There's another option which is the let the last mile be publicly owned and get companies to bid to deliver to the public infrastructure. And the ripping up roads is less and less of an issue with new horizontal trenching methods. Anyways it can be limited to what is neccessary with the appropriate fee scheduale.

The teleco industry in the U.S. is/was extremely regulated, it's just not regulated very well. Additionally many of those countries have much higher population densidies.

The value is not in the number, but in the integrity of the chain of numbers. The integrity of specific chains is preserved by the limitation upon raw number. The numbers are not provided in the market without differentiation between units. That is block-chains of any *Coin is provided to the market with differentiation between them. An alt coin that doesn't have a specific technical advantage over bitcoin is going to fail unless it can jump ahead of bitcoin in terms of adoption. Those with technical improvements have the potential to offer a chain of greater integrity. Being first and having the head start is a pretty good indicator of greater integrity as well.

The reason to reject governmental fiat currencies to date has been no substantial guarantee that banks and governments will not rig the game in their favor. The reason to reject non-governmental fiat currencies to date their vulnerability to interference or catastrophe. xCoins offer strong rules that are transparent and driven by consensus, as well as offering a robust infrastructure.

They are the same species, the main difference with where the plant invests carbon, and what chemical compounds are more highly expressed.

I'm not 100% sure Ameriprise was distributing the work withing the legal meaning. Form my quick research, especially with reference to the blizzard case and copying to RAM. IF you purchased a copy of the software (physical medium) then that includes the right to copy for installation and execution. If your essentially buying the license then you can only copy to RAM for execution in accordance with that license. Re Section 7/ Exactly, it's not meant to allow patent control by the copyright holder. A GPL licensee should be able to assume the licensor isn't going to turn around and sue them for using the software within the copyright licence. That would be a restriction on use of the software, which the GPL asserts is not restricted to use.

Section 8 might be relevant if Ximpleware insists the GPL'd distribution of thier XML-thingymajig does not include a patent licence withing it. They had the option and opportunity of openly assert this. However such assertion it ommited, and the doctrine of estoppel can also arise due to omissions in a representation.

Of course a breach of the GPL terminated any of the rights held by the offending party. (explicit or otherwise), but a full finding of fact is going to have to raise the question were copyrights actually violated (was the program copied, modified, or distributed in breach of the GPL). And if you already have to adjudicate those facts, I find it odd as to why Ximpleware would not additionally pursue copyright claims --- Some weird legal thing?

When you copy, modify to distribute the program, it creates the presumption of acceptance, because to do otherwise would presume a party carried out an illegal act. Additionally because verseta stripped out the original notices and marketed to work commercially so it's potentially criminal infringement as well. The the origninal topic we can still be assured an accidental GPL inclusion won't force a work open as the GPL specifically states "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."

1. Implied - Not directly expressed.
Patent - A patent is an exclusive right to a particular invention.
License - permission to do what what otherwise be illegal.


IF a company gives you permission to do something that would otherwise violate patent law, you have a patent license for that task even if not patent was specifically mentioned. If Microsoft entered into a contract with me to manufacture android devices for their employees, that can't turn around a sue me for patent infringement of those specific enumerated devices on the purchase order. In the purchase contract it is implied Microsoft gives me permission to do those things reasonably required to fulfill the contract.

The is precedent I assume of using the principle of estoppel as a defense against patent claims. And estoppel may be implied. Ergo implications of representations made by a person may estopped patent claims against other persons.

2. The contract must be judged by it's actual language rather than ex-post-facto assertions of it's authors. It is the interpretation they would like to see in the courts, though not indicative of current law.

It may be true the FSF believes running a program is not a copyright issue, however there are precedents that claim loading a program into RAM constitutes a copying under the meaning or 106, especially if done by a licensee of a copy rather than an owner. A licensee being differentiated by having significant restrictions places on their ability to redistribute to transfer the copy of the work. The GPL does put significant limitations on this act, Section 4 specifically forbids you to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License"

But this point is irrelevant. The GPL is not a copyright grant it is a license contract giving permission under certain conditions to do certain things that would otherwise be illegal. The GPL could have said that use of the program is not restricted by this license, but is simply says not restricted.

3. Section 8. allows the Original Copyright holder to expressly exclude distribution on such jurisdictional basis, why was this not done?

Anyways that's not quite what I think section 7 implies. If you agree not to distribute or use the program outside a license agreement, you may not longer distribute under the GPL unless royalty-free licenses are granted downstream. If there is a judicial ruling that the software infringes then you may not distribute it (under this license at least).

So with section 8 available (but not taken), then it must be presumed Ximpleware's distribution really did give a full GPL license to those receivers in the U.S., without additional restrictions. Now if the programs was distributed in violation of the GPL then it could be considered and inducement to infringe.

Having transmitted the program under a license in which no restrictions are placed on use of the program, Ximpleware is estopped from asking for judicial relief that would be a restriction on the use of the program.

Even in the case of the accusation patent infringement the GPL the GPL makes no termination of right.. The GPL just clarifies that distribution under the GPL may only only happen when in full compliance with the GPL; if for some reason you are legally unable to fully comply then you must forgo distribution.

If a third party had written the parser, then Ximpleware could claim any distribution in the U.S was illegal. However Ximpleware as the patent holder needs no patent license to distribute it's parser and may give licence to whomever it wishes. And section 6 of the GPL makes it clear upon distribution the person receiving the program also receives the license under the GPL from the original licencor. Upon the third party receiving the license from Ximpleware, they to have the implied patent license from the no restrictions on use clause. To distribute under the the GPL is to represent that you are imposing no restrictions on the use of the program.

Where did Vyatta get the source if not from a GPL version?

Sections 4+6. Shows the license is granted from the original licencor each time the work is distributed.

About time to dump some money into it,

But they are neither durable, uniform, or evenly divisible.

And does everyone start with Ubuntu-minimal? In that you can get rid of the wireless-tools, wpa-supplicant, and pcmia-utils. Other distros may just want to offer a more vm-friendly version of their standard base. (You can do everything you can with the original, except those things that wouldn't make sense to do in a VM anyways.

You should be able to perform some shortucuts in the init process. You can also get rid of anything related to being a host to a virtual machine (who is insane enough to run a VM inside a VM?) You can rip out a lot of hardware support, and some of the really advance network stuff. Who needs lm-sensors on a virtual machine? hdpram? smartctl?

Voir Dire is french for jury-rigging.