headers
Alan Mackenzie | 1 Oct 2009 11:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: How to develop a web database application using gnu tools

Alexandre Leite <alexandrecgleite <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: ISO-8859-1, 13 lines --]

> Hi everyone,

> I am new in GNU development and I am looking for freedom. I'd like to know
> which tools I would use to develop database web applications to run on any
> web browser; including, compilers, libriries, frameworks, etc. Futhermore,
> I'd like to use GNU/Linux Debian to be my web server.

> Thanks for any help,

Probably, this group doesn't have the right people to tell you that.

But one linguistic tip:  You would do better to phrase your Subject: as

    "How do I develop ..... ...?"
         ^^^^                  ^

, which make it clear you are asking a question.  "How to develop ...."
sounds more like your are telling other people how to do this.

> Alexandre.

--

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Smith | 2 Oct 2009 03:09

Re: How to develop a web database application using gnu tools

In article <mailman.7810.1254363724.2239.gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org>,
 Alexandre Leite <alexandrecgleite <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi everyone,
> 
> I am new in GNU development and I am looking for freedom. I'd like to know
> which tools I would use to develop database web applications to run on any
> web browser; including, compilers, libriries, frameworks, etc. Futhermore,
> I'd like to use GNU/Linux Debian to be my web server.

Apache as web server. Part of Debian.

MySQL or PostgreSQL as database server. Part of Debian.

Compilers: gcc. Part of Debian.

Frameworks: there's a free framework for pretty much every language 
nowadays. Rails for Ruby. Mason for Perl. Seaside for Smalltalk. Google 
Web Toolkit, Yahoo YUI, Cappuccino, and a million others for Javascript 
and variants on Javascript (like Objective-J). Plenty of these are under 
free licenses. Without more detail, I don't think anyone is going to be 
able to get specific. Some questions that come to mind:

* Is the "brains" of the application going to run in the browser, via 
Javascript (either directly, or via something that compiles another 
language down to Javascript--and there are plenty of those), or are the 
smarts on the server side, and the browser is just a pretty interface?

* What kind of persistence do you need on the server? Is a simple 
CGI-type server OK, where each request from a client invokes a new
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
secretary | 4 Oct 2009 18:34

NYC LOCAL: Monday 5 October 2009 NoSQL Mini-Conference

<blockquote
  what="official Mini-Conference announcement"
  registration="required, see http://anyvite.com/1aczrvxjp6"
  information="http://sqlfreenyc.org/conference"
  useful="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosql
          [page was last modified on 29 September 2009 at 09:46]"
  more="http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/images/a/ab/HickeyJVMSummit2009.pdf
        http://www.artima.com/articles/hickey_on_time.html"
  place="Desmond Tutu Center, Matthews Room
         180 10th Ave (b/w 20 & 21st Streets)
         New York, NY 10011"
  time="6:00-10:00 pm, Monday 5 October 2009"
  edits="some reformatting">

 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:36:49 -0400
 From: heow <heow <at> alphageeksinc.com>
 Subject: Re: hey, can you do me a favor and get the word out for this

 NoSQL NYC Meetup/Mini-Conference - Fall '09

 * Description:
 NoSQL mini-conference the evening of October 5.

 We will have several presentations on NoSQL related technologies, 
 discussion and lightning talks.

 This event will run from 6pm - 10pm.

 Confirmed Speakers:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 6 Oct 2009 16:57
Picon

First Sale upheld in software case

http://www.osnews.com/img/22270/order.pdf

The footnote says it all.

"Although the phrase “copy of copyrighted material” is awkward, the
court uses it to emphasize the distinction between the copy and the
copyrighted material. See 17 U.S.C. § 202. Autodesk’s copyrighted
AutoCAD software is its intellectual property, and Mr. Vernor makes no
claim to it. Copies of AutoCAD software are personal property embodied
in compact disks and other media scattered across the world. Mr. Vernor
claims to be the owner of two such copies, contained in the two AutoCAD
packages still in his possession."

Here's the EFF's coverage:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/it-s-still-duck-court-re-affirms-first-sale-doctri

"October 5th, 2009

It’s Still A Duck: Court Re-Affirms That First Sale Doctrine Can Apply
to “Licensed” Software 

Commentary by Corynne McSherry 

Building on a prior ruling, a federal court has re-affirmed that a
Seattle man was not infringing copyright law by re-selling software he
obtained from an Autodesk customer.

The ruling is bound to frustrate the copyright industries, which have
struggled for years to convince courts and their customers that the only
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Rjack | 6 Oct 2009 23:30

Re: First Sale upheld in software case

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.osnews.com/img/22270/order.pdf

For all the folks who cheered the JMRI decision concerning the
Artistic License, they would be wise to observe the Judge's words in
this case:

"D. Wise and the MAI Trio Conflict Irreconcilably; this Court Must
Follow Wise.

  With two sets of conflicting precedent before the court, the question
becomes which to follow. That question, at least, has a simple answer.
The court must follow the oldest precedent among conflicting opinions
from three-judge Ninth Circuit panels. United States v.
Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 943 (9th Cir. 2005). This court is
loath, however, to apply this rule unless there is no way to avoid the
conflict between the opinions. As was the case in the prior order, the
court finds the conflict unavoidable."

The CAFC's JMRI decision irreconcilably conflicts with the older CAFC
panel's decision in STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. CUSTOM HARDWARE
ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC 2005):

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."

CAFC Local Rules clearly state that a three judge panel may not
overrule an earlier three judge panels' precedent -- this must be done
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Hyman Rosen | 6 Oct 2009 23:37
Picon

Re: First Sale upheld in software case

Rjack wrote:
> "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
> unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
> constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
> in the absence of any license agreement at all."

Fortunately, since copying and distributing computer programs
infringes upon the author's copyrights in the absence of any
license agreement at all, the JMRI decision continues to be
perfectly sound.
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Rjack | 7 Oct 2009 00:10

Re: First Sale upheld in software case

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
>>  unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license 
>> agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses 
>> would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
> 
> Fortunately, since copying and distributing computer programs 
> infringes upon the author's copyrights in the absence of any 
> license agreement at all, the JMRI decision continues to be 
> perfectly sound.

Nobody said copying and distributing without permission (which the
Artistic License *does* freely permit) wasn't infringement.
The attribution requirement wasn't a "condition" to the license -- it
was a contractual covenant. There is no right of attribution listed in
17 USC 106.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology
Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC) --
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
secretary | 7 Oct 2009 08:32

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 7 October 2009 NYCBUG: Brian Cully on XMPP Takes AIM: A Lot of Jabber about Real Time Applications

<blockquote
  what="official NYC*BUG announcement"
  edits="">

 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:12:27 -0400
 To: announce <at> lists.nycbug.org
 From: NYC*BUG Announcements <announce <at> lists.nycbug.org>
 Subject: [announce] NYC*BUG Wednesday: XMPP Takes AIM

 October 07, 2009

 Brian Cully on XMPP Takes AIM: A Lot of Jabber about Real Time Applications

 6:45 pm, Suspenders Restaurant
 http://www.suspendersbar.com/location.php

 XMPP Without IM

 This will be an open-ended Q&A-style talk covering XMPP fundamentals. 
 XML streams, stanza semantics, federation, and extensibility will all be 
 touched on. The purpose will be to cover what makes XMPP different from 
 existing IM solutions and viable as a generic push technology. Come with 
 questions!

 bio:

 Brian has been involved in the XMPP community since 2007, writing code 
 for ejabberd and prosody to support various extensions, with a 
 particular focus on publish-subscribe functionality. He is currently 
 working on integrating XMPP with Junction Networks` SIP service,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 7 Oct 2009 12:27
Picon

Re: First Sale upheld in software case

Another nice article.

http://cyberlawcases.com/2009/10/01/court-rules-again-that-vernor-can-sell-autodesk-software/

"Court rules (again) that Vernor can sell Autodesk software

Posted October 1st, 2009 by Brian and filed in Contract, Copyright
Limitations and Exceptions 

In this blog’s previous coverage of the “Copy Ownership Cases,” I
attempted to briefly summarize three important cases where ownership of
copies is critical and so did not delve into a detail relevant to this
update.

The decision in Vernor v. Autodesk from May of 2008 was a decision on
Autodesk’s motion to dismiss the case. Motions to dismiss are among the
first motions one might file in a federal case and occur prior to the
exchange of documents or the deposition of witnesses that occurs during
the discovery process. Typically once that discovery process is
complete, the parties may bring motions for summary judgment in which a
party will argue that, based on the undisputed facts, and resolving any
disputed fact in favor of the other party, the court can simply apply
the law to those facts and rule in their favor. In a grand demonstration
of the ability of opposing lawyers to take on diametrically opposed
world views, parties often both file such summary judgment motions,
which are called “cross-motions” for summary judgment. 

Such cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in Vernor v. Autodesk
and the court held oral argument on the motions on Tuesday, Sep. 29,
2009. A few news outlets covered the oral argument: PC World, Zeropaid,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hyman Rosen | 7 Oct 2009 15:05
Picon

Re: First Sale upheld in software case

Rjack wrote:
> There is no right of attribution listed in 17 USC 106.

There is no right to payment listed either. That is because
the list of rights lists the things that the rights holder
alone may do or authorize, not the forms of compensation he
may elect to receive.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane