If this had been your site, there probably would have been no media outcry. Your site would still be down, and your drives in an evidence locker with no likelihood of return. When people say "Free speech has consequences," this is the kind of thing they're talking about. Cast a vote against the Ashcroft administration and send a check to the EFF.
And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Only the copyright holder can institute a more restrictive license in a dual-license scheme. TrollTech is the copyright holder for QT, and thus can do that. Sveasoft doesn't own the software it's distributing--it's a derivative work of other GPL'd projects. Thus, they cannot do what TrollTech is doing with QT.
Try exercising your right to redistribute it. No one has an issue with them charging for support--the issue is the subscription cancellation provision. But all this is moot--this guy's going to be out of business soo, and that's good--this reminds me way too much of Richard Morrell and Smoothwall, which resulted in a fork. This has, too.
If the "freeloaders" annoy him so, he's free to stop using the GPL'd code as a base, write his own stuff--then he can license it under whatever conditions he likes. Having based his project on GPL'd code, though, he has to abide by those requirements. This includes not attempting to restrict redistribution of the source with the "creative" license. If I owned one of these routers, I'd subscribe, download, and P2P the source immediately.
Fortunately, someone's forked this project--this is the community healing itself from the wounds caused by greed.
Here's a reason not to do that. I have an uncommon name, and a Google search finds me easily. A non-descript name, especially with a common last name, will paradoxically help to preserve privacy given the transparency of public record information that has never been as truly public as it is now.
These statistics sound like bullshit to me. What is the definition of "sexual encounter with an adult?" Is it intercourse? Oral sex? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they're including a boy seeing his mom in her underwear as a "sexual encounter."
While I want to see an end to the exploitation of children, I don't want to see it at the cost of freedom of speech (yeah, yeah, slippery slope). I don't believe the current hysteria over the fictional flood of kiddie porn on the Internet is the answer.
It's not dollar-for-dollar at all. That's a gross misconception. Parent and student assets are indeed looked at, but even past the protection allowances built into the formulae, the percentage of assets considered part of the "expected family contribution" never comes close to 100.
But don't take my word for it. The formulae used in Federal need analysis are public and available here (PDF).
Perhaps if a private company handled it though, there would be more respect.
You're kidding, right? While I don't like the government having this kind of power, the idea of giving a corporation, which all the Cryptonomicon MBAs here on/. will tell you exists only to "increase shareholder value," the ability to obtain information on the comings and goings of people, to sell or make marketing use of that information, legally or illegally, or even to blackmail (Do your wife and insurance company know you go to gay bars?) sends an order of magnitude more shivery shivers down my spine.
Please kindly name one instance where monitoring of a municipal (not private) surveillance camera prevented a violent crime in progress or resulted in the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. Bonus points if the instance doesn't involve a wealthy or influential victim.
I don't disagree with your ideas relative to investing in your career, but I do disagree with the idea that paying for a cell phone and pager so you can be reached by your W-2 employer constitutes such an investment.
The jobs you cite in which the employee pays for tools have customarily been that way for decades, if not longer. Those conditions are spelled out in the initial terms of employment. If an employer wants me to pay for my own laptop, cell phone, Blackberry, pager, &c., I'll be happy to do that if the salary is right and I think they're someone I can work with. However, for them to suddenly yank funding for those items that had been provided and tell me that I have to pay for them now is a bad thing, and I would soon be working elsewhere before the other shoe dropped.
But that's all unreimbursed business expenses, not broadband. Again, IANATA (tax advisor) and I don't take the deduction. But you've got professional magazines/journals, travel to conferences and any unreimbursed expenses that might involve, classes (to the extent other deductions aren't taken), books or a Safari subscription, software, a laptop--anything required for your job. I consider $50k a reasonable salary for my locale, and that threshold is only $1,000. Decent broadband is $600/yr. before taxes--it wouldn't take many legitimate goodies to go over the threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
If this had been your site, there probably would have been no media outcry. Your site would still be down, and your drives in an evidence locker with no likelihood of return. When people say "Free speech has consequences," this is the kind of thing they're talking about. Cast a vote against the Ashcroft administration and send a check to the EFF.
I think the leader was supposed to be charismatic, which sort of rules him out.
Publicity. Stunt.
Thanks--I'd just blow the karma on cheap booze and trolling anyway :).
I'm for anything that would allow me to enjoy that. Particularly at a low cost!
Only the copyright holder can institute a more restrictive license in a dual-license scheme. TrollTech is the copyright holder for QT, and thus can do that. Sveasoft doesn't own the software it's distributing--it's a derivative work of other GPL'd projects. Thus, they cannot do what TrollTech is doing with QT.
Try exercising your right to redistribute it. No one has an issue with them charging for support--the issue is the subscription cancellation provision. But all this is moot--this guy's going to be out of business soo, and that's good--this reminds me way too much of Richard Morrell and Smoothwall, which resulted in a fork. This has, too.
Fortunately, someone's forked this project--this is the community healing itself from the wounds caused by greed.
Of course--that's one I didn't think of.
Here's a reason not to do that. I have an uncommon name, and a Google search finds me easily. A non-descript name, especially with a common last name, will paradoxically help to preserve privacy given the transparency of public record information that has never been as truly public as it is now.
While I want to see an end to the exploitation of children, I don't want to see it at the cost of freedom of speech (yeah, yeah, slippery slope). I don't believe the current hysteria over the fictional flood of kiddie porn on the Internet is the answer.
But don't take my word for it. The formulae used in Federal need analysis are public and available here (PDF).
. . . that state universities and private, but tax-exempt, schools are able to keep these contracts secret?
The best I've been able to do lately is a little Omega.
The problem is that most of the people who would have $40,000 to wire you are Republicans.
Mod parent up!
. . . maybe Microsoft will counter with some people who switched from Mozilla to MSIE, a la the infamous Windows switcher ad.
You're kidding, right? While I don't like the government having this kind of power, the idea of giving a corporation, which all the Cryptonomicon MBAs here on /. will tell you exists only to "increase shareholder value," the ability to obtain information on the comings and goings of people, to sell or make marketing use of that information, legally or illegally, or even to blackmail (Do your wife and insurance company know you go to gay bars?) sends an order of magnitude more shivery shivers down my spine.
Please kindly name one instance where monitoring of a municipal (not private) surveillance camera prevented a violent crime in progress or resulted in the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. Bonus points if the instance doesn't involve a wealthy or influential victim.
Since there are already, as you concede, "plenty of witnesses," of what necessity would these cameras be at all?
And I have the honour of the first post-downtime post!
I don't disagree with your ideas relative to investing in your career, but I do disagree with the idea that paying for a cell phone and pager so you can be reached by your W-2 employer constitutes such an investment.
The jobs you cite in which the employee pays for tools have customarily been that way for decades, if not longer. Those conditions are spelled out in the initial terms of employment. If an employer wants me to pay for my own laptop, cell phone, Blackberry, pager, &c., I'll be happy to do that if the salary is right and I think they're someone I can work with. However, for them to suddenly yank funding for those items that had been provided and tell me that I have to pay for them now is a bad thing, and I would soon be working elsewhere before the other shoe dropped.
But that's all unreimbursed business expenses, not broadband. Again, IANATA (tax advisor) and I don't take the deduction. But you've got professional magazines/journals, travel to conferences and any unreimbursed expenses that might involve, classes (to the extent other deductions aren't taken), books or a Safari subscription, software, a laptop--anything required for your job. I consider $50k a reasonable salary for my locale, and that threshold is only $1,000. Decent broadband is $600/yr. before taxes--it wouldn't take many legitimate goodies to go over the threshold.