I think thats quite a difficult point as I read GPL. There is a certain interaction between your code and the library at link time (it tries to resolve symbols and stuff from the library and there could be inline code and data structures in the header). The GPL only says that you are bound to its clauses if you distribute- so whatever you do in receiving and operating the software you have no obligations. How about this one;// This file is distributed under GPL v3 only #include "qstring.h" int main(void){ QString foo; }
Are you telling me that this post/me is now infringing trolltech - I don't even have a copy of QT let alone agreed to be subject to its license:)
>I'm an American and I have a hard time understanding anti-Americanism,
OK
>The war in Iraq was justified by saying that we'll take down a dictator
Wrong
>who was trying to commit genocide and presented a threat to our national interests.
Lie by your democratic governement
>While there's a lot of opinion about what Bush and Co. knew and didn't know, there's nothing definitive;
Its is *>definitively knownbesides, Saddam had the factories and labs to produce WMDs.
No
>My problem stems from this: we've sent troops into foreign wars many times, including both world wars. The justifications are >similar between Iraq and World War 2.
No
>Where's the benefit of the doubt for a nation that's saved Europe a couple of times?
Different goverment, different attitude, different nation to USA circa WWx.
>Why >all the hatred for a country that gives large, large amounts of money to third world nations?
Because western countries (not just the US) take subtly more than they give explicitly.
Yes of course its 'apples fault' - noone forced them to make an iTMS store, or sign contracts that are contrary to the law. Whos fault is it? They made a business from an illegal practice, sheesh I bet their lawyers red flagged this years ago.
I'd be surprised if this would swing in court. It would appear that the 'distributor' is acting as an agent or proxy of the auther with the sole purpose of circumventing the obvious purpose of the license. Anyway gpl3 has
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing.
6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License
"I think you'd also find it difficult to force all P2P coders to follow your license, though I might be wrong about that. For that matter the RIAA (or police or whomever) could write their own P2P client that interacts with other clients and would totally circumvent your solution anyway."
Thats correct. But it makes life harder if all the open clients adopted a similar license. The RIAA would also have a hard time explaining to the court "what the offender did and saw" in order to commit the offense without using the same stack as the offender. No its not bulletproof, its obfuscation. If the network were made private, I am sure that you could implement some kind of DRM to prevent non authorized clients connecting... perhaps
It doesn't sign away their rights to sue. It simply doesn't grant them a license to use the client in the first place, and thus if they do use illegally use the client and present that in court they've already violated someone elses (not the violator, but the authors) copyright and become liable for litigation from the code author. Or are you saying I can't write a license that basically says "Everyone can use this apart from the RIAA"?
I would attack the problem from the software stack end.
P2P Software license v0.1
You are free to use and distribute this software subject to the following provisions;
a You do not use the software to track, investigate or persue other users, legally or otherwise
b You are not associated or affiliated with the publishing industry in any way, shape or form, and do not act on their behalf.
c You do not assert copyright over any materials that may be transmitted by this software, nor act on the behest of others that do.
d you do not pass information about other users of this software or the network protocols employed to a third party, over and above the normal operation of the software.
e you agree to finance any and all legal fees of any user of this software, who is subjected to prosecution as a result of your use of the software over and above the normal functioning and behaviour of the software.
"28,000 is a shockingly small number, I agree, although I wasn't aware of this petition when I failed to sign it."
No its significant. Compared to the typical number of signatories on the petition site, it is significant. Obviously its not enough to make a decision based on this, but it *should* be enough for Blair to have a rethink about what the overall populace might think rather than pumping out the terrorist FUD yet again in its defense.
To the GP: FAILING TO HAVE/CARRY A TESCO STORE CARD ISN"T AGAINST THE LAW.
# Thirdly, it eliminates intelligent debate. There are a whole range of subtle arguments and perspectives on the issues being petitioned about, but the system reduces it down to a "yes" or "unknown" perspective, which is worthless. A large Slashdot style debating site would be far more useful and effective.
"but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars?"
WTF? Ep III grossed $850m, so me, if I had the cash. Its a film - it should be making profit from the cinema alone, the ability to raise such large ammounts of additional revenue from a dvd release is a relatively new thing in the film industry, not an always-been-there-suddenly-undermined-by-the-inter net.
The problem here is that artists/filmmakers have constructed a situation where one needs massive investment in special effects and production (to cover over the lousy artistic qualities of the product), and that the artists have to get paid *massive* ammounts of money.
Was Billy Shakespeare as well off as Georgie Lucas? No. Was he a better artist? Yes. Why do you think George and gang deserve to be so rich?
"Marriage is a religious institution and the state has no business being involved"
But it is! Otherwise there would not be a civil marriage.... its a complete contradiction in terms. Why is there a civil marriage, what is its purpose, why can't non-religious people just go to their lawyer if they want to get contracted to each other? Civil marriage is a hangover from the days before seperation of church and state, and is intended to allow non-religious couples to 'fit in' to the social strata that *is* a legacy of overwhelming participation in religious process and the churches had much more social and political power - this legacy predates the US by a couple of thousand years by the way, its gonna take time to shake out:)
"An unfortunate consequence for your cause-- if you wish to prove that you are truly interested in equality and not just an agenda-- is that any two (or more!) people who live together will be claiming social partnership benefits."
Not if you abolish social partnership benefits. One [wo]man one vote, one [wo]man one claim ???? I mean on what ethical basis is the state distinguishing between the single, the cohabiting, the multi-partnered, the married and the multi-married? The concept goes back again for historic reason when there was a need to cause society to form in pairs, being a single mother was bad news in the middle ages, and society had to do something to prevent that situation occuring - this is not true today (or needn't be if a ground up rethink was performed).
"[snip] about 300 microns thick [snip] less than 3 inches [snip] one-tenth of an inch wide [snip] about two billionths of a meter [snip]"
Some consistency would be good!
-S
I didtn't say all of it would make a good story:) and... the same way that unimaginable things have always
been depicted in theatre and film- smoke, mirrors, much left to the imagination, a few fireworks and alanis morrisette.
- S
"I can't imagine the silmarillion being made into a movie of any value. The stories are simply too involved and too mythologically based."
You know I can't help but think that this is what provides license to directors to create a story from a mythology. Just look at some of the other mythology type stuff that shines - homer and the bible alone have spawned countless great movies. The story of Beren and Luthien has loads of potential for a film and thats probably 5% of the content or less...
"Instead of installing a super-secret key in all readers around the world (and having to pray that it does not somehow leak out), the designers opted to use a separate key for each passport and have it printed on the passport itself, so that it can be used by the reader."
why not both? Why not a sequence of timedomain limited superkeys?
Instead of artists spitting out 10 or 12 songs per album, they could produce 100+ if desired! ---
Yea. I always knew the bottle neck was the media capacity. We will have a new generation of High Speed (and probably Full Speed too) songwriters whos productivity will measured in tracks per second, rather than the lazy mob we have now that hide behind the media capacity and only bother with 10-12 songs every 1-2 years:)
>An interesting idea. How do you think it might be implemented? Would there be elections for a leader of domestic policy, and another for the leader >of foreign? What if the two policies conflict? I'd like to hear more.
Not sure I have a draft constitution at hand but... certainly in the UK, there are indepenent bodies (e.g. the judiciary) that the goverment frequently comes into conflict with and has a hard time overruling, ditto for conflict between the national government and the EU. compromise is usually made to avoid too much gnashing of teeth. If the domestic goverment was to try to force the hand of the other assembly, then presumably at some level it would be able to - but not without a lot more due process (ie a legislative process, or a state of national emergency - this would force the electorate to notice something major was afoot) than we currently have. In the Iraq war the government pretty much side-stepped parliament without even much discussion. The way I see things a nation should have a a constition that states how/when and why it interacts with other states - that constitution should be as robust and fundamental as the US domestic constution is regarded, and should be used in combination with the electoral madate of the foreign chamber...
Slashdot Mirror
I think thats quite a difficult point as I read GPL. There is a certain interaction // This file is distributed under GPL v3 only
:)
between your code and the library at link time (it tries to resolve symbols and stuff from the library and there could be inline code and data structures in the header). The GPL only says that you are bound to its clauses if you distribute- so whatever you do in receiving and operating the software you have no obligations. How about this one;
#include "qstring.h"
int main(void){
QString foo;
}
Are you telling me that this post/me is now infringing trolltech - I don't even have a copy of QT let alone agreed to be subject to its license
Someone just gave me 100 bucks to confirm that this is definitely the case....
"Basically he's saying that if a cop thinks it was/could be created for the purposes of sexual arousal, it's illegal,"
:)
Hopefully you meant jury there....
>I'm an American and I have a hard time understanding anti-Americanism,
:)
OK
>The war in Iraq was justified by saying that we'll take down a dictator
Wrong
>who was trying to commit genocide and presented a threat to our national interests.
Lie by your democratic governement
>While there's a lot of opinion about what Bush and Co. knew and didn't know, there's nothing definitive;
Its is *>definitively knownbesides, Saddam had the factories and labs to produce WMDs.
No
>My problem stems from this: we've sent troops into foreign wars many times, including both world wars. The justifications are
>similar between Iraq and World War 2.
No
>Where's the benefit of the doubt for a nation that's saved Europe a couple of times?
Different goverment, different attitude, different nation to USA circa WWx.
>Why
>all the hatred for a country that gives large, large amounts of money to third world nations?
Because western countries (not just the US) take subtly more than they give explicitly.
HTH
How did you get a score:2 ???
Yes of course its 'apples fault' - noone forced them to make an iTMS store, or sign contracts that are contrary to the law. Whos fault is it? They made a business from an illegal practice, sheesh I bet their lawyers red flagged this years ago.
I'd be surprised if this would swing in court. It would appear that the 'distributor' is acting as an agent or proxy of the auther with the sole purpose of circumventing the obvious purpose of the license. Anyway gpl3 has
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing.
6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License
"I think you'd also find it difficult to force all P2P coders to follow your license, though I might be wrong about that. For that matter the RIAA (or police or whomever) could write their own P2P client that interacts with other clients and would totally circumvent your solution anyway." Thats correct. But it makes life harder if all the open clients adopted a similar license. The RIAA would also have a hard time explaining to the court "what the offender did and saw" in order to commit the offense without using the same stack as the offender. No its not bulletproof, its obfuscation. If the network were made private, I am sure that you could implement some kind of DRM to prevent non authorized clients connecting... perhaps
It doesn't sign away their rights to sue. It simply doesn't grant them a license to use the client in the first place, and thus if they do use illegally use the client and present that in court they've already violated someone elses (not the violator, but the authors) copyright and become liable for litigation from the code author. Or are you saying I can't write a license that basically says "Everyone can use this apart from the RIAA"?
I would attack the problem from the software stack end.
P2P Software license v0.1
You are free to use and distribute this software subject to the following provisions;
a You do not use the software to track, investigate or persue other users, legally or otherwise
b You are not associated or affiliated with the publishing industry in any way, shape or form, and do not act on their behalf.
c You do not assert copyright over any materials that may be transmitted by this software, nor act on the behest of others that do.
d you do not pass information about other users of this software or the network protocols employed to a third party, over and above the normal operation of the software.
e you agree to finance any and all legal fees of any user of this software, who is subjected to prosecution as a result of your use of the software over and above the normal functioning and behaviour of the software.
Let them write their own clients!!!!
- som
and cd's are indestructable too IIRCC.
"28,000 is a shockingly small number, I agree, although I wasn't aware of this petition when I failed to sign it."
No its significant. Compared to the typical number of signatories on the petition site, it is significant. Obviously its not enough to make a decision based on this, but it *should* be enough for Blair to have a rethink about what the overall populace might think rather than pumping out the terrorist FUD yet again in its defense.
To the GP: FAILING TO HAVE/CARRY A TESCO STORE CARD ISN"T AGAINST THE LAW.
# Thirdly, it eliminates intelligent debate. There are a whole range of subtle arguments and perspectives on the issues being petitioned about, but the system reduces it down to a "yes" or "unknown" perspective, which is worthless. A large Slashdot style debating site would be far more useful and effective.
Oh really?
"In fact, in order to use the open WAP to help yourself, you'd have to prove that someone else probably is the infringer, and not you."
Surely the onus is on the accuser to prove that it was probably you.... if there are 20 people who could access the network you have a head start....
"but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars?"
r net.
WTF? Ep III grossed $850m, so me, if I had the cash. Its a film - it should be making profit from the cinema alone, the ability to raise such large ammounts of additional revenue from a dvd release is a relatively new thing in the film industry, not an always-been-there-suddenly-undermined-by-the-inte
The problem here is that artists/filmmakers have constructed a situation where one needs massive investment in special effects and production (to cover over the lousy artistic qualities of the product), and that the artists have to get paid *massive* ammounts of money.
Was Billy Shakespeare as well off as Georgie Lucas? No. Was he a better artist? Yes. Why do you think George and gang deserve to be so rich?
"Marriage is a religious institution and the state has no business being involved"
:)
But it is! Otherwise there would not be a civil marriage.... its a complete contradiction in terms. Why is there a civil marriage, what is its purpose, why can't non-religious people just go to their lawyer if they want to get contracted to each other? Civil marriage is a hangover from the days before seperation of church and state, and is intended to allow non-religious couples to 'fit in' to the social strata that *is* a legacy of overwhelming participation in religious process and the churches had much more social and political power - this legacy predates the US by a couple of thousand years by the way, its gonna take time to shake out
"An unfortunate consequence for your cause-- if you wish to prove that you are truly interested in equality and not just an agenda-- is that any two (or more!) people who live together will be claiming social partnership benefits."
Not if you abolish social partnership benefits. One [wo]man one vote, one [wo]man one claim ???? I mean on what ethical basis is the state distinguishing between the single, the cohabiting, the multi-partnered, the married and the multi-married? The concept goes back again for historic reason when there was a need to cause society to form in pairs, being a single mother was bad news in the middle ages, and society had to do something to prevent that situation occuring - this is not true today (or needn't be if a ground up rethink was performed).
Cheers, S
No he said "powerfull" and "scientific" which eliminated the others you mentioned.
"[snip] about 300 microns thick [snip] less than 3 inches [snip] one-tenth of an inch wide [snip] about two billionths of a meter [snip]" Some consistency would be good! -S
I didtn't say all of it would make a good story :) and... the same way that unimaginable things have always
been depicted in theatre and film- smoke, mirrors, much left to the imagination, a few fireworks and alanis morrisette.
- S
"I can't imagine the silmarillion being made into a movie of any value. The stories are simply too involved and too mythologically based."
You know I can't help but think that this is what provides license to directors to create a story from a mythology. Just look at some of the other mythology type stuff that shines - homer and the bible alone have spawned countless great movies. The story of Beren and Luthien has loads of potential for a film and thats probably 5% of the content or less...
S
"Instead of installing a super-secret key in all readers around the world (and having to pray that it does not somehow leak out), the designers opted to use a separate key for each passport and have it printed on the passport itself, so that it can be used by the reader." why not both? Why not a sequence of timedomain limited superkeys?
Instead of artists spitting out 10 or 12 songs per album, they could produce 100+ if desired!
:)
---
Yea. I always knew the bottle neck was the media capacity. We will have a new generation of High Speed
(and probably Full Speed too) songwriters whos productivity will measured in tracks per second, rather than
the lazy mob we have now that hide behind the media capacity and only bother with 10-12 songs every 1-2 years
agree. but presumbaly it would not be long before someone cooked an add removal tool....
"I'm just going to spend $400 for a Windows PC .... but it'll play 100% of my games 100% of the time."
Wow. You got the magic edition I guess.....
>An interesting idea. How do you think it might be implemented? Would there be elections for a leader of domestic policy, and another for the leader
>of foreign? What if the two policies conflict? I'd like to hear more.
Not sure I have a draft constitution at hand but... certainly in the UK, there are indepenent bodies (e.g. the judiciary) that the goverment frequently comes into conflict with and has a hard time overruling, ditto for conflict between the national government and the EU. compromise is usually made to avoid too much gnashing of teeth. If the domestic goverment was to try to force the hand of the other assembly, then presumably at some level it would be able to - but not without a lot more due process (ie a legislative process, or a state of national emergency - this would force the electorate to notice something major was afoot) than we currently have. In the Iraq war the government pretty much side-stepped parliament without even much discussion. The way I see things a nation should have a a constition that states how/when and why it interacts with other states - that constitution should be as robust and fundamental as the US domestic constution is regarded, and should be used in combination with the electoral madate of the foreign chamber...