That having been said, there's nothing really wrong with using the terms "theft" or "stealing" casually while making a greater point.
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with using "theft" to describe copyright infringement any more than there is to dscribe high prices as "daylight robbery" or to say that getting to work some mornings is "murder" (without any actual corpse generation).
However, when someone says "that isn't theft/robbery/murder" the proper response is along the lines of "I was using a metaphor DUH!" not "yes it is theft/robbery/murder because ".
Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?
Serious question? It's because most people here identify themselves more with the open source movement than with the music industry.
If you steal from my house I will be "up in arms", if you steal from my neighbours house I will be almost as outraged. If you steal from a bank I have no connection with on another continent then I may be interested in the news report, or maybe not.
But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.
No, you're not. If while he was distracted you grabbed hold of the plans he'd written down and walked off with them without permission then that would be theft. Claiming his work as your own would be fraud. Duplicating his work and distributing it without permission would be copyright infringement.
Too bad we don't have people who can judge whether extradition is suitable on a case-by-case basis...
ALL of us get to judge whether it is or isn't suitable. Refusing to do so on the basis that someone else is paid to make an actual decision would be the height of moral cowardice.
If you can come up with a convincing reason as to why an Austrlian citizen should be extradited based on allegations of acts performed entirely within Australia then I'll be impressed.
If the acts were illegal in Australia then he should be tried there, where he's alleged to have committed the acts, where he's familiar with the culture and the legal system and where he isn't a foreigner to the jury.
If the acts weren't illegal in Australia then it should be contrary to public policy to exdradite one of their citizens for performing those acts in Australia.
Then there was discussion that the "definition" fo Open Source would be reduced to exclude certain Free Software licences.
To be fair to Russ, that seemed to be part of a general corporatization agenda. The pressure to redefine open source was coming from HP through OSDL. A Red Hat guy running OSI is probably just another step along that road. Not saying that's good or bad, but it's what's happening.
Re:What? SCO needs money?
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Surely there must be someone else they can sue.
Yes, we'll be suing Boies Schiller & Flexner next but don't tell them I said so.
To my non-lawer mind this looks like "Yes I stole them, but I didn't say I wasn't going to steal them so technically I didn't deceive anyone."
Correct, apart from the word "steal" (he didn't steal anything on the facts as presented here, if he had then that would have been a separate crime) and the word "technically" (there's nothing technical about it, deceit was not a part of this).
Or a poorly written law.
Maybe. It certainly isn't an all-inclusive law, none are. If it was intended to cover a situation like this then sure, it's poorly written.
I'd rather accept the failings of limited laws, where the legislature has to spell out what is prohibited, than the alternative of "Well, you did something I don't like so you're guilty. Ha!".
Ah, I think I understand you now. Your concern isn't with issues of children being killed or of prisoners being mistreated. Your concern is with using those and other issues as part of some team game. The game is over and your team won or lost therefore the children cease to concern you. Have I got it right?
Ha, don't worry yourself Ralph about my interests being made known -- that's about six weeks passed now. Lately I'd say the it's the dog who's actually doing more about stopping terrorists from murdering children (certainly to the dismay of you and the NY Times).
No dismay here, merely puzzlement. It sounds as though you're the same person continuing a conversation, but if so then just now you were concerned about the reporting of child murders and now "that's about six weeks passed". What passed, no more child murders going unreported? I think you'll find that most child murders still aren't reported in the US. Not that I'm surprised or inconvenienced by that, just that I thought it was a source of dissatisfaction for you.
As to the bit about this dog stopping terrorists from murdering children... well done dog! Good thing we can still get the news from Disney.
To me, the murder of children -- wherever it occurs -- secures a higher priority of national concern than some dog yapping at the feet a naked terrorist.
I congratulate you on your humanitarianism and your international perspective. Given your concerns I can see why you would be irritated by the undeniable fact that the vast majority of murders of children worldwide are not reported in the US national media. I encourage you to make your interests known and maybe things will change.
The problem [phrusa.org] with the "Los Angeles Times" and the "New York Times" is that most Americans perceive them to be biased. For example, the Abu Ghraib story ran 19+ times on the front pages, but the story about Saddam Hussein's torture of women and children ran far fewer times.
Wow, so they suffer from the same accusations as Slashdot of being too US-centric?
I would have taken it for granted that crimes by the US government would be of greater interest to the US public than crimes by a foreign dictator and would get more US press attention. Guess my vision is too narrow.
Were they upset by the massive coverage of the US elections in those publications compared to coverage of the Norwegian elections as well?
I wouldn't categorize wind power as being entirely green. There is much evidence to suggest the impact windmills have upon migratory bird populations can be devastating.
Once again, you're only thinking of what has been done. The face of terrorism is going to change and change again.
Yes, let's not worry about facts at all, they're only what's happened in the past.
And you're willing to make that choice for others?
Am I willing to play my part in the process and insist on my pooint of view in all this? Too damn right I am. I don't see you hesitating to make choices for others. Who do you think you are you anyway?
Perhaps some groups yes but not all. Let's not forget the other face of terrorism; small groups of kooks like Tim McVeigh. Would McVeigh have the resources for this?
I assume that as long as he passed his driving test the cost wouldn't be exorbitant. Did Timorthy McVeigh have a valid driving licence? Would absence of one have made much difference? If not then it's not much of an example.
Once again slashdotters are naysayers to a technology because it's not a catch-all. Sorry folks, if there was a catch-all solution to the problems of terrorism, illegal imigration, identity theft or forgery you let me know; we'll make a mint off it.
Something that sounded like it might actually be some sort of hindrance would be a plus. This just sounds irrelevant. Terrorists are people. They mostly get their identity documents by applying for them to the government, just like the rest of us. Maybe the proportion who rely on fake documents is enough to justify the expense and messing about, then again maybe not. I'd like to hear some real statistics on past incidents. At the moment this just sounds like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
By making a system more complex you increase the chances of someone making a mistake somewhere along the line.
True. Parallel parking in particular can be a bitch until you get the hang of it.
No. It is not. If a license permitted the code, or a derivative thereof, to be released under the BSD license then it would necessarily permit that same code to be released under the GPL. We can trivially demonstrate this to be true by observing that code under the BSD license can be relicensed as GPL.
The original suggestion was that the code could "end up in BSD". This was clearly crap, as it could NOT be licensed under the terms of the BSDL.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent whichever way you please but it is so important to exercise your right to Mod! Think about the issues and Mod with your conscience.
Okay, not really.
That having been said, there's nothing really wrong with using the terms "theft" or "stealing" casually while making a greater point.
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with using "theft" to describe copyright infringement any more than there is to dscribe high prices as "daylight robbery" or to say that getting to work some mornings is "murder" (without any actual corpse generation).
However, when someone says "that isn't theft/robbery/murder" the proper response is along the lines of "I was using a metaphor DUH!" not "yes it is theft/robbery/murder because ".
It's only the latter that I have a problem with.
Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?
Serious question? It's because most people here identify themselves more with the open source movement than with the music industry.
If you steal from my house I will be "up in arms", if you steal from my neighbours house I will be almost as outraged. If you steal from a bank I have no connection with on another continent then I may be interested in the news report, or maybe not.
But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.
No, you're not. If while he was distracted you grabbed hold of the plans he'd written down and walked off with them without permission then that would be theft. Claiming his work as your own would be fraud. Duplicating his work and distributing it without permission would be copyright infringement.
Too bad we don't have people who can judge whether extradition is suitable on a case-by-case basis...
ALL of us get to judge whether it is or isn't suitable. Refusing to do so on the basis that someone else is paid to make an actual decision would be the height of moral cowardice.
If you can come up with a convincing reason as to why an Austrlian citizen should be extradited based on allegations of acts performed entirely within Australia then I'll be impressed.
If the acts were illegal in Australia then he should be tried there, where he's alleged to have committed the acts, where he's familiar with the culture and the legal system and where he isn't a foreigner to the jury.
If the acts weren't illegal in Australia then it should be contrary to public policy to exdradite one of their citizens for performing those acts in Australia.
Man, everyone is so pissed about this, but I just can't seem to get up the energy to want to defend this guy since he's guilty as hell.
Let me guess, you're a defense witness supporting the argument that he'll never get a fair trial in America?
And equally, should American pornographers like Hefner be extradited to Saudi Arabia?
It is more important to keep things secret, so everybody watches at least the first episode.
Why? What does the BBC gain out of lots of people watching the first episode on TV instead of downloading it?
"Linux is built on a Legend" - Slashdot.
That will be $5 billion please. Unmarked, and no funny business.
Fair enough. Thanks for sticking around here despite the flaming you get, it is appreciated in some of our saner moments :)
Then there was discussion that the "definition" fo Open Source would be reduced to exclude certain Free Software licences.
To be fair to Russ, that seemed to be part of a general corporatization agenda. The pressure to redefine open source was coming from HP through OSDL. A Red Hat guy running OSI is probably just another step along that road. Not saying that's good or bad, but it's what's happening.
Surely there must be someone else they can sue.
Yes, we'll be suing Boies Schiller & Flexner next but don't tell them I said so.
To my non-lawer mind this looks like "Yes I stole them, but I didn't say I wasn't going to steal them so technically I didn't deceive anyone."
Correct, apart from the word "steal" (he didn't steal anything on the facts as presented here, if he had then that would have been a separate crime) and the word "technically" (there's nothing technical about it, deceit was not a part of this).
Or a poorly written law.
Maybe. It certainly isn't an all-inclusive law, none are. If it was intended to cover a situation like this then sure, it's poorly written.
I'd rather accept the failings of limited laws, where the legislature has to spell out what is prohibited, than the alternative of "Well, you did something I don't like so you're guilty. Ha!".
You've gone general, so educated people like me don't give a fuck about your accusations.
Since I didn't make any accusations, it's probably fortunate that you don't give a fuck about them.
Ah, I think I understand you now. Your concern isn't with issues of children being killed or of prisoners being mistreated. Your concern is with using those and other issues as part of some team game. The game is over and your team won or lost therefore the children cease to concern you. Have I got it right?
Ha, don't worry yourself Ralph about my interests being made known -- that's about six weeks passed now. Lately I'd say the it's the dog who's actually doing more about stopping terrorists from murdering children (certainly to the dismay of you and the NY Times).
No dismay here, merely puzzlement. It sounds as though you're the same person continuing a conversation, but if so then just now you were concerned about the reporting of child murders and now "that's about six weeks passed". What passed, no more child murders going unreported? I think you'll find that most child murders still aren't reported in the US. Not that I'm surprised or inconvenienced by that, just that I thought it was a source of dissatisfaction for you.
As to the bit about this dog stopping terrorists from murdering children... well done dog! Good thing we can still get the news from Disney.
To me, the murder of children -- wherever it occurs -- secures a higher priority of national concern than some dog yapping at the feet a naked terrorist.
I congratulate you on your humanitarianism and your international perspective. Given your concerns I can see why you would be irritated by the undeniable fact that the vast majority of murders of children worldwide are not reported in the US national media. I encourage you to make your interests known and maybe things will change.
(Surely there must be papers with both slants locally).
BOTH? Is the world limited to two viewpoints now?
Perhaps so, but they want details of my household income (!) before they'll tell me about it.
you cannot beat a real newspaper simply because you read it on the fly.
True. Then again, sometimes it's hard to read a real news paper because you've beaten it on a fly. Still very handy to have though.
The problem [phrusa.org] with the "Los Angeles Times" and the "New York Times" is that most Americans perceive them to be biased. For example, the Abu Ghraib story ran 19+ times on the front pages, but the story about Saddam Hussein's torture of women and children ran far fewer times.
Wow, so they suffer from the same accusations as Slashdot of being too US-centric?
I would have taken it for granted that crimes by the US government would be of greater interest to the US public than crimes by a foreign dictator and would get more US press attention. Guess my vision is too narrow.
Were they upset by the massive coverage of the US elections in those publications compared to coverage of the Norwegian elections as well?
I wouldn't categorize wind power as being entirely green. There is much evidence to suggest the impact windmills have upon migratory bird populations can be devastating.
Sure, but the corpses are fully biodegradable.
Once again, you're only thinking of what has been done. The face of terrorism is going to change and change again.
Yes, let's not worry about facts at all, they're only what's happened in the past.
And you're willing to make that choice for others?
Am I willing to play my part in the process and insist on my pooint of view in all this? Too damn right I am. I don't see you hesitating to make choices for others. Who do you think you are you anyway?
Perhaps some groups yes but not all. Let's not forget the other face of terrorism; small groups of kooks like Tim McVeigh. Would McVeigh have the resources for this?
I assume that as long as he passed his driving test the cost wouldn't be exorbitant. Did Timorthy McVeigh have a valid driving licence? Would absence of one have made much difference? If not then it's not much of an example.
Once again slashdotters are naysayers to a technology because it's not a catch-all. Sorry folks, if there was a catch-all solution to the problems of terrorism, illegal imigration, identity theft or forgery you let me know; we'll make a mint off it.
Something that sounded like it might actually be some sort of hindrance would be a plus. This just sounds irrelevant. Terrorists are people. They mostly get their identity documents by applying for them to the government, just like the rest of us. Maybe the proportion who rely on fake documents is enough to justify the expense and messing about, then again maybe not. I'd like to hear some real statistics on past incidents. At the moment this just sounds like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
By making a system more complex you increase the chances of someone making a mistake somewhere along the line.
True. Parallel parking in particular can be a bitch until you get the hang of it.
That is gratuitiously wrong.
No. It is not. If a license permitted the code, or a derivative thereof, to be released under the BSD license then it would necessarily permit that same code to be released under the GPL. We can trivially demonstrate this to be true by observing that code under the BSD license can be relicensed as GPL.
The original suggestion was that the code could "end up in BSD". This was clearly crap, as it could NOT be licensed under the terms of the BSDL.