You're still not compelled to use it, though; use something else.
I use commercial software. I abide by the terms of the license and pay for it. I don't call it "free" because it isn't free in any sense of the word.
I use GPL software. I abide by the terms of the licence and don't distribute my modifications under any licence except the GPL. But I don't call it "free" because, as I have demonstrated, it really isn't free.
I use BSD/MIT licenced software. I abide by the terms of the license and give the original authors credit. I call it free because it truly is free, in every sense of the word.
If I am not free to use it any way I want to then you have no reason to be saying that it's "free" when it really isn't. You can call GPL "mostly free software" if you want to, because that's a pretty accurate description. Personally, I feel the most accurate label for GPL is "socialist software" because it ensures that society as a whole benefits from it. I won't argue that Socialist Software is well-intentioned and a Good Thing overall, but it isn't free.
You want to incorporate someone else's code in your program because you find it convenient, not because you're forced to.
No, I want to use someone else's code because they said that it was "free". However, we've demonstrated that it really isn't free in any objective sense, thus proving once again the point that GPL is no more "free" than commercial software.
But don't whinge that GPL developers are not giving you a free ride, because libertarianism teaches that they don't owe you one.
Proving my point that GPL is no more "free" than commercial software.
You are confusing the point between exersizing your individual rights in a libertarian manner, and chosing a licence which promotes libertarian ideals. Chosing GPL is a libertarian decision, in the respect that it's all about YOUR freedom and YOUR ideals. Chosing BSD promotes libertarian ideals because it's about giving OTHER INDIVIDUALS freedom too.
By your argument, a Microsoft EULA is libertarian license too, because the writer of the software has every right to release it under any licence he sees fit. Certianly a libertarian is free to chose any license he wants for his software. That's not the point. The point is what licence grants OTHER PEOPLE the maximum amount of freedom, and on that point GPL is clearly the loser.
The general philosophy underlying OSS is "don't be a selfish bastard". GPL is less selfish than a commercial licence, but it still still embodies selfish motives.
"Running the program" is a limited subset of "use". While running the program is not restricted, other uses of the code (customizing it for a specific purpose, incorporating parts of it in an unrelated project, etc) ARE restricted.
Using GPLed code in any manner OTHER THAN simply running it without modification compels the user to accept the GPL. BSD lacks this restriction and therefore, by any objective standard, is more free.
Bullshit. You do _NOT_ have to accept the GPL to use the software. How many times must this be repeated?
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
If you are talking about the limited case of RUNNING an executable compiled from GPLed source, then you are mostly correct. However, that is only one very limited way open-source software can be "used". A far more important use (from a developer's standpoint) of OSS is as the building blocks for new programs. If I'm writing a program and I need a function to do $FOO, why should I implement $FOO from scratch
when there are several open-source packages that already do $FOO? I can take the already-written code, rip out the functions and/or classes I need and modify them slightly to meet my specific needs. This approach would take a fraction of the time it would take me to code and test a new implementation from scratch.
Another important use of OSS is as a learning tool. Seeing how another programmer attacked a related problem can give you powerful insight in how to solve your problem.
You are using a bizarre notion of freedom which is non-transferrable. I do not have the right to remain free and simultaeneously enslave others. The USA decided that in the 1870's
My point exactly. Let's say my project is 95% original and 5% GPLed code. By including that 5% of GPLed code, I am compelled to release the remaining bulk of code that I wrote under the GPL whether I want to or not. Certianly I'm free to reinvent the wheel -- but one of the intents of releasing code under an open-source license is (supposedly) so that other programmers don't have to keep reinventing the same wheels over & over again.
You can take my BSD-licenced project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the GPL. I cannot take your GPL-licened project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the BSD license. To me, this lack of reciprocity is a bug; to you, it's a feature.
To simply want to take someone elses free software that they have provided and use it for your own profit without extending that offer of free use it really isn't much different from strip mining resources from public land.
Bullshit. Strip-mining public land damages the enviornment and depletes a finite resource so that others cannot use it. Software is not a finite resource. A more apt analogy would be photographing a public landmark -- taking a picture of the landmark does not damage or deplete it in any way. If the landmark were GPL'ed, you would be forced to give the negatives to anyone who wanted them, whereas if it were BSD'ed you could do whatever you damn well pleased with your negatives. Incorporating free code into a propriatry project does not deplete the body of available free code -- the original code is still free for anyone else to use.
Just because you chose give your work away does not give you the right to demand that everyone else give their work away too.
I disagree that GPL is libertarian. Libertarianism isn't just about YOUR freedom, it's about EVERYONE's freedom. A libertarian does not attempt to control other people's behavior, with the sole exception of preventing one party from infringing on the liberty of another. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
It all boils down to control. The GPL is an attempt to impose your ethics on other developers, period, end of story. GPL is about controlling your work so it's only used the way you want it to be used; BSD is about relinquishing control and giving your work away to everyone, equally and without restriction.
The telling point into which licence is more free is this: If you include BSD-licenced code in your project you are free to release your project with whatever licence you want -- BSD, GPL, or Commercial. If you include GPL-licenced code in your project, the terms of the GPL dictate that you must release your code under the GPL.
I refuse to develop any software incorporating GPL'ed code because I demand the right to release my enhancements under whatever terms I see fit. Therefore, GPLed code might as well be closed source for all the good it does me. No matter how good it is I cannot touch it because doing so would infect my project and compel me to release MY code under terms which I do not agree with.
A truly libertarian philosophy puts sole control of the work in the hands of the person who creates it, to distribute as they please, under whatever license they wish.
My point exactly. Let's say my project has 10,000 lines of code; 7500 lines of which I wrote myself and 2500 of which I copied from other open-source projects. Of the 2500 lines of borrowed code, 500 came from a GPLed project and 2000 came from a BSD project.
In this scenerio, I am NOT free to distribute the code I wrote as I please, under whatever license I wish to use. Those 500 lines of GPLed code infect not only the 7500 lines of code I wrote myself, but also the 2000 lines which someone else wrote. The person who wrote the 500 lines of GPL code dictates to the people who wrote the other 9500 lines of code what license they must use. The only "freedom" I have is the freedom to throw those 500 lines of GPL code into the trashcan and waste many hours of my life re-inventing the wheel.
I'm a both a developer and a DBA. I listen to a wide range of music: new age, classical, jazz, classic rock, and metal.
Pigeonholing people based on simple criteria like job description & favorite musical genre is a foolish exercise. While there may be a correlation between the kind of work you do and the kind of music you listen to, this study isn't going to find it.
No, but we do watch her videos with the sound turned off. She's not bad as eye candy... not great by any stretch of the imagination, but worth pausing for if you see her while flipping channels.
Code safety isn't about the use of individual functions, or even languages (I've managed to DoS a Java app by making it allocate strings forever in a loop... the code was written such that the GC never cleaned up). It's about good practice, often learned through bitter experience
Exactly correct. However, language choice DOES make it easier to prevent some kinds of bugs, as your example demonstrates. With C, it's easy to make an accidental error which leads to a buffer overflow. With Java, you have to intentionally go out of your way to screw it up.
C is a great language, but it's an unforgiving one. There are time when nothing else will do: if you need your code to be small and fast, C is the obvious choice. However, most software does not need the power of C -- programmer time on these projects is better spent concentrating on business logic rather than wringing out every last drop of performance from the hardware.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo
on
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Very well said. There is a big difference between saying "I am giving away my work, you may use my work however you wish". It is quite another to say "I'm giving away my work, but if you build upon my work then you must give your work away too."
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
BSD maximizes individual liberty at the potential expense of society as a whole. This is, by definition, a libertarian philosophy.
Compelling another to a course of action against their will is the antithesis of freedom. You can't force other people to be socially responsible. Freedom includes the right to be an asshole.
step 1: make absolutely retarded claims - "I'm in public, and damn it, I reserve the right not to be watched"
No, the argument is not that you have a right to privacy in public, but rather that the Constitution does not grant the Government the power to make a permanent recording of everything you do from the moment you leave your home to the moment you return to it.
step 2: appeal to patriotic bullshit - "Land of the free, home of the brave"
Since when is insisting that the Government actually follow it's own laws "patriotic bullshit"? A government which does not obey it's own laws is corrupt and forefits any claim it may have to legitimacy. Furthermore, many of us swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Some of us actually understand what it is we swore to defend and take that oath seriously.
step 2: appeal to patriotic bullshit - "Land of the free, home of the brave"
Drawing conclusions and making projections from evidence and historical precedent is not necessarily a fallacy. All governments have a long and (un)glorious history of abusing power and technology. Likewise, history has shown us that you can establish a police state by incrementally eroding a society's freedoms a little bit at a time.
Video surveillance technology has many potentials for abuse, especially when combined with computers . It is logical to reach the conclusion that video surveillance will be abused in predictable ways.
step 4: end with The Ben Quote
The fact that "The Ben Quote" is frequently cited does nothing to detract from the basic truth it embodies.
Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?
A cop in a patrol car can only be one place at a time. A cop in front of a bank of monitors can be dozens of places at once.
A cop in a patrol car can only track the movements of one person at a time. A cop in front of a bank of monitors can track dozens of people at a time with the right software.
Cops sleep. Cameras don't.
A cop in a car can't, on a whim, find out every place you've been in the past two months. A cop with access to a computerized tape libaray can.
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that it is the duty of the police to protect you from violent criminals. It is not -- numerous court rulings at all levels (EG: Warren v. District of Columbia) have hammered this point home. That camera does no good whatsoever if the cop watching the screen has no obligation to intervene in a crime he witnesses.
A camera will not prevent a drug-addled mugger
from stabbing you with a sharpened screwdriver because you didn't hand your wallet over fast enough -- all it will do is tell the police where to come to pick up your body so they can cart it off to the morgue. The fact that they can use the videotape at the dirtbag's trial doesn't bring you back to life.
Cameras only work as a crime deterrent if criminals are afraid of being seen in the act. This assumes that criminals have rational thought processes. You need only watch an episode of Cops or Wildest Police Videos to witness for yourself just how much rational thinking is going on in the criminal mind.
Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?
Intentionally targeting civilian populations is never justifiable, regardless of the provocation. Those who intentionally kill innocents are murderers, not soldiers.
You cannot use evil to fight evil without becoming evil, the ends do NOT justify the means, and "I was only following orders" is never a valid defense.
An honorable soldier will do his best to minimize the chances of harming innocents, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Take for example a military support facility like a weapons factory, or a strategic dual-use facility like an oil refinery: these are clearly valid targets in war, even though they are privately owned and staffed by civilians. Another example would be a dishonorable government which sets up a missle launch site right next to a school or hospital. In that situation a commander might have no choice but to attack the weapon even though he knows many civilians may die as a result; if he is honorable, he would do everything he could to reduce civilian casualties, even if it means exposing his troops to additional risk.
Re:Over 10,000 public CCTV cameras in LONDON alone
on
1984 Comes To Boston
·
· Score: 1
not to see if the trains are running on time.
Well, the incompetence of British Rail is legendary even on this side of the pond. It's probably unnecessary to see if the trains are on time, because it's a foregone conclusion that they are not. Of course I could just be talking out of my ass, never having actually had any dealings with BR.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save
Yeah, it's easy to save 10% of your income when you're making $250K/yr, can afford to hire a top-notch tax advisor and can afford to put thousands of dollars into tax shelters. It's a bit more difficult to save 10% of your income when you're making $25K/yr and you have kids to support. The guy making $250K can save $25K a year effortlessly, with zero impact on his family's standard of living. The guy making $25K can save $2.5K a year but doing so will seriously hurt his family's standard of living.
Smart man. The questions you you should be asking when buying memory isn't "how fast can I overclock it", but rather "how stable is it" and and "how good is the vendor's quality control and customer service". Kingston wins hands down on these counts.
As for the tests in the article, they are flawed because they only tested one sample for each vendor. A single sample is not statistically significant -- you have no way of knowing if you just got lucky and got a particuarly "hot" unit, or got unlucky and got stuck with a dog.
Overclocking is overrated and is pretty much unnecessary anymore. Overclocking a P-75 to 100MHz, or a Celeron 300A to 500MHz made sense back in the days of Socket7 and Slot1 -- you could often O/C CPUS of that generation to 150% or more over their rated speed, which made a massive difference in observable system performance. Given my experience with the CPUs which are currently available, you're lucky to find one which will at run more at more than 110% rated speed -- and they are so fast to start with that you really won't notice a significant difference between a system running at 2.0GHz and one at 2.1GHz. Nowadays it actually makes sense (sometimes) to underclock the CPU to reduce heat and noise.
shell+awk+sed+grep is barely in the same category
as Perl4 and not nearly as useful (for admin stuff, I mean) as Perl5
Translation: I don't know to use shell+awk+sed+grep effectively, and I am unwilling to learn another tool, so therefore they must suck.
News flash, sonny: there are *nix boxes out there in the real world which don't have Perl, and you might not be allowed to install it on them.
Awk, sed, sh, and grep are POSIX standard commands and are even going to be available on every system which is even vaguely unixish.
Perl is a useful language. It does a lot of things well. It also has it's warts. Sure, there are things that you can do in a perl one-liner that you can't do in an awk one-liner, but the reverse is true as well. They are different languages and each has it's strenghts and weaknesses.
What makes you think scientists (or their followers) are any less human?
Scientists are of course human, and subject to human failings and vanities. However, the Scientific Method is self-correcting over time: unlike any other philosophical system, it demands that it's adherants question authority and to demand proof in all things.
Did you know that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted to call it 'Wagon Train to the Stars'?
Actually, that's false. That's how he pitched it. To get a studio to make a TV show you have to distill your pitch down to it's primal essence -- a single sentence which is expressed in terms which are familiar to a nitwit studio executive. Hence you compare your proposed show to one which is popular at that time.
For me, there's no better Star Trek experience than the final episode of TNG.
On that we agree. That was not just one of the best Star Trek episodes ever, but probably one of the best TV episodes ever.
If B&B could turn out a product of that quality on even a semi-regular basis, my ass would be glued in front of the TV on Wednesday nites. Sadly, even the best Enterprise episodes pale in comparison to routine TNG or DS9 episodes.
You think that cops should have the power to choose which laws to enforce?
They already do. A cop on the street has a HUGE amount of lattitude over whether or not to arrest someone and what charges they want to file, particuarly for minor offenses.
Partly it depends on how much real work they have to do. A bored suburban cop is more likely to pedantically enforce all laws, whereas an inner city cop has to consider whether arresting someone will do more harm than good -- if they arrest someone that means that they'll be doing paperwork for the next two or three hours instead of being out patrolling.
Unfortunately that's usually an oxymoron. The problem is that many "religious people" don't think; they believe whatever crap their (preacher|preist|mullah) tells them to believe.
we'll have to accept that Star Trek is finally dead
Some of us already have, and have moved on. As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek died when DS9 went off the air. They kept the body on life support for Voyager, but it was brain dead. Enterprise is a brain-eating zombie made from the dead carcass of Star Trek. The only reason Rodenberry isn't spinning in his grave is that his ashes are in orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
I use GPL software. I abide by the terms of the licence and don't distribute my modifications under any licence except the GPL. But I don't call it "free" because, as I have demonstrated, it really isn't free. I use BSD/MIT licenced software. I abide by the terms of the license and give the original authors credit. I call it free because it truly is free, in every sense of the word.
If I am not free to use it any way I want to then you have no reason to be saying that it's "free" when it really isn't. You can call GPL "mostly free software" if you want to, because that's a pretty accurate description. Personally, I feel the most accurate label for GPL is "socialist software" because it ensures that society as a whole benefits from it. I won't argue that Socialist Software is well-intentioned and a Good Thing overall, but it isn't free.
You are confusing the point between exersizing your individual rights in a libertarian manner, and chosing a licence which promotes libertarian ideals. Chosing GPL is a libertarian decision, in the respect that it's all about YOUR freedom and YOUR ideals. Chosing BSD promotes libertarian ideals because it's about giving OTHER INDIVIDUALS freedom too.
By your argument, a Microsoft EULA is libertarian license too, because the writer of the software has every right to release it under any licence he sees fit. Certianly a libertarian is free to chose any license he wants for his software. That's not the point. The point is what licence grants OTHER PEOPLE the maximum amount of freedom, and on that point GPL is clearly the loser.
The general philosophy underlying OSS is "don't be a selfish bastard". GPL is less selfish than a commercial licence, but it still still embodies selfish motives.
Using GPLed code in any manner OTHER THAN simply running it without modification compels the user to accept the GPL. BSD lacks this restriction and therefore, by any objective standard, is more free.
If you are talking about the limited case of RUNNING an executable compiled from GPLed source, then you are mostly correct. However, that is only one very limited way open-source software can be "used". A far more important use (from a developer's standpoint) of OSS is as the building blocks for new programs. If I'm writing a program and I need a function to do $FOO, why should I implement $FOO from scratch when there are several open-source packages that already do $FOO? I can take the already-written code, rip out the functions and/or classes I need and modify them slightly to meet my specific needs. This approach would take a fraction of the time it would take me to code and test a new implementation from scratch.
Another important use of OSS is as a learning tool. Seeing how another programmer attacked a related problem can give you powerful insight in how to solve your problem.
You can take my BSD-licenced project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the GPL. I cannot take your GPL-licened project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the BSD license. To me, this lack of reciprocity is a bug; to you, it's a feature.
Bullshit. Strip-mining public land damages the enviornment and depletes a finite resource so that others cannot use it. Software is not a finite resource. A more apt analogy would be photographing a public landmark -- taking a picture of the landmark does not damage or deplete it in any way. If the landmark were GPL'ed, you would be forced to give the negatives to anyone who wanted them, whereas if it were BSD'ed you could do whatever you damn well pleased with your negatives. Incorporating free code into a propriatry project does not deplete the body of available free code -- the original code is still free for anyone else to use.Just because you chose give your work away does not give you the right to demand that everyone else give their work away too.
It all boils down to control. The GPL is an attempt to impose your ethics on other developers, period, end of story. GPL is about controlling your work so it's only used the way you want it to be used; BSD is about relinquishing control and giving your work away to everyone, equally and without restriction.
The telling point into which licence is more free is this: If you include BSD-licenced code in your project you are free to release your project with whatever licence you want -- BSD, GPL, or Commercial. If you include GPL-licenced code in your project, the terms of the GPL dictate that you must release your code under the GPL.
I refuse to develop any software incorporating GPL'ed code because I demand the right to release my enhancements under whatever terms I see fit. Therefore, GPLed code might as well be closed source for all the good it does me. No matter how good it is I cannot touch it because doing so would infect my project and compel me to release MY code under terms which I do not agree with.
My point exactly. Let's say my project has 10,000 lines of code; 7500 lines of which I wrote myself and 2500 of which I copied from other open-source projects. Of the 2500 lines of borrowed code, 500 came from a GPLed project and 2000 came from a BSD project.In this scenerio, I am NOT free to distribute the code I wrote as I please, under whatever license I wish to use. Those 500 lines of GPLed code infect not only the 7500 lines of code I wrote myself, but also the 2000 lines which someone else wrote. The person who wrote the 500 lines of GPL code dictates to the people who wrote the other 9500 lines of code what license they must use. The only "freedom" I have is the freedom to throw those 500 lines of GPL code into the trashcan and waste many hours of my life re-inventing the wheel.
Pigeonholing people based on simple criteria like job description & favorite musical genre is a foolish exercise. While there may be a correlation between the kind of work you do and the kind of music you listen to, this study isn't going to find it.
C is a great language, but it's an unforgiving one. There are time when nothing else will do: if you need your code to be small and fast, C is the obvious choice. However, most software does not need the power of C -- programmer time on these projects is better spent concentrating on business logic rather than wringing out every last drop of performance from the hardware.
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
BSD maximizes individual liberty at the potential expense of society as a whole. This is, by definition, a libertarian philosophy.
Compelling another to a course of action against their will is the antithesis of freedom. You can't force other people to be socially responsible. Freedom includes the right to be an asshole.
Video surveillance technology has many potentials for abuse, especially when combined with computers . It is logical to reach the conclusion that video surveillance will be abused in predictable ways.
The fact that "The Ben Quote" is frequently cited does nothing to detract from the basic truth it embodies.A cop in a patrol car can only track the movements of one person at a time. A cop in front of a bank of monitors can track dozens of people at a time with the right software.
Cops sleep. Cameras don't.
A cop in a car can't, on a whim, find out every place you've been in the past two months. A cop with access to a computerized tape libaray can.
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that it is the duty of the police to protect you from violent criminals. It is not -- numerous court rulings at all levels (EG: Warren v. District of Columbia) have hammered this point home. That camera does no good whatsoever if the cop watching the screen has no obligation to intervene in a crime he witnesses.
A camera will not prevent a drug-addled mugger from stabbing you with a sharpened screwdriver because you didn't hand your wallet over fast enough -- all it will do is tell the police where to come to pick up your body so they can cart it off to the morgue. The fact that they can use the videotape at the dirtbag's trial doesn't bring you back to life.
Cameras only work as a crime deterrent if criminals are afraid of being seen in the act. This assumes that criminals have rational thought processes. You need only watch an episode of Cops or Wildest Police Videos to witness for yourself just how much rational thinking is going on in the criminal mind.
You cannot use evil to fight evil without becoming evil, the ends do NOT justify the means, and "I was only following orders" is never a valid defense.
An honorable soldier will do his best to minimize the chances of harming innocents, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Take for example a military support facility like a weapons factory, or a strategic dual-use facility like an oil refinery: these are clearly valid targets in war, even though they are privately owned and staffed by civilians. Another example would be a dishonorable government which sets up a missle launch site right next to a school or hospital. In that situation a commander might have no choice but to attack the weapon even though he knows many civilians may die as a result; if he is honorable, he would do everything he could to reduce civilian casualties, even if it means exposing his troops to additional risk.
As for the tests in the article, they are flawed because they only tested one sample for each vendor. A single sample is not statistically significant -- you have no way of knowing if you just got lucky and got a particuarly "hot" unit, or got unlucky and got stuck with a dog.
Overclocking is overrated and is pretty much unnecessary anymore. Overclocking a P-75 to 100MHz, or a Celeron 300A to 500MHz made sense back in the days of Socket7 and Slot1 -- you could often O/C CPUS of that generation to 150% or more over their rated speed, which made a massive difference in observable system performance. Given my experience with the CPUs which are currently available, you're lucky to find one which will at run more at more than 110% rated speed -- and they are so fast to start with that you really won't notice a significant difference between a system running at 2.0GHz and one at 2.1GHz. Nowadays it actually makes sense (sometimes) to underclock the CPU to reduce heat and noise.
News flash, sonny: there are *nix boxes out there in the real world which don't have Perl, and you might not be allowed to install it on them.
Awk, sed, sh, and grep are POSIX standard commands and are even going to be available on every system which is even vaguely unixish.
Perl is a useful language. It does a lot of things well. It also has it's warts. Sure, there are things that you can do in a perl one-liner that you can't do in an awk one-liner, but the reverse is true as well. They are different languages and each has it's strenghts and weaknesses.
If B&B could turn out a product of that quality on even a semi-regular basis, my ass would be glued in front of the TV on Wednesday nites. Sadly, even the best Enterprise episodes pale in comparison to routine TNG or DS9 episodes.
Too bad she's a prude, otherwise I'd make the obligitory "I'd hit it" remark. Besides, Terry Ferrell was always more my type than Jeri Ryan.
Partly it depends on how much real work they have to do. A bored suburban cop is more likely to pedantically enforce all laws, whereas an inner city cop has to consider whether arresting someone will do more harm than good -- if they arrest someone that means that they'll be doing paperwork for the next two or three hours instead of being out patrolling.