I wish I had mod points, mod parent up! I for one would love to live under your benevolent dictatorship.
That would be fine if the dictator did what the people wanted (i.e. if it was essentially a democracy), but if not (and even if they did the right thing) we'd end up with disaffected people, civil disobedience, riots, etc.
Better to have a democracy. It may be a mess, but at least it's our mess.
Having said that though, it's not a democracy if states that want to leave aren't allowed to. And it's not a democracy for one country to unilaterally dictate to others. And it's not much of a democracy if no-one in the government actually really represents your views. Democracy today tends to involve expressing all the particulars and nuisances your political views by choosing one of two possible options. That's a bit crap, really.
Exactly, it's preventing a lifetime of neglect and misery that makes it right, along with the other benefits to society brought about by decreased population growth.
I wouldn't say that, since we could also use this argument to justify infanticide.
Rather, I would say that what makes abortion permissible up to 20 weeks, is that a pre-20 week foetus does not have a functioning brain, and therefore does not think or feel, so the idea of ascribing it rights makes as much sense as attempting to nurse a headless chicken back to health.
Vikings were filthy rich at one point in history, and had everything they could possibly want (or could get it just by making threats), and yet that didn't stop them from slaughtering others and themselves on a regular basis.
That's what the English thought of them, since the only Vikings they saw were the ones that came to kill them. No doubt Muslims thought the same of Christians, considering the crusades. I'm not saying they're both wrong, but let's not jump to conclusions so quickly.
3) The Emotional quotient of the parties involved.
EQ does play a big role, but the opposite of what you suggest. You argue that higher EQ teens may end up having less sex than lower EQ teens (realising that more is not necessarily better), but whether or not that's true, quantity isn't what the article focuses on, at least with regard to teens. Although it is headed "Smarter Teens Have Less Sex", it looks more at what age teens lose their viginity, rather than how much sex they have, and higher EQ teens are likely to lose their viginity earlier (developing earlier).
However I agree that IQ is likely to be more of a side issue in all this. People with extremely high IQs are, I suspect, likely to have low EQs (Einstien's theory of relativity demonstrates intellect well above the norm, but an equal and opposite position relative to the norm is demonstrated by his dress sense), and people with extremely low IQ are also likely to have low EQs.
What the %&@* does it mean?
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 1
From the linked commentary:
"In a sense it's only from today that we have enough text. So this is where the work begins. There's a lot of work to be done beyond the actual words themselves to get people to understand the license."
As an AC reply noted (thanks, AC!), there's something called the Affero GPL, and you can (if I'm reading the draft right, I could be wrong) distribute GPL3 code under the Affero GPL. If you do that then anyone installing the program on a network (e.g. a web server) will have to make the source available to its users.
The current version of the AGPL (v1) is based on the GPL v2, with the addition of an extra clause that requires source be made available for software run on public servers. Originally, the FSF intended to incorporate the AGPL's extra clause into the GPL v3 (as an 'additional restriction', that could be added to modified software, but not removed again), but they decided that the extra clause changed the nature of the license, essentially allowing GPL software to be appropriated for use under a different license.
The new plan is to allow AGPL software to be linked with GPL software. In most cases, relevant GPL software will have the Linux or LGPL linking provision anyway, but in case it doesn't, the GPLv3 is supposed to allow linking specifically with AGPL software. This isn't really clear in the GPL. But then, nothing is really clear in the GPL.
Nor can I disprove the existence of unicorns living in Venus's core. So as long as we can't put cameras there, we might as well just accept that we'll never know, right?
I'll thank you not to associate the Faith of the Venus Core Unicorns with Abrahamicism. It's demeaning.
Brother James, Priest of the V.C. 'Tween Temple Horn
Your summary makes sense. However I don't think you've covered the stuff around page 12, which seems (to me) to be suggesting that it would not be possible to claim for damages even under contract law:
Under California law, a plaintiff is only entitled to recover under an unjust enrichment theory "if the circumstances must be such as to warrant the inference that it was the expectation of both parties during the time the services were rendered that the compensation should be made." Del Madera at 978 citing 1 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts S 50, at 60-61 (8th ed. 1973 & Supp. 1984) (emphasis in original). Clearly as a provider of free open source software to the public (see Amended Complaint, N 2,41), Jacobsen never had an expectation of compensation from anyone, including KAM and Katzer.
I'm not sure what to make of this.
Is it being claimed that non-monetary compensation is not a benefit,
or that it is not a benefit specifically for the original author,
or that the original author allowed a license to create derivitive works without claiming compensation at the time of providing the license, or necessarily believing they would receive a benefit unless a derivite work was actually made, so compensation was not claimed, or the benefit, if received, does not count as compensation for the license,
or that the original author was not actually aware that they had granted a license (since the license was granted automatically), or was not aware of when their copyrighted material was being used to create a derivitive work, so did not have an expectation in this specific case per se,
or is it simply being claimed that the license does not impose any restrictions on the use of the copyrighted work?
It all seems a bit vague. I guess it might be based on the idea "You didn't suffer any loss because I didn't take anything from you", but exactly this argument could be used against commercial copyright -- copying is not theft, you didn't suffer any loss of money, because it was my money in the first place. The 'loss' here is in comparision to how the situation would have been if the same use of copyright had occured legally -- i.e. it would have occured with monetary compensation or disclosure of source code.
I haven't followed the guts of the issue, so I'll ask: Is the Debian POV that although someone shouldn't be able to use the trademark (and misrepresent the source of the product), they should be able to create derivative but dissimilar marks? I don't see much other use of a (C)No/(TM)Yes logo.
Yes. Debian comes with over 15,000 packages, all of which are classified into one of three sections:
'contrib' -- packages that comply with the DFSG, but do depend on other software that doesn't
'non-free' -- packages that do not comply with the DFSG
The DFSG requires that "The license must allow modifications and derived works". Debian do not want to change the DFSG, according to which over 15,000 packages have been classified, just for Mozilla Corporation, especially since there is absolutely no point in doing so. Mozilla Corporation's trademarks are already trademarked. They do not need to be copyrighted too. Therefore, instead of changing the DFSG, they chose not to use the Firefox logo.
Just to expand on this, Debian considers trademarks to be compatible with free software, but proprietary copyrights not to be. The Firefox logo is covered by both. Mozilla's FAQ justifies it thus:
The logos themselves are the trademark, but the actual logo files are in the domain of copyright. You could release the files under an open source license while maintaining trademark rights. Why don't you do that?
Because it would gain nothing, and lead to far more infringing uses of our marks. In practice, there is no use for the files except as expressions of our trademarks, so the rights associated with an open source license don't add anything.
I understand the Mozilla Corporation is also currently applying for patent rights for their logos, and considering having modification of them declared to be circumvention of a technological protection measure...
Ok, a bit slow there - four months - but maybe the bank did some research on the flaws first. And the wheels of Big Business turn pretty slow....
Or they might have wanted to fix the problem before informing anyone else (and particularly before making the information public in court). I know I would.:-P
That's what Microsoft is usually asking. There are two things that count: first and best. It's better to be first, because once you're first, nobody else can come along later and be first; if you're not the first, you *have* to be the best.
Microsoft rarely produces the first of anything. Do the math.
You've got to be kidding me. Are you suggesting that MS Windows 95 bet IBM OS/2 Warp on pure technical merit, MS Internet Explorer bet Netscape Navigator on pure technical merit, etc.? I think you're being a bit naive.
If the FOSS community could establish a new email protocol that transparnetly added real support for attachments, security and formatting and it was adopted quickly by Thunderbird, Evolution and Mail.app (I'm a Mac zealot so I want it too) the next version of Exchange would support it too.
Not likely. There are two ways a standard can achieve wide adoption. One is if Microsoft pushes it (you'll ruin all chance of that if it has any association with the GPL). The other is if it's already had wide adoption since MS Windows 3.1 (http, ftp, pop3, smtp, nntp, HTML, GIF, JPEG, JavaScript, Java, Flash, PDF). You need to make Microsoft think it was their idea. Build it into FreeBSD.
Perhaps "Employees requesting Linux" and "My competitors have successfully deployed Linux" were rated as top reasons because these were the things that got companies looking at Linux, rather than them being a final deciding factor?
Or perhaps competitors successfully deploying Linux is seen as including decreased TCO etc. And employees' requests could certainly be based on these things (especially if they are generally IT workers, which I suspect is likely).
In order to resolve these issues, the questionnaire should have also asked "what were your employees' and competitors top reasons for choosing Linux?".:-)
Re:The word you're looking for is "sophistry"
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 1
... But it's clearly planned or they wouldn't be repeating each other word for word, on all manner of media shows all across the country....
It's pretty clear the Republicans have a system set up for diseminating the recent partyline, and it's expected that a person will present it verbatim with little personal variation....
Maybe, but it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me. It could just be that they repeat what they're told because they believe what they're told. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
Re:The word you're looking for is "sophistry"
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 1
... I intended it as another example of exactly the same thing that everyone is familiar with.... Creating truth from repitition and nothing more substantial.
You know that's what it is, but the people who voted for the Republicans don't. And neither do the Republicans themselves. They don't do it on purpose you know, they are only saying what they believe.
It's perhaps not so much that I don't like your comment, but that I don't like that it was modded up. True maybe, but it's not insightful.
Re:The word you're looking for is "sophistry"
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 1
It's like how the republicans do business. They first declare victory. Then they hire people to go to different places, at the same time, and call their opponants "Poor sports" and "losers" for disagreing with them. Through repitition through what appear to be different sources many are easily convienced that so many different people can't be wrong.
I think that's the Jehovah's Witnesses.:-P A Jehovah's Witness came around here, recited an explanation for how it's known that 'Jehovah' is God's name, and gave me a book. I read the book. Funny thing is that the book had much the same explanation except the other way around, and almost admitted that 'Jehovah' wasn't God's name, but then fudged it at the end. I returned the book when they came back, and offered them some material on evolution, but they didn't want it.
Perhaps I'm being rude in singling out the JWs, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But you'll find fudged arguments in almost any group if you look hard enough. You're just more likely to see them in the groups you disagree with.
As much as this draft of the GPL 3 may be a bad idea, it is not as harsh as the standard commercial end user licence, which seeks to regulate what you can do with software in the privacy of your own home even if it has no effect on anyone else. If this draft of the GPL 3 is licence Communism, then we already have licence Nazism in the form of commercial licences.
Ok, so if someone allows me to use software installed on their computer
(corporate computer, web server, ISP, koisk, leased computer / TV-top box, etc.),
and they derived that software from someone else's GPL 2 licenced software,
then it's not been distributed to me,
so they don't have to give me the source code.
I can see how that could become an issue.
But then if I'm depending on someone else's computer,
then that could become an issue anyway.
And trying to prevent the former issue could get complicated.
What if I've been allowed to work on source code on someone else's computer? This hasn't been distributed to me either?
If they've allowed me to install the software on my computer,
then it has been distributed to me,
and they do have to give me the source code.
The GPL 3 aims to clarify requirements or fix loopholes
to prevent the source code being rendered less useful
through patent restrictions, DRM, etc.
This sounds like a good idea.
As to using software on someone else's computer,
perhaps it would be more practical to instead add a restriction
that the server/koisk/computer, etc. display a message like
"This [whatever] is the property of [whoever]."
This would stop people from falling into the trap of thinking
"this is my TV-top box", if it's on perpetual lease or something.
I don't know under what particular circumstances
it would be sensible to require this message,
and what to do with e-mail servers and the like
that can't display the message.
Anyway, just a thought.
Interesting, I didn't know that. The main point I was trying to make though, was that if "GNU/Linux" was dropped from "Debian GNU/Linux", you'd hardly notice the difference. (In the case of Fedora, it's not got "Linux" in the name anyway -- although I think it would make things clearer if it did.)
Trademarks aren't new to FOSS, and I can't imagine the Linux trademark being restricted as severly as the Mozilla or AbiWord ones:
If an individual or organization is creating a Community Edition of Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird, it must use the names "Firefox Community Edition" or "Thunderbird Community Edition" to identify this software.
Mozilla Community Edition Policy
... AbiSource freely licenses the use of certain of its trademarks solely in combination with the suffix "Personal" when applied to derivative works based on an AbiSource GPL product. Thus, for example, you are free to use the mark "AbiWord Personal" in connection with derivative works that are based on "AbiWord".
AbiWord Trademark Usage Guidelines
(These are the only cases automatically allowed, other use requires explicit permission.)
(Unlikely IMHO) worst case scenario if "Linux" were trademarked:
Debian and Fedora are based on Linux®. "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
People would still call them Linux anyway, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
I do think that it might make things easier to automatically allow any person, company or organisation to use the trademark prefixed by their own name for derivitive works, e.g. "Debian Mozilla", "Debian AbiWord" for Debian's versions of each. That would make things clear enough, I think.
However, for anyone who's in favour of unrestricted usage of "Linux" (or any other FOSS name), consider Sys-Con Media and their LinuxWorld magazine (Slashdot story). It's lucky that the editorial staff were willing to put their jobs on the line to do something about it.
There isn't a problem for the original authors, since they own the copyrights, they can release under any licences they want. This would only be an issue for people writing derived works. And there's no need to guess who wants to receive the source for patches, if they want them, they'll ask.
The problem is balancing the legal right to temporarily withhold patches for security reasons against the legal right to immediately access patches for security reasons. I don't think there's an ideal way to deal with this, but the question is, what way is less flawed?
Is the GPL requirement to publish source code for security patches an impediment to security? I'd guess there would be a window of opportunity for attack between the release of patches and the patches being applied to systems.
Would it be better if the GPL allowed for a short period (a couple of weeks?) between the binary and source of security patches being made generally available? If so, should there be a requirement that all listed copyright holders (for example) be provided with the source at the time of the binary release? Or would all this just cause more problems than it solved?
Having biometrics on my computer with a free / open source OS wouldn't be scary like having biometrics on my computer with a closed OS and hardware DRM, of course.
For public / institutional networks though, I can't help but wonder where it's going. But on the plus side, at least if big brother runs on Linux I won't worry so much about script kiddies stealing my identity.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be fine if the dictator did what the people wanted (i.e. if it was essentially a democracy), but if not (and even if they did the right thing) we'd end up with disaffected people, civil disobedience, riots, etc.
Better to have a democracy. It may be a mess, but at least it's our mess.
Having said that though, it's not a democracy if states that want to leave aren't allowed to. And it's not a democracy for one country to unilaterally dictate to others. And it's not much of a democracy if no-one in the government actually really represents your views. Democracy today tends to involve expressing all the particulars and nuisances your political views by choosing one of two possible options. That's a bit crap, really.
I wouldn't say that, since we could also use this argument to justify infanticide.
Rather, I would say that what makes abortion permissible up to 20 weeks, is that a pre-20 week foetus does not have a functioning brain, and therefore does not think or feel, so the idea of ascribing it rights makes as much sense as attempting to nurse a headless chicken back to health.
'Brain Waves' When???
That's what the English thought of them, since the only Vikings they saw were the ones that came to kill them. No doubt Muslims thought the same of Christians, considering the crusades. I'm not saying they're both wrong, but let's not jump to conclusions so quickly.
EQ does play a big role, but the opposite of what you suggest. You argue that higher EQ teens may end up having less sex than lower EQ teens (realising that more is not necessarily better), but whether or not that's true, quantity isn't what the article focuses on, at least with regard to teens. Although it is headed "Smarter Teens Have Less Sex", it looks more at what age teens lose their viginity, rather than how much sex they have, and higher EQ teens are likely to lose their viginity earlier (developing earlier).
However I agree that IQ is likely to be more of a side issue in all this. People with extremely high IQs are, I suspect, likely to have low EQs (Einstien's theory of relativity demonstrates intellect well above the norm, but an equal and opposite position relative to the norm is demonstrated by his dress sense), and people with extremely low IQ are also likely to have low EQs.
From the linked commentary:
Not to worry, I've already got that sorted: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?file name=gplv3-draft-4&id=3445
The current version of the AGPL (v1) is based on the GPL v2, with the addition of an extra clause that requires source be made available for software run on public servers. Originally, the FSF intended to incorporate the AGPL's extra clause into the GPL v3 (as an 'additional restriction', that could be added to modified software, but not removed again), but they decided that the extra clause changed the nature of the license, essentially allowing GPL software to be appropriated for use under a different license.
The new plan is to allow AGPL software to be linked with GPL software. In most cases, relevant GPL software will have the Linux or LGPL linking provision anyway, but in case it doesn't, the GPLv3 is supposed to allow linking specifically with AGPL software. This isn't really clear in the GPL. But then, nothing is really clear in the GPL.
I'll thank you not to associate the Faith of the Venus Core Unicorns with Abrahamicism. It's demeaning.
Brother James, Priest of the V.C. 'Tween Temple Horn
- Is it being claimed that non-monetary compensation is not a benefit,
- or that it is not a benefit specifically for the original author,
- or that the original author allowed a license to create derivitive works without claiming compensation at the time of providing the license, or necessarily believing they would receive a benefit unless a derivite work was actually made, so compensation was not claimed, or the benefit, if received, does not count as compensation for the license,
- or that the original author was not actually aware that they had granted a license (since the license was granted automatically), or was not aware of when their copyrighted material was being used to create a derivitive work, so did not have an expectation in this specific case per se,
- or is it simply being claimed that the license does not impose any restrictions on the use of the copyrighted work?
It all seems a bit vague. I guess it might be based on the idea "You didn't suffer any loss because I didn't take anything from you", but exactly this argument could be used against commercial copyright -- copying is not theft, you didn't suffer any loss of money, because it was my money in the first place. The 'loss' here is in comparision to how the situation would have been if the same use of copyright had occured legally -- i.e. it would have occured with monetary compensation or disclosure of source code.Yes. Debian comes with over 15,000 packages, all of which are classified into one of three sections:
The DFSG requires that "The license must allow modifications and derived works". Debian do not want to change the DFSG, according to which over 15,000 packages have been classified, just for Mozilla Corporation, especially since there is absolutely no point in doing so. Mozilla Corporation's trademarks are already trademarked. They do not need to be copyrighted too. Therefore, instead of changing the DFSG, they chose not to use the Firefox logo.
Just to expand on this, Debian considers trademarks to be compatible with free software, but proprietary copyrights not to be. The Firefox logo is covered by both. Mozilla's FAQ justifies it thus:
I understand the Mozilla Corporation is also currently applying for patent rights for their logos, and considering having modification of them declared to be circumvention of a technological protection measure...
Or they might have wanted to fix the problem before informing anyone else (and particularly before making the information public in court). I know I would. :-P
Finally, a scientific explanation for Christianity and bureaucracy. :-P
You've got to be kidding me. Are you suggesting that MS Windows 95 bet IBM OS/2 Warp on pure technical merit, MS Internet Explorer bet Netscape Navigator on pure technical merit, etc.? I think you're being a bit naive.
Not likely. There are two ways a standard can achieve wide adoption. One is if Microsoft pushes it (you'll ruin all chance of that if it has any association with the GPL). The other is if it's already had wide adoption since MS Windows 3.1 (http, ftp, pop3, smtp, nntp, HTML, GIF, JPEG, JavaScript, Java, Flash, PDF). You need to make Microsoft think it was their idea. Build it into FreeBSD.
Hmmm...
Perhaps "Employees requesting Linux" and "My competitors have successfully deployed Linux" were rated as top reasons because these were the things that got companies looking at Linux, rather than them being a final deciding factor?
Or perhaps competitors successfully deploying Linux is seen as including decreased TCO etc. And employees' requests could certainly be based on these things (especially if they are generally IT workers, which I suspect is likely).
In order to resolve these issues, the questionnaire should have also asked "what were your employees' and competitors top reasons for choosing Linux?". :-)
Maybe, but it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me. It could just be that they repeat what they're told because they believe what they're told. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
You know that's what it is, but the people who voted for the Republicans don't. And neither do the Republicans themselves. They don't do it on purpose you know, they are only saying what they believe.
It's perhaps not so much that I don't like your comment, but that I don't like that it was modded up. True maybe, but it's not insightful.
I think that's the Jehovah's Witnesses. :-P A Jehovah's Witness came around here, recited an explanation for how it's known that 'Jehovah' is God's name, and gave me a book. I read the book. Funny thing is that the book had much the same explanation except the other way around, and almost admitted that 'Jehovah' wasn't God's name, but then fudged it at the end. I returned the book when they came back, and offered them some material on evolution, but they didn't want it.
Perhaps I'm being rude in singling out the JWs, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But you'll find fudged arguments in almost any group if you look hard enough. You're just more likely to see them in the groups you disagree with.
As much as this draft of the GPL 3 may be a bad idea, it is not as harsh as the standard commercial end user licence, which seeks to regulate what you can do with software in the privacy of your own home even if it has no effect on anyone else. If this draft of the GPL 3 is licence Communism, then we already have licence Nazism in the form of commercial licences.
Ok, so if someone allows me to use software installed on their computer (corporate computer, web server, ISP, koisk, leased computer / TV-top box, etc.), and they derived that software from someone else's GPL 2 licenced software, then it's not been distributed to me, so they don't have to give me the source code.
I can see how that could become an issue. But then if I'm depending on someone else's computer, then that could become an issue anyway. And trying to prevent the former issue could get complicated.
What if I've been allowed to work on source code on someone else's computer? This hasn't been distributed to me either?
If they've allowed me to install the software on my computer, then it has been distributed to me, and they do have to give me the source code. The GPL 3 aims to clarify requirements or fix loopholes to prevent the source code being rendered less useful through patent restrictions, DRM, etc. This sounds like a good idea.
As to using software on someone else's computer, perhaps it would be more practical to instead add a restriction that the server/koisk/computer, etc. display a message like "This [whatever] is the property of [whoever]." This would stop people from falling into the trap of thinking "this is my TV-top box", if it's on perpetual lease or something.
I don't know under what particular circumstances it would be sensible to require this message, and what to do with e-mail servers and the like that can't display the message. Anyway, just a thought.
Interesting, I didn't know that. The main point I was trying to make though, was that if "GNU/Linux" was dropped from "Debian GNU/Linux", you'd hardly notice the difference. (In the case of Fedora, it's not got "Linux" in the name anyway -- although I think it would make things clearer if it did.)
Trademarks aren't new to FOSS, and I can't imagine the Linux trademark being restricted as severly as the Mozilla or AbiWord ones:
(These are the only cases automatically allowed, other use requires explicit permission.)
(Unlikely IMHO) worst case scenario if "Linux" were trademarked:
Debian and Fedora are based on Linux®. "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
People would still call them Linux anyway, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
I do think that it might make things easier to automatically allow any person, company or organisation to use the trademark prefixed by their own name for derivitive works, e.g. "Debian Mozilla", "Debian AbiWord" for Debian's versions of each. That would make things clear enough, I think.
However, for anyone who's in favour of unrestricted usage of "Linux" (or any other FOSS name), consider Sys-Con Media and their LinuxWorld magazine (Slashdot story). It's lucky that the editorial staff were willing to put their jobs on the line to do something about it.
There isn't a problem for the original authors, since they own the copyrights, they can release under any licences they want. This would only be an issue for people writing derived works. And there's no need to guess who wants to receive the source for patches, if they want them, they'll ask.
The problem is balancing the legal right to temporarily withhold patches for security reasons against the legal right to immediately access patches for security reasons. I don't think there's an ideal way to deal with this, but the question is, what way is less flawed?
Is the GPL requirement to publish source code for security patches an impediment to security? I'd guess there would be a window of opportunity for attack between the release of patches and the patches being applied to systems.
Would it be better if the GPL allowed for a short period (a couple of weeks?) between the binary and source of security patches being made generally available? If so, should there be a requirement that all listed copyright holders (for example) be provided with the source at the time of the binary release? Or would all this just cause more problems than it solved?
I am reminded that when I was reading Stallman's The Right To Read (linked from the recent Slashdot story Old-Fashioned DRM Protects Harry Potter Book), I wondered why it didn't include biometrics. That would have prevented the happy ending.
Having biometrics on my computer with a free / open source OS wouldn't be scary like having biometrics on my computer with a closed OS and hardware DRM, of course.
For public / institutional networks though, I can't help but wonder where it's going. But on the plus side, at least if big brother runs on Linux I won't worry so much about script kiddies stealing my identity.