How does Lucas get around the "defend or lose" part of trademarks? Do people who want to make a parody download a standard license from the Lucasfilm website and sign it, or what?
The benefit for the first world is that we can buy cheaper goods. The benefit for the third world is money. They really can work themselves out of poverty, if artificial barriers are removed.
Presently, something like 40% of the budget of the EU goes to subsidizing (mostly French) farmers. For every euro sent to corrupt African leaders in aid, we effectively take two euro back from hard-working, honest African farmers.
You are worried about the loss of American jobs. In fact, those workers are freed up: they now have the incentive and ability to do what Americans do best: invent, and profit from a new market. The next Internet, cheap fusion power, whatever.
The protectionism that you favour can only lead to starvation. Trade barriers that protect American jobs just make the country fat and stupid, while killing thousands of third-worlders every day through poverty, disease, starvation.
What the hell makes you think that people in your country should be rewarded for their inefficiency? Why should they have some God-given right to work in automotive engineering, when there are others in foreign countries who can do a better job, for less money, and who could really do with the work?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Nope, you still have rights to the code. Oh, and I can sue you if it fucks up my system (wavier of implied warranty is a contractual provision).
There is effectively no such thing as the public domain any more. If you want others to use your code, you must at least release it using something like the MIT/X11/3-clause BSD license.
An interesting reference to back this up: I believe at GUADEC 6 one of the speakers asked the audience what the last version of Windows they used: most of them last touched Windows 1995.:(
I assume you've already arranged your emigration to Iraq?
Re:What happens with deceased people's code?
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
It's not that simple. Wills, Estates and so on are very complex issues.
Let's say that Granny and her grandson Bill don't see eye-to-eye on Free Software issues. Granny is the maintainer of some large and commonly used software that she released under the GPL.
Granny knows that Bill will probably make trouble for the users of the software if the copyright on the code passes to him, so she wills it away to the FSF.
What Granny can not will away (and hence prevent transfer to Bill) is the right afforded to a copyright holder under 17 USC sec. 203, the right to terminate a license of indefinate length after 35 years.
If Bill wants to make things difficult for the users of the software, which might include several large corporations who distribute software based on it, things would get very interesting. With a click of his fingers, he can revoke all the permissions granted to recipients of the software that Granny granted to them with the GPL...
Things could get pretty interesting down the line, if this actually starts happening.;)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
It's harder to put something into the public domain, than to release it under a 3BSD, X11 or MIT style license.
"And, also, once when I was having trouble with an upgrade, I decided to check out aptitude to see just how well it handled dependencies. I ended up hosing my system. So I'm not even convinced that it handles dependencies any better."
I hope you filed a bug report, to ensure that this serious problem was fixed.
Correct, the use of experimental is optional. Lately teams doing big coordinated uploads (like Gnome 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, KDE, etc) have been using it as a staging ground to prepare for uploads to Unstable which should (in theory) be releasable.
Say you want to try out KDE. 'aptitude install kde' will pull in the kde metapackage, along with all the individual packages that 'kde' depends upon. Aptitude notes that all these individual packages were not directly requested by you--they are only being installed to fulfill a dependancy.
If you later decide that KDE is not for you, 'aptitude remove kde' will remove the kde metapackage. Aptitude will then remove all the automatically installed packages that are no longer depended upon. Yay! With apt-get, you'd have had to remove kdebase, kdenetwork, kdegraphics, etc, all the way down to the leaf packages.
So far, so good. What probably happened to you is something like this:
# aptitude install gnome aptitude thinks: gnome depends on gnome-desktop-environment, gnome-office, bluefish, gnome-cups-manager, etc etc. Therefore I'll install those packages, and mark them as automatically installed
# aptitude remove gnome-office aptitude thinks: gnome-office is being removed, gnome depends on gnome-office, therefore I'll remove gnome aptitude thinks: gnome is being removed, gnome depends on gnome-desktop-environment, gnome-office, bluefish, gnome-cups-manager, etc etc. Those packages were automatically installed, and nothing remaining on the system depends on them any more, so I'll remove them
Basically Aptitude is being too clever for its own good.
The difference is: 'upgrade' will never change what packages are installed; 'dist-upgrade' will.
Say woody had a package foo, and sarge has a package bar, which replaces foo. 'upgrade' will not install bar and remove foo, whereas 'dist-upgrade' will.
Of course, if you read the release notes, you'd know all this...;)
"It is a list of examples. I'd say installing software you bought blatantly falls within the realm of a "Fair Use". I'm sure virtually any judge will agree."
I'm quite sure that installing software counts as fair use--and section 117 allows you to alter your software, but only as far as the modifications allow you to install/use the software.
I haven't seen any other part of title 17 that contradicts 17 USC 106 (the owner of copyright under this title... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize... [the preparation of] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work).
"Well, the GPL and similar licenses do not need to grant you that permission."
Hmm? The following parts of the GPL mention modification:
Preamble: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software....
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:...
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License....
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License....
The Creative Commons and MIT licenses also grant the licensee permission to modify/prepare derivative works--because otherwise that right is reserved to the copyright holder.
While I agree that EULAs are bullshit, and that the folks on debian-legal are, for the most part, overly paranoid, I believe they have stated in the past that they require a license to grant the right to prepare derivative works because otherwise, US copyright law reserves that right to the copyright holder.
I used to think so too, until I actually read 17 USC 106. It states that the following rights are reserved exclusively to the copyright holder:
reproduction
preparation of derivative works
distribution by sale, rental, lease or lending
public performance (plays, dances movies)
public display (plays, dances, art works)
public transmission (sound recordings)
These rights are listed as equal peers, there is no indication that any are subservient to any others. Therefore you may neither copy your book, or modify it (even if you don't distribute the result).
But section 107 only says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright".
I'm not sure that covers modifying software. Section 117 talks specifically about software, but only grants you permission to copy or adapt software for compatibility/interoperability purposes, and backing up.
If you were allowed to alter software, then the GPL and similar licenses wouldn't need to specifically grant you that permission, and the folks on debian-legal wouldn't require such a grant of permission in any license they review for complience with the DFSG.
Correction: you need to own a TV license to operate TV signal reception equipment. If you only watch DVDs, or play video games, or something then you don't need a license.
Slashdot Mirror
How does Lucas get around the "defend or lose" part of trademarks? Do people who want to make a parody download a standard license from the Lucasfilm website and sign it, or what?
The benefit for the first world is that we can buy cheaper goods. The benefit for the third world is money. They really can work themselves out of poverty, if artificial barriers are removed.
Presently, something like 40% of the budget of the EU goes to subsidizing (mostly French) farmers. For every euro sent to corrupt African leaders in aid, we effectively take two euro back from hard-working, honest African farmers.
You are worried about the loss of American jobs. In fact, those workers are freed up: they now have the incentive and ability to do what Americans do best: invent, and profit from a new market. The next Internet, cheap fusion power, whatever.
The protectionism that you favour can only lead to starvation. Trade barriers that protect American jobs just make the country fat and stupid, while killing thousands of third-worlders every day through poverty, disease, starvation.
What the hell makes you think that people in your country should be rewarded for their inefficiency? Why should they have some God-given right to work in automotive engineering, when there are others in foreign countries who can do a better job, for less money, and who could really do with the work?
Nope, you still have rights to the code. Oh, and I can sue you if it fucks up my system (wavier of implied warranty is a contractual provision).
There is effectively no such thing as the public domain any more. If you want others to use your code, you must at least release it using something like the MIT/X11/3-clause BSD license.
An interesting reference to back this up: I believe at GUADEC 6 one of the speakers asked the audience what the last version of Windows they used: most of them last touched Windows 1995. :(
You could ask him to run 'which sleep', but oh wait, cmd.exe is shit.
I assume you've already arranged your emigration to Iraq?
It's not that simple. Wills, Estates and so on are very complex issues.
;)
Let's say that Granny and her grandson Bill don't see eye-to-eye on Free Software issues. Granny is the maintainer of some large and commonly used software that she released under the GPL.
Granny knows that Bill will probably make trouble for the users of the software if the copyright on the code passes to him, so she wills it away to the FSF.
What Granny can not will away (and hence prevent transfer to Bill) is the right afforded to a copyright holder under 17 USC sec. 203, the right to terminate a license of indefinate length after 35 years.
If Bill wants to make things difficult for the users of the software, which might include several large corporations who distribute software based on it, things would get very interesting. With a click of his fingers, he can revoke all the permissions granted to recipients of the software that Granny granted to them with the GPL...
Things could get pretty interesting down the line, if this actually starts happening.
It's harder to put something into the public domain, than to release it under a 3BSD, X11 or MIT style license.
The issue of why the public domain is useless is currently being discussed on debian-legal.
Woody shipped with 2.2 by default, 2.4 was an apt-get install away
Sarge ships with 2.4 by default, 2.6 is an aptitude install away
Never link to glibc statically.
Correct, the use of experimental is optional. Lately teams doing big coordinated uploads (like Gnome 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, KDE, etc) have been using it as a staging ground to prepare for uploads to Unstable which should (in theory) be releasable.
Get it from experimental if you trust it.
The new packages will be uploaded to Unstable soon.
It's probably Aptitude's automatic dependancy tracking.
Say you want to try out KDE. 'aptitude install kde' will pull in the kde metapackage, along with all the individual packages that 'kde' depends upon. Aptitude notes that all these individual packages were not directly requested by you--they are only being installed to fulfill a dependancy.
If you later decide that KDE is not for you, 'aptitude remove kde' will remove the kde metapackage. Aptitude will then remove all the automatically installed packages that are no longer depended upon. Yay! With apt-get, you'd have had to remove kdebase, kdenetwork, kdegraphics, etc, all the way down to the leaf packages.
So far, so good. What probably happened to you is something like this:
# aptitude install gnome
aptitude thinks: gnome depends on gnome-desktop-environment, gnome-office, bluefish, gnome-cups-manager, etc etc. Therefore I'll install those packages, and mark them as automatically installed
# aptitude remove gnome-office
aptitude thinks: gnome-office is being removed, gnome depends on gnome-office, therefore I'll remove gnome
aptitude thinks: gnome is being removed, gnome depends on gnome-desktop-environment, gnome-office, bluefish, gnome-cups-manager, etc etc. Those packages were automatically installed, and nothing remaining on the system depends on them any more, so I'll remove them
Basically Aptitude is being too clever for its own good.
> I gritted my teeth and voted Labour last month, but with this and the renewed
> push for ID cards, they've lost my support within a month.
OMFG
You, sir, are a moron. A cursory ten seconds of research would have shown you that ID cards were one of their goddamn CAMPAIGN PROMISES!
Strictly speaking, packages should only be uploaded to Unstable if they are of high enough quality to be released.
Experimental is a staging ground to prepare packages for others to test, that aren't necessarily of releasable quality.
The difference is: 'upgrade' will never change what packages are installed; 'dist-upgrade' will.
;)
Say woody had a package foo, and sarge has a package bar, which replaces foo. 'upgrade' will not install bar and remove foo, whereas 'dist-upgrade' will.
Of course, if you read the release notes, you'd know all this...
Nope, Open Firmware's being ditched... :(
I guess we're moving to PC-style partition tables, too?
1. How will they get around the fact that x86 has so few registers compared to PPC?
2. Please, Apple, say you're not abandoning Open Firmware...
I'm quite sure that installing software counts as fair use--and section 117 allows you to alter your software, but only as far as the modifications allow you to install/use the software.
I haven't seen any other part of title 17 that contradicts 17 USC 106 (the owner of copyright under this title ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize ... [the preparation of] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work).
Hmm? The following parts of the GPL mention modification:
The Creative Commons and MIT licenses also grant the licensee permission to modify/prepare derivative works--because otherwise that right is reserved to the copyright holder.
While I agree that EULAs are bullshit, and that the folks on debian-legal are, for the most part, overly paranoid, I believe they have stated in the past that they require a license to grant the right to prepare derivative works because otherwise, US copyright law reserves that right to the copyright holder.
These rights are listed as equal peers, there is no indication that any are subservient to any others. Therefore you may neither copy your book, or modify it (even if you don't distribute the result).
But section 107 only says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright".
I'm not sure that covers modifying software. Section 117 talks specifically about software, but only grants you permission to copy or adapt software for compatibility/interoperability purposes, and backing up.
If you were allowed to alter software, then the GPL and similar licenses wouldn't need to specifically grant you that permission, and the folks on debian-legal wouldn't require such a grant of permission in any license they review for complience with the DFSG.
US Code 17,106:
YMWV if you're not subject to US Copyright law.
Correction: you need to own a TV license to operate TV signal reception equipment. If you only watch DVDs, or play video games, or something then you don't need a license.