Re: [z...@freedbms.net: Veracrypt license - how to change it]
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:54:05PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Il 07/08/19 14:29, Zenaan Harkness ha scritto: > > > Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a > > new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the > > existing laws about Taxi cabs etc, and build they user base quickly > > enough that by the time any court case gets going, they can have > > financial, legal and government clout to get the laws changed - but > > until that change happens, they operate under TACIT CONSENT - tacit > > consent of the people, and tacit consent of the government. > > There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs. Pure hogwash. And a negative averment seeking "tacit support by non response" to boot - devious I tell ya, devious! :) The things people believe, hey? Since you asserted some nonsense, here's some facts in response: Melbourne levels playing field for Uber, taxis, limos https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/12/melbourne-levels-playing-field-uber-taxis-limos/75582478/ Published 4:40 p.m. ET Nov. 12, 2015 MELBOURNE — Rather than changing with the times, Melbourne's licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies are relying on government to keep regulatory barriers high and protect their businesses from app-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, City Hall officials believe. That will change: Tuesday night, the Melbourne City Council decided to deregulate the vehicle-per-hire industry in the city and "level the playing field." ... City Council postponed discussion on the topic in August. That's when representatives of some of Melbourne’s 43 licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies — plus the Florida Taxicab Association and National Limousine Association — lobbied for continued regulations. ... and see: Facing Uber, Melbourne cab companies support regulations https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/13/facing-uber-melbourne-cab-companies-support-regulations/31655513/ MELBOURNE – City leaders have hit the brake pedal on a proposal to deregulate Melbourne’s 43 licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies. Tuesday, an array of Space Coast cab and limo company owners surprised Melbourne City Council members by asking to continue following City Hall rules. App-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are exempt from city code. But Louie Minardi, president of the Florida Taxicab Association, and David Shaw, the National Limousine Association’s Southeast region director, said their industry should continue having insurance-coverage requirements, vehicle inspections, drug testing and criminal background checks for drivers. “Even the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has issued warnings about the ride-sharing,” Minardi told council members. “Ride-sharing is where the taxis and limos were years ago. That’s why we have regulation — because we had the same problems. You don’t know who’s driving the car. ... and, for the legal punch line, how Uber created their legal entitlement by effectively saying "f u" to Melbourne's Taxi regulations: Citing Uber, Melbourne may drop taxi permits https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/02/melbourne-may-drop-taxi-permits-citing-uber-competition/31042705/ Citing competition from Uber and up-and-coming ride-sharing services, Melbourne officials may deregulate taxi, shuttle and limousine companies to level the competitive playing field. Forty-three such companies are licensed to operate in Melbourne, employing 457 permitted drivers and using 131 decal-equipped vehicles. Per city code, these companies must pay a one-time $50 application, pay $10 decal fees per vehicle, and pay a $15 application fee and $24 background-check fee for each prospective driver. Plus, each regulated business must carry liability insurance covering at least $300,000 for injury and death claims per accident. In contrast, no app-based newcomers like Uber, Lyft or Sidecar have gone through the city's application process, City Clerk Cathy Wysor and Police Chief Steve Mimbs — who support taxi deregulation — wrote in a joint memo. ... and if you still don't believe there are laws over taxi cabs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia Taxis in Australia are highly regulated by each Australian state and territory,[1] with each state and territory having its own history and structure. In December 2014, there were 21,344 taxis in Australia.[2] Taxis in Australia are required to be licensed and are typically required to operate and charge on a fitted taximeter. Taxi fare rates are set by state or territory governments. A vehicle without a meter is generally not considered to be a taxi, and may be described, for example, as a hire car, limousine, carpool, etc. Most taxis today are fuelled by liquid petroleum gas. Cabcharge Aust
Re: [z...@freedbms.net: Veracrypt license - how to change it]
Hi, Il 07/08/19 14:29, Zenaan Harkness ha scritto: >>> That's not the way this stuff works. You have to assume objection >>> UNTIL given permission. > > So you say. Your saying so does not make it true. So says the law, as far as I know. Most copyright laws work by asserting that the author of a copyrightable work has some exclusive rights over it, and nobody can do those things unless they have an explicit permission by the author themselves (there are exceptions to it, like quoting and fair use, but it is not what we are dealing with now). There is no "implit consent" mechanism here: the implicit assumption of copyright is that rights are held exclusively for the author. Any deviation from this must be explicit, which is the reason why licenses are used. Then of course you might say that you don't think that the authors would sue you for your usage of their work even if they did not grant an explicit license. That's sort of ok, or at least it is your business until someone actually decides to proceed against you if they can and wish. But if your aim is to have that software in Debian, I am pretty sure that you will need something more. I really hope that FTP masters will require some more hard facts that just "well, I personally don't think the authors would be bothered by that". > OK. Perhaps a misunderstanding - to the extend that existing code > authors have provided valid contact means (email, post etc), then > attempt to contact them and provide the (1 or say 2 year relicensing > notice) must be made, or prima facie our public duty of care has not > been met. I am not aware of any such mechanism: do you know court cases in which this method was established? Nobody has any obligation to be contactable in any way, and even less to be contactable by the means you decided. It is on those who seek relicensing to contact all those who have rights, and if they cannot, bad for them. >> Exceptions can possibly be made for trivial >> contributions by reasoning that they are so simple that they cannot >> be considered copyrightable, but that's a very risky way. > > Risky exactly how ?? The distinction between what is copyrightable and what is not can be very thin. If the purported copyright holder and possibly the judge who might handle your case do not agree with you, you might have some problem. >> If some copyright holder (or their heirs) cannot be contacted or do >> not agree, > > Conflation is a classic obfuscation technique which you might advise > yourself to not use. Here you have chosen to conflate two utterly > distinct legal (and legally relevant in the circumstances) concepts: > > - copyright holders not able to be contacted > > - copyright holders expressing their actual objection I am not conflating anything. If the copyright holder is not contacted you cannot know whether they have objections or not. If they do not, then everything's ok. But if they do, then you have a problem, and this problem can appear at any moment in the future, whenever the copyright holder decides they have a problem. And I would never want to depend on a software that can become illegal for me to use at any random moment, especially if that software encrypts everything on my hard disk. It would basically become a ransomware. I really hope nothing of that kind ever enters Debian. If you feel at ease using it, better for you. > And so the government, or rather the administration (the third arm) > get their nefarious statute created monopolies on many things - the > production of cotton and the suppression of hemp (for an old example) > - the banning of alcohol and other drugs at different times, creating > extremely lucrative black markets, the mandatory requirement in > certain jurisdictions to ensure your children attend the local > government brainwashing facility known as schools. Hmm, it seems you got carried away just a little bit... > Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a > new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the > existing laws about Taxi cabs etc, and build they user base quickly > enough that by the time any court case gets going, they can have > financial, legal and government clout to get the laws changed - but > until that change happens, they operate under TACIT CONSENT - tacit > consent of the people, and tacit consent of the government. There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs. Actually, there is something like this somewhere, and in those places Uber cannot operate. But this has nothing to do with our case, because in fact there is a law saying that you cannot modify or redistributed other people's copyrighted code unless you have explicit permission. > Just because we are normally not taught about tacit consent, does not > mean that tacit consent does not exist, or is not used on a daily > basis all over the planet. Yes, but for other things. HTH, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani Postdoc researcher - Université
