Seriously though, do you think this push for punishment stems from a lust to control, or is it more readily explained as the natural progressoin of capitolism's affects on politics when campaign contributions go unchecked?
What, specifically, is the different?
Looks like 6 of one, or half-dozen of the other to me.
Of course he doesn't. It was an example. RMS doesn't give away apples. Sheesh...
Don't be daft. The "no such thing" that he doesn't do is say you cannot sell software (your metaphor was that the apple trees and the apples were software).
Why? Software licenses have nothing to do with the Constitution. They're in completely different realms.
Because they overlap in at least two very important ways.
1. They both create systems. Even if overlap #2 did not exist, this would be reason enough to bring it into the discussion to illustrate the idea of evaluating the GPL and the BSD licenses by what the resulting systems they create are like.
2. They deal with freedoms.
One is a private relationship between two individuals (author and user) and the other is a self-restriction of a government.
For one thing, the GPL *does* deal with government. It says that the government can take away your right to distribute software if you violate the GPL (although this has not been tested, the entire discussion here assumes that both the GPL and the BSD licenses are valid). In a computeresque way of looking at it, the GPL links against the US Constitution, and makes calls to the various laws (subroutines) that exist under it (even though some of those laws might have buffer overrun vulnerabilities:-)).
Second, "rights" have to do with the interaction between people. With the US Constitution, the rights in question are those the non-government people have that cannot be taken away by the government people. With the GPL (and licenses in general) it's rights the licensees have that the copyright holders can not abridge. The issue is the relationship between the players, not who the specific players are in each case.
Third, *of course* there are differences between the GPL and the US Constitution. If there were no differences, then they would be the same thing. But they clearly aren't, and I fully understand this (duh, did you honestly think I didn't?). Just because you can highlight some of the differences between the GPL and the US Constitution does not mean that there are no similarities.
Now, you might wish to argue that the GPL and the US Constitution don't both create systems under which the relationships between people are defined, or that they don't both deal with the rights of people under their respective systems, but I don't see how you logically can. You're welcome to try though.
Perhaps you're mistaking the restrictive actions of one of my users, or my users' users, for that of my own.
I've made no such mistake.
What I said:
"When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system."
What that means is that *YOUR* individual action (the releasing of your code under the BSD license) is more free than RMS's individual action of releasing emacs under the GPL.
HOWEVER (you knew the was coming because you re-read what I wrote above), the system your license creates is one in which freedoms are *allowed* to be taken away (or proscribed, or curtailed, or whatever verb you prefer which still amounts to the same thing).
Imagine RMS requiring everyone who gets an apple to promise not to sell it.
RMS does no such thing. Your example does not address the question. RMS (the GPL, actually) only requires that if you modify the genetics of this imaginary apple tree and *distribute* (and you can sell it if you want) the modified tree, you must make available the new genetic code under the same terms by which you acquired the original code.
This *SYSTEM* protects freedom. The system the BSD license creates, allows, and engenders, DOES NOT. That's the difference and it's exactly that which you fail to understand.
Bringing it back to the US Constitution, the Constitution, in a flawed but earnest way, tries to say, "You have absolute freedom, except that you cannot freely infringe on other's freedom, and the state has some privileges over some of your freedoms in order that it might operate and enforce the Constitution". The GPL fills the same basic role. It says you are absolutely free to use the software as you see fit except that you can't subvert that freedom for others.
Unrestricted licenses like BSD or MIT have the fewest retained privileges, and conseqently the most liberty.
As the parent poster pointed out, freedom (in the philosophical sense) does not apply to software, it applies to using the software.
The problem with the BSD/MIT licenses is that they allow freedom (of the user) to be limited (allows restrictive privileges to be taken).
Absolute freedom is impossible whenever other people are involved, so freedoms must be protected by systematic agreement (like the US Constitution, which isn't perfect). The GPL is like a constitution which prohibits slavery (limits your freedom to give away your freedom, and limits other's freedom to take away your freedom, and vice versa), and the BSD/MIT licenses are more primitive in that they allow those "freedoms".
When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system.
If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.
Yeah, right. There are soooo many problematic GPL violations being hidden behind ISP adherence to personal privacy (lol).
Any benefit (if there even *is* any) seen by the free software community will be absolutely minimal, while the actual erosion of personal liberty and privacy *will* be quite noticeable and chilling.
There is no reason at all to believe further that an entry level PC will lead to a 2nd purchase years later of a high end PC.
There most certainly is.
Not *all* low-end Mac purchases will lead to higher margin purchases (which need only be iMacs or PowerBooks, not PowerMacs), but it's absolutely logical to presume that some will.
This process isn't a collection of unrelated actions--the $500 iMac won't exist in a vacuum. It serves a role among many in a larger plan. It helps to increase the market share. It's up to the iMac, PowerMac and PowerBook to convert those tepid consumers who are unsure about a $2,000 Mac purchase, but will more easily make a $500 Mac purchase, into additional and more profitable purchases.
Oh, sure. I'd MUCH rather get sued than be called a communist.
Did Apple sue you? Does Apple sue small companies every day? No. This is the CONTEXT which you have totally missed. MS does this sort of thing every day, and they do it to whole groups of people. XP authorization? Virus vulnerabilities that they could fix so extremely simply?
This was just an example that I brought up because it was today. MS is an *AWFUL* corporation. Apple is a *GREAT* corporation that fouls up now and then. Huge difference which you can easily miss if you are incapable or unwilling to consider the context--the corporations as a whole.
This lawsuit is, IMO, a *huge* mistake, and Apple deserves, IMO, to be countersued and should pay a nice, hefty, sum to Think Secret. But this is not reason to start hating Apple. If it was the sort of thing they did all the time (like SCO, RIAA, etc), then it would be worth putting Apple into the "Slashdot Most Hated" list.
Did you read where I wrote: "and they should be reprimanded when they do foul up, like in this case"
So, is it okay? Not in an absolute sense. But in a relative sense, it's acceptable, in context. In other words, if I could mix and match and create a corporation that meets all of my moral criteria, it would *NEVER* do something stupid like this, but I cannot. I can only pick and choose from what's available.
Overall, Apple is so good that this sort of thing is more of a blemish, where as with MS it's a major personality trait.
Apple does things like this every now and then. These things are relatively small in scope.
Microsoft does things that are *MUCH WORSE* and they do it constantly.
As a whole, Apple is one of the *extremely* few corporations that actually *serves* humanity. They're still a corporation, so they're still going to do dumb and harmful things from time to time (and they should be reprimanded when they do foul up, like in this case).
Microsoft, on the other hand, is an *AWFUL* corporation. Read the story today where Bill Gates calls open source folks COMMUNISTS!
Yes, it's a bias. It's a bias towards companies that do things you like, and against those which do things you don't. Duh.
Context is critical. Yes, this action is bad, but the company is still good and worth defending.
Yes, but if the rumours are wrong, they can damage how any real products might be perceived.
Apple is wanting to have their cake and eat it, too.
They have a strict policy of not talking about unreleased products (except via top exec keynotes a few times a year). This secrecy *creates* a market for rumor.
But here's the kicker... The suit strongly implies that the rumors *are* true. The reason is they are stating that Think Secret is inducing people to violate their NDAs. You don't (generally) violate an NDA by making something up.
Apple is a great company, but sometimes they make mistakes, and this is one of them. They deserve to be reprimanded for this foolishness.
All rational conscious actions have an emotional motive, perhaps. But purchases can be made either rationally or irrationally in order to meet that emotional motive. *That's* what the author means.
In this case, some are simply allowing expectations to dictate their emotions.
That would be quite rational. The problem is that their expectations are false.
that said, I'll take an average digital signal over even a high-end analog one anyday. noise, hum and distortion are NOT my friends.
Are you talking about playback or recording here? For recording, analog is still superior to digital (quality-wise). For consumer playback, it's digital all the way.
Some day digital will be adequately advanced enough to make analog irrelevant, but we aren't quite there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
For a change, I RTFA. They're pushing for the Chinese to start putting Chinese counterfeiters in jail under the rules of Chinese law.
Used to be a time when we officially condemned fascism and totalitarianism.
That was before the US economy depended on those things.
Seriously though, do you think this push for punishment stems from a lust to control, or is it more readily explained as the natural progressoin of capitolism's affects on politics when campaign contributions go unchecked?
What, specifically, is the different?
Looks like 6 of one, or half-dozen of the other to me.
He's talking about a new budding totalitarian state, not China or North Korea.
Of course he doesn't. It was an example. RMS doesn't give away apples. Sheesh...
:-)).
Don't be daft. The "no such thing" that he doesn't do is say you cannot sell software (your metaphor was that the apple trees and the apples were software).
Why? Software licenses have nothing to do with the Constitution. They're in completely different realms.
Because they overlap in at least two very important ways.
1. They both create systems. Even if overlap #2 did not exist, this would be reason enough to bring it into the discussion to illustrate the idea of evaluating the GPL and the BSD licenses by what the resulting systems they create are like.
2. They deal with freedoms.
One is a private relationship between two individuals (author and user) and the other is a self-restriction of a government.
For one thing, the GPL *does* deal with government. It says that the government can take away your right to distribute software if you violate the GPL (although this has not been tested, the entire discussion here assumes that both the GPL and the BSD licenses are valid). In a computeresque way of looking at it, the GPL links against the US Constitution, and makes calls to the various laws (subroutines) that exist under it (even though some of those laws might have buffer overrun vulnerabilities
Second, "rights" have to do with the interaction between people. With the US Constitution, the rights in question are those the non-government people have that cannot be taken away by the government people. With the GPL (and licenses in general) it's rights the licensees have that the copyright holders can not abridge. The issue is the relationship between the players, not who the specific players are in each case.
Third, *of course* there are differences between the GPL and the US Constitution. If there were no differences, then they would be the same thing. But they clearly aren't, and I fully understand this (duh, did you honestly think I didn't?). Just because you can highlight some of the differences between the GPL and the US Constitution does not mean that there are no similarities.
Now, you might wish to argue that the GPL and the US Constitution don't both create systems under which the relationships between people are defined, or that they don't both deal with the rights of people under their respective systems, but I don't see how you logically can. You're welcome to try though.
Perhaps you're mistaking the restrictive actions of one of my users, or my users' users, for that of my own.
I've made no such mistake.
What I said:
"When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system."
What that means is that *YOUR* individual action (the releasing of your code under the BSD license) is more free than RMS's individual action of releasing emacs under the GPL.
HOWEVER (you knew the was coming because you re-read what I wrote above), the system your license creates is one in which freedoms are *allowed* to be taken away (or proscribed, or curtailed, or whatever verb you prefer which still amounts to the same thing).
Imagine RMS requiring everyone who gets an apple to promise not to sell it.
RMS does no such thing. Your example does not address the question. RMS (the GPL, actually) only requires that if you modify the genetics of this imaginary apple tree and *distribute* (and you can sell it if you want) the modified tree, you must make available the new genetic code under the same terms by which you acquired the original code.
This *SYSTEM* protects freedom. The system the BSD license creates, allows, and engenders, DOES NOT. That's the difference and it's exactly that which you fail to understand.
Bringing it back to the US Constitution, the Constitution, in a flawed but earnest way, tries to say, "You have absolute freedom, except that you cannot freely infringe on other's freedom, and the state has some privileges over some of your freedoms in order that it might operate and enforce the Constitution". The GPL fills the same basic role. It says you are absolutely free to use the software as you see fit except that you can't subvert that freedom for others.
Unrestricted licenses like BSD or MIT have the fewest retained privileges, and conseqently the most liberty.
As the parent poster pointed out, freedom (in the philosophical sense) does not apply to software, it applies to using the software.
The problem with the BSD/MIT licenses is that they allow freedom (of the user) to be limited (allows restrictive privileges to be taken).
Absolute freedom is impossible whenever other people are involved, so freedoms must be protected by systematic agreement (like the US Constitution, which isn't perfect). The GPL is like a constitution which prohibits slavery (limits your freedom to give away your freedom, and limits other's freedom to take away your freedom, and vice versa), and the BSD/MIT licenses are more primitive in that they allow those "freedoms".
When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system.
Well, I imagine a G 0/0 processor is prettey damn slow.
But the G5 is fast. Much faster than a P$!
No, because the iHome does not exist (well, except as a plastic and cardboard hoax mock-up).
Something like it may debut at the Keynote next week though.
How's that different from the United States?
Same reason MS won't make Office documents compatible with OpenSource XML document formats.
And then he's surprised when it escapes out in the wild.
By the same logic, should Apple also realize that once they release Tiger to developers, that it's out in the wild?
Because it's all about a system of control, not whether one person or another will eventually buy a future product license.
If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.
Yeah, right. There are soooo many problematic GPL violations being hidden behind ISP adherence to personal privacy (lol).
Any benefit (if there even *is* any) seen by the free software community will be absolutely minimal, while the actual erosion of personal liberty and privacy *will* be quite noticeable and chilling.
It looks like all the backround stars have some motion blur.
You think the stars have motion blur, look at the meteor!
The motion blur of the stars is due to their movement across the sky during the exposure (like also happened with the meteor).
he lines up facts together in a way that is designed to show you causality where none exists.
Perhaps he isn't trying to show causality, but relationship? Causality is best suited to physics, and relationships to politics.
You can write a fact only news story and keep your own personal bias out of it.
Simply choosing which facts to include requires bias.
There is no reason at all to believe further
that an entry level PC will lead to a 2nd purchase years
later of a high end PC.
There most certainly is.
Not *all* low-end Mac purchases will lead to higher margin purchases (which need only be iMacs or PowerBooks, not PowerMacs), but it's absolutely logical to presume that some will.
This process isn't a collection of unrelated actions--the $500 iMac won't exist in a vacuum. It serves a role among many in a larger plan. It helps to increase the market share. It's up to the iMac, PowerMac and PowerBook to convert those tepid consumers who are unsure about a $2,000 Mac purchase, but will more easily make a $500 Mac purchase, into additional and more profitable purchases.
This is absolutely elementary.
Market share.
What's better:
High margin Macs making up 90% of a 2% market share, or 65% of a 4% market share?
The headless iMac is seen by many as a way to further enhance and take advantage of the "halo effect' of the iPod.
Found.
.
.
.
(For those that watch Fox News, I'm joking. This explosion isn't from the fabled WMDs.)
Oh, sure. I'd MUCH rather get sued than be called a communist.
Did Apple sue you? Does Apple sue small companies every day? No. This is the CONTEXT which you have totally missed. MS does this sort of thing every day, and they do it to whole groups of people. XP authorization? Virus vulnerabilities that they could fix so extremely simply?
This was just an example that I brought up because it was today. MS is an *AWFUL* corporation. Apple is a *GREAT* corporation that fouls up now and then. Huge difference which you can easily miss if you are incapable or unwilling to consider the context--the corporations as a whole.
This lawsuit is, IMO, a *huge* mistake, and Apple deserves, IMO, to be countersued and should pay a nice, hefty, sum to Think Secret. But this is not reason to start hating Apple. If it was the sort of thing they did all the time (like SCO, RIAA, etc), then it would be worth putting Apple into the "Slashdot Most Hated" list.
So... Every now and then is okay?
Did you read where I wrote:
"and they should be reprimanded when they do foul up, like in this case"
So, is it okay? Not in an absolute sense. But in a relative sense, it's acceptable, in context. In other words, if I could mix and match and create a corporation that meets all of my moral criteria, it would *NEVER* do something stupid like this, but I cannot. I can only pick and choose from what's available.
Overall, Apple is so good that this sort of thing is more of a blemish, where as with MS it's a major personality trait.
I guess Apple bigots are the worst.
One thing is worse: people who miss the context.
Apple does things like this every now and then. These things are relatively small in scope.
Microsoft does things that are *MUCH WORSE* and they do it constantly.
As a whole, Apple is one of the *extremely* few corporations that actually *serves* humanity. They're still a corporation, so they're still going to do dumb and harmful things from time to time (and they should be reprimanded when they do foul up, like in this case).
Microsoft, on the other hand, is an *AWFUL* corporation. Read the story today where Bill Gates calls open source folks COMMUNISTS!
Yes, it's a bias. It's a bias towards companies that do things you like, and against those which do things you don't. Duh.
Context is critical. Yes, this action is bad, but the company is still good and worth defending.
Yes, but if the rumours are wrong, they can damage how any real products might be perceived.
Apple is wanting to have their cake and eat it, too.
They have a strict policy of not talking about unreleased products (except via top exec keynotes a few times a year). This secrecy *creates* a market for rumor.
But here's the kicker... The suit strongly implies that the rumors *are* true. The reason is they are stating that Think Secret is inducing people to violate their NDAs. You don't (generally) violate an NDA by making something up.
Apple is a great company, but sometimes they make mistakes, and this is one of them. They deserve to be reprimanded for this foolishness.
ALL purchases are emotional.
All rational conscious actions have an emotional motive, perhaps. But purchases can be made either rationally or irrationally in order to meet that emotional motive. *That's* what the author means.
In this case, some are simply allowing expectations to dictate their emotions.
That would be quite rational. The problem is that their expectations are false.
What emotions we feel are entirely up to us.
That is false.
that said, I'll take an average digital signal over even a high-end analog one anyday. noise, hum and distortion are NOT my friends.
Are you talking about playback or recording here? For recording, analog is still superior to digital (quality-wise). For consumer playback, it's digital all the way.
Some day digital will be adequately advanced enough to make analog irrelevant, but we aren't quite there yet.