No, it just means that those people haven't come to an agreement with the seller.
Just because I only want to pay $0.05 for a beer doesn't mean the price is wrong. If the brewer wants my business he can decide if he will lower it to my acceptance.
Sorry, this is a free market. The price depends only on what the seller and buyer will agree on. The fair price is not some fictional number non-buyers and non-sellers think it should be.
It is a problem. It's a problem if it makes it difficult or impossible to share code.
Actually it's only a problem if the owner can't manage to let his code be used in the manner of his choosing.
Licenses conflict because of two reasons. 1. Unintentional conflicting requirements. 2. Intentional restrictions on the use of the copyright owners work.
#1 is a problem, with too many licenses. #2 is not
If you wish to avoid #1, stick to a well known license. BSD, GPL, and closed source tend to cover the requirements and desires of most people anyway.
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it. And if we're not but someone thinks we are? This is a problem irrelevant to the license of what you are using.
We also want to follow the intent of all our other licences, some of which are incompatible. Well if you have a license conflict you have to solve it no matter what the license is.
These are not GPL problems, they're just typical legal issues that you have to deal with.
He realised that if we made the slightest mistake under the terms of the GPL,
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it. It's pretty simple, there is no reason to make mistakes.
You're harming open source! I prefer the term helping. If people who don't want to follow the intent of the GPL are scared to use it GOOD. We don't need to waste time and energy enforcing the GPL. Better to have those who would violate it not bother from the start. It's better for us, it's better for them.
What guarantee do you have that they get the right guy?
What about these enforces making the threats, to get the payoff? Every summer in North America there are some people starting wildfires in order to get a job fighting wildfires.
I'll stick to legal methods, it is less likely to be corrupt in my opinion.
But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.
Even if you pay, they can still carry out on their threat and shut you down.
But how does paying prevent anything? The simple answer is it doesn't stop the attack, and it encourages more attacks. Not surprisingly those who pay put them self at the front of the line for another extortion attempt due to their history of paying.
To make matters worse, the global criminal nature of IP piracy is all too real. During a House International Relations Committee hearing last summer, the Secretary General of Interpol noted what we believe is a potential, though yet not significantly realized trend, when he testified that IP crime "is becoming the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups.
Digital can be at the same quality level as film. Look at the images from a high end digital SLR.
Consumer digital cameras aren't a fair comparison, most of them have smaller lens and sensor sizes making it impossible to have the same quality image.
I ask for the page they give it to me. I don't think there is any agreement what I do with that copy of the page. They might expect me to translate and view what they sent me, but I'm under no obligation to do so.
If they don't like what I do with the data they send me, they could simply not send it.
Violating someones copyright is a different arguement then what you do with a legitimate copy from the copyright holder.
Where? I don't see any ban on use at all. In fact the GPL states that use of the code is not covered.
I don't see a perpetual ban on distribution either. Only that you may distribute it if you accept the terms of the license. I think that means when you accept the license terms you may distribute it. I don't see how past behaviour is a factor.
I think that by stating you do not think copyright law applies to execution of a program this should effectively become a grant of permission.
Second line of reasonling The idea that copyright controls execution is that temporary copies are made and you need permission to do so. Section 2 permits you to modify and make copies of the Program or any portion of it, Since you have permission to make copies, execution is not infringement.
As for public performance or display. Display is easy, you are not displaying the work.
Public performance is a bit tougher, I don't think you are actually performing the work, but lets assume you are.
You perform the work, in private on a CPU, and display only the results. Like watching a movie and writing a review, I don't think the review is a public performance of the work (movie). It might be (through some abomination of law) a derivative work, but distributing that is permitted by the GPL anyway.
Right to self determination, nobody is arguing that. There is however a debate on if/when and wheter or not abortion becomes murder. This is a VERY fuzzy area, particularly in the case of partial birth abortions where the child is capable of a separate independant survival.
As long as you're sharing blood, it's your body to do with what you want, but I feel that many women don't understand the serious risks of abortion before they get one. Working to ensure we have informed consent before this potentially fatal surgury is critically important.
Suggesting that informed consent is backwards is laughable. Is the current lack of information on the risks of abortion somehow progress?
As for the charter http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Section 15 (1) Discrimination on race is in the charter of rights and freedom.
Gay marriage is not in there, nor is sexual orientation. I really don't care what consenting adults do. But don't play this silly game that there is some charter or moral right to it.
The GPL explicity allows any usage, and the GPL also does NOT apply to output from the program.
From Section 0 The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Slashdot Mirror
No, it just means that those people haven't come to an agreement with the seller.
Just because I only want to pay $0.05 for a beer doesn't mean the price is wrong. If the brewer wants my business he can decide if he will lower it to my acceptance.
Sorry, this is a free market.
The price depends only on what the seller and buyer will agree on.
The fair price is not some fictional number non-buyers and non-sellers think it should be.
Anything with that nasty orange colour.
Stains everything.
Sunflow seeds? I just spit them into a pringles tube, or sectioned pop/water bottle.
I mostly just drink coffee, it's the most computer compatible food.
This isn't a problem if your goal is to get the widest possible use of your code.
It is a problem. It's a problem if it makes it difficult or impossible to share code.
Actually it's only a problem if the owner can't manage to let his code be used in the manner of his choosing.
Licenses conflict because of two reasons.
1. Unintentional conflicting requirements.
2. Intentional restrictions on the use of the copyright owners work.
#1 is a problem, with too many licenses.
#2 is not
If you wish to avoid #1, stick to a well known license.
BSD, GPL, and closed source tend to cover the requirements and desires of most people anyway.
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
And if we're not but someone thinks we are?
This is a problem irrelevant to the license of what you are using.
We also want to follow the intent of all our other licences, some of which are incompatible.
Well if you have a license conflict you have to solve it no matter what the license is.
These are not GPL problems, they're just typical legal issues that you have to deal with.
He realised that if we made the slightest mistake under the terms of the GPL,
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
It's pretty simple, there is no reason to make mistakes.
You're harming open source!
I prefer the term helping.
If people who don't want to follow the intent of the GPL are scared to use it GOOD.
We don't need to waste time and energy enforcing the GPL. Better to have those who would violate it not bother from the start. It's better for us, it's better for them.
What guarantee do you have that they get the right guy?
What about these enforces making the threats, to get the payoff?
Every summer in North America there are some people starting wildfires in order to get a job fighting wildfires.
I'll stick to legal methods, it is less likely to be corrupt in my opinion.
But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.
Even if you pay, they can still carry out on their threat and shut you down.
But how does paying prevent anything?
The simple answer is it doesn't stop the attack, and it encourages more attacks. Not surprisingly those who pay put them self at the front of the line for another extortion attempt due to their history of paying.
If they actually get money, they'll do it again and again.
Any measure of success will encourage more of the same behaviour.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2004 mar23.htm
To make matters worse, the global criminal nature of IP piracy is all too real. During a House International Relations Committee hearing last summer, the Secretary General of Interpol noted what we believe is a potential, though yet not significantly realized trend, when he testified that IP crime "is becoming the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups.
Whats to apologize for.
It was a different type of movie.
It wasn't horrible, just different then the rest.
Digital can be at the same quality level as film.
Look at the images from a high end digital SLR.
Consumer digital cameras aren't a fair comparison, most of them have smaller lens and sensor sizes making it impossible to have the same quality image.
I find minor annoyances.
For example, the delete key doesn't just delete the cell in the spreadsheet.
I know this is a small thing, but I use excel about 20 hours a week at work. These minor differences really get annoying.
I've never heard of a requirement to mark patents on the product.
I'm sure this will really mess up nanotech patents and business method patents.
I think we should chemically etch the appropriate patent numbers into the legal staff first.
Actually Kodak puts their electronics in both Canon and Nikon bodies.
they are likely going to find another camera.
I doubt it. Many photographers are obsessed with their cameras, much worse then emacs/vi or Ford/Chevy trucks.
Expecting a Nikon user to buy a Canon is almost laughable.
I ask for the page they give it to me.
I don't think there is any agreement what I do with that copy of the page.
They might expect me to translate and view what they sent me, but I'm under no obligation to do so.
If they don't like what I do with the data they send me, they could simply not send it.
Violating someones copyright is a different arguement then what you do with a legitimate copy from the copyright holder.
They do not automatically become restored if you belatedly come back into compliance.
As long as you abide by the terms of the license you have permission.
(The GPL explicitly allows this strategy.)
Where? I don't see any ban on use at all. In fact the GPL states that use of the code is not covered.
I don't see a perpetual ban on distribution either. Only that you may distribute it if you accept the terms of the license.
I think that means when you accept the license terms you may distribute it. I don't see how past behaviour is a factor.
They've only been around for a few decades. Completely encase it, then you can dump bleach on it.
You don't even have to lose the feel of the keyboard like you would with a touchscreen type solution.
But if most of the world sticks to GPLv2, the less free GPLv3 stuff will die out.
Fotunately some very significant software (Linux kernel for one) only permits the use of the GPLv2.
I think that by stating you do not think copyright law applies to execution of a program this should effectively become a grant of permission.
Second line of reasonling
The idea that copyright controls execution is that temporary copies are made and you need permission to do so.
Section 2 permits you to modify and make copies of the Program or any portion of it,
Since you have permission to make copies, execution is not infringement.
As for public performance or display.
Display is easy, you are not displaying the work.
Public performance is a bit tougher, I don't think you are actually performing the work, but lets assume you are.
You perform the work, in private on a CPU, and display only the results. Like watching a movie and writing a review, I don't think the review is a public performance of the work (movie).
It might be (through some abomination of law) a derivative work, but distributing that is permitted by the GPL anyway.
Right to self determination, nobody is arguing that. There is however a debate on if/when and wheter or not abortion becomes murder.
This is a VERY fuzzy area, particularly in the case of partial birth abortions where the child is capable of a separate independant survival.
As long as you're sharing blood, it's your body to do with what you want, but I feel that many women don't understand the serious risks of abortion before they get one. Working to ensure we have informed consent before this potentially fatal surgury is critically important.
Suggesting that informed consent is backwards is laughable.
Is the current lack of information on the risks of abortion somehow progress?
As for the charter http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Section 15 (1)
Discrimination on race is in the charter of rights and freedom.
Gay marriage is not in there, nor is sexual orientation. I really don't care what consenting adults do. But don't play this silly game that there is some charter or moral right to it.
The GPL explicity allows any usage, and the GPL also does NOT apply to output from the program.
From Section 0
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).