First, you can't feed your kids moral fiber. By which I mean, which is the greater responsibility, that of a parent to provide for their children, or that of an employee to leave an unethical employer? Which is the better hire? The one who makes their decisions in view of all of their responsiblities, and makes the best of the situation after that, or the one that makes their decision on a single datum, without regard for the potential consequences of that decision. Short sighted not only applys to the people in the unenviable position of working at SCO, but probably more importantly, to the next person they interview with. Really, its the old adage about walking that mile in footwear not your own. I would suggest it is somewhat short-sighted to generalize that any SCO employee is still there for one of five (negative) qualities. Rather, I would counsel those interviewing former SCO employees to get some info on why they remained, and evaluate that, not the fact that they remained.
Secondly, your argument is predicated on the assertion about what is widely known now about SCO. What exactly is that? I would suggest that nothing you are going to answer with is "widely known", but rather that most of it is "widely accepted", a small, but you perceive, important difference. The truth is that the only widely known fact about this, is that SCO is not telling anyone enough (without an NDA, anyways) to establish what is factual, and what is fantasy. Linus doesn't "know" that there is no infringing code in the kernel. He can't "know" until SCO completely identifies the code. He can accept (as most of us have) that SCO's refusal to do so prior to this point is an indicator that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but not even then can he "know" what is rotten? Couldn't the whole thing be a false flag. What if there are 66 files which SCO could cite, 65 fluff, and one true instance of IP theft? There is nothing requiring them to give all 66 to the press, in fact, in some ways, it would make sense to only give the 65 fluff files, and let the FOSS people gain (as they have) a sense that there is nothing to be worried about, then POW!, right in the dink. Sure, it would obviate their ability to collect damages, but that may not be the goal of this particular exercise. At the end of the day, there are going to be a lot of people serving face omelette (author included) if SCO can provide proof, even in one file, of positive IP infringement. I'm not saying any of this is likely, what I am saying is we don't "know" anything, because SCO won't tell us, so we make inferences from that reluctance, this is fine and normal, but let's not say that we "know" anything more than we do, which is pretty much nothing.
Without knowing the truth behind the claims, and indeed, without knowing how compelling any information provided to SCO employees on that score, I would suggest we simply don't know enough to make decisions based on fact about the merits of the case, or the deficiencies of those who chose to remain employed by SCO.
Wait a minute, hold on, Microsoft is going to basically package a feature which should have been in their products years ago? The only part of this that is news is that it didn't require a special Microsoft version of SMTP.
The legal nuances really are beside the point, the argument was not for the courtroom, but to appeal to the consciences of people who also create software, and for them to regard the rights of other copyright holders as they would have their own regarded.
Hey, I'm not defending RIAA. Like I said, I have very specific issues with RIAA.
I am questioning the method by which the protest is being made. As you point out you do have 30 that you don't own the CD or album for, my total is zero. In point of fact, at any given time my total is zero. I completely boycott supporting RIAA. I haven't spent money for music from a RIAA member org since well before Napster was an itch in someone's cerebellum. For many years I have bought music directly from the artist.
To be honest, I don't think I've missed a damn thing. I get music that I enjoy, and know that the money is going directly to the people who created it. Recently I have been looking over Lulu, and while I haven't bought anything there yet, I proably will. Lulu's percentage is certainly more favorable than anything RIAA returns to the original creator. My band is also giving due consideration to using Lulu as a distribution vector.
Now before hackles rise, I'm not saying even that all music file-sharing is wrong. But, I think those of us who create software have an obligation not to facilitate unlawful actions for folk who can't create the software themselves. I can suggest two quick ways to do so:
1) Scan the file to be shared, if it is in a common format for "proscribed" materials (or zipped "proscribed" materials.) and if present, refuse to deliver the file and pop up a warning, that the software may not be used to share such materials. Hell if sox can determine the type of file it is playing so can P2P software.
2) The program can store received files in a catalog (in a binary format) and remove from the catalog files matching the above criteria after a time consistent with trying before buying. If the program is also capable of invoking a ripper and the default media application it would be easy to ensure that it did not remove from the catalog those files which it invoked the ripper for, and could allow the temporary conversion of files in the catalog for the purpose of trying, as well as cleaning up behind.
These measures wouldn't even need to be bulletproof. If they prevent Joe Sixpack from doing it without learning how to obviate the protection, that is enough. If Joe Sixpack goes out and learns how to obviate those protections, that user deserves the full penalty of law, since the courts could have little choice but to view that as intent.
As for it being "proof", notice the quote marks, I didn't say it was proof, I said SCO could use it in their FUD campaign.
As for arguing against file-swapping in general, you point out one of the nightmare scenarios. RIAA gets a bill through which attacks file-swapping. This is precisely my point. If people continue as they have RIAA will be forced to consider more and more nightmare scenarios in order to protect their members property.
But, this is the wrong (expletive deleted) approach.
More importantly, I can't believe how many people seem to think this is a valid approach to the problem.
First of all, anyone who writes FOSS should not be involved in developing these projects. Quite simply, this project is aimed at abrogating the rights of the copyright holder. If you develop FOSS, you too rely on copyright to protect your rights to distribute your code as you see fit. Why are you helping people to obviate the rights of other copyright holders? Doesn't this seem just a little antithetical?
Now, before the argument about how developers aren't responsible for how their software is used, well to a point I agree. But, I don't think that you can hide behind this with a clear conscience. Joe Sixpack can't write this software on his own, so if you aren't legally an accomplice, you are ethically and morally. As for the software being used for legal mechanisms, well and good, but that doesn't mean that you could not have built in safeguards to prevent it from being used for unlawful purposes...
Next, this is not the way to make the point to RIAA. For Joe Sixpack, the complaint is generally about the cost of music and so on and so forth. Well if Sears charges too much for _insert product here_ you buy it somewhere else. You don't go into Sears and steal it. Apparently this is simply because to do so means running a high risk of getting caught. So because the chance of getting caught is lower, that somehow justifies theft? Because that is what it is in the end. Rather than steal from RIAA, deprive them of income by lawful means, spend your money elsewhere. With all the artists in the world, I guarantee you can find some what create music you like, without having to resort to theft.
RIAA has proven that they will resort to the courts and legislation as their first considered reaction. Since most folk seem to abhor the legislation RIAA has had there hand in to date, why are you fueling that fire? Do you really think RIAA is going to relent? As long as you continue to abbrogate their rights, they will continue to lobby for more and more legislation. If you choose other alternatives, RIAA does not have a leg to stand on, what are they going to do, get Congress to pass a law forcing you to buy music only from their members? Not likely. If you vote with your dollar instead of voting by compromising your morals, perhaps some of those member organizations will reconsider their membership. But as long as people circumvent their rights, and deprive them of revenues thereby they will continue as they have to this point. If people vote to deprive them of income by exercising their other options, RIAA members will have little recourse but to reconsider their policies, which is what you all purport to desire.
Lastly, I _KNOW_ why I dislike RIAA, and why I won't conduct business with their members. My problems stem more from being a creator as opposed to being a consumer. For those of you who are only consumers, when you choose options that give RIAA grounds to complain, you are quite succinctly stating that you make your choices based on greed, just like RIAA does. It all comes down to the old adage, two wrongs do not make right.
P.S. Doesn't anyone realize that SCO can point to these software projects as anecdotal "proof" that FOSS developers seek to undermine copy and property rights? Why give them more ammunition in their FUD campaign?
The problem is that some Open Source people are teenage kids that want to take on "The Man".
For proof, look around/., they aren't that hard to find.
Responsible FOSS people are not responsible because they support FOSS, that was very likely a pre-existing condition.
And FOSS does have allure to children, or the child-like. The underdog, oppressed group, challenging traditional and accepted practice.
If they are not sophisticated enough to understand the reasons behind FOSS, why should we be surprised if they are unsophisicated enough to engage in irresponsible behaviour.
Too often the FOSS movement seems to highlight those aspects of itself which attract this element. We too rarely emphasize the responsibility inherent in FOSS. The responsibility to contribute, the responsibility to report bugs, the responsibility to respect other's choices as we wish them to respect ours.
Do we really want these people identifying themslves with our movement? I suspect not, but until we stop accentuating the us against big corporations et. al., and start accentuating some of the more mature aspects of what we stand for (which are at least as compelling as the other reasons...) we will continue to attract these people, and they will continue to make us look like children.
I don't know any more about this specific incident than any of you, and I hope none of you reading this know any more than I do... There is no reason to believe that some FOSS advocate perpetrated this, but it is apparent from some of the sentiments expressed that people are considering the possibility and lamenting it, if it turns out to be true. If it does, we need to consider what we can do to make our movement less appealing to the irresponsible.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.....
There is nothing there about copyrights at all. I agree apparently your problem is not with the reading of the license, but in comprehending it. Nowhere are copyrights specifically mentioned in the quote, nor can any of it be reasonably attributed to copyrights. In point of fact, it is comparing and contrasting the GPL to other licenses. The fact that both the GPL and the other licenses rely on copyright law to be enforceable is subsumed as common knowledge. Besides as an author, you have allready been explicitly advised within the preamble to copyright your work. Your diatribe about copyrights not being truly freemarket is so puerile as to not merit discussion. However, since you plainly cannot interpret the text of the GPL, I'll help you out. Copyrights are there to enforce an author or inventors rights to dispose of their original creations as they so choose. It is a cornerstone of the market in the US. Nowehere does that imply that by copyrighting your work that you are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL, and to require that all the provisions of the GPL be honored by the users of the software. In fact copyright law is the active mechanism of protection, after all it is the body of law which guarantees an inventor or author the right to dispose of their work as they see fit. In fact, by supposing that you have some freedom to distribute and change the property of others the GPL is deliberately stating a falsehood. There is no such freedom, the freedoms youa re entitled to with any software product are those reserved for you in the license. To pretend that by not offering unlimited rights to distriubte and modify someone elses property, without their consent, the GPL is misleading users and developers alike. The fact that the GPL is itself copyrighted, and that it makes the deliberate suggestion to authors to copyright their work gives the lie to this assertion.
....When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software..
Same deal, nothing in this quote specifically mentions copyrights. In point of fact, they are again contrasting the GPL and other licenses. In point of fact, the other licenses are not taking away anything you had a right to in the first place. As the copyright holder, they too are entitled to dispose of their property as they see fit, and they can introduce whatever conditions they wish. Likewise, when you copyright your code, you are granted the same rights, if you choose to release such code under the GPL, you are engaging in the same activity, placing conditions upon the use of your code. In fact, by opposing copyrights you are in favor of abridging the rights of authors and inventors to dispose of their work as they see fit. Period.
... To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it...
Again, no mention of copyright, no villification of the copyright process, nothing to support your position. Your assertion that the above statement implies copyrights can deny rights is absurd, deny what rights? Your supposed rights to tell other authors and inventors what they must do with their work? You certainly are entitled to that facile opinion, but by doing so you seek to abridge their rights.
Look at the statement itself for pity's sake. Does it not specifically state that it makes restrictions? But, according to you, copyrights ar
It's more like copyrights are an overbearing government regulation that locks out the little guy than a true free market
RTFGPL
Nevermind, I'll quote from it for you:
Top of the page:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
From the Preamble:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Please practice zealotry for some other product. There are enough Linux zealots in the world who DO understand that copyrights in and of themselves are not 'wrong.' In point of fact the archtypical FOSS licenese not only is copyrighted, but indicates within the preamble that the copyright process is invaluable to protecting both the user and author's rights to the code.
Zealotry is a big enough problem in our community without its being accompanied by ignorance and bombast. Please either take the two seconds required to verify the facts behind the slogans you want to shout, or become a zealot for some other cause.
Yeah, it's a troll, mod me down, my karma can take it.
I've seen a couple of projects re-implementing the standard *nix command set in things like PERL or Python. Each time, I've thought to myself, neat, but mostly just an exercise in amusement.
But you point out something I had not considered before, it makes ap retty viable alternative to cygwin. Now where the hell did I put the gnat rpm?
And, in point of fact, four years ago the company I worked for was negotiating with AT&T to adopt their VoIP plan, So AT&T may be vague, but they probably beat everyone else to the punch.
The thing is, the best way for the telco's to do this is not to use the public internet backbone, but their existing infrastructure. Consider, they allready have the copper and fiber in place, The could then use VoIP to vastly increase the amount of traffic which they could support.
This also obviates most of the quality issues inherent in the internet. It would allow the telco to continue to provide a high quality service without relying on temperamental internet links. Gateways to the public internet could be used when needed, but their use would probably be best avoided except where no other route existed.
This would allow the phone companies to provide VoIP service without all the potential issues of dropping such traffic into the uncontrolled internet. Consider they will be charging you for this service, they need to provide the best and most reliable service, what better way than to keep it to infrastructure they control or have binding agreements with the controllers of, rather than an uncontrolled medium.
Hmmm, perhaps an apprenticeship on a Japanese fishing vessel will improve your technique...
But, you make precisely my point. HTML is great for layout type stuff, but not so good for application logic, which you also correctly identify. The question is why this patent, and why now? I'm not debating the usefulness of the paradigm, I'm questioning the timing. Consdier M$ has had this for quite some time anyways, but prior to recently, there apparently was no need to patent said methodology, Why now? The wonders of HTML may have determined the paradigm, but the wonders of HTML have nothing to do with the timing of this patent.
Given, since I modserated myself +1 Paranoid or -1 Paranoid if you like, I'm playing more at grand conspiracy theory than honest speculation. But, I think the underlying question is still valid, why this patent? why now?
I am suggesting merely that all may not be as it appears to be, on the surface this seems like a meaningless patent, and a pointless exercise... But I submit that you don't get dominant market share and the revenue stream M$ has by engaging in meaningless patents and pointless exercises. Sure it smacks of evil empire talk, but, M$ is involved in several patent battles, and does have a history of usurping standards, so due prudence militates aginst simply glossing over this item as fluff. Since many posters already clearly indicated that they were trivilaizng the announcement, I figured we'll open the floor to some good old fashioned paranoia, because even paranoids have enemies.
My post was a call to open eyes, that all may not be as it appears. Your post seems to indicate that you are treating the announcement as fluff. I would hope you are right, but hope doesn't make it so. All I'm saying is don't believe everything you read.
Given the language of the patent seems to delimit it out of significance, but I would suggest if that is what it looks like......HEADS UP! EYES OPEN! JUST WTF DOES THIS SERVE?
I would suggest this is just an opening gambit of some sort. Where the end play is directed... well take your pick. But, given the Eolas issue, given the recent brou-ha-ha with Sun, given M$ history and preference for co-opting standards, I don't think dismissing this as irelevant as being the most prudent move.
Ultimately, if M$ looks like it is going to lay some cards on the table, look under the table for what is really going on.
You're pretty much missing the point - if the software is designed properly, all of this wouldn't matter.
No friend, you are pretty mcuh missing the point, it is because software is designed properly for software that this doesn't matter. You don't write for every fouled up network config, you write to a standard... But, the standards you apply to writing code for software, do not apply to writing code for hardware, a much more stringent set of rules is in place there. The reason, how much does it cost you to recompile software that you screw up? Pretty much SFA, not so with hardware you've burned to a chip. The best advances only mitigate, but do not eliminate this simple fact. Teh God-cursed Gandlaf routers I learned TCP/IP networking with are long dead and gone now. (thankfully...) The "software" portions of them, the core logic, and the follow-on technologies, which sprung from it's virtual loins, exist, but......the Loathsome Gandalf itself is no more...
Slashdot Mirror
or maybe the Fer Dummies series:
Crippling an Xbox Fer Dummies.
Whatever heats yer sink I guess.
Two problems with this tack:
First, you can't feed your kids moral fiber. By which I mean, which is the greater responsibility, that of a parent to provide for their children, or that of an employee to leave an unethical employer? Which is the better hire? The one who makes their decisions in view of all of their responsiblities, and makes the best of the situation after that, or the one that makes their decision on a single datum, without regard for the potential consequences of that decision. Short sighted not only applys to the people in the unenviable position of working at SCO, but probably more importantly, to the next person they interview with. Really, its the old adage about walking that mile in footwear not your own. I would suggest it is somewhat short-sighted to generalize that any SCO employee is still there for one of five (negative) qualities. Rather, I would counsel those interviewing former SCO employees to get some info on why they remained, and evaluate that, not the fact that they remained.
Secondly, your argument is predicated on the assertion about what is widely known now about SCO. What exactly is that? I would suggest that nothing you are going to answer with is "widely known", but rather that most of it is "widely accepted", a small, but you perceive, important difference. The truth is that the only widely known fact about this, is that SCO is not telling anyone enough (without an NDA, anyways) to establish what is factual, and what is fantasy. Linus doesn't "know" that there is no infringing code in the kernel. He can't "know" until SCO completely identifies the code. He can accept (as most of us have) that SCO's refusal to do so prior to this point is an indicator that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but not even then can he "know" what is rotten? Couldn't the whole thing be a false flag. What if there are 66 files which SCO could cite, 65 fluff, and one true instance of IP theft? There is nothing requiring them to give all 66 to the press, in fact, in some ways, it would make sense to only give the 65 fluff files, and let the FOSS people gain (as they have) a sense that there is nothing to be worried about, then POW!, right in the dink. Sure, it would obviate their ability to collect damages, but that may not be the goal of this particular exercise. At the end of the day, there are going to be a lot of people serving face omelette (author included) if SCO can provide proof, even in one file, of positive IP infringement. I'm not saying any of this is likely, what I am saying is we don't "know" anything, because SCO won't tell us, so we make inferences from that reluctance, this is fine and normal, but let's not say that we "know" anything more than we do, which is pretty much nothing.
Without knowing the truth behind the claims, and indeed, without knowing how compelling any information provided to SCO employees on that score, I would suggest we simply don't know enough to make decisions based on fact about the merits of the case, or the deficiencies of those who chose to remain employed by SCO.
-Have we really fallen so far that people need to cheat on spare processor cycles donated?
Wait a minute, hold on, Microsoft is going to basically package a feature which should have been in their products years ago? The only part of this that is news is that it didn't require a special Microsoft version of SMTP.
The legal nuances really are beside the point, the argument was not for the courtroom, but to appeal to the consciences of people who also create software, and for them to regard the rights of other copyright holders as they would have their own regarded.
Very good, quite funny, I wish you had a login though, that is some pretty subtle humour, and Lord knows I love subtle...
I am questioning the method by which the protest is being made. As you point out you do have 30 that you don't own the CD or album for, my total is zero. In point of fact, at any given time my total is zero. I completely boycott supporting RIAA. I haven't spent money for music from a RIAA member org since well before Napster was an itch in someone's cerebellum. For many years I have bought music directly from the artist.
To be honest, I don't think I've missed a damn thing. I get music that I enjoy, and know that the money is going directly to the people who created it. Recently I have been looking over Lulu, and while I haven't bought anything there yet, I proably will. Lulu's percentage is certainly more favorable than anything RIAA returns to the original creator. My band is also giving due consideration to using Lulu as a distribution vector.
Now before hackles rise, I'm not saying even that all music file-sharing is wrong. But, I think those of us who create software have an obligation not to facilitate unlawful actions for folk who can't create the software themselves. I can suggest two quick ways to do so:
1) Scan the file to be shared, if it is in a common format for "proscribed" materials (or zipped "proscribed" materials.) and if present, refuse to deliver the file and pop up a warning, that the software may not be used to share such materials. Hell if sox can determine the type of file it is playing so can P2P software.
2) The program can store received files in a catalog (in a binary format) and remove from the catalog files matching the above criteria after a time consistent with trying before buying. If the program is also capable of invoking a ripper and the default media application it would be easy to ensure that it did not remove from the catalog those files which it invoked the ripper for, and could allow the temporary conversion of files in the catalog for the purpose of trying, as well as cleaning up behind.
These measures wouldn't even need to be bulletproof. If they prevent Joe Sixpack from doing it without learning how to obviate the protection, that is enough. If Joe Sixpack goes out and learns how to obviate those protections, that user deserves the full penalty of law, since the courts could have little choice but to view that as intent.
However, those that are could be pointed to.
As for it being "proof", notice the quote marks, I didn't say it was proof, I said SCO could use it in their FUD campaign.
As for arguing against file-swapping in general, you point out one of the nightmare scenarios. RIAA gets a bill through which attacks file-swapping. This is precisely my point. If people continue as they have RIAA will be forced to consider more and more nightmare scenarios in order to protect their members property.
More importantly, I can't believe how many people seem to think this is a valid approach to the problem.
First of all, anyone who writes FOSS should not be involved in developing these projects. Quite simply, this project is aimed at abrogating the rights of the copyright holder. If you develop FOSS, you too rely on copyright to protect your rights to distribute your code as you see fit. Why are you helping people to obviate the rights of other copyright holders? Doesn't this seem just a little antithetical?
Now, before the argument about how developers aren't responsible for how their software is used, well to a point I agree. But, I don't think that you can hide behind this with a clear conscience. Joe Sixpack can't write this software on his own, so if you aren't legally an accomplice, you are ethically and morally. As for the software being used for legal mechanisms, well and good, but that doesn't mean that you could not have built in safeguards to prevent it from being used for unlawful purposes...
Next, this is not the way to make the point to RIAA. For Joe Sixpack, the complaint is generally about the cost of music and so on and so forth. Well if Sears charges too much for _insert product here_ you buy it somewhere else. You don't go into Sears and steal it. Apparently this is simply because to do so means running a high risk of getting caught. So because the chance of getting caught is lower, that somehow justifies theft? Because that is what it is in the end. Rather than steal from RIAA, deprive them of income by lawful means, spend your money elsewhere. With all the artists in the world, I guarantee you can find some what create music you like, without having to resort to theft.
RIAA has proven that they will resort to the courts and legislation as their first considered reaction. Since most folk seem to abhor the legislation RIAA has had there hand in to date, why are you fueling that fire? Do you really think RIAA is going to relent? As long as you continue to abbrogate their rights, they will continue to lobby for more and more legislation. If you choose other alternatives, RIAA does not have a leg to stand on, what are they going to do, get Congress to pass a law forcing you to buy music only from their members? Not likely. If you vote with your dollar instead of voting by compromising your morals, perhaps some of those member organizations will reconsider their membership. But as long as people circumvent their rights, and deprive them of revenues thereby they will continue as they have to this point. If people vote to deprive them of income by exercising their other options, RIAA members will have little recourse but to reconsider their policies, which is what you all purport to desire.
Lastly, I _KNOW_ why I dislike RIAA, and why I won't conduct business with their members. My problems stem more from being a creator as opposed to being a consumer. For those of you who are only consumers, when you choose options that give RIAA grounds to complain, you are quite succinctly stating that you make your choices based on greed, just like RIAA does. It all comes down to the old adage, two wrongs do not make right.
P.S. Doesn't anyone realize that SCO can point to these software projects as anecdotal "proof" that FOSS developers seek to undermine copy and property rights? Why give them more ammunition in their FUD campaign?
Half of the population of Wyoming is programmers?
For proof, look around /., they aren't that hard to find.
Responsible FOSS people are not responsible because they support FOSS, that was very likely a pre-existing condition.
And FOSS does have allure to children, or the child-like. The underdog, oppressed group, challenging traditional and accepted practice.
If they are not sophisticated enough to understand the reasons behind FOSS, why should we be surprised if they are unsophisicated enough to engage in irresponsible behaviour.
Too often the FOSS movement seems to highlight those aspects of itself which attract this element. We too rarely emphasize the responsibility inherent in FOSS. The responsibility to contribute, the responsibility to report bugs, the responsibility to respect other's choices as we wish them to respect ours.
Do we really want these people identifying themslves with our movement? I suspect not, but until we stop accentuating the us against big corporations et. al., and start accentuating some of the more mature aspects of what we stand for (which are at least as compelling as the other reasons...) we will continue to attract these people, and they will continue to make us look like children.
I don't know any more about this specific incident than any of you, and I hope none of you reading this know any more than I do... There is no reason to believe that some FOSS advocate perpetrated this, but it is apparent from some of the sentiments expressed that people are considering the possibility and lamenting it, if it turns out to be true. If it does, we need to consider what we can do to make our movement less appealing to the irresponsible.
There is nothing there about copyrights at all. I agree apparently your problem is not with the reading of the license, but in comprehending it. Nowhere are copyrights specifically mentioned in the quote, nor can any of it be reasonably attributed to copyrights. In point of fact, it is comparing and contrasting the GPL to other licenses. The fact that both the GPL and the other licenses rely on copyright law to be enforceable is subsumed as common knowledge. Besides as an author, you have allready been explicitly advised within the preamble to copyright your work. Your diatribe about copyrights not being truly freemarket is so puerile as to not merit discussion. However, since you plainly cannot interpret the text of the GPL, I'll help you out. Copyrights are there to enforce an author or inventors rights to dispose of their original creations as they so choose. It is a cornerstone of the market in the US. Nowehere does that imply that by copyrighting your work that you are not allowed to distribute it under the GPL, and to require that all the provisions of the GPL be honored by the users of the software. In fact copyright law is the active mechanism of protection, after all it is the body of law which guarantees an inventor or author the right to dispose of their work as they see fit. In fact, by supposing that you have some freedom to distribute and change the property of others the GPL is deliberately stating a falsehood. There is no such freedom, the freedoms youa re entitled to with any software product are those reserved for you in the license. To pretend that by not offering unlimited rights to distriubte and modify someone elses property, without their consent, the GPL is misleading users and developers alike. The fact that the GPL is itself copyrighted, and that it makes the deliberate suggestion to authors to copyright their work gives the lie to this assertion.
Same deal, nothing in this quote specifically mentions copyrights. In point of fact, they are again contrasting the GPL and other licenses. In point of fact, the other licenses are not taking away anything you had a right to in the first place. As the copyright holder, they too are entitled to dispose of their property as they see fit, and they can introduce whatever conditions they wish. Likewise, when you copyright your code, you are granted the same rights, if you choose to release such code under the GPL, you are engaging in the same activity, placing conditions upon the use of your code. In fact, by opposing copyrights you are in favor of abridging the rights of authors and inventors to dispose of their work as they see fit. Period.
Again, no mention of copyright, no villification of the copyright process, nothing to support your position. Your assertion that the above statement implies copyrights can deny rights is absurd, deny what rights? Your supposed rights to tell other authors and inventors what they must do with their work? You certainly are entitled to that facile opinion, but by doing so you seek to abridge their rights.
Look at the statement itself for pity's sake. Does it not specifically state that it makes restrictions? But, according to you, copyrights ar
RTFGPL
Nevermind, I'll quote from it for you:Top of the page:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
From the Preamble:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Please practice zealotry for some other product. There are enough Linux zealots in the world who DO understand that copyrights in and of themselves are not 'wrong.' In point of fact the archtypical FOSS licenese not only is copyrighted, but indicates within the preamble that the copyright process is invaluable to protecting both the user and author's rights to the code.
Zealotry is a big enough problem in our community without its being accompanied by ignorance and bombast. Please either take the two seconds required to verify the facts behind the slogans you want to shout, or become a zealot for some other cause.
Yeah, it's a troll, mod me down, my karma can take it.
I said they should have done this, but I figured after Napster was the time. They've peed in too many bowls of cornflakes for folks to forget
Rather than 1-5 yearsa prison, why not 10-50 lashes with a frayed floppy cable, all via live webcast.
Maybe I'll just try to get them to dicount a purchase of JDS or something...
Bastahds.I've seen a couple of projects re-implementing the standard *nix command set in things like PERL or Python. Each time, I've thought to myself, neat, but mostly just an exercise in amusement.
But you point out something I had not considered before, it makes ap retty viable alternative to cygwin. Now where the hell did I put the gnat rpm?
P.S. Don't nobody link to anything on the SCO site today, wouldn't want them to think they are getting DDoSed while they are being /.ed!
The thing is, the best way for the telco's to do this is not to use the public internet backbone, but their existing infrastructure. Consider, they allready have the copper and fiber in place, The could then use VoIP to vastly increase the amount of traffic which they could support.
This also obviates most of the quality issues inherent in the internet. It would allow the telco to continue to provide a high quality service without relying on temperamental internet links. Gateways to the public internet could be used when needed, but their use would probably be best avoided except where no other route existed.
This would allow the phone companies to provide VoIP service without all the potential issues of dropping such traffic into the uncontrolled internet. Consider they will be charging you for this service, they need to provide the best and most reliable service, what better way than to keep it to infrastructure they control or have binding agreements with the controllers of, rather than an uncontrolled medium.
But, you make precisely my point. HTML is great for layout type stuff, but not so good for application logic, which you also correctly identify. The question is why this patent, and why now? I'm not debating the usefulness of the paradigm, I'm questioning the timing. Consdier M$ has had this for quite some time anyways, but prior to recently, there apparently was no need to patent said methodology, Why now? The wonders of HTML may have determined the paradigm, but the wonders of HTML have nothing to do with the timing of this patent.
Given, since I modserated myself +1 Paranoid or -1 Paranoid if you like, I'm playing more at grand conspiracy theory than honest speculation. But, I think the underlying question is still valid, why this patent? why now?
I am suggesting merely that all may not be as it appears to be, on the surface this seems like a meaningless patent, and a pointless exercise... But I submit that you don't get dominant market share and the revenue stream M$ has by engaging in meaningless patents and pointless exercises. Sure it smacks of evil empire talk, but, M$ is involved in several patent battles, and does have a history of usurping standards, so due prudence militates aginst simply glossing over this item as fluff. Since many posters already clearly indicated that they were trivilaizng the announcement, I figured we'll open the floor to some good old fashioned paranoia, because even paranoids have enemies.
My post was a call to open eyes, that all may not be as it appears. Your post seems to indicate that you are treating the announcement as fluff. I would hope you are right, but hope doesn't make it so. All I'm saying is don't believe everything you read.
Moderated: +1 Paranoid
I would suggest this is just an opening gambit of some sort. Where the end play is directed... well take your pick. But, given the Eolas issue, given the recent brou-ha-ha with Sun, given M$ history and preference for co-opting standards, I don't think dismissing this as irelevant as being the most prudent move.
Ultimately, if M$ looks like it is going to lay some cards on the table, look under the table for what is really going on.
So where is this famous XBOXLocal on /.?
LOLAll the excessive service charges?
No friend, you are pretty mcuh missing the point, it is because software is designed properly for software that this doesn't matter. You don't write for every fouled up network config, you write to a standard... But, the standards you apply to writing code for software, do not apply to writing code for hardware, a much more stringent set of rules is in place there. The reason, how much does it cost you to recompile software that you screw up? Pretty much SFA, not so with hardware you've burned to a chip. The best advances only mitigate, but do not eliminate this simple fact. Teh God-cursed Gandlaf routers I learned TCP/IP networking with are long dead and gone now. (thankfully...) The "software" portions of them, the core logic, and the follow-on technologies, which sprung from it's virtual loins, exist, but... ...the Loathsome Gandalf itself is no more...