It was my understanding that the Federeal government generally can't copyright things. Assume for the sake of argument that this is correct. Then the question that instantly comes to mind is the following: if the government can't copyright something, then when it makes a derivative work, it can't release it under the GPL. To use GPL'ed code you must agree to license your derivative work under the GPL if you release it. However, if you can't coyright the work, you can't release it under a license. Since you can't release you are not given permission to use the original work in the first place.
Thus if we assume that the Federal government can't copyright a work. The conclusion is that it can't take GPL'd code and modify it since it can't follow the license terms of the original work.
Actually this used annoy me, then my hearing started to go, and now I consider it a form of forward error correction on a half duplex channel. If I miss the "you" in "where are you at" my synaptic syndrome decoder kicks in and I know what you said even though I didn't recieve all the words. Like wise with the other forms you cited.
It's already happening, around here the local schools will finger print your kid for you "in case they are ever kidnapped". Look I understand the pain of people who have had their kids taken, but to have schools finger print your kids and keep the records, or as happened a few weeks ago, haveing the local sherifs deparment call up soliciting to figerprint your kid for "thier safety and protection". It is just so frigtening. Yeah, lets get every body in the NCIC database as soon as they enter kindergarden or head start.
Actually I believe that the MS contract requires Toshiba to pay MicroSoft a fee for each laptop shipped. But this doesn't mean that the contract is exclusive, it just means that if you want a computer with say FreeBSD 3.0 then the manufacturer (Toshiba) must still pay the MicroSoft fee even though none of their software is on the machine.
Definitly NOT an exclusive, contract but perhaps indeed an anticompetetive one. This is a long standing MicroSoft tactic, and I believe was even used in the old DOS days.
If you examine the ACLU site you will see at: http://www.aclu.org/library/foia.html#basics that: If your request is not for "commercial use," you will only pay the search and duplication costs
If your request is on behalf of "an educational or non-commercial scientific institution" or as a "representative of the news media," you will only pay duplication costs. Any person or organization which regularly publishes or gives out information to the public can be considered as "news media." Many public service organizations, therefore, meet this definition.
and that
Sometimes an agency will waive the fee. This will happen on a case-by-case basis if the request is considered to be in the public interest, which means the information will significantly help the public understand the operations or activities of the government agency.
Perhaps he should have applied for a wavier of the fee. If this was his purpose in getting it.
Also $1500 sound a little excessive for duplication charges for what amounts to 6 CDROMs. Hell at todays prices you could buy them one of those cheap sub $1000 PCs we've all be hearing about, add a CDROM burner, and a network card to hook up to their netowork, pay for electricity and $25 an hour for a person to run it all and still be under $1500 for burning 6 CDROMs.
I don't know what format the data is in, but assume for the moment that the format is well known, and that the specification of the format is not GPLd. Then anyone can write a program that munges data in that format. They can release this program under any liscense they like since they have not created a work that is a derivative of a GPLd work. In fact the authors of the program may never even have a copy of the data base.
On the other hand if the data in the database is what is GPLd(assume for the momemnt it can be) then derivative works would amount to translations into other formats, and corrections. As much as I am not a fan of the GPL I think in this case it is a good thing because it means that if someone makes corrections to the database, and releases it we all can get it.
So we all would get a free database, and people would make money by adding value by writing a program(which as I outline above would be under any liscense they choose) to do something with the data.
So if he does not add anything, but merely passes on the data that he recieved which (assume for the purpose of this discussion) is public domain, could one simply use the orignial copyright? Suppose he does add something, if I were to reomve what he added, could I use the data under the orrignal public domain terms?
The first 30 minutes of Private Ryan didn't even phase me. I don't really know if it was because there was so much going on or, I really am that jaded but it really didn't get to me. I liked the realism of the first few seconds where the door drops on the landing craft and just about everybody dies, but the movie as a whole just wasn't all that. I walked out of the movie, everybody else was silent or crying, but it didn't really reach me.
Having said all that there was one scene in it that reached me like no other has in a good while. When the Panzers role into ville but before you can see them come out of the smoke/haze, and all you get is that low rumbleing and see the ground shake. Man that really got me in the pit of my stomach, way better than any horror movie where I always find myself sitting there totally detached saying to person on screen, "ok here comes the killer and if you weren't so fucking stupid you know it too!"
Slashdot Mirror
It was my understanding that the Federeal government generally can't copyright things. Assume for the sake of argument that this is correct. Then the question that instantly comes to mind is the following: if the government can't copyright something, then when it makes a derivative work, it can't release it under the GPL. To use GPL'ed code you must agree to license your derivative work under the GPL if you release it. However, if you can't coyright the work, you can't release it under a license. Since you can't release you are not given permission to use the original work in the first place.
Thus if we assume that the Federal government can't copyright a work. The conclusion is that it can't take GPL'd code and modify it since it can't follow the license terms of the original work.
Actually this used annoy me, then my hearing started to go, and now I consider it a form of forward error correction on a half duplex channel. If I miss the "you" in "where are you at" my synaptic syndrome decoder kicks in and I know what you said even though I didn't recieve all the words. Like wise with the other forms you cited.
It's already happening, around here the local schools will finger print your kid for you "in case they are ever kidnapped". Look I understand the pain of people who have had their kids taken, but to have schools finger print your kids and keep the records, or as happened a few weeks ago, haveing the local sherifs deparment call up soliciting to figerprint your kid for "thier safety and protection". It is just so frigtening.
Yeah, lets get every body in the NCIC database as soon as they enter kindergarden or head start.
Actually I believe that the MS contract requires Toshiba to pay MicroSoft a fee for each laptop shipped. But this doesn't mean that the contract is exclusive, it just means that if you want a computer with say FreeBSD 3.0 then the manufacturer (Toshiba) must still pay the MicroSoft fee even though none of their software is on the machine.
Definitly NOT an exclusive, contract but perhaps indeed an anticompetetive one. This is a long standing MicroSoft tactic, and I believe was even used in the old DOS days.
If you examine the ACLU site you will see at:
http://www.aclu.org/library/foia.html#basics
that:
If your request is not for "commercial use," you will only pay the search and duplication costs
If your request is on behalf of "an educational or non-commercial scientific institution" or as a "representative of the news media," you will only pay duplication costs. Any person or organization which regularly publishes or gives out information to the public can be considered as "news media." Many public service organizations, therefore, meet this definition.
and that
Sometimes an agency will waive the fee. This will happen on a case-by-case basis if the request is considered to be in the public interest, which means the information will significantly help the public understand the operations or activities of the government agency.
Perhaps he should have applied for a wavier of the fee. If this was his purpose in getting it.
Also $1500 sound a little excessive for duplication charges for what amounts to 6 CDROMs. Hell at todays prices you could buy them one of those cheap sub $1000 PCs we've all be hearing about, add a CDROM burner, and a network card to hook up to their netowork, pay for electricity and $25 an hour for a person to run it all and still be under $1500 for burning 6 CDROMs.
I don't know what format the data is in, but assume for the moment that the format is well known, and that the specification of the format is not GPLd. Then anyone can write a program that munges data in that format. They can release this program under any liscense they like since they have not created a work that is a derivative of a GPLd work. In fact the authors of the program may never even have a copy of the data base.
On the other hand if the data in the database is what is GPLd(assume for the momemnt it can be) then derivative works would amount to translations into other formats, and corrections. As much as I am not a fan of the GPL I think in this case it is a good thing because it means that if someone makes corrections to the database, and releases it we all can get it.
So we all would get a free database, and people would make money by adding value by writing a program(which as I outline above would be under any liscense they choose) to do something with the data.
So if he does not add anything, but merely passes on the data that he recieved which (assume for the purpose of this discussion) is public domain, could one simply use the orignial copyright? Suppose he does add something, if I were to reomve what he added, could I use the data under the orrignal public domain terms?
The first 30 minutes of Private Ryan didn't even phase me. I don't really know if it was because there was so much going on or, I really am that jaded but it really didn't get to me. I liked the realism of the first few seconds where the door drops on the landing craft and just about everybody dies, but the movie as a whole just wasn't all that. I walked out of the movie, everybody else was silent or crying, but it didn't really reach me.
Having said all that there was one scene in it that reached me like no other has in a good while. When the Panzers role into ville but before you can see them come out of the smoke/haze, and all you get is that low rumbleing and see the ground shake. Man that really got me in the pit of my stomach, way better than any horror movie where I always find myself sitting there totally detached saying to person on screen, "ok here comes the killer and if you weren't so fucking stupid you know it too!"