You can love your country without feeling ill will or jealousy towards other countries. There are lots of things that I love about my country. I'm simply under no delusion that some statistic about my country translates directly into something about me.
People have average skills and abilities. That way above average people can do well regardless of the situation is nice, but not going to do anything at all for most people.
I disagree. Most people have the ability to be above average given the right level of effort, and most people could all be above average at the same time. That's the great thing about averages.
Well, I hope it hits you quite a bit to teach you why your attitude of acceptance to this is a very bad one.
Well aren't you vindictive. It's not an 'attitude'. It's reality. You have to accept reality. You'll be forced into it eventually.
The distributor can't just distribute the software to users anyway, they lose their right to distribute under the GPLv3.
Did you read the actual clause? They don't lose the right to distribute. They lose the right to pass the patent license on to a subset of people through distribution. It's all or nothing, and they can choose 'nothing'.
Uh, everyone who has to work for a living? Since our money is worth less and less in the global marketplace?
If you bring top notch skills to the table, you can earn an above average living no matter where you happen to be located. Falling currency values just make it that much easier (in the short term) for international players to pay you an above average salary.
Nothing leads to upheaval. Upheaval is a constant state. The only thing that changes is who it effects.
I have no idea what you're smoking when you start talking about parity between US and canadian dollars. Even if you're right, wasn't I denouncing the 'making of jokes' about other countries because your country of origin happens to be higher up on a macroeconomic chart?
I'm too busy working and fighting for what I believe in to sit around wondering how the war between the good guys and the bad guys will all play out in the end.
Is it just me, or did you just say that you're too busy acting to stop and think about what the consequences of your actions are (or even whether they make sense)?
Aren't the ends just as important as the means? Or is how you feel about yourself what you really care about?
You should stop fighting the 'good fight' and start fighting the smart fight. Maybe then you'll actually help some people (and stop giving terrible advice on Slashdot).
Isn't it a global marketplace now? Who cares what 'your country' is doing. Just be the best you can be in your field and you'll be fine. Life will go on even if you can't wave a big flag saying your country is better than somebody else's. Be proud of what *you* can do.
Let's take this to the next step though, since we're clearly skirting the issue...
If all of these GNU projects adopt what are essentially anti-productization clauses (even if that's not their intent), why do you assume that they will maintain popularity? So all the GNU projects move to this model... It seems more likely to me that the GNU projects which aren't end user applications in their own right would fall from the mainstream. It's not like most of them don't have BSD near-equivalents anyway.
The GNU C library uses the LGPL. Do you have some reason to believe that it would switch to a more restrictive GPL when even the previous versions of the GPL were too restrictive for the project?
Incidentally, my comment about "freedom" was more in regards to the "anti-tivoization" clause than the patent stuff. It seems very much like a DRM mentality.
DRM is usually used to prevent users from running some software or using some data on open systems. This new language is designed to prevent users from using GPL software on closed systems. It may be the opposite result, but it's the same tactic. As long as the source is available I don't see what the big deal is about building closed devices with free software. The license doesn't place similar restrictions on systems built on other closed software (assuming that they are properly decoupled), which is an odd double standard. It seems to me like somebody is simply rubbed the wrong way by attempts to prevent them from re-purposing a loss-leader device.
To me, wanting your software to be free (as in freedom) and wanting to be able to limit how it is used at the same time seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Well that depends. How much of the GNU project will be forked at that time, and how many of the developers will follow the GPLv2 branches? Will the adoption rate of the new GPLv3 GNU projects be on par with the adoption rate of HURD?
You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone.
The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone. Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.
I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.
It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.
the process is being infiltrated by folks with a contrary agenda, or being run by people who still don't "get it".
Oh, they "get it". It's just that you need to know what 'it' is. The GPLv3 is useless without adoption. If they don't make any concessions the GPLv3 will be still-born, and none of the author's agendas will be pushed. The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software. It's just like DRM, but instead of technical measures they are using purely legal measures.
.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?
That's *not* what it says, again because there is no legal grounds for that anywhere.
The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software. That simply means that if the software violates the patent, then end user, not the distributor, is always responsible for the infringement. Not only is it completely counter to what they are trying to accomplish, but it wouldn't stand up and it couldn't prevent un-written guarantees of indemnity. It's part of the (seemingly unintentional due to short-sightedness) complete disregard for the user's freedoms in exchange for developer's freedoms.
It's ridiculous. If it were a Slashdot comment it would be moderated (-1, Troll).
Can you quote us the line of the GPL which specifies that?
(No, you can't, because it doesn't exist.)
Besides, even if they gave you the code for free, it doesn't mean that they aren't running some non-GPLed code to lock down the box. Thus having the GPLed code wouldn't negate their ability to charge you to unlock the system.
Lame. That shouldn't happen with SATA 2 drives, because the activity signal comes from the drive itself. SATA 1 drives and older P-ATA drives could be an issue though, if the controller decided it should implement the light via software.
You are a living, breathing advertisement for tape.
Keep in mind that archiving and backups are not the same task. Tape is designed for archiving. You don't have to worry that your local data recovery center will be able to recover off of the one in 10,000 models of hard drive on the market, and you'll probably spend less on tape than on data recovery.
Of course, you also have a very small setup, so what you do is probably perfectly fine for your configuration. Two drives is the low, low end of the industry, and that makes it practical to keep multiple hard drives around.
Slashdot Mirror
You can love your country without feeling ill will or jealousy towards other countries. There are lots of things that I love about my country. I'm simply under no delusion that some statistic about my country translates directly into something about me.
I disagree. Most people have the ability to be above average given the right level of effort, and most people could all be above average at the same time. That's the great thing about averages.
Well aren't you vindictive. It's not an 'attitude'. It's reality. You have to accept reality. You'll be forced into it eventually.
Did you read the actual clause? They don't lose the right to distribute. They lose the right to pass the patent license on to a subset of people through distribution. It's all or nothing, and they can choose 'nothing'.
If you bring top notch skills to the table, you can earn an above average living no matter where you happen to be located. Falling currency values just make it that much easier (in the short term) for international players to pay you an above average salary.
Nothing leads to upheaval. Upheaval is a constant state. The only thing that changes is who it effects.
I have no idea what you're smoking when you start talking about parity between US and canadian dollars. Even if you're right, wasn't I denouncing the 'making of jokes' about other countries because your country of origin happens to be higher up on a macroeconomic chart?
Is it just me, or did you just say that you're too busy acting to stop and think about what the consequences of your actions are (or even whether they make sense)?
Aren't the ends just as important as the means? Or is how you feel about yourself what you really care about?
You should stop fighting the 'good fight' and start fighting the smart fight. Maybe then you'll actually help some people (and stop giving terrible advice on Slashdot).
Isn't it a global marketplace now? Who cares what 'your country' is doing. Just be the best you can be in your field and you'll be fine. Life will go on even if you can't wave a big flag saying your country is better than somebody else's. Be proud of what *you* can do.
Did you choose not to read my entire comment before replying, or are you just being a jerk?
Let's take this to the next step though, since we're clearly skirting the issue...
If all of these GNU projects adopt what are essentially anti-productization clauses (even if that's not their intent), why do you assume that they will maintain popularity? So all the GNU projects move to this model... It seems more likely to me that the GNU projects which aren't end user applications in their own right would fall from the mainstream. It's not like most of them don't have BSD near-equivalents anyway.
The GNU C library uses the LGPL. Do you have some reason to believe that it would switch to a more restrictive GPL when even the previous versions of the GPL were too restrictive for the project?
Incidentally, my comment about "freedom" was more in regards to the "anti-tivoization" clause than the patent stuff. It seems very much like a DRM mentality.
DRM is usually used to prevent users from running some software or using some data on open systems. This new language is designed to prevent users from using GPL software on closed systems. It may be the opposite result, but it's the same tactic. As long as the source is available I don't see what the big deal is about building closed devices with free software. The license doesn't place similar restrictions on systems built on other closed software (assuming that they are properly decoupled), which is an odd double standard. It seems to me like somebody is simply rubbed the wrong way by attempts to prevent them from re-purposing a loss-leader device.
To me, wanting your software to be free (as in freedom) and wanting to be able to limit how it is used at the same time seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Well that depends. How much of the GNU project will be forked at that time, and how many of the developers will follow the GPLv2 branches? Will the adoption rate of the new GPLv3 GNU projects be on par with the adoption rate of HURD?
The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone. Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.
It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.
Oh, they "get it". It's just that you need to know what 'it' is. The GPLv3 is useless without adoption. If they don't make any concessions the GPLv3 will be still-born, and none of the author's agendas will be pushed. The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software. It's just like DRM, but instead of technical measures they are using purely legal measures.
It's revisionist history. Go study.
That's *not* what it says, again because there is no legal grounds for that anywhere.
The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software. That simply means that if the software violates the patent, then end user, not the distributor, is always responsible for the infringement. Not only is it completely counter to what they are trying to accomplish, but it wouldn't stand up and it couldn't prevent un-written guarantees of indemnity. It's part of the (seemingly unintentional due to short-sightedness) complete disregard for the user's freedoms in exchange for developer's freedoms.
It's ridiculous. If it were a Slashdot comment it would be moderated (-1, Troll).
Apparently completely neglecting the fact that they have no legal basis on which to do that...
Somebody needs to remind Richard Stallman that Free stands for Freedom. He seems to have forgotten.
...Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was hospitalized today. Doctors say that he nearly died of laughter.
Can you quote us the line of the GPL which specifies that?
(No, you can't, because it doesn't exist.)
Besides, even if they gave you the code for free, it doesn't mean that they aren't running some non-GPLed code to lock down the box. Thus having the GPLed code wouldn't negate their ability to charge you to unlock the system.
Lame. That shouldn't happen with SATA 2 drives, because the activity signal comes from the drive itself. SATA 1 drives and older P-ATA drives could be an issue though, if the controller decided it should implement the light via software.
When my hard drive is thrashing, the access light comes on... You should look into hooking up that cable. ;)
No, see... The cool kid didn't care enough to notice somebody leaning over and copying. They just went on making cool stuff.
You are a living, breathing advertisement for tape.
Keep in mind that archiving and backups are not the same task. Tape is designed for archiving. You don't have to worry that your local data recovery center will be able to recover off of the one in 10,000 models of hard drive on the market, and you'll probably spend less on tape than on data recovery.
Of course, you also have a very small setup, so what you do is probably perfectly fine for your configuration. Two drives is the low, low end of the industry, and that makes it practical to keep multiple hard drives around.
RAID is not backup.
If you accidentally delete/corrupt/overwrite your data, you don't have any recovery.
RAID and backup are complementary. You can't replace one with the other.
You're kidding, right?
Hard drives are *terrible* at returning to service after sitting un-powered for several years. And if you drop one...
Hard drives are *not* archival digital storage media, even if it makes you feel smart to backup to them.