...highlight this example to launch a campaign to get laws passed that create liability for harm inflicted by software timebombs like this. Sure, sure, software companies may be entitled to compensation for uses of their software beyond the license, but if their time bomb inflicts greater harms than the compensation for which they would be entitled, then the compensation ought to flow the other way.
People have legal remedies in cases like this; they should not be permitted to use them as an excuse for cybervigilanteism. And this is the kind of thing that is more likely to resonate with the average lawmaker or voter than the kind of software timebombs that may be nearer and dearer to the hearts of the average/.er...
But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font.
That's kind of a trivial concern. Sure, its a problem, but unless Vista's changed something this default can be changed quite easily. It would be an improvement if Windows had sensible default setting combinations that applied based on the current resolution, but certainly this isn't a new problem with Vista.
...isn't so much that "open source software is complex" (e.g., any individual Linux system is more complex than any individual Windows system), but that, for instance, the range of things covered by the label "Linux" is far more diverse than the range of things covered by the label "Windows", so its harder for someone to develope the knowledge to say with credibility that they can support "Linux" than it is to develope the same knowledge with respect to "Windows".
Which is pretty clearly true; but its just as true, if not moreso, if you want to say you support "Unix" compared to "Windows"; it has nothing to do with "open source", per se, or complexity of software. It has to do with supporting more different things, and "Linux", without further specification, is more different things than "Windows".
The Sims 2 probably suffers from the fact that it was a sequel too soon; there was a lot of commercial life left in The Sims (particularly as its hardware requirements had stopped being cutting edge), and The Sims 2, while it added a lot of core functionality, also required a lot more to run, and the franchise appeals to a demographic that isn't, otherwise, necessarily the kind that is going to have cutting edge hardware.
Because there's a physical component to the release process.
Why? Plenty of other commercial software is distributed as much or more by download than by physical disk. If relying on physical distribution is making game makers particularly vulnerable to pirates because it allows pirated product to beat the official product to market, the solution seems obvious.
By not using IE. Its not that hard; I have IE on both of my PCs at home, but the only thing I ever use it for is accessing Windows Update. (If I had another IE-only site I had to access—I've encountered a few in the past though they seem to be getting rarer at least for things I need—I'd use it for them, too.)
Just code to the standards and screw the users?
Ah, I see the problem. You think that "people" is an alias for "web developers".
IME, if you get the street number right, there is a non-negligible probability that the postal service will deliver to a different, usually nearby, address anyway, particularly if the intended address is in a location with a common cluster of mailboxes.
The idea that a incorrect (but valid) address gets the mail automagically returned by the Postal Service is, nice as it sounds, wrong.
People are used to buying a computer and getting free applications. They simply won't be happy getting free hardware and then having a huge bill for software.
OTOH, I'm sure many people would be amenable to paying a reduced cost for broadband access (compared to the charges of traditional providers) that came with a free computer [of course, a vendor lock-in device that didn't allow you to run arbitrary software] with basic functionality, and many of those people could then be sold additional add-on "software-as-service" at small monthly fees (that, over the lifetime of the software, added up to more than they would have paid with "traditional" software with a normal computer). And the service/system provider would make big profits.
Considering that no one actually read the Patriot Act before voting on it, there actually could be something about Gitmo in there.
Well there could have been, but presumably at least one person whose not well inclined toward the government has read the whole thing after it was voted on, and it would have been pointed out.
Though, even though I'm the kind of person who does read stuff like that, I haven't done it with the USA PATRIOT Act, so I can't say for sure.
Strictly speaking, one could argue you aren't allowed to seed a Ubuntu ISO torrent unless (a) the ISO includes the source, (b) you are also seeding the source, or (c) you somehow manage to provide a written offer valid for 3 years to provide the source to anyone who downloads the torrent.
Of course, practically speaking, its pretty much impossible to enforce this requirement.
No you are wrong. The original poster is correct, only the copyright holder can sue you.
The original poster is wrong. Even though the downstream user is not a party to the contract requiring you to provide the source code (only the upstream distributor is—in the instance of the GPL contract that the downstream user may become a party to by accepting the GPL by, e.g., distributing the object/executable, they are required to provide the source code, you are not), they are what is, in law, called an intended beneficiary of the contract between the upstream provider of the GPL'd software and you and, as such, have legal rights to enforce the contract.
Of course, first sale distribution is legal without the consent of the original copyright owner. How does this fit in with the GPL? Can't I pass on my legally owned copy of GPL'd software for free without having to respect the GPL's source distribution clause?
I think you can probably pass on media you acquired already containing GPL'd software without complying with the GPL source distribution terms, particularly if you acquired the software without ever having agreed to the GPL as a condition of acquiring the physical copy.
So it would seem the major sticking point is the '3 years' thing.
No, the sticking point is the written offer part.
3a refers to distribution of the software and the source either together, or separately from the same source and by the same method with the source as an optional component.
3b refers to the distribution of the object/executable alone along with a written offer valid for at least three years to provide the source, on demand, at no charge except for actual cost of preparing and delivering the copy.
Most distributions use one of the two possible ways of complying with 3a, not the written offer in 3b. You can't use the 3c option to pass along a written offer given under 3b unless you have received a written offer under 3b.
Then you still have to provide the full source code for everything you are distributing, changed or not, unless the upstream distributor used the option in 3(b), which almost no major Linux distro does.
Now, maybe that's not the way the license should be, but its the way the license is.
That is, if you're giving the stuff away, it's good enough to simply point them back to the original source you used to fetch the code
That's true if and only if you originally received a object/executable distribution with a written offer of source code under 3(b); if you received source code under 3(a), either as part of the package with the object/executable or provided from the same source as a separate, optional downloaded, you haven't received a written offer under 3(b), and can't yourself pass on that offer under 3(c).
Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.
Actually, technically, that's pretty clearly not right; if the upstream distributor didn't use the written offer option in 3(b), which most don't, you can't use the 3(c) option to pass on that written offer—as 3(c) is expressly limited to passing on a written offer received under 3(b)—since you never received such an offer; you are, therefore, obligated to either provide the source code (under 3(a)) or provide a written offer, valid for at least three years, to whoever you give the object/executable software to that you will provide the source code, at your cost (under 3(b)).
that only applies to written offers to supply the source code at cost in physical form.
The phrase "physical form" does not appear in the relevant section of the GPL, the language there is "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That extends far beyond physical form; it does require a written offer, however, which may or may not be problematic ("written" can include fixed information in electronic form; whether it does or not in the GPL probably depends on which jurisdiction's law the licenses is interpreted under.)
Some people just don't get it. Perhaps the earth is supposed to get warmer.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps human civilization isn't supposed to continue. Ultimately I for one don't care much about supposed to. There are rather serious consequences for us if the earth does continue its current—and unprecedented in the history of human civilization—rapid and accelerating warming.
I don't mind at all that people are researching potential ways to prevent those disastrous consequences before they materialize. Some of them might have unintended consequences, but that's more, rather than less, reason to investigate them as far in advance of the need to implement as is possible.
Why is it the same people who love evolution are the same people who want to keep everything the same?
Its not about "loving" evolution. People who acknowledge the demonstrated reality of evolution are, however, unsurprisingly also likely to recognize that drastic changes in environment can be very bad for life forms that are very successful in the old environment.
OTOH, people that believe in invisible fairies devoted to protecting them from all material harm as long as they clap hard enough—a kind of immature religious faith that is sadly common in the US—are prone to ignore the facts and just ask everyone else to just clap harder.
I was including the hinting, kerning, etc., as part of the "to a digital font" process, since those are all parts of the font program, but, yes, I agree that those are the hard parts.
The BSA works with software publishers; if they'd been accused of having specific pirated software by an ex-employee, the "potential gain" is that the audit was probably recommended as a an alternative to suffering through a lawsuit and a bunch of court orders to produce records, and potentially much greater penalties in court for copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
...highlight this example to launch a campaign to get laws passed that create liability for harm inflicted by software timebombs like this. Sure, sure, software companies may be entitled to compensation for uses of their software beyond the license, but if their time bomb inflicts greater harms than the compensation for which they would be entitled, then the compensation ought to flow the other way.
People have legal remedies in cases like this; they should not be permitted to use them as an excuse for cybervigilanteism. And this is the kind of thing that is more likely to resonate with the average lawmaker or voter than the kind of software timebombs that may be nearer and dearer to the hearts of the average /.er ...
...isn't so much that "open source software is complex" (e.g., any individual Linux system is more complex than any individual Windows system), but that, for instance, the range of things covered by the label "Linux" is far more diverse than the range of things covered by the label "Windows", so its harder for someone to develope the knowledge to say with credibility that they can support "Linux" than it is to develope the same knowledge with respect to "Windows".
Which is pretty clearly true; but its just as true, if not moreso, if you want to say you support "Unix" compared to "Windows"; it has nothing to do with "open source", per se, or complexity of software. It has to do with supporting more different things, and "Linux", without further specification, is more different things than "Windows".
The Sims 2 probably suffers from the fact that it was a sequel too soon; there was a lot of commercial life left in The Sims (particularly as its hardware requirements had stopped being cutting edge), and The Sims 2, while it added a lot of core functionality, also required a lot more to run, and the franchise appeals to a demographic that isn't, otherwise, necessarily the kind that is going to have cutting edge hardware.
But The Sims 2 is hardly unsuccessful.
By not using IE. Its not that hard; I have IE on both of my PCs at home, but the only thing I ever use it for is accessing Windows Update. (If I had another IE-only site I had to access—I've encountered a few in the past though they seem to be getting rarer at least for things I need—I'd use it for them, too.)
Ah, I see the problem. You think that "people" is an alias for "web developers".
IME, if you get the street number right, there is a non-negligible probability that the postal service will deliver to a different, usually nearby, address anyway, particularly if the intended address is in a location with a common cluster of mailboxes.
The idea that a incorrect (but valid) address gets the mail automagically returned by the Postal Service is, nice as it sounds, wrong.
uh, no. The PS3 is backwards compatible with games, too.
Anyone that wants PDF or Blogging from Word probably has that without 2007.
Strictly speaking, one could argue you aren't allowed to seed a Ubuntu ISO torrent unless (a) the ISO includes the source, (b) you are also seeding the source, or (c) you somehow manage to provide a written offer valid for 3 years to provide the source to anyone who downloads the torrent.
Of course, practically speaking, its pretty much impossible to enforce this requirement.
No, the sticking point is the written offer part.
3a refers to distribution of the software and the source either together, or separately from the same source and by the same method with the source as an optional component.
3b refers to the distribution of the object/executable alone along with a written offer valid for at least three years to provide the source, on demand, at no charge except for actual cost of preparing and delivering the copy.
Most distributions use one of the two possible ways of complying with 3a, not the written offer in 3b. You can't use the 3c option to pass along a written offer given under 3b unless you have received a written offer under 3b.
Most
Then you still have to provide the full source code for everything you are distributing, changed or not, unless the upstream distributor used the option in 3(b), which almost no major Linux distro does. Now, maybe that's not the way the license should be, but its the way the license is.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps human civilization isn't supposed to continue. Ultimately I for one don't care much about supposed to. There are rather serious consequences for us if the earth does continue its current—and unprecedented in the history of human civilization—rapid and accelerating warming.
I don't mind at all that people are researching potential ways to prevent those disastrous consequences before they materialize. Some of them might have unintended consequences, but that's more, rather than less, reason to investigate them as far in advance of the need to implement as is possible.
Its not about "loving" evolution. People who acknowledge the demonstrated reality of evolution are, however, unsurprisingly also likely to recognize that drastic changes in environment can be very bad for life forms that are very successful in the old environment.
OTOH, people that believe in invisible fairies devoted to protecting them from all material harm as long as they clap hard enough—a kind of immature religious faith that is sadly common in the US—are prone to ignore the facts and just ask everyone else to just clap harder.
I was including the hinting, kerning, etc., as part of the "to a digital font" process, since those are all parts of the font program, but, yes, I agree that those are the hard parts.