Yes, I am seeing a strange pattern here (which suggests that passing this directive may be less than democratic). Let's see what the current position of everyone on this directive is:
elected European Parliament:
100% AGAINST (this version of directive)
European Council of Ministers:
majority AGAINST (with new countries joining the against all the time)
European citizens/software users (who know about it):
all AGAINST AFAICC (except some professional astroturfer called )
European software-industry alliances/coalitions:
all AGAINST
European software companies:
nearly all AGAINST
European programmers:
(probably) all AGAINST
€PO (i.e.: the guys who are breaking the current law because they receive so many brown envelopes to do so and as it brings them jobs, who want their current behaviour decriminalised):
FOR
€C (i.e.: unelected civil servants who are bribed by M$ and have strong connections with the €PO):
FOR
Hmmm...
Democratic (adj.)
Of, representing, or carried on by people at large
Those who want software patents are taking steps
This obviously a whole new meaning of the word `positive' (applying to brown envelopes) that I haven't previously encountered. STR.
Because there is another country's government who are really exerting political pressure. Guess who put the pressure on the UK and Holland to back this?
Does that mean that there is an original copy of ntfs.sys and ntoskernel.exe shipped with it?
No (that would be illegal and they aren't free). As I said, it uses the MSW XP drivers; Captive NTFS is just a wrapper. Therefore, you need a copy of MSW XP to get the drivers from.
When you run Captive NTFS in Knoppix, it will automatically search your HDD for a MSW XP partition with the driver files. Alternatively, if you have an Internet connection and claim to own a license for MSW XP, it will download them from Microsoft (in SP2).
...sounds very very ominous: "all your security is belong to us"; "you are not secure unless you join our protection racket^W^Walliance and let us fill your `void' [from story]".
I still don't understand what "forcing everyone (especially companies) to release all their product under GPL and only GPL is just plain bad" (which I would be interested in your clarifying--who is forcing whom and what is bad about it) has to do with "there should be commercial licenses available to buy for developing proprietary soft" and "requiring license for developing `proprietary commercial software' [is bad]". Are those connected and part of a single argument or are they just observations?
Because, of course, as everyone knows RMS is always evangelising proprietary software in his interviews...is that what you are saying? Yes, I think you are trolling.
Actually, I cannot be bothered explaining this now but if you work it out there are about 10 levels of representation between the UK citizens and the UK government.
There aren't any levels of represenatation at all between you and the EC as they are civil `servants'.
But this is another step backwards for European National sovereignty.
I know the parent is trolling, but, I should point out that, in fact, a majority of the council of ministers (that's member state's governments) are opposed to this directive (which is why it hasn't been passed yet as the parliament alone cannot stop anything).
Also, it is the unelected €C who are mainly in favour of this directive and who are also where member state's goverment's powers are going (not that I am against them losing their powers to a European body in principal--it should just be an elected one as opposed to a pile of slimey unaccountable civil servants.)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament
where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.
The european commission was "reinstalled" after the last euro elections. The anti software patent cantidates did pretty well in the elections
As you appear to be in the EU there is really no excuse for thinking that the EC are elected. They are not; they are civil `servants'. Most of our problems in the EU stem from the fact that the unelected (and easily bribed) €C make way to many of the decisions (as opposed to the EP and CoM). The EC are the ones in favour of software patents. The EP and, now, the CoM are against.
Problem with the commision is it's made up of leaders of the countries
No, the problem with it is that it is not made up of leaders of the countries (which wouldn't be so bad as at least the EU is made up of pseudo-representative pseudo-democracies). The €C is made up of civil servants (who like brown envelopes) and has way to much power (compared with the EP and CoM). The answer is a new European Constitution which gives some meaningful powers to the elected EP (unlike the current proposal which does the opposite).
Actually maybe an AI network would do better at voting than the legislators (in the US of A and a lot of other places anyway*). Hmmm...I was joking...I think...that really is not a good idea actually...
* This judgement kind of proves that the EP do listen to their constituents so maybe they're not so bad; shame they cannot really legislate (or, at least, they can, but they don't get to say what gets passed ATM--which is of course why swpats have lasted this long).
I think "go[ing] after people that abuse the GPL" counts as "assist[ing] open source developers with legal issues". I cannot see anything on their WWW site saying that they only do defence work.
The thing is those two statements are actually equivalent, just one is expressed more strongly than the other (the latter). In other words OSS people are less confident in the power of their own movement (which yes, means, they are more likely to "sell out"); that is really the only major difference.
Actually this was an (intermittent) bug in Gecko (not/.) which happens only when the page is rendered quickly. Of course, the fact that, mainly because of their invalid use of tables (see the funny and informative Why tables for layout is stupid),/. pages are evil beasts to render does not help.
It was fixed in 2004-05 on the trunk and is now in Firefox builds.
Surely "which blocks out other young developers" as the ages of the core developers aren't actually high (e.g.: Blake Ross who founded the prject and wrote the article is 19) and they are unlikely to chuck themselves out. Probably you meant learners as opposed to youngsters anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm...
Those who want software patents are taking steps This obviously a whole new meaning of the word `positive' (applying to brown envelopes) that I haven't previously encountered. STR.
Because there is another country's government who are really exerting political pressure. Guess who put the pressure on the UK and Holland to back this?
When you run Captive NTFS in Knoppix, it will automatically search your HDD for a MSW XP partition with the driver files. Alternatively, if you have an Internet connection and claim to own a license for MSW XP, it will download them from Microsoft (in SP2).
...sounds very very ominous: "all your security is belong to us"; "you are not secure unless you join our protection racket^W^Walliance and let us fill your `void' [from story]".
For those who don't get that, I believe 911 is the telephone number of the emergency services in the USA (112 in the EU).
I wouldn't use NTFS anyway. It is too easily corrupted (especially by MSW XP) and not easily recoverable.
I'm even more confused. Who was bashing anyone and what is a `commercial license'?
I still don't understand what "forcing everyone (especially companies) to release all their product under GPL and only GPL is just plain bad" (which I would be interested in your clarifying--who is forcing whom and what is bad about it) has to do with "there should be commercial licenses available to buy for developing proprietary soft" and "requiring license for developing `proprietary commercial software' [is bad]". Are those connected and part of a single argument or are they just observations?
Because, of course, as everyone knows RMS is always evangelising proprietary software in his interviews...is that what you are saying? Yes, I think you are trolling.
There aren't any levels of represenatation at all between you and the EC as they are civil `servants'.
Also, it is the unelected €C who are mainly in favour of this directive and who are also where member state's goverment's powers are going (not that I am against them losing their powers to a European body in principal--it should just be an elected one as opposed to a pile of slimey unaccountable civil servants.)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
* This judgement kind of proves that the EP do listen to their constituents so maybe they're not so bad; shame they cannot really legislate (or, at least, they can, but they don't get to say what gets passed ATM--which is of course why swpats have lasted this long).
I think "go[ing] after people that abuse the GPL" counts as "assist[ing] open source developers with legal issues". I cannot see anything on their WWW site saying that they only do defence work.
...and he didn't ask what K in KDE stands for?
The thing is those two statements are actually equivalent, just one is expressed more strongly than the other (the latter). In other words OSS people are less confident in the power of their own movement (which yes, means, they are more likely to "sell out"); that is really the only major difference.
It was fixed in 2004-05 on the trunk and is now in Firefox builds.
Ben Goodger co-founded Firefox (m/b, Phoenix, Firebird) with Dave Hyatt.