If you're more worried about the other two issues, then give your money and support to Liberty, or a serious party.
I have serious issues with Liberty as an organisation, and with many of their public policies. That aside, what "serious" parties are there that cover the same policies as PPUK? There simply isn't one. Your assertion that PPUK is simply a "single issue party" is nothing more than that: a personal assertion. The three issues that they are campaigning on are clearly stated on the PPUK website and the official manifesto.
I'm a PPUK member, and I'm a member because Privacy and Freedom of Speech are important to me. Copyright reform is not.
The Pirate Party has its roots in individuals making a profit from flouting copyright law, and using privacy and freedom of speech arguments as legal defences.
That's quite a serious allegation. Could you back up that allegation with some facts?
police using CCTV footage for blackmail? All genuine problems. What's the kind of thing that worries the Pirate Party?
The Police use of CCTV full stop.
A lot of people in this entire article are apparently wilfully ignorant about the Pirate Party. They are not a single issue party: they are a three issue party. Those issues are Copyright, Privacy and Freedom of Speech. Slashdot, naturally, is focused on the Copyright side of things (& the name of party). People like me are more worried about the other two issues. Issues which you rightly point out, are important to people like yourself.
surveillance and freedom of speech concerns because they directly support that primary goal - with the added benefit of giving you the appearance of some moral high ground.
I can't speak for other members of the PPUK but those issues are certainly important to me, as an individual. I'm not interested in them because they give me any kind of moral high ground, I'm interested in them because they're important subjects which require real debate and preferably real action. If you don't think those subjects are not important then that's fine, but don't degenerate those of us who think they are and are trying to do something about it.
No, it doesn't. The first floating point exception will ruin your whole day.
So would an attempt to perform an integer divide by zero. That's why we call those types of problems "kernel bugs", and we are very careful not to create them.
Not at all. I even argued on the PPUK forums that we Open Source Software developers could not reasonably have our cake and eat it, an I stand by that as an Open Source developer. The PPUK have chosen to take a different policy (An exception for Open Source software) which is also fine, and defensible.
I'd love to say "Oh we're working on the WiFi stack right now, try a developers release!" but that's just not the case. We have a large codebase and very few maintainers, so adding features has essentially ground to a halt. We've always had a hard time attracting developers, and right now the situation is critical. I suspect the release of the first Haiku Alpha will only exacerbate the problem, if that's even possible.
Firstly, I was talking about Free software not Open Source software.
I'm well aware of the distinction but any changes to copyright laws would affect Open Source software as a whole, not just Free software.
Secondly, what is the point of being able to freely share time-bombed proprietary binaries that cannot be fixed due to lack of source code, but allowing proprietary software authors to 'loot' from Free (libre) software whose copyright protection term has been reduced?
My question would be "What is the argument for protecting Open Source software longer than Closed software? Can you demonstrate that it would be harmful not to?" There would be no "looting" if Copyright had expired on the source code. The situation would be analogous to how BSDL software licensing works currently.
we make exceptions all the time for things
Sure, but my argument has always been that creating an exception for Open Source would be seen as hypocritical and be immensely difficult to legislate and enforce anyway. I've already suggested that the various Pirate Parties, FSF, GNU, Open Rights Group etc. need to get together to discuss the issue properly, because at the moment no one seems to have a workable, acceptable solution.
I won't go into too much detail here as I've already debated the topic in depth on the PPUK forums: I'd refer you there, and to the Copyright Policy draft document, for more information.
Criminals have their biometric data recorded so they can be easily identified if they reoffend, making it taking the data a deterrant.
Actually you do not need to be a criminal to have your DNA and fingerprints taken and stored. The Police can and do take your biometric data if you are simply arrested. Even if you are never charged, let alone charged, tried and found not guilty, your data will be retained. Also do not make the mistake of thinking that "only criminals get arrested": tens of thousands of people get arrested when no crime has been commited thanks to the bizarre and unfair policies currently imposed upon the Police.
I fear the Pirate Party's obsession with 'free (gratis) stuff' also blinds them to the harm it'll do to Free (libre) software.
PPUK are not blind to the issue. Far from it, they've been in contact with the FSF and RMS directly to discuss the issue. However as I pointed out several weeks back during a discussion, people can't have their cake and eat it, too: in other words you can't go around creating exceptions for certain things like Open Source software just because you happen to like it.
I never said Mercurial or any DVCS was bad. I said it appeared to be more of an endemic problem to get developers to use it correctly than with a centralised VCS such as Subversion.
One particular instance was security. They had split the project down into modules and wanted to restrict certain developers to certain modules (for various reasons which I didn't bother to question). Using a centralised system (SVN) made this fairly simple. Using a distributed system such as Mercurial would have made this near impossible as there would be no way to stop someone cloning a developers local repository.
I've also worked with teams where the managers wanted to see a single commit log in real time, managers who wanted to ensure developers checked in changes with an attached change control or bug tracking number and reject commits that did not match the criteria and all sorts of other stuff that only a manager could want. All stuff that ranges from "tricky" to "impossible" with most (all?) distributed systems due their nature but where easy enough to do with Subversion & could have been done with most other centralised systems.
I've liked working with distributed SCMs. I really like Mercurial. It isn't a silver bullet and it won't suit everyone. Sorry, but it's true.
I work in a large scale commercial development team and we use git.
Yes and I've worked in a large scale commercial development team and they used Mercurial. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it doesn't suit everyone. I've worked in commercial development teams where a distributed system would not have worked, at all, due to external constraints and processes imposed by management. Sometimes you don't get to make that call.
The backup thing though has to be joke. Every single person that checks out the code is making a complete backup.
Every single developer has a local repository with local changes. If you're doing things right your developers are only pushing their changesets to the central repository every couple of days. You have to ensure those local changes are backed up in the meantime. Again, I am not suggesting this can not be done, just that it has to be considered if you use a tool such as Mercurial.
All you have to do is set up an extra server and say "Hey, this is the central server now".
Yeah. I know. In fact I did just that at my last job when we implemented Mercurial. The problem is training developers to push their local changeset to the central repository and from stopping developers pulling from someone else and not the central repository. There was a least one incident a week where a conflict arose due to developers doing things like that which led to divergent codebases which required significant effort on behalf of one of the developers to merge and fix conflicts. I have no doubt these problems could have been fixed given time, but it was an uphill battle.
it would be crazy not to use Mercurial is a new project
Mercurial is a distributed system, Subversion is centralised. They suit almost totally different workflows and teams. If you're a large group of Open Source developers in different countries and timezones Mercurial may suit you. If you're a small group of developers in the same office doing rapid development, Subversion may be better for you.
I share your scepticism. Given the vast numbers of CVS repositories that exist and the ease with which you can transition to Subversion, I don't think it's popularity is going to wane any time soon. It also has some of the widest range of plugins for IDEs such as Visual Studio and Eclipse and the largest number of tools and clients, which make it a popular choice for a lot of new projects. Outside of Linux development Git is almost unheard of, but may gain popularity and although I've worked with Mercurial professionally I've yet to see it used anywhere for Open Source development, yet.
it is Europe where most of the changes need to be made with regards to copyright
Yes, and it's worth pointing out that the Swedish Pirate Party already have on MEP, and a second "pending" (Pending ratification of Lisbon, that is). So it would appear that Pirate Parties in the EU are going to be capable of getting elected representatives into places where they matter.
Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Writing these tiny libraries is not so simple, and can be a huge waste of time.
It sounds like some of those tiny GPL licensed libraries are actually pretty valuable. In which case, you as a software developer will have to pay to use them. The price is compliance with the GPL.
Which is why these companies go to software with BSD or other licenses.
If a non-GPL licensed equivalent exists then your previous argument doesn't apply and the company is welcome to use the non-GPL library at no cost to themselves. That also has no impact on their own choice of license.
It isn't the physical card. I couldn't give a rats ass about the card (Other than it's a cheap piece of shit, as you point out). It's the gigantic, interlinked database that will go with the card, which will track everything I do, and be accessible by almost every public worker you can imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
What he said. While you're there, read "Where Wizards Stay Up Late", too.
I live in Bristol. In five hours I can be in Cornwall.
Boris would obviously be riding a bike. Although an in-game task to chase down oiks could work.
I have serious issues with Liberty as an organisation, and with many of their public policies. That aside, what "serious" parties are there that cover the same policies as PPUK? There simply isn't one. Your assertion that PPUK is simply a "single issue party" is nothing more than that: a personal assertion. The three issues that they are campaigning on are clearly stated on the PPUK website and the official manifesto.
I'm a PPUK member, and I'm a member because Privacy and Freedom of Speech are important to me. Copyright reform is not.
That's quite a serious allegation. Could you back up that allegation with some facts?
The Police use of CCTV full stop.
A lot of people in this entire article are apparently wilfully ignorant about the Pirate Party. They are not a single issue party: they are a three issue party. Those issues are Copyright, Privacy and Freedom of Speech. Slashdot, naturally, is focused on the Copyright side of things (& the name of party). People like me are more worried about the other two issues. Issues which you rightly point out, are important to people like yourself.
I can't speak for other members of the PPUK but those issues are certainly important to me, as an individual. I'm not interested in them because they give me any kind of moral high ground, I'm interested in them because they're important subjects which require real debate and preferably real action. If you don't think those subjects are not important then that's fine, but don't degenerate those of us who think they are and are trying to do something about it.
It's even worse if you do have GNU info installed and are naive to actually try to use it.
GNU info needs to just die. Preferably in a horrible, painful fashion, with lots of screaming and blood.
So would an attempt to perform an integer divide by zero. That's why we call those types of problems "kernel bugs", and we are very careful not to create them.
Not at all. I even argued on the PPUK forums that we Open Source Software developers could not reasonably have our cake and eat it, an I stand by that as an Open Source developer. The PPUK have chosen to take a different policy (An exception for Open Source software) which is also fine, and defensible.
I'd love to say "Oh we're working on the WiFi stack right now, try a developers release!" but that's just not the case. We have a large codebase and very few maintainers, so adding features has essentially ground to a halt. We've always had a hard time attracting developers, and right now the situation is critical. I suspect the release of the first Haiku Alpha will only exacerbate the problem, if that's even possible.
I'm well aware of the distinction but any changes to copyright laws would affect Open Source software as a whole, not just Free software.
My question would be "What is the argument for protecting Open Source software longer than Closed software? Can you demonstrate that it would be harmful not to?" There would be no "looting" if Copyright had expired on the source code. The situation would be analogous to how BSDL software licensing works currently.
Sure, but my argument has always been that creating an exception for Open Source would be seen as hypocritical and be immensely difficult to legislate and enforce anyway. I've already suggested that the various Pirate Parties, FSF, GNU, Open Rights Group etc. need to get together to discuss the issue properly, because at the moment no one seems to have a workable, acceptable solution.
I won't go into too much detail here as I've already debated the topic in depth on the PPUK forums: I'd refer you there, and to the Copyright Policy draft document, for more information.
Actually you do not need to be a criminal to have your DNA and fingerprints taken and stored. The Police can and do take your biometric data if you are simply arrested. Even if you are never charged, let alone charged, tried and found not guilty, your data will be retained. Also do not make the mistake of thinking that "only criminals get arrested": tens of thousands of people get arrested when no crime has been commited thanks to the bizarre and unfair policies currently imposed upon the Police.
PPUK are not blind to the issue. Far from it, they've been in contact with the FSF and RMS directly to discuss the issue. However as I pointed out several weeks back during a discussion, people can't have their cake and eat it, too: in other words you can't go around creating exceptions for certain things like Open Source software just because you happen to like it.
I never said Mercurial or any DVCS was bad. I said it appeared to be more of an endemic problem to get developers to use it correctly than with a centralised VCS such as Subversion.
The local repository will have local commits which are not pushed to the central repository. Where is the backup of these commits?
One particular instance was security. They had split the project down into modules and wanted to restrict certain developers to certain modules (for various reasons which I didn't bother to question). Using a centralised system (SVN) made this fairly simple. Using a distributed system such as Mercurial would have made this near impossible as there would be no way to stop someone cloning a developers local repository.
I've also worked with teams where the managers wanted to see a single commit log in real time, managers who wanted to ensure developers checked in changes with an attached change control or bug tracking number and reject commits that did not match the criteria and all sorts of other stuff that only a manager could want. All stuff that ranges from "tricky" to "impossible" with most (all?) distributed systems due their nature but where easy enough to do with Subversion & could have been done with most other centralised systems.
I've liked working with distributed SCMs. I really like Mercurial. It isn't a silver bullet and it won't suit everyone. Sorry, but it's true.
Yes and I've worked in a large scale commercial development team and they used Mercurial. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it doesn't suit everyone. I've worked in commercial development teams where a distributed system would not have worked, at all, due to external constraints and processes imposed by management. Sometimes you don't get to make that call.
Every single developer has a local repository with local changes. If you're doing things right your developers are only pushing their changesets to the central repository every couple of days. You have to ensure those local changes are backed up in the meantime. Again, I am not suggesting this can not be done, just that it has to be considered if you use a tool such as Mercurial.
Yeah. I know. In fact I did just that at my last job when we implemented Mercurial. The problem is training developers to push their local changeset to the central repository and from stopping developers pulling from someone else and not the central repository. There was a least one incident a week where a conflict arose due to developers doing things like that which led to divergent codebases which required significant effort on behalf of one of the developers to merge and fix conflicts. I have no doubt these problems could have been fixed given time, but it was an uphill battle.
Yes, and Glibc moved recently and I assume more GNU projects will follow suit. However that's still a very small subset of Open Source projects.
Mercurial is a distributed system, Subversion is centralised. They suit almost totally different workflows and teams. If you're a large group of Open Source developers in different countries and timezones Mercurial may suit you. If you're a small group of developers in the same office doing rapid development, Subversion may be better for you.
I share your scepticism. Given the vast numbers of CVS repositories that exist and the ease with which you can transition to Subversion, I don't think it's popularity is going to wane any time soon. It also has some of the widest range of plugins for IDEs such as Visual Studio and Eclipse and the largest number of tools and clients, which make it a popular choice for a lot of new projects. Outside of Linux development Git is almost unheard of, but may gain popularity and although I've worked with Mercurial professionally I've yet to see it used anywhere for Open Source development, yet.
Yeah. Even using the (L)GPL doesn't seem to help us much. All the world is Linux is the problem, not the license.
If you're worried about it, then get involved and help to shape policy. PPUK are an incredibly "open" party.
Yes, and it's worth pointing out that the Swedish Pirate Party already have on MEP, and a second "pending" (Pending ratification of Lisbon, that is). So it would appear that Pirate Parties in the EU are going to be capable of getting elected representatives into places where they matter.
It sounds like some of those tiny GPL licensed libraries are actually pretty valuable. In which case, you as a software developer will have to pay to use them. The price is compliance with the GPL.
If a non-GPL licensed equivalent exists then your previous argument doesn't apply and the company is welcome to use the non-GPL library at no cost to themselves. That also has no impact on their own choice of license.
It isn't the physical card. I couldn't give a rats ass about the card (Other than it's a cheap piece of shit, as you point out). It's the gigantic, interlinked database that will go with the card, which will track everything I do, and be accessible by almost every public worker you can imagine.