This is rubbish. How you link makes no difference. What makes a difference is if it effectively forms part of the same work or if it can stand on its own as a program (or work of literature).
If what you say is true, I could just produce diffs for a work of literature and argue that I wasn't actually modifying the work (which would make a mockery of copyright law).
Your idea that copyright law (which long predates software) somehow makes an explicit differentiation between different types of linking is, frankly, crazy.
Read the GNU GPL FAQ or your local copyright laws or any good book on copyright if you don't believe me.
>>Or does your reasoning apply only to everyone else except the GPL?
No. It applies to everyone equally. You clearly haven't read my post.
I would support any license that is genuinely different from those that currently exist. As you seem interested in the GNU GPL, I will use that as an example.
The GNU GPL embodies a particularly system called copyleft. As it was the first copyleft license (and is legally watertight) it is unnecessary to create further licenses which effectively do the same thing. Indeed, it is a bad idea, because they would be incompatible (so that people have to needlessly do the same work again), cause confusion, and wouldn't have stood the test of time and many legal eyeballs (as the GNU GPL has).
That is a very good question because commercial use (inc. copying, distribution and modification) has to be allowed in order for any license to meet the terms of the OSD (to be OSI-certified). The GNU GPL seems to be very commercially viable (indeed the most commercially-viable free-software license) and many software companies are making money from using it. How could a license be more commercial? Surely whether a license is commercial is an either/or thing.
We need to ask exactly what their "commercial version of the GPL" mean exactly. Are they proposing a new sort of license that doesn't currently exist?
Doesn't that kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL?
Not at all--see above. GNU GPLed software has been commercially used/distributed/copied/modified since the license was first was used in the 1980s. You will notice in the GNU manifesto and the FSF's information about the writing of the GNU GPL that the first consideration when writing the GNU GPL (and inventing copyleft) was making sure it was commercially viable.
Because when I think commercial I think "We made a change, then closed it, now we won't let you know what that change is or how it affects other GPL'd software"
You are clearly confused:
commercial n. (relevant OED definition):
Of or pertaining to commerce or trade
No. They are saying that there should be multiple licenses (for the different free-software distribution systems). However, we should also cut-down the number of licenses that are similar to each other by removing licenses that are functionally the same as another commonly-used license.
If your license genuinely embodies another distribution/licensing system for free software (other than copyleft and effective public domaining), I'm sure they won't have a problem adding your license to the list that they encourage people to use (after it is properly checked), but most licenses are just rewordings of old ideas (with a new person/company's name at the top).
The current number of licenses causes confusion (for prospective licensors and licensees); encourages people to write even more licenses (without properly considering alternatives, and without making sure they are legally watertight or make sense); and, worst of all, means that licenses exist which are effectively the same as each other but are incompatible (which discourages the mix-and-match creative commons which is the primary reason for software freedom in the first place).
I agree that free software is currently licensed under a confusing plethora of incompatible licenses for no apparent good reason; so I'm all for trying to cut down to just the GNU GPL for those who want to copyleft their work, and the new BSD license for those who prefer a more public-domain-like solution (and other licenses only if a genuinely new, functionally different sort of free-software distribution system is discovered).
However, what does "commercial version of the GPL" mean exactly? Are they proposing a new sort of license that doesn't exist here?
I don't understand the "commercial" thing really as the GNU GPL seems to be very commercially viable and many software companies are making money from using it. What would be different in their proposed license? How could a license be more commercial? Surely, a license either allow people to make money from selling the software (like the GNU GPL) or doesn't (in which case it violates the Open-Source Definition).
I agree with *this*, but not giving criminals the right to vote is very very wrong. It goes against the fundamental idea of democracy (that the people have a say in the writing of laws and are able to remove the current government in the future).
This means the government can remove the right to vote from whomever they like, and means that what is considered a crime is no longer based on whether most people consider it a crime (because by breaking the law you lose your rights in the lawmaking process--so basically anyone who gains power (e.g.: by being elected president) automatically becomes a dictator and their opinions/laws can never be removed).
Aside: GPS...cool...I'm going to MA to get arrested...oh...no...wait
Actually I think you'll find those who use MSIE generally don't know what the WWW is or what a browser is (hence using MSIE) so they are even less likely to care.
You cross a Z (both lower and upper case) by putting a horizontal bar through the diagonal.
Aah. I though you must mean that. I always use a z with a curly tail (with the tail bent back on itself and a sharp angle up top) to distinguish it from a both a `2' and a `3', and don't use upper-case `Z's in maths (but if I have to I would put a curly tail on an upper-case one (and make sure my 2's were rounded)).
It is rather like the diagonal slash put through a 0 to distinguish it from an O
That doesn't work for three reasons: a diagonal slash through an `o' is a letter in some European languages; in mathematics, it looks too like a theta, and some people use the slash for the `o' and some for the zero meaning it just exacerbates the ambiguity.
That's why I use a dot on zeros, which has the advantage that it is unambiguously a zero and is also the method used to distinguish the two characters on a computer screen.
That may be rubbing it in to much, but if anyone wants to perform it, please do. I haven't actually seen the original sketch, so I don't know how it is performed.
You do realise that this was fixed in Gecko in 2004-05, right (not that I ever had the problem anyway--it only happened intermittently on some fast machines)?
Ye, I quite like the differences too a lot of the time, but some USan spellings are illogical.
I cross my sevens and dot my zeros (and I think that is European not USan) but how do you cross a `Z' --are you talking about a small or a large zed (or zee) and a straight or a curved one?
(Also, needless to say, I disagree with your argument that most people in America are not Americans.;-) )
Also see the entries for Internet Explorer and Web browser, and windowing system and windows from Microsoft Dictionary (as used by Lindows and DOJ respectively).
I take your point, but this is very slightly different from the example you give as the laws in question have nothing to do with the jobs (or were those jobs are located).
Microsoft can go on patenting their software produced in Denmark regardless of whether software patents are legal in Denmark.
The only reason they want software patents in the EU is that it would help them in their criminal anti-trust activity in Europe.
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Thanks for that info. Yes, too true, too true: we are following in the US's footsteps on everything: software patents, warmongering, &c.
I suppose, on the plus side for the US, at least US politicians are open about the fact that they are bought and sold to the highest corporate bidder unlike here were its done in secret.
I have no idea why AC's are automatically modded to 0 when clearly such legal experts as the parent routinely post as AC. Maybe the/. Powers that Be should review this.
Its the other way round. This came first. The other one is redundant (though I posted it there again as I wanted the parent's author to read it and it was relevant to parent).
Slashdot Mirror
If what you say is true, I could just produce diffs for a work of literature and argue that I wasn't actually modifying the work (which would make a mockery of copyright law).
Your idea that copyright law (which long predates software) somehow makes an explicit differentiation between different types of linking is, frankly, crazy.
Read the GNU GPL FAQ or your local copyright laws or any good book on copyright if you don't believe me.
I think you mispelled "tautology" as "oxymoron".
>>Or does your reasoning apply only to everyone else except the GPL?
No. It applies to everyone equally. You clearly haven't read my post.
I would support any license that is genuinely different from those that currently exist. As you seem interested in the GNU GPL, I will use that as an example.
The GNU GPL embodies a particularly system called copyleft. As it was the first copyleft license (and is legally watertight) it is unnecessary to create further licenses which effectively do the same thing. Indeed, it is a bad idea, because they would be incompatible (so that people have to needlessly do the same work again), cause confusion, and wouldn't have stood the test of time and many legal eyeballs (as the GNU GPL has).
We need to ask exactly what their "commercial version of the GPL" mean exactly. Are they proposing a new sort of license that doesn't currently exist?
Not at all--see above. GNU GPLed software has been commercially used/distributed/copied/modified since the license was first was used in the 1980s. You will notice in the GNU manifesto and the FSF's information about the writing of the GNU GPL that the first consideration when writing the GNU GPL (and inventing copyleft) was making sure it was commercially viable. You are clearly confused:If your license genuinely embodies another distribution/licensing system for free software (other than copyleft and effective public domaining), I'm sure they won't have a problem adding your license to the list that they encourage people to use (after it is properly checked), but most licenses are just rewordings of old ideas (with a new person/company's name at the top).
The current number of licenses causes confusion (for prospective licensors and licensees); encourages people to write even more licenses (without properly considering alternatives, and without making sure they are legally watertight or make sense); and, worst of all, means that licenses exist which are effectively the same as each other but are incompatible (which discourages the mix-and-match creative commons which is the primary reason for software freedom in the first place).
However, what does "commercial version of the GPL" mean exactly? Are they proposing a new sort of license that doesn't exist here?
I don't understand the "commercial" thing really as the GNU GPL seems to be very commercially viable and many software companies are making money from using it. What would be different in their proposed license? How could a license be more commercial? Surely, a license either allow people to make money from selling the software (like the GNU GPL) or doesn't (in which case it violates the Open-Source Definition).
This means the government can remove the right to vote from whomever they like, and means that what is considered a crime is no longer based on whether most people consider it a crime (because by breaking the law you lose your rights in the lawmaking process--so basically anyone who gains power (e.g.: by being elected president) automatically becomes a dictator and their opinions/laws can never be removed).
Aside: GPS...cool...I'm going to MA to get arrested...oh...no...wait
Actually I think you'll find those who use MSIE generally don't know what the WWW is or what a browser is (hence using MSIE) so they are even less likely to care.
That's why I use a dot on zeros, which has the advantage that it is unambiguously a zero and is also the method used to distinguish the two characters on a computer screen.
That may be rubbing it in to much, but if anyone wants to perform it, please do. I haven't actually seen the original sketch, so I don't know how it is performed.
Galeon had it before Opera.
FTR, Galeon had tabs long before Opera.
- HTML 2.0
- HTML 3.2
- HTML 4.0
- HTML 4.01
- XHTML Basic
- XHTML 1.0
- XHTML 1.1
- XHTML 2.0
- CSS 1.0
- CSS 2.0
- CSS 2.1
- CSS 3.0
- ECMA-262 (a.k.a. JavaScript)
If not, I quite simply (like most WWW users) don't want to know.Also, does it still execute arbitrary code from WWW sites without the user's permission? Or is this considered a feature by Microsoft?
I too want this in Ogg (since the patents on MP3 playback were discovered) before I will listen to it.
Please encode it using an open Ogg encoding--I suggest ultra-wide-band VBR Speex but even Vorbis would be better than MP3.
You do realise that this was fixed in Gecko in 2004-05, right (not that I ever had the problem anyway--it only happened intermittently on some fast machines)?
I cross my sevens and dot my zeros (and I think that is European not USan) but how do you cross a `Z' --are you talking about a small or a large zed (or zee) and a straight or a curved one?
(Also, needless to say, I disagree with your argument that most people in America are not Americans. ;-) )
Also see the entries for Internet Explorer and Web browser, and windowing system and windows from Microsoft Dictionary (as used by Lindows and DOJ respectively).
Microsoft can go on patenting their software produced in Denmark regardless of whether software patents are legal in Denmark.
The only reason they want software patents in the EU is that it would help them in their criminal anti-trust activity in Europe.
(And for the record I'm a Brit who finds some USan spelling ocnfusing/annoying.)
The Sketch (contd...)
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Copyright
The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co
Here's something I wrote the other day, which seems particularly appropriate now this story has come out:
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
The SketchA `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
I suppose, on the plus side for the US, at least US politicians are open about the fact that they are bought and sold to the highest corporate bidder unlike here were its done in secret.
I have no idea why AC's are automatically modded to 0 when clearly such legal experts as the parent routinely post as AC. Maybe the /. Powers that Be should review this.
Its the other way round. This came first. The other one is redundant (though I posted it there again as I wanted the parent's author to read it and it was relevant to parent).
Anyway, if you are saying that the winner still has to pay legal costs then I can see that would be a problem.
Of course, if your case is watertight, the threatening corporation probably won't sue, and, if they do, you probably won't have many legal costs.