The GNU GPL (General Public License) states that you have to distribute the source code with any binaries you distribute. If no one outside your client's company will receive binaries of your program, then no one but your client is required to have the source code made available to them.
If it's unethical to legally bring in code from the spinoff project with full credit given and the license terms followed, then how could it have been ethical for them to legally take your code base and spin it off within the terms of the license?
I see both as being perfectly fine, but if they're going to get angry about it, that's just hypocracy on their part. (At least that's what it looks like without reading their side of the story.)
at the end of the article, there's a "related story" type link that covers the subject in-depth. no real need for a re-hash -- they're not owned by the same people that slashdot is. ^_-
Not necessarily. Forget the Linux evangelism for a moment and remember that Apple makes some damn good hardware, regardless of anyone's opinion of the company or their software. Making animated movies of the sort that Pixar produces would certainly be very hardware-intensive. I think it just makes sense.
Most people purchase ink refills far more frequently than they need technical specifications for a printer. I think it's natural that such sites would rank higher in the results for that search. It would be either nice or 1984-ish if a search engine could read our minds, but we're just not there yet.
Although such switches would be useful, perhaps searching for HP Laserjet IIIsi "Parts List" would yield the results you'd like. The more specific you are, the fewer unwanted results you get.
My favourite part was the endless game of seeing how many different ways you could type a sentence before the computer realized what you were talking about. Ah, nostalgia!
It was only recent that the U.S. laws changed to allow prescription drug makers to say what the drug is used for in television commercials. (They're required to list the various possible side-effects if they do so.)
Previously, they could mention the name of the drug all they wanted, but that was about it. I still remember being bombarded with "Ask your doctor about Rogaine" without having the slightest clue what it was.
One of them is called "Independent musicians who want you to download their music from websites".
And another is called P2P networks, which the recording industry didn't manage to get shut down, and despite all the noise they make, still haven't managed to show as being illegal in a court of law.
The article explained this point quite well.. It's not about your computer trusting other computers, it's about corporations and government trusting your computer to do what they tell it to. The hysteria is not without due cause.
That's 600 in RIAA math, SCO bought a license to use their techniques a while back.
Since the SCO team can handle 8 "annoyance calls" in the time it takes to talk to 1 "serious customer" (ha ha), we can derive that the actual number of slashdotters who called was closer to 4800.
This was done by an employee of a data mining company? To gather information about consumers? Hmmmm.. The RIAA been hiring some of those lately.. This could be a fun little conspiracy...
You're quite right, but people are afraid because they think "I could be next". The article simply shows how very unlikely it is to be Next, unless you're making too much noise on RIAA's radar.
After skimming through the article, I don't think the author took into account the population changes (births, deaths) over the 2191 years. The RIAA would have to continuously sue the oldest filesharers first (in order to "make them pay" while they're still visiting this planet) while the younger generation continues to create an even younger generation to take its place.
Thus, the RIAA would need to increase its rate of filings to at least match the birth rate if they are to have any chance of ever suing every filesharer.
(Something like that, anyhow. I never studied statistics.)
So does this mean that as long as you use Caldera or SCO or whoever's distro of Linux, you have the Top-Secret Stolen Code under a Proper License and you're safe from the supposedly Harsh Penalties Of Law for using Top-Secret Stolen Code?
I swear, this is getting more and more like threatening to sue the readers of a newspaper because it contained an AP story that wasn't properly credited.
Whoa, let's be careful here.. If that's how things end up, I'd be tempted to create a business model of starting flame wars on message boards and then suing anyone who e-mailed me. In the end, we'd end up with very un-free (as in both speech and beer) speech.
I have to agree with the grandparent post -- we already have laws in place regarding commerce-related communications, let's use those whenever we can instead of inventing new laws.
Slashdot Mirror
The GNU GPL (General Public License) states that you have to distribute the source code with any binaries you distribute. If no one outside your client's company will receive binaries of your program, then no one but your client is required to have the source code made available to them.
Thank you for your inaccurate trolling.
...but I'd love to know how they're going to add unobtrusive advertising to a phone conversation.
If it's unethical to legally bring in code from the spinoff project with full credit given and the license terms followed, then how could it have been ethical for them to legally take your code base and spin it off within the terms of the license?
I see both as being perfectly fine, but if they're going to get angry about it, that's just hypocracy on their part. (At least that's what it looks like without reading their side of the story.)
at the end of the article, there's a "related story" type link that covers the subject in-depth. no real need for a re-hash -- they're not owned by the same people that slashdot is. ^_-
Not necessarily. Forget the Linux evangelism for a moment and remember that Apple makes some damn good hardware, regardless of anyone's opinion of the company or their software. Making animated movies of the sort that Pixar produces would certainly be very hardware-intensive. I think it just makes sense.
Most people purchase ink refills far more frequently than they need technical specifications for a printer. I think it's natural that such sites would rank higher in the results for that search. It would be either nice or 1984-ish if a search engine could read our minds, but we're just not there yet. Although such switches would be useful, perhaps searching for HP Laserjet IIIsi "Parts List" would yield the results you'd like. The more specific you are, the fewer unwanted results you get.
My favourite part was the endless game of seeing how many different ways you could type a sentence before the computer realized what you were talking about. Ah, nostalgia!
It was only recent that the U.S. laws changed to allow prescription drug makers to say what the drug is used for in television commercials. (They're required to list the various possible side-effects if they do so.) Previously, they could mention the name of the drug all they wanted, but that was about it. I still remember being bombarded with "Ask your doctor about Rogaine" without having the slightest clue what it was.
But on the positive side, this will make Verisign the world's largest recipient of spam!
They already had legal ways to get music online.
One of them is called "Independent musicians who want you to download their music from websites".
And another is called P2P networks, which the recording industry didn't manage to get shut down, and despite all the noise they make, still haven't managed to show as being illegal in a court of law.
Dear Emusic Customers,
Please cancel your subscriptions so that the music industry can complain about the lack of subscribers.
To encourage cooperation, our services will be watered down considerably.
Thanks,
Darla McBride
President
Dimensional Associates LLC
People are complaining about ISPs not doing enough about the spam problem, and yet people also complain about how on-line privacy is being erroded..
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
The article explained this point quite well.. It's not about your computer trusting other computers, it's about corporations and government trusting your computer to do what they tell it to. The hysteria is not without due cause.
"Only 600? I'd have expected much more."
That's 600 in RIAA math, SCO bought a license to use their techniques a while back.
Since the SCO team can handle 8 "annoyance calls" in the time it takes to talk to 1 "serious customer" (ha ha), we can derive that the actual number of slashdotters who called was closer to 4800.
This was done by an employee of a data mining company? To gather information about consumers? Hmmmm.. The RIAA been hiring some of those lately.. This could be a fun little conspiracy...
Nearly 30,000 shares traded just before 1pm EDT.. To quote The Church Lady, "I wonder who it could be!"
article: "The farther from lights and altered habitats you get, the more moths you find," he says.
That's really strange.. Moths always seem to just love hovering around the porchlight where I live.
Well isn't this just wonderful! It's not enough that usenet is plauged with spam, now we can have pop-up ads there, too!
:)
Someone let me know when the Mozilla team gets them blocked -- God bless them, every one.
You're quite right, but people are afraid because they think "I could be next". The article simply shows how very unlikely it is to be Next, unless you're making too much noise on RIAA's radar.
After skimming through the article, I don't think the author took into account the population changes (births, deaths) over the 2191 years. The RIAA would have to continuously sue the oldest filesharers first (in order to "make them pay" while they're still visiting this planet) while the younger generation continues to create an even younger generation to take its place.
Thus, the RIAA would need to increase its rate of filings to at least match the birth rate if they are to have any chance of ever suing every filesharer.
(Something like that, anyhow. I never studied statistics.)
You didn't properly credit the article. Therefore, I'll be filling lawsuits against all Slashdot members who read the above post.
Joking aside, thanks for the clarification. I'm slightly less completely lost now.
That sounds a lot like telling a judge that I didn't read a contract before I signed it, so how can it be enforced?
My fault, my loss. SCO's fault, SCO's loss.
But like you said.. SCO is countering with the expected, and no one expected them to come up with something better than that. Sad, ain't it?
So does this mean that as long as you use Caldera or SCO or whoever's distro of Linux, you have the Top-Secret Stolen Code under a Proper License and you're safe from the supposedly Harsh Penalties Of Law for using Top-Secret Stolen Code?
I swear, this is getting more and more like threatening to sue the readers of a newspaper because it contained an AP story that wasn't properly credited.
Whoa, let's be careful here.. If that's how things end up, I'd be tempted to create a business model of starting flame wars on message boards and then suing anyone who e-mailed me. In the end, we'd end up with very un-free (as in both speech and beer) speech.
I have to agree with the grandparent post -- we already have laws in place regarding commerce-related communications, let's use those whenever we can instead of inventing new laws.
...which costs the company about $1 in lost productivity per message.
Where can I find a job where I get paid $1 every time I press the delete button? I'll fax in my resume' right away!