"Of the few exploits that have arisen, they've mostly been related to the parts of the OS that are still closed"
That's not even remotely true. When you run Software Update, Apple lists exactly what's being updated and all of the security updates have been primarily updating free software.
And that doesn't even address your use of the word "exploits" as there have been none to date, just potential exploits and "proofs of concept" that are at best nominal exploits.
"You're 100% wrong. How has some of my code become non-free? Is hello.c gone?"
The instance of the code you wrote that is now in microsoft_hello.c has become non-free. It's, in effect, being used against you. If you want to use that instance of it, you are forced to pay.
"Now how is my code being in the public domain voluntary poverty? That's as stupid as saying that Donald Knuth has given away all of his ideas for pennies"
I'm not referring to money. The stupid thing is not what I said, but the way you interpreted it.
"The GPL really isn't about giving anything away or real freedom. It is about some clever attempt to make things look free, but in reality, give nothing away."
The GPL states: THIS SOFTWARE IS FREE AND ALWAYS WILL BE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, DON'T USE IT. The GPL contains within it the restrictions required to maintain its freedom. This is not unlike the Constitution which describes a system needed to protect the freedoms it outlines.
"Whereas the gun you give away backfires on the holder."
How the hell does the GPL "backfire" on the holder? The only person for whom it could backfire is one who intended to make some GPL'd code non-free. I feel no empathy for someone who attempts to use my generosity against me.
That's incorrect. With the BSD license your code NEVER becomes non-free. There may be implementations that USE your code which are non-free, but your code is always free.
You're the one who's quite incorrect.
If you write hello.c, and your "free" version is split into microsoft_hello.c and hello.c, *your* code has become non-free. I didn't say all of your code becomes non-free, but some of it has.
The GPL does not allow this to happen unless you do it personally with your own code.
The GPL promotes freedom and community more than the BSD license does. If you re-read my post, you'll see that that was my point, and that my claim that your code can become non-free is also correct.
I really doubt you've thought this through. You've just noticed that no matter how often your code is absconded that you'll still have your free version. That's not freedom, that's voluntary poverty. It's like you invented bricks and mortar and then told Software Corporation they could use it however they want, even if what they want is to build a wall around you. Even worse, if you later invent reinforced cement, they can just take that and fortify their wall.
That's exactly the sort of think Microsoft has done with non-GPL protected "free" software and standards. It's unfortunate that you think that's free. "Hey, check this out, I invented a gun. You can freely use the design however you want--in fact, go ahead and shoot me with it. It's your call, because this gun is free, yay freedom!"
I used "mostly" because I don't know whether or not some fusion reactor has ever created net energy. This allows for the possibility of a reactor that produces a net of 1 kilowatt (even after you take into account all the energy that went into making the energy that the reactor uses).
Even with a net gain, I'm sure it's cheaper to just run a small gas generator.
Anyway, more to the point, do *you* know there is no fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes?
I don't know either way, I *do* know, however, that it's never been enough of a net gain to be worthwhile.
"So software can be a true gift without any "strings" attached. So it isn't "rape"."
Well, I guess it's hard to rape an absolute slut, if we follow the metaphor.
"there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own"
And there are many of us who write code, that picked the GPL because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions, other than claiming it as, or treating it as, their own.
The BSD license is not the one to use if you want your software to be free, because it allows your software to become non-free. The BSD license if one to choose if you want to give the code away.
That's the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses. The GPL is about building community and promoting software freedom. The BSD license is about giving away software.
"(please enlighten me if I have misunderstood something)"
There's far more hydrogen in the world than there is oil. Plus, with fusion, you get atomic energy, not chemical energy, which provides far greater output from the same amount of mass.
The main difficulty today is that fusion generators tend to require so much energy to operate that the output from the nuclear reaction is mostly used up just powering itself.
Screw business-friendly. I'd rather be people-friendly.
I'm a person, not a business, so that's part self-interest.
Most people are people first, businesses second, so it's part humanitarian.
I suppose, however, something called "Business Week" is going to prefer the businesses. Screw 'em both when their interests conflict with human interests.
The primary purpose, was to make a copy of a DVD. The movie studio lawyers spent a lot of time arguing this point. In fact, it was difficult to use DeCSS without making a copy.
The primary purpose of DeCSS is to *play* a DVD you already own.
Did zdnet get it wrong then
I must have missed Slashdot that day. Reading the story, it's interesting that *intent* was a big factor, which contradicts other cases (such as the DeCSS case against 2600).
Perhaps I was a little too vague in my general statement about where reverse engineering was illegal, but the basic point still stands.
You were very specific and very wrong. The act of reverse engineering *can be* illegal and *actual* copyright infringement is not necessary for it to be illegal. That's what makes the DMCA so terribly bad.
Most of the time, it is perfectly legal.
That's true. I was only pointing out that you were wrong, which was interesting after complaining about those who get it wrong.
Yes, but that's not because it was reverse engineered. It was because it allowed access to a protected work.
First: That's not what you said. You said that reverse engineering was only illegal when it was actually used to make infringing copies, not that it simply allows one to do so.
Second: DeCSS is the result of reverse engineering.
But this was because it allowed people to access protected works. Not because it used reverse engineering.
Same as above.
And acquitted
Incorrect. The charges were dropped with restrictive agreements by Sklyarov and Elcomsoft.
But those threatening to do so backed down and retreated as soon as they were challenged.
Not due to the weakness of their case so much as due to the bad publicity of suing a professor (as well as fear that they could lose the case).
No they haven't. The copyright office has said as much. There is merely a temporary injunction on them while the legal dispute continues. In this casem I suspect they are making infringing copies of the cartridges.
The case is still pending. However the copyright office can say whatever it wants with no effect. It's the court that matters.
The fact is, some instances of reverse engineering that would otherwise be legal are illegal under the DMCA.
So why aren't the people who said they were making a computer "for the rest of us," making a computer that the rest of us might want to buy?
Maybe you aren't a member of "the rest of us". Part of the appeal of Apple hardware is that it just works. Plug it in, it works. Allow for easy modification and you open the door to things that don't work. Ok, power users still want that flexibility, so there's the PowerMac which lets you do just that.
On the home user front, most of them just want their computer to run like a television--plug it in, connect a few well-defined cables, and you're up an running. Make it easy to open and expand (like the PowerMac) and people will start trying to plug in random cards from Office Depot or from their old PC and things will not work so well, if at all.
You're not the rest of us, you're the elite. Get a PowerMac if you want OS X + modifiability.
As for this:
But it's married to the most user-hostile hardware on the planet.
Your definition of "user" is definitely not the rest of us if you think their hardware is user-hostile.
More like 20-50 years. Try to convince 300million+ Americans to get new (and certainly more expensive) televisions that can pick up more channels per frequency range.
In the meantime our lives will just get worse and worse and when things do pick up, it will be much longer for the culture to change for the better (or if it happens quickly, it will be *very* painful).
Or we could more forward now by busting up a few companies. Sure, we'll still need to go for more rational FCC frequency allocation and the like. Why not do both? Using reason, we can bring the future (a future that's 30-70 years out if we go all laissez-faire) here much more quickly.
So, am I worried about media consolidation? No. Am I worried about Internet censorship and Internet Provider consolidation? Yes. Actually a lot more worried.
You should be worried by media consolidation. Without a free and diverse media, who's going to debate the issue of Internet censorship and consolidation?
Once the Internet surpasses the influence of the media on our culture and government, fine. But until then, even if you avoid television like the plague that it is, to discount the effects of its influence on others is folly.
More apt would be The Fountainhead. Supporting the big media is advocating the existence of the Wynand empire.
As for Atlas Shrugged, what happens when Taggart Transcontinental is passed on to a James Taggart without a Dagny to keep things running? National economic collapse will ensue (even with a perfect government) because the fortunes of the nation depends on many things, including the ability to transport goods.
When somebody fouls up the transportation system, we as a nation have not only the right but the responsibility to intervene, and government is the most effective means we have of doing so. Same with the media. Our media is pathetic and it's long past time to do something about it.
You got that completely backwards. He's in the *perfect* position to talk about big media. He's telling us that he's done what has to be done to succeed in the media biz, and that what has to be done is detrimental to the rest of us.
Evil usually tries to get you to think it's good (Microsoft, for example). When it tells you just how evil it is, pay attention.
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
A good start would be to enforce the laws (antitrust) that we already have. They aren't generally enforced by republicans (esp. the current lot), who adhere to the religious dogma that what's good for the corporation is good for America.
Sure, sometimes that's true, but sometimes it most clearly (often painfully clearly) isn't.
The only way someone could rationally support the idea that the concentration of power in the hands of the few is good is if they are a member of (or at least good friends/subjects of) that few.
Slashdot Mirror
"Of the few exploits that have arisen, they've mostly been related to the parts of the OS that are still closed"
That's not even remotely true. When you run Software Update, Apple lists exactly what's being updated and all of the security updates have been primarily updating free software.
And that doesn't even address your use of the word "exploits" as there have been none to date, just potential exploits and "proofs of concept" that are at best nominal exploits.
"You're 100% wrong. How has some of my code become non-free? Is hello.c gone?"
The instance of the code you wrote that is now in microsoft_hello.c has become non-free. It's, in effect, being used against you. If you want to use that instance of it, you are forced to pay.
"Now how is my code being in the public domain voluntary poverty? That's as stupid as saying that Donald Knuth has given away all of his ideas for pennies"
I'm not referring to money. The stupid thing is not what I said, but the way you interpreted it.
"The GPL really isn't about giving anything away or real freedom. It is about some clever attempt to make things look free, but in reality, give nothing away."
The GPL states: THIS SOFTWARE IS FREE AND ALWAYS WILL BE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, DON'T USE IT. The GPL contains within it the restrictions required to maintain its freedom. This is not unlike the Constitution which describes a system needed to protect the freedoms it outlines.
"Whereas the gun you give away backfires on the holder."
How the hell does the GPL "backfire" on the holder? The only person for whom it could backfire is one who intended to make some GPL'd code non-free. I feel no empathy for someone who attempts to use my generosity against me.
"The BSD license is more about Freedom."
Wrong, the BSD license is more about letting others take away your freedom.
True freedom must be protected. The BSD license does *nothing* to protect freedom.
"The GPL is more about Fairness."
The GPL is more about Freedom, Fairness and Community.
"We mustn't confuse the two."
Correct.
That's incorrect. With the BSD license your code NEVER becomes non-free. There may be implementations that USE your code which are non-free, but your code is always free.
You're the one who's quite incorrect.
If you write hello.c, and your "free" version is split into microsoft_hello.c and hello.c, *your* code has become non-free. I didn't say all of your code becomes non-free, but some of it has.
The GPL does not allow this to happen unless you do it personally with your own code.
The GPL promotes freedom and community more than the BSD license does. If you re-read my post, you'll see that that was my point, and that my claim that your code can become non-free is also correct.
I really doubt you've thought this through. You've just noticed that no matter how often your code is absconded that you'll still have your free version. That's not freedom, that's voluntary poverty. It's like you invented bricks and mortar and then told Software Corporation they could use it however they want, even if what they want is to build a wall around you. Even worse, if you later invent reinforced cement, they can just take that and fortify their wall.
That's exactly the sort of think Microsoft has done with non-GPL protected "free" software and standards. It's unfortunate that you think that's free. "Hey, check this out, I invented a gun. You can freely use the design however you want--in fact, go ahead and shoot me with it. It's your call, because this gun is free, yay freedom!"
I used "mostly" because I don't know whether or not some fusion reactor has ever created net energy. This allows for the possibility of a reactor that produces a net of 1 kilowatt (even after you take into account all the energy that went into making the energy that the reactor uses).
Even with a net gain, I'm sure it's cheaper to just run a small gas generator.
Anyway, more to the point, do *you* know there is no fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes?
I don't know either way, I *do* know, however, that it's never been enough of a net gain to be worthwhile.
"So software can be a true gift without any "strings" attached. So it isn't "rape"."
Well, I guess it's hard to rape an absolute slut, if we follow the metaphor.
"there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own"
And there are many of us who write code, that picked the GPL because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions, other than claiming it as, or treating it as, their own.
The BSD license is not the one to use if you want your software to be free, because it allows your software to become non-free. The BSD license if one to choose if you want to give the code away.
That's the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses. The GPL is about building community and promoting software freedom. The BSD license is about giving away software.
"(please enlighten me if I have misunderstood something)"
There's far more hydrogen in the world than there is oil. Plus, with fusion, you get atomic energy, not chemical energy, which provides far greater output from the same amount of mass.
The main difficulty today is that fusion generators tend to require so much energy to operate that the output from the nuclear reaction is mostly used up just powering itself.
Screw business-friendly. I'd rather be people-friendly.
I'm a person, not a business, so that's part self-interest.
Most people are people first, businesses second, so it's part humanitarian.
I suppose, however, something called "Business Week" is going to prefer the businesses. Screw 'em both when their interests conflict with human interests.
It should actually read:
A lower cost to 0wn3rsh1p.
i am the public
No, you are a retard.
The primary purpose, was to make a copy of a DVD. The movie studio lawyers spent a lot of time arguing this point. In fact, it was difficult to use DeCSS without making a copy.
The primary purpose of DeCSS is to *play* a DVD you already own.
Did zdnet get it wrong then
I must have missed Slashdot that day. Reading the story, it's interesting that *intent* was a big factor, which contradicts other cases (such as the DeCSS case against 2600).
Perhaps I was a little too vague in my general statement about where reverse engineering was illegal, but the basic point still stands.
You were very specific and very wrong. The act of reverse engineering *can be* illegal and *actual* copyright infringement is not necessary for it to be illegal. That's what makes the DMCA so terribly bad.
Most of the time, it is perfectly legal.
That's true. I was only pointing out that you were wrong, which was interesting after complaining about those who get it wrong.
Yes, but that's not because it was reverse engineered. It was because it allowed access to a protected work.
First: That's not what you said. You said that reverse engineering was only illegal when it was actually used to make infringing copies, not that it simply allows one to do so.
Second: DeCSS is the result of reverse engineering.
But this was because it allowed people to access protected works. Not because it used reverse engineering.
Same as above.
And acquitted
Incorrect. The charges were dropped with restrictive agreements by Sklyarov and Elcomsoft.
But those threatening to do so backed down and retreated as soon as they were challenged.
Not due to the weakness of their case so much as due to the bad publicity of suing a professor (as well as fear that they could lose the case).
No they haven't. The copyright office has said as much. There is merely a temporary injunction on them while the legal dispute continues. In this casem I suspect they are making infringing copies of the cartridges.
The case is still pending. However the copyright office can say whatever it wants with no effect. It's the court that matters.
The fact is, some instances of reverse engineering that would otherwise be legal are illegal under the DMCA.
Yeah, except that Real's store sells 192kbps AAC files.
I agree, it's really annoying (not to mention dangerous).
Hey, here's one:
The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
You are, indeed, quite incorrect.
If damage done to Real helps to bring that about, well and good! -- but otherwise, it's quite unkind to wish for another to be harmed.
Another what be harmed? I am not a corporation.
Your .sig:
Microsoft is to OSS as Evian is to tap water.
I don't quite understand. Everyone knows Evian is simply "Naive" spelled backwards, which describes the situation well.
But what does "Tfosorcim" mean?
So why aren't the people who said they were making a computer "for the rest of us," making a computer that the rest of us might want to buy?
Maybe you aren't a member of "the rest of us". Part of the appeal of Apple hardware is that it just works. Plug it in, it works. Allow for easy modification and you open the door to things that don't work. Ok, power users still want that flexibility, so there's the PowerMac which lets you do just that.
On the home user front, most of them just want their computer to run like a television--plug it in, connect a few well-defined cables, and you're up an running. Make it easy to open and expand (like the PowerMac) and people will start trying to plug in random cards from Office Depot or from their old PC and things will not work so well, if at all.
You're not the rest of us, you're the elite. Get a PowerMac if you want OS X + modifiability.
As for this:
But it's married to the most user-hostile hardware on the planet.
Your definition of "user" is definitely not the rest of us if you think their hardware is user-hostile.
IT people annoy *you*.
Come to think of it, it's the same here too...
just give it another 5-10 years.
More like 20-50 years. Try to convince 300million+ Americans to get new (and certainly more expensive) televisions that can pick up more channels per frequency range.
In the meantime our lives will just get worse and worse and when things do pick up, it will be much longer for the culture to change for the better (or if it happens quickly, it will be *very* painful).
Or we could more forward now by busting up a few companies. Sure, we'll still need to go for more rational FCC frequency allocation and the like. Why not do both? Using reason, we can bring the future (a future that's 30-70 years out if we go all laissez-faire) here much more quickly.
So, am I worried about media consolidation? No. Am I worried about Internet censorship and Internet Provider consolidation? Yes. Actually a lot more worried.
You should be worried by media consolidation. Without a free and diverse media, who's going to debate the issue of Internet censorship and consolidation?
Once the Internet surpasses the influence of the media on our culture and government, fine. But until then, even if you avoid television like the plague that it is, to discount the effects of its influence on others is folly.
More apt would be The Fountainhead. Supporting the big media is advocating the existence of the Wynand empire.
As for Atlas Shrugged, what happens when Taggart Transcontinental is passed on to a James Taggart without a Dagny to keep things running? National economic collapse will ensue (even with a perfect government) because the fortunes of the nation depends on many things, including the ability to transport goods.
When somebody fouls up the transportation system, we as a nation have not only the right but the responsibility to intervene, and government is the most effective means we have of doing so. Same with the media. Our media is pathetic and it's long past time to do something about it.
You got that completely backwards. He's in the *perfect* position to talk about big media. He's telling us that he's done what has to be done to succeed in the media biz, and that what has to be done is detrimental to the rest of us.
Evil usually tries to get you to think it's good (Microsoft, for example). When it tells you just how evil it is, pay attention.
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
A good start would be to enforce the laws (antitrust) that we already have. They aren't generally enforced by republicans (esp. the current lot), who adhere to the religious dogma that what's good for the corporation is good for America.
Sure, sometimes that's true, but sometimes it most clearly (often painfully clearly) isn't.
The only way someone could rationally support the idea that the concentration of power in the hands of the few is good is if they are a member of (or at least good friends/subjects of) that few.
i'm a very busy man.
Then what are you doing reading this reply?
A-ha!
Organic instuments never really appealed to me
Hey now... Don't ask, don't tell, a'ight?