Okay, question. If you're concerned about keeping it free, please state how it (your original) can possibly become unfree? Derivative works may be different, but your software itself will always be free. People will always be able to use it and improve it as long as it exists, regardless of the state of copyright.
Public performance is in the user's domain. You are restricting how the *user* may *use* the software.
If the GPLv3 has this clause in it, then it cannot be a Free Software license, because the definition for Free Software says "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose". But a restriction on public performance is a restriction on running the program.
I guess we just have radically different definitions of freedom. I see freedom as an (relative) absence of restriction. The more restrictions the less freedom. Period.
If such an option is not made available to developers seeking to create Free-as-in-speech implementations of key web services, then users who increasingly rely on web services will face a marked decline in their Freedom, as proprietary interests deploy non-free versions of the code.
The purpose of Free Software is to give freedom to the user, not a big stick to the developer. I fail to see how a user has less freedom when they excercise their free will by freely choosing to use a web application. If they freely choose to rely on someone else's copy of the software, then that is their business, and not yours.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those that trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. More and more I see the Free Software Movement(tm) trading freedom for security. To claim that users have the freedom to use the software for any purpose and that the software should not be owned, yet to assert ownership over the software by restricting how it may be used is nonsensical.
The hypocrisy of the Free Software Movement(tm) has become so commonplace that it doesn't even surprise me anymore. First, since "software should not be owned" you're supposed to copyright it. Second, since software should be unrestricted, you should place it under a restrictive license.
Now, patents are evil, so lets all patent our ideas! This is not how patents should be! There should not be patents for algorithms, formulas or processes. Specifically, there should not be any patents for software unless they are non-algorithmic, novel, and unintuitive to a practitioner in the field.
No software covered by a patent can possibly meet the Free Software Definition.
Limiting public performance goes against the very nature of Free Software. Please reread the Free Software definition and then explain how restricting the right of the user to perform his own private modifications of the software can possibly fit that definition.
In other words, if "software should not be owned", then where do the legal rights come from that allow you to restrict what someone else does with their copy of a software package?
Installed *from* an ext2 partition? Hmmm... No, I don't think so. Ext2 is not enabled by default on the boot kernels. However, there are still about a dozen ways to install it. From MS-DOS, QIC, NFS, FTP, floppies, and the cdrom. I have installed from ftp, and it works quite nicely. If you have a good connection, I would try that.
Does StarOffice 5.2 work under FreeBSD ?
Yes. It's what I use until KOffice gets finished.
Is there a journaling file system (or something equivalent) in FreeBSD ? If yes how can you use it ?
SoftUpdates is an option for FreeBSD UFS file systems. It's not a true journaling FS, but it has most of the features one would want. Simply turn it one when you create your UFS partitions.
I heard that the file system is slow compared to Linux. Is that true ?
Unless you're running benchmarks are copying 20,000 tiny files, you won't be able to tell the difference. Seriously. But if you do want good benchmark numbers, then turn on SoftUpdates.
How much space would take a typical installation ? (for desktop usage)
What do you need for an equivalent Linux install? Use the same numbers, and give your take a 100K. On my system right now I'm using 2.7 Gigs, and that's the OS, KDE, full sources, backups, mp3's, wallpapers, etc. You could definitely fit a desktop system comfortably into 1-2G.
How easy is upgrading from one release to the next ? (As opposed to reinstalling from scratch)
If you're not adverse to reading the documentation, it's not hard at all. I've never done a "binary" upgrade, but an upgrade building from source is relatively straightforward (if you RTFM).
Is it possible to "update" the port collection that comes with a release to get the latest versions of software ?
Of course! I use cvsup to update my ports on a weekly basis. Then I run pkg_version to see what's new, and portupgrade to update any ports.
The typical EULA and software license is not based on copyright law, but on contract law. That's why they're called agreements. A world without copyrights would still have contracts.
And a world without copyrights would still be a world with bizarre encryption and registration schemes. If you can break the copyright-less Windows protection, you're home free... Until the next version.
I use Slackware and FreeBSD. I have a subscription to both at $24.95 each shipment. FreeBSD ships a new release approximately every six months. Slackware goes anywhere from 6 months to one year (the last one took almost a year).
So I am paying about $75 per year for two operating systems with complete userland utilities, applications and extras. A bargain if you ask me. And I can still get them cheaper or for free, I just chose to support their development with cash.
The GPL is the entity controlling derivations, since it is the one that hasn't removed the restrictions from them. To offer an analogy, if I prevent you from entering my home, I can't say "it's not me preventing you, it's trespass law".
As usual, it is worth pointing out that if the GPL were ever found unenforceable, then you have NO right under copyright law and international treaty to use the code.
Not necessarily. The GPL, and not copyright law, is what defines dynamic linkage as creating a derivative work. (please quote the relevent clauses of copyright law if you disagree). If the GPL were unenforcable, then there is nothing stopping one from dynamically linking to a GPL shared library.
The GPL exists BECAUSE every other copyright and IP related issue is unreasonable.
Wow. I think you proved the posters point. Every other copyright and IP related issue includes: non-copylefted political opinions and literary works (which RMS deems more than acceptable), other non-GPL licensing like BSD, MPL and even public domain, trademarks, artistic rights, etc., etc., etc.
The entire concept of copyleft, that an author can force distribution of derivative source code, can ONLY be based on traditional copyright. If an author should not be able to own his works (as RMS asserts) then the author owns derivative works even less! The only things that prevents GPLd works from being closed up, encrypted and locked away behind onerous contracts and registration schemes is copyright law.
Well, if an external entity can compell them through the force of law to release their program under the GPL or prohibit them from distributing it, then obviously the author is *not* in control of the software.
If you have an OS that utilizes file permissions, such as one in the Unix extended family, simply remove write permission for everyone from your configuration files. Even chown them to root to be extra safe.
You'll have to go through a few more steps if your want to change your settings afterwards, but I don't see how javascript will be able to change anything behind your back.
I used to cruise as a teenager. Now it's illegal to cruise in front of the very drive-in used in the movie American Grafitti (Merle's Drive-in in Visalia, CA).
I used to go to the midnight movies to see RHPS and HM, now there is a curfew.
I used to carry a pocket knife to school. Doing so now will land you in jail.
When I wasn't feeling well I used to bring aspirin with me to school. Not anymore.
That wasn't how I read the article or the summary of the court case. The NYT received private permission to privately publish a private article. The court said that they could also publish this privte article in a private online database provided that the author was compensated under eminent domain. Did I read this wrong? Is the NYT not a private company? Are not its print and online publications private as well?
I am aware of the prevalence of quasi-governmental redeveloment agencies that act as a legal front for the private use of eminent domain, but at least they have to pretend like they're a government agency. The NYT got a governmental ruling, but will any other newspaper need to get one as well, or does this ruling enter into common law for any private publisher to use for their private benefit?
I agree. So by the same token, is it okay to close up copies of GPLd code as "eminent domain"? After all, the intellectual property isn't being taken away, it is only being copied.
Eminent Domain is a process whereby the *government* pays the property holder for forced takings. "We're building a freeway through your yard, you can't do anything about it because we own the cops, but the Constitution does require us to at least pay you for it."
The New York Times and other publishers are NOT the government. They should not get the benefit of Eminent Domain. The consequences would turn all of property law on its head.
Consider the implications if this were extended to other non-governmental organizations, or even individuals. "We want to build a hotel on your beachfront property, which has been in your family for five generations, and you must sell to us by law." "We want to take over your company, and your stockholders refuse to sell, tough shit!" "Sorry Bob, I'm going to move your fence three feet closer to your house, and you can't stop me."
Or the really scary one if you're an Open Souce fan: "We will use your kernel in our OS despite your objections, but we will pay you market price for it."
The ending was very close to the book's ending. A hell of lot sillier, but still on target.
In the book, the hero escapes from planet, makes his way back home and lands, and is met by a lone figure on the tarmac. The last words of the book: "He was an ape."
I spent a day at BrassRing last year in the middle of the dotcom frenzy. BrassRing is *the* job fair in Silicon Valley for those that don't know.
99% of the of the applicants I spoke to were so underqualified it wasn't funny. They all wanted programming jobs, but none knew the first thing about programming. Several had not even finished their first programming course. Some had a junior college certificate in Java and they were all set to make their deserved millions.
Several were hired by other companies before they hit the end of the row. The collapse of the dotcoms is no mystery to me...
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, question. If you're concerned about keeping it free, please state how it (your original) can possibly become unfree? Derivative works may be different, but your software itself will always be free. People will always be able to use it and improve it as long as it exists, regardless of the state of copyright.
software should not be owned ? who said that ?
Richard M. Stallman, in his article "Why Software Should Not Be Owned."
This is all about Freedom for the user.
Public performance is in the user's domain. You are restricting how the *user* may *use* the software.
If the GPLv3 has this clause in it, then it cannot be a Free Software license, because the definition for Free Software says "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose". But a restriction on public performance is a restriction on running the program.
I guess we just have radically different definitions of freedom. I see freedom as an (relative) absence of restriction. The more restrictions the less freedom. Period.
If such an option is not made available to developers seeking to create Free-as-in-speech implementations of key web services, then users who increasingly rely on web services will face a marked decline in their Freedom, as proprietary interests deploy non-free versions of the code.
The purpose of Free Software is to give freedom to the user, not a big stick to the developer. I fail to see how a user has less freedom when they excercise their free will by freely choosing to use a web application. If they freely choose to rely on someone else's copy of the software, then that is their business, and not yours.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those that trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. More and more I see the Free Software Movement(tm) trading freedom for security. To claim that users have the freedom to use the software for any purpose and that the software should not be owned, yet to assert ownership over the software by restricting how it may be used is nonsensical.
The hypocrisy of the Free Software Movement(tm) has become so commonplace that it doesn't even surprise me anymore. First, since "software should not be owned" you're supposed to copyright it. Second, since software should be unrestricted, you should place it under a restrictive license.
Now, patents are evil, so lets all patent our ideas! This is not how patents should be! There should not be patents for algorithms, formulas or processes. Specifically, there should not be any patents for software unless they are non-algorithmic, novel, and unintuitive to a practitioner in the field.
No software covered by a patent can possibly meet the Free Software Definition.
Never mind those questions, I just want to know where the GNU System distro is that the FSF released that my Slackware was based on!
Limiting public performance goes against the very nature of Free Software. Please reread the Free Software definition and then explain how restricting the right of the user to perform his own private modifications of the software can possibly fit that definition.
In other words, if "software should not be owned", then where do the legal rights come from that allow you to restrict what someone else does with their copy of a software package?
When the compiler authors themselves say not to use it, I tend to listen.
Can FreeBSD be installed from an ext2 partition ?
Installed *from* an ext2 partition? Hmmm... No, I don't think so. Ext2 is not enabled by default on the boot kernels. However, there are still about a dozen ways to install it. From MS-DOS, QIC, NFS, FTP, floppies, and the cdrom. I have installed from ftp, and it works quite nicely. If you have a good connection, I would try that.
Does StarOffice 5.2 work under FreeBSD ?
Yes. It's what I use until KOffice gets finished.
Is there a journaling file system (or something equivalent) in FreeBSD ? If yes how can you use it ?
SoftUpdates is an option for FreeBSD UFS file systems. It's not a true journaling FS, but it has most of the features one would want. Simply turn it one when you create your UFS partitions.
I heard that the file system is slow compared to Linux. Is that true ?
Unless you're running benchmarks are copying 20,000 tiny files, you won't be able to tell the difference. Seriously. But if you do want good benchmark numbers, then turn on SoftUpdates.
How much space would take a typical installation ? (for desktop usage)
What do you need for an equivalent Linux install? Use the same numbers, and give your take a 100K. On my system right now I'm using 2.7 Gigs, and that's the OS, KDE, full sources, backups, mp3's, wallpapers, etc. You could definitely fit a desktop system comfortably into 1-2G.
How easy is upgrading from one release to the next ? (As opposed to reinstalling from scratch)
If you're not adverse to reading the documentation, it's not hard at all. I've never done a "binary" upgrade, but an upgrade building from source is relatively straightforward (if you RTFM).
Is it possible to "update" the port collection that comes with a release to get the latest versions of software ?
Of course! I use cvsup to update my ports on a weekly basis. Then I run pkg_version to see what's new, and portupgrade to update any ports.
The typical EULA and software license is not based on copyright law, but on contract law. That's why they're called agreements. A world without copyrights would still have contracts.
And a world without copyrights would still be a world with bizarre encryption and registration schemes. If you can break the copyright-less Windows protection, you're home free... Until the next version.
I use Slackware and FreeBSD. I have a subscription to both at $24.95 each shipment. FreeBSD ships a new release approximately every six months. Slackware goes anywhere from 6 months to one year (the last one took almost a year).
So I am paying about $75 per year for two operating systems with complete userland utilities, applications and extras. A bargain if you ask me. And I can still get them cheaper or for free, I just chose to support their development with cash.
The GPL is the entity controlling derivations, since it is the one that hasn't removed the restrictions from them. To offer an analogy, if I prevent you from entering my home, I can't say "it's not me preventing you, it's trespass law".
As usual, it is worth pointing out that if the GPL were ever found unenforceable, then you have NO right under copyright law and international treaty to use the code.
Not necessarily. The GPL, and not copyright law, is what defines dynamic linkage as creating a derivative work. (please quote the relevent clauses of copyright law if you disagree). If the GPL were unenforcable, then there is nothing stopping one from dynamically linking to a GPL shared library.
The GPL exists BECAUSE every other copyright and IP related issue is unreasonable.
Wow. I think you proved the posters point. Every other copyright and IP related issue includes: non-copylefted political opinions and literary works (which RMS deems more than acceptable), other non-GPL licensing like BSD, MPL and even public domain, trademarks, artistic rights, etc., etc., etc.
The entire concept of copyleft, that an author can force distribution of derivative source code, can ONLY be based on traditional copyright. If an author should not be able to own his works (as RMS asserts) then the author owns derivative works even less! The only things that prevents GPLd works from being closed up, encrypted and locked away behind onerous contracts and registration schemes is copyright law.
Well, if an external entity can compell them through the force of law to release their program under the GPL or prohibit them from distributing it, then obviously the author is *not* in control of the software.
If you have an OS that utilizes file permissions, such as one in the Unix extended family, simply remove write permission for everyone from your configuration files. Even chown them to root to be extra safe.
You'll have to go through a few more steps if your want to change your settings afterwards, but I don't see how javascript will be able to change anything behind your back.
I used to cruise as a teenager. Now it's illegal to cruise in front of the very drive-in used in the movie American Grafitti (Merle's Drive-in in Visalia, CA).
I used to go to the midnight movies to see RHPS and HM, now there is a curfew.
I used to carry a pocket knife to school. Doing so now will land you in jail.
When I wasn't feeling well I used to bring aspirin with me to school. Not anymore.
That wasn't how I read the article or the summary of the court case. The NYT received private permission to privately publish a private article. The court said that they could also publish this privte article in a private online database provided that the author was compensated under eminent domain. Did I read this wrong? Is the NYT not a private company? Are not its print and online publications private as well?
I am aware of the prevalence of quasi-governmental redeveloment agencies that act as a legal front for the private use of eminent domain, but at least they have to pretend like they're a government agency. The NYT got a governmental ruling, but will any other newspaper need to get one as well, or does this ruling enter into common law for any private publisher to use for their private benefit?
I agree. So by the same token, is it okay to close up copies of GPLd code as "eminent domain"? After all, the intellectual property isn't being taken away, it is only being copied.
Open Source is software that doesn't suck. Sending out threatening letters sucks. Ergo...
p.s. How come no one ever sees a threatening letter from the BSA saying that they will come over and audit your compliance in registering shareware?
Eminent Domain is a process whereby the *government* pays the property holder for forced takings. "We're building a freeway through your yard, you can't do anything about it because we own the cops, but the Constitution does require us to at least pay you for it."
The New York Times and other publishers are NOT the government. They should not get the benefit of Eminent Domain. The consequences would turn all of property law on its head.
Consider the implications if this were extended to other non-governmental organizations, or even individuals. "We want to build a hotel on your beachfront property, which has been in your family for five generations, and you must sell to us by law." "We want to take over your company, and your stockholders refuse to sell, tough shit!" "Sorry Bob, I'm going to move your fence three feet closer to your house, and you can't stop me."
Or the really scary one if you're an Open Souce fan: "We will use your kernel in our OS despite your objections, but we will pay you market price for it."
Sorry, i'ts not my falt. I am the produkt of publick educashun.
I tride uzing a spel-chekker, but it kept finding all of TacoBoy's insted...
The ending was very close to the book's ending. A hell of lot sillier, but still on target.
In the book, the hero escapes from planet, makes his way back home and lands, and is met by a lone figure on the tarmac. The last words of the book: "He was an ape."
I here that!
I spent a day at BrassRing last year in the middle of the dotcom frenzy. BrassRing is *the* job fair in Silicon Valley for those that don't know.
99% of the of the applicants I spoke to were so underqualified it wasn't funny. They all wanted programming jobs, but none knew the first thing about programming. Several had not even finished their first programming course. Some had a junior college certificate in Java and they were all set to make their deserved millions.
Several were hired by other companies before they hit the end of the row. The collapse of the dotcoms is no mystery to me...
Okay, thanks for the references. I was not aware of this. It's a shameful situation that needs to be corrected.