If someone modifies source code you wrote and the source code is under copyright (which it is by default), the modifier has to check with you before distributing their modifications. Otherwise it's copyright infringement. This is pretty standard already in the software world.
A key difference between copyright and patents is that you know if you're infringing on someone's copyright or not. Except in instances where another person purports to have written code (but actually copied it from another source) to be included in your project, you know where the code came from. With patents you have to read the patent database and check each patent to see if your program infringes on any patents. Even if you had the resources to do that, there are many patents like this one that were applied for in 1999 but were just granted this year. To cover that situation, you'd have to check all the new patents issued every day and then stop distributing your program if any patents cover its use.
The idea behind patents was to give a limited monopoly on the exploitation of a device/process/etc. and in turn the public got to know how the device or process worked. The thing is that no one looks at patent database anymore. With respect to computer patents, by the time the patents expire the technology is long obsolete. LZW (used in compress) was under patent until 2003. By then better alternatives had already existed for awhile.
Ok, so I got a little long winded and off topic...but I hope you get the gist of it.:-)
It's a shame it took them this long to figure that out. They could have asked any one of us and we would have told them that for a $20,000 consulting fee.
The material covered in the A+ prep books was good but too much time was spent memorizing stupid minutia nobody bothers with anymore.
IIRC, there are still questions on the A+ exam that deal with the default memory address of serial ports and knowing how to work around IRQ conflicts in the BIOS.
It proves they don't have any sort of generalized computing knowledge.
I know Windows. I know Debian-based Linux systems. I've never actually even used a BSD, much less admin'd one, but I could figure out the subtleties because I have generalized knowledge rather than rote memorization used to study for a cert exam.
I applied for an all-around IT guy to do some basic maintenance. Generally speaking, the company is growing to the point that they need a dedicated "computer guy".
The HR rep asked me how much graphic design experience I had...*ugggh*
I've taken to writing a statement as to why I don't have any certs and including it with my resume. I've had places turn me down for not having an A+ cert, even though I have 8+ years experience in the industry.
You're right on the other count, too. Throw a bash prompt in front of an MCSE and watch them look at you like your dog does when you tell him a joke.
The libertarian answer looks good on paper. Neuter the government's power and go from there. The problem is that the politicians will just ignore the new limits on their power, just as they ignore them now. The only people who can hold them accountable, their constituents, won't care enough to throw them out.
There are a lot of factors working against reform:
* Politicians gerrymander districts in order to practically guarantee re-election * Politicians create arcane ballot access laws and anti-competitive voting systems to keep voter choices limited to the two major parties * Voters refuse to hold their representatives accountable for their votes on anything but "meat and potatoes" issues (when was the last time the average voter cast their ballot with patent reform in mind; do you even know your congressman's position on anything other than the main issues?)
The people are getting the government they deserve. Plain and simple. Politicians aren't making it easy for citizens to vote their conscience, but that's a lame excuse. Alternating between two corrupt parties and consistently voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us to this point. Continuing to do it won't fix anything.
Stock price is job one. If by coincidence keeping stock price up means keeping customers happy, then it's just that -- coincidence. If the best way to keep stock price up was by murdering people, there would be murders aplenty.
Meh, I actually think that Obama has a small chance of being a once-in-a-lifetime figure that might get *some* good done. He's certainly the best Democrat since I've been alive (but that isn't saying too much).
I might actually vote for him in the general if he doesn't throw away half his issues like most politicians do after the primary. The Libertarians and Greens are both going to run unpalatable candidates, and Nader will be lucky if he gets on more than a handful of state ballots.
Now in a Clinton-McCain race, all bets are off. I could see myself writing in some joker or just leaving the ballot blank.
Buy a law that makes "making available" copyright infringement. It shouldn't take too much money. The CTEA was passed on voice vote in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. If the bill gets more press than expected, they'll tack it on to a defense spending bill or some other "must pass" legislation.
I wrote a paper for an upper-level poly sci class that was in part about Castro. I came to the conclusion that he wasn't a Marxist, but was forced to ally himself with either the Soviets or the Americans. He really didn't like the Soviets any more than he liked us, but the Bay of Pigs shot down him allying with us.
Executive orders are simply orders given to an executive department in furtherance of enforcing a law already on the books. Because they come from the top dog, they are effectively law if you work in an executive department.
In my opinion, if any executive order conflicts with a law, the order must be disobeyed. If a president consistently fails to enforce laws or issues executive orders that have the effect of repealing a law, he should be impeached and removed from office.
I wish they would have more long term maintenance kernels too like 2.6.16 and keep all the crazy stuff for the kernels in between.
Well Linus thought his and his contributors' fu was so good that they could merge the stable and unstable trees. I think distros can do the heavy lifting when it comes to debugging the fast moving target that is 2.6.
All joking aside, this wouldn't work. If you could get a copyright on a blank piece of paper, you'd have to prove that the infringer used your blank (rather than another blank produced independently) to create their derivative work.
The song you are referring to is 4'33" by John Cage. You can infringe the copyright on that song, but only if you make a copy based on that recording. In fact you could create a file by extracting an equal amount of samples from/dev/zero, and it would be the same exact sound (or rather lack thereof) and file right down to the hash, but your/dev/zero "copy" isn't an infringement... because it isn't a copy; it was produced independently. In the same vein, you could theoretically just sample/dev/urandom until you got the complete works of Willie Nelson. Your files aren't infringing on his work.
Yeah. You can get into theoretical issues based on where the file was downloaded, etc. For instance, a certain copy of the program compiled under a more restrictive license, even if completely identical to a GPL'd version wouldn't be GPL'd. It's similar to the fact that downloading Radiohead's album from a P2P service is copyright infringement, but downloading it directly from their server isn't. It all depends on the "colour of your bits."
All he has to do is make a one line diff and take it closed source. Now it's not under the GPL. Until he does that, any copies randomly floating around are under the GPL until his copyright expires.
The main problem here is "continuation filings". Using these, you can take longer and longer to amend your patent. Of course, that means that you can amend your patent to cover things that are already in the market. So file in '97 and file enough continuations until 2000 or so and you've just retroactively patented 3 years worth of progress.
What needs to happen is that if you file a continuation, the clock gets reset to that continuation. So file in '97 and file a continuation in 2000 means that anything in '98 and '99 now counts as prior art.
Yeah, 2.5 options make for a very competitive market. You (or other monopoly) own my phone lines, while my cable monopoly owns my cable lines. High-latency satellite connections, slow-ass dialup (still over the monopoly's lines, BTW), or "unlimited" (5GB cap) cell data plans are the rest of the.5 options.
I think a lot of businesses would be quite happy to have such an absence of competition in their markets.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope I'm getting your question right...
:-)
If someone modifies source code you wrote and the source code is under copyright (which it is by default), the modifier has to check with you before distributing their modifications. Otherwise it's copyright infringement. This is pretty standard already in the software world.
A key difference between copyright and patents is that you know if you're infringing on someone's copyright or not. Except in instances where another person purports to have written code (but actually copied it from another source) to be included in your project, you know where the code came from. With patents you have to read the patent database and check each patent to see if your program infringes on any patents. Even if you had the resources to do that, there are many patents like this one that were applied for in 1999 but were just granted this year. To cover that situation, you'd have to check all the new patents issued every day and then stop distributing your program if any patents cover its use.
The idea behind patents was to give a limited monopoly on the exploitation of a device/process/etc. and in turn the public got to know how the device or process worked. The thing is that no one looks at patent database anymore. With respect to computer patents, by the time the patents expire the technology is long obsolete. LZW (used in compress) was under patent until 2003. By then better alternatives had already existed for awhile.
Ok, so I got a little long winded and off topic...but I hope you get the gist of it.
It's a shame it took them this long to figure that out. They could have asked any one of us and we would have told them that for a $20,000 consulting fee.
(apologies to Mr. Black for ripping him off)
IIRC, there are still questions on the A+ exam that deal with the default memory address of serial ports and knowing how to work around IRQ conflicts in the BIOS.
I literally just wrote it, but I never actually saved it. I'd post it here otherwise.
Best of luck.
That's my argument, too.
I'm unemployed (if you couldn't gather) and I simply don't have the money to be getting certs left and right.
It proves they don't have any sort of generalized computing knowledge.
I know Windows. I know Debian-based Linux systems. I've never actually even used a BSD, much less admin'd one, but I could figure out the subtleties because I have generalized knowledge rather than rote memorization used to study for a cert exam.
I applied for an all-around IT guy to do some basic maintenance. Generally speaking, the company is growing to the point that they need a dedicated "computer guy".
The HR rep asked me how much graphic design experience I had...*ugggh*
I've taken to writing a statement as to why I don't have any certs and including it with my resume. I've had places turn me down for not having an A+ cert, even though I have 8+ years experience in the industry.
You're right on the other count, too. Throw a bash prompt in front of an MCSE and watch them look at you like your dog does when you tell him a joke.
Good point.
The libertarian answer looks good on paper. Neuter the government's power and go from there. The problem is that the politicians will just ignore the new limits on their power, just as they ignore them now. The only people who can hold them accountable, their constituents, won't care enough to throw them out.
There are a lot of factors working against reform:
* Politicians gerrymander districts in order to practically guarantee re-election
* Politicians create arcane ballot access laws and anti-competitive voting systems to keep voter choices limited to the two major parties
* Voters refuse to hold their representatives accountable for their votes on anything but "meat and potatoes" issues (when was the last time the average voter cast their ballot with patent reform in mind; do you even know your congressman's position on anything other than the main issues?)
The people are getting the government they deserve. Plain and simple. Politicians aren't making it easy for citizens to vote their conscience, but that's a lame excuse. Alternating between two corrupt parties and consistently voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us to this point. Continuing to do it won't fix anything.
Correct.
Stock price is job one. If by coincidence keeping stock price up means keeping customers happy, then it's just that -- coincidence. If the best way to keep stock price up was by murdering people, there would be murders aplenty.
Not only that but the GPL doesn't constrain any author. It only constrains people who wish to distribute the author's code.
Meh, I actually think that Obama has a small chance of being a once-in-a-lifetime figure that might get *some* good done. He's certainly the best Democrat since I've been alive (but that isn't saying too much).
I might actually vote for him in the general if he doesn't throw away half his issues like most politicians do after the primary. The Libertarians and Greens are both going to run unpalatable candidates, and Nader will be lucky if he gets on more than a handful of state ballots.
Now in a Clinton-McCain race, all bets are off. I could see myself writing in some joker or just leaving the ballot blank.
d)
Buy a law that makes "making available" copyright infringement. It shouldn't take too much money. The CTEA was passed on voice vote in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. If the bill gets more press than expected, they'll tack it on to a defense spending bill or some other "must pass" legislation.
I wrote a paper for an upper-level poly sci class that was in part about Castro. I came to the conclusion that he wasn't a Marxist, but was forced to ally himself with either the Soviets or the Americans. He really didn't like the Soviets any more than he liked us, but the Bay of Pigs shot down him allying with us.
Executive orders are simply orders given to an executive department in furtherance of enforcing a law already on the books. Because they come from the top dog, they are effectively law if you work in an executive department.
In my opinion, if any executive order conflicts with a law, the order must be disobeyed. If a president consistently fails to enforce laws or issues executive orders that have the effect of repealing a law, he should be impeached and removed from office.
Well Linus thought his and his contributors' fu was so good that they could merge the stable and unstable trees. I think distros can do the heavy lifting when it comes to debugging the fast moving target that is 2.6.
I'm not concerned about ripping off rich people and you shouldn't be either.
All joking aside, this wouldn't work. If you could get a copyright on a blank piece of paper, you'd have to prove that the infringer used your blank (rather than another blank produced independently) to create their derivative work.
/dev/zero, and it would be the same exact sound (or rather lack thereof) and file right down to the hash, but your /dev/zero "copy" isn't an infringement ... because it isn't a copy; it was produced independently. In the same vein, you could theoretically just sample /dev/urandom until you got the complete works of Willie Nelson. Your files aren't infringing on his work.
The song you are referring to is 4'33" by John Cage. You can infringe the copyright on that song, but only if you make a copy based on that recording. In fact you could create a file by extracting an equal amount of samples from
Yeah. You can get into theoretical issues based on where the file was downloaded, etc. For instance, a certain copy of the program compiled under a more restrictive license, even if completely identical to a GPL'd version wouldn't be GPL'd. It's similar to the fact that downloading Radiohead's album from a P2P service is copyright infringement, but downloading it directly from their server isn't. It all depends on the "colour of your bits."
Right.
I don't think we're disagreeing. The new version is whatever license the author wants it to be under. The old version(s) is still under the GPL.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
All he has to do is make a one line diff and take it closed source. Now it's not under the GPL. Until he does that, any copies randomly floating around are under the GPL until his copyright expires.
At the very least, you can be extremely vague in the original filing, and then go "oh, yeah that's what I meant" a few years later.
The main problem here is "continuation filings". Using these, you can take longer and longer to amend your patent. Of course, that means that you can amend your patent to cover things that are already in the market. So file in '97 and file enough continuations until 2000 or so and you've just retroactively patented 3 years worth of progress.
What needs to happen is that if you file a continuation, the clock gets reset to that continuation. So file in '97 and file a continuation in 2000 means that anything in '98 and '99 now counts as prior art.
So could you.
The fact that you think ISPs exist in anything close to approximating a free market is laughable.
Yeah, 2.5 options make for a very competitive market. You (or other monopoly) own my phone lines, while my cable monopoly owns my cable lines. High-latency satellite connections, slow-ass dialup (still over the monopoly's lines, BTW), or "unlimited" (5GB cap) cell data plans are the rest of the
I think a lot of businesses would be quite happy to have such an absence of competition in their markets.