This guy doesn't get it. I think he's confusing Open Source development with warez and napster.
How can he consider his creative works to be property but not admit that my creative works are property. If it's my property then I have the right to give it away. Giving away my own property in no way affects the status of his property. An analogy: my donation of $10 to a charity does not compell anyone else to donate to that charity.
It all depends on the industry in question. Take as an example, light bulbs. When you buy a lightbulb for you bathroom light, no one really cares. But when you buy a light bulb for your car headlight, you start running into safety regulations. And when you buy a light bulb for your left airplane wing, the FAA is going to be breathing down your neck.
I help build software for invasive diagnostic medical devices. The FDA (and similar organizations for other nations) is very concerned about the software we use. They don't have a checklist of brands, makes and models of software, since that's not the nature of software. But they do audit our development process. ISO compliance is easy. FDA compliance is hard.
For our next project, some boneheads decided on Win2K and "embedded" Win2K. I personally think the decision is stupid. But it probably won't affect the final quality of the device. Why? Because it won't be a stock Win2K, it will be the embedded version, stripped of everything we don't need. We will be in charge of the hardware it runs on. It will be tested under rigorous protocols. Etc.
The FDA doesn't care that it will have Windows on it. But they will care that it operates safely. That means it can't crash while diagnosing a live patient.
After a feature freeze the only thing that goes into the code is bug fixes. Never, never, never put in features after a freeze. But always allow in fixes for the highest priority bugs.
It helps if you have three freeze points, one to stop features, one to stop minor bugs, and one to stop everything but the mandatory bugs. You also need a release manager with very thick skin armed with a spiked club.
Hey, if they can show that they are just as productive as structured programmers and their software is equally as change-friendly, I won't complain.
From personal experience having to maintain both C and C++, with structured and object oriented designs, I've come to the following conclusion:
Object oriented C by a bad programmer is worse than object oriented C++ by a bad programmer. And structured C++ by a bad programmer is worse than structured C by a bad programmers.
Conversely, object oriented C by a good programmer is never as good as object oriented C++ by a good programmer. And structured C++ by a good programmer is never as good as structured C by a good programmer.
First conclusion: write object oriented code in C++ and structured code in C. Second conclusion: if all you know is C then stick to structured programming.
I did an informal test a while back. At work I have a Win2K machine (PIV 1.4Ghz) which I converted to a dual boot FreeBSD machine. Having to reboot into Windows on occasion caused me no end of aggravation, one of which was the sucky speed. So I started timing stuff.
From power on to IExplorer showing my homepage, Win2K takes 90 seconds. From power on to Konqueror showing my homepage, FreeBSD/KDE takes 65 seconds.
I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
I've never used XP, but the window manager for 95/98/2K sucks! It is the simplest window manager available! Maybe I've just gotten used to X window manager, but I find the Windows GUI to be horribly awkward. If you have a window obscuring another one, you have to minimize it because there's no way to send it to the back (that I've found). There's no snap to edges or other windows. No rollups. No vertical or horizontal maximizes. And the automatic placement of windows is downright primitive. Frankly, it feels like it designed for users that only have one window open at a time.
Professionalism is a Good Thing(tm). However what your PHP calls professionalism might just be artificial. Sticking to a release date no matter the state of the code is unprofessional.
In this case, yes, it is, because "intellectual" "property" is really neither. It's a temporary monopoly generously granted by the state
Actually in this case the code is still private property no matter what philosophical fence you decide to sit on. This code has not been published, disclosed or distributed. You do not have the right to redistribute it for the elementary fact that you do not have a copy of the code.
So in the name of freedom you would pass the slavery act requiring all developers to disclose their private unpublished code under penalty of imprisonment if they don't.
Sorry dude, but their code is their code. Period. It does not belong to you. It doesn't matter what the morality of copyright is or is not. This is private, undisclosed and published code. To force it into the public domain would violate every tenet of liberty.
Re:Check this box to BSDL abandonware
on
How to Save PGP
·
· Score: 1
Instead of the GPL, think about the BSD license. Why? First of all, it's not your software. You aren't the developer or the contributor. The BSD license gives you exactly the same rights as a user under the GPL, plus a few more. On the flip side, the BSD license would allow easier incorporation of PGP technology into existing email clients. Remember, it doesn't matter how leet you are for using PGP if no one in the Windows world is using it. The GPL will relegate PGP to the tool-only status, but it should be much more than that. It should be a standard expected in all applications capable of communication regardless of their licensing.
Gee, everyone else is passing laws, so I better get in on it too. I hereby declare "Law's Law". Anytime a slashdork invents a new law, that thread is immediately terminated and the poster hung by his testicles until dead. To begin enforcement immediately *after* this law goes into effect.
Is it time to pull a Galt's Gulch? The trouble with this bill is that no one outside of geekdom really understands it. It took me about a half hour to explain to my mother, so thirty second sound bites just won't work to get our message out.
But there's another way to get their attention. The result of this bill will be to criminalize all free operating systems. So let's just talke all those free operating systems offline for one day and see how the world copes. On one particular day everyone who runs a Linux or BSD machine takes them off the net. Let's see how well the world can cope without these illegal and unethical machines.
They mentioned in passing that the NSA had cracked pgp 2 years ago.
The government will always have bigger weapons than you. It's a fact of life. I have a pistol and a rifle and they have nukes. I have PGP and they have rows upon rows of supercomputers.
But that's not to say that PGP is useless. That pistol of mine is still great for defending myself against criminals. It's also okay to defend myself against rogue agents of the government. Likewise, PGP is great for securing your email against criminals, your boss, your wife, your nosy neighbor, and does a respectable job of protecting your email against you nosy sheriff, IRS agent, numbnut judge, etc.
Actually, a version of PGP under an unrestricted license (BSD, MIT) would be a very Good Thing. Why? because PGP is a standard. If it's only available under the GPL, then it can only be incorporated into other GPL applications. Normally that isn't a terribly horrible thing, but such licensing would hinder integration into commercial (ei. proprietary) mail clients. Since 90% of mail clients are Windows based and proprietary, this is Not Good.
An unrestricted PGP would allow everyone access to PGP. Since the value of PGP increases with the number of users, it makes sense to give it the least restrictive license possible. GnuPG is already GPL. Since NAI will probably dump the semi-free PGP anyway, releasing it under the BSD or MIT license would be a good idea. Those people who loathe the very existance of non-GPL licenses can stick with GnuPG, and Microsoft, Apple, etc., can start integrating the unrestricted version into their software.
While 99% of any given set of a population may be honest, ethical or safe, there is always that 1% that will take advantage of that very fact.
As always, those 99% can always sue the 1% for damages, without having to resort to a law oppressing the 100%. In the case of Gilmore it's quite simple, sue him for any spam you receive coming through his open relay.
you have the right to [ speak freely, copy music, carry a gun ] until it infringes on my rights.
Firing that gun may infringe your rights, but I don't see how carrying it ever could.
Daemonnews does more than just manage two websites. They also print a deadtree version of the magazine, sell software, books, and misc. stuff, hold BSD related courses, and sell support.
It's obvious our current payola system of government would be abhorrent to the founders.
Most things about the current US government would be abhorrent to the founding fathers. Let's see now: gun control, campaign finance reform, the need for campaign finance reform, military actions without congressional approval, complete dismisal of the ninth and tenth amendments, fair compensation routinely ignored in eminent domain, post roads redefined as mandatory postal monopoly, general welfare redefined as redistribution of wealth, yada, yada, yada.
Soon the public (your fan base) is funding your inaction.
Nope, the public paid for your to write the tune in the first place. The possibility of continuing royalties was one of your incentives to create the tune way back in the beginning.
I will agree with you that copyright terms are way to long, but if you base the term on the amount of money one makes, then some people will never have their copyrights expire, while some will have them expire the moment they hit the top ten.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy doesn't get it. I think he's confusing Open Source development with warez and napster.
How can he consider his creative works to be property but not admit that my creative works are property. If it's my property then I have the right to give it away. Giving away my own property in no way affects the status of his property. An analogy: my donation of $10 to a charity does not compell anyone else to donate to that charity.
It all depends on the industry in question. Take as an example, light bulbs. When you buy a lightbulb for you bathroom light, no one really cares. But when you buy a light bulb for your car headlight, you start running into safety regulations. And when you buy a light bulb for your left airplane wing, the FAA is going to be breathing down your neck.
I help build software for invasive diagnostic medical devices. The FDA (and similar organizations for other nations) is very concerned about the software we use. They don't have a checklist of brands, makes and models of software, since that's not the nature of software. But they do audit our development process. ISO compliance is easy. FDA compliance is hard.
For our next project, some boneheads decided on Win2K and "embedded" Win2K. I personally think the decision is stupid. But it probably won't affect the final quality of the device. Why? Because it won't be a stock Win2K, it will be the embedded version, stripped of everything we don't need. We will be in charge of the hardware it runs on. It will be tested under rigorous protocols. Etc.
The FDA doesn't care that it will have Windows on it. But they will care that it operates safely. That means it can't crash while diagnosing a live patient.
After a feature freeze the only thing that goes into the code is bug fixes. Never, never, never put in features after a freeze. But always allow in fixes for the highest priority bugs.
It helps if you have three freeze points, one to stop features, one to stop minor bugs, and one to stop everything but the mandatory bugs. You also need a release manager with very thick skin armed with a spiked club.
Hey, if they can show that they are just as productive as structured programmers and their software is equally as change-friendly, I won't complain.
From personal experience having to maintain both C and C++, with structured and object oriented designs, I've come to the following conclusion:
Object oriented C by a bad programmer is worse than object oriented C++ by a bad programmer. And structured C++ by a bad programmer is worse than structured C by a bad programmers.
Conversely, object oriented C by a good programmer is never as good as object oriented C++ by a good programmer. And structured C++ by a good programmer is never as good as structured C by a good programmer.
First conclusion: write object oriented code in C++ and structured code in C. Second conclusion: if all you know is C then stick to structured programming.
Thus ends the heresy for the day.
I did an informal test a while back. At work I have a Win2K machine (PIV 1.4Ghz) which I converted to a dual boot FreeBSD machine. Having to reboot into Windows on occasion caused me no end of aggravation, one of which was the sucky speed. So I started timing stuff.
From power on to IExplorer showing my homepage, Win2K takes 90 seconds. From power on to Konqueror showing my homepage, FreeBSD/KDE takes 65 seconds.
I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
I've never used XP, but the window manager for 95/98/2K sucks! It is the simplest window manager available! Maybe I've just gotten used to X window manager, but I find the Windows GUI to be horribly awkward. If you have a window obscuring another one, you have to minimize it because there's no way to send it to the back (that I've found). There's no snap to edges or other windows. No rollups. No vertical or horizontal maximizes. And the automatic placement of windows is downright primitive. Frankly, it feels like it designed for users that only have one window open at a time.
KDE != Linux. KDE can stand on its own, can Linux? I used to think so, but so many people beg to differ that I'm not sure any more.
Professionalism is a Good Thing(tm). However what your PHP calls professionalism might just be artificial. Sticking to a release date no matter the state of the code is unprofessional.
Yeah dammit! Everyone knows that assembler is the way to go. Screw all this structured programming stuff!
Huh? Are you saying they should disclose the source when they stop not disclosing the source? I don't get it.
No one asking you to pay. Last time I checked you didn't have any code in PGP anyway.
In this case, yes, it is, because "intellectual" "property" is really neither. It's a temporary monopoly generously granted by the state
Actually in this case the code is still private property no matter what philosophical fence you decide to sit on. This code has not been published, disclosed or distributed. You do not have the right to redistribute it for the elementary fact that you do not have a copy of the code.
So in the name of freedom you would pass the slavery act requiring all developers to disclose their private unpublished code under penalty of imprisonment if they don't.
Sorry dude, but their code is their code. Period. It does not belong to you. It doesn't matter what the morality of copyright is or is not. This is private, undisclosed and published code. To force it into the public domain would violate every tenet of liberty.
Instead of the GPL, think about the BSD license. Why? First of all, it's not your software. You aren't the developer or the contributor. The BSD license gives you exactly the same rights as a user under the GPL, plus a few more. On the flip side, the BSD license would allow easier incorporation of PGP technology into existing email clients. Remember, it doesn't matter how leet you are for using PGP if no one in the Windows world is using it. The GPL will relegate PGP to the tool-only status, but it should be much more than that. It should be a standard expected in all applications capable of communication regardless of their licensing.
Gee, everyone else is passing laws, so I better get in on it too. I hereby declare "Law's Law". Anytime a slashdork invents a new law, that thread is immediately terminated and the poster hung by his testicles until dead. To begin enforcement immediately *after* this law goes into effect.
For exactly the same reason they haven't done the same to TCP/IP.
Is it time to pull a Galt's Gulch? The trouble with this bill is that no one outside of geekdom really understands it. It took me about a half hour to explain to my mother, so thirty second sound bites just won't work to get our message out.
But there's another way to get their attention. The result of this bill will be to criminalize all free operating systems. So let's just talke all those free operating systems offline for one day and see how the world copes. On one particular day everyone who runs a Linux or BSD machine takes them off the net. Let's see how well the world can cope without these illegal and unethical machines.
They mentioned in passing that the NSA had cracked pgp 2 years ago.
The government will always have bigger weapons than you. It's a fact of life. I have a pistol and a rifle and they have nukes. I have PGP and they have rows upon rows of supercomputers.
But that's not to say that PGP is useless. That pistol of mine is still great for defending myself against criminals. It's also okay to defend myself against rogue agents of the government. Likewise, PGP is great for securing your email against criminals, your boss, your wife, your nosy neighbor, and does a respectable job of protecting your email against you nosy sheriff, IRS agent, numbnut judge, etc.
Actually, a version of PGP under an unrestricted license (BSD, MIT) would be a very Good Thing. Why? because PGP is a standard. If it's only available under the GPL, then it can only be incorporated into other GPL applications. Normally that isn't a terribly horrible thing, but such licensing would hinder integration into commercial (ei. proprietary) mail clients. Since 90% of mail clients are Windows based and proprietary, this is Not Good.
An unrestricted PGP would allow everyone access to PGP. Since the value of PGP increases with the number of users, it makes sense to give it the least restrictive license possible. GnuPG is already GPL. Since NAI will probably dump the semi-free PGP anyway, releasing it under the BSD or MIT license would be a good idea. Those people who loathe the very existance of non-GPL licenses can stick with GnuPG, and Microsoft, Apple, etc., can start integrating the unrestricted version into their software.
While 99% of any given set of a population may be honest, ethical or safe, there is always that 1% that will take advantage of that very fact.
As always, those 99% can always sue the 1% for damages, without having to resort to a law oppressing the 100%. In the case of Gilmore it's quite simple, sue him for any spam you receive coming through his open relay.
you have the right to [ speak freely, copy music, carry a gun ] until it infringes on my rights.
Firing that gun may infringe your rights, but I don't see how carrying it ever could.
However it is very common for Terms of Service of the acquired entity (TLG) to be replaced by the Terms of Service of the acquirer (Verio).
It may be common, but it's still illegal. On the other hand, Verio is not obligated to continue service indefinitely to every TLG account.
You have a WHOLE course just to write a StrToInt function?!?
FreeBSD = you don't have to pay for it.
DateBSD = your date pays for it.
DutchBSD = you both split the bill.
Daemonnews does more than just manage two websites. They also print a deadtree version of the magazine, sell software, books, and misc. stuff, hold BSD related courses, and sell support.
It's obvious our current payola system of government would be abhorrent to the founders.
Most things about the current US government would be abhorrent to the founding fathers. Let's see now: gun control, campaign finance reform, the need for campaign finance reform, military actions without congressional approval, complete dismisal of the ninth and tenth amendments, fair compensation routinely ignored in eminent domain, post roads redefined as mandatory postal monopoly, general welfare redefined as redistribution of wealth, yada, yada, yada.
Soon the public (your fan base) is funding your inaction.
Nope, the public paid for your to write the tune in the first place. The possibility of continuing royalties was one of your incentives to create the tune way back in the beginning.
I will agree with you that copyright terms are way to long, but if you base the term on the amount of money one makes, then some people will never have their copyrights expire, while some will have them expire the moment they hit the top ten.