I'm not saying whether or not it's violating the license. I'm not familiar enough with exactly how this working or the minutia of the GPL to make that kind of statement. The comment I was replying to didn't express any concern about minutia, but instead seemed concerned that someone might restrict him from restricting others.
Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.
Stallman doesn't generally see non-free art as inherently immoral, as art is usually not functinoal. He does, however, think their copyright lasts too long. So, he probably wouldn't have a problem with the non-free artwork, but he would have a problem with the non-free Javascript (I believe he even considered obfuscation to be non-free). I'm not entirely sure on the CSS, but I would lean towards him not approving, especially if more advances CSS3 features are used.
Actually, there usually is a spirit of legal document, and it can differ from the letter. For example, the CTEA might be argued to fit the letter of the Copyright Clause, since continual extensions are technical limited times, but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of the constitutional there, as it can't feasibly promote literary progress to reward authors retroactively. Two Justices were aware of this fact, but the majority was not, unfortunately.
While GPLv3 may not have been the most elegantly exectuable change, it was driven by 3 needs. A new technological means of circumventing end-user control, an increasing threat of patent lawsuits under a new legal means, and better compatibility with existing licenses. The changes you decry are the result of treating a license somewhat like software, making what will hopefully be mostly improvements and patch flaws, but this inevitably results in some regressions. Honestly, 3 releases in over 25 years isn't bad at all.
Yes, but unfortunately, we don't have data on which innovations occurred because of patents, which would have occurred anyway, and which inventions were not invented because of being stifled by patents.
I'd be curious as to a realistic example of this. The closest thing I can think of would be hardware drivers, but there are other parties that benefit from the application of that software. Maybe some drivers for hardware that is used only internally within a system, but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
You are ignoring that there are other ways to get a return on investment than patents. You can break the research down into small pieces where a first mover advantage is more than enough. In cases where this isn't possible, you can build an industry consortium or seek government grants. This has the added benefit of greater standardization within an industry
If someone can keep something secret for the rest of their life, they sure as hell wouldn't get a patent. It makes zero sense to argue that patents get rid of secrets, because patents are not mandatory, outside of a few provisions in which there are public funds spent. However, we could just as easily require the same disclosure with no patent in those situations.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/25/0036225/patents-vs-innovation---the-tabarrok-curve#
So, they are a lobbying group that might dogfood to a certain extent. That's like saying that a credit card industry lobby group might need to be registered as a money transmitter because they sometimes pay for things with credit cards.
So, is Smith & Wesson responsible for people in certain areas using guns as a currency? Whether or not bitcoin is a currency has nothing to do with whether or not the Bitcoin Foundation is engaging in money transmission.
And both of those things apply to hedwards' argument as well. Perhaps the Chinese are worse drivers as well. Also, your comment doesn't necessarily even make sense, because they became EVEN better drivers without signs. It's actually tougher to make the best drivers even better.
There is actually a similar concept employed in the US. When there's a new road, they will often test how fast people on driving on it and figure out what is more or less the average, rounded to a nice clean number. They do this because people are usually quite good at figuring out what is safe on their own, and basically do the really complicated math that they would have to hire someone to do themselves. However, a lot of traffic accidents in the US are the result of the law being different from what is most efficient. Red lights will have the wrong timings, and speed limits will be set inappropriately because it's an easy way to get easy money, and it disproportionately targets people who are just passing through, who are less likely to fight a ticket and don't vote in local elections. Lives are put in danger because of a horribly inefficient taxing mechanism.
Now lets perform this experiment in nations without stringent driver standards or effective law enforcement. Lets try the Philippines... You dont even need to bother removing the signs as Filipino drivers ignore them anyway. Traffic there is chaos and deadly.
Except the Phillipines still has a legal mechanism. A poorly enforced legal mechanism still means there is a legal mechanism. There are still rules, even if it is easy to get away with not following them. The purpose of the Dutch experiment was to remove the semblance of a system of rules.
Yes, there are no other differences in China and other countries that could impact this difference, such as vastly differing viewpoints on human rights and value of individuality. Also, what kind of mental gymnastics does it take to associate a lack of parking tickets with it being dangerous to cross the street? Parked cars are rarely a danger to anyone, especially a pedestrian.
However, in an experiment, a Dutch town removed basically all traffic signs and were considerably safer, because instead of relying upon signs and stoplights to tell them what to do, they had to instead actually pay attention to their surroundings. Believe it or not, we generally have strong instincts for self-preservation, and social mechanisms often work better than rules or legal mechanisms when no such system exists.
Except many of the services in question do not present clean images. They will watermark it, recompress it, change metadata, etc. And that's assuming that the steganography is added to an existing picture. If no clean image exists, then there is no known clean image.
If you want to make a political statement, why not just make a font that is all middle fingers? Equally useful, much clearer, and it requires far less effort. That he intends to make a political statement doesn't stop him from being a dumbass. There are plenty of stupid political statements. Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that he believes this to be a purely political statement. If he does, then he's done a poor job of explaining himself, as that is not what his statements convey. In all likelihood, he really has a poor grasp of the issues at hand, and while he is on the right side of this issue, he's not doing anything to help, and may give some people a false sense of security.
This is probably one of the best ways of doing that. They'll a face for the workforce that isn't just manual laborers. They can't do lot to reduce the suicide rates because they are more or less in line with national averages. I think I read somewhere the head honcho was also considering opening up US factories, but he was afraid that he would be litigated to death.
The problem is that nobody understands what volunteer means. They chose to do some things without being forced to, so now assholes like Jim Hood think they should be forced to do even more. That's seven kinds of stupid.
When you do something small and nice for a group of assholes, be it the government or the RIAA or whomever, then you set the expectation for that as the bare minimum across the board. There's no gratitude, they'll only say that you aren't doing enough. The second they started censoring autocomplete, it was an inevitability that crap like this would happen.
It doesn't get rid of day trading in a meaningful way, but it does bring the trading back down to the human level, where it does actually add something to the system. Day trading happens because an asset is perceived as differing from what it's actual value is, while, as I understand it, HFT is essentially manipulating the supply and demand for microseconds to shave off a profit.
It isn't legally binding, but it is one of the most heavily influential documents in interpreting the Constitution. Most of the Constitutional rights are seen as a codification of inalienable rights.
No, you can lose them if you are tricked into waiving them. That's why cops will try and hassle you as much as they legally can in order to get you to consent to a search.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying whether or not it's violating the license. I'm not familiar enough with exactly how this working or the minutia of the GPL to make that kind of statement. The comment I was replying to didn't express any concern about minutia, but instead seemed concerned that someone might restrict him from restricting others.
Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.
Stallman doesn't generally see non-free art as inherently immoral, as art is usually not functinoal. He does, however, think their copyright lasts too long. So, he probably wouldn't have a problem with the non-free artwork, but he would have a problem with the non-free Javascript (I believe he even considered obfuscation to be non-free). I'm not entirely sure on the CSS, but I would lean towards him not approving, especially if more advances CSS3 features are used.
Actually, there usually is a spirit of legal document, and it can differ from the letter. For example, the CTEA might be argued to fit the letter of the Copyright Clause, since continual extensions are technical limited times, but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of the constitutional there, as it can't feasibly promote literary progress to reward authors retroactively. Two Justices were aware of this fact, but the majority was not, unfortunately.
While GPLv3 may not have been the most elegantly exectuable change, it was driven by 3 needs. A new technological means of circumventing end-user control, an increasing threat of patent lawsuits under a new legal means, and better compatibility with existing licenses. The changes you decry are the result of treating a license somewhat like software, making what will hopefully be mostly improvements and patch flaws, but this inevitably results in some regressions. Honestly, 3 releases in over 25 years isn't bad at all.
You can have copies of house keys made at Wal-Mart.
Yes, but unfortunately, we don't have data on which innovations occurred because of patents, which would have occurred anyway, and which inventions were not invented because of being stifled by patents.
I'd be curious as to a realistic example of this. The closest thing I can think of would be hardware drivers, but there are other parties that benefit from the application of that software. Maybe some drivers for hardware that is used only internally within a system, but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
You are ignoring that there are other ways to get a return on investment than patents. You can break the research down into small pieces where a first mover advantage is more than enough. In cases where this isn't possible, you can build an industry consortium or seek government grants. This has the added benefit of greater standardization within an industry
If someone can keep something secret for the rest of their life, they sure as hell wouldn't get a patent. It makes zero sense to argue that patents get rid of secrets, because patents are not mandatory, outside of a few provisions in which there are public funds spent. However, we could just as easily require the same disclosure with no patent in those situations.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/25/0036225/patents-vs-innovation---the-tabarrok-curve#
So, they are a lobbying group that might dogfood to a certain extent. That's like saying that a credit card industry lobby group might need to be registered as a money transmitter because they sometimes pay for things with credit cards.
He said no intrinsic value. That is the truth. There is no intrinsic value in a fiat currency, save perhaps the paper it is printed on.
So, is Smith & Wesson responsible for people in certain areas using guns as a currency? Whether or not bitcoin is a currency has nothing to do with whether or not the Bitcoin Foundation is engaging in money transmission.
There is actually a similar concept employed in the US. When there's a new road, they will often test how fast people on driving on it and figure out what is more or less the average, rounded to a nice clean number. They do this because people are usually quite good at figuring out what is safe on their own, and basically do the really complicated math that they would have to hire someone to do themselves. However, a lot of traffic accidents in the US are the result of the law being different from what is most efficient. Red lights will have the wrong timings, and speed limits will be set inappropriately because it's an easy way to get easy money, and it disproportionately targets people who are just passing through, who are less likely to fight a ticket and don't vote in local elections. Lives are put in danger because of a horribly inefficient taxing mechanism.
Except the Phillipines still has a legal mechanism. A poorly enforced legal mechanism still means there is a legal mechanism. There are still rules, even if it is easy to get away with not following them. The purpose of the Dutch experiment was to remove the semblance of a system of rules.
Yes, there are no other differences in China and other countries that could impact this difference, such as vastly differing viewpoints on human rights and value of individuality. Also, what kind of mental gymnastics does it take to associate a lack of parking tickets with it being dangerous to cross the street? Parked cars are rarely a danger to anyone, especially a pedestrian.
However, in an experiment, a Dutch town removed basically all traffic signs and were considerably safer, because instead of relying upon signs and stoplights to tell them what to do, they had to instead actually pay attention to their surroundings. Believe it or not, we generally have strong instincts for self-preservation, and social mechanisms often work better than rules or legal mechanisms when no such system exists.
Except many of the services in question do not present clean images. They will watermark it, recompress it, change metadata, etc. And that's assuming that the steganography is added to an existing picture. If no clean image exists, then there is no known clean image.
If you want to make a political statement, why not just make a font that is all middle fingers? Equally useful, much clearer, and it requires far less effort. That he intends to make a political statement doesn't stop him from being a dumbass. There are plenty of stupid political statements. Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that he believes this to be a purely political statement. If he does, then he's done a poor job of explaining himself, as that is not what his statements convey. In all likelihood, he really has a poor grasp of the issues at hand, and while he is on the right side of this issue, he's not doing anything to help, and may give some people a false sense of security.
This is probably one of the best ways of doing that. They'll a face for the workforce that isn't just manual laborers. They can't do lot to reduce the suicide rates because they are more or less in line with national averages. I think I read somewhere the head honcho was also considering opening up US factories, but he was afraid that he would be litigated to death.
The problem is that nobody understands what volunteer means. They chose to do some things without being forced to, so now assholes like Jim Hood think they should be forced to do even more. That's seven kinds of stupid.
When you do something small and nice for a group of assholes, be it the government or the RIAA or whomever, then you set the expectation for that as the bare minimum across the board. There's no gratitude, they'll only say that you aren't doing enough. The second they started censoring autocomplete, it was an inevitability that crap like this would happen.
Yeah, it would delete the file and download Venus in Furs.
It doesn't really matter. You get the differnce between the files, and replace the errors with the correct text.
That would be trivially fixed via using regular expressions. Hell, you could do that by simply opening it as an html file and copying the text.
It doesn't get rid of day trading in a meaningful way, but it does bring the trading back down to the human level, where it does actually add something to the system. Day trading happens because an asset is perceived as differing from what it's actual value is, while, as I understand it, HFT is essentially manipulating the supply and demand for microseconds to shave off a profit.
It isn't legally binding, but it is one of the most heavily influential documents in interpreting the Constitution. Most of the Constitutional rights are seen as a codification of inalienable rights.
No, you can lose them if you are tricked into waiving them. That's why cops will try and hassle you as much as they legally can in order to get you to consent to a search.