Starting with oracle hopefully.
(Un)fortunately (and IANAL) I don't think copyrights are enforceable if you don't enforce them everytime you know of a violation.
That won't happen because IBM also uses a lot of Java stuff including the great eclipse infrastructure. They will end up suing each other for a lot of components if that happens. If rumors are to be believed, Oracle and IBM have some sort of "agreement" that they won't sue each other on these matters.
I would venture a guess that IBM is a paid up licensee of Java, they've been releasing their own proprietary JVM for quite a while and never been sued by Sun/Oracle for it AFAIK
I am comparing to Imperial China and Czar Russia which were rather inhumane societies. Russia had serfdom and peasants were treated terribly e.g. 1980s Russia was a lot more humane society.
I suspect Kazakhstan doenst have the resources to mount attacks against tor unless they can pay some western company to do it for them.
Blocking it is a somewhat different matter.
* The Prophet, Peace be upon him, said: "There will certainly come a time for mankind when everyone will take riba and if he does not do so, its dust will reach him."
* The Prophet, Peace be upon him, cursed the receiver and the payer of interest, the one who records it and the two witnesses to the transaction and said: "They are all alike [in guilt]."
Having worked on getting a Sharia-compliant investment fund set up a few years back, what I recall is that interest ("riba") is specifically forbidden. However, there are structures that can provide the same cash flows as interest but aren't technically interest: example, instead of paying interest on a 30-year mortgage, you just buy the property from the lender in installments over 30 years, etc.
Unfortunately, some of these so called Shariah-compliant transactions are not really. There is heavy debate around them, and as they say, the devil is in the detail.
For instance, my biggest issue with the scheme you mentioned is that, why would a third party come and buy the property and resell it back to you if they did not have an incentive (i.e. they have a buyer already lined up)? And can the contract be conditional that you have to agree that they sell it to you after they buy it? How is the profit rate set? Etc.
There are other schemes which seem permissible (e.g. a group of people agree to buy a house, then they find a renter and split up the rent between them. This way, the risk is spread across everyone, not just the one who owes the loan. The renter can then decide to buy shares of the house along the way). Of course, there need to be scholars who review this since there are small things that can render the agreement non-Shariah compliant.
Most of the (non-systems programming, which use C) classes offered at my university are in Java but a few of them are taught in O'Caml (The programming language and compiler ones).
But to respond to OP, IANAL but I think that you might have folded too easily. But it's understandable that you probably want to avoid a lawsuit at any cost.
How can you know what a DMCA Takedown is and not understand how Google can operate?
The DMCA gives you a "safe harbor" from accidental copyright infringement. But once you know it's copyrighted you have to take it down. AKA, the DMCA notice.
The DMCA won't protect you from knowingly linked to copyrighted material and waiting until someone sends a letter. That's how Megaupload is getting pwnd.
Maybe I know how it works. Maybe I said that to highlight exactly what you are talking about and to underscore the fact that he did not have to shutdown his service if he was compliant with DMCA takedowns, just like Google.
His app store page had a screenshot of his app playing a Madonna song...
"Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. "
There should be Anon Legal spamming these services with tons of links to real sites supported by RIAA as to make searching for any legal music useless through google. Because google complies with RIAA, an effort should be made to make for google to have it be too expensive to verify said claims and/or RIAA suffer from same tactics they employ.
I'm aware of that. That still implies that at some point Google linked to illegal material yet when requested, they removed it. Presumably HypedMusic could have had a similar deal.
Yes, a provider can follow the DMCA safe harbor procedures to facilitate the filing of DMCA takedown notices, and comply with those promptly. The details are outlined here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
Basically, a provider needs to provide contact information for a designated agent for DMCA takedown notices. Had Luke done so, and complied with legal DMCA takedown requests (as well as counter-notifications), he could have continued operating his service; however, that may have become considerably more work than he wanted to put into running the service.
I actually know very little about the LLVM, so the article had me almost confused for a second until I confirmed that the LLVM is just a compiler as I thought.
Ignoring the issues with his analysis of google and apple being brought together by the LLVM, which has its own issues, this is a really horrible article.
I agree about the ISC, that's why OpenBSD, the most free OS (as in you can do whatever you want with a larger percentage of it than any other OS), prefers using the ISC over the BSD license now.
The FSF's site[1] points out what looks like a serious problem with this license:
> This license does have an unfortunate wording choice: it provides recipients with "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software…" This is roughly the same language from the license of Pine that the University of Washington later claimed prohibited people from distributing modified versions of the software.
To me, it sounds like "modify and/or distribute" means it should be okay to both modify and then distribute the modified version. But I'm not a lawyer, and if the same language has been used to argue you can't distribute modified versions, that's pretty scary. Enough reason to prefer the slightly longer MIT license.
I was under the impression that that website is outdated. The ISC used to just say "and distribute", which is similar to older versions of the Pine license, and had problems. However, the new language is more similar to the MIT license ("and/or ..."), but the FSF does not have an issue with the MIT license.
The FSF quotes the new version with "and/or" in the blurb claiming problems with wording, but that may just be an editing mistake; maybe someone went through and corrected the quotation without realizing it resolved the concern.
Either way, though, the OpenBSD folks didn't change "and" to "and/or" in their template, which ranks high for a search for "ISC license". Someone could easily copy the older, problematic version. Given the MIT license works fine, why take even a small risk?
> To me, it sounds like "modify and/or distribute" means it should be okay to both modify and then distribute the modified version.
In fact, and/or is exactly the way to specify that options can either be used together or separately. The FSF's claimed problem, you'll note, isn't that this language was ever held to restrict distributing modified versions, only that similar language was once argued by a party with a financial interest in the outcome to have that effect.
Which is a pretty flimsy basis to assert a problem. I'm sure you can find passages in the GPL that are "roughly the same" language to something that someone, somewhere, argued in a court case meant something that would be frightening if it was what the similar language in the GPL passage was actually treated as meaning under the law, but the fact that someone once argued that a similar piece of the language means something doesn't mean that the language that they argued about (and even less, the actual license language that it is "roughly the same as") has ever been or would ever be given that effect in court.
Ultimately I care more about avoiding the increased risk of the ISC license than about saving a few lines. It would be silly if trying to make my license statement a few insignificant lines shorter prevented someone from using my open-source code.
My point was that the argument that there is increased risk is based on a flimsy premise which could equally well be applied to just about anything; there's very few pieces of commonly used legal language where someone, somewhere hasn't at one time or another argued that something phrased in "roughly the same" manner means something that you'd want to avoid.
