- Lease the box for your "operating system" for 100 years at whatever price you would have sold it at. Make it so you need the box to use the O/S.
- Modify any GPL software however you like to make it work whatever (improved) way you want.
- When they ask for the sources, simply tell the people they don't own the "operating system", and are only leasing the box and therefore have no rights to its source.
Now we know how Microsoft Linux is going to happen.
Ahhh, everybody talking about VMS having this feature.
Netware has had a similar feature for a long time that is (IMHO) better implemented because it is simpler.
When you delete something, the delete attribute is set, unless the purge attribute is already set, in which case the file is actually unlinked.
When HDD space is low (I think there's a high/low watermark you can set on the server) files start getting purged from the system. If you are desperate and want everything purged immedately, you can always use "purge/a".
This way you can salvage your "deltree/y *.*" mistakes.:-)
Common, a set of purge/delete attributes can't be hard to implement in ext2fs, eh? (No, I have NO CLUE about programming filesystems, that's why I'm asking).
>which is a limitation on your freedom to use the software.
Which is imposed (and decided upon) by the local government and which has no effect on the GPL (as it is only an extension of current law, not a law unto itself).
If your government chose to make all software licenses invalid, and chose to make copyright null, then you would have more freedom. But that isn't anything to do with the GPL. That's the government in action. It could happen to Windows for all we know (but likely won't).
So the GPL only adds more rights for the user to select. If they chose to waive those rights, they will be bound by the laws of the country (which, as I say, aren't affected by the GPL).
ie: The non-acceptance of the GPL causes no loss of freedom over and above what you already have. Acceptance of the GPL causes you (by choice) to limit yourself. Ultimately, choice is, in itself, freedom.
>there are phones w/ voice dialing, but none (in USA) w/ Voice Activation.
Oops. I guess I was pointing out the idea of using your voice to control the phone. If they only have the dialing part worked out, it's _almost_ the same (but I do admit, technically different).
Talking to passengers doesn't require the use of your hands. It also still allows free movement of the head to look for traffic, since human ears are somewhat omnidirectional, whereas a cell mic is (or for best sound reception, should be) somewhat unidirectional, and turning ones head can make cell use difficult.
Passengers generally don't startle the driver by screaming out loud for no apparent reason. A cell phone does this whenever it rings.
Although, heated debates are best left outside the vehicle.:-)
>using a radio
Radio is the same as just listening to a passenger. Without them talking to you, you now have the advantage of being able to pay (almost) full attention to the road.
>eating, drinking, smoking,
Agreed. These all take your hands off the wheel and force you to look away from the road. If you are _that_ hungry or thirsty, pull over for a moment and refresh yourself. If you are in that much of a rush that is _your_ problem; it's when you eat/cell/drink/smoke and drive it becomes _my_ problem. Then I get a say in it.
Taking the hands off the wheel, and keeping your eyes off the road causes the most problems. When you look away from the wheel your hands naturally turn the wheel towards that direction.
>Personally, I use my phone with the hands free earpiece...
That's not too bad. At least you have your hands on the wheel most of the time, and you can look to your side for passing. Although I think the right solution is the voice activated phone. In that case drivers can have proper attention to the road at all times. Most people don't bother with either. Bad idea.
>But when you can't log on a site anymore that isn't owned by AT&T, IBM, MCI, or whatever, just remember - you helped bring that about.
Strange. Banner ads came well after the WWW. So did the homepages of AT&T, IBM, and MCI.
So why wouldn't the internet simply revert to the mostly text (ie: content) filled universe it once was.
As far as hating banner stripping software and the people who use it goes, well, like you say about ads, I'll say about modems: Busy webpages are expensive to download.
Yeah, I don't have a choice but to use a 33.6k modem either, so don't give me the "get cable modem" dance [seems like everyone on slashdot lives in SV nowadays]. And no, I WON'T pay $300 a month (and the rest) to use the internet over satellite so I can download ads (whoopie...). And moving is pointless. I already live 5 minutes from what is classed as a Canadian Metropolis.
>You think Slashdot would even be here if they didn't get ad revenue?
I was here before moderation (no, I didn't register till a couple of months ago due to a deep seated dislike of the poor moderation that once infested slashdot) so I can say this: Slashdot didn't always have ads (IIRC).
Ad blocking software seems to have only taken off in the last year or two. Probably has a lot to do with "Punch my monkey and win nothing!" and "Flash Flash FLASH ugly FLASH click me NOW n0w NOW!!!! flash FLaSH fLaSh!!!" and, for certain, "downloading 110k animated gif... (5% done)". Maybe ad companies should reflect on this and reconsider how annoying/big their ads are. Right now the time spent installing and configuring ad blocking software, plus the time spent updating the blocking lists is much less than downloading the various crappy, huge, ads that are out there.
>and would rather professional quality apps to "open source projects"
So open source isn't professional quality? I guess that makes Microsoft the most professional quality company on the face of the planet and Apache the most crashy POS on the planet.
FreeBSD must has 10,000 bugs and MacOS none, because, hey, it _is_ open source and therefore of non-professional quality.
Common man, you are gonna *have* to troll better than that!
Well, just a suggestion but... why not just say "The remainder of this conversation will be recorded for the purposes of gathering incriminating evidence against your company for repeated violations of the TCPA." when the telemarketers call. Say it overtop of what they are saying (and record yourself saying it) and refuse to repeat it. Then see if you can sweet talk them into giving out their info.
If they actually listened to that, they are probably going to put your name on that do not call list since you are obviously going to some lengths to gather evidence against them. Or they can just blab on and let you record. Either way, you win.:-)
Just an idea. Oh, and IANAL, so this isn't real advice.
We aren't talking about pirating in either case (DVD or GPL). We are talking freedom.
GPL is Coding Freedom. Taking something further away from the GPL (ie: Making it binary) removes you from this freedom.
DVDs are encrypted, protected by all sorts of laws, which means no freedom for the purchaser. You must do what the MPAA wants, because an non-licensed player is illegal and therefore generally unavaliable. Normally, people would rather just strip the encryption and burn the non-encrypted (maximum Freedom) version of the movie onto a DVD. But normal people don't have the $$$ for that. They do have the $$$ for a CD-Burner, but the movie won't fit on a CD.
Now we enter DiVX, MPEG, etc... This allows you to gain that freedom of playing your movie on most anything at the small price of it being lower quality.
When it comes to my _freedom_, I don't let laws stand in my way.
I think I already mentioned this before with another Napster vs. Whatever argument. Oh well.
>"We have the right to distribute information any way we choose, despite what the copyright holder says!"
The GPL *gives* you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says.
You CAN'T steal somthing that is GPLd. "Look at my new 3l33t h0t k-rad cr4ack3d w4ar3z LiNuX K3rN3l d00dz!" is just not possible because of the nature of the GPL. Hell, you don't even have to accept the terms if you don't want to. I beleive clause 5 (or maybe another number) simply binds you to the usual copyright laws if you don't like the GPL.
How much more freedom do ya want?
>Company X is distributing software in violation of the GPL! That's wrong! Let's get the bastards!
Yes, Company X is not using the GPL or violating it. So therefore they are denying you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says. Instead you have to receive and use the software in the way Compaq chooses.
>We're not talking about something that makes it harder for the consumer to use merchandise that they've rightfully purchased.
That wasn't exactly what I meant. I'm talking about how pirates used to pride themselves on cracking those protection mechanisms in a day or two (in fact, in some cases before the software was released). But I guess it isn't such a good parallel after all.:-)
Note to self: Bring lead lined bags when robbing a bank.
I'm sick and tired of all the knockoffs in the clothing industry too. I mean, look at it, guys in America only seem to wear one of three things to cover their lower extremities: pants, shorts, and jeans. These clothing items are getting way too old. I think it is time that Levi's sued every company that makes jeans so we can get on with our clothing life and come up with something new. I mean, why _shouldn't_ we all be wearing MooMoos or Saris? The people in other countries do it without problem, and to the best of my knowledge a Sari is a semi-religious piece of clothing, so there should be absolutedly NO copyright infringement there.
It's about time that the jeans knock-off companies who add more pockets or new colours paid Levi's for licensing their original idea, just like games.
And, to further that matter, I also think that all pants manufacturers should be paying their royalties to the Amish (or whoever invented pants).
Maybe the entire idea of clothes is outdated and we need something new. Perhaps a nudist law allowing people to only wear new items as "clothing"? I think there should be no problem whatsoever with people walking naked on the streets. I mean, it takes time to come up with a new clothing idea, and once it's been in the market for a few years and the person no longer manufactures it, you have to think up a new one, right? And while you're waiting you're not gonna have anything to wear.
And to ensure that all the items you wear as "clothing" are original or are royalty-paid knockoffs, the government should force you to scan the DMCA approved encrypted barcode on the pocket of the clothing item with a:Cue:Cat before they can be legally worn, just in case.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, here's an interesting way to abuse the GPL:
- Lease the box for your "operating system" for 100 years at whatever price you would have sold it at. Make it so you need the box to use the O/S.
- Modify any GPL software however you like to make it work whatever (improved) way you want.
- When they ask for the sources, simply tell the people they don't own the "operating system", and are only leasing the box and therefore have no rights to its source.
Now we know how Microsoft Linux is going to happen.
Ahhh, everybody talking about VMS having this feature.
/a".
/y *.*" mistakes. :-)
Netware has had a similar feature for a long time that is (IMHO) better implemented because it is simpler.
When you delete something, the delete attribute is set, unless the purge attribute is already set, in which case the file is actually unlinked.
When HDD space is low (I think there's a high/low watermark you can set on the server) files start getting purged from the system. If you are desperate and want everything purged immedately, you can always use "purge
This way you can salvage your "deltree
Common, a set of purge/delete attributes can't be hard to implement in ext2fs, eh? (No, I have NO CLUE about programming filesystems, that's why I'm asking).
>which is a limitation on your freedom to use the software.
Which is imposed (and decided upon) by the local government and which has no effect on the GPL (as it is only an extension of current law, not a law unto itself).
If your government chose to make all software licenses invalid, and chose to make copyright null, then you would have more freedom. But that isn't anything to do with the GPL. That's the government in action. It could happen to Windows for all we know (but likely won't).
So the GPL only adds more rights for the user to select. If they chose to waive those rights, they will be bound by the laws of the country (which, as I say, aren't affected by the GPL).
ie: The non-acceptance of the GPL causes no loss of freedom over and above what you already have. Acceptance of the GPL causes you (by choice) to limit yourself. Ultimately, choice is, in itself, freedom.
>there are phones w/ voice dialing, but none (in USA) w/ Voice Activation.
Oops. I guess I was pointing out the idea of using your voice to control the phone. If they only have the dialing part worked out, it's _almost_ the same (but I do admit, technically different).
Doesn't section 5 of the GPL allow you to reject the license and be bound by the usual copyright laws as they might be in your country?
Sounds freer than any other license to me.
>then you should also ban talking to passengers
:-)
Talking to passengers doesn't require the use of your hands. It also still allows free movement of the head to look for traffic, since human ears are somewhat omnidirectional, whereas a cell mic is (or for best sound reception, should be) somewhat unidirectional, and turning ones head can make cell use difficult.
Passengers generally don't startle the driver by screaming out loud for no apparent reason. A cell phone does this whenever it rings.
Although, heated debates are best left outside the vehicle.
>using a radio
Radio is the same as just listening to a passenger. Without them talking to you, you now have the advantage of being able to pay (almost) full attention to the road.
>eating, drinking, smoking,
Agreed. These all take your hands off the wheel and force you to look away from the road. If you are _that_ hungry or thirsty, pull over for a moment and refresh yourself. If you are in that much of a rush that is _your_ problem; it's when you eat/cell/drink/smoke and drive it becomes _my_ problem. Then I get a say in it.
Taking the hands off the wheel, and keeping your eyes off the road causes the most problems. When you look away from the wheel your hands naturally turn the wheel towards that direction.
>Personally, I use my phone with the hands free earpiece...
That's not too bad. At least you have your hands on the wheel most of the time, and you can look to your side for passing. Although I think the right solution is the voice activated phone. In that case drivers can have proper attention to the road at all times. Most people don't bother with either. Bad idea.
Well, that's just my 2 cents.
>My point is, don't blame Bush. Bush, as a C student, is uniuqely qualified to represent the vast and growing idiot demographic in America.
Did you know Einstein failed high school math?
Maybe he could take Bush's place teaching the "idiots".
>Die.
It can do that alright.
Just wait until the gears, etc... wear out and Sony quits making replacement parts. Or someone drops it by accident.
A real dog will likely last longer than the gears in this thing. (just my guess though).
>You kids have fun chasing those tail-lights, though.
You know what they say...
It's better to be behind a moving car than in front of it.
[SmusH]
Fortune sez: "Drink Canada Dry! You might not succeed, but it *is* fun trying."
[gulp.... refreshing AHHHHHHHH] I think I just lowered Hudson's bay by an inch...
>-40 in what? Farenheit or Celsius? Makes a big difference, you know... =-p
:-)
Actually, no, there is no difference at all. Wrong temperature to pick an SI/imperial fight on.
>But when you can't log on a site anymore that isn't owned by AT&T, IBM, MCI, or whatever, just remember - you helped bring that about.
:-)
Strange. Banner ads came well after the WWW. So did the homepages of AT&T, IBM, and MCI.
So why wouldn't the internet simply revert to the mostly text (ie: content) filled universe it once was.
As far as hating banner stripping software and the people who use it goes, well, like you say about ads, I'll say about modems: Busy webpages are expensive to download.
Yeah, I don't have a choice but to use a 33.6k modem either, so don't give me the "get cable modem" dance [seems like everyone on slashdot lives in SV nowadays]. And no, I WON'T pay $300 a month (and the rest) to use the internet over satellite so I can download ads (whoopie...). And moving is pointless. I already live 5 minutes from what is classed as a Canadian Metropolis.
>You think Slashdot would even be here if they didn't get ad revenue?
I was here before moderation (no, I didn't register till a couple of months ago due to a deep seated dislike of the poor moderation that once infested slashdot) so I can say this: Slashdot didn't always have ads (IIRC).
Ad blocking software seems to have only taken off in the last year or two. Probably has a lot to do with "Punch my monkey and win nothing!" and "Flash Flash FLASH ugly FLASH click me NOW n0w NOW!!!! flash FLaSH fLaSh!!!" and, for certain, "downloading 110k animated gif... (5% done)". Maybe ad companies should reflect on this and reconsider how annoying/big their ads are. Right now the time spent installing and configuring ad blocking software, plus the time spent updating the blocking lists is much less than downloading the various crappy, huge, ads that are out there.
Just my $2/100.
>and would rather professional quality apps to "open source projects"
So open source isn't professional quality? I guess that makes Microsoft the most professional quality company on the face of the planet and Apache the most crashy POS on the planet.
FreeBSD must has 10,000 bugs and MacOS none, because, hey, it _is_ open source and therefore of non-professional quality.
Common man, you are gonna *have* to troll better than that!
Well, just a suggestion but... why not just say "The remainder of this conversation will be recorded for the purposes of gathering incriminating evidence against your company for repeated violations of the TCPA." when the telemarketers call. Say it overtop of what they are saying (and record yourself saying it) and refuse to repeat it. Then see if you can sweet talk them into giving out their info.
:-)
If they actually listened to that, they are probably going to put your name on that do not call list since you are obviously going to some lengths to gather evidence against them. Or they can just blab on and let you record. Either way, you win.
Just an idea. Oh, and IANAL, so this isn't real advice.
>$1 per file for a high quality mp3 direct from the label/distributor. I will pay for the added value of getting a high quality mp3.
You do realize that this would cost you more than simply buying the CD, and would leave you without the art, right?
Of course, it would buy you conveneince. But at such a high price, I don't know if it would be worth it to anyone else.
>Haven't people got better things to do than file spurious complaints about extremely minor possible violations of the law?
Yeah, haven't people got better things to do than attempt to law-slap when someone helps their product be more useful for the low low price of free?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
We aren't talking about pirating in either case (DVD or GPL). We are talking freedom.
GPL is Coding Freedom. Taking something further away from the GPL (ie: Making it binary) removes you from this freedom.
DVDs are encrypted, protected by all sorts of laws, which means no freedom for the purchaser. You must do what the MPAA wants, because an non-licensed player is illegal and therefore generally unavaliable. Normally, people would rather just strip the encryption and burn the non-encrypted (maximum Freedom) version of the movie onto a DVD. But normal people don't have the $$$ for that. They do have the $$$ for a CD-Burner, but the movie won't fit on a CD.
Now we enter DiVX, MPEG, etc... This allows you to gain that freedom of playing your movie on most anything at the small price of it being lower quality.
When it comes to my _freedom_, I don't let laws stand in my way.
I think I already mentioned this before with another Napster vs. Whatever argument. Oh well.
Just my 2 cents.
>"We have the right to distribute information any way we choose, despite what the copyright holder says!"
:-)
The GPL *gives* you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says.
You CAN'T steal somthing that is GPLd. "Look at my new 3l33t h0t k-rad cr4ack3d w4ar3z LiNuX K3rN3l d00dz!" is just not possible because of the nature of the GPL. Hell, you don't even have to accept the terms if you don't want to. I beleive clause 5 (or maybe another number) simply binds you to the usual copyright laws if you don't like the GPL.
How much more freedom do ya want?
>Company X is distributing software in violation of the GPL! That's wrong! Let's get the bastards!
Yes, Company X is not using the GPL or violating it. So therefore they are denying you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says. Instead you have to receive and use the software in the way Compaq chooses.
Try harder next time.
>We're not talking about something that makes it harder for the consumer to use merchandise that they've rightfully purchased.
That wasn't exactly what I meant. I'm talking about how pirates used to pride themselves on cracking those protection mechanisms in a day or two (in fact, in some cases before the software was released). But I guess it isn't such a good parallel after all. :-)
Note to self: Bring lead lined bags when robbing a bank.
>And once that becomes cheap and easy enough for any schmoe to do, there will be something better, and so on...
:)
I see, sort of like the "race against piracy" with copy protection in the Commodore/Atari/Amiga days...
Hey common man, according to netcraft Western Union is as good at security as:
:-)
- Burger King
- Gillette
- The NFL
Doesn't that make you feel better now?
I'm sick and tired of all the knockoffs in the clothing industry too. I mean, look at it, guys in America only seem to wear one of three things to cover their lower extremities: pants, shorts, and jeans. These clothing items are getting way too old. I think it is time that Levi's sued every company that makes jeans so we can get on with our clothing life and come up with something new. I mean, why _shouldn't_ we all be wearing MooMoos or Saris? The people in other countries do it without problem, and to the best of my knowledge a Sari is a semi-religious piece of clothing, so there should be absolutedly NO copyright infringement there.
:Cue:Cat before they can be legally worn, just in case. ;-)
It's about time that the jeans knock-off companies who add more pockets or new colours paid Levi's for licensing their original idea, just like games.
And, to further that matter, I also think that all pants manufacturers should be paying their royalties to the Amish (or whoever invented pants).
Maybe the entire idea of clothes is outdated and we need something new. Perhaps a nudist law allowing people to only wear new items as "clothing"? I think there should be no problem whatsoever with people walking naked on the streets. I mean, it takes time to come up with a new clothing idea, and once it's been in the market for a few years and the person no longer manufactures it, you have to think up a new one, right? And while you're waiting you're not gonna have anything to wear.
And to ensure that all the items you wear as "clothing" are original or are royalty-paid knockoffs, the government should force you to scan the DMCA approved encrypted barcode on the pocket of the clothing item with a
If you want a laptop on the cheap, look for a used 486/386. More power than that calculator, and still able to play crappy games.
This is how I got a laptop in high school. I had a seriously underpowered machine, but hey, it did the trick and cost less than $400.
Be warned that you will not get your money back on it though.
You do know that Star Office has a web browser built in, right?
In that case, what's to say the same thing can't be made to happen in Star Office?
Thanks, I was pretty sure it was RIAA garbage. :-)