Being against globalization (and/or automation) is like looking at a car with faulty brakes and fix it by removing the engine.
We have the potential of doing the necessary political and social reforms to ensure much higher worldwide prosperity, but globalization opponents prefer to condemn hundreds of millions to abject poverty because it's easier to just ban offshoring.
Actually, they did deduplication of files, so there was really only one copy, with multiple links to it. They just took down a particular link when they got a DMCA missive.
Personally, my issue with it is that a file is never infringing by itself - it depends on whether the person who uploaded it has a license to do so or not. So even if a particular link is infringing, MU had no way to know if the others were too.
What they appear to be accusing MU of is having deduplication and therefore knowing that there were multiple links to the same file, only taking down the links actually identified in a DMCA 512(c) takedown, and having actual knowledge that other links to the same file were also copyright-infringing and doing nothing about it.
Uh, no, they didn't know (at least, not legally) that the other links were infringing.
If I take a picture and upload it to e.g. Flickr, and then someone else downloads it from my profile and uploads to his, that copy is infringing and mine isn't, even though it's the same file.
Whether a file is infringing depends on its colour, not just on its bits.
It's the over-reliance of gadgets that are making us more and more lazy
That's just another way of saying effective. Time gained by offloading unimportant tasks to machines is time that can be better spent on more important goals. And yes, "having fun" fits too.
And the most dangerous part is, we are at the verge of being so lazy that we may become too lazy to think, to memorize, to use our own brain
I suppose you're demonstrating that by making big claims without showing the evidence that supports them?
5 or 6 generations ago, the whole world could go on functioning without electricity
3 or 4 generations ago, human beings started relying on electricity
And now, if there is a black-out, you see people started panicking
3 or 4 generation ago, banks could go on functioning without computers
Now? If the "system down" sign is up, there is a sure bet that you won't be able to do almost any transaction in a bank
Human nature, being human nature, we should know when to put a stop before it becomes too late
Over-reliance on the smart phone will only get us into yet another pitfall --- what if the smartphone breaks down? What if the GPS gadgets break down? Are we able to function without them?
So? Worse things have happened and we've pretty much always survived. Occasional blackouts are just a nuisance, nothing more than a drop in a bucket compared to the advantages of these systems, and if shit really hits the fans and the systems go down permanently, our survival instincts will kick-in.
If members from the nobility who were used since birth to have servants to take care of their every need are able to do whatever it takes to eat and survive, I think we can l live without GPS or smartphones. Well, I still do, but it's not because I share your concerns.
So, all anyone has to do is strip out your comments (comments are creative and such are protected by copyright), replace the code in the function bodies with their own (except for the "only one way to do it" aka "scenes a faire" code, which they can copy verbatim), replace any copyrighted images, text strings and other protected elements, and release a completely closed source, fully binary compatible clone under the license of their choosing.
So you can use GPLed code, as long as you re-implement all the code? Yes, that's exactly what I said - let them write the code.
Or, they can in the alternative dynamically patch the code in memory on loading (copyright protection doesn't apply to code that is not "permanently fixed in some medium" - anything loaded into ram is fair game as long as you don't save the result to disk or some other (at least semi)-permanent medium) and not release the sources for the patcher - and no, this does not fall under the definition of linking so that provision is not triggered.
So I can just write an application that downloads a freeware proprietary application from another developer and uses its code as long as I don't write it to disk? I'm sure some pretty big companies won't be happy to know that.
By the way, in what case law do you base that interpretation of derivative works?
Now, normally people wouldn't bother - but with the past abuses of the gpl by the FSF and company to peddle FUD and misinformation, there's a growing willingness to give them a good smack-down and end this nonsense by attacking the gpl directly.
Where?
The ABM (Apache, *BSD, MIT) licenses have proven to be less likely to cause the numerous forks that result in wasted resources and duplication of effort than the gpl (FreeBSD by itself is more than 75% of all *BSDs, compared to how many linux distros to reach that same 75%????), and they still get code contributions, so there's really no reason to stick with the gpl anyway - which is one reason why gpl adoption percentages are shrinking.
Fine by me. I like free software of all kinds. But I don't see what the license has anything to do with forks. Forks are done because the project isn't going in a direction you'd like, not because of licensing issues.
And of course, all this ignores the *huge* growth in closed-source code in the last few years. The market is speaking, and except for common infrastructure, most people want the benefits of closed-source software, which includes more stable funding for maintaining and improving the software, and people being paid to find the bugs (nobody wants to do bug hunts in free software - they're all too busy scratching their own itches) and quality assurance.
No. People want the benefits of commercial software, closed or open. If being closed was the issue then they'd be choosing Windows Phone instead of Android.
It's parametric polymorphism (a generic programming feature), not duck typing. Essentially, the compiler will generate (on compile-time, not runtime) two different instances of the factorial function, one for x as a float and one for x as an int.
If factorial is called with an invalid type (one for which the compiler can't generate a valid implementation of the function), that error will be detected at compile time.
First, please stop calling it "commercial" software. Open source - even GPLed - software can be commercial too, and there are plenty of examples of such. We're talking about proprietary software.
Cutting it right there. You obviously misread my post. I have never ever claimed that proprietary licensing was any solution -- absolutely not -- I am an eager fan and user of open source software every day, but I also want to use it in my professional work.
You can. As long as you license it under the GPL. If you insist on restricting the users of your own software, who are you to criticize the GPL?
However, GPL is inherently incompatible with software that is not open source, so it is not really "free".
Incompatible freedoms. Just like my freedom of punching you is incompatible with your freedom of not being punched, your freedom of restricting your users is incompatible with their four freedoms.
Usually what people care about in copyright is not really the right to very strictly control the reuse of your source code, but the so-called artistic "moral rights"
It is? I'd like to know on what you base that claim, please.
GPL is just prohibiting the reuse of your code for no reasonable purposes, if all you want is acknowledgement and recognition -- the copyright hack part is by large redundant, but also restrictive and hostile to commercial reuse.
"No reasonable purposes" is subjective. Obviously the creators of the GPL and many of its users disagree.
Although I am perfectly aware there there are many people who really believe in the FSF mantra, this is just a small fraction of open source developers.
Again, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for a citation for that. In any case, not "believing the FSF mantra" does not mean they don't want copyleft - for example, dual-licensing under both the GPL and a proprietary non-"viral" license is very common (as MySQL AB used to say, if you're Free, we're Free, if you're proprietary, we're commercial). A non-copyleft license like the BSD or MIT wouldn't work for this purpose.
For each GNU person, there are several people who feel excluded and deprived because they can not use this supposedly "free" software.
Yeah, mostly proprietary software developers who want to use the efforts of free software developers while locking their own users up. I couldn't care less - let them write their own code.
I think in most instances, the original creator of the GPL software would be happy to share the source code of their creation for a simple attribution even to closed source software, but the GPL specifically disallows this.
And of course the GPL disallows that - that's its whole purpose. Your argument is more or less like saying "I think in most instances, drivers of SUVs wanted a small compact car" and then criticizing the SUV for not being a compact car. It makes no sense.
So it seems to be in contrast with what most people perceive and believe free software to actually be!
If it is, it's the developers fault for choosing a license they don't like. And in any case, they can switch at any time, they're never locked to the GPL.
By the way, I'm guessing you think that because you want to, or do you have any evidence that points to that?
Anonymous started out by raiding forums for epileptics and posting images designed to trigger seizures.
Being for or against Anonymous is meaningless. They're not a group with a purpose and a manifesto, they'll do whatever the random group of people who call themselves Anonymous that day will want to do.
If you know enough to use a sandbox, you shouldn't be using LOIC to DoS a webserver anyway, since it's not effective. Something that works at the HTTP level (like Slowloris for Apache servers) will be way more effective.
Your "No" baffles me. What you wrote in no way contradicts what I wrote. I wasn't dissing on the BSD, what I was saying is that the only reason such restrictions exist is because of copyright. Eliminate copyright, and such restrictions disappear.
Well technically yes. But that's only unless I want to make use of those modification by e.g. publishing the application that contains some GPL code â" even if the GPL part of my application is just a tiny part of the larger application.
Again, it's copyright law that determines what is a derivative work and what isn't. Licenses like the GPL don't have the power to decide that. So go complain at your legislators and tell them to change the definition of derivative work.
Few? Have you ever actually tried reading the GPL? It is not on par with an MS EULA's, but doesn't come very far. If I wanted to distribute my creations to the greater public, I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.
I'd say the length of the GPL license is a result of its purpose.
You should remember that copyleft is essentially an hack* on copyright which they wanted to make sure it was legally sound and would hold up in court, while the BSD license was just something they had to put in the code so other people could use it.
GPL is bullsh*t because it presents itself as a free license and makes a loud claim of freedom etc. etc., but it actually takes those freedoms away from your users and restricts their use of your source code â" thus it's anti-innovative and anti-progress (unless you subscribe to GPL as well â" but then again, that's rarely possible in real world end user applications.)
First, let me ask this: if the GPL is anti-innovate and anti-progress because it prevents the users from using the source code, how is a proprietary license - that you claim to be inevitable - not even MORE anti-innovative and anti-progress? Your position is inconsistent and frankly, I regard developers of proprietary programs that complain about the restrictions of the GPL as hypocrites and I don't really give a shit about their complaints. If you want to restrict people from even adapting their copies of the programs to their needs, you can develop your own code instead of sucking off from free software projects.
Now, if you were complaining because you wanted to release all your projects as BSD/MIT/etc, then you have a point, and I admit I'm thorn about the GPL because of that - it takes from non-copyleft free software projects but doesn't "give back".
It's fine as long as you don't need to use that software commercially. But in the commercial world you need to be able to edit the source code of the
GPL does the exact opposite of what it pretends to promise: it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.
Wrong, completely wrong.
First, nothing restricts you from editing the source code.
Second, what restricts you from distributing the code as you want is copyright. The GPL unrestricts it, as long as you comply with a few requirements.
There's absolutely no point in releasing it under both the GPL and the BSD, since if you use one of the new BSD licenses (like the one used by FreeBSD), it's completely GPL compatible.
Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.
Wrong. I, and no doubt others, support the GPL as long as copyright exists. Eliminating copyright would automatically give everyone freedoms 0 and 2 over any software package, making the GPL less important.
Slashdot Mirror
They're ORs, not XORs!
Being against globalization (and/or automation) is like looking at a car with faulty brakes and fix it by removing the engine.
We have the potential of doing the necessary political and social reforms to ensure much higher worldwide prosperity, but globalization opponents prefer to condemn hundreds of millions to abject poverty because it's easier to just ban offshoring.
and never use Twitter
You don't use Twitter because they might misuse your private data? Can you even post something privately on Twitter?
It is if you're trying to disprove facts with one.
Actually, they did deduplication of files, so there was really only one copy, with multiple links to it. They just took down a particular link when they got a DMCA missive.
Personally, my issue with it is that a file is never infringing by itself - it depends on whether the person who uploaded it has a license to do so or not. So even if a particular link is infringing, MU had no way to know if the others were too.
What they appear to be accusing MU of is having deduplication and therefore knowing that there were multiple links to the same file, only taking down the links actually identified in a DMCA 512(c) takedown, and having actual knowledge that other links to the same file were also copyright-infringing and doing nothing about it.
Uh, no, they didn't know (at least, not legally) that the other links were infringing.
If I take a picture and upload it to e.g. Flickr, and then someone else downloads it from my profile and uploads to his, that copy is infringing and mine isn't, even though it's the same file.
Whether a file is infringing depends on its colour, not just on its bits.
And it's true. They only forgot to add that you'll need social and political changes to achieve that; technology doesn't solve everything.
Can't you disable everything by putting the phone in airplane mode?
It's the over-reliance of gadgets that are making us more and more lazy
That's just another way of saying effective. Time gained by offloading unimportant tasks to machines is time that can be better spent on more important goals. And yes, "having fun" fits too.
And the most dangerous part is, we are at the verge of being so lazy that we may become too lazy to think, to memorize, to use our own brain
I suppose you're demonstrating that by making big claims without showing the evidence that supports them?
5 or 6 generations ago, the whole world could go on functioning without electricity
3 or 4 generations ago, human beings started relying on electricity
And now, if there is a black-out, you see people started panicking
3 or 4 generation ago, banks could go on functioning without computers
Now? If the "system down" sign is up, there is a sure bet that you won't be able to do almost any transaction in a bank
Human nature, being human nature, we should know when to put a stop before it becomes too late
Over-reliance on the smart phone will only get us into yet another pitfall --- what if the smartphone breaks down? What if the GPS gadgets break down? Are we able to function without them?
So? Worse things have happened and we've pretty much always survived. Occasional blackouts are just a nuisance, nothing more than a drop in a bucket compared to the advantages of these systems, and if shit really hits the fans and the systems go down permanently, our survival instincts will kick-in.
If members from the nobility who were used since birth to have servants to take care of their every need are able to do whatever it takes to eat and survive, I think we can l live without GPS or smartphones. Well, I still do, but it's not because I share your concerns.
So, all anyone has to do is strip out your comments (comments are creative and such are protected by copyright), replace the code in the function bodies with their own (except for the "only one way to do it" aka "scenes a faire" code, which they can copy verbatim), replace any copyrighted images, text strings and other protected elements, and release a completely closed source, fully binary compatible clone under the license of their choosing.
So you can use GPLed code, as long as you re-implement all the code? Yes, that's exactly what I said - let them write the code.
Or, they can in the alternative dynamically patch the code in memory on loading (copyright protection doesn't apply to code that is not "permanently fixed in some medium" - anything loaded into ram is fair game as long as you don't save the result to disk or some other (at least semi)-permanent medium) and not release the sources for the patcher - and no, this does not fall under the definition of linking so that provision is not triggered.
So I can just write an application that downloads a freeware proprietary application from another developer and uses its code as long as I don't write it to disk? I'm sure some pretty big companies won't be happy to know that.
By the way, in what case law do you base that interpretation of derivative works?
Now, normally people wouldn't bother - but with the past abuses of the gpl by the FSF and company to peddle FUD and misinformation, there's a growing willingness to give them a good smack-down and end this nonsense by attacking the gpl directly.
Where?
The ABM (Apache, *BSD, MIT) licenses have proven to be less likely to cause the numerous forks that result in wasted resources and duplication of effort than the gpl (FreeBSD by itself is more than 75% of all *BSDs, compared to how many linux distros to reach that same 75%????), and they still get code contributions, so there's really no reason to stick with the gpl anyway - which is one reason why gpl adoption percentages are shrinking.
Fine by me. I like free software of all kinds. But I don't see what the license has anything to do with forks. Forks are done because the project isn't going in a direction you'd like, not because of licensing issues.
And of course, all this ignores the *huge* growth in closed-source code in the last few years. The market is speaking, and except for common infrastructure, most people want the benefits of closed-source software, which includes more stable funding for maintaining and improving the software, and people being paid to find the bugs (nobody wants to do bug hunts in free software - they're all too busy scratching their own itches) and quality assurance.
No. People want the benefits of commercial software, closed or open. If being closed was the issue then they'd be choosing Windows Phone instead of Android.
Because one can easily recognize their own kind?
It's parametric polymorphism (a generic programming feature), not duck typing. Essentially, the compiler will generate (on compile-time, not runtime) two different instances of the factorial function, one for x as a float and one for x as an int.
If factorial is called with an invalid type (one for which the compiler can't generate a valid implementation of the function), that error will be detected at compile time.
First, please stop calling it "commercial" software. Open source - even GPLed - software can be commercial too, and there are plenty of examples of such. We're talking about proprietary software.
Cutting it right there. You obviously misread my post. I have never ever claimed that proprietary licensing was any solution -- absolutely not -- I am an eager fan and user of open source software every day, but I also want to use it in my professional work.
You can. As long as you license it under the GPL. If you insist on restricting the users of your own software, who are you to criticize the GPL?
However, GPL is inherently incompatible with software that is not open source, so it is not really "free".
Incompatible freedoms. Just like my freedom of punching you is incompatible with your freedom of not being punched, your freedom of restricting your users is incompatible with their four freedoms.
Usually what people care about in copyright is not really the right to very strictly control the reuse of your source code, but the so-called artistic "moral rights"
It is? I'd like to know on what you base that claim, please.
GPL is just prohibiting the reuse of your code for no reasonable purposes, if all you want is acknowledgement and recognition -- the copyright hack part is by large redundant, but also restrictive and hostile to commercial reuse.
"No reasonable purposes" is subjective. Obviously the creators of the GPL and many of its users disagree.
Although I am perfectly aware there there are many people who really believe in the FSF mantra, this is just a small fraction of open source developers.
Again, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for a citation for that. In any case, not "believing the FSF mantra" does not mean they don't want copyleft - for example, dual-licensing under both the GPL and a proprietary non-"viral" license is very common (as MySQL AB used to say, if you're Free, we're Free, if you're proprietary, we're commercial). A non-copyleft license like the BSD or MIT wouldn't work for this purpose.
For each GNU person, there are several people who feel excluded and deprived because they can not use this supposedly "free" software.
Yeah, mostly proprietary software developers who want to use the efforts of free software developers while locking their own users up. I couldn't care less - let them write their own code.
I think in most instances, the original creator of the GPL software would be happy to share the source code of their creation for a simple attribution even to closed source software, but the GPL specifically disallows this.
And of course the GPL disallows that - that's its whole purpose. Your argument is more or less like saying "I think in most instances, drivers of SUVs wanted a small compact car" and then criticizing the SUV for not being a compact car. It makes no sense.
So it seems to be in contrast with what most people perceive and believe free software to actually be!
If it is, it's the developers fault for choosing a license they don't like. And in any case, they can switch at any time, they're never locked to the GPL.
By the way, I'm guessing you think that because you want to, or do you have any evidence that points to that?
I'm a dynamic languages guy, but to be fair, that tedium is Java's fault, not the static typing. A good typing system will have inference.
factorial x = if x == 0 then 1 else x * factorial (x-1)
This is statically typed code in Haskell, but as you can see there are no type declarations to be seen.
Anonymous started out by raiding forums for epileptics and posting images designed to trigger seizures.
Being for or against Anonymous is meaningless. They're not a group with a purpose and a manifesto, they'll do whatever the random group of people who call themselves Anonymous that day will want to do.
If you know enough to use a sandbox, you shouldn't be using LOIC to DoS a webserver anyway, since it's not effective. Something that works at the HTTP level (like Slowloris for Apache servers) will be way more effective.
Your "No" baffles me. What you wrote in no way contradicts what I wrote. I wasn't dissing on the BSD, what I was saying is that the only reason such restrictions exist is because of copyright. Eliminate copyright, and such restrictions disappear.
Well technically yes. But that's only unless I want to make use of those modification by e.g. publishing the application that contains some GPL code â" even if the GPL part of my application is just a tiny part of the larger application.
Again, it's copyright law that determines what is a derivative work and what isn't. Licenses like the GPL don't have the power to decide that. So go complain at your legislators and tell them to change the definition of derivative work.
Few? Have you ever actually tried reading the GPL? It is not on par with an MS EULA's, but doesn't come very far. If I wanted to distribute my creations to the greater public, I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.
I'd say the length of the GPL license is a result of its purpose.
You should remember that copyleft is essentially an hack* on copyright which they wanted to make sure it was legally sound and would hold up in court, while the BSD license was just something they had to put in the code so other people could use it.
GPL is bullsh*t because it presents itself as a free license and makes a loud claim of freedom etc. etc., but it actually takes those freedoms away from your users and restricts their use of your source code â" thus it's anti-innovative and anti-progress (unless you subscribe to GPL as well â" but then again, that's rarely possible in real world end user applications.)
First, let me ask this: if the GPL is anti-innovate and anti-progress because it prevents the users from using the source code, how is a proprietary license - that you claim to be inevitable - not even MORE anti-innovative and anti-progress? Your position is inconsistent and frankly, I regard developers of proprietary programs that complain about the restrictions of the GPL as hypocrites and I don't really give a shit about their complaints. If you want to restrict people from even adapting their copies of the programs to their needs, you can develop your own code instead of sucking off from free software projects.
Now, if you were complaining because you wanted to release all your projects as BSD/MIT/etc, then you have a point, and I admit I'm thorn about the GPL because of that - it takes from non-copyleft free software projects but doesn't "give back".
Yeah, but Valve has a credibility - particularly in this space - that Phantom never had.
GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others
No. That's copyright. The GPL doesn't add any restrictions, it eliminates them, under certain conditions.
It's fine as long as you don't need to use that software commercially. But in the commercial world you need to be able to edit the source code of the
GPL does the exact opposite of what it pretends to promise: it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.
Wrong, completely wrong.
First, nothing restricts you from editing the source code.
Second, what restricts you from distributing the code as you want is copyright. The GPL unrestricts it, as long as you comply with a few requirements.
There's absolutely no point in releasing it under both the GPL and the BSD, since if you use one of the new BSD licenses (like the one used by FreeBSD), it's completely GPL compatible.
Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.
Wrong. I, and no doubt others, support the GPL as long as copyright exists. Eliminating copyright would automatically give everyone freedoms 0 and 2 over any software package, making the GPL less important.
And with the physics simulation.
Apparently you haven't see Full Metal Jacket.