This change would have no effect on existing software but could be added by developers to future versions of a particular program
i.e. This will not effect existing software, only that which the developers decide to add the clause to.
Stallman said developers may be encouraged to add a command to their GPL-licensed Web application that lets users download the source code
i.e. it's referring to web applications, not the server, the OS or anything else.
The inclusion of this command in modified versions of the program will then be enforced by an additional clause in GPL 3.
All it means is if, say the developers of PHPBB decide to put a button on a page which lets the user download the code, then you cannot re-release PHPBB in it's original or modified form without that button.
So it's not a feature that applies to apache, the kernel or anything other than the web application itself. It's not retro-active; the developer has to add it to a newly released version and if you don't like it then continue developing the existing version without it.
TFA goes on about liberating music and such, couldn't find any mention of user-side rights management.
You have no rights. The whole DRM thing just shows the utter contempt the content industry has for the consumer. We are here to be milked for every penny we've got and, sadly, most people seem quite happy with that.
So, rather than try to compromise the DVD-Audio's encryption itself, someone has succeeded in making a patch that uses WinDVD to perform the decryption and playback, but instead pipes the decrypted audio output to the hard drive instead of the sound card.
It goes back to the old adage; if you can hear it you can copy it. DRM is ultimately doomed to failure. The money spent on trying to implement a doomed technology would be better spent on setting up a syetem were it's not needed.
"Differences exist in the protection of computer-implemented inventions offered by the administrative practices and case law of the different member states"
and then
"Therefore, the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions should be harmonised so as to ensure that the resulting legal certainty and the level of requirements demanded for patentability enable innovative enterprised to derive the maximum advantage from their inventive process and provide an incentive for investment and innovation"
The original idea was a good one. As originally amended, the directive harmonised the various country's positions on software patents by ruling them out in no uncertain terms. However, it got hijacked by the software patent lobby who "un-amended" it to allow the possibility of software patents back in.
Actually, it means that the interpretation of patent laws is left to the individual patent offices of each country. This directive was supposed to be about harmonising the patent offices of EU member countries.
I feel sick already. I thought the design of XP was nauseating enough with it's jarring, primary colour scheme. Now we've got the buttons jiggling up and down as you try to click on them.
Still, it's nice to know they've got their priorities right. Making your UI look like something off Star Trek TNG is more important than boring old mundane things like improving security.
I'm not sure that we should have hoped for anything different happening here. This was a chance for the JURI to amend the directive ahead of it's vote in July. As they have chosen not to amend it (well, not in a significant way), then there is still a reason for the MEPs to put the effort into turning up to reject/amend it in July.
If they had amended it enough to make it look like it was better (without actually changing the fundamental problem with it), then some MEPs might have been placated enough to not bother to vote against it.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not a feature that applies to apache, the kernel or anything other than the web application itself. It's not retro-active; the developer has to add it to a newly released version and if you don't like it then continue developing the existing version without it.
Actually, it means that the interpretation of patent laws is left to the individual patent offices of each country. This directive was supposed to be about harmonising the patent offices of EU member countries.
I feel sick already. I thought the design of XP was nauseating enough with it's jarring, primary colour scheme. Now we've got the buttons jiggling up and down as you try to click on them. Still, it's nice to know they've got their priorities right. Making your UI look like something off Star Trek TNG is more important than boring old mundane things like improving security.
Try this page for a few examples: http://webshop.ffii.org/
I'm not sure that we should have hoped for anything different happening here. This was a chance for the JURI to amend the directive ahead of it's vote in July. As they have chosen not to amend it (well, not in a significant way), then there is still a reason for the MEPs to put the effort into turning up to reject/amend it in July. If they had amended it enough to make it look like it was better (without actually changing the fundamental problem with it), then some MEPs might have been placated enough to not bother to vote against it.
This internet thing sure is good at storing crap for all eternity.