Arms=small arms and nuclear arms.

It's interesting that you're willing to draw lines with regard to free speech, but incapable of drawing lines with regard to second amendment arms. Like it or not, semi-automatic handguns and long rifles are within the bounds of the second amendment. Nuclear arms are not. The second amendment does not support your supposed line drawing against machine-printed semi-automatic guns and gun components.

Free speech famously has limits (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) so where do we draw the line here?

That old saw does not cut it. The pro-censorship crowd famoulsy assume that a line must exist for any given situation, and then seek to draw it wherever is necessary to achieve their goals. What is false in the digital files describing how to manufacture a machine-printed semi-automatic handgun? Nothing. You want to censor true speech. Trotting out a rhetorical flourish concerning false speech does nothing but demonstrate that you have no sound basis for suppressing true speech.

Whatever line may exist is far, far behind you.

-----
"Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." - William O. Douglas, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

Why not sell it to me for a dollar? Or for that matter to another commercial entity, who at least might actually be a little less evil?

Do you also have the resources to operate a network that is currently running at substantial loss for the next 15 years? Because that is required by the "lease the network to Provo city for 15 years" part of the transaction.

If you have a $6000 book value car with a $4000 loan on it that requires $4000 in repairs (new engine and transmission, or whatever), you're not going to sell that car for $6000, or for $4000, but somewhere around $2000. Now tack on a requirement that whoever buys the car drive you around for 15 years because you've proven incapable of maintaining a car, and the price will rapidly drop toward $1.*

*$1 is a semi-standard "this isn't worth anything but the law says that I should pay you something to make this a binding contract" price.

Is it safe to go out now?

I mean, before this case is even brought before a courtroom...

You're free to hide out until the verdict, and beyond. I'll trust the identification provided by the guy who was carjacked, while you explain why he would lie about the alleged confession/boast.

They asked me. They want the input. That was a month or two ago, I'm sorry if you missed it.

They've received your input. They've made their decision. The fact that they sent a survey suggests that they're not sifting the comments looking for your input, and those of us who've noted that the "news for nerds, stuff that matters" slogan is long gone from the site are tired of the continuous complaints.

Here's my input: I don't want to see asinine "does this belong?" discussion in every non-nerdy thread. The part of the community that tought it was worthy upvoted the contributions in the firehose, and the editors selected the topic. The part of the community that thinks that it was unworthy needs to learn that the site is not exlusively for them and deal with it.

Does this story really have a place on Slashdot?

Is it really your place to question what Slashdot decides to post on Slashdot?

Start your own news site, and then you can tell your own editors what they can and cannot put on the front page.

if you can only see a world of "intellectual property" then the free exchange of ideas may have no meaning to you. People who want to use the code in "intellectual property" may have a problem. The rest of us do not.

(c) 1999-2001 Rob Riggs. All rights reserved.

The footer of your personal website for more than a decade. Hypocrite.

Ah, I see. You are too myopic to see the myriad alternatives.

No. I am highly focused on the world as it is, not the world as you wish it to be. Although you may wish that copyright did not exist, or only applied to code which was marked as being copyrighted, there is this minor matter known as the Berne Convention, and implementing legislation such as 17 USC 102, which mean that by default you assume that works are copyrighted, and then need to ascertain whether the copyright has lapsed or whether there is a license (such as explicit dedication to the public domain). Unless you're willing to walk away from any work you've put into your 'assumed' public domain code, you cannot rely upon the lack of a copyright marking (17 USC 405), even assuming that you can prove that you've obtained an authorized copy so as to take advantage of an innocent infringement defense.

People who want to use the code in "intellectual property" may have a problem. The rest of us do not.

The people with the guns and the power to seize your property disagree. They will make it your problem. That is the world that you live in as well.

I'll be happy to introduce you to people who reject a world of "material property," and will be willing to take anything unguarded which appears useful. You can argue with them after they've carted off your computer about who has what problem and whether there is a natural right to 'own' property which you've abandoned by going somewhere else.

Who cares?!? Copying the code and removing the statement "this code is in the public domain" does not remove the code from the public domain.

No, it removes notice that the code is public domain. If you don't have the notice, you'd be a fool to use the code. Which is the point which started this part of the thread.

This message brought to you by the department of redundancy department, second branch.

I think he is asking why not simply state that this code is hereby made public domain.

I'm so conflicted. Undo a moderation of the grandparent because the AC score 0 reply raises a teachable issue, or leave it to die in obscurity. Crap, I feel preachy...

Because if the code is public domain, then you can modify it in any conceivable way and the original author(s) lose all ability to control not only use (which is the point of selecting the BSD license) but content, such as statements that "this code is public domain."

Even in the simplified two paragraph BSD license you have (1) attribution (in the copyright notice) (2) an implicit requirement to indicate that the code is (was) available as BSD-licensed code (no suggestion by omission that GPL relicensed code is GPL or nothing) and (3) disclaimers of warranty and liability.

You may as well ask why the Creative Commons "CC BY" license exists. Authors may simply want attribution, or in using BSD some additional protections, but not minor-to-smack-you-in-the-mouth restrictions on use and licensing (CC BY-SA to CC BY-NC-ND or, frankly, GPLv3).

Wait! So Apple is enforcing their rules which they've openly and clearly published and that they hold all developers to?

Those bastards! /yawn_at_the_non-story...

Yes! So long as you openly and clearly publish your rules and hold everyone to them, your rules are above criticism!

That's why I openly and clearly publish that anyone entering my house will be bitchslapped if they present excessively objectionable or crude content. No more pesky assault and battery claims when I arbitrarily decide what is excessively objectionable and crude.

The only reason it would ever be nearly impossible for objective journalism to cover this is if there was some sort of cover-up in the first place. Which, gosh-darn-it... sounds *JUST* like a conspiracy theory.

You've had three chances to provide an alternative explanation. You have not. That says it all.

Pot, meet kettle.

No, I have been arguing a hypothesis. Offered a copy of the very resignation letter. The best you've come up with is a PR denial that will be belied by sales data post-release

If consumer retaliation over such games actually played some part in this turn of events, then it stands to reason that would be endeavoring to learn from their mistakes. But they are showing no intention of changing their behavior, which suggests that they weren't that negatively impacted by the consumer outcry.

If you conveniently ignore that whole "oops" EA game giveaway. I look forward to the strained rationalization you will apply to sales data, financial results, and further management attrition.

Which suggests that the notion they are firing their CEO over it may be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the person who posted the summary.

Then pray-tell, why was he fired?

And where...do you find anyone who is reputable suggesting the two events are causally connected?

No, no, no... you do not have the privilege of creating ever shifting standards that others must meet.

Where is your other, more plausible explanation for the deviation from the January revenue forcast cited in the man's own resignation letter?

EA's already stated that they believe that the extreme outrage that was recently expressed about their practices was just a very "vocal minority", and not a reflection of the true direction that today's market is heading for... which does not suggest they are a company that genuinely thinks they had made any real mistakes.

And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman...

Show me an official statement, from the company, or an otherwise objectively issued report that states that was the reason for it, and I'll buy it. But so far, it sounds like just another conspiracy theory to me... one built on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Create a near-impossible standard of proof, fail to present any counter-hypothesis, and then sit back and claim that your professed ignorance as to why events have occurred is the only possible rational position. Too bad that's not the way that life works.

Show me an official statment, from the company, or an otherwise objectively issued report that states that the SimCity 5 met its financial expectations for release (especially in view of the royalty charges and measurable, if less than 1:1, sales hit that their free-game giveaway has incurred). Otherwise, it's the most plausible explanation you'll find short of an Anonymous raid-and-dump of board meeting minutes.

Except there's not enough circumstantial evidence to really come to any conclusions here in that regard.

Where enough is arbitrarily defined so that what exists is inadequate, even if nothing else is more adequate.

Perhaps this is enough.

Query: What projection-altering event has happened within the past two months to tank the financial guidance issued in January?

While it's nice to speculate that the guy was fired for reasons that suit the average slashdotter's predilection's about DRM, there is no evidence that this is the case.

In the real world, and even in the legal world, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You're welcome to offer direct evidence to the contrary... but direct evidence has never been a requirement for criminal convictions, much less individual opinion concening massive business failures followed closely by executives seeking more time with their families.

"No evidence" is usually a euphamism for "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA." You're welcome to offer a better explanation, but there is certainly evidence that this is the case.