The article clearly states that he wants to lash out at products that label their "non OSI approved" licenses as "open source". Regardless of what the license says.
"once every 2-3 months we'd receive notice that some company or another was advertising that their software was "open source" when the license was not approved by the OSI board"
That is a very broad and general statement that doesn't in any way specify whether or not the license is actually "open" or not, but instead works to say "this whole open source thing is mine and you can't be open source unless you ask me or I will be mad and sue".
Just like you described, the idea of having a monopoly is to not cause confusion as to what your product does and should offer, to not complicate advocacy of your product, and to keep other vendors from being detrimental to your market and community.
The OSI is simply trying to monopolise the movement by demanding that licenses are "approved" by them. Nothing more.
So, they're all for open software and open licensing and open everything, but only if it's the kind of open approved by them?
Apparently it's okay to attempt to monopolise a market, as long as you're convinced that your intentions are noble. "Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.
Most keyboards have their leads printed on flexible plastic sheets that are screwed together with a metal backpane. If water gets inbetween these, it *will* lead to shorts and burnt leads, and your keyboard *will not* function.
Ideally, what you want to do is take the front part of the keyboard off, remove the keyboard controller PCB (Usually just three screws and you can pull it and the cord off,) remove the plastic sheet and the metal plate, and then just scrub the thing down with whatever you're comfortable with. Dry it off traditionally with a hairdryer or similar device (being plastic, it doesn't take more than fifteen minutes,) and screw the sheets and the controller back into the keyboard.
"Microsoft thinks Open Office is a pain now, try suing people over it, then see how many people refuse to buy their products."
How old is whoever wrote this? 12? Who honestly believe that anyone gives a flying expletive about whether Microsoft sues the Open Office project or not? As if the millions of technologically apathetic Microsoft Office users will rebel against Microsoft for a cause that they've likely never heard about.
How did this get on the front page? It's like a half-way thought through anti-Microsoft rant taken from any random open source related IRC channel.
If you're selling a connection with bandwidth "up to", say, 10Mbps, you have to prove that it is possible, within the realm of practicality, to attain that kind of bandwidth on a typical connection.
If a car manufacturer claims that the top speed of a vehicle they're selling is 200mph, it has to be able to reach 200mph in a plausible situation. If the car can only attain 200mph going downhill with a hurricane behind it, it's deceptive marketing.
When you market a product as going "up to" a certain level of performance, it has to actually be able to attain it. The clause in their contracts saying that they cannot be held responsible for the impact on performance on situations or events that are out of their control covers the degraded performance that Joe Dirt Farmer would get at 5 miles from the CO, but in a typical scenario with typical quality copper, 0.5-1 mile from the CO, your connection has to be able to get within reasonable proximity of the advertised bandwidth.
How is practicing your religion a waste of time? Most people get to decide which, if any, religion to follow, and most people don't pray out of fear. They do it because they feel like it.
That's hardly any more of a waste of time than you doing the things you like to do, regardless of what they are.
"Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric."
Yeah, I've always found this to be absurd. Why do they need to have a revenue stream for a site with a huge amount of visitors run by a couple of guys with enough on their hands to make it a full-time occupation for them?
Seriously, they're Swedish. In addition to liberal file-sharing laws, servers in Sweden are also free, co-location and bandwidth is complimentary, and your daily expenses are fully subsidised!
For a group who claims to be as knowledgable about business and real-world economics, they sure are going from firm conviction to blatant ignorance in a flash.
It doesn't really matter who you are or what you're doing. If you're acting illegally or immorally in the official capacity bestowed upon you, your superiors will be held accountable.
You're absolutely right. No one is doing anything to research cancer. If only we had some sort of global awareness day, and some kind of research movement dedicated to it.. Hmm..
Seriously, crawl back into your hole. Cancer is one of, if not the most funded research topic in any field. It's serious, but that doesn't mean that all other research should be dropped in favour of it. It takes a serious idiot to believe that, and an even bigger one to attempt to justify it.
To comment on something completely off-topic, none of the major branches of christianity preach intolerance either, but a whole lot of people of those religious convictions are intolerant in the name of their religion. Just like a good deal of them believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
A religion is what its followers make it. There's nothing stupid about what the GP said.
Any system that could leave hundreds of thousands of private records anywhere but in a centralised and secured database seems pretty bad to me. Luckily anything else is against the law where I'm from.
.. how government organisations continue to to store HUGE amounts of CRITICAL and VERY PRIVATE data on LAPTOPS. Either they have idiot software developers, or they genuinely do not care about security at all.
It's sad when the developers are the biggest security hole in critical government software.
Well I'm happy to let you know that your conclusions are way off. I'm perfectly capable of articulating my reasoning, which I've already done previously. That you failed to notice leads me to believe that you like a few others simply aren't able to comprehend that your esoteric opinion on decency should be moderated to respect the common consensus.
You don't use coarse language in a family restaurant in front of children. Even if you do at home. You don't walk around naked in the middle of a city. Even if you're a nudist. You also don't go against every bit of common (And yes, it is common. If you cannot understand this, then you have a problem.) decency and taunt someone's death at a venue as public and diverse as slashdot. You're on the Internet, yes, but like I said before, common decency extends to every public place. Virtual or not.
In your value system, me asking you to moderate your taunting of someone else's death might be turning down a "dark, dark road". You might want to ponder why, after arguing how free you are to have a different opinion, you assume that I share yours on the subject.
I'm not going to waste any more time arguing something this elementary with someone who puts as little thought into his replies as you seem to be doing. Bye.
Slashdot Mirror
The article clearly states that he wants to lash out at products that label their "non OSI approved" licenses as "open source". Regardless of what the license says.
"once every 2-3 months we'd receive notice that some company or another was advertising that their software was "open source" when the license was not approved by the OSI board"
That is a very broad and general statement that doesn't in any way specify whether or not the license is actually "open" or not, but instead works to say "this whole open source thing is mine and you can't be open source unless you ask me or I will be mad and sue".
Just like you described, the idea of having a monopoly is to not cause confusion as to what your product does and should offer, to not complicate advocacy of your product, and to keep other vendors from being detrimental to your market and community.
The OSI is simply trying to monopolise the movement by demanding that licenses are "approved" by them. Nothing more.
So, they're all for open software and open licensing and open everything, but only if it's the kind of open approved by them?
Apparently it's okay to attempt to monopolise a market, as long as you're convinced that your intentions are noble. "Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.
Most keyboards have their leads printed on flexible plastic sheets that are screwed together with a metal backpane. If water gets inbetween these, it *will* lead to shorts and burnt leads, and your keyboard *will not* function.
Ideally, what you want to do is take the front part of the keyboard off, remove the keyboard controller PCB (Usually just three screws and you can pull it and the cord off,) remove the plastic sheet and the metal plate, and then just scrub the thing down with whatever you're comfortable with. Dry it off traditionally with a hairdryer or similar device (being plastic, it doesn't take more than fifteen minutes,) and screw the sheets and the controller back into the keyboard.
Voilá. Clean keyboard in twenty minutes tops.
"Microsoft thinks Open Office is a pain now, try suing people over it, then see how many people refuse to buy their products."
How old is whoever wrote this? 12? Who honestly believe that anyone gives a flying expletive about whether Microsoft sues the Open Office project or not? As if the millions of technologically apathetic Microsoft Office users will rebel against Microsoft for a cause that they've likely never heard about.
How did this get on the front page? It's like a half-way thought through anti-Microsoft rant taken from any random open source related IRC channel.
If you're selling a connection with bandwidth "up to", say, 10Mbps, you have to prove that it is possible, within the realm of practicality, to attain that kind of bandwidth on a typical connection.
If a car manufacturer claims that the top speed of a vehicle they're selling is 200mph, it has to be able to reach 200mph in a plausible situation. If the car can only attain 200mph going downhill with a hurricane behind it, it's deceptive marketing.
When you market a product as going "up to" a certain level of performance, it has to actually be able to attain it. The clause in their contracts saying that they cannot be held responsible for the impact on performance on situations or events that are out of their control covers the degraded performance that Joe Dirt Farmer would get at 5 miles from the CO, but in a typical scenario with typical quality copper, 0.5-1 mile from the CO, your connection has to be able to get within reasonable proximity of the advertised bandwidth.
How is practicing your religion a waste of time? Most people get to decide which, if any, religion to follow, and most people don't pray out of fear. They do it because they feel like it.
That's hardly any more of a waste of time than you doing the things you like to do, regardless of what they are.
"Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric."
Yeah, I've always found this to be absurd. Why do they need to have a revenue stream for a site with a huge amount of visitors run by a couple of guys with enough on their hands to make it a full-time occupation for them?
Seriously, they're Swedish. In addition to liberal file-sharing laws, servers in Sweden are also free, co-location and bandwidth is complimentary, and your daily expenses are fully subsidised!
For a group who claims to be as knowledgable about business and real-world economics, they sure are going from firm conviction to blatant ignorance in a flash.
Get a new job. Seriously.
So who's the narrator?
Neither the Cambridge Dictionary nor the Oxford Dictionary contain "sueing". Both do, however, list "suing". I think you got ahead of yourself.
What's wrong with "suing"?
The game needs a way for the player to communicate with other players.
Spam is unsolicited communication.
If you can't wrap your head around that.. well.. yeah.
It doesn't really matter who you are or what you're doing. If you're acting illegally or immorally in the official capacity bestowed upon you, your superiors will be held accountable.
That's how it works everywhere.
That would never work in the US.
If you send more than 5 text messages a month on your unlimited plan, you must be downloading torr^W^W^W^Wspamming people
You're absolutely right. No one is doing anything to research cancer. If only we had some sort of global awareness day, and some kind of research movement dedicated to it.. Hmm..
Seriously, crawl back into your hole. Cancer is one of, if not the most funded research topic in any field. It's serious, but that doesn't mean that all other research should be dropped in favour of it. It takes a serious idiot to believe that, and an even bigger one to attempt to justify it.
Yeah, because the world would be a better place if all resources were used for one single research topic. Diversity never did humanity any good.
To comment on something completely off-topic, none of the major branches of christianity preach intolerance either, but a whole lot of people of those religious convictions are intolerant in the name of their religion. Just like a good deal of them believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
A religion is what its followers make it. There's nothing stupid about what the GP said.
And now, so is the federal government!
So pointing out that a common consensus is wrong is trolling to you? You're either really arrogant or very conservative.
Not unless the chair is bolted to the ground.
Any system that could leave hundreds of thousands of private records anywhere but in a centralised and secured database seems pretty bad to me. Luckily anything else is against the law where I'm from.
Yeah, because people with AIDS don't have children, and no one, especially the poor, are forced into prostitution.
.. how government organisations continue to to store HUGE amounts of CRITICAL and VERY PRIVATE data on LAPTOPS. Either they have idiot software developers, or they genuinely do not care about security at all.
It's sad when the developers are the biggest security hole in critical government software.
Beauty and complexity is in the eye of the beholder.
Well I'm happy to let you know that your conclusions are way off. I'm perfectly capable of articulating my reasoning, which I've already done previously. That you failed to notice leads me to believe that you like a few others simply aren't able to comprehend that your esoteric opinion on decency should be moderated to respect the common consensus.
You don't use coarse language in a family restaurant in front of children. Even if you do at home. You don't walk around naked in the middle of a city. Even if you're a nudist. You also don't go against every bit of common (And yes, it is common. If you cannot understand this, then you have a problem.) decency and taunt someone's death at a venue as public and diverse as slashdot. You're on the Internet, yes, but like I said before, common decency extends to every public place. Virtual or not.
In your value system, me asking you to moderate your taunting of someone else's death might be turning down a "dark, dark road". You might want to ponder why, after arguing how free you are to have a different opinion, you assume that I share yours on the subject.
I'm not going to waste any more time arguing something this elementary with someone who puts as little thought into his replies as you seem to be doing. Bye.