Viewing posts for the category legal
Auto ātrums nav vienīgais avāriju, nāves, ievainojumu un materiālo zaudējumu cēlonis, taču tas ir šo seku reizinātājs (pat ja auto saslīd neuzmanības dēļ runājot pa telefonu, sekas tam būs jo smagākas, jo lielāks bija sākotnējais ātrums). Ja atrast veidu kā nodrošināt to, ka cilveki ievēro atļauto ātrumu, tad rodas iespēja gan palielināt atļauto ātrumu tajās vietās, kur tas ir jēdzīgi, gan arī atbrīvot policijas resursus citu pārkāpumu vai problēmu apkarošanai. Tāpēc būtu prātīgi atrast kādu vieglāku un drošāku veidu kā nodrošināt atļautā maksimālā ātruma ievērošanu netērējot tam pārāk lielus ceļu policijas resursus. Fotoradari ir labs pirmais solis, taču ar mūšdienu tehnoloģijām ir iespējams sasniegt arī labāku rezultātu.
Pēc tam, kad man apnika LTV raidījuma Zebra plaši reklamētā kampaņa Fotoradari 15+ es nolēmu uzsākt savu kampaņu Fotoradari 1+, lai apkopotu viedokļus, kas ir pretstatā Zebra paustajam viedoklim. Šis ir vienīgais veids kā to izdarīt, jo portālā ManaBalss nav iespējams atzīmēt, ka es nepiekrītu kādai iniciatīvai un arī nav iespējams izteikt šīm iniciatīvā kritiku. Un tas arī ir otrs iemesls kāpēc es rakstu šo rakstu šeit - šeit es atbildēšu uz biežak uzdotajiem jautājumiem par un ap abām akcijām, kā arī te ir iespējams diskutēt par šīm lietām komentāros. Uzreiz pateikšu - es nedzēsīšu komentārus, kas ir kritiski manam viedoklim, bet es paturu tiesības cenzēt rupjības, personīgus apvainojumus un cita veida komentārus, kas nedod pienesumu diskusijai.
A scandal has been brewing in Latvia over the last half year and yesterday the activity spiked shocking the media and some IT people in the country. I'll go back and explain what happened first, what is happening now and why this could have a heavy impact on IT and journalists in Latvia.
UK ISPs erect "Great Firewall of Britain" to censor Wikipedia
In light of Ted's post on copyright, it is clear that we are bogged down by a hostile terminology.
Catching up on blogs, emails and Debian mailing lists I see that nothing really important has happened while I was off-line: the dunc-tank caboodle escalated and died down when the majority voted that it was not worth the commotion, some people got upset at some other people and decided stop working on Debian because of that, Mozilla went even more bonkers about its trademarks.
Apparently the government agencies in UK that are managing the current security craze have little to no idea how much their super-paranoid security policies acctualy cost. It appears that direct losses from one day of air traffic chaos costs airlines 175 million pounds.
11 years, 10 months ago
12 years ago
Ok, I read the first GPLv3 draft. I found multiple problems, some good, some quite bad:
- Section 2 - The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program.: does this mean that documents written in Abiword is covered by GPL? (Edit: I misread the sentence here, it really states just the oposite of what I thought :P)
- Section 3 - Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.: does this mean that one can not make a locked down system where users can not write outside the homedir, make /home a separate partition and mount it with noexec parameter thus denying all simple users the right of running modified versions of these programs (at least on this system)?
- Section 4. - You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright
notice;: does that mean that I have to write "Copyright by this and that and this and that and this and that" on every CD that I record in my home to give to my friends? It sounds as bad as the original BSD advertisement clause.
- Section 5.b - You must license the entire modified work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.: I suggest adding "legally" before "comes", because otherwise, for example, if a company is making an internal modification of a GPL program with some secret information embedded into the code (some very internal communication routine, passwords, codes, ...) and some industrial thief steals this modified code for a blackhat hacker, he can claim that he "came into possession of a copy" and thus he has all the legal rights use it and that no trade secret laws can apply.
- in some places "Corresponding Source" is used instead of "Complete Corresponding Source Code" (Edit: I was pointed to a place in the middle of the licence where "CS" is defined equal to "CCSC". Still, not the best style - either declare that upfront or use one style trough the document)
- Section 9. - it is not clearly stated that using the covered work indicates acceptance of the Licence, but it is explicitly stated for modification and propagation.
- Section 13. - I really do not like geographic limitations. Anyone can state "this program has a progress bar, which is patented in USA, so you can not use it in USA unless you have the patent" for basically any program thus very easily discriminating against quite a few people. If it is illegal by other means, leave it be illegal by those means - do not impose additional illegality on it via copyright. Law in some countries and patent situation can change more easily then the licence for old free software projects with many contributors.
I have not yet read any comments from either FSF or any other people and I am not a lawyer, but I hope that these problems will be fixed in next drafts.