There is no reason why DSL has to be provided by the phone company. The 'last mile copper' is nearly always provided by the phone company, but there is no reason why the DSLAMs, trunks and routers etc have to be run by the phone company.
If Comcast are a monopoly supplier (ie customers cannot get broadband from another ISP) then maybe the customers who cannot get Netflix (or whatever else) should bring a class action suit against Comcast.
The (potential) down side to this is what happens when a new, better web site crops up that may be infinitely better than the one that we're all familiar with. For example, once the world became accustomed to using Microsoft Office exclusively because that is what they were the most familiar with, it has become increasingly difficult (if not damn near impossible) for any other product to break into that space.
It is perfectly possible for this to happen. Thinking back a bit, WordPerfect was just as ubiquitous as MS Word is now, but in a very short time almost everyone changed to using MS Word.
Are they looking for people dropping litter, those with large hats blocking the view from those behind them. Or maybe they are just voyeuristic and want to watch the activities of couples in the back row.
Who adds the DRM to the app? Is it the developer or is it Apple. If it is the developer, then the DRM forms part of the work and therefore the source code for the DRM must be included in that provided under the terms of the GPL. If Apple is adding the DRM then they are creating a derivative work and therefore are acting as more than just an agent for the developer and, under the terms of the GPL, then they (Apple) are the ones who must provide the source code to the whole derivative work - which includes the source code to the DRM.
Apple needs to take the app down, but they aren't required to take any positive actions to fulfill the submitter's license obligations, such as make the source code available, or remove DRM from the app.
No, it is not removing DRM from the app that they should be doing. What they should be doing is not adding DRM to the app. I am sure that the app as submitted did not include DRM, so Apple should be distributing it 'as submitted' not changing it before distributing it.
An interesting thought. The DRM'd app is a derivative work of the app, so under the terms of the GPL anyone receiving the app can demand the source code of the modification - ie the DRM!
And does the PC which was supplied with Windows pre-installed but whose HD has been reformatted and Linux (or *BSD or any other OS) installed get counted as a windows box because it was sold with a windows licence?
When I started working at my last job, we were initially using Openoffice for almost everything except for any documents that needed to go to clients, because documents that we created with Openoffice would not reliably open with the same formatting by clients who were using Microsoft office, particularly if indentation or outlining was used.
Unless things have changed somewhat, neither will even the same version of MS Office always show consistent formatting. If the document author is using 'printer X' and the document is opened by someone using 'printer Y', then the whole formatting can change.
To me, 'providing liquidity' implies cashing in your investments, or selling your assets, so that you can use the money to buy things, pay employees or repay debts/loans etc.
Maybe a silly or naive question, but why would any one person want to simultaneously buy and sell the same stock? If I want more of it, I will put in a bid to buy and if I want less of it then I will offer for sale. Which I do at any one time might change with the price that other people are offering or asking, but at any one time I would be either bidding to buy or offering for sale - not both at the same time.
Yet it is not at all uncommon for even large and well known businesses to re-brand and change the name of either the business or the product. Norwich Union -> Aviva, Charmin -> Cushelle, to quote two relatively recent examples.
Wrong--it's a tool with two uses: copyright violation, and copyright protection. The buyer is also granted certain rights under copyright law. DRM seeks to prevent those rights from being exercised.
Which is why the law should require any so called "Digital Rights Management" system to protect and allow the purchaser/user to exercise the rights, eg fair use, which they have under Copyright law as well as protecting the rights of the copyright owner.
One problem with movie and game trailers is that if you read the small print, many of them say something like "not actual footage shown" and the scene shown in the trailer is not actually in the movie.
Taking things a bit out of context? It's not actively making it harder, it's just making it so that people actually have to show they have a right to license the content that way.
Yet does the same not apply to any creative work?. Should people who use a commercial licence not also have to prove that they have the right to licence it - and that it is not plagiarism?
I thought the original idea of micropayments was to, for example, charge something like $0.005 per email sent or per view of a web page etc. rather than for the purchase of individual items.
When you request an HTTPS website, the proxy establishes a secure connection with the remote site, fetches the data, decrypts it, re-encrypts it with the company's SSL certificate (which is installed by default on all workstations), and sends it to the user's browser.
The most annoying thing is that when this happens, the user has no idea that their traffic is being intercepted, cached, and possibly modified unless they happen to check the certificate and see that the organization is the name of the company they work for rather than, say, Google. But of course even that is easy to spoof when the company has its certificate authority preinstalled on all of the desktops.
The other situation where this would not work is where the server requests the certificate from the user. HTTP(S) is often used as a transport for other services because most firewalls allow it through. These may well specifically check the content of the certificate as well as just ensuring that it is signed by a known CA.
Go read the GPL. A company is a single legal entity; giving a copy of a program to an employee is the same as you giving a copy to your safe-deposit box.
True, but where you do get the permission to create that copy, whether to give to the employee or put in the safe deposit box? Creating copies is an act which requires the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of GPL's works this permission is conditional on obeying the terms of the licence.
No. If I hire someone to extend the linux kernel (or something else that is GPL licensed), I own those changes. If I choose to distribute them, I'm required to distribute them under the GPL,
The problem here, as I see it, is that the employer is claiming to own the copyright of the whole 'finished product' not just of the extensions written after employment started.
Under the GPL, you have to distribute, or offer to distribute, the source to anyone to whom you distribute the binary,.
It is often stated that you must offer to distribute the source any anyone to whom you distribute the binary, but GPL-2 requires more than this. It states (3.b) " Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party," (My emphasis). So the requirement to provide the source code is not restricted to those to whom you distribute the binary but it must be made available to anyone who requests it.
Plus, if the employer does not open source the project then the resultant code can only be used in-house as to propagate it would violate the GPL licence of the original code.
How does his contract of employment affect the copyright of code written, and licensed under the GPL, before the employment started. The OP stated that he was 'employed' to develop (ie adapt and extend) an existing solution to meet a specific need.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason why DSL has to be provided by the phone company. The 'last mile copper' is nearly always provided by the phone company, but there is no reason why the DSLAMs, trunks and routers etc have to be run by the phone company.
If Comcast are a monopoly supplier (ie customers cannot get broadband from another ISP) then maybe the customers who cannot get Netflix (or whatever else) should bring a class action suit against Comcast.
The (potential) down side to this is what happens when a new, better web site crops up that may be infinitely better than the one that we're all familiar with. For example, once the world became accustomed to using Microsoft Office exclusively because that is what they were the most familiar with, it has become increasingly difficult (if not damn near impossible) for any other product to break into that space.
It is perfectly possible for this to happen. Thinking back a bit, WordPerfect was just as ubiquitous as MS Word is now, but in a very short time almost everyone changed to using MS Word.
Are they looking for people dropping litter, those with large hats blocking the view from those behind them. Or maybe they are just voyeuristic and want to watch the activities of couples in the back row.
Who adds the DRM to the app? Is it the developer or is it Apple. If it is the developer, then the DRM forms part of the work and therefore the source code for the DRM must be included in that provided under the terms of the GPL. If Apple is adding the DRM then they are creating a derivative work and therefore are acting as more than just an agent for the developer and, under the terms of the GPL, then they (Apple) are the ones who must provide the source code to the whole derivative work - which includes the source code to the DRM.
Apple needs to take the app down, but they aren't required to take any positive actions to fulfill the submitter's license obligations, such as make the source code available, or remove DRM from the app.
No, it is not removing DRM from the app that they should be doing. What they should be doing is not adding DRM to the app. I am sure that the app as submitted did not include DRM, so Apple should be distributing it 'as submitted' not changing it before distributing it.
An interesting thought. The DRM'd app is a derivative work of the app, so under the terms of the GPL anyone receiving the app can demand the source code of the modification - ie the DRM!
And does the PC which was supplied with Windows pre-installed but whose HD has been reformatted and Linux (or *BSD or any other OS) installed get counted as a windows box because it was sold with a windows licence?
When I started working at my last job, we were initially using Openoffice for almost everything except for any documents that needed to go to clients, because documents that we created with Openoffice would not reliably open with the same formatting by clients who were using Microsoft office, particularly if indentation or outlining was used.
Unless things have changed somewhat, neither will even the same version of MS Office always show consistent formatting. If the document author is using 'printer X' and the document is opened by someone using 'printer Y', then the whole formatting can change.
So when did this change? At one time it was pretty universal that 'learn computing at university' meant 'learn *NIX'.
To me, 'providing liquidity' implies cashing in your investments, or selling your assets, so that you can use the money to buy things, pay employees or repay debts/loans etc.
Maybe a silly or naive question, but why would any one person want to simultaneously buy and sell the same stock? If I want more of it, I will put in a bid to buy and if I want less of it then I will offer for sale. Which I do at any one time might change with the price that other people are offering or asking, but at any one time I would be either bidding to buy or offering for sale - not both at the same time.
Lee Burr Office? Glad it's temporary. Sounds like something said drunkenly to a cop after getting pulled over.
Or what about Lee-Broffice as a pronunciation?
Yet it is not at all uncommon for even large and well known businesses to re-brand and change the name of either the business or the product. Norwich Union -> Aviva, Charmin -> Cushelle, to quote two relatively recent examples.
Wrong--it's a tool with two uses: copyright violation, and copyright protection. The buyer is also granted certain rights under copyright law. DRM seeks to prevent those rights from being exercised.
Which is why the law should require any so called "Digital Rights Management" system to protect and allow the purchaser/user to exercise the rights, eg fair use, which they have under Copyright law as well as protecting the rights of the copyright owner.
One problem with movie and game trailers is that if you read the small print, many of them say something like "not actual footage shown" and the scene shown in the trailer is not actually in the movie.
Taking things a bit out of context? It's not actively making it harder, it's just making it so that people actually have to show they have a right to license the content that way.
Yet does the same not apply to any creative work?. Should people who use a commercial licence not also have to prove that they have the right to licence it - and that it is not plagiarism?
The first one I encountered was startrek on an HP 2000 system in the mid 1970s
I thought the original idea of micropayments was to, for example, charge something like $0.005 per email sent or per view of a web page etc. rather than for the purchase of individual items.
When you request an HTTPS website, the proxy establishes a secure connection with the remote site, fetches the data, decrypts it, re-encrypts it with the company's SSL certificate (which is installed by default on all workstations), and sends it to the user's browser.
The most annoying thing is that when this happens, the user has no idea that their traffic is being intercepted, cached, and possibly modified unless they happen to check the certificate and see that the organization is the name of the company they work for rather than, say, Google. But of course even that is easy to spoof when the company has its certificate authority preinstalled on all of the desktops.
The other situation where this would not work is where the server requests the certificate from the user. HTTP(S) is often used as a transport for other services because most firewalls allow it through. These may well specifically check the content of the certificate as well as just ensuring that it is signed by a known CA.
Not forgetting Veronica as well.
Go read the GPL. A company is a single legal entity; giving a copy of a program to an employee is the same as you giving a copy to your safe-deposit box.
True, but where you do get the permission to create that copy, whether to give to the employee or put in the safe deposit box? Creating copies is an act which requires the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of GPL's works this permission is conditional on obeying the terms of the licence.
No. If I hire someone to extend the linux kernel (or something else that is GPL licensed), I own those changes. If I choose to distribute them, I'm required to distribute them under the GPL,
The problem here, as I see it, is that the employer is claiming to own the copyright of the whole 'finished product' not just of the extensions written after employment started.
Under the GPL, you have to distribute, or offer to distribute, the source to anyone to whom you distribute the binary,.
It is often stated that you must offer to distribute the source any anyone to whom you distribute the binary, but GPL-2 requires more than this. It states (3.b) " Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party," (My emphasis). So the requirement to provide the source code is not restricted to those to whom you distribute the binary but it must be made available to anyone who requests it.
Plus, if the employer does not open source the project then the resultant code can only be used in-house as to propagate it would violate the GPL licence of the original code.
How does his contract of employment affect the copyright of code written, and licensed under the GPL, before the employment started. The OP stated that he was 'employed' to develop (ie adapt and extend) an existing solution to meet a specific need.