I don't care about my data. I don't care if my phone knows where I've been and tells anyone who asks. I don't care if I search for a product and then see ads for it. I don't care who sees my posts on Facebook. I don't care what cookies are in my browser. I don't care what my Google Home device and Smart TVs see and hear. I don't use ad blockers. I don't have Javascript disabled. If a whole ecosystem of cyberbusinesses wants to swirl around me trying to figure out what I want so they can sell me stuff or grab my attention, good for them.
I am extremely glad for all the stuff I get for free from the internet. And it is free - just because my data is valuable in the aggregate to other people doesn't mean it's valuable to me, and I don't care that companies are getting that data and trying to use it for profit.
The only thing I get from privacy nerds is annoyed - stupid click-away notices about cookies on websites, moronic privacy policies, and idiotic pages and pages of HIPAA notices every time I see a new doctor. They have inserted valueless friction into systems that should operate smoothly and seamlessly.
Art is work intended to interact with the aesthetic (non-utilitarian) sense of its audience. The "intended" part means that there has to be someone doing the "intending." As of now, that applies only to humans, so the work of AI becomes art only when some human presents it as such (which can be as simple as a person examining the output of a program and going "hey, look at that!")
Art is work intended to interact with the aesthetic sense of its audience. (Aesthetic sense is evaluation of a work other than for its utilitarian aspects.)
I don't understand what B&N is doing with their prices. I'm one of their members (pay $25 a year to get 10% off purchases, and an additional 5% off when using their credit card). They're not giving the 10% discount for digital objects, including eBooks, which means that as a mass-market paperback buyer, I would have to pay more for my eBooks than for my paper ones, and it makes my membership useless. Look, for example, at the novel Low Red Moon. B&N's member price for the paperback is $7.19 and the non-discounted price for the eBook is $7.99. Amazon, on the other hand, prices the paperback at $7.99 and the Kindle version at $6.39. So B&N is screwing the people that they have enlisted through their loyalty program. It makes no sense.
www.Usenet-News.net offers non-expiring block prices. The biggest is $66 for 300GB. If all you want is text, that's probably enough for the rest of your life.
The purpose of the GPL is to extend the four freedoms (to run, examine, modify, and redistribute programs) to all people. Restrictions imposed by the GPL, in any version, exist to hinder those who would attempt to deny these freedoms. A user who receives a program under GPLv3 will have untrammeled ability to run it, examine it, modify it, and redistribute it, and so will suffer no added restrictions. The only ones who will be saddled with further restrictions are those people who are now using loopholes to try to keep users from experiencing those freedoms. But the FSF is not interested in the desires of those people, and indeed is happy to make their lives more difficult.
There aren't any use restrictions in GPL3. If you incorporate GPL3 code in your program, and your program requires signature or encryption keys in order to be run, then you must supply the means of generating them so that users can modify the program and run the modifications. Similarly, if the output of the program can only be accessed by use of such signature or keys, you must supply the means for generating those as well. Without such a requirement, users are unable to exercise their freedoms with respect to the GPLed software, because they cannot run modified versions of the program or they cannot access the output of the program.
Similarly, a program licensed under GPL3 declares itself not to be an effective technological protection measure. That doesn't mean that you can't use GPL3 code for DRM. It just means that other people who get the code can use it to circumvent that DRM, without running afoul of laws that say that you may not bypass such effective measures.
Yes, you have to GPL the whole thing, and yes, that could lead to considerably smaller profits for you. The proponents of the GPL are not concerned with the ability of programmers to produce software faster, or to make money. They are concerned that users of programs have the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute those (entire) programs. Since you wish to deny your users these freedoms, the proponents of the GPL will deny you the right to use their software.
No, it is freedom for the user. The user is free to run, study, modify, and redistribute the program. The people who receive the program from that user are themselves users, and therefore acquire the same freedoms. The GPL prevents a programmer from denying users these freedoms, and so the programmer is denied that freedom, but proponents of Free Software do not care about that freedom because it can only be used to deny users the other freedoms.
Open Source isn't about anything except a development model. That movement explicitly eschewed the word "freedom" because it was scary. Free Software is about freedom, but not for the developer, only for the user. The GPL is perfectly suitable to grant a user the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute a program. The freedom for a developer to choose a different license includes the ability to choose a license which denies the user of that developer's work the four freedoms, so proponents of Free Software will not allow their Free Software to be incorporated into such a program.
But why should anyone give you what you want? Who owes you anything? Apparently to you "grow up" means "give me goodies for free with no obligation on my part". Perhaps you should ask Microsoft to grow up as well?
Proponents of Free Software care nothing for you as a developer. Free Software does not exist to benefit developers. Free Software exists so that users can run, examine, modify, and redistribute programs. They cannot do this if parts of the program are not Free.
As ever, ESR willfully confuses Open Source with Free Software. It may be as he says that Open Source is a better development system and companies not using it will be hurt. But that's completey irrelevant to people who value the concept of Free Software. That is, even if Open Source were a much worse development model than closed source, advocates of Free Software would nevertheless want it, because they value the freedom of the software user above anything else. It's amazing how so many people do not understand the difference, even after having it explained so many times. The purpose of Free Software is to enable the users to read, modify, and redistribute the programs they use. It is not to make better software, or to make software development better or easier.
The GPL is not meant to be beneficial to the programmer. The GPL is meant to be beneficial to the user, giving to the user the ability to read, modify, and redistribute the program. If this inconveniences the programmer, too bad. The programmer can choose not to use the code.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2
> Hm, explain the value to the user in ensuring that the GPL source is available to those users who have no understanding of what the source code is?
It's the same value as having an automobile or appliance that can be serviced by any mechanic instead of one approved by the manufacturer, and that can replacement parts made by third parties. It's the value of having a printer whose consumables don't have to come from the manufacturer of the printer. It's freedom. It means that when you have the software, no one has power over you to take it away, or to prevent you from using it as you like.
...fighting a loosing battle... As opposed to a tightening battle?
No, that would be if he were fighting a loosening battle. As opposed to a retaining battle, maybe.
This country is losing its technological edge because of people like you, who use the word loosing when they mean to use the word losing, thereby loosing a wave of ignorance on the rest of us. OK?
One of the reasons I left IEEE years ago was because I found their union-like activities so distasteful. Its USAB has been spouting this anti-foreigner line for a very long time.
You need to look into things like the lambda library. People are working the hell out of expression templates to let you write natural-looking expressions instead of explicitly using binders and such. Here's what it looks like:
for_each(c.begin(), c.end(), cout << 2 * _arg1); The magic is that _arg1 is of a class which causes the whole cout << 2 * _arg1 expression to turn into a functor that doubles its first argument and sends it to cout. Not only that, but the people who are doing this are in close contact with (or *are*) people on the C++ Standards committee, so when the next version comes along, you can expect a lot of the kinks to be worked out.
Well, it doesn'treally matter what you believe. The definition of a derivative work does not come from the GPL but from copyright law. Copyright law also specifies that copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original and the derived creators, and therefore distribution permission is required from both. So you look to copyright law to see if you have a derived work. If you do, you need permission from the original author to redistribute, and therefore that author gets to dictate terms. Those terms may be the GPL. If you choose not to follow the terms, then you may not legally redistribute. If you do anyway, then various civil and criminal penalties may apply.
If you look at http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs.html you will see a whole bunch of PDF docs with no access restrictions. Is this what everyone thinks is members-only?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care about my data. I don't care if my phone knows where I've been and tells anyone who asks. I don't care if I search for a product and then see ads for it. I don't care who sees my posts on Facebook. I don't care what cookies are in my browser. I don't care what my Google Home device and Smart TVs see and hear. I don't use ad blockers. I don't have Javascript disabled. If a whole ecosystem of cyberbusinesses wants to swirl around me trying to figure out what I want so they can sell me stuff or grab my attention, good for them.
I am extremely glad for all the stuff I get for free from the internet. And it is free - just because my data is valuable in the aggregate to other people doesn't mean it's valuable to me, and I don't care that companies are getting that data and trying to use it for profit.
The only thing I get from privacy nerds is annoyed - stupid click-away notices about cookies on websites, moronic privacy policies, and idiotic pages and pages of HIPAA notices every time I see a new doctor. They have inserted valueless friction into systems that should operate smoothly and seamlessly.
...people complaining about how YouTube pulled the video of their children being adorable.
Art is work intended to interact with the aesthetic (non-utilitarian) sense of its audience. The "intended" part means that there has to be someone doing the "intending." As of now, that applies only to humans, so the work of AI becomes art only when some human presents it as such (which can be as simple as a person examining the output of a program and going "hey, look at that!")
Forgot to log in. That's my AC comment.
Art is work intended to interact with the aesthetic sense of its audience.
(Aesthetic sense is evaluation of a work other than for its utilitarian aspects.)
I don't understand what B&N is doing with their prices. I'm one of their members (pay $25 a year to get 10% off purchases, and an additional 5% off when using their credit card). They're not giving the 10% discount for digital objects, including eBooks, which means that as a mass-market paperback buyer, I would have to pay more for my eBooks than for my paper ones, and it makes my membership useless. Look, for example, at the novel Low Red Moon. B&N's member price for the paperback is $7.19 and the non-discounted price for the eBook is $7.99. Amazon, on the other hand, prices the paperback at $7.99 and the Kindle version at $6.39. So B&N is screwing the people that they have enlisted through their loyalty program. It makes no sense.
Even without the perk, the heads-coming-off bit gets pretty tedious after a while.
www.Usenet-News.net offers non-expiring block prices. The biggest is $66 for 300GB. If all you want is text, that's probably enough for the rest of your life.
The purpose of the GPL is to extend the four freedoms (to run, examine, modify, and redistribute programs) to all people. Restrictions imposed by the GPL, in any version, exist to hinder those who would attempt to deny these freedoms. A user who receives a program under GPLv3 will have untrammeled ability to run it, examine it, modify it, and redistribute it, and so will suffer no added restrictions. The only ones who will be saddled with further restrictions are those people who are now using loopholes to try to keep users from experiencing those freedoms. But the FSF is not interested in the desires of those people, and indeed is happy to make their lives more difficult.
The only ad I saw when searching for this was for http://www.rapid-pi.com/, which is an add-in equation editor (and its website compares it to LaTeX).
There aren't any use restrictions in GPL3. If you incorporate GPL3 code in your program, and your program requires signature or encryption keys in order to be run, then you must supply the means of generating them so that users can modify the program and run the modifications. Similarly, if the output of the program can only be accessed by use of such signature or keys, you must supply the means for generating those as well. Without such a requirement, users are unable to exercise their freedoms with respect to the GPLed software, because they cannot run modified versions of the program or they cannot access the output of the program.
Similarly, a program licensed under GPL3 declares itself not to be an effective technological protection measure. That doesn't mean that you can't use GPL3 code for DRM. It just means that other people who get the code can use it to circumvent that DRM, without running afoul of laws that say that you may not bypass such effective measures.
Yes, you have to GPL the whole thing, and yes, that could lead to considerably smaller profits for you. The proponents of the GPL are not concerned with the ability of programmers to produce software faster, or to make money. They are concerned that users of programs have the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute those (entire) programs. Since you wish to deny your users these freedoms, the proponents of the GPL will deny you the right to use their software.
No, it is freedom for the user. The user is free to run, study, modify, and redistribute the program. The people who receive the program from that user are themselves users, and therefore acquire the same freedoms. The GPL prevents a programmer from denying users these freedoms, and so the programmer is denied that freedom, but proponents of Free Software do not care about that freedom because it can only be used to deny users the other freedoms.
Open Source isn't about anything except a development model. That movement explicitly eschewed the word "freedom" because it was scary. Free Software is about freedom, but not for the developer, only for the user. The GPL is perfectly suitable to grant a user the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute a program. The freedom for a developer to choose a different license includes the ability to choose a license which denies the user of that developer's work the four freedoms, so proponents of Free Software will not allow their Free Software to be incorporated into such a program.
But why should anyone give you what you want? Who owes you anything? Apparently to you "grow up" means "give me goodies for free with no obligation on my part". Perhaps you should ask Microsoft to grow up as well?
Proponents of Free Software care nothing for you as a developer. Free Software does not exist to benefit developers. Free Software exists so that users can run, examine, modify, and redistribute programs. They cannot do this if parts of the program are not Free.
As ever, ESR willfully confuses Open Source with Free Software. It may be as he says that Open Source is a better development system and companies not using it will be hurt. But that's completey irrelevant to people who value the concept of Free Software. That is, even if Open Source were a much worse development model than closed source, advocates of Free Software would nevertheless want it, because they value the freedom of the software user above anything else. It's amazing how so many people do not understand the difference, even after having it explained so many times. The purpose of Free Software is to enable the users to read, modify, and redistribute the programs they use. It is not to make better software, or to make software development better or easier.
The GPL is not meant to be beneficial to the programmer. The GPL is meant to be beneficial to the user, giving to the user the ability to read, modify, and redistribute the program. If this inconveniences the programmer, too bad. The programmer can choose not to use the code.
> Hm, explain the value to the user in ensuring that the GPL source is available to those users who have no understanding of what the source code is?
It's the same value as having an automobile or appliance that can be serviced by any mechanic instead of one approved by the manufacturer, and that can replacement parts made by third parties. It's the value of having a printer whose consumables don't have to come from the manufacturer of the printer. It's freedom. It means that when you have the software, no one has power over you to take it away, or to prevent you from using it as you like.
...fighting a loosing battle...
As opposed to a tightening battle?
No, that would be if he were fighting a loosening battle.
As opposed to a retaining battle, maybe.
This country is losing its technological edge because of people like you, who use the word loosing when they mean to use the word losing, thereby loosing a wave of ignorance on the rest of us. OK?
Danica McKellar, who played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years, has a degree in mathematics from UCLA.
One of the reasons I left IEEE years ago was because I found their union-like activities so distasteful. Its USAB has been spouting this anti-foreigner line for a very long time.
You need to look into things like the lambda library.
People are working the hell out of expression templates to let you write natural-looking expressions instead of explicitly using binders and such.
Here's what it looks like:
for_each(c.begin(), c.end(), cout << 2 * _arg1);
The magic is that _arg1 is of a class which causes the whole cout << 2 * _arg1 expression to turn into a functor that doubles its first argument and sends it to cout. Not only that, but the people who are doing this are in close contact with (or *are*) people on the C++ Standards committee, so when the next version comes along, you can expect a lot of the kinks to be worked out.
Well, it doesn'treally matter what you believe. The definition of a derivative work does not come from the GPL but from copyright law. Copyright law also specifies that copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original and the derived creators, and therefore distribution permission is required from both. So you look to copyright law to see if you have a derived work. If you do, you need permission from the original author to redistribute, and therefore that author gets to dictate terms. Those terms may be the GPL. If you choose not to follow the terms, then you may not legally redistribute. If you do anyway, then various civil and criminal penalties may apply.
If you look at http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs.html you will see a whole bunch of PDF docs with no access restrictions. Is this what everyone thinks is members-only?