There's a big difference between an EULA limiting liability for the program's distributor and an EULA which claims to actually take something from the person running the software.
You didn't answer the questions. "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to 'deal' with people talking to the person next to them?" Instead you invented a hypothetical situation about someone talking very loudly on a phone. The question isn't "What could there possibly be to 'deal' with about people talking on phones." The question is "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones."
Creating more *reliable* service with a new range of in-air cellular frequencies is one thing, but doing it under the auspices of safety like this is pretty tounge-in-cheek.
Who said anything about safety? The poster of the story. The actual article, on the other hand, says "To ensure that its proposed service doesn't interfere with cellular service on the ground, the AirCell system would block the frequencies passengers' phones normally use."
What's to stop airlines from demanding passengers from purchasing "safe" products and completely banning mainstream electronics on planes, and in return making us pay more money for redundent electronics?
But then why not just leave the ban in effect and force people to use the existing credit-card-activated air phones?
'Cause when you let people use their own cell phones, you can easily find yourself collecting 10 fees at once. Also, it's just plain more convenient, so people are more likely to use it. Finally, as someone else mentioned, incoming calls.
As far as I know, there is nothing in patent legislation that prevents one from publishing papers which describe a patented process or algorithm.
No, but if you're profiting off someone else's patent infringement you're guilty of contributory patent infringement.
So, if it is held that source code is the same as speech, then would non-binary distributed open source programs be free from patent suits?/i>
Same thing with software. If you run the software you're guilty of patent infringement. If you sell someone the software so that they can run it, you're guilty of contributory patent infringement. Source code vs. binary doesn't matter.
If I "take" sw in the public domain, modify it, and tell you that you can only have my verion in binary, and that you will have to pay me, and kiss my butt while you are at it, I haven't taken anything from you.
True, but if I find a copy of that binary on the internet and download it, then you sue me for copyright infringement, win, and take away my house, you have taken something from me.
This is one of the big flaws in terms of "software freedom" as advocated by GPL pundits. There is this nebulous claim out there that not publishing the source code involves taking away freedom.
Actually, I agree. That's why my license doesn't require others to publish source code.
However, I wasn't referring to not publishing source code, I was referring to copyrighting derivative works.
To use an example, lets look at Walt Whitman. Leaves of Grass is avaliable as part of the Gutenberg archive. Random House publishes a new annotated version. Have I been stripped of any freedoms because the annotations and commentary are not public domain.
Yes, you've been stripped of the ability to copy and distribute those annotated versions.
If I make a new creative work on my own and copy protect it, am I infringing on anyone's freedom.
Not unless you sue someone for copyright infringement.
Do you mean that all government funded work should be a. public domain and b. published (being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published), not GPL and not proprietary?
Well, yeah, I do think all government funded work should be public domain, since I think all work should be public domain.
As for requiring that it be published, no. I vehemently disagree that being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published.
Why does the income tax expense keep going down from year to year, while the profits and income are going up.
The way I read it net income went down from 2000 to 2001, and so did income taxes. Net income was very slightly down from 2001 to 2002, and so was income taxes.
I think it should be licensed under the QingPL. Like the GPL, it's a once free always free license, but there's no silly requirement forcing people to distribute source code.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between an EULA limiting liability for the program's distributor and an EULA which claims to actually take something from the person running the software.
Eh, whatever. They should have just pulled those country sites completely in protest.
And then the boss complains that your cellphone is off when he tries to reach you on the weekends / your vacation / etc.
And somehow this is your cell phone's fault, and not your boss's?
Cell phones don't call people. People call people.
now if i could just get a bogus number for all the times i don't want to give out my cell number for fear of it being sold
www.efax.com
And yet a license like the BSD one only means that the initial work will remain in the public domain.
Yeah, that's why I suggest using the QingPL.
Most people are rude. Some of them use cell phones. News at 11.
You didn't answer the questions. "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to 'deal' with people talking to the person next to them?" Instead you invented a hypothetical situation about someone talking very loudly on a phone. The question isn't "What could there possibly be to 'deal' with about people talking on phones." The question is "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones."
Even people that use those headsets with the phone tend to talk louder than a 2nd grader running around on the playground.
Yeah and teenagers tend to steal stuff from supermarkets but that doesn't mean we should ban them from shopping.
Creating more *reliable* service with a new range of in-air cellular frequencies is one thing, but doing it under the auspices of safety like this is pretty tounge-in-cheek.
Who said anything about safety? The poster of the story. The actual article, on the other hand, says "To ensure that its proposed service doesn't interfere with cellular service on the ground, the AirCell system would block the frequencies passengers' phones normally use."
What's to stop airlines from demanding passengers from purchasing "safe" products and completely banning mainstream electronics on planes, and in return making us pay more money for redundent electronics?
Free market competition.
But then why not just leave the ban in effect and force people to use the existing credit-card-activated air phones?
'Cause when you let people use their own cell phones, you can easily find yourself collecting 10 fees at once. Also, it's just plain more convenient, so people are more likely to use it. Finally, as someone else mentioned, incoming calls.
Are you saying that all the stupider people are not on slashdot today, or are you saying that I am dumber than usual today?
As far as I know, there is nothing in patent legislation that prevents one from publishing papers which describe a patented process or algorithm.
No, but if you're profiting off someone else's patent infringement you're guilty of contributory patent infringement.
So, if it is held that source code is the same as speech, then would non-binary distributed open source programs be free from patent suits?/i>
Same thing with software. If you run the software you're guilty of patent infringement. If you sell someone the software so that they can run it, you're guilty of contributory patent infringement. Source code vs. binary doesn't matter.
Please, make a point rather than throwing links.
I never said anything about federal income tax.
If I "take" sw in the public domain, modify it, and tell you that you can only have my verion in binary, and that you will have to pay me, and kiss my butt while you are at it, I haven't taken anything from you.
True, but if I find a copy of that binary on the internet and download it, then you sue me for copyright infringement, win, and take away my house, you have taken something from me.
This is one of the big flaws in terms of "software freedom" as advocated by GPL pundits. There is this nebulous claim out there that not publishing the source code involves taking away freedom.
Actually, I agree. That's why my license doesn't require others to publish source code.
However, I wasn't referring to not publishing source code, I was referring to copyrighting derivative works.
To use an example, lets look at Walt Whitman. Leaves of Grass is avaliable as part of the Gutenberg archive. Random House publishes a new annotated version. Have I been stripped of any freedoms because the annotations and commentary are not public domain.
Yes, you've been stripped of the ability to copy and distribute those annotated versions.
If I make a new creative work on my own and copy protect it, am I infringing on anyone's freedom.
Not unless you sue someone for copyright infringement.
How do you define "funded"? Do the Windows licenses acquired by the government constitute funding?
Sure.
Should Windows be public domain?
Yes. Everything should be public domain.
Do you mean that all government funded work should be a. public domain and b. published (being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published), not GPL and not proprietary?
Well, yeah, I do think all government funded work should be public domain, since I think all work should be public domain.
As for requiring that it be published, no. I vehemently disagree that being public domain is irrelevant if it isn't published.
Why does the income tax expense keep going down from year to year, while the profits and income are going up.
The way I read it net income went down from 2000 to 2001, and so did income taxes. Net income was very slightly down from 2001 to 2002, and so was income taxes.
If you don't want to pay for an improvment, then don't pay for it, but thinking that you deserve to have the improvement anyway is wrong.
Thinking you deserve to have the improvement may be wrong, but thinking you deserve to be able to copy the improvement once you've obtained it isn't.
You know, freedom doesn't apply only to things you approve of. It also means freedom to do things which you don't like.
Yeah, but it doesn't mean the freedom to take away the freedom of others.
I think it should be licensed under the QingPL. Like the GPL, it's a once free always free license, but there's no silly requirement forcing people to distribute source code.
Only if they want to keep the code extensions secret and if they want to distribute to others can they not use the GPL.
Why should "they" (actually it's "we") be forced to release the source code to the changes we distribute?
Government produced work should be public domain, not GPL.
Income taxes? $3,684,000,000 for the year ended June 30, 2000. Or were you talking about sales and other taxes?