Waffen SS was the expanded military organisation of the SS. Also regular soldiers and foreigners (as Lituavia) served in this group. It was a kind of elite corps compared to Wehrmacht with harder policy.
/*At the same time that Germany provides monthly pension payments to former members of the SS and war criminals, persons forced to be slave laborers for the Nazi regime get far less:*/
A soldier is also a slave laborer:-)
This comparison is wrong. No German government today (and esp. not the current Social democrats who went into Concentration Camps) is in favour of nazi methods or members of nazi groups. compare with other European states. Don't forget that in London the Queen even erected a memorial for a war criminal. And what about American war crimes? The German view towards this issue is quite more serious.
You mix up different issues. When you commit a crime this is not related to your pension because of injury in service. They don't get this pension because of war crimes or the participation in an organisation but because of the injury.
Germany also pays pensions for east German communist Stasi servicemen. Your posting was riding on anti-German sentiment.
Blame the problems for 'slave workers' on the allied forces that didn't make a rule for some forced labour workers in the post-war time. Reparations on individuals were indeed quite uncommon in these days, nobody thought of. In the late 90th some US lawyers successfully bang the drum and put pressure on the German goverment by using the crappy US legal system and a moral case media campaign. Cui bono? Probably not the 'slave workers' but the lawyers themselves.
It was not that easy, this is a legend. Encrypted messages were not sent as sms today and in telegraphy you don't greet the recipient but keep it very short. So probably it would be more an 'alpha' 'charly' game. And of course nobody uses the name of his girl friend because the operators could not decide the code, but were given the code at the beginning of their mission.
Btw, there are still the original machines to play with and it is probably easy to create a real replica. it's all simple mechanics. Go to the next submarine museum and figure out how she works.
I fully agree with the HP position in his articlet.
Over the past year we all learned that SCO's claims were baseless. It's media fuzz targeted to the capital market. They didn't offer a real proof of their claims. In germany SCO may not sell their licenses because of competitive law, a court ruled that sco's media campaign infringed on certain business standards. So i feel very safe about the Sco's "we own linux" circus. What we could also see was the way media works, they never looked deeply into SCo's accusations. Indemnification sounds bitter as it creates the impression Sco owned rights of Linux --- without any proof from Sco's side.
IP in the hands of a failed company is dangerous, bear that in mind.
Perhaps you should also mention the conference of FFIi in brussels where we all can discuss the current legislation.
I assume that the IPR directive will be postponed as it is too controversial, even within the parties.
It has to be pointed out that IPR enforcement and swpat directive are not quite the same and it is also difficualt to get for some persons why FFII is now in favour of the corrected Parlaments' swpat directive.
You wrote 'The legal validity of software patents isn't my problem.'
Sure it is:
My problem involves future software designers/programmers who are unable to write programs that may impose upon existing software patents. In turn, this will adversely affect EU and their IT economy.'
There are 2 different directives
* swpat directive (says swpats are invalid) * IPR enforcement (if patents are valid they can be enforced with the stronger new rules targeted to pcombat product privacy)
FFII was focussed on the first directive while other groups worried about DMCA focussed on the second. FFII's main concern was to take patents out of the IPR enforcement directive, that is also the industry position. It was left out but reintroduced in a recent draft.
Mr Lenz, read the 6 feb text of the directive, you are a professor of law, you will get soon that it is a totally premature draft, just look at the language used. There is so much confusion in the text. Why do we need for instance rules who to calculate the damage as civil right may be enough. And read how the damage is "defined".
Intellectual property rights is used as a term but nowhere defined. see Art 3.
It is a law written by radicals and lobbyists, but horrible from a law system perspective. I found the FFII position about this crap very moderate. You can read it here.
The FFII position is the industry view. It is quite moderate and I think they don't agree with the wording of the alert on slashdot although it may be helpful. Read the original position of FFII before you accuse them.
I qoute: The IP Enforcement directive is very important legislation. It should give businesses a familiar single legal landscape for IPR enforcement issues right across Europe; and stamp down hard on organised criminal counterfeiting and piracy.[..]This is very sensitive legislation. The directive represents a once-in-a-generation change to the legal landscape that companies have to deal with on Intellectual Property Rights - copyrights, trademarks, patents, confidential information etc etc. Hardly a single company of any size will not be affected in some way. It is of fundamental importance that this legislation is got right first time. FFII view FFII fully supports firm action to crack down on organised counterfeiting and piracy. But FFII is very concerned by the danger of unscrupulous operators "pulling a SCO" with groundless claims of IP infringement, and misusing the very powerful measures contained in the directive to unfairly harass and damage legitimate companies. FFII believes that the best course would be for the directive to be limited to its original proposed scope, namely commercially organised, fully intentional copyright and trademark infringement.
FFII is a strong supporter of copyright and also is not against the scope of the directive, there are other more fundamental critics like IPjustice and so many other groups that helped to get the DRM out of it. FFII was quite a long time not very concerned about the directive as the patents were taken out, but now they are in again.
The problem from the FFII and industry side is: the directive mixes up different intellectual property rights and let stricter enforcement targeted to product privacy apply for patents as well. Given the fact that patent infrigements are usually not-intented and patents are usually more fuzzy defined this is totally inappropriate. The industry and FFII fear that the directive messes up the EU legal system. So to speak a free Kalschnikow to patent privateers.
I would also like to suggest you to take part in the second round of WSIS in Tunis. Be part of the civil society caucus groups. Put papers and links on your website. Let the light of the public shine.
A patent is a granted monopoly right, it does not have to be defended. In fact most trivial patents are not defended at all (defensive). But when a company fails in the market they may "pull a SCO" or the patent assets are bought and exploited by a patent attorney company. So trivial patents and software patents are weapons of mass destruction, a danger for E-Commerce.
You misunderstood the case. This IPR Enforcement directive is NOT about the legal validity of software patents. The software patents directive was corrected by the EU parliament in September and is is going to be "recorrected" by the council, so the main focus of FFII laid on this. SO FFII and all the others (AEL, EF Finland ecc.) defend the current corrected former swpat directive.
The IRP enforcement directive is about enforcement, giving power to the rights owner, orginally against product privacy some persons introduced DRM, TCPA ecc. This was already removed. The problem is as so many different spheres of law are comprised by the unscientific, unjudicial term Intellectual property rules that apply well for product privacy cause much trouble for patent enforcement. FFII UK explains this very good on their site.
There are several groups that critizise the directive, FFII has a moderate position as they are in favour of copyright. I suggest you to read the current council draft of the directive by yourself and look for problems. You can easily see in the proposal that it is premature. The language used is often inappropriate and infringes on certain legal standards.
Good news: DRM and TCPA was deleted, most groups were concerned about this, so the directive already failed from the viewpoint of those who drafted it. We won! So let's get rid of the ugly rest.
"Article 21 Legal protection of technical devices
Deleted"
But this does not mean that it will not be reintroduced by MEP amendments ecc. Criticism of the directive goes trough all parlamentary groups.
What FFII wants get out is that the directive also apply for patent legislation. Because patent infringements are very easy and criminal sanctions against patent legislation may be a danger for business. This is also the industry position. FFII is no mayor player in the IPR Enforcement debate. Most was done by IPjustice or other DRM activists. FFII was very busy with the swpat directive, so they could not devote time to the IPr enforcement directive or ENISA.
Oh, it's all for the security of the United States. there is the pressure from. The next time a terrorist group attacks Manhattan, we will know a little bit more about these guys, their biometrical data. To look someone in the eyes is very important for psychologial reasons. Eyes don't lie:-)
Mandrake is the common name for the plant Mandragora, whose roots, because their curious bifurcation cause them to have a semblance to the human figure (male & female), have long been used in witchcraft. It is alleged by adherents of the dark arts that when the plant is pulled from the ground, it shrieks in pain. Supposedly, this shriek is able to kill or deafen an unprotected human; the occult literature includes complex directions for harvesting a mandrake root in relative safety.
The Mandrake is a member of the Solanaceae (or Nightshade) family.
Other uses of this term include:
* Mandrake Linux
* Mandragoras, familiar demons (mandrakes)
* Mandrake, a comedic play written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1518
* Leon Mandrake, magician (1911 - 1993)
* Mandrake the Magician, comic strip character
* Mandrake (publishers)
Stallman is zelot and he is most times right but a horrible diplomat. Greve is the other way around. Yes, everywhere in the inappropriate places RMS tells everybody about his GNU/linux dogma and the closer persons are to him, they use it. I wonder why RMS found that horrible name GNU/Linux. GNULI might have been a success. then we had GNULI systems like we have a DEB IAN system and nobody would care. But RMS is not good in Marketing. He does nor force someone but he broadly discusses this and request from his close followers to be on his line. On the other hand the FSF sees itself as the representation body of flOSS development advocacy. FSF Europe is moderate.
Under a BSD license Alltechs action wopuld be legal.
* America vs. Europe
In America it would have been a campaign like SCo's. Stallman cries loud echoed by 200 mailing lists As Alltech "stole Linux" Alltech must be owned by Linus. A German world conpiracy, a takeover of the internet backbone the press writes, the case show the legal incertainties of the GPL. No 3 billion$ as Alltech does not have three billion.
* conservative vs. liberal
I am conservative, I like liberal licenses
* everyone vs. MAC
humm, Mac do hav a license? How is the Mac Eula of this proprietary platform called.:-)
You don't do that. Don't talk about settled cases. Do act like SCO. Copyright infringements are not discussed in the public.
We don't need a enforcement directive, we just need good code and persons who respect licenses.
Free Software Forundation Europe, that's Georg Greve and the European crowd, no zelots that force you to call your operating system GNU/linux. They are well respected European lobbyists. Money spent on EU lobbying saves a lot for projects. For instance the EU IPR enforcement directive may be very dangerous for EU citizens that 'just write code'.
And FFII is probably the most succesful player in patent legislation over the past 30 years. Patent attorney made their own laws for a long time.
It is part of the Linux Kernel: 'Being part of the linux operating system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux installation.'
The case here is: How it is done with the GPL in comparison to SCO vs IBM, we own Linux blabla.
And it shows the legal validity of the GNU Public license.
As far as I know it was less than 10 000 Eur. What matters more: 'Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It will further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products without adhering to the GPL.'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it was mis-corrected. Sco's action was regarded as 'anti-competitive' in Munich.
A soldier is also a slave laborer
This comparison is wrong. No German government today (and esp. not the current Social democrats who went into Concentration Camps) is in favour of nazi methods or members of nazi groups. compare with other European states. Don't forget that in London the Queen even erected a memorial for a war criminal. And what about American war crimes? The German view towards this issue is quite more serious.
You mix up different issues. When you commit a crime this is not related to your pension because of injury in service. They don't get this pension because of war crimes or the participation in an organisation but because of the injury.
Germany also pays pensions for east German communist Stasi servicemen. Your posting was riding on anti-German sentiment.
Blame the problems for 'slave workers' on the allied forces that didn't make a rule for some forced labour workers in the post-war time. Reparations on individuals were indeed quite uncommon in these days, nobody thought of. In the late 90th some US lawyers successfully bang the drum and put pressure on the German goverment by using the crappy US legal system and a moral case media campaign. Cui bono? Probably not the 'slave workers' but the lawyers themselves.
It was not that easy, this is a legend. Encrypted messages were not sent as sms today and in telegraphy you don't greet the recipient but keep it very short. So probably it would be more an 'alpha' 'charly' game. And of course nobody uses the name of his girl friend because the operators could not decide the code, but were given the code at the beginning of their mission.
Btw, there are still the original machines to play with and it is probably easy to create a real replica. it's all simple mechanics. Go to the next submarine museum and figure out how she works.
Yes, and indeed we shall not support SCO Unix with gpl code again. The whole company has to die.
Well, It may be illegal action to sell intellectual property you don't own. I Germany they got an injunction from the court.
I think we could also file a criminal lawsuit against those responsible.
Invest in competition law lobbying and you will get rid off monopoly-based exploitation and inappropriate use of media.
I fully agree with the HP position in his articlet.
Over the past year we all learned that SCO's claims were baseless. It's media fuzz targeted to the capital market. They didn't offer a real proof of their claims. In germany SCO may not sell their licenses because of competitive law, a court ruled that sco's media campaign infringed on certain business standards. So i feel very safe about the Sco's "we own linux" circus. What we could also see was the way media works, they never looked deeply into SCo's accusations. Indemnification sounds bitter as it creates the impression Sco owned rights of Linux --- without any proof from Sco's side.
IP in the hands of a failed company is dangerous, bear that in mind.
agreed!
Perhaps you should also mention the conference of FFIi in brussels where we all can discuss the current legislation.
I assume that the IPR directive will be postponed as it is too controversial, even within the parties.
It has to be pointed out that IPR enforcement and swpat directive are not quite the same and it is also difficualt to get for some persons why FFII is now in favour of the corrected Parlaments' swpat directive.
You wrote 'The legal validity of software patents isn't my problem.'
Sure it is:
My problem involves future software designers/programmers who are unable to write programs that may impose upon existing software patents. In turn, this will adversely affect EU and their IT economy.'
There are 2 different directives
* swpat directive (says swpats are invalid)
* IPR enforcement (if patents are valid they can be enforced with the stronger new rules targeted to pcombat product privacy)
FFII was focussed on the first directive while other groups worried about DMCA focussed on the second. FFII's main concern was to take patents out of the IPR enforcement directive, that is also the industry position. It was left out but reintroduced in a recent draft.
Or a slashdot.eu site. .eu.org domains by the way can be got for free.
They will launch DotEU soon.
I would like to see a EU version of slashdot.
Mr Lenz, read the 6 feb text of the directive, you are a professor of law, you will get soon that it is a totally premature draft, just look at the language used. There is so much confusion in the text. Why do we need for instance rules who to calculate the damage as civil right may be enough. And read how the damage is "defined".
Intellectual property rights is used as a term but nowhere defined. see Art 3.
It is a law written by radicals and lobbyists, but horrible from a law system perspective. I found the FFII position about this crap very moderate. You can read it here.
The FFII position is the industry view. It is quite moderate and I think they don't agree with the wording of the alert on slashdot although it may be helpful. Read the original position of FFII before you accuse them.
I qoute:
The IP Enforcement directive is very important legislation. It should give businesses a familiar single legal landscape for IPR enforcement issues right across Europe; and stamp down hard on organised criminal counterfeiting and piracy.[..]This is very sensitive legislation. The directive represents a once-in-a-generation change to the legal landscape that companies have to deal with on Intellectual Property Rights - copyrights, trademarks, patents, confidential information etc etc. Hardly a single company of any size will not be affected in some way. It is of fundamental importance that this legislation is got right first time.
FFII view
FFII fully supports firm action to crack down on organised counterfeiting and piracy. But FFII is very concerned by the danger of unscrupulous operators "pulling a SCO" with groundless claims of IP infringement, and misusing the very powerful measures contained in the directive to unfairly harass and damage legitimate companies. FFII believes that the best course would be for the directive to be limited to its original proposed scope, namely commercially organised, fully intentional copyright and trademark infringement.
FFII is a strong supporter of copyright and also is not against the scope of the directive, there are other more fundamental critics like IPjustice and so many other groups that helped to get the DRM out of it. FFII was quite a long time not very concerned about the directive as the patents were taken out, but now they are in again.
The problem from the FFII and industry side is: the directive mixes up different intellectual property rights and let stricter enforcement targeted to product privacy apply for patents as well. Given the fact that patent infrigements are usually not-intented and patents are usually more fuzzy defined this is totally inappropriate. The industry and FFII fear that the directive messes up the EU legal system. So to speak a free Kalschnikow to patent privateers.
See detailed information about FFII's position here. And don't discuss short quotes.
I would also like to suggest you to take part in the second round of WSIS in Tunis. Be part of the civil society caucus groups. Put papers and links on your website. Let the light of the public shine.
A patent is a granted monopoly right, it does not have to be defended. In fact most trivial patents are not defended at all (defensive). But when a company fails in the market they may "pull a SCO" or the patent assets are bought and exploited by a patent attorney company. So trivial patents and software patents are weapons of mass destruction, a danger for E-Commerce.
You misunderstood the case. This IPR Enforcement directive is NOT about the legal validity of software patents. The software patents directive was corrected by the EU parliament in September and is is going to be "recorrected" by the council, so the main focus of FFII laid on this.
SO FFII and all the others (AEL, EF Finland ecc.) defend the current corrected former swpat directive.
The IRP enforcement directive is about enforcement, giving power to the rights owner, orginally against product privacy some persons introduced DRM, TCPA ecc. This was already removed. The problem is as so many different spheres of law are comprised by the unscientific, unjudicial term Intellectual property rules that apply well for product privacy cause much trouble for patent enforcement. FFII UK explains this very good on their site.
There are several groups that critizise the directive, FFII has a moderate position as they are in favour of copyright. I suggest you to read the current council draft of the directive by yourself and look for problems. You can easily see in the proposal that it is premature. The language used is often inappropriate and infringes on certain legal standards.
Good news: DRM and TCPA was deleted, most groups were concerned about this, so the directive already failed from the viewpoint of those who drafted it. We won! So let's get rid of the ugly rest.
"Article 21
Legal protection of technical devices
Deleted"
But this does not mean that it will not be reintroduced by MEP amendments ecc. Criticism of the directive goes trough all parlamentary groups.
What FFII wants get out is that the directive also apply for patent legislation. Because patent infringements are very easy and criminal sanctions against patent legislation may be a danger for business. This is also the industry position. FFII is no mayor player in the IPR Enforcement debate. Most was done by IPjustice or other DRM activists. FFII was very busy with the swpat directive, so they could not devote time to the IPr enforcement directive or ENISA.
Oh, it's all for the security of the United States. there is the pressure from. The next time a terrorist group attacks Manhattan, we will know a little bit more about these guys, their biometrical data. To look someone in the eyes is very important for psychologial reasons. Eyes don't lie :-)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Mandrake is the common name for the plant Mandragora, whose roots, because their curious bifurcation cause them to have a semblance to the human figure (male & female), have long been used in witchcraft. It is alleged by adherents of the dark arts that when the plant is pulled from the ground, it shrieks in pain. Supposedly, this shriek is able to kill or deafen an unprotected human; the occult literature includes complex directions for harvesting a mandrake root in relative safety.
The Mandrake is a member of the Solanaceae (or Nightshade) family.
Other uses of this term include:
* Mandrake Linux
* Mandragoras, familiar demons (mandrakes)
* Mandrake, a comedic play written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1518
* Leon Mandrake, magician (1911 - 1993)
* Mandrake the Magician, comic strip character
* Mandrake (publishers)
What about the Berlin project and all the other x rewrites?
X windows is a strange project as every 3 month we see structural change, forks and so on.
Stallman is zelot and he is most times right but a horrible diplomat. Greve is the other way around. Yes, everywhere in the inappropriate places RMS tells everybody about his GNU/linux dogma and the closer persons are to him, they use it. I wonder why RMS found that horrible name GNU/Linux. GNULI might have been a success. then we had GNULI systems like we have a DEB IAN system and nobody would care. But RMS is not good in Marketing. He does nor force someone but he broadly discusses this and request from his close followers to be on his line. On the other hand the FSF sees itself as the representation body of flOSS development advocacy. FSF Europe is moderate.
* windows vs. linux
:-)
Well, IPtables is part of the Linux Kernel.
* Linux vs. *BSD
Under a BSD license Alltechs action wopuld be legal.
* America vs. Europe
In America it would have been a campaign like SCo's. Stallman cries loud echoed by 200 mailing lists As Alltech "stole Linux" Alltech must be owned by Linus. A German world conpiracy, a takeover of the internet backbone
the press writes, the case show the legal incertainties of the GPL. No 3 billion$ as Alltech does not have three billion.
* conservative vs. liberal
I am conservative, I like liberal licenses
* everyone vs. MAC
humm, Mac do hav a license? How is the Mac Eula of this proprietary platform called.
Netfilter was one party, All* the other party.
The agreed on a settlement, All* could hav donated to the Red Cross or whatever.
Netfilter's Harald Welte is a German, All* Gmbh is a German company and they chose two orgs that are tax exempted.
It is private law. US/EU/ ecc. is not affected by this. Not your rights were infrigend but the rights of netfilter.
"asked to put money in a company only working in the US"
-- >these are NGOs, off-topic.
You don't do that. Don't talk about settled cases. Do act like SCO. Copyright infringements are not discussed in the public. We don't need a enforcement directive, we just need good code and persons who respect licenses.
Huh? Troll! It is a German company and Netfilter was the owner of the code as part of the Linux Kernel. Not your IP was infringed.
Compare it to American best practise: SCO vs. Linux. We own your code blabla, requesting billions,media fuzz...
FSF Europe is NOT FSF.
Free Software Forundation Europe, that's Georg Greve and the European crowd, no zelots that force you to call your operating system GNU/linux. They are well respected European lobbyists. Money spent on EU lobbying saves a lot for projects. For instance the EU IPR enforcement directive may be very dangerous for EU citizens that 'just write code'.
And FFII is probably the most succesful player in patent legislation over the past 30 years. Patent attorney made their own laws for a long time.
It is part of the Linux Kernel: 'Being part of the linux operating system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux installation.'
The case here is: How it is done with the GPL in comparison to SCO vs IBM, we own Linux blabla.
And it shows the legal validity of the GNU Public license.
As far as I know it was less than 10 000 Eur. What matters more: 'Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its
customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It will
further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products
without adhering to the GPL.'.
I don't think it is tax deductable.