I basically agree with everything you say until the last line. This is not 100% Mozilla's problem and this is demonstrated by the willingness of other distributions to jump through Mozilla's hoops to have Firefox in their distro.
Note that I am not addressing who has the right approach, just that the problem is in part created by the DFSG (the very core rules for debian and the thing that ensures it remains more Free then virtually any other distribution). I don't actually think Mozilla is being unreasonable, they don't want the Firefox name tarnished so they want to control what is called Firefox, but they are taking an approach which means that their flagship product is not Free Software (as by definition it must include non-free parts and derivatives cannot be freely distributed without a patch sign-off).
Of course as IceWeasel demonstrates, while Firefox may not be Free, it's source code is, so if you want to distribute your own Free version of Firefox you are free to do so as long as you change the name and remove the logo. What this really highlights, to those who can think beyond "you suck", is that the co-operation implicit in good Free software license's allows diverse needs to still work together past fundamental differences in their approach.
They don't have to open their drivers, they could do as ATI did previously with the r200 and provide the information required to create a driver (either openly or to a closed group who will sign nda's over it and release an open driver).
Just my usual skepticism wonders if it coculd actually withstand such a crash from any angle (777 into the roof, or jackknife across a road first to setup any angle you want) in any possible location it could happen (say with a convieniently solid building close enough to get involved). To take a totally different example to illustrate the point, Formula 1 cars have had extreme test requirements for driver protection for many years, yet probably the most talented driver of the time (Senna) died by an unfortunate consequence of events. Nobody, seriously, suggested that the F1 cars were unsafe or that the tests were faked/useless, but when you are operating on the edge you cannot account for everything. I'm far from suggesting that the tests are worthless or that the containers are vulnerable, just that shit happens. I'm sure there is even an official figure somewhere of the expected failure rate and no matter how low it is I will bet it is not 0.
I believe that a lot (most) of the useful information they received came from the documentation of the Irish Commission which was set up to evaluate the aspects of the system purchased in Ireland (which is virtually identical to the Dutch machines, just a few extra leds).
I also did not endorse your claims about science and technology, I just don't think they are as farcical. I'll counter your claims with Italian Renaissance or Nobel Prize for Literature (if you want to be modern and awards based). In centuries time do you really think the US of the 20th/21st century will be looked back on as the pinnacle of the history of the Arts?
Products are to pollution as Arts is to tm/c/patents. Those who produce the latter while making money from the former obviously don't see latter as such significant downsides, however to the majority the latters are byproducts of the former that they have no direct demand for. If we came up with a pollution free product source that worked (e.g. the market will pay the poducers enough to produce) would the majority not want it? Replace pollution and product in the previous sentence and would the answer really change?
BTW I would not starve on locally produced products. I don't know how easy it would be to keep myself clothed though:-P
Did you really just say the US is probably the most innovative society in the arts the world has ever produced? I think you are mistaking money with innovation.
Do you not see the irony in suggesting that as the tm/c/patent producers want them it's not like pollution (hint what do the oil/gas companies really think of pollution compared to the rest of us, they probably call it "untargetted by-products")?
Will the HD Video Camera be crippled to not record copyright material (we've had stories about it)? If it is then I guess you would have to make an array of regular cameras and some software to merge them. So even if the drm/hdcp/whatever is perfect, there will always be an analogue hole to extract a good copy until we cannot get analogue equipment to work.
My father enjoys telling a story of RTE (Ireland) and the BBC changing resolutions decades ago and the Irish engineer talking to the BBC on the phone about re-encoding existing footage (going to 625 line pal from 415 b&w). The BBC guy raved about his £15,000 a pop machine's that the Irish would only need one or two of. Suffice to say less then £5 in the pub later (with a couple of friends) a screen was erected with a camera and they rerecorded some footage. A pot of paint was added to the mix to mark off positions and when the BBC were shown some examples their forthcoming order for the rest of their machines became a whole lot smaller.
Scheff herself had prevailed in defending herself against damages after she had posted under numerous pseudonyms (actual forum location unknown to me) trashing her competitor and also took part in a group which actively lobbied potential customers against her competitor. See this comment for more.
Re:Not safe? What a surprise!
on
Rocket Men
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure if they flew in to a Superbowl or not, but I'm sure they did it an the 84 LA Olympics Opening Ceremony.
Re:If you want to fly...
on
Rocket Men
·
· Score: 1
If you are seriously considerig an aeroplane V a glider, don't forget helicopters. From my few minutes experience flying aeroplane and helicopter I could never consider trying to get a plane license it's too boring. The view and the rush from sitting in a chopper seat on the other hand is enough have me promoting the experience to everyone I can (10 years on). If you are thinking about all of this (and not for work/travel where on vehicle may make the most sense) make sure you go and get a trial lesson in them all.
The wifi hardware bumps the price and I imagine Tivo would be sued for selling a non-functional package without labelling it as such. The tivo will work fine without a subscription (but no scheduling makes it near worthless to most people) so I'm sure the box will just have one of those little * and a footnote of "* requires Tivo subscription and connection to tivo network" now, but under your scheme the entire box would need that warning (or else lawsuit time). Of course creating that locked down mini-os and a reliable update app just to download the real os would also cost Tivo.
I would like to exclude that, covering it with the bundling exception (I guess you have to encompass at least all gpl software supplied for use on hardware supplied by the same company). However even if they were allowed that workaround, how many users would be at least be suspicious of the "you must connect this machine up to a network to download extra material from tivo to make this box functional".
The FSF are not involved in Linux, they just know that a significant usage of the Gnu software is on Linux. For every argument that Linux rode on Gnu there is probably an equal counter argument, I would suggest the two are simply codependant (without Gnu Linux is unlikely to have ever left x86 and certainly wouldn't have done it so quickly, without Linux RMS's dream of fully free computers would probably be a long way back). Linux has helped the FSF, the FSF has helped Linux.
Now to more serious matters, what is your agenda? Your post states that RMS is radical (and a fraud) and therefore should go away. You seem to only offer the idea that FSF/Stallman alienate people from Linux as a reason for it but why is people's alienation (or lack of it) from Linux important enough to you to suggest that someone should be silenced? Are you as extreme a Linu[xs] fan as the FSF/Gnu followers you denegrate (more impressionable souls).
Finally I would suggest that if you really feel you have something important to say try not to sound like a flamebaiting troll ("uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist").
I couldn't write a suitable clause, but I believe the issue with the GPL V3 draft is that it approaches the whole thing in the wrong way and so ends up overreaching. Instead I think that all the true concerns could be addressed by instead adding a clause to GPL V2 (I don't literally mean amend V2 I just mean the amount required to change for V3 would drop significantly) which prevents you from distributing the software with hardware unless the owner of the hardware can run any modified versions of the code on that hardware.
Tivo would have the choices of distributing their keys (no), allowing the users to install their own key into the device which would let them run signed code from another source (maybe), renting the tivo's so they retain ownership (maybe) or splitting into two companies and selling the hardware and software seperately so the user must combine them (unlikely) all of which would be fine by me. Under a TPM style system the tivo software (which can be closed) could still be validating it has been booted on it's own trusted system (i.e. the tpm can confirm the key used to sign the running kernel) so if you use the closed tivo stuff you are still locked in, but if you want to have the same GPL rights as Tivo did on the hardware you can.
It would have the significant effect of preventing the distribution of any GPL V3 code with any hardware unless the hardware can allow the user to run modified code on it. I can see RMS saying that it should not be about the ownership of the machine but the users but personally I would say the owner of a machine has the right to lock the users out (though not the right to deny them access to the sources) and the unpleasent business model's (renting machines) will be obvious enough that anyone buying in should have known what they were getting into.
Announcing a new release and having your web site melt under the load. Though I suppose it could be worse, they could be a hosting provider launching a new high availability service:-D
I would love it if Tesco now went and added a Tesco Value range of software perhaps including Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org and/or TheOpenCd. Buy a simple black text printed Tesco Value OpenOffice.org cd (in plain paper window sleeve) for 1 not too long after each new version is released. They could even be nicer and offer the upstream organisation the choice to double the price (modify the image if they want) and donate the difference (to the organisation or anyone appointed by it).
Of course it would be even nicer if the exact same product (and price) was given the Tesco Finest label instead.
Need to surf the internet on Debian then just use the "M.F. Browser"./. may read that as "Mozilla Foundation Browser" but most of the adult English speaking world will see something else:-)
This really is not very big news at all, it does remind us that different people have different ideals but it also shows us how they can all work together (nobody suggests Debian should remove the code, just how best both parties can satisfy there needs within the rules). It's not very different to HedRat littering their packages and distros with their unredistributable trademarks, if debian ships a package whose upstream is encumbered they have to strip those problems. Any Debian derived distribution could always decide to "package" upstreams Firefox(tm) anyway, as could a third party. It's reasonable for an author to say "this name is mine and if you want to use my name with it your going to have to..." it's just great when they also say "this is Free Software" so you can choose to ignore using the name but use the product as you wish regardless. Will debian not having a "firefox" package make any real difference? Not at all a user who needs to will just fire up their program/package install/searching tool of choice (from debtags to packages.debian.org via apt-cache and klik) and find it anyway.
I suspect adblock is saving you anyway. No flash here and I assume that is what it was? It's not reappearing like that now as I visit it so I suspect it was a "broken" ad, probably flash?
So sitting here with an un-extended freefox (well it's still called firefox for now) Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.7-1 the zdnet article is blocked out by a "click here to get this plugin" box. Thankfully I get some gifs instead in konqueror where I can read the story just fine. And they coplain when people block ads? Muppets!
While you may feel that you could take that to the bank in your legal juristiction I won't be trampling on the Debian trademark in mine.
IANAL, let alone an international trademark lawyer, are you?
Slashdot Mirror
I basically agree with everything you say until the last line. This is not 100% Mozilla's problem and this is demonstrated by the willingness of other distributions to jump through Mozilla's hoops to have Firefox in their distro.
Note that I am not addressing who has the right approach, just that the problem is in part created by the DFSG (the very core rules for debian and the thing that ensures it remains more Free then virtually any other distribution). I don't actually think Mozilla is being unreasonable, they don't want the Firefox name tarnished so they want to control what is called Firefox, but they are taking an approach which means that their flagship product is not Free Software (as by definition it must include non-free parts and derivatives cannot be freely distributed without a patch sign-off).
Of course as IceWeasel demonstrates, while Firefox may not be Free, it's source code is, so if you want to distribute your own Free version of Firefox you are free to do so as long as you change the name and remove the logo. What this really highlights, to those who can think beyond "you suck", is that the co-operation implicit in good Free software license's allows diverse needs to still work together past fundamental differences in their approach.
Just my usual skepticism wonders if it coculd actually withstand such a crash from any angle (777 into the roof, or jackknife across a road first to setup any angle you want) in any possible location it could happen (say with a convieniently solid building close enough to get involved). To take a totally different example to illustrate the point, Formula 1 cars have had extreme test requirements for driver protection for many years, yet probably the most talented driver of the time (Senna) died by an unfortunate consequence of events. Nobody, seriously, suggested that the F1 cars were unsafe or that the tests were faked/useless, but when you are operating on the edge you cannot account for everything. I'm far from suggesting that the tests are worthless or that the containers are vulnerable, just that shit happens. I'm sure there is even an official figure somewhere of the expected failure rate and no matter how low it is I will bet it is not 0.
I believe that a lot (most) of the useful information they received came from the documentation of the Irish Commission which was set up to evaluate the aspects of the system purchased in Ireland (which is virtually identical to the Dutch machines, just a few extra leds).
I also did not endorse your claims about science and technology, I just don't think they are as farcical. I'll counter your claims with Italian Renaissance or Nobel Prize for Literature (if you want to be modern and awards based). In centuries time do you really think the US of the 20th/21st century will be looked back on as the pinnacle of the history of the Arts?
Products are to pollution as Arts is to tm/c/patents. Those who produce the latter while making money from the former obviously don't see latter as such significant downsides, however to the majority the latters are byproducts of the former that they have no direct demand for. If we came up with a pollution free product source that worked (e.g. the market will pay the poducers enough to produce) would the majority not want it? Replace pollution and product in the previous sentence and would the answer really change?
BTW I would not starve on locally produced products. I don't know how easy it would be to keep myself clothed though :-P
Did you really just say the US is probably the most innovative society in the arts the world has ever produced? I think you are mistaking money with innovation.
Do you not see the irony in suggesting that as the tm/c/patent producers want them it's not like pollution (hint what do the oil/gas companies really think of pollution compared to the rest of us, they probably call it "untargetted by-products")?
Will the HD Video Camera be crippled to not record copyright material (we've had stories about it)? If it is then I guess you would have to make an array of regular cameras and some software to merge them. So even if the drm/hdcp/whatever is perfect, there will always be an analogue hole to extract a good copy until we cannot get analogue equipment to work.
My father enjoys telling a story of RTE (Ireland) and the BBC changing resolutions decades ago and the Irish engineer talking to the BBC on the phone about re-encoding existing footage (going to 625 line pal from 415 b&w). The BBC guy raved about his £15,000 a pop machine's that the Irish would only need one or two of. Suffice to say less then £5 in the pub later (with a couple of friends) a screen was erected with a camera and they rerecorded some footage. A pot of paint was added to the mix to mark off positions and when the BBC were shown some examples their forthcoming order for the rest of their machines became a whole lot smaller.
Scheff herself had prevailed in defending herself against damages after she had posted under numerous pseudonyms (actual forum location unknown to me) trashing her competitor and also took part in a group which actively lobbied potential customers against her competitor. See this comment for more.
as if a million voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
Agreed
Dupe?
I'm not sure if they flew in to a Superbowl or not, but I'm sure they did it an the 84 LA Olympics Opening Ceremony.
If you are seriously considerig an aeroplane V a glider, don't forget helicopters. From my few minutes experience flying aeroplane and helicopter I could never consider trying to get a plane license it's too boring. The view and the rush from sitting in a chopper seat on the other hand is enough have me promoting the experience to everyone I can (10 years on). If you are thinking about all of this (and not for work/travel where on vehicle may make the most sense) make sure you go and get a trial lesson in them all.
The wifi hardware bumps the price and I imagine Tivo would be sued for selling a non-functional package without labelling it as such. The tivo will work fine without a subscription (but no scheduling makes it near worthless to most people) so I'm sure the box will just have one of those little * and a footnote of "* requires Tivo subscription and connection to tivo network" now, but under your scheme the entire box would need that warning (or else lawsuit time). Of course creating that locked down mini-os and a reliable update app just to download the real os would also cost Tivo.
I would like to exclude that, covering it with the bundling exception (I guess you have to encompass at least all gpl software supplied for use on hardware supplied by the same company). However even if they were allowed that workaround, how many users would be at least be suspicious of the "you must connect this machine up to a network to download extra material from tivo to make this box functional".
The FSF are not involved in Linux, they just know that a significant usage of the Gnu software is on Linux. For every argument that Linux rode on Gnu there is probably an equal counter argument, I would suggest the two are simply codependant (without Gnu Linux is unlikely to have ever left x86 and certainly wouldn't have done it so quickly, without Linux RMS's dream of fully free computers would probably be a long way back). Linux has helped the FSF, the FSF has helped Linux.
Now to more serious matters, what is your agenda? Your post states that RMS is radical (and a fraud) and therefore should go away. You seem to only offer the idea that FSF/Stallman alienate people from Linux as a reason for it but why is people's alienation (or lack of it) from Linux important enough to you to suggest that someone should be silenced? Are you as extreme a Linu[xs] fan as the FSF/Gnu followers you denegrate (more impressionable souls).
Finally I would suggest that if you really feel you have something important to say try not to sound like a flamebaiting troll ("uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist").
I couldn't write a suitable clause, but I believe the issue with the GPL V3 draft is that it approaches the whole thing in the wrong way and so ends up overreaching. Instead I think that all the true concerns could be addressed by instead adding a clause to GPL V2 (I don't literally mean amend V2 I just mean the amount required to change for V3 would drop significantly) which prevents you from distributing the software with hardware unless the owner of the hardware can run any modified versions of the code on that hardware.
Tivo would have the choices of distributing their keys (no), allowing the users to install their own key into the device which would let them run signed code from another source (maybe), renting the tivo's so they retain ownership (maybe) or splitting into two companies and selling the hardware and software seperately so the user must combine them (unlikely) all of which would be fine by me. Under a TPM style system the tivo software (which can be closed) could still be validating it has been booted on it's own trusted system (i.e. the tpm can confirm the key used to sign the running kernel) so if you use the closed tivo stuff you are still locked in, but if you want to have the same GPL rights as Tivo did on the hardware you can.
It would have the significant effect of preventing the distribution of any GPL V3 code with any hardware unless the hardware can allow the user to run modified code on it. I can see RMS saying that it should not be about the ownership of the machine but the users but personally I would say the owner of a machine has the right to lock the users out (though not the right to deny them access to the sources) and the unpleasent business model's (renting machines) will be obvious enough that anyone buying in should have known what they were getting into.
Have I missed something?
Announcing a new release and having your web site melt under the load. Though I suppose it could be worse, they could be a hosting provider launching a new high availability service :-D
I would love it if Tesco now went and added a Tesco Value range of software perhaps including Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org and/or TheOpenCd. Buy a simple black text printed Tesco Value OpenOffice.org cd (in plain paper window sleeve) for 1 not too long after each new version is released. They could even be nicer and offer the upstream organisation the choice to double the price (modify the image if they want) and donate the difference (to the organisation or anyone appointed by it).
Of course it would be even nicer if the exact same product (and price) was given the Tesco Finest label instead.
Need to surf the internet on Debian then just use the "M.F. Browser". /. may read that as "Mozilla Foundation Browser" but most of the adult English speaking world will see something else :-)
This really is not very big news at all, it does remind us that different people have different ideals but it also shows us how they can all work together (nobody suggests Debian should remove the code, just how best both parties can satisfy there needs within the rules). It's not very different to HedRat littering their packages and distros with their unredistributable trademarks, if debian ships a package whose upstream is encumbered they have to strip those problems. Any Debian derived distribution could always decide to "package" upstreams Firefox(tm) anyway, as could a third party. It's reasonable for an author to say "this name is mine and if you want to use my name with it your going to have to ..." it's just great when they also say "this is Free Software" so you can choose to ignore using the name but use the product as you wish regardless. Will debian not having a "firefox" package make any real difference? Not at all a user who needs to will just fire up their program/package install/searching tool of choice (from debtags to packages.debian.org via apt-cache and klik) and find it anyway.
I suspect adblock is saving you anyway. No flash here and I assume that is what it was? It's not reappearing like that now as I visit it so I suspect it was a "broken" ad, probably flash?
So sitting here with an un-extended freefox (well it's still called firefox for now) Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.7-1 the zdnet article is blocked out by a "click here to get this plugin" box. Thankfully I get some gifs instead in konqueror where I can read the story just fine. And they coplain when people block ads? Muppets!
While you may feel that you could take that to the bank in your legal juristiction I won't be trampling on the Debian trademark in mine.
IANAL, let alone an international trademark lawyer, are you?