Now that you've read the first chapter in "Libertarianism in 24 Hours", go ahead and read the other 23.
Government does not have a monopoly on the use of force. Insted it has a monopoly on the legal use of force. There is a subtle difference. Private citizens can, and do, initiate force all the time. It's called "crime". To pretend that government is immune to the application of force is like pretending one mob boss cannot murder another.
Of course, you are correct in a tiny way, because no person can be corrupted unless they allow themselves to be corrupted. Since governments are composed entirely of people, the same situation applies.
Okay, question then. Without referring to the availablity of applications (which is a separate issue) or the difficulty in installing and configuring the underlying operating system (another separate issue), why do you prefer the Windows *desktop* over the alternatives?
I suspect you've made the mistaken assumption that corporate America believes in the Free Market.
Of course they don't! Where did you get the idea that free market advocates think corporations are their friends? Corporations can only exist through government charter, so it is always in the corporations' best interests to have large intrusive governments.
Assumption: The goal of GNOME and KDE is to convert Windoze users.
Truth: There are as many goals for these projects as there are developers. The goal of converting Windows users is definitely on the list somewhere for some developer, but overall it is very low on the totem pole. Much higher are the goals of "scratching my itch", "improving the desktop I use", and "writing my application in this awesome development framework I've found."
Assumption: Windoze users will be more comfortable in a cloned Windoze environment.
Truth: There are two kinds of Windows users. Those that can't stand change and those that want to get away from that crappy desktop. Nothing is going to please the former but the genuine article available only from Microsoft. The latter don't want that article, which is why they're leaving.
Assumption: GNOME and KDE emulate the Windoze look and feel.
There is some resemblance between GNOME/KDE and Windows. But it's superficial only. Take a second glance and there's no comparison. The Windows desktop is ugly and very low in usability. On the other hand, both GNOME and KDE have great usability and look good. There is no comparison between Kicker/Panel and the Windows taskbar. There is no comparison between KWin/Sawfish and the Windows "window manager". There is no comparison between Konqueror/Nautilus and the Windows Explorer. Etc, etc, etc.
Assumption: There is a native look and feel for Linux/BSD somewhere if I can find it.
Truth: There is not a native look to Linux/BSD. Trust me, I've checked. That's because there isn't *a* native look, but multiple native looks. Among them are GNOME and KDE.
There is no centralized authority over the *Nix look and feel, so there will never be just one, no matter how hard Redhat tries.
Assumption: The desktops in movies are modern and cool.
Truth: They sure look modern and cool, but they also look like usability nightmares.
Please study your history. The KKK did not arrive until AFTER slavery was abolished. The abolitionists of the early 19th century were the minority. The majority in the south wanted slavery while the majority in the north viewed it as an economic problem that didn't apply to them. Yes, it was the law that got changed, but it did not get changed because society suddenly stopped owning slaves. Heck, society didn't even reflect racial equality until very recently.
This is in distinct contrast to P2P and speeding. Today people casually break the speed limit and download ripped MP3s on a whim. But 150 years ago no one, and I mean no one, participated in the underground railroad casually or on a whim.
Medical Ultrasound systems have a unique connector problem. An ultrasound probe has to connect to the ultrasound machine, but there are a huge number of signals that must get transmitted. The traditional ultrasound probe has a connector that looks like a huge 2" by 5" RS-232 plug with up to 256 pins (more in some cases).
To prevent constant pin breakage and bending, most ultrasound machines have special guides on the ports (jacks) so that the plug can only be inserted at a precise angle. But it still happens. When you've paid up to $50,000 for an infant cardiac transesophogeal multiplanar probe and you break a half-cent pin, you tend utter words that should not be uttered near an infant needing such a diagnostic examination.
Acuson invented a new type of connector for their Sequoia line of ultrasound systems. The "MP" connector is a flat plate that rests snuggly against another flat plate in the port, held secure by a quick release knob. Imagine a very large inkjet cartridge connector. Unlike an inkjet connector, they're very rugged, and spec'ed out a heck of lot tighter. No more broken pins! And they're a lot easier to attach and detach than the old style.
Oh I get it all right. Everyone here only cares about their own agenda.
Yesterday there was a story about stores editing movies and the studios getting pissed about it. Very many people posted that these stores shouldn't be doing it, with very few arguing the other way. Did those that believe copyright is wrong merely ignore that story? Or did it just not concern them because it didn't affect their abiltiy to download TTT?
Today we have a story about TTT being downloadable. A whole lot of people think the movie studios are wrong for trying to stop it, and very few arguing the other way. Are those that yesterday believed that movie studios should control their copyright now ignoring this story?
As near as I can tell, it's situational ethics run amok. Most posters here (not necessary readers) judge the ethics of the situation only by what benefits them personally in the present.
The Slashdot hypocrisy is amazing. Of course, it's a highly diverse group of individuals with an extreme variety of viewpoints, but it seems that collectively we're just schizoid.
Yesterday everyone's bitching about people modifying movies in violation of copyright, now we're defending distributing them in violation of copyright. I'm starting to trip all over the place trying to follow my marching orders.
Oh, it's an entirely fair statement! Either what kids see on television, movies, ads and video games influences them, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways just to serve your agenda.
The typical full frontal nudity scene from Hollywood is about treating women as mere objects of pleasure and treating sex as a mere act of self-gratification with no meaning and no consequences.
Isn't it ironic that those arguing that sex and violence in moves and video games have no influence on children were same ones who lobbied to have Joe Camel banned?
Don't confuse actions of the Government with that of the individuals.
But it's always the individuals who say "we need a law" and thus initiate tyranny at the hands of the government. I don't fear individuals wishing to help me. I fear individuals wishing the government to help me.
One example: The GNU Manifesto advocates a tax on software to support Free Software development. Another example: the good intentions of advocates have caused Venezuela to announce that only the GPL will be used for government developed software, thus prohibiting Venezuelan contributions to Apache, XFree86, etc.
For all the stupid silly stunts my company pulls, we at least have the policy of "Management by Objective". In a nutshell, this means that as long as we meet our objective nobody (except the numbnuts in HR) is going to care about how many hours we worked. Along with this are a whole bunch of status reports we have to submit. It's a pain, but it allows management to know way in advance if we are on target, giving them time to hire contractors and get them up to speed so they can actually help.
I work eight to ten hour days. If I ever go longer than that, or have to work a weekend, it's only a temporary thing and it earns you comp time. That's only happened once in four years.
I would have a lot more freedom if you stopped worrying about mine and concentrated on your own. The only time I find my freedom diminishing is when some idiot decides I need help.
Few people know what's good for themselves...
And that single phrase is why I do not want your help. That single phrase scares the shit out of me. That single phrase is the foundation stone of tyranny and slavery itself.
The GPL does not require modifications of modified versions of software to be 'opensourced' if the modified program is not distributed to a third party
It's the definition of "third party" that is problematic.
Consider the following case: you install a modified GNU Emacs on a coworker's computer but do not make the source code available to him. According to RMS this is okay because you and your coworker are a single party. Now install a modified GNU Emacs on a friend's computer but do not make the source code available. RMS will argue that there are now two parties involved and that the GPL demands that the source be available. But the actions are identical!
RMS may be legally correct that an corporation is a legal entity, and thus a single party. But what about unincorporated companies? They are not legal entities, and cannot be parties to licenses or contracts. Would RMS have no problem with the APSL if their deployment clause pertained only to unincorporated businesses?
I have a sneaky suspicion that RMS is just making this stuff up as he goes along. He is in essence defending the right to discriminate against fields of endeavors.
Personally, I think the 12 minimum publication of source feature of APSL fails on clause 3 of the DFSG
That is a possibility. The OSI debated this very point.
do not have an infrastructure capable of guaranteeing that they will be able to retrieve every version of the code that they've deployed
Frankly, this is nitpicking, and you know it. If we're going to descend to this level of trivial legalism, then Debian will have to disapprove half the licenses they've already approved.
In any case, the manner in which the Debian process works virtually guarantees that the APSL will never be approved, since the APSL is now saddled with political baggage.
Slashdot Mirror
Government holds a monopoly on the *initiation* of force.
So when I go punch my neighbor in the nose for no reason at all, I am not initiating force?
I should have said the government has a "legal monopoly" on the use of force. It's still a strange sentence, but that's how it is.
Now that you've read the first chapter in "Libertarianism in 24 Hours", go ahead and read the other 23.
Government does not have a monopoly on the use of force. Insted it has a monopoly on the legal use of force. There is a subtle difference. Private citizens can, and do, initiate force all the time. It's called "crime". To pretend that government is immune to the application of force is like pretending one mob boss cannot murder another.
Of course, you are correct in a tiny way, because no person can be corrupted unless they allow themselves to be corrupted. Since governments are composed entirely of people, the same situation applies.
Thank you and bless you.
Okay, question then. Without referring to the availablity of applications (which is a separate issue) or the difficulty in installing and configuring the underlying operating system (another separate issue), why do you prefer the Windows *desktop* over the alternatives?
I suspect you've made the mistaken assumption that corporate America believes in the Free Market.
Of course they don't! Where did you get the idea that free market advocates think corporations are their friends? Corporations can only exist through government charter, so it is always in the corporations' best interests to have large intrusive governments.
It looks like the City of Kobe knows something that the City of Key Largo doesn't...
Let me take your unwritten assumptions in order.
Assumption: The goal of GNOME and KDE is to convert Windoze users.
Truth: There are as many goals for these projects as there are developers. The goal of converting Windows users is definitely on the list somewhere for some developer, but overall it is very low on the totem pole. Much higher are the goals of "scratching my itch", "improving the desktop I use", and "writing my application in this awesome development framework I've found."
Assumption: Windoze users will be more comfortable in a cloned Windoze environment.
Truth: There are two kinds of Windows users. Those that can't stand change and those that want to get away from that crappy desktop. Nothing is going to please the former but the genuine article available only from Microsoft. The latter don't want that article, which is why they're leaving.
Assumption: GNOME and KDE emulate the Windoze look and feel.
There is some resemblance between GNOME/KDE and Windows. But it's superficial only. Take a second glance and there's no comparison. The Windows desktop is ugly and very low in usability. On the other hand, both GNOME and KDE have great usability and look good. There is no comparison between Kicker/Panel and the Windows taskbar. There is no comparison between KWin/Sawfish and the Windows "window manager". There is no comparison between Konqueror/Nautilus and the Windows Explorer. Etc, etc, etc.
Assumption: There is a native look and feel for Linux/BSD somewhere if I can find it.
Truth: There is not a native look to Linux/BSD. Trust me, I've checked. That's because there isn't *a* native look, but multiple native looks. Among them are GNOME and KDE.
There is no centralized authority over the *Nix look and feel, so there will never be just one, no matter how hard Redhat tries.
Assumption: The desktops in movies are modern and cool.
Truth: They sure look modern and cool, but they also look like usability nightmares.
Please study your history. The KKK did not arrive until AFTER slavery was abolished. The abolitionists of the early 19th century were the minority. The majority in the south wanted slavery while the majority in the north viewed it as an economic problem that didn't apply to them. Yes, it was the law that got changed, but it did not get changed because society suddenly stopped owning slaves. Heck, society didn't even reflect racial equality until very recently.
This is in distinct contrast to P2P and speeding. Today people casually break the speed limit and download ripped MP3s on a whim. But 150 years ago no one, and I mean no one, participated in the underground railroad casually or on a whim.
"Whenever there is such profound divergence between the law and social practice, it is not society that adapts."
It's a very Good Thing(tm) that the abolitionists of the previous century did not believe that load of dung.
Although I am in favor or removing most speed limits, your assumption that the majority is morally correct is erroneous.
Medical Ultrasound systems have a unique connector problem. An ultrasound probe has to connect to the ultrasound machine, but there are a huge number of signals that must get transmitted. The traditional ultrasound probe has a connector that looks like a huge 2" by 5" RS-232 plug with up to 256 pins (more in some cases).
To prevent constant pin breakage and bending, most ultrasound machines have special guides on the ports (jacks) so that the plug can only be inserted at a precise angle. But it still happens. When you've paid up to $50,000 for an infant cardiac transesophogeal multiplanar probe and you break a half-cent pin, you tend utter words that should not be uttered near an infant needing such a diagnostic examination.
Acuson invented a new type of connector for their Sequoia line of ultrasound systems. The "MP" connector is a flat plate that rests snuggly against another flat plate in the port, held secure by a quick release knob. Imagine a very large inkjet cartridge connector. Unlike an inkjet connector, they're very rugged, and spec'ed out a heck of lot tighter. No more broken pins! And they're a lot easier to attach and detach than the old style.
Oh I get it all right. Everyone here only cares about their own agenda.
Yesterday there was a story about stores editing movies and the studios getting pissed about it. Very many people posted that these stores shouldn't be doing it, with very few arguing the other way. Did those that believe copyright is wrong merely ignore that story? Or did it just not concern them because it didn't affect their abiltiy to download TTT?
Today we have a story about TTT being downloadable. A whole lot of people think the movie studios are wrong for trying to stop it, and very few arguing the other way. Are those that yesterday believed that movie studios should control their copyright now ignoring this story?
As near as I can tell, it's situational ethics run amok. Most posters here (not necessary readers) judge the ethics of the situation only by what benefits them personally in the present.
The Slashdot hypocrisy is amazing. Of course, it's a highly diverse group of individuals with an extreme variety of viewpoints, but it seems that collectively we're just schizoid.
Yesterday everyone's bitching about people modifying movies in violation of copyright, now we're defending distributing them in violation of copyright. I'm starting to trip all over the place trying to follow my marching orders.
Oh, it's an entirely fair statement! Either what kids see on television, movies, ads and video games influences them, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways just to serve your agenda.
...and run it on top of such Linux-based (as opposed BSD-based) systems???
Bloody Hell! Why would you want to cripple it like that?
The typical full frontal nudity scene from Hollywood is about treating women as mere objects of pleasure and treating sex as a mere act of self-gratification with no meaning and no consequences.
Isn't it ironic that those arguing that sex and violence in moves and video games have no influence on children were same ones who lobbied to have Joe Camel banned?
Don't confuse actions of the Government with that of the individuals.
But it's always the individuals who say "we need a law" and thus initiate tyranny at the hands of the government. I don't fear individuals wishing to help me. I fear individuals wishing the government to help me.
One example: The GNU Manifesto advocates a tax on software to support Free Software development. Another example: the good intentions of advocates have caused Venezuela to announce that only the GPL will be used for government developed software, thus prohibiting Venezuelan contributions to Apache, XFree86, etc.
For all the stupid silly stunts my company pulls, we at least have the policy of "Management by Objective". In a nutshell, this means that as long as we meet our objective nobody (except the numbnuts in HR) is going to care about how many hours we worked. Along with this are a whole bunch of status reports we have to submit. It's a pain, but it allows management to know way in advance if we are on target, giving them time to hire contractors and get them up to speed so they can actually help.
I work eight to ten hour days. If I ever go longer than that, or have to work a weekend, it's only a temporary thing and it earns you comp time. That's only happened once in four years.
We care for freedom, including yours.
I would have a lot more freedom if you stopped worrying about mine and concentrated on your own. The only time I find my freedom diminishing is when some idiot decides I need help.
Few people know what's good for themselves...
And that single phrase is why I do not want your help. That single phrase scares the shit out of me. That single phrase is the foundation stone of tyranny and slavery itself.
I don't really understand why the GNU people have this large web page picking apart the old ASPL.
GNU also has web pages picking apart the MIT license, the BSD license, and the NPL. In addition, they pick apart several other licenses in their "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" page. They even argue against using their own LGPL!
Know this about the FSF, GNU and RMS: if the license is not GPL compatible strong copyleft, they don't like it and don't want you using it.
The GPL does not require modifications of modified versions of software to be 'opensourced' if the modified program is not distributed to a third party
It's the definition of "third party" that is problematic.
Consider the following case: you install a modified GNU Emacs on a coworker's computer but do not make the source code available to him. According to RMS this is okay because you and your coworker are a single party. Now install a modified GNU Emacs on a friend's computer but do not make the source code available. RMS will argue that there are now two parties involved and that the GPL demands that the source be available. But the actions are identical!
RMS may be legally correct that an corporation is a legal entity, and thus a single party. But what about unincorporated companies? They are not legal entities, and cannot be parties to licenses or contracts. Would RMS have no problem with the APSL if their deployment clause pertained only to unincorporated businesses?
I have a sneaky suspicion that RMS is just making this stuff up as he goes along. He is in essence defending the right to discriminate against fields of endeavors.
Give your secretary a copy of the software and RMS will call that "use". But give that same copy to a friend and he will call it "distribution".
I just finished up my first week of a Java programming course.
Drop out now! Your very career is at stake! You might as well put Visual Basic on your resume for all the respect you will get.
Personally, I think the 12 minimum publication of source feature of APSL fails on clause 3 of the DFSG
That is a possibility. The OSI debated this very point.
do not have an infrastructure capable of guaranteeing that they will be able to retrieve every version of the code that they've deployed
Frankly, this is nitpicking, and you know it. If we're going to descend to this level of trivial legalism, then Debian will have to disapprove half the licenses they've already approved.
In any case, the manner in which the Debian process works virtually guarantees that the APSL will never be approved, since the APSL is now saddled with political baggage.
If Apple uses the APSL, then the source code could not be used in Linux.
In the kernel, no. Only GPL or relicensable code can be used in the kernel. But it certainly can be used in the userland.
I'm uncertain if Debian would accept any APSL submissions.
What part of the DFSG does the APSL not meet?