Because the GPL doesn't apply to the infringing derivative work, as it terminated when it was not complied with, and Open Source Security, Inc. doesn't have a right to license it to others or to apply the GPL to it. So, the customers have a work with no valid license and the kernel developers own the only remedy that would permit its legal use.
The counter-argument here is that the customers already have a valid license to the Linux kernel, with the GPL already granted, and the GPL allows them to modify the kernel in almost any way. I see elsewhere that you've written to Eben Moglen on the topic, so I'll wait to see what he says.
You can create a derivative work that is in violation even before distribution.
How would you do that? The GPL allows essentially any kind of modification (as long as you make a 'prominent' note of the modifications in the source).
Apples have gone up 0.3%. Pears have gone up 0.1%. Steak has gone down -0.9%. Cereal is up 1.4%. Clothing is down -1.1%. Cars are up 1.3%. Computer parts are down -15% due to new manufacture technology.
The inflation is the portion that is caused merely by the increase in money supply, excluding other factors. There are many reasons a price can go up or down, as you mention.
ok, I've read your argument elsewhere regarding the contributory infringement. In a lot of ways, it's like the cleanflicks case.....you are not allowed to edit and sell the edited DVDs, but you are allowed to sell metadata indicating which parts of the original movie can be modified, even though such metadata is clearly a derivative work. That would be analogous to allowing an end-user to download the kernel elsewhere, then apply the patches to it separately.
DVDs are a little different because they fall under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. The Linux kernel does not. I can't think of any case that applies to this directly. Applying the abstraction, comparison, filtration test, it seems reasonable that if Grsecurity lost the right to redistribute the Linux Kernel, they would at least lose the right to those portions of the code which allow them to integrate directly with the kernel, or are directly related to Linux. IF that happens, of course the patch would be useless.
So the question is, if you have a license from Grsecurity to use the parts of code they own, and a license from Linux for parts of the code that they own, why can't you use them together? The real question is about the jointly-owned portion of the code (after the abstraction, comparison, filtration test). Are you able use that or not? If not, why not?
Your analysis seems on point: if they've acted to prevent redistributing of their changes, then they've violated the GPL. However I am a little less clear on this paragraph:
As a customer, it’s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.
I feel like the customers will still get full rights to use the Linux kernel (as long as they don't redistribute the binaries). I'm not sure where the contributory infringement and breach of contract come from.
You seem confused......we don't usually use oil to generate electricity, we use coal. A massive change in power-generation won't really hurt oil producing countries.
When the price of an electric car drops to the point that a dog can buy one, then you can start laughing at countries like Venezuela.
If they learn how to build floating roads. Or anti-gravity cars.
Oh, you mean with pure software? No haha. Just build more roads, that's all you have to do.
Since the 1990s, the world has realized that actually, we want to have all our web traffic encrypted. Why? Because with the advent of wifi, launching a MITM attack is too easy. There are plenty of good reasons to encrypt traffic, which is why everyone uses ssh, not telnet.
"Trust" turned out to be not a big of problem as everyone feared. Most of the time when I go to Amazon.com, it really is the real Amazon. In fact, it's never not been the real Amazon. However, it still is a real problem, and once traffic is encrypted, we'd also like to be able to know that websites are who they claim to be. It has never been a solved problem, though.
Facebook is also heading off a common criticism lobbed at wealthy tech firms: that they move into cities, drive up the cost of living, displace area residents and then do little to give back.
They wouldn't displace area residents if city boards would allow more housing to be built. The cities invite the tech companies (because they want the tax revenue) then don't allow more housing to be built. It is all rather predictable.
This video shows the architect of the affordable health care act making fun of his supporters [youtube.com] for being stupid. You may not have known this because it was not widely covered in the liberal press.
It was covered all over the place. Here's one example. If you had a broader vision, and didn't just watch crappy TV shows, you would have known that.
I'm not sure why you linked to a USA Today article when I asked for Fox News. If your point is that ABC and NBC are just as bad as Fox News, then sure, I'll agree with you. I'm even open to arguments that they are worse than Fox. Not to say that Fox is any good, mind you.
Link me to some "world-view changing" clip on Fox News. If you think it's so great, there must be plenty of good clips.
Also, I notice you only criticize liberal papers. Are you sure you're not living in your own stupid bubble?
I will tell you, there is unlikely to be any argument on Fox News that changes anybody's viewpoint. It's basically an echo chamber, making people feel good.
If there is something that changes my mind, it's more likely to be in NYT or WSJ. I am more likely to find a well-reasoned argument here on Slashdot that changes my mind, than on Fox News. I don't view talk radio as reasoning, I view it as entertainment.
It's mainly a matter of building more houses. "Everywhere you go in America, people don't want any new construction, they don't want anything to change." -Sun Tzu We're kind of irrational that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the GPL doesn't apply to the infringing derivative work, as it terminated when it was not complied with, and Open Source Security, Inc. doesn't have a right to license it to others or to apply the GPL to it. So, the customers have a work with no valid license and the kernel developers own the only remedy that would permit its legal use.
The counter-argument here is that the customers already have a valid license to the Linux kernel, with the GPL already granted, and the GPL allows them to modify the kernel in almost any way. I see elsewhere that you've written to Eben Moglen on the topic, so I'll wait to see what he says.
You can create a derivative work that is in violation even before distribution.
How would you do that? The GPL allows essentially any kind of modification (as long as you make a 'prominent' note of the modifications in the source).
Apples have gone up 0.3%. Pears have gone up 0.1%. Steak has gone down -0.9%. Cereal is up 1.4%. Clothing is down -1.1%. Cars are up 1.3%. Computer parts are down -15% due to new manufacture technology.
The inflation is the portion that is caused merely by the increase in money supply, excluding other factors. There are many reasons a price can go up or down, as you mention.
ok, I've read your argument elsewhere regarding the contributory infringement. In a lot of ways, it's like the cleanflicks case.....you are not allowed to edit and sell the edited DVDs, but you are allowed to sell metadata indicating which parts of the original movie can be modified, even though such metadata is clearly a derivative work. That would be analogous to allowing an end-user to download the kernel elsewhere, then apply the patches to it separately.
DVDs are a little different because they fall under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. The Linux kernel does not. I can't think of any case that applies to this directly. Applying the abstraction, comparison, filtration test, it seems reasonable that if Grsecurity lost the right to redistribute the Linux Kernel, they would at least lose the right to those portions of the code which allow them to integrate directly with the kernel, or are directly related to Linux. IF that happens, of course the patch would be useless.
So the question is, if you have a license from Grsecurity to use the parts of code they own, and a license from Linux for parts of the code that they own, why can't you use them together? The real question is about the jointly-owned portion of the code (after the abstraction, comparison, filtration test). Are you able use that or not? If not, why not?
As a customer, it’s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.
I feel like the customers will still get full rights to use the Linux kernel (as long as they don't redistribute the binaries). I'm not sure where the contributory infringement and breach of contract come from.
That's one of my favorite Daily Show segments.
You seem confused......we don't usually use oil to generate electricity, we use coal. A massive change in power-generation won't really hurt oil producing countries.
When the price of an electric car drops to the point that a dog can buy one, then you can start laughing at countries like Venezuela.
Local branches are super-great, though.
If they learn how to build floating roads. Or anti-gravity cars.
Oh, you mean with pure software? No haha. Just build more roads, that's all you have to do.
Wow, that's cool! I would think that getting any laser with sub millimeter precision would be tough or expensive.
Wow, I never thought about that. Do people do that??
How do they handle parallel boot?
What do you think the board would have done?
Since the 1990s, the world has realized that actually, we want to have all our web traffic encrypted. Why? Because with the advent of wifi, launching a MITM attack is too easy. There are plenty of good reasons to encrypt traffic, which is why everyone uses ssh, not telnet.
"Trust" turned out to be not a big of problem as everyone feared. Most of the time when I go to Amazon.com, it really is the real Amazon. In fact, it's never not been the real Amazon. However, it still is a real problem, and once traffic is encrypted, we'd also like to be able to know that websites are who they claim to be. It has never been a solved problem, though.
I'd rather live in Bakersfield than Silicon Valley. There's less traffic. Housing is affordable.
Oh yeah, and also I really miss the 110 degree days.
Facebook is also heading off a common criticism lobbed at wealthy tech firms: that they move into cities, drive up the cost of living, displace area residents and then do little to give back.
They wouldn't displace area residents if city boards would allow more housing to be built. The cities invite the tech companies (because they want the tax revenue) then don't allow more housing to be built. It is all rather predictable.
Is there any way to achieve national security
It will be easy to solve the problem of domestic armed robbery. (hint: no country has ever done that, either)
This video shows the architect of the affordable health care act making fun of his supporters [youtube.com] for being stupid. You may not have known this because it was not widely covered in the liberal press.
It was covered all over the place. Here's one example. If you had a broader vision, and didn't just watch crappy TV shows, you would have known that.
I'm not sure why you linked to a USA Today article when I asked for Fox News. If your point is that ABC and NBC are just as bad as Fox News, then sure, I'll agree with you. I'm even open to arguments that they are worse than Fox. Not to say that Fox is any good, mind you.
Alan Kay is saying some harsh stuff there. "The web browser isn't even as good as a square wheel. It's a broken wheel."
Link me to some "world-view changing" clip on Fox News. If you think it's so great, there must be plenty of good clips.
Also, I notice you only criticize liberal papers. Are you sure you're not living in your own stupid bubble?
I will tell you, there is unlikely to be any argument on Fox News that changes anybody's viewpoint. It's basically an echo chamber, making people feel good.
If there is something that changes my mind, it's more likely to be in NYT or WSJ. I am more likely to find a well-reasoned argument here on Slashdot that changes my mind, than on Fox News. I don't view talk radio as reasoning, I view it as entertainment.
It's mainly a matter of building more houses. "Everywhere you go in America, people don't want any new construction, they don't want anything to change." -Sun Tzu We're kind of irrational that way.
Do you think the president could have brought pressure on him to be fired if he refused?
You can't really measure inflation.
That's not really true......it's like saying you can't weigh something. Of course you can't, but you can get a good approximation.
It's a holdover from my days in sales. You can never do too much oppo research.
That's interesting. I didn't know sales did so much of that.
Obama didn't fire Wagoneer, he asked him to resign and Wagoneer agreed.
That's probably the dumbest sentence you've written all week. At the CxO level, no one gets fired.......they are asked to resign. It's the same thing.