Please Please Please, stop giving creadance to this fallacy that one can excercise Fair Use rights by obtaining an anolog version!
The Fair Use provision applies to an item purchased - that specific item purchased. It does not in any way, shape, or form require you to purchase another item of lessor quality.
If I were to purchase a DVD formatted movie, then I have rights via the Fair Use provision to extract exerpts for critical review (for example) from that specific DVD I have purchased. At no time am I required to purchase a separate copy in an alternate format.
The sooner this issue can be clearly communicated, and thus understood by the presiding judges, the better!
The biggest problem I have with the MPAA/RIAA/etc view on Fair Use of Digital Works, and it was supported by Judge Kaplan, is this:
To make a Fair Use copy of a DVD film, I am told I can easily buy/rent a VHS version of the film and exercise my rights without problem.
There are a few fundamental flaws to this proposition:
1) The content I want to use must be available on VHS format. This is not always possible since many DVD's contain extra scenes/footage not included elsewhere.
2) I must buy/rent the necessary player for the VHS version, if it does exist.
3) I must buy/rent the necessary conversion device(s) to get the VHS content onto my PC - assuming my presentation is being conducted from my notebook computer (which would be true for me).
4) I must buy/rent the VHS formatted version, if it exists.
These four points create an excessive burden and cost to me. The Fair Use provisions of Copyright law allow me to use the item I purchase - a DVD in a permissible manner. It does NOT require me to purchase or rent additional items in order to exercise my rights with a lower quality version of my original purchase.
To rule otherwise is a gross perversion of both the intent and letter of the Fair Use provision.
While not explicitly stated, those bytes ARE an integral part of the "decompressor" that was supplied (it can't work without them), and so including their size is consistent with the agreed upon rules, IMO.
Because the decompressor relied on the file numbering to work does not make it an "integral part" any more than the OS needed to run the decompression program on is "integral".
As well, things such as sector size, blocking factor, filesystem paging size, etc can cause, for example, a 1K file to take anywhere from 1K - (many)MB to store. For this reason, the filesystem utilization should not be considered in the validity of the challenge. The source file generated was a set byte size which did not factor in filesystem and storage overhead. Therefor, the "solution" presented did meet the stated requirements.
Out of curiosity, what mouse are you using? If it's one of the newer MS Intellimouse series or copies thereof, then the issue isn't with FreeBSD's moused. I recently bought a Intellimouse Explorer trackball, and when using a KVM to share between my various boxes every OS I use (FreeBSD, NT Server, Win98) have synchronization problems. MS has documented this on their site and suggest - for Windows of course - waiting a few minutes after switching consoles for the mouse drive to stabilize again before moving it or pressing a button. FreeBSD tends to correct itself quickest of the three when I use flags 0x200 in the psm0 config line for my kernel. This forces moused to recognize it as a standard PS/2 mouse. As for Windows - 98 takes only a few seconds longer than FreeBSD, NT4-sp6 takes a full 2 or 3 minutes to resync.
I read an article about this on another site, can't remember which, and the detail that caught my attention was the "content protection" feature - ie: SDMI-like "protecton" of Copyrighted works.
So everyone complaining about the attacks on Fair Use should consider carefully before purchasing one of these.
If an artist willingly signs a contract which gives his/her rights to their work to an RIAA member company - then they have no right to complain about Napster, as they no longer own anything being traded.
If a person inputs Track information into the original non-commercial, freely available CDDB, they most certainly have a right to complain about a corporate entity now using that user-submitted information in a manner contrary to the submitters wishes.
No hipocrasy, their two completely different situations. I'm a musician, and a geek, I own ALL Copyrights to my music because I refuse to sign a recording contract that would transfer them to any label.
Copy control does not mean what you are implying, which is copy restrictions. If Pig Latin Encryption is used to ensure copying is possible - it's still a form of copy control. It's controlling the copying ability to make sure it is not restricted.
Which just happens to be the reverse form of that which the law was supposed to apply to.
The reason/. commenters got upset about Katz's plan (beside the fact it involved Katz) is that Katz would be generating revenue from the IP of others - that is a far different matter than music sharing.
With Napster, users weren't/aren't attempting to obtain any revenue from other's IP - simply have open access to it much like they do with radio, except with greater personal control of what they listen to.
I would have no problem with people using my/. comments for an academic assignment - but if they want to make money from it - I want a cut.
That's the key point that folks are missing. "Pirates" in the original form, robbed shipping channels and resold the goods to fill their own pockets. Napster, and other similar service users are not reselling these songs - so they are NOT "Pirates". Copyright law was designed to prevent "Pirating" of IP - a recording company that steals my "amatuer" song and has some pimped-up Britney-esque singer make them $ off of it without due compensation to me - the original and lawful owner of that song. It was the equivilent of the recording companies that were the Pirates - not listeners - and it was the artists that were to be protected - not those companies. Somewhere along the line, whilest noone was paying attention, the table was turned.
Since the link is merely a reference pointer, pointing to a location which has varying information, it is not a distribution mechanism. To distribute a thing, one has to at some point, in some manner, possess that thing.
If I happen to find a video store selling illegal "home movies" of the sort you seem concerned with, and I stand outside pointing to the store saying "This place is selling Kiddie Porn!" - am I distributing it? Of course not, I'm merely providing a reference pointer - my index finger combined with speech - that points to the relevant location. Furthermore, the video store may remove the offending content while I continue my pointing and shouting. Now, am I even pointing to a location offering illegal content? Nope, their content has changed and is no longer legally questionable! My pointing at this time is out of sync with my target and therefore invalid.
If you've used the Internet long, you undoubtedly have encountered exactly this situation. You search on Google or the like, and click upon the URLs returned, only to find some are no longer valid - the destination they once pointed to no longer exists.
For this reason alone, although their may be many others, your implication that linking is a form of distribution is just plain wrong. Nothing is being distributed - nothing is ever in the possession of the linking site - the link is dynamic in that the location it points to can change at any moment, or many times from moment to moment.
No sir... Linking is merely the equivelent of standing on a corner and telling a passerby to "head down this street 3 blocks (pointing say, south) and take a left on Central Street, the 4th building on the right is the Post Office." Again, nothing is distributed (with the exception perhaps of information/knowledge), only a pointer to a potentially relative location is provided.
IBM has a Trademark on "IBM" - I can launch a company called Open Internet Business Marketers and use OIBM, or OpenIBM, or OInternetBM, or OIBusinessM, or OIBMarketers. The fact that I may even sell compettitive products, IBM can't complain because my acronym is NOT the same.
A Trademark for Secure SHell's acronym is not infringed upon by the acronym for OPEN Secure SHell.
To be completely honest, I think it's SSH Security that should change their name to something more unique, and re-release their product as {NEWCO}SSH to distinguish it from competitors. It was stupid to try and force uniqueness upon something that was common and obvious (ref: sh, bash, ksh, rsh, etc).
Write a menuconfig-like front-end for kernel customization, or at least make detailed suggestions to those who can if unable to yourself.
As for desktop, both GNOME and KDE are available during the last stages of an install, or later by/stand/sysinstall and selecting Desktop Customization or something similar (not at a FreeBSD machine right now to verify). There are some minor issues I personally have with both desktops; due though to the development teams for each, not *BSD. Some applets are a bit too Linux-centric, if developers spent more time thinking about portability rather than thumping the "Linux alone rulez!" mantra, they would work much better.
Re:How about Annoyed enough
on
Is BSD Dying?
·
· Score: 1
As to the oddity of your example, I believe you'd have to run a make world on the entire OS for the latest Bind updates, as they are a part of the core system. Perhaps a more experienced BSD'er can help clarify this point for both of us here. Your example is still relatively valid, as this would be the process for pretty much any other port.
The Bind included in the base OS is a stable version which only receives updates, not upgrades, during a make world.
To upgrade to a newer version of Bind, you would use the ports/packages facility to do the upgrade, and then add the requisite line in/etc/make.conf to prevent a subsequent make world from downgrading Bind on you.
As for the original post, what is the problem with "cd/usr/ports/net/bind;make install"? More characters to type perhaps than the Debian commands, or too slow a PC to compile from source? You can also use the packages facility to fetch and install pre-compiled binaries if needed.
There were quite a few legitimate subscribers reported effected by their tactics. Also, many people have pointed out, it is perfectly legal in Canada to use "hacked" cards to receive the DirectTV, or any other, signal not available for purchase in Canada.
The point I make is that it is not legal in any manner you try to justify it as to deliberately break property not owned by another person/entity. It's called Malicious Destruction of Property, and is a definate criminal act.
I want to stress, I do not, have not, and will not use hacked cards for such a service. I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost of the hacked card. In fact, my TV hasn't even been turned on in over 8 months using plain old broadcast airwave local stations. I just have a problem with a company intentionally destroying property that doesn't belong to them because they feel, despite applicable laws (ie: Canada), that people using hacked cards are criminal and as such fair game for this type of destruction.
I agree that the legality of the card may be in question, but that does not give them the right to destroy it, only pursue proper legal channels to prosecute the issue. If I believe the TV in your home was purchased by somone selling stolen equipment from a van, that does not give me or the TV manufacturer, or TV stations, or the police, or anyone the right to enter your home and destroy your property. I can only inform the proper law enforcement officials and they will prosecute the matter if there is sufficient evidence.
This is the case because in the USA, we're supposedly Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
The exceptions you point out are exceptions because of one specific thing - they affect "downstream" entities. If I dump pollution into a river, or even a pond on my property, there is a direct negative affect on the enrironment outside my property. That is the specific reason why it's illegal. If you have an isolated container, that does not suffer from seepage, leaks, evaporation, or other methods of affecting the environment, then there really isn't anything illegal about it. If you don't believe this, consider your trash/garbage can - although it does suffer from minor leakage/evaporation, it is small enough that the polluting material does not significantly affect the environment.
Unscrambling a signal has no affect on that signal in general, so it isn't even the equivalent of a trash can, more like a stove (utilizes the material present). If, however, you "pollute" the airwaves, by immitting a signal of your own which affectively blocks or prohibits others from receiving the original signal (much like dumping pollution into a stream running through your property), then you are definately breaking laws against jamming public airwaves.
Not that I can answer your question, but I'd like to help narrow down it down a bit. I'd also, merely for curiousity reasons, like to know the answer.
So, that being said: Are you using ksh93 or an older ksh88-based shell?
Just from reading the above responses, it appears ksh93 has a much richer scripting environment. You mention that pdksh, which is based on ksh88, processes the statement as bash does. I would assume from this that you're using ksh93, and the difference is most likely due to the extended scripting functionality. That functionality would not be present in pdksh or bash, since they are not based on ksh93.
Many corporations feel/felt that adding more developers to a project will produce faster/more/better results. The truth is far from this.
Considering all of the projects that are announced, and then go nowhere fast. Or even more to the point the plethora of X/gtk/qt/kde/gnome/etc text editors and such. Having a ton of developers all creating their own wheel does not mean any of those wheels will be the end-all-be-all of wheels.
The most important point, that apparently you (and from what I've been seeing the past couple of years from more and more folks) miss, is that developing cross-platform applications or those that are easily portable to other platforms will produce a much more successful project then one tailor fitted to one specific platform. This has nothing at all to do with the license chosen, merely an increase in exposure to those hacking on different platforms.
Now, I'm assuming what you've been referring to as "more developers" is in the user-land application area. I know that there are a very few "core" Linux kernel hackers that work with Linus on each rev. Sure, many others may submit patches and enhancements, but it's this core group that decides what goes in any given release.
Each of the BSD's have there respective "core team" that performs the same functional purpose. The only real difference is that the BSD's encompass kernel & user-land code. Once again, anyone can contribute patches and enhancements, but only the core team can decide what goes in a given release.
Then consider that well written, portable user-land applications can run on either Linux or the BSD's without any regard to the license which each uses, and you completely lose the entire argument you're making.
I'm writing this post using Mozilla, running on FreeBSD 4.2-Stable, within a GNOME desktop, on top of XFree86. Each of these components has a different number of developers, each has a different license, yet all interoperate with each other without problem. So how is it that more GPL'ers writing applications then BSD'ers writing applications has anything to do with the success of any platform?
You basically do not have any basis for your comments. There are no differences in progress of Linux or any of the BSD's based on number of developers or license used. If you have a detailed study that draws such a conclusion, then please post a link and we'll all happily critique it for you. Lacking any such analysis, you're assertions are nothing but nonsense.
Finally, I never suggested that Linux was not more popular then BSD - but then again Windows is more popular then each but I would never suggest that it's due to Microsoft's license. We're not talking about a popularity contest here anyway though - and popularity can be quite fleeting.
...
Hence, eventually the popularity of Linux and the GPL with developers will mean that Linux will likely overtake the BSDs in performance in the not-too-distant future....
This comment would assume that the BSD's stand still. Since *BSD has been in active developement since the early '90s, and has a much larger installed base and list of contributors then ever before, I find this notion hard to believe.
Linux will of course improve, and so will the BSD's, and so will Solaris, and so will Windows, and so will...
Also I fail to see how and/or where BSD is doomed by anything, least of which is it's license. Considering that Apple is about to release MacOS X, which is based on Mach+FreeBSD, this "new" BSD will likely become the largest open-sourced OS* shipping. (* Yes, the upper level GUI is not open, but a GUI is not an OS)
Your statements basically boil down to either FUD or wishful thinking. But I fail to see any evidence that any such thing will occur.
They do farm the lower level items, until the in-game value declines to the point they have to move on to something else. The value is definately set by the players, based upon supply and demand - or sheer laziness;-)
For example, bat wings are a required component for levitation spells. Everytime you cast the spell, a bat wing is used from your inventory (items you carry around with you). If you are out of bat wings, then you can't cast the spell. Bats are level 1 creatures, but even at level 57 I will still need their wings for my spell. So rather than spending 30 minutes slaughtering bats to collect the needed wings, lower level characters that get experience killing them collect the wings and auction a stack of 20 for say 10pp. At a high level, 10pp is spare change, but to a level 2 - that 10pp will go quite a way.
The in-game prices players auction items between each other is in a constant state of flux. An item, when first discovered, has an enormous going rate since it's rare and there's a cool factor of being one of the first to own one. But then the farming sets in, and the item becomes so common it's value plummets. So the farmer's move on to the next hot thing. Once that first item slowly disappears from the in-game auction channel (a method of speech dedicated to trading/selling), the value begins to creep back up since those who can benifit most by the item's attributes begin paying more for the harder to but item.
This is the major problem with selling items outside of the Norrathian world - it disturbs the in-game economy. This is Sony/Verant's main cause for complaint. They put a lot of work into making the player run economy work as well as it does. Players who distort it by moving the transactions outside of the game, have a detrimental effect on the game play itself. Those who claim that Sony/Verant is just upset that they don't make a profit on these outside sales are completely wrong. It has nothing to do with real-life money, they make plenty of that off of their subscriptions and expansion packs. It's the damage to the game they have spent so many years on that pisses them off.
Note the verbage:
End User License Agreement (EULA)
GNU Public License (GPL)
If EULA's are on there face "illegal. Period." then the same is true of the GPL and the rest. As a user of a GPL'd piece of software, I may not even see the notice stating the code has been release under the GPL. That notice is typically writen within the source code (although some include it in readme files).
What the problems with EULA's and all other software licenses is that portions or particular statements may be ruled illegal by a court. But to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say, is a dangerous notion.
I fail to see the legal standing the plaintiff's have in this matter. They are not impacted in any real world manner that can be litigated. They are simple restricted from selling in-game characters and items out-of-game. The notion that these players have spent hours of real life time obtaining them, therefore are entitled to some monetary compensation is false. The real life time they spent obtaining the characters/items was spent playing the game - the use of Sony/Verant's system is their compensation for the subscription fee and time spent playing.
There is a very complex economy implemented in the game, and your character's race(species really), class, location, and faction standing with certain NPC groups plays a big part in this economy. The other side is the character to character auction system in-game. If you have some uber item you wish to sell, you auction it in-game and receive fair-market value in the form of platinum(pp), gold(gp), silver(sp), and copper(cp).
The whole point which Sony/Verant are attempting to state in their EULA is that the EverQuest world is a different world than Earth. If you want to auction items, you do it on the world you obtained them, and they have value to others, on. What value does a Short Sword of Ykesha (an EQ item) have to me on Earth if I don't play EverQuest? NONE! The value exist only on Norrath (the EverQuest planet) - so all trade should be performed on Norrath.
This is the concept that these cry-baby's don't like. They feel that the Earth-based time they spend "on Norrath" entitles them to disregard the entire role-playing intent of the game. I disagree completely! I spend as much/perhaps more time "on Norrath" and have no trouble conducting my auctions there - as was intended. Are they claiming that thier Earth-based time is more valuable or deserving more rights than mine? Not in America bud! We're all equal here on Earth, in the country EverQuest was born in.
I could go on, and probably will later... but I have to work today and must hit the road!
Slashdot Mirror
The Fair Use provision applies to an item purchased - that specific item purchased. It does not in any way, shape, or form require you to purchase another item of lessor quality.
If I were to purchase a DVD formatted movie, then I have rights via the Fair Use provision to extract exerpts for critical review (for example) from that specific DVD I have purchased. At no time am I required to purchase a separate copy in an alternate format.
The sooner this issue can be clearly communicated, and thus understood by the presiding judges, the better!
To make a Fair Use copy of a DVD film, I am told I can easily buy/rent a VHS version of the film and exercise my rights without problem.
There are a few fundamental flaws to this proposition:
1) The content I want to use must be available on VHS format. This is not always possible since many DVD's contain extra scenes/footage not included elsewhere.
2) I must buy/rent the necessary player for the VHS version, if it does exist.
3) I must buy/rent the necessary conversion device(s) to get the VHS content onto my PC - assuming my presentation is being conducted from my notebook computer (which would be true for me).
4) I must buy/rent the VHS formatted version, if it exists.
These four points create an excessive burden and cost to me. The Fair Use provisions of Copyright law allow me to use the item I purchase - a DVD in a permissible manner. It does NOT require me to purchase or rent additional items in order to exercise my rights with a lower quality version of my original purchase.
To rule otherwise is a gross perversion of both the intent and letter of the Fair Use provision.
Because the decompressor relied on the file numbering to work does not make it an "integral part" any more than the OS needed to run the decompression program on is "integral".
As well, things such as sector size, blocking factor, filesystem paging size, etc can cause, for example, a 1K file to take anywhere from 1K - (many)MB to store. For this reason, the filesystem utilization should not be considered in the validity of the challenge. The source file generated was a set byte size which did not factor in filesystem and storage overhead. Therefor, the "solution" presented did meet the stated requirements.
So everyone complaining about the attacks on Fair Use should consider carefully before purchasing one of these.
He was not suspended, expelled, or arrested for "Thinking While In Highschool"!
If a person inputs Track information into the original non-commercial, freely available CDDB, they most certainly have a right to complain about a corporate entity now using that user-submitted information in a manner contrary to the submitters wishes.
No hipocrasy, their two completely different situations. I'm a musician, and a geek, I own ALL Copyrights to my music because I refuse to sign a recording contract that would transfer them to any label.
Which just happens to be the reverse form of that which the law was supposed to apply to.
With Napster, users weren't/aren't attempting to obtain any revenue from other's IP - simply have open access to it much like they do with radio, except with greater personal control of what they listen to.
I would have no problem with people using my /. comments for an academic assignment - but if they want to make money from it - I want a cut.
That's the key point that folks are missing. "Pirates" in the original form, robbed shipping channels and resold the goods to fill their own pockets. Napster, and other similar service users are not reselling these songs - so they are NOT "Pirates". Copyright law was designed to prevent "Pirating" of IP - a recording company that steals my "amatuer" song and has some pimped-up Britney-esque singer make them $ off of it without due compensation to me - the original and lawful owner of that song. It was the equivilent of the recording companies that were the Pirates - not listeners - and it was the artists that were to be protected - not those companies. Somewhere along the line, whilest noone was paying attention, the table was turned.
If I happen to find a video store selling illegal "home movies" of the sort you seem concerned with, and I stand outside pointing to the store saying "This place is selling Kiddie Porn!" - am I distributing it? Of course not, I'm merely providing a reference pointer - my index finger combined with speech - that points to the relevant location. Furthermore, the video store may remove the offending content while I continue my pointing and shouting. Now, am I even pointing to a location offering illegal content? Nope, their content has changed and is no longer legally questionable! My pointing at this time is out of sync with my target and therefore invalid.
If you've used the Internet long, you undoubtedly have encountered exactly this situation. You search on Google or the like, and click upon the URLs returned, only to find some are no longer valid - the destination they once pointed to no longer exists.
For this reason alone, although their may be many others, your implication that linking is a form of distribution is just plain wrong. Nothing is being distributed - nothing is ever in the possession of the linking site - the link is dynamic in that the location it points to can change at any moment, or many times from moment to moment.
No sir... Linking is merely the equivelent of standing on a corner and telling a passerby to "head down this street 3 blocks (pointing say, south) and take a left on Central Street, the 4th building on the right is the Post Office." Again, nothing is distributed (with the exception perhaps of information/knowledge), only a pointer to a potentially relative location is provided.
I personally loved that character - and his loss was the most disappointing part of Bloom County's end.
A Trademark for Secure SHell's acronym is not infringed upon by the acronym for OPEN Secure SHell.
To be completely honest, I think it's SSH Security that should change their name to something more unique, and re-release their product as {NEWCO}SSH to distinguish it from competitors. It was stupid to try and force uniqueness upon something that was common and obvious (ref: sh, bash, ksh, rsh, etc).
As for desktop, both GNOME and KDE are available during the last stages of an install, or later by /stand/sysinstall and selecting Desktop Customization or something similar (not at a FreeBSD machine right now to verify). There are some minor issues I personally have with both desktops; due though to the development teams for each, not *BSD. Some applets are a bit too Linux-centric, if developers spent more time thinking about portability rather than thumping the "Linux alone rulez!" mantra, they would work much better.
The Bind included in the base OS is a stable version which only receives updates, not upgrades, during a make world.
To upgrade to a newer version of Bind, you would use the ports/packages facility to do the upgrade, and then add the requisite line in /etc/make.conf to prevent a subsequent make world from downgrading Bind on you.
As for the original post, what is the problem with "cd /usr/ports/net/bind;make install"? More characters to type perhaps than the Debian commands, or too slow a PC to compile from source? You can also use the packages facility to fetch and install pre-compiled binaries if needed.
The point I make is that it is not legal in any manner you try to justify it as to deliberately break property not owned by another person/entity. It's called Malicious Destruction of Property, and is a definate criminal act.
I want to stress, I do not, have not, and will not use hacked cards for such a service. I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost of the hacked card. In fact, my TV hasn't even been turned on in over 8 months using plain old broadcast airwave local stations. I just have a problem with a company intentionally destroying property that doesn't belong to them because they feel, despite applicable laws (ie: Canada), that people using hacked cards are criminal and as such fair game for this type of destruction.
This is the case because in the USA, we're supposedly Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Unscrambling a signal has no affect on that signal in general, so it isn't even the equivalent of a trash can, more like a stove (utilizes the material present). If, however, you "pollute" the airwaves, by immitting a signal of your own which affectively blocks or prohibits others from receiving the original signal (much like dumping pollution into a stream running through your property), then you are definately breaking laws against jamming public airwaves.
So, that being said: Are you using ksh93 or an older ksh88-based shell?
Just from reading the above responses, it appears ksh93 has a much richer scripting environment. You mention that pdksh, which is based on ksh88, processes the statement as bash does. I would assume from this that you're using ksh93, and the difference is most likely due to the extended scripting functionality. That functionality would not be present in pdksh or bash, since they are not based on ksh93.
Considering all of the projects that are announced, and then go nowhere fast. Or even more to the point the plethora of X/gtk/qt/kde/gnome/etc text editors and such. Having a ton of developers all creating their own wheel does not mean any of those wheels will be the end-all-be-all of wheels.
The most important point, that apparently you (and from what I've been seeing the past couple of years from more and more folks) miss, is that developing cross-platform applications or those that are easily portable to other platforms will produce a much more successful project then one tailor fitted to one specific platform. This has nothing at all to do with the license chosen, merely an increase in exposure to those hacking on different platforms.
Now, I'm assuming what you've been referring to as "more developers" is in the user-land application area. I know that there are a very few "core" Linux kernel hackers that work with Linus on each rev. Sure, many others may submit patches and enhancements, but it's this core group that decides what goes in any given release.
Each of the BSD's have there respective "core team" that performs the same functional purpose. The only real difference is that the BSD's encompass kernel & user-land code. Once again, anyone can contribute patches and enhancements, but only the core team can decide what goes in a given release.
Then consider that well written, portable user-land applications can run on either Linux or the BSD's without any regard to the license which each uses, and you completely lose the entire argument you're making.
I'm writing this post using Mozilla, running on FreeBSD 4.2-Stable, within a GNOME desktop, on top of XFree86. Each of these components has a different number of developers, each has a different license, yet all interoperate with each other without problem. So how is it that more GPL'ers writing applications then BSD'ers writing applications has anything to do with the success of any platform?
You basically do not have any basis for your comments. There are no differences in progress of Linux or any of the BSD's based on number of developers or license used. If you have a detailed study that draws such a conclusion, then please post a link and we'll all happily critique it for you. Lacking any such analysis, you're assertions are nothing but nonsense.
Finally, I never suggested that Linux was not more popular then BSD - but then again Windows is more popular then each but I would never suggest that it's due to Microsoft's license. We're not talking about a popularity contest here anyway though - and popularity can be quite fleeting.
Hence, eventually the popularity of Linux and the GPL with developers will mean that Linux will likely overtake the BSDs in performance in the not-too-distant future.
This comment would assume that the BSD's stand still. Since *BSD has been in active developement since the early '90s, and has a much larger installed base and list of contributors then ever before, I find this notion hard to believe.
Linux will of course improve, and so will the BSD's, and so will Solaris, and so will Windows, and so will...
Also I fail to see how and/or where BSD is doomed by anything, least of which is it's license. Considering that Apple is about to release MacOS X, which is based on Mach+FreeBSD, this "new" BSD will likely become the largest open-sourced OS* shipping. (* Yes, the upper level GUI is not open, but a GUI is not an OS)
Your statements basically boil down to either FUD or wishful thinking. But I fail to see any evidence that any such thing will occur.
Where the license appears, or what it restricts, and how it rescricts it is irrelevant when taking this "illegal. Period." perspective.
For example, bat wings are a required component for levitation spells. Everytime you cast the spell, a bat wing is used from your inventory (items you carry around with you). If you are out of bat wings, then you can't cast the spell. Bats are level 1 creatures, but even at level 57 I will still need their wings for my spell. So rather than spending 30 minutes slaughtering bats to collect the needed wings, lower level characters that get experience killing them collect the wings and auction a stack of 20 for say 10pp. At a high level, 10pp is spare change, but to a level 2 - that 10pp will go quite a way.
The in-game prices players auction items between each other is in a constant state of flux. An item, when first discovered, has an enormous going rate since it's rare and there's a cool factor of being one of the first to own one. But then the farming sets in, and the item becomes so common it's value plummets. So the farmer's move on to the next hot thing. Once that first item slowly disappears from the in-game auction channel (a method of speech dedicated to trading/selling), the value begins to creep back up since those who can benifit most by the item's attributes begin paying more for the harder to but item.
This is the major problem with selling items outside of the Norrathian world - it disturbs the in-game economy. This is Sony/Verant's main cause for complaint. They put a lot of work into making the player run economy work as well as it does. Players who distort it by moving the transactions outside of the game, have a detrimental effect on the game play itself. Those who claim that Sony/Verant is just upset that they don't make a profit on these outside sales are completely wrong. It has nothing to do with real-life money, they make plenty of that off of their subscriptions and expansion packs. It's the damage to the game they have spent so many years on that pisses them off.
End User License Agreement (EULA)
GNU Public License (GPL)
If EULA's are on there face "illegal. Period." then the same is true of the GPL and the rest. As a user of a GPL'd piece of software, I may not even see the notice stating the code has been release under the GPL. That notice is typically writen within the source code (although some include it in readme files).
What the problems with EULA's and all other software licenses is that portions or particular statements may be ruled illegal by a court. But to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say, is a dangerous notion.
I fail to see the legal standing the plaintiff's have in this matter. They are not impacted in any real world manner that can be litigated. They are simple restricted from selling in-game characters and items out-of-game. The notion that these players have spent hours of real life time obtaining them, therefore are entitled to some monetary compensation is false. The real life time they spent obtaining the characters/items was spent playing the game - the use of Sony/Verant's system is their compensation for the subscription fee and time spent playing.
There is a very complex economy implemented in the game, and your character's race(species really), class, location, and faction standing with certain NPC groups plays a big part in this economy. The other side is the character to character auction system in-game. If you have some uber item you wish to sell, you auction it in-game and receive fair-market value in the form of platinum(pp), gold(gp), silver(sp), and copper(cp).
The whole point which Sony/Verant are attempting to state in their EULA is that the EverQuest world is a different world than Earth. If you want to auction items, you do it on the world you obtained them, and they have value to others, on. What value does a Short Sword of Ykesha (an EQ item) have to me on Earth if I don't play EverQuest? NONE! The value exist only on Norrath (the EverQuest planet) - so all trade should be performed on Norrath.
This is the concept that these cry-baby's don't like. They feel that the Earth-based time they spend "on Norrath" entitles them to disregard the entire role-playing intent of the game. I disagree completely! I spend as much/perhaps more time "on Norrath" and have no trouble conducting my auctions there - as was intended. Are they claiming that thier Earth-based time is more valuable or deserving more rights than mine? Not in America bud! We're all equal here on Earth, in the country EverQuest was born in.
I could go on, and probably will later... but I have to work today and must hit the road!