Such a backwards society we live in, when technology is available and safe, and we delay in implementation.
Clearly a name change is needed. Just like MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) used to be called NRIs
(nuclear...). Maybe something like "elemental decay engines" would be less scary for the illiterate masses?
I can hear them now: "It has the word 'decay' in it. Is it like composting?"
So in answer to your question, adding a pole to the top of a building doesn't make it a
bigger building. To improve your buildings height you must add a spire (i.e. a real fat pole
that serves no particular purpose apart from aesthetics). The rules are stupid, I know, but
then again, I didn't make them up, and at least they stop people from using carbon fiber rods
to cheat.
The rules are indeed stupid. It all comes down to how you define terribly vague words like "building" and "structure". Here is a good (now out of date) discussion of the issue.
Don't forget the ratio of urban to rural population. A much greater proportion of people in Canada live in cities compared to the US. Again, take Alberta. We only have two cities of note here in Alberta (oh I am going to get flamed by Red Deer). Very easy to wire up most of the population when they all live in two cities. And once the cities are wired up the broadband companies _have_ to start pushing hard into the rural areas to stay competitive and keep growing for the stock market analysts.
A Logitech WingMan Gaming mouse. Unfortunately, they never upgraded that mouse shape with a scrollwheel or optical ability, so, c'est la vie. I'd kill for a optical scrollwheel version of that mouse.
Damn straight. I own three: two for home and one for work. Perfect for X. I hate wheels actually (hey everybody, spot the old-timer!), but I would love an optical version. When I phoned Logitech a while back asking if they had any leftover Wingmans lying around they said when they discontinued it they had people phoning in buying them by the dozen. I guess it was quite popular.
Not what is on TV, but how you get it. In Europe there is a standard that all digital (cable and satellite) signals use. There is a standard for decryption units/cards. When you sign up for service with FooTelly(tm) they give you a card. You can then stick that card in any third party decoder box (like this Nokia) and it will work. Great for competition and do-it-yourself-ers (check this project out).
But not here in North America. Nope, everything here has to be proprietary. We have to "let the market decide" (translation: "let the corps screw us over"). The result less competition and little innovation. I am guessing Europe is at least three years ahead on TV tech and they are pulling away because they picked ONE standard and ran with it.
There's nothing unfree about the GPL except that it doesn't allow GPL'd code to become part of proprietary code, which is really the only way to keep the code free anyway...
I wasn't trolling: there is a good point to be made here. Eventually we want these codecs to show up in commercial products, like hardware, right? Well the fact is that most companies are afraid of the GPL (hell, I'm afraid of the GPL). They would rather pay a straighforward license fee for a non-free codec than worry about the implications of dealing with the GPL. If we want to pick a codec to gain widespread adoption we should pick one with the least restrictive license: BSD. Note that in the past BSD licensed code has helped establish standards because everybody was able to use it.
As for GPL being "the only way to keep the code free" that is simply nonsense. As long as one copy is out there BSD licensed code will be free, and nobody can make every copy vanish off the face of the Earth.
Here, eat some of this shit. Don't tell anyone that it tastes like... well, shit. Our business model, you ask? As follows:
Produce crap.
Hope enough suckers buy it before it's categorized as crap.
Profit!!!
Yes, I think we just figured out step #2. Impressive!
Funny. Or at least it would be if it weren't actually true. I believe in the industry it is called "The Hollywood Strategy". It has been around for longer than SMS, I'll tell you. Studios know when they have a stinker MONTHS before it hits the theatres. They adjust their marketing to hype-overdrive but don't do any sneak previews or early viewing for reviewers. The idea is that by the time reviews come out (usually Saturday) many people will have already seen the movie. Word of mouth won't kick in until Monday when people start to talk to their coworkers. Minimize the damage: get in, grab the cash you can, get out. Modern communication (not just SMS, email and IM too) breaks this strategy. And that can only be a good thing for us consumers.
By the way, knowledge of this strategy can help spot the stinkers. If the hype machine for a movie is in overdrive but you have seen no trusted (ie. independent - not owned by a movie studio <cough>CNN<cough>) reviews by the release day DO NOT SEE IT ON RELEASE DAY. Wait a day or two for the reviews to pour in.
The obvious problem that most people are not bright enough to realize is that the studio only gets part of the gross. The theatres have to make money too, remember? The split is reported to be about 50-50, but it varies. It is generally accepted that the studios get a bigger cut at the beginning which then shifts to the theatre's advantage as time goes on. So a huge opening weekend is in the studios advantage. The theatres love movies that build/sustain an audience over time (like Titanic - they made a mint on that one).
To sum up, a movie generally has to make twice its total budget (production and marketing) to be profitable. Of course this does not take into account things like video sales, toys, etc.
Although none of the developers think it is particularly relevant, this question comes up frequently enough in the mailing lists that it is answered here. www.openbsd.org and the main OpenBSD ftp site are hosted at a SunSITE at the University of Alberta, Canada. These sites are hosted on a large Sun system, which has access to lots of storage space and Internet bandwidth. The presence of the SunSITE gives the OpenBSD group access to this bandwidth. This is why the main site runs here. Many of the OpenBSD mirror sites run OpenBSD, but since they do not have guaranteed access to this large amount of bandwidth, the group has chosen to run the main site at the University of Alberta SunSITE.
Is that really true? Doesn't the BSD no-advertisment clause count as an additional distribution restriction forbidden by the GPL?
That version of the BSD license is deader than disco. Here is what I consider the current gold standard of BSD licenses (from OpenBSD):
Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
You ever get the sense that some of the people who post about the GPL have absolutely no idea what they're talking about?
I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who release code under GPL have a hero fantasy in which Microsoft gets caught stealing their GPLed code and is thus forced to release the source for Windows, destroying them and sending Bill to the poorhouse. Then our brave coder will become a geek folk hero, showered with adoration for all time. I can see them on Letterman now: "Aw shucks, Dave, I just like writing code. I didn't plan on changing the world."
A very small group don't have this fantasy but foolishly believe that the GPL helps "free software" (whatever the hell that means).
An even smaller group understands what the GPL is actually for. These are the diehard RMS zealots who think nobody should be allowed to keep code private.
This viral stuff is backwards. I think the BSD license is actually more
viral than the GPL. Here's why:
If I decide to write a program and contribute it to free software, the
GPL assures me that it will stay free software forever. I'd be bothered
if somebody made it non-free, effectively stealing my work for their
own remuneration.
No dumbass, they can't steal your code if it is BSD licensed. What are they going to do, break into your house and remove the source from your HD? And do the same to every person who downloaded it? Repeat after me: YOU CANNOT STEAL WHAT IS FREE. As long as someone out there has a copy of your BSD code it will always be free.
The next point is that if someone copies your free BSD code and charges money for it they are NOT MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOUR CODE. Your code is FREE remember? They are making money off of whatever they added to your code (be it more code or a service contract or shiny packaging). If Microsoft takes your free BSD code, adds one line to it and charges $100 for it they are charging $100 for that one line of their code.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software,
including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license,
someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and
I'd have no recourse at all.
Why would you want recourse? How have they wronged you? You released your code under a free license, and people are using your code. Hooray! Wasn't that the point of releasing your code?
Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software
with the non-free license virus.
How can they "infect" your code? You still have your code sitting on your harddrive. What they have done is create an entirely new "thing" out of your code and their code.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified
BSD work.
Correct. Isn't that nice and free of them?
I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the
body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about
the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
Perfectly legal. That's the point of the BSD license: allow as many people as possible to use the code for whatever purpose they imagine. I doubt the authors of the BSDed code would be bothered at all. They will probably be happy it is being used - that is why they released it under the BSD license.
"You cannot steal what is FREELY AVAILABLE! You cannot patent what has already been published!"
I'm looking over the BSD license right now, and I see nothing in there that would stop, say, SCO from patenting something, then putting it into the code, then suing everyone who tries to use it.
So what? That doesn't stop anyone from using the original, freely available code, does it? Changes made to a derived work do not affect the original. They could only sue people using the code that they wrote (obviously under a different license). If you want to avoid their nasty patent you can just go get the original code. The point is that they have every right to do whatever they please with their derived work.
Unless you are implying that SCO release a patented derived work under the BSD license and then try to sue. That is simply impossible, as the BSD license grants permission to "use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee". Patent royalties would count as a fee. As soon as they release the source under a BSD license anybody could do anything with it and SCO would be SOL.
Note so we don't get way, way off-topic: I think software patents suck, and should not be allowed. But that should be done at the level of patent law, not software licensing.
"But if the code is released under GPL, I can't use it the way I want to."
Since what you want is to package the code I paid for and sell it back to me with a restrictive license that denies me many of the benefits of any improvements you might have made, I can't say I care much.
And we have finally arrived at the philosophical "meat" of the GPL vs. BSD licensing issue. I think I deserve to be compensated for any improvements that I have made to the original code and I reserve the right to keep those improvements private. You think I owe you and the rest of the world something. I don't. I did the work on the improvements, I can license them as I see fit. If you don't like it you can take the original code and attempt to duplicate my work.
No it does not. You aren't required to let anyone use your park at all. You can put a 10 metre electric fence around it and charge $10,000,000 for entry if you like. However, since your park is a modified version of the original park, if you do let someone use your park, you have to allow them to make their own park based on yours. In which case your park is still there for you to use however you want. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I understand perfectly, but I don't agree. I should not be forced to accept any restrictions on what I can do with my park just because it is a copy (modified or not) of a taxpayer funded park. I paid for that park design with my taxes, I can do what I want with the design. If someone wants to make a park like mine they can do what I did and invest the time and effort to develop their own park based on the freely available government design (which they also have a right to because they also paid taxes).
As an advocate of the BSD license I think the choice of what to do with derived works should rest with developers of said works. As a taxpayer I should not be required to fund works that I will not be able to use (copy, modify, etc.) because of licensing restrictions.
it is difficult to understand your misunderstanding.
GPL allows anyone to "use" the software. it is in redistribution of, and derivation from, that software, that the requirement to also GPL the changes you make arises. if you want to continue conflating "use" and "derive", then that's your business; no one else can make you see the difference except yourself.
I know exactly what the GPL says, and I am deliberately using the generic word "use" instead of breaking it down into "derive", "redistribute", "run a binary version of", etc. But you will notice that I usually say "use the code", the implication being that I am referring to the derivation and redistribution of the code.
The point is that there should be no such restriction in the license, I should be able to do whatever I want with the code, be that just running a binary version of, deriving a work from or redistributing. If the license dictates how I can "use" the code it is not a free license: it is a contract. To me there is no difference between a license which says "thou shalt not redistribute without releasing source" and one which says "thou shalt not use this code to make baby mulchers". I can't "use" either of them without hiring a team of lawyers to figure out what I am allowed to do. I can't afford a team of contract lawyers, so I can't use the code at all.
But why should I pay as a taxpayer once for the software to be written and again so Microsoft can sell it to me?
You are not paying for the same software twice. You pay once for code A through taxes. You pay once for MS additions B. When you buy a derived work you are not paying for the free bits, you are paying for the bits added by someone else. "Bits" being defined as any value added: code, warranty, service, etc. Unless the company did not add any bits in which case you are incredibly stupid for paying for something that is available for free from the government.
Actually it is not that simple but that is beyond the scope of this debate.
I also paid taxes on that code and also get a say in how it is used.
Which is exactly why the code should be released under a license which puts as few restrictions on its use as possible: to allow as many people as possible to use it. Take a look at the latest version of the BSD license used by OpenBSD. Simplicity itself. It says who the copyright holder is, that you can do anything with the code except change the copyright and that there is no warranty. It doesn't get much more free and straightforward than that.
"I paid taxes to develop the original code, I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it."
You can do whatever the hell you want with it, except prevent others from doing the same.
Think. If the original code is released under BSD, how can I possibly prevent others from using it as they wish? They can always grab the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it. I get to do what I want, they get to do what they want. Everybody wins. But if the code is released under GPL, I can't use it the way I want to.
I guess it also really irks you that you can't set up a toll booth at the entrance to a public park, eh?
The GPL says is that if I make a copy of the park at my own expense I have to let everyone use it. BSD says if I make a copy of the park I can put a 10 metre high electric fence around it if I want. The original park is still there, free for public use. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll bite: Canada.
He must be mellowing out.
Clearly a name change is needed. Just like MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) used to be called NRIs (nuclear ...). Maybe something like "elemental decay engines" would be less scary for the illiterate masses?
I can hear them now: "It has the word 'decay' in it. Is it like composting?"
The rules are indeed stupid. It all comes down to how you define terribly vague words like "building" and "structure". Here is a good (now out of date) discussion of the issue.
Don't forget the ratio of urban to rural population. A much greater proportion of people in Canada live in cities compared to the US. Again, take Alberta. We only have two cities of note here in Alberta (oh I am going to get flamed by Red Deer). Very easy to wire up most of the population when they all live in two cities. And once the cities are wired up the broadband companies _have_ to start pushing hard into the rural areas to stay competitive and keep growing for the stock market analysts.
Damn straight. I own three: two for home and one for work. Perfect for X. I hate wheels actually (hey everybody, spot the old-timer!), but I would love an optical version. When I phoned Logitech a while back asking if they had any leftover Wingmans lying around they said when they discontinued it they had people phoning in buying them by the dozen. I guess it was quite popular.
But not here in North America. Nope, everything here has to be proprietary. We have to "let the market decide" (translation: "let the corps screw us over"). The result less competition and little innovation. I am guessing Europe is at least three years ahead on TV tech and they are pulling away because they picked ONE standard and ran with it.
Starting Monday Space will be showing the entire Firefly run in Canada. Check your local listings and be sure to tune in. Give it a chance, it rocks!
I wasn't trolling: there is a good point to be made here. Eventually we want these codecs to show up in commercial products, like hardware, right? Well the fact is that most companies are afraid of the GPL (hell, I'm afraid of the GPL). They would rather pay a straighforward license fee for a non-free codec than worry about the implications of dealing with the GPL. If we want to pick a codec to gain widespread adoption we should pick one with the least restrictive license: BSD. Note that in the past BSD licensed code has helped establish standards because everybody was able to use it.
As for GPL being "the only way to keep the code free" that is simply nonsense. As long as one copy is out there BSD licensed code will be free, and nobody can make every copy vanish off the face of the Earth.
<cough>oxymoron<cough>
- Produce crap.
- Hope enough suckers buy it before it's categorized as crap.
- Profit!!!
Yes, I think we just figured out step #2. Impressive!Funny. Or at least it would be if it weren't actually true. I believe in the industry it is called "The Hollywood Strategy". It has been around for longer than SMS, I'll tell you. Studios know when they have a stinker MONTHS before it hits the theatres. They adjust their marketing to hype-overdrive but don't do any sneak previews or early viewing for reviewers. The idea is that by the time reviews come out (usually Saturday) many people will have already seen the movie. Word of mouth won't kick in until Monday when people start to talk to their coworkers. Minimize the damage: get in, grab the cash you can, get out. Modern communication (not just SMS, email and IM too) breaks this strategy. And that can only be a good thing for us consumers.
By the way, knowledge of this strategy can help spot the stinkers. If the hype machine for a movie is in overdrive but you have seen no trusted (ie. independent - not owned by a movie studio <cough>CNN<cough>) reviews by the release day DO NOT SEE IT ON RELEASE DAY. Wait a day or two for the reviews to pour in.
To sum up, a movie generally has to make twice its total budget (production and marketing) to be profitable. Of course this does not take into account things like video sales, toys, etc.
Yes. From the OpenBSD FAQ:
silentmaxx and Engelking both make fanless (or mostly fanless) power supplies. It make take some digging to find them on the German websites though.
Wow, I never thought of that. She had motive too, what with JFK nailing Marilyn Monroe and all.
That version of the BSD license is deader than disco. Here is what I consider the current gold standard of BSD licenses (from OpenBSD):
They fall into the last two groups. It depends on how they say it:
"I think it would be nice if you participated in open source." -> misguided GPL believer.
"You are not allowed to have private code! SHARE THE SOURCE! SHARE THE SOURCE!" -> diehard RMS zealot
I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who release code under GPL have a hero fantasy in which Microsoft gets caught stealing their GPLed code and is thus forced to release the source for Windows, destroying them and sending Bill to the poorhouse. Then our brave coder will become a geek folk hero, showered with adoration for all time. I can see them on Letterman now: "Aw shucks, Dave, I just like writing code. I didn't plan on changing the world."
A very small group don't have this fantasy but foolishly believe that the GPL helps "free software" (whatever the hell that means).
An even smaller group understands what the GPL is actually for. These are the diehard RMS zealots who think nobody should be allowed to keep code private.
If I decide to write a program and contribute it to free software, the GPL assures me that it will stay free software forever. I'd be bothered if somebody made it non-free, effectively stealing my work for their own remuneration.
No dumbass, they can't steal your code if it is BSD licensed. What are they going to do, break into your house and remove the source from your HD? And do the same to every person who downloaded it? Repeat after me: YOU CANNOT STEAL WHAT IS FREE. As long as someone out there has a copy of your BSD code it will always be free.
The next point is that if someone copies your free BSD code and charges money for it they are NOT MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOUR CODE. Your code is FREE remember? They are making money off of whatever they added to your code (be it more code or a service contract or shiny packaging). If Microsoft takes your free BSD code, adds one line to it and charges $100 for it they are charging $100 for that one line of their code.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license, someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all.
Why would you want recourse? How have they wronged you? You released your code under a free license, and people are using your code. Hooray! Wasn't that the point of releasing your code?
Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software with the non-free license virus.
How can they "infect" your code? You still have your code sitting on your harddrive. What they have done is create an entirely new "thing" out of your code and their code.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work.
Correct. Isn't that nice and free of them?
I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
Perfectly legal. That's the point of the BSD license: allow as many people as possible to use the code for whatever purpose they imagine. I doubt the authors of the BSDed code would be bothered at all. They will probably be happy it is being used - that is why they released it under the BSD license.
I'm looking over the BSD license right now, and I see nothing in there that would stop, say, SCO from patenting something, then putting it into the code, then suing everyone who tries to use it.
So what? That doesn't stop anyone from using the original, freely available code, does it? Changes made to a derived work do not affect the original. They could only sue people using the code that they wrote (obviously under a different license). If you want to avoid their nasty patent you can just go get the original code. The point is that they have every right to do whatever they please with their derived work.
Unless you are implying that SCO release a patented derived work under the BSD license and then try to sue. That is simply impossible, as the BSD license grants permission to "use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee". Patent royalties would count as a fee. As soon as they release the source under a BSD license anybody could do anything with it and SCO would be SOL.
Note so we don't get way, way off-topic: I think software patents suck, and should not be allowed. But that should be done at the level of patent law, not software licensing.
Since what you want is to package the code I paid for and sell it back to me with a restrictive license that denies me many of the benefits of any improvements you might have made, I can't say I care much.
And we have finally arrived at the philosophical "meat" of the GPL vs. BSD licensing issue. I think I deserve to be compensated for any improvements that I have made to the original code and I reserve the right to keep those improvements private. You think I owe you and the rest of the world something. I don't. I did the work on the improvements, I can license them as I see fit. If you don't like it you can take the original code and attempt to duplicate my work.
No it does not. You aren't required to let anyone use your park at all. You can put a 10 metre electric fence around it and charge $10,000,000 for entry if you like. However, since your park is a modified version of the original park, if you do let someone use your park, you have to allow them to make their own park based on yours. In which case your park is still there for you to use however you want. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I understand perfectly, but I don't agree. I should not be forced to accept any restrictions on what I can do with my park just because it is a copy (modified or not) of a taxpayer funded park. I paid for that park design with my taxes, I can do what I want with the design. If someone wants to make a park like mine they can do what I did and invest the time and effort to develop their own park based on the freely available government design (which they also have a right to because they also paid taxes).
As an advocate of the BSD license I think the choice of what to do with derived works should rest with developers of said works. As a taxpayer I should not be required to fund works that I will not be able to use (copy, modify, etc.) because of licensing restrictions.
GPL allows anyone to "use" the software. it is in redistribution of, and derivation from, that software, that the requirement to also GPL the changes you make arises. if you want to continue conflating "use" and "derive", then that's your business; no one else can make you see the difference except yourself.
I know exactly what the GPL says, and I am deliberately using the generic word "use" instead of breaking it down into "derive", "redistribute", "run a binary version of", etc. But you will notice that I usually say "use the code", the implication being that I am referring to the derivation and redistribution of the code.
The point is that there should be no such restriction in the license, I should be able to do whatever I want with the code, be that just running a binary version of, deriving a work from or redistributing. If the license dictates how I can "use" the code it is not a free license: it is a contract. To me there is no difference between a license which says "thou shalt not redistribute without releasing source" and one which says "thou shalt not use this code to make baby mulchers". I can't "use" either of them without hiring a team of lawyers to figure out what I am allowed to do. I can't afford a team of contract lawyers, so I can't use the code at all.
You are not paying for the same software twice. You pay once for code A through taxes. You pay once for MS additions B. When you buy a derived work you are not paying for the free bits, you are paying for the bits added by someone else. "Bits" being defined as any value added: code, warranty, service, etc. Unless the company did not add any bits in which case you are incredibly stupid for paying for something that is available for free from the government.
Actually it is not that simple but that is beyond the scope of this debate.
I also paid taxes on that code and also get a say in how it is used.
Which is exactly why the code should be released under a license which puts as few restrictions on its use as possible: to allow as many people as possible to use it. Take a look at the latest version of the BSD license used by OpenBSD. Simplicity itself. It says who the copyright holder is, that you can do anything with the code except change the copyright and that there is no warranty. It doesn't get much more free and straightforward than that.
You can do whatever the hell you want with it, except prevent others from doing the same.
Think. If the original code is released under BSD, how can I possibly prevent others from using it as they wish? They can always grab the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it. I get to do what I want, they get to do what they want. Everybody wins. But if the code is released under GPL, I can't use it the way I want to.
I guess it also really irks you that you can't set up a toll booth at the entrance to a public park, eh?
The GPL says is that if I make a copy of the park at my own expense I have to let everyone use it. BSD says if I make a copy of the park I can put a 10 metre high electric fence around it if I want. The original park is still there, free for public use. Why is this so difficult to understand?