Yes. It places no unfair restrictions on the user of the software and leaves (by the FSF's definition) all four freedoms intact. It differs from the GPL in that there is no copyleft language. The code is provided as free software but you are not required to maintain that freedom when you modify it.
I personally prefer the GPL (v3) but people releasing code under the BSD license are still a huge asset to the free software community.
No. There is no sence in selling already-eaten food. There is a market for used games. What game developers aught to be doing is giving their games a longer term value. I still play doom because it has no DRM which prevents me from doing so. (hey, every time I want to play I pirate it, but I had bought and lost/destroyed two copies back in the day so I beleive I am rightfully entitled) There are still all sorts of interesting single player levels being made, and there are all sorts of interesting people to meet and play against online. The game still has value. Now look at Halo 2. You are stuck with their levels, you have to pay for xbox-live (acceptable, but how long will xbox-live exist now that xbox is obsolete), and they made the game itself obsolete by releasing Halo 3. I bet many Halo 2s ended up on the used shelf when Halo 3 came out. Microsoft can't complain about this. It is their own fault.
Also, game developers don't diserve shit from used game dealers. The game was already paid for. Lets not start acting like the EULA has any legal standing whatsoever. The courts have already decided that EULAs don't stand up against the first sale doctrine. The game is YOURS. You can do whatever you want to it. This is capitalism. Businesses are supposed to cater to their customers, not the other way around.
The only problem here is that the desired behavior is that we dont redistribute our games, even the copies that we paid for and own (FUCK EULAs, the courts have decided that the first sale doctrine prevails!). You have every right to sell or give away your copy of the game when you get bored of it. You still can't do this and keep the proper functionality intact.
It's not like these companies have anything to loose from showing the code either if they are selling HARDWARE. This software shouldn't be much more then ++candidateVotes[i]; can it? Bullshit is among us.
I don't think palin is fit enough to be doing her current job. Just listen to her speak. It's instant facepalm.
Why does this argument always come up?
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't bubble your children. Teach them about the REAL world. Currently 17, I've been lucky to be granted home internet access for around 10 years now (remember the good ol' days of AOL 4.0:D). Throughout the whole time, my connection has never been filtered, monitored, or logged. Over the time, I have visited sites that many parents would not want their children visiting, but as a result, I have learned.
Every 13 year old boy has a burning curiosity about the opposite sex. A little bit of porn never hurt anyone. Moving on, I have a very strong feeling that the teachings of DARE (drug avoidance class tought in public school via typical propaganda) and sex ed. (here in the US, complete abstinance is all they teach in school. By law.) gloss over a few very important facts and don't provide an accurate understanding. Through the uncensored internet, I was able to research these subjects farther, through unbiased sources, and make better decisions as a result.
I have done research into political ideologies that many people don't understand or just consider to be evil. Instead of just calling communism or facisim evil, I have a more complete understanding of them and have my own views about where they succeed and where they fail. I can also detect when these ideologies effect our own precious capitalist state (which unfortunately isn't a very ideal implementation of capitalism anymore)
Through many of the darker memes of the internet (goatsetubgirldetroithardcore2girls1cupbmepainolimpics, stereotyped memes, and the darkest depths of/b/) I have learned to be much more laid back. I am no longer homophobic (though strait) and I find incredible pleasure in goatseing homophobes. The penis is a body part. Get over it. I understand steriotypes. They exist because they are true, but I understand they do not apply to everyone - everyone is unique. It is easy to separate the black people with no interest in education who play with their $350 phones all day from the black people who live in the real world. I strongly dislike the former (call me a racist), but associate with plenty of the ladder. As an individual, you can't complain about steriotypes when you prove it true yourself.
That rant went off topic and covered a bunch of bases. Thinking about it though, it all comes back to where I started. I am who I am because my outlet to information was never blocked, cencored, or distorted. I think I am better off as a result.
Not neccesarily. This argument is commonly abused. Capital is needed for the production of certain (a few, certainly not all - as we know) creative works. Commercial films and software would be nothing like what they are today without capital to pay the developers for all their efforts. It is therefor logical to charge a fee for reproduction in order to repay the debt that development incurred. It's also not too impolite to try to make a profit.
There is a point where all these things start to go wrong. These companies will all start to try to maintain monopoly status, and sabotage competition in any way possible. They will hold on to a work which is long out of date (particularly the movie industry, but software companies also do this) and continue to milk the population long after the initial debt has been made and several people have become filthy rich. They will completely ignore market situations and the customer's needs and charge whatever they want for their products.
Software is one of those products that does not require a lot of equipment to produce, just a lot of time. There are plenty of people in this world who have way too much time on their hands (damn I wish I was one of these) and invest it in free software. Over the years free software has evolved to be surprise competition in the software market which used to be (and still is, depending on your views) the playground of Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Adobe, ect, ect. Since there is now competition, it would seem logical for the price of this commercial software to drop - but to avoid that, we apparently designed a whole college course on how to break all the rules and play unfair.
I threw away another couple mod points to write this:/
Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.
According to the Free Software Definition (GNU's version, not debian's), the first required right is to be able to run the program for any particular purpose. Yes, Free Software comes with a license, but that license deals with distribution rights, and doesn't bind you like an EULA does. Requiring people to accept an EULA is against the philosophy of Free Software. That's why people are complaining, some idiot felt like writing a story, and we are posting now.
"Perhaps it is a good reminder that while punishment may be appropriate, it is not necessarily good for society to punish people continuously for past misdeeds."
I completely agree. If I make some sort of bad decision and end up doing some time for it, when I'm done my debt should be paid. I shouldn't have to deal with shit like employers making judgments or the government taking my rights away. I especially feel the most sorry for "sex offenders." They are truly the most fucked out of all of us. They paid their debt. Stop making judgments.
Strife support was reverse engineered, but fromwhat I've gathered, it wasn't a perfect clean-room reverse engineering escapade, so the strife support is a little shady.
GNU does not depend on Linux, so you can indeed call it the GNU OS when the kernel isn't the thing being discussed. Today, you can run GNU on *at least* Linux, kBSD, and the HURD.
GNU was an incomplete operating system which is simmilar to UNIX. Linux was and still is just a kernel. In combination, it just makes sense to call it GNU/Linux. Calling it "Linux" or "GNU" is misleading (not to mention a huge kick in the balls, considering each project conists of millions of lines of codes) because it consists of different parts.
The GPL3 doesn't prevent implementing DRM. It prevents using DRM to lock down a GPL3 program in a way it cannot be modified and/or distributed. You can, for example, implement a DVD player and license it under the GPL3. You can not take a GPL program and include it in a operating system or device that will only run that one unmodified copy. (technically, the DMCA prevents you from implementing other people's DRM, but that is not the GPL's fault.)
Well, there are always those people who don't read the manual. They are not exempt from the law. For the rest of us, I think we should completely rethink the way we define our laws. Law works very simmilarly to software. Laws can have bugs (loopholes or unjust results) and they need to be updated as time passes and new situations arise. When writing software, we strive for code reuse, We strive for clarity, and we strive to keep things as simple as possible. Since we're dealing with computers, there is no issue of ambiguity, but in law there is (some times the level of ambiguity is astounding. They also tend to be hundreds of times longer then they need to be without any clear benefit. A side effect of this is that many bugs get introduced (copy a song, pay a rediculous fine. Software patents. past-life copyright protection.).
If we followed programming standards when writing law, I bet we could fit our entire nation's code of law within at most, a dictionary sized book.
Just look at all those confederate flags still flown down in the southern states. This country is still packed with fucking racists. I'm not religious or anything, but I pray for his safety as president.
0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like non-competition is what they are paying him for. They already have the rights to use his code as it is BSD.
Yes. It places no unfair restrictions on the user of the software and leaves (by the FSF's definition) all four freedoms intact. It differs from the GPL in that there is no copyleft language. The code is provided as free software but you are not required to maintain that freedom when you modify it.
I personally prefer the GPL (v3) but people releasing code under the BSD license are still a huge asset to the free software community.
God damn it, you gave me an excuse.
No. There is no sence in selling already-eaten food. There is a market for used games. What game developers aught to be doing is giving their games a longer term value. I still play doom because it has no DRM which prevents me from doing so. (hey, every time I want to play I pirate it, but I had bought and lost/destroyed two copies back in the day so I beleive I am rightfully entitled) There are still all sorts of interesting single player levels being made, and there are all sorts of interesting people to meet and play against online. The game still has value. Now look at Halo 2. You are stuck with their levels, you have to pay for xbox-live (acceptable, but how long will xbox-live exist now that xbox is obsolete), and they made the game itself obsolete by releasing Halo 3. I bet many Halo 2s ended up on the used shelf when Halo 3 came out. Microsoft can't complain about this. It is their own fault.
Also, game developers don't diserve shit from used game dealers. The game was already paid for. Lets not start acting like the EULA has any legal standing whatsoever. The courts have already decided that EULAs don't stand up against the first sale doctrine. The game is YOURS. You can do whatever you want to it. This is capitalism. Businesses are supposed to cater to their customers, not the other way around.
The only problem here is that the desired behavior is that we dont redistribute our games, even the copies that we paid for and own (FUCK EULAs, the courts have decided that the first sale doctrine prevails!). You have every right to sell or give away your copy of the game when you get bored of it. You still can't do this and keep the proper functionality intact.
It's not like these companies have anything to loose from showing the code either if they are selling HARDWARE. This software shouldn't be much more then ++candidateVotes[i]; can it? Bullshit is among us.
That's easy. Spend one day writing code. While your computer heats up for the next 6 days, enjoy the world :)
I don't think palin is fit enough to be doing her current job. Just listen to her speak. It's instant facepalm.
Don't bubble your children. Teach them about the REAL world. Currently 17, I've been lucky to be granted home internet access for around 10 years now (remember the good ol' days of AOL 4.0 :D). Throughout the whole time, my connection has never been filtered, monitored, or logged. Over the time, I have visited sites that many parents would not want their children visiting, but as a result, I have learned.
Every 13 year old boy has a burning curiosity about the opposite sex. A little bit of porn never hurt anyone. Moving on, I have a very strong feeling that the teachings of DARE (drug avoidance class tought in public school via typical propaganda) and sex ed. (here in the US, complete abstinance is all they teach in school. By law.) gloss over a few very important facts and don't provide an accurate understanding. Through the uncensored internet, I was able to research these subjects farther, through unbiased sources, and make better decisions as a result.
I have done research into political ideologies that many people don't understand or just consider to be evil. Instead of just calling communism or facisim evil, I have a more complete understanding of them and have my own views about where they succeed and where they fail. I can also detect when these ideologies effect our own precious capitalist state (which unfortunately isn't a very ideal implementation of capitalism anymore)
Through many of the darker memes of the internet (goatsetubgirldetroithardcore2girls1cupbmepainolimpics, stereotyped memes, and the darkest depths of /b/) I have learned to be much more laid back. I am no longer homophobic (though strait) and I find incredible pleasure in goatseing homophobes. The penis is a body part. Get over it. I understand steriotypes. They exist because they are true, but I understand they do not apply to everyone - everyone is unique. It is easy to separate the black people with no interest in education who play with their $350 phones all day from the black people who live in the real world. I strongly dislike the former (call me a racist), but associate with plenty of the ladder. As an individual, you can't complain about steriotypes when you prove it true yourself.
That rant went off topic and covered a bunch of bases. Thinking about it though, it all comes back to where I started. I am who I am because my outlet to information was never blocked, cencored, or distorted. I think I am better off as a result.
Not neccesarily. This argument is commonly abused. Capital is needed for the production of certain (a few, certainly not all - as we know) creative works. Commercial films and software would be nothing like what they are today without capital to pay the developers for all their efforts. It is therefor logical to charge a fee for reproduction in order to repay the debt that development incurred. It's also not too impolite to try to make a profit.
There is a point where all these things start to go wrong. These companies will all start to try to maintain monopoly status, and sabotage competition in any way possible. They will hold on to a work which is long out of date (particularly the movie industry, but software companies also do this) and continue to milk the population long after the initial debt has been made and several people have become filthy rich. They will completely ignore market situations and the customer's needs and charge whatever they want for their products.
Software is one of those products that does not require a lot of equipment to produce, just a lot of time. There are plenty of people in this world who have way too much time on their hands (damn I wish I was one of these) and invest it in free software. Over the years free software has evolved to be surprise competition in the software market which used to be (and still is, depending on your views) the playground of Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Adobe, ect, ect. Since there is now competition, it would seem logical for the price of this commercial software to drop - but to avoid that, we apparently designed a whole college course on how to break all the rules and play unfair.
I threw away another couple mod points to write this :/
Source already seems to be an acceptable de-facto standard for distributing programs in the least OS-specific way. Let's stick to that :)
Don't let them ruin your game. Ruin their's first. It's so much more fun!
Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.
According to the Free Software Definition (GNU's version, not debian's), the first required right is to be able to run the program for any particular purpose. Yes, Free Software comes with a license, but that license deals with distribution rights, and doesn't bind you like an EULA does. Requiring people to accept an EULA is against the philosophy of Free Software. That's why people are complaining, some idiot felt like writing a story, and we are posting now.
"Perhaps it is a good reminder that while punishment may be appropriate, it is not necessarily good for society to punish people continuously for past misdeeds."
I completely agree. If I make some sort of bad decision and end up doing some time for it, when I'm done my debt should be paid. I shouldn't have to deal with shit like employers making judgments or the government taking my rights away. I especially feel the most sorry for "sex offenders." They are truly the most fucked out of all of us. They paid their debt. Stop making judgments.
Strife support was reverse engineered, but fromwhat I've gathered, it wasn't a perfect clean-room reverse engineering escapade, so the strife support is a little shady.
I think even more people would get behind Wildebeast/Oscar
GNU does not depend on Linux, so you can indeed call it the GNU OS when the kernel isn't the thing being discussed. Today, you can run GNU on *at least* Linux, kBSD, and the HURD.
GNU was an incomplete operating system which is simmilar to UNIX. Linux was and still is just a kernel. In combination, it just makes sense to call it GNU/Linux. Calling it "Linux" or "GNU" is misleading (not to mention a huge kick in the balls, considering each project conists of millions of lines of codes) because it consists of different parts.
The video worked fine on my system out of the box. I don't know what the problem is...
The GPL3 doesn't prevent implementing DRM. It prevents using DRM to lock down a GPL3 program in a way it cannot be modified and/or distributed. You can, for example, implement a DVD player and license it under the GPL3. You can not take a GPL program and include it in a operating system or device that will only run that one unmodified copy. (technically, the DMCA prevents you from implementing other people's DRM, but that is not the GPL's fault.)
Well, there are always those people who don't read the manual. They are not exempt from the law. For the rest of us, I think we should completely rethink the way we define our laws. Law works very simmilarly to software. Laws can have bugs (loopholes or unjust results) and they need to be updated as time passes and new situations arise. When writing software, we strive for code reuse, We strive for clarity, and we strive to keep things as simple as possible. Since we're dealing with computers, there is no issue of ambiguity, but in law there is (some times the level of ambiguity is astounding. They also tend to be hundreds of times longer then they need to be without any clear benefit. A side effect of this is that many bugs get introduced (copy a song, pay a rediculous fine. Software patents. past-life copyright protection.).
If we followed programming standards when writing law, I bet we could fit our entire nation's code of law within at most, a dictionary sized book.
TFA seems to say the warrent was for the wrong address anyway.
Just look at all those confederate flags still flown down in the southern states. This country is still packed with fucking racists. I'm not religious or anything, but I pray for his safety as president.
hey, I said a perfect world. I know the difference between that and reality :)
Commercial servers. Look at counterstrike, teamspeak, and many other games/programs.
0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.