Ok, I'll take an easier example to accept, Would you catch someone robbing a bank and then let them keep the money? Basically whatever laws we have must be enforced (of course it is preferable if the laws are sane, I believe that current drug laws are fscked). Do you really believe in no law, just money? If so, it's time to move to your world and become a murdering thief and sleep at night.
you claim the desire to strip them of the fruits of their labor
Here you make a jump where you ascribe attributes to me that I do not believe I have demonstrated byeond the fact that I would strip people of the fruits of their illegal labor (i.e a heroin dealer, guns runner or extortion raquet). Would you really bust a drug deal and let the dealer keep the money?
Other than that I believe identically to what you describe here! I believe society is simply a complex network of individuals of equal importance. I don't believe that you can ascribe anything to society really however, for example our TV is not the sum of society, it is what is produced by the people who go into that business (a load of individuals). I believe that everyone owns the right to the fruits of their labor subject to a taxation system which serves to ensure the stability of all individuals. We may not agree on taxation levels but I doubt you really mean that peoples rights to the product of their work means they should provide no "product" to society, even if it is only to cover a legal system to deal with criminals.
Finally I also believe that people can exercise copyright on software (to me there is no question code is artistic, data mightn't be). You can do what you like with your code it is the product of your work. A software patent however is an extra protection that I believe is a joke concept and I can't really even express why it is just so insane. I hope you weren't implying that stripping software patents strips the rights to the fruits of your labours because software patents are what strips the ability to use your labour (no you can't write any code that plays DVDs).
Not to forget the Office products that include these. Oh and the first two are both available for Windows and Linux. Personally I think Word and WordPerfect are quite evil programs and overkill for most people, but if you want to open WordPerfect files (and not convert them as someone else points out).
If you cannot build your own PC you will have a very hard time buying a PC without a copy of Windows whether you intend to run it or not! Do a bit of research into the PC sales market and you'll quickly discover that perhaps 90% of PCs sold did not have the option of being bought without a copy of windows, and of those that did 90% did not have a price reduction (whether they have another OS or not). If PCs came with a 30-day shareware copy of windows dual booting with a Free OS then I think we would see a serious change in the market very rapidly, instead these people are "forced" to buy a copy of Windows (and I can't see XP changing this though it is starting to provide the ability to do it).
Unfair business practices are fine until you dominate, illegal ones aren't. This was not illegal, it was just unfair and hence ok except...
The fact that they could get away with this practice is pretty clear evidence that they were dominating. So while you timing is probably right your logic is flawed young padawan:-)
Simple, do you want government to intervene whenever it is for the greater good or do you wish it to let exploitation happen as the market will always sort it out. I want intervention (I just want people to elect sane representatives to do it appropriately, but I know that I'll never see that) and I cannot understand how anyone can believe intervention is never appropriate. Think of it this way, I would not let ANY company make 90% of the cars on the road AND lock the bonnet AND be a major petrol distributor (and only their petrol works and you can't analyse it to figure out what their adding, if you do they sue) AND a road builder AND AND AND. Owning bits of the whole game is fine as long as you don't "control" any part. No-one can deny that MS own the PC market (yes 10% is elsewhere but they are nearly by definition seperate markets) and as the car scenario is unsafe and offers horrible potential for exploitation (from the garage who'll crack open the bonnet to service it unofficially to the manufacturer themselves providing a EULA that states they car must be returned after five years for "safety") MS is unsafe (Outlook Virii as a headline example) and offers the potential for exploitation. I believe in the people first, everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
Open sourcing thier OS does nearly nothing other than allow people work out how it works. I guess you really meant GPL'ing it, this would not take it away from them! It would simply mean that whatever price they sell their OS for, the purchaser can give it to someone else for free if they want. Imagine MS have to GPL everything, they could price WinXP at $10 billion and make a consortium buy a copy from them to resell as they wish (knowing MS can in turn undercut them by selling more copies at a lower price). Imagine they cannot even charge for the OS, they still have not lost it at all as you would suggest. If you have a DB your working on in MySQL and you discover that you can't do something vital, who do you call first to do it for you? If you want WinXGPL (trademarked, patented and owned by me so FO) customised for your network, you are going to go to MS first and others second. The fundamental fact is that if they were forced to open it and keep it open they would still be the primary development centre and can leverage revenue from there thanks to the high costs of entry into the game to rival them (you reckon you can create a Windows distribution with any substantial changes just because you have the source).
Yep, you yanks are going to be really screwed, I think the signs are far better here in the EU that MS would find no legal support, and if they withdrew their products (or raised the price) government money would come flying out of the woodwork to tell the to "Fuck Off" in no uncertain terms. You think the top European interests want to pump all that software money over to the US?
What did RMS think about the licence change? I only ask as I see this as exactly the sort of compromise Free Software is meant to eradicate. If you want the power of bisons parser (and it was GPL) then you have to GPL the program. Otherwise you have to re-invent the wheel, and that is the stick of Free Software development (where the carrot is the combined development effort potential). Making comporomises like this only makes it longer before we will see a complete Free Software alternative (GNU). As MS as trying to demostrate, if people want to distribute your software, you can control what you let them do with it, they wouldn't back off to be nice, whould we?
Since when does the word derived cover tools of production such as emacs. I would need to ask a lawyer in the appropriate country to have a clue whether or not compiling a program with gcc would make the ensuing binary derived from gcc.
You miss the point of the article yourself! As someone who is happy to use a BSD licence for their own code you state that you want nothing back from your code, not even the reciprocating benefits. GPL allows that when you release your code you are guaranteed never to face the scenario that the only way to extract the best from your own code is to buy someones product. I the Free Software/Open Source community gathered around the BSD licence, we would be dead the day we bacame a threat to MS, embrace, extend and eradicate, it is the security of the GPL that means that companies are willing to invest time into Gnu/Linux, without it many companies would see it as a way of funding software development houses around the planet, with it they see themselves as part of the largest software development house on the planet. The GPL is leech free in a way BSD deliberately is not, if you are ok with seeing your code leeched any which way stay as you are, but as the article suggests, the winners in this battle will be the side with an insurance policy.
I was debating an argument and the language I used probably did make it a bit rough. I love/. as a free forum of debate and apologise is I offended the original poster, but I know him not and was addressing his argument not his person. I just do not think the simplistic situations you both describe are realistic. I believe the equations are far too complex. Perhaps if we take some video cameras, players and TVs to a remote region of the planet with no media and force the natives to watch lots of porn under controlled settings we might be able to evaluate the influence of pornography in our treatment of women. But the true potential harm of pronography is simply a reflection of the degegration propegated by far more areas of society than the unfashionable porn industry.
As the MPAA says Sex and Violence are OK as long as you don't say any naughty words.
I am not saying it is an empty gesture, what I am saying is that it is a gross simplification in that he decided that their was a direct correlation between his pornography viewing and his views of women. I would suspect that the views are real, his personal distaste at the views is genuine, but it is a complex mental process and the pornography could simply have been raising his personal struggle to the fore while now in its absence the opinions fester inside him constantly reinforced by the media. Perhaps he addressed the issue. I was not making a personal attack or even comment but making a general statement that we are bomarded by insulting imagery constantly and to target pornography as a worse offender is wrong (to take an example, when you watch a woman suck a cock just pulled out of her ass they are not trying to pretend that every women should aspire to this). I personally find the instituitional discrimination of women far more degrading than porn. Porn is nearly honest.
I can accept my post was very possibly flamebait, but for all the best reasons, not to attack an individual but to weaken his argument against pronography as a denegrator of women. If women had a equitable position in the rest of the world I am quite sure we would all see far more porn involving the denegration of men.
I think you have addressed the knub of the issue more succinctley than the linked article even managed. The average Joe is not equipped to take on Tom's Hardware and doesn't want to be either. What they do want however is to feel that they can choose their own hardware to some degree. Someone has to handhold them through this process and the fear is that by adding yet another source of information to the megacorporations bows less informed information will be distributed to the masses. But at present the Anandtech's and Tomshardwares of this world are not really bringing the knowledge to the masses (though they have obviously advanced the knowledge of the savvy). It will be interesting to see what these sites ultimatley look like, adverts or tech-havens. I suspect these sites won't bother the/. crowd except when we have to dispute the FUD they have fed your brother-in-law who wants you to help him buy a computer. The odds are this is simply the unsurprising step of the computer magazines producing something a bit more techie in the less risky marketplace of the net then on paper. If they start to attach other sites...... then the war begins.
Ever since I first saw this name I have always had the same disturbing vision of the offsping of Nanny Ogg and Inquisitor Vorbis. It really doesn't bear thinking about. Where did these guys come up with it (can it be a coincidence or is Terry Pratchett going to get them to change their name!).
OK, one simple question, have you also blocked all access to MPAA movies, RIAA music videos, any commercial television station, all magazines and newspapers? If not then you are being brainwashed every day into believing that women are sex objects despite your marvelous blocking software. Face facts you obviously did not receive the rounded, sanity based eduscation on life from your parents that most people here see as the only way of dealing with this issue.
They state that they want to collect money from people profiting by mp3 streaming! Does this mean any commercial site which embeds an mp3 into its site that plays before fully downloaded? Sound like fun!
How about also enlisting Corel? Corel already have conversion routines for many formats but in their new cash strapped state you have to wonder how much it hurts their bottom line to keep doing all the reverse engineering. Maybe they are wrapped up in NDAs so that they could do nothing for a Free Software project, but if not perhaps ALL the Word Processing producers should combine their efforts in creating a libwpfile which converts all participants formats from/to an independant format AND holds the best reverse engineered conversion for all formats that don't want to join.
Currently about 90% of the weight of a space shuttle on take-off is fuel. If you want to build the ISS you have to send up huge numbers of missions to get the materials up. If you build a space elevator you do not have to carry the fuel around and can carry larger loads and you can do it for nearly free once you begin bringing things back down. You bring up and assemble a large (say 1000 cubic metres) space craft, send it around the local planets to leave gear, possibly people and collect samples. This craft needs very little propulsion (all things are relative) as it starts off with the speed of the top of the cable so it simply uses that speed to sling it into its next orbit at the same energy. While they are gone you can build your orbital stations for research etc. and mining or colonisation craft. Ideally your first team will drop gear to start the setup of an evelavtor at each stop. Once you have elevators on two bodies it becomes a simple task to move items from a to b be it supplies for colonisers, returning colonisers, samples or mined/manufactured items.
Excuse me if I am full of shit but I think the problem with your solution is that the added tension of the weight of the cable in your solution would mean that an incredibly efficient system would need to be used for joining, and I do not believe there is a current technology to do this. In summary the tensile strength requirement includes the requirement to carry the weight of the cable itself and once you adjust the weight of the cable you need more strength. If you can do it....choose your equatorial home with the ability to raise the budget!
If you are working on a game and wish to GPL the game but not the "artwork" then the program you can simply specify that the GPL covers the software and that all artwork is seperatly copyrighted and licensed. These files can be in any format, however your code which uses it will be GPL so people can figure out at worst how to rewrite it. For an example of where this has been done (well sort of, they didn't start with any GPL) is Quake! All you need to do is make the distribution cleanly seperated and be happy in the knowledge that lots of people will copy the ancillary files aswell.
3. They should give it free to all non-profits and charities.
They should charge such a low price that everyone should be happy to pay it! e.g. $10/annum/machine. $120/annum/machine is hefty and many people will run RH and not buy and many others will choose another distro or even OS. At $10/annum how many people would think it an unreasonable deterrent for choosing a distro?
Could not either of these artists have "rushed" out something quicker should money have been a sufficient demand in their lives? With the talent it's all good baby, without its all barbney dolls.
a) risk is in everything
b) to do anything takes time, the amount of time required to produce any piece of work is proportional to the talent creating it. If you want to get a "good" album out of Britney, you need a lot of time
c) again to do anything ultimatley takes money (if only the money needed to not have to do something else). Other than that it depends on the music you are producing but you probably only need a good mic (up to a few thousand dollars), some clean hard disk recording gear and monitors(including PC can be done for about four thousand dollars up) and an acoustically clean environment to record "instruments" (you need a concrete floored room and a few thousand dollars to put in a suspended ceiling and some damped walls). So entry cost is $10-$20k. Not insignificant but hardly massive.
d) talent. This is the crux, it is only if you are talentless that you need any of your other criteria. Many talented artists have produced great works in near no time or money.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll take an easier example to accept, Would you catch someone robbing a bank and then let them keep the money? Basically whatever laws we have must be enforced (of course it is preferable if the laws are sane, I believe that current drug laws are fscked). Do you really believe in no law, just money? If so, it's time to move to your world and become a murdering thief and sleep at night.
Here you make a jump where you ascribe attributes to me that I do not believe I have demonstrated byeond the fact that I would strip people of the fruits of their illegal labor (i.e a heroin dealer, guns runner or extortion raquet). Would you really bust a drug deal and let the dealer keep the money?
Other than that I believe identically to what you describe here! I believe society is simply a complex network of individuals of equal importance. I don't believe that you can ascribe anything to society really however, for example our TV is not the sum of society, it is what is produced by the people who go into that business (a load of individuals). I believe that everyone owns the right to the fruits of their labor subject to a taxation system which serves to ensure the stability of all individuals. We may not agree on taxation levels but I doubt you really mean that peoples rights to the product of their work means they should provide no "product" to society, even if it is only to cover a legal system to deal with criminals.
Finally I also believe that people can exercise copyright on software (to me there is no question code is artistic, data mightn't be). You can do what you like with your code it is the product of your work. A software patent however is an extra protection that I believe is a joke concept and I can't really even express why it is just so insane. I hope you weren't implying that stripping software patents strips the rights to the fruits of your labours because software patents are what strips the ability to use your labour (no you can't write any code that plays DVDs).
4. WordPerfect 8
5. WordPerfect 9
6. WordPerfect 10
Not to forget the Office products that include these. Oh and the first two are both available for Windows and Linux. Personally I think Word and WordPerfect are quite evil programs and overkill for most people, but if you want to open WordPerfect files (and not convert them as someone else points out).
If you cannot build your own PC you will have a very hard time buying a PC without a copy of Windows whether you intend to run it or not! Do a bit of research into the PC sales market and you'll quickly discover that perhaps 90% of PCs sold did not have the option of being bought without a copy of windows, and of those that did 90% did not have a price reduction (whether they have another OS or not). If PCs came with a 30-day shareware copy of windows dual booting with a Free OS then I think we would see a serious change in the market very rapidly, instead these people are "forced" to buy a copy of Windows (and I can't see XP changing this though it is starting to provide the ability to do it).
Unfair business practices are fine until you dominate, illegal ones aren't. This was not illegal, it was just unfair and hence ok except...
The fact that they could get away with this practice is pretty clear evidence that they were dominating. So while you timing is probably right your logic is flawed young padawan :-)
Simple, do you want government to intervene whenever it is for the greater good or do you wish it to let exploitation happen as the market will always sort it out. I want intervention (I just want people to elect sane representatives to do it appropriately, but I know that I'll never see that) and I cannot understand how anyone can believe intervention is never appropriate. Think of it this way, I would not let ANY company make 90% of the cars on the road AND lock the bonnet AND be a major petrol distributor (and only their petrol works and you can't analyse it to figure out what their adding, if you do they sue) AND a road builder AND AND AND. Owning bits of the whole game is fine as long as you don't "control" any part. No-one can deny that MS own the PC market (yes 10% is elsewhere but they are nearly by definition seperate markets) and as the car scenario is unsafe and offers horrible potential for exploitation (from the garage who'll crack open the bonnet to service it unofficially to the manufacturer themselves providing a EULA that states they car must be returned after five years for "safety") MS is unsafe (Outlook Virii as a headline example) and offers the potential for exploitation. I believe in the people first, everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
Open sourcing thier OS does nearly nothing other than allow people work out how it works. I guess you really meant GPL'ing it, this would not take it away from them! It would simply mean that whatever price they sell their OS for, the purchaser can give it to someone else for free if they want. Imagine MS have to GPL everything, they could price WinXP at $10 billion and make a consortium buy a copy from them to resell as they wish (knowing MS can in turn undercut them by selling more copies at a lower price). Imagine they cannot even charge for the OS, they still have not lost it at all as you would suggest. If you have a DB your working on in MySQL and you discover that you can't do something vital, who do you call first to do it for you? If you want WinXGPL (trademarked, patented and owned by me so FO) customised for your network, you are going to go to MS first and others second. The fundamental fact is that if they were forced to open it and keep it open they would still be the primary development centre and can leverage revenue from there thanks to the high costs of entry into the game to rival them (you reckon you can create a Windows distribution with any substantial changes just because you have the source).
Yep, you yanks are going to be really screwed, I think the signs are far better here in the EU that MS would find no legal support, and if they withdrew their products (or raised the price) government money would come flying out of the woodwork to tell the to "Fuck Off" in no uncertain terms. You think the top European interests want to pump all that software money over to the US?
What did RMS think about the licence change? I only ask as I see this as exactly the sort of compromise Free Software is meant to eradicate. If you want the power of bisons parser (and it was GPL) then you have to GPL the program. Otherwise you have to re-invent the wheel, and that is the stick of Free Software development (where the carrot is the combined development effort potential). Making comporomises like this only makes it longer before we will see a complete Free Software alternative (GNU). As MS as trying to demostrate, if people want to distribute your software, you can control what you let them do with it, they wouldn't back off to be nice, whould we?
Since when does the word derived cover tools of production such as emacs. I would need to ask a lawyer in the appropriate country to have a clue whether or not compiling a program with gcc would make the ensuing binary derived from gcc.
F.S.F. / R.M.S. defend yourself. Please sue M$ith for slander/defamation.
So you lose nothing?
You miss the point of the article yourself! As someone who is happy to use a BSD licence for their own code you state that you want nothing back from your code, not even the reciprocating benefits. GPL allows that when you release your code you are guaranteed never to face the scenario that the only way to extract the best from your own code is to buy someones product. I the Free Software/Open Source community gathered around the BSD licence, we would be dead the day we bacame a threat to MS, embrace, extend and eradicate, it is the security of the GPL that means that companies are willing to invest time into Gnu/Linux, without it many companies would see it as a way of funding software development houses around the planet, with it they see themselves as part of the largest software development house on the planet. The GPL is leech free in a way BSD deliberately is not, if you are ok with seeing your code leeched any which way stay as you are, but as the article suggests, the winners in this battle will be the side with an insurance policy.
As the MPAA says Sex and Violence are OK as long as you don't say any naughty words.
I can accept my post was very possibly flamebait, but for all the best reasons, not to attack an individual but to weaken his argument against pronography as a denegrator of women. If women had a equitable position in the rest of the world I am quite sure we would all see far more porn involving the denegration of men.
I think you have addressed the knub of the issue more succinctley than the linked article even managed. The average Joe is not equipped to take on Tom's Hardware and doesn't want to be either. What they do want however is to feel that they can choose their own hardware to some degree. Someone has to handhold them through this process and the fear is that by adding yet another source of information to the megacorporations bows less informed information will be distributed to the masses. But at present the Anandtech's and Tomshardwares of this world are not really bringing the knowledge to the masses (though they have obviously advanced the knowledge of the savvy). It will be interesting to see what these sites ultimatley look like, adverts or tech-havens. I suspect these sites won't bother the /. crowd except when we have to dispute the FUD they have fed your brother-in-law who wants you to help him buy a computer. The odds are this is simply the unsurprising step of the computer magazines producing something a bit more techie in the less risky marketplace of the net then on paper. If they start to attach other sites...... then the war begins.
Ever since I first saw this name I have always had the same disturbing vision of the offsping of Nanny Ogg and Inquisitor Vorbis. It really doesn't bear thinking about. Where did these guys come up with it (can it be a coincidence or is Terry Pratchett going to get them to change their name!).
OK, one simple question, have you also blocked all access to MPAA movies, RIAA music videos, any commercial television station, all magazines and newspapers? If not then you are being brainwashed every day into believing that women are sex objects despite your marvelous blocking software. Face facts you obviously did not receive the rounded, sanity based eduscation on life from your parents that most people here see as the only way of dealing with this issue.
They state that they want to collect money from people profiting by mp3 streaming! Does this mean any commercial site which embeds an mp3 into its site that plays before fully downloaded? Sound like fun!
How about also enlisting Corel? Corel already have conversion routines for many formats but in their new cash strapped state you have to wonder how much it hurts their bottom line to keep doing all the reverse engineering. Maybe they are wrapped up in NDAs so that they could do nothing for a Free Software project, but if not perhaps ALL the Word Processing producers should combine their efforts in creating a libwpfile which converts all participants formats from/to an independant format AND holds the best reverse engineered conversion for all formats that don't want to join.
Currently about 90% of the weight of a space shuttle on take-off is fuel. If you want to build the ISS you have to send up huge numbers of missions to get the materials up. If you build a space elevator you do not have to carry the fuel around and can carry larger loads and you can do it for nearly free once you begin bringing things back down. You bring up and assemble a large (say 1000 cubic metres) space craft, send it around the local planets to leave gear, possibly people and collect samples. This craft needs very little propulsion (all things are relative) as it starts off with the speed of the top of the cable so it simply uses that speed to sling it into its next orbit at the same energy. While they are gone you can build your orbital stations for research etc. and mining or colonisation craft. Ideally your first team will drop gear to start the setup of an evelavtor at each stop. Once you have elevators on two bodies it becomes a simple task to move items from a to b be it supplies for colonisers, returning colonisers, samples or mined/manufactured items.
Excuse me if I am full of shit but I think the problem with your solution is that the added tension of the weight of the cable in your solution would mean that an incredibly efficient system would need to be used for joining, and I do not believe there is a current technology to do this. In summary the tensile strength requirement includes the requirement to carry the weight of the cable itself and once you adjust the weight of the cable you need more strength. If you can do it....choose your equatorial home with the ability to raise the budget!
If you are working on a game and wish to GPL the game but not the "artwork" then the program you can simply specify that the GPL covers the software and that all artwork is seperatly copyrighted and licensed. These files can be in any format, however your code which uses it will be GPL so people can figure out at worst how to rewrite it. For an example of where this has been done (well sort of, they didn't start with any GPL) is Quake! All you need to do is make the distribution cleanly seperated and be happy in the knowledge that lots of people will copy the ancillary files aswell.
And how about:
3. They should give it free to all non-profits and charities.
They should charge such a low price that everyone should be happy to pay it! e.g. $10/annum/machine. $120/annum/machine is hefty and many people will run RH and not buy and many others will choose another distro or even OS. At $10/annum how many people would think it an unreasonable deterrent for choosing a distro?
Could not either of these artists have "rushed" out something quicker should money have been a sufficient demand in their lives? With the talent it's all good baby, without its all barbney dolls.
a) risk is in everything
b) to do anything takes time, the amount of time required to produce any piece of work is proportional to the talent creating it. If you want to get a "good" album out of Britney, you need a lot of time
c) again to do anything ultimatley takes money (if only the money needed to not have to do something else). Other than that it depends on the music you are producing but you probably only need a good mic (up to a few thousand dollars), some clean hard disk recording gear and monitors(including PC can be done for about four thousand dollars up) and an acoustically clean environment to record "instruments" (you need a concrete floored room and a few thousand dollars to put in a suspended ceiling and some damped walls). So entry cost is $10-$20k. Not insignificant but hardly massive.
d) talent. This is the crux, it is only if you are talentless that you need any of your other criteria. Many talented artists have produced great works in near no time or money.