"So issue a check to every citizen at the beginning of every month [...] Dead simple."
So you will have inflation to increase prices to compensate for the check. Dead simple too.
If you don't see it, let's try a simpler example. Say that in order to help people buying his home you issue to every citizen a $100.000 check. What do you think will happen except that houses will rise prices $100.000 overnight?
"what to do in the case where a party is claimed to be significantly damaged economically by the actions of a vast multitude of individuals who cooperate [please, let's ignore this: using the net], while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself). Please show us where all this was clearly foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Righhhht."
Well, I'll try to think like the Founding Fathers could have done.
Let's imagine the "claiming to be significantly damaged economically party" to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Let's imagine the "vast multitude of individuals who cooperate, while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself" to be the Thirteen Colonies' people.
Hummm... somehow I can imagine the Founding Fathers having a notion about it.
"While you see evil conspiracy here, it's like putting out a bid requiring cars with only Ford Engines, because all your mechanics are Ford Mechanics and you don't want to hire GM Mechanics simply for one set of cars."
Then you express in your RFP that due to your mechanics being all Ford's, any non-Ford proposal should include the cost of retraining their mechanics or hiring new ones. What you don't do is ask for Ford-only.
"> Any progress made in OOo will be ported to LO, unless they change the license, > so it's irrelevant. And vice-versa."
Not with current state of affairs.
OpenOffice.org is the basis for their StarOffice so they can't take GPLed code from third parties unless they really want to fork StarOffice away from OpenOffice.org.
The business definition for "innovation" is not "producing innovative things" but "making somehow innovative things to produce tons of cash". Yes, I know that's not what you mean by "innovation", but that's what business mean and related to business that's all that counts.
Now, recheck your list under the business "proper" meaning for innovation: Search -> Google Mobile -> Apple, Google Maps -> Google Mail -> Google Browser -> Microsoft, Mozilla
That puts Google on 3.5 out of 5. So, yes, Google is a true innovative business from business point of view.
And some company owners would want workers to be bounded to the company and taking active steps to make it happen.
"Is Zuckerberg buying land?"
He is buying companies, which are its modern counterpart.
"Are the baronies adjacent to Lord Zuckberberg's estate going to return his fleeing employees to the custody of His Lordship's baliffs?"
Don't you remember an article few weeks ago about big players colluding so they won't get into each other's employees? And there *are* situations where that's basically the case, if not in techworld, yes on industry companies: you can leave from us, but nobody else will hire you, because there is no one else to go around here. And so many corporations are taking active policies in this regard (the most obvious, firing in the USA and hiring overseas).
Of course you can nickpick all you want about current corporate environment not being the exact equivalent to feudal regime; you are right: it is not the exact equivalent. But it's becoming too similar as not to worry.
"You could comply with the Section 3(b) option to provide information about where they can get a copy of the source code"
3B doesn't say so; it's not enough to tell where to download the copy. 3B makes *you* the one that must provide the copy.
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
Since it's the "STORE", it's obviously the one that distributes it. Since the GPL is all about "DISTRIBUTORS", that's all I need to know.
"Apple is no more accountable than a brick and mortar store would be if the CD compiler did not include the source code on the CD."
True. But please notice that the brick and mortar store is absolutly accountable for the case of the CD.
"You cannot be held by the terms of a license that you are not a party to."
True. But then, you can be held by standard copyright laws which say you can't distribute third party software at all without their explicit grant which, in this case, is given to Apple under the terms of the GPL, so we are again at square one.
"If somebody were to sue Apple over a GPL violation, they would be able to point to the software developer"
Except that they can't. The very GPL has a provision for it, which is 3c: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
Since Apple Store is obviously *not* a noncommercial distribution, they, Apple themselves, are bound to comply to the need of offering access to the source code.
They are not "simply" the distributor, they are *a* distributor and, as such, subjected to GPL provisions.
Of course, the distributor could opt to not accept the GPL distribution clauses but, then, they are subjected to standard copyright law, so they can't distribute *at all*.
"Unless you're talking about some provision in the GPLv2 that requires the distributor to release source code when they aren't even the ones who wrote the software"
Have you ever taken the time to read the damn license? It is *all* about distributing code you are not the one that wrote it.
They are still expenses, so it's worth the question "inevitable... to whom?"
"With civil cases, quite often an innocent party who just happened to have enough money to make them worth suing."
That's an orthogonal issue, unrelated to the first one. One thing is "someone's gonna pay" and a different one "is our justice system good enough so the one that ends paying is felt by society in general the one that in fact should pay?"
"for the purpose of extracting money, of which the lawyer takes 30% to 50%."
That's related to the second question, not the first one. Of course if somebody makes money out of muddying the waters (the attorney) isn't it expected for him to muddy the waters? And if such, wouldn't we do something to counter that?
"Yes, sometimes it's reasonable to "make someone pay""
No, no, no... that's not my point. My point is that indeed someone does pay. The hospital and bury bills got payed, didn't they? The sons of the old woman lost her mother, didn't they (for an emotional payment).
"The trouble is we've gotten into a legal habit of assuming someone is ALWAYS at fault"
With regards of civil cases it is not someone being at fault but someone being held responsible. That's specially obvious for monetary issues but can be extended to emotional damages too.
"and therefore... "someone must pay""
As I already stated, the fact is that someone *does* pay. As long as there's a bill involved, someone does pay it (even if it's the one producing the service if nobody else puts the money).
"even if that's completely irrational."
But it's not irrational. Let's take the extreme case of "faultless" incident: the so called "act of god". You own, say, a hut in the forest; it's stroken by a thunder and it becomes ashes. Evidently, nobody is at fault. But still there will be bills and someone will pay for them to rebuild your hut (you).
That's the point for civil cases: there are bills and they are payed. Now, who's gonna pay them?
"There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved."
Of course there is. It's implicit within your *reasonable* force. If an inocent life were as valuable as the one of a criminal within his criminal intent, then it would be no way you could apply reasonable force against the criminal in such a manner that the criminal ended up dead: the very fact the he died would be argument enough to probe you were beyond reasonable force.
"well the man had a knife, and angrily said 'I am going to kill you', and charged. You shot him dead. But maybe he just wanted to scare you and was going to turn and walk away at the last moment. How do you know what he was going to kill you? How do you know what he was thinking"
There's the figure of criminal negligence. An adult charging with a knife somebody that's holding a gun and expecting nothing bad should happen is commiting criminal negligence. That's why such a defense wouldn't hold water: maybe he thought to walk away in the last moment, but it doesn't make any difference, it was still criminally stupid.
"The trouble with today's litigious society is that it's founded on the notion that *Someone Must Pay!* and this leads to ludicrous situations like suing little kids over stupid accidents."
While I'm enterily with your argument, I have a problem with your conclusion. The fact is that, no matter what, somebody *DO* pay (the woman did die, the woman did get hospitalized and buried, etc.), so it's a substantiated matter to decide about *who* is going to pay.
I have no problem with civil causes... as long as they are properly managed (in this case -and a lot of other, "you made a pervert and stupid use of justice, like suing a four year old girl? You pay. Dearly").
"Of course I just play a lawyer on the Internet but maybe these people bit off more than they could chew or made a knee jerk reaction based upon losing someone close to them."
Maybe, but since there was a damage it seems proper to look after retaliation. But looking after retaliation doesn't mean that "the ones that must know" should accept *any* kind or way to seek retaliation. In my book, judge Paul Wooten is more guilty -by orders of magnitude, by accepting the sue than the old woman's family by filling it.
"This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations."
No, this certainly is NOT one of those situations.
Was somebody trumped into? YES There was some damage tied to the action? YES
Then, a civil action is granted.
There was criminal intention or criminal negligence? NO
Then, a criminal prosecution is NOT granted.
Now, what was the case? Some asset (the child) under responsibility of some legally bound entity (the parents) caused some damage (the old woman death) by means of its actions (going over the old woman).
The case (under any sensible penal system) is clear: are the legal responsibles (the parents) liable for the damages? A trial should stablish that.
The stupid part is trying to hold liable a damn four year old girl! Just as stupid as if a horse or a car of yours happens to trump over some old woman breaking her hip. Would you sue the horse or the car? Surely not. Why on hell are they suing the four year old girl???
"You're right, the cost should be borne by insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for."
Insurances are not any kind of magic that happens to appear when need arises. *Your* insurance company will pay *once* it's stablished that it is *you* the one held responsible for the paying.
In other words, your insurance policy will only pay if and when it is you the one that has to pay (and the payment cause lies within the insurance policy, of course).
"I live in Germany, and you can do fuck all to a 6 year old. A 6 year old could throw in your window and nobody, not the kid nor the parents would have to pay."
Are you sure? I don't think so.
There surely won't be criminal responsibility but there would be civil cause: when there's a damage, someone's going to pay, dolus (criminal intention) or not dolus.
Heck, if your car's emergency brakes fail and the car goes into your neighbourgh shop, you'll end up paying for the repair (or your civil insurance policy will do). It can't be any more unintended than that, but still you pay. Children (or dogs, or cars, or horses) can't be criminally prosecuted since they can't be held to criminal intention, but their custodians certainly can (and will) pay for civil damages.
"And it will be the parents (or rather the parents insurance) who will pick up the bill."
Probably. But then it would be the parents the ones to be sued, not the child.
Regarding personal responsibility, little children are equivalent to an animal or a property (and rightly so IMHO, I should add). I must add she was not a six year old girl, as the article says, but a four year old girl (only the trial went two years before that act). Would you sue a horse that happens to break something of yours or would you sue the horse's owner?
Just from the article: "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street [...] Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
All I can say is... WTF!!!??? And this applies both for judge Paul Wooten as much as for his colleagues that allow him to office.
Slashdot Mirror
"So issue a check to every citizen at the beginning of every month [...] Dead simple."
So you will have inflation to increase prices to compensate for the check. Dead simple too.
If you don't see it, let's try a simpler example. Say that in order to help people buying his home you issue to every citizen a $100.000 check. What do you think will happen except that houses will rise prices $100.000 overnight?
"what to do in the case where a party is claimed to be significantly damaged economically by the actions of a vast multitude of individuals who cooperate [please, let's ignore this: using the net], while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself).
Please show us where all this was clearly foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Righhhht."
Well, I'll try to think like the Founding Fathers could have done.
Let's imagine the "claiming to be significantly damaged economically party" to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Let's imagine the "vast multitude of individuals who cooperate, while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself" to be the Thirteen Colonies' people.
Hummm... somehow I can imagine the Founding Fathers having a notion about it.
"'elite' implies wealth and power."
No, it isn't.
Elite simply implies "the top notch". Think tenis elite, football elite, intellectual elite, political elite...
The wealth and power elite is listed in Forbes.
The intelectual elite comes (mostly) from top rank universities and it is showed by their merits (coming from top rank universities or not).
When it comes to think, I for one want prefer the intelectual elite to the unwashed masses.
"While you see evil conspiracy here, it's like putting out a bid requiring cars with only Ford Engines, because all your mechanics are Ford Mechanics and you don't want to hire GM Mechanics simply for one set of cars."
Then you express in your RFP that due to your mechanics being all Ford's, any non-Ford proposal should include the cost of retraining their mechanics or hiring new ones. What you don't do is ask for Ford-only.
"If your goal is to pick Office over Google Docs, you can list about a thousand things Office does that GD doesn't."
"a Request For Quotation for the *messaging* needs of the Department of the Interior"
(emphasis mine)
"But I predict that the Doc Foundation will have to offer a paid version or paid support or something to keep the lights on."
Yes. Just as the Apache Foundation had to start offering a paid version and support for their web server.
"> Any progress made in OOo will be ported to LO, unless they change the license,
> so it's irrelevant.
And vice-versa."
Not with current state of affairs.
OpenOffice.org is the basis for their StarOffice so they can't take GPLed code from third parties unless they really want to fork StarOffice away from OpenOffice.org.
The business definition for "innovation" is not "producing innovative things" but "making somehow innovative things to produce tons of cash". Yes, I know that's not what you mean by "innovation", but that's what business mean and related to business that's all that counts.
Now, recheck your list under the business "proper" meaning for innovation:
Search -> Google
Mobile -> Apple, Google
Maps -> Google
Mail -> Google
Browser -> Microsoft, Mozilla
That puts Google on 3.5 out of 5. So, yes, Google is a true innovative business from business point of view.
"Serfs were bound to the land."
And some company owners would want workers to be bounded to the company and taking active steps to make it happen.
"Is Zuckerberg buying land?"
He is buying companies, which are its modern counterpart.
"Are the baronies adjacent to Lord Zuckberberg's estate going to return his fleeing employees to the custody of His Lordship's baliffs?"
Don't you remember an article few weeks ago about big players colluding so they won't get into each other's employees? And there *are* situations where that's basically the case, if not in techworld, yes on industry companies: you can leave from us, but nobody else will hire you, because there is no one else to go around here. And so many corporations are taking active policies in this regard (the most obvious, firing in the USA and hiring overseas).
Of course you can nickpick all you want about current corporate environment not being the exact equivalent to feudal regime; you are right: it is not the exact equivalent. But it's becoming too similar as not to worry.
"It's comical that you pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when you cannot
even use correct English."
Damn ignorant Plato... how could he pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when he couldn't even use correct English?
"You could comply with the Section 3(b) option to provide information about where they can get a copy of the source code"
3B doesn't say so; it's not enough to tell where to download the copy. 3B makes *you* the one that must provide the copy.
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
"Apple is the "STORE", not the PUBLISHER"
Since it's the "STORE", it's obviously the one that distributes it. Since the GPL is all about "DISTRIBUTORS", that's all I need to know.
"Apple is no more accountable than a brick and mortar store would be if the CD compiler did not include the source code on the CD."
True. But please notice that the brick and mortar store is absolutly accountable for the case of the CD.
"You cannot be held by the terms of a license that you are not a party to."
True. But then, you can be held by standard copyright laws which say you can't distribute third party software at all without their explicit grant which, in this case, is given to Apple under the terms of the GPL, so we are again at square one.
"If somebody were to sue Apple over a GPL violation, they would be able to point to the software developer"
Except that they can't. The very GPL has a provision for it, which is 3c:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
Since Apple Store is obviously *not* a noncommercial distribution, they, Apple themselves, are bound to comply to the need of offering access to the source code.
"Apple is simply the distributor."
They are not "simply" the distributor, they are *a* distributor and, as such, subjected to GPL provisions.
Of course, the distributor could opt to not accept the GPL distribution clauses but, then, they are subjected to standard copyright law, so they can't distribute *at all*.
"Unless you're talking about some provision in the GPLv2 that requires the distributor to release source code when they aren't even the ones who wrote the software"
Have you ever taken the time to read the damn license? It is *all* about distributing code you are not the one that wrote it.
"VLC is under GPLv2. v2 is compatible with the terms of the Apple App Store"
Does Apple's App Store offer the means to download the source code of the app? If not, Apple store is incompatible with the terms of GPLv2.
"and pretty much any other app store out there."
I know an app store *can* be compatible with GPLv2 terms. "Can" and "do" are different issues, anyway.
"Inevitable expenses..."
They are still expenses, so it's worth the question "inevitable... to whom?"
"With civil cases, quite often an innocent party who just happened to have enough money to make them worth suing."
That's an orthogonal issue, unrelated to the first one. One thing is "someone's gonna pay" and a different one "is our justice system good enough so the one that ends paying is felt by society in general the one that in fact should pay?"
"for the purpose of extracting money, of which the lawyer takes 30% to 50%."
That's related to the second question, not the first one. Of course if somebody makes money out of muddying the waters (the attorney) isn't it expected for him to muddy the waters? And if such, wouldn't we do something to counter that?
"Yes, sometimes it's reasonable to "make someone pay""
No, no, no... that's not my point. My point is that indeed someone does pay. The hospital and bury bills got payed, didn't they? The sons of the old woman lost her mother, didn't they (for an emotional payment).
"The trouble is we've gotten into a legal habit of assuming someone is ALWAYS at fault"
With regards of civil cases it is not someone being at fault but someone being held responsible. That's specially obvious for monetary issues but can be extended to emotional damages too.
"and therefore ... "someone must pay""
As I already stated, the fact is that someone *does* pay. As long as there's a bill involved, someone does pay it (even if it's the one producing the service if nobody else puts the money).
"even if that's completely irrational."
But it's not irrational. Let's take the extreme case of "faultless" incident: the so called "act of god". You own, say, a hut in the forest; it's stroken by a thunder and it becomes ashes. Evidently, nobody is at fault. But still there will be bills and someone will pay for them to rebuild your hut (you).
That's the point for civil cases: there are bills and they are payed. Now, who's gonna pay them?
"There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved."
Of course there is. It's implicit within your *reasonable* force. If an inocent life were as valuable as the one of a criminal within his criminal intent, then it would be no way you could apply reasonable force against the criminal in such a manner that the criminal ended up dead: the very fact the he died would be argument enough to probe you were beyond reasonable force.
"well the man had a knife, and angrily said 'I am going to kill you', and charged. You shot him dead. But maybe he just wanted to scare you and was going to turn and walk away at the last moment. How do you know what he was going to kill you? How do you know what he was thinking"
There's the figure of criminal negligence. An adult charging with a knife somebody that's holding a gun and expecting nothing bad should happen is commiting criminal negligence. That's why such a defense wouldn't hold water: maybe he thought to walk away in the last moment, but it doesn't make any difference, it was still criminally stupid.
"The trouble with today's litigious society is that it's founded on the notion that *Someone Must Pay!* and this leads to ludicrous situations like suing little kids over stupid accidents."
While I'm enterily with your argument, I have a problem with your conclusion. The fact is that, no matter what, somebody *DO* pay (the woman did die, the woman did get hospitalized and buried, etc.), so it's a substantiated matter to decide about *who* is going to pay.
I have no problem with civil causes... as long as they are properly managed (in this case -and a lot of other, "you made a pervert and stupid use of justice, like suing a four year old girl? You pay. Dearly").
"Of course I just play a lawyer on the Internet but maybe these people bit off more than they could chew or made a knee jerk reaction based upon losing someone close to them."
Maybe, but since there was a damage it seems proper to look after retaliation. But looking after retaliation doesn't mean that "the ones that must know" should accept *any* kind or way to seek retaliation. In my book, judge Paul Wooten is more guilty -by orders of magnitude, by accepting the sue than the old woman's family by filling it.
"This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations."
No, this certainly is NOT one of those situations.
Was somebody trumped into? YES
There was some damage tied to the action? YES
Then, a civil action is granted.
There was criminal intention or criminal negligence? NO
Then, a criminal prosecution is NOT granted.
Now, what was the case? Some asset (the child) under responsibility of some legally bound entity (the parents) caused some damage (the old woman death) by means of its actions (going over the old woman).
The case (under any sensible penal system) is clear: are the legal responsibles (the parents) liable for the damages? A trial should stablish that.
The stupid part is trying to hold liable a damn four year old girl! Just as stupid as if a horse or a car of yours happens to trump over some old woman breaking her hip. Would you sue the horse or the car? Surely not. Why on hell are they suing the four year old girl???
"You're right, the cost should be borne by insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for."
Insurances are not any kind of magic that happens to appear when need arises. *Your* insurance company will pay *once* it's stablished that it is *you* the one held responsible for the paying.
In other words, your insurance policy will only pay if and when it is you the one that has to pay (and the payment cause lies within the insurance policy, of course).
"I live in Germany, and you can do fuck all to a 6 year old. A 6 year old could throw in your window and nobody, not the kid nor the parents would have to pay."
Are you sure? I don't think so.
There surely won't be criminal responsibility but there would be civil cause: when there's a damage, someone's going to pay, dolus (criminal intention) or not dolus.
Heck, if your car's emergency brakes fail and the car goes into your neighbourgh shop, you'll end up paying for the repair (or your civil insurance policy will do). It can't be any more unintended than that, but still you pay. Children (or dogs, or cars, or horses) can't be criminally prosecuted since they can't be held to criminal intention, but their custodians certainly can (and will) pay for civil damages.
"And it will be the parents (or rather the parents insurance) who will pick up the bill."
Probably. But then it would be the parents the ones to be sued, not the child.
Regarding personal responsibility, little children are equivalent to an animal or a property (and rightly so IMHO, I should add). I must add she was not a six year old girl, as the article says, but a four year old girl (only the trial went two years before that act). Would you sue a horse that happens to break something of yours or would you sue the horse's owner?
Just from the article:
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street [...] Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
All I can say is... WTF!!!??? And this applies both for judge Paul Wooten as much as for his colleagues that allow him to office.