Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
This is Linux. Distro is a proper subset of Settings.
So now we only have freedom of speech regarding things that are true? So, for example, I am not alowed to say that I have a purple horn growing out of my head?
PS: I know that the constitution restircts congress from making laws against freedom of speech, and reserves that right to the people which you might be one of. That isn't the point though.
'Emporer' is the american spelling.
Of course not! 19998 could be prime and that would be enough.
The post you are responding to did not say one could not profit from GPL code. Nor did it say that you can not charge for distributing it.
The fact is you cannot distribute GPL code any way you want (unless you are the copyright holder and distribute it under non GPL terms as well, of course).
To amend what you are repeating BSD is about freedom of the distributor; GPL is about freedom of the code.
But people do "give a crap about" their money. To imply that parting fools from their money necessitates computers is disingenuous.
If you can sell it, it's property.
That is an interesting conclusion. How did you arrive at it?
IANAL (as will become obvious)
But it is legal, as far as I can tell, to require all disputes to be handled by arbitration. This is subtlety different. In theory it also appoints a neutral arbiter to decide the merits of each side of a dispute, most provide some process of selection said arbitrator (usually a mediation company/service if I am not mistaken). While this may favor one side, it could be protective for both sides and something both sides wish to agree to in case of any dispute.
But you would have to admit, I think, that this severance clause would be part of the contract. If the whole contract is deemed unconscionable or invalid this section also would be invalid and unenforceable.
No, we will not.
Yes. But you imply that some form of contract would indemnify the city from someone using the wifi; why not from someone selling drugs using the roads? Either drug selling is different from illegal use of wifi, requiring different indemnifications; or mere contracts cannot indemnify someone from assisting a criminal act.
But he could have changed the analogy to blame the public and it would not have lost much.
So why can't they have a similar page of legalese when you get a drivers license? Or buy a car? Then they could cut down on their police force!
There are at least 2 reasons why this might be an option:
It almost goes without saying on this site, but one could install a free operating system.
One could be replacing a laptop that had a OS bought separately. As long as the former laptop is unusable or wiped it is perfectly legal to transfer the OS to the new laptop. This could be done for several laptops, especially if one is not interested in upgrading to the latest and greatest version of a payed for OS.
As a legally questionable bonus: If your laptop came with a license key for Windows 7, you could download an ISO here: (NB: the amazon links seem to be dead, but the DR links seem to work)