If you're referring to the second sentence, which do you think apply?
I suspect "making" would apply, as in making copies of CentOS.
What so you think a permanent injunction is?
AFAIK a temporary injunction can be ordered against an activity the courts suspect to be infringing, but they may later determine that it actually isn't, whereas a permanent injunction is only ordered against an activity which the courts have determined to be infringing.
It states that direct infringement is making, using, selling, or offering for sale. None of which would apply to a mirror.
By your legal analysis, which I remain sceptical of.
Liability requires proving that the party charged intended to cause a third party to infringe.
This is in the section "What is inducing infringement?", and applies only to the charge of inducing infringement.
An injunction, by the way, is an order to stop doing something. In this case, to stop mirroring the software. It's not a penalty and doesn't assume liability for past acts.
AFAIK that's true of a preliminary injunction, but the section I quoted was talking about a permanent injunction.
I would argue that mirroring CentOS is not "making, using, or selling" it. Therefore you would not violate a patent by distributing code which describes its implementation. No need to look for patents before distributing, only making, using, or selling.
Can injunctions be issued against FOSS distributions?
Yes. If a FOSS distribution was found to infringe someone's valid patent, a permanent injunction against continued distribution of the infringing program or feature might well occur.
("Distribution" is confusingly used in two senses here, but I think the latter one is relevant.)
I have heard that distributing source code is safer than distributing object code. Is that true?
Yes. Distributing source code is probably safer than distributing binaries, for a few reasons. First, source code, like the patent disclosures themselves, teaches how the invention works, rather than being the invention....
So maybe you'd be alright if you were only going to distribute source.
You're STILL responsible if you're selling something that violates a patent. It's not an alternative and GPLv3 in no way relieves you of that.
AFAIK, you're legally responsible if you're distributing something covered by a patent, whether or not you're receiving payment. If you were taking this responsibility seriously, and ensuring that what you distribute isn't covered by anyone else's patents, then checking it for your own patents at the same time wouldn't be much extra work, relatively speaking.
The problem is that's millions and millions of lines of code that nobody at the university has ever seen. They are just providing a CentOS mirror, not auditing CentOS for patent issues. By providing a mirror, they relinquish all patents to anything at all that anyone can sneak into the code.
I think you're right that it's unrealistic to expect those who hold patents to check the code they distribute for their own patents, but be that as it may, I don't think it's as unrealistic as expecting those who distribute code to check it for everyone else's patents, which is the alternative.
It's not about what you think is 'reasonable', they signed a contract and the contract has pretty clear language about what the cancellation penalties are. You don't get to decide after the fact that you don't like the terms you agreed to and expect some sort of 'do over'.
No, you don't get to decide, but neither to they. The law decides. Under common law, civil cases like this involve seeking "damages"--compensation for harm. She didn't fulfil the contract, so they can seek damages. They can put whatever they like in the contract. They could say she has to pay them a billion dollars. If she doesn't pay that billion dollars, then she's in breach of contract. Because she's in breach of contract, she has to pay damages. They could say that she must agree that the billion dollars represent actual damages. Then if she doesn't agree, she's in breach of contract. Because she's in breach of contract, she has to pay damages. Damages are the actual harm they have suffered, not whatever they decide to put in the contract.
Here's a relevant reference. Look under "The legal option". https://billfixers.com/blog/wa... (Your mileage may vary, however, as jurisdictions based on common law may nevertheless have legislation that overrides common law.)
If she gets some help writing a letter in appropriate legalese, offering to cover 5/6 of the installation costs (since she's 1/6 of the way through the contract), plus a month's payment, as full and final settlement for damages, I think there's a decent chance they'd accept rather than risk legal action.
That said, I do like your idea better, of gathering evidence for their breach of contract, if possible.
In many jurisdictions based on common law, this would be unenforceable on the basis that it is a "penalty clause"--a contractual clause seeking "damages" out of all proportion to any actual damages. This may be worth looking into.
how can god be a he but create female in his image
AFAIK, the story goes that Yahweh created the first man in his image, then he created the first woman from the baculum (penis bone) he removed from the first man. (It's often said to be a rib bone, but I believe it was supposed to be the baculum.)
If you can't tell how ridiculous is the experimental setup in the dog park paper, you do not possess the mental capacity to teach in a university.
I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental setup" here. If I remember the linked articles correctly, I think the hoaxers claimed to have spent time observing the sexual behaviour of dogs at dog parks?
The argument here (and proven so) is that the journals publishing research didn't do due diligence and published fully false articles as fact.
I think the Vox article has it right when it says that peer review can't catch faked data, only attempting to replicate studies can do that, so faking data doesn't show a lack of due diligence in peer review. I think a lot of social science is agenda driven and vacuous, but I don't think the hoax proves it. All the hoax really proves, I think, is that the hoaxers were willing to fake data.
You must be around 12 if a bare reference to the word breasts embarasses you.
I wouldn't be embarrassed if the package was actually breast-related, e.g. related to mammograms or something. The issue for me is that I'd like to promote Debian as something professional, but this just seems a bit juvenile.
The list of applications has no single logo that is "sexual" in any way, or has a reference to boobs...
Perhaps you need new glasses?
I wasn't so much thinking about the logos here as the names. QBooblyrics, QBoobMsg, QCookboob, and QFlatBoob seem obviously "boob" themed to me, and "QHandjoob" seems like an obvious sexual reference. I'm surprised you don't find it obvious.
Fuck you, you ignorant fuck, and your lack of dealing with haboobs in real life.
Go be offended elsewhere, thinskin. your kind isn't welcome around here.
I think it's reasonably apparent that the reference to breasts was intentional, not just something that others read into it. Notably, logos for the project emphasise the pair of Os.
The logo is a pair of christmas glass balls for a christmas tree.
That's the one they're using at the moment (presumably Christmas themed because it's near Christmas). If you don't find that convincing, though, have a look through their list of applications: Weboob applications
Geez, now we're having to police acroyms, because someone might read something into one and be snowflake offended?
If you read the (quite short) article, I think it's reasonably apparent that the reference to breasts was intentional, not just something that others read into it. Notably, logos for the project emphasise the pair of Os.
I use Debian myself, and have installed it on computers for others, including my mum, sister, and nieces. I think the package is a bit of an embarrassment, and I'm happy for it to go.
What the Hell did you people expect?... Corporations as organization go straight to the bottom when it comes to morals and will exploit everything and anything for the bottom line...
That's not what was unexpected. The GPL was intended to deal with this, in the context of desktop software. What was unexpected was the shift from "the desktop" to "the cloud", which the GPL was not designed for.
After all, those assets are what make it possible for a white classmate to take a "gap" year to gain experience before hitting the job market or take an unpaid internship or have access to a nice apartment in Williamsburg to live in while knocking out that first young adult novel on spec, touring with a band, opening a fair trade coffee bar, or running around to hackathons.
A UBI could be used to do some of that, if it was high enough that people could put some aside and save up. However once a person sells assets to do these things, they are without a safety net.
Instead of kicking over additional, say, 10% in tax for a government UBI fund, how about offering a 10% stake in the company to the people who supply the labor? Or another 10% to the towns and cities who supply the roads and traffic signals?
This would be good for people who worked for highly profitable companies, or lived near them, but not so good for anyone else. Also, workers having a stake could become less relevant with rising automation. And, as above, if this allowed people to sell their shares to do the things in the previous paragraph, they would then be without a saftey net.
I don't have a problem with chemical (or pharmaceutical) patents, since those ones (and only those ones) actually work.
In response to AC, Bert64, ath1901, bluefoxlucid: Yes, I think I've overstated the case. I agree there are serious problems with chemical and pharmaceutical patents, and there may well be a better approach to funding this research. To scale my claim back, I think it's fair to say that chemical and pharmaceutical patents provide a net benefit overall, although I also think it's fair to say that the distribution of the benefit is inequitable.
AFAIK Midori was largely written in a language that was based on C#, but had memory management similar to Rust (I think). I don't think it was ever used in production, though.
The US government got Assange to play fast and loose with a couple sexual liaisons, then convinced the women to file complaints?
For what it's worth, I think I remember hearing that it went something like this (not sure though, could be wrong):
Assange pretended to put on a condom to get one woman to agree to sex with him, and after having protected sex with another woman (who presumably insisted on checking that he had put on a condom), initiated further unprotected sex while she was asleep. Neither woman initially intended to take any action, but after talking to each other, became concerned that he could be a potential source of infection, and contacted the police to ask if Assange could be compelled to be tested for STIs.
The police took testimony, then indicated that they would be pressing rape charges, against the women's wishes. This is unusual, police usually only press rape charges if a woman agrees to testify for this purpose. However, a senior officer was on leave, and a less experienced officer was handling the case. The women withdrew their testimony, the senior officer returned from leave, and the case was dropped. Assange asked if he could leave the country, was told this was fine, and he left.
The case was then reopened without explanation. (This is the suspicious part.)
Again, not sure this is right, but if it is right, I don't have a problem with Assange being called a rapist, but the handling of the case still seems suspicious.
There is a reason that collegial practices are ultimately to the long term health and evolution of a community. -- Tough Love
That's an entirely different question than what it does to the health and evolution of the code. -- c6gunner
I've re-stated it multiple times; at this point if you're still misinterpreting it you're either having issues with the English language or you're doing it on purpose. Either way I don't think I can help you. -- c6 gunner
So... by "an entirely different question" you didn't mean "does not influence"? But rather... "is only one of several factors that influence"? Like how the engine, gear box, suspension, and aerodynamics of a vehicle are each only one of several factors that determine it's speed? So we should ignore all but one of them?
Or when you say you "re-stated" your point, do you really mean you abandoned it in favour of something else?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect "making" would apply, as in making copies of CentOS.
AFAIK a temporary injunction can be ordered against an activity the courts suspect to be infringing, but they may later determine that it actually isn't, whereas a permanent injunction is only ordered against an activity which the courts have determined to be infringing.
By your legal analysis, which I remain sceptical of.
This is in the section "What is inducing infringement?", and applies only to the charge of inducing infringement.
AFAIK that's true of a preliminary injunction, but the section I quoted was talking about a permanent injunction.
I'm sceptical about that. FWIW, I did a quick search and found this: Debian Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ
("Distribution" is confusingly used in two senses here, but I think the latter one is relevant.)
So maybe you'd be alright if you were only going to distribute source.
AFAIK, you're legally responsible if you're distributing something covered by a patent, whether or not you're receiving payment. If you were taking this responsibility seriously, and ensuring that what you distribute isn't covered by anyone else's patents, then checking it for your own patents at the same time wouldn't be much extra work, relatively speaking.
I think you're right that it's unrealistic to expect those who hold patents to check the code they distribute for their own patents, but be that as it may, I don't think it's as unrealistic as expecting those who distribute code to check it for everyone else's patents, which is the alternative.
No, you don't get to decide, but neither to they. The law decides. Under common law, civil cases like this involve seeking "damages"--compensation for harm. She didn't fulfil the contract, so they can seek damages. They can put whatever they like in the contract. They could say she has to pay them a billion dollars. If she doesn't pay that billion dollars, then she's in breach of contract. Because she's in breach of contract, she has to pay damages. They could say that she must agree that the billion dollars represent actual damages. Then if she doesn't agree, she's in breach of contract. Because she's in breach of contract, she has to pay damages. Damages are the actual harm they have suffered, not whatever they decide to put in the contract.
Here's a relevant reference. Look under "The legal option". https://billfixers.com/blog/wa... (Your mileage may vary, however, as jurisdictions based on common law may nevertheless have legislation that overrides common law.)
If she gets some help writing a letter in appropriate legalese, offering to cover 5/6 of the installation costs (since she's 1/6 of the way through the contract), plus a month's payment, as full and final settlement for damages, I think there's a decent chance they'd accept rather than risk legal action.
That said, I do like your idea better, of gathering evidence for their breach of contract, if possible.
In many jurisdictions based on common law, this would be unenforceable on the basis that it is a "penalty clause"--a contractual clause seeking "damages" out of all proportion to any actual damages. This may be worth looking into.
AFAIK, the story goes that Yahweh created the first man in his image, then he created the first woman from the baculum (penis bone) he removed from the first man. (It's often said to be a rib bone, but I believe it was supposed to be the baculum.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental setup" here. If I remember the linked articles correctly, I think the hoaxers claimed to have spent time observing the sexual behaviour of dogs at dog parks?
I think the Vox article has it right when it says that peer review can't catch faked data, only attempting to replicate studies can do that, so faking data doesn't show a lack of due diligence in peer review. I think a lot of social science is agenda driven and vacuous, but I don't think the hoax proves it. All the hoax really proves, I think, is that the hoaxers were willing to fake data.
I wouldn't be embarrassed if the package was actually breast-related, e.g. related to mammograms or something. The issue for me is that I'd like to promote Debian as something professional, but this just seems a bit juvenile.
I wasn't so much thinking about the logos here as the names. QBooblyrics, QBoobMsg, QCookboob, and QFlatBoob seem obviously "boob" themed to me, and "QHandjoob" seems like an obvious sexual reference. I'm surprised you don't find it obvious.
I'm not really offended by it, more embarrassed.
That's the one they're using at the moment (presumably Christmas themed because it's near Christmas). If you don't find that convincing, though, have a look through their list of applications: Weboob applications
If you read the (quite short) article, I think it's reasonably apparent that the reference to breasts was intentional, not just something that others read into it. Notably, logos for the project emphasise the pair of Os.
I use Debian myself, and have installed it on computers for others, including my mum, sister, and nieces. I think the package is a bit of an embarrassment, and I'm happy for it to go.
That's not what was unexpected. The GPL was intended to deal with this, in the context of desktop software. What was unexpected was the shift from "the desktop" to "the cloud", which the GPL was not designed for.
A UBI could be used to do some of that, if it was high enough that people could put some aside and save up. However once a person sells assets to do these things, they are without a safety net.
This would be good for people who worked for highly profitable companies, or lived near them, but not so good for anyone else. Also, workers having a stake could become less relevant with rising automation. And, as above, if this allowed people to sell their shares to do the things in the previous paragraph, they would then be without a saftey net.
In response to AC, Bert64, ath1901, bluefoxlucid: Yes, I think I've overstated the case. I agree there are serious problems with chemical and pharmaceutical patents, and there may well be a better approach to funding this research. To scale my claim back, I think it's fair to say that chemical and pharmaceutical patents provide a net benefit overall, although I also think it's fair to say that the distribution of the benefit is inequitable.
That's OK. I don't have a problem with chemical (or pharmaceutical) patents, since those ones (and only those ones) actually work.
Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent failure. Princeton University Press.
AFAIK Midori was largely written in a language that was based on C#, but had memory management similar to Rust (I think). I don't think it was ever used in production, though.
Thanks for the reference. I hadn't heard that the women decided they did want charges laid. Given that, I agree, it doesn't sound so suspicious.
For what it's worth, I think I remember hearing that it went something like this (not sure though, could be wrong):
Assange pretended to put on a condom to get one woman to agree to sex with him, and after having protected sex with another woman (who presumably insisted on checking that he had put on a condom), initiated further unprotected sex while she was asleep. Neither woman initially intended to take any action, but after talking to each other, became concerned that he could be a potential source of infection, and contacted the police to ask if Assange could be compelled to be tested for STIs.
The police took testimony, then indicated that they would be pressing rape charges, against the women's wishes. This is unusual, police usually only press rape charges if a woman agrees to testify for this purpose. However, a senior officer was on leave, and a less experienced officer was handling the case. The women withdrew their testimony, the senior officer returned from leave, and the case was dropped. Assange asked if he could leave the country, was told this was fine, and he left.
The case was then reopened without explanation. (This is the suspicious part.)
Again, not sure this is right, but if it is right, I don't have a problem with Assange being called a rapist, but the handling of the case still seems suspicious.
So... by "an entirely different question" you didn't mean "does not influence"? But rather... "is only one of several factors that influence"? Like how the engine, gear box, suspension, and aerodynamics of a vehicle are each only one of several factors that determine it's speed? So we should ignore all but one of them?
Or when you say you "re-stated" your point, do you really mean you abandoned it in favour of something else?
It looks to me like you did. If not, I'm not sure what, exactly, if anything, you did suggest.
That indicates that you agree with what I actually said.
And that's a straw man.