Wrong--in the case of a free software license, the user agreeing to the license is the developer who uses the code.
Which is why he said no EULA is required to use free software. I can take linux and use it all i want, modify it, re-compile, not release my changes, remove all copyright and legal notices, etc... and that's fine. It's only if I want to distribute it that the license terms will have to be considered.
It would be tough to come up with a definition of "monopoly" which includes having a competitor (android) which has a larger market share than your own (iphone).
Well that depends on what you're judging it on, you seem to be looking at it as the iPhone vs Android smartphones. Look at the iPhone 4's (and then 3GS's) share of the smartphone market over any other phone, or Apple's share of music downloads, or of video downloads, or of the tablet market, or all of the iOS devices (not just the iphone).
Look at Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile. Can you spot who is copying and who is innovating?
Android and iOS took quite a lot of cues from Windows Mobile smartphones and have come up with just as many different methodologies wrt user experience and Windows Phone has done a similar thing, taking cues from Android and iOS but putting a different spin on it.
The GPL doesn't prevent you from profiting on your derivative code, it simply ensures that others can do the same. GPL derivative code does not have to be free of charge.
It has to be available free of charge at some point so why pay for something when for the same effort you can get it for free.
It's more like having freedom of speech, but anyone who feels like it can revoke it.
No they can't, if you think that's analogous to the permissive vs restrictive license debate you clearly don't understand the licensing issues at all. If i release code under a permissive license who can revoke the rights granted in the license?
You like to piss on some guy's front door each time you walk past. He gets annoyed at you and has you arrested, but you try to explain to the Police that you should be allowed to do so, because it would be really easy for you to go to the public urinals right next door to this guy's house, or you could have pissed on his neighbour's door instead (and his neighbour isn't in so the Police wouldn't have been called). That's what you're trying to do here.
What? No-one's talking about committing any crimes here or any kind of retroactively pardoning for crimes that have been committed, if you think that scenario is in any way analogous to this discussion you clearly don't understand the point of the discussion at all.
It doesn't matter what you can theoretically do, all that matters is what you actually do
As in move a website easily from one country to another, something i can actually do, and do very very easily.
If it's so obvious then you really need to talk to yourself more. Just because you can move a site to another country if you want, is absolutely no reason that the current host country - in fact all countries by your reckoning - should remove all legal restrictions on web content. That is quite absurd.
It's a pointless thing to try to enforce and a waste of time, because, as i've said, it is trivial to just move the website to a different country and circumvent their local laws whilst having no impact on the people already visiting the site. That's the whole point, the government cannot control the internet, there are always ways around their restrictions.
The is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is.
Oh that's right nothing ever changes because things should or shouldn't be the way that they are, everything is always the same and always has been and always will be. No-one can have an opinion on what should or should not be, because there is only what is.
You can't just make yourself immune to the law by claiming you should be.
Thanks captain obvious.
You still need to find a country where what you want to do is legal though. Why didn't you just set things up there in the first place?
Because, contrary to your claim that 'the [sic] is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is', things do in fact change and 'what is' now won't necessarily be 'what is' tomorrow.
Forget the analogy, you clearly are missing the point of it. It's just a statement of fact that the geographical location of your website has major significance.
The point the OP was making is that it shouldn't simply because circumventing local laws by putting the exact same website in another country whilst having no effect on the website's audience is trivial, so trying to censor it is pointless, as opposed to moving a physical operation/landmark to another country, which is far from trivial.
And for some reason you're trying to extend the analogy far too far past what we were originally discussing. The point is that it does make a difference which country a site is hosted in.
The analogy is wrong because it compares something trivial with something effectively impossible.
When you responded with: "A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated". By your logic, different nations shouldn't exist. It's a nice idea of course, but reality kind of gets in the way.
You can see that yes you're right reality gets in the way of your attempt at an analogous scenario, it doesn't get in the way of the scenario you're comparing it to because moving the host of a website to another country is trivial. So obviously the analogy fails.
But doing it your way: move permafrost from Alaska to Texas and it will still be in the US, but it will melt because of the change in environment sure. Web servers have different environments too. Move a US website using PHP onto a US server that only has PERL and it will be useless.
For some reason you're trying to create an equality between something that is trivial and something that is nigh on impossible. Installing PHP on a Server or even replacing the whole server is a trivial task, as opposed to setting the environment in Texas to support permafrost which is virtually impossible.
Well my point is that where a website is served from doesn't matter, you can move a website from one country to another and it will be exactly the same, but you can't exactly take the swiss alps and put them in dubai.
a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
"A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated".
Except that when you visit a website on the internet you rarely know where it's hosted, if you visit a place in the real world you're gonna know if it's in another country.
1) The US Air Force is more than capable of getting custom firmware from Sony. (Almost certainly done to give them access to the video hardware for GPU-style acceleration.)
How are they going to get a custom firmware from Sony? The whole point of this was to be cheap so they've bought nearly 2000 consoles each sold by Sony at a loss, so the USAF is hardly a big customer.
Linux isn't a microkernel, it is a monolithic kernel == operating system.
Linux is just an operating system kernel, which is why no-one ever runs just Linux. If you're not living in the past you'd know that these days an operating system is made up of much more than just the kernel.
Tizen, WebOS, Android... All those use same Linux operating system
Tizen, WebOS, Android, iOS, WP7, etc... are all operating systems because these days an operating system is made up of much more than just the kernel, there is operating system functionality in userspace also. If you dispute this then what is the term for OSX, iOS, Tizen, WebOS, Android, Windows 7, Windows Phone, Windows Server, etc...? What is it you think people call them? They are operating systems.
I didn't mention at all the middleware, software platforms, virtual machines, system programs and libraries. Because they matter to software using them, not to user who use just the GUI.
Yet you can't just slap the Android GUI on WebOS and run all the application can you? No. Because fundamentally the software that encompasses the operating system extends well past just the kernel.
1. I'm not convinced at all that HP is giving up on WebOS, if they had wanted to get rid of it, they could have sold it for a lot of money. There are many interested buyers.
It's clear you're not familiar with the game or business, in general.
LOL! ok then, i'd explain the concept of the 'mixed metaphor' but given that you took the original post seriously i doubt you have the capacity to understand it anyway.
The linked article refers to Florian Mueller as a patent expert. What exactly constitutes one?
Whoever wrote it likely made the mistake of searching for antonyms rather than synonyms when searching for an alternative word to 'incompetent' to follow 'patent'. Florian Mueller is the bumbling idiot that has made countless idiotic assertions (most disproved with just a cursory look at the evidence) to drive hits on his blog, he's the JarJar Binks of the patent world.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong--in the case of a free software license, the user agreeing to the license is the developer who uses the code.
Which is why he said no EULA is required to use free software. I can take linux and use it all i want, modify it, re-compile, not release my changes, remove all copyright and legal notices, etc... and that's fine. It's only if I want to distribute it that the license terms will have to be considered.
It would be tough to come up with a definition of "monopoly" which includes having a competitor (android) which has a larger market share than your own (iphone).
Well that depends on what you're judging it on, you seem to be looking at it as the iPhone vs Android smartphones. Look at the iPhone 4's (and then 3GS's) share of the smartphone market over any other phone, or Apple's share of music downloads, or of video downloads, or of the tablet market, or all of the iOS devices (not just the iphone).
They aren't a monopoly by any definition. I'm tired of people using that word and not understanding what it properly means.
Ok then, let's hear your definition of what constitutes a monopoly, let's see how well you understand it.
Look at Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile. Can you spot who is copying and who is innovating?
Android and iOS took quite a lot of cues from Windows Mobile smartphones and have come up with just as many different methodologies wrt user experience and Windows Phone has done a similar thing, taking cues from Android and iOS but putting a different spin on it.
The GPL doesn't prevent you from profiting on your derivative code, it simply ensures that others can do the same. GPL derivative code does not have to be free of charge.
It has to be available free of charge at some point so why pay for something when for the same effort you can get it for free.
It's more like having freedom of speech, but anyone who feels like it can revoke it.
No they can't, if you think that's analogous to the permissive vs restrictive license debate you clearly don't understand the licensing issues at all. If i release code under a permissive license who can revoke the rights granted in the license?
At least the economy for lawyers is booming...
Eventually people will just stop bothering to make things.
You like to piss on some guy's front door each time you walk past. He gets annoyed at you and has you arrested, but you try to explain to the Police that you should be allowed to do so, because it would be really easy for you to go to the public urinals right next door to this guy's house, or you could have pissed on his neighbour's door instead (and his neighbour isn't in so the Police wouldn't have been called). That's what you're trying to do here.
What? No-one's talking about committing any crimes here or any kind of retroactively pardoning for crimes that have been committed, if you think that scenario is in any way analogous to this discussion you clearly don't understand the point of the discussion at all.
It doesn't matter what you can theoretically do, all that matters is what you actually do
As in move a website easily from one country to another, something i can actually do, and do very very easily.
If it's so obvious then you really need to talk to yourself more. Just because you can move a site to another country if you want, is absolutely no reason that the current host country - in fact all countries by your reckoning - should remove all legal restrictions on web content. That is quite absurd.
It's a pointless thing to try to enforce and a waste of time, because, as i've said, it is trivial to just move the website to a different country and circumvent their local laws whilst having no impact on the people already visiting the site. That's the whole point, the government cannot control the internet, there are always ways around their restrictions.
The is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is.
Oh that's right nothing ever changes because things should or shouldn't be the way that they are, everything is always the same and always has been and always will be. No-one can have an opinion on what should or should not be, because there is only what is.
You can't just make yourself immune to the law by claiming you should be.
Thanks captain obvious.
You still need to find a country where what you want to do is legal though. Why didn't you just set things up there in the first place?
Because, contrary to your claim that 'the [sic] is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is', things do in fact change and 'what is' now won't necessarily be 'what is' tomorrow.
Forget the analogy, you clearly are missing the point of it. It's just a statement of fact that the geographical location of your website has major significance.
The point the OP was making is that it shouldn't simply because circumventing local laws by putting the exact same website in another country whilst having no effect on the website's audience is trivial, so trying to censor it is pointless, as opposed to moving a physical operation/landmark to another country, which is far from trivial.
And for some reason you're trying to extend the analogy far too far past what we were originally discussing. The point is that it does make a difference which country a site is hosted in.
The analogy is wrong because it compares something trivial with something effectively impossible.
When you responded with:
"A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated". By your logic, different nations shouldn't exist. It's a nice idea of course, but reality kind of gets in the way.
You can see that yes you're right reality gets in the way of your attempt at an analogous scenario, it doesn't get in the way of the scenario you're comparing it to because moving the host of a website to another country is trivial. So obviously the analogy fails.
But doing it your way: move permafrost from Alaska to Texas and it will still be in the US, but it will melt because of the change in environment sure. Web servers have different environments too. Move a US website using PHP onto a US server that only has PERL and it will be useless.
For some reason you're trying to create an equality between something that is trivial and something that is nigh on impossible. Installing PHP on a Server or even replacing the whole server is a trivial task, as opposed to setting the environment in Texas to support permafrost which is virtually impossible.
Houses and mountains don't change properties just because a border has moved past/through them (unless that border is a river..).
Actually they do, taking an igloo from the arctic and placing it in dubai sure as hell will change its properties.
Well my point is that where a website is served from doesn't matter, you can move a website from one country to another and it will be exactly the same, but you can't exactly take the swiss alps and put them in dubai.
a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
"A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated".
Except that when you visit a website on the internet you rarely know where it's hosted, if you visit a place in the real world you're gonna know if it's in another country.
Pretty sure they run Linux through OtherOS so it wouldn't matter.
1) The US Air Force is more than capable of getting custom firmware from Sony. (Almost certainly done to give them access to the video hardware for GPU-style acceleration.)
How are they going to get a custom firmware from Sony? The whole point of this was to be cheap so they've bought nearly 2000 consoles each sold by Sony at a loss, so the USAF is hardly a big customer.
Linux isn't a microkernel, it is a monolithic kernel == operating system.
Linux is just an operating system kernel, which is why no-one ever runs just Linux. If you're not living in the past you'd know that these days an operating system is made up of much more than just the kernel.
Tizen, WebOS, Android... All those use same Linux operating system
Tizen, WebOS, Android, iOS, WP7, etc... are all operating systems because these days an operating system is made up of much more than just the kernel, there is operating system functionality in userspace also. If you dispute this then what is the term for OSX, iOS, Tizen, WebOS, Android, Windows 7, Windows Phone, Windows Server, etc...? What is it you think people call them? They are operating systems.
I didn't mention at all the middleware, software platforms, virtual machines, system programs and libraries. Because they matter to software using them, not to user who use just the GUI.
Yet you can't just slap the Android GUI on WebOS and run all the application can you? No. Because fundamentally the software that encompasses the operating system extends well past just the kernel.
It's a good tactic though. Public shaming has always been effective.
I see 202.86.210.47 has downloaded Snakes on a Plane, oh what public shame 202.86.210.47 is suffering!
...is that working for you?
Tizen, WebOS, Harmattan, Android.... All has at least one common feature, and it is that they all use Linux as their operating system.
The common feature is that they all have a linux-based kernel, the userland OS components are different, it's not just the GUI that differs.
1. I'm not convinced at all that HP is giving up on WebOS, if they had wanted to get rid of it, they could have sold it for a lot of money. There are many interested buyers.
Like who?
Conversely, if you're a Windows user who does all your work from Cygwin or something, why are you using Windows?
Because Linux doesn't run Windows applications but having a unix-like command line and the basic gnu utils in Windows is very useful.
It's clear you're not familiar with the game or business, in general.
LOL! ok then, i'd explain the concept of the 'mixed metaphor' but given that you took the original post seriously i doubt you have the capacity to understand it anyway.
The linked article refers to Florian Mueller as a patent expert. What exactly constitutes one?
Whoever wrote it likely made the mistake of searching for antonyms rather than synonyms when searching for an alternative word to 'incompetent' to follow 'patent'. Florian Mueller is the bumbling idiot that has made countless idiotic assertions (most disproved with just a cursory look at the evidence) to drive hits on his blog, he's the JarJar Binks of the patent world.