I'm well aware of that clause. The whole point is that the other parts of the license cover what is being done with Android. You can't just ignore it and point to "mere aggregation". The very sentence before that says:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
"mere aggregation" would be unrelated programs being shipped together, but not as part of a whole work. If you removed the GPL bits from Android, it would not be a functioning system. It's obviously a whole work, and thus falls under the parts I "selective highlighted" for a reason.
Please actually read the GPL. Specifically the section which include the following statements:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
Android is a whole. That's why it has a name. That's why different companies can ship "Android" phones.
Or do you think every Linux distribution is violating the GPL too?
Probably, if they are still shipping discs. I think the FSF selectively enforces the GPL to the most egregious cases.
Linus originally chose a GPL license to play nice with the GNU toolset, so that a whole "Linux" distribution would be GPL. It didn't take long for companies like Red Hat to start throwing on proprietary bits to make their distributions commercially valuable. I believe they have since changed from that model to some mix of trademark (can't copy our distributions verbatim, you have to "clean" them of trademarks) and a licensing model.
LAMP servers aren't distributed as a single product. They're assembled from components by the server operator. Now, if somebody bundled up a LAMP stack and shipped it as a product, then the GPL would come into play.
I'd just like to add for those readers not in the know that Android uses Apache licensing. They're not required to publish any modifications to Android, only to the kernel since it's GPL and not Apache.
I've always considered Android to be in violation of the GPL, because you can't create a product around a GPL component without making the whole GPL.
He disputes the alarmist view that says we need to take action now. The global warming camp says the opposite. He explicitly says that scientists have fallen under pressure to endorse global warming:
There are tons of other videos from him on YouTube.
And from the paper you cite:
"The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that 'the science is settled.'"
I'll go with "a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society". Those were the ideals behind the communist movement from the 20th century, right?
The political/economic structure of a society is a red herring. It's the values and actions that count.
I think political/economic structures are values and actions realized on a large scale.
I don't live in a co-op as such but one doesn't need to do that to get along with neighbors and work for the common good.
I agree, to a certain extent. Humans are social animals, there's no doubt about that. There definitely is, though, a tension between individual desires vs societal ones.
So is Jesus a metaphor or actual person? Did he perform miracles or were those just metaphors? Enough for the new. What about the old? Did God command genocide? Did he condone taking sex slaves? Just metaphors?
I smile when I see people talk about the future with such certainty. Your doomsday scenario may never come to pass. If it does, you may die anyways. I'm not going to say ecological collapse won't happen, or that knowing how to survive in the wilderness is a waste of time, but I certainly wouldn't say the opposite is true either.
You're so full of shit. You said: "Like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren (etc), I've learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath."
I too would like the actual article that he seems to refer to.
It refers to the last link in the summary, the only non-Slashdot link. I figured that out by going to the original submission.
Linking to the original submission is one nice thing that Slashdot does right. I fully agree with the grandparent that Slashdot often has confusing links in their summaries.
First of all, if you've ever made an unusually large transaction on your bank account you may have gotten a notice that the transaction was on hold to prevent fraud. This has happened to me -- I think there was a waiting period of like 6 days or something. No law enforcement involved. The money wasn't "seized", it was just held up.
Second, I'm going to ignore PayPal for a minute and talk about a credit card network like Visa, because I'm very familiar with how it operates and the issues are similar. When a Visa bank accepts Visa payments on behalf of a merchant, part of the contract is that they can freeze your merchant account if there are indications of fraud. The money is frozen, NOT seized, though it may eventually be used to repay fraud.
The reason for freezing is simple -- if the consumer complains of fraud (such as no product received), there will be a Visa regulated dispute process. Law enforcement is not involved in this process. If the result of the process is that the merchant has to pay back the money, then the bank is ultimately responsible. If the merchant has committed mass fraud and absconds with the money, the bank could be out a LOT of money. That is why they freeze the account.
PayPal is in a similar position, but it rides on top of many networks instead of belonging to a single network like Visa.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and yes, a bank can freeze your account, as was done in this case. The reason is simple -- PayPal is responsible for the money if there is fraud involved. If they give that money to a fraudulent merchant, they may never get it back. Any payment processor would do the same. It's part of the contracts you sign for being a merchant, and doesn't require law enforcement approval.
We don't know if any money has been "seized", because this is an ongoing case. Ultimately it will end up in the courts if both parties are not satisfied.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation please.
How hilarious of you to say so.
I maxed out at 3 minutes. Man that was boring.
Indeed, where can I find this bizarro \. world?
I'm well aware of that clause. The whole point is that the other parts of the license cover what is being done with Android. You can't just ignore it and point to "mere aggregation". The very sentence before that says:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
"mere aggregation" would be unrelated programs being shipped together, but not as part of a whole work. If you removed the GPL bits from Android, it would not be a functioning system. It's obviously a whole work, and thus falls under the parts I "selective highlighted" for a reason.
Please actually read the GPL. Specifically the section which include the following statements:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
Android is a whole. That's why it has a name. That's why different companies can ship "Android" phones.
Or do you think every Linux distribution is violating the GPL too?
Probably, if they are still shipping discs. I think the FSF selectively enforces the GPL to the most egregious cases.
Linus originally chose a GPL license to play nice with the GNU toolset, so that a whole "Linux" distribution would be GPL. It didn't take long for companies like Red Hat to start throwing on proprietary bits to make their distributions commercially valuable. I believe they have since changed from that model to some mix of trademark (can't copy our distributions verbatim, you have to "clean" them of trademarks) and a licensing model.
Good find. I'd say that the whole should be under GPL then.
LAMP servers aren't distributed as a single product. They're assembled from components by the server operator. Now, if somebody bundled up a LAMP stack and shipped it as a product, then the GPL would come into play.
I'd just like to add for those readers not in the know that Android uses Apache licensing. They're not required to publish any modifications to Android, only to the kernel since it's GPL and not Apache.
I've always considered Android to be in violation of the GPL, because you can't create a product around a GPL component without making the whole GPL.
Honestly I can't imagine how that data would be used for evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census#Historical_FBI_use_of_data
How is blind policy making better than having information?
You can do statistical, volunteer sampling rather than compelling every citizen to give up personal information.
You were the one clamoring for accuracy in the census. The whole point of compulsion is to require data and make it illegal to supply inaccurate data.
He disputes the alarmist view that says we need to take action now. The global warming camp says the opposite. He explicitly says that scientists have fallen under pressure to endorse global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptoBGW3hU-g
There are tons of other videos from him on YouTube.
And from the paper you cite:
"The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that 'the science is settled.'"
Also, the Wikipedia article is sourced.
Imagine that, libertarian crazies who don't think the government should compel every citizen to identify their ethnicity?
The Anti-Global Warming scientists (none of whom are climatologists or environmental chemists)
You're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
What's your definition of "communism?"
I'll go with "a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society". Those were the ideals behind the communist movement from the 20th century, right?
The political/economic structure of a society is a red herring. It's the values and actions that count.
I think political/economic structures are values and actions realized on a large scale.
I don't live in a co-op as such but one doesn't need to do that to get along with neighbors and work for the common good.
I agree, to a certain extent. Humans are social animals, there's no doubt about that. There definitely is, though, a tension between individual desires vs societal ones.
There's no reason you can't study these things scientifically. In fact, they are.
But I'm curious, what do you think of communism, happiness, and productivity around the world? Do you yourself belong to a cooperative?
So is Jesus a metaphor or actual person? Did he perform miracles or were those just metaphors? Enough for the new. What about the old? Did God command genocide? Did he condone taking sex slaves? Just metaphors?
I have found truths that can't in any way be scientifically proven.
Such as?
You're right that it's a dangerous legal precedence. Hopefully it will go the the Supreme Court and get overturned.
Re-ordering the sentence doesn't make you any less full of shit. Just the opposite.
I smile when I see people talk about the future with such certainty. Your doomsday scenario may never come to pass. If it does, you may die anyways. I'm not going to say ecological collapse won't happen, or that knowing how to survive in the wilderness is a waste of time, but I certainly wouldn't say the opposite is true either.
I spoke only about myself
You're so full of shit. You said: "Like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren (etc), I've learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath."
I too would like the actual article that he seems to refer to.
It refers to the last link in the summary, the only non-Slashdot link. I figured that out by going to the original submission.
Linking to the original submission is one nice thing that Slashdot does right. I fully agree with the grandparent that Slashdot often has confusing links in their summaries.
First of all, if you've ever made an unusually large transaction on your bank account you may have gotten a notice that the transaction was on hold to prevent fraud. This has happened to me -- I think there was a waiting period of like 6 days or something. No law enforcement involved. The money wasn't "seized", it was just held up.
Second, I'm going to ignore PayPal for a minute and talk about a credit card network like Visa, because I'm very familiar with how it operates and the issues are similar. When a Visa bank accepts Visa payments on behalf of a merchant, part of the contract is that they can freeze your merchant account if there are indications of fraud. The money is frozen, NOT seized, though it may eventually be used to repay fraud.
The reason for freezing is simple -- if the consumer complains of fraud (such as no product received), there will be a Visa regulated dispute process. Law enforcement is not involved in this process. If the result of the process is that the merchant has to pay back the money, then the bank is ultimately responsible. If the merchant has committed mass fraud and absconds with the money, the bank could be out a LOT of money. That is why they freeze the account.
PayPal is in a similar position, but it rides on top of many networks instead of belonging to a single network like Visa.
Right, so it's Doom graphics + Legos. Not exactly my cup of tea, but to each their own.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and yes, a bank can freeze your account, as was done in this case. The reason is simple -- PayPal is responsible for the money if there is fraud involved. If they give that money to a fraudulent merchant, they may never get it back. Any payment processor would do the same. It's part of the contracts you sign for being a merchant, and doesn't require law enforcement approval.
We don't know if any money has been "seized", because this is an ongoing case. Ultimately it will end up in the courts if both parties are not satisfied.