Forking is like software evolution. One project may split into two, with slightly different plans. Mostlikely one will surpass the other. Kind of survival of the fittest. If neither one grows over the other, then you have something called choice.
I thought his fear was that whatever solitare^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software he is running might be discontinued and him forced to start using another one.
But isn't the possibility of a fork better than the idea of complete discontinuation (don't even know if that's a word, but you get it....) A project splitting would most likely be better than a project dying...
I'm still waiting on the upgrade for Microsoft Bob... you'd think they'd have it done by now...
That would be like un-GPLing a piece of software. After the rights have been given, I'm not sure that they can be taken away. Couldn't the user accept the first licence agreement and opt to not accept the new agreement?
Uh.... this is about giving Linux the ability to reliably read and write to the NTFS file system. If Bill has his way, I don't see Windows being able to modify any form of Linux (other than to remove it) and time soon.
I'm throwing away a perfect chance to use mod points on this, but think. The DVD Player is running Linux. Many people have contributed to Linux.
The part that denies you complete control over your own work by requiring distributed modifications and derivations also be licensed under the GPL.
Okay. First. It's not "their own work". It's the works of hundreds of individuals who have spent their time (many years) working on this Linux, agreeing to let others use it only if the source code is included. You may have built on it, but you always have the option of starting from scratch. I think the saying is "You can't have your cake and eat it to". You can't use someone else's work and resell it outside of the original terms.
Second, if you wrote your own software and don't want it released under the GPL then simply Don't release it under the GPL!
Correction. A user who tries to play a file on a computer that has been authorized will not have any trouble. The question is how strict is the authorization going to be? Look but don't modify, up to three computers can look, a certain computer can look, a certain user on a certain computer can look until a specified time and date.
>> Think about corporate users. They are not computer owners. The computer belongs to the company. Company wants to control its use and apply its policies. Seems like perfect case for DRM.
Right... The problem is how do companys get control of the computer? Would companies be given the ability to configure their computers? Add different OSes? If so, power users will find out how also. If not? Well, I don't see how this would give companies more control.... unless you're the Motherboard manufacturer....
Of course! If the software detects the words "download", "mp3" or "goatse.cx", the software should respond "I'm sorry dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that." That's what we need! Computers back-talking us!
>>> The RIAA is just following through with there legal right.
Well, you see, I'm not sure about that. In order to get their information about who was sharing they used a modified client on a P2P network. This could quite possibly be considered as trespassing. Also, modifying the client, would be a copyright violation (assuming they didn't write it from scratch)... In either case, I believe they should get a call from the lawyers at Sherman Networks...
According to the Kazaa Media Desktop End User License Agreement you agree not to...
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; If you look at all of a persons songs an then mail them letters, that's an invasion...
2.2 Harm minors in any way;
Sueing ain't benificial....
2.3 Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
2.9 Interfere with or disrupt the Software;
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users; Do I really need to say anything about this one?...
2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.
3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this Licence, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software in whole or part, transmit or communicate the application over a network.
But (as much as it seems) the jury is not made of solely 12 RIAA member. As long as the courts believe you, that is the important part.
Oh, and just on a side note... If peer-to-peer networks started encrypting their searches, whether or not it is strong encryption, wouldn't the RIAA have to stop. I believe breaking encryption, or bypassing the encryption could be considered quite illegal via the DMCA. Start using the DMCA against the people who lobbied it into place. The RIAA wouldn't be able to search the network for music. If they did, I believe that that would be bypassing a copy prevention scheme. Especially if it used something like the MD5sum of the executable for the encryption key.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't the possibility of a fork better than the idea of complete discontinuation (don't even know if that's a word, but you get it....) A project splitting would most likely be better than a project dying...
I'm still waiting on the upgrade for Microsoft Bob... you'd think they'd have it done by now...
What are you talking about!? I've got 640kb! How much more could I possibly need?
The part that denies you complete control over your own work by requiring distributed modifications and derivations also be licensed under the GPL.
Okay. First. It's not "their own work". It's the works of hundreds of individuals who have spent their time (many years) working on this Linux, agreeing to let others use it only if the source code is included. You may have built on it, but you always have the option of starting from scratch. I think the saying is "You can't have your cake and eat it to". You can't use someone else's work and resell it outside of the original terms.
Second, if you wrote your own software and don't want it released under the GPL then simply Don't release it under the GPL!
Right... The problem is how do companys get control of the computer? Would companies be given the ability to configure their computers? Add different OSes? If so, power users will find out how also. If not? Well, I don't see how this would give companies more control.... unless you're the Motherboard manufacturer....
+1 (Use of HHGG)
Well The Boss of course. Whatever kind of manager is there?
1) They sue you
2) Sell their stuff cheaper than they can to spite them / pay them
3) Break even while hurting the RIAA
4) ?????? 5) Profit!!!!
Well, you see, I'm not sure about that. In order to get their information about who was sharing they used a modified client on a P2P network. This could quite possibly be considered as trespassing. Also, modifying the client, would be a copyright violation (assuming they didn't write it from scratch)... In either case, I believe they should get a call from the lawyers at Sherman Networks...
According to the Kazaa Media Desktop End User License Agreement you agree not to...
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
If you look at all of a persons songs an then mail them letters, that's an invasion...
2.2 Harm minors in any way;
Sueing ain't benificial....
2.3 Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
2.9 Interfere with or disrupt the Software;
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;
Do I really need to say anything about this one?...
2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.
3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this Licence, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software in whole or part, transmit or communicate the application over a network.
Oh, and just on a side note... If peer-to-peer networks started encrypting their searches, whether or not it is strong encryption, wouldn't the RIAA have to stop. I believe breaking encryption, or bypassing the encryption could be considered quite illegal via the DMCA. Start using the DMCA against the people who lobbied it into place. The RIAA wouldn't be able to search the network for music. If they did, I believe that that would be bypassing a copy prevention scheme. Especially if it used something like the MD5sum of the executable for the encryption key.