Eight grand is about what I make in a year. For a year's salary, I'd shoot a lawyer in the back of the head, cut them up, pour concrete over them, and toss them off a bridge. (Don't worry, I would never do that to an actual human being.)
"Under GPL, if someone uses my code to do something else, then their code effectively becomes my code as well, and they have to play by my rules."
The GPL is fundamentally no different from a proprietary software licensing agreement. Instead of paying in cash, developers who utilize GPL software pay by sharing their work. Instead of being limited by agreeing not to disclose the source they have licensed, they are limited by agreeing that they must disclose the source they have created.
If you don't like the licensing agreement, don't use the software in your project! It's really that simple. But a lot of companies don't seem to understand this; they think they can use the software and ignore the license. The author of the article doesn't understand it, either. The article perpetuates the FUD that the GPL is some weird new thing that's going to screw up IP law. It's not! It's just an ordinary software license that demands a different kind of payment.
I think you mean, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated a desire to use their binary blobs and a willingness to do all the work of packaging and distributing them. Companies are starting to see the benefits of open design in the form of offloading code maintenance and tech support. The only thing holding them back is negotiating open licenses with the owners of the technology they themselves licensed to produce the binary drivers.
Um... to whom, exactly? Some nerd who's going to spend the next three months in a darkened office reverse-engineering the proprietary drivers? To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.
The way I'm reading it, MediaDefender hacked Revision3's torrent tracker to track a torrent of copyrighted material, believing that this would somehow justify the DDOS attack.
It's like the proliferation of guns: the fact that you have them easily available all the time, will make violent people simply reach for them in an access of fury . ..
Except it doesn't work like that. More guns results in less crime, and statistics from around the globe bear that out.
Perhaps. But when a new law is tested in court, prosecutors use cases like this to establish precedents they'll later use to go after less clearly "bad" people. The law is a piece of shit, and this case doesn't change that fact.
Yeah. The main problem I've seen is that many developers apparently don't understand event-driven programming at all, so they end up creating dozens of threads to poll for various conditions, and then usually fail to come up with a thread-safe way of coordinating the whole mess. Threads aren't the problem; applications will always use threads, even if it's not explicit. Incompetent developers are the problem.
Just clarification. The law in question was one that states that all participants in a criminal act are guilty of all crimes related to that act, even if they did not individually commit those crimes. I asked whether the state was required to show evidence of knowledge, intent, or premeditation, or if simple unpremeditated participation in any aspect of the crime would be enough for a guilty verdict. I was excused with no explanation.
The literal handpicking of juries is the most disgraceful aspect of the widespread prosecutorial misconduct in our court system. And the judges are just as guilty as the prosecutors for allowing it to happen.
I've been selected for a jury, then excused because I asked for clarification of a law. Jurors aren't even supposed to understand the law. They're just supposed to return the verdict that the state demands from them.
I will never be put on trial. I will never be arrested. I'll massacre an entire police department over something trivial before I ever allow myself to be swept up into our horrendous criminal injustice system.
According to the Cop that pulled me over a couple years ago, Yellow means stop if you are more than 2 car lengths from the stop line when it turns yellow.
1. Cops are liars, seldom know much about the laws they're supposed to be enforcing, and often make shit up on the spot just to bully people.
2. You'd have to be going really slow to stop within 2 car lengths, including reaction time. Cop is clearly a moron.
In the summer of 2006, the police department of Fort Wayne, IN, ran a yellow-light racket at several major intersections. They set up an "observer" to make radio calls and had cars lined up ready to pull people over. Basically, as soon as a car was ready, they pulled over and ticketed the last vehicle through the intersection... regardless of whether or not the driver had actually run a red light. Most of the time, the driver who was pulled over had entered the light on yellow, often passing completely through the intersection on yellow. (Unlike some municipalities, there is no law in Fort Wayne requiring motorists to stop at a yellow light if they are able to stop safely. If you enter the intersection on yellow, you have not committed a moving violation.)
I was a front-seat passenger of a driver who was ticketed. We entered the intersection just as the light turned yellow; stopping would have been unsafe, if not impossible. The driver took it to court, and the ticketing officer blatantly lied about the circumstances of the citation. The courtroom nearly erupted in a riot that day. The judge still refused to throw out the tickets and have the officers charged with racketeering and perjury; instead, all the fines were reduced to $1, but the drivers still got points on their licenses. The city doubtless made hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of dollars from the drivers who didn't protest the racket in court. The FWPD ran this racket continuously, five days a week, eight hours a day, from approximately May through August of 2006.
How do they classify the bloggers as "liberal" or "conservative"? Self-identification? And is the data even meaningful with such a simple dichotomy? What about radical Jeffersonians? Anarcho-socialists? People who still vote for Nader?
Slashdot Mirror
Eight grand is about what I make in a year. For a year's salary, I'd shoot a lawyer in the back of the head, cut them up, pour concrete over them, and toss them off a bridge. (Don't worry, I would never do that to an actual human being.)
Isn't barratry a crime in most jurisdictions?
The GPL is fundamentally no different from a proprietary software licensing agreement. Instead of paying in cash, developers who utilize GPL software pay by sharing their work. Instead of being limited by agreeing not to disclose the source they have licensed, they are limited by agreeing that they must disclose the source they have created.
If you don't like the licensing agreement, don't use the software in your project! It's really that simple. But a lot of companies don't seem to understand this; they think they can use the software and ignore the license. The author of the article doesn't understand it, either. The article perpetuates the FUD that the GPL is some weird new thing that's going to screw up IP law. It's not! It's just an ordinary software license that demands a different kind of payment.
I think you mean, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated a desire to use their binary blobs and a willingness to do all the work of packaging and distributing them. Companies are starting to see the benefits of open design in the form of offloading code maintenance and tech support. The only thing holding them back is negotiating open licenses with the owners of the technology they themselves licensed to produce the binary drivers.
Um... to whom, exactly? Some nerd who's going to spend the next three months in a darkened office reverse-engineering the proprietary drivers? To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.
It's probably only $5,000 because of patent lawyers. It can't be that hard to build one yourself.
Still wrong. The idea that anyone around you might be carrying a concealed weapon is what keeps violent crime to a minimum.
The way I'm reading it, MediaDefender hacked Revision3's torrent tracker to track a torrent of copyrighted material, believing that this would somehow justify the DDOS attack.
Except it doesn't work like that. More guns results in less crime, and statistics from around the globe bear that out.
This meme went around on LiveJournal some time ago: click 'random article' and see how many clicks it takes you to get to Jesus.
My own more challenging version: do it without going through an article about a geographic location.
Perhaps. But when a new law is tested in court, prosecutors use cases like this to establish precedents they'll later use to go after less clearly "bad" people. The law is a piece of shit, and this case doesn't change that fact.
"Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."
Lurch's Corollary: Even after a hundred detailed bug reports have been posted on the official forums, Blizzard still won't fix it.
Yeah. The main problem I've seen is that many developers apparently don't understand event-driven programming at all, so they end up creating dozens of threads to poll for various conditions, and then usually fail to come up with a thread-safe way of coordinating the whole mess. Threads aren't the problem; applications will always use threads, even if it's not explicit. Incompetent developers are the problem.
At least one person has.
And this differs from closed-source software how, exactly?
How astonishingly stubborn and stupid can developers be and still expect people to use their product?
Oh, wait... GNOME.
Just clarification. The law in question was one that states that all participants in a criminal act are guilty of all crimes related to that act, even if they did not individually commit those crimes. I asked whether the state was required to show evidence of knowledge, intent, or premeditation, or if simple unpremeditated participation in any aspect of the crime would be enough for a guilty verdict. I was excused with no explanation.
The literal handpicking of juries is the most disgraceful aspect of the widespread prosecutorial misconduct in our court system. And the judges are just as guilty as the prosecutors for allowing it to happen.
I've been selected for a jury, then excused because I asked for clarification of a law. Jurors aren't even supposed to understand the law. They're just supposed to return the verdict that the state demands from them.
I will never be put on trial. I will never be arrested. I'll massacre an entire police department over something trivial before I ever allow myself to be swept up into our horrendous criminal injustice system.
...the armies of Indian and Chinese kids getting paid half a cent per captcha solved.
1. Create a throwaway free email account.
2. Set your real email to forward to it.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
1. Cops are liars, seldom know much about the laws they're supposed to be enforcing, and often make shit up on the spot just to bully people.
2. You'd have to be going really slow to stop within 2 car lengths, including reaction time. Cop is clearly a moron.
In the summer of 2006, the police department of Fort Wayne, IN, ran a yellow-light racket at several major intersections. They set up an "observer" to make radio calls and had cars lined up ready to pull people over. Basically, as soon as a car was ready, they pulled over and ticketed the last vehicle through the intersection... regardless of whether or not the driver had actually run a red light. Most of the time, the driver who was pulled over had entered the light on yellow, often passing completely through the intersection on yellow. (Unlike some municipalities, there is no law in Fort Wayne requiring motorists to stop at a yellow light if they are able to stop safely. If you enter the intersection on yellow, you have not committed a moving violation.)
I was a front-seat passenger of a driver who was ticketed. We entered the intersection just as the light turned yellow; stopping would have been unsafe, if not impossible. The driver took it to court, and the ticketing officer blatantly lied about the circumstances of the citation. The courtroom nearly erupted in a riot that day. The judge still refused to throw out the tickets and have the officers charged with racketeering and perjury; instead, all the fines were reduced to $1, but the drivers still got points on their licenses. The city doubtless made hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of dollars from the drivers who didn't protest the racket in court. The FWPD ran this racket continuously, five days a week, eight hours a day, from approximately May through August of 2006.
You mean their hardware and software engineers, respectively?
When governments go bad, good people have everything to hide.
How do they classify the bloggers as "liberal" or "conservative"? Self-identification? And is the data even meaningful with such a simple dichotomy? What about radical Jeffersonians? Anarcho-socialists? People who still vote for Nader?