Everyone treats the internet like laws can't apply, but were the laws reasonable there would be no problem. Take copyright for example - if copyright law were written in such a way that noncommercial use of a work would automatically be non-infringeing, there would be no problem.
IMO, anyone who believes that P2P really costs artists money has not given much thought to the matter. Clearly, if I've never heard of you I'm not going to buy your CD or book.
Plagairism is another matter entirely; it should be severely punished.
Why? To try and ensure a *minimum* of care. *ALL* children receive it, via their parents, from the state. Because that's not the governments job! Look around you. Anything the government does is done poorly or uses far more resources than required. I believe all children should be cared for and educated. The best way to do that is avoid government services altogether.
Or perhaps you are saying that all parents who receive money from the government take care of their children?
Am I right to surmise that's another American expression with which I am unfamiliar, roughly equivalent to the contemporary British colloquial usage "twat" or "arsehole"? No one said collectivist immoral incompetents couldn't be clever. Well done! Be sure to collect your government check.
Thank you for your mild derision, I know it must have taken a great deal of self-control, but I stand by my assertion. Child benefit, umemployment benefit, whatever... Why should anyone receive a government benefit for having children?
Before you bring up dependent tax credits in the US, I don't believe in those either. So why do blind people get a credit? Better lobbyists than the deaf people? I guess the morons (clinical use of the word) are just SOL!
Collectivism breeds corruption and incompetence. This whole episode just proves my point.
You want worse than that? Take a step back... If 25 million records were lost and the entire population of the UK is 60 million, that means darn near half the population is "on the dole."
I think that fact is significantly more important than some silly old data leak...
Ahem... I didn't say UnixWare was NetWare, I said it ran under UnixWare. Kinda like the product the article refers to, so yeah, we did see that 10+ years ago. History is fine but reading is fundamental!;)
Mods must be kids. The org post was a joke. They did sell a NetWare that ran under UNIX. It was their UNIX, called UNIXWare. It was ten + years ago. It was the product that got Norda ousted. Learn your history folks!
Obsolete? It's been obsolete ever since Windows 3.0. What killed NetWare was their bloated Windows client. That's when Microsoft came in and ate their lunch.
The same thing happened with Word Perfect. They, too, couldn't manage the transition to Windows in a timely manner. Microsoft Word was pure joy compared to Word Perfect for Windows v1
I actually had an account with an ID of around 300. But I moved providers and lost the password...
I was in the same boat, but had to have my original UID. I sent an email or two, promised to subscribe (which I did), and badda-bing, got my old UID back! Ya just gotta sweet talk them... And spend money...
Face it, no matter how secure your little bit of code is, if the SYSTEM is vulnerable, your little bit of code is vulnerable.
No way, baby! Larry did his homework! That PlaySound API is rock solid!
Um, did anybody else notice that the PlaySound API doesn't actually play any sounds? It just passes data to the APIs that actually do play sounds. So WTF does the PlaySound API do, really? To me, it doesn't really do anything at all...
(messed it up good too that way too; lesson learned- never fool around with files you don't understand).
Wow, I learned that back in the DOS days... It prompted me to understand the files! (Of course, there was a consultant that was pretty pissed with me...)
According to the bankruptcy filing there are only 402 stockholders. Not likely to be many from the mom and pop group in there. A few slow-witted mutual funds will get hit. Most of the stock was to the corporate officers. The suspicion for some time is that they were buying and selling it from each other to try to keep the price up over a dollar.
So be sure to pick up a share or two (for less than the price of a pack of gum) so you too can be a member of a class action down the road!;)
Is it really that hard to understand? Go back and read the terms of the BSD. Understand that if the BSD license does not explicitly give you a right, you don't have it and that right is protected by LAW. And since the BSD license does not allow you to relicense I think your claims are pretty well sunk, so my retort was apt. You are in fact wrong.
Hey genius. Let me refer you back to the statement you called me out on:
Nitpick: They are required by license, not law. Do not make the mistake of making license terms equal to law, they are not. Any license term may be declared unconscionable and therefore meaningless. (Not to say that applies in this case...)
To review: It's not law, it's license. Implied: To violate the license may result in violation of law (or maybe not... That's up to a judge.) Hammer: Not to say that applies in this case.
And yes, the BSD license allows you to alter the license by which you redistribute (with certain limitations). If you don't believe me, try distributing MS's TCPIP stack and see what Bill has to say. If I can take BSD code proprietary, is that not a change in redistribution license by other than the copyright holder?
Go peddle your papers, kid. Your mom's going to want you home for dinner.
No. You are wrong. You cannot by LAW alter the license terms of something that you do not hold the copyright on.
What a smart retort! (ahem)...
Here's a scenario whereby I can alter the license terms of something I do not hold the copyright on...
"Anyone wishing to redistribute this Slashdot post may do so under any circumstances and/or license they see fit without restriction."
Would you agree that is a valid exception to your statement? Considering the discussion is directly related to the altering of a license for distribution by a party that does not hold the copyright, e.g. Microsoft changing the license of BSD networking code used for Windows, I'd say you are mistaken.
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...
They are required by law to not alter the license.
Nitpick: They are required by license, not law. Do not make the mistake of making license terms equal to law, they are not. Any license term may be declared unconscionable and therefore meaningless. (Not to say that applies in this case...)
I seem to remember from multiple Groklaw posts that Linux is just chock full 'o BSD code anyway. Why would this code be any different? Is the attribution requirement of the BSD license really a GPL killer? If so, Linux is apparently already in deep doodoo. Not to say any existing BSD code in Linux has already had the atribution removed, but since GPL doesn't require maintaining the attribution, wouldn't that make BSD and GPL incompatible?
As long as you kept your mouth shut, how would they know? I mean, it works the way it's supposed to... You could gather all kinds of interesting info and no one would have any reason to know you sniffed it...
In fact, it might be pretty scary seeing what's coming in/ going out a Tor exit node. Think of who might use Tor besides clueless diplomats?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe nobody has cracked a "Mr. Fusion" joke yet...
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..."
Just what we need... MUMPS for Linux. No!!!!!
Help me close this barn door, would ya?
Back in the day it was a veritable rag.
Yesterday?
Everyone treats the internet like laws can't apply, but were the laws reasonable there would be no problem. Take copyright for example - if copyright law were written in such a way that noncommercial use of a work would automatically be non-infringeing, there would be no problem.
IMO, anyone who believes that P2P really costs artists money has not given much thought to the matter. Clearly, if I've never heard of you I'm not going to buy your CD or book.
Plagairism is another matter entirely; it should be severely punished.
-pegr
I thought Windows was already cracked.... /oblig. Sorry, somebody had to say it...
Because that's not the governments job! Look around you. Anything the government does is done poorly or uses far more resources than required. I believe all children should be cared for and educated. The best way to do that is avoid government services altogether.
Or perhaps you are saying that all parents who receive money from the government take care of their children?
No one said collectivist immoral incompetents couldn't be clever. Well done! Be sure to collect your government check.
Thank you for your mild derision, I know it must have taken a great deal of self-control, but I stand by my assertion. Child benefit, umemployment benefit, whatever... Why should anyone receive a government benefit for having children?
Before you bring up dependent tax credits in the US, I don't believe in those either. So why do blind people get a credit? Better lobbyists than the deaf people? I guess the morons (clinical use of the word) are just SOL!
Collectivism breeds corruption and incompetence. This whole episode just proves my point.
(Why, yes, I am a Randian Libertarian.)
You want worse than that? Take a step back... If 25 million records were lost and the entire population of the UK is 60 million, that means darn near half the population is "on the dole."
I think that fact is significantly more important than some silly old data leak...
Ahem... I didn't say UnixWare was NetWare, I said it ran under UnixWare. Kinda like the product the article refers to, so yeah, we did see that 10+ years ago. History is fine but reading is fundamental! ;)
Mods must be kids. The org post was a joke. They did sell a NetWare that ran under UNIX. It was their UNIX, called UNIXWare. It was ten + years ago. It was the product that got Norda ousted. Learn your history folks!
Obsolete? It's been obsolete ever since Windows 3.0. What killed NetWare was their bloated Windows client. That's when Microsoft came in and ate their lunch.
The same thing happened with Word Perfect. They, too, couldn't manage the transition to Windows in a timely manner. Microsoft Word was pure joy compared to Word Perfect for Windows v1
I could have sworn they sold this product ten years ago...
I actually had an account with an ID of around 300. But I moved providers and lost the password...
I was in the same boat, but had to have my original UID. I sent an email or two, promised to subscribe (which I did), and badda-bing, got my old UID back! Ya just gotta sweet talk them... And spend money...
Face it, no matter how secure your little bit of code is, if the SYSTEM is vulnerable, your little bit of code is vulnerable.
No way, baby! Larry did his homework! That PlaySound API is rock solid!
Um, did anybody else notice that the PlaySound API doesn't actually play any sounds? It just passes data to the APIs that actually do play sounds. So WTF does the PlaySound API do, really? To me, it doesn't really do anything at all...
(messed it up good too that way too; lesson learned- never fool around with files you don't understand).
Wow, I learned that back in the DOS days... It prompted me to understand the files! (Of course, there was a consultant that was pretty pissed with me...)
...but this is only a valid answer in some parallel universe.
I have no idea. I didn't want to change the outcome of the article by reading it...
According to the bankruptcy filing there are only 402 stockholders. Not likely to be many from the mom and pop group in there.
;)
A few slow-witted mutual funds will get hit. Most of the stock was to the corporate officers. The suspicion for some time is that they were buying and selling it from each other to try to keep the price up over a dollar.
So be sure to pick up a share or two (for less than the price of a pack of gum) so you too can be a member of a class action down the road!
Is it really that hard to understand? Go back and read the terms of the BSD. Understand that if the BSD license does not explicitly give you a right, you don't have it and that right is protected by LAW. And since the BSD license does not allow you to relicense I think your claims are pretty well sunk, so my retort was apt. You are in fact wrong.
Hey genius. Let me refer you back to the statement you called me out on:
Nitpick: They are required by license, not law. Do not make the mistake of making license terms equal to law, they are not. Any license term may be declared unconscionable and therefore meaningless. (Not to say that applies in this case...)
To review: It's not law, it's license.
Implied: To violate the license may result in violation of law (or maybe not... That's up to a judge.)
Hammer: Not to say that applies in this case.
And yes, the BSD license allows you to alter the license by which you redistribute (with certain limitations). If you don't believe me, try distributing MS's TCPIP stack and see what Bill has to say. If I can take BSD code proprietary, is that not a change in redistribution license by other than the copyright holder?
Go peddle your papers, kid. Your mom's going to want you home for dinner.
No. You are wrong. You cannot by LAW alter the license terms of something that you do not hold the copyright on.
What a smart retort! (ahem)...
Here's a scenario whereby I can alter the license terms of something I do not hold the copyright on...
"Anyone wishing to redistribute this Slashdot post may do so under any circumstances and/or license they see fit without restriction."
Would you agree that is a valid exception to your statement? Considering the discussion is directly related to the altering of a license for distribution by a party that does not hold the copyright, e.g. Microsoft changing the license of BSD networking code used for Windows, I'd say you are mistaken.
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...
They are required by law to not alter the license.
Nitpick: They are required by license, not law. Do not make the mistake of making license terms equal to law, they are not. Any license term may be declared unconscionable and therefore meaningless. (Not to say that applies in this case...)
I seem to remember from multiple Groklaw posts that Linux is just chock full 'o BSD code anyway. Why would this code be any different? Is the attribution requirement of the BSD license really a GPL killer? If so, Linux is apparently already in deep doodoo. Not to say any existing BSD code in Linux has already had the atribution removed, but since GPL doesn't require maintaining the attribution, wouldn't that make BSD and GPL incompatible?
That would weed out all those unethical assholes in IT.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I can read your email...
As long as you kept your mouth shut, how would they know? I mean, it works the way it's supposed to... You could gather all kinds of interesting info and no one would have any reason to know you sniffed it...
In fact, it might be pretty scary seeing what's coming in/ going out a Tor exit node. Think of who might use Tor besides clueless diplomats?