just because a government offers a service does not mean that corporate interests cannot also offer a similar service. the key will be what added values the the corporate interests bring to the table and at what price point.
as i've posted elsewhere, i expect that the governments will outsource or strategic partner the infrastructure and maintenance. who do you think keeps all these american companies in business anyway? that's right, it's the government as the leading purchaser of their products and services.
you people are so afraid of your government. i guess if it was mine, i'd be afraid to.
and why shouldn't basic wifi access be a public good? it is becoming increasingly difficult to function in this world without access to basic functionality like email.
lastly, this discussion is about corporate interests making it illegal for a government to act on behalf of its citizens. yay freedom!
first - it is likely the government would outsource or strategic partnership most of the infrastructure and maintenance to the exisiting business interests. they would simply be seeking a low price point on behalf of their citizens.
second - their is absolutely nothing that prevents the business interests from offering their own competing service. they just have to do it with sufficient frills and at a competitive price point. that is how markets are supposed to work.
third - your scandal, higher internet costs and monopoly comments are straw men. their is no monopoly, there will be competition unless the business interests opt to not compete, there will still be isps [eg dsl/cable access], etc.
fourth - sharing is sharing. what you are talking about is not sharing. "sharing" ONLY WHEN it serves your best interests is not sharing.
"you may not realize it", but many of the things you take for granted are paid for by the taxes of people that cannot stand that their taxes are paying for it. that is the compromise we reached as a civilized society. once you pay your taxes it is no longer your money, but the republic's.
fifth - access to government services is a very good reason for this type of project. as e-gov comes to the fore, the people will need access especially those that cannot afford it.
it is cheaper and more efficient to combine your purchasing power. this is one of the concepts behind publicly funded infrastructure and what makes governments the leading purchasers in most industries. try building your own roads and see if you get a better deal on the asphalt than your municipal/state government.
big business has a definite interest in preventing your government from screwing up their profitibality projections for your city.
sum.zero
ps i wish people still read that everything i needed to know i learned in kindergarten book. sharing and helping others is good for you. it is, in fact, the good old american way.
not so much a model for others as it is a revenue stream for amazon...
amazon [bezos] hold the patents. others will only be able to do this if amazon licenses the patents. amazon has a history of not playing nice with e-commerce patents [eg one-click].
if there really was a high demand for pre-censored web access in utah then i am sure some enterprising individual would have taken it upon themselves to provide the service. i wouldn't be surprised to discover there already is one such company.
this just in: newsstands in utah now required to provide porn-free copies of penthouse to all customers making the request.
i don't care if you don't like the gpl and don't want to use it at all, but your commentary reflects a lack of knowledge about the license you are complaining about. perhaps you should actually read the gpl before you post...
as an end user you are free to do with the code as you wish. you can modify it and use it personally or in your business without releasing source. if you distribute your modified software to others, then you have to release your modified source.
you are not obligated to release your gpl program for free [as in beer]. you can charge for it, but you still have to make the source available.
i don't understand what "money to work around the gpl" means. you have money to spend on proprietary , closed source licenses? rich?
you'll have to try harder than that...
sum.zero ______________________________ i don't license music. i purchase cds.
you again ignore the substance of my comments to argue points that i don't make and that are not on-topic. if you think people didn't share things before the internet, you are either young or delusional. the only thing that has changed is the opportunity for the established business interests to actively pursue people making use of what they have become accustomed to as being their rights under fair use provisions. and again, filesharing is 100% legal in certain places.
as i mentioned, i also believe the mechanism/medium should be irrelevant to the discussion.
btw, you are free to use gpl code inhouse without distributing source code. that is one of the freedoms the gpl gives you. if you distribute the code, then other obligations arise. you should actually know what you are talking about before frothing at the mouth.
they are not equally wrong. that is exactly why there are distinctions in law.
money is THE issue when calculating the degree of infringement. that is the way the law is constructed. non-monetary infringement wasn't even prosecutable until the net act in 1997, iirc.
you argue points i don't make and ignore those that clearly don't side with your opinion. believing harder will not mot make your reality any more true.
there is an established history of people sharing the music that they love. this should be protected under free use [and was until the *aa orgs started rewriting the rulebooks]. i would argue that the mechanism/medium should not matter and that digital sharing today should be just as acceptable as sharing mixed tapes was back in the pre-burner days.
the law treats the situations differently BECAUSE they are different. just because YOU want to believe they are the same does not make it so.
on the one side you have a company generating revenue through a combination of copyright infringement and fraud.
on the other you have an individual generating zero revenue through the sharing of music. this is legal in some countries and used to be covered under fair use in the states before the *aas went on their "education" campaigns.
i believe you are being intentionally ignorant in your views and are just trolling.
i'll have to do some digging, but i thought that there was case law to the effect that contract clauses claiming ownership of your thoughts are not enforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
they have to damage control every couple of months because a party member makes a racist or homophobic comment...
notwithstanding clause threats over the definition of marriage...
significant factions that would like to repeal abortion laws...
and on and on...
sum.zero
just because a government offers a service does not mean that corporate interests cannot also offer a similar service. the key will be what added values the the corporate interests bring to the table and at what price point.
as i've posted elsewhere, i expect that the governments will outsource or strategic partner the infrastructure and maintenance. who do you think keeps all these american companies in business anyway? that's right, it's the government as the leading purchaser of their products and services.
you people are so afraid of your government. i guess if it was mine, i'd be afraid to.
and why shouldn't basic wifi access be a public good? it is becoming increasingly difficult to function in this world without access to basic functionality like email.
lastly, this discussion is about corporate interests making it illegal for a government to act on behalf of its citizens. yay freedom!
sum.zero
you expect progress from the most socially backward party in the country?
also, the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. just like the bc liberals aren't the federal liberals, or even liberal period.
sum.zero
first - it is likely the government would outsource or strategic partnership most of the infrastructure and maintenance to the exisiting business interests. they would simply be seeking a low price point on behalf of their citizens.
second - their is absolutely nothing that prevents the business interests from offering their own competing service. they just have to do it with sufficient frills and at a competitive price point. that is how markets are supposed to work.
third - your scandal, higher internet costs and monopoly comments are straw men. their is no monopoly, there will be competition unless the business interests opt to not compete, there will still be isps [eg dsl/cable access], etc.
fourth - sharing is sharing. what you are talking about is not sharing. "sharing" ONLY WHEN it serves your best interests is not sharing.
"you may not realize it", but many of the things you take for granted are paid for by the taxes of people that cannot stand that their taxes are paying for it. that is the compromise we reached as a civilized society. once you pay your taxes it is no longer your money, but the republic's.
fifth - access to government services is a very good reason for this type of project. as e-gov comes to the fore, the people will need access especially those that cannot afford it.
your vision is exceedingly narrow on this topic.
sum.zero
it is cheaper and more efficient to combine your purchasing power. this is one of the concepts behind publicly funded infrastructure and what makes governments the leading purchasers in most industries. try building your own roads and see if you get a better deal on the asphalt than your municipal/state government.
big business has a definite interest in preventing your government from screwing up their profitibality projections for your city.
sum.zero
ps i wish people still read that everything i needed to know i learned in kindergarten book. sharing and helping others is good for you. it is, in fact, the good old american way.
it uses the phrases "may infringe" and "up to" iirc. this is the situation for all software now.
god bless software patents =(
sum.zero
you'll be leaving the pants off i bet.
sum.zero
royal canadian MOUNTED police ;P
sum.zero
sony leverages their popular hardware to force their proprietary movie format and drm on the world =(
sum.zero
i'll take cheap and good.
sum.zero
this text is not here.
sum.zero
i'm guessing this will degenerate into a flamewar over filesharing.
*glances at the comments*
sigh.
sum.zero
i want it locked up in some archaic and obsolete drm so that i can't get at it anyway.
sum.zero
not so much a model for others as it is a revenue stream for amazon...
amazon [bezos] hold the patents. others will only be able to do this if amazon licenses the patents. amazon has a history of not playing nice with e-commerce patents [eg one-click].
sum.zero
i have no use for x, so x has no uses.
;)]
sum.xero [damn pen input
if there really was a high demand for pre-censored web access in utah then i am sure some enterprising individual would have taken it upon themselves to provide the service. i wouldn't be surprised to discover there already is one such company.
this just in: newsstands in utah now required to provide porn-free copies of penthouse to all customers making the request.
sum.zero
literally.
sum.zero
originally from the far side, iirc.
sum.zero
hildi has been posting nonsense throughout this thread and is better ignored.
sum.zero
i don't care if you don't like the gpl and don't want to use it at all, but your commentary reflects a lack of knowledge about the license you are complaining about. perhaps you should actually read the gpl before you post...
as an end user you are free to do with the code as you wish. you can modify it and use it personally or in your business without releasing source. if you distribute your modified software to others, then you have to release your modified source.
you are not obligated to release your gpl program for free [as in beer]. you can charge for it, but you still have to make the source available.
i don't understand what "money to work around the gpl" means. you have money to spend on proprietary , closed source licenses? rich?
you'll have to try harder than that...
sum.zero
______________________________
i don't license music.
i purchase cds.
sum.zero
_______________________________________
i do not license music. i purchase cds.
this will be my last post.
you again ignore the substance of my comments to argue points that i don't make and that are not on-topic. if you think people didn't share things before the internet, you are either young or delusional. the only thing that has changed is the opportunity for the established business interests to actively pursue people making use of what they have become accustomed to as being their rights under fair use provisions. and again, filesharing is 100% legal in certain places.
as i mentioned, i also believe the mechanism/medium should be irrelevant to the discussion.
btw, you are free to use gpl code inhouse without distributing source code. that is one of the freedoms the gpl gives you. if you distribute the code, then other obligations arise. you should actually know what you are talking about before frothing at the mouth.
sum.zero
they are not equally wrong. that is exactly why there are distinctions in law.
money is THE issue when calculating the degree of infringement. that is the way the law is constructed. non-monetary infringement wasn't even prosecutable until the net act in 1997, iirc.
you argue points i don't make and ignore those that clearly don't side with your opinion. believing harder will not mot make your reality any more true.
there is an established history of people sharing the music that they love. this should be protected under free use [and was until the *aa orgs started rewriting the rulebooks]. i would argue that the mechanism/medium should not matter and that digital sharing today should be just as acceptable as sharing mixed tapes was back in the pre-burner days.
sum.zero
the law treats the situations differently BECAUSE they are different. just because YOU want to believe they are the same does not make it so.
on the one side you have a company generating revenue through a combination of copyright infringement and fraud.
on the other you have an individual generating zero revenue through the sharing of music. this is legal in some countries and used to be covered under fair use in the states before the *aas went on their "education" campaigns.
i believe you are being intentionally ignorant in your views and are just trolling.
sum.zero
i'll have to do some digging, but i thought that there was case law to the effect that contract clauses claiming ownership of your thoughts are not enforceable.
sum.zero