no, Weird all gets permisson from the rights holder... ie. the RIAA to do his parodies. He usually asks permission.. because it's always funnier if you get the inside scoop, but his legal permission comes from the record company... that's why the record companies are so picky about getting all the artists rights signed over.
OSI is working to clear up the mess of "free" licenses out there to make interoperation of various modules allowable without relicensing every time you ship a project. Even the FSF is willing to work with them to allow things like AFSL, MPL, etc to coexist with GPL or LGPL as approperiate and just agree they are good enough without splitting hares over fine print. What they are doing will make Open source really viable and help smooth the edges for commercial developers. But they have to honor the orginal licenses when they make recommendations how they interact, that's the law.
Free Software advocates may seem out of touch, but it's NOW when times are good that you have to stay on the path. The whole "free software" movement rides the thin line between academic/hobby project and real, live commercial copyright. If they make the license too loose, they set bad precedent. If they don't actively define their position when they see a "violation" then they may miss something and again,set bad precedent. If they don't keep an active copyright push, then they risk a judge throwing all GPL code into "pubic domain". Especially because they aren't a "real" company, but a "club" it makes it easier for others to say FSF meant the code to be "public" and they let it lose.
Also, when times are good, they have to be careful of imposter licenses. Ones that look "free" enough, but have gottchas that let an orginating company swoop in, or a downstream company lock-up the code later on. Things like Sun's OpenOffice.org fall in that catagory. Again, it's important to not let the "free software" brand if you will be diluted so that it doesn't become a free for all.
#1...MS requires the license to USE the software. Most of the others only require the license to reproduce or modify + distribute software. They demand something, however small, just to USE the software as it's given to you. It's an EULA, not a license. Notice they think you don't have the right to even PREPARE deritive works without permission.
Section 3 part A looks simpler than GPL, but combine with part C looks like BSD... except Microsoft always keeps it's mits in your work and all the work that follows. Where as BSD and GPL the orginal author's say ends as long as your new copy follows the rules. And again, they following users would appear to be required to accept Microsoft's EULA as well. GPL binds no progam license to any company in this manner.
And of course, Microsoft has a more restrictive patent clause than even GPL 3. Where as GPL 3 says you must ensure you have patent rights, and grant rights to downstream users, it doesn't try to take away from you for suing somebody. I know there was talk, but it's not in the license. Microsoft removes your license if you think you need to sue them.. or even counter/cross sue in defense of them sueing you! So if this was to become widespread, anybody that MS sued would loose all rights to the 'community' software when they tried to defend themselves.
I do notice 1 glaring ommisson for a microsoft license... They didn't leave themselves the right to revise/extend/revoke the license at will they usually include in every other license they write. I guess they're not all bad.
there is probably some provison that the licensor would have to guarantee that the license wouldn't change over it's life... most importantly couldn't change without notice. Things like BSD, GPL, MPL, AFSL all have standardized offical versions and either no change or methods of change defined right in the license. Example: Typical GPL is version 2 dated 1991. We all know exactly what that means. If you make any changes to that you MUST call them out and notice them from the published version. MS has no "standard" license to reuse over and over.
Microsoft licenses aren't worth the bits on the screen.. they can be changed at will by Microsoft and "paper" versions don't count. MS refuses to version or date their licenses.. it's all a game to them. If OSI was to approve a MS license, MS would have to guarantee that it wouldn't change without notice.. and they flatly refuse to do that!
realize that whatever they ask is considered "public" testimony, same as in court, and anybody can publish it on the internet without reprecussion because it's a "public" document. Hence, the Lawyers try to ask very personal, very demeaning questions with the weight of the court, knowing they can turn around and use the information for "blackmail" legally because they can mail this to wives, girlfriends, churches, employers... and make your life more messy.
they got the judge in NC to issue a "blanket" deposition because his lawyer wasn't available on short notice to explain the case. It was a case of "hurry up judge, he's trying to pull a fast one" The judge allowed it because it was in his court, then later limited the time to 4 hours after he realized he'd been played. There's not disciplinary issues... Yet. This still has to be admited as evidence to the Correct court in Utah... she may not be so pleased with them because they went around her express orders. Sort of like running to Daddy after Mommy tells you that you can't have a cookie!
because SCO filed the supeona from the NC court in the first place. He hurried and ran to that court to answer the supeona. He was supposed to ignore the supeona, kind of like an out-of-bounds in tennis. If he had not "hit" the ball, it would have been "out". It seems awfuly foolish that a court would fall for this, especially when they argue the case is already being overseen by another court. The system is seriously broken.
I don't see how the deposition can be valid? essentialy SCO made the play "out of bounds" so because he went to that judge to answer it, it counts now. I suppose it's similar to "sports" rules, but the other court had already said NOT to do this. I'd suppose the guy will be depositioned, but the Utah judge could throw out the entire testimony for going "behind her back"
and the lawyers will be asking every question "backwards" because they already know the answer so that you initially say the wrong thing. Trying to trick you with your own words. Then they can pick apart the testimony and point to every difference as "lies".
I don't see how they can get away with this. One federal judge made a ruling, no more depositions, so they went to another court and asked for something they shouldn't have asked for. Because the Courts can't/won't communicate about cases, the judge allowed the deposition "to be fair". This is just like being a little kid running to daddy when mommy says no to a cookie.. I can't believe that a federal judge would allow this.
but thru tort, the software industry got to charge you for the right to use. After all, you have to "copy" the bits to the hard drive, or at least copy the bits into ram, into L2 cache, into L1 cache, into registers, etc.... we can't have people violating their works can we! Again, from my orginal post, GPL treats the source code as the only thing. And GPL treats source code like a "cookbook" so it give you back what the industry took away thru the courts.
but TiVo already signed multi-year agreements with directTV.. although another poster said DirectTV was moving away from Tivo also... Sounds like Tivo doesn't have much standing... so are going suit happy. I thought a good chunk of their patents were already overturned, Dish must have coppied something stupid that they can't engineer around like everybody else does.
Excellent example, but this would be equivalent to the Govt also performing invasive "Customs" level searches because you were on a plane who's travel heads OUT of the country. And searching every one on any given plane with the only cause being that your flying to the middle east, but you're IN Detroit right now. That would never fly, nor should this. The issue if they could get away with that EVERY flight would "leave" the country so they could inspect you. It's the same with wiretaps only easier because they can just put the sniffer on the physical wire going "out" of the country and catch whatever comes along. That's what the judge is seeing.
hello Mr. responsible. The cell companies would like to say Fuck You!
Seriously, the cell companies, like credit card companies prey on irresponsibility for their profit margins. That's a fact. You'll never see a phone plan like that because EVERYBODY would want one and nobody would ever go over minutes. It's not a matter of CAN'T, it's a matter of WON'T!
"Why on earth would calling a friend require the same level of maturity as driving a car? Or do you think kids should only be provided with the bare necessities?"
because they're exponentially more likely to rack up $300 in cell phone bills than $300 in car repairs!
driving is also good when they can pay for the extra insurance! Kids learn really quick how screwed they are when they see that bill jacked up just to let them drive. They learn even more when that first ticket hits! Drinking should be left until they're 21... if people honestly didn't drink or smoke until of age, the numbers of people stuck in problems with those things would plummet. That's why both industries go after young people anyway they can. Because if they don't get you hooked by 18 or 21, you generally won't EVER be hooked! You may choose to smoke, or drink but you generally won't have a "problem" with it.
in my experience kids contact their parents MORE than we did when they have cell phones available. They are more likely to stay in touch, and more likely to get to do cool stuff because parents know the kids can contact them if plans go wrong. I've sent my kids off with mine several time. The wife and I share a plan and keep each other on speed dial, so you can send 1 phone off with the kid and keep the other. That goes with the understanding that they can call, or be called, and if they need help, they're not going to call a tow truck, they'll call ME and we'll be there, now. They know they have the "lifeline" so they also know it psycologically goes both ways. The standard for their behavior goes up because they can't say they were "forced" or "lost" if something happens. More communication keeps people more honest with each other by default... it's how we're wired to work.
you gotta be kidding right, kids don't run the street like that anymore. Most parents pay much more attention to where their kids are at then my parents ever did. (and they were uptight!) They're expected to call Before they leave the activity and go to the friend's house.. the main one is traveling with friends on trips. It's great to know your kids are on the road and safe BEFORE they are actually late, or that they're changing plans BEFORE you expected to see them. Check-in is a whole lot different now with cell phones.. you can call the kid at a preset time... and "agree" with them to answer.
It gets abused between friends phones, but for kids and parents, it's a great way to keep tabs without "hovering" because it's dynamic, kids usually call MORE often and tell parents what's going on rather than parents having to hunt down the kids! And again, there are lots of split families now. I know several kids that Mom from one house drops them off and Dad from another picks them up.. that's good for the kids because they get to have THEIR life in spite of their parent's choices.
"hip" kids these days have activities before and after school and at least 2-3 over the weekend. Both parents work, so Cell phones are the glue that keeps the family talking. Dad drops off kids before school on his way to work, they call mom because they forgot homework, Mom gets the little one from half-day school, kid has phone to "remind" her to go to lunch now and get me. Bigger kid has changed plans and has extra practice tonight, calls mom to confirm. Mom calls dad to pick kid up after working OT. Then complicate things with step-parents, granparents, work OT, traveling parents, friends to stay overnight, etc and it gets really fun! I could make my wife's normal day much worse... but I can't keep it all straight, I'm just an IT person!
for most traveling people their notebook is their office. They hit VPN at least 3 times a day to check email back at the office... silly poster, just because you're "out of the office" doesn't mean people don't expect you to handle things back home.. that's so 90's. That said, the other reason is that laptops don't leave your sight!! Even if I don't turn the thing on, I'm not trusting it to unknown baggage handlers. If it gets damaged in traveling, I'll do it myself thank you!
It's not expressly saying documents, but between all the different EULAs involved, not just WGA, but SP2, media player, etc. Microsoft gives itself all sorts of rights to access your machine... under HIPAA, ANY access by parties not legally spelled out is a violation. The fact that MS gives itself ANY access is a violation because there's no way you the IT person can PROVE that's ONLY what they're accessing... we find out all the time MS oversteps it's bounds... HIPAA is about certianty that record privacy is maintained. The EULA expessly denies that ability.
Of course, most hospital IT departments have the internet completely cut off to anything that handles records and from what I've seen end-point systems only handle 1 record at a time, web page style so it's gone from the host after it's viewed.
Hipaa needs to protect privacy when medical info changes hands between doctors at 6 practices and other medical techs as well as insurance companies. The idea is to give each person just what they need without opening the patient to retalliation... Example: you may go to the doctor with anxiety because your boss is an ass, and you haven't had vacation in 2 years. Your insuance covers the visit, but they shouldn't have the doctor's notes about your conversation, nor should they pass the info to your boss. That would be wrong. Also, there's the social engineering aspect of medical records. There's a duty to protect medical records from the papparazzi crowd as an extreme example, that counter-surf and dumpster dive to see who got what celebs got boobs/rehab/herpes this week.
What you are describing as silly non-identifying info is very important to the medial industry.. doctors have to be able to publish public records of important cases in rather gory detail or we can't advance the science. There is reporting of disease to the CDC for tracking and preventing and lots of PHDs out there that need records to find out something new. It's a good law for trying to take that into account.
not really, most Slashdotters expect digital media to fall under similar real space rules. Programs should be treated like books of source code, not magical shiny discs. Most online pages would fall under the Magizine or Newspaper catagory... we'd expect the ability to collect exerpts, make scrapbooks, wallpaper our bedroom, with real paper media... why not the equivelant with digital media. it's the media companies that want special privillage... In the beginning softare was source code typed in "cookbook" style. Then somebody got the bright idea to sell only compiled programs... combine with the record industry that has 6 ways to copyright a song on a shiny disc. The trend has always been to make digital media something "more". If softare is a "cookbook" for programming machies, why do we need to "license" it? I don't license a cookbook from the bookstore per entre I cook, that would be silly, but we have to have a "license" to actually use the cookbook if its software. It's the publishers that keep trying to grab "rights" not the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
no, Weird all gets permisson from the rights holder... ie. the RIAA to do his parodies. He usually asks permission.. because it's always funnier if you get the inside scoop, but his legal permission comes from the record company... that's why the record companies are so picky about getting all the artists rights signed over.
Free Software advocates may seem out of touch, but it's NOW when times are good that you have to stay on the path. The whole "free software" movement rides the thin line between academic/hobby project and real, live commercial copyright. If they make the license too loose, they set bad precedent. If they don't actively define their position when they see a "violation" then they may miss something and again,set bad precedent. If they don't keep an active copyright push, then they risk a judge throwing all GPL code into "pubic domain". Especially because they aren't a "real" company, but a "club" it makes it easier for others to say FSF meant the code to be "public" and they let it lose.
Also, when times are good, they have to be careful of imposter licenses. Ones that look "free" enough, but have gottchas that let an orginating company swoop in, or a downstream company lock-up the code later on. Things like Sun's OpenOffice.org fall in that catagory. Again, it's important to not let the "free software" brand if you will be diluted so that it doesn't become a free for all.
#1...MS requires the license to USE the software. Most of the others only require the license to reproduce or modify + distribute software. They demand something, however small, just to USE the software as it's given to you. It's an EULA, not a license. Notice they think you don't have the right to even PREPARE deritive works without permission.
Section 3 part A looks simpler than GPL, but combine with part C looks like BSD... except Microsoft always keeps it's mits in your work and all the work that follows. Where as BSD and GPL the orginal author's say ends as long as your new copy follows the rules. And again, they following users would appear to be required to accept Microsoft's EULA as well. GPL binds no progam license to any company in this manner.
And of course, Microsoft has a more restrictive patent clause than even GPL 3. Where as GPL 3 says you must ensure you have patent rights, and grant rights to downstream users, it doesn't try to take away from you for suing somebody. I know there was talk, but it's not in the license. Microsoft removes your license if you think you need to sue them.. or even counter/cross sue in defense of them sueing you! So if this was to become widespread, anybody that MS sued would loose all rights to the 'community' software when they tried to defend themselves.
I do notice 1 glaring ommisson for a microsoft license... They didn't leave themselves the right to revise/extend/revoke the license at will they usually include in every other license they write. I guess they're not all bad.
Microsoft licenses aren't worth the bits on the screen.. they can be changed at will by Microsoft and "paper" versions don't count. MS refuses to version or date their licenses.. it's all a game to them. If OSI was to approve a MS license, MS would have to guarantee that it wouldn't change without notice.. and they flatly refuse to do that!
realize that whatever they ask is considered "public" testimony, same as in court, and anybody can publish it on the internet without reprecussion because it's a "public" document. Hence, the Lawyers try to ask very personal, very demeaning questions with the weight of the court, knowing they can turn around and use the information for "blackmail" legally because they can mail this to wives, girlfriends, churches, employers... and make your life more messy.
they got the judge in NC to issue a "blanket" deposition because his lawyer wasn't available on short notice to explain the case. It was a case of "hurry up judge, he's trying to pull a fast one" The judge allowed it because it was in his court, then later limited the time to 4 hours after he realized he'd been played. There's not disciplinary issues... Yet. This still has to be admited as evidence to the Correct court in Utah... she may not be so pleased with them because they went around her express orders. Sort of like running to Daddy after Mommy tells you that you can't have a cookie!
he should move for 4 hours with the SCO lawyer after the deposition! then he can answer a different lawyer truthfully he beat a lawyer to death!
because SCO filed the supeona from the NC court in the first place. He hurried and ran to that court to answer the supeona. He was supposed to ignore the supeona, kind of like an out-of-bounds in tennis. If he had not "hit" the ball, it would have been "out". It seems awfuly foolish that a court would fall for this, especially when they argue the case is already being overseen by another court. The system is seriously broken.
I don't see how the deposition can be valid? essentialy SCO made the play "out of bounds" so because he went to that judge to answer it, it counts now. I suppose it's similar to "sports" rules, but the other court had already said NOT to do this. I'd suppose the guy will be depositioned, but the Utah judge could throw out the entire testimony for going "behind her back"
and the lawyers will be asking every question "backwards" because they already know the answer so that you initially say the wrong thing. Trying to trick you with your own words. Then they can pick apart the testimony and point to every difference as "lies".
I don't see how they can get away with this. One federal judge made a ruling, no more depositions, so they went to another court and asked for something they shouldn't have asked for. Because the Courts can't/won't communicate about cases, the judge allowed the deposition "to be fair". This is just like being a little kid running to daddy when mommy says no to a cookie.. I can't believe that a federal judge would allow this.
but thru tort, the software industry got to charge you for the right to use. After all, you have to "copy" the bits to the hard drive, or at least copy the bits into ram, into L2 cache, into L1 cache, into registers, etc.... we can't have people violating their works can we! Again, from my orginal post, GPL treats the source code as the only thing. And GPL treats source code like a "cookbook" so it give you back what the industry took away thru the courts.
but TiVo already signed multi-year agreements with directTV.. although another poster said DirectTV was moving away from Tivo also... Sounds like Tivo doesn't have much standing... so are going suit happy. I thought a good chunk of their patents were already overturned, Dish must have coppied something stupid that they can't engineer around like everybody else does.
Excellent example, but this would be equivalent to the Govt also performing invasive "Customs" level searches because you were on a plane who's travel heads OUT of the country. And searching every one on any given plane with the only cause being that your flying to the middle east, but you're IN Detroit right now. That would never fly, nor should this. The issue if they could get away with that EVERY flight would "leave" the country so they could inspect you. It's the same with wiretaps only easier because they can just put the sniffer on the physical wire going "out" of the country and catch whatever comes along. That's what the judge is seeing.
Seriously, the cell companies, like credit card companies prey on irresponsibility for their profit margins. That's a fact. You'll never see a phone plan like that because EVERYBODY would want one and nobody would ever go over minutes. It's not a matter of CAN'T, it's a matter of WON'T!
because they're exponentially more likely to rack up $300 in cell phone bills than $300 in car repairs!
driving is also good when they can pay for the extra insurance! Kids learn really quick how screwed they are when they see that bill jacked up just to let them drive. They learn even more when that first ticket hits! Drinking should be left until they're 21... if people honestly didn't drink or smoke until of age, the numbers of people stuck in problems with those things would plummet. That's why both industries go after young people anyway they can. Because if they don't get you hooked by 18 or 21, you generally won't EVER be hooked! You may choose to smoke, or drink but you generally won't have a "problem" with it.
in my experience kids contact their parents MORE than we did when they have cell phones available. They are more likely to stay in touch, and more likely to get to do cool stuff because parents know the kids can contact them if plans go wrong. I've sent my kids off with mine several time. The wife and I share a plan and keep each other on speed dial, so you can send 1 phone off with the kid and keep the other. That goes with the understanding that they can call, or be called, and if they need help, they're not going to call a tow truck, they'll call ME and we'll be there, now. They know they have the "lifeline" so they also know it psycologically goes both ways. The standard for their behavior goes up because they can't say they were "forced" or "lost" if something happens. More communication keeps people more honest with each other by default... it's how we're wired to work.
It gets abused between friends phones, but for kids and parents, it's a great way to keep tabs without "hovering" because it's dynamic, kids usually call MORE often and tell parents what's going on rather than parents having to hunt down the kids! And again, there are lots of split families now. I know several kids that Mom from one house drops them off and Dad from another picks them up.. that's good for the kids because they get to have THEIR life in spite of their parent's choices.
"hip" kids these days have activities before and after school and at least 2-3 over the weekend. Both parents work, so Cell phones are the glue that keeps the family talking. Dad drops off kids before school on his way to work, they call mom because they forgot homework, Mom gets the little one from half-day school, kid has phone to "remind" her to go to lunch now and get me. Bigger kid has changed plans and has extra practice tonight, calls mom to confirm. Mom calls dad to pick kid up after working OT. Then complicate things with step-parents, granparents, work OT, traveling parents, friends to stay overnight, etc and it gets really fun! I could make my wife's normal day much worse... but I can't keep it all straight, I'm just an IT person!
for most traveling people their notebook is their office. They hit VPN at least 3 times a day to check email back at the office... silly poster, just because you're "out of the office" doesn't mean people don't expect you to handle things back home.. that's so 90's. That said, the other reason is that laptops don't leave your sight!! Even if I don't turn the thing on, I'm not trusting it to unknown baggage handlers. If it gets damaged in traveling, I'll do it myself thank you!
that will cause more incidents, not fewer! I want off the plane NOW!!!
Of course, most hospital IT departments have the internet completely cut off to anything that handles records and from what I've seen end-point systems only handle 1 record at a time, web page style so it's gone from the host after it's viewed.
What you are describing as silly non-identifying info is very important to the medial industry.. doctors have to be able to publish public records of important cases in rather gory detail or we can't advance the science. There is reporting of disease to the CDC for tracking and preventing and lots of PHDs out there that need records to find out something new. It's a good law for trying to take that into account.
not really, most Slashdotters expect digital media to fall under similar real space rules. Programs should be treated like books of source code, not magical shiny discs. Most online pages would fall under the Magizine or Newspaper catagory... we'd expect the ability to collect exerpts, make scrapbooks, wallpaper our bedroom, with real paper media... why not the equivelant with digital media. it's the media companies that want special privillage... In the beginning softare was source code typed in "cookbook" style. Then somebody got the bright idea to sell only compiled programs... combine with the record industry that has 6 ways to copyright a song on a shiny disc. The trend has always been to make digital media something "more". If softare is a "cookbook" for programming machies, why do we need to "license" it? I don't license a cookbook from the bookstore per entre I cook, that would be silly, but we have to have a "license" to actually use the cookbook if its software. It's the publishers that keep trying to grab "rights" not the customers.