"Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there."
i swore sco said they were the owners of the one true unix! and somebody should tell hp and ibm that they don't have real unix oses.
sorry, having looked a little harder i now see he is the chairman of the netfilter team and that the actions seem to revolve around his own project's code. i would think this should be made clearer in the text of the site as it is, at least partially, a vehicle for his personal interests. having to go to another site for the info is not enough, imho.
it is likely more of a case of incompetent web design than malfeasance though...
if the other groups are using gpl code, they are required to keep the original copyright attributions in the code. failure to do so voids their rights under the gpl as far as i know. this is their only right to that code, so they now are violating the copyrights of the original coders.
your friends should have taken the violators to court, not turned anti-gpl...
the copyright for the code rests with the authors [unless assigned to another person/group/co/org]. these are the peple that need to bring the actions. the fsf are a good starting point for people intested in doing so.
the site mentions court wins, but provides no links [eg press releases, cort decisions, etc] and doesn't even directly say that the site owner was involved in the case. he makes tenous associations between himself and the fsf, but doesn't provide any real proof of association [and no, putting a link to another website does not count].
your argument ["Here, piracy is NOT theft..."] is based on fallacious reasoning. piracy and copyright infringement are not the same thing. just because you want to call copyright infringement piracy does not make it so, as i pointed out in my previous post.
the *aa orgs are suing based on their own very narrow, self-serving, and often incorrect interpretaions of existing [and imaginary] law. they would gladly like you to believe that fair use does not exist. they bend statistics to create a false picture of loss. they misdirect the fact that any real financial losses occur from commercial infringement and piracy in eastern europe and asia. we won't get into the fact that they have been convicted of price-fixing...
in some countries, some forms of p2p file shariing may be a copyright infringement. in others the same thing may be perfectly legal [eg canada]. however, non-commercial p2p file sharing is most definitely not theft, nor is it piracy.
cherryos is a clear violation of several sections of the gpl. as such, it is in violation and the the distributors lose all rights to the code under existing copyright law.
to argue the similarity of a commercial vendor attempting to hijack another group's code with people sharing music with each other is disingenuous at best.
from this point forward you will be arguing with yourself.
piracy is pretty widely regarded as a combination of infringement, theft and fraud. not all pirates steal non-material goods. in fact, most pirates primarily steal physical goods. hence, theft. the term piracy is, imho, misapplied to p2p filesharing.
copyright infringement isn't theft as it is not defined as theft. there is a legal definition behind those words, as there is behind theft. also, copyright infringement only occurs after a user has exceeded fair use provisions.
i know you're trolling, but i couldn't resist the urge to educate. i'm a teacher at heart.
" Nope, from the moment you modified the original source code to replace it with your own code, yours are still derived work even it does not have any source code in the latest release."
this is sco's ladder theory and it is incorrect. if the final code does not contain any of the original work, it is not "derived." there are standard tests for code comparison [eg the abstraction, filtration comparison test]. it does help your defence in court though to clean room the development in case of any accidental code similarities.
"Although I am not sure if Linux should be known as a derived work of Minix."
it is not. linus built it on a "framework" of minix. in other words, the computer he used for the coding process ran minix. other than that they are not the same os. minix is a microkernel os and linux uses a monolithic kernel. even ast [creator of minix] agrees that linux is not derived from minix. it is a new, posix compliant operating sytem.
i said "copies." the quote you reference and your response is out of context.
and do you seriously think apple is the only company to produce innovative technologies and products? lots of companies do, on both "side", as i said before.
he says that he went to the apple store, as in retail.
this is THE switch computer from apple. as such, the reps should be on the lookout for people migrating and should be working extra hard to make sure the switch experience is a good one. if they don't know why he is buying what he is buying or what for, they are not really performing their jobs. you really should ask those questions...
he was simply an inept employee and missed agreat opportunity to provide valuable service to a a new [SWITCH] customer and potentially generate subsequent business.
it sounds like he bought the software at the same time as he bought the hardware. if so, the sales rep should have pointed out that the software wouldn't run on the machine he was buying. likely, the rep was more focused on earning the commission and not on servicing the customer.
"I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist."
artists, new and old, rarely make money on cd/record sales. in fact, they often end up with royalty bills at the end of the day as a result of the recoupment of fees by the labels. artists make money on touring and merchandise sails primarily.
didn't it come out that ~99%+ of all complaints to the fcc regarding objectionable content are from one special interest group. they are responsible for the staggering growth in complaints over the lastr couple of years which is the ratinale this sudden hike. while i am sure this is costing the fcc dearly to follow-up on the complaints, imho it makes more sense to fine this group for their abuse of the system.
their is a serious definciency in logical thinking in the us today.
Slashdot Mirror
there is a huge difference between for-profit, commercial violations of copyright and personal filesharing.
to simplify the issue as you do:
1 - shows you have zero grasp of the issues you are arguing
2 - or shows that you are deliberately attempting to misdirect in an effort to push your agenda
i won't even get into the fact that filesharing is legal in places like canada.
sum.zero
"Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there."
i swore sco said they were the owners of the one true unix! and somebody should tell hp and ibm that they don't have real unix oses.
sum.zero
"Stupidity is ALWAYS terminal."
so is intelligence.
sum.zero
jjjjjjjjeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
sum.zero
when people return there used up scenery for a recharge all of the stored up light will get dumped in those nice vistas...
sum.zero
sorry, having looked a little harder i now see he is the chairman of the netfilter team and that the actions seem to revolve around his own project's code. i would think this should be made clearer in the text of the site as it is, at least partially, a vehicle for his personal interests. having to go to another site for the info is not enough, imho.
it is likely more of a case of incompetent web design than malfeasance though...
sum.zero
there are very real differences between commercial indfringement and personal filesharing, not to mention that filesharing is legal in some places.
;P
your arguments, while often verbose, are simple misdirection and oversimplification.
can't we all just get along?
sum.zero
if the other groups are using gpl code, they are required to keep the original copyright attributions in the code. failure to do so voids their rights under the gpl as far as i know. this is their only right to that code, so they now are violating the copyrights of the original coders.
your friends should have taken the violators to court, not turned anti-gpl...
sum.zero
the copyright for the code rests with the authors [unless assigned to another person/group/co/org]. these are the peple that need to bring the actions. the fsf are a good starting point for people intested in doing so.
the site mentions court wins, but provides no links [eg press releases, cort decisions, etc] and doesn't even directly say that the site owner was involved in the case. he makes tenous associations between himself and the fsf, but doesn't provide any real proof of association [and no, putting a link to another website does not count].
this looks a little sketchy to me...
sum.zero
the **aas are american organizations [although they want to be the world's police].
sum.zero
your argument ["Here, piracy is NOT theft..."] is based on fallacious reasoning. piracy and copyright infringement are not the same thing. just because you want to call copyright infringement piracy does not make it so, as i pointed out in my previous post.
the *aa orgs are suing based on their own very narrow, self-serving, and often incorrect interpretaions of existing [and imaginary] law. they would gladly like you to believe that fair use does not exist. they bend statistics to create a false picture of loss. they misdirect the fact that any real financial losses occur from commercial infringement and piracy in eastern europe and asia. we won't get into the fact that they have been convicted of price-fixing...
in some countries, some forms of p2p file shariing may be a copyright infringement. in others the same thing may be perfectly legal [eg canada]. however, non-commercial p2p file sharing is most definitely not theft, nor is it piracy.
cherryos is a clear violation of several sections of the gpl. as such, it is in violation and the the distributors lose all rights to the code under existing copyright law.
to argue the similarity of a commercial vendor attempting to hijack another group's code with people sharing music with each other is disingenuous at best.
from this point forward you will be arguing with yourself.
sum.zero
piracy is pretty widely regarded as a combination of infringement, theft and fraud. not all pirates steal non-material goods. in fact, most pirates primarily steal physical goods. hence, theft. the term piracy is, imho, misapplied to p2p filesharing.
copyright infringement isn't theft as it is not defined as theft. there is a legal definition behind those words, as there is behind theft. also, copyright infringement only occurs after a user has exceeded fair use provisions.
i know you're trolling, but i couldn't resist the urge to educate. i'm a teacher at heart.
sum.zero
" Nope, from the moment you modified the original source code to replace it with your own code, yours are still derived work even it does not have any source code in the latest release."
this is sco's ladder theory and it is incorrect. if the final code does not contain any of the original work, it is not "derived." there are standard tests for code comparison [eg the abstraction, filtration comparison test]. it does help your defence in court though to clean room the development in case of any accidental code similarities.
"Although I am not sure if Linux should be known as a derived work of Minix."
it is not. linus built it on a "framework" of minix. in other words, the computer he used for the coding process ran minix. other than that they are not the same os. minix is a microkernel os and linux uses a monolithic kernel. even ast [creator of minix] agrees that linux is not derived from minix. it is a new, posix compliant operating sytem.
sum.zero
i said "copies." the quote you reference and your response is out of context.
and do you seriously think apple is the only company to produce innovative technologies and products? lots of companies do, on both "side", as i said before.
sum.zero
i'm sick of the wintel copies apple garbage.
if this is true, why is the technology used in the mac becoming ever more like that used in the wintel world [ram, ide, usb, etc].
both "sides" innovate AND copy each other. it's just good business.
sum.zero
he says that he went to the apple store, as in retail.
this is THE switch computer from apple. as such, the reps should be on the lookout for people migrating and should be working extra hard to make sure the switch experience is a good one. if they don't know why he is buying what he is buying or what for, they are not really performing their jobs. you really should ask those questions...
i think my point stands.
sum.zero
he was simply an inept employee and missed agreat opportunity to provide valuable service to a a new [SWITCH] customer and potentially generate subsequent business.
sum.zero
it sounds like he bought the software at the same time as he bought the hardware. if so, the sales rep should have pointed out that the software wouldn't run on the machine he was buying. likely, the rep was more focused on earning the commission and not on servicing the customer.
sum.zero
sum.zero
"I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist."
artists, new and old, rarely make money on cd/record sales. in fact, they often end up with royalty bills at the end of the day as a result of the recoupment of fees by the labels. artists make money on touring and merchandise sails primarily.
some quick links:
link
link
janis ian also gives her take as a musician on her website
sum.zero
this fits in perfectly with their previous business strategies:
1 - monopolize all areas of production and distribution
2 - aggressively reduce costs
3 - raise prices
and everybody goes home happy. well, everybody that isn't the customer that is...
sum.zero
didn't it come out that ~99%+ of all complaints to the fcc regarding objectionable content are from one special interest group. they are responsible for the staggering growth in complaints over the lastr couple of years which is the ratinale this sudden hike. while i am sure this is costing the fcc dearly to follow-up on the complaints, imho it makes more sense to fine this group for their abuse of the system.
their is a serious definciency in logical thinking in the us today.
sum.zero
you are mixing the singular and the plural there... ;)
sum.zero
that any ashlee simpson song consisting of silence would be a vast improvement over those with noise.
sum.zero
i was clearly joking...
sum.zero