Why does everyone seem to think that?!? More traffic == more COSTS. People pay the same amount regardless of how much they use it, so the less they use, the better for ISPs. And how many people, do you think, are going to refrain themselves from getting broadband because the availability of warez has become less?
It's the opposite. ISPs will incur less costs if the bandwidth usage is less (I believe most Australian ISPs don't charge based on data usage or based on time). Once people get broadband they will never go back.
Oops, forgot to add another point. If people can afford broadband then they'll definitely switch. Especially the kind of people who would download warez/movies (I'm implying that people who download warez/movies also use the Internet a lot for other purposes and hence they would prefer speed.)
It's the opposite. ISPs will incur less costs if the bandwidth usage is less (I believe most Australian ISPs don't charge based on data usage or based on time). Once people get broadband they will never go back.
If you had even bothered to read a few comments on that story, you would have known that lokitorrent did not indeed disappear and MPAA did in fact go against lokitorrent.
The original GPLed code owner didn't go into any agreement with you or with your company. Basically, the original coder isn't concerned with any agreement anyone makes which isn't signed by him. So if you're going to publicly distribute that or derived code, then you *have* to release the source code. If your company can claim rights to someone else' code because *you* signed an agreement with them, then any two persons can make an agreement and claim rights over a third person's code. But, obviously, that's not how it is. Your company is telling you that what they're doing is legal to just shut you up. Isn't that obvious? Or they're not completely understanding that a part of the code belongs to someone else who didn't go into an agreement with you or the company and, of course, they're probably not familiar with GPL.
If the patented "invention" was in the original code, then your company can not patent it. If the "invention" part was coded by you or someone else in the company, then they can patent it. But regardless, if your company is going to publicly redistribute/sell the code then they have to release the code under GPL and thus 'licensing' the patent too under GPL.
The second issue it, whether your company should release the code under GPL. If your company is going to publicly release/sell the modification, then it *has* to release the source code under GPL. If your company is only going to use it inhouse then they don't have to release the source code under GPL. Now, if your company is only going to give the code to *some* clients then I'm not sure. Here's what I think: The GPL dictates how you give the code to someone else if you're going to give the code to someone else. So when you're giving the code to someone, you have to license it to them under the GPL. So your company should license the code to your customers under the GPL. But they don't have to *publicly* release the code because they're not giving the code to the public and are therefore not going into any agreement with the public. The GPL applies only to the one giving the code and the one receiving the code. Everyone else is a third party and are not concerned. But if one of your clients want to re-distribute the code to the public or one of *their* customers, then they too have to license it and distribute it under the GPL and so on. The transaction is between two parties. The license says:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,...
The keyword here is "Accompany". It tells you to only *accompany* the binary-code with the source code. It doesn't tell you to publicly distribute the source code everytime you transact the code with a single party. (I hope you understand me. My mother tongue is not English. And I especially suck at lawyer-tongue) So, if you're doing a private transaction with a client - giving the code to your client - then you don't have to publicly distribute the code. Now, your client may claim that since the code is GPLed, they must get it for free. But you've probably worded the contract so that you're selling them the service of modifying the code. Anyway, it's your (your company's) and your client's headache.
You signed an agreement saying your companies own your code once your bring it in, even if you coded it before joining the company. The code belongs to your company. Sorry. I know, it sucks. I don't if verbal assurances hold in court but they probably don't and even if they did, I don't think you have much chance winning anything (can't prove etc.)
If there is a GPL violation and you want to do something about it, then, as others have said, contact that GPL violation site or contact whoever the code is being distributed to.
OK, don't bring RMS into this. Everyone on slashdot seems to either hate him or think that it makes them cool to hate him. Everytime he's mentioned, everyone starts bashing him. Now you're bashing him in the context of Linux-worshipping on slashdot. Sorry, you don't get to have this one.
Er, thanks, but is most cases just the last dd command is enough. Most of it is just elimentary error checking and you wont need it if you know what kind of file you're dealing with.
MS is selling information to others, google is not. And MS also has other info like info from our profiles on MSN (I'm not sure if they still exist or in what form they exist). But still, the reponses would have been a lot less negative if this was google.
GMail placed context sensitive ads based on people's private emails. In competition (maybe not in direct competition, but still in competition) MSN is going a step further and doing this. In competition Google or someone else might go a step even further and do something even worse. That's why even a small case of invasion of privacy is bad -- it leads to competition in unhealthy areas and it gives more justification for bigger transgressions -- and that's why some of the hue and cry raised over gmail was justified. (And of course, there is also the justifiable argument that even a small case of invasion of privacy is not acceptable)
Slashdot Mirror
This is interesting. The link when posted using URL tags is this: broken http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebutta l.pdf. A bug in slashcode.
correct link is this
Not everyone lives in USA.
And if this gets big, you think Apple is just going to sit back and not join? What, you think they care about you? They're just another company.
But even if doesn't join, Macs already have most of the bad features of TC like vendor lock-in etc,.
Here is what the opponents of Trusted Computing have to say.
The headline from ARS Technica "Spammer sues anti-spammer for $4 million". The headline from Slashdot "Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 million".
OK, so you're the exception to the rule. Big deal.
Why does everyone seem to think that?!? More traffic == more COSTS. People pay the same amount regardless of how much they use it, so the less they use, the better for ISPs. And how many people, do you think, are going to refrain themselves from getting broadband because the availability of warez has become less?
It's the opposite. ISPs will incur less costs if the bandwidth usage is less (I believe most Australian ISPs don't charge based on data usage or based on time). Once people get broadband they will never go back.
Oops, forgot to add another point. If people can afford broadband then they'll definitely switch. Especially the kind of people who would download warez/movies (I'm implying that people who download warez/movies also use the Internet a lot for other purposes and hence they would prefer speed.)
It's the opposite. ISPs will incur less costs if the bandwidth usage is less (I believe most Australian ISPs don't charge based on data usage or based on time). Once people get broadband they will never go back.
If you had even bothered to read a few comments on that story, you would have known that lokitorrent did not indeed disappear and MPAA did in fact go against lokitorrent.
Or is it just eye candy?
Like OS X? You just said that magnification is turned on your OS X installation but you're saying it's bad on Google.
It's for gentoo users to keep track of how long it takes to compile.
Everyone loves only pretty pictures.
N/A
If all webmasters don't code for IE and put a message that says this page wont look good in IE, people will switch.
There is also some CSS testing.
Er, no, that's a link to test web pages, not web browsers. (don't worry, the other guy posted a correct link before you)
OK, don't bring RMS into this. Everyone on slashdot seems to either hate him or think that it makes them cool to hate him. Everytime he's mentioned, everyone starts bashing him. Now you're bashing him in the context of Linux-worshipping on slashdot. Sorry, you don't get to have this one.
Are you being sarcastic or are you serious?
Er, thanks, but is most cases just the last dd command is enough. Most of it is just elimentary error checking and you wont need it if you know what kind of file you're dealing with.
MS is selling information to others, google is not. And MS also has other info like info from our profiles on MSN (I'm not sure if they still exist or in what form they exist). But still, the reponses would have been a lot less negative if this was google.
GMail placed context sensitive ads based on people's private emails. In competition (maybe not in direct competition, but still in competition) MSN is going a step further and doing this. In competition Google or someone else might go a step even further and do something even worse. That's why even a small case of invasion of privacy is bad -- it leads to competition in unhealthy areas and it gives more justification for bigger transgressions -- and that's why some of the hue and cry raised over gmail was justified. (And of course, there is also the justifiable argument that even a small case of invasion of privacy is not acceptable)
I think so too. Probably noone else, though.
I think you're a fucking moron. Or an Apple user, which implies the same thing.