You might be right about all those things about some sectors of the F/OSS community but it doesn't take away from the fact that FM is not someone you'd want to trust with a dirty stick in a rainforest.
The only question I have isn't for Florian, it's who on earth thought it would be a good idea to throw him into the lions den because he's not welcomed here.
The only reason I can think of doing an Ask is so that shills can ask questions to legitimise him in an otherwise very vocal and Florian-hostile community:
"Florian, why is it you spend so much time helping the Open Source world and spreading the Lord's work to the unwashed masses?" +5 Insightful
"I've been a heathen all my life until I read your completely unbiased and thorough articles on Microsoft/Oracle practices. Will you please continue your quest to educate us?" +5 Informative
"You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to maintaining the existing statuses of any warranty canaries)"
What I'm saying is that if it's legal and binding to compel a company or person not to reveal a security letter, I'm sure the language can be arranged to cover canaries too. I can't see a government body going "Yeah, you got us - there's no way for us to get round this loophole of yours".
I've possibly not understood how a National Security Letter works but if the government can compel you to not tell anyone about the letter, can't it compel you to not indicate that you've received a letter too?
Some language like "You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to altering/amending/removing any warranty canaries)"?
Is the feeling that this would be the line that the government wouldn't cross to protect national security or is the warranty canary simply unreliable?
Wouldn't possession of a firearm without a license be illegal? Sure it's not illegal to manufacture the thing but if possession is all you need to be prosecuted then the result of manufacturing/assembling the thing will be, to all intents and purposes, illegal.
What they're saying is they'll definitely think about considering it - they're hoping everyone will assume they mean they're committed to open sourcing it but in fact what they're hiding is they mean exactly the opposite.
Just to clarify I've always understood "pure as the driven snow" to mean "dirty" so in the context you're using it, are you saying you're black?
I'm not from the US so I don't know whether you mean Beverly Hills is predominantly black or white.
...now that Nokia is doing so badly, it would be an ideal time to acquire them for a song!
Now if you're an 800lb software company looking to expand into the mobile phone market...
It can be a 6 year long epic with no clear direction and can end with a polarising final release that will leave half the users unsatisfied and the other half proclaiming it a work of art.
Those drugs being used inappropriately is of course a bad thing but that won't happen as there's no chance that the real thing will be sent unless you're making the mistake that these people might feel bad committing fraud...
...so would it be possible for Microsoft to settle/lose a non-novel and obvious patent case just so that it would set precedent? (One that would hurt them a little but OSS a LOT)
If this could be done, wouldn't it validate the patent and allow the plaintiff to then go after Open Source Software? It would be a bit like the whole SCO fiasco again but only with the power of the courts behind them.
Thank goodness that in this enlightened age, no-one would collude and pull off something like that.
We are of course grateful that you've finally come around to our way of thinking but as I'm sure you're already aware, we had the advantage and would have won eventually.
Anyway, we're now off to celebrate to excess with lots of wine and eager ladies. Hope there are no hard feelings.
P.S. Take no notice of Helen and Cassandra, we think your gift is beautiful.
legally you can't agree to some terms that haven't even been written yet
Agreed, but once the latest version is released, from what I understand, I could then choose to release under the more open license. For instance, could I not download the latest version of Apache and release it under the new license, thereby allowing me to close the source for my own nefarious ends?
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right about all those things about some sectors of the F/OSS community but it doesn't take away from the fact that FM is not someone you'd want to trust with a dirty stick in a rainforest.
The only question I have isn't for Florian, it's who on earth thought it would be a good idea to throw him into the lions den because he's not welcomed here.
The only reason I can think of doing an Ask is so that shills can ask questions to legitimise him in an otherwise very vocal and Florian-hostile community:
"Florian, why is it you spend so much time helping the Open Source world and spreading the Lord's work to the unwashed masses?" +5 Insightful
"I've been a heathen all my life until I read your completely unbiased and thorough articles on Microsoft/Oracle practices. Will you please continue your quest to educate us?" +5 Informative
Then let's say language like this:
"You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to maintaining the existing statuses of any warranty canaries)"
What I'm saying is that if it's legal and binding to compel a company or person not to reveal a security letter, I'm sure the language can be arranged to cover canaries too. I can't see a government body going "Yeah, you got us - there's no way for us to get round this loophole of yours".
I've possibly not understood how a National Security Letter works but if the government can compel you to not tell anyone about the letter, can't it compel you to not indicate that you've received a letter too?
Some language like "You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to altering/amending/removing any warranty canaries)"?
Is the feeling that this would be the line that the government wouldn't cross to protect national security or is the warranty canary simply unreliable?
It is, almost undoubtedly a Russian system.
'almost undoubtedly'?
Are you mostly certain about that or just slightly definite?
I see they're using the same battery technology they used in the Dreamliner then.
Wouldn't possession of a firearm without a license be illegal? Sure it's not illegal to manufacture the thing but if possession is all you need to be prosecuted then the result of manufacturing/assembling the thing will be, to all intents and purposes, illegal.
...is buying beef jerky not a legitimate use of Bitcoin or is 'beef jerky' a euphemism for some nefarious deed in the Bitcoin world?
“We are still committed to considering..."
I guess you didn't notice the subtle wording.
What they're saying is they'll definitely think about considering it - they're hoping everyone will assume they mean they're committed to open sourcing it but in fact what they're hiding is they mean exactly the opposite.
Just to clarify I've always understood "pure as the driven snow" to mean "dirty" so in the context you're using it, are you saying you're black? I'm not from the US so I don't know whether you mean Beverly Hills is predominantly black or white.
...now that Nokia is doing so badly, it would be an ideal time to acquire them for a song! Now if you're an 800lb software company looking to expand into the mobile phone market...
...do so well!
Where do you think MS gets the money from to fund WM7?
Malicious Android patent royalty payments?
But participating willingly in a DDOS attack is a criminal act in my book.
I hear ya - they should have written strongly worded emails that left no doubt regarding the displeasure they felt at Paypal's actions.
Might I suggest: Liberty Office Suite Transition?
It can be a 6 year long epic with no clear direction and can end with a polarising final release that will leave half the users unsatisfied and the other half proclaiming it a work of art.
You're ok; the Statute of Limitations will have kicked in a long time ago.
Those drugs being used inappropriately is of course a bad thing but that won't happen as there's no chance that the real thing will be sent unless you're making the mistake that these people might feel bad committing fraud...
You can't use some of those names as they'll be confused with future Ubuntu releases.
That's almost the same situation the Europeans airlines have with the American government, except of course that the Americans aren't Chinese...
...yet.
...here.
Very well written but was I the only one that was beginning to feel uncomfortable towards the end?
...so would it be possible for Microsoft to settle/lose a non-novel and obvious patent case just so that it would set precedent? (One that would hurt them a little but OSS a LOT)
If this could be done, wouldn't it validate the patent and allow the plaintiff to then go after Open Source Software? It would be a bit like the whole SCO fiasco again but only with the power of the courts behind them.
Thank goodness that in this enlightened age, no-one would collude and pull off something like that.
...many thanks for the wooden horse.
We are of course grateful that you've finally come around to our way of thinking but as I'm sure you're already aware, we had the advantage and would have won eventually.
Anyway, we're now off to celebrate to excess with lots of wine and eager ladies. Hope there are no hard feelings.
P.S. Take no notice of Helen and Cassandra, we think your gift is beautiful.
Oh, lighten up, I'm just kidding.
legally you can't agree to some terms that haven't even been written yet
Agreed, but once the latest version is released, from what I understand, I could then choose to release under the more open license. For instance, could I not download the latest version of Apache and release it under the new license, thereby allowing me to close the source for my own nefarious ends?