Red Hat isn't selling a GPL product, they are selling a service. I think the OP's comment still applies - selling a GPL product isn't a wise business move.
Hold on there turbo. Your ecommerce transactions are still encrypted (with something much more secure than WEP). It's not like your CC is transmitted in clear text. It's no more insecure than buying something on a LAN like at work or on campus.
There are a lot of joke replies in this thread, but can we clarify something first? The news is not that positive! It's not AS BAD as the DMCA but there are still a lot of restrictions that Slashdotters would disagree with. E.g. Circumventing DRM to make private copies of sound recordings would become illegal. So for example, I can't use Hymn to strip the DRM off my iTMS songs and store them on a backup CD incase iTMS/Apple ever ceases to provide service.
And the purpose of a notice and notice system is to directly target P2P. From the FAQ:
Why is the government not instituting a "notice and takedown" regime for ISPs (as other countries have done)?
A "notice and takedown" regime typically requires an ISP to block access to material upon receipt of a notice from a rights holder that alleges such material to be infringing. The obligation to block access lies with the ISP whose facilities are being used to host the allegedly infringing material. Under Canadian law, the courts already have the ability to order the takedown of infringing material in appropriate cases. The bill will maintain this standard in accordance with Charter of Rights considerations.
A drawback of "notice and takedown"is that it typically applies only to materials posted on an ISP's facilities; it cannot cover peer-to-peer file sharing, arguably the most prevalent source of infringing material, since the files are actually located in the computers of the persons engaged in sharing. The proposed "notice and notice" regime will address peer-to-peer file sharing.
Only "intellectual property owners" think that they should have to put the effort to create something only once, then keep getting paid over and over for it everytime someone else makes a copy of it.
Wow. Programmers create intellectual property right? So programmers should only get paid for the first copy of the software they sell? Seems reasonable to me. A few man years of labour in exchange for $40 or so.
Bandwidth transfer exceeded. Anyone have a mirror?
Thanks.
Re:What I found interesting.
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Douglas Adams on agnostics:
People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
But it's not fair for us to put pressure on the PearPC developer to bring the lawsuit. Lawyers are expensive. There is a bit of Catch-22 in that.... he can't afford to defend the GPL because his product is under the GPL and hence won't make any serious money.
(Yeah, I'm sure someone will say you can make money with GPL code but let's be realistic... any of your customers can release the code for free if they like.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your source, please?
Red Hat isn't selling a GPL product, they are selling a service. I think the OP's comment still applies - selling a GPL product isn't a wise business move.
Ohh, I didn't know Ben Folds or Jack Johnson was on there. Thanks! Don't forget Wilco - lots of great Wilco stuff.
Hah, he suggested unplugging ourselves from the matrix! Haha!
Hold on there turbo. Your ecommerce transactions are still encrypted (with something much more secure than WEP). It's not like your CC is transmitted in clear text. It's no more insecure than buying something on a LAN like at work or on campus.
Well done, sir!
Wow, you guys are geniuses! I thought he was totally making that up out of his head, along with all the other real stories that are posted today.
I'm from Canada and I get it. Go Rhinos!
It slowly increases up to 2 GB.
Hah, indeed. That was my first thought too. Please elaborate my friend.
Or, just maybe, the voting populace is completely apathetic?
Copyright Reform FAQ
There are a lot of joke replies in this thread, but can we clarify something first? The news is not that positive! It's not AS BAD as the DMCA but there are still a lot of restrictions that Slashdotters would disagree with. E.g. Circumventing DRM to make private copies of sound recordings would become illegal. So for example, I can't use Hymn to strip the DRM off my iTMS songs and store them on a backup CD incase iTMS/Apple ever ceases to provide service.
Why is the government not instituting a "notice and takedown" regime for ISPs (as other countries have done)?
A "notice and takedown" regime typically requires an ISP to block access to material upon receipt of a notice from a rights holder that alleges such material to be infringing. The obligation to block access lies with the ISP whose facilities are being used to host the allegedly infringing material. Under Canadian law, the courts already have the ability to order the takedown of infringing material in appropriate cases. The bill will maintain this standard in accordance with Charter of Rights considerations. A drawback of "notice and takedown"is that it typically applies only to materials posted on an ISP's facilities; it cannot cover peer-to-peer file sharing, arguably the most prevalent source of infringing material, since the files are actually located in the computers of the persons engaged in sharing. The proposed "notice and notice" regime will address peer-to-peer file sharing.
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
Well, you won't be allowed to make a copy for your own purposes... say backup. That would become illegal.
Insightful?
Huh? I thought the Canadian health care system was way better than the American one. Well, at least for the common man.
Wow. Programmers create intellectual property right? So programmers should only get paid for the first copy of the software they sell? Seems reasonable to me. A few man years of labour in exchange for $40 or so.
I was going to go with DVDA - Digital Video Disc AWESEOME.
Thanks.
I like that: "If copyright infringement isn't theft, than CherryOS isn't stolen code."
(Yeah, I'm sure someone will say you can make money with GPL code but let's be realistic... any of your customers can release the code for free if they like.)