or do 3) Distribute FireFox in nonfree, which is an ever important category for getting debian to as useful state as it is. Sensible end users get a usable system, zealots can suck it.
I would mod you insightful if I could. This has always puzzled me, too. Why couldn't Debian have just moved Firefox to one of the other categories? Could it really have been that hard? Was it just easier to cause a stink over this instead? Maybe somebody more familiar with the package system and the Debian bureaucracy could offer some insight.
Unless Firefox actively competes, they are going to get trampled.
Well that's easy to say, but how do you compete in the browser market? It seems like every new feature we see in Opera or Firefox is quickly copied by Microsoft in their IE betas, and also copied in the newest Opera and Firefox releases. How do you compete with that?
Since competition is often equated with innovation, I might as well bring this up: On a somewhat related note, are new features even what people want in a browser? I mean, Opera's mantra was once "faster, smaller" and even their products are starting to bloat in favor of added features. Aside from being an open source product and enjoying the benefits of that, the only thing that Firefox really has going for it these days is its modular design and extensibility (and even then some argue that "This should be included, it shouldn't be an extension!")
I suppose Mozilla could continue to rely on word-of-mouth advertising in addition to their promotional campaigns, but ultimately how do you overcome the fact that it's just easier for non-internet savvy people to use that big blue 'E' on their desktop that came with Windows?
"Last year, Transmeta laid off 67 employees in a restructuring plan aimed to focus more heavily on IP and the phase out its less profitable processors." (emphasis added)
Patent portfolio operation?!? Whatever do you mean??;-)
Eudora was always the next best alternative for people who didn't want to worry about obscene things like getting viruses just by looking at emails through the Outlook preview pane. For people who were stuck running Windows but savvy enough to know that there were other email clients out there besides Outlook, it was really ideal.
Fast-forwarding to the present: As Thunderbird slowly gains acceptance as an alternative email client in its own right (due in no small part to the continuing success of Firefox) the combination of Eudora and Thunderbird technologies could only help Eudora. If they want to ride Mozilla's coattails to greater acceptance in the email program marketplace, they are certainly welcome to do so. Every time a company adopts open source, an angel gets his wings.
Is it just unrealistic to believe that the work could be performed in the United States? Or is it a moot point anyway because (as humourously pointed out in another thread) the people working on it in that case would be Indians with work visas?
Is it the CEO's job to make sure that some one doesn't do something squiffy with their stock?
Yes.
I always thought that was the job of security/layers/other people, not the CEO.
Certainly, but blame is placed on the highest level manager anyway (no matter how fair or unfair it may be). In the same sense that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States can be held accountable for the actions of military personnel, the Chief Executive Officer can be held accountable for the actions of the people under him.
Doesn't the CEO come up with plans for how to make the company grow/turn a proffit/recover from a scandle?
Ideally, yes. But these people are independently wealthy and their interest in running the company tends to wane after the first problem crops up. Sometimes it's just helpful to turn a new page and start over with new officers when there's a scandal.
You couldn't be sensing a pattern because this isn't a problem with the board. If you read the article you'll find that the problems aren't in the board of directors. They're with executive level management appointed by the board (in this case, the President). If there had been a problem with the board, it would have been extremely strange. In public companies, board meetings literally are gatherings of shareholders who vote their shares on certain issues and also appoint or fire officers. Though it is almost always a Bad Idea [tm], with smaller companies some people can have dual roles as board members and as company managers. In the article, it says that George Samenuk was in just such a situation as the company's CEO and Chairman (kind of a big deal because both are important positions). But the stock-issue problems didn't involve him, he resigned because they occurred while he held those positions.
The problem is not that a board of directors was up to no good, it was that an officer of the company--President Kevin Weiss--was acting unilaterally and breaking all kinds of SEC rules by granting questionable stock options in the company.
It has been widely speculated that the destruction of either of those holy sites will signal the beginning of the next world war. In fact, some groups, such as certain factions of wacko, right-wing, Revelations-believing, Bush-loving Christians actively try to bring this about. The Temple of Solomon, the Holy Grail...no thanks, I'd rather just watch an Indiana Jones movie.
If they ever actually "take it all" and displace the native Palestinians, you'll know if by the refuge camps in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
I also find it funny that you posted as a coward and linked to the one post I've made in like the last 2 months where I'm just really discussing something instead of making a point about it. It is fun to just talk to people about certain subjects, you know? To exchange information in that fashion? They say something I wasn't aware of and I respond in kind.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have lawyer alcohol to consume while I watch a lawyer baseball lawyer game.
Well no, I'm not sure it's just case closed, end of story. In the same sense that companies tend to be concerned about hiring felons, people who use a unilaterally coded software program should be concerned if the person who coded the program is a murderer. My point was that if their character has been called into question, to rule out deliberately planted backdoors only because the code is open source is to ask for trouble.
Hey buddy, I wouldn't expect you to take the time, but if you read the parent to the post you linked to, you'll notice that the parent identified himself as a Jew, and I also did in my reply as an honest effort to establish common ground. Mentioning I was an attorney in the same breath was self-deprecating because of the old cliche (as in "oh a Jewish attorney, gosh how original). Plus, I'm not an IP lawyer--just a random asshole attorney who has done some IP work. And I stress some. IP law is like the end-all, be-all boutique thing to be doing. Frankly I'd like to do more. But there are certainly more knowledgeable, experienced people out there than I am.
Oh and to slam me based on my posting history? What is that? I come up with my fair share of good comments that contribute to the overriding discussion or at least brighten someone's day, so where's the harm in that?
If I'm right in general but in my replies fucking pounce on the most trivial of misstatements like it's the end of the world if they're not pointed out, then I apologize. It's how I spend my days and I'm not the best at separating work from play. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, that seems to be par for the course as far as/. postings go. Someone will say something meaningful, and then a veritable herd of posters will call him/her out with this "oh actually that one insignificant thing is not the case..." nonsense. So don't act like I'm some kind of oddity simply because I can couple good arguments with an insane, irrational impatience for dissent. At least the stick doesn't bother me much as long as I use enough KY. Later.
Great point, and yes it is a valid concern. While your question is "What happens to the code base?" I think the more germane question in this case is "Was the code base ever safe to use in the first place?"
Once that one person in charge of that one project fails a test of moral turpitude so badly that they murder somebody, where do you go from there? If that person has no respect for human life, what assurances does the community have that his software is made with respect to privacy, security, and so on? If somebody is out murdering others, what does that say about the safety of using their code?
---------- (note: And before somebody tells me "Yes, but it's open source", I'll say that I know for a fact that rather ingenious backdoors have been introduced into open source projects in the past. I'm going on memory--a cursory/. or Google search would reveal more info. Fortunately, as far as I know they were detected in an audit of the code. The potential for abuse is out there. )
I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
As punishment, you have been sentenced to having to wear eyeglasses, shorts and a false beard while you give speeches about free software for six (6) months.
I'm posting anonymously because I don't feel like being polite to you. The levels of arrogance and ignorance you just displayed is all the evidence I need to forgo niceties. I read your post and it was like reading the ramblings of a fucking crazy person.
First you claim this:
A lot of American corporate lawyers want to cause confusion between copyright and trademark law, by putting them both under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property", something which does not exist in law.
This just gets funnier every time I read it. I guess my first reaction was "Who the fuck are you?" That you would claim that IP doesn't exist is laughable. If you read the article you'll notice that it includes quotes from Larry Rosen, a well-known IP lawyer. Please email Mr. Rosen to tell him that his profession doesn't exist.
You go on:
Copyright and Trademarks are two entirely separate things.
I would like to introduce you to Jim. Jim here is Associate Manager of the Department of No Fucking Shit, Sherlock. Interestingly, do you know who originally confused the two? Fucking Debian is who--some asshole coder who thought he knew more about the law than lawyers decided it would be reasonable to confuse the two, and Debian's petty "stance" was borne.
Mozilla have a right to put whatever restrictions they like on the use of their trademarks, whatever license the code is released under.
This is a truthful but completely meaningless statement. Jim would like to talk to you about it.
Debian can call it IceWeasel (or even something less derogatory-sounding, if they so choose), but copyright and the MPL license mean that they can still use the code.
More meaningless filler that anybody who's been reading Slashdot for the last few weeks could have written. Jim is not pleased.
Then you wrote this glistening turd:
The big issue here, is that confusion about copyright vs trademarks is the result of a deliberate ploy by corporate America to confuse the public about "Intellectual Property" (IP) and "IP Rights" (IPR)
You made this all bold and everything, presumably because you thought it was important to do so. But I'm just stunned--your ignorance and failure is so astounding. Here's a shocker for you: the fucking "public" have no say or interest in this whatsoever, certainly not enough to even have "confusion" about copyrights vs. trademarks. It's a firm distinction that exists in the law (you know, in the field you think doesn't exist), and I daresay the distinction exists in the minds of this public you pretend to care so much about.
Perform this simple fucking test: Ask somebody of average intelligence over 40 years old which they think is copyrighted and which they think is trademarked, the Nike Swoosh or the contents of the newest Grisham novel?
So here's you, you pretended to have your thumb to the pulse of the "people" (whoever these fucking non-Debian dimwits might be) and claimed that there's some kind of fucking conspiracy afoot by Corporate America--and by Corporate America I think you mean companies who would dare diminish themselves and insult their customers by actually charging for their products. Oh exclamation point!
Again, where did this confusion occur, the one you think Corporate America created to confuse people who don't exist about what goes down in a field of law you think doesn't exist? It started in the mind of a non-lawyer coder who decided to start some shit with Mozilla because he didn't like the fact that Mozilla wanted to approve sloppy Debian patches before they went out.
Leave it to a Slashdot poster to pretend to know more about the law than fucking lawyers.
Yes, it's like the Cold War is happening all over again, only this time we're exporting crappy bands to Russia to undermine you. Oh wait, St. Petersburg FLORIDA?? I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's your penance for costing us the 2000 election?
By the way, I may be the only person around who has been to every city mentioned in the post. My favorite out of that group was probably Winston-Salem. I really felt like I was in flavor country.
Good points, AC. That is the other side of the story, of course. It was optimistically thought that neighboring Muslim nations would open their borders to the Palestinians, but many refused instead. Why? Because Palestinian dissent in the region undermines Israeli power. These people have no proper homes, few rights to speak of, and an axe to grind with Israel. So what do you want to hear? That neighboring Muslim nations deemed it more valuable to leave them close to Israel where they could cause trouble than to offer them citizenship and a new life within their borders? Of course that's the case. Brotherhood among fellow Muslims was disfavored over hurting Israel. So who is to blame? Those who created the problem or those who perpetuate it?
But really, that conundrum speaks to the fundamental problem in the Middle East: Nobody, not the U.N., not the U.S., not the British anticipated the level of anti-Jewish sentiment in the region when Israel was created. Any student of history or religion could have anticipated it--it's a distrust dating back to the days of Abraham and Isaac. But for some reason, be it ignorance or optimism, people thought it would work. It hasn't.
I'm a real-life Jew myself (and a lawyer no less, yeah I know..insert joke here), and I would be lying if said that I felt comfortable voicing my opinions on this subject in anything but the most anonymous of ways.
I like the way you argue. If you astutely noticed that I've omitted a few key details that would weaken my position and then also emphasized those details that would strengthen it, then, yeah...welcome to the world of rhetoric ;
To answer you more qualitatively, sure, most of the Middle East was arbitrarily created by European powers. Boundary lines were drawn often with little respect for cultural and ethnic similarities. But you're forgetting your time line: Most of those nations did exist before the creation of the Israeli nation-state. It's just a moot point, anyway. Even if you don't already consider the powers in the region religiously or ethnically unified rather than disparate, their universal hatred of Israel has provided the common enemy that they need to feel as brothers, at least with respect to this one issue.
I also don't think you're giving religious minorities their due here. For example, the minority Maronite Christians in Lebanon (a made-up nation created by the French, if you're keeping score...) were and still are key players in Lebanese politics for years, having much of the money and therefore influence in what was a young and untested political environment. Even after the Lebanese Civil War, it could be claimed that the Maronites still had a stranglehold on Lebanese politics.
I would like to think that I would have been one of the Jews going "You know, this just sounds like a bad idea..." when Israel was created. But alas, I wasn't alive then, and besides, I probably would have been on board with the idea at first anyway. As I pointed out earlier, genuine malice wasn't the goal in the creation of Israel. Of course it wasn't. Everyone thought that the Middle East situation would smooth out over time and that the Palestinians would find a place among the people with whom they shared a faith. Of course, that hasn't happened. I guess we could still be hopeful.
Slashdot Mirror
I would mod you insightful if I could. This has always puzzled me, too. Why couldn't Debian have just moved Firefox to one of the other categories? Could it really have been that hard? Was it just easier to cause a stink over this instead? Maybe somebody more familiar with the package system and the Debian bureaucracy could offer some insight.
Well no, Hans Reiser didn't do it. A one-armed man sent by a pharmaceutical company did it.
to avoid paying for a game. You'd think the judge could afford to just buy it when it comes out.
Well that's easy to say, but how do you compete in the browser market? It seems like every new feature we see in Opera or Firefox is quickly copied by Microsoft in their IE betas, and also copied in the newest Opera and Firefox releases. How do you compete with that?
Since competition is often equated with innovation, I might as well bring this up: On a somewhat related note, are new features even what people want in a browser? I mean, Opera's mantra was once "faster, smaller" and even their products are starting to bloat in favor of added features. Aside from being an open source product and enjoying the benefits of that, the only thing that Firefox really has going for it these days is its modular design and extensibility (and even then some argue that "This should be included, it shouldn't be an extension!")
I suppose Mozilla could continue to rely on word-of-mouth advertising in addition to their promotional campaigns, but ultimately how do you overcome the fact that it's just easier for non-internet savvy people to use that big blue 'E' on their desktop that came with Windows?
From the article:
;-)
"Last year, Transmeta laid off 67 employees in a restructuring plan aimed to focus more heavily on IP and the phase out its less profitable processors." (emphasis added)
Patent portfolio operation?!? Whatever do you mean??
This kind of stuff wouldn't be necessary if everyone just accepted how much better KDE is! Kidding, just kidding!
*runs away*
I know right. I felt dirty after typing that. It's technically true, though ;-)
Eudora was always the next best alternative for people who didn't want to worry about obscene things like getting viruses just by looking at emails through the Outlook preview pane. For people who were stuck running Windows but savvy enough to know that there were other email clients out there besides Outlook, it was really ideal.
Fast-forwarding to the present: As Thunderbird slowly gains acceptance as an alternative email client in its own right (due in no small part to the continuing success of Firefox) the combination of Eudora and Thunderbird technologies could only help Eudora. If they want to ride Mozilla's coattails to greater acceptance in the email program marketplace, they are certainly welcome to do so. Every time a company adopts open source, an angel gets his wings.
Is it just unrealistic to believe that the work could be performed in the United States? Or is it a moot point anyway because (as humourously pointed out in another thread) the people working on it in that case would be Indians with work visas?
Yes.
Certainly, but blame is placed on the highest level manager anyway (no matter how fair or unfair it may be). In the same sense that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States can be held accountable for the actions of military personnel, the Chief Executive Officer can be held accountable for the actions of the people under him.
Ideally, yes. But these people are independently wealthy and their interest in running the company tends to wane after the first problem crops up. Sometimes it's just helpful to turn a new page and start over with new officers when there's a scandal.
...some stinkers in the board?
You couldn't be sensing a pattern because this isn't a problem with the board. If you read the article you'll find that the problems aren't in the board of directors. They're with executive level management appointed by the board (in this case, the President). If there had been a problem with the board, it would have been extremely strange. In public companies, board meetings literally are gatherings of shareholders who vote their shares on certain issues and also appoint or fire officers. Though it is almost always a Bad Idea [tm], with smaller companies some people can have dual roles as board members and as company managers. In the article, it says that George Samenuk was in just such a situation as the company's CEO and Chairman (kind of a big deal because both are important positions). But the stock-issue problems didn't involve him, he resigned because they occurred while he held those positions.
The problem is not that a board of directors was up to no good, it was that an officer of the company--President Kevin Weiss--was acting unilaterally and breaking all kinds of SEC rules by granting questionable stock options in the company.
Hehe...I read that and I was like "Who in the heck is Andy Church?" and "I've got to treat this guy to a pint!" You rock, Mr. Church.
It's interesting you say that because most of them are in Lebanon. Does that count?
I also find it funny that you posted as a coward and linked to the one post I've made in like the last 2 months where I'm just really discussing something instead of making a point about it. It is fun to just talk to people about certain subjects, you know? To exchange information in that fashion? They say something I wasn't aware of and I respond in kind.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have lawyer alcohol to consume while I watch a lawyer baseball lawyer game.
Well no, I'm not sure it's just case closed, end of story. In the same sense that companies tend to be concerned about hiring felons, people who use a unilaterally coded software program should be concerned if the person who coded the program is a murderer. My point was that if their character has been called into question, to rule out deliberately planted backdoors only because the code is open source is to ask for trouble.
Hey buddy, I wouldn't expect you to take the time, but if you read the parent to the post you linked to, you'll notice that the parent identified himself as a Jew, and I also did in my reply as an honest effort to establish common ground. Mentioning I was an attorney in the same breath was self-deprecating because of the old cliche (as in "oh a Jewish attorney, gosh how original). Plus, I'm not an IP lawyer--just a random asshole attorney who has done some IP work. And I stress some. IP law is like the end-all, be-all boutique thing to be doing. Frankly I'd like to do more. But there are certainly more knowledgeable, experienced people out there than I am.
/. postings go. Someone will say something meaningful, and then a veritable herd of posters will call him/her out with this "oh actually that one insignificant thing is not the case..." nonsense. So don't act like I'm some kind of oddity simply because I can couple good arguments with an insane, irrational impatience for dissent. At least the stick doesn't bother me much as long as I use enough KY. Later.
Oh and to slam me based on my posting history? What is that? I come up with my fair share of good comments that contribute to the overriding discussion or at least brighten someone's day, so where's the harm in that?
If I'm right in general but in my replies fucking pounce on the most trivial of misstatements like it's the end of the world if they're not pointed out, then I apologize. It's how I spend my days and I'm not the best at separating work from play. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, that seems to be par for the course as far as
Great point, and yes it is a valid concern. While your question is "What happens to the code base?" I think the more germane question in this case is "Was the code base ever safe to use in the first place?"
/. or Google search would reveal more info. Fortunately, as far as I know they were detected in an audit of the code. The potential for abuse is out there. )
Once that one person in charge of that one project fails a test of moral turpitude so badly that they murder somebody, where do you go from there? If that person has no respect for human life, what assurances does the community have that his software is made with respect to privacy, security, and so on? If somebody is out murdering others, what does that say about the safety of using their code?
----------
(note: And before somebody tells me "Yes, but it's open source", I'll say that I know for a fact that rather ingenious backdoors have been introduced into open source projects in the past. I'm going on memory--a cursory
I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
As punishment, you have been sentenced to having to wear eyeglasses, shorts and a false beard while you give speeches about free software for six (6) months.
Given Microsoft's history of only fixing security holes when real exploit code is known to exist, should we assume the worst?
First you claim this:
This just gets funnier every time I read it. I guess my first reaction was "Who the fuck are you?" That you would claim that IP doesn't exist is laughable. If you read the article you'll notice that it includes quotes from Larry Rosen, a well-known IP lawyer. Please email Mr. Rosen to tell him that his profession doesn't exist.
You go on:
I would like to introduce you to Jim. Jim here is Associate Manager of the Department of No Fucking Shit, Sherlock. Interestingly, do you know who originally confused the two? Fucking Debian is who--some asshole coder who thought he knew more about the law than lawyers decided it would be reasonable to confuse the two, and Debian's petty "stance" was borne.
This is a truthful but completely meaningless statement. Jim would like to talk to you about it.
More meaningless filler that anybody who's been reading Slashdot for the last few weeks could have written. Jim is not pleased.
Then you wrote this glistening turd:
You made this all bold and everything, presumably because you thought it was important to do so. But I'm just stunned--your ignorance and failure is so astounding. Here's a shocker for you: the fucking "public" have no say or interest in this whatsoever, certainly not enough to even have "confusion" about copyrights vs. trademarks. It's a firm distinction that exists in the law (you know, in the field you think doesn't exist), and I daresay the distinction exists in the minds of this public you pretend to care so much about.
Perform this simple fucking test: Ask somebody of average intelligence over 40 years old which they think is copyrighted and which they think is trademarked, the Nike Swoosh or the contents of the newest Grisham novel?
So here's you, you pretended to have your thumb to the pulse of the "people" (whoever these fucking non-Debian dimwits might be) and claimed that there's some kind of fucking conspiracy afoot by Corporate America--and by Corporate America I think you mean companies who would dare diminish themselves and insult their customers by actually charging for their products. Oh exclamation point!
Again, where did this confusion occur, the one you think Corporate America created to confuse people who don't exist about what goes down in a field of law you think doesn't exist? It started in the mind of a non-lawyer coder who decided to start some shit with Mozilla because he didn't like the fact that Mozilla wanted to approve sloppy Debian patches before they went out.
Leave it to a Slashdot poster to pretend to know more about the law than fucking lawyers.
*Cash impression* You've been everywhere, man...
Yes, it's like the Cold War is happening all over again, only this time we're exporting crappy bands to Russia to undermine you. Oh wait, St. Petersburg FLORIDA?? I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's your penance for costing us the 2000 election?
By the way, I may be the only person around who has been to every city mentioned in the post. My favorite out of that group was probably Winston-Salem. I really felt like I was in flavor country.
Cheers!
It wants its music back. But keep that Insane Clown Posse CD. 1994 said you could just keep that.
Good points, AC. That is the other side of the story, of course. It was optimistically thought that neighboring Muslim nations would open their borders to the Palestinians, but many refused instead. Why? Because Palestinian dissent in the region undermines Israeli power. These people have no proper homes, few rights to speak of, and an axe to grind with Israel. So what do you want to hear? That neighboring Muslim nations deemed it more valuable to leave them close to Israel where they could cause trouble than to offer them citizenship and a new life within their borders? Of course that's the case. Brotherhood among fellow Muslims was disfavored over hurting Israel. So who is to blame? Those who created the problem or those who perpetuate it?
But really, that conundrum speaks to the fundamental problem in the Middle East: Nobody, not the U.N., not the U.S., not the British anticipated the level of anti-Jewish sentiment in the region when Israel was created. Any student of history or religion could have anticipated it--it's a distrust dating back to the days of Abraham and Isaac. But for some reason, be it ignorance or optimism, people thought it would work. It hasn't.
I'm a real-life Jew myself (and a lawyer no less, yeah I know..insert joke here), and I would be lying if said that I felt comfortable voicing my opinions on this subject in anything but the most anonymous of ways.
I like the way you argue. If you astutely noticed that I've omitted a few key details that would weaken my position and then also emphasized those details that would strengthen it, then, yeah...welcome to the world of rhetoric ;
To answer you more qualitatively, sure, most of the Middle East was arbitrarily created by European powers. Boundary lines were drawn often with little respect for cultural and ethnic similarities. But you're forgetting your time line: Most of those nations did exist before the creation of the Israeli nation-state. It's just a moot point, anyway. Even if you don't already consider the powers in the region religiously or ethnically unified rather than disparate, their universal hatred of Israel has provided the common enemy that they need to feel as brothers, at least with respect to this one issue.
I also don't think you're giving religious minorities their due here. For example, the minority Maronite Christians in Lebanon (a made-up nation created by the French, if you're keeping score...) were and still are key players in Lebanese politics for years, having much of the money and therefore influence in what was a young and untested political environment. Even after the Lebanese Civil War, it could be claimed that the Maronites still had a stranglehold on Lebanese politics.
I would like to think that I would have been one of the Jews going "You know, this just sounds like a bad idea..." when Israel was created. But alas, I wasn't alive then, and besides, I probably would have been on board with the idea at first anyway. As I pointed out earlier, genuine malice wasn't the goal in the creation of Israel. Of course it wasn't. Everyone thought that the Middle East situation would smooth out over time and that the Palestinians would find a place among the people with whom they shared a faith. Of course, that hasn't happened. I guess we could still be hopeful.