It wouldn't matter if your talking about the telecoms. They always had immunity from prosecution if the government presents them with legitimate looking documentation. And before you spout that only a warrant is legitimate, you need to take a deep breath and look at the laws concerning searches and wiretaps and you will find that position has never been taken and searches/wiretaps without warrants have been upheld as constitutional by the supreme court.
The reason the immunity law was needed is because the TSP orders are classified as national security secrets and disclosing the contents of them is a felony carrying 5 years in imprisonment to life and possibly the death penalty. The telecoms always had immunity, they just didn't have a way to get it when the vindicating information is a national security secret. All the immunity law accomplishes is a secret court that reviews claims, checks their validity and their necessity to remain secret then instructs the court holding the action to either proceed or end the case and prevent it from being brought again. In short, the court of review does nothing more then determine is the existing immunity would apply and then make sure it does if it's true.
Not all searches require a warrant and not all wiretaps require a warrant. This has been and is upheld by the courts. It's not a violation of the 4th amendment either.
Now, the courts and congress, since the very first session, has maintained that the right of sovereignty and the protection of that sovereignty makes searches at the borders and communications entering the country reasonable search under the 4th amendment. This is laws made by the very same founding fathers who wrote the constitution in the first place. I believe their interpretation of the 4th to be more legitimate then yours.
The contracts Qwest was locked out of were the contracts to move/route phone lines to central locations to make it easier to tap. In short, that's exactly what they refused to do so why should they keep contracts for work they refused to do. BTW, the moving of the phone lines were covered by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act so it wasn't some moral protection the CEO was taking.
In fact, the CEO's dealing were completely separate from this and the jury did not buy his excuses when the evidence was laid on the table. The only reason you are able to bring the idea up is because a criminal attempted to use it as a last resort attempt to stay out of jail. No one bought it.
That's only the delayed notice applications for warrants issued by a judge or administration order. It's always been legal to do this. The patriot act did nothing but extend the time of the delayed notice, provide a provision to renew the delay and include some extra information like the NSA letters.
This was not the entirety of the NSALs, it is the entirety of all delayed notices issued.
Federal law requires targets of warrants to be notified in a timely manor. The delayed notification law was passed in 1986-Pub. L. 99-508- not with the Patriot act. The patriot acts simply included it's parts in the reporting requirements and added as a matter of national security to the allowed issuing of the delayed notifications.
To qualify with a delayed notification order, you must present the liklihood of at least one of these:
(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) flight from prosecution;
(3) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
(4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
(5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.
I don't know if you are repeating FUD or purposely misrepresenting the issue in order to create FUD. But please stop and look into what your actually talking about before injecting nonsense.
This is all smoke and mirrors designed to make you think they are doing something about nothing.
The problem is that the telecom immunity didn't give any immunity that wasn't already there. The Democrats know this, including Obama who not only voted for the immunity, but sent the justice department to court in February to defend it when the EFF attemped to get it shot down.
Under the 1968 wiretap laws, if the government presented anyone a document stating the legal authority for the wire tap- that they were legally able to obtain the information requested, the people who assisted them would have a complete defense against any civil or criminal actions against them. The 1978 FISA laws amended that to include warantless wire taps not to mention the other warantless provisions outside of FISA. When Bush abused the law on the wiretaps, he marked those documents classified as national security documents which forbids the telecoms from disclosing information about them unless they are wanting to commit a felony that could carry 5 years to life with the possibility of the death sentence.
The telecom immunity set up a secret court of review that operates under FISA. The only way the telecoms could get immunity under it would be if they had the documents already prescribed by the complete defense provisions already in place. The Court of Review would review the documents, ask the federal agencies if they issued it, then asks them to explain why it's still a national security interest and needs to remain classified. If it isn't legitimate, or it doesn't exist, no immunity happens. If it's legitimate and still needs to be classified, the Court of review instructs the court holding the actions against the telecom that the case needs to be droped and never brought up again. If the secrete classification isn't justified, the document is returned to the telecoms with immunity from prosecution for using it as their complete defense and it's up to the judge holding the action over them whether to keep it classified or not.
All the telecom immunity does is create a vehicle that existing immunity could be realized without causing exposure to a serious felony opr disclosing national security secrets. Democrats know this, but they also know that the average America does so they are bringing this up for the sole purpose to posture themselves for reelection. The JUSTICE act that was recently discussed was sponsered by at least one person who is up for reelection next year. That's all this is about. Evidently democrats on congress have done little to justify their own reelection and feel the need to run against Bush instead of running on their accomplishments.
DO not expect anything more to happen with this other then talk and claims of wanting to prosecute the Bush administration for the wiretaps. Better yet, look into exactly how the telecom immunity provides that immunity and you will know first hand that this is nothing more them posturing with smoke and mirrors.
I'm not talking about contractual obligations between two separate parties. I'm talking about the notion presented in the article and summery that an end user can sue as a beneficiary of a contract between the copyright holders of VNC and Edu4 under the circumstances present in this situation. In US and UK courts, the beneficiary would have to prove that a contract existed, that they were the/an intended beneficiary and not an incidental beneficiary of the contract, A breach of the contract happened and harm was a result of it.
Now, an easy out in this would be is if Edu4 claimed that it installed the particular VNC software to provide you with facilities for running those software, exclusively on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of their copyrighted material outside their relationship with them. This is covered by section 2 of the GPL and would prevent both a contract between two separate parties as well as AFPA being an intended beneficiary. In other words, they wouldn't have a case because the VPN software was for the sole purpose of Edu4 setting up and supporting the hardware.
There would still be copyright violations because they removed the copyright and the GPL notice from the unmodified or non-derivative work. But the source distribution could have been satisfied with just a link to the VNC website. The modification wouldn't have needed to be distributed. What I understand happened in this case, when AFPA withheld payment, they also canceled the contract and because the VNC software remained on site (in the US or UK, after the contract was in dispute, there would be no legal right for Edu4 to enter their systems and remove it), it constituted a part of the sale. That wouldn't necessarily be the case in US court. If I as a landlord lock you out of your apartment and place your items in storage for non-payment of rent or something, they do not just become my property. This is despite it being illegal for me to do so in the first place. The same would go for code, you can't be tricked or manipulated to give up or license your copyrighted works which is what this essentially amounted to.
Now something that throws a wrench in the entire ordeal is that the violation happened in 2000. The GPLv3 wasn't official then and it the exception wouldn't have been in place at the time of the violation. However, it would be now if someone attempted to do the same under the same circumstances with GPLv3 licensed software.
Wow, you would drop all that and spend the rest of your life jerking off alone until you die just to read your kids name on a disc that you can probably find a copy of here in Earth.
I don't know whether to call you crazy, devoted, courageous, inquisitive or a combination of the bunch. Oh well, if it wasn't for people like you, we would probably not the US and history would be a lot different.
Just about anywhere will have mixed water (chemicals or minerals). I'm not aware of anything that would stop erosion from happening on mars. Especially since they assumed that previous surface water areas had a high saline content in the soil from all the minerals concentrating as it dried up.
This 99% pure water was probably fresh ground water frozen when the permafrost got so deep or it's more like a glacier where it came about in precipitation and somehow got buried.
As someone already pointed out, splitting water can be fuel.
However, there is hydrogen in space and methanol if I remember right. It could be harvested and processed for this. Alternatively, we could just send a supply ship into high earth orbit, doc with it and drag the fuel with us using boosters or something. You could launch the transport ship, the refueling ship remotely and bring the crew up on a third mission to avoid transferring dangerous chemicals with humans around and no place to run.
However, I'm curious how effective traditional rocket motors will be in an atmosphere so less dense then Earth's.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be actually in the agreement or contract. I have either RRAS or log me in account for every windows site I support along with a bona fide user account on all their servers or domains. I use SSH and a VPN connection for the non-windows sites and for a medical building where half of the network is fire walled off from the other half for HIPPA compliance. This is not spelled out in the contracts but it allows me to do my job by either checking the problem before I show up to make sure I have any tools or parts necessary (out of band management cards are a great help for this) or to see if it's something I can straighten up/accomplish without making a trip which saves the customer money.
If any place fires me, I can't access them, even to uninstall it or disable my accounts. It would be unethical and perhaps even illegal. I can tell them about it or not, if they look hard enough, it will be in the spec books but the last time I lost a job to the owners "rocket scientist" nephew, he lost the spec books within a week of taking over (it's really fun explaining that the inflated bill is for the replacement tech constantly calling me asking what to do and since they terminated their contract, it's regular price or their lack of preparation or readiness stopped being my emergency when they terminated my contract so night hour rates applied).
Anyways, the point is, if it enables the job to get done, they do not necessarily need to know about it. It's a legitimate use of the tools and technology to fulfill the contract. Once the contract has ended, if possible, I would uninstall them and disable access before the last day but it doesn't always work out that way.
Now if I used the remote access for anything that wasn't a bona fide support effort, then I would have crossed the line into illegalities. All my contracts say I can get remote access, they do not say how or when or specify any particulars like my service accounts (which would equal a back door).
I would suggest that as long as the companies are owned by the same parent company and that parent company takes an active role in the direction of the company, it could be considered within the company.
Let's look at Verizon for instance. They separate their wireless cell phone operations from their pots and broad band or traditional services. Keeping the code within their wireless division would be ok but moving it to their POTs line of Business should be a distribution. However, if they distribute the source code with the binary packages, then their source code distribution obligations are satisfied according to the GPL which leaves us in the same boat outside of Verizon.
So even if we forced source distribution between sister companies and stretched out divisions under the control of a parent company, there are ways that they can comply and we still do not benefit. Again, I think this is as intended.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that was a potential of abuse. I would say it's as intended.
The four freedoms that are supposedly underlying the GPL is about your rights as a user who may become a distributor. I find with that in mind, even with Stallman's print driver story as justification for the GPL and free software, companies using it internally would be as intended.
I would say that I think it's a loss of valuable improvements when something like that happens. I would also say it isn't necessarily good when a company keeps it's improvements. But I find it completely in line with the intent of the GPL and the movement behind it. I guess we could just call that bug a feature.
They went about it wrongly. The GPL (version 3 to be exact) specifically allows for that type of scenario to happen. The problem is that Edu4 didn't secure the software enough to remain within the scope of the GPL's exception. Section 2 of the GPLv3, says that you can have a third party run the program solely for you and you do not need to convey any source code that you own the copyright for. Your have to also control access to the program and so on and make sure it's used at your direction. I believe the original intent is to use cloud services or web hosting and so on but a tool to aid in the setup and maintenance of computer hardware could easily fit in there.
That is only if you do not give the source code with the distribution of the binary or distribute the source code as the binary.
You only have to distribute the source code to those you distribute to unless you choose to distribute the source code at a separate time. If you chose to do it at a separate time, you have more obligations to more people depending on how and where it's distributed.
The so called fud is a legitimate concern to some degree. The problem is that more then one zealot has loudly claimed that accidental use means all your proprietary code is now GPLed despite it never being intended for that.
Scenario, Code monkey is stressed and short for time, looks on line for help finding something to get some functioning moving faster and finds a piece of GPLed code that does exactly what he wants. He looks it over and finds it's good code and sees the words free software around it and incorporates it into his project. Two years and several revisions later, someone using the software starts poking around (presumably to fix a problem they have) and discovers the GPLed code is there. He then alerts others and they start claiming that because of the derivative language in the GPL, all of the code is open source now. Some of these others could be proprietary plants with the intention of spreading FUD either against the company or the idea of free software (we have seen both).
The problem is that there is a legitimate copyright violation and the only known way to get the copyright license to the code is with the GPL. That creates an impression of a False Dichotomy where the options are limited. Other options include, replacing the code or contracting with the copyright holders for a specific commercial license. Now depending on the size of the legal department/budget, those options might not be easily known or apparent. Especially, if they decide to look on the inter-web for guidance. Conversely, in the US, statutory damages for unintentional copyright violations can be limited to $200 at the courts discretion but there is no guarantee of this.
The GPL enforcement seems to be concerned with continued violations and compliance rather then past performances. However, there is no real clear indicator of this and the people making the claims are a drop in a much larger bucket claiming other things.
As for the op's suggestion of forgoing GPLed software and sticking with proprietary apps, that carries the same risks with proven consequences too. The only difference in the scenario I described between closed and open software is how the community will generally react. The bottom line is no matter which license or type of software they intend to use, they need to understand the licensing requirements involved with doing so if they intend to distribute it.
Not necessarily. Part of their service agreement and installation contracts could have warranted this back door for convenience of support.
What would have made it a violation of something like spying or wiretapping (computer trespass) might be if it was actually used outside it's official context or after contract obligations expired or threatened as leverage to a contract renewal or something.
Nothing in the information I posted or linked to says anything about concealing the terms of a contract from an intended beneficiary makes the intended beneficiary incidental. If you have other information please post it.
You do not have to link to anything, I said it because it was absent from your post giving the wrong impression. You cannot be an intended beneficiary of something you know nothing about unless the person making you so steps forward to declare that. When the Edu4 group removed the GPL and copyright information, they also removed you as the intended beneficiary for all intends and purposes. They did this in violation of the law, the contract given to them, and copyright, but it's the effect it would have.
The problem is the acceptance of the contract. I can simply violate copyright law (as was the case of the Edu4 company) and distribute the the software without conveying the GPL or becoming a party to it. Now, in order for you to be a beneficiary of a contract, you have to prove that the contract exists between two or more parties; there is "clear" or "manifest" intent of A and B that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third party (or class of persons to which that party belongs); breach of the contract by either A or B; and, damages to the third-party resulting from the breach.
Now the problem that makes this particular set of circumstances incidental instead of intended is the wording of the GPL itself. Under section 2 of the GPLv3, it specifically states
You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
This one part overrides the intentions of the other sections as far as distribution is concerned within this scope. What Edu4 did was as part of installing the computer hardware, placed the software on site for the sole purpose of them running it remotely for setup and maintenance of the hardware in which they had a contract for. Their use fits under this term in the GPLv3 as the facts are that the sole purpose was to provide you with facilities for running those works (for their installation and maintenance contracts) and, on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of the copyrighted material outside their relationship with you (which is what the password protection scheme was supposed to accomplish). So while the company benefited in the performance of the install and maintenance of the software, it was incidental to the fulfillment or performance of a second contract involved and not the GPL.
Auto analogy: Ford sells off-lease cars to independent dealer "Car Emporium", with the contract of sale stating that "Car Emporium" will provide complimentary maintenance for these cars to whoever they resell it to for one year after that sale. "Car Emporium" doesn't do so and conceals the existence of that contract from the buyers. The buyers somehow find out. They _DO_ have standing to sue "Car Emporium", as they were an intended beneficiary of the contract.
This is apples and oranges compared to the claims in the french case. A more apt approach if you insist on using this would be Car Emporium resells the cars to individual franchise dealerships and only offers the maintenance to those dealerships while the independent dealerships own or control the cars. The purchaser, Bob's Car Emporium dealership which is a separate legal entity from Car Emporium, would be entitled to the
They are all for profit institutions. The only difference is in who makes the profit- investors verses employees. Just because the state funds one of them shouldn't change the reality of what is happening. I know of teachers making over 100k a year teaching grade school and only working 9 months of the year. They will get another 7% increase within the next year because of a contract they negotiated while on strike.
If I understand the sets of circumstances here, the Edu4 stripped the GPL and copyright notices from the product and pretended it was their own. They even pretended that they didn't distribute the product even though they left it on the computers they installed.
If these claims are true, it would be near impossible for an end user in the US to claim to be the intended beneficiary. This would be because they had no idea of the specific contract obligations until after the fact which would push them more to the incidental beneficiary then the intended. Further more, the VPN software was installed as a support and deployment resource and it's arguable that under English law, if any transfer actually took place or not. I have installed software under these circumstances and haven't transferred it before.
In the french court, all that didn't matter and they were found guilty. Now, in an english court, if the GPL was presented to the end user or the software was marketed/promoted as GPLed software, then it would likely have standing under contract law. I have been arguing for years that the GPL is a contract concerning copyright while entities like the FSF and their fan base attempt to claim it's just copyright. The truth of the matter is that the GPL is a contract affording certain rights to copyright under certain conditions so it's rightfully both. (ie, you cannot do the things copyright law reserves to the copyright owner unless you agree to a contract and fulfill obligations specified in it as they pertain to your use)
This concept of the end user being able to enforce the GPL shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention. In this particular case, the concepts were a little blurry and probably wouldn't survive in a US or UK court. It's sad that the FSF and people like Bruce Perens and Stallman have fought so hard to bury that concept in order to keep in line with their mantra or ideology. IF they hadn't, then the real power of the GPL should have been seen a long time ago.
Thanks for the correction. I was wrong in claiming Louisiana, I should have stated Alabama. It had been a while since I viewed the documentary and probably should have double checked befoe posting.
With the Federal tax deduction, how does that work, do you deduct the amount paid from taxes owed to the state as in a credit or do you deduct it from your taxable income and pay the tax on the difference?
In Ohio, it's sort of like the second but different. You can deduct the taxes paid in the current year for prior years taxes but not current taxes for the current year unless it's a specific tax. However, our taxable income (adjusted gross income) is the same as reported on the federal form meaning that when the feds increase the dependent deduction or the homestead deductions or whatever, it automatically applies on Ohio's taxable income. Our State tax form actually says to do the federal income tax first and place the amount from a line on the federal return onto the state return.
The public challenging them isn't the problem. It's the guys after their 72 virgins and THEY ARE NOT "THE PUBLIC".
Someone should explain to those ass-clowns that the 72 virgins are perpetual virgins, meaning you can't fuck them. It will be like spending eternity with 72 twelve year old sisters. That's not paradise, it's a real hell.
I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. After rereading your post, I do see the way you claimed. For some reason I didn't when I replied.
To be fair to the GP, he did mention the cap and tax and the government health car that's supposed to increases taxes quite a bit. But that's not worth arguing over.
As for starting with Reagan, we might want to go back a little further for some context. I would suggest 1933 or maybe to a lesser extent, 1964 if you want to ignore war spending. OF course, a lot of Reagan's spending was over the cold war and a lot of Bush and Obama's was Iraq and Afghanistan so it's a little hard to ignore war spending. Sadly, that's about to shift to permanent social programs and cap and tax schemes that could be handled a lot better.
Louisiana is the only state that I know of that has a sales tax on food.
There was a big push a while ago to do away with it but I'm not sure what happened with it. I saw a documentary on PBS about it one day when nothing was on the 260 cable channels I was over paying for.
It is the case for corporations. However, just like with income tax, you only pay taxes one the income generated in the foreign state. So if you worked two jobs, on in Jersey, one in NYC, and lived in Jersey, then you would only pay New York and NYC taxes on the income generation from your NYC job. Your New Jersey income taxes would include total income from both states However, most states give a credit for taxes already paid to other states.
Generally, for a corporation or business, they have to have a physical presence in the state in order to be subject to the taxes of the state. If I sold gloves by mail order in a state I didn't have an office or location in, then I wouldn't be subject to the income taxes. However, If I open a distribution hub in that state, then I have to pay taxes for the income generated in the state.
Now, just like income taxes, in your home state, you would have to account for your entire income.
How this differs from Microsoft is that they have located their licensing division where there are either no taxes or low taxes. MS will still pay Washington taxes for the income generated within the state but they do not count the income generated in the 50 other states or different countries around the world. This is a sizable chunk of change that would be taxed in Washington has MS not moved it's licensing division. But they are still doing the taxes for the business conducted within the state, just not amassing the revenue from all the outside locations.
Slashdot Mirror
Who, the government or the telecoms?
It wouldn't matter if your talking about the telecoms. They always had immunity from prosecution if the government presents them with legitimate looking documentation. And before you spout that only a warrant is legitimate, you need to take a deep breath and look at the laws concerning searches and wiretaps and you will find that position has never been taken and searches/wiretaps without warrants have been upheld as constitutional by the supreme court.
The reason the immunity law was needed is because the TSP orders are classified as national security secrets and disclosing the contents of them is a felony carrying 5 years in imprisonment to life and possibly the death penalty. The telecoms always had immunity, they just didn't have a way to get it when the vindicating information is a national security secret. All the immunity law accomplishes is a secret court that reviews claims, checks their validity and their necessity to remain secret then instructs the court holding the action to either proceed or end the case and prevent it from being brought again. In short, the court of review does nothing more then determine is the existing immunity would apply and then make sure it does if it's true.
Actually, no, you are completely wrong.
Not all searches require a warrant and not all wiretaps require a warrant. This has been and is upheld by the courts. It's not a violation of the 4th amendment either.
Now, the courts and congress, since the very first session, has maintained that the right of sovereignty and the protection of that sovereignty makes searches at the borders and communications entering the country reasonable search under the 4th amendment. This is laws made by the very same founding fathers who wrote the constitution in the first place. I believe their interpretation of the 4th to be more legitimate then yours.
Not at all true.
The contracts Qwest was locked out of were the contracts to move/route phone lines to central locations to make it easier to tap. In short, that's exactly what they refused to do so why should they keep contracts for work they refused to do. BTW, the moving of the phone lines were covered by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act so it wasn't some moral protection the CEO was taking.
In fact, the CEO's dealing were completely separate from this and the jury did not buy his excuses when the evidence was laid on the table. The only reason you are able to bring the idea up is because a criminal attempted to use it as a last resort attempt to stay out of jail. No one bought it.
That's only the delayed notice applications for warrants issued by a judge or administration order. It's always been legal to do this. The patriot act did nothing but extend the time of the delayed notice, provide a provision to renew the delay and include some extra information like the NSA letters.
This was not the entirety of the NSALs, it is the entirety of all delayed notices issued.
Federal law requires targets of warrants to be notified in a timely manor. The delayed notification law was passed in 1986-Pub. L. 99-508- not with the Patriot act. The patriot acts simply included it's parts in the reporting requirements and added as a matter of national security to the allowed issuing of the delayed notifications.
To qualify with a delayed notification order, you must present the liklihood of at least one of these:
(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) flight from prosecution;
(3) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
(4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
(5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.
I don't know if you are repeating FUD or purposely misrepresenting the issue in order to create FUD. But please stop and look into what your actually talking about before injecting nonsense.
What did you lose specifically since 9/11? Please tell us what you could or was doing that you cannot do any more. what rights do you no longer have?
This is all smoke and mirrors designed to make you think they are doing something about nothing.
The problem is that the telecom immunity didn't give any immunity that wasn't already there. The Democrats know this, including Obama who not only voted for the immunity, but sent the justice department to court in February to defend it when the EFF attemped to get it shot down.
Under the 1968 wiretap laws, if the government presented anyone a document stating the legal authority for the wire tap- that they were legally able to obtain the information requested, the people who assisted them would have a complete defense against any civil or criminal actions against them. The 1978 FISA laws amended that to include warantless wire taps not to mention the other warantless provisions outside of FISA. When Bush abused the law on the wiretaps, he marked those documents classified as national security documents which forbids the telecoms from disclosing information about them unless they are wanting to commit a felony that could carry 5 years to life with the possibility of the death sentence.
The telecom immunity set up a secret court of review that operates under FISA. The only way the telecoms could get immunity under it would be if they had the documents already prescribed by the complete defense provisions already in place. The Court of Review would review the documents, ask the federal agencies if they issued it, then asks them to explain why it's still a national security interest and needs to remain classified. If it isn't legitimate, or it doesn't exist, no immunity happens. If it's legitimate and still needs to be classified, the Court of review instructs the court holding the actions against the telecom that the case needs to be droped and never brought up again. If the secrete classification isn't justified, the document is returned to the telecoms with immunity from prosecution for using it as their complete defense and it's up to the judge holding the action over them whether to keep it classified or not.
All the telecom immunity does is create a vehicle that existing immunity could be realized without causing exposure to a serious felony opr disclosing national security secrets. Democrats know this, but they also know that the average America does so they are bringing this up for the sole purpose to posture themselves for reelection. The JUSTICE act that was recently discussed was sponsered by at least one person who is up for reelection next year. That's all this is about. Evidently democrats on congress have done little to justify their own reelection and feel the need to run against Bush instead of running on their accomplishments.
DO not expect anything more to happen with this other then talk and claims of wanting to prosecute the Bush administration for the wiretaps. Better yet, look into exactly how the telecom immunity provides that immunity and you will know first hand that this is nothing more them posturing with smoke and mirrors.
Slow down a minute.
I'm not talking about contractual obligations between two separate parties. I'm talking about the notion presented in the article and summery that an end user can sue as a beneficiary of a contract between the copyright holders of VNC and Edu4 under the circumstances present in this situation. In US and UK courts, the beneficiary would have to prove that a contract existed, that they were the/an intended beneficiary and not an incidental beneficiary of the contract, A breach of the contract happened and harm was a result of it.
Now, an easy out in this would be is if Edu4 claimed that it installed the particular VNC software to provide you with facilities for running those software, exclusively on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of their copyrighted material outside their relationship with them. This is covered by section 2 of the GPL and would prevent both a contract between two separate parties as well as AFPA being an intended beneficiary. In other words, they wouldn't have a case because the VPN software was for the sole purpose of Edu4 setting up and supporting the hardware.
There would still be copyright violations because they removed the copyright and the GPL notice from the unmodified or non-derivative work. But the source distribution could have been satisfied with just a link to the VNC website. The modification wouldn't have needed to be distributed. What I understand happened in this case, when AFPA withheld payment, they also canceled the contract and because the VNC software remained on site (in the US or UK, after the contract was in dispute, there would be no legal right for Edu4 to enter their systems and remove it), it constituted a part of the sale. That wouldn't necessarily be the case in US court. If I as a landlord lock you out of your apartment and place your items in storage for non-payment of rent or something, they do not just become my property. This is despite it being illegal for me to do so in the first place. The same would go for code, you can't be tricked or manipulated to give up or license your copyrighted works which is what this essentially amounted to.
Now something that throws a wrench in the entire ordeal is that the violation happened in 2000. The GPLv3 wasn't official then and it the exception wouldn't have been in place at the time of the violation. However, it would be now if someone attempted to do the same under the same circumstances with GPLv3 licensed software.
Wow, you would drop all that and spend the rest of your life jerking off alone until you die just to read your kids name on a disc that you can probably find a copy of here in Earth.
I don't know whether to call you crazy, devoted, courageous, inquisitive or a combination of the bunch. Oh well, if it wasn't for people like you, we would probably not the US and history would be a lot different.
Just about anywhere will have mixed water (chemicals or minerals). I'm not aware of anything that would stop erosion from happening on mars. Especially since they assumed that previous surface water areas had a high saline content in the soil from all the minerals concentrating as it dried up.
This 99% pure water was probably fresh ground water frozen when the permafrost got so deep or it's more like a glacier where it came about in precipitation and somehow got buried.
As someone already pointed out, splitting water can be fuel.
However, there is hydrogen in space and methanol if I remember right. It could be harvested and processed for this. Alternatively, we could just send a supply ship into high earth orbit, doc with it and drag the fuel with us using boosters or something. You could launch the transport ship, the refueling ship remotely and bring the crew up on a third mission to avoid transferring dangerous chemicals with humans around and no place to run.
However, I'm curious how effective traditional rocket motors will be in an atmosphere so less dense then Earth's.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be actually in the agreement or contract. I have either RRAS or log me in account for every windows site I support along with a bona fide user account on all their servers or domains. I use SSH and a VPN connection for the non-windows sites and for a medical building where half of the network is fire walled off from the other half for HIPPA compliance. This is not spelled out in the contracts but it allows me to do my job by either checking the problem before I show up to make sure I have any tools or parts necessary (out of band management cards are a great help for this) or to see if it's something I can straighten up/accomplish without making a trip which saves the customer money.
If any place fires me, I can't access them, even to uninstall it or disable my accounts. It would be unethical and perhaps even illegal. I can tell them about it or not, if they look hard enough, it will be in the spec books but the last time I lost a job to the owners "rocket scientist" nephew, he lost the spec books within a week of taking over (it's really fun explaining that the inflated bill is for the replacement tech constantly calling me asking what to do and since they terminated their contract, it's regular price or their lack of preparation or readiness stopped being my emergency when they terminated my contract so night hour rates applied).
Anyways, the point is, if it enables the job to get done, they do not necessarily need to know about it. It's a legitimate use of the tools and technology to fulfill the contract. Once the contract has ended, if possible, I would uninstall them and disable access before the last day but it doesn't always work out that way.
Now if I used the remote access for anything that wasn't a bona fide support effort, then I would have crossed the line into illegalities. All my contracts say I can get remote access, they do not say how or when or specify any particulars like my service accounts (which would equal a back door).
I would suggest that as long as the companies are owned by the same parent company and that parent company takes an active role in the direction of the company, it could be considered within the company.
Let's look at Verizon for instance. They separate their wireless cell phone operations from their pots and broad band or traditional services. Keeping the code within their wireless division would be ok but moving it to their POTs line of Business should be a distribution. However, if they distribute the source code with the binary packages, then their source code distribution obligations are satisfied according to the GPL which leaves us in the same boat outside of Verizon.
So even if we forced source distribution between sister companies and stretched out divisions under the control of a parent company, there are ways that they can comply and we still do not benefit. Again, I think this is as intended.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that was a potential of abuse. I would say it's as intended.
The four freedoms that are supposedly underlying the GPL is about your rights as a user who may become a distributor. I find with that in mind, even with Stallman's print driver story as justification for the GPL and free software, companies using it internally would be as intended.
I would say that I think it's a loss of valuable improvements when something like that happens. I would also say it isn't necessarily good when a company keeps it's improvements. But I find it completely in line with the intent of the GPL and the movement behind it. I guess we could just call that bug a feature.
They went about it wrongly. The GPL (version 3 to be exact) specifically allows for that type of scenario to happen. The problem is that Edu4 didn't secure the software enough to remain within the scope of the GPL's exception. Section 2 of the GPLv3, says that you can have a third party run the program solely for you and you do not need to convey any source code that you own the copyright for. Your have to also control access to the program and so on and make sure it's used at your direction. I believe the original intent is to use cloud services or web hosting and so on but a tool to aid in the setup and maintenance of computer hardware could easily fit in there.
That is only if you do not give the source code with the distribution of the binary or distribute the source code as the binary.
You only have to distribute the source code to those you distribute to unless you choose to distribute the source code at a separate time. If you chose to do it at a separate time, you have more obligations to more people depending on how and where it's distributed.
The so called fud is a legitimate concern to some degree. The problem is that more then one zealot has loudly claimed that accidental use means all your proprietary code is now GPLed despite it never being intended for that.
Scenario, Code monkey is stressed and short for time, looks on line for help finding something to get some functioning moving faster and finds a piece of GPLed code that does exactly what he wants. He looks it over and finds it's good code and sees the words free software around it and incorporates it into his project. Two years and several revisions later, someone using the software starts poking around (presumably to fix a problem they have) and discovers the GPLed code is there. He then alerts others and they start claiming that because of the derivative language in the GPL, all of the code is open source now. Some of these others could be proprietary plants with the intention of spreading FUD either against the company or the idea of free software (we have seen both).
The problem is that there is a legitimate copyright violation and the only known way to get the copyright license to the code is with the GPL. That creates an impression of a False Dichotomy where the options are limited. Other options include, replacing the code or contracting with the copyright holders for a specific commercial license. Now depending on the size of the legal department/budget, those options might not be easily known or apparent. Especially, if they decide to look on the inter-web for guidance. Conversely, in the US, statutory damages for unintentional copyright violations can be limited to $200 at the courts discretion but there is no guarantee of this.
The GPL enforcement seems to be concerned with continued violations and compliance rather then past performances. However, there is no real clear indicator of this and the people making the claims are a drop in a much larger bucket claiming other things.
As for the op's suggestion of forgoing GPLed software and sticking with proprietary apps, that carries the same risks with proven consequences too. The only difference in the scenario I described between closed and open software is how the community will generally react. The bottom line is no matter which license or type of software they intend to use, they need to understand the licensing requirements involved with doing so if they intend to distribute it.
Not necessarily. Part of their service agreement and installation contracts could have warranted this back door for convenience of support.
What would have made it a violation of something like spying or wiretapping (computer trespass) might be if it was actually used outside it's official context or after contract obligations expired or threatened as leverage to a contract renewal or something.
You do not have to link to anything, I said it because it was absent from your post giving the wrong impression. You cannot be an intended beneficiary of something you know nothing about unless the person making you so steps forward to declare that. When the Edu4 group removed the GPL and copyright information, they also removed you as the intended beneficiary for all intends and purposes. They did this in violation of the law, the contract given to them, and copyright, but it's the effect it would have.
The problem is the acceptance of the contract. I can simply violate copyright law (as was the case of the Edu4 company) and distribute the the software without conveying the GPL or becoming a party to it. Now, in order for you to be a beneficiary of a contract, you have to prove that the contract exists between two or more parties; there is "clear" or "manifest" intent of A and B that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third party (or class of persons to which that party belongs); breach of the contract by either A or B; and, damages to the third-party resulting from the breach.
Now the problem that makes this particular set of circumstances incidental instead of intended is the wording of the GPL itself. Under section 2 of the GPLv3, it specifically states
This one part overrides the intentions of the other sections as far as distribution is concerned within this scope. What Edu4 did was as part of installing the computer hardware, placed the software on site for the sole purpose of them running it remotely for setup and maintenance of the hardware in which they had a contract for. Their use fits under this term in the GPLv3 as the facts are that the sole purpose was to provide you with facilities for running those works (for their installation and maintenance contracts) and, on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of the copyrighted material outside their relationship with you (which is what the password protection scheme was supposed to accomplish). So while the company benefited in the performance of the install and maintenance of the software, it was incidental to the fulfillment or performance of a second contract involved and not the GPL.
This is apples and oranges compared to the claims in the french case. A more apt approach if you insist on using this would be Car Emporium resells the cars to individual franchise dealerships and only offers the maintenance to those dealerships while the independent dealerships own or control the cars. The purchaser, Bob's Car Emporium dealership which is a separate legal entity from Car Emporium, would be entitled to the
They are all for profit institutions. The only difference is in who makes the profit- investors verses employees. Just because the state funds one of them shouldn't change the reality of what is happening. I know of teachers making over 100k a year teaching grade school and only working 9 months of the year. They will get another 7% increase within the next year because of a contract they negotiated while on strike.
If I understand the sets of circumstances here, the Edu4 stripped the GPL and copyright notices from the product and pretended it was their own. They even pretended that they didn't distribute the product even though they left it on the computers they installed.
If these claims are true, it would be near impossible for an end user in the US to claim to be the intended beneficiary. This would be because they had no idea of the specific contract obligations until after the fact which would push them more to the incidental beneficiary then the intended. Further more, the VPN software was installed as a support and deployment resource and it's arguable that under English law, if any transfer actually took place or not. I have installed software under these circumstances and haven't transferred it before.
In the french court, all that didn't matter and they were found guilty. Now, in an english court, if the GPL was presented to the end user or the software was marketed/promoted as GPLed software, then it would likely have standing under contract law. I have been arguing for years that the GPL is a contract concerning copyright while entities like the FSF and their fan base attempt to claim it's just copyright. The truth of the matter is that the GPL is a contract affording certain rights to copyright under certain conditions so it's rightfully both. (ie, you cannot do the things copyright law reserves to the copyright owner unless you agree to a contract and fulfill obligations specified in it as they pertain to your use)
This concept of the end user being able to enforce the GPL shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention. In this particular case, the concepts were a little blurry and probably wouldn't survive in a US or UK court. It's sad that the FSF and people like Bruce Perens and Stallman have fought so hard to bury that concept in order to keep in line with their mantra or ideology. IF they hadn't, then the real power of the GPL should have been seen a long time ago.
Thanks for the correction. I was wrong in claiming Louisiana, I should have stated Alabama. It had been a while since I viewed the documentary and probably should have double checked befoe posting.
With the Federal tax deduction, how does that work, do you deduct the amount paid from taxes owed to the state as in a credit or do you deduct it from your taxable income and pay the tax on the difference?
In Ohio, it's sort of like the second but different. You can deduct the taxes paid in the current year for prior years taxes but not current taxes for the current year unless it's a specific tax. However, our taxable income (adjusted gross income) is the same as reported on the federal form meaning that when the feds increase the dependent deduction or the homestead deductions or whatever, it automatically applies on Ohio's taxable income. Our State tax form actually says to do the federal income tax first and place the amount from a line on the federal return onto the state return.
Someone should explain to those ass-clowns that the 72 virgins are perpetual virgins, meaning you can't fuck them. It will be like spending eternity with 72 twelve year old sisters. That's not paradise, it's a real hell.
I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. After rereading your post, I do see the way you claimed. For some reason I didn't when I replied.
To be fair to the GP, he did mention the cap and tax and the government health car that's supposed to increases taxes quite a bit. But that's not worth arguing over.
As for starting with Reagan, we might want to go back a little further for some context. I would suggest 1933 or maybe to a lesser extent, 1964 if you want to ignore war spending. OF course, a lot of Reagan's spending was over the cold war and a lot of Bush and Obama's was Iraq and Afghanistan so it's a little hard to ignore war spending. Sadly, that's about to shift to permanent social programs and cap and tax schemes that could be handled a lot better.
Louisiana is the only state that I know of that has a sales tax on food.
There was a big push a while ago to do away with it but I'm not sure what happened with it. I saw a documentary on PBS about it one day when nothing was on the 260 cable channels I was over paying for.
It is the case for corporations. However, just like with income tax, you only pay taxes one the income generated in the foreign state. So if you worked two jobs, on in Jersey, one in NYC, and lived in Jersey, then you would only pay New York and NYC taxes on the income generation from your NYC job. Your New Jersey income taxes would include total income from both states However, most states give a credit for taxes already paid to other states.
Generally, for a corporation or business, they have to have a physical presence in the state in order to be subject to the taxes of the state. If I sold gloves by mail order in a state I didn't have an office or location in, then I wouldn't be subject to the income taxes. However, If I open a distribution hub in that state, then I have to pay taxes for the income generated in the state.
Now, just like income taxes, in your home state, you would have to account for your entire income.
How this differs from Microsoft is that they have located their licensing division where there are either no taxes or low taxes. MS will still pay Washington taxes for the income generated within the state but they do not count the income generated in the 50 other states or different countries around the world. This is a sizable chunk of change that would be taxed in Washington has MS not moved it's licensing division. But they are still doing the taxes for the business conducted within the state, just not amassing the revenue from all the outside locations.