No, I have the mechanisms that society provides available to me. You're trying to mess with my stuff against my will, which harms me. Thus, I use the mechanisms that society has in place (and I pay into) to take care of people who harm others. Feeling I owe nothing to society for providing me with inspiration doesn't abolish my right to use society's mechanisms... so long as I'm doing my part to keep those mechanisms functioning.
Now if I were saying I shouldn't pay taxes, you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't.
Although you put it in an unnecessarily adversarial fashion (I'm arguing for the rights of others here, not rights I really care about for myself), yes. Those giants whose shoulders I stand on have made their contribution. They chose to work for the betterment of all, and I'm grateful for it. However, their choice cannot be forced upon all.
It's up to each individual to choose for themselves, and if they choose to work for their own benefit, then they have a right to do so... and society has an obligation to make sure that no one tries to force that individual's hand. We don't have an obligation to compensate them for their work, of course, but we do have an obligation to keep others from taking the individual's work against their wishes.
If he isn't saying it, I will. I owe society nothing for providing me with stimulus, apart from not running around disrupting society. This notion that you somehow owe society the work you create for the benefit of society is absolutely ludicrous. I might agree that it's better to work for the betterment of society, not yourself... but that doesn't mean you owe it to societey to do so.
Why not? There's no reason you can't let other people look at the source, and submit patches, while still implementing those restrictions.
As for the GPL specifically, I'd have to reread the GPL, but I don't see why it couldn't work. Besides, even if it isn't compatible with the GPL... not like it's the only open-source license out there. Not being GPL-compatible doesn't mean you can't open-source it. Sorry, I know you did say "any kind of open-source software", it's just kind of a nerve for me... damn open-source community puts entirely too much emphasis on the GPL, and at times acts like if it ain't GPL, it ain't open-source.
Everyone else calls them "bookmarks" so MS has to call them "favorites". Everyone else came after IE, and as far as I know, IE called them favorites from the beginning. By all rights, everyone should be calling them favorites, not bookmarks. Besides, how you can berate IE for following a naming convention they've had since the beginning is completely beyond me.
They use the computer stupidly. Fixed that for you. It only takes a modicum of computer intelligence to keep your computer clean, under Windows or otherwise. I've been using Windows since 3.1, and have had spyware infest me all of once: when I stupidly went to keygen.us on the advice of a friend. I've had a virus once (twice, if you count the spyware incident): when I was 10 or 11 and hadn't yet learned that running random.exes from the Internet (particularly one that claims to be Super Mario Bros, heh) is a bad idea.
It's not that damned hard to run a virus/spyware-free Windows install. Seriously.
Property != taxable property. My guitar is my property, but I don't pay taxes on it. So no, IP being property doesn't mean we should tax it for consistency's sake.
First of all: software I bought which is closed-source most certainly does belong to me, and I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. I do so all the time. Software is a limited thing, it can't do everything. Saying "you can't make your software do this"... well, maybe you should get other software that does? I mean, seriously, the whole "you can modify open-source" argument is rhetorical at best, because the vast majority of users can't. They simply don't have the knowledge. And if they tried to learn, they likely wouldn't have the talent for it (else we'd have a nation of programmers by now). In that case, how is open source any better?
More to the point, modifying your software is not using it. Anyone can use their closed-source software to its fullest extent. The fact that they can't modify it is completely irrelevant to their ability to use it.
Uh... what the fuck? How is it the government's responsibility to provide condoms so that I can fuck with no consequences? Moreover, it may not be the government's responsibility to provide an HIV vaccine, but I'd personally place a lot higher priority on the government eradicating a deadly disease than handing out condoms, which are hardly a requirement to get by at all in life.
Yes, and that's very sad for you. However, unless you can demonstrate that your problems are the result of some well-known company screwing you over, neither I nor anyone else is going to give a damn. I fail to see how this surprises you.
And while I wouldn't call your earlier post a troll, it most certainly was unnecessarily harsh, so I'm not going to say that you were modded unjustly. Now, your post right here... that's a troll, and you have definitely been justly modded so.
So, you're saying that all this time, open source proponents didn't know it was possible to use software they couldn't see the source to? Well, in that case...
REJOICE, MY GEEK BROTHERS! YOU NEED NO LONGER FEAR CLOSED SOURCE! IT WILL NOT REFUSE TO WORK FOR YOU MERELY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE SOURCE CODE!
Come on now. The freedom to change the code is in no way a feature of the software. It's entirely separate from the software, and if my software isn't doing what I need it to do, it doesn't matter whether the source is closed or open. That software sucks for my purposes, open or closed.
Say what? I don't like OS X, but it's a vast step up from prior versions. Before X, Mac OS was a clusterfuck of bad usability. Now, it's at least passable. Why would you follow any version before OS X? Serious question.
Because it doesn't require open-sourcing their software to be a friend to open-source. Analogy: I'm not a Christian at all, but I have some very good friends who are Christians. They don't treat my friendship with suspicion because I haven't converted.
I most certainly have. It works fine. And calling Windows a bad OS is irrational. It's not an ad hominem, ad hominem would be if I called you a moron or something. Irrational is entirely different.
Also the ultimate advantage of F/LOSS is about freedom and the feeling that the software you have belongs to you. Something that is completely un-achievable with Microsoft style softwares. If that were the ultimate advantage, OSS would have a grim future indeed. The ultimate advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the program) is the quality of the software, not some ideology. Period. Unless you prefer to not actually use your software, I guess.
Says you. Not all of us are irrational Microsoft-haters, and recognize that Windows is actually a pretty good OS. Pretty good + marketing skills = win.
No they won't. Level-headed Apple users weren't mocking you, so they'll probably continue to not mock you. Apple fanboys, like all fanboys, lack the capacity for rational thought, so they'll continue to mock you just as much.
Sorry bro, bad break for you. You're still gonna get mocked.
Enforcing the law is the job of the law enforcement system. No one else. If we're going to suddenly make it the responsibility of universities to ensure their students follow the law, then it's high time we fired our law enforcers... because what, then, are they doing, if not enforcing the law?
Slashdot Mirror
Now if I were saying I shouldn't pay taxes, you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't.
It's up to each individual to choose for themselves, and if they choose to work for their own benefit, then they have a right to do so... and society has an obligation to make sure that no one tries to force that individual's hand. We don't have an obligation to compensate them for their work, of course, but we do have an obligation to keep others from taking the individual's work against their wishes.
If he isn't saying it, I will. I owe society nothing for providing me with stimulus, apart from not running around disrupting society. This notion that you somehow owe society the work you create for the benefit of society is absolutely ludicrous. I might agree that it's better to work for the betterment of society, not yourself... but that doesn't mean you owe it to societey to do so.
I understand that. And those browsers are not in common use today. Firefox, Safari, Opera... the major browsers of today all came after IE.
Yes, I do. I trust all politicians equally: zero trust, until proven otherwise. No exceptions.
I'll tell you why: it's because the Democrats are no better than Bush.
As for the GPL specifically, I'd have to reread the GPL, but I don't see why it couldn't work. Besides, even if it isn't compatible with the GPL... not like it's the only open-source license out there. Not being GPL-compatible doesn't mean you can't open-source it. Sorry, I know you did say "any kind of open-source software", it's just kind of a nerve for me... damn open-source community puts entirely too much emphasis on the GPL, and at times acts like if it ain't GPL, it ain't open-source.
It's not that damned hard to run a virus/spyware-free Windows install. Seriously.
Property != taxable property. My guitar is my property, but I don't pay taxes on it. So no, IP being property doesn't mean we should tax it for consistency's sake.
More to the point, modifying your software is not using it. Anyone can use their closed-source software to its fullest extent. The fact that they can't modify it is completely irrelevant to their ability to use it.
This just in: crazy people do crazy things, whether atheist or religious. More on this breaking news at 10!
Uh... what the fuck? How is it the government's responsibility to provide condoms so that I can fuck with no consequences? Moreover, it may not be the government's responsibility to provide an HIV vaccine, but I'd personally place a lot higher priority on the government eradicating a deadly disease than handing out condoms, which are hardly a requirement to get by at all in life.
The witty comment almost makes itself. :P
And while I wouldn't call your earlier post a troll, it most certainly was unnecessarily harsh, so I'm not going to say that you were modded unjustly. Now, your post right here... that's a troll, and you have definitely been justly modded so.
REJOICE, MY GEEK BROTHERS! YOU NEED NO LONGER FEAR CLOSED SOURCE! IT WILL NOT REFUSE TO WORK FOR YOU MERELY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE SOURCE CODE!
Come on now. The freedom to change the code is in no way a feature of the software. It's entirely separate from the software, and if my software isn't doing what I need it to do, it doesn't matter whether the source is closed or open. That software sucks for my purposes, open or closed.
Say what? I don't like OS X, but it's a vast step up from prior versions. Before X, Mac OS was a clusterfuck of bad usability. Now, it's at least passable. Why would you follow any version before OS X? Serious question.
Because it doesn't require open-sourcing their software to be a friend to open-source. Analogy: I'm not a Christian at all, but I have some very good friends who are Christians. They don't treat my friendship with suspicion because I haven't converted.
I most certainly have. It works fine. And calling Windows a bad OS is irrational. It's not an ad hominem, ad hominem would be if I called you a moron or something. Irrational is entirely different.
Says you. Not all of us are irrational Microsoft-haters, and recognize that Windows is actually a pretty good OS. Pretty good + marketing skills = win.
See what I mean, PC and Sony Fanboy? No rational thought there whatsoever. :(
Sorry bro, bad break for you. You're still gonna get mocked.
Enforcing the law is the job of the law enforcement system. No one else. If we're going to suddenly make it the responsibility of universities to ensure their students follow the law, then it's high time we fired our law enforcers... because what, then, are they doing, if not enforcing the law?
I swear, some people miss no opportunity to smugly mention their ad-blocker.