Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:35, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:02:25PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:33 -0500
>> "Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso" <jordigh@...> wrote:
>  
>> You may believe so, but not everyone agrees.  IANAL, but the
>> above referenced Madwifi page justifies the need for the binary,
>> closed source HAL by claiming that:
>>
>> <Quote>
>>
>> At least the USA Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that
>> any manufactured products have a mechanism for limiting transmission
>> power and frequencies, and that these mechanisms are not easily
>> modifiable by the consumer.
>>
>> </Quote>
>
> Why didn't they do it in hardware?  Why have the hardware be
> software-configurable to go outside of the design spec then limit the
> access to the software?

Flexibility.  If the regulations change, a firmware update gives
your product more features.

And cost.  It's cheaper to manufacture a lot of one thing, than some
of this, some of that, and some of something else.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEgJS9HxQb37XmcRAvLVAJ9qfgiAnPbmYwSypzC44ygWAgaa/wCeONED
BI4/NumYkirMgLWCC/U673k=
=WN5a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Ron Johnson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
>>> On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
>>>>  seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
>>>>  area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat!!!!
>>> Depends on what "convey" means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
>>> that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.
>>   Convey \Con*vey"\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>>      {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d"); p. pr. & vb. n. {Conveying}.]
>>      [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
>>      conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
>>      cf. {Convoy}.]
>>      1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
>>         [1913 Webster]
>>
>> The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
>> conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
>
> Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
> time from point A to point B.  

Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEg5S9HxQb37XmcRAtUIAKDdsiEbRy/yhp6/ceMA1/sMpmrYuACgoZG0
GY3u6RtyTFu/xbjm7jdillI=
=IBpX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 
> There must be a socio-linguistic gap here.
>
> In the US (and probably in Canada/UK/ANZ), there's an expression
> that after the revolution is won, the revolutionary leaders are
> brought "out back" and shot.

Since Canada has no history of revolution I wouldn't expect that this
could be considered a Canadian expression; at least I haven't heard it
before.  

Those who disagreed with your revolution came to Canada as United Empire
Loyalists (came is a gentle way to say that the victors kicked them out
with perhaps the clothes on their back.  

Of course the British did the same thing when they took over
French-speaking Acadia (now the Maritime Provinces of Canada) and sent
the Acadians to the other French-speaking region of Mosouri (or however
its spelt).  

>
> The meaning is that the firebrand personality and temperament needed
> to foment and lead a revolution is counter to those needed to run
> the country once the revolution is over.  But the revolutionaries
> obviously don't want to give up power, and they'd cause too many
> headaches and embarrassments, so "professional politicians" quickly
> step in and have the firebrands "neutralized".
>
> > The GPLv3 does good things and fixes many problems. It's a necessary
> > license, and given its growing level of adoption, I'm not alone with
> > this opinion.
>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> ESPN makes baseball players better.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFILL/BS9HxQb37XmcRAlFKAJsEhpAxqrnMPADzz2dJfF8QgzlTbQCgzQgO
> HIBA8l5khyEB1OHOv7XIQ5M=
> =seI0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
>
>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Ron Johnson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:58, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>  
>> There must be a socio-linguistic gap here.
>>
>> In the US (and probably in Canada/UK/ANZ), there's an expression
>> that after the revolution is won, the revolutionary leaders are
>> brought "out back" and shot.
>
> Since Canada has no history of revolution I wouldn't expect that this
> could be considered a Canadian expression; at least I haven't heard it
> before.  

Since none of the Founding Fathers were brought out back and shot,
it must be a more modern term.

> Those who disagreed with your revolution came to Canada as United Empire
> Loyalists (came is a gentle way to say that the victors kicked them out
> with perhaps the clothes on their back.  
>
> Of course the British did the same thing when they took over
> French-speaking Acadia (now the Maritime Provinces of Canada) and sent
> the Acadians to the other French-speaking region of Mosouri (or however
> its spelt).  

Missouri?  The Acadians were dispersed along the East Coast, and
many settled in southern Louisiana.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEw0S9HxQb37XmcRAhaCAJ9y0p6qJ0qRM9OzkXi2bdHImhoP2ACgqjIG
Qm31dwZ7fffXOIqjw8remVo=
=qr+j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

> On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> >>> On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@...> wrote:
> >> The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
> >> conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
> >
> > Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
> > time from point A to point B.  
>
> Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.

Well, motion is always relative, so I suppose is "convey".  What is the
speed of the tarmac in relation to the so-called "fixed" stars?  

:)

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:41:20AM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 15/05/2008, Rich Healey <healey.rich@...> wrote:
> >  > How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from "distribute" to
> >  > "convey". Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not? If
> >  > there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
> >  > the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that
> >
> > I believe that's called "Stealing" and in a ruling totally non-GPL
> >  related, is illegal.
>
> I'll ignore the usage of the word "steal" in the context of non-rival
> goods, which to me looks like a silly word to use here.
>
> Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
> code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
> person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
> since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
> other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
> I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
>
> Curious hypothetical situation.

The person who "leaked" it is the one doing the distribution or
"conveying".  They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
violating the license agreement.  I would think that if you took
reasonable steps to prvent such leaks that you would be blameless.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Ron Johnson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 12:14, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
>>>>> On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@...> wrote:
>>>> The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
>>>> conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
>>> Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
>>> time from point A to point B.  
>> Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.
>
> Well, motion is always relative, so I suppose is "convey".  What is the
> speed of the tarmac in relation to the so-called "fixed" stars?  
>
> :)

Relative to what point?  To the person on the tarmac, the stars are
the ones that move...

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOE+tS9HxQb37XmcRAvNGAKCrMNoBvEvNyRcdsSlqUnN4uOgE9gCg2aQw
lPQSL2yk87qj6P3qhk/J/nc=
=/fsf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Steve C. Lamb]

Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> The person who "leaked" it is the one doing the distribution or
> "conveying".  They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
> violating the license agreement.  I would think that if you took
> reasonable steps to prvent such leaks that you would be blameless.

    Unfortunately with the DMCA "Reasonable" is a pretty low standard.  I
think ROT13 could qualify.  :/

--
         Steve C. Lamb         | But who decides what they dream?
       PGP Key: 1FC01004       |   And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2]

On 24/05/2008, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> wrote:

>  > Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
>  > code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
>  > person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
>  > since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
>  > other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
>  > I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
>  >
>  > Curious hypothetical situation.
>
>  The person who "leaked" it is the one doing the distribution or
>  "conveying".

So the person who leaks the modified GPL code is the one who has to
make sure the source is also available? That's.... weird. :-)

> They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
>  violating the license agreement.

Are they violating the GPL by distributing the code? The only way that
the GPL says you can't distribute anything is with its "liberty or
death" clause. It says that if you cannot distribute it under the
terms of the GPL (so that you would also need access to the source
code), then you can't distribute it at all. I guess that if you want
to leak the code, you have to leak all of it. Since Airbus doesn't
have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.

Anyways, it seems to me that at least in spirit, someone who manages
to distribute secretly-modified GPLed code is not doing any wrong.
Like we say in Spanish, "ladrón que roba a ladrón, tiene cien años de
perdón" (a thief who steals from another thief has a hundred years of
forgiveness).

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Ron Johnson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/25/08 14:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 24/05/2008, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> wrote:
>>  > Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
>>  > code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
>>  > person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
>>  > since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
>>  > other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
>>  > I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
>>  >
>>  > Curious hypothetical situation.
>>
>>  The person who "leaked" it is the one doing the distribution or
>>  "conveying".
>
> So the person who leaks the modified GPL code is the one who has to
> make sure the source is also available? That's.... weird. :-)
>
>> They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
>>  violating the license agreement.
>
> Are they violating the GPL by distributing the code? The only way that
> the GPL says you can't distribute anything is with its "liberty or
> death" clause. It says that if you cannot distribute it under the
> terms of the GPL (so that you would also need access to the source
> code), then you can't distribute it at all. I guess that if you want
> to leak the code, you have to leak all of it. Since Airbus doesn't
> have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
> GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
> derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.
>
> Anyways, it seems to me that at least in spirit, someone who manages
> to distribute secretly-modified GPLed code is not doing any wrong.
> Like we say in Spanish, "ladrón que roba a ladrón, tiene cien años de
> perdón" (a thief who steals from another thief has a hundred years of
> forgiveness).

Airbus only have to make the source code available to it's
distributees: the purchasers of planes.  It doesn't have to make the
SC available to anyone else.

Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOcRUS9HxQb37XmcRAv87AKCiimArtmZQqu9EN5Js58pfIo2TqACfcbYV
dPnAcor9GcQscjAOMK9qyBM=
=FgE/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2]

On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@...> wrote:
>  Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
>  beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.

I'm starting to think it is, because you do not receive a license if
you don't obtain the code by legal means. Which further makes me think
what exactly constitutes receiving a license.

Anyways.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 03:12:44PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@...> wrote:
> >  Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
> >  beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.
>
> I'm starting to think it is, because you do not receive a license if
> you don't obtain the code by legal means. Which further makes me think
> what exactly constitutes receiving a license.

I tend to agree. The requirements of the GPL only apply (as I
understand it, usual disclaimers apply) to distributed code. If you
make changes to the code, those changes are copyright to the
changer. If those changes aren't distributed, they are not subject to
the GPL. Further, the copyright holder retains all their rights unless
they otherwise license them. Leaking modified code would be
distribution without license to do so. So the leaker would certainly
be violating copyright. And if they leaked GPL'ed code without source,
they would also be violating the license agreement on the portion of
the code subject to GPL.

Sounds like twice damned to me. The leaker certainly doesn't have
rights to distribute the unreleased code and likely violates the
GPL. ouch.


.02. It's an interesting subject.

A

[Steve C. Lamb]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> Since Airbus doesn't
> have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
> GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
> derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.

    Still trying to figure out how this conclusion was reached.  Seems very
presumptuous.