True the judiciary only determines the meaning of the laws.
You tell me which is more important.
Also remember that the judiciary also has the power to destroy laws.
And that we are talking about the United States of America's legal system and US trademarks and copyrights, other countries are free to pass laws, and that the NET (not just the web) is a global system.
I would prefer a policy neutral to non internet issues. Court fighting over trademark and copyright should never be a part of running the DNS.
Dubious, and I don't mean George.
Through law, one way or another there is government control (ours or someone else's govt.) of just about everything, now.
What we need are some serious lawsuits to clarify the rules or non rules.
I for one want to go back to some rules that should never have been changed and another that should have always been.
Rule one - First come first served. The heck with who owns a copyright or trademark, this is a seperate space. You want it, get in line, get in line early, if you miss out try to buy it, if you can't buy it, rent it or come up with something else.
Rule two - One Domain name per customer. dove.unilever.com is just fine, the space for dove.com should belong to someone else. 'www.' should be depricated.
Rule three - The name must be in active use.
The lack of this rule has created squaters, and ties directly into the previous two rules.
Somebody had the rules system pretty close to right in the begining, too bad they wrecked it.
And last the rule that never was, but should have been. You should register once, only once. Renewal is a form of extortion at worst, taxation at best, and really creates a situation in which the root registrar is the actual owner. This is a public database, registration fees are understandable, but after it is registered, administration is trivial and should be financed by the folks who are pulling daily feeds for the BIND servers that are actually routing it commercially.
Simple mistake - click on More Info under the listing, and you would find that it says not once, but twice - Windows not included -and- Operating System - NOT INCLUDED (caps are from the walmart site).
Here's a BIG question I have though... Why don't they include a Linux Distro (support extra) with the system by default, it would be the users choice to install it or not.
The per-seat clause controls the free to give away copies portion.
The ONLY per-seat license that could be accepted, is one for support.
I can sell support per-seat, I cannot sell GPL code or executable per-seat.
From how I see GPL, it changes dramatically what is normally thought of as 'product'.
The software becomes as free as air, with the change that it does have an owner that allows you to use it freely, provided you do not attempt to charge someone else for it, after/whle you are using it.
On the other hand, I can charge for getting the air to you and can charge you for telling you how to use it. I can also charge you for modifications to that air(warmer,cooler,brown, or clear), but I cannot prohibit you from giving that altered air to someone else, or altering it further. You must pass on the same rights.
It's quite simple, too simple.
Clarification of the idea, seems to only cause more confusion. The idea is not communist, socialist or capitalist, but it is without a doubt radical.
All this bruhaha over UL/Linux is interesting, and I am certain the issues are the reason that Apache is not GPL.
However it appears that there will be NO BINARY UnitedLinux, for ANYONE. The individual vendors will distribute BINARY and SOURCE under thier own names, with thier own changes/additions/perversions.
I have to repeat, check the FAQ's. United Linux says there will be no product called United Linux sold, folks UL is a Model Shop, not a Product Shop.
I seriously doubt that you can cover a non-product with GPL.
We can however scream that the Suse/Caldera/Connectiva/TurboLinux etc. products based on this model comply.
I think RS is a great person for the passion of his convictions. I also agree with many of his principals and goals.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what UnitedLinux is, and suspect that RS may have been sucker questioned for a hot button response.
I checked both links mentioned in the slashdot article, and found no per-seat license mentioned as a part of UL. What I found was that UL is not a distro in the normal manner, it also is not a desktop Linux, in any form. It is not going to be released to the public as a distro, and will not be available to the public in binary form. From what I dig out of GNU and copyleft, a binary is not required for GNU, only sources.
Investigating Caldera's OpenLinux, I cannot find per-seat licensing except for support, a perfectly valid issue under GNU/GPL support can be charged for. On the other hand I am having a disturbingly hard time finding the OpenLinux 3.1 License at all.
The confusion may come from some of Caldera's other Proprietary products. I seem to remember a per-seat license for commercial use some time back, but cannot find it at Caldera now.
So what's the deal? United Linux is not a product or software package, it is a 'model'. I don't know of a GNU Model License. And even so, UL appears to be sharing that model without restriction.
And when you pay ahead for the annual plan you lock yourself out of the one tool a consumer has, leaving and taking your money elsewhere. So when SERVICE gets really bad your going to be paying through the nose for something that may not be working at all.
At the top of the United Linux homepage is the following (adbreviated) -
"As a company that has demonstrated unmatched commitment to Linux as an enterprise computing platform, CA is extremely supportive of the UnitedLinux initiative."
CA being Computer Associates
CA is the computer software industy's often unnoticed #2 player fiscal 03/02/02 year's revenue was down 29% to 2.9 billion and Microsoft finished at 21 billion.
What it means though is that there will be another strong player in the PC OS market, this one with a global reach that RedHat will envy, and Microsoft will fear. Watch for United Linux to possibly fall into Caldera's (Unix tm, and SCO tm) corperate coat over time.
The equivalent manned platform (F-117) carries a price tag of $45 million (pilot extra). AGM-158 Cruise missiles are between $1.5 and 2 million each. The X-45 concept would allow payload costs to be reduced to tremendously low levels and a variety of charges that just wouldn't make sense in a cruise missile platform. X-45 concept also allows for one of the greatest problems for pilots in the current world situation, pilot fatigue. It's a real waste of taxpayer money to spend MILLONS to fly a craft halfway around the world, just to have the pilot be his most fatigued when he needs to be his sharpest. Cracking up a $45 million flyer isn't just dangerous for the pilot, it's beyond expensive for the hurry up, hurry up to get a replacement in place.
The Innev. word has been bandied about a lot of late, but the X-45 really did/does have to come into use. Not because I want it, given a choice I'd ban everything more powerful than spitwads. The X-45 is the equivalent of Richard the first's circumvention of Pope Innocent's ban on the crossbow. X-45 is a way around the UAV known as the cruise missile. The cruise is one way throw away and gives a commander an out by saying that 'errors' cannot be avoided. The X-45 get a little closer to having a way to pull the bullet back after it has left the barrel of the gun. With the cruise being a 1-way device and the X-45 being a return platform with more of the 'smarts' held in the transport rather than being destroyed with the payload it should help bring cost down and decrease the oops factor. I'd like to see the delivery date moved to first quarter 2004.
I'll probably get moded down for off topic on this, but... If DECSS information were FAQ'tified would it pass muster against DMCA, since it would apparently pass the copyright issue based on this case. Or are we screwed because of the clandestine Trade Secrets laws?
There are only a few things that IMHO make flash evil. But before I list them I want to say that no tool is in of itself evil, only the uses it is put to. So what's evil about FLASH? It's not Open Source. If MM decides not to make it available for a platform, then it isn't. If someone finds a way to make a player/authoring package for a platform without MM's support - boom the DMCA will be used, if not today then tommorrow. If MM decides to kill the product or just plain goes belly up, there's a chance that volumes of good things done with it will be turned back into random electrons.
Oh, ok that's really the end of the evil list, lots of software falls into that one item list, not just FLASH.
In the not evil, but just plain stupid and annoying list are the ways and uses the tool FLASH gets used. You can't really fault the tool for that, but you can blame the companies (IBM, HP, etc.) that allow that too be mis-used for promotion.
From the moment I first heard the announcement of the XBoX, my mind couldn't get off the though, "Is this WebTV grown up?".
It still can't and the economics reflect it. There are only 3 ways into the livingroom, 1 Build it into the TV, 2 Through the VHS or DVD Player, or 3 through a Game Console. MS having proven that a stand alone appliance can't do it with a $49 WebTV. Web TV also had the big plus of convincing Sony, and Philips to waste valuable development time while Moore's law worked in MS's favor.
Now we've got an NT/2000 machine in the livingroom that we are told 'can only play games'. Right - a multi Gig hard drive machine that reads optical media, that can only play games. I don't buy the story. Define a Game vs. any other program. Entertainment. Entertainment is not a codec or hardware spec. This thing is intended to invade your home and hook you to a proprietary network, it's going to be the Interactive Cable box, and your restricted portal to the adbreviated successor to the Internet.
Smart? Time will tell, but MS can wait out all opponents and Gig anyone who slips through the transgate.
Your absolutely right. Trademarks are important, and Windows shouldn't be a trademark. Microsoft Windows is acceptable but generic Windows is not. The mark was given, I hope in error, if it wasn't a simple error then somebody should go to jail for abusing the system.
I can't imagine anyone being given the trademark Roof or Walls, or Sidewalk, but somehow Microsoft got Windows? Ok, they got it but without a doubt it's a generic and cannot be defended. Bad move on MS's part for wasting all that money on branding something that really couldn't be defended. Strange thing is I always gave MS more credit than to do the one biggest mistake I've ever seen made in marketing. The tm was refused and refused and they kept pushing.
Now excuse me while I Submit[tm] this Message[tm], after the Preview[tm]
Well, the obviouly 'not true' missed me. I d*mned near got fired for wearing a 2600 ballcap. The boss had heard that it was a hacker magazine and that it was only read by criminals. Nevermind that in my job I have to watchout for the ever present social engineer. Nope, I find the post insightful, not funny... at least not haha funny.
The moderation on this says "funny". It's not funny. This is serious folks. Thinkers are being branded in this brave new world. Put on a stupid mask quick before you get loaded into a cattle car.
Logical Liability, not a lemon law. Oh no. I'll mirror my response to this as I did on comments on newsforge. A software lemon law is just flat insane. The end effect would to create fused, proprietary hardware and software. You cannot have the current diversity of hardware suppliers in competition, and the resulting low prices and innovation, and this 'lemon law'. I want no return to the dark days of this wont run on that and this cant talk to that.
A logical liability law does need to be established however so that garbage like Code Red can be accounted for. The total cost for the blatant errors created, identified and ignored is tremendous and the company responsible party sits back and says they cannot unbundle, even though the cause of this global disaster was bundling.
"Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?"
As others have said, additional laws restricting the rights of consumers are at best insane.
The problems are not problems of technology, new vs. old, and they are not problems of law. They are simply problems of A. Greed (The companies that claim lost sales, even when sales go up), and B. Scale (It's faster and easier to copy and move a recording or program).
These are not problems that can, or should be handled by further restricting the rights of the honest user. They can only be addressed by the companies themselves, and consumers will choose which forms of 'copy protection/copy restriction' they find acceptable, and will vote the winner with thier wallets.
These issues resurface every 15 or so years, ditto machines, reel to reel tape, xerographic copiers, video cassettes, video tape, and now CD's DVD's and computer software. The results should get better with the itteration of the problem, not worse DMCA, and other proposals that have surfaced in this itteration fly in the face of rights previously established.
Please remind your representative that laws always remove rights, see if she can do something new and use them to create new rights, or restore ones that have been taken.
Slashdot Mirror
ahde wrote - 'The judiciary DOES NOT make laws'.
True the judiciary only determines the meaning of the laws.
You tell me which is more important.
Also remember that the judiciary also has the power to destroy laws.
And that we are talking about the United States of America's legal system and US trademarks and copyrights, other countries are free to pass laws, and that the NET (not just the web) is a global system.
I would prefer a policy neutral to non internet issues.
Court fighting over trademark and copyright should never be a part of running the DNS.
Dubious, and I don't mean George.
Through law, one way or another there is government control (ours or someone else's govt.) of just about everything, now.
What we need are some serious lawsuits to clarify the rules or non rules.
I for one want to go back to some rules that should never have been changed and another that should have always been.
Rule one - First come first served.
The heck with who owns a copyright or trademark, this is a seperate space.
You want it, get in line, get in line early, if you miss out try to buy it, if you can't buy it, rent it or come up with something else.
Rule two - One Domain name per customer.
dove.unilever.com is just fine, the space for dove.com should belong to someone else.
'www.' should be depricated.
Rule three - The name must be in active use.
The lack of this rule has created squaters, and ties directly into the previous two rules.
Somebody had the rules system pretty close to right in the begining, too bad they wrecked it.
And last the rule that never was, but should have been.
You should register once, only once.
Renewal is a form of extortion at worst, taxation at best, and really creates a situation in which the root registrar is the actual owner.
This is a public database, registration fees are understandable, but after it is registered, administration is trivial and should be financed by the folks who are pulling daily feeds for the BIND servers that are actually routing it commercially.
Off the soapbox.
Simple mistake - click on More Info under the listing, and you would find that it says not once, but twice - Windows not included -and- Operating System - NOT INCLUDED (caps are from the walmart site).
Here's a BIG question I have though... Why don't they include a Linux Distro (support extra) with the system by default, it would be the users choice to install it or not.
"One of the selling points of Free software is that it doesn't require as much service."
Duh? I hadn't seen that misconception before, thanks.
By definition there cannot be a per-seat GPL.
The per-seat clause controls the free to give away copies portion.
The ONLY per-seat license that could be accepted, is one for support.
I can sell support per-seat, I cannot sell GPL code or executable per-seat.
From how I see GPL, it changes dramatically what is normally thought of as 'product'.
The software becomes as free as air, with the change that it does have an owner that allows you to use it freely, provided you do not attempt to charge someone else for it, after/whle you are using it.
On the other hand, I can charge for getting the air to you and can charge you for telling you how to use it.
I can also charge you for modifications to that air(warmer,cooler,brown, or clear), but I cannot prohibit you from giving that altered air to someone else, or altering it further.
You must pass on the same rights.
It's quite simple, too simple.
Clarification of the idea, seems to only cause more confusion.
The idea is not communist, socialist or capitalist, but it is without a doubt radical.
All this bruhaha over UL/Linux is interesting, and I am certain the issues are the reason that Apache is not GPL.
GPL is great, but it carries an obligation.
I don't think you were one of the few.
I was the same.
Napster Turned me on to a lot of stuff I'd never have heard of otherwise.
If I like it, I bought it. If I didn't then I didn't have to cuss and toss out yet another overpriced CD.
Sad/Glad to see Napster go, the shape it was in was pathetic.
Too bad all the good, useful online storage outfits got caught in the crossfire, there was real use and value in temporary access anywhere storage.
Correction Binary is _required_!
However it appears that there will be NO BINARY UnitedLinux, for ANYONE. The individual vendors will distribute BINARY and SOURCE under thier own names, with thier own changes/additions/perversions.
I have to repeat, check the FAQ's. United Linux says there will be no product called United Linux sold, folks UL is a Model Shop, not a Product Shop.
I seriously doubt that you can cover a non-product with GPL.
We can however scream that the Suse/Caldera/Connectiva/TurboLinux etc. products based on this model comply.
I think RS is a great person for the passion of his convictions. I also agree with many of his principals and goals.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what UnitedLinux is, and suspect that RS may have been sucker questioned for a hot button response.
I checked both links mentioned in the slashdot article, and found no per-seat license mentioned as a part of UL.
What I found was that UL is not a distro in the normal manner, it also is not a desktop Linux, in any form.
It is not going to be released to the public as a distro, and will not be available to the public in binary form.
From what I dig out of GNU and copyleft, a binary is not required for GNU, only sources.
Investigating Caldera's OpenLinux, I cannot find per-seat licensing except for support, a perfectly valid issue under GNU/GPL support can be charged for.
On the other hand I am having a disturbingly hard time finding the OpenLinux 3.1 License at all.
The confusion may come from some of Caldera's other Proprietary products. I seem to remember a per-seat license for commercial use some time back, but cannot find it at Caldera now.
So what's the deal?
United Linux is not a product or software package, it is a 'model'. I don't know of a GNU Model License. And even so, UL appears to be sharing that model without restriction.
And when you pay ahead for the annual plan you lock yourself out of the one tool a consumer has, leaving and taking your money elsewhere.
So when SERVICE gets really bad your going to be paying through the nose for something that may not be working at all.
At the top of the United Linux homepage is the following (adbreviated) -
"As a company that has demonstrated unmatched commitment to Linux as an
enterprise computing platform, CA is extremely supportive of the UnitedLinux initiative."
CA being Computer Associates
CA is the computer software industy's often unnoticed #2 player fiscal 03/02/02 year's revenue was down 29% to 2.9 billion and Microsoft finished at 21 billion.
What it means though is that there will be another strong player in the PC OS market, this one with a global reach that RedHat will envy, and Microsoft will fear. Watch for United Linux to possibly fall into Caldera's (Unix tm, and SCO tm) corperate coat over time.
They are George's movies and he can do with them what he wants.
If he choses to destroy the 'image' in our eyes he can - he's the artist, not us.
The equivalent manned platform (F-117) carries a price tag of $45 million (pilot extra).
AGM-158 Cruise missiles are between $1.5 and 2 million each.
The X-45 concept would allow payload costs to be reduced to tremendously low levels and a variety of charges that just wouldn't make sense in a cruise missile platform.
X-45 concept also allows for one of the greatest problems for pilots in the current world situation, pilot fatigue.
It's a real waste of taxpayer money to spend MILLONS to fly a craft halfway around the world, just to have the pilot be his most fatigued when he needs to be his sharpest.
Cracking up a $45 million flyer isn't just dangerous for the pilot, it's beyond expensive for the hurry up, hurry up to get a replacement in place.
The Innev. word has been bandied about a lot of late, but the X-45 really did/does have to come into use.
Not because I want it, given a choice I'd ban everything more powerful than spitwads. The X-45 is the equivalent of Richard the first's circumvention of Pope Innocent's ban on the crossbow.
X-45 is a way around the UAV known as the cruise missile. The cruise is one way throw away and gives a commander an out by saying that 'errors' cannot be avoided.
The X-45 get a little closer to having a way to pull the bullet back after it has left the barrel of the gun.
With the cruise being a 1-way device and the X-45 being a return platform with more of the 'smarts' held in the transport rather than being destroyed with the payload it should help bring cost down and decrease the oops factor.
I'd like to see the delivery date moved to first quarter 2004.
I'll probably get moded down for off topic on this, but...
If DECSS information were FAQ'tified would it pass muster against DMCA, since it would apparently pass the copyright issue based on this case. Or are we screwed because of the clandestine Trade Secrets laws?
There are only a few things that IMHO make flash evil.
But before I list them I want to say that no tool is in of itself evil, only the uses it is put to.
So what's evil about FLASH?
It's not Open Source.
If MM decides not to make it available for a platform, then it isn't. If someone finds a way to make a player/authoring package for a platform without MM's support - boom the DMCA will be used, if not today then tommorrow.
If MM decides to kill the product or just plain goes belly up, there's a chance that volumes of good things done with it will be turned back into random electrons.
Oh, ok that's really the end of the evil list, lots of software falls into that one item list, not just FLASH.
In the not evil, but just plain stupid and annoying list are the ways and uses the tool FLASH gets used.
You can't really fault the tool for that, but you can blame the companies (IBM, HP, etc.) that allow that too be mis-used for promotion.
From the moment I first heard the announcement of the XBoX, my mind couldn't get off the though, "Is this WebTV grown up?".
It still can't and the economics reflect it. There are only 3 ways into the livingroom, 1 Build it into the TV, 2 Through the VHS or DVD Player, or 3 through a Game Console. MS having proven that a stand alone appliance can't do it with a $49 WebTV. Web TV also had the big plus of convincing Sony, and Philips to waste valuable development time while Moore's law worked in MS's favor.
Now we've got an NT/2000 machine in the livingroom that we are told 'can only play games'. Right - a multi Gig hard drive machine that reads optical media, that can only play games.
I don't buy the story. Define a Game vs. any other program. Entertainment. Entertainment is not a codec or hardware spec. This thing is intended to invade your home and hook you to a proprietary network, it's going to be the Interactive Cable box, and your restricted portal to the adbreviated successor to the Internet.
Smart? Time will tell, but MS can wait out all opponents and Gig anyone who slips through the transgate.
Your absolutely right.
Trademarks are important, and Windows shouldn't be a trademark. Microsoft Windows is acceptable but generic Windows is not. The mark was given, I hope in error, if it wasn't a simple error then somebody should go to jail for abusing the system.
I can't imagine anyone being given the trademark Roof or Walls, or Sidewalk, but somehow Microsoft got Windows? Ok, they got it but without a doubt it's a generic and cannot be defended. Bad move on MS's part for wasting all that money on branding something that really couldn't be defended. Strange thing is I always gave MS more credit than to do the one biggest mistake I've ever seen made in marketing. The tm was refused and refused and they kept pushing.
Now excuse me while I Submit[tm] this Message[tm], after the Preview[tm]
It's only a game.
So much for playing nice.
Well, the obviouly 'not true' missed me.
I d*mned near got fired for wearing a 2600 ballcap. The boss had heard that it was a hacker magazine and that it was only read by criminals.
Nevermind that in my job I have to watchout for the ever present social engineer.
Nope, I find the post insightful, not funny... at least not haha funny.
When you stop reading slashdot, you probably won't have use for that computer any longer.
Please remember to dispose of it through recycling, don't just drop it in a landfill where it will damage the health of uncounted future generations.
The moderation on this says "funny". It's not funny. This is serious folks. Thinkers are being branded in this brave new world. Put on a stupid mask quick before you get loaded into a cattle car.
Logical Liability, not a lemon law. Oh no.
I'll mirror my response to this as I did on comments on newsforge.
A software lemon law is just flat insane. The end effect would to create fused, proprietary hardware and software. You cannot have the current diversity of hardware suppliers in competition, and the resulting low prices and innovation, and this 'lemon law'.
I want no return to the dark days of this wont run on that and this cant talk to that.
A logical liability law does need to be established however so that garbage like Code Red can be accounted for. The total cost for the blatant errors created, identified and ignored is tremendous and the company responsible party sits back and says they cannot unbundle, even though the cause of this global disaster was bundling.
"Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?"
As others have said, additional laws restricting the rights of consumers are at best insane.
The problems are not problems of technology, new vs. old, and they are not problems of law. They are simply problems of A. Greed (The companies that claim lost sales, even when sales go up), and B. Scale (It's faster and easier to copy and move a recording or program).
These are not problems that can, or should be handled by further restricting the rights of the honest user. They can only be addressed by the companies themselves, and consumers will choose which forms of 'copy protection/copy restriction' they find acceptable, and will vote the winner with thier wallets.
These issues resurface every 15 or so years, ditto machines, reel to reel tape, xerographic copiers, video cassettes, video tape, and now CD's DVD's and computer software. The results should get better with the itteration of the problem, not worse DMCA, and other proposals that have surfaced in this itteration fly in the face of rights previously established.
Please remind your representative that laws always remove rights, see if she can do something new and use them to create new rights, or restore ones that have been taken.
"Red Hat and Jim Henson have teamed up"
They must be using the Johnathan Edwards API hack.
Jim's Dead Jim
http://www.thinknic.com
And take all those 400mhz beauties and linux cluster them.