I believe the issue here was that the major parties hadn't yet decided who their candidate was going to be, and that Texas has an unusually early filing requirment compared to most of the other states.
The issue here is that Barr is off the ballot or fighting for access in other states for the same reason.
Your argument is not valid. This is not vigilante justice because cheating on your wife is not against the law, and her finding out about this and leaving you is also not against the law.
It's a metaphor. The "vigilante" in this scenario is Fortuny, not the wife. The common principle is that two wrongs don't make a right.
No, it's a two-party system because of winner-takes-all state counting and the electoral college system. In such a system, any third party takes votes away from whichever of the primary parties most closely matches their goals. Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins.
Plurality voting is inherently clone-negative (that is, a new candidate identical to an existing candidate makes it less likely for either to win). A national popular vote would have the same problem.
If you read that, the section 4(B)(ii) requires it to be "determined to be lawful"... "...a civil action may not lie...if the Attorney General certifies...that...the assistance...was...the subject of a written request or directive...indicating that the activity was...determined to be lawful..."
Subsidy payments received do NOT affect the bottom line the same way as tax concessions do. I'm aware of the difference. Both transfer wealth from the public purse to a chosen interest. The accounting details don't change the consequences of that act.
My take is that Nexenta is compiling the GNU software tools and providing them in their repositories. Is Indiana doing this as well or are they just trying to mimic the package management system itself but providing no GNU software? The relationship between Nexenta and OpenSolaris is kind of like that between Debian and FreeBSD. The FreeBSD project distributes an OS, also called FreeBSD. Debian combines the FreeBSD kernel with the GNU userland and Debian tools. They call the product Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Nexenta OS is basically Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, except it's not part of the Debian project.
The OpenSolaris OS replaces many of the traditional Solaris tools with GNU equivalents. It also has a new packaging system, which isn't especially like apt.
Indiana was just the code name for what is officially OpenSolaris 2008.05.
All of the projects I mentioned maintain repositories of GNU and non-GNU software.
I can tell you why Indiana is *not* called opensolaris. It seems Sun wouldn't allow it. Some people in the community thought there shouldn't be an official distribution of OpenSolaris, or if there were, it should be called something else. Maybe Sun didn't want it at first, but now it's called OpenSolaris, and they sell support for it.
OpenSolaris is a development project and a production-quality (supposedly), commercially supported operating system. Indiana was the code name for the first release of the OS.
In this case, however, the developer writes software, and unfortunately has to pay some money to get it installed on people's iPhones. You have the same problem after getting the source and modifying it. But it is not because of anything the developer did, except if the developer was Apple. So Apple could be in trouble if they ported gnu chess to the iPhone. Anyone else wouldn't.
You're right. I misinterpreted "a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient". Is that loophole as huge as I think it is? Welcome to TiVo! Please wait while TiVo downloads the latest system software.
If Apple shipped the iPhone with GPL'd software, then Apple would have to provide you with source code, a way to compile modified source code, and the ability to install modified code on the iPhone. Even in that case I'm not sure that they would have to provide that possibility for free.
The GPL allows charging "no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source". When someone has to convey the Installation Information, it must accompany the Corresponding Source. Am I missing something?
You know -- when summary said the article didn't cite a relevent poll, and then the summary itself didn't cite a relevent poll. That was a quotation from TFAnalysis, which cites several relevant polls.
In the real world, you dont own the network, the board of directors, or any part of their business.
In the real world, last-mile ISPs are built on privileged access to rights of way and other public subsidies.
If you dont want to be tracked, profiled, and served steaming hot piles of ads, then build your own network, backbone, etc and see how far you can go with that.
Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!" ISPs don't claim to be common carriers. The FCC has classified them "information services" and therefore not subject to regulations concerning "telecommunications services". Hoping for a timid FCC to finally flex its muscle would be wishful thinking; you're hoping for an aggressive FCC to reverse course.
1) Anyone can buy a certificate for $50, and then sign anything they like, including open-source programs they've downloaded. I think it's reasonable to require people to do this.
You may think it's reasonable, but I don't see how you think it's even possibly allowed by the GPLv3: "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source.
2) Apple will be providing a iPhone emulator, so people can still run your application, just not on their iPhone.
This could be a loophole in other scenarios, but the iPhone simulator isn't binary-compatible with the devices.
You might think that the rightful owner of a copy of a work is implicitly authorized to access it in any way they wish, but this view has not prevailed in court.
I would think that. Do you know of any specific examples? What happened?
Sony v. Gamemasters: Playing a video game from one region on a console from another is unauthorized.
RealNetworks v. Streambox: Viewing free streaming media can be unauthorized.
Universal v. Corley: Viewing a DVD on an unlicensed player is unauthorized.
Would that mean it would be possible, say, to create a program that integrates copy protection into its design, but design and market it to fulfil a legal purpose?
I think you mean circumvention, not copy protection. The DMCA restricts "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that meets any of the criteria.
Oh, and you are a lawyer, right?
Yes, as well as a neurosurgeon, physicist, rock star, and everything else I didn't say I'm not.
Firstly, that's not the DMCA. It's a Copyright Office summary, which is interesting but not law. Secondly:
By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
Most interesting copying, like excerpting or converting to another format, requires access. You might think that the rightful owner of a copy of a work is implicitly authorized to access it in any way they wish, but this view has not prevailed in court.
It actually does prohibit "making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure", but not owning or being in possession of such goods or services.
The actual law also punishes "importing", which includes downloading from a foreign server.
Congress doesn't even have the authority to do this...There is nothing in that statement about congress purchasing someone's rights. One could make a somewhat principled argument that treating patents as property is "necessary and proper" to exercise the enumerated power. But who needs principles? Under Wickard v. Filburn, Congress can do pretty much whatever they want in the name of interstate commerce. Even before that, Frothingham v. Mellon gave Congress license to spend for any purpose not specifically forbidden by the Constitution--naturally, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't count.
It will cost to buy a certificate to certify the app as non-malicious and fit for purpose, and without that the user will get a warning when installing that the app is unsigned. But that is a quite reasonable security step given that phone malware could cost serious money on a phone bill. But the lack of such a cert doesn't stop you from using or distributing free apps. According to Nokia's Symbian OS Platform Security FAQ, applications must be signed to be installed. Self-signed apps have restricted capabilities. Maybe that's just Nokia. Let's keep looking.
Here's a developer discussing forthcoming signing options, which he views as friendlier to developers. All of them are gated. Installation on more than one device requires payment. Some capabilities require payment; some also require permission from the device manufacturer.
I DO know my root key to TPM - I can view all stored keys and manipulate them. The TPM spec requires that the private endorsement and storage root keys never leave the device. If you have a compliant TPM, what you know is not the root key. If you know the root key, what you have is not a compliant TPM.
The beauty of GC is that it works on any phone, sending one or both of a text message with the visual voicemail, or aggregating them all on a single web page that you hit with any phone browser. The ugly is that it requires a new phone number.
It could just as easily have been that no mobile carrier would agree to allow the iPhone on its network (and to incorporate features like visual voice mail) unless it was under an exclusive license. No major US carrier allows only certain phones on their network, and Apple is getting a cut from AT&T. But, exclusivity in exchange for visual voice mail is plausible.
I'm not saying that's necessarily how it went down, but it's well known that Jobs cares little for the mobile carriers. What has he criticized them for? Locking down devices? Charging people for bits of songs they already own?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the issue here was that the major parties hadn't yet decided who their candidate was going to be, and that Texas has an unusually early filing requirment compared to most of the other states.
The issue here is that Barr is off the ballot or fighting for access in other states for the same reason.
Your argument is not valid. This is not vigilante justice because cheating on your wife is not against the law, and her finding out about this and leaving you is also not against the law.
It's a metaphor. The "vigilante" in this scenario is Fortuny, not the wife. The common principle is that two wrongs don't make a right.
What makes Mono an 'unacceptable risk' but allows Wine to become one of the most often praised open source projects on Slashdot?
Not even the Wine developers advocate using it to write new programs.
No, it's a two-party system because of winner-takes-all state counting and the electoral college system. In such a system, any third party takes votes away from whichever of the primary parties most closely matches their goals. Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins.
Plurality voting is inherently clone-negative (that is, a new candidate identical to an existing candidate makes it less likely for either to win). A national popular vote would have the same problem.
They're accepted because they're good enough. That's exactly what Schneier explains in his essay. The questions he asks are rhetorical.
The OpenSolaris OS replaces many of the traditional Solaris tools with GNU equivalents. It also has a new packaging system, which isn't especially like apt.
Indiana was just the code name for what is officially OpenSolaris 2008.05.
All of the projects I mentioned maintain repositories of GNU and non-GNU software.
OpenSolaris is a development project and a production-quality (supposedly), commercially supported operating system. Indiana was the code name for the first release of the OS.
$9.3 trillion and growing, brought to you by sober, enlightened representatives.
I don't know if the parent has every detail right, but Symbian is much more restrictive than Tony Hoyle describes.
- Sony v. Gamemasters: Playing a video game from one region on a console from another is unauthorized.
- RealNetworks v. Streambox: Viewing free streaming media can be unauthorized.
- Universal v. Corley: Viewing a DVD on an unlicensed player is unauthorized.
I think you mean circumvention, not copy protection. The DMCA restricts "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that meets any of the criteria. Yes, as well as a neurosurgeon, physicist, rock star, and everything else I didn't say I'm not.Here's a developer discussing forthcoming signing options, which he views as friendlier to developers. All of them are gated. Installation on more than one device requires payment. Some capabilities require payment; some also require permission from the device manufacturer.
More developer discussion. Even "passive content" has to be signed.
Another developer. The current process is "very painful". The new process has "no real plan" for freeware and FOSS.