You don't like the idea of giving away source code for free to people who are too lazy to do anything for themselves, so you prefer the BSD license over the GPL? That doesn't make any sense. The GPL expressly protects you from exploitation by the freeloaders you're complaining about. Please go back and read the terms of the licenses you're talking about.
The cost of developing it aside, what is the problem with having the ideas "presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm," when you're giving the machines to communities in which the per capita rate of computer ownership is practically nil?
I'm not sure I've got a concrete understanding of what you mean by "giving away." I don't think any author of, say, a GPLv2 software package would say that he or she is merely giving something away. If that were true, the author would disclaim all rights the software entirely. I imagine what the author of said software *is* trying to do is securely establish the software's "free" status once it leaves their desktop. If you're saying that these goals are technologically incompatible, you may be right, at least in a superficial way; if you're saying that they're legally incompatible, then you're wrong -- copyright gives authors a great deal of say over how their work is used, even as it is distributed for free, and the GPL is a tool for exercising this say; and if you're saying that they're morally incompatible, then I don't have a response, really -- you'd be making a moral claim about existence copyright, which is kind of off the table.
I think you're conflating use with distribution. Users are free to become distributors under the GPL, but this role carries with it additional responsibilities. You might think of it in terms of a balance: the *users* of GPLv3'd software enjoy even more freedom under this license precisely because of the additional restrictions it places on *distributors*. From what I can tell, the net amount of freedom protected is far greater than the loss of freedom incurred as a result of the onus of these new restrictions, and that's what will make GPLv3 attractive for software authors.
The FSF has always had a political agenda; if you haven't noticed this, you haven't been paying attention. They're not "redefining" anything. As they've always done, they're taking steps to conserve what they see as the social and technological ecosystem in order to protect what they see as the rights of computer users. In the case of DRM, for example, this means ensuring the continued existence of general-purpose computing hardware.
You keep saying "you have to let it go," but you haven't clearly put forth what you think that means. I'd like to see you give an example of a provision in GPLv3 the efforts of which to make sure the software is "free and stays free" somehow subverts that intent or harms the user. If someone actually wants to make their software stay free, how would the GPLv3 stand in opposition?
Recent developments with Novell aside, if software companies open their software (under a real Free license), their reasons for doing so and their relations with the community aren't really that important. That's the whole reason we have Free Software licenses -- so that users and independent developers don't have to worry about the behavior of the companies that put out the software. You can trust the GPL, even if you don't trust SoftwareVendorReleasingGPL'dSoftware.
...or is this not so different from the way anti-virus packages distribute updated signature lists? The TFA uses a lot of biological metaphors, but if you s/honeypot/anti-virus research lab/ this is pretty much the same thing everybody does already. The bit about creating faster-than-virus "wormholes" is mentioned kind of as an afterthought, when, really, it's the most important (and problematic) aspect of the whole plan.
Just FYI, there have been no public drafts as yet and it sounds like Mr. Greve is just repeating what was said at the FSF meeting this year, which is that they are considering these things (i.e., patent-retaliation and DRM issues) for inclusion in the language of the new GPL. It's not just RMS working on this, by the way -- as many of you are aware, there are some extremely bright legal minds at the FSF that are working to make this license something you will actually want to use for the software you write.
How about this -- if I want to run a goddamn virtual machine I'll run a virtual machine. There's gotta be someone out there with a better idea for "application" delivery.
The FA is yet more criticism that would be better directed at particular Desktop vendors / packages and application developers than at the mythical entity "Linux." Nothing to see here.
Well, if you can "serve up targeted ads even if a user has deleted his cookies," then the whole cookie thing is pretty much moot. You don't even need the cookies in the first place.
It doesn't have everything to do with whether or not the autistic person in question is going to lead a "happy" life or not, it also has to do with the time, effort, and $$$ spent on said person by the people who become legally responsible for him or her upon birth.
Wow, you just don't get it (or, more likely, you are a huge troll) -- the OpenOffice developers are using proprietary classes from Sun's Java runtime library. This has absolutely nothing to do with JVMs. This has everything to do with runtime libraries -- not the same thing as compilers, Bonzo.
It's that it doesn't suck. First of all, the parent post is a complete troll. But it's not, first and foremost, that FireFox is Free Software that makes me "harangue" my family members to use it -- although that kind of is the reason: The FOSS development process and licensing paradigm has, in this case and many others, produced a piece of software that minimizes end-user hassle to a much greater extent than the proprietary offerings of vendors who claim to be driven by the needs of their customers. And when you're in a position in which you face spending literal hours of your personal time overhauling a machine that's become bogged down in software that not only is non-Free but makes everyone's life more difficult because the company that makes it just Doesn't Get It, then it's worth it to put the screws to people to get them to use something else.
Look, I haven't even RTFA, but isn't it the case that having a the best (i.e., cheapest, most efficient) technology doesn't guarantee you squat? (At least in the U.S.) Even if it's easy to implement, won't existing energy concerns have it in their best interests to block its adoption?
It's nice that you have to be a member of some shitty online Star Wars site (or one of its affiliates) to watch an advertisement for the new Star Wars movie. It's like paying to beta test a new version of Daikatana.
Heh -- I like how the Ars guy describes it in relation to MacOS 9. That's a tad more palatable than NT4, which is what springs to mind after looking at those screenshots.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't like the idea of giving away source code for free to people who are too lazy to do anything for themselves, so you prefer the BSD license over the GPL? That doesn't make any sense. The GPL expressly protects you from exploitation by the freeloaders you're complaining about. Please go back and read the terms of the licenses you're talking about.
The cost of developing it aside, what is the problem with having the ideas "presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm," when you're giving the machines to communities in which the per capita rate of computer ownership is practically nil?
You know, I was a little nervous about giving them money, but now that I know Dvorak's against it, I'm convinced it was the right thing to do.
I've never used 'em, but gNewSense is based on some scripts that are supposed to let you roll your own Ubuntu Dapper variant. See: http://www.gnewsense.org/Builder/HowToCreateYourOw nGNULinuxDistribution
I'm not sure I've got a concrete understanding of what you mean by "giving away." I don't think any author of, say, a GPLv2 software package would say that he or she is merely giving something away. If that were true, the author would disclaim all rights the software entirely. I imagine what the author of said software *is* trying to do is securely establish the software's "free" status once it leaves their desktop. If you're saying that these goals are technologically incompatible, you may be right, at least in a superficial way; if you're saying that they're legally incompatible, then you're wrong -- copyright gives authors a great deal of say over how their work is used, even as it is distributed for free, and the GPL is a tool for exercising this say; and if you're saying that they're morally incompatible, then I don't have a response, really -- you'd be making a moral claim about existence copyright, which is kind of off the table.
I think you're conflating use with distribution. Users are free to become distributors under the GPL, but this role carries with it additional responsibilities. You might think of it in terms of a balance: the *users* of GPLv3'd software enjoy even more freedom under this license precisely because of the additional restrictions it places on *distributors*. From what I can tell, the net amount of freedom protected is far greater than the loss of freedom incurred as a result of the onus of these new restrictions, and that's what will make GPLv3 attractive for software authors.
The FSF has always had a political agenda; if you haven't noticed this, you haven't been paying attention. They're not "redefining" anything. As they've always done, they're taking steps to conserve what they see as the social and technological ecosystem in order to protect what they see as the rights of computer users. In the case of DRM, for example, this means ensuring the continued existence of general-purpose computing hardware.
You keep saying "you have to let it go," but you haven't clearly put forth what you think that means. I'd like to see you give an example of a provision in GPLv3 the efforts of which to make sure the software is "free and stays free" somehow subverts that intent or harms the user. If someone actually wants to make their software stay free, how would the GPLv3 stand in opposition?
Recent developments with Novell aside, if software companies open their software (under a real Free license), their reasons for doing so and their relations with the community aren't really that important. That's the whole reason we have Free Software licenses -- so that users and independent developers don't have to worry about the behavior of the companies that put out the software. You can trust the GPL, even if you don't trust SoftwareVendorReleasingGPL'dSoftware.
"Unless five million dollars are transferred to the following numbered account in seven days, I will capsize five tankers in the Ellingson fleet."
...or is this not so different from the way anti-virus packages distribute updated signature lists? The TFA uses a lot of biological metaphors, but if you s/honeypot/anti-virus research lab/ this is pretty much the same thing everybody does already. The bit about creating faster-than-virus "wormholes" is mentioned kind of as an afterthought, when, really, it's the most important (and problematic) aspect of the whole plan.
Just FYI, there have been no public drafts as yet and it sounds like Mr. Greve is just repeating what was said at the FSF meeting this year, which is that they are considering these things (i.e., patent-retaliation and DRM issues) for inclusion in the language of the new GPL. It's not just RMS working on this, by the way -- as many of you are aware, there are some extremely bright legal minds at the FSF that are working to make this license something you will actually want to use for the software you write.
Liberating the code isn't the point; the point is, the code liberates you.
How about this -- if I want to run a goddamn virtual machine I'll run a virtual machine. There's gotta be someone out there with a better idea for "application" delivery.
The FA is yet more criticism that would be better directed at particular Desktop vendors / packages and application developers than at the mythical entity "Linux." Nothing to see here.
Speed doesn't shorten, kids; perhaps the OP meant "increased?"
Wow. Just... wow.
Well, if you can "serve up targeted ads even if a user has deleted his cookies," then the whole cookie thing is pretty much moot. You don't even need the cookies in the first place.
It doesn't have everything to do with whether or not the autistic person in question is going to lead a "happy" life or not, it also has to do with the time, effort, and $$$ spent on said person by the people who become legally responsible for him or her upon birth.
Wow, you just don't get it (or, more likely, you are a huge troll) -- the OpenOffice developers are using proprietary classes from Sun's Java runtime library. This has absolutely nothing to do with JVMs. This has everything to do with runtime libraries -- not the same thing as compilers, Bonzo.
It's that it doesn't suck. First of all, the parent post is a complete troll. But it's not, first and foremost, that FireFox is Free Software that makes me "harangue" my family members to use it -- although that kind of is the reason: The FOSS development process and licensing paradigm has, in this case and many others, produced a piece of software that minimizes end-user hassle to a much greater extent than the proprietary offerings of vendors who claim to be driven by the needs of their customers. And when you're in a position in which you face spending literal hours of your personal time overhauling a machine that's become bogged down in software that not only is non-Free but makes everyone's life more difficult because the company that makes it just Doesn't Get It, then it's worth it to put the screws to people to get them to use something else.
...but "liberal" newspapers often have conservative stuff show up on their op-ed page -- witness David Brooks @ NYT.
Look, I haven't even RTFA, but isn't it the case that having a the best (i.e., cheapest, most efficient) technology doesn't guarantee you squat? (At least in the U.S.) Even if it's easy to implement, won't existing energy concerns have it in their best interests to block its adoption?
Say what you will, but this came to mind before anything else...
It's nice that you have to be a member of some shitty online Star Wars site (or one of its affiliates) to watch an advertisement for the new Star Wars movie. It's like paying to beta test a new version of Daikatana.
Heh -- I like how the Ars guy describes it in relation to MacOS 9. That's a tad more palatable than NT4, which is what springs to mind after looking at those screenshots.