I do that in VB on occasion, mostly because whenever I'm working in VB I want to cry.
That and I've proven true=false using not statements in VB, and other assorted bullshit. Because of this bad experience I always use the construct you mentioned.
I'll attempt to be coherent, but I just finished a long day of coding so I won't promise anything.
The GPL exists by using codified copyright law to grant you all the rights you normally get (the ability to use the software, make parodies etc), then it states your allowed to redistribute under certain terms.
This is akin to me forming a contract with you stating "here is my code, you're allowed to do whatever you want with it so long as you don't claim it's yours" This is basic contract law, and no lawyer (well except SCO) would even attempt to balk at it.
It is sometimes asked how is the GPL enforced? Well the thing is it doesn't need to be. The only way you can violate the GPL is by violating copyright law (since the only way to redistribute the work is under the GPL), so one simply has to take the other party to cort for a copyright violation. Anyway, I digress.
I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?
When it comes to DRM the situation changes radically. The copyright holder is claiming far more rights than he has under copyright law at the direct expense of the consumers rights. The thing is the RIAA(insert large copyright group) is a lobying group, not a goverment agencey. The basis for these rights grabs are pretty much fictional. Some of the rights being claimed (especially coupled with the DMCA) are irrevocable in such a way that it breaks the public domain. All of these end up equalling a net loss for everyone (with the exception of a temporary gain for the producers).
Also, in a world where "Trustworthy computing" is obiquitous (sp?) it becomes impossible to use a general purpose turning machine (a computer) as one. The reasons computers have taken off so far is everyone can create content for them, removing that ability you simply have an interactive television.
Um, that explination wasn't very good. I might try to fill in any blanks I left (I'm sure there are many) after I've had some sleep.
I'm failing to see the connection between what I said and the GPL. I'd be happy to argue the point with you, but I'm just not understanding what your getting at.
Could you explain what you mean when comparing the rights granted through GPL and the rights that are inherently given to producers by using DRM (especially under the DMCA).
I think the reason I'm having a problem is the GPL does nothing but grant me the right to copy under limited conditions. DRM is intended to lock my useage in ways the copyright holder has no buisness attempting without some significant contract law upholding his newfound rights. Not to mention that under the DMCA these new 'copyright rights' are perpetual and can never be revoked if a file is encrypted under a DRM scheme.
How did this get modded informative? The guy made a simple capitalization error that took two seconds for anyone with a brain and a CS degree to fix in their head.
The only way to think otherwise is to believe that tons of uber-geniuses are somehow found and snatched up before they ever publish any good work. Pretty unlikely, if you ask me.
We seemed to do a pretty good job of it in WWII, I see no reason to expect things are different now.
No, it's not. It's up to the seller, dude. It's the package they want to sell you. If their package is a CD with 12 songs on it, then you have no "right" to demand you only get one song.
Excuse me? They seem to be claiming a right to my money, I have as much right to put limits on in what ways I'm willing to give it to them.
It's a trade. It's only all or nothing if they don't want my buisness.
And your analogy sucked. There are millions of copies of songs all made for virtually free, there is only one picasso.
So at 21 I should hate everything on the dial even though I seem to have fairly 'normal' music tastes for my age group?
That seems a bit strange. It also seems like a really poor marketing strategy, since I have about $100/month I could dispose on CD's if I were so inclined. I didn't have that at 15.
Slashdot Mirror
So you really think your personal beliefs about abortion and gun control are determined by your party affiliation?
Wow.
Yeah, you wouldn't get along with a liberal at all.
Yes, the legal advice of a random person on slashdot clearly trumps the legal advice of a real lawyer.
Yeah that was subtle. If you looked the queries were drastically different between the search engines.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide why that was done.
*cough, astroturf*
Yeah no, double infection is not cool.
What part about that was athiest?
It was simply anti-stupidity.
Largers brew at almost refrigerator temperatures.
Ales brew at "room temp" or so.
The best example I can think of is trees (any of the decent kinds) vs skiplists in actual code.
Skiplists will always win out in my mind because they are easier to impliment, profile, and maintain.
Also, trees seem to be a topic that confuse a lot of people. Writing code that people can't understand in a professional setting is bad.
I do that in VB on occasion, mostly because whenever I'm working in VB I want to cry.
That and I've proven true=false using not statements in VB, and other assorted bullshit. Because of this bad experience I always use the construct you mentioned.
The language really does suck that much...
Well, login doesn't get remote rooted often does it?
There's a difference there.
Why? Because when someone strange sits down at my machine I don't want them freaking out.
I've also never found any benefit from more advanced "window managers." Give me a virtual pager and I'm set.
Unless, of course, smartness is measured independent of knowledge.
Best.... post.... ever.
What?
Did you just pull a number from your ass?
It doesn't limit the power of the federal government in that article in any way, it simply grants it rights.
I'll attempt to be coherent, but I just finished a long day of coding so I won't promise anything.
The GPL exists by using codified copyright law to grant you all the rights you normally get (the ability to use the software, make parodies etc), then it states your allowed to redistribute under certain terms.
This is akin to me forming a contract with you stating "here is my code, you're allowed to do whatever you want with it so long as you don't claim it's yours" This is basic contract law, and no lawyer (well except SCO) would even attempt to balk at it.
It is sometimes asked how is the GPL enforced? Well the thing is it doesn't need to be. The only way you can violate the GPL is by violating copyright law (since the only way to redistribute the work is under the GPL), so one simply has to take the other party to cort for a copyright violation. Anyway, I digress.
I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?
When it comes to DRM the situation changes radically. The copyright holder is claiming far more rights than he has under copyright law at the direct expense of the consumers rights. The thing is the RIAA(insert large copyright group) is a lobying group, not a goverment agencey. The basis for these rights grabs are pretty much fictional. Some of the rights being claimed (especially coupled with the DMCA) are irrevocable in such a way that it breaks the public domain. All of these end up equalling a net loss for everyone (with the exception of a temporary gain for the producers).
Also, in a world where "Trustworthy computing" is obiquitous (sp?) it becomes impossible to use a general purpose turning machine (a computer) as one. The reasons computers have taken off so far is everyone can create content for them, removing that ability you simply have an interactive television.
Um, that explination wasn't very good. I might try to fill in any blanks I left (I'm sure there are many) after I've had some sleep.
I'm failing to see the connection between what I said and the GPL. I'd be happy to argue the point with you, but I'm just not understanding what your getting at.
Could you explain what you mean when comparing the rights granted through GPL and the rights that are inherently given to producers by using DRM (especially under the DMCA).
I think the reason I'm having a problem is the GPL does nothing but grant me the right to copy under limited conditions. DRM is intended to lock my useage in ways the copyright holder has no buisness attempting without some significant contract law upholding his newfound rights. Not to mention that under the DMCA these new 'copyright rights' are perpetual and can never be revoked if a file is encrypted under a DRM scheme.
Copyright doesn't grant you anything resembling the rights granted by DRM.
Assuming it does is philisophically/economically/legally bankrupt.
Yet we accept $130 office visits so the doctors can afford malpractice insurance.
Pick a sane example, thanks.
How did this get modded informative? The guy made a simple capitalization error that took two seconds for anyone with a brain and a CS degree to fix in their head.
Hint: s/N/n/g
H2O will kill you without minerals. The cost of reconstituting it would be insane.
I don't know, my canon can't take more video with more space on the CF card. It holds the entire video in ram then writes it after I'm done recording.
It really does suck considerable ass.
Thank goodness I never wanted that feature on my camera anyway.
And the enigma project, and the german counterpart. Along with several projects we probably don't even know about.
The only way to think otherwise is to believe that tons of uber-geniuses are somehow found and snatched up before they ever publish any good work. Pretty unlikely, if you ask me.
We seemed to do a pretty good job of it in WWII, I see no reason to expect things are different now.
Right, but Israel has their own NSA.
I'm saying the two crypto teams are at the same level.
And we are quite a bit behind them.
I would doubt it. If your willing to spend a few million yearly keeping top tier researchers on your payroll, it's not all that hard.
Though I doubt the gap between the NSA and other crypto teams is huge, I am positive the difference between the crypto teams and pgp is a joke.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they can crack pgp in real time.
No, it's not. It's up to the seller, dude. It's the package they want to sell you. If their package is a CD with 12 songs on it, then you have no "right" to demand you only get one song.
Excuse me? They seem to be claiming a right to my money, I have as much right to put limits on in what ways I'm willing to give it to them.
It's a trade. It's only all or nothing if they don't want my buisness.
And your analogy sucked. There are millions of copies of songs all made for virtually free, there is only one picasso.
So at 21 I should hate everything on the dial even though I seem to have fairly 'normal' music tastes for my age group?
That seems a bit strange. It also seems like a really poor marketing strategy, since I have about $100/month I could dispose on CD's if I were so inclined. I didn't have that at 15.