This only helps if the company actually releases something.
And if a company goes to the trouble of releasing a binary then they can release the source code as well. And if the source code has been released then having it under a BSD license works just as well.
I think arguing the GPL in this situation is a red herring.
Yeah but the best mechanics in the world are working on an F1 track in Monaco, or a FIA WRC event in Sweden, or a NASCAR Winston cup event in North Carolina.
No offense, but it doesn't really matter what you think. Copyleft is a FSF phrase. And they say the QPL isn't copyleft. Make up your own word if you don't like theirs.
The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard
The owner of the copyright still has more rights than anyone else. He can relicense it under a different license. No one else is granting that power. So the initial developer has special rights, just like in the NPL case. Granted, they don't cause the problems that occur with NPL, but special rights still exist.
Licenses like public domain and BSD don't have tihs problem.
If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.
This is a meaningless statement, since copyleft is tautologically equivalent to the GPL. Copyleft is a neologism coined by the FSF to mean "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well." And since they have a non-standard definition of "free", theirs is the only license that fully satisfies their definition of "copyleft".
Try reading over their license list: X license - not copyleft, BSD license - not copyleft, W3C license - not copyleft, Artistic license - not copyleft, Python license - not copyleft, Apache license - not copyleft, Zope license - not copyleft, OpenLDAP license - not copyleft, IBM PL, Mozilla PL, Sun PL, Netscape PL, Qt PL, PHP license, all not copyleft.
If the end user didn't want a program that modified the content why are they using one?
Similarly, you want a web where you can trust that the content authors are the people creating the content you see.
How is this different from junkbuster? The content author wants me to see those banner ads. Yet I'm using a program that subverts the content author's intentions.
It's not too hard to tell which links are created by the content creator and which links are put there automatically by the hosting company. So your average user is already quite adept at figuring out which links are "authentic" and which are extraneous.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
Because no one has a choice about what browser to use? Last I checked Opera and Mozilla both exist for Windows. No one's twisting your arm to use IE.
Spam costs the end "recipient" time and/or money. These extra links do neither to the webmaster. Please explain how this is like spam for the content developer. The content developer never sees it. You may not like it, it may be bad. But in no way is it like spam.
So the end user has modified the display of the page by inserting some extra links. The end user has chosen to use IE. The end user has chosen to turn this feature on. The end user has chosen this particular set of SmartLinks.
How is that different from telling IE to ignore the supplied stylesheet and use my own? How is that different from using junkbuster to rewrite html so you don't see adds? How is that different from using The Proximitron or adzapper to do even more invasive rewriting of html?
Exactly what nefarious and diabolical things is the government going to be able to do with a key repository?
They could, um, replace your public key with their own version causing people to send encrypted email intended for you that they can read. Except people should be verifying key fingerprints out of band so this doesn't fly. Besides, they could do it anyway if they really wanted to.
Er, other than that I'm kinda drawing a blank on what evil things the government could do.
Perhaps the conspiracy theorists would care to elaborate?
One of the author's main propositions seems to be that Communist Chinese and Taiwanese/Overseas Chinese want different spaces in Unicode for the same characters.
I don't see every Western nation asking for it's own encoding of "w" or accented characters. The author doesn't give any explanation for why we should pay attention to IMHO silly political whining in this particular case.
The author further implicitly assumes that it is reasonable to include the deprecated K'ang Hsi characters in addition to the official characters, but gives no justification for this view. I don't see unicode trying to include all possible historical graphings of Western characters.
Looks to me like the RRP (including GST) of Tad William's most recent book in hard cover is $43.74 in Australia.
Normal hardcover fiction costs around $40+ in Australia.
When a book first comes out it costs more. Works that way in regular media, why wouldn't it work more in online media? You pay for the privilege of instant gratification. So I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, it would help if you actually read the links that/. posts, the author says, "Just to let you know, the cost for a one-year subscription to story, site, etc. (and thus to various free giveaways, contests) will be well under $20 US, we just haven't finished the commercial stuff yet, so I don't have a final price."
That's why Everquest and Ultima Online make absolutely no money; because everyone would rather play on MUDs for free than submit to a pay per play model.
He's famous for being the CEO of Sun. If he weren't CEO of Sun, no one would have cared about that quote.
Re:What are the ethical implications here?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 4
Just because I can play the game on Windows, why should I be forced to? What if I only own Mac hardware? What if I don't want to pay for and install Windows? What if it is available for sale in some other country (say, India), localized in some language I don't understand (say, Japanese), on an obscure format (say, minidisc)?
Why should it matter whether it is possible to buy the game? Why does it matter whether the original owner of the product still cares? Imagine if you applied those kind of criteria to physical property: "well, I can't buy Roger Clemens rookie cards anymore so it is okay for me to take them from this other guy", "RMS doesn't care about gcc 1.x anymore so it is okay take, relicense it commercially, and sell it".
What is so hard to understand about the fact that just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't property? Would your life really come to a crashing halt if you weren't able to play games you don't own?
If you don't like companies doing whatever they want with "your" data why do you think you have any right to do anything you want with other people's and companies' data?
Every distributor that has dependencies has the same problem. The basic problem is just that packagers are lazy. They don't take the time to see that the package actually runs just fine on perl4 and thus there is no reason to make it dependent on the absolute most recent perl5 package. "Dependency" has become a huge misnomer.
The drinking age has been raised to 21 almost everywhere, and the driving age and voting age aren't too far off.
What on earth are you blathering about? The voting age is 18 and it'll take a constitutional amendment to change that. The chances of that ever happening are precisely zero. The driving age is 16 in most places and I haven't heard of any push to have that changed in any state.
As another poster said, you've got it backwards. Not only do add-on modules sell poorly for the most part, but they are also the easiest part of to come up with. I mean, take a look at places like Planet Unreal and see how everyone and his brother is making add-on modules. But how many people can write a 3d engine like the ones found in Quake and Unreal? Then look at how many companies are licensing those engines. id licenses the Quake engine for a couple hundred thousand dollars. Seriously, how many people bought Quake 2 for anything other than the nifty keen engine?
I'm a little confused. You seem to be mixing two issues: the creation of the console and the creation of games for the console. What games does Sony actually make for their console?
When I go to Nintendo's page of games for the N64 sorted by ESRB ranking I see a decent number of games that are rated "Mature".
How exactly did you determine that Nintendo stopped making games for people over age 10? Did you complete some comprehensive survey of their game development studio or did you just decide that you hate Pokemon and Mario?
Slashdot Mirror
This only helps if the company actually releases something.
And if a company goes to the trouble of releasing a binary then they can release the source code as well. And if the source code has been released then having it under a BSD license works just as well.
I think arguing the GPL in this situation is a red herring.
Yeah but the best mechanics in the world are working on an F1 track in Monaco, or a FIA WRC event in Sweden, or a NASCAR Winston cup event in North Carolina.
No offense, but it doesn't really matter what you think. Copyleft is a FSF phrase. And they say the QPL isn't copyleft. Make up your own word if you don't like theirs.
The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard
The owner of the copyright still has more rights than anyone else. He can relicense it under a different license. No one else is granting that power. So the initial developer has special rights, just like in the NPL case. Granted, they don't cause the problems that occur with NPL, but special rights still exist.
Licenses like public domain and BSD don't have tihs problem.
If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.
This is a meaningless statement, since copyleft is tautologically equivalent to the GPL. Copyleft is a neologism coined by the FSF to mean "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well." And since they have a non-standard definition of "free", theirs is the only license that fully satisfies their definition of "copyleft".
Try reading over their license list: X license - not copyleft, BSD license - not copyleft, W3C license - not copyleft, Artistic license - not copyleft, Python license - not copyleft, Apache license - not copyleft, Zope license - not copyleft, OpenLDAP license - not copyleft, IBM PL, Mozilla PL, Sun PL, Netscape PL, Qt PL, PHP license, all not copyleft.
It's a news blurb summary on CNN. How about you try reading the actual paper when it comes out?
If the end user didn't want a program that modified the content why are they using one?
Similarly, you want a web where you can trust that the content authors are the people creating the content you see.
How is this different from junkbuster? The content author wants me to see those banner ads. Yet I'm using a program that subverts the content author's intentions.
File and printer sharing are disabled by default.
It's not too hard to tell which links are created by the content creator and which links are put there automatically by the hosting company. So your average user is already quite adept at figuring out which links are "authentic" and which are extraneous.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
Because no one has a choice about what browser to use? Last I checked Opera and Mozilla both exist for Windows. No one's twisting your arm to use IE.
Spam costs the end "recipient" time and/or money. These extra links do neither to the webmaster. Please explain how this is like spam for the content developer. The content developer never sees it. You may not like it, it may be bad. But in no way is it like spam.
So the end user has modified the display of the page by inserting some extra links. The end user has chosen to use IE. The end user has chosen to turn this feature on. The end user has chosen this particular set of SmartLinks.
How is that different from telling IE to ignore the supplied stylesheet and use my own? How is that different from using junkbuster to rewrite html so you don't see adds? How is that different from using The Proximitron or adzapper to do even more invasive rewriting of html?
Except the analogy doesn't work.
If you didn't want hyperlinked documents why are you on the web with a browser?
Have you ever read a PGP public key over the phone?
Have you ever read a PGP public key fingerprint over the phone?
Exactly what nefarious and diabolical things is the government going to be able to do with a key repository? They could, um, replace your public key with their own version causing people to send encrypted email intended for you that they can read. Except people should be verifying key fingerprints out of band so this doesn't fly. Besides, they could do it anyway if they really wanted to. Er, other than that I'm kinda drawing a blank on what evil things the government could do. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists would care to elaborate?
One of the author's main propositions seems to be that Communist Chinese and Taiwanese/Overseas Chinese want different spaces in Unicode for the same characters.
I don't see every Western nation asking for it's own encoding of "w" or accented characters. The author doesn't give any explanation for why we should pay attention to IMHO silly political whining in this particular case.
The author further implicitly assumes that it is reasonable to include the deprecated K'ang Hsi characters in addition to the official characters, but gives no justification for this view. I don't see unicode trying to include all possible historical graphings of Western characters.
Angels are soul-less immortal beings. I'm pretty sure Christians don't regard them as evil.
Looks to me like the RRP (including GST) of Tad William's most recent book in hard cover is $43.74 in Australia.
/. posts, the author says, "Just to let you know, the cost for a one-year subscription to story, site, etc. (and thus to various free giveaways, contests) will be well under $20 US, we just haven't finished the commercial stuff yet, so I don't have a final price."
Normal hardcover fiction costs around $40+ in Australia.
When a book first comes out it costs more. Works that way in regular media, why wouldn't it work more in online media? You pay for the privilege of instant gratification. So I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, it would help if you actually read the links that
See that "well under" part?
That's why Everquest and Ultima Online make absolutely no money; because everyone would rather play on MUDs for free than submit to a pay per play model.
He's famous for being the CEO of Sun. If he weren't CEO of Sun, no one would have cared about that quote.
Just because I can play the game on Windows, why should I be forced to? What if I only own Mac hardware? What if I don't want to pay for and install Windows? What if it is available for sale in some other country (say, India), localized in some language I don't understand (say, Japanese), on an obscure format (say, minidisc)?
Why should it matter whether it is possible to buy the game? Why does it matter whether the original owner of the product still cares? Imagine if you applied those kind of criteria to physical property: "well, I can't buy Roger Clemens rookie cards anymore so it is okay for me to take them from this other guy", "RMS doesn't care about gcc 1.x anymore so it is okay take, relicense it commercially, and sell it".
What is so hard to understand about the fact that just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't property? Would your life really come to a crashing halt if you weren't able to play games you don't own?
If you don't like companies doing whatever they want with "your" data why do you think you have any right to do anything you want with other people's and companies' data?
If they stores can charge $X for something they will charge $X for it.
Unless you are seriously trying to suggest that businesses intentionally pass up profits unless they "have to" take them?
Anyone has ever played Myth can tell you this. The art in a game has nothing to do with whether it is 3d or 2d. Bad art is bad art.
Every distributor that has dependencies has the same problem. The basic problem is just that packagers are lazy. They don't take the time to see that the package actually runs just fine on perl4 and thus there is no reason to make it dependent on the absolute most recent perl5 package. "Dependency" has become a huge misnomer.
The drinking age has been raised to 21 almost everywhere, and the driving age and voting age aren't too far off.
What on earth are you blathering about? The voting age is 18 and it'll take a constitutional amendment to change that. The chances of that ever happening are precisely zero. The driving age is 16 in most places and I haven't heard of any push to have that changed in any state.
The rest of your post is just as amazingly bad.
As another poster said, you've got it backwards. Not only do add-on modules sell poorly for the most part, but they are also the easiest part of to come up with. I mean, take a look at places like Planet Unreal and see how everyone and his brother is making add-on modules. But how many people can write a 3d engine like the ones found in Quake and Unreal? Then look at how many companies are licensing those engines. id licenses the Quake engine for a couple hundred thousand dollars. Seriously, how many people bought Quake 2 for anything other than the nifty keen engine?
What exactly would this solve? You can store binary files in CVS just fine. And deltas between uuencoded binary files would be completely useless.
All they have to do is continue to use CVS and educate the new users.
I'm a little confused. You seem to be mixing two issues: the creation of the console and the creation of games for the console. What games does Sony actually make for their console?
When I go to Nintendo's page of games for the N64 sorted by ESRB ranking I see a decent number of games that are rated "Mature".
How exactly did you determine that Nintendo stopped making games for people over age 10? Did you complete some comprehensive survey of their game development studio or did you just decide that you hate Pokemon and Mario?