Here's an idea MPAA. You can use this one for free, and I'm putting it in the public domain for you. Because you have such high opinions of movies such as "TITANIC" and "SPIDER-MAN" and "JURASSIC PARK", I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck.
There is nothing that compares to the silver screen. Well, there wasn't, but home theaters are starting to come close. So, make movies that don't suck and people will still go to see them.
4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck. Gigli isn't going to recoup it's investment because it sucks. 4 out of 10 movies are going to suck. The other 6 are just going to suck less. Stop automating your script-writing, and be more stringent with what movies you actually produce and then people will still go see them in the theater and you will still make money. People will still pirate them, but so what.
The biggest thing people use pirated movies for: To find out if it is worth the $8. If it sucks, it isn't worth $8. I'm not cheating myself, I'm saving my damn money.
Today's brewery's work for a higher alcohol content, breakfast beer was probably more like a fermented barley soup and brewed for a lower alcohol content.
You need to go to better breweries. A good brewery is going to brew for flavor of a beverage, not to get their patrons drunk. There are a lot of issues with serving alcohol to intoxicated folks, as far as the liquer control commission goes.
I would recommend trying out real breweries, where you can see the actual brewhouse, and see what gets produced.
You don't need to be an expert on copyright law to feel the effects the abuse of the copyright system has had on our society.
I'm sorry, but I've been harassed by shitty musicians begging for money and singing songs on the street a lot longer than P2P or adequate bandwidth has been around.
You misunderstand the meaning of inflection here... it really is being using in a grammatical context, not a tone-of-voice context
Alteration in pitch or tone of the voice.
Grammar. An alteration of the form of a word by the addition of an affix, as in English dogs from dog, or by changing the form of a base, as in English spoke from speak, that indicates grammatical features such as number, person, mood, or tense. An affix indicating such a grammatical feature, as the -s in the English third person singular verb form speaks. The paradigm of a word. A pattern of forming paradigms, such as noun inflection or verb inflection.
Either way, Japanese still isn't inflected hardly at all. English is three times more inflected than Japanese. Chinese is 10 times more inflected than Japanese, as well.
America has built many cultural icons, but to tell the truth, few are original.
The same can be said through the rest of the world. Most cultural icons are re-invented from 2,000 years ago. Innovation for cultural icons died with the end of the Roman empire.
The most successful by what measure? We've got the most money, yes, and the strongest military, and we're politically influential. That's about it.
America is the most successful nation because of these things, not because of the average American.
But the impression that I got from you (because of the 'sheep' comment) was the same one I get from those people who spout of "America is the greatest country in the history of the world!" Yeah right...
I've been abroad. I've been to N. Africa and to arab countries. I can tell you, that America is one of the greatest countries. In the history of the world, that's a whole different issue, because I've never visited or lived there.
My sheep comment, btw, was saying that they had sheep as a commodity. It wasn't an analogy for the populace:)
they have the richest cultural heritage? Some great stuff in DC, but if you're terribly impressed by that, you've never been to Paris, Rome, or any of a number of spectacular places in the world. Do they have the best public services? The US healthcare system is terrible --- in the inner cities, critical statistics like immunization rates are closer to those of developing nations.
That's not really a valid argument. In 300 years of existence, the US has built many cultural icons. The culture of America is brought from all places.
Do Americans live the longest? Nope, the Japanese have that one.
In America, it's easier to do that. The reason why Japanese live so long is largely because of the food they eat. Try finding an American that loves natto, though.
But you could just as easily define sucessful in terms of the number of sheep...
I define success as leading the pack. America, as a nation, does that. The paradox about that is that Americans are the problem with America.
hopefully n. korea will launch their missiles first. and i hope your town will be one of the first to be hit. wake up dude, your days are counted - if you don't agree - wait till i count them...just can't see arrogant assholes from usa talking like that..
Unless he's in Japan, his town is very safe.
You know what's worse than an arrogant american? An arrogant foreigner. At least Americans live in the most successful country. What does your country have? Sheep?
That doesn't change anything. Copyrights are the same regardless of the medium.
It does change things. One is digital, one isn't. The use of a newspaper article can validly be only be one thing: to read. If you take that newspaper article and redistribute it, you are in copyright violation. If you take GPLd software and redistribute it, you are perfectly fine.
In other words, the analogy is completely beyond your comprehension. Take your own advice about babbling idiots and shut up.
If that's the best you can do, you should read a few books. It's a good thing you didn't say anything that was worth making fun of, because I will gladly show you the correct way to tell someone to shut up. In the meantime, why don't you back to bed and let the adults post?
This point is explicitely covered in section 2 of the linked paper. Too bad you didn't read it before spouting off. In the case of software, copyright law specifically allows loading the software.
Because there is a usage license surrounding the GPL for distribution, it is expected that the license is read and agreed upon (See the GPL.) Since there is a party that is distributing it, they agree to the GPL as a User license agreement (It doesn't matter if they are the end-user or not) and "use" of the software is not running the software but use of the actual code making up the software. From normal copyright law, it does not allow making modifications or redistributing the software.
There are two things being argued here, but people just incorrectly bundle them into one. The first is what defines the "user" - a programmer modifying the source is a user, so is someone who is just running the program. A programmer modifying the source must follow the provisions of the GPL or they are in violation of the license (contract and copyright law, contract law is fuzzy due to consideration, but that's another discussion.)
There is no provision, outside of the license granted on the user via the GPL, that will allow the user to use the software or code in the way that people are speaking. Hence, it can easily classify as a EULA -- mind you, I'm not saying a shrink-wrap license or a click-through.
You guys keep repeating this without any sort of evidence. How will the usefulness of blender be sacrificed by labeling icons and making text entry widgets that don't look exactly like buttons?
The icons do have labels if you hover the mouse over them. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I will conceed that the text entry widget is a touch annoying.
You certainly DO own the copy of it that you bought. The information is part of the value of the product, and you do have rights to it. You are NOT "granted permission" to use it - the right to use is a natural right. The right that is granted is to the copyright holder, and thats the right to restrict distribution (among other rights. I'm being brief).
But with software, you agree to the license. They are saying, explicitely, that you do not own a copy merely are issued a limited license in what you can do with it. If you own a copy of something, than the person who sold it to you has certain obligations. Like an automobile, the dealer and manufacturer has several things they must do. By granted a limited license for use, they bypass the liability. I think that is more of the push for licenses, than the IP-ownership aspect of it. They just realized they could line their pockets further with it.
Your last point about the GPL is well taken, and it's the same point I made about consideration.
That was why I asked you about your consideration statement. I wasn't clear if that was what you were meaning.
I believe I read the article you mention, and the claim was that since GPL software is freely available, theres no commercial value associated with that right, and thus it's not valid. I'd dispute that by saying that there obviously IS value to being able to distribute your own version of a product, as all the Linux distros prove.
I do believe that GPL'd software has value, as well. But, wouldn't the need for the GPL to be a contract preceed being able to agree to it and excercise the options provided by the GPL? If the GPL is not a contract, than by not agreeing to it you are granted standard copyright fair use laws. I really wish this stuff would actually go to court so there could be some precedents, but I am worried it wouldn't go in the favor of the community.
I can't speak for Qt. I know a number of GPL projects with Win32 installers DO present it as an EULA (even mine), but thats not legally binding, and at least in my case it's because I haven't hacked on my installer template enough. That certainly doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
If you present the GPL as an EULA, and you are the ostensible authority for that project than it becomes an EULA. Just by putting the text, "End-User License Agreement" over it, it validates as an EULA.
One of the requisites for something to be a contract is consideration, there is none in the case of an EULA (although there is some in the case of the GPL).
I'm not sure how consideration is something not in an EULA, could you elaborate on this?
The argument against this relies on a judge agreeing that a purchase is not actually a purchase, and that despite having paid for a product, you aren't actually getting that product but simply an opportunity to license a (different) product.
That is something that I don't think a lot of people understand. You don't own GPL software, nor any other software. You are just granted permission to use it under the provisions granted by the ostensible authority. You purchase a CD and documentation, but not the actual bits on the CD.
The other argument is that even though you needed agree to the EULA to run the software (because copying neccesary to functionality is explicity allowed under copyright law), the fact that you clicked "I Agree" anyway means you agree. I find this one a bit iffy too, but hacking the installer is certainly a legitimate end run around this one.
But hacking the installer violates the EULA!;) One of the things we deal with at work is digital signatures and the "I agree" aspect of it. Since it's an educational company, we have several hoops to jump through to maintain our status. We have both a EULA and a signature form, that both are now able to be digitally signed instead of physically signed. We just have to prove that as far as we can know (meaning, doing all steps to possibly prove they did in fact agree) they agreed to it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't enforcable, but they're certainly legally tenuous.
The biggest question about the GPL being enforced as a license (and viewing the GPL as a contract between parties and being covered under contract law in addition to copyright law) is there is no monetary or service exchange. It could be decided that the license is invalid and unenforcable (and thus revokable) by courts on this point alone.
There is actually a fairly good article by someone who is slipping my mind on this topic, and I wish I could find it for you.
An end USER license agreement is a license that covers the terms of your use of the product.
Either way, the GPL does in fact limit certain things - like liability. That is a user-control placed over it. If someone used the GPL, without agreeing to the license (As is a possibility) than they could claim damage if the software caused problems.
Supposedly (at this is an unclear point that has never been clarified by the courts, nor will be as long as the software industry can help it), use of software with an EULA without agreeing to that EULA is illegal. The GPL can in fact be an EULA, though. Go install Mandrake or Qt. Both of them present the GPL as an EULA.
The redistribution claims in an EULA are generally limited to a few lines saying don't do that, and they're not really neccesary because copyright law prevents it anyway - it's a clarification, thats all.
EULAs server 3 purposes: Eliminate liability for the publisher, Cover redistribution and transfer of ownership policies, and cover usage restrictions.
Neither of the first two deal with actual use of the software. There is an article featured in LWN that compares the GPL with the XP EULA. I would recommend reading it to clarify exactly how much the GPL does restrict user rights (such as liability rights)
No. It isn't. Linux follows well-defined, widely used standards.
UNIX standards? Most Windows people still will feel lost.
Blender's interface does the exact opposite. If I sit a Windows user down to a GTK+ application, they feel immediately comfortable. If you sit a user of another 3D modeling application down to Blender, they won't have a clue what to do.
A proficient user of TruSpace will be mostly lost trying to use Maya3d, or 3DS max. The difference between most GTK+ applications and modelling applications is to big to be a valid comparison.
As far as your "it isn't cryptic if you do a bit of research" comment, the AC who responded is spot on. That statement is nonsense. If it's cryptic before you do research, it's still cryptic afterwards.
I'm just saying that Blender is as cryptic as UNIX is. "ls" - what's that? You read the documentation. Does that mean that "ls" is a cryptic command? Nor do I think that Blender is cryptic.
Fortunately, it sounds like they are working on an improved interface for a later release of Blender. It's rather interesting that even though the hardcore Blender users immediately personally attack anyone who complains about the interface, the developers are willing to acknowledge that there's a problem.
I acknowledge that it could be easier, but it's not nearly as bad as what people think. If they really made the interface that easy to use, the usefulness of Blender would be sacrificied.
How can you ask this? This question is so seriously flawed that I have to wonder how you managed to turn on your computer in the first place.
What is the difference between using a software program and copying it? Each bit is being processed by the computer in both cases, right?
And (again) you keep ignoring the parts of my argument that you simply can't refute - THE GPL EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any coverage regarding "use" of the software.
Then I could cleverly argue that by use, I am copying, and hence don't have to worry about GPL compliancy.
Certainly the LAWYERS AT THE EFF don't think it's an EULA. Where's your list of the ones who do?
Have you talked to each of them? If it isn't, than tell me why Qt and Mandrake both present it as one? It's painfully obvious that you have never even looked at contract law or copyright law short of what people post segments of on Slashdot.
Trying to make it any more than that is trying to push some illogical point. If you have a round hole and a square peg, let's not file down the peg, okay?
Sorry if I agree with an actual lawyer over you. I really am. Apparently you have different ideals and goals. Just because you are convinced you are right, does not make it so. The GPL has never been actually tested in court, I am going from what a lawyer has said that makes sense to me in combination with my knowledge and studying of contract and copyright laws.
If you can actually provide legal backing for what you are saying, I will gladly read it. Just trying to repeat yourself over and over again makes you look like a jack-ass, because you can repeat the sky is green over and over again and it won't make you less wrong.
Thank you. I was really confused about this. Linux is the kernel, the base operating system. Adding GNU utilities or other utilities will make it a usable operating system.
I think it should have said "Debian GNU/Linux is a process, not a product."
Only to people like you who can't understand them, or can't refute them (or both.)
You made an analogy for a newspaper. The pure idiocy of that is astounding, especially after you try to defend it. There are so many holes paralleling the two that to try to apply it to this context, you would simply turn into a babbling idiot with no hope of making a valid argument.
But I _DO_ have a valid argument - and used the analogy to support it. As someone else pointed out, if it was so flawed, you'd point out why it was so flawed.
Point 1: There is no way to accurately tell who is using the infringing content. There is also no way to ensure destruction. With the case of Linux, it is very easy to tell.
Notice how the BSA goes after people who illegaly copy software. Again, copying, not using. They don't care if you use it or not, they care if you copy it.
Uhm, what? To use it you have to copy it. See point above about babbling idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it each individual case doesnt make a slashdot headline, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
The sheer beauty of that sentence has left me in awe with a smirk on my face that will hopefully last for quite some time.
Thanks.
It's higher than 55%:
Mormon density, the percentage of Mormons in Utah in 2003 is approximately sixty four percent (64%).
-- From Wild Utah.
Here's an idea MPAA. You can use this one for free, and I'm putting it in the public domain for you. Because you have such high opinions of movies such as "TITANIC" and "SPIDER-MAN" and "JURASSIC PARK", I have some news for you: Don't make movies that suck.
There is nothing that compares to the silver screen. Well, there wasn't, but home theaters are starting to come close. So, make movies that don't suck and people will still go to see them.
4 out of 10 movies don't recoup their investment because they suck. Gigli isn't going to recoup it's investment because it sucks. 4 out of 10 movies are going to suck. The other 6 are just going to suck less. Stop automating your script-writing, and be more stringent with what movies you actually produce and then people will still go see them in the theater and you will still make money. People will still pirate them, but so what.
The biggest thing people use pirated movies for: To find out if it is worth the $8. If it sucks, it isn't worth $8. I'm not cheating myself, I'm saving my damn money.
Today's brewery's work for a higher alcohol content, breakfast beer was probably more like a fermented barley soup and brewed for a lower alcohol content.
You need to go to better breweries. A good brewery is going to brew for flavor of a beverage, not to get their patrons drunk. There are a lot of issues with serving alcohol to intoxicated folks, as far as the liquer control commission goes.
I would recommend trying out real breweries, where you can see the actual brewhouse, and see what gets produced.
You don't need to be an expert on copyright law to feel the effects the abuse of the copyright system has had on our society.
I'm sorry, but I've been harassed by shitty musicians begging for money and singing songs on the street a lot longer than P2P or adequate bandwidth has been around.
Either way, Japanese still isn't inflected hardly at all. English is three times more inflected than Japanese. Chinese is 10 times more inflected than Japanese, as well.
America has built many cultural icons, but to tell the truth, few are original.
:)
The same can be said through the rest of the world. Most cultural icons are re-invented from 2,000 years ago. Innovation for cultural icons died with the end of the Roman empire.
The most successful by what measure? We've got the most money, yes, and the strongest military, and we're politically influential. That's about it.
America is the most successful nation because of these things, not because of the average American.
But the impression that I got from you (because of the 'sheep' comment) was the same one I get from those people who spout of "America is the greatest country in the history of the world!" Yeah right...
I've been abroad. I've been to N. Africa and to arab countries. I can tell you, that America is one of the greatest countries. In the history of the world, that's a whole different issue, because I've never visited or lived there.
My sheep comment, btw, was saying that they had sheep as a commodity. It wasn't an analogy for the populace
Don't listen to this cock-knocker. Oklahoma has decent bandwidth. Just because he doesn't know how to get a decent providor with enough bandwidth for his site doesn't mean Oklahoma has poor bandwidth.
They're right next to Texas which has some of the biggest trunks in the US.
they have the richest cultural heritage? Some great stuff in DC, but if you're terribly impressed by that, you've never been to Paris, Rome, or any of a number of spectacular places in the world. Do they have the best public services? The US healthcare system is terrible --- in the inner cities, critical statistics like immunization rates are closer to those of developing nations.
That's not really a valid argument. In 300 years of existence, the US has built many cultural icons. The culture of America is brought from all places.
Do Americans live the longest? Nope, the Japanese have that one.
In America, it's easier to do that. The reason why Japanese live so long is largely because of the food they eat. Try finding an American that loves natto, though.
But you could just as easily define sucessful in terms of the number of sheep...
I define success as leading the pack. America, as a nation, does that. The paradox about that is that Americans are the problem with America.
hopefully n. korea will launch their missiles first. and i hope your town will be one of the first to be hit. wake up dude, your days are counted - if you don't agree - wait till i count them. ..just can't see arrogant assholes from usa talking like that..
Unless he's in Japan, his town is very safe.
You know what's worse than an arrogant american? An arrogant foreigner. At least Americans live in the most successful country. What does your country have? Sheep?
You know.. you don't need to post that with a karma bonus.
What's even funnier is I've had two people fan and two people foe me today with this thread.
That doesn't change anything. Copyrights are the same regardless of the medium.
It does change things. One is digital, one isn't. The use of a newspaper article can validly be only be one thing: to read. If you take that newspaper article and redistribute it, you are in copyright violation. If you take GPLd software and redistribute it, you are perfectly fine.
In other words, the analogy is completely beyond your comprehension. Take your own advice about babbling idiots and shut up.
If that's the best you can do, you should read a few books. It's a good thing you didn't say anything that was worth making fun of, because I will gladly show you the correct way to tell someone to shut up. In the meantime, why don't you back to bed and let the adults post?
This point is explicitely covered in section 2 of the linked paper. Too bad you didn't read it before spouting off. In the case of software, copyright law specifically allows loading the software.
Because there is a usage license surrounding the GPL for distribution, it is expected that the license is read and agreed upon (See the GPL.) Since there is a party that is distributing it, they agree to the GPL as a User license agreement (It doesn't matter if they are the end-user or not) and "use" of the software is not running the software but use of the actual code making up the software. From normal copyright law, it does not allow making modifications or redistributing the software.
There are two things being argued here, but people just incorrectly bundle them into one. The first is what defines the "user" - a programmer modifying the source is a user, so is someone who is just running the program. A programmer modifying the source must follow the provisions of the GPL or they are in violation of the license (contract and copyright law, contract law is fuzzy due to consideration, but that's another discussion.)
There is no provision, outside of the license granted on the user via the GPL, that will allow the user to use the software or code in the way that people are speaking. Hence, it can easily classify as a EULA -- mind you, I'm not saying a shrink-wrap license or a click-through.
So when play this, does it guide you there ?
I think if you played that, it would guide you to 1995.
You guys keep repeating this without any sort of evidence. How will the usefulness of blender be sacrificed by labeling icons and making text entry widgets that don't look exactly like buttons?
The icons do have labels if you hover the mouse over them. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I will conceed that the text entry widget is a touch annoying.
You certainly DO own the copy of it that you bought. The information is part of the value of the product, and you do have rights to it. You are NOT "granted permission" to use it - the right to use is a natural right. The right that is granted is to the copyright holder, and thats the right to restrict distribution (among other rights. I'm being brief).
But with software, you agree to the license. They are saying, explicitely, that you do not own a copy merely are issued a limited license in what you can do with it. If you own a copy of something, than the person who sold it to you has certain obligations. Like an automobile, the dealer and manufacturer has several things they must do. By granted a limited license for use, they bypass the liability. I think that is more of the push for licenses, than the IP-ownership aspect of it. They just realized they could line their pockets further with it.
Your last point about the GPL is well taken, and it's the same point I made about consideration.
That was why I asked you about your consideration statement. I wasn't clear if that was what you were meaning.
I believe I read the article you mention, and the claim was that since GPL software is freely available, theres no commercial value associated with that right, and thus it's not valid. I'd dispute that by saying that there obviously IS value to being able to distribute your own version of a product, as all the Linux distros prove.
I do believe that GPL'd software has value, as well. But, wouldn't the need for the GPL to be a contract preceed being able to agree to it and excercise the options provided by the GPL? If the GPL is not a contract, than by not agreeing to it you are granted standard copyright fair use laws. I really wish this stuff would actually go to court so there could be some precedents, but I am worried it wouldn't go in the favor of the community.
I can't speak for Qt. I know a number of GPL projects with Win32 installers DO present it as an EULA (even mine), but thats not legally binding, and at least in my case it's because I haven't hacked on my installer template enough. That certainly doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
If you present the GPL as an EULA, and you are the ostensible authority for that project than it becomes an EULA. Just by putting the text, "End-User License Agreement" over it, it validates as an EULA.
One of the requisites for something to be a contract is consideration, there is none in the case of an EULA (although there is some in the case of the GPL).
;) One of the things we deal with at work is digital signatures and the "I agree" aspect of it. Since it's an educational company, we have several hoops to jump through to maintain our status. We have both a EULA and a signature form, that both are now able to be digitally signed instead of physically signed. We just have to prove that as far as we can know (meaning, doing all steps to possibly prove they did in fact agree) they agreed to it.
I'm not sure how consideration is something not in an EULA, could you elaborate on this?
The argument against this relies on a judge agreeing that a purchase is not actually a purchase, and that despite having paid for a product, you aren't actually getting that product but simply an opportunity to license a (different) product.
That is something that I don't think a lot of people understand. You don't own GPL software, nor any other software. You are just granted permission to use it under the provisions granted by the ostensible authority. You purchase a CD and documentation, but not the actual bits on the CD.
The other argument is that even though you needed agree to the EULA to run the software (because copying neccesary to functionality is explicity allowed under copyright law), the fact that you clicked "I Agree" anyway means you agree. I find this one a bit iffy too, but hacking the installer is certainly a legitimate end run around this one.
But hacking the installer violates the EULA!
I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't enforcable, but they're certainly legally tenuous.
The biggest question about the GPL being enforced as a license (and viewing the GPL as a contract between parties and being covered under contract law in addition to copyright law) is there is no monetary or service exchange. It could be decided that the license is invalid and unenforcable (and thus revokable) by courts on this point alone.
There is actually a fairly good article by someone who is slipping my mind on this topic, and I wish I could find it for you.
An end USER license agreement is a license that covers the terms of your use of the product.
Either way, the GPL does in fact limit certain things - like liability. That is a user-control placed over it. If someone used the GPL, without agreeing to the license (As is a possibility) than they could claim damage if the software caused problems.
Supposedly (at this is an unclear point that has never been clarified by the courts, nor will be as long as the software industry can help it), use of software with an EULA without agreeing to that EULA is illegal.
The GPL can in fact be an EULA, though. Go install Mandrake or Qt. Both of them present the GPL as an EULA.
The redistribution claims in an EULA are generally limited to a few lines saying don't do that, and they're not really neccesary because copyright law prevents it anyway - it's a clarification, thats all.
EULAs server 3 purposes: Eliminate liability for the publisher, Cover redistribution and transfer of ownership policies, and cover usage restrictions.
Neither of the first two deal with actual use of the software. There is an article featured in LWN that compares the GPL with the XP EULA. I would recommend reading it to clarify exactly how much the GPL does restrict user rights (such as liability rights)
Government is a disease, masquarading as its own cure.
Yeah, but so is life.
A 100% fatal, incurable, sexually transmitted disease.
Government is the same, except they fuck you instead.
No. It isn't. Linux follows well-defined, widely used standards.
UNIX standards? Most Windows people still will feel lost.
Blender's interface does the exact opposite. If I sit a Windows user down to a GTK+ application, they feel immediately comfortable. If you sit a user of another 3D modeling application down to Blender, they won't have a clue what to do.
A proficient user of TruSpace will be mostly lost trying to use Maya3d, or 3DS max. The difference between most GTK+ applications and modelling applications is to big to be a valid comparison.
As far as your "it isn't cryptic if you do a bit of research" comment, the AC who responded is spot on. That statement is nonsense. If it's cryptic before you do research, it's still cryptic afterwards.
I'm just saying that Blender is as cryptic as UNIX is. "ls" - what's that? You read the documentation. Does that mean that "ls" is a cryptic command? Nor do I think that Blender is cryptic.
Fortunately, it sounds like they are working on an improved interface for a later release of Blender. It's rather interesting that even though the hardcore Blender users immediately personally attack anyone who complains about the interface, the developers are willing to acknowledge that there's a problem.
I acknowledge that it could be easier, but it's not nearly as bad as what people think. If they really made the interface that easy to use, the usefulness of Blender would be sacrificied.
No, they don't.
"But I came here for an argument!"
How can you ask this? This question is so seriously flawed that I have to wonder how you managed to turn on your computer in the first place.
What is the difference between using a software program and copying it? Each bit is being processed by the computer in both cases, right?
And (again) you keep ignoring the parts of my argument that you simply can't refute - THE GPL EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any coverage regarding "use" of the software.
Then I could cleverly argue that by use, I am copying, and hence don't have to worry about GPL compliancy.
Certainly the LAWYERS AT THE EFF don't think it's an EULA. Where's your list of the ones who do?
Have you talked to each of them? If it isn't, than tell me why Qt and Mandrake both present it as one? It's painfully obvious that you have never even looked at contract law or copyright law short of what people post segments of on Slashdot.
Trying to make it any more than that is trying to push some illogical point. If you have a round hole and a square peg, let's not file down the peg, okay?
Sorry if I agree with an actual lawyer over you. I really am. Apparently you have different ideals and goals. Just because you are convinced you are right, does not make it so. The GPL has never been actually tested in court, I am going from what a lawyer has said that makes sense to me in combination with my knowledge and studying of contract and copyright laws.
If you can actually provide legal backing for what you are saying, I will gladly read it. Just trying to repeat yourself over and over again makes you look like a jack-ass, because you can repeat the sky is green over and over again and it won't make you less wrong.
Thank you. I was really confused about this. Linux is the kernel, the base operating system. Adding GNU utilities or other utilities will make it a usable operating system.
I think it should have said "Debian GNU/Linux is a process, not a product."
Only to people like you who can't understand them, or can't refute them (or both.)
You made an analogy for a newspaper. The pure idiocy of that is astounding, especially after you try to defend it. There are so many holes paralleling the two that to try to apply it to this context, you would simply turn into a babbling idiot with no hope of making a valid argument.
But I _DO_ have a valid argument - and used the analogy to support it. As someone else pointed out, if it was so flawed, you'd point out why it was so flawed.
Point 1: There is no way to accurately tell who is using the infringing content. There is also no way to ensure destruction. With the case of Linux, it is very easy to tell.
Notice how the BSA goes after people who illegaly copy software. Again, copying, not using. They don't care if you use it or not, they care if you copy it.
Uhm, what? To use it you have to copy it. See point above about babbling idiots.