The draft directive does not create any new rights for creatives and journalists. It merely ensures that their existing rights are better enforced. Nor does the draft directive create new obligations for online platforms or news aggregators, but ensures that existing obligations are better respected. What is currently legal and permitted to share will remain legal and permitted to share.
combined with
The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and news houses and their journalists) what they truly owe them;
Is Google News legal under current laws? If so, how would Google News be affected by new legislation that continues to allow everything that is currently legal? If not, how do current laws fail to stop it?
(YouTube is a different story. I can see that there is a problem there, and although I am not convinced the new laws will be an improvement, I can see that current laws do fail to stop it.)
Twitter never said they were taking action against bots. They are taking action against fake accounts. There are plenty of bots that are not fake accounts, include in their name or description that they're a bot, do not disrupt any conversations, do not mislead users. That's explicitly allowed. Misleading reporting like this may end up getting those accounts reported too.
I'm not sure. US Courts require US based companies to provide records to law enforcement, even if the records are outside the US; an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.
That's a good point, but that's not so much because it requires an action to be done in that country, it's because that action potentially conflicts with the rights of the non-US people whose data is held in those records. There's no such conflict here.
It's about protecting the rights of Aptoide, a Portuguese entity, against the actions of Google, a business with a legal presence in Portugal. If Google only violates Aptoide's rights outside Portugal, a Portuguese court can still take action against that: having to respect the rights recognised or granted by a country to its citizens and companies is part of the cost of doing business in that country. If a US-based app store sued Google for the same reason, and a US court ruled that Google had to stop interfering, even outside the US, no, I do not believe there would be any uproar.
The law requires a certain number of female directors, not a certain number of non-male directors. California is one of the states that recognises and and is scheduled to allow "nonbinary" as a third gender in addition to "male" and "female", with no distinction between "neither male and female", "both male and female", and any other options, so presumably anyone using that option would not be counted. If challenged, it could result in an interesting discrimination lawsuit.
It's right there in the comment you were responding to. Skipping bail is itself an offense. Are you suggesting he's not guilty of that? It's similar to how, if the police lawfully try to arrest you for, say, a burglary you had nothing to do with, you resist arrest, and the police then find you weren't guilty of burglary and don't attempt to charge you with that, you can still be charged and convicted for resisting arrest.
But the operator of the site hosting the SHA-256 values will still need to obtain a certificate.
Indeed.
Is it more a matter of setting up Certbot to provision one certificate for the hash site rather than a separate certificate for each mirror site?
The concern was that for large (multi-gigabyte) files, HTTPS becomes a waste of resources. I'm not going to comment one way or another on the correctness of that claim, but setting up a single server to accept both HTTP and HTTPS connections is trivial, and then the client can make the choice to download the large file from that server over HTTP, and the hash from that same server over HTTPS. It wasn't my idea to have the full file and the hash come from different servers, although that is indeed an option as well.
Indeed not everything needs to be encrypted, and in some specific circumstances HTTP may be the better option, but firstly, the average user cannot tell what does and does not need to be encrypted, and secondly, even in those cases where HTTP is the better option, it's usually close enough nowadays that it doesn't make that much of a difference. Because of that, I'd be perfectly happy with HTTPS becoming the norm, HTTP flagged as insecure, but HTTP nonetheless continuing to be supported in browsers indefinitely.
because the Supreme Court in 2005 said that ISPs couldn't be classified to be regulated under Title 2
Is this about NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION et al. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES et al.? What it looks to me like the Supreme Court actually said in 2005 was that the FCC was allowed to determine whether ISPs should be classified as such. At the time, the FCC didn't, but the Supreme Court decision didn't set the FCC's choice in stone.
Please link to one of your copied answers, even if it's been deleted. From my experience, although not all sites on the SE network treat plagiarism equally severely, SO is one of the better ones in this regard.
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate
directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent
Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate
affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or
in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of
its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating
to the Software.
You're right that it reads "relating to the software", but this only applies to (iii), not (i) or (ii).
"Patent troll" usually means to a company which buys up patents and doesn't create anything but lawsuits. In this case, the lawsuit was brought by a company which actually attempted to sell a product which made use of the patent. So, regardless of whether the patent is valid, not a patent troll, unless you have an unconventional definition of the term.
What exactly do you think the judge is going to say to that? The judge is almost certainly not a complete idiot, and seeing the access blocked after a court order to lift the restrictions is not going to make a good impression.
"To the extent LinkedIn has already put in place technology to prevent hiQ from accessing these public profiles, it is ordered to remove any such barriers," Chen's order reads.
According to this, the judge is specifically saying that LinkedIn isn't free to use technical measures to block them.
This change is about what happens once PEP 394 is updated (and we will drive that update if needed):
PEP 394:
Future Changes to this Recommendation
It is anticipated that there will eventually come a time where the third party ecosystem surrounding Python 3 is sufficiently mature for this recommendation to be updated to suggest that the python symlink refer to python3 rather than python2.
I thought we weren't talking about whether it's considered a viable alternative now, but whether it was viable back when the decision to use GCC was initially made. GCC was the superior product back then, but if it had had license restrictions on how its output could be used, that would be one aspect in which it wasn't superior, which would have been a serious reason for some not to use it. Since then, GCC has greatly improved, and sure, pcc has no longer been a reasonable alternative for most uses for 10+ years. Today, clang is a reasonable alternative, and FreeBSD has made the switch, but it wasn't around back then.
The libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny. It is not a close call or a matter of wild theory; it is a tiny amount of work to replace the parts of gcc that benefit from a GPL exception.
One of those libraries is libstdc++. It's fairly big, and not easily replaced. It's possible, sure, there's libc++ now, but I'm curious how long you think it took to develop to a point where it could compete with libstdc++.
Another of those libraries, prior to Java support being dropped entirely in GCC, was classpath. As far as I know, classpath itself never even got to feature-completeness, let alone a replacement for it.
No, some of the libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny, but not all of them.
You say there was no reasonable alternative. I mentioned pcc. BSD had at one point made the switch from pcc to gcc and they could have switched back. I see no reason for not considering it a reasonable alternative.
As for GNAT: although that is part of GCC, I was talking about GNAT GPL and GNAT Pro, which are not.
I suspect you're wrong that distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I can see distros that wouldn't object to such a license and release everything under GPL. I can see distros that would never have started with GCC in the first place, preferring to stick with older compilers, perhaps pcc. And I can see distros sticking with older versions and/or migrating to clang if GCC changed its license now. (We do have one very well-known company which already switched from GCC to clang after a license change.) What I can't see is major distros using GCC, but modifying it to link to third-party runtime libraries. The reason why I can't see that is because it's a maintenance burden on the distros, for little to no benefit to them.
A notable compiler which is dual-licensed, either entirely GPL (including runtime libraries) or available for a price under GPL + runtime library exception, is GNAT GPL / GNAT Pro. For which the runtime library later largely ends up in FSF GCC, where it's then made available for free under GPL + runtime library exception. Yet it appears to still be doing well.
It's important to get the details right too, not just the conclusion: if GCC were entirely GPL-licensed, then building with GCC would likely require the result not to be released under a non-GPL license: building with GCC causes the program to be linked with GCC's own runtime libraries (by default anyway, some parts statically linked, other parts dynamically linked), and the requirements on linking to GPL-licensed libraries are well-known. GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
This UAC bypass is not supposed to work for that. It only bypasses UAC by exploiting a situation where UAC normally doesn't prompt, which, as far as I know, only happens for admin accounts.
Under an admin account that contained ownership of the key, the script still failed, but I was able to manually change the key only after bypassing the UAC warning to allow Regedit to make changes to the system.
As I posted, that is an artificial restriction on regedit.exe which does not affect other applications. I'd be interested in knowing why the script failed for you. Perhaps you have anti-malware software running which already detects this script specifically. What happens if you use reg.exe to set the key from the command-line? That one does not prompt for admin rights, no matter whether you're logged into an admin account and no matter your UAC setting.
Both of these accounts were local accounts and not Microsoft Accounts
Admin rights are not needed to modify the registry. Registry keys have ACLs, and many of them under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE are set to only allow modification by Administrators, but many of them under HKEY_CURRENT_USER are set to allow modification by that user. The key that this is about can be set by the user.
regedit.exe happens to ask for admin rights when the user is in the Administrators group, but other programs can be used to modify the non-admin bits of the registry.
Slashdot Mirror
I am confused by their claim:
combined with
Is Google News legal under current laws? If so, how would Google News be affected by new legislation that continues to allow everything that is currently legal? If not, how do current laws fail to stop it?
(YouTube is a different story. I can see that there is a problem there, and although I am not convinced the new laws will be an improvement, I can see that current laws do fail to stop it.)
"Unencumbered" is not wholly true. Visual Studio Express was free of charge for all. Visual Studio Community cannot legally be used by many companies.
Twitter never said they were taking action against bots. They are taking action against fake accounts. There are plenty of bots that are not fake accounts, include in their name or description that they're a bot, do not disrupt any conversations, do not mislead users. That's explicitly allowed. Misleading reporting like this may end up getting those accounts reported too.
That's a good point, but that's not so much because it requires an action to be done in that country, it's because that action potentially conflicts with the rights of the non-US people whose data is held in those records. There's no such conflict here.
It's about protecting the rights of Aptoide, a Portuguese entity, against the actions of Google, a business with a legal presence in Portugal. If Google only violates Aptoide's rights outside Portugal, a Portuguese court can still take action against that: having to respect the rights recognised or granted by a country to its citizens and companies is part of the cost of doing business in that country. If a US-based app store sued Google for the same reason, and a US court ruled that Google had to stop interfering, even outside the US, no, I do not believe there would be any uproar.
The law requires a certain number of female directors, not a certain number of non-male directors. California is one of the states that recognises and and is scheduled to allow "nonbinary" as a third gender in addition to "male" and "female", with no distinction between "neither male and female", "both male and female", and any other options, so presumably anyone using that option would not be counted. If challenged, it could result in an interesting discrimination lawsuit.
It's right there in the comment you were responding to. Skipping bail is itself an offense. Are you suggesting he's not guilty of that? It's similar to how, if the police lawfully try to arrest you for, say, a burglary you had nothing to do with, you resist arrest, and the police then find you weren't guilty of burglary and don't attempt to charge you with that, you can still be charged and convicted for resisting arrest.
Indeed.
The concern was that for large (multi-gigabyte) files, HTTPS becomes a waste of resources. I'm not going to comment one way or another on the correctness of that claim, but setting up a single server to accept both HTTP and HTTPS connections is trivial, and then the client can make the choice to download the large file from that server over HTTP, and the hash from that same server over HTTPS. It wasn't my idea to have the full file and the hash come from different servers, although that is indeed an option as well.
Indeed not everything needs to be encrypted, and in some specific circumstances HTTP may be the better option, but firstly, the average user cannot tell what does and does not need to be encrypted, and secondly, even in those cases where HTTP is the better option, it's usually close enough nowadays that it doesn't make that much of a difference. Because of that, I'd be perfectly happy with HTTPS becoming the norm, HTTP flagged as insecure, but HTTP nonetheless continuing to be supported in browsers indefinitely.
Even if the main download is done using HTTP, the SHA-256 value can be requested over HTTPS.
Is this about NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION et al. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES et al.? What it looks to me like the Supreme Court actually said in 2005 was that the FCC was allowed to determine whether ISPs should be classified as such. At the time, the FCC didn't, but the Supreme Court decision didn't set the FCC's choice in stone.
In what way did the FCC ignore the courts?
It is. Netflix provides a working APK of an older version of its app on Netflix says 'This App is not compatible with your device.' I'm using it without problems on a custom build of CyanogenMod.
Please link to one of your copied answers, even if it's been deleted. From my experience, although not all sites on the SE network treat plagiarism equally severely, SO is one of the better ones in this regard.
You're right that it reads "relating to the software", but this only applies to (iii), not (i) or (ii).
"Patent troll" usually means to a company which buys up patents and doesn't create anything but lawsuits. In this case, the lawsuit was brought by a company which actually attempted to sell a product which made use of the patent. So, regardless of whether the patent is valid, not a patent troll, unless you have an unconventional definition of the term.
What exactly do you think the judge is going to say to that? The judge is almost certainly not a complete idiot, and seeing the access blocked after a court order to lift the restrictions is not going to make a good impression.
According to this, the judge is specifically saying that LinkedIn isn't free to use technical measures to block them.
PEP 394:
I thought we weren't talking about whether it's considered a viable alternative now, but whether it was viable back when the decision to use GCC was initially made. GCC was the superior product back then, but if it had had license restrictions on how its output could be used, that would be one aspect in which it wasn't superior, which would have been a serious reason for some not to use it. Since then, GCC has greatly improved, and sure, pcc has no longer been a reasonable alternative for most uses for 10+ years. Today, clang is a reasonable alternative, and FreeBSD has made the switch, but it wasn't around back then.
One of those libraries is libstdc++. It's fairly big, and not easily replaced. It's possible, sure, there's libc++ now, but I'm curious how long you think it took to develop to a point where it could compete with libstdc++.
Another of those libraries, prior to Java support being dropped entirely in GCC, was classpath. As far as I know, classpath itself never even got to feature-completeness, let alone a replacement for it.
No, some of the libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny, but not all of them.
You say there was no reasonable alternative. I mentioned pcc. BSD had at one point made the switch from pcc to gcc and they could have switched back. I see no reason for not considering it a reasonable alternative.
As for GNAT: although that is part of GCC, I was talking about GNAT GPL and GNAT Pro, which are not.
I suspect you're wrong that distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I can see distros that wouldn't object to such a license and release everything under GPL. I can see distros that would never have started with GCC in the first place, preferring to stick with older compilers, perhaps pcc. And I can see distros sticking with older versions and/or migrating to clang if GCC changed its license now. (We do have one very well-known company which already switched from GCC to clang after a license change.) What I can't see is major distros using GCC, but modifying it to link to third-party runtime libraries. The reason why I can't see that is because it's a maintenance burden on the distros, for little to no benefit to them.
A notable compiler which is dual-licensed, either entirely GPL (including runtime libraries) or available for a price under GPL + runtime library exception, is GNAT GPL / GNAT Pro. For which the runtime library later largely ends up in FSF GCC, where it's then made available for free under GPL + runtime library exception. Yet it appears to still be doing well.
It's important to get the details right too, not just the conclusion: if GCC were entirely GPL-licensed, then building with GCC would likely require the result not to be released under a non-GPL license: building with GCC causes the program to be linked with GCC's own runtime libraries (by default anyway, some parts statically linked, other parts dynamically linked), and the requirements on linking to GPL-licensed libraries are well-known. GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
This UAC bypass is not supposed to work for that. It only bypasses UAC by exploiting a situation where UAC normally doesn't prompt, which, as far as I know, only happens for admin accounts.
As I posted, that is an artificial restriction on regedit.exe which does not affect other applications. I'd be interested in knowing why the script failed for you. Perhaps you have anti-malware software running which already detects this script specifically. What happens if you use reg.exe to set the key from the command-line? That one does not prompt for admin rights, no matter whether you're logged into an admin account and no matter your UAC setting.
The script works for me with a local account.
Admin rights are not needed to modify the registry. Registry keys have ACLs, and many of them under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE are set to only allow modification by Administrators, but many of them under HKEY_CURRENT_USER are set to allow modification by that user. The key that this is about can be set by the user.
regedit.exe happens to ask for admin rights when the user is in the Administrators group, but other programs can be used to modify the non-admin bits of the registry.