The injunction is (or was to be) in favor of the "good guys", not the decision. I hope the license text is clearer than that summary, though it's not looking that way.
and it certainly should be possible for authors to use it without being afraid that an ill-informed court will undercut their rights.
Well, from what's going on in this case, it's starting to look like the Artistic License is failing to protect those rights, doesn't it? Can you be absolutely certain that an ill-informed court is at fault, and not a poorly written license?
I mean, it's pretty damning when you can't get an injunction against someone who admits copying your material and selling it.
This is weird: I'm pretty sure that, logically, the person who posted the above can't exist.
Someone who reads Slashdot, but doesn't know who ESR is, clearly has to be relatively young (late teens, at most), yet that would make them a part of the generation that (as the article describes) has no trouble with concepts such as "Highlight -> Right Click -> Search Google for..."
Being a "knowledge worker" is obsolete; it's like being a manual laborer before heavy machinery. Computers are smarter than you are.
Pft, yeah - that means that the people going into school now (who will design these systems) are freakin geniuses the likes of which the world has never seen before.
Not only learn about, but actually be *serious* about it!
I think that actually is the problem - they don't come off as being all that serious about it. The whole thing just feels like that's the most expensive toy they could think of.
I'm sure that's not how it is in real life, but that's how it comes off from time to time.
I don't know what a "consumer contract" is, but I bet you that most, if not all, ISPs' terms of use reserve them the right to do whatever the hell they want with your traffic.
Oh yeah - I wasn't saying that the goo would be better suited to that environment, just that it would be the goo, not microbes (like I said - nitpicking).
Oh yeah, and "blah blah I don't get the point of the GPL blah blah" - protecting free software from MS's "embrace and extend" strategies is quite high on the FSF's list of priorities, and rightfully so.
The rule should probably be that for any story (whether book, movie, comic, erotic flip book, whatever), you don't give away story details that might be spoilers unless you are sure you have an audience that already knows, or won't care.
Or, alternatively, how about we get a grip and just discuss things normally (after they've been out for a couple of weeks or so, if it's a very "high profile" item) and then those who have not seen/read the piece in question can remove themselves from the conversation if they are afraid of finding out more than they wanted to?
This whole "spoiler" obsession is way out of control - I get that sometimes there are enjoyably surprising elements, but to say that the whole work is ruined if you knew some plot detail before hand... well, that doesn't speak highly of the work as a whole (not always true, of course).
WE: say we only want to kill armed factions until the people get their act together and organise
That's a bit more accurate. And it's true, we generally do want to only kill armed factions, but let's not pretend that we haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians here. That's war for you...
It might have been conceivable that a noticeable proportion of Firefox users did this when the market share was %0.005 or thereabouts, but do you seriously think anyone from the "general public" does this?
And what are these impenetrable banking sites that people keep harping on? I haven't seen one that doesn't work with Firefox (at least in the last 3 years or so).
Nope, sorry. To "inject morality into the laws" you have to be writing those laws - the FSF has no control over copyright law, they are just using it.
a whole bunch of rights have been taken away from end users via GPL3
The GPL restricts absolutely nothing of what end users do. And can we remember for a second that the GPL grants rights? Granting less rights isn't the same as taking them away.
the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom"
That's the part I really don't get - the "religious beliefs" in this case are software freedom - wouldn't it only by hypocrisy if they weren't actually acting "in the name of freedom"? You may disagree with their methods, but that would speak to "ineptness", not "hypocrisy", no?
The FSF could, in theory, get taken over and the license for all GNU software changed to something more restrictive.
Don't see what that would achieve; it's unlikely that anyone would keep contributing to the "Now with Evil!" FSF, so their future releases would be quite irrelevant. Remember XFree86? And that wasn't even a big license change.
On the other hand, it's pretty much impossible for Linux to change its license at all (which makes this whole debate kinda moot).
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know which version of the AL the JRMI guys are using?
Is the injunction in favor, or the decision?
The injunction is (or was to be) in favor of the "good guys", not the decision. I hope the license text is clearer than that summary, though it's not looking that way.
and it certainly should be possible for authors to use it without being afraid that an ill-informed court will undercut their rights.
Well, from what's going on in this case, it's starting to look like the Artistic License is failing to protect those rights, doesn't it? Can you be absolutely certain that an ill-informed court is at fault, and not a poorly written license?
I mean, it's pretty damning when you can't get an injunction against someone who admits copying your material and selling it.
Who/what the hell is ESR???
..."
This is weird: I'm pretty sure that, logically, the person who posted the above can't exist.
Someone who reads Slashdot, but doesn't know who ESR is, clearly has to be relatively young (late teens, at most), yet that would make them a part of the generation that (as the article describes) has no trouble with concepts such as "Highlight -> Right Click -> Search Google for
It's baffling.
Being a "knowledge worker" is obsolete; it's like being a manual laborer before heavy machinery. Computers are smarter than you are.
Pft, yeah - that means that the people going into school now (who will design these systems) are freakin geniuses the likes of which the world has never seen before.
Copyright infringement is a non-violent act, imprisonment is a violent act.
He inflicted the new Star Wars on people - how is that not a violent act?
Not only learn about, but actually be *serious* about it!
I think that actually is the problem - they don't come off as being all that serious about it. The whole thing just feels like that's the most expensive toy they could think of.
I'm sure that's not how it is in real life, but that's how it comes off from time to time.
and there is probably only one direct casting of the prop
Based on what?
I don't know what a "consumer contract" is, but I bet you that most, if not all, ISPs' terms of use reserve them the right to do whatever the hell they want with your traffic.
Oh yeah - I wasn't saying that the goo would be better suited to that environment, just that it would be the goo, not microbes (like I said - nitpicking).
then we're dealing with microbes that...
That term seems a bit advanced for the origins of life - "RNA-like Goo", maybe? Even that might be too far down the line.
(the article is complete shit, I'm just nitpicking...)
It's "lose", the word is spelled "lose".
Oh yeah, and "blah blah I don't get the point of the GPL blah blah" - protecting free software from MS's "embrace and extend" strategies is quite high on the FSF's list of priorities, and rightfully so.
If the Farscape movie didn't suck so hard. Let's face it, Farscape was one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but it ran its course - it's done.
Also, "Homer Ulysses"? Whaa?
Come to think of it, that would be (and probably will be) hilarious.
The rule should probably be that for any story (whether book, movie, comic, erotic flip book, whatever), you don't give away story details that might be spoilers unless you are sure you have an audience that already knows, or won't care.
Or, alternatively, how about we get a grip and just discuss things normally (after they've been out for a couple of weeks or so, if it's a very "high profile" item) and then those who have not seen/read the piece in question can remove themselves from the conversation if they are afraid of finding out more than they wanted to?
This whole "spoiler" obsession is way out of control - I get that sometimes there are enjoyably surprising elements, but to say that the whole work is ruined if you knew some plot detail before hand... well, that doesn't speak highly of the work as a whole (not always true, of course).
Yeah, well, going to slashdot to read about the leak is a great way to start that blackout.
BTW, the Lone Gunmen are dead.
WE: say we only want to kill armed factions until the people get their act together and organise
That's a bit more accurate. And it's true, we generally do want to only kill armed factions, but let's not pretend that we haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians here. That's war for you...
Can they make this yet?
I want mine now.
bph.pl
Well of course - what do you expect from a site written in Perl?
Seriously? Still on this?
It might have been conceivable that a noticeable proportion of Firefox users did this when the market share was %0.005 or thereabouts, but do you seriously think anyone from the "general public" does this?
And what are these impenetrable banking sites that people keep harping on? I haven't seen one that doesn't work with Firefox (at least in the last 3 years or so).
"Why is your code so slow?" - "Uh... Dark Cycles."
"Why is the project late?" - "Dark Time."
"What happened to all the donuts in the break room?" - "Um, sucked into a hidden dimension?"
Nope, sorry. To "inject morality into the laws" you have to be writing those laws - the FSF has no control over copyright law, they are just using it.
a whole bunch of rights have been taken away from end users via GPL3
The GPL restricts absolutely nothing of what end users do. And can we remember for a second that the GPL grants rights? Granting less rights isn't the same as taking them away.
the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom"
That's the part I really don't get - the "religious beliefs" in this case are software freedom - wouldn't it only by hypocrisy if they weren't actually acting "in the name of freedom"? You may disagree with their methods, but that would speak to "ineptness", not "hypocrisy", no?
If only RMS could learn from him and stop hiding behind decorum all the time, and really say what he feels.
The FSF could, in theory, get taken over and the license for all GNU software changed to something more restrictive.
Don't see what that would achieve; it's unlikely that anyone would keep contributing to the "Now with Evil!" FSF, so their future releases would be quite irrelevant. Remember XFree86? And that wasn't even a big license change.
On the other hand, it's pretty much impossible for Linux to change its license at all (which makes this whole debate kinda moot).
But still, I think that taking that choice away from future Linux users would be the totalitarian way of trying to achieve things.
OK, yes, it would, but how on earth does the GPL do that?