What does SEARS need with this info? Honestly, this just smells bad. I won't call them evil just yet but this is pretty serious from a privacy POV.
Also, isn't it about time we push for a law that makes these privacy agreements shorter and in english (not legalese). One thing I like about CC is that they have a layman's terms version of all their licenses as well as the legalese ones. Not only would people be more likely to read them but it makes it hard for companies to bury important info several pages deep.
I realize that the layman's version would be long as heck but it's better then nothing (and people would STILL be more likely to read it since they can understand it without thinking to hard).
You are correct, I meant "fair use". Although I do believe ripping is entrenched, american law is wonky. If you break into a house, get hurt, sue the home owners, and win then I believe the RIAA can pass some BS like this. I hope not but I'm a cycnical guy.
Why not have better summaries from submitters who RTFA?
On topic, this is still bad. If the RIAA can get people to think rips are "unathorized" copies they will be able to disregard fair play soon. It's like watching a predator biding it's time and preparing for the right time to strike.
I like this idea but why not have the DAP do the compression? I say someone should start making chips that can be added to DAPs so that everyone has the "clean" version and the chip takes care of making it sound okay with earbuds. Also, you can shut it off if you have good headphones (and aren't in a subway or something like that).
If that gets standardized and becomes as prolific as SRS WoW or BBE or whatever, there wouldn't be as many problems.
Technically oriented families are the key words. Sure, nowadays everyone and their mother has a cheap computer to check MySpace or some other social network but it wasn't as obiquitous 10 years ago. The dot com boom changed that (IMO) but that doesn't mean there were computers everywhere. I was around 10 and the computers I used were at school (Macs but we hardly ever used them. Waste of school funds IMO since we couldn't use the new computers they got) and probably didn't get a PC till about a year or two later. Then it was AOL/IE (unless I was trying out a linuk distro) until Firefox and Opera.
You do bring up a good point, sir, but such is the world. The young never really appreciate what they have because they have it and always have. I've only really used Netscape as AOL's browser or from this SOlaris box I worked on. We must have come a long way beause that in no way shape or form felt like a good program (of course one was AOL and the other was running on SOlaris so my limited experience doesn't count for much). Either way, it's been dead for people for years now unless they happened to know AOL was Netscape.
Here's to hoping AOL dies soon.
But then it wouldn't be/.
I admit this works me up but at least it has some sensibilities in it. I believe that once you paid your debt to society you shouldn't have to be bothered anymore. If society believes they are still dangerous, keep them in jail. That's the point of jail, keeping the bad elements of society (if only politicians fell under this category legally) in a "safe" environment away from everyone else.
Also, what happens to the dude that meets someone online and doesn't know they are underaged. Wasn't exactly using "the internetz" as a weapon in that case.
Yes, because everyone that wasn't a fetus was online. My first computer was a 98SE (and Red Hat thanks to a "For Dummies" Book) and not exactly during Netscapes hayday. As a matter of fact, AOL is probably the most popular version of Netscape known (well, it's not known it's Netscape). 11 years is a long time and these past 11 years in particular have drastically changed the face of the net.
Like I said, I'm probably too young to care.
Seriously, not many nowadays ever used Netscape and those that did probably hated it (or hate it now). This is kinda interesting and all but isn't there more worthy news out there then the soon to be death of an old browser most people thought died years ago?
At this point, I don't care anymore. Really, is anyone actually bothered by this? Should've seen it comming though. This is a waste of my tax money. Hell, it would be worth it if they were transparent and we knew the reasons for all of these rules. This goes far below checking shoes for bombs and even not allowing nail clippers on board.
Whatever. Hopefully the next administration would bring some sense (*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*) to the US government.
I understand this point of view but I don't see it coming into play. You are correct. Not that it makes any sense. You are essentially saying that all copies have a license with terms to pick the terms of a BSD license or a GPL license. In essence, it's becoming the license who's terms you choose. If that's not the case, then the license becomes a BSD license since any GPL'd copies can be BSD'd and the GPL can't be used since the restriction added by the dual license (always allowing BSD). Either you're right, and dual licensing is pointless and illegal or you're wrong and the meta license is replaced by the license of choice. The latter is the wish of the original author but that doesn't mean it's legal or the correct interpretation.
IANAL
It's about sharing code because you want to and believe in it, rather than because you have to.
Key sentence. It's all up to the individual developers. The problem is this us and them mentality. It's up to the developers to choose their license and they choose BSD for certain reasons and GPL for others. It's not about not letting the original authors use the modifications as it is making sure it stays free. If the GPL was choosen, giving back defeats the purpose of choosing GPL. That said, many developers would give BSD developers a BSD license if asked (unless the developer is really paranoid about proprietary software stealing their code). Both licenses have their purposes. Both promote freedoms but differently. Code going from GPL to BSD allows it to be used in proprietary programs and defeats the purpose and philosophy of the GPL. The whole GPL against BSD thing is artificial and pointless. If you want to use GPL'd modifications, ask the author for a BSD license. You may get one, or you may not. If not, it's not because all GPL developers are selfish whores.
I say GPL and BSD developers but really, it's developers who prefer to use a license with a certain philosophy. Most devs will probably use the best license for the job.
Interesting points. QT actually has two(?) source trees and uses different licenses for each so it's not dual licensing (it's just giving people different licenses in a non personal fashion).
What this all boils down to is this:
Is the dual license perpetual or is it replaced by the GPL if you choose the GPL (the BSD license is a part of the dual license so you can't remove the choice of GPL)? If you don't choose the GPL, the license stays as is. If you do choose the GPL, then it *IS* replaced by the GPL. Under the GPL terms, section 4:
You may not copy, modify, sub-license, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sub-license or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
They can no longer use the terms of the original license as this would violate the terms of the GPL (basically it's fine until you try to do something allowed by BSD but not by GPL). As you were granted permission to distribute under the terms of the GPL, choosing the GPL terms invalidates the original license and it's GPL only or you don't accept the GPL. If you are not legally allowed to invalidate the dual license, you can not abide by the terms of the GPL and it's therefore not an option (please see section 7 of the GPL). I don't think this is a problem because allowing you the right to use the terms of the GPL in turn allows you the right to replace the original license if it's incompatible.
My brain is melting so I'm going to stop. Hopefully, I stayed focused long enough to get my point across.
Frankly, I would do just that. Dual licensing and licensing your code under two licenses isn't that same thing AFAIK. If everyone just makes multiple copies and uses one license for each, we wouldn't be having this problem.
This is exactly what I understand it to be. GPL section 6 states that the license comes from the original author. Whether that means a GPL license or Dual, I'm not sure but all this dual license discussion seems moot. This is completely allowed. As for stripping the BSD license from a NON dual licensed piece of code, that IS illegal.
Slight addendum. I'm assuming there's major modification (otherwise, this is moot). The GPL states that code you do not modify are licensed under the original licensor (most of the time, the original author and copyright holder) under section 6. In that sense, you can dictate my licensees on the parts I didn't modify. I don't feel like thinking too hard but it seems to me that they are receiving a GPL license from the original author, not a dual. Either way, they are bound by the GPL and only the GPL unless they get a BSD license from you and don't use my modifications.
No, you are completely wrong. You hold the copyright but that doesn't mean you can dictate the license globally. You can only dictate the license to people who license it FROM YOU. They in turn have the right to license (BSD and GPL allow this) they're copy (modifyied or not) according to the license they hold (or choose in the case of dual). If I license something from you and choose GPL, I can the license my modified program to others under the GPL. I am their licensor and you are mine. If they want a BSD license, they can get it from you or one of your licensees that choose BSD.
In reference to QT, if I don't want to use your GPL QT I can get a commercial license FROM QT. Not from you. As you don't hold the copyright, you can't change the license you received it under. If it's dual, you have to choose one or redistribute as dual.
You are the one who misunderstands. This is a discussion of licenses not copyright. You obviously can't tell the too apart. The GPL and BSD allow your licensees to sub-license. If you don't like that, as the copyright holder only license your code with a license that forbids sub-licensing and relicensing.
You didn't RTFA did you? Linus doesn't state that something is better then something else in absolute terms. It's his opinion and his opinion matters regardless of what you think. He will switch to GPLv3 if it suits him but he disagrees with the philosophy of GPLv3. I happen to agree with his decision but like him, I'll use it if it's practical. If you must know, one thing he dislikes about GPLv3 is the "No DRM" type clause. I agree that that's a bad clause but it's not a big deal. He focuses more on the technological side of things. Just because some fans follow his every word doesn't mean his word is worthless. Also, not everyone that happens agrees with him or respect his opinion is blindly following his word.
Re:Lots of linux stories on the front page
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 0
I think it was a joke. If not, I can't help but grin.
Only skimmed the article but it seems to be pushing Bastille more then anything else. Don't know of any installer that automagically starts services unless you specify them yourself. I'm pretty sure there are far better security tutorials and introductions. Better yet, your distro probably has one specifically for it. This seems more like advertising then anything useful. I could be wrong though.
I personally like Zelda the way it is. I believe that franchises should change a little but stay mostly the same. Why not just make a new world with new characters and new gameplay? Nintendo should be making new IPs instead of changing the old franchises. I would personally like the choice of having my favorite franchises stay the same but have new IPs created as well. There's no reason to always make more sequels to a franchise.
Slashdot Mirror
What does SEARS need with this info? Honestly, this just smells bad. I won't call them evil just yet but this is pretty serious from a privacy POV.
Also, isn't it about time we push for a law that makes these privacy agreements shorter and in english (not legalese). One thing I like about CC is that they have a layman's terms version of all their licenses as well as the legalese ones. Not only would people be more likely to read them but it makes it hard for companies to bury important info several pages deep.
I realize that the layman's version would be long as heck but it's better then nothing (and people would STILL be more likely to read it since they can understand it without thinking to hard).
You are correct, I meant "fair use". Although I do believe ripping is entrenched, american law is wonky. If you break into a house, get hurt, sue the home owners, and win then I believe the RIAA can pass some BS like this. I hope not but I'm a cycnical guy.
Why not have better summaries from submitters who RTFA?
On topic, this is still bad. If the RIAA can get people to think rips are "unathorized" copies they will be able to disregard fair play soon. It's like watching a predator biding it's time and preparing for the right time to strike.I like this idea but why not have the DAP do the compression? I say someone should start making chips that can be added to DAPs so that everyone has the "clean" version and the chip takes care of making it sound okay with earbuds. Also, you can shut it off if you have good headphones (and aren't in a subway or something like that). If that gets standardized and becomes as prolific as SRS WoW or BBE or whatever, there wouldn't be as many problems.
Technically oriented families are the key words. Sure, nowadays everyone and their mother has a cheap computer to check MySpace or some other social network but it wasn't as obiquitous 10 years ago. The dot com boom changed that (IMO) but that doesn't mean there were computers everywhere. I was around 10 and the computers I used were at school (Macs but we hardly ever used them. Waste of school funds IMO since we couldn't use the new computers they got) and probably didn't get a PC till about a year or two later. Then it was AOL/IE (unless I was trying out a linuk distro) until Firefox and Opera.
You do bring up a good point, sir, but such is the world. The young never really appreciate what they have because they have it and always have. I've only really used Netscape as AOL's browser or from this SOlaris box I worked on. We must have come a long way beause that in no way shape or form felt like a good program (of course one was AOL and the other was running on SOlaris so my limited experience doesn't count for much). Either way, it's been dead for people for years now unless they happened to know AOL was Netscape. Here's to hoping AOL dies soon.
But then it wouldn't be /.
I admit this works me up but at least it has some sensibilities in it. I believe that once you paid your debt to society you shouldn't have to be bothered anymore. If society believes they are still dangerous, keep them in jail. That's the point of jail, keeping the bad elements of society (if only politicians fell under this category legally) in a "safe" environment away from everyone else.
Also, what happens to the dude that meets someone online and doesn't know they are underaged. Wasn't exactly using "the internetz" as a weapon in that case.
WooHoo! I'm famous! On topic: Not like I missed much of an experience as far as I can tell.
Yes, because everyone that wasn't a fetus was online. My first computer was a 98SE (and Red Hat thanks to a "For Dummies" Book) and not exactly during Netscapes hayday. As a matter of fact, AOL is probably the most popular version of Netscape known (well, it's not known it's Netscape). 11 years is a long time and these past 11 years in particular have drastically changed the face of the net. Like I said, I'm probably too young to care.
Seriously, not many nowadays ever used Netscape and those that did probably hated it (or hate it now). This is kinda interesting and all but isn't there more worthy news out there then the soon to be death of an old browser most people thought died years ago?
Wow. I thought that was funny but, after I thought about it, I agree with you. That just makes me feel sad.
At this point, I don't care anymore. Really, is anyone actually bothered by this? Should've seen it comming though. This is a waste of my tax money. Hell, it would be worth it if they were transparent and we knew the reasons for all of these rules. This goes far below checking shoes for bombs and even not allowing nail clippers on board. Whatever. Hopefully the next administration would bring some sense (*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*) to the US government.
I understand this point of view but I don't see it coming into play. You are correct. Not that it makes any sense. You are essentially saying that all copies have a license with terms to pick the terms of a BSD license or a GPL license. In essence, it's becoming the license who's terms you choose. If that's not the case, then the license becomes a BSD license since any GPL'd copies can be BSD'd and the GPL can't be used since the restriction added by the dual license (always allowing BSD). Either you're right, and dual licensing is pointless and illegal or you're wrong and the meta license is replaced by the license of choice. The latter is the wish of the original author but that doesn't mean it's legal or the correct interpretation. IANAL
What this all boils down to is this:
Is the dual license perpetual or is it replaced by the GPL if you choose the GPL (the BSD license is a part of the dual license so you can't remove the choice of GPL)? If you don't choose the GPL, the license stays as is. If you do choose the GPL, then it *IS* replaced by the GPL. Under the GPL terms, section 4: They can no longer use the terms of the original license as this would violate the terms of the GPL (basically it's fine until you try to do something allowed by BSD but not by GPL). As you were granted permission to distribute under the terms of the GPL, choosing the GPL terms invalidates the original license and it's GPL only or you don't accept the GPL. If you are not legally allowed to invalidate the dual license, you can not abide by the terms of the GPL and it's therefore not an option (please see section 7 of the GPL). I don't think this is a problem because allowing you the right to use the terms of the GPL in turn allows you the right to replace the original license if it's incompatible.
My brain is melting so I'm going to stop. Hopefully, I stayed focused long enough to get my point across.
Frankly, I would do just that. Dual licensing and licensing your code under two licenses isn't that same thing AFAIK. If everyone just makes multiple copies and uses one license for each, we wouldn't be having this problem.
This is exactly what I understand it to be. GPL section 6 states that the license comes from the original author. Whether that means a GPL license or Dual, I'm not sure but all this dual license discussion seems moot. This is completely allowed. As for stripping the BSD license from a NON dual licensed piece of code, that IS illegal.
Slight addendum. I'm assuming there's major modification (otherwise, this is moot). The GPL states that code you do not modify are licensed under the original licensor (most of the time, the original author and copyright holder) under section 6. In that sense, you can dictate my licensees on the parts I didn't modify. I don't feel like thinking too hard but it seems to me that they are receiving a GPL license from the original author, not a dual. Either way, they are bound by the GPL and only the GPL unless they get a BSD license from you and don't use my modifications.
No, you are completely wrong. You hold the copyright but that doesn't mean you can dictate the license globally. You can only dictate the license to people who license it FROM YOU. They in turn have the right to license (BSD and GPL allow this) they're copy (modifyied or not) according to the license they hold (or choose in the case of dual). If I license something from you and choose GPL, I can the license my modified program to others under the GPL. I am their licensor and you are mine. If they want a BSD license, they can get it from you or one of your licensees that choose BSD. In reference to QT, if I don't want to use your GPL QT I can get a commercial license FROM QT. Not from you. As you don't hold the copyright, you can't change the license you received it under. If it's dual, you have to choose one or redistribute as dual. You are the one who misunderstands. This is a discussion of licenses not copyright. You obviously can't tell the too apart. The GPL and BSD allow your licensees to sub-license. If you don't like that, as the copyright holder only license your code with a license that forbids sub-licensing and relicensing.
Not really.
BSD: You can do what you want as long as they know it came from BSD.
Your point is still valid but I wanted to add that.
You didn't RTFA did you? Linus doesn't state that something is better then something else in absolute terms. It's his opinion and his opinion matters regardless of what you think. He will switch to GPLv3 if it suits him but he disagrees with the philosophy of GPLv3. I happen to agree with his decision but like him, I'll use it if it's practical. If you must know, one thing he dislikes about GPLv3 is the "No DRM" type clause. I agree that that's a bad clause but it's not a big deal. He focuses more on the technological side of things. Just because some fans follow his every word doesn't mean his word is worthless. Also, not everyone that happens agrees with him or respect his opinion is blindly following his word.
I think it was a joke. If not, I can't help but grin.
Only skimmed the article but it seems to be pushing Bastille more then anything else. Don't know of any installer that automagically starts services unless you specify them yourself. I'm pretty sure there are far better security tutorials and introductions. Better yet, your distro probably has one specifically for it. This seems more like advertising then anything useful. I could be wrong though.
Don't you mean "masochist"?
I personally like Zelda the way it is. I believe that franchises should change a little but stay mostly the same. Why not just make a new world with new characters and new gameplay? Nintendo should be making new IPs instead of changing the old franchises. I would personally like the choice of having my favorite franchises stay the same but have new IPs created as well. There's no reason to always make more sequels to a franchise.