There's nothing in oAuth that requires that the key be secret, indeed, I think the oAuth spec specifically discourages depending on the oAuth key as a reliable indicator of the application, precisely because there's no real way to keep it secret. It's companies like Twitter, who insist on uses the obviously not secret oAuth key as if it were secret, that are doing it wrong.
You're talking about jazz here, an art form that is build around the continual re-interpretation of standards. If the jazz tradition doesn't prove that "rehashes, reshaping of others" is creative, I don't know what does.
He felt it was necessary to license everything else, how is it the cover art should be treated as less than the rest of the work?
This confused me two, but I can think of a reason why he might have thought there was a difference. With music, you have both composition and performance rights - chiptune versions of Miles Davis songs are, I guess, much like any other cover version, in that they are derivative works of the composition, but not of the original performance. Perhaps the musician here thought that a photo was like a performance, with no equivalent to the composition rights, so that a re-creation of the same (or a similar) image wouldn't be subject to copyright, where a copy of the actual photograph itself would be.
Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
Because sharing is better than not sharing. There's no inconsistency. If someone thinks that the best situation would be one in which sharing was enforced in all cases, it's perfectly consistent for them to both advocate a legal framework that enforces sharing in some cases (the GPL), and to condemn legal situations that prevent sharing (restrictive copyright licenses). The position you are calling inconsistent just says "we think some restrictions are good and should be enforced, and other restrictions are bad and should not be enforced." Treating different things differently isn't inconsistent.
Social security is paid for specifically out of the social security trust fund, which currently has a surplus. Social security has nothing to do with the deficit.
If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright).
No they don't. If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
I think any post referencing Thomas Friedman requires a link to Matt Taibbi's classic article:
Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses....
According to the mathematics of the book, if you add an IPac to your offshoring, you go from running to sprinting with gazelles and from eating with lions to devouring with them.
Doesn't distributing a tax fund to authors by popularity mean that I, as a person, lost the freedom to vote with my pocketbook not to pay certain authors?
It does, yes. Instead, you get to vote with your vote.
The second option obviously leads to more freedom. With that option, I'm free to read and distribute whatever I wish to, with the first, I'm not.
RMS has always been a socialist. The model of free copying, with authors funded via taxation, is in the GNU Manifesto.
I don't think this is about web designers hand coding all these details - I mean, who manually writes HTML these days? The HTML is going to be written by the CMS running the site, and the CMS will usually know this kind of information already - currently, this information gets lost and then has to be guessed by search engines. Why not let the software that runs websites communicate more directly with the software that searches them?
If I rip my CD with lame --v2 (or whatever other options the scene releasers are using), wouldn't my perfectly legal rip have exactly the same fingerprint as the widely-distributed illegal rip? I don't see how labels could use this to identify illegally copied music.
XML, XSD, XSLT and XSLT-FO
Which of those have anything to do with semantics?
So they're breaking HTML by following the HTML5 specification?
11.04 has Unity in the desktop release (indeed, there's no longer a separate netbook edition), but it's a significant rewrite and, IMO, significantly better (certainly faster and more stable) than the 10.10 version of Unity.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
