Blah blah blah? Not a very insightful or intelligent retort from someone so fond of labelling others "morons".
"The quarter from the limo line is pretty accurate isn't it?"
Not really, it's an needlessly sarcastic exaggeration, since Apple (or any corporation) isn't obliged to publicize the fact they're using the KHTML code base. As I said, technical superiority is rarely the driving factor behind people's choice of software, they go with what they know, and for most that means the Windows boxes they're familiar with from work. To kill proprietary software you have to get OSS to where its going to be used, which means exploiting every possible avenue into the corporate world; its a romantic notion that business is going to adopt OSS without seeing viable examples, but utterly wrong-headed. Yes, I'm thinking like a PR hack; its called "using their techniques against them", its the idea that inspired the L/GPL, and its a much more efficient way of winning hearts and minds than trying to bludgeon people with insults and sarcasm.
"Why are you so desperate to not only defend big corporations who do nothing for you, but also to be insulted for them by proxy?"
I'm not, I'm trying to be balanced about it by looking at this from more than one angle (sorry if "balance" is a foreign concept to you; you're probably too used to Fox news and wedge politics). What I said (and you've now failed to accurately comprehend twice) is that if nothing else, Apple is a good example of how a company can successfully shift their business model to one based on open source, nothing more, nothing less. Its saying "it can be done, here's proof"; turning that into "kissing Apple's ass" is an erroneous leap of logic, another misguided exaggeration, and says more about your prejudices and preconceptions than what I wrote*. If you aren't prepared to recognize reasonable examples of corporations getting on board the clue train (at least partially), then you're not applying any more thought than the Apple fanboys, and as an OSS advocate you're as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
I am fully aware Apple are only doing the bare minimum (as I have clearly said three times now, how many times does someone have to agree with you on a point before you get the message?), but it demonstrates amazing naivety to expect companies to do anything more than is specified in a license agreement; sorry to have to break it to you, but that's the way the world works. Rusin understands this and said so, what makes you think you're entitled to be more indignat than he is? After all, he's the one putting in the work...
I don't feel insulted on Apple's behalf, I just think that OSS advocates should be a little more pragmatic and try to see the bigger picture when considering what might make others want to adopt OSS, and just behave a little more professionally by not flying off the handle at the slightest provocation. l must remind you, you called me a "fucking moron", when I wasn't giving Apple any more credit than they're due. That is a baseless personal insult directed at me, and I would expect anyone to find that kind of language an insult and react accordingly (that is, dismiss you out of hand as an arrogant adolescent; that kind of behaviour helps OSS even less than Apple does). You are entitled to your anti-corporate philosophy, but that doesn't mean that pointing out that a benefit does exist makes me mindlessly pro-corporation. Life isn't "cowboys and indians"/"with us or against us", there are degrees of subtlety. But I'm guessing subtlety isn't your strong suit.
*"I notice you're using a computer, which most likely contains inexpensive parts mass produced by (OH NO!!) big corporations. If you are so strongly opposed to corporations, why do you maintain the hypocrisy of directly supporting them by continuing to use their products?" See, being deliberately misinterpreted and subjected to cliches is an insult to the intelligence, isn't it?
"Apple did nothing to help khtml, just forked their project. Is it that good for khtml devs? I doubt it."
So you think a few thousand ACs spewing vitriol on/. is going to be more effective at convincing business that open source is viable than a billion dollar company adopting it as the basis of a heavily publicized product? Dream on. Remember, Windows is only as popular as it is because it's what people use at work, it's what they know, so they use it at home. If you want wider adoption of OSS it has to make inroads into the business world so end users can actually see for themselves that it really is better; there are more factors to consider than just technical superiority (hence my sig).
"Is it evil to not help You? No. But is it nice? certainly not."
I didn't say Apple were being nice, just that they were doing what was required under the LGPL (echoing Rusin, in other words). Is that Apple's fault, or is the LGPL at fault for not being specific enough? Corporations have never done anything simply to be "nice", and Apple is no exception; what mental deficiency is causing people to think this has suddenly changed?
...civility costs nothing, and it helps generate the impression that you are a thinking human being.
"No, nothing here makes apple evil. Nobody said they are."
So the "quarter from the limo" line was really a compliment then? That sounded like a standard corporation bashing cliche to me, and I honestly don't think it was warranted under the circumstances given that the dev's gripe isn't with Apple as such.
"The point is that the KDE guys want morons to stop claiming that apple is wonderful and open source friendly..."
I for one made no such claim (that's one), and thank you, I did RTFBlog. However, I wasn't responding directly to the blog: the point that I was making is that if noisy members of the OSS community are going to respond with sarcastic rants (as the AC I was responding to did) when a company does meet it's obligations under the LGPL, then all OSS supporters are going to be tarred with the same lunatic brush and ignored. Frankly, I don't see irrational over-reactions being in any way productive or helpful to the wider acceptance of OSS; they certainly doesn't reflect well on the intellect or maturity of the person making the comments.
If you had read past my first paragraph rather than irrationally over-reacting, you'd find I actually agree with Rusin: that's what I meant when I (mis)typed "meaningful reciprocity". Apologies if my polysyllabism resulted in a lack of comprehension on your part, or my verbosity exceeded your capacity for concentration (I don't wish to cause offence, hence the need for obscurity).
"They don't want anything from apple..."
I never said they did (that's two. Who needs to learn to read, and who's a what now?). The AC's implication was that Apple have added nothing of value to KHTML beyond "a handful of press releases", or should be doing more than they're obliged to under the LGPL. Considering Apple's reputation for being industry leaders (deserved or not), I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the benefit to the credibility in business for KHTML (and OSS in general) of being chosen as their code base. You may not think credibility is as important as technical superiority (I don't), but a world of Windows users obviously disagree; when a multi-billion dollar company adopts a piece of software not just for internal use but as the basis of a highly publicized product, other companies tend to sit up and take notice. I'm not claiming Apple are the first to adopt OSS (far from it), I'm just saying they are the most visible consumer machine supplier, and as such really are a showcase of ways of using OSS in a multitude of business roles.
"...they want morons to stop spreading lies."
The difference between a moron and a liar is that the moron is genuinely misinformed, while being a liar takes real cunning. Choose one.
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of what a torrent file actually is (and I'm happy admit I'm wrong, since I don't actually use the software myself and haven't looked at a torrent in a hex editor). Taking your word as gospel, a torrent isn't the same content, it's merely a method of verifying the identity of a linked file fragment, so it's no more infringement than a website linking to an instance of a work (and they never get taken down, do they?).
That said, I was responding to Valiss' comment:
"...in the respect that what I download is a.torrent file, not a.mpg/mp3/whatever".
That's all well and good in theory, but I very much doubt people download torrents just to look at them in hex editors; at some point the file is probably going to be downloaded, and that is traceable. The most likely scenario here is that the ISPs/law enforcement have been monitoring traffic related to the torrent files that have been downloaded (and in the process eliminated files that are legally distributed on BT, if only to stop themselves looking like complete idiots before a judge). I suspect that the "all they downloaded was a torrent" line is a glib oversimplification of what evidence has actually been gathered.
"...if apple are purposely making it hard to understand the source which they are, by making changes and not posting revisions..."
Which is totally incorrect (RTFA), they are posting revisions, just as large wads of code that the KHTML maintainers find difficult to examine. That's annoying, but it's a far cry from impinging on anyone's freedom, and certainly isn't a violation of the LGPL. But just don't take my word for it, you might want to start looking here http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/
"Its all about freedom not just sticking to the letter of a license."
It might be for you, but I'm guessing you're not a multi-billion dollar company with a legal obligation to avoid decisions that are detrimental to its shareholders. For a company (which unlike an individual has no inherent moral values or beliefs), it is the letter of the license that matters since not only can the philosophy of management change, but the management themselves can be replaced. Under those circumstances you don't try to double-guess what someone was thinking when a license was accepted, you have to go by what is actually written down because that's the part that is legally enforcable.
The whole point of the written LGPL is to specify exactly the restrictions and obligations for using certain software. Apple are meeting those obligations. If this doesn't suit you then don't advocate the LGPL, and don't bitch that the license doesn't meet your expectations; you are perfectly free to write a license that does suit your philosophy and spells it out exactly so there is no mistake about intent.
"Are we supposed to bow before their nobility and thank them profusely for the quarter they tossed into our collection bowl from the window of their limo?"
So you're saying that people who willingly put their time into developing free software knowing full well that they aren't going to be paid for their effort deserve more than they actually asked for in the license agreement, and that somehow makes Apple evil?
Yes, Safari is not KHTML, it's a fork based on a common code base (which is a rather obvious result of Safari using native OS X APIs I would have thought), and although Rusin has a good point about the impenatrability of large slabs of code (and the grandparent poster is indeed an idiot for not understanding this), Apple are nonetheless fulfilling their legal obligations as Rusin himself mentions. Its just shows why you need to be careful what you ask for and how you ask for it; assuming you're going to get anything more is simply naive.
And I think you have missed a critical point: Apple do not exist to advertise other people's wares. The fact that they advertise an association with KHTML is not really an advantage for Apple, since Apple users tend to care less (a lot less) about proprietary software than Linux users, and will tend to stick with what is most convenient. OSS benefits more: its an example to business that open source code is of considerable quality and can be used to add value to a commercial product without necessarily sacrificing a competitive advantage (and I'd point out the LGPL is written to allow this). This advantage for the wider OSS community will be lost if the message is drowned out by whining about how companies adopting OSS as a code base don't do more than the license specifies: those companies will be reluctant to adopt OSS if they fear a backlash that isn't based on any written condition (and therefore isn't predictable). You have to remember that the bulk of people who make the critical decisions are more aware of politics than they are of coding...
I'm not saying that Rasin's view isn't justified, or that he isn't completely right about Apple's lack of meningful reciprocity, just that over-reacting to these things is potentially very damaging politically (in other words, it really does make OSS advocates look like a bunch of inconsistant cranks). So rather than blaming Apple for abiding by the terms of the license (albeit minimally), perhaps it might be better to blame the wording of the license as not being specific enough about making source code usable?
"So how can they say these people have the files when all they downloaded was a torrent?"
You're confusing the container with the content. A torrent isn't the same container as the original MPEG file, but it has the same content: a torrent of Spiderman 2 contains exactly the same movie as the MPEG, the bits just happen to be arranged differently. Stop thinking in terms of file formats and consider of what reaches the human brain (and no, minor distortions like macroblocking are not considered significant changes, nor are changes in frame rate, image size or playback codec).
To use a poor analogy, it's like saying that stealing* $20 isn't really stealing $20 if it's folded into quarters in an envelope rather than flat in a wallet. The point is that the container doesn't change the legality of the act, its a question of whether you're legally entitled to the $20.
And as for not being able to track downloads, that's almost laughable. Think about it: if you can find torrents then its highly probable that others can; just work forward from there, throwing in a few ISPs that "know what's good for them" along the way...
*Yes, I know file sharing isn't stealing, blah, blah, whatever, yawn, the crime chosen isn't the bit of the analogy that's important.
Until the current underground becomes the latest fashionable protocol and the "intelligent" ones are forced to move on again, just like BitTorrent, and before that Kazaa, and before that Napster. And so the cycle continues...
"...what a lot of people fail to realize is that by buying a more expensive machine, you have to work to make that extra money as well."
But if it takes 10 hours to do something that could be paid for by 1 hour's work, you're losing out on the deal. So really you're advocating a course of action that is only viable for those who are well versed enough with hardware to do the job quickly (and well; doing it wrong takes twice as long).
"...you will be ultimately a lot better than simply buying a closed commercial product because you will have the more direct control over the end-product..."
There are different degrees of control; I'd argue that most people consider control to be "does what I want when I want it done with a minimum of fuss". Horses for courses. I view operating systems this way: Linux is for people who like being a sysadmin first, OS X is for people who like being productive first, and Windows is for people who don't like doing anything first;).
"...as well as a greater sense of personal attachment with the creation..."
Why should that be so important? I see where you're coming from (having designed and built many circuits from the ground up I know the satisfaction of making an inanimate box of bits come to life), but a sense of attachment to a tool is bad if it makes you ignore the tool's deficiencies. Besides, I've seen too many people relieved that their computer is working at all to be convinced that investing emotion in what will inevitably be a piece of outdated junk* is somehow beneficial; it certainly isn't reciprocal.
The Wal-Mart "Foundation" is nothing more than a front group for Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, and should not be confused for a real charitable non-profit.
First, I think it's pretty obvious that the WalMart Foundation would be heavily connected to WalMart; the name is a bit of a giveaway.
Second, even though its a subsidiary, so what? If it is run independently, has a proper NGO charter, and actually does some good I can't see a problem. And considering that many charities spend around one third of their income on advertising for donations (Oxfam and Care for example), setting up your own charity which doesn't need to advertise for donations (or can piggyback on existing promotion campaigns) is vastly more efficient dollar for dollar than opting for an existing charity in terms of help reaching those who need it.
Third, large companies generally only donate to charities if they get something out of it (beyond tax deductions). Companies using charitable organizations to promote themselves is nothing new or surprising, it happens even when the charity and the sponsor are not connected in any other way.
All the quote does is prove that WalMart Stores Inc owns the artwork, so their lawers deal with it; no surprises here. It gives no insight into the corporate structure of either the Stores or the Foundation, it tells us nothing about the level of independence or the effectiveness of the charity. It certainly doesn't tell us it isn't a "real" non-profit organization, since that has more to do with how they operate than who their lawers are.
If Microsoft made toilet paper, it wouldn't actually remove anything but merely spread it around until everything is covered with a uniform layer of feces. Just like Internet Explorer...
Not only is it criticism and commentary, but this is a student engaged in an activity directly related to scholarship, so that's three counts in his favour.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone who wishes to leak information has multiple avenues to do so quite easily...Their own brains being the most obvious means".
What? My brain is leaking?!? I thought that was dandruff...
I had a message to a "Virginia Higgenbottom of Scunthorpe" censored once... ;)
Blah blah blah? Not a very insightful or intelligent retort from someone so fond of labelling others "morons".
"The quarter from the limo line is pretty accurate isn't it?"
Not really, it's an needlessly sarcastic exaggeration, since Apple (or any corporation) isn't obliged to publicize the fact they're using the KHTML code base. As I said, technical superiority is rarely the driving factor behind people's choice of software, they go with what they know, and for most that means the Windows boxes they're familiar with from work. To kill proprietary software you have to get OSS to where its going to be used, which means exploiting every possible avenue into the corporate world; its a romantic notion that business is going to adopt OSS without seeing viable examples, but utterly wrong-headed. Yes, I'm thinking like a PR hack; its called "using their techniques against them", its the idea that inspired the L/GPL, and its a much more efficient way of winning hearts and minds than trying to bludgeon people with insults and sarcasm.
"Why are you so desperate to not only defend big corporations who do nothing for you, but also to be insulted for them by proxy?"
I'm not, I'm trying to be balanced about it by looking at this from more than one angle (sorry if "balance" is a foreign concept to you; you're probably too used to Fox news and wedge politics). What I said (and you've now failed to accurately comprehend twice) is that if nothing else, Apple is a good example of how a company can successfully shift their business model to one based on open source, nothing more, nothing less. Its saying "it can be done, here's proof"; turning that into "kissing Apple's ass" is an erroneous leap of logic, another misguided exaggeration, and says more about your prejudices and preconceptions than what I wrote*. If you aren't prepared to recognize reasonable examples of corporations getting on board the clue train (at least partially), then you're not applying any more thought than the Apple fanboys, and as an OSS advocate you're as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
I am fully aware Apple are only doing the bare minimum (as I have clearly said three times now, how many times does someone have to agree with you on a point before you get the message?), but it demonstrates amazing naivety to expect companies to do anything more than is specified in a license agreement; sorry to have to break it to you, but that's the way the world works. Rusin understands this and said so, what makes you think you're entitled to be more indignat than he is? After all, he's the one putting in the work...
I don't feel insulted on Apple's behalf, I just think that OSS advocates should be a little more pragmatic and try to see the bigger picture when considering what might make others want to adopt OSS, and just behave a little more professionally by not flying off the handle at the slightest provocation. l must remind you, you called me a "fucking moron", when I wasn't giving Apple any more credit than they're due. That is a baseless personal insult directed at me, and I would expect anyone to find that kind of language an insult and react accordingly (that is, dismiss you out of hand as an arrogant adolescent; that kind of behaviour helps OSS even less than Apple does). You are entitled to your anti-corporate philosophy, but that doesn't mean that pointing out that a benefit does exist makes me mindlessly pro-corporation. Life isn't "cowboys and indians"/"with us or against us", there are degrees of subtlety. But I'm guessing subtlety isn't your strong suit.
*"I notice you're using a computer, which most likely contains inexpensive parts mass produced by (OH NO!!) big corporations. If you are so strongly opposed to corporations, why do you maintain the hypocrisy of directly supporting them by continuing to use their products?" See, being deliberately misinterpreted and subjected to cliches is an insult to the intelligence, isn't it?
"Apple did nothing to help khtml, just forked their project. Is it that good for khtml devs? I doubt it."
/. is going to be more effective at convincing business that open source is viable than a billion dollar company adopting it as the basis of a heavily publicized product? Dream on. Remember, Windows is only as popular as it is because it's what people use at work, it's what they know, so they use it at home. If you want wider adoption of OSS it has to make inroads into the business world so end users can actually see for themselves that it really is better; there are more factors to consider than just technical superiority (hence my sig).
So you think a few thousand ACs spewing vitriol on
"Is it evil to not help You? No. But is it nice? certainly not."
I didn't say Apple were being nice, just that they were doing what was required under the LGPL (echoing Rusin, in other words). Is that Apple's fault, or is the LGPL at fault for not being specific enough? Corporations have never done anything simply to be "nice", and Apple is no exception; what mental deficiency is causing people to think this has suddenly changed?
...civility costs nothing, and it helps generate the impression that you are a thinking human being.
"No, nothing here makes apple evil. Nobody said they are."
So the "quarter from the limo" line was really a compliment then? That sounded like a standard corporation bashing cliche to me, and I honestly don't think it was warranted under the circumstances given that the dev's gripe isn't with Apple as such.
"The point is that the KDE guys want morons to stop claiming that apple is wonderful and open source friendly..."
I for one made no such claim (that's one), and thank you, I did RTFBlog. However, I wasn't responding directly to the blog: the point that I was making is that if noisy members of the OSS community are going to respond with sarcastic rants (as the AC I was responding to did) when a company does meet it's obligations under the LGPL, then all OSS supporters are going to be tarred with the same lunatic brush and ignored. Frankly, I don't see irrational over-reactions being in any way productive or helpful to the wider acceptance of OSS; they certainly doesn't reflect well on the intellect or maturity of the person making the comments.
If you had read past my first paragraph rather than irrationally over-reacting, you'd find I actually agree with Rusin: that's what I meant when I (mis)typed "meaningful reciprocity". Apologies if my polysyllabism resulted in a lack of comprehension on your part, or my verbosity exceeded your capacity for concentration (I don't wish to cause offence, hence the need for obscurity).
"They don't want anything from apple..."
I never said they did (that's two. Who needs to learn to read, and who's a what now?). The AC's implication was that Apple have added nothing of value to KHTML beyond "a handful of press releases", or should be doing more than they're obliged to under the LGPL. Considering Apple's reputation for being industry leaders (deserved or not), I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the benefit to the credibility in business for KHTML (and OSS in general) of being chosen as their code base. You may not think credibility is as important as technical superiority (I don't), but a world of Windows users obviously disagree; when a multi-billion dollar company adopts a piece of software not just for internal use but as the basis of a highly publicized product, other companies tend to sit up and take notice. I'm not claiming Apple are the first to adopt OSS (far from it), I'm just saying they are the most visible consumer machine supplier, and as such really are a showcase of ways of using OSS in a multitude of business roles.
"...they want morons to stop spreading lies."
The difference between a moron and a liar is that the moron is genuinely misinformed, while being a liar takes real cunning. Choose one.
BTW, did you know your subject line helped proved a theory? http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of what a torrent file actually is (and I'm happy admit I'm wrong, since I don't actually use the software myself and haven't looked at a torrent in a hex editor). Taking your word as gospel, a torrent isn't the same content, it's merely a method of verifying the identity of a linked file fragment, so it's no more infringement than a website linking to an instance of a work (and they never get taken down, do they?).
.torrent file, not a .mpg/mp3/whatever".
That said, I was responding to Valiss' comment:
"...in the respect that what I download is a
That's all well and good in theory, but I very much doubt people download torrents just to look at them in hex editors; at some point the file is probably going to be downloaded, and that is traceable. The most likely scenario here is that the ISPs/law enforcement have been monitoring traffic related to the torrent files that have been downloaded (and in the process eliminated files that are legally distributed on BT, if only to stop themselves looking like complete idiots before a judge). I suspect that the "all they downloaded was a torrent" line is a glib oversimplification of what evidence has actually been gathered.
"Not a full log, but it does require you to state which files have changed and when."
;)
And this information is available through the Apple developer website.
Wait a minute...does this mean the KHTML developers are incapable of actually using a browser?
"...if apple are purposely making it hard to understand the source which they are, by making changes and not posting revisions..."
e /
Which is totally incorrect (RTFA), they are posting revisions, just as large wads of code that the KHTML maintainers find difficult to examine. That's annoying, but it's a far cry from impinging on anyone's freedom, and certainly isn't a violation of the LGPL. But just don't take my word for it, you might want to start looking here http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcor
"Its all about freedom not just sticking to the letter of a license."
It might be for you, but I'm guessing you're not a multi-billion dollar company with a legal obligation to avoid decisions that are detrimental to its shareholders. For a company (which unlike an individual has no inherent moral values or beliefs), it is the letter of the license that matters since not only can the philosophy of management change, but the management themselves can be replaced. Under those circumstances you don't try to double-guess what someone was thinking when a license was accepted, you have to go by what is actually written down because that's the part that is legally enforcable.
The whole point of the written LGPL is to specify exactly the restrictions and obligations for using certain software. Apple are meeting those obligations. If this doesn't suit you then don't advocate the LGPL, and don't bitch that the license doesn't meet your expectations; you are perfectly free to write a license that does suit your philosophy and spells it out exactly so there is no mistake about intent.
"Are we supposed to bow before their nobility and thank them profusely for the quarter they tossed into our collection bowl from the window of their limo?"
So you're saying that people who willingly put their time into developing free software knowing full well that they aren't going to be paid for their effort deserve more than they actually asked for in the license agreement, and that somehow makes Apple evil?
Yes, Safari is not KHTML, it's a fork based on a common code base (which is a rather obvious result of Safari using native OS X APIs I would have thought), and although Rusin has a good point about the impenatrability of large slabs of code (and the grandparent poster is indeed an idiot for not understanding this), Apple are nonetheless fulfilling their legal obligations as Rusin himself mentions. Its just shows why you need to be careful what you ask for and how you ask for it; assuming you're going to get anything more is simply naive.
And I think you have missed a critical point: Apple do not exist to advertise other people's wares. The fact that they advertise an association with KHTML is not really an advantage for Apple, since Apple users tend to care less (a lot less) about proprietary software than Linux users, and will tend to stick with what is most convenient. OSS benefits more: its an example to business that open source code is of considerable quality and can be used to add value to a commercial product without necessarily sacrificing a competitive advantage (and I'd point out the LGPL is written to allow this). This advantage for the wider OSS community will be lost if the message is drowned out by whining about how companies adopting OSS as a code base don't do more than the license specifies: those companies will be reluctant to adopt OSS if they fear a backlash that isn't based on any written condition (and therefore isn't predictable). You have to remember that the bulk of people who make the critical decisions are more aware of politics than they are of coding...
I'm not saying that Rasin's view isn't justified, or that he isn't completely right about Apple's lack of meningful reciprocity, just that over-reacting to these things is potentially very damaging politically (in other words, it really does make OSS advocates look like a bunch of inconsistant cranks). So rather than blaming Apple for abiding by the terms of the license (albeit minimally), perhaps it might be better to blame the wording of the license as not being specific enough about making source code usable?
"So how can they say these people have the files when all they downloaded was a torrent?"
You're confusing the container with the content. A torrent isn't the same container as the original MPEG file, but it has the same content: a torrent of Spiderman 2 contains exactly the same movie as the MPEG, the bits just happen to be arranged differently. Stop thinking in terms of file formats and consider of what reaches the human brain (and no, minor distortions like macroblocking are not considered significant changes, nor are changes in frame rate, image size or playback codec).
To use a poor analogy, it's like saying that stealing* $20 isn't really stealing $20 if it's folded into quarters in an envelope rather than flat in a wallet. The point is that the container doesn't change the legality of the act, its a question of whether you're legally entitled to the $20.
And as for not being able to track downloads, that's almost laughable. Think about it: if you can find torrents then its highly probable that others can; just work forward from there, throwing in a few ISPs that "know what's good for them" along the way...
*Yes, I know file sharing isn't stealing, blah, blah, whatever, yawn, the crime chosen isn't the bit of the analogy that's important.
Careful what you ask for, littering has quite a serious penalty in HK.
The actual law covers both whole and partial reproduction of copyright works, so each partial upload adds 1 offence to the official tally.
What do you think funded the British Empire?
"...but most people will simply use it to download the Britney Spears' latest CD thus committing a crime."
I can't see the injustice in prosecuting people for downloading Britney Spears' music: some things just need to be illegal.
Until the current underground becomes the latest fashionable protocol and the "intelligent" ones are forced to move on again, just like BitTorrent, and before that Kazaa, and before that Napster. And so the cycle continues...
"...the only problem I've had with it was a manufacturing defect in the driver's seat."
Dude, humility is good, but you really shouldn't put yourself down like that...
(Sorry, it was too good to pass up).
Let me guess: if you were in a bar on your own, you'd order a martinus, right?
Ah, old jokes...I'm working towards becoming one.
"Java 5 (Tiger) is not included in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger)."
Damn, I really wanted to see Tiger on Tiger action.
I suppose I'll just have to settle for the Discovery channel...
"...what a lot of people fail to realize is that by buying a more expensive machine, you have to work to make that extra money as well."
;).
But if it takes 10 hours to do something that could be paid for by 1 hour's work, you're losing out on the deal. So really you're advocating a course of action that is only viable for those who are well versed enough with hardware to do the job quickly (and well; doing it wrong takes twice as long).
"...you will be ultimately a lot better than simply buying a closed commercial product because you will have the more direct control over the end-product..."
There are different degrees of control; I'd argue that most people consider control to be "does what I want when I want it done with a minimum of fuss". Horses for courses. I view operating systems this way: Linux is for people who like being a sysadmin first, OS X is for people who like being productive first, and Windows is for people who don't like doing anything first
"...as well as a greater sense of personal attachment with the creation..."
Why should that be so important? I see where you're coming from (having designed and built many circuits from the ground up I know the satisfaction of making an inanimate box of bits come to life), but a sense of attachment to a tool is bad if it makes you ignore the tool's deficiencies. Besides, I've seen too many people relieved that their computer is working at all to be convinced that investing emotion in what will inevitably be a piece of outdated junk* is somehow beneficial; it certainly isn't reciprocal.
*Or it will become grandpa's axe.
I stand corrected. That was a particular piece of US case law I was unfamiliar with.
The Wal-Mart "Foundation" is nothing more than a front group for Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, and should not be confused for a real charitable non-profit.
First, I think it's pretty obvious that the WalMart Foundation would be heavily connected to WalMart; the name is a bit of a giveaway.
Second, even though its a subsidiary, so what? If it is run independently, has a proper NGO charter, and actually does some good I can't see a problem. And considering that many charities spend around one third of their income on advertising for donations (Oxfam and Care for example), setting up your own charity which doesn't need to advertise for donations (or can piggyback on existing promotion campaigns) is vastly more efficient dollar for dollar than opting for an existing charity in terms of help reaching those who need it.
Third, large companies generally only donate to charities if they get something out of it (beyond tax deductions). Companies using charitable organizations to promote themselves is nothing new or surprising, it happens even when the charity and the sponsor are not connected in any other way.
All the quote does is prove that WalMart Stores Inc owns the artwork, so their lawers deal with it; no surprises here. It gives no insight into the corporate structure of either the Stores or the Foundation, it tells us nothing about the level of independence or the effectiveness of the charity. It certainly doesn't tell us it isn't a "real" non-profit organization, since that has more to do with how they operate than who their lawers are.
If Microsoft made toilet paper, it wouldn't actually remove anything but merely spread it around until everything is covered with a uniform layer of feces. Just like Internet Explorer...
"If you want to simply make a parody, and give it away - there's nothing to stop that"
Wrong. Even free distribution is considered distribution under copyright law.
Not only is it criticism and commentary, but this is a student engaged in an activity directly related to scholarship, so that's three counts in his favour.
"Do I smell lawsuit?"
The situation you describe is clearly a user error. If you think that's grounds for Microsoft to be liable, you're mistaken.