See:
(Post adapted from one on uk.rec.models.rail)
cheers, wolf k.
Thanks for the link, Wolf. That outcome is OK with me :-)
John.
"John K. Herreshoff" wrote in news:ctqdnfzS6eAHnh3WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Fine with me, also. I am worried if this case ever goes to the Supreme Court in its current configuratuon - somehow Roberts et al will see fit to overturn and in essence, destroy open source as we know it.
The defendants settled, so until somebody with bigger guns (Apple? Microsoft?) decides to, erm, borrow, copyrighted code without permission, the appellate court's decision is the law. (But NB that MS settled with a Canadian software firm in a similar case, and AIUI essentially on the same grounds.)
Appellate courts in most countries will often look to other countries' relevant decisions for clarification of the legal issues, and occasionally even for more substantive help, so IMO the US decision is likely to have positive effects elsewhere.
Anyhow, the central issue was that of intellectual property: does "open source" mean that you relinquish property rights. Roberts et al have a great respect for property. IMO they would uphold the lower court's ruling, and might even strengthen it, on the grounds that the owner has absolute rights on how to dispose of his property (rights that might trump communal rights, even.)
I think it's worth musing about why the founders of the USA did _not_ make private property an absolute right. They only made the right to due process in the deprivation of property a right: ie, the State cannot arbitrarily take your property, but it can do so for good and sufficient reason, and only if following fair and just rules. AIUI, in this they followed existing English Common Law.
cheers, wolf k.
My, someone does have you scared of conservative boogymen, don't they?
Roberts et al are far more likely to rule that a contract is a contract and that the government has no reason to overturn open source licenses.
-- Jon Biggar snipped-for-privacy@biggar.org
After the Bleck Robe Nine "elected" Dumbya and let Cheney take us into war (and didn't he and Rummy and Wolfie incompetently manage it at that!) it might seem to be a reasonable position.
I would much rather have the Iraq war than where we are going right now------the bankruptcy of the nation, caused by wild and out of control spending.
Er, would that be the wild out-of-control spending begun by Bush? The same spending that cratered the balanced Clinton budget that Bush inherited?
Firstly, I assume you mean the wild out-of-control spending (1.8 billion a week. Care to add it up?) for a war that was declared on a nation that posed no threat to either the US or our friends in the middle east?
Perhaps you meant the wild out-of-control no-bid-government-contract spending for Cheney's special friends in the oil industry, Blackwater, reconstruction companies, etcetera, once the war was "won"?
Or maybe you mean the wild out-of-control bail-out spending that Bush/ Cheney initiated themselves (too little and far too late) in a belated effort to keep the US economy from tanking after lack of government oversight let their Wallstreet pals walk away with most of our economy in their well-lined pockets?
A spending policy that's been continued -not originated- by Obama simply because it was either that or see an instant replay of The Great Depression?
Sheesh!
There are plenty of legitimate grounds for attacking liberals, but trying to pin the fact that Obama was left with a gawdawful mess on his hands and has limited options for solving same is only pretending that the prior administration never existed and weren't the ones who actually walked us waist-deep into this cesspool with their eyes wide open.
Eryup, that's so, and most of that spending is for the war.
Social spending is productive, because the people who get the "handouts" spend it on real stuff and real services that the rest of you produce.
Relevant fact: in the 19050s, less than 30% of the US/Canadian population had a paying job. The economy grew very rapidly, people had stable and worthwhile jobs, because there were so many consumers that needed their prodcust and services. Now we have 2/3s to 3/4s of the population with a paying job. Not enough consumers.
Sorry, but I think your "facts" need a little correcting.
The current Administration has spent more and increased the debt more in one year than the previous Administration did in it's last
4 years. No spin, just fact. But you have a right to your opinion and those who desire it, have a right to the facts.
Er, would that be the wild out-of-control spending begun by Bush? The same spending that cratered the balanced Clinton budget that Bush inherited?
Firstly, I assume you mean the wild out-of-control spending (1.8 billion a week. Care to add it up?) for a war that was declared on a nation that posed no threat to either the US or our friends in the middle east?
Perhaps you meant the wild out-of-control no-bid-government-contract spending for Cheney's special friends in the oil industry, Blackwater, reconstruction companies, etcetera, once the war was "won"?
Or maybe you mean the wild out-of-control bail-out spending that Bush/ Cheney initiated themselves (too little and far too late) in a belated effort to keep the US economy from tanking after lack of government oversight let their Wallstreet pals walk away with most of our economy in their well-lined pockets?
A spending policy that's been continued -not originated- by Obama simply because it was either that or see an instant replay of The Great Depression?
Sheesh!
There are plenty of legitimate grounds for attacking liberals, but trying to pin the fact that Obama was left with a gawdawful mess on his hands and has limited options for solving same is only pretending that the prior administration never existed and weren't the ones who actually walked us waist-deep into this cesspool with their eyes wide open.
Sorry, that didn't come out correct.
The current Administration has spent more in one year than the previous Administration did and has increased the debt more in one year than the previous Administration did in it's last 4 years.
Uh, "Ronnie", if they're not real facts please point out exactly where I said anything that was untrue.
Otherwise, don't bother with your fakey "quote" marks meant to imply that something isn't *really* true, okay?
Yes. We all know that. Please see the paragraph below that you apparently missed the first time through.
You apparently missed the most important part of my post.
"But you have a right to your opinion"
That also implies that I have a right to my opinions. But I guess that does not matter to you.
Enough of this nonsense. I, apparently, am not going to change your mind.
You are not going to convince me that the present Administration is not taking this Country into bankrupcy.
Uh, "Ronnie", if they're not real facts please point out exactly where I said anything that was untrue.
Otherwise, don't bother with your fakey "quote" marks meant to imply that something isn't *really* true, okay?
Yes. We all know that. Please see the paragraph below that you apparently missed the first time through.
On 2/28/2010 1:22 PM Twibil spake thus:
Pete--I have to say bravo! to this.
You know, you and I are probably on different sides politically on a lot of issues. But I have to say I'm impressed with your overall view of things as expressed here.
Even though I consider myself a progressive, even a flaming radical at times (albeit with a twist of libertarianism thrown in), there's nothing like a good old school conservative (*not* a neocon) to show outrage at the policies of the previous US administration.
I don't know if I've offered this before, but you might be interested in my favorite website:
Basically, we're never going to be able to dig ourselves out of this deep economic hole we're in without seriously curtailing our war-making operations.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.