Uhhh... that's not how it works. The license only "counts" for the module if you provide some sort of Drupal+modules package. Modules still must include it to be properly licensed when distributed alone. If it is considered a bug, you need better license people... which would not surprise me, considering I know one of Drupal's so-called license experts, who seemed unable to discern what exactly the Creative Commons was all about.
"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."
In case you are unable to use your browser's search function - I can understand the intellectually challenged might have problems with that:
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
"If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain"
All works are automatically copyrighted, notice or not. It is not a defense to claim you did not know. All works are copyrighted UNLESS placed into the public domain. That requires a disclaimer. The only argument might be that he didn't originally write, which is very iffy, and probably isn't going to fly in court.
In fact, if there are no notices, it is probably not GPL'd. Which is an interesting problem in itself...
"No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing."
False. The source must be distributed if it is changed. Otherwise, it is not your responsibility. He was right, you are not.
Anyway, this is a Drupal module for heaven's sake, AKA a PHP script. It is source. I'm wondering if you have any idea what you're talking about, or just felt like knee-jerking some.
"If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down."
...or, don't, because using the GPL, if the guy actually did, gives gives this person the legal right to sell it, and he will be laughed out of court.
I buy very good mouses. My latest one is very vast, and has a polynomial speed curve, so I can aim quickly and accurately. This gives me an edge over others - but is it dishonest? I do not even buy good mouses for that purpose, I do for graphical design; should I have to downgrade to the level of others?
Situations aren't as black and white as people want to make them. MMOs are designed to suck up time, either to cost the players more money directly (subscription games) or encourage them to spend more ("hey, look at my hat, it only cost 20$!" while grinding). I don't play these games because of that, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't feel it in any way wrong to use a bot.
Cheating on fluff classes I am inclined to not care about, either. The education system is screwed up and needs fixed badly enough that people stuck in it now should be using whatever means they can to get through and get the piece of paper entitling them to be some kind of magically upstanding citizens (regardless of actual skill or knowledge). Again, I never cheated on tests, but I wouldn't necessarily vilify those who do. If cheating on a meaningless test makes the difference for someone between flipping burgers and having a fairly good job, I can't possibly fault them for it, and I think you'd be hard pressed to do so, even. Maybe if the system weren't broken it would be different, but I just see bigger ethical and moral issues in the world than that.
You basically have to draw the line somewhere, and a lot of people, you seemingly included, take whatever some authority figure has defined it as for you as gospel. That's bad; bad for you, and bad for society, because it leads to a false sense of ethics and ultimately double standards. Somewhere between buying a better computer mouse and using steroids in the Olympics you need to define a line, a line which probably isn't where the group mentality placed it for you.
I've seen Vibram on a large number of these lists, but have been unable to find an actual citation for them supporting SOPA. I could really use it as I would like to send it to a barefooting blog. If they really are supporting SOPA, which seems likely given how they are a minor patent troll, their customers need to know.
"Tyranny of the majority" is when a large group oppresses a small group, rather than a small group oppress a large group (the norm). I am not inclined to call this by that name, because the size of the sample has no bearing: pretty much everyone who is irrational is susceptible. Further, it is disingenuous to call the people involved this a majority.
More generally, a tyranny of the majority is preferable to a tyranny of the minority. What we seem to have politically is a setup where the majority believes that what is good for the minority is good for them, which allows people to generally agree on how to screw themselves over. I'd rather have a tyranny of either one group than both simultaneously.
I agree. I find it hilarious how many people here were about ready to hang anyone who didn't get vaccinated, and yet GM paranoia seems the norm. Tiny chance a disease might spread and infect them vs. relative certainty of ecological damage if we went off GM entirely. One has to wonder if reason plays any part in this process.
Imaginary property is such a prevalent problem, it isn't really worth tilting at the GM windmill over. Ultimately it can only fix a symptom of that problem. If it bothers you, attack the source: patents and copyright.
People have irrational fears of GMO. Labeling things to so they can "know what they are buying" is essentially misinforming them further, since they'll act on their irrational fears to the disservice of the rest of us (more farm land use, higher prices, etc).
Information is fine when people can be assumed to act rationally on it, but rarely can they. Same reason the government keeps things that might be scary secret: mass panic.
Until someone actually has some proof GMO foods are dangerous (or, indeed, different in any meaningful way), they should NOT be labeled. It just feeds irrational fears and is not good public policy.
Most games today loaf on CPU, and really, games are the only place most people care about speed that intently. The real benefits come from overclocking the video card, but those are clocked very close to their maximum safe speeds these days. When it's not an uncommon thing for factory clocked cards to begin overheating, there just isn't much room to work in.
"You fools -- you let the terrorists win. You let them change you at the heart and soul of what the country used to be about."
No, not really. We were cowards pretty much since the Civil War. We only ended up joining the two world wars when we thought they might go a way that would hurt us, but in both cases after they had already been largely decided by others. The cold war saw the red scare, which was actually far worse than "the war on terror," with the government shamelessly locking up people for saying the wrong thing. At least now they have the courtesy to lie about it.
Vigilantes have no regard for the law. The law is not their concern.
And yet you do not question why this is, and go on to call them "kids who jumped onto the bandwagon for fun or to revolt." Ever think maybe this is a legitimate response to a government that does not respect the rights of anyone but the filthy rich?
If the laws were not made to protect me and people like me, I have no respect for them. It is as simple as that.
You're right that if SOPA is passed, it will lead to more of this. It will because that would prove we have passed the point where talking and voting works, and now we must move on to other means before the country becomes worse. Further, it will be the unquestionable duty of every single American, or even people from other countries affected, to disrespect laws like SOPA.
I wasn't specific on the means of changing the situation because I don't really consider the means important. If you truly have no other option, I am sure you have heard the old saying about which order to use the provided boxes in. If you want to change the situation, change it, by whatever methods are available. Complaining and making rash generalizations like the GGP does nothing.
Excuse me? The sole purpose of the government is to serve the citizens by providing order and certain services. Read up on contract theory, you'll be shocked it isn't the middle ages anymore.
If government always works in favor of common citizens is a different matter, but your statement, "government does not exist to serve you," leads only two places: anarchy or a government you expect to only wrong you, and thus a lack of surprise or anger when it does. I consider neither of those options good, so I have to go with you being full of it. If the government is broken, fix it. Throwing up your hands and crying like a spoiled child does nothing.
But, by inserting parts they don't really want, and then removing them, they can pass the bill and end up being praised for their efforts at compromise and protecting the public... even though they sought to screw the public from the outset.
I don't get why it's so hard to understand that downloading a movie you didn't pay for is pretty much the same as walking out of a video store with a movie you didn't pay for.
Because it isn't really, unless you're trying to make a false equivalency to create an argument to stand in for a real one in favor of controlling information for profit.
The store purchased the copy of the movie (a bit of a simplification, but that's what it works out to). Stealing the movie means the studio profits and the store loses an equal amount. Money changed hands, and the store lost: that is why stealing the movie is a crime against the store, not the studio.
Piracy duplicates the movie. It does not remove anything from anyone along the line, other than a potential to make money. That is not the same as stealing, just as refusing to allow BMW to tattoo their logo on your forehead is not stealing from BMW. If it is right or not to pirate needs to be determined on the value of the idea of owning ideas, NOT on some made up analogy to theft. Trying to phrase the argument as such is dishonest and deceptive.
Aside from that, I haven't really got time to respond to people who lie to improve their position. I am tired of hearing the same old rhetoric I have disproved hundreds of times, and I think your using it destroys your credibility to a point it isn't worth debating further. I will quote myself:
...if you believe so, it is only because you either stand to profit from said censorship, or are a fool being misled by those who do.
Most likely, they will re-propose it under a new name, with some of the more outlandish clauses removed, and pass it with a super-majority. Basically, follow the original plan: ask for the universe, settle for the earth.
The issue here is threefold. First, that money is allowed to influence politics. As long as that is true, those without money lose - and lose constantly. Second, the idea that ideas can be property. Creating artificial forms of property has repeatedly proven to widen wealth disparity and harm society at large. The very idea of property is a problem, but physical property is a necessary evil. "Intellectual property" is not. We need to not be creating and extending this "intellectual property," but rather we need to be rolling it back or abolishing it. Third, that censorship is seen as a reasonable way to deal with people in other countries doing things that are illegal here. We all criticized China and Iran for censoring communications which were illegal in their countries; why is it suddenly alright when it is for the sake of American profit? Because it is not, and if you believe so, it is only because you either stand to profit from said censorship, or are a fool being misled by those who do.
the common public just don't "get it" and they know it
The public isn't supposed to get it. "Anonymous" claims to be a hacker organization largely to troll media outlets and politicians, and it works surprisingly well. Just proves how useless big media is at actually investigating. The fact you can just decide to be Anonymous at any given time, and then cease to be, is lost upon almost everyone who isn't Anonymous.
The whole point is arguably that "anonymous" strikes entirely randomly. If you do something dickish, there is always the chance you'll be targetted, which is probably more effective than hammering specific people for long periods of time.
Anyway, they/we can focus on some things. Ask the Scientologists.
You base all your argument on claims which are not substantiated, arguably countered by history, yet very common arguments for copyright. This is why I say copyright needs a real cost-benefit analysis it isn't getting.
Not that it matters. Copyright will end. If because people wake up to the immorality of owning ideas, or because the copyright laws become so intrusive they elect widespread outcry (we're seeing this already), it will end, and I think we'll be better off without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh... that's not how it works. The license only "counts" for the module if you provide some sort of Drupal+modules package. Modules still must include it to be properly licensed when distributed alone. If it is considered a bug, you need better license people... which would not surprise me, considering I know one of Drupal's so-called license experts, who seemed unable to discern what exactly the Creative Commons was all about.
"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."
Program -> Module.
...it is a Drupal module, which are programmed in PHP. The executable is the source.
It is rather convoluted; I partially misremembered that section. However, it is entirely irrelevant here, since PHP is source.
link
Troll elsewhere.
"If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain"
...or, don't, because using the GPL, if the guy actually did, gives gives this person the legal right to sell it, and he will be laughed out of court.
All works are automatically copyrighted, notice or not. It is not a defense to claim you did not know. All works are copyrighted UNLESS placed into the public domain. That requires a disclaimer. The only argument might be that he didn't originally write, which is very iffy, and probably isn't going to fly in court.
In fact, if there are no notices, it is probably not GPL'd. Which is an interesting problem in itself...
"No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing."
False. The source must be distributed if it is changed. Otherwise, it is not your responsibility. He was right, you are not.
Anyway, this is a Drupal module for heaven's sake, AKA a PHP script. It is source. I'm wondering if you have any idea what you're talking about, or just felt like knee-jerking some.
"If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down."
I buy very good mouses. My latest one is very vast, and has a polynomial speed curve, so I can aim quickly and accurately. This gives me an edge over others - but is it dishonest? I do not even buy good mouses for that purpose, I do for graphical design; should I have to downgrade to the level of others?
Situations aren't as black and white as people want to make them. MMOs are designed to suck up time, either to cost the players more money directly (subscription games) or encourage them to spend more ("hey, look at my hat, it only cost 20$!" while grinding). I don't play these games because of that, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't feel it in any way wrong to use a bot.
Cheating on fluff classes I am inclined to not care about, either. The education system is screwed up and needs fixed badly enough that people stuck in it now should be using whatever means they can to get through and get the piece of paper entitling them to be some kind of magically upstanding citizens (regardless of actual skill or knowledge). Again, I never cheated on tests, but I wouldn't necessarily vilify those who do. If cheating on a meaningless test makes the difference for someone between flipping burgers and having a fairly good job, I can't possibly fault them for it, and I think you'd be hard pressed to do so, even. Maybe if the system weren't broken it would be different, but I just see bigger ethical and moral issues in the world than that.
You basically have to draw the line somewhere, and a lot of people, you seemingly included, take whatever some authority figure has defined it as for you as gospel. That's bad; bad for you, and bad for society, because it leads to a false sense of ethics and ultimately double standards. Somewhere between buying a better computer mouse and using steroids in the Olympics you need to define a line, a line which probably isn't where the group mentality placed it for you.
Perhaps someone can help with this.
I've seen Vibram on a large number of these lists, but have been unable to find an actual citation for them supporting SOPA. I could really use it as I would like to send it to a barefooting blog. If they really are supporting SOPA, which seems likely given how they are a minor patent troll, their customers need to know.
"Tyranny of the majority" is when a large group oppresses a small group, rather than a small group oppress a large group (the norm). I am not inclined to call this by that name, because the size of the sample has no bearing: pretty much everyone who is irrational is susceptible. Further, it is disingenuous to call the people involved this a majority.
More generally, a tyranny of the majority is preferable to a tyranny of the minority. What we seem to have politically is a setup where the majority believes that what is good for the minority is good for them, which allows people to generally agree on how to screw themselves over. I'd rather have a tyranny of either one group than both simultaneously.
They cause trouble by protecting people, yes. How can we hope to keep functioning with all these trouble makers advocating human rights?
I agree. I find it hilarious how many people here were about ready to hang anyone who didn't get vaccinated, and yet GM paranoia seems the norm. Tiny chance a disease might spread and infect them vs. relative certainty of ecological damage if we went off GM entirely. One has to wonder if reason plays any part in this process.
Imaginary property is such a prevalent problem, it isn't really worth tilting at the GM windmill over. Ultimately it can only fix a symptom of that problem. If it bothers you, attack the source: patents and copyright.
People have irrational fears of GMO. Labeling things to so they can "know what they are buying" is essentially misinforming them further, since they'll act on their irrational fears to the disservice of the rest of us (more farm land use, higher prices, etc).
Information is fine when people can be assumed to act rationally on it, but rarely can they. Same reason the government keeps things that might be scary secret: mass panic.
Until someone actually has some proof GMO foods are dangerous (or, indeed, different in any meaningful way), they should NOT be labeled. It just feeds irrational fears and is not good public policy.
Most games today loaf on CPU, and really, games are the only place most people care about speed that intently. The real benefits come from overclocking the video card, but those are clocked very close to their maximum safe speeds these days. When it's not an uncommon thing for factory clocked cards to begin overheating, there just isn't much room to work in.
"You fools -- you let the terrorists win. You let them change you at the heart and soul of what the country used to be about."
No, not really. We were cowards pretty much since the Civil War. We only ended up joining the two world wars when we thought they might go a way that would hurt us, but in both cases after they had already been largely decided by others. The cold war saw the red scare, which was actually far worse than "the war on terror," with the government shamelessly locking up people for saying the wrong thing. At least now they have the courtesy to lie about it.
And yet you do not question why this is, and go on to call them "kids who jumped onto the bandwagon for fun or to revolt." Ever think maybe this is a legitimate response to a government that does not respect the rights of anyone but the filthy rich?
If the laws were not made to protect me and people like me, I have no respect for them. It is as simple as that.
You're right that if SOPA is passed, it will lead to more of this. It will because that would prove we have passed the point where talking and voting works, and now we must move on to other means before the country becomes worse. Further, it will be the unquestionable duty of every single American, or even people from other countries affected, to disrespect laws like SOPA.
I wasn't specific on the means of changing the situation because I don't really consider the means important. If you truly have no other option, I am sure you have heard the old saying about which order to use the provided boxes in. If you want to change the situation, change it, by whatever methods are available. Complaining and making rash generalizations like the GGP does nothing.
SOPA has everything to do with copyright. Copyright, however, also has everything to do with control.
Excuse me? The sole purpose of the government is to serve the citizens by providing order and certain services. Read up on contract theory, you'll be shocked it isn't the middle ages anymore.
If government always works in favor of common citizens is a different matter, but your statement, "government does not exist to serve you," leads only two places: anarchy or a government you expect to only wrong you, and thus a lack of surprise or anger when it does. I consider neither of those options good, so I have to go with you being full of it. If the government is broken, fix it. Throwing up your hands and crying like a spoiled child does nothing.
But, by inserting parts they don't really want, and then removing them, they can pass the bill and end up being praised for their efforts at compromise and protecting the public... even though they sought to screw the public from the outset.
Because it isn't really, unless you're trying to make a false equivalency to create an argument to stand in for a real one in favor of controlling information for profit.
The store purchased the copy of the movie (a bit of a simplification, but that's what it works out to). Stealing the movie means the studio profits and the store loses an equal amount. Money changed hands, and the store lost: that is why stealing the movie is a crime against the store, not the studio.
Piracy duplicates the movie. It does not remove anything from anyone along the line, other than a potential to make money. That is not the same as stealing, just as refusing to allow BMW to tattoo their logo on your forehead is not stealing from BMW. If it is right or not to pirate needs to be determined on the value of the idea of owning ideas, NOT on some made up analogy to theft. Trying to phrase the argument as such is dishonest and deceptive.
Aside from that, I haven't really got time to respond to people who lie to improve their position. I am tired of hearing the same old rhetoric I have disproved hundreds of times, and I think your using it destroys your credibility to a point it isn't worth debating further. I will quote myself:
Most likely, they will re-propose it under a new name, with some of the more outlandish clauses removed, and pass it with a super-majority. Basically, follow the original plan: ask for the universe, settle for the earth.
The issue here is threefold. First, that money is allowed to influence politics. As long as that is true, those without money lose - and lose constantly. Second, the idea that ideas can be property. Creating artificial forms of property has repeatedly proven to widen wealth disparity and harm society at large. The very idea of property is a problem, but physical property is a necessary evil. "Intellectual property" is not. We need to not be creating and extending this "intellectual property," but rather we need to be rolling it back or abolishing it. Third, that censorship is seen as a reasonable way to deal with people in other countries doing things that are illegal here. We all criticized China and Iran for censoring communications which were illegal in their countries; why is it suddenly alright when it is for the sake of American profit? Because it is not, and if you believe so, it is only because you either stand to profit from said censorship, or are a fool being misled by those who do.
The public isn't supposed to get it. "Anonymous" claims to be a hacker organization largely to troll media outlets and politicians, and it works surprisingly well. Just proves how useless big media is at actually investigating. The fact you can just decide to be Anonymous at any given time, and then cease to be, is lost upon almost everyone who isn't Anonymous.
The whole point is arguably that "anonymous" strikes entirely randomly. If you do something dickish, there is always the chance you'll be targetted, which is probably more effective than hammering specific people for long periods of time.
Anyway, they/we can focus on some things. Ask the Scientologists.
You base all your argument on claims which are not substantiated, arguably countered by history, yet very common arguments for copyright. This is why I say copyright needs a real cost-benefit analysis it isn't getting.
Not that it matters. Copyright will end. If because people wake up to the immorality of owning ideas, or because the copyright laws become so intrusive they elect widespread outcry (we're seeing this already), it will end, and I think we'll be better off without it.