However by distributing a patent license with the work you do have a very good defence. From sec 7 it is quite clear that unless a patent license is granted you can not distribute this code.
Two wrongs don't make a right, however they would have to argue against knowingly violating copyright, while you could argue that you had a reason to believe they granted you a patent license.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
I think it is a good move to restrict to the v2, particularly since it seems that people have different views of what the GPL means.
Not forcing distribution of source code when access is permitted yet no distibution of the binary has taken is one of the contested issues being discussed for the GPL v3.
One group claims this is the intended behaviour and within the spirit of the GPL. One group claims this is a loophole and is against the spirit of the GPL.
Depending what is decided the GPLv3 may have one group or the other complain about how that isn't what they meant when they selected the GPL. And this is a relatively minor issue. The only defence is specifying a particular license and revision.
When you distribute a GPL work you are granting others the right to modify and further distribute that work. By agreeing that others have the right to distribute your patent you are implying they now have a valid licence to do so.
Of course not, we slashdot hates the RIAA more than the MPAA.
So you simply substitute organizations, destroys any logical point TOP had, but will cause a lively enough reaction among hte slashdot faithful for a good 20-30 minutes of rabid posting.
Until MS sees a good business case, they won't pursue it. Sure there is some competition, but MS made almost $13 Billion last year, and are expected to grow that by 11% per year for at least the next 5.
You don't make that kind of money without understanding what your customers are willing to pay for. What they think they want isn't the same thing as what they're willing to pay for.
Hmm they rate games, IMO they rate them rather fairly with AO and M17 used quite regularly and appropriately.
The fact that most mature games contain violence and sexual content is irrelevant, they contain the specified content, they end up in that category.
Note the warning list is M (with 1 T) while the recommended list is all E or E 10+.
I don't see how the behaviour of retailers has anything to do with the ESRB, but a generic misdirected smear campaign is a typical way to push ones agenda. This group is simply using the ESRB as a named target in their attack against violent games.
As long as the newspaper (paper delivery, web page, mailing list, or text message service) can continue to provide a competative service at an appropriate price they will survive.
Sure if your purpose is to debate the articles go slashdot. (Although some other sites do the debate better) But this isn't the be all end all of news. For many topics people just want an informed report by a professional. Sorting the news and summarizing it intelligently is a service people will pay for.
The problem isn't with the power given to the government. They already have the power, they can take everything you think you own and kill you, your family and every aquaintance you've ever had.
All legally and within their rights.
The only thing protecting you is effective and independant oversight. The thing that I think is becoming more important globally is having bodies capable of proper oversight and supervision.
I think the government can effectively do this themself, given the proper tools and an understanding of the grave importance of proper oversight.
Part of this oversight is proper supervision by management of the actual participants, internal auditing. (Think police, their management structure and internal affairs) Secondly there is a second layer of outside supervision. think courts for both convicting criminals, and for supervising the use of special powers ie search warrants. Thirdly elected officials. Last (but not least) the freedom of speech & press to monitor and expose problems.
Remove too much oversight and you have a potential problem.
I like it, I find it very difficult to deal with the multi remote problem at someones house.
Surround sound, Satellite, DVD, VHS, cable, PS2 all plugged in. For many peoples house I just give up trying to watch TV or even change channels/volume.
Many if not most studies promise confidentiality in return for participation. Reputable research institutions take care to make sure to keep the data to participant data minimized.
Violating the donors privacy is unacceptable. In this sort of situation the researcher must reply "I am not able to provide any such information as per our standard confidentiality agreement with participants"
Never confirm or deny, just cite policy. How a major researcher got to this point without this basic rule of politics is beyond me.
Don't call them, simply don't do business with them. I shop at the local physical computer shop, they answer their phone, and if I walk in I get served.
Otherwise use online support and complain about the crappy phone service.
Buy a speakerphone, call at odd hours (4am is good)
I know it is a TV show and you have to entertain your audience.
Why do you not perform real engineering to determine/predict the results. For example some simple force/strength/thermo calculations could predict the outcome in advance. This could demonstrate the value of a technical education. As it is most people think I just sit at a desk and drink coffee since I don't actually "do anything"
They've never had their news servers work properly anyway. I watch the local forsale groups, but I can't post because they never set up the moderation properly.
That and I can't be bothered to read all the information available. I've switched to IRC and mailing lists.
I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."
But both of those are true. Pakistan has been unable to provide adequate emergency aid to the survivors. Quite a different situation than people suing the government because they only got a few thousand in emergency handouts.
Additionally it IS your fault you live below sea level, I give the same answer to people who live in dead mining towns in the middle of nowhere.
I might be a bit jealous, you get to live in a nice southern area, generally better weather and such. But every time I hear of a hurricane or other natural disaster I'm reminded how nice it is to live in a less disaster prone area.
Good, now keep up the pressure. Unless Sony feels real pain for going too far it will encourage others to keep pushing the envelope on what is acceptable.
This is why punative damages for "bad behaviour" exist, to make the company take notice and change their behaviour.
Openoffice has an adjustment curve, it's quite steep for people who can barely use MS office. Take a 2-3 days adjustment (spread over a month) with 4 hours of helpdesk support and you can see how the cost of switching can be significant.
I like Openoffice at home, in many ways it is better, but today it just wouldn't work at my office.
We might even get secure methods rather than crappy "proprietary" solutions. The problem with bad solutions is you get the inconvenience of security without the benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Nightmare for who?
Just ignore those you don't want to listen to.
Free speech and billions of different opinions seems to be working pretty well IMO.
Termination of the licence to use doesn't matter.
However by distributing a patent license with the work you do have a very good defence.
From sec 7 it is quite clear that unless a patent license is granted you can not distribute this code.
Two wrongs don't make a right, however they would have to argue against knowingly violating copyright, while you could argue that you had a reason to believe they granted you a patent license.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If there are any changes to the GPL it could cause v2 only and v3+ to be incompatible.
For example if they make the GPL an EULA.
I think it is a good move to restrict to the v2, particularly since it seems that people have different views of what the GPL means.
Not forcing distribution of source code when access is permitted yet no distibution of the binary has taken is one of the contested issues being discussed for the GPL v3.
One group claims this is the intended behaviour and within the spirit of the GPL. One group claims this is a loophole and is against the spirit of the GPL.
Depending what is decided the GPLv3 may have one group or the other complain about how that isn't what they meant when they selected the GPL. And this is a relatively minor issue. The only defence is specifying a particular license and revision.
When you distribute a GPL work you are granting others the right to modify and further distribute that work.
By agreeing that others have the right to distribute your patent you are implying they now have a valid licence to do so.
Why do people think forks are bad?
When two people have two different goals why should we try and force them to work together?
Of course not, we slashdot hates the RIAA more than the MPAA.
So you simply substitute organizations, destroys any logical point TOP had, but will cause a lively enough reaction among hte slashdot faithful for a good 20-30 minutes of rabid posting.
Unless they see a good ROI
Until MS sees a good business case, they won't pursue it.
Sure there is some competition, but MS made almost $13 Billion last year, and are expected to grow that by 11% per year for at least the next 5.
You don't make that kind of money without understanding what your customers are willing to pay for. What they think they want isn't the same thing as what they're willing to pay for.
Why should they?
People will still buy thier product, people accept that it sucks.
Unless they see a good ROI on patching or developing good code they won't.
Quite honestly if it isn't a worthwhile use of their resources they shouldn't patch code.
When there is serious competition and code quality becomes a competative advantage they'll fix it.
The merchant doesn't even get the money till around a month after the purchase, by which point you've paid your bill.
If you act right away the money hasn't even changed hands.
Hmm they rate games, IMO they rate them rather fairly with AO and M17 used quite regularly and appropriately.
The fact that most mature games contain violence and sexual content is irrelevant, they contain the specified content, they end up in that category.
Note the warning list is M (with 1 T) while the recommended list is all E or E 10+.
I don't see how the behaviour of retailers has anything to do with the ESRB, but a generic misdirected smear campaign is a typical way to push ones agenda.
This group is simply using the ESRB as a named target in their attack against violent games.
Two words,
Add value.
As long as the newspaper (paper delivery, web page, mailing list, or text message service) can continue to provide a competative service at an appropriate price they will survive.
Sure if your purpose is to debate the articles go slashdot. (Although some other sites do the debate better)
But this isn't the be all end all of news. For many topics people just want an informed report by a professional. Sorting the news and summarizing it intelligently is a service people will pay for.
Just present a proposal GPL v3
This constant announcement of nothing is annoying.
So they're going to talk about the GPL v3 before releasing this, big freaking deal.
The problem isn't with the power given to the government. They already have the power, they can take everything you think you own and kill you, your family and every aquaintance you've ever had.
All legally and within their rights.
The only thing protecting you is effective and independant oversight. The thing that I think is becoming more important globally is having bodies capable of proper oversight and supervision.
I think the government can effectively do this themself, given the proper tools and an understanding of the grave importance of proper oversight.
Part of this oversight is proper supervision by management of the actual participants, internal auditing. (Think police, their management structure and internal affairs)
Secondly there is a second layer of outside supervision. think courts for both convicting criminals, and for supervising the use of special powers ie search warrants.
Thirdly elected officials.
Last (but not least) the freedom of speech & press to monitor and expose problems.
Remove too much oversight and you have a potential problem.
I like it, I find it very difficult to deal with the multi remote problem at someones house.
Surround sound, Satellite, DVD, VHS, cable, PS2 all plugged in. For many peoples house I just give up trying to watch TV or even change channels/volume.
Lets see you have a new idea.
There is some risk in using it, it might not work, might upset your current suppliers or customers.
You decide to try it. If you don't tell anyone you have no risk of upsetting your customers or suppliers.
If it works you get the benefis before your customers know what's happening. If it doesn't work maybe your customers will make the same mistake.
I can't think of a compelling reason to publicise deployment of opensource technology, except to the shareholders if they want details of strategy.
Many if not most studies promise confidentiality in return for participation.
Reputable research institutions take care to make sure to keep the data to participant data minimized.
Violating the donors privacy is unacceptable. In this sort of situation the researcher must reply "I am not able to provide any such information as per our standard confidentiality agreement with participants"
Never confirm or deny, just cite policy. How a major researcher got to this point without this basic rule of politics is beyond me.
Don't call them, simply don't do business with them.
I shop at the local physical computer shop, they answer their phone, and if I walk in I get served.
Otherwise use online support and complain about the crappy phone service.
Buy a speakerphone, call at odd hours (4am is good)
I know it is a TV show and you have to entertain your audience.
Why do you not perform real engineering to determine/predict the results. For example some simple force/strength/thermo calculations could predict the outcome in advance.
This could demonstrate the value of a technical education. As it is most people think I just sit at a desk and drink coffee since I don't actually "do anything"
They've never had their news servers work properly anyway.
I watch the local forsale groups, but I can't post because they never set up the moderation properly.
That and I can't be bothered to read all the information available. I've switched to IRC and mailing lists.
I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."
But both of those are true. Pakistan has been unable to provide adequate emergency aid to the survivors.
Quite a different situation than people suing the government because they only got a few thousand in emergency handouts.
Additionally it IS your fault you live below sea level, I give the same answer to people who live in dead mining towns in the middle of nowhere.
I might be a bit jealous, you get to live in a nice southern area, generally better weather and such. But every time I hear of a hurricane or other natural disaster I'm reminded how nice it is to live in a less disaster prone area.
Good, now keep up the pressure. Unless Sony feels real pain for going too far it will encourage others to keep pushing the envelope on what is acceptable.
This is why punative damages for "bad behaviour" exist, to make the company take notice and change their behaviour.
Don't let them get off easy.
Few companies train their workers properly.
Most do the minimum to get the job done.
Of course at higher level jobs the minimum can be quite a substantial amount.
Openoffice has an adjustment curve, it's quite steep for people who can barely use MS office.
Take a 2-3 days adjustment (spread over a month) with 4 hours of helpdesk support and you can see how the cost of switching can be significant.
I like Openoffice at home, in many ways it is better, but today it just wouldn't work at my office.
We might even get secure methods rather than crappy "proprietary" solutions.
The problem with bad solutions is you get the inconvenience of security without the benefits.