He was still interrogated for hours when they could have just done better police work and realized their mistake BEFORE arresting him, dragging his name through the mud, and subjecting him to hours of sleep deprivation and "interrogation techniques." Just because they don't physically torture you doesn't mean mental torture (sensory deprivation, witholding food, water, and medicine) isn't just as bad, if not worse. This has little to do with Tor as such though. In principle, it's just some guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time and got mistaken for a suspect. When this happens, it is expected that he will be brought in for questioning and since Germany is/not/ run by the Gestapo, it is expected that he is promptly released when the mistake becomes clear to the police.
So long as the police remains imperfect (and I don't see how perfection can be possible in this field), these things will happen from time to time. All things considered, this seems a fairly benign mistake to make. It's not like he was shot seven times in the head, like some other European police organizations have been known to do.
According to RMS the GPL isn't opensource. And he made a very clear statement some days ago, http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;3 "Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. This is "very clear" only if you engage in some very creative reading. What Stallman is saying is that Torvalds always uses "open source" and never uses "free" about the code - even if both apply and even if "free" is the more important aspect in Stallman's opinion. In essence, Torvalds calls it "open source" because he is an engineer first and an idealist not at all whileas Stallman uses "free" because he is an idealist first and an engineer only a distant second.
The GPL is viral, in the sense that all derivative works must be GPL - no matter who is the owner (even the owner of the copyright is bound to GPL any derivatives of his own making). No, he is not. The copyright holder does not need to have a license to use his own code and so the GPL has no effect on him. Only if he starts accepting other people's contributions into the source will this change (and if he's clever about it, he'll negotiate deals with them to ensure it doesn't).
Said spreadsheet application is not being distributed, the results of the application are. The input/output scheme is no different than any other Web 2.0 site. User inputs data, server does something with data, server outputs data. It seems you want to get into some metaphysical debate about the fine line between executing, hosting and distributing software. Well, at least you have grasped what the loophole is. Part of the reason GPL3 became necessary is that this particular loophole is against the principles that were behind the GPL in the first place.
You lose. Good day sir. You might do yourself a favour by realising that discussions aren't competitions and you aren't actually being scored.
Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it. This is not against the spirit of the GPL. It is when that code is de facto offered to the public as software for them to use. The point of the GPL is that the user of a piece of software shall always be free to modify that software as he sees fit so that he can maximize its usefulness to him. If Google offers, say, a spreadsheet application that is largely server-based and uses the server-side loophole to avoid distributing the source, then they violate this principle since the user obviously cannot change the way that it works. The same is true for a search engine, of course, but this case seems a little more muddled.
The link has been sponsored to appear, i.e. some form of support, in this case financially, has been forthcoming to cause the link to be there. As such the link is sponsored, or to phrase it slightly differently, it's a sponsored link. Now, the/accurate/ thing to call this kind of phenomenon would actually be "advertisement". Much in the same way that the rest of the English-speaking world tends to do.
This is not an example of weasel words, it's a case of basic English comprehension. It certainly is, on part of the people who dreamed up the scheme. It needs to be just underhanded enough to trick people but not so much as to be criminal.
To be a little more clear on the point, an advertisement is a thing which tells of some form of service or good being available. It is/not/ necessarily paid for. But it most certainly can be, as is the situation in this case.
Norden bombsights didn't help the B-17s when attacking a Japanese carrier group during the Battle of Midway --- the problem w/ bombing a ship is that unlike land-based targets, they can move and in this case, did successfully dodge all of the dropped bombs. This is true: ships remained difficult to hit with strategic bombers - so much so that one rarely attempted it (the Tirpitz was sunk by strategic bombers carrying the enormous 12,000lbs "tallboy" bomb, but I think it was at anchor at the time).
However, during development of the Norden bomb sight, it was believed that it would become accurate enough to actually hit ships at sea (hitting one that maneuvers is just a question of spread if you're already capable of hitting with a few dozen meters of your target). When this turned out to be false in actual battle conditions, it found good use against land targets.
What is the point of building a non-radiactive bomb this powerful? The only real reason I can think of is so they can say "look ours is bigger" which seems to be a traditional Russian obsession.
In practical terms, one huge explosion that kills anyone in the center 100 times or so is massively less effecient than 100 smaller explosions that kills everyone throughout a much larger area 2-3 times or thereabouts (they're still just as dead). I expect this is why the US is largely focusing on missile-delivered cargo munitions rather than this sort of ridiculously large bomb (MOAB notwithstanding).
Strategic bombers did attack ships. The problem was they can't hit them! As far as I understand, this was an important part of the motivation behind the development of the Norden bomb sight at the time.
No, what he is basically saying is people should be allowed to do what they wish with the way things they have told to other people. If you're going to discuss copyright then learn that it's not the idea that is copyrighted, it's the expression of the idea that is protected. This is entirely unclear, since the OP chose to use the term "intellectual property" in order to completely muddle what he was talking about. Perhaps it was copyright. But perhaps it was patents. Or perhaps trademarks. Or even trade secrets. It is difficult to tell at this point.
How do people this dumb get appointed to such high office? That is very easy to explain. As he is too stupid/incompetent/whatever to keep around in Italy but too well connected to actually get rid of, one promotes him to an office in the EU. Problem solved. Well, exported.
The GPL is RMS's religion, he is it's high priest. If you dare to question the true church you are a heretic. If this were really the case, there wouldn't be an official list of compatible licenses - it would be "you're either with us or against us".
I for one I am not a follower of RMS or a follower of Linus. I don't like GPL V3 because I feel that it is predatory towards Tivo and other Consumer devices that use Linux while allowing "professional" equipment to not follow the same rules. This appears to me to be the major downfall of GPL3 (and, as a direct consequence, the FSF). I can't see how a "professional" user is somehow an inferior type of user who should be disenfranchised and trodden into the mud as a matter of course and I also cannot see how I can respect an organization that believes this to be the case.
What a weird contradiction. Damn you RMS, for designing non-free GPL licenses?:-S Well, damn him for not getting it quite right the first time (or second for that matter).
I wonder if GPL v3 is only a "free" license until GPL v4 is released? Of course. If GPL4 ever shows up, it will be because GPL3 turned out not to be good enough.
However, what RMS calls freedom is questionable. Where I come from (ideologically), freedom includes a freedom of property -- the right to do with your property as you wish. Criticizing someone for how they choose to use their property, whether it be intellectual or real property, is hardly an encouragement of freedom. The problem with this is that "intellectual property" isn't actually property and so the comparison falls apart. What you are basically saying is that you think people should be allowed to do what they wish with the things they have told to other people. For such a statement to make any sense whatsoever, it will need to be elaborated upon.
I don't want people like RMS pumping their politics into my software code's licenses! His crusade is purely political and belongs onto the political stage. That's why Linus' productive output surpasses Stallman's by a factor 1000. Man get a grip and produce stuff under whatever license you like. But if you don't even produce anything, but complaints, just shut up! Heh. Bring on the machine society, where everybody produces and nobody thinks!
What's more, Linus does not support the idea that every developer should sign over all the rights to all their code to Richard Stallman. Stallman wants everyone to assign copyright to FSF and add "or later" to their licensing clause, thus eliminating all rights the developer has over their creation and assigning them to Stallman. If you have that much trust in any one man (and his heirs once he dies), then great. Linus doesn't, and I don't think that's "anti-freedom". Neither of those two are in the actual GPL though, they are suggested as "best practices" but not really forced upon you in any way. This probably means that RMS et al realized that people might find them particularly onerous and so decided to leave them as voluntary steps. With this in mind, I don't see how this can be the source of any kind of animosity towards RMS.
I want to see them apply this logic to the death penalty. "Yeah, we know there's three other people who we didn't catch... we're gonna kill you four times to make up for it." This is not unheard of historically. One might torture someone to death, then hang them, then quarter them for good measure. Now, this was probably more of a public relations stunt than it was an attempt to actually kill them multiple times but still.
A sponsor is definitely responsible for the presence of an ad, so it is absolutely a sponsored ad and the second definiteion applies. Well, but then, I am responsible for the presence of bread in my grocery bag. Am I the bread's sponsor?
It is slightly less direct to use the third definition since the money is being paid specifically on ad placement and not an ambiguous sponsorship with considerations, nevertheless it is financing Google's operation in return for advertising so the definition could be used. But then it's not the ads being sponsored, it's Google, so calling it "sponsored links" is directly wrong. "Links by people sponsoring Google" would be correct.
In either case, it is not innacurate to consider paid listings to be "sponsored". It is certainly misleading, which is what would lead up to the conclusion that it has become a weasel word in the hands of Google. Whether it's "wrong", or "inaccurate", or just plain old "underhanded" is something of an academic debate.
Sponsored means supported by, usually financial support. If I pay for a thing to happen, I am sponsoring that thing. This is not a complicated example folks. It is quite a stretch, however, to call it sponsoring when you go to the store to buy food for your own consumption. This is basically what is happening here: a company is paying for its own link to appear on a website. If this is sponsorship, then it is a very degenerate form of it as the concept of someone "sponsoring" themselves is dubious at best.
Without their sponsorship, there'd be no organic links and no Google. I guess from that point of view it isn't technically correct to call them sponsored links, because what they actually mean is "These are links to our sponsors" That sums up the gist of my argument. I don't know whether or not courts tend to be this pedantic though.
Since when has "sponsored" been a weasel word? When a sports team or race car has sponsors' logos all over their gear, does anyone doubt that there was a business arrangement? Normally, when some thing is "sponsored" it is not the sponsored thing that is the product being advertised - but this thing is being financially supported by the advertiser. So you might have a sponsored TV show, in which case the TV show itself may be completely free from advertisement for the sponsor. The sponsor's logos may be evident before the show, after the show, or in commercial breaks during the show. (E.g. Ford might be sponsoring a re-run of the Simpsons.) You can safely watch the show without fear of being inundated with Ford advertising throughout.
Following the same reasoning, a "sponsored" link then would be some sort of link that is technically unrelated to whoever paid to have it put there. (E.g. Ford could pay to have a link there to the Red Cross.) This is clearly not the case here since the link/is/ the advertising. If Ford pays to have a link to Ford then it's not a sponsorship - it's just a plain old advertisment.
Exclusive rights to land last a billion years or longer. The land is not being used in the game. As an example, I can play the game while sitting immobile in my apartment in Norway and yet the land is in England.
The Church could assert that photographs taken within Church buildings shall be assigned to the Church. The church could assert that pigs fly, but I'm not sure how far that would take them.
This would not be without precedent: the 1611 English translation of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are under perpetual copyright-like exclusive rights. Presumably, this depends on jurisidiction. So far as there is no case law that specifically states that this particular piece of property is under perpetual copyright, then it quite clearly isn't (yet).
A "standard" that says things like "tables like Word 95" is worthless, just what's that supposed to mean anyway? I have been wondering why the standard is so mind-boggingly long. Why can't it just say "Do OOXML the way Microsoft does it" and be done with it? Seems such a waste to write 6,000 pages (or whatever) when you can say the same thing in seven words.
I'd hate to know how you'd feel if you were French and actually had to live with the knowledge that not only did your country surrender to Germany without a fight They hardly surrendered without a fight. The French army fought valiantly, but using sadly outdated tactics. It quickly found itself outmaneuvered and overrun by German panzer tactics (as did the British expeditionary force) and when the enemy controls most of your territory - and your allies are fleeing head over heels - surrendering is often the only sensible option. Given the past history of European warfare, surrender was historically even rather forgiving - the enemy would take some of your territory and demand reparations etc. but would otherwise let you get on with running your country. This sort of thing had been going on between France and Germany for centuries and was more or less of a tradition. Hitler, however, turned out to have other ideas about how to conduct a war in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as the police remains imperfect (and I don't see how perfection can be possible in this field), these things will happen from time to time. All things considered, this seems a fairly benign mistake to make. It's not like he was shot seven times in the head, like some other European police organizations have been known to do.
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;3
"Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. This is "very clear" only if you engage in some very creative reading. What Stallman is saying is that Torvalds always uses "open source" and never uses "free" about the code - even if both apply and even if "free" is the more important aspect in Stallman's opinion. In essence, Torvalds calls it "open source" because he is an engineer first and an idealist not at all whileas Stallman uses "free" because he is an idealist first and an engineer only a distant second.
However, during development of the Norden bomb sight, it was believed that it would become accurate enough to actually hit ships at sea (hitting one that maneuvers is just a question of spread if you're already capable of hitting with a few dozen meters of your target). When this turned out to be false in actual battle conditions, it found good use against land targets.
In practical terms, one huge explosion that kills anyone in the center 100 times or so is massively less effecient than 100 smaller explosions that kills everyone throughout a much larger area 2-3 times or thereabouts (they're still just as dead). I expect this is why the US is largely focusing on missile-delivered cargo munitions rather than this sort of ridiculously large bomb (MOAB notwithstanding).
"Yeah, we know there's three other people who we didn't catch... we're gonna kill you four times to make up for it." This is not unheard of historically. One might torture someone to death, then hang them, then quarter them for good measure. Now, this was probably more of a public relations stunt than it was an attempt to actually kill them multiple times but still.
Following the same reasoning, a "sponsored" link then would be some sort of link that is technically unrelated to whoever paid to have it put there. (E.g. Ford could pay to have a link there to the Red Cross.) This is clearly not the case here since the link