Though the GPL may take freedoms away from developers (the few), it grants them to the users (the many). It is a very valuable trade-off in my oppinion (and I am a developer).
"Open source" (the term) doesn't convey the freedom you get as a result. It is very easy to release a program as source yet have it be every bit as restrictive as your typical windows software. In a less extreme way, the ideals of free software do tend to get lost when you start calling it open source after a while (ok, here's the source, but you cannot make commercial use). RMS doesn't advocate passing the source around, he advocates passing the freedom around. That is what's important. That's why he insists on the use of the term "free software." That is why the Free Software Foundation is not the Open Source Software Foundation.
What the fuck do people do with word/writer other then write fucking documents. What kind of customization could they need. All I think they need is some training. Plenty of people use OO.org and a plethora of other free software programs as they are today. I think it's a problem with people, not the software. People are to unwilling/unskilled to adapt to another program which does the exact same thing. It may not neccesarily their fault - I remember how my high school spoonfed us microsoft office - but none the less, it is a problem which must be addressed.
Let's get one thing strait. You are going to download your fucking font onto my computer then tell me I can only use it in one program/page. How about you take that font and stick it in a hole of your choice.
Maybe it is time for OpenGL to be replaced. Trust me, I'm well aware that it would be an enormous burden, but with more and more graphics cards receiving free software drivers, it's more likely now then ever.
We have a couple of options. A: Make the exploit publicly known - ensuring that it will either get fixed, or the company that provided the garbage implementation gets replaced (win, win). B: Let them know secretly, letting them get away with ignorance, doing their job (that they get paid handsomely for) for them. C: keep it a secret. let it be exploited for years.
Huh? Except the artist wasn't forced to produce his work. If he doesn't like when that happens, he also has the right to put down that livelihood and do something else. A real artist doesn't try to contain his work. He wants his work to be free.
It is a natural trait for us to find ways of expressing ourselves. I find it completely idiotic that we've turned this into a business. It distorts the messages we're trying to send, and it stifles our ability to share creatively with our community.
You just hit a nail on it's head. There is no reason for these laws to be so big. If it only takes a sentence or two to sum up the bill, why isn't the bill one or two sentences long? As a citizen, it would be easier to obey the laws if they were actually understandable, and much easier to pick out the bullshit.
I agree, except I'm speaking honestly. Fuck musicians. If they want to eat, make them work like everyone else. They shouldn't be entitled to free income for the rest of their life + 75 years for writing one song.
On the GPL comment. People deliberately breaching the GPL are generally software companies that would be very quick to point out that you are pirating their stuff. They have to play by the rules if they expect us to.
I've heared that somewhere aswell, but on the other hand, marijuana is used by many as a medicine against cancer. We won't know what's going on until people can start doing studies.
What's disturbing here is that they include "computer generated images." For every computer generated image or drawing of child pornography that is taken away, actual child pornography will be made to replace it. Artistic expressions depicting child pornography should most certainly not be considered illegal. If you don't like it, don't look for it - but as long as no children are harmed in the making of it, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM? The very next step is to consider artistic depictions or negative views of our beloved corporations and/or government to be illegal.
Another one of my pet peeves: I hate when people and groups (*cough* religious groups) try to enforce their ideals upon others. God forbid they would use words, instead they always try to twist the government's arm to enforce their ideals upon the world. This is taking place within this argument, but also can be clearly seen with video game/movie ratings, abortion, and drugs. I have my own ideals and my own concious. I can decide for myself what I think is right and wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. If you can convince me to change my mind on a matter (drug use, abortion. I invite you.), that's excellent. When you are an old fuck who has nothing better to do then enforce your uneducated oppinions on others through violence (that would be allowing the police to raid one's property and seize whatever they need), here's a big FUCK YOU to you. Have a nice day.
It's about time we make a free software game that doesn't smell of mold from the 90s and find out, isn't it? I'm serious - if anyone is interested, Contact me. I can't play doom much longer!
These rootkits must obviously be known of in order to be tested. Now imagine all of the undocumented rootkits out there. Imagine all of the special purpose ones which will never be documented. AV is a lost cause. Our only hope is to contain the damage as much as possible though properly limited permissions and user education.
As an armature musician, I agree with you. I'm a pretty modest person. I don't know how on earth anyone puts a price tag on a couple minutes of audio. I'd much rather (when I get to that point) let society decide by giving out all of my work for free (in the free software sense - with redistribution and modification perfectly OK) and asking for donations. I might not make nearly as much, but I'll certainly know I earned whatever I got - and that no one was ever ripped off. Then again, music should not be written for the purpose of making money. Doing so voids the entire meaning of the end result.
(this comment has nothing to do with this law in particular. It's just my speculation on our legal system.) Adding useless laws DOES have an effect. We can choose between implementing the entirety of our laws in as few words as possible, or we can try to throw in as many clauses as possible. One choice leaves you with a legal implementation that is light-weight, easy to understand, and easy to interpret - perhaps making the law a little bit more understandable to the lay-person and killing off a few lawyers in the process (always a good thing). The opposite is to do what we do here in the US. Our laws are loaded with clause after clause of confusing lawyer-speak. These laws tend to be harder to interpret in a consistent way and I feel that this is one of the reasons why we are such a litigious nation. With so many laws worded with the complexity that they are, tweaks tend to be needed much more often, and these tweaks are usually guided by the special interest lobbyists. If we just took a step back and tried to optimize the implementation of our laws, I'm sure our courts would be run much more efficiently, and congress would actually have time to get important things done. During this process, we could also take the time to re-evaluate the importance of certain laws, such as the outlawing of certain drugs, gay marriage, non-commercial copyright infringement, and whatever else we manage to dig up. At the same time, we could attempt to straighten out certain things, like the electoral college.
Slashdot Mirror
Though the GPL may take freedoms away from developers (the few), it grants them to the users (the many). It is a very valuable trade-off in my oppinion (and I am a developer).
How many test editors have you written?
"Open source" (the term) doesn't convey the freedom you get as a result. It is very easy to release a program as source yet have it be every bit as restrictive as your typical windows software. In a less extreme way, the ideals of free software do tend to get lost when you start calling it open source after a while (ok, here's the source, but you cannot make commercial use). RMS doesn't advocate passing the source around, he advocates passing the freedom around. That is what's important. That's why he insists on the use of the term "free software." That is why the Free Software Foundation is not the Open Source Software Foundation.
What the fuck do people do with word/writer other then write fucking documents. What kind of customization could they need. All I think they need is some training. Plenty of people use OO.org and a plethora of other free software programs as they are today. I think it's a problem with people, not the software. People are to unwilling/unskilled to adapt to another program which does the exact same thing. It may not neccesarily their fault - I remember how my high school spoonfed us microsoft office - but none the less, it is a problem which must be addressed.
troll.
Let's get one thing strait. You are going to download your fucking font onto my computer then tell me I can only use it in one program/page. How about you take that font and stick it in a hole of your choice.
Maybe it is time for OpenGL to be replaced. Trust me, I'm well aware that it would be an enormous burden, but with more and more graphics cards receiving free software drivers, it's more likely now then ever.
We have a couple of options. A: Make the exploit publicly known - ensuring that it will either get fixed, or the company that provided the garbage implementation gets replaced (win, win). B: Let them know secretly, letting them get away with ignorance, doing their job (that they get paid handsomely for) for them. C: keep it a secret. let it be exploited for years.
I stopped buying consoles for that reason. The discs get scratched up very easily. It's a HUGE fucking waist of money and isn't worth it.
I originally grabbed a pirated copy of HL2, then bought the game. Now I don't need to worry though, because most free software is free.
Huh? Except the artist wasn't forced to produce his work. If he doesn't like when that happens, he also has the right to put down that livelihood and do something else. A real artist doesn't try to contain his work. He wants his work to be free.
It is a natural trait for us to find ways of expressing ourselves. I find it completely idiotic that we've turned this into a business. It distorts the messages we're trying to send, and it stifles our ability to share creatively with our community.
The funny thing is, there was not a hint of troll in that post. This is just a dangerous topic of discussion.
You just hit a nail on it's head. There is no reason for these laws to be so big. If it only takes a sentence or two to sum up the bill, why isn't the bill one or two sentences long? As a citizen, it would be easier to obey the laws if they were actually understandable, and much easier to pick out the bullshit.
I agree, except I'm speaking honestly. Fuck musicians. If they want to eat, make them work like everyone else. They shouldn't be entitled to free income for the rest of their life + 75 years for writing one song.
On the GPL comment. People deliberately breaching the GPL are generally software companies that would be very quick to point out that you are pirating their stuff. They have to play by the rules if they expect us to.
I have a job.
I've heared that somewhere aswell, but on the other hand, marijuana is used by many as a medicine against cancer. We won't know what's going on until people can start doing studies.
Paranoia GNU/Linux is something I'd like to see. :)
What's disturbing here is that they include "computer generated images." For every computer generated image or drawing of child pornography that is taken away, actual child pornography will be made to replace it. Artistic expressions depicting child pornography should most certainly not be considered illegal. If you don't like it, don't look for it - but as long as no children are harmed in the making of it, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM? The very next step is to consider artistic depictions or negative views of our beloved corporations and/or government to be illegal.
Another one of my pet peeves: I hate when people and groups (*cough* religious groups) try to enforce their ideals upon others. God forbid they would use words, instead they always try to twist the government's arm to enforce their ideals upon the world. This is taking place within this argument, but also can be clearly seen with video game/movie ratings, abortion, and drugs. I have my own ideals and my own concious. I can decide for myself what I think is right and wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. If you can convince me to change my mind on a matter (drug use, abortion. I invite you.), that's excellent. When you are an old fuck who has nothing better to do then enforce your uneducated oppinions on others through violence (that would be allowing the police to raid one's property and seize whatever they need), here's a big FUCK YOU to you. Have a nice day.
Politics as usual.
What on earth are you smoking and where can I get some?
There you go. That wasn't too painful now, was it? :)
It's about time we make a free software game that doesn't smell of mold from the 90s and find out, isn't it? I'm serious - if anyone is interested, Contact me. I can't play doom much longer!
These rootkits must obviously be known of in order to be tested. Now imagine all of the undocumented rootkits out there. Imagine all of the special purpose ones which will never be documented. AV is a lost cause. Our only hope is to contain the damage as much as possible though properly limited permissions and user education.
As an armature musician, I agree with you. I'm a pretty modest person. I don't know how on earth anyone puts a price tag on a couple minutes of audio. I'd much rather (when I get to that point) let society decide by giving out all of my work for free (in the free software sense - with redistribution and modification perfectly OK) and asking for donations. I might not make nearly as much, but I'll certainly know I earned whatever I got - and that no one was ever ripped off. Then again, music should not be written for the purpose of making money. Doing so voids the entire meaning of the end result.
(this comment has nothing to do with this law in particular. It's just my speculation on our legal system.) Adding useless laws DOES have an effect. We can choose between implementing the entirety of our laws in as few words as possible, or we can try to throw in as many clauses as possible. One choice leaves you with a legal implementation that is light-weight, easy to understand, and easy to interpret - perhaps making the law a little bit more understandable to the lay-person and killing off a few lawyers in the process (always a good thing). The opposite is to do what we do here in the US. Our laws are loaded with clause after clause of confusing lawyer-speak. These laws tend to be harder to interpret in a consistent way and I feel that this is one of the reasons why we are such a litigious nation. With so many laws worded with the complexity that they are, tweaks tend to be needed much more often, and these tweaks are usually guided by the special interest lobbyists. If we just took a step back and tried to optimize the implementation of our laws, I'm sure our courts would be run much more efficiently, and congress would actually have time to get important things done. During this process, we could also take the time to re-evaluate the importance of certain laws, such as the outlawing of certain drugs, gay marriage, non-commercial copyright infringement, and whatever else we manage to dig up. At the same time, we could attempt to straighten out certain things, like the electoral college.