If the crime had been assault or theft of a laptop or breaking and entering would anyone with material evidence of the crime be justified in not cooperating with the investigation in order to protect the privacy of the alleged perpetrators?
Absolutely! No one is required to give up private information solely because of an accusation. We require due process of law.
Example: I hereby accuse you of horrible, unspeakable crimes. I claim that information related to these crimes is stored in various computer accounts that you use. Should you/your ISP/your employer/etc. now be required to give me access to these accounts, simply because I am making an accusation?
Of course not.
Making sure that rights are preserved and things are done properly is the reason we have courts.
Its more informative that the short writeup above.
It is more informative. But the opening is a cheap shot.
I have a problem with placement of people in what are basically engineering positions based on politics, but it is business as usual, and not, I think, all that harmful. On the other hand, requiring certain conclusions of scientists is both unethical and harmful.
Suggesting that because the administration does the former, it must also do the latter, is irresponsible journalism.
If you are the sole copyright holder of a program, even if you have only ever released it under the GPL, you can revoke that license. The GPL does not preclude this. You can revoke all users license at any time, and even replace it with a non-free license, if you so desire.
With all due respect: Nope.
A license dictates the terms under which certain actions can be performed. If the license does not say it can be revoked, or has a limited term, etc., then it jest keeps on a-goin'.
What someone can do is change the license under which software is released in the future. That does not change the licenses that have already been granted. In particular, in the case of the GPL, it does not change the rights of previous licensees to redistribute the same (or modified) code under the GPL.
Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap????... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.
I agree with all the rest, but here you're yelling at the wrong people. Yell at Adobe & Macromedia if you don't like the way they handle their file formats.
Google is a public company now, and like all public companies, they have a responsibility to maximize shareholder value. If the directors of the company will not do this, the board has a responsibility to put in place people who will.
Serious question: In what sense do they have this responsibility? Is there a law that says this must be their goal? Or is it merely a cultural expectation?
If the latter, then I don't see that Google must abide by it. During the run-up to their IPO, they were quite clear that they were not going to run things the traditional way. So the implied contract with their investors (absent any legal requirements to the contrary) is not the standard one.
Further, it is not automatically true that people put their money in various places only in order to see it grow. Foundations support research, not to make their money grow, but to get the research done. I gave to the Salvation Army, but not to make my money grow.
Obviously, Google's investors are mostly going to be in the "make my money grow" camp, but, again, Google was very open about the way things were going to work. If people didn't like that, they didn't have to put their money in GOOG.
It might have something to do with the spam blacklist.
Well, of course. Such blacklists have successfully eliminated spam over e-mail, so we would expect them to work just as well for Wikipedia.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, I think you're right; the spam blacklist helps. But it must be more than that. And, like the earlier poster, I don't know what it is, either.
I don't see freedom in this. I can still blog away, as long as I am not accepting regulated campaign funds to do so. People bat this around like they are making us more "free" when all it does is allow the guys with money to influence our true freedom of speech.... Think about it people!!!!!!
I am thinking about it. I'm thinking why should the fact that someone might be paying me restrict what I am allowed to say?
I read:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech....
It does not say, "unless the person in question is being paid."
Mann's camera stalking would have been a lot more worthwhile if he had done in on public property, looking at government cameras.
After all, this was a shopping mall. Mann asked why, "if the Mont Blanc cameras were recording him, he couldn't, in turn, record the cameras".
The answer is simple: "This is our property. We make the rules here, and we don't have to tell you the reasoning behind them. If you don't like it, go somewhere else."
But on public property, dealing with governments, the issues are different, and also much more important.
Unfortunately, it would also have been much more risky. People who act suspicious in a store might get tossed out, but people who act suspicious around government buildings get treated in rather nastier ways.
It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases.
That's a good point.
One can support something, because one agrees with the underlying principles, and one can make use of something, simply because it is useful.
This idea works also in the opposite sense from the way you used it. Personally, I disagree with RMS on a number of points. However, I have released software under the GPL. Why would I use a license that is based on principles I disagree with? Because it is useful. The GPL nicely embodied the terms under which I wished to release this particular software package.
These notions of moral foundations vs. utility can form a pretty good framework for cooperation among people acting according to differing principles.
Fit and finish! Most open source projects lack the will to finish the small details to make a software product really shine.
(As I said in another message), this is related to the fact that OSS is really just a new twist on the decades-old culture and traditions of academic research. And researchers never finish anything. (If you finish it, it isn't research any more; it's a product.)
Traditionally, academic researchers have left the job of making polished finished products to the companies. But now we're trying to use the academic methods to make finished products. It should not be surprising that the results are a somewhat unsatisfactory. But that doesn't mean they have to be unsatisfactory. This is definitely an issue that is worth some serious thought and discussion....
This is an axe I've been meaning to grind for awhile now. OSS is like the world's biggest development and research laboratory. Given infinite resources and gallons and gallons of free code sloshing back and forth out there, OSS has yet to come up with something stellar.
An important thing to remember is that OSS is really just a new twist on the decades-old culture and traditions of academic research.
Lots of innovation there, but nothing ever gets finished. That's for the companies to do.
Similarly, I think there is plenty of innovation in OSS, but these projects are often a little weird, so they don't attract a following, and no one ever hears about them.
The big challenge in OSS is not to figure out how to innovate, but to figure out how to turn innovative stuff into finished products, without corporate backing.
Because if their salary is $0, then they are not officially considered employees of the company. This has various legal ramifications that they apparently want to avoid.
You see what is happening here, don't you? Think: What about the software would be specific to stopping child porn? Answer: Nothing.
What we really have here is a generalized tool to pry into people's lives. To keep the privacy advocates from screaming, we say, "It's for stopping child porn." Who can argue with that?
If you are going to characterize evolutionary progress as a group of 12 monkeys on a typewriter and infinite time, then they would not produce Shakespeare as a final product because they wouldn't know when they had it!
They might if there were some kind of mechanism that selected for good literature.
That's part of the point of the concept of evolution: there is a selection mechanism.
A point that the vast majority of posters here have missed:
The FSF cannot add new conditions to any software license.
The FSF issues a series of documents (the various versions of the GPL), which software authors may use as a license for their software, if they wish. Therefore, if software is licensed under a scheme that requires certain payments, then it is because the authors, not the FSF, choose to license it that way.
If the FSF changes the GPL in a way I do not like, then I will simply stop using it as a license for my software. You can too.
Of course, there is plenty of software licensed under GPL2 "or any later version". But the "or" means that a company may, if they wish, continue to license under GPL2, which means no payments.
If free speech is to mean anything, it must be done with a name and responsibility attached.
I somewhat agree. An opinion is worthless without a name attached. So are most factual claims that cannot be checked. And encouraging anonymous posting of such things is generally not going to improve society.
But independently verifiable facts are different. Consider whistle blowers, for example.
I like to say that the state has the ability to dictate reasonable restrictions on the driving license contract.
I think you're making a great argument here.
But, unfortunately, the whole notion of contracts and the thinking behind them is not well understood by most Americans today. (Even the very basic stuff, like voluntarily taking on obligations. For example, how many apartment dwellers think it's their landlord's fault they can't have pets [or whatever]?)
It's tough to have a meaningful public dialogue on a topic that few really grasp.
Slashdot Mirror
Customer Experience
Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record
That's nice to know, but I don't think it's relevant. Being jerks does not deprive them of any rights, including rights to trademarks they own.
It's good to see some constructive ideas, rather than just more complaining. Nice post.
Absolutely! No one is required to give up private information solely because of an accusation. We require due process of law.
Example: I hereby accuse you of horrible, unspeakable crimes. I claim that information related to these crimes is stored in various computer accounts that you use. Should you/your ISP/your employer/etc. now be required to give me access to these accounts, simply because I am making an accusation?
Of course not. Making sure that rights are preserved and things are done properly is the reason we have courts.
Well, that explains my problem, I guess.
It is more informative. But the opening is a cheap shot.
I have a problem with placement of people in what are basically engineering positions based on politics, but it is business as usual, and not, I think, all that harmful. On the other hand, requiring certain conclusions of scientists is both unethical and harmful. Suggesting that because the administration does the former, it must also do the latter, is irresponsible journalism.
With all due respect: Nope.
A license dictates the terms under which certain actions can be performed. If the license does not say it can be revoked, or has a limited term, etc., then it jest keeps on a-goin'.
What someone can do is change the license under which software is released in the future. That does not change the licenses that have already been granted. In particular, in the case of the GPL, it does not change the rights of previous licensees to redistribute the same (or modified) code under the GPL.
Close. What we don't need are
- Unintelligent CS grads.
- Uninterested CS grads.
What I think we can use are bright people who love programming, software design, etc. The rest of them can (and should!) go do something else.I agree with all the rest, but here you're yelling at the wrong people. Yell at Adobe & Macromedia if you don't like the way they handle their file formats.
Serious question: In what sense do they have this responsibility? Is there a law that says this must be their goal? Or is it merely a cultural expectation?
If the latter, then I don't see that Google must abide by it. During the run-up to their IPO, they were quite clear that they were not going to run things the traditional way. So the implied contract with their investors (absent any legal requirements to the contrary) is not the standard one.
Further, it is not automatically true that people put their money in various places only in order to see it grow. Foundations support research, not to make their money grow, but to get the research done. I gave to the Salvation Army, but not to make my money grow.
Obviously, Google's investors are mostly going to be in the "make my money grow" camp, but, again, Google was very open about the way things were going to work. If people didn't like that, they didn't have to put their money in GOOG.
Well, of course. Such blacklists have successfully eliminated spam over e-mail, so we would expect them to work just as well for Wikipedia.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, I think you're right; the spam blacklist helps. But it must be more than that. And, like the earlier poster, I don't know what it is, either.
Hear, hear!
I am thinking about it. I'm thinking why should the fact that someone might be paying me restrict what I am allowed to say?
I read:
It does not say, "unless the person in question is being paid."After all, this was a shopping mall. Mann asked why, "if the Mont Blanc cameras were recording him, he couldn't, in turn, record the cameras". The answer is simple: "This is our property. We make the rules here, and we don't have to tell you the reasoning behind them. If you don't like it, go somewhere else."
But on public property, dealing with governments, the issues are different, and also much more important.
Unfortunately, it would also have been much more risky. People who act suspicious in a store might get tossed out, but people who act suspicious around government buildings get treated in rather nastier ways.
That's a good point. One can support something, because one agrees with the underlying principles, and one can make use of something, simply because it is useful.
This idea works also in the opposite sense from the way you used it. Personally, I disagree with RMS on a number of points. However, I have released software under the GPL. Why would I use a license that is based on principles I disagree with? Because it is useful. The GPL nicely embodied the terms under which I wished to release this particular software package.
These notions of moral foundations vs. utility can form a pretty good framework for cooperation among people acting according to differing principles.
(As I said in another message), this is related to the fact that OSS is really just a new twist on the decades-old culture and traditions of academic research. And researchers never finish anything. (If you finish it, it isn't research any more; it's a product.)
Traditionally, academic researchers have left the job of making polished finished products to the companies. But now we're trying to use the academic methods to make finished products. It should not be surprising that the results are a somewhat unsatisfactory. But that doesn't mean they have to be unsatisfactory. This is definitely an issue that is worth some serious thought and discussion ....
An important thing to remember is that OSS is really just a new twist on the decades-old culture and traditions of academic research. Lots of innovation there, but nothing ever gets finished. That's for the companies to do.
Similarly, I think there is plenty of innovation in OSS, but these projects are often a little weird, so they don't attract a following, and no one ever hears about them.
The big challenge in OSS is not to figure out how to innovate, but to figure out how to turn innovative stuff into finished products, without corporate backing.
Ah, the havoc that line-breaking algorithms can wreak!
Because if their salary is $0, then they are not officially considered employees of the company. This has various legal ramifications that they apparently want to avoid.
What we really have here is a generalized tool to pry into people's lives. To keep the privacy advocates from screaming, we say, "It's for stopping child porn." Who can argue with that?
So, privacy advocates, I say, start screaming.
Except those would all go to porn sites.
They might if there were some kind of mechanism that selected for good literature. That's part of the point of the concept of evolution: there is a selection mechanism.
The FSF issues a series of documents (the various versions of the GPL), which software authors may use as a license for their software, if they wish. Therefore, if software is licensed under a scheme that requires certain payments, then it is because the authors, not the FSF, choose to license it that way.
If the FSF changes the GPL in a way I do not like, then I will simply stop using it as a license for my software. You can too.
Of course, there is plenty of software licensed under GPL2 "or any later version". But the "or" means that a company may, if they wish, continue to license under GPL2, which means no payments.
I somewhat agree. An opinion is worthless without a name attached. So are most factual claims that cannot be checked. And encouraging anonymous posting of such things is generally not going to improve society.
But independently verifiable facts are different. Consider whistle blowers, for example.
I think you're making a great argument here. But, unfortunately, the whole notion of contracts and the thinking behind them is not well understood by most Americans today. (Even the very basic stuff, like voluntarily taking on obligations. For example, how many apartment dwellers think it's their landlord's fault they can't have pets [or whatever]?) It's tough to have a meaningful public dialogue on a topic that few really grasp.
I know you're just making a joke, but, well, actually it doesn't.