Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 4
And mderators, how is this insightful? How could one verify that your code is not trojaned simply by inspecting the source, but not being able to compile it?
Guess what? Admission of the "comfort factor" argument is really discrediting yourself. Maybe you'd like to turn around and say "well you didn't check the source for your GPLed programs too". And guess what? I didn't.
Becuase having the source is not just about being paranoid about trojans. It is about having a reference, having the ability to cross-check the code for correctness when I have to. Being able to fix it, and being able to make it better, and give it back.
For any one of these reasons, "Shared Suorce" is not enough. Keep your paranioa to yourself.
Although the raw data is user submitted, the storage,
retrieval, categorization, and organization of the database, the access interface, and the
matching and filtering methods are absolutely proprietary, and we will do what is
necessary to defend this intellectual property.
So you agree that you don't own the raw data? Can you give a copy of it to FreeDB?
You did not pay attention. He did not say "copying wasn't unencombered". What he did say was that "copyright was not existent". He is arguing about the LAW of COPYRIGHT and why it should be diminished.
The fact that the Church was controlling copying through other means is quite irrelevant. As RMS shows, he lives in the present. Copyright is the unjust law that is being extended as a means of control. Just like the Church used illiteracy to control people. Perhaps in those times, RMS would be exhorting us to learn to read?
I like your husband-wife analogy.
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
It sounds so much like how a king would treat his concubines.
LOL!
Re:Not even linus supports the GNU ideology
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
Really? URL please!
"Preserving Intellectual Property"
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
When comparing the commercial software model to the open-source software model, look carefully at the business plans and licensing structures that form their foundations. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the commercial software model alone has the capacity for sustaining real economic growth. Intellectual capital has always been, and will remain, the core asset of the software industry, and of almost every other industry. Preserving that capital--and investing in its constant renewal--benefits everyone.
I don't understand how you can misunderstand this, Craig. Intellectual Property is only valuable in the hands of people. Thus to preserve it, one teaches, transmits and communicates it. One does not hoard it.
You have got to be kidding. Those "bells=and-whistles" are exactly the things that users want and expect. If they learn that it is those extra formatiing will go away, you can bet that they will prefer something like XML. (which incidentally is only an incrementally better solution).
To be fair, this is no longer an issue any more in Office 2k. But the point remains, and still gives support to the arguments that RMS et al makes.
The problem is that "too obvious" is a very undefendable position with respect to a specific patent like that. This is not to say that that are triviality should not be one criteria for not awarding a patent. But we should recognise how diifuclt this judgement is to make, and how controverial it is.
Which is why I am waiting to see exactly what example of prior art they can come out with. But I am not holding my breath.
According to his plans, a pickup truck will be waiting to drive him to a group of bleachers where fans and 12 Hooters bar girls will pour champagne all over him.
Considering the odds, he should be asking for more Hooters girls, and he should be getting more than beer and champagne from them! No offense to the girls too - they should feel safe making this bet with him.;-)
The difference is that Linus, Stallman, and Eric S Raymond are all playing on the same side, so they do give each other the respect that's of a different sort, compared to the one accorded to Mundie.
It only enforces as long as the laws of copyright are enforceable. And why do we enforce copyright laws? Because some people believe it is their natural inalienable right, and others - RMS - do not think so.
Yes, that is what the wording says, but that is not what people do will. In reality, some idiot reading that will be tempted by the opportunity for points and rewards and turn their customers in. Thus, the purchaser gets shafted, even if he was in the clear.
MS is famous for pushing the ethicality envelope of business practices. This is just another example.
Not offense, but I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
I could be making a purchase for a College computer lab.
Or I could be a Linux reseller, interesred in providing Linux solutions to OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES who want such a PC. I buy the computers in volume, and resell my services in installation Linux/FreeBSD.
Whatever my business it, the basis for making this claim is a narrow-minded categorization. 1000 PC's == Amazon Server Farm? Think again.
Again I assert the right not to have to my business "spied upon" by MS.
A legal department doing mrket research. That will be the day!
The last time I heard, people doing market reseearch had to ASK and not DEMAND. And if they were doing researcg, they certainly shouldn't ASSUME THE CONCLUSION.
I agree that the wording of the original article is blatently biased. But I am going to call you this assertion:
If you're buying 1000 OS-less PC's there's a far greater chance you'll resell them or use an illegal liscense.
What is the basis you making this assertion? If I am a company that is convinced of the value of Linux and want to deploy it in MY COMPANY, the chance that I will use an illegal license is ZERO, The chance that I will resell them is ZERO.
And if I do resell it, as long as I don't put a pirated version of Windows on it, it is not illegal. Why should MS care that I have "an increased chance of reselling a legal non-Windows PC"?
I believe people still have the right of association. I can walk into a Honda dealer, buy a Honda and couldn't care less what the Ford dealer across the street thinks. That dealer has no right, simply becuase I choose to do this, to invade my privacy. The MOST he could do is attempt to make a survey, and find out why I did that. And even for that, I am under no obligation to comply.
Yes I would. I would say, "I like your songs very much. Glad to be able to shake your hand. Here's $20. Keep up the good work."
I may not pay for my music, but that's becuase I am lazy, not an ingrate. What I can get free, I do so. If only there was a way I could tip those guys directly. (Why in the world did these guys sell all their profit-making rights to the Labels? You tell me that.)
Digital Convergence happens to be the one who gave away, unsolicited, the CueCats. Seeing that people are not using it as intended, they proceeded to claim copyright and IP ownership of the CurCat, when there was actually very little that is new in their BarCode scanner. Their trivial encoded was called "encryption" and they threatened people posting code to decode it with legal action.
For these reasons, I think they are actually asking for punishment. If they did none of these, I would agree with you. But they did, so I don't.
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po
on
The Art Of The Matrix
·
· Score: 2
Also, the human battery idea is a tad lame. Doesn't it waste tremendous amounts of energy growing a human?
I can only think of two excuses for this totally stupid scenario:
It's a clue to the subsequent sequels that even that explanation is just made up, like everything in the Matrix is.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what? Admission of the "comfort factor" argument is really discrediting yourself. Maybe you'd like to turn around and say "well you didn't check the source for your GPLed programs too". And guess what? I didn't.
Becuase having the source is not just about being paranoid about trojans. It is about having a reference, having the ability to cross-check the code for correctness when I have to. Being able to fix it, and being able to make it better, and give it back.
For any one of these reasons, "Shared Suorce" is not enough. Keep your paranioa to yourself.
Just like what they did to Dennis.
I propose that people learn the lesson here and just forget restitution. See revenge instead by supporting better protocols and better databases!
The fact that the Church was controlling copying through other means is quite irrelevant. As RMS shows, he lives in the present. Copyright is the unjust law that is being extended as a means of control. Just like the Church used illiteracy to control people. Perhaps in those times, RMS would be exhorting us to learn to read?
LOL!
Really? URL please!
I don't understand how you can misunderstand this, Craig. Intellectual Property is only valuable in the hands of people. Thus to preserve it, one teaches, transmits and communicates it. One does not hoard it.
To be fair, this is no longer an issue any more in Office 2k. But the point remains, and still gives support to the arguments that RMS et al makes.
Which is why I am waiting to see exactly what example of prior art they can come out with. But I am not holding my breath.
After This guy has already spent so much to get there? The injustice of it all!
Considering the odds, he should be asking for more Hooters girls, and he should be getting more than beer and champagne from them! No offense to the girls too - they should feel safe making this bet with him. ;-)
Sorry, but the implication is just plain bad logic.
Try? There is no try. There is only do.
we should listen to Linus, rather than Newton or Mundie?
The difference is that Linus, Stallman, and Eric S Raymond are all playing on the same side, so they do give each other the respect that's of a different sort, compared to the one accorded to Mundie.
It only enforces as long as the laws of copyright are enforceable. And why do we enforce copyright laws? Because some people believe it is their natural inalienable right, and others - RMS - do not think so.
MS is famous for pushing the ethicality envelope of business practices. This is just another example.
I could be making a purchase for a College computer lab.
Or I could be a Linux reseller, interesred in providing Linux solutions to OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES who want such a PC. I buy the computers in volume, and resell my services in installation Linux/FreeBSD.
Whatever my business it, the basis for making this claim is a narrow-minded categorization. 1000 PC's == Amazon Server Farm? Think again.
Again I assert the right not to have to my business "spied upon" by MS.
The last time I heard, people doing market reseearch had to ASK and not DEMAND. And if they were doing researcg, they certainly shouldn't ASSUME THE CONCLUSION.
What is the basis you making this assertion? If I am a company that is convinced of the value of Linux and want to deploy it in MY COMPANY, the chance that I will use an illegal license is ZERO, The chance that I will resell them is ZERO.
And if I do resell it, as long as I don't put a pirated version of Windows on it, it is not illegal. Why should MS care that I have "an increased chance of reselling a legal non-Windows PC"?
I believe people still have the right of association. I can walk into a Honda dealer, buy a Honda and couldn't care less what the Ford dealer across the street thinks. That dealer has no right, simply becuase I choose to do this, to invade my privacy. The MOST he could do is attempt to make a survey, and find out why I did that. And even for that, I am under no obligation to comply.
I may not pay for my music, but that's becuase I am lazy, not an ingrate. What I can get free, I do so. If only there was a way I could tip those guys directly. (Why in the world did these guys sell all their profit-making rights to the Labels? You tell me that.)
For these reasons, I think they are actually asking for punishment. If they did none of these, I would agree with you. But they did, so I don't.
I can only think of two excuses for this totally stupid scenario:
- It's a clue to the subsequent sequels that even that explanation is just made up, like everything in the Matrix is.
- Product placement for Duracell.
My money is on 2.IRONIC?