Because I think that is what it is all about, loopholing, isn't it?
The corporation do not "dispose of, or authorize the disposal of" the CDs "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage". It mantains all these CDs for a legitimate business reason (for instance, to see if some of them become rare enough in one hundred years or to conduct CD MTBF tests). The transfer is done solely to shareholders and only to allow a shareholder to inspect personally the company asset.
Also, I don't think a non-profit would have problems if it had enough (or rich enough) "shareholders" or mantainners. This one would certainly attract millions of small mantainners.
All the corporation has to do is mantain the physical CDs and a database of CD and song names. I, as a shareholder, would be entitled to search the database, find the CD I want for review and request it. It would be send to me by mail (we could cut this part by making it available to me through a CDROM drive shared over a private network connection - but we if we can't use the Internet we can certainly use the Post Office). To cut delivery costs we may have a branch at each major city, each storing a legitimately owned CD. I would have it for a day or two and then return it. The corporation made no copy. Whatever I did is none of anyone's business.
I believe such and organisation is called "library" for a certain instance of media.
First, "branco" is "white" and its meaning is not "no candidate" but "any candidate", a very different choice. These votes are distributed proportionally among the candidates after totalizing their votes (this is important in elections for National, State and City representatives, where the amount of votes one party gets helps elect candidates from that party - its irrelevant for majority elections, ie, President, Governor, Mayor).
To vote against all candidates one must vote "null", a process the eletronic election made a bit harder. When you had paper, it was just a matter of wtiting anything there. Now you must enter a number for an inexistent candidate and confirm it.
I think that if the total of null votes is larger than 50% plus one, the law requires the whole election to be nullified.
At first I thought it was complaining about me posting two comments too quickly. It took me a while to notice it wanted me to contemplate my comment for a while.
When the troll fighting hurts the innocent user, can it be called collateral damage too?
It was even funnier in the past. Up to 1984, during the military dictatorship* , TV could only show a small, black and white, static picture accompanied by a short phrase. You would see and hear the most funny things...
* Yes, we had a military dictatorship with regular elections - obviously there were rules that made the government win almost every time and there were also laws available for the generals to revoke the mandate of a Representative or Senator they really didn't want there...
My car also belongs to me, but I doubt that if I borrowed it to a (adult, licensed to drive) friend, I would be liable for him hitting someone or using my car as a getaway car in a robbery without my knowledge (naturally, if I knew it in advance I would be accessory or something like that).
But the software code (of a brazilian company) is closed source
Actually, you should say "the software code (of many companies)...". Each bid winner has used a different system and a different codebase. The Court is slowly replacing older machines, but in 2002, for instance, machines from 1996 running a flavour of DOS were still used. And not all winners were Brazilian companies. The 2002 machines and software were made by Unisys.
The latest and greatest voting software is based on Windows CE. The code is closed and the cryptographic layer is even more closed (the main software is developed by whoever win the bid, the crypto is added by the Court later). I should know, I managed a team that lost the bid for 2000. The lead developer then led the team that won the 2020 bid.
And what little evaluation was done has not been considered enough by experts to date. The security of the little beasts is probably good, but no one has ever been able to certificate that beyond reasonable doubt.
But then again, yes, they are amazingly efficient and we Brazilians laughed a lot during the Florida fiasco...
You get acess to a 1000 users netowrk password file. Recovering all paswords will take you 9 days instead of 70, giving you a large advantage over the network security reaction.
Besides, before that you could only crack into your evil co-worker station when he was away for a cup of coffe. Now it is enough for him to be distracted by the hot boss assistant's legs...
Very, very good. I laughed a lot after the second of hesitation my brain needed to form the whole picture. Sorry I don't have some mod point to give you. Cheers!
Brazil is overseas and qualify as "other countries" too. Besides, we have very good Comp-Sci colleges and a load of excellent developers (left in the rain when our late and small dotcom boom ended) willing to work for a fraction of the average American developer income. And we are far nearer than India.
It may not be legally possible, but it would be sweet. It does not need to be a license thing, just a Microsoftian technical thing. Like a patch for firewall modules that silently drop any IP packet coming from or going to known SCO servers. A patch for web servers that silently refuses connections to or from SCO servers. A patch for all OSS software (Web Servers, Mail Servers, RDBMSs etc) that make them uncompilable/unusable under Unixware. Many possibilities. All obviously sitting in the open. One can go there an patch the patch. But who would do that short of SCO?
(see how I can't change my mind from one comment to another?)
I misread another (unlinked) article. I believe Linus is the sole owner of the trademark and the Linux Mark Institute is the actual entity responsible for defending the name, something they seem to do eagerly (so again, yes, the Linux trademark is actively protected). The Penguin, on the other hand, can be used without a license...
JBuilder is not free software (or even OSS). Borland can restrict the use of the Personal edition in whatever ways they want. Borland can simply discontinue the free edition at any time and leave the users without any option short of buying the paid edition or switching development platform (and this is a major problem for any serious development effort).
You also can't assume Borland will update the product in a timely manner. They can for instance delay the support for a new JDK version for whatever reason and you can do nothing.
In the end, having control over its development platform is strategic for most companies in this business. Im my shop we are moving fast towards completely open enviroment. In most cases only Windows itself is the last piece that must go but the market still requires us to have it around.
First, as stated before elsewhere, Linus is not the sole owner of the trademark. There are a couple of hundred of developers who co-own the mark.
Linus has outlined the general policy for the trademark use here a long time ago. Today I believe Linux International manges all Linux trademark related issues and mantain a trademark fund to help finnance Linux development.
I think every major distro has entered an agreement with Linus\Linux International about the use of the "Linux" trademark in conjunction with their "service" trademarks or "combination" trademarks.
Believe it or not, the American laws, the DMCA included, and the American Courts interpretation of those laws does not apply to the rest of world yet. Bush may eventually change that with his army, but for the time being, as Allan says, "reverse engineering for interoperability" is legal is most civilised countries (and even in some not-so-civilised ones).
And FSF usually puts its money where RMS mouth is. Take Savannah, for instance. An open SourceForge clone (product, hosting, free public machines, support, all included).
They should develop a program that strips images, animation, java aplets, ActiveX components and all HTML from Web pages, leaving only the text and the links. Then send it to the users. It could be called Gopher. Or Archie.
I never said I was a globalisation supporter. It is pretty obvious corporations are sending jobs to the Third World because it is cheaper to make things if your workers have no protection.
In my first comment I specifically left History out, but History is implied.Work conditions in England during the 19th century or in US in the beginning of the 20th were as bad as they are now in parts of China, in Indonesia, in Africa. But slowly the workers organised themselves and fought for rights the West takes for granted now. I was just pointing the same can happen again, given enough time and money.
As you said, corporations couldn't care less, so everything will have to be extracted from them again as it was before (or do you thing the European Welfare state was suddenly granted to the people by contrieved capitalists trying to redeen from past errors?).
Although you sound very trollish, let me point something. Without even taking into account History, your present problem is that the so-called "slackers" learned and are now trying to prosper. They learned to make shoes, they learned to make steel, they learned to develop software. And now they are offering to do such things for a fraction your salary (or mine). Look at it as a great global "income equalizer". In the end everybody except a lucky feel will be earning the same money, only the jobs will differ. The Indian software engineers, the Chinese steel workers and the Indonesian shoe-makers will all earn the same the Western 7-11 employee earns.
Human rights my ass, unless you are talking about fat rich Western kids rights to have an overpaid job. You propose to let the Indonesians for whom a US$ 5 a day wage buys a living, die jobless, moneyless and foodless, in order to pay ten or a hundred times more to someone in San Francisco, Berlin or London for exactly the same job.
The two countries you name, China and Indonesia, have indeed lots of human right issues. The jobs offered by Western companies make this situation better, by creating a new technological middle class capable of seeing the benefits of free information flow and educated enough to fight for it.
I won't even try to take away your dreams as in "The USA supports freedom", but try finding out why China is one of US largest commercial partners and also which foreign countries support the Indonisian regime.
Why should I give money to Mozilla when I don't give money to and other open-source software I use? Why do they need it? What will they use it for?
There is absolutely no reason for you to donate. Nobody is forcing you to do so. On the other hand, if everybody applies the same philosophy, most OSS projects will depend solely on the goodwill and the mutable live conditions of their developers Or on companies looking for a cheaper/better software development process).
This is very different from donnating to Mandrake, a for profit company in continuous state of finnancial turmoil. As thousands upon thousands of other OSS software, Mozilla is not sold, does not carry spyware or anything allowing for a money flow.
The point is, some people will feel grateful enough to donate money or resources to some projects. Some will feel grateful but won't have nothing to donate. Some will feel grateful but won't donate, period. And some won't feel anything but will use the software anyway. None of these are unwelcome, the software is open and free to use, no strings attached.
As for, They need to make a lot better case for themselves if they're going to warrent a piece of that pie, I believe you can download a new case every night, here...
Slashdot Mirror
Because I think that is what it is all about, loopholing, isn't it?
The corporation do not "dispose of, or authorize the disposal of" the CDs "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage". It mantains all these CDs for a legitimate business reason (for instance, to see if some of them become rare enough in one hundred years or to conduct CD MTBF tests). The transfer is done solely to shareholders and only to allow a shareholder to inspect personally the company asset.
Also, I don't think a non-profit would have problems if it had enough (or rich enough) "shareholders" or mantainners. This one would certainly attract millions of small mantainners.
All the corporation has to do is mantain the physical CDs and a database of CD and song names. I, as a shareholder, would be entitled to search the database, find the CD I want for review and request it. It would be send to me by mail (we could cut this part by making it available to me through a CDROM drive shared over a private network connection - but we if we can't use the Internet we can certainly use the Post Office). To cut delivery costs we may have a branch at each major city, each storing a legitimately owned CD. I would have it for a day or two and then return it. The corporation made no copy. Whatever I did is none of anyone's business.
I believe such and organisation is called "library" for a certain instance of media.
First, "branco" is "white" and its meaning is not "no candidate" but "any candidate", a very different choice. These votes are distributed proportionally among the candidates after totalizing their votes (this is important in elections for National, State and City representatives, where the amount of votes one party gets helps elect candidates from that party - its irrelevant for majority elections, ie, President, Governor, Mayor).
To vote against all candidates one must vote "null", a process the eletronic election made a bit harder. When you had paper, it was just a matter of wtiting anything there. Now you must enter a number for an inexistent candidate and confirm it.
I think that if the total of null votes is larger than 50% plus one, the law requires the whole election to be nullified.
And then they also have to prove that the sailable song is seaworthy...
At first I thought it was complaining about me posting two comments too quickly. It took me a while to notice it wanted me to contemplate my comment for a while.
When the troll fighting hurts the innocent user, can it be called collateral damage too?
It was even funnier in the past. Up to 1984, during the military dictatorship* , TV could only show a small, black and white, static picture accompanied by a short phrase. You would see and hear the most funny things...
* Yes, we had a military dictatorship with regular elections - obviously there were rules that made the government win almost every time and there were also laws available for the generals to revoke the mandate of a Representative or Senator they really didn't want there...
My car also belongs to me, but I doubt that if I borrowed it to a (adult, licensed to drive) friend, I would be liable for him hitting someone or using my car as a getaway car in a robbery without my knowledge (naturally, if I knew it in advance I would be accessory or something like that).
Sorry... :)
But the software code (of a brazilian company) is closed source
Actually, you should say "the software code (of many companies)...". Each bid winner has used a different system and a different codebase. The Court is slowly replacing older machines, but in 2002, for instance, machines from 1996 running a flavour of DOS were still used. And not all winners were Brazilian companies. The 2002 machines and software were made by Unisys.
At least this way our presidents are not elected by 20% of the population...
(In the end, I agree with you that mandatory voting is dumb - but it is one of our smallest problems)
The latest and greatest voting software is based on Windows CE. The code is closed and the cryptographic layer is even more closed (the main software is developed by whoever win the bid, the crypto is added by the Court later). I should know, I managed a team that lost the bid for 2000. The lead developer then led the team that won the 2020 bid.
And what little evaluation was done has not been considered enough by experts to date. The security of the little beasts is probably good, but no one has ever been able to certificate that beyond reasonable doubt.
But then again, yes, they are amazingly efficient and we Brazilians laughed a lot during the Florida fiasco...
You get acess to a 1000 users netowrk password file. Recovering all paswords will take you 9 days instead of 70, giving you a large advantage over the network security reaction.
Besides, before that you could only crack into your evil co-worker station when he was away for a cup of coffe. Now it is enough for him to be distracted by the hot boss assistant's legs...
Very, very good. I laughed a lot after the second of hesitation my brain needed to form the whole picture. Sorry I don't have some mod point to give you. Cheers!
Brazil is overseas and qualify as "other countries" too. Besides, we have very good Comp-Sci colleges and a load of excellent developers (left in the rain when our late and small dotcom boom ended) willing to work for a fraction of the average American developer income. And we are far nearer than India.
He's talking retribution.
It may not be legally possible, but it would be sweet. It does not need to be a license thing, just a Microsoftian technical thing. Like a patch for firewall modules that silently drop any IP packet coming from or going to known SCO servers. A patch for web servers that silently refuses connections to or from SCO servers. A patch for all OSS software (Web Servers, Mail Servers, RDBMSs etc) that make them uncompilable/unusable under Unixware. Many possibilities. All obviously sitting in the open. One can go there an patch the patch. But who would do that short of SCO?
(see how I can't change my mind from one comment to another?)
I misread another (unlinked) article. I believe Linus is the sole owner of the trademark and the Linux Mark Institute is the actual entity responsible for defending the name, something they seem to do eagerly (so again, yes, the Linux trademark is actively protected). The Penguin, on the other hand, can be used without a license...
This should be obviuos, but here we go.
JBuilder is not free software (or even OSS). Borland can restrict the use of the Personal edition in whatever ways they want. Borland can simply discontinue the free edition at any time and leave the users without any option short of buying the paid edition or switching development platform (and this is a major problem for any serious development effort).
You also can't assume Borland will update the product in a timely manner. They can for instance delay the support for a new JDK version for whatever reason and you can do nothing.
In the end, having control over its development platform is strategic for most companies in this business. Im my shop we are moving fast towards completely open enviroment. In most cases only Windows itself is the last piece that must go but the market still requires us to have it around.
First, as stated before elsewhere, Linus is not the sole owner of the trademark. There are a couple of hundred of developers who co-own the mark.
Linus has outlined the general policy for the trademark use here a long time ago. Today I believe Linux International manges all Linux trademark related issues and mantain a trademark fund to help finnance Linux development.
I think every major distro has entered an agreement with Linus\Linux International about the use of the "Linux" trademark in conjunction with their "service" trademarks or "combination" trademarks.
Believe it or not, the American laws, the DMCA included, and the American Courts interpretation of those laws does not apply to the rest of world yet. Bush may eventually change that with his army, but for the time being, as Allan says, "reverse engineering for interoperability" is legal is most civilised countries (and even in some not-so-civilised ones).
And FSF usually puts its money where RMS mouth is. Take Savannah, for instance. An open SourceForge clone (product, hosting, free public machines, support, all included).
Freenet sounds like a great idea, but it's so obviously useful for such horrible uses
In the same category we already have guns, knifes, airplanes, TNT, email, television, cars. I think Freenet has a good chance.
They should develop a program that strips images, animation, java aplets, ActiveX components and all HTML from Web pages, leaving only the text and the links. Then send it to the users. It could be called Gopher. Or Archie.
I never said I was a globalisation supporter. It is pretty obvious corporations are sending jobs to the Third World because it is cheaper to make things if your workers have no protection.
In my first comment I specifically left History out, but History is implied.Work conditions in England during the 19th century or in US in the beginning of the 20th were as bad as they are now in parts of China, in Indonesia, in Africa. But slowly the workers organised themselves and fought for rights the West takes for granted now. I was just pointing the same can happen again, given enough time and money.
As you said, corporations couldn't care less, so everything will have to be extracted from them again as it was before (or do you thing the European Welfare state was suddenly granted to the people by contrieved capitalists trying to redeen from past errors?).
Although you sound very trollish, let me point something. Without even taking into account History, your present problem is that the so-called "slackers" learned and are now trying to prosper. They learned to make shoes, they learned to make steel, they learned to develop software. And now they are offering to do such things for a fraction your salary (or mine). Look at it as a great global "income equalizer". In the end everybody except a lucky feel will be earning the same money, only the jobs will differ. The Indian software engineers, the Chinese steel workers and the Indonesian shoe-makers will all earn the same the Western 7-11 employee earns.
Human rights my ass, unless you are talking about fat rich Western kids rights to have an overpaid job. You propose to let the Indonesians for whom a US$ 5 a day wage buys a living, die jobless, moneyless and foodless, in order to pay ten or a hundred times more to someone in San Francisco, Berlin or London for exactly the same job.
The two countries you name, China and Indonesia, have indeed lots of human right issues. The jobs offered by Western companies make this situation better, by creating a new technological middle class capable of seeing the benefits of free information flow and educated enough to fight for it.
I won't even try to take away your dreams as in "The USA supports freedom", but try finding out why China is one of US largest commercial partners and also which foreign countries support the Indonisian regime.
Why should I give money to Mozilla when I don't give money to and other open-source software I use? Why do they need it? What will they use it for?
There is absolutely no reason for you to donate. Nobody is forcing you to do so. On the other hand, if everybody applies the same philosophy, most OSS projects will depend solely on the goodwill and the mutable live conditions of their developers Or on companies looking for a cheaper/better software development process).
This is very different from donnating to Mandrake, a for profit company in continuous state of finnancial turmoil. As thousands upon thousands of other OSS software, Mozilla is not sold, does not carry spyware or anything allowing for a money flow.
The point is, some people will feel grateful enough to donate money or resources to some projects. Some will feel grateful but won't have nothing to donate. Some will feel grateful but won't donate, period. And some won't feel anything but will use the software anyway. None of these are unwelcome, the software is open and free to use, no strings attached.
As for, They need to make a lot better case for themselves if they're going to warrent a piece of that pie, I believe you can download a new case every night, here...