Basically, Stallman owns everything produced by anyone who has ever distributed any GPL software in any form connected with copyright. He can and will exact any degree of control he wishes by merely circulating a newly confabulated definition for the word "free".
1) Only if you used "GPL version X or later". I usually don't, for the reason you state; I believe that wording makes sense only for the FSF itself.
2) Even if Stallman makes GPL 4 "All Your Bases Belong To Me" version, if you've used the 'or later' verbiage anyone can still use your software according to the earlier license. So Stallman cannot control all GPL software, not even that with the 'or later' wording.
Parent suggested a better approach for disobedience in the very post you are replying to. Using a pre-release to gain public support would be moronic.
Parent's method was even weaker. Our intrepid copyright crusader obtains a copy of "Steamboat Willie" instead of Wolverine, puts it on his website, and lets Disney know it's there. Most likely outcome: one DMCA notice later, content is removed and/or account suspended, no one notices, no one cares. Supposing ISP leans on 512(a) and refuses to cut access, one one preliminary injunction later, content is removed and/or account suspended. Whether lawsuit grinds to completion or not, no one notices and no one cares.
Specifically, a +5 intelligent Holy Avenger in the hands of a purely lawful good female virgin paladin riding a winged unicorn. And she must look hot in a chainmail bikini.
Seriously, have you ever seen a female virgin paladin riding a winged unicorn who DOESN'T look hot in a chainmail bikini?
The Dutch sociologist Kees Schuyt formulated a number of rules for something to classify as ethical disobedience (rather than eg anarchist revolt or petty crime). Gandhi formulated a similar set of rules for his non-violent protest.
Let's have a look at Schuyt's rules:
1) The act is illegal; 2) The act is conscionable; it appeals to your conscience and that of your fellow citizens; 3) There is a link between the criticized law and the chosen illegal act; 4) The act is thought out and not impulsive; 5) The act occurs in public; 6) You co-operate with arrest and prosecution; 7) You accept that you might be punished; 8) You used legal means of protest before; 9) You are non-violent and remain non-violent; 10) The rights of your fellow citizens are respected as well as possible;
Let's see how this plays out for some copyright protester. He sets up a laptop outside MPAA headquarters, downloads that Wolverine pre-release (never mind how he gets an internet connection), and plays it for everyone around. Most likely outcome is he's ignored, of course, but let's assume he's not. The MPAA calls the cops. The cops arrest him, under a criminal copyright infringement statute. It's page 3 news, at best. The guy disappears into the system, maybe rating a Slashdot article at conviction and sentencing, maybe even an AP brief. He's in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for a few years. Few know about it. Fewer care. Nothing changes.
So why are these rules considered the only "ethical" way to do it? Perhaps it is precisely because they are ineffective: those who support the status quo are seizing the high ground by declaring that in order to object "ethically", one must also object ineffectively. Why, as an opponent of that status quo, should I or anyone else accept their definitions of "ethical"?
It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
Sorry dude, they can pass unacceptable laws way, way, way faster than I can get them repealed.
Support alternatives to infringing activities. I don't like the music industry any more than most people here, and I like to support independent artists in any way I can. I use Linux on all my desktops and servers because I (a) it works well for me, and (2) I don't enjoy feeding Microsoft more money.
I don't listen to music, and I don't use Microsoft products except when paid to, not because I have moral qualms about paying them or pirating them, but because I don't like them. But I do get my TV shows via some free feeds located near Philadelphia... I don't know how they haven't shut those down, you'd think the 500-ft towers would be a dead giveaway:-).
Use strong crypto whenever possible. This shouldn't be limited to cases where you're doing something naughty. It's just a good habit to be in.
With regard to trains running on time, are you sure that you aren't referring to Mussolini? I'm not saying that he had any more success in that area than Hitler, but it is he with whom the phrase "made the trains run on time" is most closely associated.
So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?
No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.
Reading up on the Wikipedia article on this guy...
"Taleb appeared to be vindicated against statisticians in 2008, as he reportedly made a multi-million dollar fortune during the Financial crisis of 2007-2008, a crisis which he attributed to the failure of statistical methods in finance "
But his thesis is that such events are fundamentally unpredictable. If he made a fortune, it means _he_ was able to predict it, well enough to profit for it. Which argues not that the events are unpredictable, but rather that his model is better.
Frankly, I'm not sure why Slashdot has become so pro-piracy in the last few years, especially when Slashdot in its past has gone after other sites for copying its content--due to "copyright infringement."
On the one side: Copyright infringers. On the other side: Those who want to lock down personal computers and the internet, spy on same, lock down anything else which can reproduce sound or video, implement a pay-per-use system for everything, shut down DVD rental services, eliminate fair use, use lawyers to bully people (whether culpable or not), increase copyright terms to infinity less one day, etc.
Which side would you expect slashdotters to be on? You can argue there's a middle ground, but for various reasons I think there really isn't, and in any case is it really surprising getting binary thinking from a computer geek site?
The provision you quote is invalid in the United States, even though explicity stated:
15 USC 2302 (c) No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
I'm pretty sure the FTC has not waived that prohibition for Nintendo.
Since we in the US are so often being rhetorically beaten about the head and shoulders about how much better consumer protection law is in Europe, you'd think there'd be a similar law there...
On a more serious note, it's still a stupid comparison. If you wind up on Tony Soprano's bad side you are going to get beaten up or in the worst case scenario murdered. The worst case scenario from a RIAA lawsuit is that you wind up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy != murder, IMHO.
Bankruptcy can be worse than a beating, though. RIAA sues student. Student can't pay for school, can't defend himself, is forced into bankruptcy. Student spends rest of life in minimum wage jobs because he doesn't have a degree. That's pretty bad.
I have to second the GP, I really can't believe anyone even wants to consider non-lethal means
Well, in some cases, nominally non-lethal means. A water cannon which can fire 1400GPM out to 100 meters is quite possibly lethal in practice, for anyone who gets in its way. It's not going to run out of ammo. And if it really is big enough to flood a pirate ship, drowning is lethal enough. Yet no do-gooder will whine about it being a weapon, especially if they're told it's fire suppression apparatus.
The passage you quoted does not prevent seaman from having weapons, merely from doing anything with them within territorial waters. So just keep them locked up when in territorial waters. Once you're outside territorial waters (or in the territorial waters of a state which doesn't respect innocent passage anyway), break 'em out.
There's probably other treaties getting in the way, but that isn't one of them.
I heard that when he held book signings he'd sign people's books, then throw them in a fire and spit in their faces too. Man, he sounds like a real douchebag.
My kingdom for a mod point. With 32 million Americans on food stamps (roughly the population of Canada) you'd think the American government would be prioritizing education, training and programs designed to raise the socioeconomic status of it's citizens instead of piddling away money that just gets diverted to executive bonuses.
<cynical>
Wouldn't work. We'd just have trained people with BS and MS degrees on food stamps.
</cynical>
HAD they pulled it out earlier and still lost, they might not have any recourse for a retrial. They held onto it just in case they lost, then they could go "Oh, look at this conflict of interest."
Law&Order aside, I don't think you could do this in the US system. You'd have to point out the conflict of interest before the trial, or you'd lose your chance to do it later on (unless it had been somehow concealed from you). But as others have pointed out, the Swedish system is quite different.
This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it is entirely legally clear if the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the GPL licensing terms or not, no matter what is said in the license. (i.e. They could argue that the license is not a binding contract).
They could argue that, but even if that were to be found to be the case, for any program with significant distribution, I'd think the doctrine of "detrimental reliance" would apply.
Redundancy is insufficient when dealing with knowledgeable and resourceful attackers. The phone system already has redundancy, otherwise every idiot with a backhoe would take it out (rather than just the occasional idiot with a backhoe who hits a non-redundant resource). But if you're dealing with an attacker who knows the system and has full access to it, they can cut all the redundant connections too. You need some sort of hardening and security as well as redundancy, and those are even more expensive.
Parkinson's law is "Work expands to fill all available time". It applies to processing power too. What's "good enough" today won't be "good enough" tommorrow, because someone will invent some CPU-sucking memory-hogging disk-flogging killer app that everybody will want to have.
I don't know what it will be. But then again, who predicted grandmothers would be editing home movies of their grandkids on their computers? Try that on a machine which is just "good enough" for email and the web.
Many people argue that electric cars won't work because they sometimes take far trips in their cars. I would argue that electric cars might work for 95% of many peoples actual car use, and that renting a gasoline car for the occasional trip makes a lot more sense than trying to extend range of electric cars. People want cars to work for any possible need, hence people commuting in Chevy Tahoes. That mentality isn't practical.
That mentality IS practical. If the electric car works for 95% of my needs but the gasoline car works for 100%, it makes a lot more sense to buy the gasoline car. Renting is both expensive and cumbersome.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to pull a pre-made cable, tape the tab down first, with vinyl tape. Cut the tab loose before attempting to remove the tape.
100-Base TX Ethernet runs (physically) at 31.25Mhz, not 100Mhz.
1) Only if you used "GPL version X or later". I usually don't, for the reason you state; I believe that wording makes sense only for the FSF itself.
2) Even if Stallman makes GPL 4 "All Your Bases Belong To Me" version, if you've used the 'or later' verbiage anyone can still use your software according to the earlier license. So Stallman cannot control all GPL software, not even that with the 'or later' wording.
I don't know if any are currently available, but there have been SPARC-powered laptops in the past.
Parent's method was even weaker. Our intrepid copyright crusader obtains a copy of "Steamboat Willie" instead of Wolverine, puts it on his website, and lets Disney know it's there. Most likely outcome: one DMCA notice later, content is removed and/or account suspended, no one notices, no one cares. Supposing ISP leans on 512(a) and refuses to cut access, one one preliminary injunction later, content is removed and/or account suspended. Whether lawsuit grinds to completion or not, no one notices and no one cares.
Seriously, have you ever seen a female virgin paladin riding a winged unicorn who DOESN'T look hot in a chainmail bikini?
Let's see how this plays out for some copyright protester. He sets up a laptop outside MPAA headquarters, downloads that Wolverine pre-release (never mind how he gets an internet connection), and plays it for everyone around. Most likely outcome is he's ignored, of course, but let's assume he's not. The MPAA calls the cops. The cops arrest him, under a criminal copyright infringement statute. It's page 3 news, at best. The guy disappears into the system, maybe rating a Slashdot article at conviction and sentencing, maybe even an AP brief. He's in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for a few years. Few know about it. Fewer care. Nothing changes.
So why are these rules considered the only "ethical" way to do it? Perhaps it is precisely because they are ineffective: those who support the status quo are seizing the high ground by declaring that in order to object "ethically", one must also object ineffectively. Why, as an opponent of that status quo, should I or anyone else accept their definitions of "ethical"?
Sorry dude, they can pass unacceptable laws way, way, way faster than I can get them repealed.
I don't listen to music, and I don't use Microsoft products except when paid to, not because I have moral qualms about paying them or pirating them, but because I don't like them. But I do get my TV shows via some free feeds located near Philadelphia... I don't know how they haven't shut those down, you'd think the 500-ft towers would be a dead giveaway :-).
Forget it, he's on a roll.
So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?
No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.
Reading up on the Wikipedia article on this guy...
"Taleb appeared to be vindicated against statisticians in 2008, as he reportedly made a multi-million dollar fortune during the Financial crisis of 2007-2008, a crisis which he attributed to the failure of statistical methods in finance "
But his thesis is that such events are fundamentally unpredictable. If he made a fortune, it means _he_ was able to predict it, well enough to profit for it. Which argues not that the events are unpredictable, but rather that his model is better.
On the one side: Copyright infringers.
On the other side: Those who want to lock down personal computers and the internet, spy on same, lock down anything else which can reproduce sound or video, implement a pay-per-use system for everything, shut down DVD rental services, eliminate fair use, use lawyers to bully people (whether culpable or not), increase copyright terms to infinity less one day, etc.
Which side would you expect slashdotters to be on? You can argue there's a middle ground, but for various reasons I think there really isn't, and in any case is it really surprising getting binary thinking from a computer geek site?
The provision you quote is invalid in the United States, even though explicity stated:
I'm pretty sure the FTC has not waived that prohibition for Nintendo.
Since we in the US are so often being rhetorically beaten about the head and shoulders about how much better consumer protection law is in Europe, you'd think there'd be a similar law there...
You mean someone else watched that movie? My condolences.
Bankruptcy can be worse than a beating, though. RIAA sues student. Student can't pay for school, can't defend himself, is forced into bankruptcy. Student spends rest of life in minimum wage jobs because he doesn't have a degree. That's pretty bad.
The cheat code replaces the function you have to integrate with e^x.
Well, in some cases, nominally non-lethal means. A water cannon which can fire 1400GPM out to 100 meters is quite possibly lethal in practice, for anyone who gets in its way. It's not going to run out of ammo. And if it really is big enough to flood a pirate ship, drowning is lethal enough. Yet no do-gooder will whine about it being a weapon, especially if they're told it's fire suppression apparatus.
The passage you quoted does not prevent seaman from having weapons, merely from doing anything with them within territorial waters. So just keep them locked up when in territorial waters. Once you're outside territorial waters (or in the territorial waters of a state which doesn't respect innocent passage anyway), break 'em out.
There's probably other treaties getting in the way, but that isn't one of them.
No, you're thinking of Harlan Ellison.
<cynical> Wouldn't work. We'd just have trained people with BS and MS degrees on food stamps. </cynical>
Law&Order aside, I don't think you could do this in the US system. You'd have to point out the conflict of interest before the trial, or you'd lose your chance to do it later on (unless it had been somehow concealed from you). But as others have pointed out, the Swedish system is quite different.
They could argue that, but even if that were to be found to be the case, for any program with significant distribution, I'd think the doctrine of "detrimental reliance" would apply.
Redundancy is insufficient when dealing with knowledgeable and resourceful attackers. The phone system already has redundancy, otherwise every idiot with a backhoe would take it out (rather than just the occasional idiot with a backhoe who hits a non-redundant resource). But if you're dealing with an attacker who knows the system and has full access to it, they can cut all the redundant connections too. You need some sort of hardening and security as well as redundancy, and those are even more expensive.
Parkinson's law is "Work expands to fill all available time". It applies to processing power too. What's "good enough" today won't be "good enough" tommorrow, because someone will invent some CPU-sucking memory-hogging disk-flogging killer app that everybody will want to have.
I don't know what it will be. But then again, who predicted grandmothers would be editing home movies of their grandkids on their computers? Try that on a machine which is just "good enough" for email and the web.
That mentality IS practical. If the electric car works for 95% of my needs but the gasoline car works for 100%, it makes a lot more sense to buy the gasoline car. Renting is both expensive and cumbersome.