Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. If then they sell you a different license they will be in violation of the law. First, you can sue them, for selling you what is not theirs. Then I suppose you'll have to find the original authors.
At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner. No, you don't. Patent issues are still to be settled. It is true that MS is very unlikely to say: Sorry for the software we gave you, you cant't use it. They'd rather pay for the patent after the trial.
Even then the point is: Do I want code from someone who I cannot hold responsible for it? A small company would not be able to pay after the court order. But that is not a problem with the GPL, is it?
For exactly the same reasons Hans Reiser is holding the copyrigth for all the mainstream code for the reiserfs. The Hans Reiser Foundation wants the copyright for all the code you want to get in the mainstream, because they sponsor themselves by licensing the code under other licenses than GPL.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship. It is possible, but the GPL is not the problem here.
If I were you, and I had something (gun, long enough knife, whatever) I would have killed the damned dog.
Let the bastard that owns it then complain to the police, because a dog was attacking you on your property. You claim it attacked you (it is true, isn't it) and let him proove that the dog did not.
By the way, if a dog bites you you can sue the owner into oblivion, just takes some time and effort. WTF is all that "animal cruelty"? Yes, some people are cruel to animals, but if a dog is danger to society and you let it walk in the park with little children, then what? Besides, most owners does not put protectors (I don't know the word, but you get my point) that prevents the dog from biting.
Sorry for the "think-of-the-children" kind of argument, but a big dog with several incidents like yours should not be allowed to live in a city at all. Other lethal weapons like firearms are not allowed (in most of the world), so why should a killer dog be?
>>Under Linux, you won't swap much anyway unless you need it.
>Like if you're compiling OpenOffice.org;)
But what if I *am* compiling OpenOffice? I did, twice. The last time I had Java, so actually it compiled all of the class files. It took 2.5 days, on my 1.7 Pentium 4 M. The magic of Gentoo...
The main problem was not the swap, but disk space - the compilation folder grew to over 3 GBs!!! I had to mount the compilation directory on my storage, because my Gentoo partition was far from enough for this monster. Still, it was fun!
>>I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for. >Since you're agreeing to the license terms when signing up to these services, you're not free to do it.
Actually, no. No terms of agreement (therefore of a license) can contradict the law, otherwise it is invalid. If the law has an equivalent of the first-sale doctrine noone can limit me how I can sell what I have purchased - for instance the license to play a song. And I explicitly have the right to sell the license for the song.
By the way, I believe I have the right to play the song. The only thing that makes DRM stripping illegal is the DMCA, not copyright or other parts of the law. And DMCA and equivalents are just stupid laws paid by corporations to protect what is not rightfully theirs, IMHO.
Well, that's how the things go for example in UK. I really don't know for the rest of the world, even for my country. But I wanted to point out that simply being a license does not mean I am oblidged by law to follow it.
Yes, you have a point. But are misses so expensive? These days we hear a plane crash almost every day. Which, by the way is still the safest way to travel. For example, if I was the "decider" I would lock the cocpit so nobody could enter (without electronic keys obtainable from the air control tower, in case the pilots die from something, dunno. If a terrorist blows a plane, just cover everything (dispose of the black box) and voila: 1. No hysteria, cuz noone knows. 2. Dead people don't mind that. The worst for them has happened. 3. No success for terrorists, because they want the act to be known.
Actually, I believe that even a passanger can land the plane given instructions from the control tower. Modern airplanes have all sorts of technologies. Takeoff and landing are the only parts of the flight where the pilot has direct control of the plane. And most of all, I believe that in 60 people flight there will be at least one that has any idea how to land a plane. With help, at least.
Man, where should I start... I live in Brazil and the news have been reporting this for months now. So you're already poisoned with the one-sidedness of the media coverage. Nice excuse, though.
This post makes it seems like the Justice suddenly wants to close Google's office because some investigation they started now, but people are using their service to do things that are crime here, and the government just wants to know who it is so it can take the proper actions. So, basically, they don't want to go wiretapping? They just want everything, now.
It's not only the child porn, but there have been other issues, like people advertising place where others can buy drugs. Well... they know the DAMNED PLACE and they still WANT MORE INFORMATION?
Another problem is with communities that are against religion, professions, colors, etc. Wooooow, dude. What's all the fuss? Who the f*ck is going to tell me I cannot write about f*cking w**te j*ws? (I wouldn't, but that is my right. That is my private life.)
It's not that they don't have the right to be against it, but many of them use orkut to share stories about things they did to injury people that follow that religion, or teenagers telling how they abuse their maids... and they laught about it. So, it is a story, then. What's wrong with that? Who the f*ck are you to come on my property (my diary, for example) and be offended for what I have written? Well, you should not read it. Aren't books protected as free speech? So should be my diary.
Child porn is just one of the things the justice is trying to end, but there are lots of crimes that people do freely. Right. I knew that talking about children porn was a crime. So is not believing you're government.
Orkut in Brazil have been really uncooperative, since if a company has a legal representative office in our country, this office should ask this information. It's not that hard. Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies always provide information about this kind of stuff even though their servers are in the US if it's involved in this kind of investigation. _SARCASM And I personally admire Yahoo for giving information to the Chinese government./_SARCASM
Google on the other side have been refusing to help for months just telling "our servers are in the US, we can't do anything", and the Justice telling "You are Google too, talk to them and get this information", and they just refuse. Ever wandered why Google is percieved in a much, much better light even in geek communities, where trust is hard to earn? Now you know.
I like google, but they are not helping with this at all. That's why I like them.
They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys. Your post is not only insightful, but it can be used to defend both sides.:)
Don't you think it would be easier to just bid on that auction, infiltrate the community, and this way trace the account? Besides, there will be more to hang him on. Literally. For the rest, leave us alone. Maybe I want to search for such porn because now I want to know how to help combat it?
Technically you're right. But I suppose the GP wanted to point out, that with the subopenas granted merely talking about such stuff will become tracable.
With volatile media such as computers it is not easy to prove (well, 99% of the time is virtually impossible) that something written is in fact yours, especially in public forums and the like. But it is far, far harder to disprove such a thing after it has been "unintentionally" released by the police... That is what the privacy is all about.
Where some see imaginary gain in the war on chilren porn, I see very, very big and real damage to people's lifes (imagine what you're wife would think).
What you did not read from the GP is only what he wanted to say: Shit happens all the time.
We cannot leave the police running amok like we cannot leave the terrorists running amok. What the police should do is get warants and start wiretaping the criminals using a more conventional methods - go and tap his ethernet/wifi/whatsoever. Maybe a hidden camera, you're the police.
What is wrong with their requests from google? First of all, if I am ever put befour a judge I will ALWAYS DENY the evidence they can require from google. What, IPs? Even if they find my computer, I can almost always deny that it was in my possession at that time. Go read about a random child-porn-over-the-internet case to see my point.
So, the so-called evidence is not evidence at all. Sure, it might help tip a cop where to search for evidence, but what about my privacy? In the end, the only thing the "evidence" is going to do is show that some people wrote that and that about something. Not nearly enough for a case, cannot clasify for evidence, and I hope every lawyer will try to dismiss it.
And that info I don't want in every cop's hands, for whatever reason. If they so badly want it, they can get a court order and install all kinds of stuff on my network, etc. This way they are accountable and more people are involved. This way I can trust them.
So, to sum: 1. No real help to investigation. 2. No legal weight whatsoever. 3. Invades everyone's privacy.
That is what the GP was trying to say. And your arguments are exactly the old stupid think-of-the-children desinformation. Sure, f*ck up every children's rights to privacy for a single one of them.
Shit happens all the time. Learn how to deal with it appropriately.
> "I would rather one guilty man remain free than compromise the freedoms of a thousand." Actually, the saying goes: I would rather have 1000 guilty free than one innoscent in jail.
The americans once fought for their freedom, albeit so many years ago. They should be reminded that safety is only a PART of freedom. Besides, that is what GWB says all the time, that the middle-eastern people should suffer to get freedom. While I personally hate the way he uses that, I agree 100%.
> That would be a matter of law decided by a Judge to my knowledge, and yes, to use a company's service, you agree to their terms, otherwise, you simply don't use the service. It really is that simple. Well, it is really not that simple. For example, no agreement can waive your right to live. Yes, a bit extreme, but so is yours. Basically, an agreement that states that you have to do something against the law is explicitly unenforcable. I believe that for such things the law says something that noone can collect data without your consent. Well, I really don't know what is the extent of the law - maybe only for your personal property - but undoubtedly such a law exists.
What I want to know is if you can sue AOL for libel/defamation. Really, collecting data may be ok but I am not sure that releasing data is so unregulated...
> My understanding is that TiVO distributes source code that is 100% operational and fully functional-- just not functional on their hardware. *sigh* That is just what the whole argument is about... *sigh* Is the code 100 operational, when it cannot operate? Really, it is a serious question, and I see that Torvalds and Stallman has different approaches.
> The GPL makes no guarantee about what hardware the software must run on, and it shouldn't as it has nothing to do with hardware. In TiVO's case the source code is fully open, but the hardware is closed. But software and hardware is a very artificial division nowadays. Is the firmware of the TiVo a software, or hardware? Well, if it is hardware, why govern the software? It used to be the other way around, don't you think? And if it is a software, then the Torvalds is technically right, but it is software that is locking us, then his agrument is not applicable here.
While that may piss you off, it really doesn't violate GPLv2, and those portions of GPLv3 that it may violate are probably unenforceable, which is irrelevant since Linux isn't going to use GPLv3 anyway. Well, that has never been tested in court, maybe because the software-hardware thingy. Maybe that's why GPLv3 us trying to clarify the issue. And I think it is too early to say what Linus is going to do, anyway.
And now every single GPL'ed project is probably going to branch into a GPLv2 and a GPLv3 edition, which helps us all how, exactly? Well, branch for different licenses? Now many projects have different licensing options, but these are not branches. If GPLv3 is more restrictive, effectively you release it under GPLv2 means that GPLv3 is obsolete (it does not give you more rights, so why bother?). But there is a more important question - will GPLv3 be compatible with GPLv2, and that is the problem we stand before. Right after we get this mess done.
By the way, I don't hate DRM. I think TCP will be very usefull, I mean, I would be able to lock down my Gentoo so only code I have signed will be able to execute. Well, something like that. But that could happen only if I can get the keys to sign it. That is what GPLv3 basically want to happen, and I don't understand what's all the fuss against it. It is it's bad use that we hate, not itself.
> The sad fact for organizations like the WHO and others (global warming folks, environmental folks, etc), is they realize that the only way to get fund(s)(ing) is to make the threat imminent, a global killer, and _your_ fault. Would they get funding if the answer was "Well, in 200 years, the temp may or may not rise. Our weather folks can't tell if it is going to rain tomorrow, let alone, 50 years from now." Well, maybe, just maybe, these organisations: 1) are led by scientists. 2) can get funding from many different areas, like private business, etc. 3) can have virtually no polical agenda, because they are so diverse. Thus, maybe, just maybe, you might consider believing them, and not the Bush administration who is neither.
Well, scientists can tell you the weather tomorrow, but for 7 days the best is the average for the season. Yet, you'll be surprised how accurately they can predict the trends. I dunno, maybe it has somethng to do with repetitions and laws of the big numbers in statistics.
Funding only goes to the current "global killer," so I'm always suspect of folks like the WHO. Good for you. Maybe you should ask the other 6,499,999,999 people that you share the planet with. Oh, especially the 2,000,000,000 of them that does not have access to clean water.
Call it a comfortable lifestyle if you want, but in hunter-gatherer societies, they spent most of their time doing the things necessary to survive, and nothing more. If life was so comfortable and excellent in those societies, why develop agriculture, domesticated animals, and all that other technology leading up to the modern age?
Greed?
Don't try to tell me that the industrial revolution for example happened for the well-being of the workers. The fact is that from slavery till modern days the incentive for the general population to work has been survival, and the aristocracy in any form (including all rich folks, that is) has always tried to exploit the workers.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of a good law gone bad just because the technology moved on.
200 years ago the only way a song writer was going to get money is by selling the sheets. No recording, no nothing. Nowadays, tell me who relies on that for their financial survivial? (Hint: noone) We have very cheap recording equipment and song writers get the money from selling their music on disks and for soundtracks of movies, etc (eventually, when Sony and the others sells them, the authors get their share).
That said, the closing of OLGA is just enforcement of a law, that was made for exactly that purpose, but is exceptionaly outdated and generally does way more harm than help.
... it kind of looks like: we want to take away your privacy/freedom so you could be safer. I mean, not strictly speaking only about MS vendor-locking...
It's not quite so simple. Suppose a manufacturer were to build a computer that would only run an OS signed with Linus's key. That turns his "signing key" into an "embedded key". The problem here is that there is no fundamental distinction between the two kinds of keys; it's just a question of how they are used.
And, as stated in the GPLv3 draft, the people who give you the signed binary of the software must give you the source WITH the keys. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to distribute the software. That part of GPLv3 is very clear, and that is accomplished just by saying that signing keys are a part of the source.
I think that GPLv3 is trying to target a problem that has already arisen. If it was not for the DMCA and the equivalents in most countries we might hope to reverse-engeneer it, thou it is hard and not always successful. Basically, it boils down to this: Do you want your work released under GPL to be exploited by third parties? The authors should decide.
This does bring up a flaw in the idea, though: what stops a company like TiVo from creating "unrelated" shell organizations so as to separate the kernel development and hardware development in order to get around this? I guess there is no loophole here. If a company (say, TiVo) sells hardware with DRM that prevents the usage of unsigned kernels, that's OK. No part of the license can possibly influence hardware part, because it has nothing to do with it. However, distribution of the software by another company (say, oViT) that is under GPLv3 requires the whole set of signing keys, otherwise it would be illegal to distribute it, albeit freely (as in beer). If TiVo buys the license, they will still be prohibited to release the software without the source and the signing keys, because that is what the license say. And since oViT is not the copyright owner of the whole thing, they cannot release it to TiVo under a different license either.
We might have a different set of problems, by the way. Many licenses are deemed GPL compattible, namely the new BSD. But are they going to be called and utilized this way with GPLv3, since many licenses does not have similar DRM-preventions clauses? In this connection, will GPLv2 be compatible with GPLv3?
when you are reporting the truth. Yes my friend, it can be. For example, the killer bees in USA? Yes, they are real. Yes, they are deadly. But no, there is no epidemy and no need to panic. It is not about the truth now, it is about the way you say it.
The fact is and has always been the same. Radical Islam wants to destroy the West. I also think that. They have absolutely no reason whatsoever. Yup. No intervention in foreign policy, no assasinations, just the good ol' chaps we always were. http://youtube.com/watch?v=guAcGOTaIts
The best way to bring down their target is through fear. Ignoring it got us in the mess in the first place. I am sorry, but they are very, very mistaken, if the terrorists believe such bullshit. I think that while the lower-level terrorists - the ones comitting the suicide - may think that terror is going to bring a nation down, the HQ knows the simple fact - against danger people tend to unite.
It is the foreign policy that brough us this far. Maybe we should change that, don't you think? Killing people, possibly friends and families kind of piss off people? I hope you were watching the movie Obsession (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29672763 62246845611&q=obsession). I personally really enjoyed the idea of unbiased opinions of israelis for the islamic states:).
Slashdot Mirror
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license.
If then they sell you a different license they will be in violation of the law. First, you can sue them, for selling you what is not theirs. Then I suppose you'll have to find the original authors.
At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner.
No, you don't. Patent issues are still to be settled. It is true that MS is very unlikely to say: Sorry for the software we gave you, you cant't use it. They'd rather pay for the patent after the trial.
Even then the point is: Do I want code from someone who I cannot hold responsible for it? A small company would not be able to pay after the court order. But that is not a problem with the GPL, is it?
For exactly the same reasons Hans Reiser is holding the copyrigth for all the mainstream code for the reiserfs. The Hans Reiser Foundation wants the copyright for all the code you want to get in the mainstream, because they sponsor themselves by licensing the code under other licenses than GPL.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship.
It is possible, but the GPL is not the problem here.
If I were you, and I had something (gun, long enough knife, whatever) I would have killed the damned dog.
Let the bastard that owns it then complain to the police, because a dog was attacking you on your property. You claim it attacked you (it is true, isn't it) and let him proove that the dog did not.
By the way, if a dog bites you you can sue the owner into oblivion, just takes some time and effort. WTF is all that "animal cruelty"? Yes, some people are cruel to animals, but if a dog is danger to society and you let it walk in the park with little children, then what? Besides, most owners does not put protectors (I don't know the word, but you get my point) that prevents the dog from biting.
Sorry for the "think-of-the-children" kind of argument, but a big dog with several incidents like yours should not be allowed to live in a city at all. Other lethal weapons like firearms are not allowed (in most of the world), so why should a killer dog be?
Disclaimer: I like cats.
>>Under Linux, you won't swap much anyway unless you need it.
;)
>Like if you're compiling OpenOffice.org
But what if I *am* compiling OpenOffice? I did, twice. The last time I had Java, so actually it compiled all of the class files. It took 2.5 days, on my 1.7 Pentium 4 M. The magic of Gentoo...
The main problem was not the swap, but disk space - the compilation folder grew to over 3 GBs!!! I had to mount the compilation directory on my storage, because my Gentoo partition was far from enough for this monster. Still, it was fun!
>>I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for.
>Since you're agreeing to the license terms when signing up to these services, you're not free to do it.
Actually, no. No terms of agreement (therefore of a license) can contradict the law, otherwise it is invalid. If the law has an equivalent of the first-sale doctrine noone can limit me how I can sell what I have purchased - for instance the license to play a song. And I explicitly have the right to sell the license for the song.
By the way, I believe I have the right to play the song. The only thing that makes DRM stripping illegal is the DMCA, not copyright or other parts of the law. And DMCA and equivalents are just stupid laws paid by corporations to protect what is not rightfully theirs, IMHO.
Well, that's how the things go for example in UK. I really don't know for the rest of the world, even for my country. But I wanted to point out that simply being a license does not mean I am oblidged by law to follow it.
Yes, you have a point.
But are misses so expensive? These days we hear a plane crash almost every day. Which, by the way is still the safest way to travel.
For example, if I was the "decider" I would lock the cocpit so nobody could enter (without electronic keys obtainable from the air control tower, in case the pilots die from something, dunno.
If a terrorist blows a plane, just cover everything (dispose of the black box) and voila:
1. No hysteria, cuz noone knows.
2. Dead people don't mind that. The worst for them has happened.
3. No success for terrorists, because they want the act to be known.
Actually, I believe that even a passanger can land the plane given instructions from the control tower.
Modern airplanes have all sorts of technologies. Takeoff and landing are the only parts of the flight where the pilot has direct control of the plane.
And most of all, I believe that in 60 people flight there will be at least one that has any idea how to land a plane. With help, at least.
Man, where should I start...
... they know the DAMNED PLACE and they still WANT MORE INFORMATION?
/_SARCASM
I live in Brazil and the news have been reporting this for months now.
So you're already poisoned with the one-sidedness of the media coverage. Nice excuse, though.
This post makes it seems like the Justice suddenly wants to close Google's office because some investigation they started now, but people are using their service to do things that are crime here, and the government just wants to know who it is so it can take the proper actions.
So, basically, they don't want to go wiretapping? They just want everything, now.
It's not only the child porn, but there have been other issues, like people advertising place where others can buy drugs.
Well
Another problem is with communities that are against religion, professions, colors, etc.
Wooooow, dude. What's all the fuss? Who the f*ck is going to tell me I cannot write about f*cking w**te j*ws? (I wouldn't, but that is my right. That is my private life.)
It's not that they don't have the right to be against it, but many of them use orkut to share stories about things they did to injury people that follow that religion, or teenagers telling how they abuse their maids... and they laught about it.
So, it is a story, then. What's wrong with that? Who the f*ck are you to come on my property (my diary, for example) and be offended for what I have written? Well, you should not read it. Aren't books protected as free speech? So should be my diary.
Child porn is just one of the things the justice is trying to end, but there are lots of crimes that people do freely.
Right. I knew that talking about children porn was a crime. So is not believing you're government.
Orkut in Brazil have been really uncooperative, since if a company has a legal representative office in our country, this office should ask this information. It's not that hard. Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies always provide information about this kind of stuff even though their servers are in the US if it's involved in this kind of investigation.
_SARCASM And I personally admire Yahoo for giving information to the Chinese government.
Google on the other side have been refusing to help for months just telling "our servers are in the US, we can't do anything", and the Justice telling "You are Google too, talk to them and get this information", and they just refuse.
Ever wandered why Google is percieved in a much, much better light even in geek communities, where trust is hard to earn? Now you know.
I like google, but they are not helping with this at all.
That's why I like them.
On a basis that the sender of the e-mail is Watergate hotel.
They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys. :)
Your post is not only insightful, but it can be used to defend both sides.
Don't you think it would be easier to just bid on that auction, infiltrate the community, and this way trace the account?
Besides, there will be more to hang him on. Literally.
For the rest, leave us alone. Maybe I want to search for such porn because now I want to know how to help combat it?
> illegal opinions
Illegal opinions are a great danger to society.
Signed by: the Chinese government.
Technically you're right. But I suppose the GP wanted to point out, that with the subopenas granted merely talking about such stuff will become tracable.
With volatile media such as computers it is not easy to prove (well, 99% of the time is virtually impossible) that something written is in fact yours, especially in public forums and the like. But it is far, far harder to disprove such a thing after it has been "unintentionally" released by the police... That is what the privacy is all about.
Where some see imaginary gain in the war on chilren porn, I see very, very big and real damage to people's lifes (imagine what you're wife would think).
What you did not read from the GP is only what he wanted to say:
Shit happens all the time.
We cannot leave the police running amok like we cannot leave the terrorists running amok. What the police should do is get warants and start wiretaping the criminals using a more conventional methods - go and tap his ethernet/wifi/whatsoever. Maybe a hidden camera, you're the police.
What is wrong with their requests from google? First of all, if I am ever put befour a judge I will ALWAYS DENY the evidence they can require from google. What, IPs? Even if they find my computer, I can almost always deny that it was in my possession at that time. Go read about a random child-porn-over-the-internet case to see my point.
So, the so-called evidence is not evidence at all. Sure, it might help tip a cop where to search for evidence, but what about my privacy? In the end, the only thing the "evidence" is going to do is show that some people wrote that and that about something. Not nearly enough for a case, cannot clasify for evidence, and I hope every lawyer will try to dismiss it.
And that info I don't want in every cop's hands, for whatever reason. If they so badly want it, they can get a court order and install all kinds of stuff on my network, etc. This way they are accountable and more people are involved. This way I can trust them.
So, to sum:
1. No real help to investigation.
2. No legal weight whatsoever.
3. Invades everyone's privacy.
That is what the GP was trying to say. And your arguments are exactly the old stupid think-of-the-children desinformation. Sure, f*ck up every children's rights to privacy for a single one of them.
Shit happens all the time.
Learn how to deal with it appropriately.
> "I would rather one guilty man remain free than compromise the freedoms of a thousand."
Actually, the saying goes:
I would rather have 1000 guilty free than one innoscent in jail.
The americans once fought for their freedom, albeit so many years ago. They should be reminded that safety is only a PART of freedom. Besides, that is what GWB says all the time, that the middle-eastern people should suffer to get freedom. While I personally hate the way he uses that, I agree 100%.
> That would be a matter of law decided by a Judge to my knowledge, and yes, to use a company's service, you agree to their terms, otherwise, you simply don't use the service. It really is that simple.
Well, it is really not that simple. For example, no agreement can waive your right to live. Yes, a bit extreme, but so is yours. Basically, an agreement that states that you have to do something against the law is explicitly unenforcable.
I believe that for such things the law says something that noone can collect data without your consent. Well, I really don't know what is the extent of the law - maybe only for your personal property - but undoubtedly such a law exists.
What I want to know is if you can sue AOL for libel/defamation. Really, collecting data may be ok but I am not sure that releasing data is so unregulated...
> My understanding is that TiVO distributes source code that is 100% operational and fully functional-- just not functional on their hardware.
*sigh* That is just what the whole argument is about... *sigh* Is the code 100 operational, when it cannot operate? Really, it is a serious question, and I see that Torvalds and Stallman has different approaches.
> The GPL makes no guarantee about what hardware the software must run on, and it shouldn't as it has nothing to do with hardware. In TiVO's case the source code is fully open, but the hardware is closed.
But software and hardware is a very artificial division nowadays. Is the firmware of the TiVo a software, or hardware? Well, if it is hardware, why govern the software? It used to be the other way around, don't you think? And if it is a software, then the Torvalds is technically right, but it is software that is locking us, then his agrument is not applicable here.
While that may piss you off, it really doesn't violate GPLv2, and those portions of GPLv3 that it may violate are probably unenforceable, which is irrelevant since Linux isn't going to use GPLv3 anyway.
Well, that has never been tested in court, maybe because the software-hardware thingy. Maybe that's why GPLv3 us trying to clarify the issue. And I think it is too early to say what Linus is going to do, anyway.
And now every single GPL'ed project is probably going to branch into a GPLv2 and a GPLv3 edition, which helps us all how, exactly?
Well, branch for different licenses? Now many projects have different licensing options, but these are not branches. If GPLv3 is more restrictive, effectively you release it under GPLv2 means that GPLv3 is obsolete (it does not give you more rights, so why bother?). But there is a more important question - will GPLv3 be compatible with GPLv2, and that is the problem we stand before. Right after we get this mess done.
By the way, I don't hate DRM. I think TCP will be very usefull, I mean, I would be able to lock down my Gentoo so only code I have signed will be able to execute. Well, something like that. But that could happen only if I can get the keys to sign it. That is what GPLv3 basically want to happen, and I don't understand what's all the fuss against it. It is it's bad use that we hate, not itself.
> The sad fact for organizations like the WHO and others (global warming folks, environmental folks, etc), is they realize that the only way to get fund(s)(ing) is to make the threat imminent, a global killer, and _your_ fault. Would they get funding if the answer was "Well, in 200 years, the temp may or may not rise. Our weather folks can't tell if it is going to rain tomorrow, let alone, 50 years from now."
Well, maybe, just maybe, these organisations:
1) are led by scientists.
2) can get funding from many different areas, like private business, etc.
3) can have virtually no polical agenda, because they are so diverse.
Thus, maybe, just maybe, you might consider believing them, and not the Bush administration who is neither.
Well, scientists can tell you the weather tomorrow, but for 7 days the best is the average for the season. Yet, you'll be surprised how accurately they can predict the trends. I dunno, maybe it has somethng to do with repetitions and laws of the big numbers in statistics.
Funding only goes to the current "global killer," so I'm always suspect of folks like the WHO.
Good for you. Maybe you should ask the other 6,499,999,999 people that you share the planet with. Oh, especially the 2,000,000,000 of them that does not have access to clean water.
Call it a comfortable lifestyle if you want, but in hunter-gatherer societies, they spent most of their time doing the things necessary to survive, and nothing more. If life was so comfortable and excellent in those societies, why develop agriculture, domesticated animals, and all that other technology leading up to the modern age?
Greed?
Don't try to tell me that the industrial revolution for example happened for the well-being of the workers. The fact is that from slavery till modern days the incentive for the general population to work has been survival, and the aristocracy in any form (including all rich folks, that is) has always tried to exploit the workers.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of a good law gone bad just because the technology moved on.
200 years ago the only way a song writer was going to get money is by selling the sheets. No recording, no nothing. Nowadays, tell me who relies on that for their financial survivial? (Hint: noone) We have very cheap recording equipment and song writers get the money from selling their music on disks and for soundtracks of movies, etc (eventually, when Sony and the others sells them, the authors get their share).
That said, the closing of OLGA is just enforcement of a law, that was made for exactly that purpose, but is exceptionaly outdated and generally does way more harm than help.
... it kind of looks like: we want to take away your privacy/freedom so you could be safer. I mean, not strictly speaking only about MS vendor-locking...
It's not quite so simple. Suppose a manufacturer were to build a computer that would only run an OS signed with Linus's key. That turns his "signing key" into an "embedded key". The problem here is that there is no fundamental distinction between the two kinds of keys; it's just a question of how they are used.
And, as stated in the GPLv3 draft, the people who give you the signed binary of the software must give you the source WITH the keys. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to distribute the software. That part of GPLv3 is very clear, and that is accomplished just by saying that signing keys are a part of the source.
I think that GPLv3 is trying to target a problem that has already arisen. If it was not for the DMCA and the equivalents in most countries we might hope to reverse-engeneer it, thou it is hard and not always successful. Basically, it boils down to this: Do you want your work released under GPL to be exploited by third parties? The authors should decide.
This does bring up a flaw in the idea, though: what stops a company like TiVo from creating "unrelated" shell organizations so as to separate the kernel development and hardware development in order to get around this?
I guess there is no loophole here. If a company (say, TiVo) sells hardware with DRM that prevents the usage of unsigned kernels, that's OK. No part of the license can possibly influence hardware part, because it has nothing to do with it. However, distribution of the software by another company (say, oViT) that is under GPLv3 requires the whole set of signing keys, otherwise it would be illegal to distribute it, albeit freely (as in beer). If TiVo buys the license, they will still be prohibited to release the software without the source and the signing keys, because that is what the license say. And since oViT is not the copyright owner of the whole thing, they cannot release it to TiVo under a different license either.
We might have a different set of problems, by the way. Many licenses are deemed GPL compattible, namely the new BSD. But are they going to be called and utilized this way with GPLv3, since many licenses does not have similar DRM-preventions clauses? In this connection, will GPLv2 be compatible with GPLv3?
... for RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminant) price. Why not royalities?
Jelly-flavoured nitroglycerin and TNT-on-a-bread.
It literally BLOWS your sences.
when you are reporting the truth.
3 62246845611&q=obsession). I personally really enjoyed the idea of unbiased opinions of israelis for the islamic states :).
Yes my friend, it can be. For example, the killer bees in USA? Yes, they are real. Yes, they are deadly. But no, there is no epidemy and no need to panic. It is not about the truth now, it is about the way you say it.
The fact is and has always been the same. Radical Islam wants to destroy the West.
I also think that. They have absolutely no reason whatsoever. Yup. No intervention in foreign policy, no assasinations, just the good ol' chaps we always were. http://youtube.com/watch?v=guAcGOTaIts
The best way to bring down their target is through fear. Ignoring it got us in the mess in the first place.
I am sorry, but they are very, very mistaken, if the terrorists believe such bullshit. I think that while the lower-level terrorists - the ones comitting the suicide - may think that terror is going to bring a nation down, the HQ knows the simple fact - against danger people tend to unite.
It is the foreign policy that brough us this far. Maybe we should change that, don't you think? Killing people, possibly friends and families kind of piss off people? I hope you were watching the movie Obsession (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2967276