretty much need to run the OS on their desk/laptops.
Problems I know of:
Display drivers for odd resolutions (eg. for laptop lcds). ATI drivers do not (or at least did not) support 2003 (google "ATI driver information for Microsoft Windows Server 2003" or "nvidia display drivers 2003 server" - loads and loads of people having same problems ).
Also problems with some NICs and/or wireless cards (can't remember which otoh).
Yes, in some cases you can hack the XP driver installers to force install on 2003, but it isn't a supported driver that way - if it doesn't work or causes problems you are SOL.
Taking a server OS to wider range of desktop hardware is always going to hit the driver problem. Even if you are as big as Microsoft.
Try getting drivers for Windows 2003 - that is MS's _only_ current supported server OS (2000 is out of support now). There is nowhere near the range of drivers as for XP. Some hardware you can find unofficial drivers or hacks, some just plain will not work. In fact, Linux probably has same or better driver support than Windows 2003.
What is the point of being alive if you can't [...] do all of these human things?
/.
This is
You lost most of your audience right around the "make love" requirement.
That's before you even get to the right-to-life activists and the paraplegic deaf-mute insomniacs.
384k ?! And you've got compilers! For c++ no less.
You young things don't know how lucky you are.
When I started, 32k (including video ram remember) was massive and when 48k arrived, games programmers were wondering how they could possibly use it all.
You want respect for having to write your own allocator or not having a heap ?
- come back when you're hacking the video timing to change screen mode part way down a scan to get colour/resolution combinations that are "impossible" on the platform. That's the sort of game writing on small platforms that earns respect.
1. I haven't seen (or heard of) anything in a child porn law that makes an exception for being appropriate for viewer age. At least here, child porn is illegal, period.
2. parents seem to have got into plenty of legal trouble for other actions taken by kids on connections (downloading)
3. you are quite possibly in trouble anyway (certainly if it's rated movies) for _allowing_ your children to look at even legal porn
The gov wanted a copy for forensics purposes
RTFA - they wanted specific log files, not hardware for forensics.
- at least according to what has been released.
Why the F*** would they do that - surely if they wanted to do this they would just stick a large mast up at gitmo - ie. the american end _of cuba_.
that wooshing sound is the joke flying over your head...
No, it applies to civilians as well as lawful combatants.
It doesn't apply to persons who are neither of the above, however, someone, obviously, has to decide what status individuals have - and this is supposed to be a "competent tribunal". Moreover, in advance of that decision, detainees are required to be treated as if GC applies.
So they do have rights under GC including fair trial rights to determine if they are in fact unlawful combatants. If / when it is determined that that is what they are, _then_ they can be summarily executed or whatever.
The US however thinks that people can be detained (indefinitely), afforded no rights, and labelled as unlawful combantants without any due legal process.