Wow! The first book I read said something like "One day Ricky the magic Pixie went to visit Daisy Bumble in her tumbledown cottage. He found her in the bedroom. Roughly he gabbed her heavy shoulders pulling her down on to the bed and ripping off her..."
Microsoft has been engaged in an some agressive pricing tactics here in Brazil for a while now, including in our major universities. They even give their software for free (you know, the first one is always free...), if they think it'll pay off in the future.
It is therefore important to make the decision people (including the government) realize that price is not the reason why free software is better, specially in schools and government-related projects. Hey, it's not even an important reason, in many cases.
They have to understand that free software is better because its quality is superior; because we get to see what's inside, so we learn more; we don't have to take anyone's word on its keeping our private data, well, private; we don't depend on a single vendor; we can even start developing our own version, based on what's available, if we want to, thus having complete control and developing our own technology.
It's just a better idea, pricing aside. If "they" believe price is the only advantage, we're on very thin ice...
> See, if you'd read the link, you wouldn't have to > ask that question.
If you mean his mentioning "the general public (or a representative group of them)", this means close to nothing. In practice, it is people who have the money who dictate the rules (and, if necessary, manipulate "the general public" to agree with them). That includes any government. Besides, all situations he mentions are highly technical, how could non-scientists decide what's risky and what isn't? They can't, they have to rely on a specialist's report. But there will always be specialists supporting both sides.
See, I did read the link, I just don't think it answered my question adequately.
IMO, the main problem with suggesting this sort of restriction is, who restricts? The same research might be considered dangerous to some people and necessary by others. The same apply to "moral", of course. In the end, it's all in the hands of humans. To decide which areas should be restricted, or to use science for evil, or to do evil while doing science etc.
1. This model isn't saying people should start projects *to* make money. It becomes free software after some (fixed) time, anyway. And there's no problem in making money, so why avoid a chance to do it, even if that's not your prime reason?
2. You're forgeting the time limit. It *will* become free software, one way or the other (sooner or later - the point is, you can pay for it to be "sooner"). And, again, you don't have to pay until you think it's stable enough. Or interesting enough. Or important enough for you. Or you can not pay at all. Wait, if it's ok with you.
3. Perhaps a third party. I suggested, in another post, that sourceforge-like sites handle that. That'd be similar to what happens in e-bay and the like.
4. I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand this one. It becomes free software after some time (of after the author gets some amount of money), so it's there, like all other free software. As with free software, the author(s) naturally understand the software better than anyone else, so you can hire them and have faster modifications or do them yourself (or hire someone else) and have them at a slower pace. This is how it already happens.
What if their code sucks? No one will use it and they won't get paid
True. But that should be ok, because their code sucks, right? So many people complain about paying for code that sucks, I think I missed why NOT paying for it is not a good thing (really, no sarcasm intended).
What if they never hit their magic number? Can I get a refund?
Why would you want that? Remember, there's also a time limit set. If you donated money but the total amount wasn't reached, and the software was released only after the time limit, then you helped fund it, help it to live until that limit. If you actually paid, then you thought it was worth it, and, in the end, you had it become free software anyway... What do you lose?
Why would anyone help out on a project where the code may never get released? I say ransom blows.
I say you should read the original post again, more carefully. The software is *necessarily* released as free software, *either* when a certain amount is collected *or* when a certain time has passed. Whichever comes first. Seems a lot os posters here are forgetting that, I thought I'd put it clearly enough...
Well, perhaps rules could be set so that the ransom is fixed. Or, at least, that they should not exceed a certain value (or percentage of the original one).
As to being "locked into a 100% proprietary solution", that can't happen, because of the time limit.
Besides, I think software development oriented sites (sourceforge-like) might add this to their services. They might receive and forward donations (or payment, whatever it's called), perhaps even for a fee, and check when the appropriate amount (or defined date) is reached. Gives reassurance for who's paying for it and might even be a source of income for that kind of service (project hosting) as well.
It's really no good to give people digital certificates if they can't understand its value. It may be obvious to us, but how many people give their bank passwords so that friends (or relatives, or spouses, or whatever) can withdraw money for them and save them the ride? How many people will just throw their certificates on non-secure (and sometimes even malicious) websites?
If the people aren't sufficiently preached to on that, these certificates will only build a false sense of security, which will make crime less noticeable.
I'm not against the idea of digital certificates, on the contrary, I just think it can't be imposed, it has to be (something near) a consensus. You'd think credit cards were, and still...
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
> "They always have that "god works in mysterious
> ways" ace card
I've been a Debian user ever since I started using Linux, some years ago, and probably the most annoying aspect of the distribution is how long it takes for unstable to become stable (and, therefore, how old stable packages get). There has been a lot of discussion on debian-devel lately (and for some time now) on the "package pool" system. How far have these discussions gone? I've already watched a few simply disappear with no concrete changes at all.
Slashdot Mirror
His daughter Isa Dick!
It makes me think of Ned Flanders... :P
If this passes, next year Brazil will make it into the list!
:(
Sad
I think it's very fitting.
:)
It would be much more fitting, though, if the asteroid eventually collided with Earth, destroying it
Wow! The first book I read said something like "One day Ricky the magic Pixie went to visit Daisy Bumble in her tumbledown cottage. He found her in the bedroom. Roughly he gabbed her heavy shoulders pulling her down on to the bed and ripping off her..."
Oh, no, wait a minute...
Microsoft has been engaged in an some agressive pricing tactics here in Brazil for a while now, including in our major universities. They even give their software for free (you know, the first one is always free...), if they think it'll pay off in the future.
It is therefore important to make the decision people (including the government) realize that price is not the reason why free software is better, specially in schools and government-related projects. Hey, it's not even an important reason, in many cases.
They have to understand that free software is better because its quality is superior; because we get to see what's inside, so we learn more; we don't have to take anyone's word on its keeping our private data, well, private; we don't depend on a single vendor; we can even start developing our own version, based on what's available, if we want to, thus having complete control and developing our own technology.
It's just a better idea, pricing aside. If "they" believe price is the only advantage, we're on very thin ice...
Or "The Jetsons"
Does that mean our passwords will have to be something like "Authorization [name] Alpha Beta Gamma"?
I see bright times for brute force password crackers...
> See, if you'd read the link, you wouldn't have to > ask that question.
If you mean his mentioning "the general public (or a representative group of them)", this means close to nothing. In practice, it is people who have the money who dictate the rules (and, if necessary, manipulate "the general public" to agree with them). That includes any government. Besides, all situations he mentions are highly technical, how could non-scientists decide what's risky and what isn't? They can't, they have to rely on a specialist's report. But there will always be specialists supporting both sides.
See, I did read the link, I just don't think it answered my question adequately.
IMO, the main problem with suggesting this sort of restriction is, who restricts? The same research might be considered dangerous to some people and necessary by others. The same apply to "moral", of course. In the end, it's all in the hands of humans. To decide which areas should be restricted, or to use science for evil, or to do evil while doing science etc.
Some comments:
1. This model isn't saying people should start projects *to* make money. It becomes free software after some (fixed) time, anyway. And there's no problem in making money, so why avoid a chance to do it, even if that's not your prime reason?
2. You're forgeting the time limit. It *will* become free software, one way or the other (sooner or later - the point is, you can pay for it to be "sooner"). And, again, you don't have to pay until you think it's stable enough. Or interesting enough. Or important enough for you. Or you can not pay at all. Wait, if it's ok with you.
3. Perhaps a third party. I suggested, in another post, that sourceforge-like sites handle that. That'd be similar to what happens in e-bay and the like.
4. I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand this one. It becomes free software after some time (of after the author gets some amount of money), so it's there, like all other free software. As with free software, the author(s) naturally understand the software better than anyone else, so you can hire them and have faster modifications or do them yourself (or hire someone else) and have them at a slower pace. This is how it already happens.
True. But that should be ok, because their code sucks, right? So many people complain about paying for code that sucks, I think I missed why NOT paying for it is not a good thing (really, no sarcasm intended).
What if they never hit their magic number? Can I get a refund?
Why would you want that? Remember, there's also a time limit set. If you donated money but the total amount wasn't reached, and the software was released only after the time limit, then you helped fund it, help it to live until that limit. If you actually paid, then you thought it was worth it, and, in the end, you had it become free software anyway... What do you lose?
Why would anyone help out on a project where the code may never get released? I say ransom blows.
I say you should read the original post again, more carefully. The software is *necessarily* released as free software, *either* when a certain amount is collected *or* when a certain time has passed. Whichever comes first. Seems a lot os posters here are forgetting that, I thought I'd put it clearly enough...
Very interesting. Perhaps the license could have landmarks that, when achieved, would reduce the ransom time.
If it's predicted in the license (all legalese involved), it's just as good as any other license.
Well, perhaps rules could be set so that the ransom is fixed. Or, at least, that they should not exceed a certain value (or percentage of the original one).
As to being "locked into a 100% proprietary solution", that can't happen, because of the time limit.
Besides, I think software development oriented sites (sourceforge-like) might add this to their services. They might receive and forward donations (or payment, whatever it's called), perhaps even for a fee, and check when the appropriate amount (or defined date) is reached. Gives reassurance for who's paying for it and might even be a source of income for that kind of service (project hosting) as well.
90% of the parent post is speculation on percentages!
It's really no good to give people digital certificates if they can't understand its value. It may be obvious to us, but how many people give their bank passwords so that friends (or relatives, or spouses, or whatever) can withdraw money for them and save them the ride? How many people will just throw their certificates on non-secure (and sometimes even malicious) websites?
If the people aren't sufficiently preached to on that, these certificates will only build a false sense of security, which will make crime less noticeable.
I'm not against the idea of digital certificates, on the contrary, I just think it can't be imposed, it has to be (something near) a consensus. You'd think credit cards were, and still...
> ways" ace card
Religious people work in mysterious ways...
Stallman's column will read "bla bla bla GNU GNU Linux bla bla bla..." :p
Does that mean that if I move during my sleep, than I'm considered a "zapper"?
Great! Now I can not only not watch any of the channels on cable, I can also not dream of anything for more thatn two seconds!
And I thought I could sleep my problems off...
if (uptime() < 3500000)
LocalRootHole = LatestDiscovered();
Exploit(LocalRootHole);
DoEvilStuff();
There has been a lot of discussion on debian-devel lately (and for some time now) on the "package pool" system. How far have these discussions gone? I've already watched a few simply disappear with no concrete changes at all.
Congratulations on the great work!
rbp