Because in a couple of years your graphics card may be well enought for you, but no longer accelerated since the vendor doesn't support it any longer.
If I hadn't traded the NVidia I bought for an equivalent ATI card when I did so, today I'd not have 3D simply because the kernels and X evoluted but the driver stopped in time. NVidia doesn't support that card any more.
Since I bought a supported-by-free-software-drivers ATI card, today I can run compiz & beryl on my home's desktop.
Yes, I know, I could disable UAC if I want to, but that kind of defeats the point of Vista's so-called beefed up security.
"You're coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?", Vista security explained by Apple. Obligatory remark: I don't recommend people to use Apple Macintosh. That's proprietary software, and that's bad for you, m'kay? But the video is very funny and enlightening, m'kay?
This is not true; GPL requires that modifications to GPL code be released
*cof* I appreciate the intention but you're spreading a most terrible lie: the GPL does NOT "require that modifications to GPL code be released". It requires that published copies, original or modified, be released under the same terms of the GPL.
first off, DRM allows for what amounts to unbound copyrights.
This is a failure of current DRM schemes, not DRM in general.
DRM in general is broken, and can't work but with proprietary software and proprietary hardware that collaborates with said proprietary software.
DRM in general is like the other poster said: it allows unbound copyrights but I'd say it's *extra* restrictions imposed on you, without society even agreeing to them.
If you have DRM implemented in Free Software, you are perfectly able to circunvent said DRM in a trivial form, but if you are able to circunvent in a trivial form then DRM is not doing it's job.
Hence the only way for DRM to work is for you and me to be absolute blind and obeying sheep, I mean citizens, of the corrupt dictatorship of the RI/MP AA+Microsoft.
Sorry but no, DRM is broken in general as to what relates to society in general, and any defense of the opposit is either dangerous ingenuity or criminal cooperation.
Well, if MySQL should be usable with GPL2, the "or later clause" may cause problems. For example a GPLv3-only-licensed patch would force MySQL to the new license.
This makes absolutely no sense:
they have the right to REJECT the patch
they require copyright assignment so they could change the license anyway
Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)
The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.
I presume you're confusing all variants of the GNU/Linux operating system with the Linux kernel, in detriment of all the good folks work, in favor of a select few kernel developers.
As long as you continue to confuse a kernel with a full operating system, then you don't even hold a credible opinion either on the matter of the adoption of Free Software: you don't even know what you're talking about!
What is holding back the adoption of Free Software is pure and simply the concertated actions of companies like Microsoft, trying to hold on to their monopolies and power over all subjects, or users if you prefer...
I'm sorry, but this isn't the rosy world you seem to live in. They *are* out to get us.
In the paper I linked, it is described how Microsoft recommends hardware makers to not disclose any information of their hardware, because other people might make other drivers...
"our enemies"? I find it hard to consider a corporate entity my enemy (or a friend). They aren't people, so it doesn't make perfect sense to relate to them in this way.
A corporate entity is run by people. Those people only have one thing in mind: profits for the stock holders. Those people are honour-bound to maximise the profits, trampling who they have to trample, by whatever means necessary, legal and sometimes even illegal (abuse of monopoly for instance).
When they collute to hurt us, what are they if not enemies? I can believe most who work at those companies aren't evil or our enemies, but they don't matter at all for this equation unless they value their honour most and abandom such predatory companies.
Alas, in the face of need (to feed the family for instance) many don't have much choice, but still, they don't matter for they don't make the decisions that hurt us.
Still, their companies deserve a painfully educational death.
I also notice eMusic is not very comprehensive. For example, they have nothing by Radiohead. They have three albums by Elvis Presley - one live performance and two compilations. And if you put in Elvis Costello, the only hits they have are for Karaoke. No Gnarls Barkely, no Beatles, no Rolling Stones, no Enya, no Alanis Morissette, no Death Cab For Cutie (well, once again Karaoke). Speaking of which, there are 5988 tracks with Karaoke in their name...
How cute. You complain that mainstream bands don't usually come up there.
On the otherhand, every month I learn of pearls that I didn't even suspect were around.
And so what they have 6 thousand tracks with karaoke on their name? They have about 176398albums on their "not very comprehensive" collection...
My main point is that there is no way for them to make the programs available to you that doesn't cost them money. This is especially true for older programs. They have to get them from the old tapes and such and convert and encode them. Then they have to distribute them somehow. Even if they used p2p, they would take a hit from being the initial seeder. Someone would need to manage all this, and IT stuff isn't cheap. So they would have to get money for this from somewhere.
eMusic seems to do that just fine, and they have a bigger cost than BBC: licensing content.
Why is eMusic comparable? Well, they don't use DRM they use, quite simply, MP3...
If I write a song, I can sell it to someone else. I can stop other people from using it. I can charge for its use. That certainly looks like property to me.
No you can't stop other people from using it. The way one "uses" a song is by listening to it. Once you sold a "copy" (you know that's what copyright deals with, right? the right to copy? being restricted to the copyright holders?) the other person can sell it to someone else, listen it as many times as they like, in countries like mine make an infinite number of backup copies, etc...
No you can't charge for it's use. What you can charge for is the right to include your song in another work.
If this was anything close to property, you would only be able to sell your song *once* (how many times can you sell your house, a perfect example of property?).
If this was anything close to property, you wouldn't be able to stop other people from using it after you sold it.
The rest of your logic in favour of the concept of "monopoly rights as property rights" doesn't hold up to reality, fortunately.
I think you have it backwards. The concept of IP (Intellectual Property) includes copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. The software would be covered under copyright, the process of creating an alloy can be patented, and the sauce would be a trade secret (and possibly patentable). Copyright only applies to information.
Say what?
There's no intellectual property, that's a black-magic word to bind your mind into a mind-set that would consider all different legislations as if they are one and the same thing, leading to absurd conclusions like yours, for instance
copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets are totally independent of each-other and can't be glued all together as easily as you seem to think
a secret sauce isn't an ingredient but the result of a (copyrightable) recipe, the fact that it isn't published make it a trade secret but that doesn't have much of government monopoly protection
fictional metal alloys can't be patented, just written in books and perhaps copyrighted depending on context (see Adamantium in Marvel Comics, for instance
Also, there is no difference between software, a secret sauce or a fictional metal alloy so your analogy holds true; none are physical objects, all are IP.
Nonsense. They may be works covered by copyright, though.
I doubt very much Sun will use Free Software that's not copyrighted by them on Sun's Java, even if it's GNU GPL'ed. Expect to have to sign copyright attribution agreements when submitting code.
That's not bad per-se, but it's much better if acompanied by a promise to never release as non-Free Software (like the FSF does).
I'm pretty sure that if Sun wants to change to GPLv3 in the future they'll only need to shout the order.
You only read it that way because you do not have the objective clear in your head.
The objective is user freedomm not the freedom to do all you want with the software including removing freedoms.
The objective is to make a closed circle around the 4 freedoms:
0. to run the software for any purpose
1. to study and adapt the software (source code availability is a requirement)
2. to distribute copies
3. to distribute modified copies (source code availability is a requirement)
If you keep in mind that the objective is to have those freedoms and that they can't ever be lost, then you will read the text properly.
As long as you think in "open source" just because "open source", and that Freedom is something software (not the users) needs (which is absurd since software doesn't have needs or feelings), or that you think that making proprietary versions is "noble"... you're always going to nitpick such weird stuff.
Of course this doesn't mean the text can't be made clearer. I suggest you make suggestions rather than bitch (that is, don't imitate Linus, be better than him).
4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session; or
and
6) terms that are precisely equivalent in type and extent to a requirement expressly stated in this License, or that deny permission for activities that are clearly not permitted, expressly or otherwise, by this License.
There are ZERO restrictions for the user of said software. Distribution of copies is not USE...
The GPL-3 allows the copywrite holder to place certain restrictions on the licensee's use of the software, for instance no military/weapons use (don't like your stuff being used; Freedom's a biach isn't it).
That statement is a lie. Back it up if you don't agree with me.
You're getting it all wrong starting with the post content!
Victor Loh of ExtremeTech writes about the General Public License version 3's clause, which requires releasing digital signature keys -- in other words, the software should be able to retain interoperability when modified.
The enhanced part is a plain lie. The article of ExtremeTech doesn't even say that!.
Spreading it is (either by ignorance or by malice) helping bad companies, like TiVo for instance.. Please read on the following to understand WHAT the GPL v3 draft says.
The draft version of the GPLv3 says that IF AND ONLY IF the software you want to run, needs some special digital signature, then and only then must the digital signatures acompany the source code.
1. Source Code.
(...)
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.
(...)
3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological "protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use of the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users.
(...)
So, what does all this blurb mean? Is Linus so obtuse he can't read english? No. So...?
I could understand it if he said that he felt he couldn't ignore the contributions of some hardware manufacturers, but what does he say? He says that GPLv3 "sucks" because it prevents legitimate businesses like those of TiVo. That if users don't like that hardware, they can use other hardware.
As usual, untrue pragmatism. The pragmatist doesn't idealize about perfect future conditions that may or may not happen. The true pragmatist solves the problem in a practical and definitive form: preventing the harm from happening.
Slashdot Mirror
They can pressure the guys who they buy those components from. That's no excuse.
If they release drivers for their hardware as Free Software, (GPL 2 or later compatible) then every GNU/Linux distribution will work like a charm.
Because in a couple of years your graphics card may be well enought for you, but no longer accelerated since the vendor doesn't support it any longer.
If I hadn't traded the NVidia I bought for an equivalent ATI card when I did so, today I'd not have 3D simply because the kernels and X evoluted but the driver stopped in time. NVidia doesn't support that card any more.
Since I bought a supported-by-free-software-drivers ATI card, today I can run compiz & beryl on my home's desktop.
DRM in general is like the other poster said: it allows unbound copyrights but I'd say it's *extra* restrictions imposed on you, without society even agreeing to them.
If you have DRM implemented in Free Software, you are perfectly able to circunvent said DRM in a trivial form, but if you are able to circunvent in a trivial form then DRM is not doing it's job.
Hence the only way for DRM to work is for you and me to be absolute blind and obeying sheep, I mean citizens, of the corrupt dictatorship of the RI/MP AA+Microsoft.
Sorry but no, DRM is broken in general as to what relates to society in general, and any defense of the opposit is either dangerous ingenuity or criminal cooperation.
Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)
The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.
That, of course, makes no sense at all. The FSF explains it very succintly, and David Wheeler quite recently explained it in a very detailed manner.
You're still confusing Linux (which is a kernel) with what you're talking about. Linux is a mere few dozens of megabytes.
I presume you're confusing all variants of the GNU/Linux operating system with the Linux kernel, in detriment of all the good folks work, in favor of a select few kernel developers.
As long as you continue to confuse a kernel with a full operating system, then you don't even hold a credible opinion either on the matter of the adoption of Free Software: you don't even know what you're talking about!
What is holding back the adoption of Free Software is pure and simply the concertated actions of companies like Microsoft, trying to hold on to their monopolies and power over all subjects, or users if you prefer...
I'm sorry, but this isn't the rosy world you seem to live in. They *are* out to get us.
In the paper I linked, it is described how Microsoft recommends hardware makers to not disclose any information of their hardware, because other people might make other drivers...
When they collute to hurt us, what are they if not enemies? I can believe most who work at those companies aren't evil or our enemies, but they don't matter at all for this equation unless they value their honour most and abandom such predatory companies.
Alas, in the face of need (to feed the family for instance) many don't have much choice, but still, they don't matter for they don't make the decisions that hurt us.
Still, their companies deserve a painfully educational death.
Only there to promote Microsoft/Novell and Oracle. It's making a campaign in favour of our enemies disguised as a positive article.
On the otherhand, every month I learn of pearls that I didn't even suspect were around.
And so what they have 6 thousand tracks with karaoke on their name? They have about 176398 albums on their "not very comprehensive" collection...
Why is eMusic comparable? Well, they don't use DRM they use, quite simply, MP3...
Why is the parent "Informative"? That's nothing written or promoted by "Bad Vista", that's merely an article listed in the "Vista Watch" side column.
So, not written by the FSF, so none of the claims in the rest of the thread apply to FSF.
Informative... "my ass" is more informative, telling me to go to the bathroom when I need, than this article.
No you can't charge for it's use. What you can charge for is the right to include your song in another work.
If this was anything close to property, you would only be able to sell your song *once* (how many times can you sell your house, a perfect example of property?). If this was anything close to property, you wouldn't be able to stop other people from using it after you sold it.
The rest of your logic in favour of the concept of "monopoly rights as property rights" doesn't hold up to reality, fortunately.
I doubt very much Sun will use Free Software that's not copyrighted by them on Sun's Java, even if it's GNU GPL'ed. Expect to have to sign copyright attribution agreements when submitting code.
That's not bad per-se, but it's much better if acompanied by a promise to never release as non-Free Software (like the FSF does).
I'm pretty sure that if Sun wants to change to GPLv3 in the future they'll only need to shout the order.
The GNU GPL forces you to give the same freedoms you had to anyone who receives copies of said software from you.
So it would be: "sharing but NOT under the same terms is stealing"
You only read it that way because you do not have the objective clear in your head.
The objective is user freedomm not the freedom to do all you want with the software including removing freedoms.
The objective is to make a closed circle around the 4 freedoms:
0. to run the software for any purpose
1. to study and adapt the software (source code availability is a requirement)
2. to distribute copies
3. to distribute modified copies (source code availability is a requirement)
If you keep in mind that the objective is to have those freedoms and that they can't ever be lost, then you will read the text properly.
As long as you think in "open source" just because "open source", and that Freedom is something software (not the users) needs (which is absurd since software doesn't have needs or feelings), or that you think that making proprietary versions is "noble"... you're always going to nitpick such weird stuff.
Of course this doesn't mean the text can't be made clearer. I suggest you make suggestions rather than bitch (that is, don't imitate Linus, be better than him).
There are ZERO restrictions for the user of said software. Distribution of copies is not USE...
I would moderate you, but there isn't a "-5 Liar" choice, so I decided to refute your statement instead.
Spreading it is (either by ignorance or by malice) helping bad companies, like TiVo for instance.. Please read on the following to understand WHAT the GPL v3 draft says.
The draft version of the GPLv3 says that IF AND ONLY IF the software you want to run, needs some special digital signature, then and only then must the digital signatures acompany the source code.
So, what does all this blurb mean? Is Linus so obtuse he can't read english? No. So...?
I could understand it if he said that he felt he couldn't ignore the contributions of some hardware manufacturers, but what does he say? He says that GPLv3 "sucks" because it prevents legitimate businesses like those of TiVo. That if users don't like that hardware, they can use other hardware.
As usual, untrue pragmatism. The pragmatist doesn't idealize about perfect future conditions that may or may not happen. The true pragmatist solves the problem in a practical and definitive form: preventing the harm from happening.