Rejection of Windows XP by IT departments and consumers worldwide for its odious licensing, configuration tracking and content protection will be punishment enough!
// agreement.h // Forces user to waive all warranty rights // Copyright (c) 2001 Paranoid Corporation // All rights reserved
/*
* In order for this program to successfully compile, you must modify the
* line below to have a value of 1. MODIFYING THE SOURCE CODE OF THIS PROGRAM
* VOIDS ANY WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
*/
It's beyond me how essentially what is the exercise of free speech can incur a liability of warranty, especially with explicit notices disclaiming all liability for any and all damage and/or loss incurred through the use of the software.
Of course, getting in trouble with commercial organizations because you are encroaching on their "intellectual property rights" seems to be a near daily event these days, but warranty liabilities?
Will scientists be sued next for disclosing scientific principles, algorithms and processes for breach of warranty if some experiment backfires? I must conclude that the precident of suing people for releasing their source code into the public domain could have a chilling effect on the open source community, perhaps starting with HeroineWarrior.com.
Closing down B2000 represents a significant blow to the Linux-based Video Editing segment. As I recall, commercial organizations were bundling B2000 in a turnkey video editing hardware solution. I guess they'll be looking for alternatives, none of which are as mature or advanced as B2000.
IANAL, but IMHO free (speech) software should be handled rather like free advice. Take it for what it's worth.
no, it's not socialism. it's capitalism - unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to monopolistic practices and control or corruption of the political & legal systems.
Imposing a levy on blank CD-Rs is not "unfettered capitalism". Capitalism doesn't mean the use of government force to further a corporation's (or association's) goals. That is what this proposed levying scheme would represent.
When governments interfere "for the good of society", as will inevitably be argued here (good for us lowly consumers because it keeps the prices of music low), you've got a form of socialism.
Anytime government takes from one individual to support the consumption of a product or service by another, you've got socialism.
Only when the government stays out of the picture can you call it "unfettered capitalism". Only then will the RIAA be forced to stand on its own two feet to deal with the market realities it faces today.
According to the press release to justify that CD's are better than MP3s:
DVD video growing in popularity further confirmation that the disc is the preferred format over all others is found in DVD video shipments.
What kind of positioning by the RIAA is this? DVDs are a very popular delivery method for video. Translating this into popularity of audio on compact discs seems ludicrous to me. By the same token, here's my flawed reasoning for the comeback of snail mail over email...
Recent increase in Stephen King book readership further confirmation that paper is the preferred correspondence format over all others is found in book sales statistics.
CDs are becoming less popular because there's a more convenient distribution channel called the Internet. When the Internet becomes convenient enough to muscle videos around, DVD sales should drop accordingly.
Presumption of Guilt or Socialism?
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have a problem with a levy tax because it presumes that I am currently or will break the law. Since I do not purchase much music, why the hell I should reimburse the RIAA for money they wouldn't have gotten from me anyway?
Actually, it doesn't presume you're guilty. It presumes that a percentage of the population is going to break the law, and forces you to share in the RIAA's losses. Though this distinction may be slight, here's why the problem is significant.
If a store loses money due to theft of merchandise, it passes it onto its own customers through rising prices. If someone steals from a credit card company, they charge higher interest.
If companies lose lots of money because of product or security mismanagement, they won't be in business for long, because nobody will pay their high prices when their competitors charge less.
The RIAA's strategy is to place this burden on someone else's customers, namely those who might engage in "theft" of their products.
This is socialism, plain and simple. People pay for someone else's enjoyment of a product or service. If someone "steals" from the RIAA, they're stealing from everyone.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
This could just as easily read in the following manner, which hopefully illustrates the fallacy of this position.
The colonel's secret recipe is an exercise of power, and it harms consumers by denying their freedom. When consumers lack the freedoms that define Free Recipe, they can't tell if the chicken was cooked correctly, can't check for inappropriate ingredients, can't monitor quality control, can't monitor fat content (or lower the fat content, if it's too high). If it gets lost, they can't cook more themselves; they have to wait for the restaurant to exercise its power to cook more. If the chicken simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Proprietary software does not limit our freedom. When you purchase and use proprietary software, you, the user, are making an informed decision. You implicitly agree to the limitiations of using such software, and can always uninstall it, and choose an alternative. If no alternatives exist, you are free to develop your own alternative.
Free (speech) software just makes more sense to users. More and more, the decision to use proprietary software becomes untenable, because of the lack of features, namely, the ability to enhance the product, to find bugs, to sniff out backdoors.
Suppose one gets caught with such an image. According to him, the technique has a 90% chance of success. So what about the 10%, wherein, one has no message encoded in an image, but triggers tha alarms anyway?
The 10% miss rate in and of itself should still represent plausable deniability. If you take standard legal practices, a 90% probability of a "match" is still weak enough that it would require other supporting evidence, circumstantial or otherwise to present a reasonable case.
If you get caught by the FBI, what can you say?
Caught how? It's not illegal to embed hidden messages in images, just as it's not illegal to hide a plot in pornography - though both are equally unlikely.
I just more more eveidence than this is required for a warrant to be issued.
IANAL, but a 90% probability that you're engaging in a perfectly legal activity doesn't seem, on its face, to meet the burden of probable cause necessary to perform a legal search and seizure.
I think it is important to address the questions you ask in as honest a manner as possible.
The linux community has rallied behind causes we felt were worth supporting in the past, however cannot remember any instance in which the community has rallied behind a commercial venture before.
Nor can I, and I think the reason is simple: the Linux community has not and probably will not rally behind commercial organizations. It's generally counter to the open-source, share-information culture inherent in the Linux community.
Anyone interested in setting up a Paypal account for the purpose of helping out Loki?
Maybe, but not me, and not a lot of Linux enthusiasts. I prefer to apply my time and financial resources toward a cause that better suits my needs in the end, and gaming is not it.
Today, my strongest Linux interests are: stronger office suite offerings, stronger video editing offerings and Sorenson codec cloning/grafting/hacking -- whatever to get the damn support working under Linux.
I believe such endeavours are more beneficial to the Linux community at large, and if I'm wrong, at least such endeavours better fulfill my needs of Linux, which is the whole point.
Contribute where it matters to you most, worry about your own self interests, others will do the same, and if we share our results, we all win in big ways.
Maybe games fill that role for more Linux enthusiasts than I think. I have been known to make mistakes... (pause)... from time to time.
Would you be willing to donate a few bucks to help keep Loki afloat?
I think you may be largely underestimating the problems that Loki faces. Maybe some donations will pull them out of their current financial crisis, but there's no indication that they would come up with a long term strategy that works both for the Linux community and fiscally.
If a company cannot work at a financial level, the battle is already lost, it's just a matter of time. Nobody wants to sink money into a black hole, even if it feels like a good cause. If you don't think it will make a difference, then what's the point?
Anyone with me?
I'm sorry, but I think anyone who follows this proposition on its face is asking to waste money. I think it only wise to "chip into" projects that can demonstrate (or at least illustrate) an endgame that makes sense - namely: a company that can sustain itself and provide value to the Linux community.
I like Loki. I like its games. I like the quality of its work. I like its contributions to the open source community. It did everything right, and I haven't bought a game. I probably would never have. It's cold. It's hard. It's probably flamebait. It's the truth.
It also bears mentioning that ASN.1, BER and DER are all complete hairballs to implement (I'm trying to be nice). The creation and enforcement of ASN.1 encoded streams is beyond the capabilities of typical developers (at least me and a number of highly competent co-workers).
XML, on the other hand, is human readable and easy for any developer with any SGML-based markup language experience to pickup and implement -- generally, in a matter of hours. Furthermore, there is a wide array of XML-based tools to assist developers in ensuring DTD compliance.
If it's compression we want, we should seriously consider alternate encoding schemes for XML (tokenizing perhaps?), including obvious compression schemes such as gzip or bzip2. Better yet, how about IPv6 integrated compression?
If you want the source to this modem driver, go to http://www.heby.de/ltmodem. On Debian, I simply modprobe ltserial and ltmodem, with no options on the IBM ThinkPad X21. SB the same on the T20.
BTW, it's been updated significantly since 5.68 (6.00 was just released). I'm currently using 5.99 without any significant issues, except sometimes long initial handshaking.
I intend to listen to my collection primarily on a home stereo system - not my PC. For this, I intend to use an above average sound card, an above average amplifier, with above average speakers.
I performed a blind comparison of LAME-encoded MP3s and Ogg Vorbis-encoded music at varying bit rates. The bottom line is at bitrates at or below 192 Kb, I can hear (or sense) compression artifacts. My reason for using Vorbis is that it provides the best bang for the byte. The fact that it is free (speech) is a nice bonus.
Whether Vorbis takes hold in the market in a significant way is a good question. The GIF vs. PNG analogy (mentioned in another thread) seems like a good model. PNG didn't usurp GIF's "market share" overnight, and perhaps never will. This could hold true for Vorbis as well.
On the other hand, we're already seeing new codecs being added to hardware and software, including Windows Media. I think the biggest hurdle that Vorbis will need to overcome is its floating point requirements. Most consumer equipment, as I understand it, is integer-based. If an integer-based Vorbis codec were available, I think it could easily become an option in a number of products.
This seems like an apples to oranges comparison, because a significant number of people I know use Windows which isn't legally licensed! Time and time again, I see burned copies of Windows being installed and sitting on bookshelves. This doesn't seem to be a problem with Linux, because the distro is essentially free, with the value add being media and documentation packaging.
As for a couple of posts i've read about CDFreak being in danger of legal repercussions, their case is different from Dmitry's in that (please correct me if i'm mistaken) they're giving the software away for free, not selling it to make money, so they're not breaking any laws, even under the DMCA.
IIRC, the DMCA makes trafficking in circumvention devices illegal. This is what made DeCSS (free) still illegal under the DMCA, and what presumably makes CDFreak's software illegal as well.
I am not a lawyer! Get real legal advice! If you trust legal advice from Slashdotters, you deserve what you get!
1. Change the name. Mitigate the immediate liability of using a confusingly similar name to Adobe Illustrator.
2. Notify the firm and Adobe of the change and to show good will in complying with Adobe's request for a name change.
3. Demonstrate to the law firm that KIllustrator is a non-profit venture, run by volunteers.
4. Do not release any information about users of the software. Stand your ground here.
5. Refuse to pay the *cough*blackmail*cough* legal fee. This is the cost of Adobe protecting its trademark.
6. Find a good lawyer and start a legal defense fund in case they press the issue further.:(
Actions must be grounded in facts
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
When there is well documented, scientifically accepted proof that SUVs are doing irrecoverable damage to our environment, then action against SUV manufacturers and dealers might be justified. Until then, this is nothing more than misguided and destructive activism.
Unfortunately, it seems environmentalists far too often base their activism not on what our "tampering with nature" is actually doing to the environment, but what it might do.
You might walk up to me and rob me. You aren't guilty unless it actually happens. Smashing in a Starbucks window, for example, because Bovine Growth Hormone might be bad for us is ludicrous!
Show me proof, then I'll be sympathetic. Don't feed me unfounded fear mongering or far-fetched theories or that are repudiated by the majority of scientists worldwide.
When environmentalists come to the debate with facts, not FUD, then I'll be more attentive to their position. Until then, I will continue to consider them rebels without a cause.
Freedom makes money for Zero Knowledge because people subscribe to their Freedom Network service. The product is only the means to this end.
I think a business case can be made to convince ZN to release their source code for Freedom Client into open source.
This would allow interested parties (like myself) to create clients that support their Freedom Network infrastructure, while ZN focuses on the network itself.
Instead of emailing customer support and complaining (to fall on deaf ears), perhaps we should email their marketing department and pitch them getting Freedom subscriptions from those who most appreciate it (us) by releasing Freedom Client into open source.
Linux does not (and cannot) address the single most important (and non-free) feature of Freedom: the ability to access the Internet anonymously.
The Freedom Network provides this by allowing your system to cryptographically and transparently communicate with its network, having your requests "pop out" of their network at a random point to reach its destination.
This makes your use of the Internet untraceable, unless you identify yourself and allow session management facilities to take hold.
I too tried to get Freedom client to work on my Debian GNU/Linux system, to no avail. I had hoped that it would work someday.
Freedom is a service I would paid for, if it were to work on my platform (which now seems more doubtful than ever).
If the company wants to blank-out the faces, what the hell is wrong with that? How's that "keeping them back"? Employees are free to find other work through whatever means they can. Is it the employer's job to advertise their employees to others? Absolutely not!
The employer's duty is to pay the employee the negotiated salary, stock options and benefits for services rendered. It was a consentual transaction.
Comparing this to slavery only insults those who have been and still are subject to slavery in its true form, and illustrates just how ignorant you are.
In case you need a refresher on what slavery is: slaves are those who are forced to work and produce without consent. They are forced. They have no choice. Attempts to escape captivity results in force, often deadly.
But isn't copyright a limitation on expression? A limit on the protection of the First Amendment? Isn't expression being acknowledged as such if it is being protected by copyright?
I can envision speech possibly being protected by the First Amendment, but not copyright. Copyrights, after all, expire. However, something protected by copyright without free speech guarantees seems more difficult to justify.
It seems to me, a strong point was missed in this hearing, and in the Amicus briefs:
If software is functional, and not speech, then how can it be protected by copyright? Either it's speech and protected by copyright, or it's functional and it's not.
Either Microsoft Windoze is speech, and is thus protected by copyright from unauthorized copying and distribution, or it's functional, and deserves no protection under the Copyright Act.
Either DeCSS is speech, and is thus protected by copyright, or it's functional and deserves no protection.
Am I missing some fundamental point in the law here? How can we have it both ways?
If DeCSS is ruled functional and not speech, or at least "more functional" than speech, will I have a legitimate argument to make about making unauthorized copies of copyrighted software?
I finally laughed out loud. I think it's funny because the constant stream of April Fool's jokes has succeeded in wearing me down. It's like Chinese water torture. A few more postings today and I'll admit to anything. I was the second man on the grassy knoll.
By the way, I feel it is important to point out that the Parrot programming language, as currently documented, infringes on several of my regular expression indentation patents.
Memorization is copying; copying is theft! Seeing is recording; recording is theft! Learning is downloading; downloading is theft!
It's easy to avoid problems with this new cartel: avoid watching major league baseball. Go watch (and support!) smaller, local teams. Hell, beer tastes better there anyway!
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, but i don't recall either Linux or Tux (or Linus, Alan, or GNU/Richard for that matter) making any such promise. AFAIK, any such warrants or predictions of Linux being Unix for the masses was made by the media, and by specific distro vendors. This "promise" resulted in much hype during IPOs, and sold numerous newspapers and magazines. Mission accomplished.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking the sources of make and modifying them to ignore that constant would be trivial.
Taking the sources of make and modifying them would void the warranty.
Rejection of Windows XP by IT departments and consumers worldwide for its odious licensing, configuration tracking and content protection will be punishment enough!
* In order for this program to successfully compile, you must modify the
* line below to have a value of 1. MODIFYING THE SOURCE CODE OF THIS PROGRAM
* VOIDS ANY WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
*/
#define USER_AGREES_TO_WAIVE_WARRANTY_RIGHTS 0
It's beyond me how essentially what is the exercise of free speech can incur a liability of warranty, especially with explicit notices disclaiming all liability for any and all damage and/or loss incurred through the use of the software.
Of course, getting in trouble with commercial organizations because you are encroaching on their "intellectual property rights" seems to be a near daily event these days, but warranty liabilities?
Will scientists be sued next for disclosing scientific principles, algorithms and processes for breach of warranty if some experiment backfires? I must conclude that the precident of suing people for releasing their source code into the public domain could have a chilling effect on the open source community, perhaps starting with HeroineWarrior.com.
Closing down B2000 represents a significant blow to the Linux-based Video Editing segment. As I recall, commercial organizations were bundling B2000 in a turnkey video editing hardware solution. I guess they'll be looking for alternatives, none of which are as mature or advanced as B2000.
IANAL, but IMHO free (speech) software should be handled rather like free advice. Take it for what it's worth.
no, it's not socialism. it's capitalism - unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to monopolistic practices and control or corruption of the political & legal systems.
Imposing a levy on blank CD-Rs is not "unfettered capitalism". Capitalism doesn't mean the use of government force to further a corporation's (or association's) goals. That is what this proposed levying scheme would represent.
When governments interfere "for the good of society", as will inevitably be argued here (good for us lowly consumers because it keeps the prices of music low), you've got a form of socialism.
Anytime government takes from one individual to support the consumption of a product or service by another, you've got socialism.
Only when the government stays out of the picture can you call it "unfettered capitalism". Only then will the RIAA be forced to stand on its own two feet to deal with the market realities it faces today.
According to the press release to justify that CD's are better than MP3s:
DVD video growing in popularity further confirmation that the disc is the preferred format over all others is found in DVD video shipments.
What kind of positioning by the RIAA is this? DVDs are a very popular delivery method for video. Translating this into popularity of audio on compact discs seems ludicrous to me. By the same token, here's my flawed reasoning for the comeback of snail mail over email...
Recent increase in Stephen King book readership further confirmation that paper is the preferred correspondence format over all others is found in book sales statistics.
CDs are becoming less popular because there's a more convenient distribution channel called the Internet. When the Internet becomes convenient enough to muscle videos around, DVD sales should drop accordingly.
I have a problem with a levy tax because it presumes that I am currently or will break the law. Since I do not purchase much music, why the hell I should reimburse the RIAA for money they wouldn't have gotten from me anyway?
Actually, it doesn't presume you're guilty. It presumes that a percentage of the population is going to break the law, and forces you to share in the RIAA's losses. Though this distinction may be slight, here's why the problem is significant.
If a store loses money due to theft of merchandise, it passes it onto its own customers through rising prices. If someone steals from a credit card company, they charge higher interest.
If companies lose lots of money because of product or security mismanagement, they won't be in business for long, because nobody will pay their high prices when their competitors charge less.
The RIAA's strategy is to place this burden on someone else's customers, namely those who might engage in "theft" of their products.
This is socialism, plain and simple. People pay for someone else's enjoyment of a product or service. If someone "steals" from the RIAA, they're stealing from everyone.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
This could just as easily read in the following manner, which hopefully illustrates the fallacy of this position.
The colonel's secret recipe is an exercise of power, and it harms consumers by denying their freedom. When consumers lack the freedoms that define Free Recipe, they can't tell if the chicken was cooked correctly, can't check for inappropriate ingredients, can't monitor quality control, can't monitor fat content (or lower the fat content, if it's too high). If it gets lost, they can't cook more themselves; they have to wait for the restaurant to exercise its power to cook more. If the chicken simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Proprietary software does not limit our freedom. When you purchase and use proprietary software, you, the user, are making an informed decision. You implicitly agree to the limitiations of using such software, and can always uninstall it, and choose an alternative. If no alternatives exist, you are free to develop your own alternative.
Free (speech) software just makes more sense to users. More and more, the decision to use proprietary software becomes untenable, because of the lack of features, namely, the ability to enhance the product, to find bugs, to sniff out backdoors.
Let's not confuse features with freedom.
Suppose one gets caught with such an image. According to him, the technique has a 90% chance of success. So what about the 10%, wherein, one has no message encoded in an image, but triggers tha alarms anyway?
The 10% miss rate in and of itself should still represent plausable deniability. If you take standard legal practices, a 90% probability of a "match" is still weak enough that it would require other supporting evidence, circumstantial or otherwise to present a reasonable case.
If you get caught by the FBI, what can you say?
Caught how? It's not illegal to embed hidden messages in images, just as it's not illegal to hide a plot in pornography - though both are equally unlikely.
I just more more eveidence than this is required for a warrant to be issued.
IANAL, but a 90% probability that you're engaging in a perfectly legal activity doesn't seem, on its face, to meet the burden of probable cause necessary to perform a legal search and seizure.
I think it is important to address the questions you ask in as honest a manner as possible.
... (pause) ... from time to time.
The linux community has rallied behind causes we felt were worth supporting in the past, however cannot remember any instance in which the community has rallied behind a commercial venture before.
Nor can I, and I think the reason is simple: the Linux community has not and probably will not rally behind commercial organizations. It's generally counter to the open-source, share-information culture inherent in the Linux community.
Anyone interested in setting up a Paypal account for the purpose of helping out Loki?
Maybe, but not me, and not a lot of Linux enthusiasts. I prefer to apply my time and financial resources toward a cause that better suits my needs in the end, and gaming is not it.
Today, my strongest Linux interests are: stronger office suite offerings, stronger video editing offerings and Sorenson codec cloning/grafting/hacking -- whatever to get the damn support working under Linux.
I believe such endeavours are more beneficial to the Linux community at large, and if I'm wrong, at least such endeavours better fulfill my needs of Linux, which is the whole point.
Contribute where it matters to you most, worry about your own self interests, others will do the same, and if we share our results, we all win in big ways.
Maybe games fill that role for more Linux enthusiasts than I think. I have been known to make mistakes
Would you be willing to donate a few bucks to help keep Loki afloat?
I think you may be largely underestimating the problems that Loki faces. Maybe some donations will pull them out of their current financial crisis, but there's no indication that they would come up with a long term strategy that works both for the Linux community and fiscally.
If a company cannot work at a financial level, the battle is already lost, it's just a matter of time. Nobody wants to sink money into a black hole, even if it feels like a good cause. If you don't think it will make a difference, then what's the point?
Anyone with me?
I'm sorry, but I think anyone who follows this proposition on its face is asking to waste money. I think it only wise to "chip into" projects that can demonstrate (or at least illustrate) an endgame that makes sense - namely: a company that can sustain itself and provide value to the Linux community.
I like Loki. I like its games. I like the quality of its work. I like its contributions to the open source community. It did everything right, and I haven't bought a game. I probably would never have. It's cold. It's hard. It's probably flamebait. It's the truth.
I agree completely!
It also bears mentioning that ASN.1, BER and DER are all complete hairballs to implement (I'm trying to be nice). The creation and enforcement of ASN.1 encoded streams is beyond the capabilities of typical developers (at least me and a number of highly competent co-workers).
XML, on the other hand, is human readable and easy for any developer with any SGML-based markup language experience to pickup and implement -- generally, in a matter of hours. Furthermore, there is a wide array of XML-based tools to assist developers in ensuring DTD compliance.
If it's compression we want, we should seriously consider alternate encoding schemes for XML (tokenizing perhaps?), including obvious compression schemes such as gzip or bzip2. Better yet, how about IPv6 integrated compression?
Sure, it's binary only, but it works.
If you want the source to this modem driver, go to http://www.heby.de/ltmodem. On Debian, I simply modprobe ltserial and ltmodem, with no options on the IBM ThinkPad X21. SB the same on the T20.
BTW, it's been updated significantly since 5.68 (6.00 was just released). I'm currently using 5.99 without any significant issues, except sometimes long initial handshaking.
I intend to listen to my collection primarily on a home stereo system - not my PC. For this, I intend to use an above average sound card, an above average amplifier, with above average speakers.
I performed a blind comparison of LAME-encoded MP3s and Ogg Vorbis-encoded music at varying bit rates. The bottom line is at bitrates at or below 192 Kb, I can hear (or sense) compression artifacts. My reason for using Vorbis is that it provides the best bang for the byte. The fact that it is free (speech) is a nice bonus.
Whether Vorbis takes hold in the market in a significant way is a good question. The GIF vs. PNG analogy (mentioned in another thread) seems like a good model. PNG didn't usurp GIF's "market share" overnight, and perhaps never will. This could hold true for Vorbis as well.
On the other hand, we're already seeing new codecs being added to hardware and software, including Windows Media. I think the biggest hurdle that Vorbis will need to overcome is its floating point requirements. Most consumer equipment, as I understand it, is integer-based. If an integer-based Vorbis codec were available, I think it could easily become an option in a number of products.
This seems like an apples to oranges comparison, because a significant number of people I know use Windows which isn't legally licensed! Time and time again, I see burned copies of Windows being installed and sitting on bookshelves. This doesn't seem to be a problem with Linux, because the distro is essentially free, with the value add being media and documentation packaging.
As for a couple of posts i've read about CDFreak being in danger of legal repercussions, their case is different from Dmitry's in that (please correct me if i'm mistaken) they're giving the software away for free, not selling it to make money, so they're not breaking any laws, even under the DMCA.
IIRC, the DMCA makes trafficking in circumvention devices illegal. This is what made DeCSS (free) still illegal under the DMCA, and what presumably makes CDFreak's software illegal as well.
I am not a lawyer! Get real legal advice! If you trust legal advice from Slashdotters, you deserve what you get!
:(
1. Change the name. Mitigate the immediate liability of using a confusingly similar name to Adobe Illustrator.
2. Notify the firm and Adobe of the change and to show good will in complying with Adobe's request for a name change.
3. Demonstrate to the law firm that KIllustrator is a non-profit venture, run by volunteers.
4. Do not release any information about users of the software. Stand your ground here.
5. Refuse to pay the *cough*blackmail*cough* legal fee. This is the cost of Adobe protecting its trademark.
6. Find a good lawyer and start a legal defense fund in case they press the issue further.
When there is well documented, scientifically accepted proof that SUVs are doing irrecoverable damage to our environment, then action against SUV manufacturers and dealers might be justified. Until then, this is nothing more than misguided and destructive activism.
Unfortunately, it seems environmentalists far too often base their activism not on what our "tampering with nature" is actually doing to the environment, but what it might do.
You might walk up to me and rob me. You aren't guilty unless it actually happens. Smashing in a Starbucks window, for example, because Bovine Growth Hormone might be bad for us is ludicrous!
Show me proof, then I'll be sympathetic. Don't feed me unfounded fear mongering or far-fetched theories or that are repudiated by the majority of scientists worldwide.
When environmentalists come to the debate with facts, not FUD, then I'll be more attentive to their position. Until then, I will continue to consider them rebels without a cause.
Freedom makes money for Zero Knowledge because people subscribe to their Freedom Network service. The product is only the means to this end.
I think a business case can be made to convince ZN to release their source code for Freedom Client into open source.
This would allow interested parties (like myself) to create clients that support their Freedom Network infrastructure, while ZN focuses on the network itself.
Instead of emailing customer support and complaining (to fall on deaf ears), perhaps we should email their marketing department and pitch them getting Freedom subscriptions from those who most appreciate it (us) by releasing Freedom Client into open source.
Linux does not (and cannot) address the single most important (and non-free) feature of Freedom: the ability to access the Internet anonymously.
The Freedom Network provides this by allowing your system to cryptographically and transparently communicate with its network, having your requests "pop out" of their network at a random point to reach its destination.
This makes your use of the Internet untraceable, unless you identify yourself and allow session management facilities to take hold.
I too tried to get Freedom client to work on my Debian GNU/Linux system, to no avail. I had hoped that it would work someday.
Freedom is a service I would paid for, if it were to work on my platform (which now seems more doubtful than ever).
If the company wants to blank-out the faces, what the hell is wrong with that? How's that "keeping them back"? Employees are free to find other work through whatever means they can. Is it the employer's job to advertise their employees to others? Absolutely not!
The employer's duty is to pay the employee the negotiated salary, stock options and benefits for services rendered. It was a consentual transaction.
Comparing this to slavery only insults those who have been and still are subject to slavery in its true form, and illustrates just how ignorant you are.
In case you need a refresher on what slavery is: slaves are those who are forced to work and produce without consent. They are forced. They have no choice. Attempts to escape captivity results in force, often deadly.
But isn't copyright a limitation on expression? A limit on the protection of the First Amendment? Isn't expression being acknowledged as such if it is being protected by copyright?
I can envision speech possibly being protected by the First Amendment, but not copyright. Copyrights, after all, expire. However, something protected by copyright without free speech guarantees seems more difficult to justify.
It seems to me, a strong point was missed in this hearing, and in the Amicus briefs:
If software is functional, and not speech, then how can it be protected by copyright? Either it's speech and protected by copyright, or it's functional and it's not.
Either Microsoft Windoze is speech, and is thus protected by copyright from unauthorized copying and distribution, or it's functional, and deserves no protection under the Copyright Act.
Either DeCSS is speech, and is thus protected by copyright, or it's functional and deserves no protection.
Am I missing some fundamental point in the law here? How can we have it both ways?
If DeCSS is ruled functional and not speech, or at least "more functional" than speech, will I have a legitimate argument to make about making unauthorized copies of copyrighted software?
I finally laughed out loud. I think it's funny because the constant stream of April Fool's jokes has succeeded in wearing me down. It's like Chinese water torture. A few more postings today and I'll admit to anything. I was the second man on the grassy knoll.
By the way, I feel it is important to point out that the Parrot programming language, as currently documented, infringes on several of my regular expression indentation patents.
Memorization is copying; copying is theft! Seeing is recording; recording is theft! Learning is downloading; downloading is theft!
It's easy to avoid problems with this new cartel: avoid watching major league baseball. Go watch (and support!) smaller, local teams. Hell, beer tastes better there anyway!
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, but i don't recall either Linux or Tux (or Linus, Alan, or GNU/Richard for that matter) making any such promise. AFAIK, any such warrants or predictions of Linux being Unix for the masses was made by the media, and by specific distro vendors. This "promise" resulted in much hype during IPOs, and sold numerous newspapers and magazines. Mission accomplished.