... to treat a large company such as SAP as monolithic.
Some inside of SAP will be FOSS friends, some will be foes, some will be neither. It depends upon the individuals involved, their attitudes, roles and the incentives SAP gives them.
The terms of GPL are clear: if you build something on the original code, you must contribute your work.
You really should read the GPL again, because that's not what it says. The average enterprise IT shop would not have to contribute one line of code to any GPL project because the code is not distributed outside of the enterprise.
Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches. It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.
If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE. Of course, that will limit the appeal of your software, but such is life.
Their only criticism was, 'can't you do more?' with one advocating that free and open source software be given preference, not equal footing."
FOSS shouldn't be given preference. It should be considered using the same criteria as proprietary software: functionality, cost, security, sourcing, etc. Considering that FOSS is generally less expensive than proprietary software, it's already got an advantage that proprietary software will have difficulty overcoming.
Can't they just ask for a warrant, and not have to worry whether the case is going to be thrown out?
They could have tried to get a warrant. They probably didn't because they didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant and they decided to play a hunch.
Trademarks don't give a company control over a word.
Strictly speaking that's true. However, what open source project has the ability to fight a trademark battle with a company? There's a reason that on the CentOS web site it says "CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor.", never mentioning Red Hat...
That this was enacted. Most commercial software houses would go out of business, and existing commercial software would get very, very expensive. Assuming FOSS was exempted, most would turn to FOSS and then there'd be no one liable for flaws again - because FOSS was exempted. Assuming the purpose of the law is to improve software quality, this wouldn't do that.
Another possibility is that services companies would spring up that would not license software, but would fix bugs that were encountered. Again, the purpose of the law would not be achieved.
Thus, the only way to accomplish the goal of the law is to INCLUDE FOSS.
If you have a standard where there are implementations that are 100% compliant and yet are totally non-interoperable then you have a badly specified standard.
Even if he did find out legally, did he use the powers of his office to find out?
if anyone thinks that there a right to publish anonymously... that person is the one who lacks an understanding of the first amendment.
You apparently lack an understanding of the first amendment. In the majority opinion for McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Justice Stevens wrote: "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?
Of course. Many SCOTUS decisions bear that out.
May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
A more difficult question. It could depend upon how the official found out the identity of the person. It also could depend upon how that anonymity is breached. It seems inappropriate for the official to use his government position to do so. A newsletter paid for by the government should not be used, but a newsletter paid for by his political campaign fund? That might be legal, though not very moral.
So take this with the appropriate grain of salt, but I think you're probably wrong - that it likely does not constitute fair use. However, it depends upon the exact situation and since the content is not on your site at the moment it's impossible to say.
Some examples:
- Suppose it was simply list of those 75 questions with general commentary on all 75 questions, then I don't think that constitutes fair use. Whatever point was trying to be made could almost undoubtedly be made using fewer questions.
- Suppose that each question was posted with commentary on THAT PARTICULAR question, then that could constitute fair use assuming that the commentary for each question was sufficiently different. If the same commentary was offered for 10 different questions then it would not be fair use of all 10 questions.
The criticisms seem quite valid. At the same time, it's not surprising that all of the existing data wasn't in easily consumed formats, much less the same format.
I have to (largely) agree with the other responder, it doesn't seem likely that legal issues with GPLv3 would cause a problem with internally deployed Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Their latest product is much improved: http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/GadgetBlog/comments/symantec_norton_internet_security_2009_to_install_in_under_1_minute/
That understand that violating peoples' privacy is wrong, even when your intentions are good.
He also needs to understand Terms of Service and that asking people to provide passwords can be a violation of ToS.
"Shouldn't we be focused on reducing calls, rather than simply closing them quickly?"
You need to do both.
... to treat a large company such as SAP as monolithic.
Some inside of SAP will be FOSS friends, some will be foes, some will be neither. It depends upon the individuals involved, their attitudes, roles and the incentives SAP gives them.
The terms of GPL are clear: if you build something on the original code, you must contribute your work.
You really should read the GPL again, because that's not what it says. The average enterprise IT shop would not have to contribute one line of code to any GPL project because the code is not distributed outside of the enterprise.
Here we go with this crap again...
Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches. It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.
If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE. Of course, that will limit the appeal of your software, but such is life.
You make the mistake of equating proprietary software and proprietary formats. They are NOT the same.
FOSS shouldn't be given preference. It should be considered using the same criteria as proprietary software: functionality, cost, security, sourcing, etc. Considering that FOSS is generally less expensive than proprietary software, it's already got an advantage that proprietary software will have difficulty overcoming.
I really don't think that any FCC person would just barge into someone's home. However, it's irresponsible for them to claim they can do so legally.
No law overrides the Constitution...
I wonder how those Wisconsin judges would react if someone planted a GPS device on one their cars and then published their locations on the web...
Can't they just ask for a warrant, and not have to worry whether the case is going to be thrown out?
They could have tried to get a warrant. They probably didn't because they didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant and they decided to play a hunch.
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion.
Amen. There's not enough in the summary to understand WHY the court ruled the way it did.
It's got nothing to do with due process.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO
Actually, yes they should. Otherwise, police have no incentive to follow procedures.
Trademarks don't give a company control over a word.
Strictly speaking that's true. However, what open source project has the ability to fight a trademark battle with a company? There's a reason that on the CentOS web site it says "CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor.", never mentioning Red Hat...
That this was enacted. Most commercial software houses would go out of business, and existing commercial software would get very, very expensive. Assuming FOSS was exempted, most would turn to FOSS and then there'd be no one liable for flaws again - because FOSS was exempted. Assuming the purpose of the law is to improve software quality, this wouldn't do that. Another possibility is that services companies would spring up that would not license software, but would fix bugs that were encountered. Again, the purpose of the law would not be achieved. Thus, the only way to accomplish the goal of the law is to INCLUDE FOSS.
There's nothing new in that...
If you have a standard where there are implementations that are 100% compliant and yet are totally non-interoperable then you have a badly specified standard.
What makes you think that's sane?
How do we know that?
Even if he did find out legally, did he use the powers of his office to find out?
You apparently lack an understanding of the first amendment. In the majority opinion for McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Justice Stevens wrote: "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
Of course. Many SCOTUS decisions bear that out.
A more difficult question. It could depend upon how the official found out the identity of the person. It also could depend upon how that anonymity is breached. It seems inappropriate for the official to use his government position to do so. A newsletter paid for by the government should not be used, but a newsletter paid for by his political campaign fund? That might be legal, though not very moral.
So take this with the appropriate grain of salt, but I think you're probably wrong - that it likely does not constitute fair use. However, it depends upon the exact situation and since the content is not on your site at the moment it's impossible to say.
Some examples:
- Suppose it was simply list of those 75 questions with general commentary on all 75 questions, then I don't think that constitutes fair use. Whatever point was trying to be made could almost undoubtedly be made using fewer questions.
- Suppose that each question was posted with commentary on THAT PARTICULAR question, then that could constitute fair use assuming that the commentary for each question was sufficiently different. If the same commentary was offered for 10 different questions then it would not be fair use of all 10 questions.
The criticisms seem quite valid. At the same time, it's not surprising that all of the existing data wasn't in easily consumed formats, much less the same format.
Give them time...
I have to (largely) agree with the other responder, it doesn't seem likely that legal issues with GPLv3 would cause a problem with internally deployed Linux.