In fact, the jury is still out on whether or not that is actually true. It's an assertion, but it's not gospel.
Generally speaking, "the Mozilla people" gave Debian a blanket license to use their trademark. Then Mozilla Corp. took over licensing and decided to rescind that deal unless the Debian developers agreed to hold back any changes until they took a look at them. You can see the conversation here. You may decide for yourself.
I think Mozilla did the wrong thing here. Debian didn't have much of a choice. They'd have to either put Firefox in non-free or do what they did here. I think they made the right call.
It becomes a problem when the goal of Fedora is to use Free Software. Cox et al. give a damn about making it easy for people to make derivative distros. Would you fault Debian for being the same way? They're even worse than Fedora when it comes to non-free software.
Fedora has a goal of making it easy to distribute derivatives, just as ESR has different goals of functionality at the expense of freedom. Neither is wrong or right, just different.
You need to find out for yourself what the moral thing is. I believe it is moral to help people gain access to information, so I'd do it. Do you?
As far as the legal aspects, I doubt there are any laws in your jurisdiction regarding setting up a proxy to get around a school's filtering software, but then again, you can always be charged for contributing to the delinquency of a minor for anything these days.
Have you read DKos lately? They're pretty soft on her and they're pretty damned liberal over there. The link shows her tied at 4% with Dennis Kucinich.
Hillary has very good institutional support, but rather weak grassroots support. She'll raise money like no one's business. She's looking to buy the votes of the people who decide who their going to vote for based on TV advertising and banking on the fact that the grassroots voters will hold their nose and vote for her.
Our cities and infrastructure were planned with an assumption that fuel would be cheap. If our localities would give more than lip service to mass transit, perhaps some of us could do away with the cars.
As it stands, I'm not up for a 35 minute bus ride to campus when it takes me about 10 minutes by car. If the cost savings were more than marginal, I'd think about it.
If you think Hillary is "far-Left overboard", then you probably think Bush is a moderate. We can get into a pissing match about where which politician falls on some semi-useful scale, but common wisdom is that she's pretty moderate.
Of course, these folks are running in the primaries, so expect them to get a whole lot more liberal in the coming months.
But look closely. Where does it say exactly what he's going to do? He hasn't signed on to any of the resolutions disapproving of Bush sending more troops. He does have a bill (S. 433) with regards to Iraq, but Thomas doesn't have it up yet, so we'll have to see how he wishes to "end the war". Anyone can say they are for "Improving Our Schools" and for "Creating a Healthcare System that Works". What is his specific plan to do so?
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
Obama's running on a feel-good platform. He's big on "hope" (whatever that means). Methinks he knows his issue positions aren't what most people are looking for so he's running on good feelings and wishes.
You know what they say about wishing in one hand and shitting in the other...
Too many employers look for checklists of skills rather than overall knowledge of an area. In a job interview I was once asked why I didn't ever get an A+ certification. I told them that since I had 6 years experience in the field, I didn't need it. They still pressed me to take the A+ test after I was hired.
Similarly, the fact that I'll have a related degree in the field won't matter to a lot of HR drones. They care more about MSCE and CCNP certifications than they do a Bachelor's degree. I know the underlying concepts of networking, routing, etc., but since I haven't worked directly with Cisco routers, I'm apparently useless to them. Who cares that I can learn whatever software package they're using in a week or so?
No wonder no one wants a degree in "CS". They just want a job in the field, and there are easier ways to get there than a 4-year degree.
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Novell would seem to have a patent license for any of MSFTs patents. Unless Novell can guarantee anyone who uses their GPL'd code would have the same indemnification, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the code. Of course, Novell can't guarantee this. In fact, the whole point of the deal with MSFT is so that they are the only ones with such a guarantee.
To get academic, if Novell wrote the code from scratch, they could license the code under the GPL, but I'm not sure how that would work. The GPL can't diminish rights held by the owner of the copyright. One could argue that placing code under the GPL would be a blanket patent license, but that doesn't seem likely to hold up. You'd have to talk to a copyright and/or contract lawyer about that.
That sounds almost exactly like the situation my stepfather is in. In his case, the former company sued him for using their "trade secrets" in his new job. The trade secrets were the addresses and contact numbers of customers he sold to on his trips. They decided the fact that he had relationships with their customers was an unfair advantage after he decided to find a new employer.
Last I checked it's been in court for years. They're trying to use the SCO tactic of running out the clock on him, but luckily his new employer is footing the legal bill.
We have CLECs which are people who use the lines owned by the old Bells. So in many cases I can get a different service provider. I used Speakeasy as an ISP, and I found them to be excellent. The only problem is that if there was something physically wrong with the line, they'd have to call up AT&T to fix it. And since AT&T isn't getting much money out of my line, they decided to put it on idle priority. I was without a connection for 6 days because AT&T couldn't be bothered to fix their lines. Apparently they were doing work and screwed with my line.
Of course, AT&T isn't supposed to do that, but no one ever calls them on it. So your only bet is to go with the monopolies, because you can be guaranteed better service (in my experiences anyway).
Price fixing is obvious. Take a look at any street with gas stations on either side of the road. 9 times out of 10 they have the same price. Unless that price is wholesale (or close enough to cover marginal cost), its price fixing.
The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.
That sounds pretty "selfless". Now some of the individuals who make up Wikipedia might be assholes, but I don't really do much work there, so I don't know. I contribute because I want to make things better for others. I want everyone to have access to correct information, not because I get a hard-on for having more edits than someone.
I'll concede that Jimbo might have started Wikimedia for his own, selfish reasons. If that is the case, he's no better from a moral perspective than the suits at the RIAA. I'm glad he started it, but he's an amoral person in that respect.
Even then, if Jimbo is a follower of Rand, he's done about the exact opposite of her views.
Rand would look at Wikipedia and shudder. Wikipedia is the embodiment of altruism. People helping people for reasons other than to further their own status... sickening. Jimbo should be out exploiting people, not helping them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Mozilla did the wrong thing here. Debian didn't have much of a choice. They'd have to either put Firefox in non-free or do what they did here. I think they made the right call.
It becomes a problem when the goal of Fedora is to use Free Software. Cox et al. give a damn about making it easy for people to make derivative distros. Would you fault Debian for being the same way? They're even worse than Fedora when it comes to non-free software.
Fedora has a goal of making it easy to distribute derivatives, just as ESR has different goals of functionality at the expense of freedom. Neither is wrong or right, just different.
Indeed, I was confused as well (I'm from Ohio).
With respect, the notion that anyone would demand royalties on advice they gave someone freely and without coercion is mad.
You need to find out for yourself what the moral thing is. I believe it is moral to help people gain access to information, so I'd do it. Do you?
As far as the legal aspects, I doubt there are any laws in your jurisdiction regarding setting up a proxy to get around a school's filtering software, but then again, you can always be charged for contributing to the delinquency of a minor for anything these days.
Christ, just put the puppy down for a few seconds.
The hell he is. He's an objectivist. Objectivists practically get sexually aroused at the thought of corporations.
Have you read DKos lately? They're pretty soft on her and they're pretty damned liberal over there. The link shows her tied at 4% with Dennis Kucinich.
Hillary has very good institutional support, but rather weak grassroots support. She'll raise money like no one's business. She's looking to buy the votes of the people who decide who their going to vote for based on TV advertising and banking on the fact that the grassroots voters will hold their nose and vote for her.
Our cities and infrastructure were planned with an assumption that fuel would be cheap. If our localities would give more than lip service to mass transit, perhaps some of us could do away with the cars.
As it stands, I'm not up for a 35 minute bus ride to campus when it takes me about 10 minutes by car. If the cost savings were more than marginal, I'd think about it.
If you think Hillary is "far-Left overboard", then you probably think Bush is a moderate. We can get into a pissing match about where which politician falls on some semi-useful scale, but common wisdom is that she's pretty moderate.
Of course, these folks are running in the primaries, so expect them to get a whole lot more liberal in the coming months.
But look closely. Where does it say exactly what he's going to do? He hasn't signed on to any of the resolutions disapproving of Bush sending more troops. He does have a bill (S. 433) with regards to Iraq, but Thomas doesn't have it up yet, so we'll have to see how he wishes to "end the war". Anyone can say they are for "Improving Our Schools" and for "Creating a Healthcare System that Works". What is his specific plan to do so?
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
You are free to remove it from your article listing, if you like.
Polling has shown that Blacks are more likely to vote Hillary than Obama. It was somewhere on andrewsullivan.com, but I can't seem to find the cite.
Obama's running on a feel-good platform. He's big on "hope" (whatever that means). Methinks he knows his issue positions aren't what most people are looking for so he's running on good feelings and wishes.
You know what they say about wishing in one hand and shitting in the other...
Agreed. Now if we can just get the folks in HR to acknowledge it, we'll be in business.
Too many employers look for checklists of skills rather than overall knowledge of an area. In a job interview I was once asked why I didn't ever get an A+ certification. I told them that since I had 6 years experience in the field, I didn't need it. They still pressed me to take the A+ test after I was hired.
Similarly, the fact that I'll have a related degree in the field won't matter to a lot of HR drones. They care more about MSCE and CCNP certifications than they do a Bachelor's degree. I know the underlying concepts of networking, routing, etc., but since I haven't worked directly with Cisco routers, I'm apparently useless to them. Who cares that I can learn whatever software package they're using in a week or so?
No wonder no one wants a degree in "CS". They just want a job in the field, and there are easier ways to get there than a 4-year degree.
I believe not. Section 7 of the GPL states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Novell would seem to have a patent license for any of MSFTs patents. Unless Novell can guarantee anyone who uses their GPL'd code would have the same indemnification, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the code. Of course, Novell can't guarantee this. In fact, the whole point of the deal with MSFT is so that they are the only ones with such a guarantee.
To get academic, if Novell wrote the code from scratch, they could license the code under the GPL, but I'm not sure how that would work. The GPL can't diminish rights held by the owner of the copyright. One could argue that placing code under the GPL would be a blanket patent license, but that doesn't seem likely to hold up. You'd have to talk to a copyright and/or contract lawyer about that.
That sounds almost exactly like the situation my stepfather is in. In his case, the former company sued him for using their "trade secrets" in his new job. The trade secrets were the addresses and contact numbers of customers he sold to on his trips. They decided the fact that he had relationships with their customers was an unfair advantage after he decided to find a new employer.
Last I checked it's been in court for years. They're trying to use the SCO tactic of running out the clock on him, but luckily his new employer is footing the legal bill.
We have CLECs which are people who use the lines owned by the old Bells. So in many cases I can get a different service provider. I used Speakeasy as an ISP, and I found them to be excellent. The only problem is that if there was something physically wrong with the line, they'd have to call up AT&T to fix it. And since AT&T isn't getting much money out of my line, they decided to put it on idle priority. I was without a connection for 6 days because AT&T couldn't be bothered to fix their lines. Apparently they were doing work and screwed with my line.
Of course, AT&T isn't supposed to do that, but no one ever calls them on it. So your only bet is to go with the monopolies, because you can be guaranteed better service (in my experiences anyway).
Indeed. Its pretty much Verzion, Qwest, and AT&T now. Just wait until Qwest gets bought out by one of the 2.
Price fixing is obvious. Take a look at any street with gas stations on either side of the road. 9 times out of 10 they have the same price. Unless that price is wholesale (or close enough to cover marginal cost), its price fixing.
Where do you live that you have more than 2 choices for broadband? Most people don't have the zillion choices that are needed for perfect competition.
The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.
That sounds pretty "selfless". Now some of the individuals who make up Wikipedia might be assholes, but I don't really do much work there, so I don't know. I contribute because I want to make things better for others. I want everyone to have access to correct information, not because I get a hard-on for having more edits than someone.
I'll concede that Jimbo might have started Wikimedia for his own, selfish reasons. If that is the case, he's no better from a moral perspective than the suits at the RIAA. I'm glad he started it, but he's an amoral person in that respect.
Even then, if Jimbo is a follower of Rand, he's done about the exact opposite of her views.
... sickening. Jimbo should be out exploiting people, not helping them.
Rand would look at Wikipedia and shudder. Wikipedia is the embodiment of altruism. People helping people for reasons other than to further their own status