Posted on 10/09/2006 7:47:29 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
Excerpt:
At the moment, I'm ticked off because the Debian community's recent hissy-fit over the Mozilla Corp.'s trademarked Firefox logo has led them, and others, to forking the Firefox code to avoid the use of the logo.
Gnutella, part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, is creating "the 'GNU/Linux' version of same, to be dubbed 'IceWeasel.'" This may, or may not, become the logo-free version of Firefox that Debian will ship in its next distribution.
Regardless of how this turns out, the Firefox "bug" has been removed from Debian.
What are these people thinking!
It will mean more work for programmers. It will mean more work for Firefox, or should I say IceWeasel, extension developers. It will be what all forks are: a major pain for both users and developers.
(Excerpt) Read more at desktoplinux.com ...
Interesting, but his arguments are mainly addressed by how copyright and patent law in this country were designed to operate, with a wide leeway for Fair Use and a quick expiration to the Public Domain. The arguments make sense only in our current warped system, with fair use dying due to fear of being sued into oblivion, copyright terms being effectively infinite, and patents being awarded for pretty much anything.
You might want to add #51 to your list of lies. I long ago told him I prefer the MPL since it's more business-friendly by clearly defining what is and isn't a derivative work, and the placement of that delineation.
Obviously only to those such as yourself who seem to think you have rights to someone else's property by default. Otherwise you couldn't possibly see someone who is protecting THEIR property as taking YOUR rights away.
Whatever, you've defend Stallman's leftist GPL license like your life depended on it ever since.
Wrong, oh so wrong. Let's say I buy the full MS SQL Server 2005, install it on the appropriate machine IAW the licensing, and otherwise abide by the license. I have no problem with that at all. I have thousands of dollars worth of properly licensed proprietary software.
Otherwise you couldn't possibly see someone who is protecting THEIR property as taking YOUR rights away.
Wrong again. They are not protecting their property from copyright infringement with these terms. Again, that's copyright, the right to copy. What I disagree with is Microsoft telling me I cannot exercise my First Amendment right to free speech and publish a benchmark of my properly licensed SQL Server 2005 without prior Microsoft approval.
Not "whatever," you lied. You misrepresented my position, which is nothing new for you.
The web is full of SQL 2005 benchmarks, your claims they are somehow prohibited seem terribly thin. Plus you're still confused thinking you have rights by birth to something you don't actually own.
Well, no, even the BartPE admit that the whole process is dealing with a gray area as far as licensing is concerned. But you didn't even mention that...just recommended your method of putting XP on a thumb drive, and never mentioned that it could be illegal.
Advocating piracy is just plain wrong, GE.
Sounds like the true libertarians need to trademark their name so these leftists can't co-opt it then, just as we see in the article of this thread. Firefox only trademarked their name and icon, but they did stop the illegal poaching of them.
You are in denial. Read the SQL Server 2005 EULA. It's located in "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\EULA" on a standard installation. This has been part of the SQL Server EULA for several versions now.
Any benchmarks you see were allowed by MS. The benchmarks you don't see weren't allowed by MS. Such was the case with Network World's benchmarking of SQL Server 7 on Windows 2000. MS didn't like the results, even though MS worked with them to tweak it for good results, so they invoked the no-publish clause in the EULA.
Network Associates has a similar clause in some of its software. They were smacked down by a New York judge after trying to enforce it by quashing a negative review. But then not everybody has the funds or a state AG behind them to defend themselves against unenforceable EULAs.
Plus you're still confused thinking you have rights by birth to something you don't actually own.
Exactly what specific rights do you claim I erroneously say I have? Freedom of speech?
I'd like to do the same thing with "Republican," but then most of the "Republicans" in our government would have to find a new name.
Your experience may be atypical. In any case, it certainly isn't an argument with libertarianism, only with specific people who describe themselves as libertarians.
I am completely pro-life even in the cases of rape and incest.
As am I. I make an exception for the life of the mother. I'll let God sort that out for me.
No more than conservatives or any other group. There are tons of lefties here who co opt conservatism.
The information on what truly is libertarianism is readily available for the sincerely interested.
Well there's certainly no shortage of them, and Oracle and Sybase have the same restriction. It's to keep open source bozos from slandering them, as you'd be apt to do if you ever got the chance I'm sure.
I know. I guess being unethical is okay if everybody's doing it.
It's to keep open source bozos from slandering them
These restrictions were meant for the other enterprise competition. Open source didn't even play in the enterprise DB market when these terms were put on EULAs.
WOW!
That is sad. I'm not really for the federal government or state government becoming the enforcement arm of the RIAA, or working for Microsoft, but geez, I don't have a problem with either the RIAA or Microsoft putting out products that they think are copy-proof. I don't think copyrights should be extended for the lengths they have been, and I don't think software should be copyrighted but should be patented instead. However, saying you CAN'T make pirate-proof (nominally, anyway) stuff is simply crazy leftist.
It's amazing that these 'conservative' folks insulted you for such a fundamental property right as protecting the property you own. If a landlord puts a clause in a lease saying he has the right to inspect his property on a regular basis, you have the right to not buy it. If you want the property enough, you'll put up with the accompanying b.s. If not, you won't, you'll go elsewhere. That's capitalism.
Bingo! We are in agreement on the things you just posted.
I'm a longtime Debian user, but I might be looking for a new distro pretty soon. Debian org's handling of this whole thing has been rediculous. And what 13 year old came up with "IceWeasel"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.