How does "looking for something to pin on someone you think is guilty" become "making people dissappear(sic)" exactly?
Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag". They've always worked on this premise, even in your precious United States. That's the culture of law enforcement. They're the "thin blue line" between civilization and chaos, remember.
That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.
It is a crazy opinion, and it has nothing to do with the case. If you say so.
So I should be able to breed anthrax in my home, just because I love growing anthrax bacteria? Yup.
How about if I'm just curious to know if I'm able to weaponize anthrax spores into a dry powder, so I just do it? Yup.
On a more everyday note, I guess it's OK for husbands to hold up a gun and threaten to kill their wife and kids if she leaves him, as long as in his mind he knows it's just a big joke. Hey, it's left field calling, they want their ball back.
Or what about if he just shoots and misses her? No harm, no foul, right? Queue "firing a gun into a crowd" argument.
Is it really so hard to understand? Freedom is better than security.
It's a crazy opinion these days, because everyone is so chicken shit, but until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes.
Yeah, exactly. If you were distributing software with unlicensed copies of Windows and MS sued you, the court couldn't order you to release the source code to your software. Or, at least, if they did then it would extremely strange and easy to overturn on appeal.
Get the head hunters to contact IT geeks every 6 to 8 months and offer absolutely plumb jobs. When you get em on the phone, "refresh their job details" and then tell them that plumb job is gone, but you'll keep an eye out for them.. just what salary range are you looking for? Oh, well, with your skills you should be getting paid a lot more than that.. etc.
What reasoning do I need to provide exactly? Can you show a single case, ever, where a court, anywhere, has forced a defendant to reveal their source code for failure to comply with a software license? No, didn't think so. So you're suggesting that something that is unprecedented in the entire history of copyright law is going to happen.
Just so we're on the same page here, are you saying that for distributing a derivative work without a license that the court is going to demand that you comply with a license, which you don't have? How's that work exactly? Maybe my suggestion that this would "bring you into compliance" was wrongly worded, and this confused you. This would not bring you into compliance, it would take your work out of the scope of the complaint. You may still be liable to the complainant for damages, and these may well include punitive damages, but it would simply be unlawful for the court to order you to comply with the license, as you are no longer are bound by it.
Meh, in copyright cases they just decide on the day. That goes for the legalities as much as the damages. Try to get a straight answer out of a lawyer on a copyright issue. "It depends" is the only advice they'll give you, other than "comply".
Well, settling it out of court for some large some of money would do that too, and is a lot more likely.
Maybe this is what Eben Moglen meant when he said:
Now, as usual, when you win a small tactical engagement that turns out to be a large strategic victory, you have to consolidate the gains, or the other side will take them back. So we are now moving into a period in which what we have to do is to consolidate the gains. We have to strengthen our own understanding about what our community can do.
Another way to come into compliance, if you were mixing proprietary code with GPL code, which isn't the case here, would be to remove the GPL code from your product and replace it with something else which you have a right to distribute.
Compensatory damages for open source projects is pretty easy to show. Just look at the prices open source companies charge for "commercial licenses". The claim can be made that by using the work without following the terms of the GPL the infringer is depriving the developers of similar revenues.
The application simply should not be able to cause a kernel fault.
Period.
I'm sure this happens at Microsoft. A bug gets reported that Excel 2007 is causing blue screens. The bug gets given to the Excel team, they look at the crash dump and find out that they are doing something that trips a bug in the kernel of Vista, and they change their code to work around the issue. Bug closed. Next time someone runs across the exact same issue, they do a workaround too. The bug in the kernel never gets fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
How does "looking for something to pin on someone you think is guilty" become "making people dissappear(sic)" exactly?
Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag". They've always worked on this premise, even in your precious United States. That's the culture of law enforcement. They're the "thin blue line" between civilization and chaos, remember.
That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.
NO U
Are you trying to suggest the police are different anywhere else?
The both end in 'd'. Get off my back. Christ.
Yes, perhaps our sense of the pedantic also differs.
Is it really so hard to understand? Freedom is better than security.
Yes, rhymes, thanks spell checker. And obviously, 'scared' rhymes with 'land' but maybe in your dialect of english it doesn't.
"Land of the scared" is not only more satirical but it also rhythms!
It's a crazy opinion these days, because everyone is so chicken shit, but until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes.
Yeah, exactly. If you were distributing software with unlicensed copies of Windows and MS sued you, the court couldn't order you to release the source code to your software. Or, at least, if they did then it would extremely strange and easy to overturn on appeal.
Get the head hunters to contact IT geeks every 6 to 8 months and offer absolutely plumb jobs. When you get em on the phone, "refresh their job details" and then tell them that plumb job is gone, but you'll keep an eye out for them.. just what salary range are you looking for? Oh, well, with your skills you should be getting paid a lot more than that.. etc.
What reasoning do I need to provide exactly? Can you show a single case, ever, where a court, anywhere, has forced a defendant to reveal their source code for failure to comply with a software license? No, didn't think so. So you're suggesting that something that is unprecedented in the entire history of copyright law is going to happen.
Just so we're on the same page here, are you saying that for distributing a derivative work without a license that the court is going to demand that you comply with a license, which you don't have? How's that work exactly? Maybe my suggestion that this would "bring you into compliance" was wrongly worded, and this confused you. This would not bring you into compliance, it would take your work out of the scope of the complaint. You may still be liable to the complainant for damages, and these may well include punitive damages, but it would simply be unlawful for the court to order you to comply with the license, as you are no longer are bound by it.
No, you wouldn't.
And this one time, at band camp, we argued about copyright and taxes and it was so cool.
Meh, in copyright cases they just decide on the day. That goes for the legalities as much as the damages. Try to get a straight answer out of a lawyer on a copyright issue. "It depends" is the only advice they'll give you, other than "comply".
Maybe this is what Eben Moglen meant when he said: Now, as usual, when you win a small tactical engagement that turns out to be a large strategic victory, you have to consolidate the gains, or the other side will take them back. So we are now moving into a period in which what we have to do is to consolidate the gains. We have to strengthen our own understanding about what our community can do.
Another way to come into compliance, if you were mixing proprietary code with GPL code, which isn't the case here, would be to remove the GPL code from your product and replace it with something else which you have a right to distribute.
Compensatory damages for open source projects is pretty easy to show. Just look at the prices open source companies charge for "commercial licenses". The claim can be made that by using the work without following the terms of the GPL the infringer is depriving the developers of similar revenues.
There's no cheap way to maintain a vacuum on earth.
All vacuum chambers are actively pumped, that means it costs money.
Check out Lexmark v. Static Control, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20030108_lexmark_v_static_control_components.pdf for an example of someone permanently losing their copyright for copyright abuse. As for the language being "unambiguous", that's for the court to decide.
Of course you did. You don't think they're going to pay you to do bug testing for them do you?
Uhhh no.
The application simply should not be able to cause a kernel fault.
Period.
I'm sure this happens at Microsoft. A bug gets reported that Excel 2007 is causing blue screens. The bug gets given to the Excel team, they look at the crash dump and find out that they are doing something that trips a bug in the kernel of Vista, and they change their code to work around the issue. Bug closed. Next time someone runs across the exact same issue, they do a workaround too. The bug in the kernel never gets fixed.
Here's a tip. If an application can cause a kernel fault, it's not the application that is broken.
I bought a Dell this year, it came with Office 2003.