|
OddObserver posted:You can[1] still freely interface with another implementation of the same API that's not GNU-licensed. Hmm so yeah that is worse, but at the same time a lot of these same libraries are protectable under the interoperability section of the DMCA right? Or would ruling APIs copyrightable close that door?
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
GPL isn't the only such license in use, even if a lot of the open source world uses it. F.inst the MIT license is similar, in that it allows full freedom to modify and redistribute code and is compatible with GPL, but it also provides the ability for the users of MIT licensed code to incorporate it into proprietary works, without forcing the entire codebase to use the MIT license. In more practical terms, the MIT implementation of the Kerberos authentication system is, unsurprisingly, under MIT license, and thus any bit of code that uses that, must include that license, but it need only apply to the bits that actually handle the Kerberos interactions. After you have done your Kerberos authentication, what you use that for can remain under your own lock and key if you wish. Their implementation is also compatible with a very similar Kerberos implementation called Heimdal which is under a BSD license. Only the bits that handle the Heimdal compatibility are under the BSD license, because it like the MIT license allows the work to be embedded in other work. Which is all to say that licenses are a bit besides the point. If MIT had been able to copyright the API, the swedish guys who made Heimdal would not be able to make their own implementation in a manner that would let them be compatible. As it stands, both teams hold copyright on their own code, and the (almost) shared API, that is not under copyright, allows admins to decide if they prefer their server to used the MIT or the Heimdal code, while still being sure that user clients connecting using either library can still connect and be understood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Hmm so yeah that is worse, but at the same time a lot of these same libraries are protectable under the interoperability section of the DMCA right? Or would ruling APIs copyrightable close that door? You seem slightly confused, the API is the definition, the library is an implementation of that API. Currently you can have different implementations of the same API provide competing, but compatible, programs without violating any copyrights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the ACA is gutted we're going to have a year and a half of most media outlets parroting the GOP's line of "LOOKING HOW loving TERRIBLE OBAMACARE IS" and that'll be used to bludgeon the Democrats. If this was true there wouldn't be quiet panic from Republicans getting reported repeatedly about what they're going to do if they actually win. It's people who have health insurance, that they presumably like having, in red states who will lose their insurance because of their republican elected officials. It's one thing to block people from getting insurance - most people denied medicare didn't realize they got screwed. It's another to actively take it away. These people will know they got screwed, and know they were better off with Obamacare than without. That is not good news for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Except gutting Obamacare keeps the popular parts, and removes the unpopular part (subsidies for the poors).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
sullat posted:Except gutting Obamacare keeps the popular parts, and removes the unpopular part (subsidies for the poors). Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault').
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:B is part of the standard reason - transient copies are still copies. The GPL only imposes restrictions on distribution of derived works, though, and the runtime transient copy happens on the end user's computer, from where the result is never distributed. GhostBoy posted:In more practical terms, the MIT implementation of the Kerberos authentication system is, unsurprisingly, under MIT license, and thus any bit of code that uses that, must include that license, but it need only apply to the bits that actually handle the Kerberos interactions. After you have done your Kerberos authentication, what you use that for can remain under your own lock and key if you wish. No, you can take MIT code, change it, and release the result under another license (including proprietary, or not releasing source at all). MIT/BSD's defining characteristic these days is really that it lacks the license reciprocity requirement found in GPL/MPL/Apache/etc. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
duz posted:You seem slightly confused, the API is the definition, the library is an implementation of that API. Currently you can have different implementations of the same API provide competing, but compatible, programs without violating any copyrights. Yes, I'm aware that APIs are currently not considered copyrightable. The question is would stuff like wine still be protected from copyright under the DMCA's interoperability exceptions if APIs were copyrightable . Subjunctive posted:The GPL only imposes restrictions on distribution of derived works, though, and the runtime transient copy happens on the end user's computer, from where the result is never distributed. I had forgotten about this. Who is making the copy in this case, the user who uses the program or the writer of the program?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault'). 105% of the poverty line is still "poor" by most practical definitions, but I see your point. Especially with the Medicare issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Yes, I'm aware that APIs are currently not considered copyrightable. The question is would stuff like wine still be protected from copyright under the DMCA's interoperability exceptions if APIs were copyrightable . User. Author is liable for indirect infringement though (inducement and/or contributory.) And I think you misunderstand the DMCA exceptions - they aren't copyright exceptions, they're exceptions specifically to the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If this was true there wouldn't be quiet panic from Republicans getting reported repeatedly about what they're going to do if they actually win. It's people who have health insurance, that they presumably like having, in red states who will lose their insurance because of their republican elected officials. It's one thing to block people from getting insurance - most people denied medicare didn't realize they got screwed. It's another to actively take it away. These people will know they got screwed, and know they were better off with Obamacare than without. That is not good news for Republicans. You have far more faith in the masses than I do. FoxNews, Talk Radio and the rest of the right wing machine will hammer away at "OBAMACARE DID THIS TO YOU  " until the election while others give some truth is in the middle bullshit.Though maybe we're all reading the tea leaves wrong and Roberts is going to side with the ACA again and wanted the case taken up so that it could be put to rest and the court not stuck hearing (more) ACA cases, but that's probably even less likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You have far more faith in the masses than I do. FoxNews, Talk Radio and the rest of the right wing machine will hammer away at "OBAMACARE DID THIS TO YOU It's such a bad situation that the "Freedom Caucus" of the House, which is exactly as loony as it sounds (it contains several of the "suicide caucus" that tried to sink Boehner's re-election), think it would be bad enough they are willing to consider extending the subsidies past the 2016 election because they realize the backlash is going to be a problem: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-conservatives-entertain-obamacare-subsidy-fix They are going to try to attach poison pills to the bill, but they realize that it's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I had forgotten about this. Who is making the copy in this case, the user who uses the program or the writer of the program? The user.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Weren't there indications that Kennedy of all people was showing signs that he might not rule in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that it was coercion against states to force them to make an exchange in order to receive subsidies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault'). And, even better, push it into the 2016 election cycle in key battleground states. If there's one thing the Republicans want, its Hillary and the Democrats hammering them on supporting taking away insurance from several million people out of stupidity. Nate RFB posted:Weren't there indications that Kennedy of all people was showing signs that he might not rule in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that it was coercion against states to force them to make an exchange in order to receive subsidies? Yes. That seems to be one of the key points for those who think it will survive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault'). Medicaid, not Medicare. And I'm pretty sure the GOP would offer an extension of the subsidies in exchange for stripping the mandate, thus putting the ball in Obama's court to veto. In any case, it's not only red states that would lose the subsidies; a handful of blue states screwed up their marketplaces so bad they've reverted to healthcare.gov (while other Dem states at the time, like IL, used healthcare.gov instead of establishing a state marketplace). All in all, a little over 6 million people are now receiving subsidies from the federal marketplace and it's really hard to say how that would shake out politically, given their spread across 38 or so states. eta: Yours is a variation on the 2014 claim by Dems that the GOP's refusal to expand Medicaid would slam-dunk the midterms for the Dems. (I myself thought so too at one time.) Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Okay so what do we got this month: 1. Marriage Equality 2. Obamacare vs. The Most Bullshit Semantic Argument I've Ever Heard 3. Should Prisoners Be Treated as People When it's Beneficial to the GOP's Hold Over Congress? 4. Are Death Threats Okay If They're On The Computer? Am I missing anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault'). Well, surely (from a political point of view) it's almost entirely a question of whether the Republicans can actually get a bill through Congress? If they do get something passed, I think the dynamic that you're referring to actually flips around and starts working in the Republicans' favor ('Obamacare got taken away because the Democrats screwed up writing it, then we tried to fix it but Obama won't let us'). e: SpiderHyphenMan posted:4. Are Death Threats Okay If They're On The Computer? We already got this, assuming you're referring to Elonis and there's not another case about threatening speech on the Internet
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Okay so what do we got this month: If the Roberts court rules correctly, this will be the maybe the best Inside Job ever pulled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:We already got this, assuming you're referring to Elonis and there's not another case about threatening speech on the Internet Wait, does that ruling mean that death threats over the internet are legal because there's no way to prove that I'm not simply using my wish to murder that person as an expression of how strongly I disagree with them? I don't get the ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
They decided not to answer whether or not that kind of speech is protected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
All they said was the standard the wrong but didn't clarify at all what the appropriate one to use should be and reversed and punted back down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:And I'm pretty sure the GOP would offer an extension of the subsidies in exchange for stripping the mandate, thus putting the ball in Obama's court to veto. As to the first part, that's in my post, but I doubt (1) the poison pill gambit would work politically and (2) that you can actually round up enough Republican votes to pass it without Democratic votes. As to the second, most rationales for a King decision that guts the subsidies would permit blue states that don't oppose exchanges, just were bad at them, to still get subsidies through declaring the federal exchange 'their' exchange or a partnership exchange. It's states that oppose exchanges in general that are boned. As for the medicaid, there's a reason that I (and everyone else) draw the distinction about taking away an existing insurance vs. blocking getting insurance, because that proved to be decisive for the medicaid expansion. Most people didn't know they'd lost something. Hell, there was that guy recently railing about Obamacare because he was going blind who discovered he'd gotten hosed by his state declining to expand medicaid only like a week into his public ranting, and was quite surprised by it. The distinction here is important that the exchanges already exist, and people already have insurance. King before Obamacare started would have created the medicaid situation. It's very different now that people have their insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Well, surely (from a political point of view) it's almost entirely a question of whether the Republicans can actually get a bill through Congress? I don't believe the poison pill ploy would work politically if they could pass it. I also just don't see Republicans able to pass it. They have more of a majority in the House than in the debt ceiling follies so it's possible, but I don't see it clearing the House anyway, and I don't see it getting out of the Senate. You can't run on repeal, repeal repeal for six years, vote 40 times to repeal it, then try to cast yourself as the guys trying to save it. It just doesn't work politically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't believe the poison pill ploy would work politically if they could pass it. I also just don't see Republicans able to pass it. They have more of a majority in the House than in the debt ceiling follies so it's possible, but I don't see it clearing the House anyway, and I don't see it getting out of the Senate. You can't run on repeal, repeal repeal for six years, vote 40 times to repeal it, then try to cast yourself as the guys trying to save it. It just doesn't work politically. I can see it working if they can pass it. If they can get across the message is that they thought Obamacare was a bad law, which is why they tried to repeal it, and now the Supreme Court has proven them right so they're trying to pass a health care reform package that actually works, I think they could live with that. It doesn't really make sense if you look at the underlying policy, but as narratives go, I think you could do a lot worse. I mean, it's not like it has to be particularly good policy, since whatever they pass isn't going to become law anyway. It's not going to be great for them but as long as they have something they can point to and say "This is our solution", it's pretty survivable. Even just an extension would help, as long as they get to say "Your insurance got taken away because Obamacare was a poorly-written law." Which they will. Of course that does still leave the question of whether they could actually get anything passed, which is a much bigger stumbling block.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes. That seems to be one of the key points for those who think it will survive. If it survives what's the next avenue of attack the GOP will use to try and get the ACA destroyed? I'd say that sooner or later they'd give up but groups like ALEC exist solely to ensure that the fight never ends no matter how slowly they have to chip away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If it survives what's the next avenue of attack the GOP will use to try and get the ACA destroyed? I'd say that sooner or later they'd give up but groups like ALEC exist solely to ensure that the fight never ends no matter how slowly they have to chip away. If it survives King I can't really see any more attacks on it because they've offered the Supreme Court the chance to kill it entirely, the chance to kill it partially, and haven't won either. It's not like anyone believes the vote here is turning on the legal merits of the argument so you'd need some reason why the politics changed for Roberts - and the politics get worse for him the longer it's in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I'm pessimistic that they will find a way. Remember that few people thought this case would actually be granted cert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm pessimistic that they will find a way. Remember that few people thought this case would actually be granted cert. I generally think that Roberts is too cognizant of the danger King poses to both the long-term health of the court and to his party to actually go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Sorry for the double post.
BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm pessimistic that they will find a way. Remember that few people thought this case would actually be granted cert. I mean, maybe they'll go for this. But if they don't, why would they suddenly go for round three? What's going to change? All I can see is one of the liberals croaking when Jeb Bush gets elected, but if he gets elected it's getting gutted without the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
I would be okay with the "1 person, 1 vote" case going against all citizens if we have a positive gay marriage ruling and a positive subsidies ruling. I try to balance out the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean, maybe they'll go for this. But if they don't, why would they suddenly go for round three? What's going to change? All I can see is one of the liberals croaking when Jeb Bush gets elected, but if he gets elected it's getting gutted without the Supreme Court. You think that its going to be politically possible to take away millions of people insurance legislatively? Like, I've always rather assumed that the reason Boehner and Mitch have let this whole thing go on as long as it has is that they knew Obama more or less would stop it before it got far enough to become politically damaging. Or do you think that they've leaned so far in that even if they know what damage it will do, that they would have to do it anyway or risk an open revolt in the party that would be more dangerous to them than just telling them the game is up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You think that its going to be politically possible to take away millions of people insurance legislatively? Like, I've always rather assumed that the reason Boehner and Mitch have let this whole thing go on as long as it has is that they knew Obama more or less would stop it before it got far enough to become politically damaging. They've promised their paymasters and the gribbly pack of slobs that make up their base that they'll rip up the New Deal just as soon as they get control of the White House again. They're going to have to at least try their best to hurt some people and do some damage in order to satisfy that constituency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:They've promised their paymasters and the gribbly pack of slobs that make up their base that they'll rip up the New Deal just as soon as they get control of the White House again. They're going to have to at least try their best to hurt some people and do some damage in order to satisfy that constituency. My question was if EW thinks that they've lost control of the situation to the point that they'd commit what be tantamount to political suicide. (They've proven again and again that there's no way they could agree on a replacement and would completely tear themselves apart trying to do it.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:As to the first part, that's in my post, but I doubt (1) the poison pill gambit would work politically and (2) that you can actually round up enough Republican votes to pass it without Democratic votes. You've got a point about what people have (subsidies) vs. what they never had (expanded Medicaid), but I don't think compliance will mean merely branding a state page pointing to healthcare.gov as fulfilling the requirement if King prevails. And that isn't even getting to the formerly blue states like IL that lost the governor's election in 2014, or states whose legislatures flipped from blue to red, like NV and MN. Plus, the money that the feds gave the states to start the exchanges has dried up now; it would take a (new) act of Congress to fund any transition, which I'm pretty sure would be DOA. Given that a record number of middle-class people are saying that even with subsidies they can't afford to actually use their insurance coverage, I'm not sure it's gonna have that much of a political impact if SCOTUS decides in favor of King. (Even Congressional Dems are now acklowledging the plight of the underinsured due to stratospheric out-of-pocket costs.) On top of all that are the 30-50 percent increases that many insurers have been proposing for 2016; it's gonna be hard for Dems to rally the troops on behalf of Romneycare whether Burwell prevails or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Edit: Open-source people care about this a great deal since APIs are often created by commercial vendors (think Microsoft, or Apple), and they want to prevent OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Ironically the reverse is probably true as well since if APIs are ruled uncopyrightable, it would render the GPL linking provisions largely unenforceable. (Not that it matters that much given the number of potential loopholes in those provisions.) The library binary is still copyrighted and can only be linked against with an appropriate license.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The library binary is still copyrighted and can only be linked against with an appropriate license.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Then you'd need to answer whether ABIs are copyright able which is almost certainly yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:11
|
|