What you say is true, but totally meaningless. Yes, I can refuse to "share" my GPLd program unless people pony up to my outrageous fees. But so what? Once *one* person has a copy, no one ever has to pay me anything since I've just created my own competition for distribution. *I* might not be the one sharing the program with the rest of the world, but it will happen nonetheless.
In essence, the GPL forbids private distributions. I'm not necessarily arguing that this is a bad thing, but it does mean that for all practical matters, once I share with one person I am sharing with everyone.
There is no difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. There may be a huge gulf between the advocates and movements of those terms, but the software itself is identical. Every OSI approved license is also a Free Software license, and every Free Software license sanctified by RMS' imprimatur is also an OSI approved license.
There is only one small bone of contentions. That is the Artistic License. RMS does not approve it as Free Software. But if you look at his explanation, you'll see that it's because he thinks the license is vague, and not because he thinks it violates some tenant of Free Software licenses. Just about everyone outside of the FSF agree that the Artistic License is Free Software.
Why is RMS against Open Source? Two reasons, in my opinion. A) "not invented here", and B) it doesn't use the word 'free'. He has long said that he wished for a better term than "free" so people don't confuse "free software" with "freeware". Well, there is a better and more accurate word, and that word is "open".
Actually, since RMS fully admits that no one should be obligated to release their own unreleased works, his philosophy could be better summed up as "if you share with one person you must share with all persons." Sounds an awful lot like my kindergarten teacher.
This is utter bullshit. Name one OSI approved license that allows a EULA to be included that is not already an RMS approved Free Software license. You can't do it.
There's no problem at all. Certain OSI licenses might have a problem with these, but most will not. Plugins are not derivatives works anyway, in either the programmatic or the copyright sense. And external scripting languages are just that, *external*.
The FSF has always held that the GPL soes not allow proprietary plugins, but the GPL is but one of many OSI licenses.
Perhaps I just take stuff too literally, but saying "Single-Atom Transistor" is like saying "Computer on a Chip". I keep wondering about the I/O...
That single atom may be the key component, but it's useless without all the other atoms around it. Try building a lightswitch with just a single unbroken copper strip, and you'll see what I mean.
Okay, it's been quite a long time since I took high school chemistry, so maybe something radical changed in the field since then. But I distinctly recall only about 200 to 250 possible elements. Which isotype of which element does this single atom belong to?
Oh hell! This can't possibly be right. Not even Japan can alter the laws of physics. Let me read the article to see what the truth of the matter is......yes, Slashdot goofed again (does this surprise anyone). They read the eeTimes' equally innacurate headline and never bothered to read the article. Quoting the real information, we find that:
The transistor Aono is developing makes a switch circuit consisting of... a 10-atom-diameter cluster of 500 silver atoms that acts as a capacitor...
and
"We can make an atomic switch in a cluster of silver atoms"
Very amazing. But it's not a "Single-Atom Transistor" like Slashdot says. The key component in the transistor may be a single atom, but the transistor itself is not.
And what exactly is the damage done in defacing physical property? None, according to your logic. If no tomatos or cucumbers are lost, what exactly is the damage done by spraypainting grafitti on the side of a grocery store? I guess when you have no morals any second-rate excuse will do to justify yourself before your equally reprobate peers.
But what reason can you give for taking away someone's right to talk about the software they use? It sure as hell isn't based in freedom of speech, and it sure as hell isn't based in capitalism.
It's based on contract law. When you use Windows or Oracle, you are making an agreement with the manufacturer. License agreements are contracts. I personally don't like the implicitness of them, and would prefer explicit signed contracts, but the courts have ruled otherwise.
By voluntarily agreeing to obey the license, you are voluntarily agreeing obey the license.
Freedom (in the sense of liberty) is not about doing whatever you want and hang the consequences. It is about doing whatever you want with your own life, actions and property, so long as they don't interfer with the lives, actions and properties of another. If you want to do the latter you need to get permission first. That's what contracts are. And that's why laws against murder are not infringements upon your freedom.
Wow! It's amazing that a volunteers and weekend warriors can do all this stuff when it took all the other systems acres of cubicles and herds of managers to get it done.
Check to see how long Internet Explorer has been around. Now compare that to Konqueror. If that doesn't knock your socks off then you aren't wearing any.
It's free for any Open Source application. You are not limited to the GPL (what kind of freedom would that be?). You can choose BSD, MPL, QPL, MIT, Artistic, or any other Free Source license.
The point, of course, is that my freedom of speech should not be limited because of any software I choose to use. No government, and certainly no corporation, should have that power.
Your current freedom is the result of your past choices. If you chose software in the past that limits your current opportunities, that is your fault, not the software manufacturer's.
Microsoft is increasing marketshare amongst newbies. A first time computer user is going to choose what most of his neighbors and friends are using. I want to know how many Microsoft customers in 1995 are still Microsoft customers in 2001. I want to know how many 30 year Unix veterans admitted defeat and went to NT last year.
Weird, 'cuz the Linux and BSD marketshares are also on the rise. Before you know it the combined marketshare of all platforms will be 568%!
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. Yournumbers don't include some important information. Like how the total market has grown. I suspect that their increased marketshare is due to brand new computer users, rather than 30 year Unix veterans switching over to Windows. Brand new computer users don't choose Linux. They choose what the majority of their neighbors are using.
Hee hee. Netscape enjoyed for a while the benefits of monopoly (if that's the word people want to use). But like all monopolists, they got fat and lazy and some upstart came along and made a better product.
The same thing is happening now to Microsoft and its monopoly (if that's the word). They got fat and lazy. And along comes the upstarts with Linux, BSD, Konqueror, Mozilla, KOffice, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, Eazel, yada, yada, yada.
I have no problems with "natural" monopolies. They got there because of the market, and the market is all too willing to take them out if they get uppity. Soon you're going to see Microsoft dissatisfaction hit critical mass and hell's going to break loose...
Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this, that they would decide to compete in any way possible to eke out more market share.
Go re-read your free market economic texts. This is not what they say. None of them say tht collusion or cartels can never happen. Quite the opposite. However, they point to market forces as being a very difficult thing for collusionists to overcome. No cartel that did not have government or criminal backing of some form has ever survived for any appreciable length of time.
One example is OPEC, one of the most successful cartels in history. But they are only able to maintain their cartels because all the members are governments. There is no free market in oil. Another example is one of yours: legal services. Attorneys in the US have the legal equivalent of a "Letter of Marquis", and can control their exact membership through the force of law.
I must have attended university in a different universe. Because the questions and responses I am seeing here are simply a non-sequitur. Activities that some claim these universities are doing would have been unthinkable where I went to schoold (UCSD). They would be unthinkable at my High School or even my elementary school. I'm tutoring my friend's child in his Junior High School computer work. They are placing absolutely zero restrictions on what he can do with regards to Linux, Napster, filtering, scanning, spoofing and anything of the sort.
Or perhaps these people are citing situations where the student is using university *property*, such as university dormitories and university networks. This would be a vastly different scenario. If you want to do whatever you want, then move off campus and get your own internet connection.
These version numbering schemes are becoming ridiculous. Actually overheard in a store (Frys's Sunnyvale): "No, get that one over there, it's Linux 7.2. This one is 7.0" (referring to two distinct distros). I would hate to know what they thought of FreeBSD 4.2 or Caldera 2.3:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What you say is true, but totally meaningless. Yes, I can refuse to "share" my GPLd program unless people pony up to my outrageous fees. But so what? Once *one* person has a copy, no one ever has to pay me anything since I've just created my own competition for distribution. *I* might not be the one sharing the program with the rest of the world, but it will happen nonetheless.
In essence, the GPL forbids private distributions. I'm not necessarily arguing that this is a bad thing, but it does mean that for all practical matters, once I share with one person I am sharing with everyone.
There is no difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. There may be a huge gulf between the advocates and movements of those terms, but the software itself is identical. Every OSI approved license is also a Free Software license, and every Free Software license sanctified by RMS' imprimatur is also an OSI approved license.
There is only one small bone of contentions. That is the Artistic License. RMS does not approve it as Free Software. But if you look at his explanation, you'll see that it's because he thinks the license is vague, and not because he thinks it violates some tenant of Free Software licenses. Just about everyone outside of the FSF agree that the Artistic License is Free Software.
Why is RMS against Open Source? Two reasons, in my opinion. A) "not invented here", and B) it doesn't use the word 'free'. He has long said that he wished for a better term than "free" so people don't confuse "free software" with "freeware". Well, there is a better and more accurate word, and that word is "open".
Actually, since RMS fully admits that no one should be obligated to release their own unreleased works, his philosophy could be better summed up as "if you share with one person you must share with all persons." Sounds an awful lot like my kindergarten teacher.
This is utter bullshit. Name one OSI approved license that allows a EULA to be included that is not already an RMS approved Free Software license. You can't do it.
There's no problem at all. Certain OSI licenses might have a problem with these, but most will not. Plugins are not derivatives works anyway, in either the programmatic or the copyright sense. And external scripting languages are just that, *external*.
The FSF has always held that the GPL soes not allow proprietary plugins, but the GPL is but one of many OSI licenses.
Perhaps I just take stuff too literally, but saying "Single-Atom Transistor" is like saying "Computer on a Chip". I keep wondering about the I/O...
That single atom may be the key component, but it's useless without all the other atoms around it. Try building a lightswitch with just a single unbroken copper strip, and you'll see what I mean.
The Intel Pentium XIII only costs $1.99 but the STM to install it in its socket costs upwards of several million...
Okay, it's been quite a long time since I took high school chemistry, so maybe something radical changed in the field since then. But I distinctly recall only about 200 to 250 possible elements. Which isotype of which element does this single atom belong to?
...yes, Slashdot goofed again (does this surprise anyone). They read the eeTimes' equally innacurate headline and never bothered to read the article. Quoting the real information, we find that:
... a 10-atom-diameter cluster of 500 silver atoms that acts as a capacitor...
Oh hell! This can't possibly be right. Not even Japan can alter the laws of physics. Let me read the article to see what the truth of the matter is...
The transistor Aono is developing makes a switch circuit consisting of
and
"We can make an atomic switch in a cluster of silver atoms"
Very amazing. But it's not a "Single-Atom Transistor" like Slashdot says. The key component in the transistor may be a single atom, but the transistor itself is not.
And what exactly is the damage done in defacing physical property? None, according to your logic. If no tomatos or cucumbers are lost, what exactly is the damage done by spraypainting grafitti on the side of a grocery store? I guess when you have no morals any second-rate excuse will do to justify yourself before your equally reprobate peers.
Hitler would have been evil regardless of whether he won or lost WWII. That you could think otherwise is amazing!
Sure, all that stuff could be done for a specific distribution. And it would probably have a total userbase of one.
But what reason can you give for taking away someone's right to talk about the software they use? It sure as hell isn't based in freedom of speech, and it sure as hell isn't based in capitalism.
It's based on contract law. When you use Windows or Oracle, you are making an agreement with the manufacturer. License agreements are contracts. I personally don't like the implicitness of them, and would prefer explicit signed contracts, but the courts have ruled otherwise.
By voluntarily agreeing to obey the license, you are voluntarily agreeing obey the license.
Freedom (in the sense of liberty) is not about doing whatever you want and hang the consequences. It is about doing whatever you want with your own life, actions and property, so long as they don't interfer with the lives, actions and properties of another. If you want to do the latter you need to get permission first. That's what contracts are. And that's why laws against murder are not infringements upon your freedom.
Wow! It's amazing that a volunteers and weekend warriors can do all this stuff when it took all the other systems acres of cubicles and herds of managers to get it done.
Check to see how long Internet Explorer has been around. Now compare that to Konqueror. If that doesn't knock your socks off then you aren't wearing any.
It's free for any Open Source application. You are not limited to the GPL (what kind of freedom would that be?). You can choose BSD, MPL, QPL, MIT, Artistic, or any other Free Source license.
The point, of course, is that my freedom of speech should not be limited because of any software I choose to use. No government, and certainly no corporation, should have that power.
Your current freedom is the result of your past choices. If you chose software in the past that limits your current opportunities, that is your fault, not the software manufacturer's.
Microsoft is increasing marketshare amongst newbies. A first time computer user is going to choose what most of his neighbors and friends are using. I want to know how many Microsoft customers in 1995 are still Microsoft customers in 2001. I want to know how many 30 year Unix veterans admitted defeat and went to NT last year.
Weird, 'cuz the Linux and BSD marketshares are also on the rise. Before you know it the combined marketshare of all platforms will be 568%!
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. Yournumbers don't include some important information. Like how the total market has grown. I suspect that their increased marketshare is due to brand new computer users, rather than 30 year Unix veterans switching over to Windows. Brand new computer users don't choose Linux. They choose what the majority of their neighbors are using.
So? Don't use their software! Is it that difficult of a concept?
Your freedom is up to you, and you alone. But beware, freedom is not convenient and easy. It is difficult and irksome.
Hee hee. Netscape enjoyed for a while the benefits of monopoly (if that's the word people want to use). But like all monopolists, they got fat and lazy and some upstart came along and made a better product.
The same thing is happening now to Microsoft and its monopoly (if that's the word). They got fat and lazy. And along comes the upstarts with Linux, BSD, Konqueror, Mozilla, KOffice, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, Eazel, yada, yada, yada.
I have no problems with "natural" monopolies. They got there because of the market, and the market is all too willing to take them out if they get uppity. Soon you're going to see Microsoft dissatisfaction hit critical mass and hell's going to break loose...
Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this, that they would decide to compete in any way possible to eke out more market share.
Go re-read your free market economic texts. This is not what they say. None of them say tht collusion or cartels can never happen. Quite the opposite. However, they point to market forces as being a very difficult thing for collusionists to overcome. No cartel that did not have government or criminal backing of some form has ever survived for any appreciable length of time.
One example is OPEC, one of the most successful cartels in history. But they are only able to maintain their cartels because all the members are governments. There is no free market in oil. Another example is one of yours: legal services. Attorneys in the US have the legal equivalent of a "Letter of Marquis", and can control their exact membership through the force of law.
I must have attended university in a different universe. Because the questions and responses I am seeing here are simply a non-sequitur. Activities that some claim these universities are doing would have been unthinkable where I went to schoold (UCSD). They would be unthinkable at my High School or even my elementary school. I'm tutoring my friend's child in his Junior High School computer work. They are placing absolutely zero restrictions on what he can do with regards to Linux, Napster, filtering, scanning, spoofing and anything of the sort.
Or perhaps these people are citing situations where the student is using university *property*, such as university dormitories and university networks. This would be a vastly different scenario. If you want to do whatever you want, then move off campus and get your own internet connection.
These version numbering schemes are becoming ridiculous. Actually overheard in a store (Frys's Sunnyvale): "No, get that one over there, it's Linux 7.2. This one is 7.0" (referring to two distinct distros). I would hate to know what they thought of FreeBSD 4.2 or Caldera 2.3 :-)
Do you still want the same exact default decorations that were in KDE-2.0? Just select the Laptop decorations.
I use "-O2 -mpentium" on my system and the speedup with X/Q/K is amazing compared to a straight -O2
That's not an rpm. That's a src.rpm. Two completely different beasts.