What about countries that don't even have copyright? Can people from countries that *do* still use it?
It depends on what copyright treaties they and your country are a party to. This List of parties to international copyright treaties but you will get a quicker overview of the situation by looking at this map showing countries that are parties of Berne Convention. The blue ones are. There is a link on that page to the wikipedia article on the Berne Convention.
Answer: If what you want to use is from a country that has no copyright treaty with the countries you want to use it in, you can probably do it just as if it were public domain, ask your legal advisor. Everything you want to use is most likely from a country that is a party to the Berne Convention and you are most likely to be in a country that is a party to the Berne Convention. The idea of getting unrestricted access to works based on differing copyright laws in those countries is largely theoretical.
There is a substantial difference between "the market won't support your price or business model" and "the license doesn't allow it". People can, and do, sell GPL'd software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
Why do people insist on commenting about what is and isn't allowed by the GPL without even taking the trouble to read it? It is hardly ambiguous.
And it is switching to a shareware based model.... And, it kind of sucks, and will now focus mainly on Windows.... So.....
Have trouble reading dates, huh? Go and look again, that post has an update. http://ekiga.org/
Ekiga 3.00 available for WIN32 only 2008-04-01, Damien Sandras
Update: This news is an April Fool.
Due to the big popularity of the Microsoft Windows operating system compared to the GNU/Linux desktop, we have decided to put all our efforts on the WIN32 port of Ekiga.
Due to the increased amount of work and the lack of spare time, Ekiga 3.00 will only be released for WIN32.
While Ekiga 3.00 will stay free (as free beer), it will be the last version to be completely free. From Ekiga 3.20, Ekiga will become a shareware with a small license fee to use either Ekiga or its associated platform Ekiga.net. The money that it will generate will finally allow us to live from our project instead of spending countless hours for free on it.
If I had been the FSF, I would probably have added a clause saying 'if any conditions in this license are found to be invalid in your jurisdiction then you may not distribute this code.'
Good idea.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.
So I could paraphrase what you're saying as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed."?
You just said "if people want to hook up, they'll go where there is rock & roll". This can be logically be reduced to "if hookup, then rock and roll", not vice-versa.
Even laying aside that your "qoute" is an inaccurate paraphrase, the logic you use is still flawed by your dropping the "want". It is "if want hookup, then rock and roll" or more simply, if you stick to the actual order of events rather than desires, "if rock and roll, then hookup". In my statement, the hookup is a desired future outcome and the rock and roll is part of the method to bring about that outcome. A catalyst, if you will.
Equal rights for women were an absolutely necessary first step towards sexual freedom for women.
You said suffrage, which is the right to vote. Now you are shifting to equal rights, and comparing to theocratic societies. You've drifted from the topic.
well, clearly you didn't get the idea...let me try again.
Fair enough. The idea you wrote was different to the one you were thinking. It isn't unreasonable for people to respond to the one you wrote. You have made yourself clear now. I do understand why they wouldn't like it, but I'm not sure their dislike should be enforced by law. What about if I go to a Tesco and on advertising space right outside their competitor advertises? I've already chosen Tesco, physically gone to the store and I see an alternative? How about if I get in a Taxi, say "Take me to the local Tesco" and the driver offers me a choice of a competitor that is closer?
When you look at it, any time someone successfully competes with a business, it is unpleasant for that business. In my (non-laywerly) opinion, this is a case of reasonable competition, not trademark dilution, so long as it is clear who is who.
I can't cut wood straight, or drill holes straight.
This is entirely a matter of correct technique and correct tools. In the shelves example, it sounds like just a bit more knowledge (of drills) would have made a big difference. There is nothing stopping you learning how to do these things except your idea that you can't.
I'd really like to build and fly model planes and rockets
That would be a most excellent way to learn. You could see if there is a woodworking club or other model builders in your area. Being a hobby for them, they would most likely be very willing to share their knowledge and experience with you. Engines for models was what first gave me understanding of how an internal combustion engine works.
I'm not very practical,... I once changed the brake pads on my car successfully.
These statements are not really compatible. I suspect you've been sold a false bill of goods (the idea that you can't do stuff). Markets near where I live often have good tools cheap, I'm sure you could find a good supply.
There are woodworking tutorials on the Miro channels, I haven't seen them but I'm sure you could learn some stuff. If you can do some basic woodwork, metalwork/mechanical and electrical wiring you'll benefit greatly. You don't need heaps of tools.
I'm not sure I said that too clearly, but I hope you get the idea.
So if I may be so bold as to go by what you said, instead of what you meant, then Threni's example using Hoover is spot on.
To make it quite clear, you originally said:
it is *their* product's name that is the first thing you think of when you think of the generic product which the example of Hoover is a case of exactly this thing happening.
Hoover is a bad example, because the word has come to mean 'vacuum cleaner'.
If you read what he is replying to again:
One company spends a fortune building a brand image and is so successful that it is *their* product's name that is the first thing you think of when you think of the generic product, and yet you think it's ok to use produce results for their competitors too?(emphasis mine)
then you'll see that Hoover is a perfect example, precisely because the word had come to mean 'vacuum cleaner'. Ipod is another good example, where people looking for an 'Ipod' are sometimes just looking for a media player, not necessarily the Apple product, even to the extent of still refering to other products as Ipods.
a lathe, a welding set, a bandsaw, a circular saw, various soldering irons, dies and taps etc.
I dare say it'll be mine one day too, but I haven't a clue how to use any of it.
Those are all easy to use. The only one I have formal training in is welding (short part time practical welding course). A couple of weekends with your father would be enough to get you started, then practise, just like anything else. You'll be pleasantly surprised at how much power tools give you. Personally, I'd recommend buying your own rather than waiting for your father's. If you have any disposable income, tools should be a priority purchase, right up there with books.
A country could pass legislation allowing companies to keep self-developed code proprietary even if it uses GPL code in a product. Protecting one's local companies and developing industries would be a higher priority than keeping the spirit of FOSS.
Not any country that is signatory to the Berne Convention. The GPL doesn't create any restriction on distribution or modification, copyright does. The GPL grants certain rights if conditions are met.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License.
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.
Another way of putting it: GPL gives rights to the recipient of the software, not the copyright owner. The author/copyright owner's rights are entirely based on copyright law which is well and truly established by international treaty. If the GPL is found to be unenforcable, the copyright owner still has all their rights.
It is not in the best interests of anyone wishing to use GPL code to challenge the validity of the GPL. Countries that do not really enforce copyright laws are just as unlikely to enforce it regardless of the licence the software is released under, proprietry or otherwise.
If you can make ordinances and laws to stop it, it isn't constitutionally protected. The content of the message may be, but vandalism, stalking and website defacement are not protected rights under the 1st (or any other) amendment.
who's going to be doing the dissolution or alteration?
While wizardforce jumps straight to the 2nd amendment, I was under the impression that the "dissolution or alteration" should first be attempted by voting. Sure, it is difficult to get changes, but that is as it should be. Indeed, immediately following this:
"That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
in the declaration of Independence, is this:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed."
There seem to be many who think political processes are futile for people to use, but I am far from convinced. Changing the government is difficult but certainly not impossible. If it cannot be done now, it is because of lack of motivation rather than impossibility. Didn't about 1/3 of colonists support the revolution? For people to suggest that 100 million US citizens, who shared a common ideology, united in action would be unable to bring about changes to the government seems absurd. They wouldn't even need to break any laws, much less take up arms. 100 million would be able to run enough candidates and elect them to control the government and bring about any changes to law and constitution they wanted, given some time. The reason this isn't happening is that the reasons people want change are simply not compelling enough to make enough people act.
If a cause does not have enough popular support to control the government through elections in the US today, it does not have enough popular support to win an armed revolution either. I support the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having a citizen militia, but this is worth the consideration of any who would take up arms.
"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide" - Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
That said, I've never heard that women being able to vote was a catalyst to the sexual revolution, got any references? I am well aware of the role of birth control, that is pretty obvious. However rock & roll was definitely a catalyst. Even now, if people want to hook up with someone they will very likely go where there is alcohol (and/or other drugs) available and music playing. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, it is a time proven formula!
I and a number of kids I knew did things like jump of the roof. Not out of a misguided belief in our ability to fly though, we called it "playing". Not aware of any serious injuries in superman costumes though, but it isn't beyond credibility at all.
It was the same with rock & roll in the 50s, and D&D in the 70s. Parents always worry about new forms of entertainment corrupting their children, and they are almost always unfounded.
It seems to me that the predictions about the effects rock & roll would have on the comming generations have largely proved true. Free love revolution anyone? Widespread porn, acceptance of homosexuals. What would be in dispute is if they are actually undesirable. Some fought these changes, some fought for them, but they've happened and it could hardly be disputed that rock & roll has played its part.
Views on copyright-type issues have always been influenced by the level of technology. It doesn't seem to have been much of an issue before the printing press. As the technology has changed with computers and the internet, so has people's view of copyright. It's only to be expected. There are people who think it should or could stay the same - it won't. If you think of what is happening right now, with the law and people's behaviour being so out of sync, as a transition period to a new status quo, rather than as a mass outbreak of immorality, it'll make more sense.
I agree that modern education is not antithetical to other basic needs.
You're a master of understatement. Education is not just "not antithetical" to basic needs, it directly enables people to produce and aquire basic needs. It is a requirement of the "affordable health care and quality food sources" that you mentioned. Where is affordable health care provided by people without education?
Teachers in the public schools earn very little and perform very badly.
Public education is not, IMHO, usually very effective, regardless of teacher salaries. It could be argued though, that it is significantly more effective than no education. This has nothing to do with the level of technology.
I don't see them prepared to take advantage of an open source software platform.
Yet they appear to have produced their own Debian based linux distro including some of their own tools. http://webeduc.mec.gov.br/ Personally, I'd say this alone qualifies as taking advantage of an open source software platform.
Of course, it will help to research and plug those minds to the internet and that alone is fantastic.
Yes.
But I don't really think that should be the goal of computer use in public schools of Brazil or Tanzania
It seems some rather influential Brazilians (and a few Tanzanians of my personal aquaintance) disagree with you.
IMHO, at the very least the student needs to understand the basic fact that the software in a computer is made by people and it doesn't come magically out of a town of Redmond, somewhere in the US of A.
Considering they appear to be using a Brazillian distro based on Debian, I don't think this will be a significant problem. I haven't seen you present a single reason why this isn't a good thing. Just your opinion that they're not ready for it, or they should have different goals.
We should be more concerned with improving the humanitarian conditions in these countries first.
Access to affordable health care and quality food sources would lead the way for technology.
I think it also works the other way. Technology and education lead the way for health care and quality food sources. I contribute to a charitable organisation a freind of mine helps run in Tanzania. Our idea for some time has been to sponsor people into business (as in, one off contribution to get them started, then they are self supporting). We were making progress slowly (small organisation, fundraising mostly through family and freinds) but it has taken off recently. The difference? An engineer came on board in Tanzania and built a machine to get one of the businesses going. The critical difference was an educated man on site. Now, the machine is for making tiles, not high technology to us, but a technological advance to the people involved. I'd bet he used computers sometime getting his degree too.
When you're talking computers for these people, you're not talking "Now they can find online what used to be in their local library" like you are in the west to a large extent. You're talking the potential for free or nearly free access to books, education materials, technical manuals.
Last week my lawn mower broke down. The manufacturer has manuals and parts lists on their website. I downloaded them, ordered the parts and today I mowed my lawn. It considerably reduced my costs. To a village of small crop farmers in Tanzania, that could mean restoring their drinking water supply, or irrigation. Maybe their transport to a market with higher prices. It could enable them to buy medication, or send their own children to medical school.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer: If what you want to use is from a country that has no copyright treaty with the countries you want to use it in, you can probably do it just as if it were public domain, ask your legal advisor. Everything you want to use is most likely from a country that is a party to the Berne Convention and you are most likely to be in a country that is a party to the Berne Convention. The idea of getting unrestricted access to works based on differing copyright laws in those countries is largely theoretical.
There is a substantial difference between "the market won't support your price or business model" and "the license doesn't allow it". People can, and do, sell GPL'd software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
Why do people insist on commenting about what is and isn't allowed by the GPL without even taking the trouble to read it? It is hardly ambiguous.
Ekiga 3.00 available for WIN32 only 2008-04-01, Damien Sandras
Update: This news is an April Fool.
Due to the big popularity of the Microsoft Windows operating system compared to the GNU/Linux desktop, we have decided to put all our efforts on the WIN32 port of Ekiga.
Due to the increased amount of work and the lack of spare time, Ekiga 3.00 will only be released for WIN32.
While Ekiga 3.00 will stay free (as free beer), it will be the last version to be completely free. From Ekiga 3.20, Ekiga will become a shareware with a small license fee to use either Ekiga or its associated platform Ekiga.net. The money that it will generate will finally allow us to live from our project instead of spending countless hours for free on it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.
So I could paraphrase what you're saying as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."?
http://www.ngeo.com/adventure/0211/q_n_a.html
"At 15, Karl Stanley began building a sub from a length of steel pipe. Here's the crazy part: It worked."
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/high-school-students-build-submarine.html
"High School Students Build Submarine"
Go for it.
When you look at it, any time someone successfully competes with a business, it is unpleasant for that business. In my (non-laywerly) opinion, this is a case of reasonable competition, not trademark dilution, so long as it is clear who is who.
There are woodworking tutorials on the Miro channels, I haven't seen them but I'm sure you could learn some stuff. If you can do some basic woodwork, metalwork/mechanical and electrical wiring you'll benefit greatly. You don't need heaps of tools.
To make it quite clear, you originally said: it is *their* product's name that is the first thing you think of when you think of the generic product which the example of Hoover is a case of exactly this thing happening.
One company spends a fortune building a brand image and is so successful that it is *their* product's name that is the first thing you think of when you think of the generic product, and yet you think it's ok to use produce results for their competitors too?(emphasis mine)
then you'll see that Hoover is a perfect example, precisely because the word had come to mean 'vacuum cleaner'. Ipod is another good example, where people looking for an 'Ipod' are sometimes just looking for a media player, not necessarily the Apple product, even to the extent of still refering to other products as Ipods.
And you think that would be better than the US? Total control of Europe by the Soviet Union? Madness.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License.
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.
Another way of putting it: GPL gives rights to the recipient of the software, not the copyright owner. The author/copyright owner's rights are entirely based on copyright law which is well and truly established by international treaty. If the GPL is found to be unenforcable, the copyright owner still has all their rights.
It is not in the best interests of anyone wishing to use GPL code to challenge the validity of the GPL. Countries that do not really enforce copyright laws are just as unlikely to enforce it regardless of the licence the software is released under, proprietry or otherwise.
If you can make ordinances and laws to stop it, it isn't constitutionally protected. The content of the message may be, but vandalism, stalking and website defacement are not protected rights under the 1st (or any other) amendment.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
in the declaration of Independence, is this:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
There seem to be many who think political processes are futile for people to use, but I am far from convinced. Changing the government is difficult but certainly not impossible. If it cannot be done now, it is because of lack of motivation rather than impossibility. Didn't about 1/3 of colonists support the revolution? For people to suggest that 100 million US citizens, who shared a common ideology, united in action would be unable to bring about changes to the government seems absurd. They wouldn't even need to break any laws, much less take up arms. 100 million would be able to run enough candidates and elect them to control the government and bring about any changes to law and constitution they wanted, given some time. The reason this isn't happening is that the reasons people want change are simply not compelling enough to make enough people act.
If a cause does not have enough popular support to control the government through elections in the US today, it does not have enough popular support to win an armed revolution either. I support the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having a citizen militia, but this is worth the consideration of any who would take up arms.
"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide" - Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
Competence is oppression, according to some.
As I said "rock & roll has played its part"
That said, I've never heard that women being able to vote was a catalyst to the sexual revolution, got any references? I am well aware of the role of birth control, that is pretty obvious. However rock & roll was definitely a catalyst. Even now, if people want to hook up with someone they will very likely go where there is alcohol (and/or other drugs) available and music playing. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, it is a time proven formula!
I and a number of kids I knew did things like jump of the roof. Not out of a misguided belief in our ability to fly though, we called it "playing". Not aware of any serious injuries in superman costumes though, but it isn't beyond credibility at all.
Views on copyright-type issues have always been influenced by the level of technology. It doesn't seem to have been much of an issue before the printing press. As the technology has changed with computers and the internet, so has people's view of copyright. It's only to be expected. There are people who think it should or could stay the same - it won't. If you think of what is happening right now, with the law and people's behaviour being so out of sync, as a transition period to a new status quo, rather than as a mass outbreak of immorality, it'll make more sense.
When you're talking computers for these people, you're not talking "Now they can find online what used to be in their local library" like you are in the west to a large extent. You're talking the potential for free or nearly free access to books, education materials, technical manuals.
Last week my lawn mower broke down. The manufacturer has manuals and parts lists on their website. I downloaded them, ordered the parts and today I mowed my lawn. It considerably reduced my costs. To a village of small crop farmers in Tanzania, that could mean restoring their drinking water supply, or irrigation. Maybe their transport to a market with higher prices. It could enable them to buy medication, or send their own children to medical school.