No. They must bake the cake regardless of the symbols.
No, they must bake the cake if they would bake the same cake for others without basing their refusal upon the customer being a member of a protected class.
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
Because it's so damn hard to install tor and a tor browser in order to visit the site.
The Daily Stormer's new dark web address was tweeted out by the site's official Twitter account early Monday morning.
A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.
Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?
The bill of rights prohibits the government from infringing upon a number of individual and states rights, rather than specifying an individual's rights over other individuals.
I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse...
You totally are, because you keep intimating that those companies are destorying constitutional rights despite not being the government...
I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs.
Nobody has proposed that idea. They've proposed that individuals and companies may engage in a "freedom of association" under which they may refuse to be associated with his requests. He may ask for help in public forums or in any private forum that is willing to be associated with him.
We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can.
Oh. You're thinking that the crowdfunding sites have prejudged him of being guilty of a crime rather than merely being a neo-Nazi asshole who, in his public words and deeds, has promoted hate and violence against minorities. Your mistake.
I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted.
See the previous two sentences.
One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.
Yes, one does. It's called a reputation. It's called being known by the company that you keep. And it can have nothing to do with whether one has committed a crime or not.
As usual, leftists want to censor things rather than refute them.
As usual, private enterprises want to distance themselves from objectively horrible people because it may cost them money.
As usual, objectively horrible people suddenly decide that it is "censorship" if private enterprises decide that they do not want to be associated with said objectively horrible people, and completely forget about the whole "freedom of association" thing.
The greatest enemy to free speech in the world is leftists.
Because they're the ones running down their opponents with cars...
I don't know how much a new Bugatti costs but it still has a fucking price.
Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. There is a market for new Bugattis with sellers, buyers, and comparatively frequent transactions. The transactions establish the price.
There is no market for Uber shares, selling and buying is restricted, and I'm willing to bet that you can't identify any recent transactions. Sellers don't know whaat a buyer will pay and buyers don't know what sellers will accept. It's all guesses. That is not a price.
There are shares, the company has value, this means each share is worth a specific amount.
We call that the share price.
The GP is more right than you. There are shares, the company has an unknown value, this means each share is worth an unknown amount and an unknown amount is not a price.
During the last funding round there was a share price, but lots has occurred since then and all the changes in value since that point are merely guesses. Until there is another arms-length transaction, all you have are individual shareholders that are deluding themselves to varying extents.
If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.
Ah, the secondary business scam -- the one where businesses claim large multiplier effects on secondary revenue and employment that mysteriously do not apply to other employers in the area since, if true for all, small business owners would be swimming in gold plated swimming pools and unemployment would be -50%.
Yes, a university whose primary attendee is essentially defined by their position outside of the norm (i.e. the top x% of learners) is an ideal sample for guaging the average characteristics of the groups they fall within./s
Nobody reasonable is claiming that individual women are incapable of excelling in STEM. The document that started this whole thing sought to explain the current status quo based on average characteristics of a group. You and most of the students around you are outliers and do not represent the mean.
Damore's memorandum concerned the status quo at Google. Google employees are outliers and do no represent the mean, yet the disparity remains.
There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology because some MBA's disagree.
They could fire him for resume fraud, considering he doesn't appear to have actually obtained the pHD that you're touting .
The first GPL clause says that you lose your license under certain conditions, but everyone who already has a license is fine.
No it doesn't. It says "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." You're rewording it, e.g., "However, parties who have already received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." There is no qualification upon time included in the anti-termination provision.
The second one could be construed as applying to legal distribution only.
No, it can't. It says "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." There's no condition on the automatic grant of a license from the original licensor to the recipient, and there's no required grant of license from the distributor. There is no termination of the recipient's rights under even a particular instance of license under the GPLv2 -- see the statement that it "will automatically terminate your rights under this License" in addition to the above-quoted "However..." clarification.
the courts might rule that they can't transfer a license (disagreeing with the SFLC)
They don't have to transfer a license. The recipient is an intended third party beneficiary of a direct license from the original licensor under GPLv2 sec. 6, and the third party beneficiaries' rights are not terminated under GPLv2 sec. 4, both by the terms of actual termination clause and the subsequent "However" clarification.
Even if you argue that the GPLv2 is not a contract with third party beneficiaries, sec. 6 creates a promissory estoppel with respect to the recipients. Sec. 6 is not conditioned on the distributor's compliance with secs. 2 and 3, is automatic, and is not terminated by sec. 4.
The SFLC quote, while more definite, is the SFLC's interpretation, and the SFLC does not represent all Linux contributors.
Irrelevant. The SFLC is a group of lawyers who have expertise concerning this license. Without a coutervailing analysis from a lawyer, or any indication that any Linux kernal contributor even holds such an opinion, this is merely FUD.
I don't think there's any case law here (and would be fascinated to be corrected).
Your wish is granted. Skip down to "The use of GPLv2-licensed code is authorized for compliant users, even if they receive the code from a non-compliant licensee."
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?
Said no court ever. I don't see "I"m right and you're wrong" on the list of reasons why an at-will employer cannot fire an employee who decides, unprompted, to openly criticize the employer's policies and, oh by the way, serve up a juicy bit of fodder to the Department of Labor investigation of the employer's treatment of women and minorities.
The crickets from the libertarian "I can run my business any damn way I want to" crowd are deafening...
Drop shipping, if they're dumb enough to have it shipped straight from China to the warehouse - Amazon gets most of the info they need to reach out to the supplier.
Yes, I already mentioned drop shipping as a possibility. The solution is, don't do that. There's nothing insidious about using public information that people simply hand to you to climb the supply chain.
Microsoft is a monopoly (certified by Federal court).
In 1999. Hardly a "new monopoly player," even ignoring developments in the last 18 years.
It has used it's monopoly position in computer software to take over additional markets. No reason to believe they won't try the same thing here. (Microsoft has been able to establish a monopoly in "open" markets. You don't need regulatory mandates to establish a monopoly.)
Name one. Hint: it's not servers, internet browsers, gaming consoles, or phone operating systems.
m claiming the following things about reality. GRsecurity may be violating GPLv2 (I'm not taking a definite position on that). If so, GRsecurity doesn't have a valid license for the Linux kernel, and is forbidden to change or further copy it. If GRsecurity doesn't have a valid license, GRsecurity can't grant a license, and therefore their customers are running unlicensed copies of software.
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
This is GPLv2's "automatic downstream licensing" provision. Each time you redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject to the conditions of the license. There is no requirement to take any action to ensure the downstream recipient's acceptance of the license terms, see above. This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream redistributor. Two legal effects follow. First, as sec. 6 says, parties themselves remaining in compliance have valid permissions for all actions including modification and redistribution even if their immediate upstream supplier of the software has been terminated for license violation. Their licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder. Second, automatic termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate supplier: the license permissions emanate only from the original licensors, and if they have automatically terminated permission, no act by any intermediate license holder can restore those terminated rights.
It also follows, as sec. 6 makes clear, that licensors are in no way responsible for enforcing compliance by third party recipients or distributors. Every licensee gains or loses permissions from each original licensor solely on the basis of its own conduct.
We know from the MAFIAA and lawsuits that illegitimate copies of copyrighted works can cost a whole lot of money. The Linux kernel does not operate under a copyright-assignment principle, so there's a large number of people with copyrighted code in the kernel, and I believe any of them could sue.
But they are all bound by sections 4 and 6 of the GPL as "original licensors" of their contributions, they've automatically granted licenses to GRsecurity's customers by the terms of section 6, and those licenses were not terminated by GRsecutiy's alleged violation of the terms of section 4.
Hence, it looks legally risky to me to rely on a kernel supplied from GRsecurity.
What's insidious here is Amazon is looking through their data, seeing things from Company X that are selling well...
Which is inherent in any electronic marketplace, so the term "insidious" does not apply. What is moronic here is an electronic marketplace seller not realizing that the marketplace owner has complete visibility into their sales, whether it's Amazon.com, Walmart.com, eBay.com, or anyone else.
and then short-circuiting that company's supply chain to procure and sell their own knock-off.
How does Amazon short circuit the company's supply chain? More to the point, why is the company disclosing its supply chain to Amazon, and how would using that information be Amazon's fault?
It's not "insidious" to appreciate that if your vendor is drop shipping you goods from a manufacturer, shipping someone else's goods as a middleman, or otherwise selling something identifiably identical to other items sold by other sellers, there's an opportunity to go straight to the source or at least pit sellers against each other.
"Company X basically did all the market research and product development, and Amazon steals it reaps the rewards for basically free. Company X is now screwed."
Or Company X threw up a minimal storefront, bought the same made-in-China item a dozen others did with an order for custom labeling, and now Company V that actually researched and developed the item, along with labeling it, should not have the opportunity to deal with Amazon as a direct customer because Company X appears more sympathetic to you.
"They are really good engineers, really indispensable. And then they start to pull 9-5 days."
Such a shame. Its as if a business shouldn't be run in startup mode or run-up-to-deadline mode at every possible moment, and people might desire lives outside of work and sleep.
We can't have that.
This quote is an example of how the concept of "fuck you money" arose.
as the kernel and/or grsecurity's (potential) derivative works may not be licensed at all, meaning there is no legal means of conveying a copy.
Neither Bruce nor you have provided a satisfactory explanation of how the derivative work would not be licensed at all vis-a-vis the customer.
The GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6 grant the customer a license from each licensor -- not merely from the upstream distributor -- and state that the customer's license is not terminated by termination of the upstream distributor's license.
The GPLv2 sec. 2 permits the customer to make derivative works using any type of code. That code must only be licensed or relicensed under the GPLv2 if the customer publishes or distributes it to third parties.
The customer has the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the grsecurity contribution under the GPLv2, and NEITHER party can terminate the customer's license without a breach by the customer. The customer can even distribute the code since both parts are licensed under the GPLv2 and are ipso facto compatibly licensed as a combination under the GPLv2.
Remember that the GPL is a license (the L in "GPL" and not a contract), and that unlicensed works are not "public domain"; a copyright license is the only thing that provides the right to make (and/or distribute) copies
Both works are licensed. The right to make the combination is licensed. There is no "public domain" issue involved.
"Only that they knew or should have Known grsecurities subscription agreement was contrary to the terms of the GPL and likely infringed on kernel copyright."
Now fit that into "knowingly induces, causes, or materially contributes" and you might have something. The problem being, all of those concepts require some ability to direct and control the act of infringement, not merely the purchase of an allegedly infringing product.
Good news! A new monopoly player wants to take over from old monopoly players. I just don't see how this will help anybody but the monopolists
Pray tell, what is the new monopoly? The article says that the white spaces exceptions would be unlicensed spectrum. The article also says that Microsoft is pushing for a regulatory market that will encourage manufacturers to mass produce appropriate chipsets. Did Microsoft start manufacturing wireless chipsets suddenly?
Mine was limited pointing out the irony of a monopolistic rent-seeker bitching about the very practice that is their bread and butter.
No, yours was lead off with "Boo F-ing Hoo," which also indicates that one vehemently does not care.
You assert that I have no position on rent seeking.... I can, definitively, say both of your unfounded assumptions about me are quite wrong
Yes, you have a position on rent seeking -- a shit position. I asserted that you have no principled position on rent seeking, which is something that your title displays for all to see.
then you counter your own unfounded assertion with another - that I am "fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like."
My foundation is your own words, which your title displays for all to see.
I have to say this caught me off guard as I was unaware of a single thing I might say in a Slashdot post that would change the terrible behavior of both tech companies, and large carriers.
You didn't seem to feel that such a high-minded threshold for action was necessary when you dumped on an attempt to create unlicensed white spaces data transmission technology and regulations by engaging in a corporation-targeting analog of an ad hominem attack, did you?
You seem to have a pretty good idea what that post would be. I look forward to reading your world-changing post.
This weekend's contribution to world-changing is shaming your shit post, not dancing for you on command.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they must bake the cake if they would bake the same cake for others without basing their refusal upon the customer being a member of a protected class.
Here's a source backing my assertion. Where's a source backing yours?
Because it's so damn hard to install tor and a tor browser in order to visit the site.
World's worst kept secret.
Here. Or do statements by former classmates and teachers not satisfy you?
The bill of rights prohibits the government from infringing upon a number of individual and states rights, rather than specifying an individual's rights over other individuals.
You totally are, because you keep intimating that those companies are destorying constitutional rights despite not being the government...
Nobody has proposed that idea. They've proposed that individuals and companies may engage in a "freedom of association" under which they may refuse to be associated with his requests. He may ask for help in public forums or in any private forum that is willing to be associated with him.
Oh. You're thinking that the crowdfunding sites have prejudged him of being guilty of a crime rather than merely being a neo-Nazi asshole who, in his public words and deeds, has promoted hate and violence against minorities. Your mistake.
See the previous two sentences.
Yes, one does. It's called a reputation. It's called being known by the company that you keep. And it can have nothing to do with whether one has committed a crime or not.
In the age of Photoshop, it's good practice to use reference materials when available.
As usual, private enterprises want to distance themselves from objectively horrible people because it may cost them money.
As usual, objectively horrible people suddenly decide that it is "censorship" if private enterprises decide that they do not want to be associated with said objectively horrible people, and completely forget about the whole "freedom of association" thing.
Because they're the ones running down their opponents with cars...
Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. There is a market for new Bugattis with sellers, buyers, and comparatively frequent transactions. The transactions establish the price.
There is no market for Uber shares, selling and buying is restricted, and I'm willing to bet that you can't identify any recent transactions. Sellers don't know whaat a buyer will pay and buyers don't know what sellers will accept. It's all guesses. That is not a price.
The GP is more right than you. There are shares, the company has an unknown value, this means each share is worth an unknown amount and an unknown amount is not a price.
During the last funding round there was a share price, but lots has occurred since then and all the changes in value since that point are merely guesses. Until there is another arms-length transaction, all you have are individual shareholders that are deluding themselves to varying extents.
Ah, the secondary business scam -- the one where businesses claim large multiplier effects on secondary revenue and employment that mysteriously do not apply to other employers in the area since, if true for all, small business owners would be swimming in gold plated swimming pools and unemployment would be -50%.
Damore's memorandum concerned the status quo at Google. Google employees are outliers and do no represent the mean, yet the disparity remains.
They could fire him for resume fraud, considering he doesn't appear to have actually obtained the pHD that you're touting .
Does that make it less sad, now?
Oh really? Harvard doesn't think that he has a pHD. Care to provide a link to his doctoral thesis?
And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits supervisors from engaging in harassment based upon gender. When someone is a "Senior Software Engineer," serves as a peer reviewer, and is fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes," which priority governs?
BTW, the NLRA does not apply to supervisors.
No it doesn't. It says "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." You're rewording it, e.g., "However, parties who have already received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." There is no qualification upon time included in the anti-termination provision.
No, it can't. It says "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." There's no condition on the automatic grant of a license from the original licensor to the recipient, and there's no required grant of license from the distributor. There is no termination of the recipient's rights under even a particular instance of license under the GPLv2 -- see the statement that it "will automatically terminate your rights under this License" in addition to the above-quoted "However..." clarification.
They don't have to transfer a license. The recipient is an intended third party beneficiary of a direct license from the original licensor under GPLv2 sec. 6, and the third party beneficiaries' rights are not terminated under GPLv2 sec. 4, both by the terms of actual termination clause and the subsequent "However" clarification.
Even if you argue that the GPLv2 is not a contract with third party beneficiaries, sec. 6 creates a promissory estoppel with respect to the recipients. Sec. 6 is not conditioned on the distributor's compliance with secs. 2 and 3, is automatic, and is not terminated by sec. 4.
Irrelevant. The SFLC is a group of lawyers who have expertise concerning this license. Without a coutervailing analysis from a lawyer, or any indication that any Linux kernal contributor even holds such an opinion, this is merely FUD.
Your wish is granted. Skip down to "The use of GPLv2-licensed code is authorized for compliant users, even if they receive the code from a non-compliant licensee."
Said no court ever. I don't see "I"m right and you're wrong" on the list of reasons why an at-will employer cannot fire an employee who decides, unprompted, to openly criticize the employer's policies and, oh by the way, serve up a juicy bit of fodder to the Department of Labor investigation of the employer's treatment of women and minorities.
The crickets from the libertarian "I can run my business any damn way I want to" crowd are deafening...
Because it's simply earlier to ignore everything that came before his critique in a "last words win" mode of analysis?
It's not as if nobody has addressed this before.
There. You have a logical, reasoned response to his critique. Game on.
Yes, I already mentioned drop shipping as a possibility. The solution is, don't do that. There's nothing insidious about using public information that people simply hand to you to climb the supply chain.
In 1999. Hardly a "new monopoly player," even ignoring developments in the last 18 years.
Name one. Hint: it's not servers, internet browsers, gaming consoles, or phone operating systems.
And reality disagrees with you. Per the GPLv2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
From the SFLC:
This is GPLv2's "automatic downstream licensing" provision. Each time you redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject to the conditions of the license. There is no requirement to take any action to ensure the downstream recipient's acceptance of the license terms, see above. This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream redistributor. Two legal effects follow. First, as sec. 6 says, parties themselves remaining in compliance have valid permissions for all actions including modification and redistribution even if their immediate upstream supplier of the software has been terminated for license violation. Their licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder. Second, automatic termination cannot be cured by obtaining additional copies from an alternate supplier: the license permissions emanate only from the original licensors, and if they have automatically terminated permission, no act by any intermediate license holder can restore those terminated rights.
It also follows, as sec. 6 makes clear, that licensors are in no way responsible for enforcing compliance by third party recipients or distributors. Every licensee gains or loses permissions from each original licensor solely on the basis of its own conduct .
But they are all bound by sections 4 and 6 of the GPL as "original licensors" of their contributions, they've automatically granted licenses to GRsecurity's customers by the terms of section 6, and those licenses were not terminated by GRsecutiy's alleged violation of the terms of section 4.
Wrong.
Which is inherent in any electronic marketplace, so the term "insidious" does not apply. What is moronic here is an electronic marketplace seller not realizing that the marketplace owner has complete visibility into their sales, whether it's Amazon.com, Walmart.com, eBay.com, or anyone else.
How does Amazon short circuit the company's supply chain? More to the point, why is the company disclosing its supply chain to Amazon, and how would using that information be Amazon's fault?
It's not "insidious" to appreciate that if your vendor is drop shipping you goods from a manufacturer, shipping someone else's goods as a middleman, or otherwise selling something identifiably identical to other items sold by other sellers, there's an opportunity to go straight to the source or at least pit sellers against each other.
Or Company X threw up a minimal storefront, bought the same made-in-China item a dozen others did with an order for custom labeling, and now Company V that actually researched and developed the item, along with labeling it, should not have the opportunity to deal with Amazon as a direct customer because Company X appears more sympathetic to you.
"They are really good engineers, really indispensable. And then they start to pull 9-5 days."
Such a shame. Its as if a business shouldn't be run in startup mode or run-up-to-deadline mode at every possible moment, and people might desire lives outside of work and sleep.
We can't have that.
This quote is an example of how the concept of "fuck you money" arose.
Neither Bruce nor you have provided a satisfactory explanation of how the derivative work would not be licensed at all vis-a-vis the customer.
The GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6 grant the customer a license from each licensor -- not merely from the upstream distributor -- and state that the customer's license is not terminated by termination of the upstream distributor's license.
The GPLv2 sec. 2 permits the customer to make derivative works using any type of code. That code must only be licensed or relicensed under the GPLv2 if the customer publishes or distributes it to third parties.
The customer has the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the grsecurity contribution under the GPLv2, and NEITHER party can terminate the customer's license without a breach by the customer. The customer can even distribute the code since both parts are licensed under the GPLv2 and are ipso facto compatibly licensed as a combination under the GPLv2.
Both works are licensed. The right to make the combination is licensed. There is no "public domain" issue involved.
"Only that they knew or should have Known grsecurities subscription agreement was contrary to the terms of the GPL and likely infringed on kernel copyright."
Now fit that into "knowingly induces, causes, or materially contributes" and you might have something. The problem being, all of those concepts require some ability to direct and control the act of infringement, not merely the purchase of an allegedly infringing product.
Pray tell, what is the new monopoly? The article says that the white spaces exceptions would be unlicensed spectrum. The article also says that Microsoft is pushing for a regulatory market that will encourage manufacturers to mass produce appropriate chipsets. Did Microsoft start manufacturing wireless chipsets suddenly?
No, yours was lead off with "Boo F-ing Hoo," which also indicates that one vehemently does not care.
Yes, you have a position on rent seeking -- a shit position. I asserted that you have no principled position on rent seeking, which is something that your title displays for all to see.
My foundation is your own words, which your title displays for all to see.
You didn't seem to feel that such a high-minded threshold for action was necessary when you dumped on an attempt to create unlicensed white spaces data transmission technology and regulations by engaging in a corporation-targeting analog of an ad hominem attack, did you?
This weekend's contribution to world-changing is shaming your shit post, not dancing for you on command.