Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source? You're obliged to follow the law, and if you don't you'll get punished for it. Am I misinterpreting the word obliged? Because that to me is a perfect usage of the word obliged. Correct me if I'm wrong but is everybody thinking I'm saying forced? Because I'm not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obliged
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I must say, it leaves me somewhat perplexed, because on the one hand, you seem to be a selective advocate of torture, and on the other hand, you seem to have some insight into when torture is not right.
I am confused. Who decides when torture is right, and when torture is wrong? You? pudge? the supremes? congress? George for 8 years? precedence?
What are the rules in the handbook of allowable torture?
You do seem to know the chorus to "Alice's Restaurant". The chorus is not really what I was asking you about. I think the message in that song is rather more timeless than the Vietnam War, or a restaurant. In fact, I do not even think the Vietnam War is mentioned. But there are cops, and father rapers, and shrinks, and draft exams, and getting bailed out of jail, and 8 by 10 color glossy photos.
Arlo is a pretty interesting person.
I should also proof read. Apologies.
I'm reading that book, too, after I finished "Coders At Work" by Peter Seibel. Ken Thompson is one of the coders interviewed in that book, so it's worth the read if you're interested in what he's working on at Google.
Glenn Beck long ago gave up any right to make that argument. In fact, that was the whole point of the website in question.
He creates rumor and slander on his shows and in his writing, and defends it with his First Amendment rights. For him to then turn around and whine(or sue) when someone gives him a taste of his own medicine is entirely hypocritical. Not that it's surprising that he's a hypocrite, it's really the only way to be as ideological as he tries to be.
I generally notice that the professors that know their material the most are the ones that feel comfortable writing on the chalkboard, maybe with just a few notes in front of them. The best ones are the ones that just walk in and start talking about the material as if it were their life story. The best example I can think of is my thermodynamics professor who went straight through things as complicated as the Grand Canonical Partition Function with just a page or two of notes.
The truth is, a professor that really knows his/her material can teach it in any manner. And it doesn't just take command of the subject, but they also have to have good oration skills, good communication, a good presence in front of a crowd.... Then again, most universities in the US hire you based on your research credentials, so why does anyone really care if a Professor can teach?
Murdoch comes off as someone facing a culture shock and has no interest in trying to adapt. I don't know why Google doesn't just do a preemptive strike and drop them from the search engine. This has the other effect of making people using Google toolbar think the site doesn't exist. They could always point to a DMCA style take down page and then offer alternative news sources.
We could always start putting Murdoch's site in red, using the WOT tool
Worth reading Lauren Weinstein's blog post take on this - trenchantly dead-on, as usual:
Murdoch's Folly: Block Google & Kill Fair Use -- Plus a Nasty Truth
It's not hard to admit errors that are [only] cosmetically wrong. -- J.K. Galbraith