SAG-AFTRA meets the definition of a labor union under federal and state law. It negotiates working conditions, compensation, and benefits with production companies and studios. It is treated in the manner as other labor unions such as IATSE, IBEW, and Teamsters.
Pedophiles? Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It isn't anything more than that. Puberty normally begins from 9-11 in girls and 10-12 in boys. All the research done to date has shown that pedophilia develops in the womb, hence people are born this way. No different than homosexuality. Also, most pedophiles don't molest children and most child molesters are not pedophiles. The molestation is usually done because the person has access and control over the child, not necessarily attraction to the child.
Human don't need to get pregnant to produce milk. Lactation can happen with medication or stimulation, which becomes easier as women age. If a woman is not inducing lactation with hormones, she must stimulate the breasts several times a day using hand compression or a breast pump. This is how adoptive and foster mothers breastfeed their babies. Lactation can also occur in men because they have milk glands, which is the reason they too can get breast cancer.
Please stop spreading incorrect information. Re-licensing is an exclusive right granted to the copyright holder; it has a specific meaning under copyright law. There is nothing in the Apache, BSD, or MIT license that grants re-licensing. Using source code that has been licensed under a permissive license in a larger work that is licensed differently (including more restrictions) isn't re-licensing.
Absolutely true. There's a consequence of this that people tend to ignore: You cannot remove the (e.g.) MIT license text from an MIT-licensed work if you redistribute it as GPL.
The MIT license gives you "Permission ... subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
You can abide by that condition by distributing your software under the GPL and retaining the MIT license text for portions. You cannot abide by that condition by "relicensing" the software and removing the MIT license: you are in violation of the license.
> Using source code that has been licensed under a permissive license in a larger work that is licensed differently (including more restrictions) isn't re-licensing.
Whatever you want to call it is fine. I prefer to think that GPL'd software that incorporates Open Source takes a copy and makes it GPL (especially because if I modify the Open Source at all, my changes are not available under an Open Source license.) Other people who are using that piece of Open Source are not using my copy, which is GPL.
>Also, they can't "unlicense" previously distributed code
The United States allows authors (and heirs), except work-for-hires, to clawback copyright transfers and terminate licenses after 35 years on works made after 1977. This is an inalienable statutory right, which means it cannot be waived even with a contract.
That said, it may be difficult to terminate licenses in practice because open source licensing is done informally in most cases and courts haven't ruled whether this impacts the right of termination. However, copyright assignment and contributor license agreements are subject to termination.
Okay, the consequences of this paragraph (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203) are potentially devastating if triggered, but 35 years is quite a long time in the tech world. It would be very interesting on how such a fork could proceed once the 35 year term (measured from the grant of that licence, essentially the last day the original open source version was distributed) happens if the copyright owner issues the termination letters, but for all the recent licence switches this won't be an issue until 2050s, and in any case the users would have at least two years of warning to switch to something else or possibly make the product compliant by rewriting whatever of the original 35 year old parts are still needed.
I think you are confusing re-licensing with sub-licensing, which are not the same. Under copyright law, the copyright holder is granted certain exclusive rights over their work and re-licensing is one of the rights. If the license grants sub-licensing, a licensee can pass on some or all of the rights in the license to a third party. Of the three licenses you mentioned, only the MIT license allows sub-licensing.
The license terms for a sub-license must be consistent with the original license terms, although not necessarily the same. The sub-licensor can use different words as in the original license, but they cannot override the terms and conditions that are required by that license. The sub-licensor cannot sub-license more rights than have been granted by the original license.
Works released under the Apache, BSD, and MIT license can be included in a larger work with a more restrictive license or modifications can be put under such a restrictive license, but the original license must remain intact.
If you are getting your information on re-licensing from the Wikipedia page below, it is wrong.
>It’s the same as the old Apple saying: if you’re serious about software, you have to make hardware.
The actual quote, "people who are really serious about software should make their own hardware," is from Alan Kay, when he was speaking at a seminar in 1982 called Creative Think. Andy Hertzfeld was in attendance and took notes. When Hertzfeld got back to his office at Apple, he summarized the notes on one page and handed out to his team members. Kay was later hired as an Apple Fellow in 1984.
Yes he was, but if you like jazz, his music is amazing and he did many collaborations. Mark Isham is another jazz musician (and film composer) I like and he is also a Scientologist.
I met Mark as an undergrad when I was trying to get a career in music started. I asked him if he had any advice about getting my foot in the door of tv or film scoring, and his advice was... Scientology.
Joke's on me. I never tried Scientology and consequently never made it as a film composer.
I mean, in a way, scientology is like any other affinity group [1]. If many members of a particular affinity group are prominent in an industry, joining it is a way to get connected with those members and that industry. Scientology is also a lot more hands on, and tries to manage staffing for their most prominent members, which means positions may be open only for members (which may be illegal), so it probably is pretty effective at getting your foot in the door in the industry.
The questions are really can you get out of Scientology and stay in the industry, and is getting into the industry worth the strife of getting into and out of Scientology and of association with Scientology in general.
[1] Most affinity groups aren't abusive or dehumanizing, or at least aren't to anywhere near the same degree.
> The questions are really can you get out of Scientology and stay in the industry.
Yes, you can, at least in the last decade. Lots of celebrities who were once vocal Scientologists have now left the church, though they might not make a big fuss about it. Blogs like Tony Ortega's have written on how Scientology's membership is imploding, though it still has some committed donors that it squeezes for money to keep up appearances.
