He can't do that because deep down Michael knows that he is better than everyone else. The rules of objective journalism do not apply to him. Perhaps he even believes his personal opinions to be genuine objective fact.
Typical libertarian logical flaw. Libertarians are only interested in "liberty" of the starting position, not free/democratic OUTCOMES.
Free Software is not about who gets to be king. It's not about authority, government or rulership. Comparing the BSD license to libertarianism or the GPL to communism is assinine.
Re:The bleedin' obvious
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
it's absurd for a Gov't to purchase products from a company that is breaking their laws.
Why not? They're run by politicians that break the same laws they pass!
If it can't protect freedom, how you say it's freedom?
Freedom is the lack of restrictions. Whether it's political freedom, software freedom or the freedom associated with a well oiled hinge, it's all about the lack of restriction.
The more restrictions, the less freedom. The less restrictions, the more freedom. You can't have it any other way.
Check out their site at Trolltech. Qt 3.0 comes with support for MySQL, Oracle, ODBC, Postrgres and Sybase/MSSQL. The plugin architecture allows you to expand this list
Companies pay registered voters to pay politicians.
Won't work. If Disney gave me $1000, I would put it in my pocket and keep it. If they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to a candidate, I will donate it to the candidate of MY choide. And if they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to the candidate of their choice, I will tear up the check.
Of course, if they gave me $2000 and told me to send $1000 to the Disneycrat Senator, I have clear and unambiguous evidence of illegal bribery to sell to the loyal opposition.
And even if they could get me to donate to a certain candidate, that candidate isn't going to know for certain that the money really came for Disney instead of me. So Disney is going to have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get the same level of reach-around.
This proposal is not perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect, so stop looking. But this proposal is a heck of a lot better than the Guaranteed Reelection Plan proposed by all the Washington politicians.
Re:An answer from a maintainer
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Seriously, what makes you think the entire team doesn't already understand this point? Do you think such decisions are made lightly? Go read the archives; they agonized over this for months, and that was before the heavy debating started.
Your explanations make sense, but they don't address an important point. Perhaps I should put on my hip boots and wade thru your archives.
Why are you not deferring ABI changes to major (or relatively major) releases? Why the breakage in 3.1.1? If you find a bug in the ABI, will you break it in 3.2.1 or wait until 3.3 instead?
I'm thinking to myself that a lot of these problems could have been avoided by spitting gcc into a stable and a devel branch.
Re:What does this mean for OS X?
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they're waiting for GCC 3.3 so they don't have to do all this work twice. Heck, if I were them I would wait for 4.1!
People watch television ads because they actually have content. Most may be lame, but a few are interesting and funny.
Imagine if television were like popups. T'Pol is wearing her underwear in decontamination while Tripp is rubbing blue gel all over her. Suddenly a robotic arm pops out of the top of your television waving a big neon sign saying to buy something. You hit the button on your remote to kill it, but by then the scene has switched to Hoshi in an overcoat. Aaargh! I don't want to see Hoshi, I want to see T'Pol covered in blue gel!
This is nothing new. Rich patrons have been tying strings to their donations since the first university.
The only alternative to private charitable donations is more government funding. But I don't know about you, but I trust my government even less than I trust Microsoft. In my home state of California, University curricula change every four years like clockwork, just after elections.
I think a lot of the angst over this one is simply because this time it's Microsoft. Reactions would be much more subdued if Sun made a donation requiring a Java class. And the reaction would be downright positive if Redhat made a donation that required a GNOME class.
Besides, the idea of licensing software isn't stupid.
It's the licensing of consumer software that I find stupid. Software that is sitting on a store shelf, available to the public to download, or otherwise offered to the masses should not be licensed.
If the manufacturers want to license their software, then they need to present the recipient with the license and get their agreement before the software is aquired. They should NOT pretend that they are selling copies of the software when they are in fact selling opportunities to enter into licensing agreements.
The fact that people will agree to any licence that's put in front of them is what's stupid.
People are not accepting these licenses. They're simply not aware of them, or do not understand their legal status. Just like you don't hear the whine of your CPU fan anymore, most users don't even notice licenses.
Anyone can take you to court for almost any reason. This fraudulent license they wrapped the book in is merely an excuse to claim grounds for a lawsuit. It's barratry. Barratry is a crime, but it's a crime committed by lawyers, so no one ever gets prosecuted for it.
I have no problem with you refusing to sell the clothing without a signature. That's how they sell houses, and I've seen house deeds with even stranger provisions.
The problem with this book, and the entire software industry, is that they sell or give you a product before you have agreed to any license or contract. Furthmore, they are claiming contractual agreement where none exists.
This is how the whole mess in software licensing started.
First software licenses were placed on the inside of the box. But that was absurd, so they were then placed on the outside of the box. But that still wasn't legally binding. So they displayed the license during install. But there still was no indication of acceptance, so they resorted to click-wrap. Now the general consensus among lawyers (not the public) is that click wrap is every bit as binding as those twenty signatures you need to on a mortgage contract.
But all through this process no one ever stopped to stay "hey, isn't the whole concept of licensing consumer software stupid?"
Now it's starting with books. Some lawsuit is going to occur, one side or the other will win, and the entire concept of licensing books is going to be validated.From that point onward we are screwed.
Or the best alternative of all: "This is my Grandmother's engagement ring. My grandparents were married 58 years and were deeply in love every minute of it. I would be honored for you to have this."
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it seems like fewer and fewer stories are being posted at Slashdot. Perhaps that's because I'm blocking the stories of half their staff.
He can't do that because deep down Michael knows that he is better than everyone else. The rules of objective journalism do not apply to him. Perhaps he even believes his personal opinions to be genuine objective fact.
Typical libertarian logical flaw. Libertarians are only interested in "liberty" of the starting position, not free/democratic OUTCOMES.
Free Software is not about who gets to be king. It's not about authority, government or rulership. Comparing the BSD license to libertarianism or the GPL to communism is assinine.
it's absurd for a Gov't to purchase products from a company that is breaking their laws.
Why not? They're run by politicians that break the same laws they pass!
If it can't protect freedom, how you say it's freedom?
Freedom is the lack of restrictions. Whether it's political freedom, software freedom or the freedom associated with a well oiled hinge, it's all about the lack of restriction.
The more restrictions, the less freedom. The less restrictions, the more freedom. You can't have it any other way.
Check out their site at Trolltech. Qt 3.0 comes with support for MySQL, Oracle, ODBC, Postrgres and Sybase/MSSQL. The plugin architecture allows you to expand this list
Make Free Software Free! Unrestricted licenses are the only way to go. The reasons are FREEDOM!
Aaah! This makes more sense now.
Companies pay registered voters to pay politicians.
Won't work. If Disney gave me $1000, I would put it in my pocket and keep it. If they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to a candidate, I will donate it to the candidate of MY choide. And if they gave me $1000 with the stipulation that I must donate to the candidate of their choice, I will tear up the check.
Of course, if they gave me $2000 and told me to send $1000 to the Disneycrat Senator, I have clear and unambiguous evidence of illegal bribery to sell to the loyal opposition.
And even if they could get me to donate to a certain candidate, that candidate isn't going to know for certain that the money really came for Disney instead of me. So Disney is going to have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get the same level of reach-around.
This proposal is not perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect, so stop looking. But this proposal is a heck of a lot better than the Guaranteed Reelection Plan proposed by all the Washington politicians.
There's a whole bunch of people in the Free Software community, including a certain Redhat CTO, that still don't "get it".
support the FreeBSD project by purchasing it at a vendor that supports the FreeBSD project.
Other vendors include DaemonNews/BSDMall, and Hinner EDV.
Seriously, what makes you think the entire team doesn't already understand this point? Do you think such decisions are made lightly? Go read the archives; they agonized over this for months, and that was before the heavy debating started.
Your explanations make sense, but they don't address an important point. Perhaps I should put on my hip boots and wade thru your archives.
Why are you not deferring ABI changes to major (or relatively major) releases? Why the breakage in 3.1.1? If you find a bug in the ABI, will you break it in 3.2.1 or wait until 3.3 instead?
I'm thinking to myself that a lot of these problems could have been avoided by spitting gcc into a stable and a devel branch.
Maybe they're waiting for GCC 3.3 so they don't have to do all this work twice. Heck, if I were them I would wait for 4.1!
People watch television ads because they actually have content. Most may be lame, but a few are interesting and funny.
Imagine if television were like popups. T'Pol is wearing her underwear in decontamination while Tripp is rubbing blue gel all over her. Suddenly a robotic arm pops out of the top of your television waving a big neon sign saying to buy something. You hit the button on your remote to kill it, but by then the scene has switched to Hoshi in an overcoat. Aaargh! I don't want to see Hoshi, I want to see T'Pol covered in blue gel!
You make too much sense. Go away!
This is nothing new. Rich patrons have been tying strings to their donations since the first university.
The only alternative to private charitable donations is more government funding. But I don't know about you, but I trust my government even less than I trust Microsoft. In my home state of California, University curricula change every four years like clockwork, just after elections.
I think a lot of the angst over this one is simply because this time it's Microsoft. Reactions would be much more subdued if Sun made a donation requiring a Java class. And the reaction would be downright positive if Redhat made a donation that required a GNOME class.
First they came for UW, and I didn't speak up because I didn't go there...
By not going there, you are speaking up.
Besides, the idea of licensing software isn't stupid.
It's the licensing of consumer software that I find stupid. Software that is sitting on a store shelf, available to the public to download, or otherwise offered to the masses should not be licensed.
If the manufacturers want to license their software, then they need to present the recipient with the license and get their agreement before the software is aquired. They should NOT pretend that they are selling copies of the software when they are in fact selling opportunities to enter into licensing agreements.
The fact that people will agree to any licence that's put in front of them is what's stupid.
People are not accepting these licenses. They're simply not aware of them, or do not understand their legal status. Just like you don't hear the whine of your CPU fan anymore, most users don't even notice licenses.
they'll be able to take you to court anyway.
Anyone can take you to court for almost any reason. This fraudulent license they wrapped the book in is merely an excuse to claim grounds for a lawsuit. It's barratry. Barratry is a crime, but it's a crime committed by lawyers, so no one ever gets prosecuted for it.
they have to sign a licensing agreement
I have no problem with you refusing to sell the clothing without a signature. That's how they sell houses, and I've seen house deeds with even stranger provisions.
The problem with this book, and the entire software industry, is that they sell or give you a product before you have agreed to any license or contract. Furthmore, they are claiming contractual agreement where none exists.
Funny, that's exactly how the software industry works.
This is how the whole mess in software licensing started.
First software licenses were placed on the inside of the box. But that was absurd, so they were then placed on the outside of the box. But that still wasn't legally binding. So they displayed the license during install. But there still was no indication of acceptance, so they resorted to click-wrap. Now the general consensus among lawyers (not the public) is that click wrap is every bit as binding as those twenty signatures you need to on a mortgage contract.
But all through this process no one ever stopped to stay "hey, isn't the whole concept of licensing consumer software stupid?"
Now it's starting with books. Some lawsuit is going to occur, one side or the other will win, and the entire concept of licensing books is going to be validated.From that point onward we are screwed.
Oh that will do the trick all right! "Here, this ring is cursed. I want you to have it."
Or the best alternative of all: "This is my Grandmother's engagement ring. My grandparents were married 58 years and were deeply in love every minute of it. I would be honored for you to have this."
Okay, that's interesting. I stand corrected.