... the EFF laywer dude also pretty much failed at his attempted trolling.
I thought he did a great job. Look at the result. Ares' bullying copyfraud behavior is yet again dragged through the mud on multiple Internet news sites and blogs, and manages to trash Twitter's abusive policies as well. I'm looking forward to the next time it happens.
You would think a lawyer would know better than to do that.
Ha, ha, good one. Oh, you're not serious, are you? I can't recall any stupid lawyers working for the EFF.
I've worked in IT for almost 20 years now and the notion of a non public email address always baffled me.
It's over-reaction to spam and malware caused by the idiotic behavior of Microsoft's implementation of email clients and attachment handling. When bad guys can successfully attack your computer simply by attaching malware to an email, foolishness like hiding your email address from the vast majority of the world begins to look like a plausible reaction.
... so that the end result has a reasonable chance of being effective?
I'd settle for not needlessly or callously endangering anyone, and worry about effective later. The law can be a very blunt instrument as shown by trying to shoehorn "SWATting" and "doxxing" into existing law.
I for [one], am behind making it a crime to match a name with an avatar.
I'd rather we used some common sense here. If outing them leads to ridicule, tough. Don't be an asshole. However, if outing them leads to knuckle-draggers (or the FBI) finding out who squealed on them (like John Kiriakou), that's a problem.
Not everyone has access to such a super-great library, you know.
That is sad, yes. Where I used to live, a library card cost ca. $30 per year. Where I live now, it's free, paid for by taxes. When you can't afford it, you can still use what they have but you'd be stuck in the library doing it.
MBAs again, I assume. Everything must be able to cover its own cost on its own, or it gets cut. That kind of thinking gets us all the annoying "below the line" charges madness.
We're on the same page. I've no complaint whatsoever about the above, and I can well admit it's easy to either hate or misunderstand GPL. It's complicated.
I hate pragmatism, but still I can accept I'm being pragmatic about GPL. It worked. What's that say about me? Dunno.
I wonder how it would have worked out if the GPL never existed, and the Linux kernel had always been under a BSD-style license. There wouldn't have been any basis for a flare-up over a driver, but would we be in a better or a worse situation over it?
I strongly suspect that the monster that is Debian (which is pretty much the basis of most of the best FLOSS today; think Ubuntu and its derivatives) would have gone well out of their way to replace the Linux kernel with a FreeBSD or OpenBSD kernel if he had. Linus had to be a good politician too for it to get to where it is.
You know, you can run Debian & GPL (userspace) with a BSD kernel, cutting the Linux kernel out of the picture?
Disclaimer: I've been a Debian officianado ("Debianista") since ca. '95. I love what those dfsg commies did with the stuff! It really works the way it should once molded by Murdock's ideas. Slackware's cool, Redhat's profitable, but look at all the Debian downstream distros out there.
Put another way, have more companies embraced open source because of restrictive licenses such as GPL, or permissive licenses such as BSD/Apache/Mozilla/Eclipse?
I agree Apache's BSD-ish license certainly was much better for the web as it was getting built. Linux's GPL licensing likely slowed its adoption.
Despite that, I know from personal experience that clients have forced themselves kicking and screaming to accept Linux (or FLOSS) was a good idea for them because it was too good of an idea for them to pass up for long. It just made too much sense for them to continue to avoid it, no matter how much they were inclined to avoid it. It was pretty funny to watch. :-)
I'm talking about seriously big vicious multi-nationals here, btw. They can afford proprietary, easily. Still, they (kicking and screaming!) still dragged themselves to the point that FLOSS was too good to avoid.
The Ecuadorians could put out a call to our favourite "Hacktivists" and let them settle the matter. Just think, all that data from Chevron's servers out in the wild for anyone to see.
Sounds great, as long as they grab the Ecuadorian gov't's hidden stuff and release it too at the same time. What's good for the goose ...
Unlike GPL, anyone can build on the open results without requiring those derivative results to be open, though no doubt MNI would prefer openness.
Didn't we both just admit in another thread that "jerks" can take GPL code (just like the even more free BSD code) and lock it up as long as they keep it internal to their operation and not try to distribute (or sell) it?
Methinks you're unnecessarily casting aspersions upon GPL which don't really exist. Somebody has a not too well hidden agenda? Just a theory.
Go ahead and try to defend proprietary. I'm a libertarian/Objectivist (it's complicated), so you'd think I might understand and agree. I don't.
Dual licensing is good, but not particularly relevant to the discussion ...
Perhaps, if your focus is specifically on the licensing minutia. Mine's not. I'm a geek, as I mentioned. For me it's far more important that it gets out there to those who want to and can benefit from it. Licensing, ptheh, that's for lawyers to dicker about, not people like me.
RMS originally just wanted to fix a bug in what a printer driver he was using was doing. His printer, or MIT's. The author said no; you can't have it. "Okay, I'll find a way to cut you out of the equation. Happy now?"
I've always wondered where that guy who wrote that printer driver software is now. Don't care.
The originator of the GPL code is not promised anything back by anyone taking, modifying and redistributing their code; the license merely promises the source code to be available to anyone who receives binaries built from that code (oversimplified).
Yeah, that's the Commie side of Stallman for sure. He's always despised the corporate side and only cares about the plebes. Meh, it worked anyway, yeah?
Sure, the LGPL may allow you to distribute in the same way as any other decent proprietary license, but you're still SOL with the GPL library.
I guess you missed Linus' tirade about Nvidia. He was bending over backwards to tolerate their crap for years just to try to co-exist, but damn, sooner or later enough becomes enough!
Re: Re: Re: Re: the ecuator and the surrounding hearing loss
Because it's free, instantaneous, and a lot better than nothing.
I'll give you the first two, but that third one I'll dispute. How much bigger than zero is "a lot better than nothing"?
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%? That's a lot (ten times) bigger than nothing than this:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
We're talking about concepts described by human languages here, and poets could go on for decades as to how deep that subject is.
GT is pathetic from what I've seen of it. I'd rather wait to read a human's translation. I'm not usually in that much of a hurry. Lots of things can be computerized. Not everything should be. "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. They're not good at it, and it annoys the pig."
Well, at least it's difficult to annoy a computer. They'll do any damned fool thing you tell them to do, following your instructions exactly, for good or ill.
So on one side, an agency with a guilty [conscience]. On the other side, a professional process abuser.
You appear to believe that gov't is an actual living being with rights. Weird! It's a machine we created and own and use because we hope to benefit from leveraging that power to the betterment of *our* ends. Why should anyone want to care what it thinks about it? It's just a machine!
Who created the process that Shapiro's "abusing"? Who has the power to fix that if it's being abused?
We have a right, and the duty, to ensure this Frankenstein monster we've created is working for the benefit of all, and we have the duty to ensure it's not running out of control. That's what Shapiro's trying to do. Do you believe he gains some perverse pleasure from having to do this?
You feel for that monster's sensitivities and pains? Why?!? That's pretty strange from my point of view. Check your premises. Your target acquisition software is buggy.
And with this conclusion, it is obvious that we now have a tyrannous government. It has been for way too long (2 terms) that this BS has been going on.
No, Eisenhower's exit speech warned us it was still alive and well. That was in '61, when I was seven years old.
I'd argue it goes a lot further back than even that. We're just seeing the modern effects of it. Imperial Rome, ancient Greece, Persians, Babylon, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, and even Ethiopians and Sudanese helped with the design. That's just the west, of course. Comparable stuff was going on all over in Asia too in parallel. It's called the human condition I think.
Did you really expect anyone to read that blob? Ever heard of paragraphs and line breaks? They're used to keep discrete concepts separate from each other, making it possible to ingest one at a time. It enables readers to think about them. You couldn't be bothered? Then why would I bother?
Or were you just spewing and not caring what anyone did with it? Thought so. No thanks.
Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
3. (for extra points) start prosecuting and jailing the feds for any violations of local law that might turn up in the course of those search.
No prosecution necessary. A judge can use contempt of court to lock anyone away forever. Problem solved. Beg for forgiveness, promise acts of contrition, and maybe we'll let you out. Let's hope knuckle-dragger didn't make you his SO before we get back to you.
... as it's convinced the prolific FOIA filer will "trick" it into revealing stuff it doesn't want to with multiple, overlapping FOIA requests.
If I were a lawyer employed by the FBI, I'd be getting a bit nervous at this point. It sounds to me like their bosses don't think they're getting their money's worth out of them.
Yo, FBI, hire better people and train them better. High priced doesn't necessarily mean good or better, as any Grisham novel could teach you. Oversight's a good thing too. If they're getting your money, you deserve to know what they're doing and whether they're any good at it. I suspect some, at least, are slacking. All that gets you is bad PR.
I like how you consider that to be a "solution", let alone easy.
Well, it is. It takes no expenditure of effort to not use my stuff. Assuming we don't accept garbage like software patenting, he can design and implement his own feature. He doesn't need mine. Mine would just save him some time and effort on his part.
I'm really not a Stallman or GPL "fanboi", though I do strongly sympathize with his point of view. I actually prefer the BSD license. I want this stuff to get out there to everyone who can benefit from it, and if that allows a few greedy jerks to lock stuff up by creating a proprietary version of it, so what? We don't have to use it. We haven't been robbed of anything.
Happily, I'm a geek, not a lawyer, so I only barely understand (or care) about this licensing minutia. I just pretty much despise the hoops that proprietary software forced me to go through long ago. Since giving them the boot, I haven't needed to care about this.
However, if the library was offered under a permissive open source license then everybody wins ...
Way back when, I had no problem with MySQL being both free and proprietary at the same time depending on what the user wanted to do with it. Companies like to have a commercial operation behind the tools they use. They get a place to submit bug reports to. I didn't need that. I'm grateful they didn't force onto me features I neither wanted nor needed. The combination created better software in the end, for everybody.
With the GPL library, you're SOL.
Are you not aware that they have another license specifically for libraries, just to get around this "viral" stuff?
On the post: Publicity Rights For A Photobombing Horse? Owner Demands Cut Of Photo Prize
Get stuffed, Nicola.
On the post: Ares Rights Gets EFF Lawyer Suspended From Twitter For Posting Mild Criticism
Re:
I thought he did a great job. Look at the result. Ares' bullying copyfraud behavior is yet again dragged through the mud on multiple Internet news sites and blogs, and manages to trash Twitter's abusive policies as well. I'm looking forward to the next time it happens.
Ha, ha, good one. Oh, you're not serious, are you? I can't recall any stupid lawyers working for the EFF.
On the post: Ares Rights Gets EFF Lawyer Suspended From Twitter For Posting Mild Criticism
Re: no public email address
It's over-reaction to spam and malware caused by the idiotic behavior of Microsoft's implementation of email clients and attachment handling. When bad guys can successfully attack your computer simply by attaching malware to an email, foolishness like hiding your email address from the vast majority of the world begins to look like a plausible reaction.
On the post: Utah Politician Looking To Tackle Doxing, DoS Attacks And Swatting With New Slate Of Cybercrime Amendments
Re:
I'd settle for not needlessly or callously endangering anyone, and worry about effective later. The law can be a very blunt instrument as shown by trying to shoehorn "SWATting" and "doxxing" into existing law.
On the post: Utah Politician Looking To Tackle Doxing, DoS Attacks And Swatting With New Slate Of Cybercrime Amendments
Re: Anonymity
I'd rather we used some common sense here. If outing them leads to ridicule, tough. Don't be an asshole. However, if outing them leads to knuckle-draggers (or the FBI) finding out who squealed on them (like John Kiriakou), that's a problem.
On the post: The Incredible Corporate Sovereignty Saga Involving Ecuador And Chevron Continues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the ecuator and the surrounding hearing loss
You're right. I was thinking only of full sentences or paragraphs or longer.
On the post: Time Warner Eyes Hulu Stake, Wants Service To Remove Current Seasons Of Shows
Re: Re: Re:
That is sad, yes. Where I used to live, a library card cost ca. $30 per year. Where I live now, it's free, paid for by taxes. When you can't afford it, you can still use what they have but you'd be stuck in the library doing it.
MBAs again, I assume. Everything must be able to cover its own cost on its own, or it gets cut. That kind of thinking gets us all the annoying "below the line" charges madness.
On the post: ISPs Are Trampling Net Neutrality While The FCC Sits Boxed In By Lawsuits, Upcoming Election
Re:
What?!? Oh. Yeah. This is so unexpected based on their prior behavior, I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
Am I doin' this right? Hope so.
It's so transparent what's going on, it's embarrassing to watch. Struth!
On the post: Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
Re: Re: Re:
I hate pragmatism, but still I can accept I'm being pragmatic about GPL. It worked. What's that say about me? Dunno.
Have fun!
On the post: Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I strongly suspect that the monster that is Debian (which is pretty much the basis of most of the best FLOSS today; think Ubuntu and its derivatives) would have gone well out of their way to replace the Linux kernel with a FreeBSD or OpenBSD kernel if he had. Linus had to be a good politician too for it to get to where it is.
You know, you can run Debian & GPL (userspace) with a BSD kernel, cutting the Linux kernel out of the picture?
Disclaimer: I've been a Debian officianado ("Debianista") since ca. '95. I love what those dfsg commies did with the stuff! It really works the way it should once molded by Murdock's ideas. Slackware's cool, Redhat's profitable, but look at all the Debian downstream distros out there.
I agree Apache's BSD-ish license certainly was much better for the web as it was getting built. Linux's GPL licensing likely slowed its adoption.
Despite that, I know from personal experience that clients have forced themselves kicking and screaming to accept Linux (or FLOSS) was a good idea for them because it was too good of an idea for them to pass up for long. It just made too much sense for them to continue to avoid it, no matter how much they were inclined to avoid it. It was pretty funny to watch. :-)
I'm talking about seriously big vicious multi-nationals here, btw. They can afford proprietary, easily. Still, they (kicking and screaming!) still dragged themselves to the point that FLOSS was too good to avoid.
Pretty fun ride. I've enjoyed it.
On the post: The Incredible Corporate Sovereignty Saga Involving Ecuador And Chevron Continues
Re: Anonymous to the rescue?
Sounds great, as long as they grab the Ecuadorian gov't's hidden stuff and release it too at the same time. What's good for the goose ...
Hope & change & transparency. Who loses?
On the post: Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
Re:
Didn't we both just admit in another thread that "jerks" can take GPL code (just like the even more free BSD code) and lock it up as long as they keep it internal to their operation and not try to distribute (or sell) it?
Methinks you're unnecessarily casting aspersions upon GPL which don't really exist. Somebody has a not too well hidden agenda? Just a theory.
Go ahead and try to defend proprietary. I'm a libertarian/Objectivist (it's complicated), so you'd think I might understand and agree. I don't.
On the post: Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps, if your focus is specifically on the licensing minutia. Mine's not. I'm a geek, as I mentioned. For me it's far more important that it gets out there to those who want to and can benefit from it. Licensing, ptheh, that's for lawyers to dicker about, not people like me.
RMS originally just wanted to fix a bug in what a printer driver he was using was doing. His printer, or MIT's. The author said no; you can't have it. "Okay, I'll find a way to cut you out of the equation. Happy now?"
I've always wondered where that guy who wrote that printer driver software is now. Don't care.
Yeah, that's the Commie side of Stallman for sure. He's always despised the corporate side and only cares about the plebes. Meh, it worked anyway, yeah?
I guess you missed Linus' tirade about Nvidia. He was bending over backwards to tolerate their crap for years just to try to co-exist, but damn, sooner or later enough becomes enough!
On the post: The Incredible Corporate Sovereignty Saga Involving Ecuador And Chevron Continues
Re: Re: Re: Re: the ecuator and the surrounding hearing loss
I'll give you the first two, but that third one I'll dispute. How much bigger than zero is "a lot better than nothing"?
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%? That's a lot (ten times) bigger than nothing than this:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
We're talking about concepts described by human languages here, and poets could go on for decades as to how deep that subject is.
GT is pathetic from what I've seen of it. I'd rather wait to read a human's translation. I'm not usually in that much of a hurry. Lots of things can be computerized. Not everything should be. "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. They're not good at it, and it annoys the pig."
Well, at least it's difficult to annoy a computer. They'll do any damned fool thing you tell them to do, following your instructions exactly, for good or ill.
On the post: Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
Re: No winners here
You appear to believe that gov't is an actual living being with rights. Weird! It's a machine we created and own and use because we hope to benefit from leveraging that power to the betterment of *our* ends. Why should anyone want to care what it thinks about it? It's just a machine!
Who created the process that Shapiro's "abusing"? Who has the power to fix that if it's being abused?
We have a right, and the duty, to ensure this Frankenstein monster we've created is working for the benefit of all, and we have the duty to ensure it's not running out of control. That's what Shapiro's trying to do. Do you believe he gains some perverse pleasure from having to do this?
You feel for that monster's sensitivities and pains? Why?!? That's pretty strange from my point of view. Check your premises. Your target acquisition software is buggy.
On the post: Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
Re: Corruption in general
No, Eisenhower's exit speech warned us it was still alive and well. That was in '61, when I was seven years old.
I'd argue it goes a lot further back than even that. We're just seeing the modern effects of it. Imperial Rome, ancient Greece, Persians, Babylon, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, and even Ethiopians and Sudanese helped with the design. That's just the west, of course. Comparable stuff was going on all over in Asia too in parallel. It's called the human condition I think.
On the post: Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
Re:
Or were you just spewing and not caring what anyone did with it? Thought so. No thanks.
On the post: Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
No prosecution necessary. A judge can use contempt of court to lock anyone away forever. Problem solved. Beg for forgiveness, promise acts of contrition, and maybe we'll let you out. Let's hope knuckle-dragger didn't make you his SO before we get back to you.
On the post: Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
If I were a lawyer employed by the FBI, I'd be getting a bit nervous at this point. It sounds to me like their bosses don't think they're getting their money's worth out of them.
Yo, FBI, hire better people and train them better. High priced doesn't necessarily mean good or better, as any Grisham novel could teach you. Oversight's a good thing too. If they're getting your money, you deserve to know what they're doing and whether they're any good at it. I suspect some, at least, are slacking. All that gets you is bad PR.
On the post: Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
Re: Re: Re:
Well, it is. It takes no expenditure of effort to not use my stuff. Assuming we don't accept garbage like software patenting, he can design and implement his own feature. He doesn't need mine. Mine would just save him some time and effort on his part.
I'm really not a Stallman or GPL "fanboi", though I do strongly sympathize with his point of view. I actually prefer the BSD license. I want this stuff to get out there to everyone who can benefit from it, and if that allows a few greedy jerks to lock stuff up by creating a proprietary version of it, so what? We don't have to use it. We haven't been robbed of anything.
Happily, I'm a geek, not a lawyer, so I only barely understand (or care) about this licensing minutia. I just pretty much despise the hoops that proprietary software forced me to go through long ago. Since giving them the boot, I haven't needed to care about this.
Way back when, I had no problem with MySQL being both free and proprietary at the same time depending on what the user wanted to do with it. Companies like to have a commercial operation behind the tools they use. They get a place to submit bug reports to. I didn't need that. I'm grateful they didn't force onto me features I neither wanted nor needed. The combination created better software in the end, for everybody.
Are you not aware that they have another license specifically for libraries, just to get around this "viral" stuff?
Next >>