The point is: without a license of some sort, you have NO permission to use the existing work in any way, not to copy, not to quote, not to use to derive new work from.
Well... this may be what Disney would like you to think, but a little thing called "fair use" is supposed to allow you to quote excerpts from any copyrighted work in order to effectively talk about said work. To simply read or use the work you can usually go to a library or similar source, which has 'a copy of' the work (contrast with 'a license to') available for loan.
Work that is derived from the original work is controlled by the copyright holder of the original work.
If this were true in classic copyright law, there'd have been very few parodies ever created and fewer still actually distributed. Fortuneatly this wasn't the case.
Any proprietary software with a "license" is viral in the sense that it is attempting to change law and control users far more than ever precedented in history. Just like the GPL is viral in the sense that it also foists this really nasty "license" nonsense on the public. Now, the GPL would be somewhat nicer if it only attempted to control distribution of GPL'd work (and might have had a foot to stand on in classic copyright) instead of also controlling derivitive work. Oh well, add RMS to the list of those trying to steal my freedom I guess.
Both "proprietary" and "free" software efforts have had a great impact on recent legislation that attempts to change the way copyright works. So while a "software license" wouldn't have meant a hill of beans 20 years ago, it might mean something today... God help us all.
VOILA! 10000x compression is not unheard of with 1% or less degredation.
Don't forget the graduate student will forget to include much of the other "storage" used for his copy of the image, causing the real world results to be multiplied by mu.
Current data-embedding techniques insert additional watermarking information, which inevitably distorts an image. While the distortion is small, it is usually irreversible. The new technique builds on previous methods but modifies the lowest levels of pixel values using data-embedding algorithms. It allows authorized viewers to extract the embedded authentication message while also removing any distortions created by the embedded information, the researchers said.
They came up with the idea of using a digital watermark in an image, but having the "reader" of the image remove the watermark before it is viewed. Of course, they also claim only "authorized" viewers can remove the watermark... "big woop" and "ya right" all at the same time.
Definitely patent-worthy in this climate. (move over single click shopping carts!)
Remember the first time you picked up vi or emacs?
Once you spend the 20-30 minutes reading and playing to get familiarized (if you haven't already), you should realze that while unituitive at first, it gets the job done. The whole apt-get/dselect system also does a great job of conserving resources, a must for a low-budget volunteer group.
Want a more user friendly interface? You have ten fingers and an internet connection, why not write one?
this kind of thing can push efficiency through the roof.
Efficiency at what? Text manipulation is a very small part of my day. For most development work I do, it's all about reading and understanding what is there already. Lots and lots of reading of all sorts of stuff. Lots and lots of searching and "find definition" or "find all uses of"...
I find I have two modes of operation. "read mode" with one hand on the mouse. And "write mode" with both hands on the keyboard. I spend waaay more time in "read mode". For me, it's much faster to click on one word or grouping in a page of text than to try and cursor over to it.
Ya, there are issues in useability and what not with CVS.. (although I've never used a source control tool that I actually thought was easier for small projects)
The lack of atomicity really is the most critical feature missing in CVS. I suppose when I've worked on projects over "small/medium" size I'll consider that one even more important.
The "checkin token" does avoid this race condition because doing a commit after an update will always work if you're the only one commiting at a given time. The reason for step 4 is not to avoid a race condition in update/checkin, but to validate that what you thought you checked in was checked in properly and that any tags/branches are still valid and capable of building properly. It is also a "double-check" to be sure that things weren't missed in an earlier test/build phase.
When a "checkin token" is not used, the race condition is simply risked and only if it occurs does everything stop while one person (or group) sorts things out.
Of course, working for a small company I don't really see what happens when there are say 100 developers working on a project. Perhaps the needs are special perhaps it just requires specialization and proper management.
Bottom line, I have to wonder about farming out something as important as source control to another company. BitKeeper is willing to move people off of CVS. Who is willing to move people off of BitKeeper when they need it?
It may not build the version with all the features you want that is current development but it should always build. Tags combined with testing and knowing what you are doing are enough to accomplish this.
There is no way each developer needs their own branch. Each developer can check out the repository on their machine and do whatever testing and what not they need to do locally. Checking in to CVS *is* the act of remerging your changes back into the larger project.
A checkin goes as follows: 0) Test. You should have already fully tested all your changes with what was previosly checked out to be worked on.
1) Update. This is to see if anyone else has "beaten" you and checked something in while you were working. It should be assumed that whatever is currently in CVS is currently working. If this assumption is false it's red flag time and whoever checked in something that didn't work is in deep doo doo. (If no updates have occured, skip to step 3. )
2) Test with updated version. If any updates have occured, then everything needs to be retested before checkin. (Now go back to step 1)
3) Commit. Check those puppies in and make sure you put in the right comments or you'll keep getting asked about stuff.
4) Test. One last time you should check out whatever has been committed (proabably to a new location) and test it all again. This is to cover your own butt and be sure you don't wind up in deep doo doo from someone else's step 1.
5) Always remember, you are the only one responsible for the changes you make on your own machine. If someone else makes changes that make your changes invalid and your time is wasted then communication has broken down. CVS job is to facilitate communcation. In this case, it did by notifying you there is a problem. Your job is to solve the problem.
Note: many houses actually pass around a "checkin token" to avoid getting in an update/test/update cycle while someone else is committing changes. This does put an upper limit on number of developers that should have CVS access to a particular set of files. (5-15?).
IMHO having more than 10 individuals responsible for a single file (or even sub-project) at the same time should be enough to scare anyone...
These guys are putting their own foot up their own ass all over the place.
Well, seeing as I work for a small company where a big project would be 5 devlopers, CVS is more than enough. Funny that we've already tried VSS and had to give it up because we couldn't reliably back things up.
Were we a lot bigger I'd figure on one of two options. Either get better at using and adding to CVS to make it more useful, or hire somebody else to manage our source for us (ala BitKeeper). Of course there is one really big issue with any proprietary solution. Vendor lock in. I could see being any one of those 3 companies and choosing CVS becuase then I knew if I ever did change to something else, I'd have multiple vendors offering to support my stuff.
Bitkeeper said it best themselves: If you can't afford a good source management product, use CVS, we'll help you migrate off of it when the time comes.
CVS is easy to migrate off of... Can the same be said about BitKeeper?
I suppose the apache developers (who do use CVS) and the OpenBSD folks (who do use CVS) are inferior developers as well... Nice to know I'm in good company.
For the record, I'd probably have to guess Linus is more of a manager than a programmer these days.
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software.
Ya, and commercial software relies on free software to keep it honest enough that computers can actually remain a useful tool to the human race...
We all need each other, lets have a group hug.
P.S - I don't think most of the point is that bitkeeper is bad, just that it was a bad idea for the kernel to rely so heavily on a commercial product in the first place. From some posts, it even sounds like the development team could have licenses to bitkeeper that wouldn't limit what they can work on if they're ready to shell out the bucks...
Well... the fully free alternative definitely must exist, and I'm grateful that Mr. Stallman saw fit to undertake that task. It also shows great foresight (or stubborness) that the GNU project continues to work on their own kernel even with Linux getting such acclaim these days. I applaud them for it!
However, non-free alternatives and mixed alternatives simply existing is not necessarily a problem. What is good for the prophet is not always good for the people.
Ya, multiple repositories is certainly an interesting concept, but...
Isn't that why CVS requires you to update the things you want to update when you want them updated? Under CVS it is essentially each developer's responsibility to update their checkouts to the version that is appropriate for them. It would seem that under CVS this team of 5 would have their own branch or product that had incremental and "nightly" releases. No one else is obligated to use the "nightly" releases, instead waiting for tagged stable releases. However, if there is only a single repository then the information becomes available to everyone immediately rather than waiting for multiple merging processes to go on in the case it is ever needed outside that group of 5...
If you can't afford a good source management product, use CVS, we'll help you migrate off of it when the time comes.
Wow... We use CVS at work and certainly haven't felt it isn't "industrial enough" to handle what we're after. Quite the opposite in fact.
Broken builds?? What do they think the last tagged version of the stable branch is supposed to be for?
"plain text" a bad thing? I find I can usually trust products that keep plain things plain, much more than ones that try to over-complexify everything. If a developer can't handle managing several checkouts of a repository in his/her own work area, he/she probably doesn't deserve the title.
RCS limitations? Be nice to see some of the most prominent listed if they are such a big deal.
The multiple repository thing does seem interesting, but I'd think if it came to where you really needed it, something could be worked out using CVS without too much work... Actually, in practice it would seem better to get everything into the main repository as quickly as possible so everyone else can start testing on the code sooner, even if there was a bit more overhead associated with doing that.
Course, maybe this BitKeeper appeals to managers more than actual developers...
So I suppose the possibility that all DRM schemes will be breakable one way or another seems to escape your radar.
This world of yours would either be a heaven for hackers (becuase no one would believe they exist) or a hell for all "curious cats" out there, whether misguided or not...
I can seem him feeling that what he did is wrong and going a little over board toward the copy infringement is theft camp, but somebody had to put those words in his mouth. The BSA are closer to customs agents at the Mexican boarder than they are to any useful policing force.
Lost your printed license documents? Oooh that's gonna COST ya!
While I applaud the government in catching this group and meting out something approaching justice in this case, I cringe every time I see the DMCA mis-applied to squelch criticism or competition.
Perhaps when we can get those making the laws to begin a sane discourse about the future of copyright, people's opinions won't seem quite so stigmatized in this area... Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with your best friend? Probably not (at least it didn't used to be illegal and you'd be able to do it with a book). Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with 10,000 of your closest friends? Absolutely.
Copyright has been chosen by the current establishment. But it is optional. The more IP infringes on important things (like free speech) the more likely it is to be thrown out by the next generation. I am a voting member of the population, and I currently wonder if a reasonable set of IP laws can ever be reached. If not, I'd much prefer no IP over the alternative.
I write software because I love to. If you compete with me using dirty tricks instead of technical merit you devalue not only what I do for 10-20 hours a week. You devalue the usefulness of computers everywhere.
The organisation expects to release drafts of its guidelines in early 2003.
So how come I already know that it's going to say: "Partial disclosure should only be made after donating copious hours of free consultation to the vendor, full disclosure should never happen, even after the fixes are out..."
There is only one response to these growing doubts about the quality of proprietary software. We must put a stopper in this aiding and abetting of vandalware.
It's okay if users whisper stories around the campfire about software bugs and hacking exploits, but we must make sure that they don't begin to peel back the layers of proprietary software and peer inside. After all, it is not the user's responsibility to worry about their welfare, they need to let the properly respected authorities handle things.
The best course of action is to deny all vulnerabilities reported on this slashdot. Next, we should use these open forums to ferret out and prosecute anyone caught trafficing in vandalware or any information that could be used to create such an atrocity. Developers and users alike must be taught that they have no business worrying about what goes on inside their computer, that is the job of Proprietary Makers of Software.
Gee, aren't you brave. Hope you noticed the second link in that Cnet article goes to the same place.
Sure, the university has a right to police their own servers. Heck, they can choose not to have a copy of Huck Fin in the library too.
However, Ratcliff wanted to stop this because: "These were sites that were trying to generate sympathy". Therefore somehow it's in violation of a law about not providing "financial resources, personnel, communications facilities". Way to bend current events into furthering your agenda Mr. Ratcliff!
This was exactly the kind of thing that made me disprect teachers and hate school growing up...
That's pretty ignorant, man. Those bits might've taken a company 2 years and 10 million dollars to develop
You ever stop to wonder if the company in question wasted those 2 years and 10 million dollars on a useless piece of software and a business model that never was viable?
Those who can do, those who can't lobby the government...
Wow, how old are you? I pirated my first piece of software at 8 years old on a brand new Apple IIe. It didn't seem like a big ethical dilemma back then, especially when it was a teachers pet 5 years my senior showing me how.
]brun choplifter
Those were the days...
Perhaps you weren't young at the right time or didn't get into computers young enough? Heck I was 14 before I even thought about there being something wrong with sharing software.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This was the heart and soul of the declaration of independance. You know the document that was unanamously ratified that people went out and died for. In short it says our "natural" rights end where another persons nose begins. In fact people bled and died slow painful deaths precisely because they didn't want senseless killing and random violence.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
This is the line in the constitution that grants the legislature power over IP. Take out the part about promoting progress and limited times and you might as well throw the whole thing out as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
what the heck is that semicolon ';' doing in there? It's not even inside the root tag, wouldn't that be invalid XML?
The point is: without a license of some sort, you have NO permission to use the existing work in any way, not to copy, not to quote, not to use to derive new work from.
Well... this may be what Disney would like you to think, but a little thing called "fair use" is supposed to allow you to quote excerpts from any copyrighted work in order to effectively talk about said work. To simply read or use the work you can usually go to a library or similar source, which has 'a copy of' the work (contrast with 'a license to') available for loan.
Work that is derived from the original work is controlled by the copyright holder of the original work.
If this were true in classic copyright law, there'd have been very few parodies ever created and fewer still actually distributed. Fortuneatly this wasn't the case.
Any proprietary software with a "license" is viral in the sense that it is attempting to change law and control users far more than ever precedented in history. Just like the GPL is viral in the sense that it also foists this really nasty "license" nonsense on the public. Now, the GPL would be somewhat nicer if it only attempted to control distribution of GPL'd work (and might have had a foot to stand on in classic copyright) instead of also controlling derivitive work. Oh well, add RMS to the list of those trying to steal my freedom I guess.
Both "proprietary" and "free" software efforts have had a great impact on recent legislation that attempts to change the way copyright works. So while a "software license" wouldn't have meant a hill of beans 20 years ago, it might mean something today... God help us all.
VOILA! 10000x compression is not unheard of with 1% or less degredation.
Don't forget the graduate student will forget to include much of the other "storage" used for his copy of the image, causing the real world results to be multiplied by mu.
Actually... it sounded pretty simple:
Current data-embedding techniques insert additional watermarking information, which inevitably distorts an image. While the distortion is small, it is usually irreversible. The new technique builds on previous methods but modifies the lowest levels of pixel values using data-embedding algorithms. It allows authorized viewers to extract the embedded authentication message while also removing any distortions created by the embedded information, the researchers said.
They came up with the idea of using a digital watermark in an image, but having the "reader" of the image remove the watermark before it is viewed. Of course, they also claim only "authorized" viewers can remove the watermark... "big woop" and "ya right" all at the same time.
Definitely patent-worthy in this climate. (move over single click shopping carts!)
dselect must be learned.
Remember the first time you picked up vi or emacs?
Once you spend the 20-30 minutes reading and playing to get familiarized (if you haven't already), you should realze that while unituitive at first, it gets the job done. The whole apt-get/dselect system also does a great job of conserving resources, a must for a low-budget volunteer group.
Want a more user friendly interface? You have ten fingers and an internet connection, why not write one?
:wq
this kind of thing can push efficiency through the roof.
Efficiency at what? Text manipulation is a very small part of my day. For most development work I do, it's all about reading and understanding what is there already. Lots and lots of reading of all sorts of stuff. Lots and lots of searching and "find definition" or "find all uses of"...
I find I have two modes of operation. "read mode" with one hand on the mouse. And "write mode" with both hands on the keyboard. I spend waaay more time in "read mode". For me, it's much faster to click on one word or grouping in a page of text than to try and cursor over to it.
Ya, there are issues in useability and what not with CVS.. (although I've never used a source control tool that I actually thought was easier for small projects)
The lack of atomicity really is the most critical feature missing in CVS. I suppose when I've worked on projects over "small/medium" size I'll consider that one even more important.
The "checkin token" does avoid this race condition because doing a commit after an update will always work if you're the only one commiting at a given time. The reason for step 4 is not to avoid a race condition in update/checkin, but to validate that what you thought you checked in was checked in properly and that any tags/branches are still valid and capable of building properly. It is also a "double-check" to be sure that things weren't missed in an earlier test/build phase.
When a "checkin token" is not used, the race condition is simply risked and only if it occurs does everything stop while one person (or group) sorts things out.
Of course, working for a small company I don't really see what happens when there are say 100 developers working on a project. Perhaps the needs are special perhaps it just requires specialization and proper management.
Bottom line, I have to wonder about farming out something as important as source control to another company. BitKeeper is willing to move people off of CVS. Who is willing to move people off of BitKeeper when they need it?
Past .1 the project should always build.
It may not build the version with all the features you want that is current development but it should always build. Tags combined with testing and knowing what you are doing are enough to accomplish this.
There is no way each developer needs their own branch. Each developer can check out the repository on their machine and do whatever testing and what not they need to do locally. Checking in to CVS *is* the act of remerging your changes back into the larger project.
A checkin goes as follows:
0) Test. You should have already fully tested all your changes with what was previosly checked out to be worked on.
1) Update. This is to see if anyone else has "beaten" you and checked something in while you were working. It should be assumed that whatever is currently in CVS is currently working. If this assumption is false it's red flag time and whoever checked in something that didn't work is in deep doo doo. (If no updates have occured, skip to step 3. )
2) Test with updated version.
If any updates have occured, then everything needs to be retested before checkin. (Now go back to step 1)
3) Commit. Check those puppies in and make sure you put in the right comments or you'll keep getting asked about stuff.
4) Test. One last time you should check out whatever has been committed (proabably to a new location) and test it all again. This is to cover your own butt and be sure you don't wind up in deep doo doo from someone else's step 1.
5) Always remember, you are the only one responsible for the changes you make on your own machine. If someone else makes changes that make your changes invalid and your time is wasted then communication has broken down. CVS job is to facilitate communcation. In this case, it did by notifying you there is a problem. Your job is to solve the problem.
Note: many houses actually pass around a "checkin token" to avoid getting in an update/test/update cycle while someone else is committing changes. This does put an upper limit on number of developers that should have CVS access to a particular set of files. (5-15?).
IMHO having more than 10 individuals responsible for a single file (or even sub-project) at the same time should be enough to scare anyone...
3000 branches?? That sounds like sheer madness... Especially on a project with such a small user base (10,000).
These guys are putting their own foot up their own ass all over the place.
Well, seeing as I work for a small company where a big project would be 5 devlopers, CVS is more than enough. Funny that we've already tried VSS and had to give it up because we couldn't reliably back things up.
Were we a lot bigger I'd figure on one of two options. Either get better at using and adding to CVS to make it more useful, or hire somebody else to manage our source for us (ala BitKeeper). Of course there is one really big issue with any proprietary solution. Vendor lock in. I could see being any one of those 3 companies and choosing CVS becuase then I knew if I ever did change to something else, I'd have multiple vendors offering to support my stuff.
Bitkeeper said it best themselves:
If you can't afford a good source management product, use CVS, we'll help you migrate off of it when the time comes.
CVS is easy to migrate off of... Can the same be said about BitKeeper?
I suppose the apache developers (who do use CVS) and the OpenBSD folks (who do use CVS) are inferior developers as well... Nice to know I'm in good company.
For the record, I'd probably have to guess Linus is more of a manager than a programmer these days.
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software.
Ya, and commercial software relies on free software to keep it honest enough that computers can actually remain a useful tool to the human race...
We all need each other, lets have a group hug.
P.S - I don't think most of the point is that bitkeeper is bad, just that it was a bad idea for the kernel to rely so heavily on a commercial product in the first place. From some posts, it even sounds like the development team could have licenses to bitkeeper that wouldn't limit what they can work on if they're ready to shell out the bucks...
Well... the fully free alternative definitely must exist, and I'm grateful that Mr. Stallman saw fit to undertake that task. It also shows great foresight (or stubborness) that the GNU project continues to work on their own kernel even with Linux getting such acclaim these days. I applaud them for it!
However, non-free alternatives and mixed alternatives simply existing is not necessarily a problem. What is good for the prophet is not always good for the people.
Ya, multiple repositories is certainly an interesting concept, but...
Isn't that why CVS requires you to update the things you want to update when you want them updated? Under CVS it is essentially each developer's responsibility to update their checkouts to the version that is appropriate for them. It would seem that under CVS this team of 5 would have their own branch or product that had incremental and "nightly" releases. No one else is obligated to use the "nightly" releases, instead waiting for tagged stable releases. However, if there is only a single repository then the information becomes available to everyone immediately rather than waiting for multiple merging processes to go on in the case it is ever needed outside that group of 5...
From the site:
If you can't afford a good source management product, use CVS, we'll help you migrate off of it when the time comes.
Wow... We use CVS at work and certainly haven't felt it isn't "industrial enough" to handle what we're after. Quite the opposite in fact.
Broken builds?? What do they think the last tagged version of the stable branch is supposed to be for?
"plain text" a bad thing? I find I can usually trust products that keep plain things plain, much more than ones that try to over-complexify everything. If a developer can't handle managing several checkouts of a repository in his/her own work area, he/she probably doesn't deserve the title.
RCS limitations? Be nice to see some of the most prominent listed if they are such a big deal.
The multiple repository thing does seem interesting, but I'd think if it came to where you really needed it, something could be worked out using CVS without too much work... Actually, in practice it would seem better to get everything into the main repository as quickly as possible so everyone else can start testing on the code sooner, even if there was a bit more overhead associated with doing that.
Course, maybe this BitKeeper appeals to managers more than actual developers...
So I suppose the possibility that all DRM schemes will be breakable one way or another seems to escape your radar.
This world of yours would either be a heaven for hackers (becuase no one would believe they exist) or a hell for all "curious cats" out there, whether misguided or not...
This kid didn't write this stuff himself.
I can seem him feeling that what he did is wrong and going a little over board toward the copy infringement is theft camp, but somebody had to put those words in his mouth. The BSA are closer to customs agents at the Mexican boarder than they are to any useful policing force.
Lost your printed license documents? Oooh that's gonna COST ya!
And we need to crack down on illicit drug use (marijuana in particular) much harder!!
Can't have those free loader hippie types floating around...
mote, meet beam.
While I applaud the government in catching this group and meting out something approaching justice in this case, I cringe every time I see the DMCA mis-applied to squelch criticism or competition.
Perhaps when we can get those making the laws to begin a sane discourse about the future of copyright, people's opinions won't seem quite so stigmatized in this area... Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with your best friend? Probably not (at least it didn't used to be illegal and you'd be able to do it with a book). Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with 10,000 of your closest friends? Absolutely.
Copyright has been chosen by the current establishment. But it is optional. The more IP infringes on important things (like free speech) the more likely it is to be thrown out by the next generation. I am a voting member of the population, and I currently wonder if a reasonable set of IP laws can ever be reached. If not, I'd much prefer no IP over the alternative.
I write software because I love to. If you compete with me using dirty tricks instead of technical merit you devalue not only what I do for 10-20 hours a week. You devalue the usefulness of computers everywhere.
The organisation expects to release drafts of its guidelines in early 2003.
So how come I already know that it's going to say:
"Partial disclosure should only be made after donating copious hours of free consultation to the vendor, full disclosure should never happen, even after the fixes are out..."
There is only one response to these growing doubts about the quality of proprietary software. We must put a stopper in this aiding and abetting of vandalware.
It's okay if users whisper stories around the campfire about software bugs and hacking exploits, but we must make sure that they don't begin to peel back the layers of proprietary software and peer inside. After all, it is not the user's responsibility to worry about their welfare, they need to let the properly respected authorities handle things.
The best course of action is to deny all vulnerabilities reported on this slashdot. Next, we should use these open forums to ferret out and prosecute anyone caught trafficing in vandalware or any information that could be used to create such an atrocity. Developers and users alike must be taught that they have no business worrying about what goes on inside their computer, that is the job of Proprietary Makers of Software.
Gee, aren't you brave. Hope you noticed the second link in that Cnet article goes to the same place.
Sure, the university has a right to police their own servers. Heck, they can choose not to have a copy of Huck Fin in the library too.
However, Ratcliff wanted to stop this because: "These were sites that were trying to generate sympathy". Therefore somehow it's in violation of a law about not providing "financial resources, personnel, communications facilities". Way to bend current events into furthering your agenda Mr. Ratcliff!
This was exactly the kind of thing that made me disprect teachers and hate school growing up...
That's pretty ignorant, man. Those bits might've taken a company 2 years and 10 million dollars to develop
You ever stop to wonder if the company in question wasted those 2 years and 10 million dollars on a useless piece of software and a business model that never was viable?
Those who can do, those who can't lobby the government...
I've never pirated software
Wow, how old are you? I pirated my first piece of software at 8 years old on a brand new Apple IIe. It didn't seem like a big ethical dilemma back then, especially when it was a teachers pet 5 years my senior showing me how.
]brun choplifter
Those were the days...
Perhaps you weren't young at the right time or didn't get into computers young enough? Heck I was 14 before I even thought about there being something wrong with sharing software.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This was the heart and soul of the declaration of independance. You know the document that was unanamously ratified that people went out and died for. In short it says our "natural" rights end where another persons nose begins. In fact people bled and died slow painful deaths precisely because they didn't want senseless killing and random violence.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
This is the line in the constitution that grants the legislature power over IP. Take out the part about promoting progress and limited times and you might as well throw the whole thing out as far as I'm concerned.