I had free beer once... if I'd not been with my family I would have been so drunk!
It was Cannabia, made from (you guessed it) hemp.
Of course they were trying to tout the beer to us to sell from our "retail outlet", but we don't have a license to sell beer. Closest thing to free beer (except from friends) that I've ever had.
What does OSS have to do with "free, as in speech". OSS is not about avoiding government censorship (is it?) it's free/libre/, free to use and abuse, free to modify, free to alter and adapt, free to better for your needs or those of others... I don't see how that has anything to do with "free, as in speech"?
I'm guessing that in Europe people like FOSS because it's free-libre and free-gratis, whilst in America the populous doesn't know what "libre" means [oh God I hope I spelt it right!] and so make some weird analogy with free speech that misses the mark entirely. Surely "free, as in speech" would be for warez that can't be sold legally but can be given away due to some loophole?
But I'm open to being wrong.
Seriously though can't we just all agree to use libre and gratis?
[Ya, probably flamebait, but everyone loves a barbecue, right?!]
Did you know that smoking | as practised by CaptPungent dried out baby remains is | all products endorsed and used the best way to get a high | by [link]CaptPungent[/link] what's more if you buy my book you'll be able to get cheap baby parts with which to roll your own baby cigars! --o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- Other news CaptPungent loves this and has no problem with it, see he even has a link to his site right here...!
I think I disagree with her, that's why I said "on the face of it". You're totally right that it's not illegal, and noone [it seems] made any such claim.
Otherwise, phrasing his wish as a demand instead of properly, as a request, "could be construed as" a deliberate violation of citizens' rights to discuss their government.
Demand is just another word for request, it just sounds hard. She wasn't ordered to, she wasn't told it was against the law. The "demand" is also tempered by the phrase starting "To the extent that... [yadda yadda]". So basically they're saying we think it looks like we authorised your link - please remove it so it doesn't look that way. Her response could have been "screw you", or if she felt like it she could add a disclaimer. A hyperlink/could/ imply endorsement if used in a particular way - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=966425&cid=25037879.
This all comes across to me like some mad SEO stunt, her sites are going to be linked like nothing else for Sheboygan now... perhaps she's going to drop her complaint and live off the ad revenue?
The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigat[i]on again[s]t this person.
It's not an order, they "demand" - but that's just lawyer speak for asking. The police investigation could well have been a result of a complaint by Mr Perez (as himself, not in his mayoral capacity) complaining that Reisinger's website was racially discriminating against him (eg with the photoshopped imagery); it wouldn't need to be true for an investigation to be made.
Did you know that smoking | as practised by bigstrat2003 dried out baby remains is | all products endorsed and used the best way to get a high | by [link]bigstrat2003[/link] what's more if you buy my book you'll be able to get cheap baby parts with which to roll your own baby cigars! --o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- Other news bigstrat2003 loves this and has no problem with it, see he even has a link to his site right here...!
If you read the C&D letter http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Sheboygan%20Cease%20Letter.pdf then you'll see that they never claimed that it was illegal, just that the way the link was used suggested that the linking site was somehow endorsed by the linked-to site; then they asked that the link be removed to avoid this confusion.
A moron, IMO, would be someone who comments on the specifics of a C&D letter without reading it. YMMV.
The claimant is suing because she says that that letter infringed on her first amendment rights. I don't see it to be honest. She could have left the link in place and if she were bothered simply added a line "not authorised by Sheboygan City or it's associates".
the taxpayers deserve it for voting for such an obviously bad mayor
I don't see how the Mayor is obviously bad? He didn't like a website attempting to cast him in a negative light, for example using photoshopped photos, so he asked if a link to the cities police could be removed as that link appeared to give the website credence (as if officially warranted in some way).
The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.
End of.
Except then some lawyer helps her create a case claiming she lost 53% of earnings?? How can I get double my web earnings by creating one link to a police website? It sounds to me like the Mayor behaved perfectly well in this situation.
The article appears to show that rare thing - journalistic integrity. Why do I say that?
Well, peppered throughout are statements about the source of any particular bit of information. The only source is the lawsuit which has been filed.
"The cityâ(TM)s actions torpedoed Reisingerâ(TM)s Web site marketing business and led to death threats against her, according to the lawsuit."
I can't see how getting a C&D letter and acting on it lead to death threats? Then there's this curious part:
Reisinger said she felt intimidated by McLeanâ(TM)s letter and removed the link. Then a police lieutenant told Reisinger he was investigating her use of links to city government sites, the suit says.
What, did a police lieutenant just ring her up to tell her? The claim that her business suffered loss of earnings because she had to remove this link is laughable.
It appears that Reisinger was performing a smear campaign against Mayor Perez (note the bit about photoshopped images). Perez probably complained and the police would naturally of investigated the complaint to see if anything illegal was happening.
My/prima facie/ view is that Reisinger sounds like a bit of a nut-case trying to grind a huge axe and use it to cut up some immigrants. But the reports don't give us enough to establish verity of any of the lawsuits claims.
I don't quite understand the [apparent] forcefulness of your [lysergic.acid's] response; what other information are you privy to? If people trying to conduct a nationalistically motivated slur campaign back down I think that's probably a good thing. Again, what am I missing?
I'm not that/au fait/ with US law. But see "Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical" and 35 USC. You won't have broken the law (infringement is tortuous), but it does seem a bit more restrictive than I had understood and you apparently aren't allowed to make that homebrew segway except to perform genuine experiments. In actuality Segway aren't likely to sue you, they may not get costs and might invalidate their patent.
So if I profit(time saved by moving faster can be invested otherwise and so can lead to a profit) from my homebrew segway or other patented item then I've broken the law?
No, my explanation wasn't complete so as to avoid writing an essay that noone would read.
If say the US didn't like what you're doing they can just sail on up and do whatever they want with you. They could certainly board and seize any such vessel, after all who's going to object?
You've not been following the thread have you: it's Googles army of ninjas that are going to object. Tech-geek ninjas, with LED flashlights and titanium multitools. Seriously, the marines wouldn't stand a chance....
If say the US didn't like what you're doing they can just sail on up and do whatever they want with you. They could certainly board and seize any such vessel, after all who's going to object?/quote>
You've not been following the thread have you: it's Googles army of ninjas that are going to object. Tech-geek ninjas, with LED flashlights and titanium multitools. Seriously, the marines wouldn't stand a chance....
Actually it's the sharks (with or without frickin laser beams) that kill you. You dying, whilst paddling your dinghy of thumb-drives, causes the "poor" latency.
I never really understood the business method patent thing. can I build a copy of a patented item if I want? Isn't it only illegal if I try to sell that item?
a company isn't selling it's business method. So unless it's a consultancy firm which makes it's money restructuring other businesses...
You can use a patent spec for research purposes or when you will not harm the financial benefit to the patent holder (IIRC). So you can't sell it, but also you can't benefit financially nor cause a financial detriment to the patent holder. So you can't give patented stuff away (without a license) as this potentially harms the patent holders income. If you're using a business method then you're gaining financially from it... ergo...
Business Method patents are a weird thing in a capitalist economy though.
Note that pure business methods (without technical elements) aren't supposed to be patentable in Europe.
Nothing wrong with Iceweasel, but heaven forbid users have to learn what a web browser is in general rather than remembering a list of brand names.
Brand recognition counts for a LOT. The average user (who, I hasten to remind you, is whom Ubuntu is ostensibly for) wants something they've heard of. Not "IceWeasel".
Don't {K,}Ubuntu menus use the function by default. It's one of my annoyances in KDE-4.1 that they've not got around to allowing options for the new menu (which sucks enough already) and so things are listed as "Web Browser" and then when I mouseover I get "Firefox Web Browser" in grey underneath.
So the difference would be just that when I click "Browser" to open the browser I'll get a different title bar and logo.
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
I think those people mean "business-like in their approach to development" and not "business-like in their efforts to spread FUD and screw-over their customers".
What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.
Like Google Chrome, [...]
I think you miss the point about "webkit based browsers". If GP meant Chrome, he probably would have said it, I think he means all of them Konq, Saf, Chrome, and those not yet implemented. Chrome means more goodies _should_ get folded back into webkit.
Also more people run FF on MS Windows than on others platforms.
Probably the term "general masses" doesn't include me, but I couldn't care less is my browser is "well known" it has to work properly and offer the right features.
What you mean of course is that Google's customers want more, they're serving the market. That's big business but it's also everyone else that uses Googles Analytics or PPC or AdWords programs.
I'm director of a small business - we use Google Analytics/Webmaster Tools to help track SEO efforts and to establish good site stats. It's valuable to me to see things like (approx, guesstimated) geographic location of users and the like.
These issues concern me, but I admit I do not know much about this. How about I do a search and you keep nothing? Does any search engine provide that?
Basically you're asking does any search engine spend millions of pounds and not expect to extract any financial worth our of its relationship with you...
What benefit does Google have to semi-anonymize after 9 months, then "fully" anonymize after another 9 months?
They get 9 months longer to attempt to tie that data to a username on some other Google service.
Once they have it hooked to a username, ie if you logged into any Google service during use of that IP then they can throw away the IP (once they've tied it to the ISP and location of course) - so they know your @gmail.com email address (and your profile data) and can link that to your usage pattern, location and ISP.. why do they still need to keep your IP address then?
Slashdot Mirror
But free beer means "[beer] without direct personal financial outlay", which is the intended meaning but for software; gratis.
Free speech means "[speech] without government hindrance", which I posit is not the intended meaning at all.
I had free beer once ... if I'd not been with my family I would have been so drunk!
It was Cannabia, made from (you guessed it) hemp.
Of course they were trying to tout the beer to us to sell from our "retail outlet", but we don't have a license to sell beer. Closest thing to free beer (except from friends) that I've ever had.
What does OSS have to do with "free, as in speech". OSS is not about avoiding government censorship (is it?) it's free /libre/, free to use and abuse, free to modify, free to alter and adapt, free to better for your needs or those of others ... I don't see how that has anything to do with "free, as in speech"?
I'm guessing that in Europe people like FOSS because it's free-libre and free-gratis, whilst in America the populous doesn't know what "libre" means [oh God I hope I spelt it right!] and so make some weird analogy with free speech that misses the mark entirely. Surely "free, as in speech" would be for warez that can't be sold legally but can be given away due to some loophole?
But I'm open to being wrong.
Seriously though can't we just all agree to use libre and gratis?
[Ya, probably flamebait, but everyone loves a barbecue, right?!]
Baby Smoking Weekly
...!
Did you know that smoking | as practised by CaptPungent
dried out baby remains is | all products endorsed and used
the best way to get a high | by [link]CaptPungent[/link]
what's more if you buy my
book you'll be able to get
cheap baby parts with which
to roll your own baby cigars!
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
Other news
CaptPungent loves this and has no problem with it,
see he even has a link to his site right here
I think I disagree with her, that's why I said "on the face of it". You're totally right that it's not illegal, and noone [it seems] made any such claim.
Otherwise, phrasing his wish as a demand instead of properly, as a request, "could be construed as" a deliberate violation of citizens' rights to discuss their government.
Demand is just another word for request, it just sounds hard. She wasn't ordered to, she wasn't told it was against the law. The "demand" is also tempered by the phrase starting "To the extent that ... [yadda yadda]". So basically they're saying we think it looks like we authorised your link - please remove it so it doesn't look that way. Her response could have been "screw you", or if she felt like it she could add a disclaimer. A hyperlink /could/ imply endorsement if used in a particular way - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=966425&cid=25037879.
This all comes across to me like some mad SEO stunt, her sites are going to be linked like nothing else for Sheboygan now ... perhaps she's going to drop her complaint and live off the ad revenue?
The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigat[i]on again[s]t this person.
It's not an order, they "demand" - but that's just lawyer speak for asking. The police investigation could well have been a result of a complaint by Mr Perez (as himself, not in his mayoral capacity) complaining that Reisinger's website was racially discriminating against him (eg with the photoshopped imagery); it wouldn't need to be true for an investigation to be made.
Baby Smoking Weekly
...!
Did you know that smoking | as practised by bigstrat2003
dried out baby remains is | all products endorsed and used
the best way to get a high | by [link]bigstrat2003[/link]
what's more if you buy my
book you'll be able to get
cheap baby parts with which
to roll your own baby cigars!
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
Other news
bigstrat2003 loves this and has no problem with it,
see he even has a link to his site right here
If you read the C&D letter http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Sheboygan%20Cease%20Letter.pdf then you'll see that they never claimed that it was illegal, just that the way the link was used suggested that the linking site was somehow endorsed by the linked-to site; then they asked that the link be removed to avoid this confusion.
A moron, IMO, would be someone who comments on the specifics of a C&D letter without reading it. YMMV.
The claimant is suing because she says that that letter infringed on her first amendment rights. I don't see it to be honest. She could have left the link in place and if she were bothered simply added a line "not authorised by Sheboygan City or it's associates".
the taxpayers deserve it for voting for such an obviously bad mayor
I don't see how the Mayor is obviously bad? He didn't like a website attempting to cast him in a negative light, for example using photoshopped photos, so he asked if a link to the cities police could be removed as that link appeared to give the website credence (as if officially warranted in some way).
The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.
End of.
Except then some lawyer helps her create a case claiming she lost 53% of earnings?? How can I get double my web earnings by creating one link to a police website? It sounds to me like the Mayor behaved perfectly well in this situation.
The article appears to show that rare thing - journalistic integrity. Why do I say that?
Well, peppered throughout are statements about the source of any particular bit of information. The only source is the lawsuit which has been filed.
"The cityâ(TM)s actions torpedoed Reisingerâ(TM)s Web site marketing business and led to death threats against her, according to the lawsuit."
I can't see how getting a C&D letter and acting on it lead to death threats? Then there's this curious part:
Reisinger said she felt intimidated by McLeanâ(TM)s letter and removed the link. Then a police lieutenant told Reisinger he was investigating her use of links to city government sites, the suit says.
What, did a police lieutenant just ring her up to tell her? The claim that her business suffered loss of earnings because she had to remove this link is laughable.
It appears that Reisinger was performing a smear campaign against Mayor Perez (note the bit about photoshopped images). Perez probably complained and the police would naturally of investigated the complaint to see if anything illegal was happening.
My /prima facie/ view is that Reisinger sounds like a bit of a nut-case trying to grind a huge axe and use it to cut up some immigrants. But the reports don't give us enough to establish verity of any of the lawsuits claims.
I don't quite understand the [apparent] forcefulness of your [lysergic.acid's] response; what other information are you privy to? If people trying to conduct a nationalistically motivated slur campaign back down I think that's probably a good thing. Again, what am I missing?
---
Note that: http://www.sheboyganpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/SHE0101/808260434/1973 gives a link to download the C&D letter, http://www.sheboyganpress.com/assets/pdf/U0116421825.PDF, which seems both fair and reasonable to me. Without seeing exactly how the link was used it's hard to say if she should have acted on the letter or not.
See also http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/city-sheboygan-v-reisinger
I'm not that /au fait/ with US law. But see "Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical" and 35 USC. You won't have broken the law (infringement is tortuous), but it does seem a bit more restrictive than I had understood and you apparently aren't allowed to make that homebrew segway except to perform genuine experiments. In actuality Segway aren't likely to sue you, they may not get costs and might invalidate their patent.
CPC Article 27(b);
UK Section 60(5), http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/p-law-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm;
EPC Article 64 - which just says national law determines what is infringing, but European states generally have provisions like UK Patents Act S60(5)(a) which says "[use of an invention doesn't infringe if] it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial;".
So it seems the US law is more restrictive and you were closer to being right than me.
So if I profit(time saved by moving faster can be invested otherwise and so can lead to a profit) from my homebrew segway or other patented item then I've broken the law?
No, my explanation wasn't complete so as to avoid writing an essay that noone would read.
Wow, American patent law is utterly broken...
Yes.
If say the US didn't like what you're doing they can just sail on up and do whatever they want with you. They could certainly board and seize any such vessel, after all who's going to object?
You've not been following the thread have you: it's Googles army of ninjas that are going to object. Tech-geek ninjas, with LED flashlights and titanium multitools. Seriously, the marines wouldn't stand a chance ....
If say the US didn't like what you're doing they can just sail on up and do whatever they want with you. They could certainly board and seize any such vessel, after all who's going to object?/quote>
You've not been following the thread have you: it's Googles army of ninjas that are going to object. Tech-geek ninjas, with LED flashlights and titanium multitools. Seriously, the marines wouldn't stand a chance ....
its the latency that kills you
Actually it's the sharks (with or without frickin laser beams) that kill you. You dying, whilst paddling your dinghy of thumb-drives, causes the "poor" latency.
Your post evoked a great image of Yahoo guys in jumpsuits with rocket launchers invading and taking over Google ...
I never really understood the business method patent thing.
can I build a copy of a patented item if I want?
Isn't it only illegal if I try to sell that item?
a company isn't selling it's business method.
So unless it's a consultancy firm which makes it's money restructuring other businesses...
You can use a patent spec for research purposes or when you will not harm the financial benefit to the patent holder (IIRC). So you can't sell it, but also you can't benefit financially nor cause a financial detriment to the patent holder. So you can't give patented stuff away (without a license) as this potentially harms the patent holders income. If you're using a business method then you're gaining financially from it ... ergo ...
Business Method patents are a weird thing in a capitalist economy though.
Note that pure business methods (without technical elements) aren't supposed to be patentable in Europe.
Ever given a presentation in an elevator?
It's a niche product, I can think of plenty of niches it fits in nicely.
Nothing wrong with Iceweasel, but heaven forbid users have to learn what a web browser is in general rather than remembering a list of brand names.
Brand recognition counts for a LOT. The average user (who, I hasten to remind you, is whom Ubuntu is ostensibly for) wants something they've heard of. Not "IceWeasel".
Don't {K,}Ubuntu menus use the function by default. It's one of my annoyances in KDE-4.1 that they've not got around to allowing options for the new menu (which sucks enough already) and so things are listed as "Web Browser" and then when I mouseover I get "Firefox Web Browser" in grey underneath.
So the difference would be just that when I click "Browser" to open the browser I'll get a different title bar and logo.
Even the logo could possibly be used in some jurisdictions, did Moz get an exclusive license [ http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/branding-firefox ]?
"The answer of course is B."
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
I think those people mean "business-like in their approach to development" and not "business-like in their efforts to spread FUD and screw-over their customers".
What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.
Like Google Chrome, [...]
I think you miss the point about "webkit based browsers". If GP meant Chrome, he probably would have said it, I think he means all of them Konq, Saf, Chrome, and those not yet implemented. Chrome means more goodies _should_ get folded back into webkit.
Also more people run FF on MS Windows than on others platforms.
Probably the term "general masses" doesn't include me, but I couldn't care less is my browser is "well known" it has to work properly and offer the right features.
Of course, Google wants more.
What you mean of course is that Google's customers want more, they're serving the market. That's big business but it's also everyone else that uses Googles Analytics or PPC or AdWords programs.
I'm director of a small business - we use Google Analytics/Webmaster Tools to help track SEO efforts and to establish good site stats. It's valuable to me to see things like (approx, guesstimated) geographic location of users and the like.
These issues concern me, but I admit I do not know much about this. How about I do a search and you keep nothing? Does any search engine provide that?
Basically you're asking does any search engine spend millions of pounds and not expect to extract any financial worth our of its relationship with you ...
Maybe in Soviet Russia?
What benefit does Google have to semi-anonymize after 9 months, then "fully" anonymize after another 9 months?
They get 9 months longer to attempt to tie that data to a username on some other Google service.
Once they have it hooked to a username, ie if you logged into any Google service during use of that IP then they can throw away the IP (once they've tied it to the ISP and location of course) - so they know your @gmail.com email address (and your profile data) and can link that to your usage pattern, location and ISP .. why do they still need to keep your IP address then?