Who fights for the right to pirate proprietary software? If I BUY a piece of software, I do have the right to do just about anythign I want to it EXCEPT distribute it, for free or profit. I should be able to reverse engineer it to study, I should be able to make backup's till the end of time, or quote brief passages for a study, or in a more relevant case for a gui program, screenshots. This is called fair use and it should NOT be infringed upon. The technology involved in copying must remain unrestricted by any means out there today because they all restrict my fair use rights. If you come up with a means of copy protection which does NOT infringe on my fair use (and no, significantly infringe is not the same thing, not at all) then I'll support you. But if you think stopping a few kids from downloading an mp3 they will find a way to rip off anyway is more important than my rights... well i suspect you work for the music industry or have a personal stake in some form on the matter. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
If I take a piece of GNU sourcecode, and use it in a proprietary application, would you consider this fair use?
Besides I don't care what their arguments are, it is TAXPAYERS' $$$$$$$$'s. If there is viable FREE software, I as a TAXPAYER, I believe that Government agencies have a responsibility to STRONGLY consider the GPL license, if it is appropriate to do so.
I, as a taxpayer, believe it should be public domain software.
I want to blow the whistle on these people really badly, just for matter of principle, and also because of a bit of revenge towards an arrogant vendor who doesn't understand the "customer is always right" principle and who has lied to us on numerous occasions and repeatedly refuses to follow our instructions and many of the terms of the contract. I think I'm going to wait until the project is complete and the system is in full production use before suddenly discovering this GPL license breach and blowing the whistle to the FSF. I think it will hurt the evil vendor the most then. Anyone have any further comments or advice here
Whast you are talking about, is the GNU's version of piracy. (kinda ironic, isn't it?) After so many slashdotters fight tooth and nail for the right to "pirate" proprietary software, I fail to see why anyone should even care.
You are spreading FUD, pure and simple. Free Software has nothing to do with how much you charge for your software. It never has, and it never will. At least the writers of the memo above grasped this simple fact.
really? I think they go hand-in-hand (even though OSS zealouts never admit it). If you release a binary application (which was created under the GNU license), you are required to release the sourcecode. Not only can you take that sourcecode, compile it, and get it for free (no charge), but you can also release it yourself for free (no charge once again) in binary form.
I think it is you that has trouble grasping the facts.
Does the fact that Hollywood video and audio studios have been moving to linux for all aspects mean nothing to you? I think what you mean to say is that MS offers you ease of use since it is what you know. Hollywood knows where the real value is for today and in the near future. That is why they are spending money on porting to Linux.
Hollywood, and any government or large organization that switch over to linux, are doing so for one reason and one reason only: Because it's free. Not as in speech (they really could give a flying fuck about being a stallmanite), but as in beer.
Think about it: let's say you have a product that works REALLY well (commerical app), and it costs you $500,000 (a conservative estimate) to license. There is an Open-Source product that has similar functionality (not better,it just works), with a pricetag of $0. From a business standpoint, which one would you choose?
Re:Other OS P2P technologies
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it, but giFT is a very nice open protocal modeled after the fasttrack network. (originally it used the actual fasttrack network, but now they use an open protocol called OpenFT)
Check it out at http://gift.sourceforge.net The ncurses based frontend giFTcurs is very nice, but there also are graphical and even web-based frontends to it.
I use it under linux and have been very happy with it.
I think the gift project when downhill after they stopped reverse-engineering the kazaa protocol. Why bother with a totally new protocol, when we can use gnutella?
Releases every six to nine months are better than releases every three years. In addition, I can get patches for Open Source Software the day they are created, instead of several months down the road when Microsoft decides a issue the next service pack.
you obviously don't goto microsoft's website for updates. For XP alone, I get security updates at least once a week.
Just because a service pack is released, doesn't mean there are no updates released before. Service packs are usually a compilation of around 25-50 small updates that have already been released.
DOS... Nope, they bought it... Windows (UI)... Nope, got it from the Mac... Internet Explorer... Nope, got it from NCSA (Mosaic)... in fact, they almost missed the Internet... Word... Nope, WordPerfect was already around... DRM... Nope, got it from the RIAA...
and you could also say that the open source community has gotton eveerything that has ever been written from either microsoft, apple, or xerox.....
This is called predatory pricing (unless you really think that total costs in producing and shipping that product to you were under $6) is is not only illegal but one of the top warning signs for a monopoly.
it's funny...when people decide to "pirate" microsoft software, it's because it's too expensive. When microsft decides to help the academic world out, it's "illegal and a sign of a monopoly".
wouldn't giving software away for free be predatory pricing as well? (the labor involved surpasses the price you are charging (0$), undercutting all competition).
What I really want is for somebody to pay me to sip tall drinks while I sit on a beach in Hawaii. Unfortunately, very few employers find that to be a productive enough activity to staff up in that area. Oh well, life's a bitch.
I don't mind when 90% of a companies programming staff has been cut. But when you are a programmer, and you can't put food on the table, you know who is to blame.
Anyway, the money not spent in the IT budget doesn't just disappear. It is spent on something else more directly related to the company's business, thereby generating more jobs somewhere else in the economy
Translation: it cuts programming jobs by a significant percentage. You have to ask yourself, is this really what you want?
As an attempt to combat copywrong. If there was no (C) there would be no need for the gpl etc
Ok, let's say in a stallmanized world, copyright did not exist. What would then stop me from taking FSF code, re-bundling it, and selling it for a profit (without re-releasing my source).
that is an incredebly small number, it just goes to show how much of a monopoly microsoft has
that's not really the way to look at the current situation. What it really shows you is the incredible amount of work it's going to take to make linux a viable operating system for the desktop.
I'd rather pay $40 up front and never pay another dime again but still enjoy years of gameplay -- the way PC games have been for a while now. MMORPGs are outrageously overpriced and the only reason they're currently successful is because of the addicts
everyone is forgetting one difference between an MMORPG and a regular PC game. The bandwidth. This is why there needs to be somewhat of a monthly fee.
I'd suggest you to revise the GPL: is nowhere stated that you have to give the source for free, what is stated is that you have to give the source to whoever you give the binary too, and is nowhere stated that you have to give the binary for free. If you give binaries for free, that's just your choice, you are not forced to.
that's not the issue here. What happens if I charge for the source AND the binaries? If it is in violation, then my point still stands.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer
unfortunatly, in the linux sense at least, you cannot have one without the other. If you solely charged for linux (without giving it away for free as in beer) you would be violating the GNU.
so yes, when you say linux is "free" it means "beer" and "speech".
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no they don't. They allow you to freely redistribute it.
but what would happen if I tried to sell it?
Who fights for the right to pirate proprietary software? If I BUY a piece of software, I do have the right to do just about anythign I want to it EXCEPT distribute it, for free or profit. I should be able to reverse engineer it to study, I should be able to make backup's till the end of time, or quote brief passages for a study, or in a more relevant case for a gui program, screenshots. This is called fair use and it should NOT be infringed upon. The technology involved in copying must remain unrestricted by any means out there today because they all restrict my fair use rights. If you come up with a means of copy protection which does NOT infringe on my fair use (and no, significantly infringe is not the same thing, not at all) then I'll support you. But if you think stopping a few kids from downloading an mp3 they will find a way to rip off anyway is more important than my rights... well i suspect you work for the music industry or have a personal stake in some form on the matter.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
If I take a piece of GNU sourcecode, and use it in a proprietary application, would you consider this fair use?
Besides I don't care what their arguments are, it is TAXPAYERS' $$$$$$$$'s. If there is viable FREE software, I as a TAXPAYER, I believe that Government agencies have a responsibility to STRONGLY consider the GPL license, if it is appropriate to do so.
I, as a taxpayer, believe it should be public domain software.
I want to blow the whistle on these people really badly, just for matter of principle, and also because of a bit of revenge towards an arrogant vendor who doesn't understand the "customer is always right" principle and who has lied to us on numerous occasions and repeatedly refuses to follow our instructions and many of the terms of the contract. I think I'm going to wait until the project is complete and the system is in full production use before suddenly discovering this GPL license breach and blowing the whistle to the FSF. I think it will hurt the evil vendor the most then. Anyone have any further comments or advice here
Whast you are talking about, is the GNU's version of piracy. (kinda ironic, isn't it?) After so many slashdotters fight tooth and nail for the right to "pirate" proprietary software, I fail to see why anyone should even care.
You are spreading FUD, pure and simple. Free Software has nothing to do with how much you charge for your software. It never has, and it never will. At least the writers of the memo above grasped this simple fact.
really? I think they go hand-in-hand (even though OSS zealouts never admit it). If you release a binary application (which was created under the GNU license), you are required to release the sourcecode. Not only can you take that sourcecode, compile it, and get it for free (no charge), but you can also release it yourself for free (no charge once again) in binary form.
I think it is you that has trouble grasping the facts.
Does the fact that Hollywood video and audio studios have been moving to linux for all aspects mean nothing to you?
I think what you mean to say is that MS offers you ease of use since it is what you know. Hollywood knows where the real value is for today and in the near future. That is why they are spending money on porting to Linux.
Hollywood, and any government or large organization that switch over to linux, are doing so for one reason and one reason only: Because it's free. Not as in speech (they really could give a flying fuck about being a stallmanite), but as in beer.
Think about it: let's say you have a product that works REALLY well (commerical app), and it costs you $500,000 (a conservative estimate) to license. There is an Open-Source product that has similar functionality (not better,it just works), with a pricetag of $0. From a business standpoint, which one would you choose?
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it, but giFT is a very nice open protocal modeled after the fasttrack network. (originally it used the actual fasttrack network, but now they use an open protocol called OpenFT)
Check it out at http://gift.sourceforge.net The ncurses based frontend giFTcurs is very nice, but there also are graphical and even web-based frontends to it.
I use it under linux and have been very happy with it.
I think the gift project when downhill after they stopped reverse-engineering the kazaa protocol. Why bother with a totally new protocol, when we can use gnutella?
just my 2 cents
Make up your mind idiotboy, is it 3 or 25-50 [slashdot.org]?
"that's the beauty of choice". the solgan of free software.
I can either update using 3 service packs (which linux does not have) or many smaller updates.
Releases every six to nine months are better than releases every three years. In addition, I can get patches for Open Source Software the day they are created, instead of several months down the road when Microsoft decides a issue the next service pack.
you obviously don't goto microsoft's website for updates. For XP alone, I get security updates at least once a week.
Just because a service pack is released, doesn't mean there are no updates released before. Service packs are usually a compilation of around 25-50 small updates that have already been released.
Too bad it takes 3 Service Packs...
and how many "updates" does linux need to be secure? Far more than 3. Especially when you need to get them from all the "eyes peering at the code".
I would rather have all the updates lumped into one large service pack, than 50 or 100 separate ones.
DOS ... Nope, they bought it ... ... Nope, got it from the Mac ... ... Nope, got it from NCSA (Mosaic) ... in fact, they almost missed the Internet ... ... Nope, WordPerfect was already around ... ... Nope, got it from the RIAA ...
Windows (UI)
Internet Explorer
Word
DRM
and you could also say that the open source community has gotton eveerything that has ever been written from either microsoft, apple, or xerox.....
This is called predatory pricing (unless you really think that total costs in producing and shipping that product to you were under $6) is is not only illegal but one of the top warning signs for a monopoly.
it's funny...when people decide to "pirate" microsoft software, it's because it's too expensive. When microsft decides to help the academic world out, it's "illegal and a sign of a monopoly".
wouldn't giving software away for free be predatory pricing as well? (the labor involved surpasses the price you are charging (0$), undercutting all competition).
What I really want is for somebody to pay me to sip tall drinks while I sit on a beach in Hawaii. Unfortunately, very few employers find that to be a productive enough activity to staff up in that area. Oh well, life's a bitch.
I don't mind when 90% of a companies programming staff has been cut. But when you are a programmer, and you can't put food on the table, you know who is to blame.
Anyway, the money not spent in the IT budget doesn't just disappear. It is spent on something else more directly related to the company's business, thereby generating more jobs somewhere else in the economy
Translation: it cuts programming jobs by a significant percentage. You have to ask yourself, is this really what you want?
Sure, its OK to save money on your website with Linux but lets sue the pants off of developers. Nic
where is it shown that the creators of peng are linux kernal developers?
what this means for the future of open source in the music industry?
Uh,no. Sorry, The offical Direct Connect is just as spyware-infected as everything else these days what you really need is Filenavigator
no spyware!
You've obviously never written a large proposal (200+ pages
I would like to see the performance of Koffice, staroffice, and or openoffice with a 200+ page document......
As an attempt to combat copywrong. If there was no (C) there would be no need for the gpl etc
Ok, let's say in a stallmanized world, copyright did not exist. What would then stop me from taking FSF code, re-bundling it, and selling it for a profit (without re-releasing my source).
that is an incredebly small number, it just goes to show how much of a monopoly microsoft has
that's not really the way to look at the current situation. What it really shows you is the incredible amount of work it's going to take to make linux a viable operating system for the desktop.
I'd rather pay $40 up front and never pay another dime again but still enjoy years of gameplay -- the way PC games have been for a while now. MMORPGs are outrageously overpriced and the only reason they're currently successful is because of the addicts
everyone is forgetting one difference between an MMORPG and a regular PC game. The bandwidth. This is why there needs to be somewhat of a monthly fee.
I'd suggest you to revise the GPL: is nowhere stated that you have to give the source for free, what is stated is that you have to give the source to whoever you give the binary too, and is nowhere stated that you have to give the binary for free.
If you give binaries for free, that's just your choice, you are not forced to.
that's not the issue here. What happens if I charge for the source AND the binaries? If it is in violation, then my point still stands.
yes they would, because the RIAA wants to control what you listen to
this may be true, but just look at what people are sharing sometime, and you will be slapped in the face with reality.
if p2p just had independent artists, there would be nothing the RIAA could do, and they would lose control.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer
unfortunatly, in the linux sense at least, you cannot have one without the other. If you solely charged for linux (without giving it away for free as in beer) you would be violating the GNU.
so yes, when you say linux is "free" it means "beer" and "speech".
not true
if it wasn't true, the RIAA would not have taken every popular p2p application down through litigation.