If Joe's purchased a support contract from Fred that shares Joe's liability with Fred, then is Fred's software REALLY free (as in beer)?
Sure, the software is free. Joe purchased, essentially, a guarantee against certain kinds of liability (presumably, bundled with an agreement to provide some other support related to the software, like on-site or telephone technical support, not provided to general users of the FOSS software.)
Software can be free (in both the libre and gratis senses), and people can still charge money for services related to the software.
If, as a consequence of this FOSS stops being free-as-in-beer, doesn't that function as a FOSS killer?
Businesses buy commercial support contracts for FOSS all the time, both from the packagers of the software and from third parties providing professional services. It hasn't killed FOSS yet, indeed, its one of the things that makes FOSS a profitable concern with support from major companies.
So, no, I don't think that, if your hypothetical scenario came to pass, it would kill FOSS.
It may still be free-as-in-air, but at the end of the day, does that really matter to anyone other than RMS?
"Free-as-in-air"?
Since a vendor's going to be providing support, they're not about to let Sue Random contribute to the project, since they're potentially going to be held liable for any defects in Sue's changes.
Clearly, vendors providing that kind of commercial support to the kind of business customers that would require it (not all FOSS users are in that category) would thoroughly test whatever it was they were distributing, just as a commercial software vendor would (then again, commercial FOSS packagers that sell commercial support contracts probably do that now).
But I don't see that stopping community contributions.
Software should be developed to run on numerous platforms from day one.
From the point of view of a consumer who isn't a Windows fan, sure.
OTOH, from the point of view of a company trying to make money selling software, that doesn't make a lot of sense given the lopsidedness of the market if it involves any sacrifice at all in terms of quality of product or cost to develope.
I don't know about buying Nintendo, but I think that developing an entertainment console (games, sure, but build in iTunes and other Apple media technologies, too) and making it easy to port back to the OS X computer line from the console might be a sane, if expensive and somewhat risky, strategy for Apple to boost their OS's position as a gaming platform, and perhaps more generally.
It would be nice if, for example, developers would use OpenGL more often considering it's actually the only reasonably cross-platform 3d API that has fairly widespread acceptance.
So? Given the dominance of Windows, why would rational, profit-maximizing game developers focus on OpenGL (and finding some combination of other cross-platform libraries for sound, input, network abstraction, etc.) rather than just using DirectX, which covers more than just the graphics, and virtually everyone willing to spend money on games can use?
Sure, it would be nice if they'd develop in a cross-platform way -- I'd love to be able to play my favorite PC games on Linux rather than Windows. But what's in it for them?
Taking some liberties on the specifics, once you're charged with a felony (like possession of marijuana?), in the US you are no longer allowed to vote.
Convicted, not charged with. Big difference
And, I believe, in most states your rights can be restored after you've served your sentence, though there are exceptions.
It's not going to find everything, let alone fix it.
OTOH, it may find plenty of things that would otherwise be missed. Of course, people will misuse it some times and blame the results on the software. That's not a reason to think the software is a bad idea -- its not like not having automated validation software will stop people from doing inadequate QA, or poor design.
Neglegence should never be a factor when you're discussing civil liability. You see, there is this thing called personal responsibility.
That's an odd idea. Negligence is all about personal responsibility; its about liability for harm caused when you fall short of a legal duty, regardless of intent to cause harm.
Criminal liability is another matter.
I would think most people would find intent to be more important when it comes to criminal law, and negligence (though still sometimes relevant) would be less important in criminal law than in civil law.
From what I'm reading it looks like these programs preform all sorts of different executions, thats great and all, but they probably dont behve like real people do. The average user isn't going to create a file and then (in the middle of that) start running the delete file interface. Also I doubt these tests include other common user issues (like clicking the same function over and over again if it doesn't respond immedietly). Maybe I'm just not understanding what these do... but if I'm even half right, real world tests are the way to go.
Why is it either/or?
Automated testing ideally allows you to eliminate whole classes of problems before you get to testing with human users -- which should make your final testing, with real world conditions and human users, more productive.
Joe's customers realize that they're seeing fraudulent charges on their credit cards and they turn around and sue Joe for damages (which they can do with this new theoretical law).
No the software vendor liability law -- Joe's not selling them software.
They might be able to sue him under other laws dealing with protection personal information.
Joe's bookshop has incurred REAL liability that they can't pass onto Fred, because they don't have a contractual relationship with Fred.
In the presence of a law that allowed for the collection of damages from vendors, there's no way that Joe's lawyers would allow Joe to use Fred's package, because it would leave Joe holding all the liability for damages with no way of passing them on to the actual culprit.
So Joe will instead switch to a non FOSS package so that they can at least share the liability.
Or they'll purchase a support contract from Fred (or some third party) for Fred's GPL cart, in which Fred (or the third party) undertakes to be liable equally as if he were a software vendor; its hardly as if such commercial support contracts for FOSS software are unheard of.
There's no reason in the world why the same format couldn't be used for both applications.
Indeed. As I said previously: "Of course, it might be better if documents were delivered in a convenient XML format with link to appropriate on-screen and printing stylesheets, and rendered by a good FO-aware rendering system, but for some reason FO browsers don't seem to have taken off."
Simply have the PDF reader application view documents by screen pages (without showing the blank section with page numbers, etc), and when you print the document, have it print out the PDF format as we see it, with distinct pages, page headings and page numbers.
Sure, if you use a format that isn't inherently page-centric but has information to render well in a page-centric format -- which, though I'm not all that familiar with the format internals, as best I know PDF isn't, but you could easily do with XML and appropriate stylesheets, particularly using FOs -- you could do that. In fact, that's what I said previously "might be better".
None of that enhances the viewing experience on the screen, so you can leave it out while viewing and insert it when you print.
I don't agree with you that pagination, etc., doesn't enhance screen viewing experience; I find two-page side-by-side PDF viewing a lot easier and more appealing to work with than long continuously scrolling documents.
Of course, my main computer has a pretty good size monitor, too.
First of all, why are you comparing an unobtrusive RFID chip with a 'tattoo on your forehead'? That's a specious comparison.
Because there is no such thing as "unobtrusive RFID".
RFID chips can be read, generally, from far beyond their nominal range with the right equipment, and if you start putting identifying chips in people, whether legal or not, technology to read the personal information on them for a variety of purposes will be developed, and will spread.
I certainly won't argue with the fact that most pedophiles come from within the family, but all you have to do is run a quick "Megan's Law" search of your zip code to see the number of sex offenders in you area.
Yes, so? That number is certainly dwarfed by the number of people guilty of other violent crimes against the person in the same area, though, of course, that number isn't as easy to see.
Now out of the few hundred you see within a few miles of your house, how many are pedophiles?
Judging from crime stats from the BJS probably somewhere in the loose neighborhood of about 1 in 8 are any type of pedophile, and as noted upthread, far fewer than that are pedophiles that pose any more risk than any random person on the street to anyone outside of their own immediate family.
Want to know where these guys are?
I'm an information junkie. I want to know everything. That doesn't mean that it is actually socially desirable to establish controls on society that serve that desire.
Your assert much in your argument. You have nothing to support there is a difference between a pedophile that molest someone in their family vs an outsider.
I've seen quite bit of research on the topic, mostly in dead tree form; but it wasn't in the last couple of years, and I don't have it handy. Which is why I said "IIRC".
They are only contained. We have laws that require them to remain so far from public places where kids stay (not open for debate). GPS tracking ensures this.
No, it doesn't, for the same reason -- illusion of security provided by "Megan's Law" databases notwithstanding -- legal registration requirements don't actually ensure that police actually know where offenders live.
Do you REALLY think that's wrong?
I think that various indicators of social alienation have been linked to increased recidivism of molestors, and that "scarlet letter" approaches of all kinds that are certain to increase social alienation may be necessary and useful, but need to be well-considered and carefully and selectively applied considering effectiveness, characteristics of the particular offender, and potential adverse consequences.
So, yeah, I think much of the mindless blanket approach taken to sexual offenders is poorly thought-out, reflexive, and counterproductive, and that universal GPS monitoring of sex offenders would fall into that category, as well.
All software carries that notice, non-OSS and OSS. Windows carries a similar notice.
This is because the UCITA excludes software from most forms of liability.
Actually, lots of products carry such notices, whether or not they are legally protected from liability. To the extent that there are warrantees are guarantees imposed by law that are not waivable, such notices have no effect -- indeed, I'd say one of the major purposes of the notices is discourage suits by people who have legitimate and legally enforceable claims by making them believe they have no recourse.
Free software would not face any liability since it's marketed as FREE. You can only sue for the amount you paid.
That's one possibility. Another possibility is liability for damages resulting from the defect; liability for damages from defective products is not generally limited to the purchase price.
When, as a society, did we get the idea that when bad things happen to us somebody else should pick up the tab?
Where that someone else both bears some responsibility for causing the "bad thing", and profited from its relationship to causing the "bad thing", I think that's an idea our society has had for quite a long time. Why do you ask?
I like that when people use GNU/Linux, they're reminded that it feels good to share and collaborate.
I don't share and collaborate any more when I use Linux than when I use Windows, and the good feelings I get using Linux compared to Windows have nothing to do with the feeling of sharing and collaborating.
I don't think I'm all that atypical, in that respect, of people who use Linux and do or have used Windows.
Very often, if not usually, there is no vendor with free sofware, so vendor liability wouldn't affect it at all (it might make commercial software more attractive, since there would be someone to sue for bugs, OTOH, it would make it less attractive to make commercial software.)
With free software, very often the user acquires it from someone other than the creator, and gives no consideration of any kind to either the distributor or the creator to acquire or use the software. Often, a contract is created, if at all, only when the person who acquired the software decides to distribute the software, and even then, the consideration (in terms of limitations accepted by the new distributor) is in exchange for the right to distribute, not the right to possess or use, the software.
'...the story itself can only tolerate a certain amount of improbability before the credibility budget is exhausted, and the story is ruined.' According to this new law, named after Ken Perlin, who gave birth to the concept, games should not be infinitely wide-ranging or allow the player to do anything he wants."
This seems to conflate two very different ideas, one of which is obvious, the other seems misguided. Clearly, if there are no constraints at all on what players can do, that's going to strain credibility, in and of itself (at least, if complete freedom isn't limited to a special distinct mode designed for editing the environment rather than intended for "playing the game").
But I don't see how an increasing scope is countradindicated, so long as items in the game are designed for credible behavior and reaction. Sure, infinitely wide ranging requires infinite programming to create credible behavior, but its a nonsense limit anyway, since you'd need an infinitely powerful computer to run the game, and infinite media capacity to deliver it, anyhow. "You shouldn't do things that are impossible" isn't really a necessary warning.
I actually think it's one of the few applications that make sense for GPS/RFID tracking -- pedophiles. There are a number of good reasons for this -- most centered on the inability of pedophiles to get within a certain distance of schools/other places with small children.
By far the majority of sexual abuse of children comes from people who are within the family and abuse exclusively within the family. IIRC, its also true that by far the vast majority of convicted pedophiles are of this type, and that the research suggests that that type of pedophile is very unlikely to change into the kind that molests outside of the family.
So, no, as much as the popular media image of molestation makes this sound reasonable because of the perception that child sexual abuse is mostly something done by roving strangers and that pedophiles are a largely undifferentiated group that is universally dangerous to all of society, I wouldn't really agree that this is all that much of a "reasonable use".
Before you go all "1984" on our asses, take a moment to stop and realize that this is the company that SELLS THE CHIPS making the proposal, NOT the government.
Yeah, and its a good thing that we have a government that weighs civil liberties heavily, rather than being swayed by the self-serving suggestions of deep-pockets interests lobbying them with ideas that would, also, enhance the governments ability to monitor and control the population.
What's really annoying is that there is absolutely no point to implement the concept of a "page" on the screen.
Perhaps not, if you are distributing something solely for onscreen viewing -- unless its a presentation, in which case screen "pages" still make sense -- but you need some concept of a page if you want something that is going to look good if someone decides to print it. Which is, after all, largely the point of using PDF, even if each individual user may be unlikely to print each individual PDF.
Of course, it might be better if documents were delivered in a convenient XML format with link to appropriate on-screen and printing stylesheets, and rendered by a good FO-aware rendering system, but for some reason FO browsers don't seem to have taken off.
There should be a continuous flow like a HTML document.
Why? If I want to use something with continuous flow like an HTML document on the Web, wouldn't I just use HTML?
Because the navigation is based on "pages", which do not map very well to pages on the screen (at least with readable font sizes), it's a royal pain to read the document on the screen.
Actually, it maps really well to pages on the screen on my monitor, even without rotating it into portrait orientation.
And how often do you print a PDF, versus how often you view it on the screen?
Enough that I'd be upset if everyone started using HTML or something else that didn't format for print as well as PDF.
They better sue Openoffice.org and every other piece of software out there that exports to PDF before the whole industry sees through their hypocrisy.
Even assuming that there is any truth to Microsoft's fear of suit from Adobe (a rather large assumption), since when is it hypocritical to only sue the monopolist for antitrust violations?
Maybe because Apple isn't as interested in making up spurious FUD to make people wary of PDF as Microsoft is, since Apple isn't getting ready to push a PDF-alternative technology.
Or maybe isn't a monopoly that would be as easily targetable by anti-trust suits.
Either would explain why only Microsoft, and not Apple, is whining that Adobe might sue them, even though Adobe hasn't, even in their own claims, threatened to sue them, for antitrust over bundling PDF creation capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about buying Nintendo, but I think that developing an entertainment console (games, sure, but build in iTunes and other Apple media technologies, too) and making it easy to port back to the OS X computer line from the console might be a sane, if expensive and somewhat risky, strategy for Apple to boost their OS's position as a gaming platform, and perhaps more generally.
Very often, if not usually, there is no vendor with free sofware, so vendor liability wouldn't affect it at all (it might make commercial software more attractive, since there would be someone to sue for bugs, OTOH, it would make it less attractive to make commercial software.) With free software, very often the user acquires it from someone other than the creator, and gives no consideration of any kind to either the distributor or the creator to acquire or use the software. Often, a contract is created, if at all, only when the person who acquired the software decides to distribute the software, and even then, the consideration (in terms of limitations accepted by the new distributor) is in exchange for the right to distribute, not the right to possess or use, the software.
This seems to conflate two very different ideas, one of which is obvious, the other seems misguided. Clearly, if there are no constraints at all on what players can do, that's going to strain credibility, in and of itself (at least, if complete freedom isn't limited to a special distinct mode designed for editing the environment rather than intended for "playing the game").
But I don't see how an increasing scope is countradindicated, so long as items in the game are designed for credible behavior and reaction. Sure, infinitely wide ranging requires infinite programming to create credible behavior, but its a nonsense limit anyway, since you'd need an infinitely powerful computer to run the game, and infinite media capacity to deliver it, anyhow. "You shouldn't do things that are impossible" isn't really a necessary warning.
Yeah, and its a good thing that we have a government that weighs civil liberties heavily, rather than being swayed by the self-serving suggestions of deep-pockets interests lobbying them with ideas that would, also, enhance the governments ability to monitor and control the population.
Nope, nothing to worry about here at all.
Maybe because Apple isn't as interested in making up spurious FUD to make people wary of PDF as Microsoft is, since Apple isn't getting ready to push a PDF-alternative technology. Or maybe isn't a monopoly that would be as easily targetable by anti-trust suits. Either would explain why only Microsoft, and not Apple, is whining that Adobe might sue them, even though Adobe hasn't, even in their own claims, threatened to sue them, for antitrust over bundling PDF creation capabilities.