I'm no Shakespeare, but it seems to me if someone hadn't seen a rose, and you gave them a pile of manure to smell calling it a rose - they wouldn't be to keen to smell the roses in the future.
Likewise, if I give you a non-functional crappy piece of software, and called it MS Windows - you wouldn't be too keen to try the *real* windows, would you?
The main point about the GPL isn't that it allows you to distribute and modify code; it's that it forces you to licence any derivative of GPL code that you distribute under the same terms.
Mandating the same freedoms for derivatives is a central tenet of GNU philosophy (I suggest reading about the Emacs fork which drove RMS to write the GPL in the first place), and a very important one. If Linux was released under a BSD style licence I'd bet my life that a proprietary closed source fork would have become dominant.
The thing about this is - it relies on copyright law to force this. It's a brilliantly creative use of the law. If you have time, consider reading the GPL FAQ - it's very interesting.
What if MS released a copy of 'Mozilla Firefox' with a round of improvements which introduce stability or performance issues. If they bundled it with their OS (they could do it alongside IE and help resolve some of these anti-trust issues they have) they'd put most people off all Mozilla branded products in a heartbeat. Trademark protection is the only thing which guarantees you're really getting what it says on the box, I think it's a good thing you can't say "This is Mozilla Firefox" after you've changed the code.
On the other hand; there should always be provisions for using trademarks as references to products/companies as long as you're not misrepresenting yourself as being part of them. I cringe when I see CentOS referred to as being 'binary compatible with a prominent North American Linux distributor'. They should be able to say 'This is based on, but not the same as, Red Hat Enterprise Linux'. In this case they may have to go to some lengths to make clear what their relationship with Red Hat is. Even more importantly, if I write a comparison of MS Office and OpenOffice I should be able to be clear and unambiguous about the two products I am comparing.
This works for me when I need to run Windows only applications (like SQL Server Management studio) or if I don't trust the odd error message I sometimes see using Wine (like the Watchguard firewall management interface). Just turn on VirtualBox's 'seemless' mode.
I suppose this is a last resort though - not a typical desktop activity for my regular productivity software.
Absolutely. I think there's broad agreement across society that people have some form of ownership of original ideas, but you can't really do anything to make it difficult to copy published ideas - it's so easy to do.
Either society should find it acceptable to usurp the creative endeavours of others or accept that preventing that requires draconian laws put in place to prevent unfettered violation of copyright.
And alcohol, and caffeine, and all sorts of prescription drugs with adverse side effects.
Society doesn't seem to think drugs need to be banned or even disapproved of just because they can have (extremely) undesirable side effects.
If a nootropic came to exist that made you a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative with no other obvious side effects - I think you can kiss creativity goodbye.
We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.
What? You guys really get ads like that in the States? I can't remember ever seeing an ad for prescription drugs - the very notion of advertising anti-depressants directly to consumers (particularly over the boob tube) is insane!
This requires root access to the system. If a malicious application is capable of running as root it has already worked it's way into the most secure level of your OS.
Perhaps someone who understands the technicalities better could correct me, but this doesn't seem like a security problem with the OS.
Does anyne know what sort of a risk is it to use sudo or gksudo? Could a malicious key logger start in the background and intercept my password so that it can in turn use sudo to gain root access?
By my maths that gives me an 0.15% chance of contracting appendicitis over the next 12 months. You can split hairs over what you consider to be high risk, but how do those figures stack up against over life threatening conditions?
My idea is that it's quite prone to breaking, but that we can improve our lot as provided by our evolution through surgical intervention to prevent it killing people
It was too busy working on wisdom teeth, the apendix, tonsils, anxiety disorders, inherited diseases and a reward system that encourages substance abuse eh?
Just because running shoes may not beneficial, don't for a second think can't build devices and techniques to mitigate biological shortcomings evolution has left in place.
Unless the information there has become obsolete, you need to manipulate the device (at least the 'touch' generation of iPods) in a way Apple has taken steps to prevent you from doing. Generally I'd feel uncomfortable buying a device which has been designed to restrict how I can use it (even if the cost of the device is subsidised because of those restrictions).
Imagine you (were stupid enough to) buy a lawnmower which only works when you start it by typing in a secret code. The code changes every day, so you've got to get Home Depot to tell you the code each time you want to use your lawn mower.
If you get banned from Home Depot, piss them off, or don't play nice - better get a scythe.
Only morons would buy a physical product like that. I can't work out why intelligent people are willing to buy content like that.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL requires source distribution precisely because this is very difficult to do and come up with something useful.
I'm no Shakespeare, but it seems to me if someone hadn't seen a rose, and you gave them a pile of manure to smell calling it a rose - they wouldn't be to keen to smell the roses in the future.
Likewise, if I give you a non-functional crappy piece of software, and called it MS Windows - you wouldn't be too keen to try the *real* windows, would you?
The main point about the GPL isn't that it allows you to distribute and modify code; it's that it forces you to licence any derivative of GPL code that you distribute under the same terms.
Mandating the same freedoms for derivatives is a central tenet of GNU philosophy (I suggest reading about the Emacs fork which drove RMS to write the GPL in the first place), and a very important one. If Linux was released under a BSD style licence I'd bet my life that a proprietary closed source fork would have become dominant.
The thing about this is - it relies on copyright law to force this. It's a brilliantly creative use of the law. If you have time, consider reading the GPL FAQ - it's very interesting.
My $0.02:
What if MS released a copy of 'Mozilla Firefox' with a round of improvements which introduce stability or performance issues. If they bundled it with their OS (they could do it alongside IE and help resolve some of these anti-trust issues they have) they'd put most people off all Mozilla branded products in a heartbeat. Trademark protection is the only thing which guarantees you're really getting what it says on the box, I think it's a good thing you can't say "This is Mozilla Firefox" after you've changed the code.
On the other hand; there should always be provisions for using trademarks as references to products/companies as long as you're not misrepresenting yourself as being part of them. I cringe when I see CentOS referred to as being 'binary compatible with a prominent North American Linux distributor'. They should be able to say 'This is based on, but not the same as, Red Hat Enterprise Linux'. In this case they may have to go to some lengths to make clear what their relationship with Red Hat is. Even more importantly, if I write a comparison of MS Office and OpenOffice I should be able to be clear and unambiguous about the two products I am comparing.
Well what does illegal mean in the context of the EU?
Interesting thought. Does anyone use PHP for anything other than its ubiquity?
Ahh Vista, you're the spiritual successor to ME.
I was thinking the same thing, I figure
Boring == menial == low paid.
This works for me when I need to run Windows only applications (like SQL Server Management studio) or if I don't trust the odd error message I sometimes see using Wine (like the Watchguard firewall management interface). Just turn on VirtualBox's 'seemless' mode.
I suppose this is a last resort though - not a typical desktop activity for my regular productivity software.
Absolutely. I think there's broad agreement across society that people have some form of ownership of original ideas, but you can't really do anything to make it difficult to copy published ideas - it's so easy to do.
Either society should find it acceptable to usurp the creative endeavours of others or accept that preventing that requires draconian laws put in place to prevent unfettered violation of copyright.
That's a stupid suggestion, but I'd still like to see a Slashdot article about it.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/armsexplode.html
Maybe not that close?
And alcohol, and caffeine, and all sorts of prescription drugs with adverse side effects.
Society doesn't seem to think drugs need to be banned or even disapproved of just because they can have (extremely) undesirable side effects.
If a nootropic came to exist that made you a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative with no other obvious side effects - I think you can kiss creativity goodbye.
We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.
What? You guys really get ads like that in the States? I can't remember ever seeing an ad for prescription drugs - the very notion of advertising anti-depressants directly to consumers (particularly over the boob tube) is insane!
Sell out. It used to be about the penguins, man.
This requires root access to the system. If a malicious application is capable of running as root it has already worked it's way into the most secure level of your OS.
Perhaps someone who understands the technicalities better could correct me, but this doesn't seem like a security problem with the OS.
Does anyne know what sort of a risk is it to use sudo or gksudo? Could a malicious key logger start in the background and intercept my password so that it can in turn use sudo to gain root access?
According to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2239906 the incidence of appendicitis is 15 in 10,000 per year for white people.
By my maths that gives me an 0.15% chance of contracting appendicitis over the next 12 months. You can split hairs over what you consider to be high risk, but how do those figures stack up against over life threatening conditions?
Interesting read.
My idea is that it's quite prone to breaking, but that we can improve our lot as provided by our evolution through surgical intervention to prevent it killing people
It was too busy working on wisdom teeth, the apendix, tonsils, anxiety disorders, inherited diseases and a reward system that encourages substance abuse eh?
Just because running shoes may not beneficial, don't for a second think can't build devices and techniques to mitigate biological shortcomings evolution has left in place.
Putting Jesus through college?
A masterfully run company with great products, clearly.
What did you thin....ooooh I see.
http://blog.adaniels.nl/articles/iphone-amarok/ would appear to indicate otherwise.
Unless the information there has become obsolete, you need to manipulate the device (at least the 'touch' generation of iPods) in a way Apple has taken steps to prevent you from doing. Generally I'd feel uncomfortable buying a device which has been designed to restrict how I can use it (even if the cost of the device is subsidised because of those restrictions).
Imagine you (were stupid enough to) buy a lawnmower which only works when you start it by typing in a secret code. The code changes every day, so you've got to get Home Depot to tell you the code each time you want to use your lawn mower.
If you get banned from Home Depot, piss them off, or don't play nice - better get a scythe.
Only morons would buy a physical product like that. I can't work out why intelligent people are willing to buy content like that.
The obvious solution is to switch to Linux, because everyone knows it has no viruses and never will.
I SAID NEVER WILL.