Your thought in this thread isn't clear here. Are you talking about the violation of the GPL by GRSecurity, or potentially by their customers who also use the source under the GPL?
This explains it. I am actually now leaning towards it being a violation by GRsecurity, but that turns entirely on what a court construes a "restriction[] on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" to include. If I offer to pay you $20 if you do not redistribute the package for a year, is that a restriction? If we don't have a support contact and I say that I'll only give you future updates to my code if you don't redistribute it, is that a restriction? If we have a paid support contract that automatically terminates if you redistribute it, is that a restriction? The support contract is outside the scope of the GPL, and ordinarily a restriction is a "limitation which cannot be exceeded or rule which cannot be broken," not merely a disincentive in that you might lose some other right like continuing support.
GRSecurity's argument is clearly against the spirit of the GPL, which is "to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software." I don't think you'll disagree here.
Yes, I don't. But we don't enforce the "spirit" of contracts. We enforce the letter of the contracts, and tend to construe ambiguity against the drafter because if they meant that, then they could have put more effort into stating it clearly.
GRSecurity is specifically threatening to punish people to prevent them from distributing the code. Is this controversial? Do you disagree with that point, or is that something we can agree on?
See above. Why did you switch from "restrict" to "punish"? I'm leaning towards there being an issue in that courts hate terms that create forfeitures where a side has otherwise completed its performance of its obligations. Since GRsecurity is selling year-long subscriptions with patch access, their customers would have a good claim against them. I'm simply not as sure about it being a license violation.
Of course, such services are provided voluntarily, and GRSecurity can stop providing services for almost any reason, but there are some reasons that are invalid and illegal to use a reason to stop providing services.
Yes -- membership in protected classes involving race, sex, creed, etc., not the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not govern support services, or provide any right to future revisions of code. I think that their biggest problem is they are structuring this as a forfeiture of up to year of subscription support, rather than a decision not to renew a month-to-month agreement.
The "is GRsecurity violating the terms of the GPL" argument is messy and could go either way. Which is why I wrote "may be in violation" to begin with.
The argument that almost enrages me is Bruce's argument that GRsecurity's customers could be liable, and frankly that is the one that is far more interesting to me. The GPL was expressly structured so that downstream users were automatically licensed and were not affected by an upsteam distributor's violation of the GPL. Bruce is now not only denying that GPLv2 sections 4 and 6 preclude this, but throwing out concepts like "contributory infringement" without any analysis of what is required to be liable as a contributory infringer.
" and that agreement is between GRsecurity and the individual customer,"
And that customer cannot be forced to give up the rights of the GPL by it.
The GPL does not give the customer any rights to future revisions. The customer is not forced to give up the right to redistribute the current version -- they can choose to or not.
"GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2."
And that license allows the customer to redistribute. Which makes their agreement null and void.
No. The GPL does not give the customer any rights to future revisions. The customer is not forced to give up the right to redistribute the current version -- they can choose to or not.
"Strawman."
Wrong. That was not a strawman since it was my own argument. My argument cannot be a strawman for my own argument, dumbfuck.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
You wrote: "So even if you were to contend that secondary infringement cannot apply here (and we need more than just your say-so), they're still open to being sued by GRSecurity for no good reason (after all if they're this clueless about the rights and responsibilities of copyright licensing, how do you know that what you think you can do with it is what they think you can?) or for doing the same thing."
Definitional strawman. Followed by another ad hominem.
"False premise."
False claim.
Sorry, you claimed that they would be doing the same thing. They would not, therefore false premise.
"No and no."
Both wrong.
Glad that you admit that both your points were wrong.
"Everything is simple if you make no effort to understand reality and merely use your own assumptions."
And THAT there is a strawman. Did I claim EVERYTHING was simple? No. Therefore this claim of yours, asspulled as it is, is a fallacy and irrelevant.
You claimed that this was pretty simple, yet made no effort to provide an analysis based on the text of the actual licenses.
Part of the problem is that the git repository only goes back to 2011-ish? I'm thinking of his work with UserLinux and Debian, but I may have misinterpreted that.
Because as soon as they publicly admit that they broke the license and stole the code, then any customer who knowingly uses that code after that would be "liable for contributory infringement and breach of contract".
No, because the customer has an independent license to use both the kernel and the modifications. Reread GPLv2 sections 2 and 4. They are not sublicensing from GRsecurity. They are not even redistributing the code with the "no updates" restriction. And under section 2, they can combine the kernel with any code they want - they only have to relicense the combination under the GPL if they publish or redistribute it.
Also, to have contributory infringement, you have to materially contribute to it, which the courts view require that you have the ability to control the direct infringer's infringement. Simply buying the product is not enough.
Finally, you do not become responsible for a breach of contract simply because you know of a dispute concerning a contract with a vendor. There are few more requirements for those sorts of claims.
You refute other posters assertions, but you don't explain yours.
The part of the post that you omitted, with quotes from the GPL, is not an explanation?
I'm truly curious, on what are you basing your own assertions?
The cited sections and quoted language of the GPL, along with the linked copy of the Stable Patch Access Agreement and quoted language. You know, 85% of the content of the post, which you cut out.
You mean, someone who is not a coward? Run along, frightened one. I tie my slashdot identity to my real identity because I have the courage of my convictions.
Some call it courage. Most call it ignorance. But freedom is the ability to trash your professional statute on social media whenever the bloody hell you want. And not.
That no lawyers have been chiming in, because if actual lawyers had, they would have been peppering their commentary liberally with disclaimers about how it is not legal advice, like an intelligent lawyer would do?
I find the biography statement to be sufficient.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot, I forgot. If there's a lawyer here, he's probably a moron.
Like someone who trivially ties their real world identity to a pseudonym while posting the dreck that you do?
Notorious rent-seeker complains about high rent...
So rather than having any sort of principled position against rent-seeking, you're fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like.
The article argues Microsoft wants to bypass mobile data carriers who "will want a pound of flesh -- a percentage -- in exchange for shipping data generated by Microsoft devices from Point A to Point B... [I]n many places, they are the only ones allowed to use airwave frequencies -- spectrum -- under licenses from local governments for which they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars."
Oh no! Bypassing monopolies and disintermediating middlemen?! The horror...
I rather think that disallowing future revisions to paying customers contingent on their "exercise of the rights granted herein" IS a further restriction on their exercise of those rights.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
But the GPLv2 does not grant a right to obtain future revisions, whether you're a paying customer or otherwise. The GPLv2 does not require that the (re)licensor grant a right to distribute anything more than what has already been distributed to the recipient. Those are not "rights granted herein." The first is a right granted by grsecurity's paid support contracts -- contracts for services. The second is a right that is reserved and carved out from the first.
Tivoization violates the "spirit" of the GPLv2, but what matters is whether a licencee has violated the letter of the license. That violation is not as clear cut as you think.
By using the code that no longer has license, it is possible for them to be guilty of secondary infringement.
"The code" meaning? The user still has a license to the Linux kernel:
1. GPLv2 sec 6 says that "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."
2. GPLv2 sec 4 says that "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."
3. GPLv2 sec 2 says "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program...," and sec 2.b. only applies if you distribute or publish the result.
And the user has an express license from GRsecurity for GRsecurity's potion of the code under the GPLv2.
But besides all that, users using the work can be sued by GRSecurity if they try to use the rights the GPL gives them.
No. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2.
They can be sued if the distribute with the same clause the code from GRSecurity because they're doing the same thing.
Nope. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2. GRsecurity uses a separate Stable Patch Access Agreement with the supposed restriction, and that agreement is between GRsecurity and the individual customer, not the customer and any other recipient. That agreement also explicitly says that "The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license, version 2 of the GNU GPL," so the user would not be doing the same thing.
they're still open to being sued by GRSecurity for no good reason
Strawman.
or for doing the same thing
False premise. There's no basis to assert that the customer would be distributing the code with that restriction themselves.
And if the customer distributes without that GRSecurity addition and just the plain GPL, that means they're sued by GRSecurity, and if they distribute with it, they're breaking the GPL themselves.
No and no.
Pretty simple.
Everything is simple if you make no effort to understand reality and merely use your own assumptions.
They're actually trying to do an end run around the contract to which they've already agreed, which guarantees the right of redistribution. The question becomes whether grsecurity contains any GPL code to which they do not hold the copyright. If so, then they're risking losing the right to distribute that code.
They may be complying with the terms of the GPL, whether you call it a contract or not. Their customers have the right to redistribute the software that they've received. GRsecurity is then saying that if they do, GRsecurity will not provide them with any future revisions to the code. There is nothing in the GPL that gives the recipient of a copy of code the right to future versions of that code or the right to distribute future versions of that code.
I've disgreed with Bruce on this specific issue and I still do. While GRsecurity may be in violation of GPLv2 sec. 6 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. "), the idea that their customers may be liable for contributory infringement and breach of contract is off-the-wall crazy. Bruce's theory is directly contradicted by GPLv2 secs. 2, 4, and 6 -- the customers are free to use GRsecurity's product and there is no potential violation of the GPLv2 unless the customers themselves redestribute that code.
Opinion, not assertion of fact. This lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately.
Prefacing things that you say with "in my opinion" does not automatically make them incapable of being false and a basis for a claim of defamation. Even the EFF doesn't fall into that trap.
The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false): *Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959) *Calling an attorney a "crook" *Describing a woman as a call girl *Accusing a minister of unethical conduct *Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son
Accusing a company of violating the GPLv2 and claiming that their customers are themselves potentially liabe as "contributory infringers" is perfectly in line with California's defamation precedents.
Personally I think that GRsecurity should amend its complaint to include a declaratory judgment count for non-infringement, which would be anti-SLAPP proof. Bruce is a kernel contributor and has published claims that the company is infringing. The company has a right to challenge that claim in court and obtain a judgment, even if Bruce can't bring himself to follow up on his claims with a copyright infringement suit.
Unlikely. What both you and the OP has forgotten about is that the increased cost of the servers needed to encode the video once is going to be offset by the reduced storage and bandwidth requirements.
Not remotely. What you forget is there are a large number of devices, especially low-powered devices, that do not have hardware HEVC decode and instead are still best served by MPEG4. While bandwidth changes will depend heavily upon the mix of devices, storage requirements will only increase since the provider will have to serve both populations until the shift in device capabilities is nearly complete. Sites go where the audience is -- see Youtube, which still encodes videos in both MPEG4 and VP9 despite pushing VP9 hard since 2015...
First, it's not my obligation to support their flawed business model. If their content was interesting enough, I'd pay for a subscription.
Then don't go there at all. It's interesting enough for you to use an adblocker, but not to buy a subscription? Sorry. That's what brought you the current incarnation of Forbes.com
Second, I believe your argument boils down to an implicit contract that exists between me and a web site, where the site provides some content, and I pay for it by viewing some ads. But ad networks (and therefore the websites showing the ads) are abusing the implicit contract: instead of limiting themselves to showing ads, they double dip by tracking me over multiple sites, logging any and all of my data they can get their grubby hands on, and selling it to all and sundry. This was certainly not part of my understanding of the implicit contract. So, sorry, I'm not buying into your argument (and not allowing any ads either).
Pot, meet kettle. Blocking ads while continuing to go to the sites was not part of any implicit contract either. You've surrendered any moral ground that you had to complain, and by continuing to visit sites while using adblockers, justify their collection of anything that they can get. They now owe you nothing.
You still see the ads when you mute or fast forward. The ads are still displayed as you wander off to do something else, and you also risk missing the return of the program.
Likewise, as the technology catches up and advertising adapts you'll get advertising one way or another, or be restricted to paid content. In-line ads and anti-adblockers are just the start.
There is no such thing as "well behaving ads". At the very least, they cost my bandwidth. If I am interested in your products, I will go and search for them.
There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means OF USE or occupation, or BY ANY OTHER means;
Sorry, but you cannot validly convert a dependent clause into an independent clause by simply ignoring the independent clause.
Private "appropriation" by the exertion of labor upon natural resources, i.e. Locke's "labor mixing" theory of property, is well known and is not the same as national appropriation where a sovereign entity claims exclusive domain over a natural resource, even an unworked one.
Space mining is illegal under the treaty we/they signed up to, if you don't like it, negotiate a new treaty.
Outer space is essentially mare liberum under the treaty, just as the high seas have been for centuries. If you don't like it, negotiate a new treaty yourself.
The Calibri font was definitely available although not immediately commercial, alpha and release candidate versions of Office containing the font appeared as early as 2005.
I can't decide whether you're trying to point out an interesting, but not dispositive fact, or whether this is an example of typical Slashdot lawyering. Preponderance of the evidence, or even "reasonable doubt," does not turn on whether one can construct an improbable situation in which documents could be authored using Calibri.
They've thought of that. --- "The first public beta version, according to a Wikipedia entry, was released on June 6, 2006 -- close to four months after the papers were said to have been signed by Maryam Nawaz."
* * *
"Responding personally to the question separately, font designer de Groot said, 'While in theory it would have been possible to create a document using Calibri in 2006, the font would have to be obtained from a beta operating system, from the hands of computer nerds'.
'Why would anyone use a completely unknown font for an official document in 2006?' he went on to question.
'If the person using Calibri was such a font lover that he or she had to use the new Calibri, then he or she should be able to prove that other documents were printed with Calibri in 2006, and these prints should be in the hands of other people as well,' he wrote his email addressed to the newspaper." ---
That last bit is the pertinent question. If you're arguing that the documents are authentic, where are the other 'official documents prepared using Calibri' that would have been prepared at the same time? Even if the government copies of the Nawaz documents were lost, where are the government copies of those other non-Nawaz Calibri documents? Do the government's records of documents prepared at that time ever contain ones prepared in Calibri?
. iPhone owners get a few years more safe use from their phones as all phones newer than the 5s (sold since Sept2013) can use the latest iOS 11 & most do, having been updated since Apple made iOS 11 available in June.
You're not helping. An iOS11 beta was released in June. "Most" are not running iOS 11, and have only updated to iOS 10.3.3, because as non-developers they stay on the release branch of the iOS ecosystem.
You could have made the same point with iOS 10, which is the current release and still supports the iPhone 5 and 5c, without running off into fantasyland and inviting criticism such as this.
You don't feel sad or threatened because you assume the press you like has virtues that gawker didn't, won't make mistakes like gawker did, and therefore won't be brought down in the same way gawker was. That's a just world fallacy.
It's really not. One would have to reason back from the result, not forward from the cause to engage in that fallacy. Reasoning forward from the cause is known as "accountability." We have courts to prevent such fallacious reasoning while providing accountability. Do I really need to march you through this court's decision?
Whatever news sources you favor is run by humans who will have their own foibles and will make mistakes. If they're actually doing journalism, they will be making enemies too, who have a blueprint for how to take down news organizations they don't like. The journalism you like is more vulnerable to these type of attacks than you're willing to admit.
The journalism I like must be accountable for its mistakes as well. The fact that the journalism that I like tends to be more careful than Gawker is merely a bonus. Other journalism that I dislike (e.g., Fox News) also tends to be more careful than Gawker so that's an ideological wash.
This sounds like a bunch of debtors who've found a loophole to get out of their legitimate obligations.
This sounds like a bunch of creditors that cannot show that the debtors owe those particular creditors those particular obligations. Ergo, the obligations cannot be assumed to be legitimate.
The borrower may owe someone, but they don't necessarily owe the plaintiff. If the original creditor isn't interested in collecting on the debt (because they've already sold it off) or helping the successor creditor fix their colossal screw-up, that's not on the debtor.
Sure, those who provided loans should have tracked things better, but that doesn't eliminate the ethical responsibility borrowers have to pay back what they agreed.
Ah, you're confusing legality and ethics. Legality relates to obligations specified by law and enforced by courts. Ethics relates to "feels," the dictates of invisible men in the sky, and anything that you can throw at a wall that advantages you at the time.
For example, ethics would say that private loans that were dischargeable in bankrputcy prior to 1998 should have remained so, and not been converted into non-dischargeable obligations by an after-the-fact change in the law. That was the bargain struck when the loans were made, right? Or is yours merely a creditor's ethics, where any discharge of a debt is the failing of a weak society rather than a penalty for creditors who fail to ensure that a debtor was credit worthy and/or a manifestation of the risk side of the risk/reward equation?
The end result will only be to raise the cost of loans for future borrowers.
Proof required. Show me a substitute investment that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, has an equivalent rate of return, and is virtually unregulated.
The end result will be a bunch of beneficiaries will sue a bunch of trustees responsbile for administrating the loan trusts for being incompetent idiots, and future, somewhat more competent trusts will arise to accept capital that is desperate for anyplace to go that is paying better than T-bill rates of return (2-3%).
Slashdot Mirror
This explains it. I am actually now leaning towards it being a violation by GRsecurity, but that turns entirely on what a court construes a "restriction[] on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" to include. If I offer to pay you $20 if you do not redistribute the package for a year, is that a restriction? If we don't have a support contact and I say that I'll only give you future updates to my code if you don't redistribute it, is that a restriction? If we have a paid support contract that automatically terminates if you redistribute it, is that a restriction? The support contract is outside the scope of the GPL, and ordinarily a restriction is a "limitation which cannot be exceeded or rule which cannot be broken," not merely a disincentive in that you might lose some other right like continuing support.
Yes, I don't. But we don't enforce the "spirit" of contracts. We enforce the letter of the contracts, and tend to construe ambiguity against the drafter because if they meant that, then they could have put more effort into stating it clearly.
See above. Why did you switch from "restrict" to "punish"? I'm leaning towards there being an issue in that courts hate terms that create forfeitures where a side has otherwise completed its performance of its obligations. Since GRsecurity is selling year-long subscriptions with patch access, their customers would have a good claim against them. I'm simply not as sure about it being a license violation.
Yes -- membership in protected classes involving race, sex, creed, etc., not the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not govern support services, or provide any right to future revisions of code. I think that their biggest problem is they are structuring this as a forfeiture of up to year of subscription support, rather than a decision not to renew a month-to-month agreement.
The "is GRsecurity violating the terms of the GPL" argument is messy and could go either way. Which is why I wrote "may be in violation" to begin with.
The argument that almost enrages me is Bruce's argument that GRsecurity's customers could be liable, and frankly that is the one that is far more interesting to me. The GPL was expressly structured so that downstream users were automatically licensed and were not affected by an upsteam distributor's violation of the GPL. Bruce is now not only denying that GPLv2 sections 4 and 6 preclude this, but throwing out concepts like "contributory infringement" without any analysis of what is required to be liable as a contributory infringer.
Ad hominem.
The GPL does not give the customer any rights to future revisions. The customer is not forced to give up the right to redistribute the current version -- they can choose to or not.
No. The GPL does not give the customer any rights to future revisions. The customer is not forced to give up the right to redistribute the current version -- they can choose to or not.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
You wrote:
"So even if you were to contend that secondary infringement cannot apply here (and we need more than just your say-so), they're still open to being sued by GRSecurity for no good reason (after all if they're this clueless about the rights and responsibilities of copyright licensing, how do you know that what you think you can do with it is what they think you can?) or for doing the same thing."
Definitional strawman. Followed by another ad hominem.
Sorry, you claimed that they would be doing the same thing. They would not, therefore false premise.
Glad that you admit that both your points were wrong.
You claimed that this was pretty simple, yet made no effort to provide an analysis based on the text of the actual licenses.
It's also perfectly fine argument style for others, and not a fallacy.
Part of the problem is that the git repository only goes back to 2011-ish? I'm thinking of his work with UserLinux and Debian, but I may have misinterpreted that.
No, because the customer has an independent license to use both the kernel and the modifications. Reread GPLv2 sections 2 and 4. They are not sublicensing from GRsecurity. They are not even redistributing the code with the "no updates" restriction. And under section 2, they can combine the kernel with any code they want - they only have to relicense the combination under the GPL if they publish or redistribute it.
Also, to have contributory infringement, you have to materially contribute to it, which the courts view require that you have the ability to control the direct infringer's infringement. Simply buying the product is not enough.
Finally, you do not become responsible for a breach of contract simply because you know of a dispute concerning a contract with a vendor. There are few more requirements for those sorts of claims.
The part of the post that you omitted, with quotes from the GPL, is not an explanation?
The cited sections and quoted language of the GPL, along with the linked copy of the Stable Patch Access Agreement and quoted language. You know, 85% of the content of the post, which you cut out.
Some call it courage. Most call it ignorance. But freedom is the ability to trash your professional statute on social media whenever the bloody hell you want. And not.
I find the biography statement to be sufficient.
Like someone who trivially ties their real world identity to a pseudonym while posting the dreck that you do?
Way to make completely unfounded accusations and do nothing but bitch about it anonymously.
So rather than having any sort of principled position against rent-seeking, you're fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like.
Way to be part of the problem...
Oh no! Bypassing monopolies and disintermediating middlemen?! The horror...
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
But the GPLv2 does not grant a right to obtain future revisions, whether you're a paying customer or otherwise. The GPLv2 does not require that the (re)licensor grant a right to distribute anything more than what has already been distributed to the recipient. Those are not "rights granted herein." The first is a right granted by grsecurity's paid support contracts -- contracts for services. The second is a right that is reserved and carved out from the first.
Tivoization violates the "spirit" of the GPLv2, but what matters is whether a licencee has violated the letter of the license. That violation is not as clear cut as you think.
"The code" meaning?
The user still has a license to the Linux kernel:
1. GPLv2 sec 6 says that "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."
2. GPLv2 sec 4 says that "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."
3. GPLv2 sec 2 says "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program...," and sec 2.b. only applies if you distribute or publish the result.
And the user has an express license from GRsecurity for GRsecurity's potion of the code under the GPLv2.
No. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2.
Nope. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2. GRsecurity uses a separate Stable Patch Access Agreement with the supposed restriction, and that agreement is between GRsecurity and the individual customer, not the customer and any other recipient. That agreement also explicitly says that "The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license, version 2 of the GNU GPL," so the user would not be doing the same thing.
Strawman.
False premise. There's no basis to assert that the customer would be distributing the code with that restriction themselves.
No and no.
Everything is simple if you make no effort to understand reality and merely use your own assumptions.
They may be complying with the terms of the GPL, whether you call it a contract or not. Their customers have the right to redistribute the software that they've received. GRsecurity is then saying that if they do, GRsecurity will not provide them with any future revisions to the code. There is nothing in the GPL that gives the recipient of a copy of code the right to future versions of that code or the right to distribute future versions of that code.
I've disgreed with Bruce on this specific issue and I still do. While GRsecurity may be in violation of GPLv2 sec. 6 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. "), the idea that their customers may be liable for contributory infringement and breach of contract is off-the-wall crazy. Bruce's theory is directly contradicted by GPLv2 secs. 2, 4, and 6 -- the customers are free to use GRsecurity's product and there is no potential violation of the GPLv2 unless the customers themselves redestribute that code.
Prefacing things that you say with "in my opinion" does not automatically make them incapable of being false and a basis for a claim of defamation. Even the EFF doesn't fall into that trap.
Accusing a company of violating the GPLv2 and claiming that their customers are themselves potentially liabe as "contributory infringers" is perfectly in line with California's defamation precedents.
Personally I think that GRsecurity should amend its complaint to include a declaratory judgment count for non-infringement, which would be anti-SLAPP proof. Bruce is a kernel contributor and has published claims that the company is infringing. The company has a right to challenge that claim in court and obtain a judgment, even if Bruce can't bring himself to follow up on his claims with a copyright infringement suit.
Not remotely. What you forget is there are a large number of devices, especially low-powered devices, that do not have hardware HEVC decode and instead are still best served by MPEG4. While bandwidth changes will depend heavily upon the mix of devices, storage requirements will only increase since the provider will have to serve both populations until the shift in device capabilities is nearly complete. Sites go where the audience is -- see Youtube, which still encodes videos in both MPEG4 and VP9 despite pushing VP9 hard since 2015...
Then don't go there at all. It's interesting enough for you to use an adblocker, but not to buy a subscription? Sorry. That's what brought you the current incarnation of Forbes.com
Pot, meet kettle. Blocking ads while continuing to go to the sites was not part of any implicit contract either. You've surrendered any moral ground that you had to complain, and by continuing to visit sites while using adblockers, justify their collection of anything that they can get. They now owe you nothing.
Strawman argument.
You still see the ads when you mute or fast forward. The ads are still displayed as you wander off to do something else, and you also risk missing the return of the program.
Likewise, as the technology catches up and advertising adapts you'll get advertising one way or another, or be restricted to paid content. In-line ads and anti-adblockers are just the start.
There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).
It's a two-way street.
Sorry, but you cannot validly convert a dependent clause into an independent clause by simply ignoring the independent clause.
Private "appropriation" by the exertion of labor upon natural resources, i.e. Locke's "labor mixing" theory of property, is well known and is not the same as national appropriation where a sovereign entity claims exclusive domain over a natural resource, even an unworked one.
Outer space is essentially mare liberum under the treaty, just as the high seas have been for centuries. If you don't like it, negotiate a new treaty yourself.
I can't decide whether you're trying to point out an interesting, but not dispositive fact, or whether this is an example of typical Slashdot lawyering. Preponderance of the evidence, or even "reasonable doubt," does not turn on whether one can construct an improbable situation in which documents could be authored using Calibri.
They've thought of that.
---
"The first public beta version, according to a Wikipedia entry, was released on June 6, 2006 -- close to four months after the papers were said to have been signed by Maryam Nawaz."
* * *
"Responding personally to the question separately, font designer de Groot said, 'While in theory it would have been possible to create a document using Calibri in 2006, the font would have to be obtained from a beta operating system, from the hands of computer nerds'.
'Why would anyone use a completely unknown font for an official document in 2006?' he went on to question.
'If the person using Calibri was such a font lover that he or she had to use the new Calibri, then he or she should be able to prove that other documents were printed with Calibri in 2006, and these prints should be in the hands of other people as well,' he wrote his email addressed to the newspaper."
---
That last bit is the pertinent question. If you're arguing that the documents are authentic, where are the other 'official documents prepared using Calibri' that would have been prepared at the same time? Even if the government copies of the Nawaz documents were lost, where are the government copies of those other non-Nawaz Calibri documents? Do the government's records of documents prepared at that time ever contain ones prepared in Calibri?
Do tell, Intel, do tell.
All for robust competition in mobile... so long as it is only in mobile baseband.
You're not helping. An iOS11 beta was released in June. "Most" are not running iOS 11, and have only updated to iOS 10.3.3, because as non-developers they stay on the release branch of the iOS ecosystem.
You could have made the same point with iOS 10, which is the current release and still supports the iPhone 5 and 5c, without running off into fantasyland and inviting criticism such as this.
It's really not. One would have to reason back from the result, not forward from the cause to engage in that fallacy. Reasoning forward from the cause is known as "accountability." We have courts to prevent such fallacious reasoning while providing accountability. Do I really need to march you through this court's decision?
The journalism I like must be accountable for its mistakes as well. The fact that the journalism that I like tends to be more careful than Gawker is merely a bonus. Other journalism that I dislike (e.g., Fox News) also tends to be more careful than Gawker so that's an ideological wash.
This sounds like a bunch of creditors that cannot show that the debtors owe those particular creditors those particular obligations. Ergo, the obligations cannot be assumed to be legitimate.
The borrower may owe someone, but they don't necessarily owe the plaintiff. If the original creditor isn't interested in collecting on the debt (because they've already sold it off) or helping the successor creditor fix their colossal screw-up, that's not on the debtor.
Ah, you're confusing legality and ethics. Legality relates to obligations specified by law and enforced by courts. Ethics relates to "feels," the dictates of invisible men in the sky, and anything that you can throw at a wall that advantages you at the time.
For example, ethics would say that private loans that were dischargeable in bankrputcy prior to 1998 should have remained so, and not been converted into non-dischargeable obligations by an after-the-fact change in the law. That was the bargain struck when the loans were made, right? Or is yours merely a creditor's ethics, where any discharge of a debt is the failing of a weak society rather than a penalty for creditors who fail to ensure that a debtor was credit worthy and/or a manifestation of the risk side of the risk/reward equation?
Proof required. Show me a substitute investment that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, has an equivalent rate of return, and is virtually unregulated.
The end result will be a bunch of beneficiaries will sue a bunch of trustees responsbile for administrating the loan trusts for being incompetent idiots, and future, somewhat more competent trusts will arise to accept capital that is desperate for anyplace to go that is paying better than T-bill rates of return (2-3%).