If someone claims to have higher moral standards than another, then that first person actually has to uphold them, otherwise they are being hypocritical.
No. War is not war. The Geneva convention, which was noted in the article, is often obeyed, sometimes even by both sides in a conflict. Even without this, it is generally frowned upon to bomb civillians or residential areas.
"Cyber-warfare" is essentially useless today : the group being attacked can disconnect their systems, and genuine military systems have no business being connect to a public network anyway.
No it's not immoral. For example, this actually allows people to play DVDs on linux, which was previously impossible. This is a clear case of the movie industry being evil.
Please note that if they are going to make it open source, then they cannot be considering making it available under a SCSL-style license, because that is not an open source license.
Firstly, that's impractical if you really need to ship a heavily modified version. For example, one might want to port QT to Windows. It's unlikely they'd integrate this into Free Edition QT, as they already have a Windows port : it's just proprietary. But anyway,....
I don't buy that. It's the large number of copyright holders on the kernel which make that impractical : not the GPL.
If the GPL had a clause like you seem to want, how exactly do you propose to track down all the copyright holders in order to pay them?
A QPLed work with a large number of copyright holders would be just as bad.
And remember, the freedom to make proprietary derivative works is not useful to people who are actually interested in the freedom of others.
Kind of sucky, but KDE would have been very unlikely to have been persuaded to use Harmony after the license change, than before it, when it was just not very likely.
Slashdot Mirror
You are either lying ore ignorant. Note that the FSF insist on the same thing for assorted other software projects : gcc, emacs, etc...
If the maintainer's behaviour becomes intolerable, you can fork, as a last resort.
So use "viruses", anything else is just being pretentious and wrong.
It isn't publically traded.
How exactly are Apple an alternative seller of operating systems for Intel computers (the scope of this trial).
Good luck finding a bootsector virus that works on two different CPU architectures.
If someone claims to have higher moral standards than another, then that first person actually has to uphold them, otherwise they are being hypocritical.
"Cyber-warfare" is essentially useless today : the group being attacked can disconnect their systems, and genuine military systems have no business being connect to a public network anyway.
>anti-capitalist, GPL'ed ass
I guess you didn't notice the huge IPOs on GPL software companies, then?
I take it you don't know much about broadcast signals then.
I see "Geeks in Space", an audio show available in Real and MP3 (streaming) and MP3 (nonstreaming).
I don't see any Media Player formats.
Bugs do matter in that case. Sure, they don't matter as much, but complacency about bugs is a very dangerous thing.
No. The web is not a visual media. Sorry to break your little delusion there. Some people have twisted it a lot to try and make it one, sadly.
Resistance is futile, you shall be duplicated.
Um, and it's probably unconstitutional anyway.
No it's not immoral. For example, this actually allows people to play DVDs on linux, which was previously impossible. This is a clear case of the movie industry being evil.
Remember, this isn't about piracy, this is about watching DVDs!
If you think it's such a big issue, why not try to bring down the government over it?
Ok, fine. I was really only objecting to the poor journalism that typifies slashdot nowadays. :)
Read up on 'kinetic energy', and how it is proportional to the square of the speed.
If you want to get somewhere fast, go via train or plane. Otherwise, be patient.
Please note that if they are going to make it open source, then they cannot be considering making it available under a SCSL-style license, because that is not an open source license.
I don't buy that. It's the large number of copyright holders on the kernel which make that impractical : not the GPL.
If the GPL had a clause like you seem to want, how exactly do you propose to track down all the copyright holders in order to pay them?
A QPLed work with a large number of copyright holders would be just as bad.
And remember, the freedom to make proprietary derivative works is not useful to people who are actually interested in the freedom of others.
Wrong.
Kind of sucky, but KDE would have been very unlikely to have been persuaded to use Harmony after the license change, than before it, when it was just not very likely.
The QPL doesn't let me ship modified versions of the QT source tarball. How is that "more free"?
Note, you can also pay the copyright holders of GPLed code enough money, and they will often allow you to do whatever you like with it.