Microblog
in reply to @ 2015-343.762ZPitivi or OpenShot, the former is the simplest, but the latter has more features
in reply to @ 2015-343.759ZThat article advocates a particular business model (proprietary re-licensing) which only applies to a limited number of project types. Many projects find that simply charging for the actual binaries is more effective.
in reply to @ 2015-343.159ZYou don't lose it, but if you never enforce it's functionally the same as not having it at all.
in reply to @ 2015-342.569Z+1 openmailbox
in reply to @ 2015-341.884Z
in reply to @ 2015-340.756Zas long as in (1) "You" are the copyright holder, then it can be like that, if you want. Though the suing part is expensive
in reply to @ 2015-339.962ZWhat youtube videos? can you link an example?
in reply to @ 2015-339.859Zundetected for 18 months
Instead of forever. Pretty good
in reply to @ 2015-339.859Za lot of YouTube videos and shows don't play without Flashplayer
Are you posting this from the past?
in reply to @ 2015-339.850ZFirefox is the best
in reply to @ 2015-339.554ZThese companies routinely bind themselves to contracts and NDAs with proprietary vendors where failure to meet specific obligations can be very costly. As a result they are careful to adhere to those obligations. They don't bother to try with the GPL because they know they won't get caught, and if they do no enforcement action is going to ask them for more than compliance.
in reply to @ 2015-339.551ZEveryone would transition to FreeBSD or a Linux kernel with a BSD userland rather than risk the penalty.
So you're saying they only use Linux because they know they can get away with their copyright infringements? Al the more reason to put a fire they understand (losses to the bottom line) under them
in reply to @ 2015-339.550Zautomatically? How?
in reply to @ 2015-339.540ZOr startssl is free and can be used end-to-end
in reply to @ 2015-339.196ZA big factor is they want to enable people to keep using free software more than they want universal compliance. So the goal is always to get compliance in each particular product/company. An injunction against distributing the kernel ever again would be effective (and in my opinion, good), but run counter to the principles conservancy has chosen.
in reply to @ 2015-339.193ZI have a total respect for conservancy's work in each individual situation, but in a big-picture sense I have to disagree. Violators are not partners or clients, they are infringers and abusers. Punitive damages exist for a reason: because most corporations can only think straight when their bottom line is hurting so much it might bleed out.
in reply to @ 2015-339.159ZThese companies shouldn't be weary. They should be terrified. Potential violators should be so afraid of enforcement that they run screaming from the mere suggestion that they violate.
I love conservacy and I fully support their work (and yes, that includes with my money), but the soft-touch approach always seems… less effective for the big picture.
in reply to @ 2015-338.838ZNo such thing. The term is just openwashing