The GPL prevents the person who writes the code from being able to choose the license for the code they write.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how this is the case. The only time the GPL interferes with code that I write is if I use someone else's GPL'd code, right? Well, I'm using their code so where do I get off complaining about anything at all? No one is forcing me to link or embed the GPL'd code into my code, it's just a convenience because I was too lazy to write the libraries or objects myself. So my complaining is whining. I should link and GPL, or code and shut up.
Now, if you want to argue that the use of the word "free" is innacurate, you may be right, but is it really worth arguing about semantics?
Thats not the issue at hand here. The issue is that Apple claims that the APSL is an "open source" license. The FSF owns tradmark and controls usage of the term "open source", which apple is using.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't actually pointing my finger at the FSF or Apple. RMS was just clarifying terminoligy, and that is fine with me. I was pointing my finger at all the posts that implied Apple was obligated to release their stuff under a more open license, and those who were calling GPL software communist. Both sides were just playing armchair critic, and I find it tiresome.
Cheers.
Unless (s)he wants to link the code (s)he has written with GPL'd code, in which case (s)he doesn't get to choose the license.
Um, linking to code is using someone else's code. It doesn't matter if it's a library or an executable. If you don't like their terms of use, you can write your own library. If you don't want to write your own library, but you want to claim they should have different terms of use, you're a whiner.
Art is a creation whose functionality can not be described as right or wrong. A finely written C program isn't art because the creator has the compass of "compilable" and "runnable" to work themselves out of corners. What makes the creation of art special is that there is no possible objective test of it's sucess or quality.
I'd say that a functional object (house, car, software) can be artful and contain elements of art, but it is not art in and of itself simply because you can always say "well, it works (or doesn't)". You just can't say that objectively about a art - which is what makes it so interesting to spend time on.
I've been working on an online multiplayer game on and off for the past year. It's not playable yet, and it's not flashy, but I think it could be interesting. Email me if you want:)
Users don't know the answer to "should your application use gtk1.2 or gtk 1.3?"
No, you're right. The idea would be that they wouldn't have to. It could be along the lines of "there is a potential software upgrade - would you like to try it?" with a button for "details". My thought was that, although these kind of library updates could be done silently, it would be a good idea to be able to refuse for those times when the user does know that they don't want to.
A seperate user-initiated toolset for testing these things would also solve the problem.
I doubt any of this will happen, but I think it's worth thinking about.
When a app starts up and links to a.so - it should enter itself it that
version's used_by.txt file (unless it's already there). If a newer version
is available it should notify and ask the user if they would like to try the
newer.so or to stick with the old one. Either way they can check off a
"...and don't ask me again for this application".
If the program crashes while using a new.so (while making a library call?)
it should flag itself not to ask again, as it seems incompatible.
If the program successfully completes it could flag itself as working with
the new.so and remove itself from the old.so's used_by.txt file and add
itself to the new.so's used_by.txt file.
When a.so is no longer used by _any_ applications it would be (re)moved.
That sounds pretty safe.
Of course this should all be implemented in a invisible manner to developers. And why don't we solve hunger and war while we're at it?
Trademark law specifically exempts non-commercial usage. Although the examples given are "parody, satire and editorial commentary", it does state that non-commercial use is exempt from trademark law.
I don't think the drafters of trademark law ever thought someone would give something away over a long enough period of time to be a problem. Good to see that the outdatedness of these laws cuts both ways.
For example, Alzheimers has been linked to television - the rapid cut scenes of television mean that the visual part of our brain has to work overtime to completely regenrate its mental map of the world every few seconds.
Another study I read linked eye-blinking to Alzheimers. Same reasons. Boy are we in trouble.
If copying the look of Aqua(tm) isn't a big deal, then why are so many people doing it?
Fact is, Apple made something really damn cool. If they aren't entitled to the benefits of their creativity, then what's the point creating anything cool?
Then there's that legal fact that they have to go after anything that might be trademark dillution...
You know, this may be a stupid idea, but I'll throw it out there anyway.
What if was legal to make and distribute virtual kiddie porn, but it was illegal to sell it?
My thinking is that if someone wants to create this stuff because it's an expression of their imagination or fantasy, so be it. What really worries me is some unscrupulous "business" person saturating the market with it and putting money into it's promotion - potentially giving it mainstream appeal (I personally believe this is responsible for much of the hype surrounding anal sex (not to say that is wrong)).
Mr. Wray, are you trolling? Your comment is based on complete ignorance. We are talking about OS X here, which not only has a telnet client built in, it also has ssh, apache, perl, ftp, etc, etc, etc. 8.5 is ancient history. Windows 3.1 didn't come with TCP/IP. This millenium we're a bit further a long, thank god.
I think opening up BeOS would be pretty great, but I don't like this mantra that "competition is always good", because it's not. Just look at the wonderous results of the browser war - there have been hardly any improvements whatsoever in web technology since that competition started. And how about the original fracturing of UNIX? Competition is only good if all the players are honorable and open minded - aiming to win by being the best for the users. Otherwise it just turns into a snakefight.
On a user level, you are totally correct: Linux hasn't benefited at all from BSD competition. And BSD hasn't benefited from Linux. I think a large part of this, though, is that neither one has any major improvements over the other. Both do about the same thing in about the same way. There's sure to be people who say this isn't true on both sides, but I'm pretty sure they will be highly grizzled developers, not higher level users. After all, nearly all the ideas in BSD and Linux came from the same seed.
In any case, BeOS does have some major differences, so it would naturally bring new ideas into the mix. At this point, I think that would be a very good thing.
tanks, succubi, elves in leather, and Mountain Dew
I swear - that sounds truly great, man:). I mean, that's what any great artist does - just expresses their obsessions, ideas, etc. Then if a lot of people agree, they're a "good artist" and if only a few people agree, they're a "bad artist". Well who cares. I say you go for it.
I saw the movie, and although I don't think it was the worst thing I've ever seen, it certainly wasn't that good. It was, however, probably the best fantatsy movie since Willow. And that's not saying much.
Now here's the thing - all the posts I read make some comment along the line of "I could've written a better script". Well then, why are there so few decent fantasy movies out there? Every fantasy nut (I'm one myself) seems to think that every fantasy that comes out is nearly garbage, and that it would be terribly easy to make a better film. Will somebody please do it then? The guy who directed this got it made out of sheer will (first time director - just pushed until he got the deal). I wish to god that some of these genius scriptwriters/directors at Slashdot would put the effort in - half so that there would be a better film, and half so that they would shut up for a while.
I'm an amateur filmaker myself (Vendetta: A Christmas Story). No matter how much I suck, at least I'm doing something.
This isn't meant as offense, but perhaps you are outside the norm. Of course there are exceptional cases (like yourself) who can do with little sleep. There are also exceptional cases like myself who need at least 10 hours to feel fully concious. This study, however, is probably accurate for the vast majority of people. For people outside the norm, you can ignore the specific number of hours they mention and just pay attention to the overall theory:
Get the amount of sleep you need.
For you, that may be 4 hours a night. For me it's 10. Listening to your body is a good idea.
"Red Planet" rules, "Red Planet" stinks, yadda yadda yadda...
What I want to know is where these critics are hanging out? I mean, where are these real world people that make so much sense? Most of the people I meet "are inexplicably offended and say weird statements which have little or no rational value to them". Kudos to the director for putting realistic characters in the movie, avoiding the unbelievable and cliche "rational" type that Hollywood usually serves up.
"No sympathy, no tension, no nothing. It's banality at its extreme". Hmmm. sounds like my life. I guess I should get out more.
The Crusoe, I am convinced, is a great processor... because it comes from a tiny little company that is iconified by the hero of the open source movement.
Let's be level headed about this stuff, folks. Transmeta has no special right to anything they don't earn. I wish them the best of luck, but they've got to prove themselves in the marketplace just like everyone else.
A better link - and a first Impression
on
D&D Trailer
·
· Score: 2
This looks pretty poor. And I'm an pretty easy to please guy when it comes to movies. It looks like not enough people involved with the production of the film have ever played D&D - or any other role playing game for that matter. Or maybe they just have a very shallow interpretation of it all. After this movie, people who have never used their imagination will think "Oh yeah - I know all about D&D". Six weeks later it will all be forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how this is the case. The only time the GPL interferes with code that I write is if I use someone else's GPL'd code, right? Well, I'm using their code so where do I get off complaining about anything at all? No one is forcing me to link or embed the GPL'd code into my code, it's just a convenience because I was too lazy to write the libraries or objects myself. So my complaining is whining. I should link and GPL, or code and shut up.
Now, if you want to argue that the use of the word "free" is innacurate, you may be right, but is it really worth arguing about semantics?
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't actually pointing my finger at the FSF or Apple. RMS was just clarifying terminoligy, and that is fine with me. I was pointing my finger at all the posts that implied Apple was obligated to release their stuff under a more open license, and those who were calling GPL software communist. Both sides were just playing armchair critic, and I find it tiresome. Cheers.
Um, linking to code is using someone else's code. It doesn't matter if it's a library or an executable. If you don't like their terms of use, you can write your own library. If you don't want to write your own library, but you want to claim they should have different terms of use, you're a whiner.
Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.
Cheers.
You can screw up making a sculpture so that it falls apart, or botch up a painting such that it's not recognizable
I think there is a lot of modern art that tries quite specifically to do these things :) It doesn't necessarily make them any less effective!
I'd say that a functional object (house, car, software) can be artful and contain elements of art, but it is not art in and of itself simply because you can always say "well, it works (or doesn't)". You just can't say that objectively about a art - which is what makes it so interesting to spend time on.
I've been working on an online multiplayer game on and off for the past year. It's not playable yet, and it's not flashy, but I think it could be interesting. Email me if you want :)
No, you're right. The idea would be that they wouldn't have to. It could be along the lines of "there is a potential software upgrade - would you like to try it?" with a button for "details". My thought was that, although these kind of library updates could be done silently, it would be a good idea to be able to refuse for those times when the user does know that they don't want to.
A seperate user-initiated toolset for testing these things would also solve the problem.
I doubt any of this will happen, but I think it's worth thinking about.
Boy - someone's got a problem with brainstorming, eh?
Shared object code should be kept in version specific folders, i.e.:
When a app starts up and links to a .so - it should enter itself it that
version's used_by.txt file (unless it's already there). If a newer version
is available it should notify and ask the user if they would like to try the
newer .so or to stick with the old one. Either way they can check off a
"...and don't ask me again for this application".
If the program crashes while using a new .so (while making a library call?)
it should flag itself not to ask again, as it seems incompatible.
If the program successfully completes it could flag itself as working with the new .so and remove itself from the old .so's used_by.txt file and add
itself to the new .so's used_by.txt file.
When a .so is no longer used by _any_ applications it would be (re)moved.
That sounds pretty safe.
Of course this should all be implemented in a invisible manner to developers. And why don't we solve hunger and war while we're at it?
I don't think the drafters of trademark law ever thought someone would give something away over a long enough period of time to be a problem. Good to see that the outdatedness of these laws cuts both ways.
This should have been modded as +1 Funny.
Another study I read linked eye-blinking to Alzheimers. Same reasons. Boy are we in trouble.
Fact is, Apple made something really damn cool. If they aren't entitled to the benefits of their creativity, then what's the point creating anything cool?
Then there's that legal fact that they have to go after anything that might be trademark dillution...
This article is simply irresponsible.
What if was legal to make and distribute virtual kiddie porn, but it was illegal to sell it?
My thinking is that if someone wants to create this stuff because it's an expression of their imagination or fantasy, so be it. What really worries me is some unscrupulous "business" person saturating the market with it and putting money into it's promotion - potentially giving it mainstream appeal (I personally believe this is responsible for much of the hype surrounding anal sex (not to say that is wrong)).
Thoughts?
Mr. Wray, are you trolling? Your comment is based on complete ignorance. We are talking about OS X here, which not only has a telnet client built in, it also has ssh, apache, perl, ftp, etc, etc, etc. 8.5 is ancient history. Windows 3.1 didn't come with TCP/IP. This millenium we're a bit further a long, thank god.
I think opening up BeOS would be pretty great, but I don't like this mantra that "competition is always good", because it's not. Just look at the wonderous results of the browser war - there have been hardly any improvements whatsoever in web technology since that competition started. And how about the original fracturing of UNIX? Competition is only good if all the players are honorable and open minded - aiming to win by being the best for the users. Otherwise it just turns into a snakefight.
In any case, BeOS does have some major differences, so it would naturally bring new ideas into the mix. At this point, I think that would be a very good thing.
Actually, that's just a joke, really. I don't think I'll be making another one. Sorry!
By the way - where's your sig quote from? I can't quite remember...
I swear - that sounds truly great, man :). I mean, that's what any great artist does - just expresses their obsessions, ideas, etc. Then if a lot of people agree, they're a "good artist" and if only a few people agree, they're a "bad artist". Well who cares. I say you go for it.
Now here's the thing - all the posts I read make some comment along the line of "I could've written a better script". Well then, why are there so few decent fantasy movies out there? Every fantasy nut (I'm one myself) seems to think that every fantasy that comes out is nearly garbage, and that it would be terribly easy to make a better film. Will somebody please do it then? The guy who directed this got it made out of sheer will (first time director - just pushed until he got the deal). I wish to god that some of these genius scriptwriters/directors at Slashdot would put the effort in - half so that there would be a better film, and half so that they would shut up for a while.
I'm an amateur filmaker myself (Vendetta: A Christmas Story). No matter how much I suck, at least I'm doing something.
Get the amount of sleep you need.
For you, that may be 4 hours a night. For me it's 10. Listening to your body is a good idea.
What I want to know is where these critics are hanging out? I mean, where are these real world people that make so much sense? Most of the people I meet "are inexplicably offended and say weird statements which have little or no rational value to them". Kudos to the director for putting realistic characters in the movie, avoiding the unbelievable and cliche "rational" type that Hollywood usually serves up.
"No sympathy, no tension, no nothing. It's banality at its extreme". Hmmm. sounds like my life. I guess I should get out more.
The Crusoe, I am convinced, is a great processor ... because it comes from a tiny little company that is iconified by the hero of the open source movement.
Let's be level headed about this stuff, folks. Transmeta has no special right to anything they don't earn. I wish them the best of luck, but they've got to prove themselves in the marketplace just like everyone else.
I'm pretty excited about Lord of the Rings, though.