The GPL (at least version 2) requires them to make the source available. Distributing anything under GPL obliges the distributor to make the source available for at least three years. That contract though is between their customers and themselves, so I think it'd have to be someone who previously a version of WinMTR contained GPLed code who'd have to make the request.
They could just assume that any reply not prefixed with "IANAL" is advice from a suitable qualified legal profession. Blimey I'd like to see someone go to court with nothing but Slashdot comments as their case.
Yup, barring any contradictory facts emerging, this appears a pretty clear-cut GPL violation, meaning that they're now guilty of copyright violation of they continue to distribute WinMTR. FSF would probably sort this out pretty sharpish.
I think that's been pretty consistent in all versions. If you distribute a GPLed product (excluding internal use within organisations) then you must make the source available to anyone receiving your product, and there are a number of ways suggested for this distribution. Technically they're not required to make the source available to the general public, but these days it tends to be the easiest option. I suppose limiting it to distribution of source based on distribution of the actual product made sense in the days when distributing source could have mean physical media. Since the GPL limits charges to pretty much covering the cost, it's understandable that Debian shouldn't be required to ship floppies to someone who picked up their copy of Vim from Canonical.
I believe as well that a project can be relicensed by the copyright holder if part of the submission process involves contributors assigning copyrights over to the person or project who run the show.
Yup, they're playing fast and free with the GPL. Based on their excuse I'm assuming that their legal team sees Yahoo Questions as an authoritative source of legal advice, or they're just dicks.
Nah, payment doesn't really come in to this. They legitimately benefited from the labour of the original artist, with certain conditions applied, but much later-on decided that these terms no-longer applied to them. Kind of like being allowed to stay rent-free in a house, on condition that the lawn is kept tidy, but after a few years deciding to screw the lawn and sell the lawnmower in order to buy crack.
Mind you, you're right about it sounding like RIAA/MPAA behaviour.
I think that's one of the big failings of the system. Comments and reviews aren't exactly perfect statistical analysis, but some of the sampling bias could be reduced. Right now if someone of a fairly extreme viewpoint finds a book they've not even read they can go ahead and post a comment and review. This may balance out, but it can cause serious skewing if the author is well-known and attracts a great deal of controversy. At least requiring people to have bought the product from Amazon before commenting would make it more difficult for x idealogue to send their minions over to Amazon to voice their opinions.
At a minimum they could require posters to have bought x amount of related items before being able to comment, and then it could perhaps be flagged as a comment not backed-up by ownership of the book in question.
Astroturfing should definitely be dealt with. I know Nivea among others have put up suspiciously "fan sites" for products, where it takes a bit of clicking or searching to realise that they're a front for an advertising agency. Maybe a clear label at the top of the page in question if it's not being hosted at what would be considered to be the primary domain of the company in question?
Just yesterday I was dealing with a blog in which the author posted a rather large amount of praise for a bullshit radiation shield for phones, and oddly enough the owner of the company replied in a comment within a day or so to recommend that people consider the products of that fine company - all without mentioning his position.
Pretty much what happened in WoW battlegrounds. If you were lucky you'd find a small group of people who knew what they were doing. Could only be three or four people out of a group of 40, but they'd be winning the fight while the headless chickens went running off to fight anything that moved.
The thing that really killed strategy was the system that provided pretty decent rewards to everyone - including people who just bounced on the spot. Another problem was that rushing became far too viable. Defence went out the window. People just raced to see who could be the first to reach a pretty much undefended base.
Shame that the game didn't issue assignments to people and punish them if they spend too long playing out of position or otherwise not doing the job they were assigned.
Yeah. I have a Windows 7 partition on my system, but in practice rarely boot to it because of the hassle of not having ready access to my usual environment. I think a similar concern was expressed when Bootcamp first appeared for Macs, but realistically it'd have to be a pretty amazing game for me to bother booting in to Windows. I'd imagine many other users would also rather just click an icon than reboot or have a diminished experience via virtualisation. Look at Steam as an example of a good market. The Mac world has been crying out for a better selection of games, and now Valve delivered a pretty decent selection almost overnight. I've spent about as much on Steam alone in six months on Steam as I had spent on games in the past two to three years. I'd hope Linux to see a similar experience.
I consider the calls for patent and copyright reform to be against regulation, or least arguments for regulation that primarily benefits people - not corporate interests. However, yes - regulation is like law. Any law or regulation should present a benefit to the general public that demonstrably out-weigh the consequences of a reduction in liberties. There must also be accountability. Not always easy to gauge - and I sure as hell don't trust state bodies to be intrinsically benevolent or in any way competent.
The article itself is pretty unrealistic. I was expecting at some point to see Xenu returning from his space prison to require all email to authenticated and digitally signed.
Yeah, I think in hiring that HR need to be focussing on where their skills lie, i.e. not trying ascertain useful technical skills when they lack a sufficient background to do so. I remember my first tech job interview. The HR guy in that case doubted I had the skills to go in to an entry level tech support job, despite my having a a CS degree behind me and a decent background in Unix-likes and Windows systems. Oddly enough after doing tier one for a while I moved on to server, hardware and pro video support.
I don't blame him. It's the overall recruitment process that sucked. One change I've noted is managers and prospective peers being involved in recruitment. Last job I interviewed for I had around four interviews, all with various people in the organisation - some of whom scoped me out pretty well with some casual technical discussions. Didn't get that job but I came away respecting their hiring process.
The list of countries supporting this reads like a who's who of human rights abusers and countries that'd censor the moon from the night sky if it negatively impacted their power. Just the people we want having a say in how the rest of the world accesses the Internet.
Not to mention engineering qualifications (and a high IQ) being pretty irrelevant in this context. Ted Kaczynski was similarly qualified. Definitely right though that the sample size is relatively small. Haven't yet had a chance to look at the methodology used.
Based on the "uncertain" approach, I'd imagine that pretty much every question ever asked has to be answered with "maybe". I'm pretty sure that the uncertainty principle doesn't apply any more than relativity could be used to support relativism.
Depends on the country, but yes indeed probably would be a crime to get 1000 people together and have them block access to the Visa headquarters. Protest is not the same as physically obstructing access.
Yup, they truly are batshit crazy - even by WorldNetDaily standards. The folks at WND were unimpressed when Andy (the owner of CP) turned Jesus in to a champion of capitalism and free-market principles. It's worth noting that WND is itself on the lunatic fringe of conservatism - with most of their advertising aimed at people stocking-up on supplies in advance of the impending UN invasion of America. CP pretty much replaced Jesus with Andy/Reagan in all but name.
The professor values page is part of Andy's long-running grudge against academia. Note that it's primarily a list of academics linked to negative behaviour. I could tomorrow write a similar article entitled "Car Mechanic Values" in which I'd provide a list of car mechanics who've killed and otherwise behave badly. Andy and sampling bias are close friends - which is odd given that Andy is fond of pointing out that he's done more courses in statistics than people who ask awkward questions such as "How did you choose your sample set?"
It's pretty much a who's who of human rights abusers. Sure plenty others not on the list have some work to do, but the countries supporting China tend to be ones who aren't exactly places that'd be getting out the best china if Spinoza were to pay a visit.
If it's anything like The Sun then I'd be embarrassed to have it lying around. Not because of the nudity - more because it's I'd hate people to think that I got my news from a rag like that.
I haven't seen anything formal. Right now it seems to be more about bluster - which unfortunately is having an effect. The State Department needs to make some formal charges, because right now they're little better than the local police superintendent who warns the local bars that he'll be taking a dim view if any of them should happen to serve drinks to the guy who's currently banging his wife. Not a great way to run a country.
I don't see anything obviously bad about that disclosure. Is there any legal or moral reason why a government shouldn't help protect legitimate interests of citizens and corporations abroad? So long as there's no U.S. legal issue, abuse of state power, or their actions run contrary to their obligations to the electorate as a whole then where's the issue?
Would that lobbying have disadvantaged the electorate of the U.S. or broken a U.S. law or international treaty?
Yeah, this is complicated. An illegal attack on a company who behaves legally but arguably in an immoral fashion is unjustifiable. The problem is with government - not the corporations being pressured in to withholding their services from WikiLeaks. Protest and boycotts are sensible. A DoS attack - which is comparable to forming a barrier at the doorway and preventing customers from entering the shop, is an illegal act aimed at the wrong people.
I'll continue using MasterCard, Amazon and PayPal. I prefer to direct my complaints to my government and our representatives in the EU. These are the people who should be dealing with the bullshit from the State Department.
If they were truly serious then they'd have browser/chat program/online game close automatically if any text written by the user contains more than two consecutive exclamations or any occurrences of "ur".
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL (at least version 2) requires them to make the source available. Distributing anything under GPL obliges the distributor to make the source available for at least three years. That contract though is between their customers and themselves, so I think it'd have to be someone who previously a version of WinMTR contained GPLed code who'd have to make the request.
They could just assume that any reply not prefixed with "IANAL" is advice from a suitable qualified legal profession. Blimey I'd like to see someone go to court with nothing but Slashdot comments as their case.
Yup, barring any contradictory facts emerging, this appears a pretty clear-cut GPL violation, meaning that they're now guilty of copyright violation of they continue to distribute WinMTR. FSF would probably sort this out pretty sharpish.
I think that's been pretty consistent in all versions. If you distribute a GPLed product (excluding internal use within organisations) then you must make the source available to anyone receiving your product, and there are a number of ways suggested for this distribution. Technically they're not required to make the source available to the general public, but these days it tends to be the easiest option. I suppose limiting it to distribution of source based on distribution of the actual product made sense in the days when distributing source could have mean physical media. Since the GPL limits charges to pretty much covering the cost, it's understandable that Debian shouldn't be required to ship floppies to someone who picked up their copy of Vim from Canonical.
I believe as well that a project can be relicensed by the copyright holder if part of the submission process involves contributors assigning copyrights over to the person or project who run the show.
Yup, they're playing fast and free with the GPL. Based on their excuse I'm assuming that their legal team sees Yahoo Questions as an authoritative source of legal advice, or they're just dicks.
Nah, payment doesn't really come in to this. They legitimately benefited from the labour of the original artist, with certain conditions applied, but much later-on decided that these terms no-longer applied to them. Kind of like being allowed to stay rent-free in a house, on condition that the lawn is kept tidy, but after a few years deciding to screw the lawn and sell the lawnmower in order to buy crack.
Mind you, you're right about it sounding like RIAA/MPAA behaviour.
I think that's one of the big failings of the system. Comments and reviews aren't exactly perfect statistical analysis, but some of the sampling bias could be reduced. Right now if someone of a fairly extreme viewpoint finds a book they've not even read they can go ahead and post a comment and review. This may balance out, but it can cause serious skewing if the author is well-known and attracts a great deal of controversy. At least requiring people to have bought the product from Amazon before commenting would make it more difficult for x idealogue to send their minions over to Amazon to voice their opinions.
At a minimum they could require posters to have bought x amount of related items before being able to comment, and then it could perhaps be flagged as a comment not backed-up by ownership of the book in question.
Astroturfing should definitely be dealt with. I know Nivea among others have put up suspiciously "fan sites" for products, where it takes a bit of clicking or searching to realise that they're a front for an advertising agency. Maybe a clear label at the top of the page in question if it's not being hosted at what would be considered to be the primary domain of the company in question?
Just yesterday I was dealing with a blog in which the author posted a rather large amount of praise for a bullshit radiation shield for phones, and oddly enough the owner of the company replied in a comment within a day or so to recommend that people consider the products of that fine company - all without mentioning his position.
Well played, sir!
I'd expect to see a lot of one-man army action, with chat dominated by the phrase "rez plz"
Pretty much what happened in WoW battlegrounds. If you were lucky you'd find a small group of people who knew what they were doing. Could only be three or four people out of a group of 40, but they'd be winning the fight while the headless chickens went running off to fight anything that moved.
The thing that really killed strategy was the system that provided pretty decent rewards to everyone - including people who just bounced on the spot. Another problem was that rushing became far too viable. Defence went out the window. People just raced to see who could be the first to reach a pretty much undefended base.
Shame that the game didn't issue assignments to people and punish them if they spend too long playing out of position or otherwise not doing the job they were assigned.
Yeah. I have a Windows 7 partition on my system, but in practice rarely boot to it because of the hassle of not having ready access to my usual environment. I think a similar concern was expressed when Bootcamp first appeared for Macs, but realistically it'd have to be a pretty amazing game for me to bother booting in to Windows. I'd imagine many other users would also rather just click an icon than reboot or have a diminished experience via virtualisation. Look at Steam as an example of a good market. The Mac world has been crying out for a better selection of games, and now Valve delivered a pretty decent selection almost overnight. I've spent about as much on Steam alone in six months on Steam as I had spent on games in the past two to three years. I'd hope Linux to see a similar experience.
I consider the calls for patent and copyright reform to be against regulation, or least arguments for regulation that primarily benefits people - not corporate interests. However, yes - regulation is like law. Any law or regulation should present a benefit to the general public that demonstrably out-weigh the consequences of a reduction in liberties. There must also be accountability. Not always easy to gauge - and I sure as hell don't trust state bodies to be intrinsically benevolent or in any way competent.
The article itself is pretty unrealistic. I was expecting at some point to see Xenu returning from his space prison to require all email to authenticated and digitally signed.
Yeah, I think in hiring that HR need to be focussing on where their skills lie, i.e. not trying ascertain useful technical skills when they lack a sufficient background to do so. I remember my first tech job interview. The HR guy in that case doubted I had the skills to go in to an entry level tech support job, despite my having a a CS degree behind me and a decent background in Unix-likes and Windows systems. Oddly enough after doing tier one for a while I moved on to server, hardware and pro video support.
I don't blame him. It's the overall recruitment process that sucked. One change I've noted is managers and prospective peers being involved in recruitment. Last job I interviewed for I had around four interviews, all with various people in the organisation - some of whom scoped me out pretty well with some casual technical discussions. Didn't get that job but I came away respecting their hiring process.
Bieber's a fairly hot chick. Even with sucky music I reckon she can get by on her looks alone.
The list of countries supporting this reads like a who's who of human rights abusers and countries that'd censor the moon from the night sky if it negatively impacted their power. Just the people we want having a say in how the rest of the world accesses the Internet.
Not to mention engineering qualifications (and a high IQ) being pretty irrelevant in this context. Ted Kaczynski was similarly qualified. Definitely right though that the sample size is relatively small. Haven't yet had a chance to look at the methodology used.
Based on the "uncertain" approach, I'd imagine that pretty much every question ever asked has to be answered with "maybe". I'm pretty sure that the uncertainty principle doesn't apply any more than relativity could be used to support relativism.
Sir, you have insight shooting out of every orifice of your body.
In and Out is a very unfortunate name for any place serving food. You're right about Wendy's. Shame they pulled out of Europe.
Depends on the country, but yes indeed probably would be a crime to get 1000 people together and have them block access to the Visa headquarters. Protest is not the same as physically obstructing access.
At RationalWiki we have a decent and well sourced write-up of CP:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Yup, they truly are batshit crazy - even by WorldNetDaily standards. The folks at WND were unimpressed when Andy (the owner of CP) turned Jesus in to a champion of capitalism and free-market principles. It's worth noting that WND is itself on the lunatic fringe of conservatism - with most of their advertising aimed at people stocking-up on supplies in advance of the impending UN invasion of America. CP pretty much replaced Jesus with Andy/Reagan in all but name.
The professor values page is part of Andy's long-running grudge against academia. Note that it's primarily a list of academics linked to negative behaviour. I could tomorrow write a similar article entitled "Car Mechanic Values" in which I'd provide a list of car mechanics who've killed and otherwise behave badly. Andy and sampling bias are close friends - which is odd given that Andy is fond of pointing out that he's done more courses in statistics than people who ask awkward questions such as "How did you choose your sample set?"
It's pretty much a who's who of human rights abusers. Sure plenty others not on the list have some work to do, but the countries supporting China tend to be ones who aren't exactly places that'd be getting out the best china if Spinoza were to pay a visit.
If it's anything like The Sun then I'd be embarrassed to have it lying around. Not because of the nudity - more because it's I'd hate people to think that I got my news from a rag like that.
I haven't seen anything formal. Right now it seems to be more about bluster - which unfortunately is having an effect. The State Department needs to make some formal charges, because right now they're little better than the local police superintendent who warns the local bars that he'll be taking a dim view if any of them should happen to serve drinks to the guy who's currently banging his wife. Not a great way to run a country.
I don't see anything obviously bad about that disclosure. Is there any legal or moral reason why a government shouldn't help protect legitimate interests of citizens and corporations abroad? So long as there's no U.S. legal issue, abuse of state power, or their actions run contrary to their obligations to the electorate as a whole then where's the issue?
Would that lobbying have disadvantaged the electorate of the U.S. or broken a U.S. law or international treaty?
Yeah, this is complicated. An illegal attack on a company who behaves legally but arguably in an immoral fashion is unjustifiable. The problem is with government - not the corporations being pressured in to withholding their services from WikiLeaks. Protest and boycotts are sensible. A DoS attack - which is comparable to forming a barrier at the doorway and preventing customers from entering the shop, is an illegal act aimed at the wrong people.
I'll continue using MasterCard, Amazon and PayPal. I prefer to direct my complaints to my government and our representatives in the EU. These are the people who should be dealing with the bullshit from the State Department.
If they were truly serious then they'd have browser/chat program/online game close automatically if any text written by the user contains more than two consecutive exclamations or any occurrences of "ur".