Speaking as a engineer and high school drop out that has developed more products by the age you graduated college then you will likely ever do within your career, let me tell you that college for the most people is a waste of time and money.
Most kids go to college to play. Gaining marketable skills usually starts after leaving. That's all well and good so long as you're content waiting (and not earning) 4-8 more years to build any skills needed to get a real job and YOU'RE NOT DOING IT ON MY DIME.
Govt 'education' loans are all about subsidizing the college industry, not education. Same things with local govt schools; all about protecting govt union jobs.
"Excessive crime is what we get for failing to value people properly" Hard to disagree with that.
"Tax the fuck out of the regressives" Harder still to try to understand WTF is going through your mind that allowed you to completely contradict yourself within 1 paragraph.
Everything you've listed are goods; not rights; you must take from one person in someway to provide any of these things to another. Doing so without voluntary consent is theft and a violation of the right of a person to own themselves, their labor, and their free will.
Try reading something a bit more enlightened then a government supremacist scumbag like FDR. Every one of those 'rights' were just the lies of a politician as a means to exert control and gain more power over people.
Because we all know if there wasn't a government to tell you how to live, we'd all go around smashing ourselves in the head with a hammer as we continually run into walls, and the entire race would perish.
It's so very obvious that's the case because the instant a person gains a position of power, they are better then everyone else and more able to make decisions for other's lives, much more so then any person could ever decide for themselves.
Laws are written by people with power who want to control what other people do. What you have cited are several insincere (aka bullshit) excuses to explain how this could ever be considered a legitimate concept, beyond what it actually is: being a bully.
He doesn't have too. It already exists and is called the forth amendment. Paul's bill codifies an enforceable recourse for a specific type of violation of such.
LRP had the wireless drivers, a menu interface for routing configuration and was also embed-able, running off a read only boot medium. The OP is asking for these specific things, and LRP had it out of the box, though I'd have to check exactly when the first wireless drivers made it in.
So LRP it was an existing distributed 'product', not a one-off box someone made. The former gives grounds to invalidate the patent.
Certainly not the very first ever made, but likely the first mainsteam implementation that was available.
I had a 2U 386SX 16Mhz Workstation with full length ISA 900MHz WaveLAN card, that ran LRP off 3.5" 1.44MB. Host name was 'Brain-Damage'. Some of the first LRP development was done on that back in 1997.
The boys over in Latvia that went on to form RouterBoard were doing much more then me with wireless but I'm not sure if it was with Linux at the time.
Doesn't he know that you can't be charged with resisting arrest as a sole charge? It must be based on an otherwise lawful arrest? And that if this was not a lawful arrest, you have a right to resist it?
So you could recognize the injustice of the situation, and in your heart knew it was wrong to convict, but you were perfectly willing to be a part of it because the whimsical authority of the CA government is simply paramount to any sort of humanity.
Excellent job Fuck-Wad!
Next time instead of "following the law", try and do what is right.
1) There are two things here: Copyright and License. Bruce created a work. He holds copyright. He published that worked under a license. That license is the GPL. I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license. The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license. I own copyright to the parts I have authored. This goes so forth and so on for each person. IMO the original author never loses copyright claim. Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.
2) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license. According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .
3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.
4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents. Anderson claims complete copyright here.
5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2. In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.
6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has. As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.
7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced. I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that. I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created). When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here. I'm not allowed to know. Bruce is not allowed to know. That's not acceptable.
Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work. The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.
I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.
I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce did and during my time I reorganized the code, but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor. Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.
Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.
States can not place a tax on sales originating outside of the state. Period. (US Federal Commerce Cause) Decided for over 30 years by the US Supreme Court.
How states get around this is to classify it as a 'Use tax'. However they lack jurisdiction to force an out of state person/entity to collect this tax. Instead the tax is due from the state resident, and of course rarely gets paid.
I've been quite pissed at Amazon over their 'One Click' patent and refused to deal with them. This is somewhat redeeming of them to fight this.
The last few years we've had a new breed of corporate fascists (Like Dell and HP to name only a few) that register in a state and collect sales/use tax, even though they have no presence there.
I have been fighting this myself as the business has NO, NONE, ZERO, ZIP legal basis to collect a tax for one state while it IS NOT IN that state. It is like a NY state cop going into NJ. Once they cross that line, no jurisdiction, no authority. They can not enforce NY law in NJ...even if they are cop in NJ!! Same with a retailer collecting tax.
Below is the 'Tax Exempt' certificate that I have been using with various success. HP refunded $150 'sales tax' on the laptop I ordered based on this.
---- INTERSTATE SALES TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATION
This Purchaser claims rights under the U.S. Federal commerce clause for exemption from collection of State sales tax by a foreign entity Seller.
This exemption is authorized by NATIONAL BELLAS HESS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF STATE OF, 386 U.S. 753 (1967) and reaffirmed by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
The Purchaser hereby certifies that they are located outside the State of domicile of the Seller. The Seller is notified that they lack standing and jurisdiction to act as an agent for a foreign State. The Seller is ordered to cease collection of any State sales tax and refund any State sales tax previously collected.
The SFLC getting costs I don't see a problem with. Two latter authors seeing cash (with complete disregard for earlier authors AND the original author) is not looking right here. Keep in mind Anderson was PAID to work on Busybox for quite a long time as an employee of Lineo.
> 6) Erik and Rob can enforce their contributions to busybox without
Yes, but only if they actually contributed to the infringed version and they limited their settlement agreement only for their code.
> 7) Best not to jump and down about free money unless you know how much it is.
Undisclosed. Even if it's $1, they should never agree to an undisclosed amount in a case like this.
Slashdot Mirror
The are correct, however what you fail to see that the govt is that thug.
Speaking as a engineer and high school drop out that has developed more products by the age you graduated college then you will likely ever do within your career, let me tell you that college for the most people is a waste of time and money.
Most kids go to college to play. Gaining marketable skills usually starts after leaving. That's all well and good so long as you're content waiting (and not earning) 4-8 more years to build any skills needed to get a real job and YOU'RE NOT DOING IT ON MY DIME.
Govt 'education' loans are all about subsidizing the college industry, not education. Same things with local govt schools; all about protecting govt union jobs.
They released a new version of Windows?
And Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan?
Did he fight back?
TOO BAD.
"Excessive crime is what we get for failing to value people properly"
Hard to disagree with that.
"Tax the fuck out of the regressives"
Harder still to try to understand WTF is going through your mind that allowed you to completely contradict yourself within 1 paragraph.
FAIL
Everything you've listed are goods; not rights; you must take from one person in someway to provide any of these things to another.
Doing so without voluntary consent is theft and a violation of the right of a person to own themselves, their labor, and their free will.
Try reading something a bit more enlightened then a government supremacist scumbag like FDR. Every one of those 'rights' were just the lies of a politician as a means to exert control and gain more power over people.
Because we all know if there wasn't a government to tell you how to live, we'd all go around smashing ourselves in the head with a hammer as we continually run into walls, and the entire race would perish.
It's so very obvious that's the case because the instant a person gains a position of power, they are better then everyone else and more able to make decisions for other's lives, much more so then any person could ever decide for themselves.
Have you actually taken a look at the US Congress?
2009 est world population 6,775,235,741.
Laws are written by people with power who want to control what other people do. What you have cited are several insincere (aka bullshit) excuses to explain how this could ever be considered a legitimate concept, beyond what it actually is: being a bully.
...I'd eat taco bell and sit in the bathtub.
The truth sues YOU!
He doesn't have too. It already exists and is called the forth amendment. Paul's bill codifies an enforceable recourse for a specific type of violation of such.
LRP had the wireless drivers, a menu interface for routing configuration and was also embed-able, running off a read only boot medium.
The OP is asking for these specific things, and LRP had it out of the box, though I'd have to check exactly when the first wireless drivers made it in.
So LRP it was an existing distributed 'product', not a one-off box someone made. The former gives grounds to invalidate the patent.
Dave
Certainly not the very first ever made, but likely the first mainsteam implementation that was available.
I had a 2U 386SX 16Mhz Workstation with full length ISA 900MHz WaveLAN card, that ran LRP off 3.5" 1.44MB.
Host name was 'Brain-Damage'. Some of the first LRP development was done on that back in 1997.
The boys over in Latvia that went on to form RouterBoard were doing much more then me with wireless but I'm not sure if it was with Linux at the time.
Dave
When do we get to see the Judge's essay?
Doesn't he know that you can't be charged with resisting arrest as a sole charge? It must be based on an otherwise lawful arrest? And that if this was not a lawful arrest, you have a right to resist it?
So you could recognize the injustice of the situation, and in your heart knew it was wrong to convict, but you were perfectly willing to be a part of it because the whimsical authority of the CA government is simply paramount to any sort of humanity.
Excellent job Fuck-Wad!
Next time instead of "following the law", try and do what is right.
Unconstitutional...
In bulk reply:
1) There are two things here: Copyright and License. Bruce created a work. He holds copyright. He published that worked under a license. That license is the GPL. I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license. The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license. I own copyright to the parts I have authored. This goes so forth and so on for each person. IMO the original author never loses copyright claim. Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.
2) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license. According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .
3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.
4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents. Anderson claims complete copyright here.
5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2. In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.
6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has. As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.
7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced. I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that. I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created). When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here. I'm not allowed to know. Bruce is not allowed to know. That's not acceptable.
Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work. The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.
I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.
I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce did and during my time I reorganized the code, but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor. Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.
Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.
States can not place a tax on sales originating outside of the state. Period. (US Federal Commerce Cause) Decided for over 30 years by the US Supreme Court.
How states get around this is to classify it as a 'Use tax'. However they lack jurisdiction to force an out of state person/entity to collect this tax. Instead the tax is due from the state resident, and of course rarely gets paid.
I've been quite pissed at Amazon over their 'One Click' patent and refused to deal with them. This is somewhat redeeming of them to fight this.
The last few years we've had a new breed of corporate fascists (Like Dell and HP to name only a few) that register in a state and collect sales/use tax, even though they have no presence there.
I have been fighting this myself as the business has NO, NONE, ZERO, ZIP legal basis to collect a tax for one state while it IS NOT IN that state. It is like a NY state cop going into NJ. Once they cross that line, no jurisdiction, no authority. They can not enforce NY law in NJ...even if they are cop in NJ!! Same with a retailer collecting tax.
Below is the 'Tax Exempt' certificate that I have been using with various success. HP refunded $150 'sales tax' on the laptop I ordered based on this.
----
INTERSTATE SALES TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATION
This Purchaser claims rights under the U.S. Federal commerce clause for exemption from collection of State sales tax by a foreign entity Seller.
This exemption is authorized by NATIONAL BELLAS HESS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF STATE OF, 386 U.S. 753 (1967) and reaffirmed by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
The Purchaser hereby certifies that they are located outside the State of domicile of the Seller. The Seller is notified that they lack standing and jurisdiction to act as an agent for a foreign State. The Seller is ordered to cease collection of any State sales tax and refund any State sales tax previously collected.
Name and address of Purchaser:
XXXXX
Name and address of Seller:
XXXXX
The SFLC getting costs I don't see a problem with. Two latter authors seeing cash (with complete disregard for earlier authors AND the original author) is not looking right here. Keep in mind Anderson was PAID to work on Busybox for quite a long time as an employee of Lineo.
> 6) Erik and Rob can enforce their contributions to busybox without
Yes, but only if they actually contributed to the infringed version and they limited their settlement agreement only for their code.
> 7) Best not to jump and down about free money unless you know how much it is.
Undisclosed. Even if it's $1, they should never agree to an undisclosed amount in a case like this.