X gen are the children of baby boomers, Y Gen is the children of X Gen, this narcissistic gen has been called the "Me generation", and i think we can blame it on APPLE (its worth a try anyway) and all their superficial instant gratification approach.
Now there is no crime for "opening a door" in fact that would be typically a nice gesture. But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
You are exaggerating, im not a lawyer, but as a rational person i know that there are limits to being an accessory.
I have never heard of a petrol station being siezed for providing fuel to a car that was used for a getaway. I have never heard of a telephone company being shutdown due to criminals having used to communicate their plans. I have never heard of a car manufacture shut down because cars can break the speed limit.
You seem to think that we need big media to provide creative works, you are so wrong...
Capitalism requires competition to improve itself, a new works deserves protection as each work is unique there can never be an equivalent, so there can never be competition. Artists are using their work to leverage there power in support the media distribution cartel. Just like any other industry, the media distribution industry needs competition or it wont improve itself, the RIAA and the MPAA do not have sufficient competition to drive the evolution of media distribution. All the innovation is being done by a separate culture through the internet.
Big media are the tobacco companies of the day, if governments wont take action and shut them down, we as a society needs to choose to ween ourselves of them.
"If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong."
I was surprised when setting up a friends large screen digital TV, browsing through the menus i saw a LICENSING menu, i was excited when it displayed the GPL. (cant remember the brand)
Just because the have a TV in your lounge room isnt to say its not a (linux) computer also.
Apparently in the early seventies the CSIRO (Australian Government funded research organisation) was directed to abandoned its research and development of computers in favour of cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding was said by the government of the day to be the next big thing, unlike these big computer thinga-me-bobs which had only limited application.
I dont think any Australia government has ever had a grasp on technology.
Wine is for those who are addicted to non-free software.
Some people manage to give up their addiction by going cold turkey, others need to ween themselves off it, different methods work for different people.
If people need to ween themselves from their non-free software addiction then their is a need for wine, dont you agree ?
I was thinking, if I created a plugin that was nothing more then a socket extending the API from GCC to the api for my socket which allowed commercial plugins to use GCC by proxy of my socket, then promised to never enforce the GPL requirements if you download the plugin from me, we could bypass the "GPL only" inferences altogether. I'm the only one who can claim copyright on my works and I'm the only one who can enforce it so non-compliance wouldn't be a problem.
The FSF would still expect you to put your plugin (that transfers functionality through a socket) under a GPL compatible license, as such anyone you distribute that plugin to would have a right to the source, but the other end of the socket would be "clean" (afaik anyway).
If they wanted to stop such a scenario they would try and relicense some of it under the AGPL.
The GPL will not be forced onto a plugin because the program is GPLed. It might be depending on what the plugin does and how it works but it won't automatically cover all plugins.
If you think your legal opinion is better than the advice the FSF gets then there is no point me trying to explain it.
But seriously, how you can claim FSF is being deceptive when they are stating there intent prior to any actions that might take place ?
I think he meant to say propriety rules his world.
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." - Morpheus, The Matrix
Your talking about apples and oranges when talking about the use of API and libraries compares to API and plugins. There is a line that separates them.
Will the plugin work without GCC ? The answer is no, so the plugin is dependent on GCC.
If you violate the terms of GCC's license (and GCC, not the plugin writer that gets define the GCC license) you lose the right to distribute GCC and probably all GPL'ed works.
Law isnt like software, you cant just create a shim to avoid the bits you dont like.
None of your examples are relevant as they are permissive, please cite an example where plugins are used on a GPL'ed app, and such plugins arent explicitly permitted.
Copyleft is a good thing and needs to be defended.
A plug in doesn't use GPLed software, it used an API which doesn't make it a derived work
WRONG.
If you make a GPL'ed libarary and i write an application that uses its API, then my application is very much a derivative work.
Thats software licensing basics, the only source of confusion i think you might have is if the API is a standard published interface, such as a C library.
If my application needs to link to a C library, it doesnt make it a derivative of glibc, as in theory it could be linking to another C library such as uclibc.
GCC is a single application so it cannot be a standard interface, and its certainly not being published asa standard interface as can been seen by the fact that they are clarifying the plugin license issue in this way.
It is another attempt by GNU to 'own' software, which is becoming increasingly clear as their aim - which one would have though would have been the opposite
More precisely "It is another attempt by GNU to 'control' the software it has copyright hold on."
You want a compiler, you want someone else to write it, and you want it on your terms, ingrate much ?
It's the old "Limits To Growth" bullshit back again. The same people who predicted mass starvation in the 70s are now predicting massive climate change. The whole concept that new technology means you can't just extrapolate seems to be lost on them.
TRANSLATION: I think a scientist was wrong once, so nobody at all should ever consider scientific evidence or predictions.
If you cant accept the reality of the climate change then fine, ignorance is bliss and all that, but do the world a favor and stop trying to make other people ignorant as well.
There's a bit of a difference between "this is how you make a bomb", and "This is where he lives, let's get him".
So... did they say "This is where he lives, let's get him" ?
Nothing in the post or article mentions a death threat... if the person made a death threat then that is a completely seperate issue, or do you think the medium that the threat was made through is somehow relevant.
If he sent a death threat in the post would you expect all the postal trucks to be impounded ?
All other actions, while alleged to be war crime by one side or the other, are not proven or generally accepted as such by UN security council or general assembly.
"The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment; disproportionate military force; attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools." - Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, president of UN General Assembly.
I fail to see a single justification for hamas actions or stated intent
Your inability to understand the reasons hamas behave the way they do is due to your inability to accept the Israel has done something wrong.
"The definition I gave, while not thought out thoroughly or formally, is the working definition for many people, with quantification."
You quote stats from the Israeli military and from pro israel sites and expect people to accept them, you dont except wikipedia as an objective reference, and now you just making stuff up of the top of your head.
You are either trying to deceive people with your comments or your a fool for not being able to see your bias.
the terrorist is the one who advocates and acts towards maximizing civilian casualties.
WRONG, its not about quantity.
One definitions of terrorism is "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public" - League of Nations Convention (1937)
I challenge you to find a definition of terrorism that mentions "maximizing civilian casualties".
If Israel had even slightly good intentions it would
- Stop destroying the Palestinians infrastructure, such as electricity, water.
- Allow aid conveys through.
- Make more of an effort to protect civilians.
- Not bomb UN run Schools.
Israel is like an abused child, it was mistreated at an early age, now it thinks its ok to treat others the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
None of those sites work for me. (im in aus btw)
What is "instant" or "superficial" about Apple products?
Come on, surely you have noticed that apple puts a lot of attention to appearance... they probably employ more marketing people than developers.
Yes other companies are superficial too, but apple are the masters.
X gen are the children of baby boomers, Y Gen is the children of X Gen, this narcissistic gen has been called the "Me generation", and i think we can blame it on APPLE (its worth a try anyway) and all their superficial instant gratification approach.
Now there is no crime for "opening a door" in fact that would be typically a nice gesture.
But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
You are exaggerating, im not a lawyer, but as a rational person i know that there are limits to being an accessory.
I have never heard of a petrol station being siezed for providing fuel to a car that was used for a getaway.
I have never heard of a telephone company being shutdown due to criminals having used to communicate their plans.
I have never heard of a car manufacture shut down because cars can break the speed limit.
You seem to think that we need big media to provide creative works, you are so wrong...
Capitalism requires competition to improve itself, a new works deserves protection as each work is unique there can never be an equivalent, so there can never be competition.
Artists are using their work to leverage there power in support the media distribution cartel.
Just like any other industry, the media distribution industry needs competition or it wont improve itself, the RIAA and the MPAA do not have sufficient competition to drive the evolution of media distribution. All the innovation is being done by a separate culture through the internet.
Big media are the tobacco companies of the day, if governments wont take action and shut them down, we as a society needs to choose to ween ourselves of them.
"If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong."
I was surprised when setting up a friends large screen digital TV, browsing through the menus i saw a LICENSING menu, i was excited when it displayed the GPL. (cant remember the brand)
Just because the have a TV in your lounge room isnt to say its not a (linux) computer also.
Apparently in the early seventies the CSIRO (Australian Government funded research organisation) was directed to abandoned its research and development of computers in favour of cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding was said by the government of the day to be the next big thing, unlike these big computer thinga-me-bobs which had only limited application.
I dont think any Australia government has ever had a grasp on technology.
Wine is for those who are addicted to non-free software.
Some people manage to give up their addiction by going cold turkey, others need to ween themselves off it, different methods work for different people.
If people need to ween themselves from their non-free software addiction then their is a need for wine, dont you agree ?
I was thinking, if I created a plugin that was nothing more then a socket extending the API from GCC to the api for my socket which allowed commercial plugins to use GCC by proxy of my socket, then promised to never enforce the GPL requirements if you download the plugin from me, we could bypass the "GPL only" inferences altogether. I'm the only one who can claim copyright on my works and I'm the only one who can enforce it so non-compliance wouldn't be a problem.
The FSF would still expect you to put your plugin (that transfers functionality through a socket) under a GPL compatible license, as such anyone you distribute that plugin to would have a right to the source, but the other end of the socket would be "clean" (afaik anyway).
If they wanted to stop such a scenario they would try and relicense some of it under the AGPL.
I said they were wrong just after saying they were wrong and knew it ...
I think you must be reading your mental notes.
They are wrong.
Being wrong doesnt make it deception.
Its not deception unless they know they are wrong.
The GPL will not be forced onto a plugin because the program is GPLed. It might be depending on what the plugin does and how it works but it won't automatically cover all plugins.
If you think your legal opinion is better than the advice the FSF gets then there is no point me trying to explain it.
But seriously, how you can claim FSF is being deceptive when they are stating there intent prior to any actions that might take place ?
I think he meant to say propriety rules his world.
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." - Morpheus, The Matrix
Your talking about apples and oranges when talking about the use of API and libraries compares to API and plugins. There is a line that separates them.
Will the plugin work without GCC ? The answer is no, so the plugin is dependent on GCC.
If you violate the terms of GCC's license (and GCC, not the plugin writer that gets define the GCC license) you lose the right to distribute GCC and probably all GPL'ed works.
Law isnt like software, you cant just create a shim to avoid the bits you dont like.
None of your examples are relevant as they are permissive, please cite an example where plugins are used on a GPL'ed app, and such plugins arent explicitly permitted.
Copyleft is a good thing and needs to be defended.
Having the headers isnt the issue, its the linking stage that creates a dependency on the GPL'ed work and therefore makes it a derivative work.
A plug in doesn't use GPLed software, it used an API which doesn't make it a derived work
WRONG.
If you make a GPL'ed libarary and i write an application that uses its API, then my application is very much a derivative work.
Thats software licensing basics, the only source of confusion i think you might have is if the API is a standard published interface, such as a C library.
If my application needs to link to a C library, it doesnt make it a derivative of glibc, as in theory it could be linking to another C library such as uclibc.
GCC is a single application so it cannot be a standard interface, and its certainly not being published asa standard interface as can been seen by the fact that they are clarifying the plugin license issue in this way.
It is another attempt by GNU to 'own' software, which is becoming increasingly clear as their aim - which one would have though would have been the opposite
More precisely "It is another attempt by GNU to 'control' the software it has copyright hold on."
You want a compiler, you want someone else to write it, and you want it on your terms, ingrate much ?
It's the old "Limits To Growth" bullshit back again. The same people who predicted mass starvation in the 70s are now predicting massive climate change. The whole concept that new technology means you can't just extrapolate seems to be lost on them.
TRANSLATION: I think a scientist was wrong once, so nobody at all should ever consider scientific evidence or predictions.
If you cant accept the reality of the climate change then fine, ignorance is bliss and all that, but do the world a favor and stop trying to make other people ignorant as well.
There's a bit of a difference between "this is how you make a bomb", and "This is where he lives, let's get him".
So... did they say "This is where he lives, let's get him" ?
Nothing in the post or article mentions a death threat... if the person made a death threat then that is a completely seperate issue, or do you think the medium that the threat was made through is somehow relevant.
If he sent a death threat in the post would you expect all the postal trucks to be impounded ?
Everyone thinks they are objective, nobody is.
If personal information was obtained legally, that what law forbids them from sharing such information (in the press or otherwise) ?
All other actions, while alleged to be war crime by one side or the other, are not proven or generally accepted as such by UN security council or general assembly. "The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment; disproportionate military force; attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools." - Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, president of UN General Assembly.
I fail to see a single justification for hamas actions or stated intent Your inability to understand the reasons hamas behave the way they do is due to your inability to accept the Israel has done something wrong.
"The definition I gave, while not thought out thoroughly or formally, is the working definition for many people, with quantification."
You quote stats from the Israeli military and from pro israel sites and expect people to accept them, you dont except wikipedia as an objective reference, and now you just making stuff up of the top of your head.
You are either trying to deceive people with your comments or your a fool for not being able to see your bias.
the terrorist is the one who advocates and acts towards maximizing civilian casualties.
WRONG, its not about quantity.
One definitions of terrorism is "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public" - League of Nations Convention (1937)
I challenge you to find a definition of terrorism that mentions "maximizing civilian casualties".
If Israel had even slightly good intentions it would - Stop destroying the Palestinians infrastructure, such as electricity, water. - Allow aid conveys through. - Make more of an effort to protect civilians. - Not bomb UN run Schools. Israel is like an abused child, it was mistreated at an early age, now it thinks its ok to treat others the same way.