It's your job as a reader to read at least the first paragraph of the article, which calls Orkut a "... popular social networking site operated by Google."
If that's not enough description, a search engine (also mentioned in the first paragraph of the article) may lead you right to the site.
Are we just supposed to intuitively know what every obscure website on the interweb is about?
Has the Internet truly destroyed the ability to get out of your chair, walk outside, go to the local library, browse the card catalog, and use the helpful Dewey Decimal System to find a book on a subject you don't know? Some of the best research tools in the world are available at your fingertips--in the library!
Patents are used to keep other companies/organizations from stealing work and using it as their own.
Do you mean "copyright"? I can't see how you could look at a binary and determine that it violates a software patent. At least with a mousetrap, you can disassemble it and see that it does or does not violate a published patent.
Hey, that's not fair. Anti-GPL folks should be able to redefine words such as "use" and "force" and "do" in the same way that they complain that GPL fans redefined the word "free".
If I were ever sued for something like this, I would definately have a jury trial.
What jurisdiction are you in that a copyright suits leads to a criminal trial?
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I don't mean to sound petty (though my original post does read poorly). However, there are plenty of comments on Slashdot related to the GPL that seem to indicate that merely using GPLd code means that you have to release your source code to anyone who wants it.
That's a false belief in two ways, but it sounds like we agree that it is not true.
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If I jump out of my second-floor window, the law of gravity forces me to accelerate toward the ground. Yet would you say that the law of gravity forced me to jump out of my window?
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I can't choose to not release my source code if I release my software under the GPL.
That's ridiculous; it's your code. You own the copyright. You can release it under any terms you want. The license under which you release code has no effect on you. That's why you get to choose the license.
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If they take your GPLv3 software, they still have to release any modifications back to the community.
I'm not sure that's accurate. I thought GPL v3 still governed distribution, not receipt and use.
... or if you willingly let someone tag a photograph of someone who merely resembles you, or a digitally-manipulated photograph so that it looks like you....
I'm sure the creators of the characters and settings you use in your fanfic have their own copyrights and possibly trademarks too. They probably also filed before you did.
People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations.
Strawman much?
I have no problem working with corporations. I don't care if they're one-person LLCs or multinational public behemoths.
I also don't lose sleep over corporations, or partnerships, or single-owner businesses, or non-profits who look at "share and share alike" copyleft licenses and say "We can't use that software because ______". Their goals are different from my goals.
My goal is to create and promote free software. I don't see how either promoting proprietary software or coddling proprietary software models helps that goal.
And the BSD provides more freedom to the entire ecosystem. Whether this is good or bad depends on a lot of other things.
I agree, yet I consider ridiculous the argument that the GPL somehow restricts freedom. Without a specific dispensation from the copyright holder, you have no freedom to redistribute.
Take a piece of code with no special license, just default, plain-jane copyright. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
None.
Now I think it's pretty clear that you can do what you like with the code up to the point of distribution, though not everyone agrees. Regardless, you have absolutely zero freedoms with regard to redistribution of modified or unmodified code.
Now take a piece of code available under the GPL. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
You have the freedom to redistribute it as far and as wide as you like, provided that you allow everyone who receives it from you the same freedom. You have the freedom to distribute it modified or unmodified. Furthermore, I've only met a few people who believe that the GPL makes any attempt to restrict what you can do with the code apart from redistribution, and every one of those people seemed very confused about copyright and the GPL.
I take from this all two points.
First, under the current Berne Convention regarding copyright law, recipients of copyrighted code have, by default, no rights to redistribute such code.
Second, under the GPL, recipients of copyrighted code have the right to redistribute such code.
I do agree that the BSD and MIT licenses grant more freedoms, but the argument that the GPL reduces the net freedoms in the world where there is no right to redistribute in modified or unmodified form by default is, pardon the phrase, a patently ridiculous semantic game.
It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.
There are many problems with this sentence, starting with the initial pronoun which appears to refer to the GPL. However, that can't possibly be correct. Were you thinking of copyright instead?
Slashdot Mirror
It's your job as a reader to read at least the first paragraph of the article, which calls Orkut a "... popular social networking site operated by Google."
If that's not enough description, a search engine (also mentioned in the first paragraph of the article) may lead you right to the site.
Has the Internet truly destroyed the ability to get out of your chair, walk outside, go to the local library, browse the card catalog, and use the helpful Dewey Decimal System to find a book on a subject you don't know? Some of the best research tools in the world are available at your fingertips--in the library!
Do you mean "copyright"? I can't see how you could look at a binary and determine that it violates a software patent. At least with a mousetrap, you can disassemble it and see that it does or does not violate a published patent.
Hey, that's not fair. Anti-GPL folks should be able to redefine words such as "use" and "force" and "do" in the same way that they complain that GPL fans redefined the word "free".
Oh, yeah. I've never heard of it in a copyright case, so I forgot that was even an option.
What jurisdiction are you in that a copyright suits leads to a criminal trial?
I don't mean to sound petty (though my original post does read poorly). However, there are plenty of comments on Slashdot related to the GPL that seem to indicate that merely using GPLd code means that you have to release your source code to anyone who wants it.
That's a false belief in two ways, but it sounds like we agree that it is not true.
Yes, as I said--the GPL governs distribution.
If I jump out of my second-floor window, the law of gravity forces me to accelerate toward the ground. Yet would you say that the law of gravity forced me to jump out of my window?
That's ridiculous; it's your code. You own the copyright. You can release it under any terms you want. The license under which you release code has no effect on you. That's why you get to choose the license.
I'm not sure that's accurate. I thought GPL v3 still governed distribution, not receipt and use.
There were more than two presidential candidates on the 2004 ballot. I had a wide range of evil from which to choose!
... or if you willingly let someone tag a photograph of someone who merely resembles you, or a digitally-manipulated photograph so that it looks like you....
I've read fanfic. Accidental parody isn't much of a defense.
(I know, I know... I haven't read yours.)
I'm sure the creators of the characters and settings you use in your fanfic have their own copyrights and possibly trademarks too. They probably also filed before you did.
Strawman much?
I have no problem working with corporations. I don't care if they're one-person LLCs or multinational public behemoths.
I also don't lose sleep over corporations, or partnerships, or single-owner businesses, or non-profits who look at "share and share alike" copyleft licenses and say "We can't use that software because ______". Their goals are different from my goals.
My goal is to create and promote free software. I don't see how either promoting proprietary software or coddling proprietary software models helps that goal.
Similarly, PETA should hold real-meat barbecues to attract more potential members.
If their video compression uses key frames, your box might have to wait a while to receive the next one.
s/search/ads/, surely?
No wonder I'm not getting any better at the guitar!
If you don't want to share, you have all the freedom in the world to cease redistributing GPLd code.
I agree, yet I consider ridiculous the argument that the GPL somehow restricts freedom. Without a specific dispensation from the copyright holder, you have no freedom to redistribute.
Take a piece of code with no special license, just default, plain-jane copyright. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
None.
Now I think it's pretty clear that you can do what you like with the code up to the point of distribution, though not everyone agrees. Regardless, you have absolutely zero freedoms with regard to redistribution of modified or unmodified code.
Now take a piece of code available under the GPL. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
You have the freedom to redistribute it as far and as wide as you like, provided that you allow everyone who receives it from you the same freedom. You have the freedom to distribute it modified or unmodified. Furthermore, I've only met a few people who believe that the GPL makes any attempt to restrict what you can do with the code apart from redistribution, and every one of those people seemed very confused about copyright and the GPL.
I take from this all two points.
First, under the current Berne Convention regarding copyright law, recipients of copyrighted code have, by default, no rights to redistribute such code.
Second, under the GPL, recipients of copyrighted code have the right to redistribute such code.
I do agree that the BSD and MIT licenses grant more freedoms, but the argument that the GPL reduces the net freedoms in the world where there is no right to redistribute in modified or unmodified form by default is, pardon the phrase, a patently ridiculous semantic game.
There are many problems with this sentence, starting with the initial pronoun which appears to refer to the GPL. However, that can't possibly be correct. Were you thinking of copyright instead?
Walt Disney hasn't created anything new in over 40 years. I'm not sure why continuing his incentive to create is useful for society.