They came from wikipedia, and were cited in the article, so yes. I did check. Apparently you STILL havent, so the only one still fumbling around without the facts is you.
There's no debate any longer. It's quite clear that BSD-style licenses promote freedom, while the GPL goes out of its way to remove freedom.
That kind of depends who you are and whose freedoms you're concerned with, actually. GPL promotes certain types of freedom, where BSD goes with the idea that "freedom" means "no restrictions whatsoever". I dont think theres a clear cut "this one is more free" because both are certainly correct uses of the word "freedom".
The GPL license is all about limiting the freedom of people to do what they want with the software.
Come on, you know better than this. The GPL compromises the freedoms of future developers in order to guarentee that the end user at LEAST has the freedom to modify and redistribute.
Wikipedia sums it up well: The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
In a stricter sense BSD IS about maximizing freedom in the sense of anarchy; but US' society was formed with the idea that in order to maximize individual freedoms when groups are involved, you need to do so by setting restrictions (Bill of Rights, enforcing contract law, enforcing theft laws, etc). You lose some freedoms (the ability for a congressperson to vote on a speech law, the ability for you to take Bob's lunch) in order to gain a more stable, guarenteed level of freedom (being secure in your home, being able to agree to an enforceable contract, being guarenteed the right to political speech).
I tend to agree with this, but would wonder if you had actually seen / been around any silent all-electric vehicles. Its easier to scoff and laugh about stupid pedestrians before you experience what they mean by "silent". I was just over in Shanghai where they have more electric scooters / electric bikes than cars, and comparing them to normal bicycles is a bad comparison. Normal bikes you can generally hear coming, the electrics just make a bit of a whoosh as they go by. They tend to get quite a bit more dangerous in the evening.
Now granted this is in a city where most of the lights and lane lines seem to be taken as advisory rather than mandatory, but it really was quite a bit more dangerous because of them. There is literally no warning if you dont happen to see an electric vehicle coming until it goes past.
So keep in mind, next time you feel like scoffing about such a proposal, its pretty easy to ridicule some difficulty when you havent experienced it for yourself.
(All that said, Im still pretty uncomfortable with such a suggestion.)
Yes, absolutely. Youll notice that whatever else a corporation can do, it cant set laws and rule on them. (And Im sure someone will chime in with a snarky remark about how they control congress, but thats hyperbole-- only senators and reps have the power to vote on laws). To quote Wikipedia,Contrary to popular belief, MPAA ratings carry no force of local, state, or federal law anywhere in the United States.
And to call the bodies that rate games and movies "corporations" shows your naievity. Theyre industry bodies, and not only are the game makers free to ignore them and release an unrated game, consumers are free to ignore them and buy a game of whatever rating they like. Everything about them is voluntary.
So by your definition, the fact that it is physically possible to shoplift milk means that milk is free; so if someone asks you where they can get a free drink, it would be a reasonable response to say "well, the store has milk you can steal".
According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians.[501] The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that since 2004 2,551 people have been killed in the strikes, with 80% of those militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants.[498] Im sure that info is TS/SCI, and that agents will be around to nab us all shortly.
But it is not like everyone does not already pirate roms, lets face it the consoles and the original games are no longer produced if you wanted to pay money for them you would only be paying some used games store owner not anyone involved in making the game in the first place anyways.
Public use does not mean "campground". Seriously, do you really think its OK to go to Farragut Square in DC and set up a camp and a bonfire? What about camping out on the National Mall, does that sound "OK" or "Not OK" to you?
Maybe im getting tired of people trying to make every single discussion about Occupy Wall street, whether it be Windows new bootloader flaws, or Syrian protests, or Apple's manufacturing policies.
Guess what, there are other current events out there, the whole world doesnt revolve around OWS. Im sure there are websites you can go to if youre really that desperate to talk about OWS.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
All clearly of great relevance to the topic at hand, right?
Are the mods all smoking crack? "Offtoic" is what you want for this entire thread, not "Insightful" or "Informative".
Heres the difference, the police HERE have basically ignored the Occupy folks for two months, even though they were illegally camping in whats supposed to be a public park; and the protesters THERE didnt care because they wanted to dismantle the government due to its brutality and oppression.
So lets be clear and open here: Is the dismantling of the US government the goal of the Occupy folks? We might as well get that out into the open.
THe people in Arab spring were under brutal dictatorships, and one man lit himself on fire because of massive, widespread government corruption that meant he could not make a living-- government thugs would take his vendor cart, his goods, etc.
You really want to try to draw a comparison between that and some trespassing protesters getting their illegally pitched tents confiscated because they refused to buy the permits (which basically every other protesting group had NO issue getting)?
You either lack perspective, or youre really just incredibly selfish.
Slashdot Mirror
They came from wikipedia, and were cited in the article, so yes. I did check. Apparently you STILL havent, so the only one still fumbling around without the facts is you.
There's no debate any longer. It's quite clear that BSD-style licenses promote freedom, while the GPL goes out of its way to remove freedom.
That kind of depends who you are and whose freedoms you're concerned with, actually. GPL promotes certain types of freedom, where BSD goes with the idea that "freedom" means "no restrictions whatsoever". I dont think theres a clear cut "this one is more free" because both are certainly correct uses of the word "freedom".
The GPL license is all about limiting the freedom of people to do what they want with the software.
Come on, you know better than this. The GPL compromises the freedoms of future developers in order to guarentee that the end user at LEAST has the freedom to modify and redistribute.
Wikipedia sums it up well:
The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
In a stricter sense BSD IS about maximizing freedom in the sense of anarchy; but US' society was formed with the idea that in order to maximize individual freedoms when groups are involved, you need to do so by setting restrictions (Bill of Rights, enforcing contract law, enforcing theft laws, etc). You lose some freedoms (the ability for a congressperson to vote on a speech law, the ability for you to take Bob's lunch) in order to gain a more stable, guarenteed level of freedom (being secure in your home, being able to agree to an enforceable contract, being guarenteed the right to political speech).
I tend to agree with this, but would wonder if you had actually seen / been around any silent all-electric vehicles. Its easier to scoff and laugh about stupid pedestrians before you experience what they mean by "silent". I was just over in Shanghai where they have more electric scooters / electric bikes than cars, and comparing them to normal bicycles is a bad comparison. Normal bikes you can generally hear coming, the electrics just make a bit of a whoosh as they go by. They tend to get quite a bit more dangerous in the evening.
Now granted this is in a city where most of the lights and lane lines seem to be taken as advisory rather than mandatory, but it really was quite a bit more dangerous because of them. There is literally no warning if you dont happen to see an electric vehicle coming until it goes past.
So keep in mind, next time you feel like scoffing about such a proposal, its pretty easy to ridicule some difficulty when you havent experienced it for yourself.
(All that said, Im still pretty uncomfortable with such a suggestion.)
A corporation cant cause you to go to jail for not breaking the law, hows that?
Or do you want to continue to spout nonsense?
. Things that go without notice in one country would be seen as incredibly offensive in others.
An even better reason why government trying to handle this is a terrible idea.
Yes, absolutely. Youll notice that whatever else a corporation can do, it cant set laws and rule on them. (And Im sure someone will chime in with a snarky remark about how they control congress, but thats hyperbole-- only senators and reps have the power to vote on laws). To quote Wikipedia,Contrary to popular belief, MPAA ratings carry no force of local, state, or federal law anywhere in the United States.
And to call the bodies that rate games and movies "corporations" shows your naievity. Theyre industry bodies, and not only are the game makers free to ignore them and release an unrated game, consumers are free to ignore them and buy a game of whatever rating they like. Everything about them is voluntary.
So by your definition, the fact that it is physically possible to shoplift milk means that milk is free; so if someone asks you where they can get a free drink, it would be a reasonable response to say "well, the store has milk you can steal".
Am I getting that right?
Probably you leave the earthquake and tsunami generators behind, problem solved.
Id assume he got it from this classified website...
According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians.[501] The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that since 2004 2,551 people have been killed in the strikes, with 80% of those militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants.[498]
Im sure that info is TS/SCI, and that agents will be around to nab us all shortly.
Maybe some of your assumptions are just plain wrong and should be reconsidered, in light of actual facts rather than guesses?
Naaaaah, cant be.
It being illegal to take something (whether it be theft, piracy, or infringement) makes it by definition not free, either as in beer OR as in speech.
But it is not like everyone does not already pirate roms, lets face it the consoles and the original games are no longer produced if you wanted to pay money for them you would only be paying some used games store owner not anyone involved in making the game in the first place anyways.
Yea, its not as if Nintendo still releases Super Mario RPG or Street Fighter 2 or Mario Brothers or anything....
All that aside, illegal is still illegal, and "not what OP asked for" is still offtopic.
Youll note that g/pg/R etc are all industry ratings, NOT government ones-- and thats a REALLY REALLY good idea.
Ill leave it to your imagination to come up with reasons why you dont want the government classifying and regulating speech.
Sure there is. But moderation isnt the message Im hearing from OWS.
Public use does not mean "campground". Seriously, do you really think its OK to go to Farragut Square in DC and set up a camp and a bonfire? What about camping out on the National Mall, does that sound "OK" or "Not OK" to you?
Maybe im getting tired of people trying to make every single discussion about Occupy Wall street, whether it be Windows new bootloader flaws, or Syrian protests, or Apple's manufacturing policies.
Guess what, there are other current events out there, the whole world doesnt revolve around OWS. Im sure there are websites you can go to if youre really that desperate to talk about OWS.
All clearly of great relevance to the topic at hand, right?
Are the mods all smoking crack? "Offtoic" is what you want for this entire thread, not "Insightful" or "Informative".
Quiet you, this is religion bashing time. No time for "rationality" and "levelheadedness".
(an ironic description considering it is a term whose Latin etymological origin meant persons/cultures who were not Roman
You mean greek. The term originates from Greek, and was a term for anyone who was not themselves Greek. The Romans WERE barbarians.
IIRC, the term referred to the way other's speech sounded to the greeks-- "barbar".
What do you mean by "invented science"? I find that statement to be unmeaningful.
Wow, someone managed to slip in a super subtle reference to OWS in an unrelated article. What a shocker.
Mods, in case you were wondering what the proper mod to use for parent is, its "offtopic".
Heres the difference, the police HERE have basically ignored the Occupy folks for two months, even though they were illegally camping in whats supposed to be a public park; and the protesters THERE didnt care because they wanted to dismantle the government due to its brutality and oppression.
So lets be clear and open here: Is the dismantling of the US government the goal of the Occupy folks? We might as well get that out into the open.
THe people in Arab spring were under brutal dictatorships, and one man lit himself on fire because of massive, widespread government corruption that meant he could not make a living-- government thugs would take his vendor cart, his goods, etc.
You really want to try to draw a comparison between that and some trespassing protesters getting their illegally pitched tents confiscated because they refused to buy the permits (which basically every other protesting group had NO issue getting)?
You either lack perspective, or youre really just incredibly selfish.
and I could care less about the technicality of their humanity since their superstition nullifies any reason to be concerned with that.
You know, remind me never to vote for you for a position of power. Attitudes like that are how brutal dictatorships and genocidal campaigns begin.
The manner in which a government responds to a protest has no bearing on the importance of what is being protested
I think the deaths might be part of what theyre protesting; care to stack that up against complaints of "Im not as rich as that guy"?