if you are for the free-software movement. WHat would you say if I took GPL'd code, removed the license, and put it in my closed-source software. Would linux zealouts try to get lawyers after me? YES! they did with Beos. "It's un-ethical", but not illegal,remember..
yeah...your country is probably better, where thugs rule the government, freedoms are taken away, and everything is paid for(medicare). The reason the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations in the world is because we WORKED FOR IT! as for that in-bred remark: you're jealous cause you couldn't get your Green Card. America means Freedom, and you can compare it to just about any other country in the world, andget the same results.
here is how I will make money off of open-source: give the software away for free, but make the person sign a two-year service contract. (50.00 per year).
it's either on service or product, money can still be made
man, what If i did this woth open-source software.... I included it in as many closed projects as I wanted, and said: "The cat is already out of the bag", and claimed that denying my right to do so was against my rights. I guarantee you that many people in the community would be pissed, and the hypocrites would be revealed.
When Beos placed Bruce Pierce's Open-sourced, Gpl'd code in their OS, Slashdotters were in a fit of rage. Now, slashdot does the same thing to microsoft, and now are pissed because Microsoft wants to protect their property(part of their rights).
In both cases it is wrong. Slashdot was wrong for leaving copyrighted code on their archives, and Beos was wrong for leaving GPL'd code in their closed-source OS.
the GPL is just as much a protection of property as the copyright is, but linux zealouts only see one side.
then the GPL is against my right to include source (which at times in the slashdot community is considered property, and other times isn't) in my closed-source project. They are both licenses, whether you like it or not, and they should both be taken with the same respect. I guess since someone has a lot of money, or is a largr corporation, their freedoms and rights cease to exist. If someone released GPL'd software NOT UNDER the GPL license, slashdotters would be pissed. Please...If you want to be taken seriously, stop changing the rules of the argument to fit your needs.
Where is the Greater Theft? Is it in making a copy, in my mind or speech, or is it in denying my right to do so?
The notion of Property makes no sense where there is no scarcity. Society's right to limit what I say or do ends when saying-or-doing ceases to become harmful. All that is left for "Intellectual Property Rights" to protect is a residual right (Intellectual Rent) that is leftover from a former state of affairs
I think you have it all wrong......When a programmer releases a piece of software, and is charging money, you are paying for the hours and hours that went into the product.(this also goes for music and movies). Art,programs,etc. are not Free Speech. If that was the case, hacking someone's website and putting up a political message would be free speech, because "Internet Files aren't considered property".
Most linux users MUST use Microsoft products daily, otherwise their breakup wouldn't matter. Remember..."linux/open-source is better than any microsoft product". If that were the case, linux wouldn't need help from the government for popularity.
How is Forcing me to open my source Free speech? it's not. Free speech is allowing both sides of the argument([ie] open/closed/free/paid programs). It's not biased in any way.
change, although a mystery to you, is a good thing. Things often times need to be totally re-written. If things didn't change,like linux, we probably would still be using commodore 64's and tandy's.
On the other hand, compare the Major changes. Although the major OS's have minimal releases, many noticeable changes occur. With operating systems such as linux, there are many releases, but with small bug-fixes in each one. (look at the difference between win 3.1 and win95) and the different linux versions. Although there are many flavors of linux, things such as X-windows are still based on technology invented in the 1960's.
wow..that's interesting..I thought speech was supposed to be free here. What I posted, against slashdot, got 0 redundant. What medicthree,defending slashdot, posted got a 2. As anyone can see, Ignorance is Bliss.
if you notice, the founders of slashdot don't REALLY express their opinions on many of the subjects in the news. They report them, and claim they're for open-source and free-speech, but the truth of the matter is: They want to make money on EVERYONE. That's all it is about, and the sheepdotters can't see through it. It's almost like scientology (in a sense). They started a gathering for an upcoming religious following (slashdot for the free-software movement. Many linux zealouts follow the OSS/free-software movement almost like a religion). Then they make a profit, by any means possible.(slashot (now a corporation) has advertisers which bring in $$$.)
If slashot was REALLY for the free-software movement, they would have no corporation, and also wouldn't be profiting off of all the open-source zealouts. If it's alright for them to make a profit, why can't companies like mp3.com have ads in a linux bootup? (their take on this included commenting such things out). I thing we should comment all slashdot advertising out, but that would mean the end of slashdot...hmmm....maybe we need capitalism after all.....
but, since slashdot is jesus, and stallman is god, things that make either of them any kind of $$$ is justified.
this anonymous coward is another "sheep-dotter". sheep-dotter is a new word I just created, that represents that vast amount of slashdotters who are blind followers of the OSS and free-software movement
now you know why OSS hasn't taken hold in large corporations. There is no Centralization. Who is to blame? Evey Author that added onto the piece of open-source software? kind of like when a network like free-net is put up to pirate software (or free speech as slashdotters like to call it). Since there is no centralization, there is noone to blame. OSS software authors should be just as liable as closed source ones.
to tell you the truth...im going to have a million dollars within 5 years, im not threatened at all, just trying to show another side to the OSS movement. You like working for free, it's not my problem.
open-source will never turn programming into a blue-collar job
here are my views on open-source: it's good to get software for free("beer" or "speech"), but money will always be an issue. To many programmers now, knowledge isn't a good enough incentive, but money is. It has always been that way.
here is the problem with open source: it shows results, but doesn't stay with the times. Look at every popular piece of OSS software available: sendmail,apache, to name a few, and even the OS that basically started the movement, linux. There's an incentive to add onto, but never revolutionize. So, we will see utilities and applications, but they will still be behind commercial products (example: photoshop and the gimp). Photoshop had features years ago, that the gimp is just implementing now. Another example is X-windows. It's a good windowing system, if eveyone was a programmer and it was the 1970's. It needs to be re-written, not just added onto.
now for some real world examples: china, where everyone is "equal" (basically the same goals for the free software movement: Everyone has the same advantage with the availability of source code), is JUST getting up into space now, while the U.S. did the same thing at least 50 years ago. From the outside, Open-source looks like Freedom, but it is a form of Communism. Now don't get me wrong, OSS isn't bad, but money isn't going away any time soon. With Open source programming, either 1) you work for a company, and slave your life away programming, or 2) you work elsewhere, only programming as a hobby. It's up to you. I think the one happiness many people would like to have is to make enough money to be "comfortable" off of what they enjoy doing, but OSS doesn't offer these rewards.
I don't see a problem with ads in linux. There needs to be a revenue stream somewhere! EVERYTHING can't be free. Hard-working programmers should get SOME compensation.
if you look what I said, it was MOST slashdotters, not all. There are still some(about 2%) that stick with their opinions. The other 101% change their opinion on what should be done, with regard to what needs to be "free".
As I've stated many times before, I believe that napster is alright, but the users that have illegal mp3's are wrong. The reason im saying slashdot is hypocritical (no, im not a troll, just expressing my opinions), is because it's true. Examples that immediately come to mind are: 1)bruce P. When it was found out that Beos was using Gpl'd code, a lot of slashdotters were in an uproar. 2) Metallica. When metallica/RIAA were TRYING to preserve their copyrights, many posts included variants of the following: "they don't need the money" or "they sold out, their opinion doesn't matter". How does selling out or the amount of money a person have affect freedoms??
metallica is doing just what the slashdot community said they wanted.....going after the crooks, not napster. But don't worry, most people's opinions will be against Metallica.
Slashdot Mirror
if you are for the free-software movement. WHat would you say if I took GPL'd code, removed the license, and put it in my closed-source software. Would linux zealouts try to get lawyers after me? YES! they did with Beos. "It's un-ethical", but not illegal,remember..
yeah...your country is probably better, where thugs rule the government, freedoms are taken away, and everything is paid for(medicare). The reason the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations in the world is because we WORKED FOR IT! as for that in-bred remark: you're jealous cause you couldn't get your Green Card. America means Freedom, and you can compare it to just about any other country in the world, andget the same results.
here is how I will make money off of open-source: give the software away for free, but make the person sign a two-year service contract. (50.00 per year).
it's either on service or product, money can still be made
man, what If i did this woth open-source software.... I included it in as many closed projects as I wanted, and said: "The cat is already out of the bag", and claimed that denying my right to do so was against my rights. I guarantee you that many people in the community would be pissed, and the hypocrites would be revealed.
think of this:
OSS doesn't pay the bills. Don't complain. Just because you hate money, doesn't mean working for microsoft is Morally wrong.
-------Freedom isn't a one-way street
sorry (Mr. Coward), they do own the prop. extensions they created. It's not about the kerberos Specification.
When Beos placed Bruce Pierce's Open-sourced, Gpl'd code in their OS, Slashdotters were in a fit of rage. Now, slashdot does the same thing to microsoft, and now are pissed because Microsoft wants to protect their property(part of their rights).
In both cases it is wrong. Slashdot was wrong for leaving copyrighted code on their archives, and Beos was wrong for leaving GPL'd code in their closed-source OS.
the GPL is just as much a protection of property as the copyright is, but linux zealouts only see one side.
Freedom isn't a one-way street
then the GPL is against my right to include source (which at times in the slashdot community is considered property, and other times isn't) in my closed-source project. They are both licenses, whether you like it or not, and they should both be taken with the same respect. I guess since someone has a lot of money, or is a largr corporation, their freedoms and rights cease to exist. If someone released GPL'd software NOT UNDER the GPL license, slashdotters would be pissed. Please...If you want to be taken seriously, stop changing the rules of the argument to fit your needs.
Freedom isn't a one-way street
think of this, you don't see people advocating the closing of ALL source, now do you. It proves the biased beliefs of The vast majority of Slashdot.
Where is the Greater Theft? Is it in making a copy, in my mind or speech, or is it in denying my right to do so?
The notion of Property makes no sense where there is no scarcity. Society's right to limit what I say or do ends when saying-or-doing ceases to become harmful. All that is left for "Intellectual Property Rights" to protect is a residual right (Intellectual Rent) that is leftover from a former state of affairs
I think you have it all wrong......When a programmer releases a piece of software, and is charging money, you are paying for the hours and hours that went into the product.(this also goes for music and movies). Art,programs,etc. are not Free Speech. If that was the case, hacking someone's website and putting up a political message would be free speech, because "Internet Files aren't considered property".
Most linux users MUST use Microsoft products daily, otherwise their breakup wouldn't matter. Remember..."linux/open-source is better than any microsoft product". If that were the case, linux wouldn't need help from the government for popularity.
How is Forcing me to open my source Free speech? it's not. Free speech is allowing both sides of the argument([ie] open/closed/free/paid programs). It's not biased in any way.
---- Freedom isn't a one-way Street
x-windows was never "done right the first time"
change, although a mystery to you, is a good thing. Things often times need to be totally re-written. If things didn't change,like linux, we probably would still be using commodore 64's and tandy's.
the only thing companies like RedHat show me, is that money can be made off of other peoples work. (They are a poor example of profiting off of OSS)
On the other hand, compare the Major changes. Although the major OS's have minimal releases, many noticeable changes occur. With operating systems such as linux, there are many releases, but with small bug-fixes in each one. (look at the difference between win 3.1 and win95) and the different linux versions. Although there are many flavors of linux, things such as X-windows are still based on technology invented in the 1960's.
on Freenet (an up-and-coming distributed network system, like Napster, but more intended for free speech and anonymity than just music downloads).
This translates to: a network that allows totally anonymous warez, which in reality has nothing to do with Free speech.
wow..that's interesting..I thought speech was supposed to be free here. What I posted, against slashdot, got 0 redundant. What medicthree,defending slashdot, posted got a 2. As anyone can see, Ignorance is Bliss.
if you notice, the founders of slashdot don't REALLY express their opinions on many of the subjects in the news. They report them, and claim they're for open-source and free-speech, but the truth of the matter is: They want to make money on EVERYONE. That's all it is about, and the sheepdotters can't see through it. It's almost like scientology (in a sense). They started a gathering for an upcoming religious following (slashdot for the free-software movement. Many linux zealouts follow the OSS/free-software movement almost like a religion). Then they make a profit, by any means possible.(slashot (now a corporation) has advertisers which bring in $$$.)
If slashot was REALLY for the free-software movement, they would have no corporation, and also wouldn't be profiting off of all the open-source zealouts. If it's alright for them to make a profit, why can't companies like mp3.com have ads in a linux bootup? (their take on this included commenting such things out). I thing we should comment all slashdot advertising out, but that would mean the end of slashdot...hmmm....maybe we need capitalism after all.....
but, since slashdot is jesus, and stallman is god, things that make either of them any kind of $$$ is justified.
this anonymous coward is another "sheep-dotter". sheep-dotter is a new word I just created, that represents that vast amount of slashdotters who are blind followers of the OSS and free-software movement
if geeks in space represents the slashdot community...all I can say, is im sorry for you.
now you know why OSS hasn't taken hold in large corporations. There is no Centralization. Who is to blame? Evey Author that added onto the piece of open-source software? kind of like when a network like free-net is put up to pirate software (or free speech as slashdotters like to call it). Since there is no centralization, there is noone to blame. OSS software authors should be just as liable as closed source ones.
alright, would you rather pay $500 for the i-opener, or pay for the ISP?...it's your choice
to tell you the truth...im going to have a million dollars within 5 years, im not threatened at all, just trying to show another side to the OSS movement. You like working for free, it's not my problem.
open-source will never turn programming into a blue-collar job
here are my views on open-source: it's good to get software for free("beer" or "speech"), but money will always be an issue. To many programmers now, knowledge isn't a good enough incentive, but money is. It has always been that way.
here is the problem with open source: it shows results, but doesn't stay with the times. Look at every popular piece of OSS software available: sendmail,apache, to name a few, and even the OS that basically started the movement, linux. There's an incentive to add onto, but never revolutionize. So, we will see utilities and applications, but they will still be behind commercial products (example: photoshop and the gimp). Photoshop had features years ago, that the gimp is just implementing now. Another example is X-windows. It's a good windowing system, if eveyone was a programmer and it was the 1970's. It needs to be re-written, not just added onto.
now for some real world examples: china, where everyone is "equal" (basically the same goals for the free software movement: Everyone has the same advantage with the availability of source code), is JUST getting up into space now, while the U.S. did the same thing at least 50 years ago. From the outside, Open-source looks like Freedom, but it is a form of Communism. Now don't get me wrong, OSS isn't bad, but money isn't going away any time soon. With Open source programming, either 1) you work for a company, and slave your life away programming, or 2) you work elsewhere, only programming as a hobby. It's up to you. I think the one happiness many people would like to have is to make enough money to be "comfortable" off of what they enjoy doing, but OSS doesn't offer these rewards.
-----(OSS != Freedom)
I don't see a problem with ads in linux. There needs to be a revenue stream somewhere! EVERYTHING can't be free. Hard-working programmers should get SOME compensation.
if you look what I said, it was MOST slashdotters, not all. There are still some(about 2%) that stick with their opinions. The other 101% change their opinion on what should be done, with regard to what needs to be "free".
As I've stated many times before, I believe that napster is alright, but the users that have illegal mp3's are wrong. The reason im saying slashdot is hypocritical (no, im not a troll, just expressing my opinions), is because it's true. Examples that immediately come to mind are: 1)bruce P. When it was found out that Beos was using Gpl'd code, a lot of slashdotters were in an uproar. 2) Metallica. When metallica/RIAA were TRYING to preserve their copyrights, many posts included variants of the following: "they don't need the money" or "they sold out, their opinion doesn't matter". How does selling out or the amount of money a person have affect freedoms??
metallica is doing just what the slashdot community said they wanted.....going after the crooks, not napster. But don't worry, most people's opinions will be against Metallica.
----Freedom has no exceptions, but Slashdot does.