Your intuitive understanding of the speed of USB is wrong because the thumb drives you have used are most likely USB 1.1, and they're most likely flash based.
There's these things called clouds right, and they obscure the thing called the Sun which the solar power comes from.. and, as such, no two days are the same.
This is kinda typical of RMS. He's said plenty of times that he has no problem with dual licensing of GPL software, but then he goes and says something like this.. sometimes his opinions are clear and direct, other times, like this, he manages to hold two completely conflicting opinions at the same time and when people confront him about it he fails to explain.
Cause no matter how much the FSF might like to, they can't change the law, and the law says that only the copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement (strangely enough).
Ya know. In the GPLv3 that's no longer the case:
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Which got me thinking.. maybe that was the intent in the first place.. If you go read the relevant section of the GPLv2:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, See that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit? I'm pretty sure that a court would interpret that as "send me a CD-ROM please", not "you can get it from this URL".
Of course, that means any distribution of object code, even with corresponding source code, that wasn't on physical medium would have been against the GPL.. and I doubt that was the intent.
BTW, under the GPLv3 the appropriate clause for network distribution of object code forms is:
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. Or the peer-to-peer option of (e).
Which is one of the many reasons why the GPLv3 is so necessary. Things that were "adequate" in GPLv2 are just not today, as technology keeps moving forward.
I tell ya what, you go find yourself in that situation and *try* to sue them and see how far you get.
Even if they provide you with that "written offer" to provide source code under section 3(b) of the GPL version 2 and then subsequently refuse to give you the source code when you ask for it, you still can't sue them for breach of contract because you've made no consideration.
All that you can do is get the copyright holder to sue them for copyright violation because by failing to follow the terms of the license they have no permission to distribute the software.
I mailed the developers that they needed to distribute their modified SSH client and VNC source to be in compliance with the GPL license. Uhhh, dude, you're not the copyright holder, who have no right to say what they "need" to do. Find the copyright holder, tell them, if they want to do something about it, they will. Otherwise, suck it up.
From the same FAQ:
What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?
You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.
Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:
Ask a brit for the rundown but I'm under the impression that there's a pretty good end run around the whole "public money" problem.
There's a corporation that collects the money, and although they have special powers in law, they're not government employees.
It's not "compulsory" to register a television that you don't watch the BBC on, but you have to explain why you don't want to watch the BBC, and you have to allow an inspector into your house to prove that your tv is incapable of receiving the BBC.
And if rudeness is what it takes, I apologize, but it's worth it. Ok, fine, idiot - THINK.
Ya know what happens if an ISP blocks "Google and friends"? They get a phone call from every single one of their subscribers asking why they can't get to Google. If the ISP lies and claims that it isn't their fault? The customers say, yes, it is their fault, their friend with another ISP (or their connection at work) has no problem getting to Google. If the ISP still refuses to remove the block? The customers quit and go to another ISP.
You are living in a fantasy land.
And before you say "we have no choice of ISP here", that is your problem. Fix that and everything else will be fine. Sheesh.
it's a privilege which we the people grant to copyright holders Shya. If "we the people" can't take it away at will then it isn't a "privilege" that we "grant".
The only good thing that can be said about copyright is that most the time it isn't enforced.
Read what he said:
Once you put up a blog or small store, and it becomes popular, and you suddenly get a bill from a large provider who's not even your provider, saying you either pay, or they'll block all their customers from visiting you, you might get it. This is precisely what they have not said they were doing. Had they said such a thing, it would be trivial to show this was racketeering. And this is typical "the sky is falling" mania. Someone makes a false allegation and y'all jump around saying how bad the idea is, then when it is revealed that the allegation is false you continue to jump around saying how bad the idea is.
Slashdot Mirror
USB 2.0 has a maximum transfer rate of 480Mbps.
Which is 60MB/s.
5TB is 5120MB.
5120 / 60 = 85.333 seconds.
Your intuitive understanding of the speed of USB is wrong because the thumb drives you have used are most likely USB 1.1, and they're most likely flash based.
Blah. People threaten to sue you all the time in business. You just gotta roll with it. When it starts costing you money, they you worry about it.
You offer to settle once you have those numbers, not before.
Which is exactly why you should ignore legal threats.
"I'll see you in court then" is the only sensible response.
There's these things called clouds right, and they obscure the thing called the Sun which the solar power comes from.. and, as such, no two days are the same.
This is kinda typical of RMS. He's said plenty of times that he has no problem with dual licensing of GPL software, but then he goes and says something like this.. sometimes his opinions are clear and direct, other times, like this, he manages to hold two completely conflicting opinions at the same time and when people confront him about it he fails to explain.
Cause no matter how much the FSF might like to, they can't change the law, and the law says that only the copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement (strangely enough).
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Which got me thinking.. maybe that was the intent in the first place.. If you go read the relevant section of the GPLv2: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, See that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit? I'm pretty sure that a court would interpret that as "send me a CD-ROM please", not "you can get it from this URL".
Of course, that means any distribution of object code, even with corresponding source code, that wasn't on physical medium would have been against the GPL.. and I doubt that was the intent.
BTW, under the GPLv3 the appropriate clause for network distribution of object code forms is: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. Or the peer-to-peer option of (e).
Which is one of the many reasons why the GPLv3 is so necessary. Things that were "adequate" in GPLv2 are just not today, as technology keeps moving forward.
Well said.
Not only are you wrong, you're also on crack.
I tell ya what, you go find yourself in that situation and *try* to sue them and see how far you get.
Even if they provide you with that "written offer" to provide source code under section 3(b) of the GPL version 2 and then subsequently refuse to give you the source code when you ask for it, you still can't sue them for breach of contract because you've made no consideration.
All that you can do is get the copyright holder to sue them for copyright violation because by failing to follow the terms of the license they have no permission to distribute the software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
There ya go.
Looks to me like he demanded the source.
who take money from Microsoft and play anti-Linux FUD on the front page.
Thing is, most Slashdot users don't even see it.. thanks Adblock.
Well it sure isn't primate.
Blowhard.
Yeah! Stop being all cerebral and get back to breeding ya dirty apes.
Idiot.
Unless the hobbyist has millions of dollars lying around or a friendly donor with same, your question is academic.
Then you're fuckwits who can't even arrange for there to be competition. You deserve to be screwed.
You can't try to regulate what your masters can do.
Fix your telco industry.
Pretty funny when the best the fanbois can come up with is performance.
What next, security?
You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.
Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:
TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL
Heh, public money.
Ask a brit for the rundown but I'm under the impression that there's a pretty good end run around the whole "public money" problem.
There's a corporation that collects the money, and although they have special powers in law, they're not government employees.
It's not "compulsory" to register a television that you don't watch the BBC on, but you have to explain why you don't want to watch the BBC, and you have to allow an inspector into your house to prove that your tv is incapable of receiving the BBC.
Ya know what happens if an ISP blocks "Google and friends"? They get a phone call from every single one of their subscribers asking why they can't get to Google. If the ISP lies and claims that it isn't their fault? The customers say, yes, it is their fault, their friend with another ISP (or their connection at work) has no problem getting to Google. If the ISP still refuses to remove the block? The customers quit and go to another ISP.
You are living in a fantasy land.
And before you say "we have no choice of ISP here", that is your problem. Fix that and everything else will be fine. Sheesh.
You're kidding right?
The only good thing that can be said about copyright is that most the time it isn't enforced.