"On a patent attack Novell will be tempted to cross license the issue, but for Novell customers only, not for Open Source users and distributers in general."
Novell owns Suse. Suse is almost entirely GPL. The GPL doesn't allow for what you fear. How much of Novell's open source inventory is licensed in a manner that would?
I don't get it, this is common English usage of the word "might" to refer to potential future acts. The normal reading of this is "to those who might sue us, we intend to defend our open source inventory with the full weight of our patent portfolio." 'Defend' is the operative word. You're completely twisting into a first strike policy read as "we intend to sue first anyone who might some day sue us". It's a ridiculous, doomed to failure legal position for a company with such long experience in litigation to assert.
Typical pro-Microsoft troll moderation. From the article you didn't bother to RTF:
"The plaintiffs have three main areas of concern about the documentation.
First among these is that Microsoft, asked to open up and document the interfaces to its communication protocols for licensees, has chosen to issue the documentation in a rights-protected file format called MHT, readable only with its own Web browser, Internet Explorer. This means licensees can neither annotate nor effectively search the information, according to the plaintiffs. "
Pfft, literally child's play. Try working Friday and Saturday nights flipping burgers next to a university. See the kind of washroom mess those little rats can make when they're four times bigger and have access to 'last call'.
I'll take two quick guesses. First because it's a false dichotomy, I recall a much more divergent opinion (posters like to position themselves against the univocal mass of 'Slshdotters'.) Second, maybe the programmers on Slashdot were up in arms? I wasn't, my industry saw staff cutbacks through the seventies and eighties from which never reversed.
Sounds like a variant of the Chewbacca defense to me: "If folk music sucks you must....". It's also fascinating that Lehr implies a divide between "the people" and "professionals", as if the latter weren't of "the people" but above. This is a good example of the way entertainment distributors think.
Past societies passed laws, debated for centuries and enacted far more extreme measures regarding devils and witches. Quite likely even the Druids.:) Those concepts weren't validated by it either.
If your software permits run Windows as if it were Unix, grant desktops "User" permissions only and always reboot before logging in as admin. Poof! Spyware issue gone. Works for our ~50 2k machines, three years without a problem. I do the same at home with the same results.
Your link supports my impression of copyright's early intent. Emphasis mine:
"The ability to print books easily and cheaply raised the issue of piracy. As the number of printers increased in England, the King exercised the royal prerogative to regulate the book trade and protect printers against piracy. This was the first of many decrees to control what was being printed. It was the Licensing Act of 1662 which established a register of licensed books, along with the requirement to deposit a copy of the book to be licensed. Deposit was administered by the Stationers' Company who were given powers to seize books suspected of containing matters hostile to the Church or Government. By 1681 the Licensing Act had been repealed and the Stationers' Company had passed a by-law that established rights of ownership for books registered to a number of its members so as to continue regulating the printing trade themselves. "
This was up to 1681. An unpleasant aside, it also notes copyright's partial roots in government censorship. The British Statute of Anne from 1710 broadens this by not specifying the printing trade as such but doesn't specify any impact on the American revolutionary period. Again, my readings of the time claimed it didn't, not an unlikely scenario given the colonial mood regarding Britian and government regulation in the early 18th century.
You're of course right about the GPL, my thinking was locked into the context of commercial use from another post, in which case companies have no reason to distribute GPL code if they don't profit. Sloppy thinking. However, I'm also certain you're wrong about the latter. From what I've read of that period publishers pushed, against the preferences of the Constitution's authors, for copyright to protect themselves from other publishers. Since no mass copy technologies weren't available, or envisionable, to individuals in the mid-18th century, who else could copyright have been intended to restrict?
That's the problem. It's not at all common sense. The same arguments were pressed against technologies like radio, which later went on to become music's only way of being introduced, and VHS, which fought fiercely by the content distributors became an indispensible revenue stream for them. Personally, when I'm downloading music I'm buying music, when downloading movies I'm buying movies. Both activities are tied, downloading is the one way I have of being exposed to artists outside the truly banal and artificial pap the majors distributors want to support. It's why I don't like the industry, they haven't been demonstarably right yet and they're keeping me from discovering the artists I enjoy, all the while distorting the societal traffic in ideas the framers of the American Constitution intended (who were against copyright), all to preserve the profits of a handful of multinationals. The latter I take as granted because, for all the hype, no one else has such a long and established tradition of ripping off artists.
The same argument obviously holds for uploading. Regarding the latter, I can't answer but it's apparent political intolerance and bigotry goes hand-in-hand with stupidity.
Sweet, we finally have proof! Can you point out some disinterested, third party figures? Industry numbers don't count, they've made a half century career of fluid accounting practices to rip off artists (like still deducting percentages for 'breakage' established during the vinyl days.) I'm really looking forward to some solid numbers.
No, you're wrong. It's OK to use a piece of GPL software in your own code until you decide to sell it. It's OK to download music until you decide to sell it. This is the original intent of copyright, to control the use of materials by commerce, not individuals. Follow the money and the logic is clear and unambiguous. It's a century of corporate influence peddling which has distorted that original intent and made downloading music 'illegal'.
"The executive agencies have a responsibility to cut off public funds when they have a very good reason to believe they are being subject to fraud, waste and abuse."
Executive agencies have a responsibility to ensure tax monies are spent in a responsible manner, not arbitrarily cut off needed funds when they fail in their duties. Michael Powell's FCC real successes are in being whores to corporate interests, this is just another example of their religious mantra "let the free market decide". The FCC, where nepotism and corrupt values meet.
This is a goverment canard pulled out when the issue is protecting consumers and citizens from corporations. Corporations however get shrink-wrapped EULAs and DCMAs when their 'free market rights' are endangered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
This is nothing like having no drapes. If you want to persue that analogy, think drapes the contractor can open any time without your permission, or even without your notice, and every time you upgrade them it's within their legal right to attempt a circumvention. Finish off with the government considering a law preventing you shutting the drapes in a fail-safe manner because they want a peek too and you're getting close.
It's been obvious to anyone bothering to look that the world is shifting entirely to electronic communications. Guaranteed protection against goverment and private intrusions are essential. Why would anyone want to give those up? It's incomprehensible.
It's not an all or nothing process. There are legions of businesses not tied to specific Windows-only software. As they move from Windows more developers follow the new business opportunities and more software becomes available. What you describe is the reason it would happen gradually, not why it couldn't happen.
Here in Vancouver there is (was?) a pub in Gastown that sold a micro-brew coffee porter. It was excellent and no yuppy brewskie lite. A good beer for those who Guinness on the light side.
Can't follow that logic. You outline all the ways RIAA members screw over and hold down artists and then blame P2P? The 99.999% you speak for will never be heard and remain in obscurity without file sharing, helping RIAA members maintain the stranglehold.
Slashdot Mirror
Novell owns Suse. Suse is almost entirely GPL. The GPL doesn't allow for what you fear. How much of Novell's open source inventory is licensed in a manner that would?
I don't get it, this is common English usage of the word "might" to refer to potential future acts. The normal reading of this is "to those who might sue us, we intend to defend our open source inventory with the full weight of our patent portfolio." 'Defend' is the operative word. You're completely twisting into a first strike policy read as "we intend to sue first anyone who might some day sue us". It's a ridiculous, doomed to failure legal position for a company with such long experience in litigation to assert.
"The plaintiffs have three main areas of concern about the documentation.
First among these is that Microsoft, asked to open up and document the interfaces to its communication protocols for licensees, has chosen to issue the documentation in a rights-protected file format called MHT, readable only with its own Web browser, Internet Explorer. This means licensees can neither annotate nor effectively search the information, according to the plaintiffs. "
Pfft, literally child's play. Try working Friday and Saturday nights flipping burgers next to a university. See the kind of washroom mess those little rats can make when they're four times bigger and have access to 'last call'.
I'll take two quick guesses. First because it's a false dichotomy, I recall a much more divergent opinion (posters like to position themselves against the univocal mass of 'Slshdotters'.) Second, maybe the programmers on Slashdot were up in arms? I wasn't, my industry saw staff cutbacks through the seventies and eighties from which never reversed.
Sounds like a variant of the Chewbacca defense to me: "If folk music sucks you must....". It's also fascinating that Lehr implies a divide between "the people" and "professionals", as if the latter weren't of "the people" but above. This is a good example of the way entertainment distributors think.
1. Substitute X = silent movie musicians
2. Substitute X = delivered ice
Sometimes innovation is innovation.
Past societies passed laws, debated for centuries and enacted far more extreme measures regarding devils and witches. Quite likely even the Druids. :) Those concepts weren't validated by it either.
Judged solely on Nortel's recent business history SNMP will soon replace it.
If your software permits run Windows as if it were Unix, grant desktops "User" permissions only and always reboot before logging in as admin. Poof! Spyware issue gone. Works for our ~50 2k machines, three years without a problem. I do the same at home with the same results.
"The ability to print books easily and cheaply raised the issue of piracy. As the number of printers increased in England, the King exercised the royal prerogative to regulate the book trade and protect printers against piracy. This was the first of many decrees to control what was being printed. It was the Licensing Act of 1662 which established a register of licensed books, along with the requirement to deposit a copy of the book to be licensed. Deposit was administered by the Stationers' Company who were given powers to seize books suspected of containing matters hostile to the Church or Government. By 1681 the Licensing Act had been repealed and the Stationers' Company had passed a by-law that established rights of ownership for books registered to a number of its members so as to continue regulating the printing trade themselves. "
This was up to 1681. An unpleasant aside, it also notes copyright's partial roots in government censorship. The British Statute of Anne from 1710 broadens this by not specifying the printing trade as such but doesn't specify any impact on the American revolutionary period. Again, my readings of the time claimed it didn't, not an unlikely scenario given the colonial mood regarding Britian and government regulation in the early 18th century.
You're of course right about the GPL, my thinking was locked into the context of commercial use from another post, in which case companies have no reason to distribute GPL code if they don't profit. Sloppy thinking. However, I'm also certain you're wrong about the latter. From what I've read of that period publishers pushed, against the preferences of the Constitution's authors, for copyright to protect themselves from other publishers. Since no mass copy technologies weren't available, or envisionable, to individuals in the mid-18th century, who else could copyright have been intended to restrict?
That's the problem. It's not at all common sense. The same arguments were pressed against technologies like radio, which later went on to become music's only way of being introduced, and VHS, which fought fiercely by the content distributors became an indispensible revenue stream for them. Personally, when I'm downloading music I'm buying music, when downloading movies I'm buying movies. Both activities are tied, downloading is the one way I have of being exposed to artists outside the truly banal and artificial pap the majors distributors want to support. It's why I don't like the industry, they haven't been demonstarably right yet and they're keeping me from discovering the artists I enjoy, all the while distorting the societal traffic in ideas the framers of the American Constitution intended (who were against copyright), all to preserve the profits of a handful of multinationals. The latter I take as granted because, for all the hype, no one else has such a long and established tradition of ripping off artists.
The same argument obviously holds for uploading. Regarding the latter, I can't answer but it's apparent political intolerance and bigotry goes hand-in-hand with stupidity.
Sweet, we finally have proof! Can you point out some disinterested, third party figures? Industry numbers don't count, they've made a half century career of fluid accounting practices to rip off artists (like still deducting percentages for 'breakage' established during the vinyl days.) I'm really looking forward to some solid numbers.
No, you're wrong. It's OK to use a piece of GPL software in your own code until you decide to sell it. It's OK to download music until you decide to sell it. This is the original intent of copyright, to control the use of materials by commerce, not individuals. Follow the money and the logic is clear and unambiguous. It's a century of corporate influence peddling which has distorted that original intent and made downloading music 'illegal'.
Executive agencies have a responsibility to ensure tax monies are spent in a responsible manner, not arbitrarily cut off needed funds when they fail in their duties. Michael Powell's FCC real successes are in being whores to corporate interests, this is just another example of their religious mantra "let the free market decide". The FCC, where nepotism and corrupt values meet.
Hi Grampa! Still walking uphill to and from school?
This is a goverment canard pulled out when the issue is protecting consumers and citizens from corporations. Corporations however get shrink-wrapped EULAs and DCMAs when their 'free market rights' are endangered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Why is it either/or?
This is nothing like having no drapes. If you want to persue that analogy, think drapes the contractor can open any time without your permission, or even without your notice, and every time you upgrade them it's within their legal right to attempt a circumvention. Finish off with the government considering a law preventing you shutting the drapes in a fail-safe manner because they want a peek too and you're getting close. It's been obvious to anyone bothering to look that the world is shifting entirely to electronic communications. Guaranteed protection against goverment and private intrusions are essential. Why would anyone want to give those up? It's incomprehensible.
It's not an all or nothing process. There are legions of businesses not tied to specific Windows-only software. As they move from Windows more developers follow the new business opportunities and more software becomes available. What you describe is the reason it would happen gradually, not why it couldn't happen.
Here in Vancouver there is (was?) a pub in Gastown that sold a micro-brew coffee porter. It was excellent and no yuppy brewskie lite. A good beer for those who Guinness on the light side.
Can't follow that logic. You outline all the ways RIAA members screw over and hold down artists and then blame P2P? The 99.999% you speak for will never be heard and remain in obscurity without file sharing, helping RIAA members maintain the stranglehold.
I remember the good old days when Microsoft was a proprietary sofware company and not a branch of the judiciary.