If an OSS developer releases a GPL v2 project that links to several libraries that use incompatible licenses, and possibly a proprietary one, does that affect in any way the developer's rights? Could the developer be held liable to correct every violation before being allowed to sue a 3rd party for infringement of his own terms? What if one of the holders of the copyrights of the linked libraries were to ignore the infringement of the developer in question and ignore the suit and any legal correspondence -- does that library developer relinquish their copyright to the public domain?
If I wrote an algorithm one year, Linus were to include it in his kernel 6 months later without attribution or paying me the 1 Spanish doubloon I required in my license as it were, and I were to not sue him after some period of time, does Linus automatically get a license to use my algorithm? What about Linus's fellow Linux developers (thousands exist)? Can Linus transfer his immunity to my copyright to another entity? Do I no longer own this copyright at all -- has the license simply expired due to my lack of vigilance?
Protecting individual's rights to purchase one-time-use content I suppose is a valid concern, provided there is understanding on the user's behalf that the material will in fact self destruct. But that is precisely the problem here: all DRM-protected content is potentially self-destructing in nature, a fact few users understand. The is where the wisdom part comes in: the public could put extreme downward pressure on the cost of DRM-protected vs. open content, to incent content providers to sell open content.
The notion of self-destructing documents outside the context of one-time-use content-distribution models is rather esoteric, as between private parties the content would be sensitive in nature and not an example of rights management, but info-sec. Restricting the dissemination of documents can easily be accomplished via plain-old PGP.
Our educational system exists to elucidate our understanding of reality, not brands -- so yes, 95% of PS' capabilities should be taught in terms of Gimp. Should Brand-X stumble upon a genuinely new idea, sure it can be taught under fair-use, but not in absentia of the patent system, should that idea be genuinely beneficial.
I don't want to waste hours of my own time perfecting it for people just to 'rip off' as is, and never contribute anything.
Contribution to the public domain is first and foremost a civic responsibility, whether it be in the form of building a playground, healthcare, scientific research, or software design & development. It is an act of charity that one performs with the hope and expectation that it will benefit the community. Whether or not the community will volunteer its efforts to further develop said contribution is not the right question to ask, but rather, exactly how and in what ways will said contribution in fact be uniquely beneficial and/or needed.
OSS is fundamentally a vehicle for the redirection of human effort from perpetual reinvention of the wheel toward meaningful progress, from the perspective of both its contributors and its users. If your contribution helps a teacher somewhere teach more effectively, a group of researchers research and collaborate more effectively, etc., your role in that is something for which you should only take pride.
Generally speaking, people rely on trains as they do automobiles as a means of daily or weekly transportation. Planes are generally perceived as elective modes of transport to elective destinations. The public are not only obliged to accept the risks of routine transport as a cost of doing business, but also feel safer on the ground than they do on the sea or in the sky. New risks to elective transport might influence a decision to, say, travel to SF to attend a convention, meet a prospective client face-to-face, or visit remote family. This at once threatens one's freedom to elective travel and brings new sensation to the risks of air travel. Sensation merits attention, and attention requires time. As they say, time is money, and money, power.
This is ridiculous. Miguel simply recognizes the pragmatic value of the c# standard and the various.Net APIs and devotes his free time to bring that value to the F/OSS community. Understand that MS, like any large SW company, is at its heart staffed by competent un-indoctrinated engineers, who have a natural desire to contribute to global citizenship. Miguel's selfless efforts are to be lauded, not chastised.
While one must appreciate another's effort to discuss, I have to abstain from a response until a valid analogue is supplied. Why can't an investigative journalist type a URL and enter a user name and pw when prompted given a few minutes?
Television networks first and foremost sell audiences to advertisers. Content is merely a vehicle with which to build those audiences. Side projects like ITunes need to be profitable -- benefit must outweigh cost, and kudos to NBC for recognizing this.
No editor would outright publish such a list. Of course the proper agencies would be contacted by the paper and a sensationalized story reprimanding the irresponsible gov agencies involved written during the course of the interaction.
I don't mean to respond to your post per-se as there are dozens of such posts to which this reply would be appropriate.
There is an intractable problem here that noone seems to be addressing but that everyone here contends with: accurate estimation. Every area of a publicly-traded company in this post-Sarbox/Enron era is required to justify its effort not only to management but to the public. IT, along with every other area of an organization is now required to show its efforts are not only practical but necessary. How exactly does an IT practice deliver quality estimates to both the business and its shareholders? Shareholders and governments demand these metrics, our PHBs simply carry out these orders.
Kioslaves are a beautiful feature of KDE, but to be universally effective (less http://ask.slashdot.org/) they must be implemented at the kernel level.
Outside of the collective political loss of human life that continues to present day, the burning of the Library at Alexandria is arguably mankind's next greatest tragedy. There is really no justification to equate the loss of 19th c. pop dime novels or anything else to it.
If time travel were possible and we manage to survive long enough to discover it, today's world would be full of future gamblers. entrepreneurs, megalomaniacs & soldiers of fortune. Technology changes -- human nature doesn't.
"One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
The mission of the FSF is to enrich the way users interact with the software they use via the guarantee of "Four" principle Freedoms that not only underpin but inspire a global community of F/OSS software developers and users, a large proportion of whom would never have chosen to participate or contribute without this guarantee. Tivo found a clever way to bypass Freedom One and thus exploit this community via a clever application of DRM, saving itself millions of dollars in proprietary software development & licensing costs in the process. Revising the GPL to prevent further such abuses of this community is therefore not only a natural response but an obligation of the FSF as understood by its constituency.
Linus may be brilliant but he simply misunderstands this, and he would be delusional to think his operating system could have achieved the momentum it has under any subset of these four freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
$0.00, before court, legal fees, etc.
[eom]
If an OSS developer releases a GPL v2 project that links to several libraries that use incompatible licenses, and possibly a proprietary one, does that affect in any way the developer's rights? Could the developer be held liable to correct every violation before being allowed to sue a 3rd party for infringement of his own terms? What if one of the holders of the copyrights of the linked libraries were to ignore the infringement of the developer in question and ignore the suit and any legal correspondence -- does that library developer relinquish their copyright to the public domain?
If I wrote an algorithm one year, Linus were to include it in his kernel 6 months later without attribution or paying me the 1 Spanish doubloon I required in my license as it were, and I were to not sue him after some period of time, does Linus automatically get a license to use my algorithm? What about Linus's fellow Linux developers (thousands exist)? Can Linus transfer his immunity to my copyright to another entity? Do I no longer own this copyright at all -- has the license simply expired due to my lack of vigilance?
Protecting individual's rights to purchase one-time-use content I suppose is a valid concern, provided there is understanding on the user's behalf that the material will in fact self destruct. But that is precisely the problem here: all DRM-protected content is potentially self-destructing in nature, a fact few users understand. The is where the wisdom part comes in: the public could put extreme downward pressure on the cost of DRM-protected vs. open content, to incent content providers to sell open content.
The notion of self-destructing documents outside the context of one-time-use content-distribution models is rather esoteric, as between private parties the content would be sensitive in nature and not an example of rights management, but info-sec. Restricting the dissemination of documents can easily be accomplished via plain-old PGP.
Just thinking out loud here...
Our educational system exists to elucidate our understanding of reality, not brands -- so yes, 95% of PS' capabilities should be taught in terms of Gimp. Should Brand-X stumble upon a genuinely new idea, sure it can be taught under fair-use, but not in absentia of the patent system, should that idea be genuinely beneficial.
{ // IE Workaround that we hope we don't have to go back and change the day IE8 ships... ....
}
Sex is above fashion -- it never goes out of style.
Contribution to the public domain is first and foremost a civic responsibility, whether it be in the form of building a playground, healthcare, scientific research, or software design & development. It is an act of charity that one performs with the hope and expectation that it will benefit the community. Whether or not the community will volunteer its efforts to further develop said contribution is not the right question to ask, but rather, exactly how and in what ways will said contribution in fact be uniquely beneficial and/or needed.
OSS is fundamentally a vehicle for the redirection of human effort from perpetual reinvention of the wheel toward meaningful progress, from the perspective of both its contributors and its users. If your contribution helps a teacher somewhere teach more effectively, a group of researchers research and collaborate more effectively, etc., your role in that is something for which you should only take pride.
Generally speaking, people rely on trains as they do automobiles as a means of daily or weekly transportation. Planes are generally perceived as elective modes of transport to elective destinations. The public are not only obliged to accept the risks of routine transport as a cost of doing business, but also feel safer on the ground than they do on the sea or in the sky. New risks to elective transport might influence a decision to, say, travel to SF to attend a convention, meet a prospective client face-to-face, or visit remote family. This at once threatens one's freedom to elective travel and brings new sensation to the risks of air travel. Sensation merits attention, and attention requires time. As they say, time is money, and money, power.
Murphy's brutal law enforcement regime has foiled yet another +5 insightful mod from me. Cheers.
This is ridiculous. Miguel simply recognizes the pragmatic value of the c# standard and the various .Net APIs and devotes his free time to bring that value to the F/OSS community. Understand that MS, like any large SW company, is at its heart staffed by competent un-indoctrinated engineers, who have a natural desire to contribute to global citizenship. Miguel's selfless efforts are to be lauded, not chastised.
While one must appreciate another's effort to discuss, I have to abstain from a response until a valid analogue is supplied. Why can't an investigative journalist type a URL and enter a user name and pw when prompted given a few minutes?
This info can be validated by anyone in 3 minutes. Sigh.
Television networks first and foremost sell audiences to advertisers. Content is merely a vehicle with which to build those audiences. Side projects like ITunes need to be profitable -- benefit must outweigh cost, and kudos to NBC for recognizing this.
Journalists lack the forensic tools to track down anonymous submissions, especially those of competent security consultants. Sigh.
No editor would outright publish such a list. Of course the proper agencies would be contacted by the paper and a sensationalized story reprimanding the irresponsible gov agencies involved written during the course of the interaction.
Anonymously giving the list to a local newspaper would have achieved the stated objective.
Or uh, watching it for free on NBC.com.
I don't mean to respond to your post per-se as there are dozens of such posts to which this reply would be appropriate.
There is an intractable problem here that noone seems to be addressing but that everyone here contends with: accurate estimation. Every area of a publicly-traded company in this post-Sarbox/Enron era is required to justify its effort not only to management but to the public. IT, along with every other area of an organization is now required to show its efforts are not only practical but necessary. How exactly does an IT practice deliver quality estimates to both the business and its shareholders? Shareholders and governments demand these metrics, our PHBs simply carry out these orders.
Kioslaves are a beautiful feature of KDE, but to be universally effective (less http://ask.slashdot.org/) they must be implemented at the kernel level.
President, CEO, Chairman of the Board, Defender of the Faith?
Well said, but one minor quip:
Outside of the collective political loss of human life that continues to present day, the burning of the Library at Alexandria is arguably mankind's next greatest tragedy. There is really no justification to equate the loss of 19th c. pop dime novels or anything else to it.
If time travel were possible and we manage to survive long enough to discover it, today's world would be full of future gamblers. entrepreneurs, megalomaniacs & soldiers of fortune. Technology changes -- human nature doesn't.
"One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called "appliances") contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
The mission of the FSF is to enrich the way users interact with the software they use via the guarantee of "Four" principle Freedoms that not only underpin but inspire a global community of F/OSS software developers and users, a large proportion of whom would never have chosen to participate or contribute without this guarantee. Tivo found a clever way to bypass Freedom One and thus exploit this community via a clever application of DRM, saving itself millions of dollars in proprietary software development & licensing costs in the process. Revising the GPL to prevent further such abuses of this community is therefore not only a natural response but an obligation of the FSF as understood by its constituency.
Linus may be brilliant but he simply misunderstands this, and he would be delusional to think his operating system could have achieved the momentum it has under any subset of these four freedoms.