That is not news, at least in Brazil. I have been to at least five speeches about the same topic in the last 6 years. By November 2007, five years in development inVesailus software became Free Software, using the CC-GPL license (a non official GPL translation license used in Brazil).

From the Wikipedia article (in portuguese):
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/wiki/InVesalius
"By 2010, the software was already used to build more than 1500 prototype models..."

A 2008 article (in portuguese), showing a prototype picture:
http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/scielo.php?pid=S0009-67252008000100004&script=sci_arttext

SVN site (in english):
http://svn.softwarepublico.gov.br/trac/invesalius

Yesterday I read Steve Jobs was dead. Today, as I read that Dive into Python was gone offline, I thought: "No! Not Mark Pilgrim!"
Thank God he's alive. Hope he ressurects Dive into Python soon. You can only make so much impact on people this once, like Jobs did.

Yes! It was like finding a needle in a needlestack.

I was quoting The Big Bang Theory.

I agree, at this cost you wouldn't customize this costume.

What do you mean? It's not a costume.

In Portuguese, "sexta-feira" ("Friday") is shortened as "sex", same way as Friday is abreviated "Fri". If you try to ban "sex" searches in Brazil or Portugal, you ban pages written on Friday, or about things happening Friday.

Microsoft made this stupid mistake in MS Word where weekdays are capitalized by default. Problem is weekdays are not capitalized in portuguese. Also, "terça-feira" ("Tuesday"), is shortened as "ter". But "ter" in portuguese is a verb, and a very common one, it translates as "to have". So how stupid is it to not only have weekdays capitalized as default when it is not, but also the verb "to have"?

You must not just assume sex means sex just because in english it does. In foreign countries it just *isn't* obvious.

My mistake, you're right. By Copyright Law, you can use original works as long as you don't accept an EULA, which is a contract.

But, at least in the case of software (and it is very criticized, there's no agreement on enforceability), acceptance of an EULA may occur when you unwrap the contents of a box, or when you use it. It is a contract that you submit to regardless of having read it, agreed to it or signed it, it is assumed you have, and the enforceability is supposed, based in this premise.

Anyway, it is not the case of the GPL, which focus on giving certain rights, restricted by Copyright Law. GPL mentors are probably critics of EULAs.

If it were an EULA, it would not be wise to ignore it, because regardless of Copyright Law, you would risk going to court to determine if you are bound by the license.

No that's not right.

From the wikipedia: "Copyright gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work..."

The keyword is "exclusive". It means you have no right at all, unless you accept a license agreement, like the GPL. To use it, you have to accept the license.

Some things are restricted by licenses, and others are not. Here are some examples:

When you buy software, you in fact are buying licenses, and paying for services (support, copying). You have to explicitly agree to a license in case of Windows Vista.

When you own a tv set in England, you have to pay a TV license for your home, renewed every year; in many other countries, this license is granted you without you having to pay for it.

I can buy or own a car without having a driver's license. But I can not use it without that license.

Only you would not make this statistic. Accidental deaths is not equal to deaths.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Motor Vehicle Accidents 43,354 1.8%
Firearms 28,663 1.2%

Pretty Close, huh?

How old do you think the idea behind this patent is? In 1998, I remember downloading a Debian distribution. Lots of "other media" along with the media player and music. Everything through the internet. The GIF format itself, that would also qualify as "other media" was introduced in 1987.

You have a faulty patent system (which, by the way, you want everyone else in the world to adopt). Want to know what's wrong? That the patent system and the court room system are symbiotic.

The patent concept is based on some legal steps you have to do to give you the monopoly on something you know how to do. But patents like these are giving you monopoly on something you don't know how to do. There is nothing but an outline of the basic idea. And it's valid until refuted by the same legal system that granted it.

Also, people would specialise in this system but not the little defenseles guy that had a revolutionary new idea. The little defenseless guy is both clueless and defenseless, he couldn't care less. While the patent specialist works for corporations that exploit either this little defenseless guy, or the system.