A trojan which requires the user to manually download and run it isn't really a trojan... A trojan which requires the user to manually download and run it is _exactly_ a trojan. It is not a worm or a virus. A "trojan" is software that makes the user believe it does something useful or entertaining while in reality containing malware, and it relies on the user getting around security in order to access the useful or entertaining bits.
That is exactly how it works in Belgium, and many other European countries.
Your previous employer has to pay your salary for the time during which you are not allowed to compete. Failure to include such a clause, or any of the other specific and mandatory details will void the entire non compete section and you are free to do what you want. Another European special case is that EU laws disallow _anything_ that would prevent any EU citizen from working in an EU country other than their own. In your case it would mean that non-compete clauses for non-Belgian EU citizens in Belgium are automatically void, and non-compete clauses for Belgians working anywhere in the EU other than Belgium are void as well. For EU citizens working in their own country, only their own local laws apply, which may be less strict.
How does it hurt the original author or the community if I make changes to GPLd code and don't release those changes? The original code is still there, but my additions (which took my time and possibly money) are not released. That is a good question, but it is totally irrelevant. You took someone else's source code and created a derivative work. You are only allowed to do that if the copyright holder gave you permission. Lucky enough, as long as you don't distribute the software, the copyright holder of GPL'd software has given you the permission to create derivative works. However, if you distribute the result, you need the permission of the copyright holder again (both for creating a derivative work and for copying it), and you only have that permission if you supply the modified source code as well. Why the copyright holder insists on this is totally besides the point. He owns the copyright, and without his permission you can't distribute. That's all there is to it.
If you don't agree with it, you have the choice of writing the software yourself from scratch, or to base your code on other code that comes with a license that you like more, or to convince the copyright holder to allow the use of their software under different terms. Your choice.
Their argument is that just making a copyrighted work available on a peer-to-peer network is infringement by itself. They argue that they shouldn't have to prove actual distribution, that is, that someone downloaded it. To see what files someone has made available is simple, by the very nature of peer-to-peer networks. Proving that someone has downloaded a particular file from a particular user is much more difficult. They managed to sell that argument - that putting a copyrighted work into your sharing folder is copyright infringement - to a judge. The judge then went back, read the actual law very, very, very carefully, and figured out that their argument was wrong. It was not what the law said. Putting a song into your sharing folder where I, a private person, can download it, is not copyright infringement. It becomes copyright infringement at the moment where I download it, not before. It also becomes copyright infringement if you tell a record store about your sharing folder and advise them to download songs from there and sell them on, even if they _don't_ download, because that is exactly the situation that is meant by "making available for distribution" - you would make the songs available not just to someone who wants to listen to them, but to someone who is going to distribute them.
So proving that you did something legal is easier than proving you did something illegal. Dooh. This is like having tons of filmed evidence that you were smoking (easy to prove and legal) and then claiming that the stuff you were smoking were some illegal drugs.
The 'Customer is always right' is a mantra that was sold to customers to make them believe they are always in control - in actuality, a customer is very rarely right when it comes to your business. Actually, "the customer is always right" is supposed to remind the sales person that their job is not about being right, but about selling and making money. If a customer says he wants to buy X because of Y then you say "yes", sell him X and make money. If you say "no you are wrong", even if you are right, he walks away and spends his money elsewhere, so you lose..
There are cases like a customer saying "what you sold to me is rubbish, you have to give me my money back", where 'the customer is always right" automatically does not apply. Some customers are surprised by this.
I don't understand why PDF+paper costs more than paper only. PDF costs 0 to produce, you are paying only for the information, which you already have in the paper version. Other than this, the prices seem fair. Sure, PDF costs zero to produce. Maybe I could offer you a job at may company handling the publishing all our PDF documents. Your salary will of course be zero, so that we can keep the cost at zero.
a) Putting something into GPL is the same as putting it into the public domain because there is no control over distribution and no economic damages associated with infringement. Does Bells use of GPL code actually cause economic harm to the developers, and the answer is arguably no. The answer is very, very arguably yes. The Busybox developers hold the complete copyrights. Therefore they are able to sell you their library under any license terms that you and they agree on. If you find the GPL terms not acceptable for you, you can write down any license terms you like and negotiate with them; it is just a matter of money. There is a good chance that you could put the complete Busybox code into say a router that you build without having to publish the source code if you pay these guys a million dollars. The money that Busybox could have charged for use of their library under a non-GPL license but which they didn't get, that is the financial damage.
TFA shows that the Google numbers come from a huge sample of 10 (in words: ten) Google engineers. No number is given how many Apple engineers participated.
Actually, all that we really know is that ten people visited the page who _claimed_ to be Google engineers, and they put in numbers that they _claimed_ was their salary, plus an unknown number _claiming_ to be Apple engineers doing the same.
Trying to draw conclusions about which company pays how well from a sample size of ten is nonsense. It would be nonsense even if you knew that the information they got is actually correct. But you don't know even that.
Well, I suppose someone could write an open source DRM module for mplayer. Would that work for you? First, this could be done even using GPL v. 3 (the GPL would require that the DRM module can be modified by users and that a modified module can be installed; the GPL doesn't care what the module actually does). And it would most likely be the most unbreakable DRM in existence: If you write a DRM module that cannot be circumvented even with the possibility of modifying the code and installing a modified module, then what on earth is a hacker to do to get around this?
GPLv3 gives "making available to the public" as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying? You see, there is a difference between "making available to the public" and "making available for distribution". The "making available for distribution" comes from a law, which is related to other laws, and to court cases setting precedent, and has a very, very specific meaning. For example, sending a CD with software to RedHat (who is one of the larger distributors of GPL'd software) might be considered "making available for distribution". Putting it on a web page might make it available to the public, but not "available for distribution" in the meaning of the law.
Copyright protects, among other things, an entity's right to control distribution. If I download a song from you, you're the one distributing it, not me (ignoring things like bittorrent where I may be both uploading and downloading). Without permission to have distributed it, it seems to me that's copyright infringement even if I were authorized to distribute that exact same thing. In that scenario, I am not in the distribution role. It is copying, it is not distribution. When a copyright holder has the right to control distribution, it means they have the right to decide for example who can sell their software or records or books and who can't. If you give or offer copies to a distributor, that is illegal. But MediaSentry is not a distributor, so that doesn't count, and they are allowed to receive copies, so the copying doesn't matter either. A record store, or a bookshop, or Amazon, they are distributors. Normal end users are not.
I'm going to have to disagree with that analysis (IANAL, but I am a law student who is interested in practicing in copyright, so I have a little knowledge on the subject). (Before we get started, I have to say that I am not licensed to practice law anywhere, and this is not legal advice to anyone who may be reading this)
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you. You should at least have read a few of the recent court decisions, and you would have noticed that while the RIAA successfully managed to bamboozle a judge into thinking this was the case, the same judge later realised that the RIAA was knowingly misrepresenting what the law says. Allowing someone else to download from you is _not_ illegal (as long as no downloading actually happened), unless you offer the downloads for distribution (for example, offering downloads to a record store) or for public performance (offering downloads to pubs playing the music in public).
Why not just calculate based on the reported velocity of the vehicle, 'pinging' satellites every minute or so and simply dropping anything that puts you in Antarctica? Because that is not what happens. TFA (and the F does _not_ stand for "fine" in this case) claims that "your GPS cannot be trusted". It can. Ionospheric interference has been well known since the initial design of GPS. It is one of several factors that introduce a few meters of inaccuracy into the GPS in your TomTom, and all these factors add up to about ten meters of inaccuracy. It doesn't put you into Antarctica - and since your GPS calculates a four-dimensional position (x, y, z and time), the chances that any drastic inaccuracy like that would put you on the _surface_ of the earth in Antarctica are quite small.
And even if a signal is totally messed up, as soon as you receive five signals the GPS _knows_ that something is wrong.
*Laws vary from state to state, but most states have a law that says that bikes have the same rights/responsibilitys as cars. Laws vary from country to country, but in the two countries where I know the law (Britain and Germany), if your slow speed is causing problems for other drivers, then you _must_ stop at a convenient place and let them pass. Doesn't matter whether you are riding a bicycle, or driving a tractor or a slow lorry, or just don't like driving more than 30 miles where the speed limit is 60.
Because it is impossible for a partial blowout of a tire to force a 5000lb SUV into a 1900lb compact? Why is it that when an SUV owner gets into an accident, it is because they are aggressive? You want to talk aggressive, talk to all the 530i penis compensators who drive like they are on their own personal autobahn. The fact alone that the car weighs 5000 pounds is aggressive. It is a simple fact of physics that in a collision more of the energy will go into damage of the lighter vehicle. People _buy_ these cars because of the physics. How is buying a car that in case of a problem will shift the damage away from you to others not aggressive?
And their fears aren't exactly unfounded. Only way to get the majority of people to stop driving heavy cars is to increase gas prices to the point where lighter cars are the only option, or having a flag day where everybody agrees to switch, i.e. not gonna happen in the near future:) There could be other wise. For example, change fines for speeding so that you don't get fined according to how much you exceeded the speed limit, but how much more kinetic energy there was in your car. So a motorbike going 60mph over the limit and an SUV going 20mph over the limit would get the same fine. Adjust insurance payouts so that in case of a collision the damage caused by the larger weight of one vehicle is taken into account. Adjust insurance premiums accordingly.
Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. Well, I tried to buy a carpet. You have to buy the right length, because if it is not large enough for the room, you can't use it. I told the sales person that I measured the length of the room and it was 12 foot 11 inch.
To convert this into meters, he types into his calculator: 12.11 * 0.3048 =
Now try to explain to a sixteen year old that 12 foot 11 inch is almost thirteen foot and therefore must be around 3.90m, and not the 3.69m that he got.
A (good) teacher exposed the results of a test and he found out more than half the class (second years and beyond) do not know a byte has 8 bits. Well, it doesn't. An octet has eight bits. A byte has as many bits as it has, which is usually, but not always, eight.
How could she possibly have stuck it to him in the legal system worse than a first degree murder conviction? And her kids *are* in Russia. She couldn't have possibly planned that he would remove his car seat, thrown it away, and washed out the car so that the interior was completely under water. She couldn't have planned many other things. It is certainly possible for a woman to disappear and leave damning evidence of her murder behind, but the things that made Hans Reiser look guilty were produced by him only.
I didn't RTFA... but i know as a fact that people would rather read a hard copy book rather than on a screen. I, myself, have downloaded many ebooks (and had some sent to me from friends), read them and bought them after if they were actually good. Well, I have so many books that there is a storage problem. A book costs more for the storage area (about £2500 per square meter) than I pay for the paper. So I like eBooks, as long as they are in unprotected PDF. On a Macintosh, Spotlight works really well with eBooks, so if you look for something that you have read at some point, you find it within a second. Most eBooks that I have are around 2 MB, with probably 1.8 MB for a high-resolution image of the title.. Which means 500 books per GB. Which means all the books that I have wouldn't even make a noticable dent in my hard drive and in the backup drive.
My favorite one is "What is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?" That is a trick question, since both weigh the same. What you wanted to ask is: Which is heavier: A pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
The migration of the 720 computers will only cost 105,000 euros. Sorry about that. Couldn't edit it anymore Someone seems to be getting their sums wrong here. At only about 140 euros per computer, this is most likely the cost for Vista licenses. It doesn't count time for installation, training, downtime, and all the other mess that comes with changing from a stable operating system to a new, unproven platform. But apparently these costs can only be counted when switching away from Windows, not when switching to Windows.
A non-coder businessman's *perception* will go like this:
"I thought this was free. What do you mean, it comes with all these weird requirements? How do I make sense of this part being 'free' and that part requiring that I give away part of my business? WTF??" That "businessman" probably also complains that he can't get free food from the Salvation Army. "I thought this was free. What do you mean, it comes with all these weird requirements? How do I make sense of this food being "free" and that part requiring that I am a homeless person to get it? Does that mean I have to remove all my employees from their homes if I want to save the money for the company canteen and feed my employees using free Salvation Army food? WTF??? "
If you want to download, install and run GPL software, you need permission from the copyright owner, just as you need that permission for non-GPL software. You get that permission only by agreeing to the terms of the GPL license. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, then you have no right to make the copies needed to use it. There is a difference between "not agreeing to the terms of a license" and agreeing to terms that only affect you when you want to "modify the software and then redistribute it." This is wrong. To download the software legally, all you need is that either the copyright holder or someone who has the permission of the copyright holder makes it available to you. The copyright holder may allow you to download the software for free, or they may require a fee, just like Microsoft could give you a copy of MS Office for free if they want to, or for a fee which is what they do in practice. Once you have downloaded GPL'd software, copyright law allows you to install it on one computer, use it, and make a backup copy. If you are in a company with hundred computers, and your lawyers insist that you shouldn't accept the GPL, then you can just download 100 copies of the software and install each copy on one computer.
The GPL license then gives you permission to do other things. In US law, the GPL is a license and no contract, so it is impossible for you to "agree to the terms of the license" in any legal sense. The GPL license allows you to: 1. Download one copy and install it on 100 computers in your company. 2. Modify the source code and use modified versions in your company. 3. Distribute copies of unmodified or modified versions of the software according to the rules laid out in the license.
At no point is it necessary for you to agree to the GPL.
You're right, if you or I did this but corporations dance on the edge of the law. If you RTA even the FBI is saying this is a gray area. Gray because it's a corporation conducting business and made a mistake sort of on purpose. MediaDefender will pay some chump change in a B2B transaction to Revision3 and that will be the end of it. What MediaDefender is doing is a criminal offense. If they claim that committing crimes is their business, that will make things even worse. The difference between attacking Revision3 and attacking someone who is illegally distributing copyrighted works is not that one is illegal and the other is legal; the attack is illegal in any case. The only difference is that Revision3 called the feds, while a different outfit might not have done so.
This is similar to the difference between stealing legal drugs from a law-abiding citizen and stealing illegal drugs from an addict: Both are illegal. The drug addict is less likely to call the police. However, there has been at least one case where a drug addict _did_ call the police and the thief was arrested and convicted. The addict was also convicted, which is why it doesn't happen too often, but stealing from a criminal is still illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Your previous employer has to pay your salary for the time during which you are not allowed to compete. Failure to include such a clause, or any of the other specific and mandatory details will void the entire non compete section and you are free to do what you want. Another European special case is that EU laws disallow _anything_ that would prevent any EU citizen from working in an EU country other than their own. In your case it would mean that non-compete clauses for non-Belgian EU citizens in Belgium are automatically void, and non-compete clauses for Belgians working anywhere in the EU other than Belgium are void as well. For EU citizens working in their own country, only their own local laws apply, which may be less strict.
If you don't agree with it, you have the choice of writing the software yourself from scratch, or to base your code on other code that comes with a license that you like more, or to convince the copyright holder to allow the use of their software under different terms. Your choice.
So proving that you did something legal is easier than proving you did something illegal. Dooh. This is like having tons of filmed evidence that you were smoking (easy to prove and legal) and then claiming that the stuff you were smoking were some illegal drugs.
There are cases like a customer saying "what you sold to me is rubbish, you have to give me my money back", where 'the customer is always right" automatically does not apply. Some customers are surprised by this.
TFA shows that the Google numbers come from a huge sample of 10 (in words: ten) Google engineers. No number is given how many Apple engineers participated.
Actually, all that we really know is that ten people visited the page who _claimed_ to be Google engineers, and they put in numbers that they _claimed_ was their salary, plus an unknown number _claiming_ to be Apple engineers doing the same.
Trying to draw conclusions about which company pays how well from a sample size of ten is nonsense. It would be nonsense even if you knew that the information they got is actually correct. But you don't know even that.
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you. You should at least have read a few of the recent court decisions, and you would have noticed that while the RIAA successfully managed to bamboozle a judge into thinking this was the case, the same judge later realised that the RIAA was knowingly misrepresenting what the law says. Allowing someone else to download from you is _not_ illegal (as long as no downloading actually happened), unless you offer the downloads for distribution (for example, offering downloads to a record store) or for public performance (offering downloads to pubs playing the music in public).
And even if a signal is totally messed up, as soon as you receive five signals the GPS _knows_ that something is wrong.
To convert this into meters, he types into his calculator: 12.11 * 0.3048 =
Now try to explain to a sixteen year old that 12 foot 11 inch is almost thirteen foot and therefore must be around 3.90m, and not the 3.69m that he got.
"I thought this was free. What do you mean, it comes with all these weird requirements? How do I make sense of this part being 'free' and that part requiring that I give away part of my business? WTF??" That "businessman" probably also complains that he can't get free food from the Salvation Army. "I thought this was free. What do you mean, it comes with all these weird requirements? How do I make sense of this food being "free" and that part requiring that I am a homeless person to get it? Does that mean I have to remove all my employees from their homes if I want to save the money for the company canteen and feed my employees using free Salvation Army food? WTF??? "
The GPL license then gives you permission to do other things. In US law, the GPL is a license and no contract, so it is impossible for you to "agree to the terms of the license" in any legal sense. The GPL license allows you to: 1. Download one copy and install it on 100 computers in your company. 2. Modify the source code and use modified versions in your company. 3. Distribute copies of unmodified or modified versions of the software according to the rules laid out in the license.
At no point is it necessary for you to agree to the GPL.
This is similar to the difference between stealing legal drugs from a law-abiding citizen and stealing illegal drugs from an addict: Both are illegal. The drug addict is less likely to call the police. However, there has been at least one case where a drug addict _did_ call the police and the thief was arrested and convicted. The addict was also convicted, which is why it doesn't happen too often, but stealing from a criminal is still illegal.