Government is stepping in by not funding? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
My understanding was that the Usian gov't would refuse all funding to a lab that did any banned research. So, for example, a lab that reasearched cloning and cancer could not get funding for their cure for cancer.
To put it another way: Is there something wrong with me seeing someone steal a book, then come in the next day, and my telling them that they have to leave? Is it wrong if I have a system that will watch the doors to help me with this task? How is this more onerous than a standard security system which, in effect, is saying "I don't trust anyone."
No, but there is something wrong with kicking someone out for looking like the shoplifter, which is what this system does.
And consider stores like WalMart, who are known for killing off all competition in small towns. Do they have the right to ban people from buying, say, shoes?
No, it is not. You've again mistaken "primarily defensive" with "exclusively defensive". He specifically says that he will charge to license for non open projects. In no way does that email even suggest that the patent "would be used for only defensive purposes". (Emphasis mine).
Lastly, as anyone who is familiar with the actions and works of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Thoreau knows, civil disobedience does not come without a price. If you aren't willing to take the punishment for standing up against unjust laws, then you really shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Civil disobedience has absolutely nothing to do with martyrdom. It may be an effective addition, but it isn't necessary.
Pavlovich broke an unjust law, I see nothing wrong with him trying to avoid punishment. Gandhi is not the be all and end all of civil disobedience.
How has anything he's done contradict what he said he would do in that email? Perhaps he has simply said that the patent is not exclusively defensive, and you've misunderstood him.
That email doesn't seem to imply that he wouldn't use the patent offensively aswell as defensively.
If you want to use my idea for a non-Linux or non open project, you should think about how to pay. The main purpose of the patent was defensive as I did not want to find myself paying royalties to someone else to use my idea. But I have no objections to collecting fees from people who want to do this on Windows.
Doesn't sound like he's saying that the patent is exclusivly defensive to me.
In the post you link to Victor claims his primary reason for the patent was defensive, but that he intended to charge for proprietory usage. This doesn't seem like very damning evidence on its own.
The article isn't very clear on exactly what Lineo is doing, but if it's proprietory, it sounds like Victor is doing exactly what he said he would.
I have a fast DSL connection, and I don't need manuals. When I was in school, I downloaded distros. I've graduated, and now I can afford to buy boxed distros, so I do.
If we want this gift culture thing to work, we have to participate. I buy the distros that I use for the same reason I give money to buskers: they're both making my life more pleasant and I'd like them to be able to continue to do so.
RIAA, however, will not get any money from me. I prefer to download my music. I'd pay for it if RIAA would give me a good reason to.
Hmm, they seem to contradict themselves below that:
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws.
Given no previous NDA, according to that clause it would seem that only the virus author would be prohibited.
Still quite intact, this just limits selectivly publishing. You can still hold on to your unpublished articles all you want, but once you publish them, you shouldn't be able to prevent them from being diseminated.
FreeBSD does not have a very significant market share, compared to Linux, and especially NT.
Linux does not have "anti-big-business" licensing any more than Microsoft does. There is absolutely nothing stopping any person or business (big or otherwise) from developing closed source software for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Government is stepping in by not funding? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
My understanding was that the Usian gov't would refuse all funding to a lab that did any banned research. So, for example, a lab that reasearched cloning and cancer could not get funding for their cure for cancer.
Am I mistaken?
The article mentioned a net in British Columbia, which I assume means Vancouver. Does anyone know who's running this?
To put it another way: Is there something wrong with me seeing someone steal a book, then come in the next day, and my telling them that they have to leave? Is it wrong if I have a system that will watch the doors to help me with this task? How is this more onerous than a standard security system which, in effect, is saying "I don't trust anyone."
No, but there is something wrong with kicking someone out for looking like the shoplifter, which is what this system does.
And consider stores like WalMart, who are known for killing off all competition in small towns. Do they have the right to ban people from buying, say, shoes?
No, it is not. You've again mistaken "primarily defensive" with "exclusively defensive". He specifically says that he will charge to license for non open projects. In no way does that email even suggest that the patent "would be used for only defensive purposes". (Emphasis mine).
You've provided a link showing him saying A, but I haven't seen anything with him saying !A.
Lastly, as anyone who is familiar with the actions and works of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Thoreau knows, civil disobedience does not come without a price. If you aren't willing to take the punishment for standing up against unjust laws, then you really shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Civil disobedience has absolutely nothing to do with martyrdom. It may be an effective addition, but it isn't necessary.
Pavlovich broke an unjust law, I see nothing wrong with him trying to avoid punishment. Gandhi is not the be all and end all of civil disobedience.
How has anything he's done contradict what he said he would do in that email? Perhaps he has simply said that the patent is not exclusively defensive, and you've misunderstood him.
That email doesn't seem to imply that he wouldn't use the patent offensively aswell as defensively.
Is Lineo's product GPLed? The article wasn't clear on this point. If not, I don't see the contradiction.
Quote from Victors supposed contradictory email:
If you want to use my idea for a non-Linux or non open project, you should think about how to pay. The main purpose of the patent was defensive as I did not want to find myself paying royalties to someone else to use my idea. But I have no objections to collecting fees from people who want to do this on Windows.
Doesn't sound like he's saying that the patent is exclusivly defensive to me.
In the post you link to Victor claims his primary reason for the patent was defensive, but that he intended to charge for proprietory usage. This doesn't seem like very damning evidence on its own.
The article isn't very clear on exactly what Lineo is doing, but if it's proprietory, it sounds like Victor is doing exactly what he said he would.
Care to offer some more convincing evidence?
I have a fast DSL connection, and I don't need manuals. When I was in school, I downloaded distros. I've graduated, and now I can afford to buy boxed distros, so I do.
If we want this gift culture thing to work, we have to participate. I buy the distros that I use for the same reason I give money to buskers: they're both making my life more pleasant and I'd like them to be able to continue to do so.
RIAA, however, will not get any money from me. I prefer to download my music. I'd pay for it if RIAA would give me a good reason to.
Hmm, they seem to contradict themselves below that:
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws.
Given no previous NDA, according to that clause it would seem that only the virus author would be prohibited.
What about a person's freedom not to publish?
Still quite intact, this just limits selectivly publishing. You can still hold on to your unpublished articles all you want, but once you publish them, you shouldn't be able to prevent them from being diseminated.
This is due to laws in the countries mentioned about their citizens investing in foriegn IPOs.
Am I safe in assuming the Linux version does not do any of this nastyness? Has anyone checked?
Until they moved to a Windows only format.
I don't recall the legal term, but I believe ignoring a trespass for an extended period of time implies acceptance.
So, yes, they had their 7 years to file suit, but only if they had it ordered stopped earlier.
Or do you have a coffee machine that creates a seal then pumps up the pressure before it makes the brew?
Yes, it's commonly called an espresso machine...
FreeBSD does not have a very significant market share, compared to Linux, and especially NT.
Linux does not have "anti-big-business" licensing any more than Microsoft does. There is absolutely nothing stopping any person or business (big or otherwise) from developing closed source software for Linux.
Anyone know if this is working on the *n?x versions? I tried -turbo, but it didn't seem to have an effect.
When you look at the CerfPod.
There is a slash site for the CerfCube here
Linus also wants "good status" messages taken out.
ie) If it's not broken don't tell me about it.
Linus wasn't suggesting removing "it worked" messages, just shunting them to the log files.
Perhaps a happy middle ground would be to have a verbosity flag in the config process.
And stealing American satellite TV is perfectly legal in Canada.
If DirecTV doesn't like it, they can stop broadcasting across our border =)