Let me re-iterate this: America DID NOT sign the Geneva convention. At least, most of those conventions that govern the use weaponry. I posted something like this earlier, but some idiot moderator decided to mod it down as "overrated."
America did sign various agreements about the treatment of prisoners (altough some argue they have not complied with them post 11 september 2001.)
America has not signed into the international criminal court, or the banning of antipersonnel land mines.
America did sign the original 1944 (59 year old!) treaty, but DID NOT not sign the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977.
America DID NOT sign Protocol III (1980) or Protocol IV (1995) of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
And from what I can tell from the treaty website, the United States has never ratified the agreements.
In fact, let me clarify further. The USA has postponed signing several of the Geneva conventions limiting the use of specific forms of weaponry, and only complied to any other weapons-related agreements in the most minimal possible way. Given that this topic is discussing weaponry, I assumed the participants would understand that I was talking about the weaponry-related conventions, not the treatment of prisoners conventions.
Forgive me, I misspoke. The USA did sign, but never ratified it, and have not materialy complied. This was the same was they treated the Kyoto Protocol.
Here in South Africa, given our constitutional right to life, the government is going to start producing generics of patented AIDs anti-retroviral drugs, against the copyright claims of the drugs' creators.
Oh yeah? From your "good reference":
informal
adj.
1 Not formal or ceremonious; casual: an informal gathering of friends; a relaxed, informal manner.
2 Not being in accord with prescribed regulations or forms; unofficial: an informal agreement.
3 Suited for everyday wear or use: informal clothes.
4 Being more appropriate for use in the spoken language than in the written language.
Note point number 4: This page counts as written language.
Why on earth are you so keen on funny shaped windows and all those other spurious eye-candy "features"? Nothind irritates me more than sitting down at somebody's box, and seeing a little drop shadow hanging behind their cursor. The Windows scrolling-out menus just waste time. And think how SLOW winamp 3 (or WMP 7 and above) is, when the only feature added since 2.91 was funny shaped windows?
Not everyone likes having their resources tied up in eye-candy. I would have preferred some bug-fixes to Winamp 2.91 over anything Winamp 3 has to offer.
I am not flaming you, I am expressing a differing opinion.
Email is nothing like a postcard. Under the normal operation of an email server, the contents of the email are not processed, only the headers. The headers correspond to the envelope. Scanning the content of the message is very similar to opening somebody else's snail mail. The difference is that opening somebody else's email is potentially worse, as it is harder to tell that your privacy is being invaded.
B is then responsible to give the source to C1-C100k.
True, but the point is moot, as this would mean that the source code (the Microsoft-altered code in this example) IS availible, as B would have to have given the source to C1-C100k, or provided a written offer to distribute the source. Your bandwidth-capped server idea is not legal under the GPL; If a user wants the source, it is your responsibility to get the source to him, with a charge no more that the cost of the transferance.
A can charge for the source
Yes, 'A' can, but the cost of the source may be no higher than cost of the binaries, and if you have the binaries, you are entitled to the source, with a charge no more that the cost of the transferance.
since our products are cheaper abroad making them more attractive ovreseas
Yeah, but since the dollar is weak, you get less for each item sold. It balances out. With all the inconvenience of flying within the US, and all the difficulty even getting a visa, travel to the US is not going to see any increase. And for all the weak economies on which you say the Euro is based, it still is doing better than the dollar?
On topic now, CDs in South Africa cost ZAR130, which is about US$16.60. We get nothing but the big-name releases, so if we want GOOD music, we have to order it import, which send the price up to ZAR250 / US$32. Spare a thought for those less fortunate than yourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me re-iterate this: America DID NOT sign the Geneva convention. At least, most of those conventions that govern the use weaponry. I posted something like this earlier, but some idiot moderator decided to mod it down as "overrated."
America did sign various agreements about the treatment of prisoners (altough some argue they have not complied with them post 11 september 2001.)
America has not signed into the international criminal court, or the banning of antipersonnel land mines.
America did sign the original 1944 (59 year old!) treaty, but DID NOT not sign the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977.
America DID NOT sign Protocol III (1980) or Protocol IV (1995) of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
And from what I can tell from the treaty website, the United States has never ratified the agreements.
In fact, let me clarify further. The USA has postponed signing several of the Geneva conventions limiting the use of specific forms of weaponry, and only complied to any other weapons-related agreements in the most minimal possible way. Given that this topic is discussing weaponry, I assumed the participants would understand that I was talking about the weaponry-related conventions, not the treatment of prisoners conventions.
Forgive me, I misspoke. The USA did sign, but never ratified it, and have not materialy complied. This was the same was they treated the Kyoto Protocol.
Here in South Africa, given our constitutional right to life, the government is going to start producing generics of patented AIDs anti-retroviral drugs, against the copyright claims of the drugs' creators.
America did not sign the Geneva Convention.
Oh yeah? From your "good reference":
informal
adj.
1 Not formal or ceremonious; casual: an informal gathering of friends; a relaxed, informal manner.
2 Not being in accord with prescribed regulations or forms; unofficial: an informal agreement.
3 Suited for everyday wear or use: informal clothes.
4 Being more appropriate for use in the spoken language than in the written language.
Note point number 4: This page counts as written language.
Why on earth are you so keen on funny shaped windows and all those other spurious eye-candy "features"? Nothind irritates me more than sitting down at somebody's box, and seeing a little drop shadow hanging behind their cursor. The Windows scrolling-out menus just waste time. And think how SLOW winamp 3 (or WMP 7 and above) is, when the only feature added since 2.91 was funny shaped windows?
Not everyone likes having their resources tied up in eye-candy. I would have preferred some bug-fixes to Winamp 2.91 over anything Winamp 3 has to offer.
I am not flaming you, I am expressing a differing opinion.
Email is nothing like a postcard. Under the normal operation of an email server, the contents of the email are not processed, only the headers. The headers correspond to the envelope. Scanning the content of the message is very similar to opening somebody else's snail mail. The difference is that opening somebody else's email is potentially worse, as it is harder to tell that your privacy is being invaded.
B is then responsible to give the source to C1-C100k.
True, but the point is moot, as this would mean that the source code (the Microsoft-altered code in this example) IS availible, as B would have to have given the source to C1-C100k, or provided a written offer to distribute the source. Your bandwidth-capped server idea is not legal under the GPL; If a user wants the source, it is your responsibility to get the source to him, with a charge no more that the cost of the transferance.
A can charge for the source
Yes, 'A' can, but the cost of the source may be no higher than cost of the binaries, and if you have the binaries, you are entitled to the source, with a charge no more that the cost of the transferance.
Actually no. The GPL obliges people to make available the source (of GPL covered code) only to third parties they have supplied it to
According to my reading, the GPL obliges people to make available the source (of GPL covered code) to anybody to whom it has been supplied.
If you sell a GPL program, the person who buys it can give it away to anybody at all, and that recipient is entitled to have the source code.
On topic now, CDs in South Africa cost ZAR130, which is about US$16.60. We get nothing but the big-name releases, so if we want GOOD music, we have to order it import, which send the price up to ZAR250 / US$32. Spare a thought for those less fortunate than yourselves.
You are aware this is from SOUTH Korea, not North Korea?