I'd more describe it as the place were 16-year-old go before university or work if they want some independence (as opposed to being stuck in high school) or don't have a sixth form at their school (as mine didn't).
I guess the term is wide though and the courses done by institutions coming under the term are also varied.
In other words, the European Patent Office has illegally granted hundreds of thousands of software patents. Their attempts to legalise their behaviour where thwarted by the EU people and parliament.
Nonetheless, because it is so difficult to overturn a patent and any granted one is assumed valid unless proved otherwise, even if covering a non-invention (like getting out of bed in the morning or a software/mathemtical algorithm), software patents are effectively in force.
Patents have basically become international-enforced private statutes granted by civil servants in patent offices allowing large companies with enough cash to criminalise and punish any category of arbitrary actions by private citizens.
As I said, it is an FE (further education) as well as HE (higher education) college, which means they mainly do academic and vocational education at the level usually taken post-school and pre-university (16/18 years) but also offer some university degrees. I think they are something similar to what would be called a `technical school' in the US. In fact, the college is sometimes called `the tech.'.
even at a small college
They have over 27000 students accridng to their website. I don't know if you would consider that small where you are.
I've seen a few people who balked at it because it didn't come out of Redmond, but "a hacking tool"?
Cynical as I am, I was speechless when he said that, and he wasn't being funny (as I believe he had his sense of humour surgically removed when he had his suit surgically implanted).
You misunderstand. I was not accusing the BBC guy of flamebaiting. I was just saying, that what the great grandparent was describing (as his opinion of what the guy was trying to do) sounded to me like it was covered by the word, `flamebaiting'. I personally, don't have a problem with the article (except that it is content-free BS like most computing articles by the mainstream press...hey you could never accuse/. of that could you?;-) ).
I'd say, in the UK (where I am and where the article was saying Firefox was trailing behind) they are mainly in places were the user is forced to user a certain well-known browser (despite, maybe, preferring something better) due to slow organisations (or the slow IT departments thereof) who don't like change.
I'm, in particular, thinking of the public sector here (libraries, schools, universities, colleges, council and government offices) where MSIE is nearly always the only browser and the idea that one could do anything on the Internet not using MSIE and OE alone can be met with shock (even by the IT folks).
For instance my local library say they have a policy of not installing any software not from Microsoft for security reasons, and my local FE & HE college say the same. The director of IT at the college (where I'm glad to say I no longer go but I know people who still do and it hasn't changed) tells students who ask to use Firefox that it, I quote, "is a hacking [sic] tool like `Kuhzuh' [sic]" and makes it clear that running it off a USB dongle will get your account removed. From my experience and that of friends, universities tend to be more sympathetic to user choice but may be slow in getting around to actually installing Firefox across their networks (as in they've been meaning to install it since before 1.0 but haven't got around to it yet).
Although it is probably partly home users (esp. who use the WWW infrequently), most even totally computer-illiterate people who use the Internet any significant amount who I know seem to have converted on their own machines, so I see that is a much less significant problem.
Are you saying those who invented/use the term "DRM" don't say it stands for anything?
Not at all. I said "the term [i.e.: "Digital Rights Management"]...has no definite semantics" (so it would be inappropriate to use it in a legal document without defining it); i.e., in your words, it is "doublespeak".
I already understand your interpretation of the GNU GPL. What I was saying in the grandparent though was that the GNU GPL says that is not the interpretation that one should make of it. (Also note the aunt post.) Does this not make that interpretation invalid? (I don't know.)
BTW, I think it can make a difference whether it defines itself as a license or a contract.
As copyright law does not require you to have a contract with someone (just permission) for them to use the software without violating copyright law, if it is not a contract, then someone who does something outside the scope of the GPL to a work only licensed under the GPL has violated copyright law and is subject to its penalties.
However, I understand that if the GPL defines itself as a contract, the courts could treat such actions as contract violations so the court can choose how the violation is recompensed and don't have to give statutory damages (as under copyright law). This is, from my memory, I believe Eben Moglen's justification for the not-a-contract clause.
However, AFAICC, that doesn't mean the GNU GPL is a unilateral contract, as it doesn't seem to make use of this exception, defining itself in the different terms of an open permission which one doesn't do anything to accept, even by implication (as opposed to saying "This is a contract which you accept by doing foo").
(I'm a bit sleep deprived, so hopefully that made some sense.)
They don't use that term in the (normative) text of the license, just as a heading.
Anyway the term intentionally (by it's authors) has no definite semantics (so really couldn't appear in a legal document without definition), and the FSF's expansion of the acronym more accurately describes what the term is usually used to refer to.
In case you didn't notice this is not GPLv3; it is the first draft. We will be "us[ing] v2" for some time to come.
Why dont you go to the comments page, highlight the ambiguous bits or bits you don't like, press c, and explain this (possibly giving better/clearer wording).
BTW, this section looks like it hasn't changed since v2. I like the way they say "death" now in the title though as if the GPL is alive.:-) (N.B.: if it alive it cannot be a virus because viruses aren't living things.)
I guess all this means is that if lawmakers want to void or weaken part of the GPL, they'll have to void this part as well.
Well, yes, if lawmakers were crazy enough to specifically want to go after the GPL they could legislate that (though I'd imagine the judiciary would poor scorn on any such law).
However, this clause is more aimed at jurisdictions that have laws that allow other things (e.g.: patents) to override copyright licenses in specific limited circumstances (unless the license says otherwise) This is something like the "if part of this contract is declared void, the rest stands" clause.
looks like 7(d) allows authors the option of an added clause like that in the Afferro GPL:
d) They may require that the program contain functioning facilities that allow users to obtain copies of the program's Complete Corresponding Source Code.
This may make the GNU GPL v3 compatible with licenses like the Afferro GPL.
Note that that statement is immediately followed by:
distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
IMO, that means, by distributing the work under GPLv3 you state that you give others permission to circumvent any effective technological measures (as well as stating that the work does not contain anyway).
My comment was hypothetical anyway as I and others got the impression from what he said that he had not consulted a lawyer.
I adimt I was OTT and blunt in making my point. However, the point I was trying to make was that, as a UK citizen who is familiar with UK copyright law (and case law), I think he had a watertight defence against any action for producing software that circumvents a technogical measure in the DVD encoding--as our DMCA-style legislation (SI 2498 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) is much weaker and wouldn't cover this.
The real point is that this is the kind of case he could have got done pro bono or got a charity to fund his legal fees.
If he really sought legal advice, his lawyer was incompetent.
I think the problem was he rolled right over to any request by the (I assume, competing) company when they threatened him with the power of their criminal anti-trust protection racket. He should have, instead, researched the law, got legal advice, found a pro bono lawyer or contacted the EFF, FFII, & al for legal advice.
2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.
3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.
And I am sure there are loads of independent UK lawyers who would gladly take his case pro bono. However, it appears that he chose to roll over to their totally unreasonable conditions at the first hurdle.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely, Rice porn (in order to not be sexist or racist).
The BBC are also reporting on the Radio 4 news that this is (exclusively) about child porn.
Do you mean the FSF's GPL Compliance Lab, or, maybe, the non-FSF Free Software Law Centre?
I guess the term is wide though and the courses done by institutions coming under the term are also varied.
Nonetheless, because it is so difficult to overturn a patent and any granted one is assumed valid unless proved otherwise, even if covering a non-invention (like getting out of bed in the morning or a software/mathemtical algorithm), software patents are effectively in force.
Patents have basically become international-enforced private statutes granted by civil servants in patent offices allowing large companies with enough cash to criminalise and punish any category of arbitrary actions by private citizens.
You misunderstand. I was not accusing the BBC guy of flamebaiting. I was just saying, that what the great grandparent was describing (as his opinion of what the guy was trying to do) sounded to me like it was covered by the word, `flamebaiting'. I personally, don't have a problem with the article (except that it is content-free BS like most computing articles by the mainstream press...hey you could never accuse /. of that could you? ;-) ).
I'm, in particular, thinking of the public sector here (libraries, schools, universities, colleges, council and government offices) where MSIE is nearly always the only browser and the idea that one could do anything on the Internet not using MSIE and OE alone can be met with shock (even by the IT folks).
For instance my local library say they have a policy of not installing any software not from Microsoft for security reasons, and my local FE & HE college say the same. The director of IT at the college (where I'm glad to say I no longer go but I know people who still do and it hasn't changed) tells students who ask to use Firefox that it, I quote, "is a hacking [sic] tool like `Kuhzuh' [sic]" and makes it clear that running it off a USB dongle will get your account removed. From my experience and that of friends, universities tend to be more sympathetic to user choice but may be slow in getting around to actually installing Firefox across their networks (as in they've been meaning to install it since before 1.0 but haven't got around to it yet).
Although it is probably partly home users (esp. who use the WWW infrequently), most even totally computer-illiterate people who use the Internet any significant amount who I know seem to have converted on their own machines, so I see that is a much less significant problem.
Isn't that flamebait rather than trolling?
And, it just goes to show how many RTFA or even the story when they talk about how the story would relate to a different jurisdiction.
I already understand your interpretation of the GNU GPL. What I was saying in the grandparent though was that the GNU GPL says that is not the interpretation that one should make of it. (Also note the aunt post.) Does this not make that interpretation invalid? (I don't know.)
As copyright law does not require you to have a contract with someone (just permission) for them to use the software without violating copyright law, if it is not a contract, then someone who does something outside the scope of the GPL to a work only licensed under the GPL has violated copyright law and is subject to its penalties.
However, I understand that if the GPL defines itself as a contract, the courts could treat such actions as contract violations so the court can choose how the violation is recompensed and don't have to give statutory damages (as under copyright law). This is, from my memory, I believe Eben Moglen's justification for the not-a-contract clause.
My basis for my statement was what I've been told by lawyers, but, looking at the first in-depth site I happened to come across on this subject, one clearly can have certain kinds of unilateral contracts as an exception to the normal rule.
However, AFAICC, that doesn't mean the GNU GPL is a unilateral contract, as it doesn't seem to make use of this exception, defining itself in the different terms of an open permission which one doesn't do anything to accept, even by implication (as opposed to saying "This is a contract which you accept by doing foo").
(I'm a bit sleep deprived, so hopefully that made some sense.)
Anyway the term intentionally (by it's authors) has no definite semantics (so really couldn't appear in a legal document without definition), and the FSF's expansion of the acronym more accurately describes what the term is usually used to refer to.
Why dont you go to the comments page, highlight the ambiguous bits or bits you don't like, press c, and explain this (possibly giving better/clearer wording).
However, this clause is more aimed at jurisdictions that have laws that allow other things (e.g.: patents) to override copyright licenses in specific limited circumstances (unless the license says otherwise) This is something like the "if part of this contract is declared void, the rest stands" clause.
This may make the GNU GPL v3 compatible with licenses like the Afferro GPL.
Contracts require acceptance and cannot be unilateral. Licenses do not and are, therefore a license cannot be a contract.
Has there been no news on that SEC investigation (into TSG et al)? I haven't heard anything.
I adimt I was OTT and blunt in making my point. However, the point I was trying to make was that, as a UK citizen who is familiar with UK copyright law (and case law), I think he had a watertight defence against any action for producing software that circumvents a technogical measure in the DVD encoding--as our DMCA-style legislation (SI 2498 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) is much weaker and wouldn't cover this.
The real point is that this is the kind of case he could have got done pro bono or got a charity to fund his legal fees.
I think the problem was he rolled right over to any request by the (I assume, competing) company when they threatened him with the power of their criminal anti-trust protection racket. He should have, instead, researched the law, got legal advice, found a pro bono lawyer or contacted the EFF, FFII, & al for legal advice.
And I am sure there are loads of independent UK lawyers who would gladly take his case pro bono. However, it appears that he chose to roll over to their totally unreasonable conditions at the first hurdle.