I want to pay the person who provided the service, but pretending that something ethereal is property is not the way to do it.
The way to do it is.... ?
There are a number of ways. Pick whichever best fits your needs:
Accept donations. You still need a fulltime job, though
Live performances (concerts and such)
Concert swag
Other swag (trademark has a completely different purpose from copyright and is not evil)
People will still pay to go to a movie theater (for the big screen, the candy/soda (once the prices are low enough that they don't just smuggle things in), and the atmosphere) even if they can pirate the movie.
Many people prefer to own physical books rather than owning audiobooks or pdfs.
Open source software seems to pay for itself pretty well.
In regedit you have to "use a bit of common sense" (in other words, you have to know what the fuck you're doing). Since the PM I was talking about is a GNOME app, you don't need "common sense" to use it (i.e. it can be used by grandma who's never^H^H^H rarely seen a computer in her life)
I suppose you said the same thing about the JRE, or shockwave flash when it was first being deployed ? Any third party tool that extends the capabilities of the web browser needs to be deployed before it can be used (and hence become popular).
No, but hell, that's not MS, so nothing to bash right ?
Back when I used Windows, I installed Firefox because I was tired of all the insecure crap that MS loads IE with (e.g. ActiveX). To have MS go behind my back and load Firefox with same is completely different from JRE, Flash, etc., which I chose to install.
This might surprise you, but a lot of people use the net for more than:-
Watching the latest lolcat video - check Browsing their mail for the latest penis enlargement offer - check Posting uninformed comments to Slashdot - check
Point taken ?
What specific, popular website (other than *.microsoft.com) is nonfunctional or seriously crippled without ClickOnce?
Just to see how difficult it is I made an attempt to remove the plugin using the registry editor without consulting instructions. It's trivial, go to HKLM then Software then Mozilla Plugins, highlight it and hit delete. This doesn't remove it from the harddrive, but I'd be hesitant to do so in case of dependencies. People who know absolutely nothing about the registry shouldn't attempt it, but the same goes for people with no knowledge of a package manager (which I would consider to be a far more destructive tool).
You're wrong. In Ubuntu, go to Applications->Add/remove. I believe Ubuntu encourages users to play with this to show them the large amount of software available. It handles dependencies (unlike regedit), avoids putting your system in a broken state (unlike regedit), and, if it discovers a problem with the package state, it gives you an exact command to paste into a root shell to automagically fix it (VERY different from regedit)
Is Ubuntu's package manager so much simpler than looking in a logical location (or searching) in a GUI program and hitting delete? So much so they aren't "remotely comparable"?
Well honestly that depends on which manager you choose to use. The one I detailed above is simpler because you can't screw the system up through it (well, a qualified idiot probably could, but only via enormous ingenuity). Furthermore, it's as simple as: 1) Open the manager (Applications->Add/remove) 2) Search for "firefox" (search box in upper right; press enter or just wait) 3) Scroll down... 4) Uncheck "Ubufox extension for Firefox" (if you're not sure it's the right one, you click on it and read the description, which makes it very clear that it is the right one). 5) Press "Apply" 6) Type password (because it is installed system-wide) 7) Press Enter
Besides, real Debian based users should be using aptitude, not synaptic. But oh noes, a text user interface that can be used with a mouse in a virtual terminal is scary!
You must admit that ncurses is ugly. As for "scary", well, many people have never seen a terminal emulator (I assume you meant that and not tty[1-7] when you said "virtual terminal").
Perhaps not "as bad as the registry hell", but I would still prefer if Firefox blocked both of them until they were deletable like all other addons. I mean, have some backbone mozilla, if people don't do things properly, give them a nice big "FAIL" and send them on their merry way.
Given that the Ubuntu addon is installed system-wide and has root:root owner (as a result of being installed via APT), how, exactly, would you go about enabling the button when the user in question may or may not have root privileges?
Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
Mark it up as another example of how the Firefox developers don't understand a multi-user, restricted-user environment. It is often desirable to install programs on a machine-wide basis so that all users, regardless of their local security access, can use them. In Firefox, plugins that are installed in this manner cannot be disabled by the user, even if the user has local administrative rights on the computer.
It's the same deal with Firefox's automatic updater allowing normal users to download and try installing browser updates but then failing over and over because the user doesn't have write access to C:\Program Files\Mozilla or the HKLM portion of the registry.
The fact that Firefox disables the "Disable" and "Uninstall" buttons instead of just breaking shows that, as a matter of fact, the developers are checking permissions on the various files prior to trying to modify them. Obviously, if you don't understand a "multi-user, restricted-user environment", you won't be checking permissions. So in other words, you're wrong. The fact that these buttons are disabled isn't a bug, it's a feature. That way, sysadmins can set up Firefox to behave in a certain highly consistent fashion (i.e. they can stop the user from fucking with it).
The was dome debate on Mozillazine and probably a bug or two submitted to create a proper UI for this stuff and have a way of blocking new plugins, but the devs seem to be ignoring it for now. The have made a schoolboy error here - trying to blacklist all "bad" plugins instead of just having a UI and allowing the user to whitelist plugins as they see fit.
According to the (very long!) discussion on the bug in question, Mozilla is working on such a UI.
TrueFire DRM Error: Missile may not be fired on China or its military allies.
All DRM is hackable. Somehow I don't think the military will worry about the DMCA if the would-be plaintiff is soon to suffer a total existence failure.
Given that Nintendo is legally required to warn you prior to updating your Wii that such updates break homebrew, I cannot possibly imagine that Microsoft is allowed to break your software without your consent.
Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.
It's not paranoid, and yes they do. Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?
Because if it looks deliberate, the FTC gets mad at you. They never actually do anything, though.
If only they had released GPLv2 under GPLv2, then you could fork it yourself.
You can, but you cannot call your new license the GNU GPL v2.1, and it won't be a successor with regard to the "or any later version" clause. It will be a completely separate license, which you can use to license your own code. It is unlikely to be compatible with the GPL, so you wouldn't be able to combine it with GPL software (except for mere aggregation).
Slashdot Mirror
The way to do it is.... ?
There are a number of ways. Pick whichever best fits your needs:
Google: "filetype:torrent myMovieNameHere"
OK!
That paradox is better stated as a torrent of .torrents which do not include themselves.
I hope to a random god that that's a troll.
I wasn't aware that trolls bothered to subscribe.
In regedit you have to "use a bit of common sense" (in other words, you have to know what the fuck you're doing). Since the PM I was talking about is a GNOME app, you don't need "common sense" to use it (i.e. it can be used by grandma who's never^H^H^H rarely seen a computer in her life)
TFA contains descriptions of the emails.
What a nonsensical thing to say.
I suppose you said the same thing about the JRE, or shockwave flash when it was first being deployed ? Any third party tool that extends the capabilities of the web browser needs to be deployed before it can be used (and hence become popular).
No, but hell, that's not MS, so nothing to bash right ?
Back when I used Windows, I installed Firefox because I was tired of all the insecure crap that MS loads IE with (e.g. ActiveX). To have MS go behind my back and load Firefox with same is completely different from JRE, Flash, etc., which I chose to install.
Combo breaker!
This might surprise you, but a lot of people use the net for more than :-
Watching the latest lolcat video - check
Browsing their mail for the latest penis enlargement offer - check
Posting uninformed comments to Slashdot - check
Point taken ?
What specific, popular website (other than *.microsoft.com) is nonfunctional or seriously crippled without ClickOnce?
I swear to God, I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says 'shenanigans'!
How about this?
Just to see how difficult it is I made an attempt to remove the plugin using the registry editor without consulting instructions. It's trivial, go to HKLM then Software then Mozilla Plugins, highlight it and hit delete. This doesn't remove it from the harddrive, but I'd be hesitant to do so in case of dependencies. People who know absolutely nothing about the registry shouldn't attempt it, but the same goes for people with no knowledge of a package manager (which I would consider to be a far more destructive tool).
You're wrong. In Ubuntu, go to Applications->Add/remove. I believe Ubuntu encourages users to play with this to show them the large amount of software available. It handles dependencies (unlike regedit), avoids putting your system in a broken state (unlike regedit), and, if it discovers a problem with the package state, it gives you an exact command to paste into a root shell to automagically fix it (VERY different from regedit)
Is Ubuntu's package manager so much simpler than looking in a logical location (or searching) in a GUI program and hitting delete? So much so they aren't "remotely comparable"?
Well honestly that depends on which manager you choose to use. The one I detailed above is simpler because you can't screw the system up through it (well, a qualified idiot probably could, but only via enormous ingenuity). Furthermore, it's as simple as:
1) Open the manager (Applications->Add/remove)
2) Search for "firefox" (search box in upper right; press enter or just wait)
3) Scroll down...
4) Uncheck "Ubufox extension for Firefox" (if you're not sure it's the right one, you click on it and read the description, which makes it very clear that it is the right one).
5) Press "Apply"
6) Type password (because it is installed system-wide)
7) Press Enter
Besides, real Debian based users should be using aptitude, not synaptic. But oh noes, a text user interface that can be used with a mouse in a virtual terminal is scary!
You must admit that ncurses is ugly. As for "scary", well, many people have never seen a terminal emulator (I assume you meant that and not tty[1-7] when you said "virtual terminal").
Perhaps not "as bad as the registry hell", but I would still prefer if Firefox blocked both of them until they were deletable like all other addons. I mean, have some backbone mozilla, if people don't do things properly, give them a nice big "FAIL" and send them on their merry way.
Given that the Ubuntu addon is installed system-wide and has root:root owner (as a result of being installed via APT), how, exactly, would you go about enabling the button when the user in question may or may not have root privileges?
Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
Mark it up as another example of how the Firefox developers don't understand a multi-user, restricted-user environment. It is often desirable to install programs on a machine-wide basis so that all users, regardless of their local security access, can use them. In Firefox, plugins that are installed in this manner cannot be disabled by the user, even if the user has local administrative rights on the computer.
It's the same deal with Firefox's automatic updater allowing normal users to download and try installing browser updates but then failing over and over because the user doesn't have write access to C:\Program Files\Mozilla or the HKLM portion of the registry.
The fact that Firefox disables the "Disable" and "Uninstall" buttons instead of just breaking shows that, as a matter of fact, the developers are checking permissions on the various files prior to trying to modify them. Obviously, if you don't understand a "multi-user, restricted-user environment", you won't be checking permissions. So in other words, you're wrong. The fact that these buttons are disabled isn't a bug, it's a feature. That way, sysadmins can set up Firefox to behave in a certain highly consistent fashion (i.e. they can stop the user from fucking with it).
The was dome debate on Mozillazine and probably a bug or two submitted to create a proper UI for this stuff and have a way of blocking new plugins, but the devs seem to be ignoring it for now. The have made a schoolboy error here - trying to blacklist all "bad" plugins instead of just having a UI and allowing the user to whitelist plugins as they see fit.
According to the (very long!) discussion on the bug in question, Mozilla is working on such a UI.
And it could have a little cartoon logo that resembles the Prophet himself...
Only if you want a riot!
Fire nuclear missile to Beijing Y/N? Y
Password: ******
Processing request...
TrueFire DRM Error: Missile may not be fired on China or its military allies.
All DRM is hackable. Somehow I don't think the military will worry about the DMCA if the would-be plaintiff is soon to suffer a total existence failure.
I've seen him write an original summary!
When did this happen?
Actually, Homeopathy often dilutes the "dose" until it is improbable that there is a single molecule of the original substance remaining
Given that Nintendo is legally required to warn you prior to updating your Wii that such updates break homebrew, I cannot possibly imagine that Microsoft is allowed to break your software without your consent.
Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.
It's not paranoid, and yes they do. Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?
Because if it looks deliberate, the FTC gets mad at you. They never actually do anything, though.
Just like you have opted in to viewing kittens.
Mods, this is called "troll", not "insightful".
RTFA
Fork it and create your own.
You can't.
If only they had released GPLv2 under GPLv2, then you could fork it yourself.
You can, but you cannot call your new license the GNU GPL v2.1, and it won't be a successor with regard to the "or any later version" clause. It will be a completely separate license, which you can use to license your own code. It is unlikely to be compatible with the GPL, so you wouldn't be able to combine it with GPL software (except for mere aggregation).
No you can't:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document [the GPLv2], but changing it is not allowed.
[emphasis added]