Because the license grants them that right. If the copyright holder doesn't want others to profit from their work, then they shouldn't distribute the product under a license that permits them to do so.
Since the license does permit others to profit from the work of the Mozilla Foundation, then the profit can hardly be said to be undeserved.
i was just assuming they were trying to make a quick buck by selling it for undeserved profit.
If the buyer and the seller reach a mutually agreeable price for the product (and the seller has the right to sell the product), why is the profit undeserved?
Do you think some 12 year old sissy boy who is taunted all his life for being a sissy **decides** to be gay? The last thing he wants is to be different, and the last thing he wants to be is gay. But the fact is that his internal wirings are different, and he is just attracted to males. THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm glad to see at least some people get it!
Sexual orientation is no less a physical trait than skin color or eye color. I don't know why some people have so much difficulty accepting that.
The executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of the Act, including sections 408, 616, 621, 633, and 1343(b), that purport to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international organizations, or other entities abroad or which purport to direct executive branch officials to use the U.S. voice and vote in international organizations to achieve specified foreign policy objectives. Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch.
In effect, the Bush Administration asserts that any legislation related to foreign policy or national defense is advisory in nature, and that the president is free to ignore it if he deems it necessary in the execution of his duties as commander-in-chief.
Considering that he also holds that the judiciary (i.e., the Supreme Court) has no authority to review presidential decisions related to foreign policy or national security, it should be interesting to see what happens if this ends up going to court.
and your point is? i'm glad we have moved from wallowing in cynicism to nitpicking on details.
While it may seem like nitpicking, there is a fundamental difference between a constitutional republic and a pure democracy. Under a constitutional republic, the will of the majority is tempered by respect for the fundamental rights of the individual (including the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Unrestrained democracy is simply populism. The suspension of habeus corpus during the civil war, the internment of Japanese and Italian-Americans during World War II and McCarthyism were all supported by the majority of the electorate.
why not admit that cynicism is a poor replacement for a conscience and support the americans, british, and others who are about to die so the world is safer for everyone: american, european, iraqi, chinese, the world over.
I fail to see how an unprovoked act of aggression against a sovereign nation will make the world a safer place (never mind that Congress, the only institution within the federal government authorized to do so, has yet to declare a state of war). If anything, it establishes a dangerous precedent for other nations that may be inclined to take similiar measures against those they view as threats (Russia v. Chechnya, China v. Taiwan, Lebanon v. Israel)
removing saddam hussein, even by force if necessary, can be viewed as nothing more than progress.
You and I, sir, apparently have very different ideas of what constitutes progress
don't just sit there as a decadent child of the west in your ivory tower and look down and spit on those in the struggle merely because you lack the conviction or intellectual honesty or bravery to fight the good fight.
It is precisely due to the fact that I do not lack a conscience that a speak out against the federal government's continuing match toward empire and tyranny.
Quite frankly, I find the idea of the United States, with her stealth fighters and daisy cutters engaging in indiscriminate blanket bombardment as fighting the good fight laughable
if you insist on viewing all of the bounds on george w bush the man to be insufficient to filter out his point of view from the actions of the united states, pray tell, what glorious form of government have you thought up that is superior to democracy that satisfies your paranoid schizophrenia?
Hmm...Constitutional republic seemed to be working pretty well for a while there.
Do you get your Microsoft check weekly, monthly or by the word
Just because somebody says something you don't like about Linux doesn't automatically make them a Microsoft flunky. I'm no C2 expert, but I do know enough about InfoSec to know that when it comes to industry-grade security, your stand Linux distro doesn't make the cut.
But that's Ok. It's not supposed to.
Like Windows and OS X, Linux is a consumer product. As such its primary strengths lie in its stability, usability and inter-operability, not necessarily in its security
Canada claims full ownership of all the seas in the area up to its usual (and accepted) 200-mile limit, as well as full ownership of any sea ice extending northward from it's cost to the North Pole (since, in its opinion, sea ice is effectively land).
Obviously, somebody in Ottawa ain't sharin'!
International law establishes, and the United States recognizes, 12 nm (nautical miles) as sovereign territory (note, this is true even of nations that don't claim the full 12 nm). Anything beyond that is international waters, and is treated as such.
yeah, but if you need to prevent this sort of thing from happening to keep your planes/boats/trucks up and running, then its worth looking into solutions.
Can you say New Arms Race?!
And just when the feds were running out of reasons to tax us into oblivion. How very convenient
However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.
Not only is it permissible, that very possibility is an integral aspect of our form of government.
From the Declaration of Independance:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing the inherant, inalienable rights of all men], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I find it bizarre that everyone cries foul over Nazi flags and all, whereas many southern US states still have their confederate flag as the official state flag.. they don't seem all that different to me.
Of the 12 states that comprised the Confederate States of America (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia), only two incorporate the St Andrew's Cross in their state flag (Georgia and Mississippi), and only in the Mississippi state flag is it prominently displayed.
As to the assertion that the Confederate flag is symbolic of slavery, while this is popular rhetoric amoung the Left, it bears little semblance to historical accuracy. Slavery was in no way unique to the South. Indeed it was practiced by both sides throughout the duration of the Civil War.
The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.
> How big would the registry on a windows box grow if you put 10,000 apps and 1,000,000 users on it?
>
> It would be trivial to do this for a Linux box, as long as you had a couple of Terrabytes of disk space...
> Of course, I'm not saying you let more than a hundred users on the system at the same time, but still,
> you can do it if you want to...
>
> Anyone tried this kind of stress testing on a windows box before?
Don't know about Win2k/XP, but NT4 tops out at about 50 concurrent users
This whole argument is ridiculous, and it's a tribute to the utterly laughable state of the justice system on MULTIPLE fronts that they let stuff like this go forward. Just because it is software and CAN be duplicated DOESN'T mean it will be or MUST be, and the courts seem to operate on the worst case assumption rather than benefit of the doubt.
Let me see if I've got this right. The DOJ is at fault because Microsoft engages in questionable licensing practices?
Seems to me there's a pretty simple solution. You don't like the terms of the license, don't purchase the software. Enough folks do that, Microsoft will be forced to either change the license or lose their business.
Or, if it really bothers you so much, file a law suit yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the license grants them that right. If the copyright holder doesn't want others to profit from their work, then they shouldn't distribute the product under a license that permits them to do so.
Since the license does permit others to profit from the work of the Mozilla Foundation, then the profit can hardly be said to be undeserved.
If the buyer and the seller reach a mutually agreeable price for the product (and the seller has the right to sell the product), why is the profit undeserved?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm glad to see at least some people get it!
Sexual orientation is no less a physical trait than skin color or eye color. I don't know why some people have so much difficulty accepting that.
Seems the Bush Administration doesn't see things that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_th
In effect, the Bush Administration asserts that any legislation related to foreign policy or national defense is advisory in nature, and that the president is free to ignore it if he deems it necessary in the execution of his duties as commander-in-chief.
Considering that he also holds that the judiciary (i.e., the Supreme Court) has no authority to review presidential decisions related to foreign policy or national security, it should be interesting to see what happens if this ends up going to court.
While it may seem like nitpicking, there is a fundamental difference between a constitutional republic and a pure democracy. Under a constitutional republic, the will of the majority is tempered by respect for the fundamental rights of the individual (including the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Unrestrained democracy is simply populism. The suspension of habeus corpus during the civil war, the internment of Japanese and Italian-Americans during World War II and McCarthyism were all supported by the majority of the electorate.
I fail to see how an unprovoked act of aggression against a sovereign nation will make the world a safer place (never mind that Congress, the only institution within the federal government authorized to do so, has yet to declare a state of war). If anything, it establishes a dangerous precedent for other nations that may be inclined to take similiar measures against those they view as threats (Russia v. Chechnya, China v. Taiwan, Lebanon v. Israel)
You and I, sir, apparently have very different ideas of what constitutes progress
It is precisely due to the fact that I do not lack a conscience that a speak out against the federal government's continuing match toward empire and tyranny.
Quite frankly, I find the idea of the United States, with her stealth fighters and daisy cutters engaging in indiscriminate blanket bombardment as fighting the good fight laughable
Hmm...Constitutional republic seemed to be working pretty well for a while there.
I'm guessing that you're not launching Hellfire AGM's at Barbie's minivan.
Just because somebody says something you don't like about Linux doesn't automatically make them a Microsoft flunky. I'm no C2 expert, but I do know enough about InfoSec to know that when it comes to industry-grade security, your stand Linux distro doesn't make the cut.
But that's Ok. It's not supposed to.
Like Windows and OS X, Linux is a consumer product. As such its primary strengths lie in its stability, usability and inter-operability, not necessarily in its security
Correction: this is going to cost the US tax payer a lot
Obviously, somebody in Ottawa ain't sharin'!
International law establishes, and the United States recognizes, 12 nm (nautical miles) as sovereign territory (note, this is true even of nations that don't claim the full 12 nm). Anything beyond that is international waters, and is treated as such.
Can you say New Arms Race?!
And just when the feds were running out of reasons to tax us into oblivion. How very convenient
Not only is it permissible, that very possibility is an integral aspect of our form of government.
From the Declaration of Independance:
Of the 12 states that comprised the Confederate States of America (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia), only two incorporate the St Andrew's Cross in their state flag (Georgia and Mississippi), and only in the Mississippi state flag is it prominently displayed.
As to the assertion that the Confederate flag is symbolic of slavery, while this is popular rhetoric amoung the Left, it bears little semblance to historical accuracy. Slavery was in no way unique to the South. Indeed it was practiced by both sides throughout the duration of the Civil War.
The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.
> How big would the registry on a windows box grow if you put 10,000 apps and 1,000,000 users on it?
>
> It would be trivial to do this for a Linux box, as long as you had a couple of Terrabytes of disk space...
> Of course, I'm not saying you let more than a hundred users on the system at the same time, but still,
> you can do it if you want to...
>
> Anyone tried this kind of stress testing on a windows box before?
Don't know about Win2k/XP, but NT4 tops out at about 50 concurrent users
Let me see if I've got this right. The DOJ is at fault because Microsoft engages in questionable licensing practices?
Seems to me there's a pretty simple solution. You don't like the terms of the license, don't purchase the software. Enough folks do that, Microsoft will be forced to either change the license or lose their business.
Or, if it really bothers you so much, file a law suit yourself.