Nothing to see here. Move along. Don't feed the samzentroll.
She settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount (she probably didn't have to pay them for all the defamation she threw their way), and life goes on.
One case of unknown outcome 13 years ago in an area that would seem, on the surface, to be ripe for litigation, doesn't seem any more of a cautionary tale than any other hazard of going into business -- obviously companies want to do a good job on their TOS, but missing email just doesn't really seem to be an issue.
For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.
There have, in fact, been lawsuits over [ISP deleting spam with no notification, even if its TOS says it will sometimes do that]
Citation needed. Seriously. I looked. And even if there was a suit, did the idiot win?
This is not rocket science, but too many people running mail servers don't understand the backscattter problem, and are not helping the spam situation.
It's also not legal rocket science. Shit happens, and important mail gets lost/misdirected/classified as spam, and people survive.
Personally, I'd love to be on a jury where some idiot is blaming all the woes of his existence on the fact that an ISP didn't forward a particular message. I've never even heard of such a case; perhaps that's because even the hungry lawyers know better.
So, no, the number of things you can do that would cause you to have to give back are, in the grand scheme of things, very small, which is why the GPL is sometimes called a communist license -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
"you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it"
That's not how it works at all, and that's how FUD starts. If you use inkscape, you don't have to give away your drawings. If you use Linux, you don't have to give away stuff you do with the OS. Hell, even if you use GCC, your code is still yours.
And if you put something on a server (minus Affero), you still don't have to give anything back.
No, the only people who have to give back are those who write something that can interoperate in certain ways with GPLed software.
at some time it is going to be illegal [to throw away spam]
WTF are you smoking, and can I haz some?
No amendment, not even the first, makes it illegal for me to throw away shit that people decide to send to me.
Spam is a valuable resource.
Pigshit is a valuable resource. Spam is spam. The fact that you can look for similarities in it in order to trash more of it doesn't make it a valuable resource.
RMS's stance (that delivering a program that can be used in conjunction with another one without redistributing the other one is a copyright violation) is patently ridiculous.
Yes, RMS gave Bruno a choice, but it was a false one. Interestingly, the written decision on Sega v. Accolade came out right in the middle of that exchange. I was paying attention at the time, and I'm sure Stallman was as well. Bruno, not so much.
Why should I assume knowledge?
You don't have to assume knowledge. But you don't have to assume a lack of knowledge either, if you're interested in an honest debate.
Words mean things.
Yes, words do mean things, and "use" does often mean "distribute" despite your insincere protestations to the contrary. It's a normal everyday usage of the word, not a legalistic one.
If people can't write clearly, it ain't my fault.
His writing was quite clear. It's your wilful blinders that make it seem otherwise.
And it's not liek slashdot hasn't been full of misconceptions about the GPL in the past. Nosireee.
Yes, but you can't claim for a minute with a straight face that the misconceptions are all on one side.
If you remember, I originally gave too options: being ignorant or being a freeloader.
How can I forget that? It's that asshole, dickish false dichotomy that drew me in. No matter how you want to twist it, those aren't the only two options.
If he meant use as in distribute then hw was shining about not being able to use someone else's stuff for free.
Again, there's a huge difference between saying "I really want your stuff, and I'm just taking it" and "Even if you have some nice stuff, I won't be able to use it unless you do this." And it's still very disingenuous of you to place somebody saying the latter thing in the "freeloader" category.
As I said, I write lots of open source software. It's all permissively-licensed, because then I know that there is no problem using it in anything, either for me or others. I won't use GPLed libraries, because if I'm going to learn a tool well, I want to be able to use it under any forseeable circumstances. By your logic, deciding on a pragmatic course of action like this makes me a freeloader.
You keep complaining about supposed unclear writing and ignorance, but even when it's already been pointed out, you also keep whining about people who are not using other people's stuff being "freeloaders". I don't know and don't really care whether you troll from meanness or stupidity, but troll you do -- that's the most torturous logic in this whole thread, and if you weren't so heavily invested in that goofy opinion, you wouldn't have to resort to cheap debating tricks like deliberately misunderstanding your opponents.
Pretending the sentence is, say, 5 years while letting the "unofficial" system inflict a de facto life sentence is dishonest and against the rule of law.
People who wear funny pants can't get jobs. People who come up the wrong way in google searches can't get jobs either. Sometimes (e.g. sex-offender registries) one of these may directly be the fault of the government, but in the case the article is referring to, if the government really feels that the man is being harmed by his name being too recognizable, it would seem like the government already has tools to fix this (e.g. legalized name changes) without placing burdens on third parties.
Society should have the balls to admit its own true character to itself and then change if it can't live with it.
This is a direct argument against making google do anything differently -- if "society" cannot see a true fact on google and then do the right thing with the information, that's a problem with society, not google.