Open Source / GPL / GNU/RMS should be *delighted* that linksys uses RMS/Open Source. By the way, in all my future posts, ALL "open source" will be called RMS/Open Source... For example RMS/Linux...
I love Open Source and the GPL. Most of the solutions I design rely heavily on the work of others. But I also know that if I sell it / distribute it, all the changes, all the secret and unique little ways I have chosen to leverage the Open Source, well, it too becomes Open Source, and then the guy down the street steels my code, my business, and my business plan, and I have to give the Volvo back. So how do I deal with this and still reap the benefits of other's labors? HOSTED SOLUTIONS!!!! YEHHHHHHH! The software ain't for sale, just the use of it.... And I'm still "clean" in the eyes of Open Source / GPL (legally, that is...)
Amazon is not building a search engine like that which most people are familiar at Google. Amazon wants to build a search engine specifically to sell products. So, if you're interested in the ins and outs of rebuilding a '57 Chevy or tracking down some problem with some old Sun SPARC Station you bought on eBay, forget it. It's just going to be a mechanism to point people at Amazon affiliates.
Everyone here knows the Moderators are biased. Just never use the "M" word, or point out any GNU/Linux flaw... Actually, I think they are like the guys in Weird Science, they are building a Linux driven robot woman to get laid...
From FoxNews:
"Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls.
"They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess."
The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (search) lacked authority to create and operate the registry.
West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals.
The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night.
"The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner."
West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.
Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing.
"U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting."
The do-not-call registry appears that it will go forward after all. The House approved legislation Thursday intended to ensure the list goes into effect next week. After less than an hour of debate, which included potshots at West from both parties, House members voted 412-8 to approve the bill."
I would agree with this statement if the same content was available via alternative delivery mechanisms. It's one thing to impose a copy protection scheme on a particular method of content delivery, but it's quite another to do so when that's the only method of content delivery that's available.
It is not for you or any consumer to demand a company produce their product, which they own (or in the case of the RAII, represent) in any other way than that company wants to. As a consumer you are not obligated to purchase or use the product if it does not meet your needs or desires. But, I suspect you don't listen to Britney Spears or any of those fabulous "boy bands" anyway, so don't worry about it...
This is not at all like saying if you want to access the Internet or do any other computing, you must use Microsoft to do it (although maybe they would like that), your life does not depend on listening to this artist, you will not be robbed of any financial resources or unable to work or support your family if you don't listen to this artist.
Suppose I buy the rights to the super secret unpublished novel by, say, Hemmingway, and decide to publish it exclusively in Swahili translated into Pig Latin. So what? I own the damn thing...
Interesting argument. However, how am I to know that the material is copy protected? How do I know that the copy protection software isn't full of spyware, and adware? Is there a warning label?
My guess is that it's clearly stated in some type of EULA. Obviously, the whole thing is problimatic if it's done "secretly".
is there any law relating to the music publisher installing software on my computer without my permission?
I'm sure there is some law that would apply to this. But the music publisher is not requiring you to install this software. You only need to install it IF you want to hear the music... It's almost certainly in the EULA...
I do not like the idea of a cd installing software such as this.
Well then, that's fine, as you are not required to buy such a CD. Unless you want to hear what's on that CD...
I know it just shocks the hell out of people here, but if you produce a media product, you can use whatever copy protection you want. Nobody is being forced to buy it!
Do you really think RH will just let their customers hang out to dry on this one? According to the statement about the Open Source Now Fund, it applies only to companies involved with the development of GPL software. This does not address legal issues as a result of end users running RH software.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one here at Slashdot... But I'm not sure how "indemnification" weakens Red Hat's case. Such policies generally only say that if SCO sues you for using Brand X Linux product, Company X will back you up because SCO's claim is baseless. At least, that's how I read it. I really don't think it's an admission of anything, unless you are buying SCO's response to the HP indemnification policy, which is clearly more SCO FUD (are SCO and FUD synonyms?)
But Red Hat's suit does not address the indemnification issues at all. The two are unrelated. Sure, the Red Hat suit is a high road, but it has no effect at all on the possible SCO fallout from using Red Hat products.
Oh, I must have missed the big Amiga product line announcements. I'll have to ask my systems guy when we'll be able to play around with the Amiga file and database server and web server beta boxes, I'm sure this is going to just be a revolution in our shop. But I wonder if BeOS can be ported to the Amiga boxes, man our server cage will be the envy of all the visitors to the farm...
Some will say this is a big cop-out for HP, and just a PR ploy, but although there are some limitations, it's a lot better than nothing, which is what Red Hat and SuSE offer...
Kazaa just sued RAII for copyright infringment...
on
RIAA Sues the Wrong Person
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Interesting story at CNN (rejected by Little Timmy): Kazaa just sued RAII for copyright infringment...
CNN,
But... This is not at all the same as Red Hat indemnifying it's customers against any SCO fallout from using their product, as HP has just done. Sure, HP requires you also be running it on HP equipment, but that's what they are, a hardware manufacturer. All Red Hat has don is sue SCO for badmouthing Linux and therefore impacting Red Hat's reputation and ability to turn a profit (although considering this has been the best year yet for Red Hat, the second part of the argument may not go far...).
I guess I should have also pointed out that talking to these people about how it's not YOU but someone ELSE in the same IP block was USELESS. You have NO CONTROL over other users, there is no reason why you should suffer for it.
There are LOTS of alternatives to these blacklists, and if they all die off tomorrow, it will just mean all these rabid dogs will have to find something else to froth at ("Darl... spit, froth, spew... SCO... spit, froth, spew... Microsoft... spit, froth, spew... WHERE IS THE NEW DOOM... spit, froth, spew..."). Getting a LIFE would not be something they could handle.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Source / GPL / GNU/RMS should be *delighted* that linksys uses RMS/Open Source. By the way, in all my future posts, ALL "open source" will be called RMS/Open Source... For example RMS/Linux...
Where are the Star Wars PORN films?
Actually, many years ago, I did work for MS, on the SQL Server team. Long time ago, far, far away...
I love Open Source and the GPL. Most of the solutions I design rely heavily on the work of others. But I also know that if I sell it / distribute it, all the changes, all the secret and unique little ways I have chosen to leverage the Open Source, well, it too becomes Open Source, and then the guy down the street steels my code, my business, and my business plan, and I have to give the Volvo back. So how do I deal with this and still reap the benefits of other's labors? HOSTED SOLUTIONS!!!! YEHHHHHHH! The software ain't for sale, just the use of it.... And I'm still "clean" in the eyes of Open Source / GPL (legally, that is...)
Are you DENSE? Isn't it OBVIOUS that this is of the same tree as SCO/Unix? They will be calling soon...
It's just another small inde just like the thousends of others.
You realize, of course, the whole process violates both Amazon.com and SCO IP...
Amazon is not building a search engine like that which most people are familiar at Google. Amazon wants to build a search engine specifically to sell products. So, if you're interested in the ins and outs of rebuilding a '57 Chevy or tracking down some problem with some old Sun SPARC Station you bought on eBay, forget it. It's just going to be a mechanism to point people at Amazon affiliates.
Everyone here knows the Moderators are biased. Just never use the "M" word, or point out any GNU/Linux flaw... Actually, I think they are like the guys in Weird Science, they are building a Linux driven robot woman to get laid...
From FoxNews: "Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls. "They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess." The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (search) lacked authority to create and operate the registry. West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals. The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night. "The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner." West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing. "U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting." The do-not-call registry appears that it will go forward after all. The House approved legislation Thursday intended to ensure the list goes into effect next week. After less than an hour of debate, which included potshots at West from both parties, House members voted 412-8 to approve the bill."
Apperently no body here cought the joke of the parent post. But then, it's not very funny, so...
I should stop reading slashdot for a while and get to work.
GOOD GOD, MAN! Get a hold of yourself! Do you HEAR what you're saying?
I would agree with this statement if the same content was available via alternative delivery mechanisms. It's one thing to impose a copy protection scheme on a particular method of content delivery, but it's quite another to do so when that's the only method of content delivery that's available.
It is not for you or any consumer to demand a company produce their product, which they own (or in the case of the RAII, represent) in any other way than that company wants to. As a consumer you are not obligated to purchase or use the product if it does not meet your needs or desires. But, I suspect you don't listen to Britney Spears or any of those fabulous "boy bands" anyway, so don't worry about it...
This is not at all like saying if you want to access the Internet or do any other computing, you must use Microsoft to do it (although maybe they would like that), your life does not depend on listening to this artist, you will not be robbed of any financial resources or unable to work or support your family if you don't listen to this artist.
Suppose I buy the rights to the super secret unpublished novel by, say, Hemmingway, and decide to publish it exclusively in Swahili translated into Pig Latin. So what? I own the damn thing...
Interesting argument. However, how am I to know that the material is copy protected? How do I know that the copy protection software isn't full of spyware, and adware? Is there a warning label?
My guess is that it's clearly stated in some type of EULA. Obviously, the whole thing is problimatic if it's done "secretly".
is there any law relating to the music publisher installing software on my computer without my permission?
I'm sure there is some law that would apply to this. But the music publisher is not requiring you to install this software. You only need to install it IF you want to hear the music... It's almost certainly in the EULA...
I do not like the idea of a cd installing software such as this.
Well then, that's fine, as you are not required to buy such a CD. Unless you want to hear what's on that CD...
I know it just shocks the hell out of people here, but if you produce a media product, you can use whatever copy protection you want. Nobody is being forced to buy it!
Do you really think RH will just let their customers hang out to dry on this one? According to the statement about the Open Source Now Fund, it applies only to companies involved with the development of GPL software. This does not address legal issues as a result of end users running RH software.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one here at Slashdot... But I'm not sure how "indemnification" weakens Red Hat's case. Such policies generally only say that if SCO sues you for using Brand X Linux product, Company X will back you up because SCO's claim is baseless. At least, that's how I read it. I really don't think it's an admission of anything, unless you are buying SCO's response to the HP indemnification policy, which is clearly more SCO FUD (are SCO and FUD synonyms?)
But Red Hat's suit does not address the indemnification issues at all. The two are unrelated. Sure, the Red Hat suit is a high road, but it has no effect at all on the possible SCO fallout from using Red Hat products.
Oh, I must have missed the big Amiga product line announcements. I'll have to ask my systems guy when we'll be able to play around with the Amiga file and database server and web server beta boxes, I'm sure this is going to just be a revolution in our shop. But I wonder if BeOS can be ported to the Amiga boxes, man our server cage will be the envy of all the visitors to the farm...
Why should anyone offer anything about baseless claims?
Because HP's cutomers are asking them to? Sounds like a good enough reason to me...
Some will say this is a big cop-out for HP, and just a PR ploy, but although there are some limitations, it's a lot better than nothing, which is what Red Hat and SuSE offer...
Interesting story at CNN (rejected by Little Timmy): Kazaa just sued RAII for copyright infringment... CNN,
Red Hat has already counter-sued SCO.
But... This is not at all the same as Red Hat indemnifying it's customers against any SCO fallout from using their product, as HP has just done. Sure, HP requires you also be running it on HP equipment, but that's what they are, a hardware manufacturer. All Red Hat has don is sue SCO for badmouthing Linux and therefore impacting Red Hat's reputation and ability to turn a profit (although considering this has been the best year yet for Red Hat, the second part of the argument may not go far...).
I guess I should have also pointed out that talking to these people about how it's not YOU but someone ELSE in the same IP block was USELESS. You have NO CONTROL over other users, there is no reason why you should suffer for it.
There are LOTS of alternatives to these blacklists, and if they all die off tomorrow, it will just mean all these rabid dogs will have to find something else to froth at ("Darl... spit, froth, spew... SCO... spit, froth, spew... Microsoft... spit, froth, spew... WHERE IS THE NEW DOOM... spit, froth, spew..."). Getting a LIFE would not be something they could handle.