Yeah. Because there certainly has not been a leap from hard drives the size of a washing machine, to drives the size of a toaster, to drives of modern form factor. And there definitely has not been a progression from 1 megabyte to 20 megabyte to 200 megabyte to 1 gigabyte to 20 gigabyte to 150 gigabytes... No siree, it's all a big lie.
Everyone knows that hard drives are vaporware. And the idea of computer performance increasing exponentially? I mean who the hell would believe that shit.
This is what you get when you have a bunch of simple programmers pandering to the whims of marketing. Customers are irrelevant. Don't trust the customer, trust marketing. Mareketing 'knows' what our customers want, and what they paid for.
It's not like developers bend over backwards to pleasure the marketing people. It's a basic equation really. Most companies are driven by their marketing departments. If engineering doesn't do what marketing wants, the engineers get fired. Very simple.
Because the winning strategy of leaders throughout pretty much all time is "Deny everything." When you really want to sow confusion, you "Neither confirm nor deny."
The criticism is not new. From the beginning there has been controversy in the open source community about these efforts to clone proprietary Microsoft APIs.
I'm just sayin'.
Okay. But clearly, quite a few commenters here do NOT respect de Icaza, and seem to just want to bash him. Okay, we get the point -- you don't like the guy. Can we move on please?
I've seen this over and over, not only in the tech field. Somebody who is "highly respected" by a great number of people, because of technical proficiency, wisdom, or what have you, expresses an opinion that a lot of people disagree with.
I think the reasonable response to this is to say, "Hmm. This guy I look up to and respect says X, but I don't think X. Maybe I should re-examine the evidence and see if I've missed something." But instead, it seems like most people just react emotionally and reject and push away the guy they've invested so much respect in.
Seriously, how can your respect of a person change so DRASTICALLY based on a single expressed opinion? You're basically admitting that you were a fool ever to respect the person in the first place.
There are few people who I truly respect and admire in this world, but I certainly take notice of what they say and give it careful consideration. In the end, I might still come away disagreeing, but I'm not going to just ditch somebody because they said something I don't like.
He's not being charged with two things, he's being charged with one thing. That "and" in there doesn't imply there are two separate aspects to his behavior. The two taken in conjunction constitute a SINGLE offense.
But the agreement the original copyright holder enters just states that he has no right to complain if the licensee modifies and redistributes the source code.
The GPL is not an agreement, nor a contract. It is a license. You cannot enter into an agreement or contract with a person you do not know and have never met. The license basically says, "If you follow these terms and conditions, we promise not to sue you."
I'm very curious to see if the GPL is even a legally valid document. How can you agree not to sue "somebody?" With commercial software there is at least an implication that the license has been granted to a specific customer, not "everybody in general."
Nonsense, everyone who they distribute a binary to has the right to demand the source. They just don't any teeth to back up the demands.
So in other words, they have no rights. Being told that you are allowed to do "X" but are not given any method for actually doing "X" does not mean you can do "X". Unless you are willing to call upon the help of magical beings.
What the GPL states is that if you provide someone with a binary, you must also provide them with the source on demand, for no more than the reasonable cost of doing so. It does not say "unless you are the copyright holder." If you refuse to do so, they would have to sue you to force you to perform what you agreed to when you licensed your code under the GPL
Sue you for what? Deciding what you want to do with your own god damn intellectual property? Good luck with that. Guess what: the GPL is a LICENSE, not a CONTRACT. Fuck, works to precisely that effect are RIGHT THERE in the license. Try reading it.
(IANAL) the fact that you are the copyright holder does not give you a pass on fulfilling the terms of the license
Good thing YANAL. You're batshit crazy, as well as wrong.
When you provide someone with a GPL-licensed binary, you have entered into a license agreement to also provide the source, and that is true even if you are the copyright holder.
Nope. Back to your padded cell, now. Who let you out?
Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. The GPL specifies that the source code must be distributed along with the binary or must be made publicly available otherwise.
And if it isn't? I suppose somebody would sue the guy. Why, THAT'S IT! He's gonna sue HIMSELF!
Thanks, you've brought me much enlightenment. On your particular level of stupidity, that is.
I wish more people would invest their intelligence into how to protect the life forms (and that includes everything from slimy single-cell organisms to snow tigers) on this globe that are already there. Nobody will be able to bring them back, ever, after they are gone.
Are you... insane? Being able to create arbitrary life in the laboratory is EXACTLY what will be necessary to "resurrect" the species we are currently wiping from existence. The polar bear, among many other species, is probably going to be extinct within 50 years. At this point there's probably nothing we can do to stop that. But if we can learn to recreate its living form from scratch, we might have a chance to save these species in the future when their habitats have been restored.
Unlike your software creations, a society is grown, not engineered. There will be all sorts of anomalies and branches sticking out in strange ways when something is grown. This will all get corrected as people like the subject blogger bring the issues to light. Think of this process as pruning.
Except that historically (and statistically), ALL systems of government which operate in this fashion will ultimately collapse. There's no reason at all to believe that we are any different.
The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.
It's a stupid kind of logic, "We paid for it, therefore only we should benefit." Except that in the case of the environment, Californians certainly do NOT benefit if they are the only ones using the cars. People benefit only if we ALL do it. So it was basically a good chunk of money down the tubes.
Be warned, even in states where the manager may wind up being arrested and charged with illegal detainmnet and/or kidnapping, assuming a police officier actually knows the law, which is a real crap shoot, it can be a whole different ball of wax at member's clubs when you sign on the bottom line.
Not really. If you sign a contract and break it, you may incur penalties, as written in the contract. That's it. It STILL doesn't give the store the right to search you. What it gives them is the right to punish you in a certain way (monetarily, probably) if you refuse the search.
You cannot sign a contract which allows somebody to hold you against your will. That's what the word "inalienable" means in "inalienable rights." Even if you agree to give up a right, you still retain it. You can't sign away your rights even if you wanted to.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's quite common for stores to force you to show a receipt before they'll let you leave.
"Force" me? How? Reach into my pocket? Grab me to prevent me from moving away? Anybody doing that to me will receive a blow to the eye socket.
What, you think because they say "Sorry, we have to see your receipt," that therefore you must show it? It's absolutely amazing how ignorant people are of their BASIC RIGHTS.
Just as well, the confrontation would have been less pleasant since Ohio is a concealed carry state and I will defend myself.
I totally agree with you in principle. But do you SERIOUSLY think you can get away with shooting a receipt-checker to death using a "self defense" argument?
How about this as a suitable compromise. At stores that use LCD customer-operated credit card readers, have the reader display a message to the tune of, "By signing you give Circuit City permission to inspect this receipt as you exit the store. If you do not wish to give said permission, please notify your cashier and he or she will kindly restock your merchandise and cancel the purchase." For those paying in cash, have a sign with the same message at each checkout station. That way nobody can claim ignorance
The problem is, after signing such a statement you STILL haven't given up your rights. Such a statement is meaningless and unenforceable, because the store is not a law enforcement agency. If you sign and then walk out, the most they can legally do is ban you from returning (which they could have done without the statement, by the way). A piece of paper does NOT give them the right to search you, no matter what happens to be written on it.
If you signed a contract (or if entering premises with a sign accomplishes the same thing), then refusing to follow through with showing the contents of your bag could reasonably be construed as cause to suspect you of shoplifting. If that is the case, the law in almost all states, DOES give the shopkeeper the right to physically detain you.
In the case of a contract, maybe. But it is the "reasonable suspicion," not the contract, which makes their actions defensible. But a sign is not a contract, any more than the GPL is a contract.
In fact, the GPL is possibly a very good example of what I'm talking about. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program... Same here. You do not have to accept the conditions on the sign. However, nothing else authorizes you to be on the premises. If you are found to be in violation of the sign, you can be removed. That's pretty much it.
Yes. The guy's an ass who tried to assert his legal rights. For that, he should be arrested.
Is no one else worried that we find ourselves surrounded by people with opinions such as this? For the first time in my life I'm considering getting a few firearms. Am I crazy?
Doesn't Circuit City have a sign when you enter that states they have the right to inspect packages when you leave? By entering the premises you agree to follow their rules. If you don't like that, DON'T GO IN. Get it?
Or... DO go in, and continue to maintain your legal rights. The sign is meaningless. If they're pissed you're not adhering to what's written on the sign, they have a legal right to do exactly one thing: ask you to leave.
If I willingly enter a premises with a posted sign reading "Anal probes required upon exit of store," I still do not have to submit to an anal probe, any more than I have to allow a search of my possessions. I'm breaking the rules, yes -- I can be told to leave, and forcibly removed by the police if I fail to comply with the request to leave. That's it.
Funnily enough, that's all this guy was trying to do: leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Because there certainly has not been a leap from hard drives the size of a washing machine, to drives the size of a toaster, to drives of modern form factor. And there definitely has not been a progression from 1 megabyte to 20 megabyte to 200 megabyte to 1 gigabyte to 20 gigabyte to 150 gigabytes... No siree, it's all a big lie.
Everyone knows that hard drives are vaporware. And the idea of computer performance increasing exponentially? I mean who the hell would believe that shit.
This is what you get when you have a bunch of simple programmers pandering to the whims of marketing. Customers are irrelevant. Don't trust the customer, trust marketing. Mareketing 'knows' what our customers want, and what they paid for.
It's not like developers bend over backwards to pleasure the marketing people. It's a basic equation really. Most companies are driven by their marketing departments. If engineering doesn't do what marketing wants, the engineers get fired. Very simple.
Heh. When I was in school, people would come to me if they'd forgotten their email password, because they knew I had all of them :-)
Good luck in China. I hear they need basketball players.
Because the winning strategy of leaders throughout pretty much all time is "Deny everything." When you really want to sow confusion, you "Neither confirm nor deny."
One can disagree with someone without losing sight of their strengths, and respect someone's strengths without losing sight of their weaknesses.
Sure, but that's not what's happening here. People are basically jumping on him and calling him a scumbag for having an opinion.
The criticism is not new. From the beginning there has been controversy in the open source community about these efforts to clone proprietary Microsoft APIs. I'm just sayin'.
Okay. But clearly, quite a few commenters here do NOT respect de Icaza, and seem to just want to bash him. Okay, we get the point -- you don't like the guy. Can we move on please?
I've seen this over and over, not only in the tech field. Somebody who is "highly respected" by a great number of people, because of technical proficiency, wisdom, or what have you, expresses an opinion that a lot of people disagree with.
I think the reasonable response to this is to say, "Hmm. This guy I look up to and respect says X, but I don't think X. Maybe I should re-examine the evidence and see if I've missed something." But instead, it seems like most people just react emotionally and reject and push away the guy they've invested so much respect in.
Seriously, how can your respect of a person change so DRASTICALLY based on a single expressed opinion? You're basically admitting that you were a fool ever to respect the person in the first place.
There are few people who I truly respect and admire in this world, but I certainly take notice of what they say and give it careful consideration. In the end, I might still come away disagreeing, but I'm not going to just ditch somebody because they said something I don't like.
Grow up, people.
He's not being charged with two things, he's being charged with one thing. That "and" in there doesn't imply there are two separate aspects to his behavior. The two taken in conjunction constitute a SINGLE offense.
Yep. Somebody complained that their wording was inaccurate. They adjusted it to be more accurate. Sounds right to me.
What else, exactly, would you want to happen? For them to say, "So sorry, you caught us. We will now commit corporate suicide?"
But the agreement the original copyright holder enters just states that he has no right to complain if the licensee modifies and redistributes the source code.
The GPL is not an agreement, nor a contract. It is a license. You cannot enter into an agreement or contract with a person you do not know and have never met. The license basically says, "If you follow these terms and conditions, we promise not to sue you."
I'm very curious to see if the GPL is even a legally valid document. How can you agree not to sue "somebody?" With commercial software there is at least an implication that the license has been granted to a specific customer, not "everybody in general."
Nonsense, everyone who they distribute a binary to has the right to demand the source. They just don't any teeth to back up the demands.
So in other words, they have no rights. Being told that you are allowed to do "X" but are not given any method for actually doing "X" does not mean you can do "X". Unless you are willing to call upon the help of magical beings.
What the GPL states is that if you provide someone with a binary, you must also provide them with the source on demand, for no more than the reasonable cost of doing so. It does not say "unless you are the copyright holder." If you refuse to do so, they would have to sue you to force you to perform what you agreed to when you licensed your code under the GPL
Sue you for what? Deciding what you want to do with your own god damn intellectual property? Good luck with that. Guess what: the GPL is a LICENSE, not a CONTRACT. Fuck, works to precisely that effect are RIGHT THERE in the license. Try reading it.
(IANAL) the fact that you are the copyright holder does not give you a pass on fulfilling the terms of the license
Good thing YANAL. You're batshit crazy, as well as wrong.
When you provide someone with a GPL-licensed binary, you have entered into a license agreement to also provide the source, and that is true even if you are the copyright holder.
Nope. Back to your padded cell, now. Who let you out?
Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. The GPL specifies that the source code must be distributed along with the binary or must be made publicly available otherwise.
And if it isn't? I suppose somebody would sue the guy. Why, THAT'S IT! He's gonna sue HIMSELF!
Thanks, you've brought me much enlightenment. On your particular level of stupidity, that is.
I wish more people would invest their intelligence into how to protect the life forms (and that includes everything from slimy single-cell organisms to snow tigers) on this globe that are already there. Nobody will be able to bring them back, ever, after they are gone.
Are you... insane? Being able to create arbitrary life in the laboratory is EXACTLY what will be necessary to "resurrect" the species we are currently wiping from existence. The polar bear, among many other species, is probably going to be extinct within 50 years. At this point there's probably nothing we can do to stop that. But if we can learn to recreate its living form from scratch, we might have a chance to save these species in the future when their habitats have been restored.
Well, since goto is considered evil, I guess it's the appropriate way to control the flow of felons.
Unlike your software creations, a society is grown, not engineered. There will be all sorts of anomalies and branches sticking out in strange ways when something is grown. This will all get corrected as people like the subject blogger bring the issues to light. Think of this process as pruning.
Except that historically (and statistically), ALL systems of government which operate in this fashion will ultimately collapse. There's no reason at all to believe that we are any different.
The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.
It's a stupid kind of logic, "We paid for it, therefore only we should benefit." Except that in the case of the environment, Californians certainly do NOT benefit if they are the only ones using the cars. People benefit only if we ALL do it. So it was basically a good chunk of money down the tubes.
Be warned, even in states where the manager may wind up being arrested and charged with illegal detainmnet and/or kidnapping, assuming a police officier actually knows the law, which is a real crap shoot, it can be a whole different ball of wax at member's clubs when you sign on the bottom line.
Not really. If you sign a contract and break it, you may incur penalties, as written in the contract. That's it. It STILL doesn't give the store the right to search you. What it gives them is the right to punish you in a certain way (monetarily, probably) if you refuse the search.
You cannot sign a contract which allows somebody to hold you against your will. That's what the word "inalienable" means in "inalienable rights." Even if you agree to give up a right, you still retain it. You can't sign away your rights even if you wanted to.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's quite common for stores to force you to show a receipt before they'll let you leave.
"Force" me? How? Reach into my pocket? Grab me to prevent me from moving away? Anybody doing that to me will receive a blow to the eye socket.
What, you think because they say "Sorry, we have to see your receipt," that therefore you must show it? It's absolutely amazing how ignorant people are of their BASIC RIGHTS.
Just as well, the confrontation would have been less pleasant since Ohio is a concealed carry state and I will defend myself.
I totally agree with you in principle. But do you SERIOUSLY think you can get away with shooting a receipt-checker to death using a "self defense" argument?
How about this as a suitable compromise. At stores that use LCD customer-operated credit card readers, have the reader display a message to the tune of, "By signing you give Circuit City permission to inspect this receipt as you exit the store. If you do not wish to give said permission, please notify your cashier and he or she will kindly restock your merchandise and cancel the purchase." For those paying in cash, have a sign with the same message at each checkout station. That way nobody can claim ignorance
The problem is, after signing such a statement you STILL haven't given up your rights. Such a statement is meaningless and unenforceable, because the store is not a law enforcement agency. If you sign and then walk out, the most they can legally do is ban you from returning (which they could have done without the statement, by the way). A piece of paper does NOT give them the right to search you, no matter what happens to be written on it.
If you signed a contract (or if entering premises with a sign accomplishes the same thing), then refusing to follow through with showing the contents of your bag could reasonably be construed as cause to suspect you of shoplifting. If that is the case, the law in almost all states, DOES give the shopkeeper the right to physically detain you.
In the case of a contract, maybe. But it is the "reasonable suspicion," not the contract, which makes their actions defensible. But a sign is not a contract, any more than the GPL is a contract.
In fact, the GPL is possibly a very good example of what I'm talking about. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program... Same here. You do not have to accept the conditions on the sign. However, nothing else authorizes you to be on the premises. If you are found to be in violation of the sign, you can be removed. That's pretty much it.
Yes. The guy's an ass who tried to assert his legal rights. For that, he should be arrested.
Is no one else worried that we find ourselves surrounded by people with opinions such as this? For the first time in my life I'm considering getting a few firearms. Am I crazy?
Doesn't Circuit City have a sign when you enter that states they have the right to inspect packages when you leave? By entering the premises you agree to follow their rules. If you don't like that, DON'T GO IN. Get it?
Or... DO go in, and continue to maintain your legal rights. The sign is meaningless. If they're pissed you're not adhering to what's written on the sign, they have a legal right to do exactly one thing: ask you to leave.
If I willingly enter a premises with a posted sign reading "Anal probes required upon exit of store," I still do not have to submit to an anal probe, any more than I have to allow a search of my possessions. I'm breaking the rules, yes -- I can be told to leave, and forcibly removed by the police if I fail to comply with the request to leave. That's it.
Funnily enough, that's all this guy was trying to do: leave.