Main Entry: duress(noun)
1 : forcible restraint or restriction
2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint
[thanks to m-w.com]
If they were to say, hold a gun to your head would that matter in the legality of the agreement?
Of course IANAL and am pretty sure YANAL or at least not a good one.
When IE7 comes out, I can only imagine a handbrake-style stop in Firefox growth.
Because IE7 will surely run smoothly on every machine out there and people love installing software...
Given twenty some percent of windows machines are running 95/98/Me I don't know how likely that will be. Automatic background downloads will certainly be an edge, but given the slow uptake of the.net framework among the un-coerced I don't see quite a handbrake...
The enforcability isn't the main issue. In Mass you cannot prevent someone from working in their profession so I don't know of any Non-competes that have held up in court.
I do however know of many companies that withdrew employment offers rather than go through the cost and hassle of a court case.
Debian's position is that including software components in the kernel without making available their source code violates the GPL requirements of other components in the kernel.
You miss my point. While pentium is a trademark, the graphic logo is copyrighted. Neither is free to modify and redistribute and thus a violation of 'free software'.
Debian acknowleges this is a lesser problem than potential violation of the GLP. The question is what makes a blob of firmware a "software component" as you call it when it is not executed by the "Program" as defined in the GPL while say a graphic is not. (And before you say the graphic is in source form I would venture it was not created in a bitmap editing program and there is a different source format.)
Given the GPL states:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
There is a clear notation of the OS on which the program runs. It would be hard to claim the firmware is run on the Debian system.
Given the names of products are copyright and those rights are not released can you even give the name of a product in a 100% free distro? E.g.
if I cannot take a chunk of hardware specific uninterpreted/unexecuted data and include it in the distribution then how can I include a reference to a "Pentium TM" CPU?
It certainly seems a reasonable (to me) limitation that I can't call my new CPU the "LinuxPentium" or "Pentium X". If however I got the name from a GPL product it is a restriction on the use of information in the distribution.
If it is OK to restrict information...
Is a chunk of hardware specific firmware information or code? Do we even know that it is the code and not the graphic logo to display at boot time for example? Do we need to?
My messages to these individuals are being scaned and archived without my consent. That may not seem like to much to you, but it scares me. It sets up a scenario where my email could be seized as a public database, all while, I had an expectation of privacy.
Hate to shatter your expectations, but their is every reason (and some evidence) that your email is already being read if it travels on the internet. If you seem 'worthwhile' who knows the lengths they will go to or the capibilities they have to decrypt whatever you use to increase your expectations.
So to some extent you are better off if you are emailing gmail users from gmail as the mail will at least only be traveling on the google intranet.
If they are encrypting the mail on their system they are not in fact exporting the encryption technology.
If your email in transit requires more than SSL... well maybe you should use a paid service.:)
The hope is that google cannot in fact decrypt your email without you logging in.
This method worked equally well for me in high school when we would take extra pages out of exchange students passports, type on them, throw on a picture and successfully pass with our new German/British/Swiss "ID card".
While things may be stupid, if the guy in the store didn't feel like he could tell a real foreign passport from a fake one he should have sent your friend packing. I know at least in the states I've lived in you can get a state-issue ID for $20 so he wouldn't have to immagrate to get loaded here.:)
I believe that it is my responsibility to stop them if I don't want them to. There is nothing inherently wrong with them collecting information.
Why is it that it is a horrible thing for a company to collect information? If they abuse it that is a different issue. If there was some single corporation that managed to dominate all ID usage info is that so dangerous a possession that it should be regulated on the premis that they could not help but abuse the information somehow?
I'm not sure exactly what it is people think is so interesting or important about themselves. By all means refuse to get the purchase tracking discount card at your supermarket - just means the next shipment will definately have my favorite cereal and I'll pay less for it than you...:)
To take this a step further even if the only pupose of the equipment is to steal service and you intended to steal service you are still only liable for civil damages if you actually get around to doing the stealing...
Of course the jury might see the burden of proof shift at that point.:)
If you want to change fundemental aspects of the way people do their jobs you need to have some compelling evidence. Given the teachers unions will likely oppose the 'automation of education' at every turn "we've seen kids learn more easily" falls a bit short of incontraverable evidence.
Furthermore the foundation site speaks of "reform" not improvement. If you base your offering on the position that standard education is faulty don't expect open arms.
So in my opinion you'd be better off with some solid research and an attempt to work with teachers as opposed to fixing them.
As I recall there were a few device manufacturers (MP3 players, smartcard/CF readers, digital cameras) that signed on as licensees. I can't think of too many read-only FAT devices.... but if you limited your device to FAT16 (sort file names) you wouldn't be covered by this particular patent.
I hadn't heard of PUBPAT before but in a cursory glance at their site they seem to be making the 'DUH!' exclaimations so many of us do when we see a dumb patent - but in formal requests to the USPTO.
It has been quite frustrating to see companies not bother to take these steps. Corporations with significant IP portfolios tend to let it slide knowing that they can just exchange usage of their own silly patent rights if there was ever friction. In the end only the new players (aka innovators!) are victims.
The chairman of a committee is far from some sort of ruler who can impose their will. The fact that the SDMI committee isn't still sitting there wasting it's time indicates he is doing a better job than some chairs.
If you read the interview he does address the downfall of SDMI. There is every reason to believe he has thoughts on how to avoid a similar stalemate.
Over the years Lessig has always been the goto guy for comments putting the FSF actions and announcements in a digestible context. Now that he is officially part of the organization he won't be able to provide an objective opinion. Is that a gain or a loss?
I think that most the issues this paper puts forth are legit, and I would agree that many if not most projects suffer from them I don't think it is because the software is open source or free.
UI Design is deceptively hard (because it should seem simple in hindsight?) and the early versions of much commercial software suffers greatly in this regard as well. Why do some get better? Because people that matter complain. When paying customers gripe you have to fix it. When people try your software and then never use it again you may not even know why... This extends to documentation as well.
As for feature centricity and self-oriented programming they probably are straight forward results of people creating things because they want them themselves...
There is a fundemental difference in software that is written by people who want the end result and software that is designed, coded, tested and documentented by different people or teams. Maybe this should motivate those of us who use open source to give some better feedback to the authors!
If he really wanted to take advantage of the audience he should publish the source code. I'm sure someone would have it running in every language you could want.
Of course if you put any kind of counter on it and post the results you could get various hardware hackers competing. Getting a pretty picture might be more interesting than RC5 cracking.
Slashdot Mirror
They're already doing this. Haven't you seen the latest MTV Top 20?
On the contrary - thats making it unlistenable without being uncopyable.
(at least if you have a betamax)
Main Entry: duress(noun) 1 : forcible restraint or restriction 2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint [thanks to m-w.com] If they were to say, hold a gun to your head would that matter in the legality of the agreement? Of course IANAL and am pretty sure YANAL or at least not a good one.
Because IE7 will surely run smoothly on every machine out there and people love installing software...
Given twenty some percent of windows machines are running 95/98/Me I don't know how likely that will be. Automatic background downloads will certainly be an edge, but given the slow uptake of the .net framework among the un-coerced I don't see quite a handbrake...
Can't play solitaire! I protest! :)
Solitaire for Firefox has a prominent place in my bizarre cathedral...
The enforcability isn't the main issue. In Mass you cannot prevent someone from working in their profession so I don't know of any Non-competes that have held up in court. I do however know of many companies that withdrew employment offers rather than go through the cost and hassle of a court case.
Been tried before by Casey and Andy!
Never know who's rules you are breaking these days.
You miss my point. While pentium is a trademark, the graphic logo is copyrighted. Neither is free to modify and redistribute and thus a violation of 'free software'.
Debian acknowleges this is a lesser problem than potential violation of the GLP. The question is what makes a blob of firmware a "software component" as you call it when it is not executed by the "Program" as defined in the GPL while say a graphic is not. (And before you say the graphic is in source form I would venture it was not created in a bitmap editing program and there is a different source format.)
Given the GPL states:
There is a clear notation of the OS on which the program runs. It would be hard to claim the firmware is run on the Debian system.It certainly seems a reasonable (to me) limitation that I can't call my new CPU the "LinuxPentium" or "Pentium X". If however I got the name from a GPL product it is a restriction on the use of information in the distribution.
If it is OK to restrict information...
Is a chunk of hardware specific firmware information or code?
Do we even know that it is the code and not the graphic logo to display at boot time for example?
Do we need to?
Hate to shatter your expectations, but their is every reason (and some evidence) that your email is already being read if it travels on the internet. If you seem 'worthwhile' who knows the lengths they will go to or the capibilities they have to decrypt whatever you use to increase your expectations.
So to some extent you are better off if you are emailing gmail users from gmail as the mail will at least only be traveling on the google intranet.
If your email in transit requires more than SSL... well maybe you should use a paid service. :)
The hope is that google cannot in fact decrypt your email without you logging in.
While things may be stupid, if the guy in the store didn't feel like he could tell a real foreign passport from a fake one he should have sent your friend packing. I know at least in the states I've lived in you can get a state-issue ID for $20 so he wouldn't have to immagrate to get loaded here. :)
Why is it that it is a horrible thing for a company to collect information? If they abuse it that is a different issue. If there was some single corporation that managed to dominate all ID usage info is that so dangerous a possession that it should be regulated on the premis that they could not help but abuse the information somehow?
I'm not sure exactly what it is people think is so interesting or important about themselves. By all means refuse to get the purchase tracking discount card at your supermarket - just means the next shipment will definately have my favorite cereal and I'll pay less for it than you... :)
If you want to choose to only visit places with a certain privacy policy that is your right. Just like on the web.
Of course the jury might see the burden of proof shift at that point. :)
Furthermore the foundation site speaks of "reform" not improvement. If you base your offering on the position that standard education is faulty don't expect open arms.
So in my opinion you'd be better off with some solid research and an attempt to work with teachers as opposed to fixing them.
It was illustrative of the need for a better accounting of IF's history.
As I recall there were a few device manufacturers (MP3 players, smartcard/CF readers, digital cameras) that signed on as licensees. I can't think of too many read-only FAT devices.... but if you limited your device to FAT16 (sort file names) you wouldn't be covered by this particular patent.
Scary: That's patent worthy.
Scarier: There were three prior patents covering the technique...
It has been quite frustrating to see companies not bother to take these steps. Corporations with significant IP portfolios tend to let it slide knowing that they can just exchange usage of their own silly patent rights if there was ever friction. In the end only the new players (aka innovators!) are victims.
If you read the interview he does address the downfall of SDMI. There is every reason to believe he has thoughts on how to avoid a similar stalemate.
Over the years Lessig has always been the goto guy for comments putting the FSF actions and announcements in a digestible context. Now that he is officially part of the organization he won't be able to provide an objective opinion. Is that a gain or a loss?
UI Design is deceptively hard (because it should seem simple in hindsight?) and the early versions of much commercial software suffers greatly in this regard as well. Why do some get better? Because people that matter complain. When paying customers gripe you have to fix it. When people try your software and then never use it again you may not even know why... This extends to documentation as well.
As for feature centricity and self-oriented programming they probably are straight forward results of people creating things because they want them themselves...
There is a fundemental difference in software that is written by people who want the end result and software that is designed, coded, tested and documentented by different people or teams. Maybe this should motivate those of us who use open source to give some better feedback to the authors!
Maybe it was a Kill Bill style 'why not make them buy it three times?' marketing move.
Of course if you put any kind of counter on it and post the results you could get various hardware hackers competing. Getting a pretty picture might be more interesting than RC5 cracking.