Not exactly a troll in my opinion. Essentially I'm having trouble understanding your position. Do you believe that companies have the right to protect their IP but individuals and nonprofits like the FSF don't? The GPL is quite clear (if you're a lawyer, and unlike EULAs and the individual, corporations surely have lawyers to review their licenses) about what is required, just like their other contracts.
Your point that releasing their source would cause them to violate other agreements is invalid, so they should be released from it. This is equivalent to saying that since the other agreements require them not to distribute the source, and this conflicts with the GPL, they should be exempt from those other agreements.
Why should a corporate license involving monetary exchange be any different than licenses exchanging nonmonetary things of value* (a promise to release source). Do you think that corporate licenses don't also have "hooks" that make you do this or that or include an advertising clause or whatnot?
So I ask: do you believe that corporate licenses have more rights than individual/nonprofit ones? Or do you believe that a promise to release code is an invalid condition in a contract? Or perhaps the GPL isn't clear? Aside from those, I can't really see where you're basing your arguments.
Also if all they want to include is glibc or whatnot, they can just release the source to that, it's not an all or nothing thing, free and proprietary software can mix on a system (aggregation) under the LGPL, which most base GNU/Linux libraries are. And the kernel explicitly states that systems running it need NOT have all their software released under the GPL, as a clarification in a grey area.
* See Jacobsen v. Katzer, the document I link to from the still-in-progress case makes it extremely clear that nonmonetary promises of sharing alike are valid terms for the purpose of a license/contract.
The way I see it, the free software community is just another company. We use each other's work, just like members of a company usually can, provided we agree on the ground rules. We work for communal benefit.
So let me ask you: If I get access to the windows source code via a contract (copyright) with Microsoft, should I be able to take Microsoft's work and sell it for personal profit? This is of course absurd. I see it as equally absurd that other companies should be able to take the open source community's work for free. They get the binaries and sources under a contract, they can follow it or their rights terminate.
A better example: Someone wrote a library that does something I want, and will license it to me for like $5 per copy for use in my software. Does this give me the right to take it for free (assuming I can) because I don't want to raise my product's prices to cover the increased cost? No. I can either accept their terms or not.
Of course I also don't buy all this omfg "free software good, bad software bad" crap. We're a company that works for its own interest, plain and simple. Just one that produces products far more to my liking, far more intuitive to my (granted, odd) mind, and far more useful in my line of work (CS research)
I suppose you're right. It's especially important that Cisco use quality, trusted software developed in-house or offshore, rather than trusting the danger-fraught open source community. Even aside from patent violations and other blatant disregard of others' IP rights, and the far lower quality of code produced by enthusiastic volunteers as compared to paid, apathetic employees, can you really trust that these self-described "hackers" haven't put in backdoors for their Russian friends? There's just no way to know with open source, and given all this, and studies showing that open source has an astronomically higher total cost of ownership, this is probably the last straw.
I seem to recall that the FSF generally sues for costs + compliance, not damages. If so, going to court is a silly way to get what you want as anything but a last resort.
I agree, copyright law is stifling innovation by preventing large American corporations from using the work of small, independent inventors without contributing in kind. Clearly there should be a fee to copyright works, to ensure that only properly-licensed corporations, using licensed, trusted compilers, can produce them.
I'm Ted Stevens, convicted felon, and I approved this message*!
I'm not sure of that, actually. C is not at all functional, and Java is only to a limited degree. In Python, all functions are first-class values. This means you can mix paradigms in a program. You have fully functional closures and capture.
I grew up on asm and C, now I write Python that looks more like Lisp or Haskell. In the end, I'd say either procedural programming or functional for introduction to programming. OOP is kind of verbose and clunky for an intro class, and while it certainly has its uses in large scale projects, when we were taught it in school I just saw a bunch of cruft obscuring the (simple) tasks that were assigned.
Residents of Indiana will no longer be allowed to smile in public when the Homeland Security Alert Level is Orange or Red, to improve security. Image recognition software is not able to easily recognize and track citizens movements if they smile, which causes terrorism and child pornography.
So how is this more illegal than what tpb already does? All they're doing is/linking/ to a torrent. Whether that should be legal or not is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Some have hte Vista downgrade forced on them when they buy a new computer. I bought it since I had to pay $20 more for XP and I was wiping that shit as soon as I got it anyway.
Sucks, but thinkpads are good enough I'll take it.
Last I checked XP was outselling Vista on systems where users had a choice. You still have a point in terms of what people are running, but consider the relative statement. People are being forced to downgrade from XP to Vista.
So I was mostly kidding, most stores will exchange defective software, they just won't refund you. In this case, they would then activate it correctly.
All the other points of the OP stand, such as the wasted gas, time, and inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnÃte homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre*.
-- Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal et Duc de Richelieu and first minister to Louis XIII
* If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.
Not exactly a troll in my opinion. Essentially I'm having trouble understanding your position. Do you believe that companies have the right to protect their IP but individuals and nonprofits like the FSF don't? The GPL is quite clear (if you're a lawyer, and unlike EULAs and the individual, corporations surely have lawyers to review their licenses) about what is required, just like their other contracts.
Your point that releasing their source would cause them to violate other agreements is invalid, so they should be released from it. This is equivalent to saying that since the other agreements require them not to distribute the source, and this conflicts with the GPL, they should be exempt from those other agreements.
Why should a corporate license involving monetary exchange be any different than licenses exchanging nonmonetary things of value* (a promise to release source). Do you think that corporate licenses don't also have "hooks" that make you do this or that or include an advertising clause or whatnot?
So I ask: do you believe that corporate licenses have more rights than individual/nonprofit ones? Or do you believe that a promise to release code is an invalid condition in a contract? Or perhaps the GPL isn't clear? Aside from those, I can't really see where you're basing your arguments.
Also if all they want to include is glibc or whatnot, they can just release the source to that, it's not an all or nothing thing, free and proprietary software can mix on a system (aggregation) under the LGPL, which most base GNU/Linux libraries are. And the kernel explicitly states that systems running it need NOT have all their software released under the GPL, as a clarification in a grey area.
* See Jacobsen v. Katzer, the document I link to from the still-in-progress case makes it extremely clear that nonmonetary promises of sharing alike are valid terms for the purpose of a license/contract.
The way I see it, the free software community is just another company. We use each other's work, just like members of a company usually can, provided we agree on the ground rules. We work for communal benefit.
So let me ask you: If I get access to the windows source code via a contract (copyright) with Microsoft, should I be able to take Microsoft's work and sell it for personal profit? This is of course absurd. I see it as equally absurd that other companies should be able to take the open source community's work for free. They get the binaries and sources under a contract, they can follow it or their rights terminate.
A better example: Someone wrote a library that does something I want, and will license it to me for like $5 per copy for use in my software. Does this give me the right to take it for free (assuming I can) because I don't want to raise my product's prices to cover the increased cost? No. I can either accept their terms or not.
Of course I also don't buy all this omfg "free software good, bad software bad" crap. We're a company that works for its own interest, plain and simple. Just one that produces products far more to my liking, far more intuitive to my (granted, odd) mind, and far more useful in my line of work (CS research)
I suppose you're right. It's especially important that Cisco use quality, trusted software developed in-house or offshore, rather than trusting the danger-fraught open source community. Even aside from patent violations and other blatant disregard of others' IP rights, and the far lower quality of code produced by enthusiastic volunteers as compared to paid, apathetic employees, can you really trust that these self-described "hackers" haven't put in backdoors for their Russian friends? There's just no way to know with open source, and given all this, and studies showing that open source has an astronomically higher total cost of ownership, this is probably the last straw.
I seem to recall that the FSF generally sues for costs + compliance, not damages. If so, going to court is a silly way to get what you want as anything but a last resort.
I know this is what gplviolations does.
I agree, copyright law is stifling innovation by preventing large American corporations from using the work of small, independent inventors without contributing in kind. Clearly there should be a fee to copyright works, to ensure that only properly-licensed corporations, using licensed, trusted compilers, can produce them.
I'm Ted Stevens, convicted felon, and I approved this message*!
* California v. Drew Disclaimer: No I'm not.
Turns out, censorship of idiots is far less effective than ignoring them. Tends to breed conspiracy theories.
This is how you defrag ReiserFS, except you don't need to;) Inb4 hehehe he killed his wife it's so funny guys.
-1 Flamebait.
Poster has not accepted Linux as his Operating System and Kernel.
Now...why are we OS bashing? I wanted to read about iPhone apps damnit
Or straight functional programming. Or mix and match. I love python.
I'm curious why your teacher thought (s)he had the right to steal your property. Even on suspicion of a crime I'm fairly sure you can't do that.
I'd have refused myself. But then I didn't take my computer to high school.
I'm not sure of that, actually. C is not at all functional, and Java is only to a limited degree. In Python, all functions are first-class values. This means you can mix paradigms in a program. You have fully functional closures and capture.
I grew up on asm and C, now I write Python that looks more like Lisp or Haskell. In the end, I'd say either procedural programming or functional for introduction to programming. OOP is kind of verbose and clunky for an intro class, and while it certainly has its uses in large scale projects, when we were taught it in school I just saw a bunch of cruft obscuring the (simple) tasks that were assigned.
Residents of Indiana will no longer be allowed to smile in public when the Homeland Security Alert Level is Orange or Red, to improve security. Image recognition software is not able to easily recognize and track citizens movements if they smile, which causes terrorism and child pornography.
Sweet, now I can sell things I invent as if they were physical property to which traditional economics applied!
Eh it's not so bad, the mind control chips they implanted us with last week as part of the PATRIOT act harmonization with UK law don't even work.
Not been my experience. It uses a fraction of the memory and runs a lot faster. Was a bitch losing some addons I really liked though.
Maybe he ignores it, maybe not, but it sure is an interesting shift in presidential policy to actually bother setting such a thing up.
Last I checked the DMCA didn't apply in the Netherlands...
I'd read that research, even if it had no pictures in it. It actually sounds interesting, assuming they can find such a correlation.
Or Freenet. I got it here: http://torrentfreak.com/files/piratesoftheamazon.xpi
So how is this more illegal than what tpb already does? All they're doing is /linking/ to a torrent. Whether that should be legal or not is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Some have hte Vista downgrade forced on them when they buy a new computer. I bought it since I had to pay $20 more for XP and I was wiping that shit as soon as I got it anyway.
Sucks, but thinkpads are good enough I'll take it.
Last I checked XP was outselling Vista on systems where users had a choice. You still have a point in terms of what people are running, but consider the relative statement. People are being forced to downgrade from XP to Vista.
So I was mostly kidding, most stores will exchange defective software, they just won't refund you. In this case, they would then activate it correctly.
All the other points of the OP stand, such as the wasted gas, time, and inconvenience.
It'll work better than cdkeys at reducing multiplayer online piracy and resale, and screw fewer people due to stolen/generated keys.
As was said above, they're idiots if they think this will work on single player modes.