The effect of the GPL is that it says, "Give us every last byte of your code, hide all of it underground, or completely reinvent the wheel from scratch (which may cost you your job if you don't have enough time)". It's only reasonable that someone put in such a position would simply choose to hide the infraction.
Wow. Amazing...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I have been from time to time, and because I've misread posts here and there, but I believe the assumption you are making here is that a person has a right to use any published source as they see fit simply because the source is published. Here is why I make that case:
If there is no GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I need for my project, I'm "up shit creek" as they say from around my parts. I have to "invent the wheel" as it were, or at the very least, pay a licensing fee to a company who already has invented the wheel to save myself the trouble. If there is a GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I have two options. Abide by the licensing terms of the GPL or fall back to buying a 3rd party library, feature, etc. I fail to see how anyone is worse off under this scenario than the previous. Hell, I can probably convince the developer of the GPL code to license me the code if I throw enough money his way, and it probably will be cheaper than the proprietary code that is my alternative. The final scenario where a BSD implementation exists and makes the argument moot; copy at will, and everybody is happy.
The parenthetical that I bolded struck me as the most outrageous part of your post. That phrase implies that any developer has the right to use existing code in any way, shape, or form if they are up against a deadline. Christ almighty, man! Procrastination on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine!
Putting the shoe on the other foot, lets say that the BSD license is too strict for my needs (to be realistic, lets say it's a 4-clause BSD). Does the fact that the source is out there give me the right to just use it as I see fit? Apparently so. What if I absolutely need public domain code? I might lose my job if I don't strip out the copyright notice of this BSD library. Maybe if you disclaimed the copyright to your code, I wouldn't have to violate the BSD license. Your license is so strict, that I had no choice but to hide my transgressions.
What you're really saying is:
The GPL is too strict, so developers have no choice but to hide their use of it. The BSD license should be used, so developers don't have to hide anything.
Someone releases some code that they think might be useful to someone, code that they were under no obligation to release at all, and you have the audacity to berate them because their license isn't the license that is best for you? Please tell me this really isn't what you're saying.
Being serious for a second, there is a marked difference between infringing on a copyright under a permissive license and one under a non-permissive license.
If Jammie Thomas would have incorporated the works of a few CC-BY-SA songs into her new blues album without abiding by the license, I think we'd be a lot less sympathetic.
I was under the impression that the most likely-to-be-successful defense was based on due process via the 14th Amendment and following precedent from BMW v. Gore.
Ostensibly, the statutory amount is to discourage infringement. This is just like parking tickets and littering. However, we'd rightfully be up in arms if we got a $100,000 ticket for 62/55 or a few million dollar fine for throwing a cigarette out the window.
They are not, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
When a construction worker is hired, he cuts the boards, hangs the drywall, etc., and then he collects his paycheck. The lawyer researches his case, makes appearances before the judge, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.
What the construction worker and lawyer do not do or expect, but the independent programmer or musician do is to get paid every time someone uses their work. Construction workers do not expect to be paid a monthly fee for the buildings they've already built. Lawyers do not expect to be paid when a colleague references their case in a brief. Why is it that the musician and programmer expect something different?
There are situations where the free market works much better than government currently does. It fails where there are significant externalities, imbalance of information, or the good/service is a natural monopoly.
Thank you! Can I double friend you or something?
The superiority of free markets is like any other theory: it only holds when particular preconditions and assumptions are met.
Not to mention...what constitutes a "default" install of Debian? Perhaps I always install in expert mode, but I wasn't aware that there was a default other than the essential programs like the kernel, framebuffer, bash, etc.
IIRC, his code was unlicensed. DJB believed that you didn't need a license to run a binary, compile source, etc.; this is debatable. However, you do need a license to distribute someone's copyrighted works; this is very obvious. Of course, as you say he disclaimed the copyright, so the point is now moot.
That's fair, as long as you prosecute those who gathered the evidence illegally for their crimes. If in every case where currently evidence would be dismissed under the exclusionary rule, instead a cop went to jail for breaking and entering or whatever, I think they'd be a lot more careful about how they gathered evidence.
If evidence is gathered illegally, you have two criminals. The criminal under investigation, and the criminal investigating that criminal. If you really want to be tough on crime, prosecute them both.
Great in theory, shitty in practice.
Consider the cop who illegally seizes evidence from a suspected rapist. The rapist goes to jail for his crime. At the cop's trial his defense lawyer tells the jury that the cop did indeed seize the evidence illegally, but he did it to put away a dangerous rapist who had been terrorizing their neighborhood. The jury decides to let him go even though he was obviously guilty. The cop never learns his lesson because the juries enjoy their right to nullify a law.
I could never get XvMC working on anything, but using kernel modesetting/DRI2 crashed X every time I tried to play a video in Mplayer. I hope this will fix both issues.
I always wondered why the ISPs were so down on USENET. It seems you could use something like it as a stand-in for Hulu or something similar.
It would make more sense to have episodes cached locally on the ISP's servers somewhere so that no one would be going off the farm, so to speak. Instead we all go across several networks to get a show. Local caching makes a lot more sense.
The Chrome people say that you're getting a patent license for H.264, etc. if you use Chrome. Fine.
The interesting question is "Does my patent license for H.264, etc. extend to any decoding, or only that done by Chrome?". Said in another way, is my patent license only good if I'm doing the decoding in Chrome or does it apply to decoding done by me? If it is the latter, then anyone who wants a patent license can just download Chrome -- now they have a free patent license.
IANAL (but I try to keep up on patent/copyright law), but here's how I think that would go:
gr8_phk: Here you are, sir. One compiled binary of FFMPEG, with source! customer: Thanks!
patent_lawyer: Hold on there! You don't have a patent license; pay up gr8_phk! gr8_phk: I don't need a license, Google gave me one since I got this off of Google. patent_lawyer: Google didn't give you shit. Pay up! Google: He's right, we didn't give you anything. gr8_phk: Grr!
FFMPEG developers: Wait a tick there Google! You can only use our code if you give everyone who got the source from you a patent license. Google: Well, that isn't the agreement we have with the patent holders. Sorry. FFMPEG developers: Fair enough, our lawyers will be suing you for copyright infringement. Google: Ha! You're going to sue us? I doubt it. We'll tie this up in court for years until you throw in the towel. FFMPEG developers:...
Adobe Flash Player is a resource hog - I've had issues with 720p video playing smoothly even on a Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 9800GT under Linux.
IIRC, Flash for Linux doesn't use any hardware acceleration for X. I believe they just use the X11 shared memory output, which will bring all but the fastest processors to their knees.
To test (since I could be wrong), get a 720p test video and run it in like this in a terminal:
mplayer file -vo x11
See if it still chokes. If so, there's your problem.
The friendly gentleman is referring to the fact that bits on a wire do not cost more depending on how many are 1's and how many are 0's. The physical costs of transmitting Sci-Fi over the cable lines are no more than the costs of transmitting HBO.
It is obviously true that different channels charge different amounts.
Who gave you the idea that McCain was heathy? He had melanoma. AFAIK, he has recovered and is in good health now (and will probably live to be in his 90s given his mother's longevity), but he was by no means healthy.
It is especially easy to do it with irrational numbers like pi or e. Since they do not terminate and are not periodic, you can find quite literally anything you want in them.
However copyright law provides for incredibly high statutory damages, we are talking like $100,000 per incident. Thus the RIAA can go after people for tons of money and use it as leverage to force a settlement. The problem with that is that it runs contrary to the 8th amendment.
No, it's actually the due process clause of the 14th amendment that is at issue here. See BMW v. Gore for the theory behind the assertion.
I'd be a little upset if Richy McBigbucks refuses to pay the suggested donation for admission to the museum. I mean, yeah, he has "the right" not to do so, but come on.
I tip my hat as well, but let's not labor under the assumption that the OP is some sort of crusader. Chances are pretty high that he has the freedom (read: means) to be able to put his principles before his cash flow. Indeed, money becomes less important as you have more of it.
I don't begrudge him at all. Quite to the contrary, I'm glad he was able to get to this point that he can live his live with so much personal freedom.
Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.
Correct. This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure. That is the key. The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
Not if you decide to use extents, which is a major reason why you'd want to use ext4. Per your link:
The ext3 file system is partially forward compatible with ext4, that is, an ext4 filesystem can be mounted as an ext3 partition (using "ext3" as the filesystem type when mounting). However, if the ext4 partition uses extents (a major new feature of ext4), then the ability to mount the file system as ext3 is lost.
But then again, if you're looking at ext4 just for extents, there have been other file systems that have used extents for awhile.
That's right, but what the OP is (I think) saying is that we really should just look at overall performance. Generally speaking, you can get more done per clock cycle over a parallel interface than over a serial one. And, of course, what makes serial interfaces beat parallel interfaces (when they do win) is their ability to be clocked at a higher rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Amazing...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I have been from time to time, and because I've misread posts here and there, but I believe the assumption you are making here is that a person has a right to use any published source as they see fit simply because the source is published. Here is why I make that case:
If there is no GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I need for my project, I'm "up shit creek" as they say from around my parts. I have to "invent the wheel" as it were, or at the very least, pay a licensing fee to a company who already has invented the wheel to save myself the trouble. If there is a GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I have two options. Abide by the licensing terms of the GPL or fall back to buying a 3rd party library, feature, etc. I fail to see how anyone is worse off under this scenario than the previous. Hell, I can probably convince the developer of the GPL code to license me the code if I throw enough money his way, and it probably will be cheaper than the proprietary code that is my alternative. The final scenario where a BSD implementation exists and makes the argument moot; copy at will, and everybody is happy.
The parenthetical that I bolded struck me as the most outrageous part of your post. That phrase implies that any developer has the right to use existing code in any way, shape, or form if they are up against a deadline. Christ almighty, man! Procrastination on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine!
Putting the shoe on the other foot, lets say that the BSD license is too strict for my needs (to be realistic, lets say it's a 4-clause BSD). Does the fact that the source is out there give me the right to just use it as I see fit? Apparently so. What if I absolutely need public domain code? I might lose my job if I don't strip out the copyright notice of this BSD library. Maybe if you disclaimed the copyright to your code, I wouldn't have to violate the BSD license. Your license is so strict, that I had no choice but to hide my transgressions.
What you're really saying is:
The GPL is too strict, so developers have no choice but to hide their use of it. The BSD license should be used, so developers don't have to hide anything.
Someone releases some code that they think might be useful to someone, code that they were under no obligation to release at all, and you have the audacity to berate them because their license isn't the license that is best for you? Please tell me this really isn't what you're saying.
AFAIK, 80,000 * 0 = 0.
Being serious for a second, there is a marked difference between infringing on a copyright under a permissive license and one under a non-permissive license.
If Jammie Thomas would have incorporated the works of a few CC-BY-SA songs into her new blues album without abiding by the license, I think we'd be a lot less sympathetic.
IIRC, the some of the original jury wanted to award the RIAA the statutory maximum of $150,000 per song ($3.6 million).
Unless the jury decided to nullify, I believe that the very least they could have awarded the RIAA was $750 per song ($18,000).
I was under the impression that the most likely-to-be-successful defense was based on due process via the 14th Amendment and following precedent from BMW v. Gore.
Ostensibly, the statutory amount is to discourage infringement. This is just like parking tickets and littering. However, we'd rightfully be up in arms if we got a $100,000 ticket for 62/55 or a few million dollar fine for throwing a cigarette out the window.
They are not, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
When a construction worker is hired, he cuts the boards, hangs the drywall, etc., and then he collects his paycheck. The lawyer researches his case, makes appearances before the judge, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.
What the construction worker and lawyer do not do or expect, but the independent programmer or musician do is to get paid every time someone uses their work. Construction workers do not expect to be paid a monthly fee for the buildings they've already built. Lawyers do not expect to be paid when a colleague references their case in a brief. Why is it that the musician and programmer expect something different?
Thank you! Can I double friend you or something?
The superiority of free markets is like any other theory: it only holds when particular preconditions and assumptions are met.
Not to mention...what constitutes a "default" install of Debian? Perhaps I always install in expert mode, but I wasn't aware that there was a default other than the essential programs like the kernel, framebuffer, bash, etc.
Weird license?
IIRC, his code was unlicensed. DJB believed that you didn't need a license to run a binary, compile source, etc.; this is debatable. However, you do need a license to distribute someone's copyrighted works; this is very obvious. Of course, as you say he disclaimed the copyright, so the point is now moot.
Great in theory, shitty in practice.
Consider the cop who illegally seizes evidence from a suspected rapist. The rapist goes to jail for his crime. At the cop's trial his defense lawyer tells the jury that the cop did indeed seize the evidence illegally, but he did it to put away a dangerous rapist who had been terrorizing their neighborhood. The jury decides to let him go even though he was obviously guilty. The cop never learns his lesson because the juries enjoy their right to nullify a law.
I could never get XvMC working on anything, but using kernel modesetting/DRI2 crashed X every time I tried to play a video in Mplayer. I hope this will fix both issues.
I always wondered why the ISPs were so down on USENET. It seems you could use something like it as a stand-in for Hulu or something similar.
It would make more sense to have episodes cached locally on the ISP's servers somewhere so that no one would be going off the farm, so to speak. Instead we all go across several networks to get a show. Local caching makes a lot more sense.
The Chrome people say that you're getting a patent license for H.264, etc. if you use Chrome. Fine.
The interesting question is "Does my patent license for H.264, etc. extend to any decoding, or only that done by Chrome?". Said in another way, is my patent license only good if I'm doing the decoding in Chrome or does it apply to decoding done by me? If it is the latter, then anyone who wants a patent license can just download Chrome -- now they have a free patent license.
IANAL (but I try to keep up on patent/copyright law), but here's how I think that would go:
gr8_phk: Here you are, sir. One compiled binary of FFMPEG, with source!
customer: Thanks!
patent_lawyer: Hold on there! You don't have a patent license; pay up gr8_phk!
gr8_phk: I don't need a license, Google gave me one since I got this off of Google.
patent_lawyer: Google didn't give you shit. Pay up!
Google: He's right, we didn't give you anything.
gr8_phk: Grr!
FFMPEG developers: Wait a tick there Google! You can only use our code if you give everyone who got the source from you a patent license. ...
Google: Well, that isn't the agreement we have with the patent holders. Sorry.
FFMPEG developers: Fair enough, our lawyers will be suing you for copyright infringement.
Google: Ha! You're going to sue us? I doubt it. We'll tie this up in court for years until you throw in the towel.
FFMPEG developers:
IIRC, Flash for Linux doesn't use any hardware acceleration for X. I believe they just use the X11 shared memory output, which will bring all but the fastest processors to their knees.
To test (since I could be wrong), get a 720p test video and run it in like this in a terminal:
mplayer file -vo x11
See if it still chokes. If so, there's your problem.
The friendly gentleman is referring to the fact that bits on a wire do not cost more depending on how many are 1's and how many are 0's. The physical costs of transmitting Sci-Fi over the cable lines are no more than the costs of transmitting HBO.
It is obviously true that different channels charge different amounts.
Who gave you the idea that McCain was heathy? He had melanoma. AFAIK, he has recovered and is in good health now (and will probably live to be in his 90s given his mother's longevity), but he was by no means healthy.
It is especially easy to do it with irrational numbers like pi or e. Since they do not terminate and are not periodic, you can find quite literally anything you want in them.
No, it's actually the due process clause of the 14th amendment that is at issue here. See BMW v. Gore for the theory behind the assertion.
Meh...
I'd be a little upset if Richy McBigbucks refuses to pay the suggested donation for admission to the museum. I mean, yeah, he has "the right" not to do so, but come on.
I tip my hat as well, but let's not labor under the assumption that the OP is some sort of crusader. Chances are pretty high that he has the freedom (read: means) to be able to put his principles before his cash flow. Indeed, money becomes less important as you have more of it.
I don't begrudge him at all. Quite to the contrary, I'm glad he was able to get to this point that he can live his live with so much personal freedom.
Correct. This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure. That is the key. The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
Not if you decide to use extents, which is a major reason why you'd want to use ext4. Per your link:
The ext3 file system is partially forward compatible with ext4, that is, an ext4 filesystem can be mounted as an ext3 partition (using "ext3" as the filesystem type when mounting). However, if the ext4 partition uses extents (a major new feature of ext4), then the ability to mount the file system as ext3 is lost.
But then again, if you're looking at ext4 just for extents, there have been other file systems that have used extents for awhile.
That's right, but what the OP is (I think) saying is that we really should just look at overall performance. Generally speaking, you can get more done per clock cycle over a parallel interface than over a serial one. And, of course, what makes serial interfaces beat parallel interfaces (when they do win) is their ability to be clocked at a higher rate.
Excellent job of laying the problem at the feet of those namby-pamby liberals! Bravo, sir!
If you want to debate the merits of strict constructionism, do that on your own time. Don't try to shoehorn it onto the infringement v. theft debate.
For what it's worth, there is a good chance that these damages are unconstitutional under precedent from BMW v. Gore and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker.
Sincerely,
An Originalist