You assert that with the GPL there are zero monetary damages. Many would dispute that assertion.
The only payment they are requesting is your improvements to their code, if you made no changes this is a non issue. If you made changes you have already chosen to pay some value for those changes, therefore value of those modifications is not zero. If you don't want to release the changes, even after being informed of your legal obligation to do so there could be multiple motivations. One is that you don't want to give away your modificatiosn for "free" as you think they have value.
The fact that there may be multiple owners of the IP in question is irrelevant. They own it, you need their permission to use it. You can't simply take possession of a timeshare because there are 50 different owners.
As far as remedy, it's simple, either comply with the terms of your agreement with the copyright holders or take your chances in court. Since their terms are agreed to by thousands of others and widely accepted within the industry it would be hard to argue that they are unreasonable.
Generally if someone sells you stolen property, it remains the property of the rightful owner, and you are limited to action against the person who defrauded you for your losses. Copyright licensing is the same thing.
If you think the GPL is that bad, wait till you learn about patents. You could independantly and honestly develop your own solution, and still have someone come and shut you down because you infringed on their patent that you didn't even know about, and they're not obligated to settle with you for only financial compensation.
You can mass produce products. If there is competition they eventually become commodities with negligible profit. The companies might try a number of ways to distinguish themselves, but eventually it becomes a race for zero.
Services are different. Even if the information is free, the particular service provider can do quite well.
Think doctors, lawyers, personal trainers and hookers. The knowledge of what they do is widely available, yet they can all sell their services, and make a profit on any particular transaction.
We're moving into the service economy, goods will still be there, but production of physical goods is becoming increasingly less profitable, and less important.
If you only have X hours to spend on a project you should choose the activities that will be most beneficial.
As much as technical guys don't want to think about it, good management is an excellent productivity multiplier, alternatively no/poor management is a productivity destroyer.
Some well directed management and control will often result in the team getting more additional work being done than if the "manager" did it himself.
Think about all the times the senior guy, or the suits rejected blocked or otherwise stopped something you thought had great value. You should consider that perhaps if YOU were the manager, some of those good things would happen, you might be more useful doing the managing than technical work.
You made some statements, commonly spouted by the "government should run everything" crowd.
I simply responded by pointing to a group on the other side of the debate. I also pointed out they are a biased group.
You simply need to look at the logic of yet another government run monopoly. They tend to be expensive, inefficient with poor service. I can't understand why anyone would believe the government would succeed with insurance when they've been a dismal failure at almost every other action they undertake.
I dispute your assertion that government insurance is cheaper.
In some cases the government does subsidize their auto insurance department. At the very least it is an indirect subsidizaton by not requiring similar reserves or reinsurance as that of private insurance. If you want to see some of the opposing viewpoints check out ibc.ca.
Most monopolies, government run or not, tend to be less efficient, have substandard performance, and overcharge for the good or service they provide.
Private insurance competes to have the most competitive profitable price they can.
Government insurers don't need to be competitive, and they tend not to be. Of course the government may appear cheaper is when they subsidize the cost of providing insurance with tax dollars. Additionally if you don't like the deal the insurer offers you have no other choice with the government, private insurers you can switch.
In many provinces they have insurance boards to review rates, have systems to make sure everyone has access to some sort of coverage.
In Ontario we have no fault, which means your insurer pays for your claim, there are no court cases to determine who pays. For criminal/insurance reasons fault is still assigned, so when that b**ch decided to drive into me her insurance went up, and mine didn't.
Done safely and without impairing reasonable enjoyment of the ajoining properties I think shooting in your yard is fine.
Did you take reasonable care in your back yard firing range? Did you point at the ground? Did you build a bullet resistant structure to shoot within? eg wall, berm or hole? Did you use ammunition that will not travel off your property? Did you take steps to reduce the sound and impact on neighbors?
From the summary no country can accept all the targets that are being proposed. Real leadership is saying "this agreement is BS and impossible to commit to".
The problem with the environmental lobby is their insistance at demonizing their opponents in the media rather than take a constructive attitude about how to include the major polluters.
The better layer is to use a photo owned by someone who is not the fake ID holder. If I grant Bob a license to 1 copy of my photo he could use it in any way he wants. Taking his ID would not give you a license to use it.
If you want to bust them, take your own photo when they come in your bar.
Interesting arguement. This is a smart chimp so it should have human rights. This suggests human rights are dependent on intelligence.
Logically they should also argue stupid people should NOT have human rights. Unborn children, those in persistent vegetative states are also arguably not worthy of human rights either. Perhaps even babies aren't smart enough to have human rights either.
Also bestiality couldn't be illegal as marriage is a human right. Or perhaps certain humans aren't deserving of all human rights. Different rights for certain types of people. Maybe some groups shouldn't get to vote, and other groups should be slaves, or simply executed to protect the rest of us?
Human rights are for the human species. Animal rights are for other animals. What's really wrong with that?
The simple answer is to reduce energy usage, but people don't want to. Stop travelling, have new stuff, heat/cool their houses, import food etc. Myself I fully intend to visit a few more far off locations, I want a new couch and bigger TV, I want my house warm in the winter and cool in the summer and I want a broad selection of fresh fruits and vegetables year round.
That's gonna use a lot of energy, even if I gave up my car to walk to a market. People don't want to change, and they won't yet.
The latest trend I saw is directly blaming the "rich", which pretty much includes most of us with computers and the time to argue on slashdot. I don't see us making huge changes.
Actually you likely give a license to turnitin when you submit your work. If the students do this with your paper they're violating their copyright. You could sue them for copyright infringement.
Turnitin didn't know they were being falsely assigned permission to keep a copy so they were at least honestly misled.
One possible argument is that they are acting with the specific intent to destroy the commercial value of your work.
Forcing students to license their work to a corporation in order to attend an academic institution however is inappropriate IMO.
1 Eat. (and other necessities) 2 Be happy. 3 lots of money.
Once I can take care of the basics I worry about being happy. Next priority is to make sure I'm happy with my general situation. After that I go for more experience and money and stuff.
Long term unhappiness is a drag on your health, and is very expensive. When I'm bummed out I spend lots more on stuff, when I'm happy I can get by on less.
Slashdot Mirror
You assert that with the GPL there are zero monetary damages.
Many would dispute that assertion.
The only payment they are requesting is your improvements to their code, if you made no changes this is a non issue.
If you made changes you have already chosen to pay some value for those changes, therefore value of those modifications is not zero.
If you don't want to release the changes, even after being informed of your legal obligation to do so there could be multiple motivations. One is that you don't want to give away your modificatiosn for "free" as you think they have value.
The fact that there may be multiple owners of the IP in question is irrelevant. They own it, you need their permission to use it. You can't simply take possession of a timeshare because there are 50 different owners.
As far as remedy, it's simple, either comply with the terms of your agreement with the copyright holders or take your chances in court. Since their terms are agreed to by thousands of others and widely accepted within the industry it would be hard to argue that they are unreasonable.
Generally if someone sells you stolen property, it remains the property of the rightful owner, and you are limited to action against the person who defrauded you for your losses. Copyright licensing is the same thing.
If you think the GPL is that bad, wait till you learn about patents. You could independantly and honestly develop your own solution, and still have someone come and shut you down because you infringed on their patent that you didn't even know about, and they're not obligated to settle with you for only financial compensation.
You can mass produce products. If there is competition they eventually become commodities with negligible profit.
The companies might try a number of ways to distinguish themselves, but eventually it becomes a race for zero.
Services are different. Even if the information is free, the particular service provider can do quite well.
Think doctors, lawyers, personal trainers and hookers. The knowledge of what they do is widely available, yet they can all sell their services, and make a profit on any particular transaction.
We're moving into the service economy, goods will still be there, but production of physical goods is becoming increasingly less profitable, and less important.
It's simply not worth it for anyone to investigate and verify small charges. So why even bother paying to keep a paper trail nobody will ever use?
If it's a fraudulent charge report it.
It seems to me the usage based flagging works just fine anyway.
If you only have X hours to spend on a project you should choose the activities that will be most beneficial.
As much as technical guys don't want to think about it, good management is an excellent productivity multiplier, alternatively no/poor management is a productivity destroyer.
Some well directed management and control will often result in the team getting more additional work being done than if the "manager" did it himself.
Think about all the times the senior guy, or the suits rejected blocked or otherwise stopped something you thought had great value. You should consider that perhaps if YOU were the manager, some of those good things would happen, you might be more useful doing the managing than technical work.
Actually I'm one of those tax paying, professional family guys who doesn't want the government running every facet of my life.
I find many people who want the government to do everything seem to be.
Left wing socialists with a poor understanding of economics.
You made some statements, commonly spouted by the "government should run everything" crowd.
I simply responded by pointing to a group on the other side of the debate. I also pointed out they are a biased group.
You simply need to look at the logic of yet another government run monopoly. They tend to be expensive, inefficient with poor service. I can't understand why anyone would believe the government would succeed with insurance when they've been a dismal failure at almost every other action they undertake.
I dispute your assertion that government insurance is cheaper.
In some cases the government does subsidize their auto insurance department. At the very least it is an indirect subsidizaton by not requiring similar reserves or reinsurance as that of private insurance.
If you want to see some of the opposing viewpoints check out ibc.ca.
Most monopolies, government run or not, tend to be less efficient, have substandard performance, and overcharge for the good or service they provide.
Private insurance competes to have the most competitive profitable price they can.
Government insurers don't need to be competitive, and they tend not to be. Of course the government may appear cheaper is when they subsidize the cost of providing insurance with tax dollars.
Additionally if you don't like the deal the insurer offers you have no other choice with the government, private insurers you can switch.
In many provinces they have insurance boards to review rates, have systems to make sure everyone has access to some sort of coverage.
In Ontario we have no fault, which means your insurer pays for your claim, there are no court cases to determine who pays.
For criminal/insurance reasons fault is still assigned, so when that b**ch decided to drive into me her insurance went up, and mine didn't.
Flat screen TV's are cheap.
I've never considered a TV I couldn't afford cash anyway.
Guess that's why I don't complain about my credit card bill.
Shockingly the Democrats use the same strategy.
Done safely and without impairing reasonable enjoyment of the ajoining properties I think shooting in your yard is fine.
Did you take reasonable care in your back yard firing range?
Did you point at the ground?
Did you build a bullet resistant structure to shoot within?
eg wall, berm or hole?
Did you use ammunition that will not travel off your property?
Did you take steps to reduce the sound and impact on neighbors?
I had many off brand mp3 players, just bought an 8 gig nano for my wife.
solid, responsive, easy to use, quick to use (scrolling).
The iTunes software is a bit clunky to get used to, but overall I'd say that it is much nicer than the other mp3 players I've used.
For only a few dollars less why would I consider wasting my time on an mp3 player that is likely not as good?
A base model Altima is high end?
What exactly is a mid range car?
From the summary no country can accept all the targets that are being proposed. Real leadership is saying "this agreement is BS and impossible to commit to".
The problem with the environmental lobby is their insistance at demonizing their opponents in the media rather than take a constructive attitude about how to include the major polluters.
Photo is an artistic work, it is copyrightable.
I'm glad I don't have her lawyers.
The better layer is to use a photo owned by someone who is not the fake ID holder.
If I grant Bob a license to 1 copy of my photo he could use it in any way he wants. Taking his ID would not give you a license to use it.
If you want to bust them, take your own photo when they come in your bar.
People lose more than they make when gambling.
I guess that's why Vegas turned to dust long ago.
They haven't agreed to the amended contract, therefore there is no contract.
A contract is just an agreement.
If we modify the contract before agreeing to it, that is the contract we agreed to.
We definately didn't agree to the pre-modification contract.
Why would I buy a HD-DVD player?
When I rent a movie, it's still a DVD.
I could buy the bargain DVD or pay much more for the HD-DVD.
Why pay more?
Interesting arguement.
This is a smart chimp so it should have human rights.
This suggests human rights are dependent on intelligence.
Logically they should also argue stupid people should NOT have human rights. Unborn children, those in persistent vegetative states are also arguably not worthy of human rights either.
Perhaps even babies aren't smart enough to have human rights either.
Also bestiality couldn't be illegal as marriage is a human right. Or perhaps certain humans aren't deserving of all human rights. Different rights for certain types of people. Maybe some groups shouldn't get to vote, and other groups should be slaves, or simply executed to protect the rest of us?
Human rights are for the human species. Animal rights are for other animals. What's really wrong with that?
People don't care enough to change less.
The simple answer is to reduce energy usage, but people don't want to.
Stop travelling, have new stuff, heat/cool their houses, import food etc.
Myself I fully intend to visit a few more far off locations, I want a new couch and bigger TV, I want my house warm in the winter and cool in the summer and I want a broad selection of fresh fruits and vegetables year round.
That's gonna use a lot of energy, even if I gave up my car to walk to a market. People don't want to change, and they won't yet.
The latest trend I saw is directly blaming the "rich", which pretty much includes most of us with computers and the time to argue on slashdot. I don't see us making huge changes.
Actually you likely give a license to turnitin when you submit your work.
If the students do this with your paper they're violating their copyright. You could sue them for copyright infringement.
Turnitin didn't know they were being falsely assigned permission to keep a copy so they were at least honestly misled.
One possible argument is that they are acting with the specific intent to destroy the commercial value of your work.
Forcing students to license their work to a corporation in order to attend an academic institution however is inappropriate IMO.
Well I have priorities.
1 Eat. (and other necessities)
2 Be happy.
3 lots of money.
Once I can take care of the basics I worry about being happy.
Next priority is to make sure I'm happy with my general situation.
After that I go for more experience and money and stuff.
Long term unhappiness is a drag on your health, and is very expensive. When I'm bummed out I spend lots more on stuff, when I'm happy I can get by on less.
I find the better Sci-Fi is about people and the science/technology is just a tool to create the environment to help the author tell the story.
Just be careful about recommending one of the more sex obsessed authors.
Lets see the date is 2007-03-14.
Ignore the year and you have 3-14
Not a huge stretch from taking the year off 3/14/2007.