Uh.... When it is impossible to determine _what_ is on your system, how could you be proven to posess it? Or is the AC posting just a total idiot? I'll pick number two, Bob.
I don't see how Napster could be considered a common carrier in any case, given that they don't actually carry anything. However, that doesn't mean that they don't have legal immunity. Read the DMCA.
The judge in the case takes "circumvention" to mean decryption _without_ the authorisation of the copyright owner (but not decryption _with_ the authorisation of the copyright owner).
But, looking at the original definition, it seems that all decryption counts as "removing", whether the output goes to a screen or to another file.
"Apart from the fact that it is virtually impossible to intercept a cellphone transmission except in the movies (and perhaps the early nineties)"
Heh... For many midrange computerised scanners, a bandplan modification is pretty easy; it usually requires only a computer interface for the scanner (usually commercially available) and software (sometimes shareware or freeware will do the trick). And most are designed so that the manufacturers can easily produce unrestricted versions for countries where there aren't any restrictions on selling such gear (e.g. Canada), which usually means at most an easy hardware modification.
The AHRA has a specific exemption for computer-based stuff when it comes to SCMS implementation -- because it clearly couldn't feasibly be put into place on a general-purpose computer -- but doesn't the exemption apply to the whole act?
"The [music] industry," Heckler said, "will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what."
Wow... I can't wait until it starts raining napalm. =) Aren't megalomaniacs fun?
First of all, KDE itself is GPLed/LGPLed. Obviously I'm talking about the license that applies to QT.
"applies to KDE 2"... You mean that it applies to the version of QT that KDE 2 uses?
If so... I'm sorry. I didn't know that Troll Tech changed the license. Their web site doesn't mention anything about any QPL 2. I guess I am that dense. (e.g. not telepathic) =)
From http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html:
"The Qt Public License (QPL).
This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches."
>Will KDE ever have a corporate-backed "foundation" deciding it's future?
How would the Gnome Foundation decide Gnome's future? Obviously you don't mean "decide" in the strict sense, because the GPL really prevents that. So, what do you mean exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
Now that's some high quality troll there, buddy. =)
Read the title. Thank you. =)
But corporations are people too. =)
"Higher resolution is what is actually needed [...]"
Wasn't the DVD Audio standard going to move to 24 bit sampling as well?
"A number of members of the review team are quite familiar with sniffing technology. Sniffers are routinely used as network management tools."
So, shall we take that as a no?
"Should these people be punished"? No, of course not. But why should the insurance company pay for them?
Uh.... When it is impossible to determine _what_ is on your system, how could you be proven to posess it? Or is the AC posting just a total idiot? I'll pick number two, Bob.
-aT
"C-net posted an article yesterday [...]"
Perhaps you could post a link? Or were you just trolling?
I don't see how Napster could be considered a common carrier in any case, given that they don't actually carry anything. However, that doesn't mean that they don't have legal immunity. Read the DMCA.
"Maybe that update to X11 6.5 will help with the new printer protocols."
I assume you're being sarcastic?
"People very much treat domain names as property--buying and selling them on the web all the time. "
So what? That doesn't make them property. Only the law can do that.
"having to tune the hardware and OS to work the best"
What are you talking about? Want to elaborate on that?
That's imperative, you loser. And it's also OT. =)
... perhaps in the U.S.
They wouldn't really have to "break into" them... Anyone can re-upload a key, right?
Open source does not necessarily mean non-commercial, and v.v.
To develop commercial apps for KDE, you have to pay money to Troll Tech for QT. I see tons of people portraying this as irrelevant. It isn't.
My suggestion: Make a GPLed clone of QT (assuming that this would actually be legal somewhere). Much easier than jumping ship.
"I want copy paste to work with any application, not just Kedit or Kword." Uh.... The normal X copy/paste doesn't work?
The judge in the case takes "circumvention" to mean decryption _without_ the authorisation of the copyright owner (but not decryption _with_ the authorisation of the copyright owner).
But, looking at the original definition, it seems that all decryption counts as "removing", whether the output goes to a screen or to another file.
"Apart from the fact that it is virtually impossible to intercept a cellphone transmission except in the movies (and perhaps the early nineties)"
Heh... For many midrange computerised scanners, a bandplan modification is pretty easy; it usually requires only a computer interface for the scanner (usually commercially available) and software (sometimes shareware or freeware will do the trick). And most are designed so that the manufacturers can easily produce unrestricted versions for countries where there aren't any restrictions on selling such gear (e.g. Canada), which usually means at most an easy hardware modification.
The AHRA has a specific exemption for computer-based stuff when it comes to SCMS implementation -- because it clearly couldn't feasibly be put into place on a general-purpose computer -- but doesn't the exemption apply to the whole act?
"The [music] industry," Heckler said, "will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what."
Wow... I can't wait until it starts raining napalm. =) Aren't megalomaniacs fun?
First of all, KDE itself is GPLed/LGPLed. Obviously I'm talking about the license that applies to QT.
"applies to KDE 2"... You mean that it applies to the version of QT that KDE 2 uses?
If so... I'm sorry. I didn't know that Troll Tech changed the license. Their web site doesn't mention anything about any QPL 2. I guess I am that dense. (e.g. not telepathic) =)
Where the heck did you get that idea?
From http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html:
"The Qt Public License (QPL).
This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches."
>Will KDE ever have a corporate-backed "foundation" deciding it's future?
How would the Gnome Foundation decide Gnome's future? Obviously you don't mean "decide" in the strict sense, because the GPL really prevents that. So, what do you mean exactly?