Yeah you know i should be able to sell my car license, or my boat license, or my non-transferable airline tickets...I know they say I can't and that I did agree to that when I acquired them but it's taking away my rights...apparently.
What you're saying is that since you wouldn't be one of the people who exercise the right to resell the games, it's alright if that right is taken from those who would.
No, because that right isn't 'taken', in fact if you choose to use Steam that right is never even granted. Steam coming to Linux doesn't 'take' anything from you. However if you really wanted to you could probably work around it by buying each game under a different Steam account and selling the credentials to that account.
Well i'm just trying to work out whether the justification you're making is based on anything or just speculating on something that could possibly happen, seems it's the latter.
That whole idea is predicated on them actually over-delivering on the final product to a degree that matches the increased budget and delay, so what projects have done that?
If it's a non-creative project and the number of people is variable, then there's still O(n^2) communication overhead.
Which could be something or could be virtually nothing.
but any project that's predominantly product development will have to experience some manner of growth in consumption of time.
If they overdeliver...is that what's happening here? Did the Printrbot, Cookoo watch or Elevation dock overdeliver?
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets, requiring them to work longer to fully utilize the money they received. I would be disappointed if a project that received twice the money as projected only did the same amount of work as projected.
Why would you have to work longer? More money means more resources, time isn't the only resource.
AMD and Intel Processors, Nexus 4, ah.... why even give examples....if 8 kickstarters hit their deadline, that's probably as good as, or even better than what regular businesses deliver.
But you didn't pay for the processor before it was developed.
If you're rebooting your Windows machines weekly because of some resource problem, you suck as an admin.
They are always unspecified problems too, if you have a resource problem it's not difficult to identify what is hogging these resources yet virtually all of these posts about necessity to reboot Windows systems fail to specify what that problem is. In light of that my guess is the problem isn't with Windows at all, it's that these "admins" only have one move, which is "turn it off and back on again".
And the 64bit, 16GB monsters we are putting on desktops today are basically still doing the same things at the same performance levels of things we did 10 years ago on WindowsXP with a fraction of the power and resources.
No, that's just stupidity, if you want to provide something to back that assertion up i would *love* to see it.
To me what proves the redistribution clause is simply a way for RMS to try to force everyone to work for free is one simple fact...the printer story, which RMS claims is what made him realize the need for free software would be completely solved without having the redistribution clause. Would he be able to fix his problem? yep, he'd have the code. Could he modify it? Yes again, because he would have the code sitting right there. Could he share his modifications so everyone could fix the same problem?
Well that's exactly right, if you need a redistribution clause then it means you're forcing people into your way of thinking, if free software is indeed so good then you don't need to do that. Look at Apple, they don't need to release the source for Darwin, or CUPS, or WebKit, but they do...and then you get Stallman lambasting them for not being as totalitarian on free software as he is.
At the end of the day if their goal is to get people to actually use free software then quality HAS to be job #1, otherwise the vast majority just won't bother.
I couldn't agree more, no more excuses, no more deflecting blame, if you want it to succeed you need to take responsibility for the quality of the software.
Hell I can take a copy of XP RTM, install my drivers and software, then upgrade it through all 3 service packs AND all the patches that came after and every single driver and app will still be working, could you do the same with ANY Linux distro? I think we all know the answer to that, and that is why Linux has no share on the desktop, even with MSFT charging over $100 a copy.
And why is that? Because the developers are quite happy to recompile their kernel, kernel modules and applications each time. Why build a feature they aren't going to use? They don't have customers to appease, at least none that don't have an IT department to take care of that for them. Moreover companies like Microsoft and Apple work closely with hardware vendors to ensure solid support, for Linux distros to become mainstream they need to do the same thing.
I agree wholeheartedly! The free software community needs to forget proprietary software and just get on with the job of creating good software that people want to use, that's the only way to win, create a better product. This community in-fighting with Ubuntu just shows how out of touch that community really is, the whole benefit of free software is supposed to be the ability to change things you don't like, it respects the 4 'fundamental freedoms' (at least as much as possible given the propensity for people to use proprietary hardware and drivers) and yet it is being shunned. If you don't like it, change it, that's the whole point.
Proprietary software and Free software can co-exist, I don't see actors, motion capture studios, artists, programmers, level designers, etc... just donating time to make the next blockbuster game and begging for donations, moreover the 'support' revenue model simply doesn't work for games.
I also agree the redistribution clause is unnecessary, if free software is in fact better then people will release and use free software, if you need to force it then you've already failed. A great example is Blender, it competes on its own merits and does very very well in terms of usage and it's not because it's free software - because nobody really cares about that - it's because it's competitive in terms of quality.
In the last 3 decades if anything it's gone backwards, today people are using devices that are significantly more locked down, privacy invasive and far less 'freedom-respecting' and the claims of how evil and dangerous proprietary software is have amounted to nothing. Yes people use free software but not because it's free software, the vast majority of people don't even know it's free software much less care to exercise those 'freedoms'.
The companies that have the power to change government policy are those with a vested interest in views opposed to Stallman's and the general public aren't opposed to such companies so my suggestion is based on the fact that countries like China don't have such laws in place so in theory espousing his views there will be more in line with the status quo and the country is likely to build around that sort of culture, if free software is so beneficial then such a country should quickly overtake nations 'encumbered' by proprietary software and patents.
The problem is that he is far too closed-minded, if you don't agree with his point of view then you are stupid and ignorant, he is so closed-minded that he cannot comprehend that somebody would want to trade freedom for convenience sometimes and in some cases. He doesn't believe you should have the freedom to choose or to give up freedoms you don't care for, things like using a cell phone, or e-commerce.
What i don't understand is that after decades of proof that most of his views - for example his 'anti-cell phone' stance - are not something people are interested in and that his lifestyle of 'living like a student' is not something people aspire to he hasn't decided to try to push his agenda in a country with a different economic model. Why not look at developing countries that don't have strict patent enforcement and build a 'free software nation' there, some place untainted by what he sees as the evil of software patents and proprietary software and corporate control? If his model is indeed superior then such a nation would flourish.
If you think he does complying with either the spirit or the letter of the GPL, why don't you pay $3.99 to confirm your guess?
Because it certainly appears to be, there's no evidence to suggest it isn't so if you're going to suggest that it isn't then come up with some proof.
I don't want to spend $3.99 because it seems too likely -- based on what others have done in similar situations in the past -- that he would not provide complete corresponding source code for his version and/or he would claim that some of his extensions are under GPL-incompatible licenses (such as "all rights reserved")
That doesn't seem likely at all, in fact if he were complying with the GPL to the letter this is exactly how it could be done, so your comments are baseless conjecture, nothing more.
Apple's reputation management team is trying to deflect discussion from their lockin.
Sounds like your excuse for the much more likely scenario that most people don't care.
"Music, movies, TV, and podcast subscriptions. All tied up in Apple's little ecosystem. A very pretty noose to keep people chained to its hardware.
All the music i've downloaded from iTunes is playable on all my non-Apple devices, you don't seem very educated on the subject.
Imagine, just for a moment, that your Sony DVD player would only play Sony Movies' films. When you decided to buy a new DVD player from Samsung, none of those media files would work on your new kit without some serious fiddling.
That would certainly suck, but i've been playing the same movies on my apple and non-apple devices - the devices aren't restricted to apple-only or anything like that so i'm not sure what your imagined scenario is supposed to relate to, again it sounds like you don't really know much about this subject.
I want to watch Nokia movies on my Samsung hardware running Google's Android, and then back them up to DropBox.
And why would you not be able to do that? I don't know what 'Nokia movies' are - AFAICT there is no such thing - but i've played movies from various sources on my nexus 7 which i have then backed up to skydrive.
Please, consciously decide against the tyranny of corporate control.
Sure that sounds bad and all, but where is it that this has manifested as a problem for a significant portion of the population in the context of this discussion? Everyone's had the choice of free software or proprietary software and most people wouldn't have much of a problem switching to FOSS if there were a compelling reason to do so. So my question is why do you think it is that people choose not to be freed from the 'tyranny of corporate control'? I would suggest the likely reason is that it simply isn't as terrible as you make it out to be, in fact it's probably not bad at all. Stallman as spent nearly 3 decades pontificating on how evil proprietary software is, yet those evils really haven't manifested in any real form and the free and open alternatives don't seem to have shown distinct superiority in that regard either.
The problems that Windows has are a Windows problem. They aren't shared by anyone else. Even the problems that Android has are down to bad apps masquerading as good ones and aren't the self-replicating and browse-by infections that you can get with Windows.
Windows is the only cesspool. It's about Microsoft engineering, not popularity.
Wow, that's some serious blinders you've got on, you've obviously got a religious attachment to some Microsoft hate that makes you spew out rubbish like that. The sort of thing that keeps you ignorant of things like jailbreakme.com, linux rootkits, OSF.8759, Slapper, Scalper, Linux.Svat and L10n among many, many, many others. You're just a clear ignorant fanboy.
Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long.
They did fight! They just kept losing. Various Symbian refreshes and many years spent on Maemo/Meego that yielded only marketshare to iOS and Android.
Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.
Personally i think they should have become the champion of stock Android, with timely updates running the stock OS on well-built and well-engineered hardware, sticking to what Nokia is good at. But even that would be a big gamble and would make them a Nexus competitor. Making some Nokia-specific - but compatible - distribution of Android would probably offer little.
Blackberry 10 licensee? Maybe, but that probably would have been even riskier than Windows Phone.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Windows Phone, it just needs to win mindshare, the name would have been a good start, disassociate it with Windows.
Nokia could improve Symbian (big costs to improve the system itself, small costs in changing mindsharing)
The reality is Symbian was never going to be able to compete with iOS and Android, the app selection would never get close thanks to the development tools, SDK and APIs making it painful to develop for.
improve Meego (not so big costs improving the system, bigger costs creating another software ecosystem and gaining mindshre).
They spent years on that project, then the merge with Moblin and got absolutely nowhere.
But no! Let's try another complete new thing. something that don't have mindshare, don't have software ecosystem and it's not even ready yet!
Well actually it was ready by the time Nokia were ready, and wrt mindshare and the software ecosystem they stood a far better chance with someone like Microsoft pushing those as well than they would going it alone. Sure they could have gone with Android and maybe even struck some kind of deal to be the sole Nexus partner or something (since this was before the Motorola Mobility deal), maybe that would have worked out for them. Or perhaps they could have taken on WebOS, though that probably wouldn't have been much different from continuing with MeeGo.
The thing is that with any computer device, the TRUE measure of variety is what you can do with it, not superficial appearance.
If that were true, then why would Apple put out an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPad mini?
Because the differences between them obviously aren't just 'superficial appearance' differences, there is a utilitarian benefit to having different sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah you know i should be able to sell my car license, or my boat license, or my non-transferable airline tickets...I know they say I can't and that I did agree to that when I acquired them but it's taking away my rights...apparently.
What you're saying is that since you wouldn't be one of the people who exercise the right to resell the games, it's alright if that right is taken from those who would.
No, because that right isn't 'taken', in fact if you choose to use Steam that right is never even granted. Steam coming to Linux doesn't 'take' anything from you.
However if you really wanted to you could probably work around it by buying each game under a different Steam account and selling the credentials to that account.
Well i'm just trying to work out whether the justification you're making is based on anything or just speculating on something that could possibly happen, seems it's the latter.
If it's a non-creative project and the number of people is variable, then there's still O(n^2) communication overhead.
Which could be something or could be virtually nothing.
but any project that's predominantly product development will have to experience some manner of growth in consumption of time.
If they overdeliver...is that what's happening here? Did the Printrbot, Cookoo watch or Elevation dock overdeliver?
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets, requiring them to work longer to fully utilize the money they received. I would be disappointed if a project that received twice the money as projected only did the same amount of work as projected.
Why would you have to work longer? More money means more resources, time isn't the only resource.
AMD and Intel Processors, Nexus 4, ah.... why even give examples....if 8 kickstarters hit their deadline, that's probably as good as, or even better than what regular businesses deliver.
But you didn't pay for the processor before it was developed.
*ALL* projects have a high rate of blowing deadlines, that's what happens with complex stuff.
Most aren't crowdfunded though, so of course it's not just Kickstarter, but Kickstarter is far and away the most popular crowdfunding site.
If you're rebooting your Windows machines weekly because of some resource problem, you suck as an admin.
They are always unspecified problems too, if you have a resource problem it's not difficult to identify what is hogging these resources yet virtually all of these posts about necessity to reboot Windows systems fail to specify what that problem is. In light of that my guess is the problem isn't with Windows at all, it's that these "admins" only have one move, which is "turn it off and back on again".
And the 64bit, 16GB monsters we are putting on desktops today are basically still doing the same things at the same performance levels of things we did 10 years ago on WindowsXP with a fraction of the power and resources.
No, that's just stupidity, if you want to provide something to back that assertion up i would *love* to see it.
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
-Batman
Harvey Dent isn't Batman.
To me what proves the redistribution clause is simply a way for RMS to try to force everyone to work for free is one simple fact...the printer story, which RMS claims is what made him realize the need for free software would be completely solved without having the redistribution clause. Would he be able to fix his problem? yep, he'd have the code. Could he modify it? Yes again, because he would have the code sitting right there. Could he share his modifications so everyone could fix the same problem?
Well that's exactly right, if you need a redistribution clause then it means you're forcing people into your way of thinking, if free software is indeed so good then you don't need to do that. Look at Apple, they don't need to release the source for Darwin, or CUPS, or WebKit, but they do...and then you get Stallman lambasting them for not being as totalitarian on free software as he is.
At the end of the day if their goal is to get people to actually use free software then quality HAS to be job #1, otherwise the vast majority just won't bother.
I couldn't agree more, no more excuses, no more deflecting blame, if you want it to succeed you need to take responsibility for the quality of the software.
Hell I can take a copy of XP RTM, install my drivers and software, then upgrade it through all 3 service packs AND all the patches that came after and every single driver and app will still be working, could you do the same with ANY Linux distro? I think we all know the answer to that, and that is why Linux has no share on the desktop, even with MSFT charging over $100 a copy.
And why is that? Because the developers are quite happy to recompile their kernel, kernel modules and applications each time. Why build a feature they aren't going to use? They don't have customers to appease, at least none that don't have an IT department to take care of that for them. Moreover companies like Microsoft and Apple work closely with hardware vendors to ensure solid support, for Linux distros to become mainstream they need to do the same thing.
This community in-fighting with Ubuntu just shows how out of touch that community really is, the whole benefit of free software is supposed to be the ability to change things you don't like, it respects the 4 'fundamental freedoms' (at least as much as possible given the propensity for people to use proprietary hardware and drivers) and yet it is being shunned. If you don't like it, change it, that's the whole point.
Proprietary software and Free software can co-exist, I don't see actors, motion capture studios, artists, programmers, level designers, etc... just donating time to make the next blockbuster game and begging for donations, moreover the 'support' revenue model simply doesn't work for games.
I also agree the redistribution clause is unnecessary, if free software is in fact better then people will release and use free software, if you need to force it then you've already failed. A great example is Blender, it competes on its own merits and does very very well in terms of usage and it's not because it's free software - because nobody really cares about that - it's because it's competitive in terms of quality.
You're not operating in any public space if you modify code in your computer.
But you are still breaking the terms of the license agreement...which I assume is the point.
In the last 3 decades if anything it's gone backwards, today people are using devices that are significantly more locked down, privacy invasive and far less 'freedom-respecting' and the claims of how evil and dangerous proprietary software is have amounted to nothing. Yes people use free software but not because it's free software, the vast majority of people don't even know it's free software much less care to exercise those 'freedoms'.
The companies that have the power to change government policy are those with a vested interest in views opposed to Stallman's and the general public aren't opposed to such companies so my suggestion is based on the fact that countries like China don't have such laws in place so in theory espousing his views there will be more in line with the status quo and the country is likely to build around that sort of culture, if free software is so beneficial then such a country should quickly overtake nations 'encumbered' by proprietary software and patents.
The problem is that he is far too closed-minded, if you don't agree with his point of view then you are stupid and ignorant, he is so closed-minded that he cannot comprehend that somebody would want to trade freedom for convenience sometimes and in some cases. He doesn't believe you should have the freedom to choose or to give up freedoms you don't care for, things like using a cell phone, or e-commerce.
What i don't understand is that after decades of proof that most of his views - for example his 'anti-cell phone' stance - are not something people are interested in and that his lifestyle of 'living like a student' is not something people aspire to he hasn't decided to try to push his agenda in a country with a different economic model. Why not look at developing countries that don't have strict patent enforcement and build a 'free software nation' there, some place untainted by what he sees as the evil of software patents and proprietary software and corporate control? If his model is indeed superior then such a nation would flourish.
I dunno, maybe ask him? Even if he doesn't now it's a simple fix to bring it to compliance so who cares.
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has a FAQ explaining why it is "not free".
In that context 'free' is clearly in reference to the monetary cost.
That does not seem like compliance with the spirit of the GPL.
Actually it most certainly is DoesTheGPLAllowMoney.
If you think he does complying with either the spirit or the letter of the GPL, why don't you pay $3.99 to confirm your guess?
Because it certainly appears to be, there's no evidence to suggest it isn't so if you're going to suggest that it isn't then come up with some proof.
I don't want to spend $3.99 because it seems too likely -- based on what others have done in similar situations in the past -- that he would not provide complete corresponding source code for his version and/or he would claim that some of his extensions are under GPL-incompatible licenses (such as "all rights reserved")
That doesn't seem likely at all, in fact if he were complying with the GPL to the letter this is exactly how it could be done, so your comments are baseless conjecture, nothing more.
Apple's reputation management team is trying to deflect discussion from their lockin.
Sounds like your excuse for the much more likely scenario that most people don't care.
"Music, movies, TV, and podcast subscriptions. All tied up in Apple's little ecosystem. A very pretty noose to keep people chained to its hardware.
All the music i've downloaded from iTunes is playable on all my non-Apple devices, you don't seem very educated on the subject.
Imagine, just for a moment, that your Sony DVD player would only play Sony Movies' films. When you decided to buy a new DVD player from Samsung, none of those media files would work on your new kit without some serious fiddling.
That would certainly suck, but i've been playing the same movies on my apple and non-apple devices - the devices aren't restricted to apple-only or anything like that so i'm not sure what your imagined scenario is supposed to relate to, again it sounds like you don't really know much about this subject.
I want to watch Nokia movies on my Samsung hardware running Google's Android, and then back them up to DropBox.
And why would you not be able to do that? I don't know what 'Nokia movies' are - AFAICT there is no such thing - but i've played movies from various sources on my nexus 7 which i have then backed up to skydrive.
Please, consciously decide against the tyranny of corporate control.
Sure that sounds bad and all, but where is it that this has manifested as a problem for a significant portion of the population in the context of this discussion? Everyone's had the choice of free software or proprietary software and most people wouldn't have much of a problem switching to FOSS if there were a compelling reason to do so. So my question is why do you think it is that people choose not to be freed from the 'tyranny of corporate control'? I would suggest the likely reason is that it simply isn't as terrible as you make it out to be, in fact it's probably not bad at all. Stallman as spent nearly 3 decades pontificating on how evil proprietary software is, yet those evils really haven't manifested in any real form and the free and open alternatives don't seem to have shown distinct superiority in that regard either.
The problems that Windows has are a Windows problem. They aren't shared by anyone else. Even the problems that Android has are down to bad apps masquerading as good ones and aren't the self-replicating and browse-by infections that you can get with Windows.
Windows is the only cesspool. It's about Microsoft engineering, not popularity.
Wow, that's some serious blinders you've got on, you've obviously got a religious attachment to some Microsoft hate that makes you spew out rubbish like that. The sort of thing that keeps you ignorant of things like jailbreakme.com, linux rootkits, OSF.8759, Slapper, Scalper, Linux.Svat and L10n among many, many, many others. You're just a clear ignorant fanboy.
Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long.
They did fight! They just kept losing. Various Symbian refreshes and many years spent on Maemo/Meego that yielded only marketshare to iOS and Android.
Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.
Personally i think they should have become the champion of stock Android, with timely updates running the stock OS on well-built and well-engineered hardware, sticking to what Nokia is good at. But even that would be a big gamble and would make them a Nexus competitor. Making some Nokia-specific - but compatible - distribution of Android would probably offer little.
Blackberry 10 licensee? Maybe, but that probably would have been even riskier than Windows Phone.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Windows Phone, it just needs to win mindshare, the name would have been a good start, disassociate it with Windows.
Nokia could improve Symbian (big costs to improve the system itself, small costs in changing mindsharing)
The reality is Symbian was never going to be able to compete with iOS and Android, the app selection would never get close thanks to the development tools, SDK and APIs making it painful to develop for.
improve Meego (not so big costs improving the system, bigger costs creating another software ecosystem and gaining mindshre).
They spent years on that project, then the merge with Moblin and got absolutely nowhere.
But no! Let's try another complete new thing. something that don't have mindshare, don't have software ecosystem and it's not even ready yet!
Well actually it was ready by the time Nokia were ready, and wrt mindshare and the software ecosystem they stood a far better chance with someone like Microsoft pushing those as well than they would going it alone. Sure they could have gone with Android and maybe even struck some kind of deal to be the sole Nexus partner or something (since this was before the Motorola Mobility deal), maybe that would have worked out for them. Or perhaps they could have taken on WebOS, though that probably wouldn't have been much different from continuing with MeeGo.
The thing is that with any computer device, the TRUE measure of variety is what you can do with it, not superficial appearance.
If that were true, then why would Apple put out an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPad mini?
Because the differences between them obviously aren't just 'superficial appearance' differences, there is a utilitarian benefit to having different sizes.
Apple's tight corporate control enforces that sameness
No, the fact that they don't license their operating system to other manufacturers means the variation is limited to the variations Apple produces.
Android's openness allows companies to produce the sort of variety you see in cars.
That's got nothing to do with Android's openness, we saw all that variation in phones long before Android.