But the $5000 device is today's cost. 30 years from now, that device is practically free. Especially since assuming no further advances is silly. So the amount of money to crack your 1024-bit protected secret 30 years from now is trivial. And the time estimate of 1 year today is probably way over estimated.
Of course, your credit card will have expired by then. But if someone wanted to take one of your documents and claim you said something today that you really didn't, it can be done trivially 30 years from now. IOW, 30 years from now I would be able to say you said X 30 years ago.
Look at the other stuff on his website. There is a look of cool stuff there. Lots of Java applets. I like his Zooming User Interface (ZUI). It is a great idea.
What you are stealing in the case of GPLed code is a benefit to the entire free programming community.
I don't think there is such a legal entity ass "the entire free programming community". There is no "legal" loss just because I don't show you my code. The code has no monetary value legally.
OTOH, the other responders did point out punitive damages and criminal charges. I forgot to take that into account. Thanks for responding to my question all of you.
What happens if someone blatantly violates the GPL and ignores the FSF's requests that they stop? What recourse does the FSF have? At best they can get an injuction, but they cannot sue for damages. Since the GPL provides the source code, there is no theft, thus there is no way to show that the copyright holder has suffered a loss due to the violation. The GPL does not enforce a fee for copying of the software, thus it has no "legal" value. Would the injuction hold up? IANAL, but I doubt an injuction would pass an appealate court.
But how will that affect current GPL programs? How will Linus get in touch with every person who's ever touched the kernel as get their permission to change the current license?
I suppose that somewhere in some GPL code is the line:
int i = 0;
Does the GPL apply if I look at that line in a GPL'd program and then type it verbatim into another non-GPL program? The definition of "portion" needs to be more definitive.
But in general... People who don't expect computers to have little buttons and icons are a lot less intimidated when they don't see 'em.
Proven, of course, by how popular DOS once was. Not. CLIs cause fear in adults. There is no non-computer-related object which has an interface analogous to a CLI: I type pseudo-English commands and that causes stuff to happen. OTOH, there are non-computer analogies to buttons and switches. (On the GUI side, it's the mouse which has no analogy.)
The case could be made that today's kids would be less intimidated by a lone dollar sign prompt with a blinking cursor a space away. $ _
I had no idea that in 1987 when I first hit ^K in trn that I repressing the idiot flamer I never saw again. This is not a new idea. It is necessary. I wish Katz had written more about the difference between me choosing to ignore someone and AOL hiring people to censor. That bothers me. But giving me the choice to not listen to someone, that is not censorship. That is personal choice.
128kb/s MP3s are inferior to CD on my cheap PC speakers. Through my stereo, the difference is even greater. I have a hard time with most (but not all) 256k MP3s. Bandwidth will solve this problem eventually.
A three minute song with 24 tracks would fill a single CD. You would need a 24x CLV CD to get that data off the disk and then manipulate 24 100 Kb/s streams in real time. And that is if there are only 24 tracks.
Not likely.
Besides, why would you want to have to include a mixing console on every device?
Yes, but no musician would post MP3s if it weren't for copyright laws. Without them, a majorr could take the cool song, rerecord with a good looking singer and never give a dime to the song writer. Song writers are not necessarily performers. How do they make money without copyrights?
I don't see why the free software community insists on keeping it called just "Linux". The word "GNU" is not crediting RMS (or just him) but a group of people. Plus it promotes the idea of freedom.
Why should the name of the OS (or kernel or Operating Environment as someone else called it) promote freedom? Why not call it FreeToModifyUnixLikeOS? The ideas of a group don't need to be expressed in the names of their products directly. That's just silly. If it were needed then every commercial product would be prefixed with profit: Profit/Coca-cola.
If RMS said, in interviews, "Please call it GNU/Linux. That is the name I prefer. I understand that you have the right to call it what you wish, though." Then he would be an advocate. Instead he acts like a two year old, ignoring the interviewer until he accedes to RMS's will. I would love to see an interviewer, just end an interview rather than deal with his nonsense.
Note: I have respect his older work. I have no respect for what he says about Linux.
But if it [a license] says "This license forbids you to do the things I don't like," it is no longer free.
What utter nonsense. The GPL says "Don't link my code with non-GPL code." That sounds like something "I" don't like. By your definition, no license is Free.
Many people see this behavior [insisting on GNU/Linux] as directly hypocritical to his stated cause of freedom. His insistance on this name change seems to go against the very philosophy he claims he has been fighting for. And the almost feverish intensity of his insistance seems only to highlight that hypocracy.
That is the only important thing in the article. The rest is the author's apologist plea that RMS not hate him.
The author even contradicts himself with this: So my suggestion is for people to be tolerant of Stallman, and to be aware of the deeper ideas involved. A reputation for hypocrasy cannot help the cause of freedom. RMS does injustice to the cause of freedom because most people can not and will not and should not look past his hypocrasy.
Personally, I think it's just an ego thing. Poor guy, no one wants to acknowledge GNU. If he wants GNU to gain mindshare, maybe he should hire an marketting firm.
The reason GNU has respect in the community is that the community knows what it stands for. Geeks tend not to like things that are pushed down their throats. Alienating the people who should be evangelizing GNU is the poison RMS is playing with. He should know better.
Good luck, RMS. May the cause of freedom be strengthened by the hypocritical intolerance of others' opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
My firewall blocks any *ad* and I view /. with no problems.
ATMs? I thought ATMs were usually stand-alone 286 based OS/2 machines with connections to big-iron.
From an AD&D module (Castle Greyhawk?): the guide to city dwelling gnomes.
But the $5000 device is today's cost. 30 years from now, that device is practically free. Especially since assuming no further advances is silly. So the amount of money to crack your 1024-bit protected secret 30 years from now is trivial. And the time estimate of 1 year today is probably way over estimated.
Of course, your credit card will have expired by then. But if someone wanted to take one of your documents and claim you said something today that you really didn't, it can be done trivially 30 years from now. IOW, 30 years from now I would be able to say you said X 30 years ago.
Just a thought.
No. If you have studied state machines, VCR programming is simple.
Look at the other stuff on his website. There is a look of cool stuff there. Lots of Java applets. I like his Zooming User Interface (ZUI). It is a great idea.
What you are stealing in the case of GPLed code is a benefit to the entire free programming community.
I don't think there is such a legal entity ass "the entire free programming community". There is no "legal" loss just because I don't show you my code. The code has no monetary value legally.
OTOH, the other responders did point out punitive damages and criminal charges. I forgot to take that into account. Thanks for responding to my question all of you.
I'm over 30 and a little removed from this but just how is someone going to contact you if you don't give out contact info?
What happens if someone blatantly violates the GPL and ignores the FSF's requests that they stop? What recourse does the FSF have? At best they can get an injuction, but they cannot sue for damages. Since the GPL provides the source code, there is no theft, thus there is no way to show that the copyright holder has suffered a loss due to the violation. The GPL does not enforce a fee for copying of the software, thus it has no "legal" value. Would the injuction hold up? IANAL, but I doubt an injuction would pass an appealate court.
But how will that affect current GPL programs? How will Linus get in touch with every person who's ever touched the kernel as get their permission to change the current license?
I suppose that somewhere in some GPL code is the line:
int i = 0;
Does the GPL apply if I look at that line in a GPL'd program and then type it verbatim into another non-GPL program? The definition of "portion" needs to be more definitive.
Why are you assuming they did it in real time? Real Producer can convert AVIs to G2 format too. All you need is huge hard drive.
But in general... People who don't expect computers to have little buttons and icons are a lot less intimidated when they don't see 'em.
Proven, of course, by how popular DOS once was. Not. CLIs cause fear in adults. There is no non-computer-related object which has an interface analogous to a CLI: I type pseudo-English commands and that causes stuff to happen. OTOH, there are non-computer analogies to buttons and switches. (On the GUI side, it's the mouse which has no analogy.)
The case could be made that today's kids would be less intimidated by a lone dollar sign prompt with a blinking cursor a space away.
$ _
ldap://ldap.domain.top
.
No, more like:
http://some.domain.with.new.top:ldap/index.html
The front part of a URL describes the protocol over the connection, not how to find it.
I had no idea that in 1987 when I first hit ^K in trn that I repressing the idiot flamer I never saw again. This is not a new idea. It is necessary. I wish Katz had written more about the difference between me choosing to ignore someone and AOL hiring people to censor. That bothers me. But giving me the choice to not listen to someone, that is not censorship. That is personal choice.
What? Aren't you supposed to hope for an 11:53 PM on the 18th showing so the movie start promptly at 12:01? :-)
Personally, I'm planning to wait a week to see it. (And I'm not going to read anything here that week. Just to be safe.)
128kb/s MP3s are inferior to CD on my cheap PC speakers. Through my stereo, the difference is even greater. I have a hard time with most (but not all) 256k MP3s. Bandwidth will solve this problem eventually.
A three minute song with 24 tracks would fill a single CD. You would need a 24x CLV CD to get that data off the disk and then manipulate 24 100 Kb/s streams in real time. And that is if there are only 24 tracks.
Not likely.
Besides, why would you want to have to include a mixing console on every device?
Yes, but no musician would post MP3s if it weren't for copyright laws. Without them, a majorr could take the cool song, rerecord with a good looking singer and never give a dime to the song writer. Song writers are not necessarily performers. How do they make money without copyrights?
I don't see why the free software community insists on keeping it called just "Linux". The word "GNU" is not crediting RMS (or just him) but a group of people. Plus it promotes the idea of freedom.
Why should the name of the OS (or kernel or Operating Environment as someone else called it) promote freedom? Why not call it FreeToModifyUnixLikeOS? The ideas of a group don't need to be expressed in the names of their products directly. That's just silly. If it were needed then every commercial product would be prefixed with profit: Profit/Coca-cola.
If RMS said, in interviews, "Please call it GNU/Linux. That is the name I prefer. I understand that you have the right to call it what you wish, though." Then he would be an advocate. Instead he acts like a two year old, ignoring the interviewer until he accedes to RMS's will. I would love to see an interviewer, just end an interview rather than deal with his nonsense.
Note: I have respect his older work. I have no respect for what he says about Linux.
But if it [a license] says "This license forbids you to do the things I don't like," it is no longer free.
What utter nonsense. The GPL says "Don't link my code with non-GPL code." That sounds like something "I" don't like. By your definition, no license is Free.
They aren't due for 12-18 months. Vapor hardware is not news.
Many people see this behavior [insisting on GNU/Linux] as directly hypocritical to his stated cause of freedom. His insistance on this name change seems to go against the very philosophy he claims he has been fighting for. And the almost feverish intensity of his insistance seems only to highlight that hypocracy.
That is the only important thing in the article. The rest is the author's apologist plea that RMS not hate him.
The author even contradicts himself with this: So my suggestion is for people to be tolerant of Stallman, and to be aware of the deeper ideas involved. A reputation for hypocrasy cannot help the cause of freedom. RMS does injustice to the cause of freedom because most people can not and will not and should not look past his hypocrasy.
Personally, I think it's just an ego thing. Poor guy, no one wants to acknowledge GNU. If he wants GNU to gain mindshare, maybe he should hire an marketting firm.
The reason GNU has respect in the community is that the community knows what it stands for. Geeks tend not to like things that are pushed down their throats. Alienating the people who should be evangelizing GNU is the poison RMS is playing with. He should know better.
Good luck, RMS. May the cause of freedom be strengthened by the hypocritical intolerance of others' opinions.
Being a loser who shuts himself inside and can't deal with society is just a geek loser.
Actually it's more like a loser who happens to be a geek. I was going to post something like Timur did but decided against being so harsh.
I'm not saying it is illegal in C++. I knew I should have found a better example. C++ can obfuscate your code in too many ways to add more of them.