"I'm the same guy you explained it to last time..."
hehe, sorry about that.
You say:
"Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms."
and then say that user and distributor are not the right terms?
"I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it"
Distribution is not usage. The GPL does not regulate at all the use of software.
When you distribute it, your are a distributor, you can be both a user and distributor at the same time, you usage is still not restricted, but the GPL applies to what you distribute.
The disagreement/misunderstanding we have is caused by you considering "distribution" as being a "use" of software, while I (and the GPL) do not.
"You've managed to eloquently summarize what has been bouncing around in my brain for a while"
To bad because he is wrong.
Here's my reply to his post.
"s/end\ users/distributors/g
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions."
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions.
and trees harvest themselves and walk to paper the factory? and trashed paper walks to the landfill? and making paper from tree takes less energy than recycling it?
I do not have any hard number on this but I'm really not sure recycling paper is more wastful then trashing it.
Now I know why all those priest turned child abusers. It was not the sexual repression, it was because they were exposed to these filthy child porn images.
This the user himself inserting things on it's own computer from it's own computer. Not the same as ISPs inserting adds at all.
The precedent it would create would not be good at all. It would be like making it illegal to write stuff on a store catalog that you got in in you mail box while sitting on the can in you own house.
Slashdot Mirror
With sed on on the command prompt you do. In a slashdot post it's optional :)
I posted a more verbose explanation twice.
It;s the first time i use the s/xxx/xxx/g syntax in a post but I saw it used often here so I assumed it was understood by most.
But as they say:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
It means: replace "end users" by "distributors" in the parent post.
and ./ers means slashdoters :)
"I'm the same guy you explained it to last time..."
hehe, sorry about that.
You say:
"Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms."
and then say that user and distributor are not the right terms?
"I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it"
Distribution is not usage. The GPL does not regulate at all the use of software.
When you distribute it, your are a distributor, you can be both a user and distributor at the same time, you usage is still not restricted, but the GPL applies to what you distribute.
The disagreement/misunderstanding we have is caused by you considering "distribution" as being a "use" of software, while I (and the GPL) do not.
Grrr... how many times it has to be said:
s/end\ users/distributors/g
There is no restriction on the end user in the GPL, none, nada, zero.
Apple is not a end user, Apple is a distributor of software.
I can't believe this is still not understood by some ./ers.
"You've managed to eloquently summarize what has been bouncing around in my brain for a while"
To bad because he is wrong.
Here's my reply to his post.
"s/end\ users/distributors/g
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions."
s/end\ users/distributors/g
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions.
Yeah, I know. But for some reason the Arab/Muslim terrorists are never named David. Maybe it would not sound foreign enough to the Americans ears.
wow, finally!
In other news .027% of slashdotters can understand what they read.
Good thing your name is not Rachid, or I would moderate you terrorist -1.
Both.
A plastic one on the car.
A metal one to beat on the driver of said car.
To be fair a small subset of musicians became filthy rich with way of selling music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Yes, They do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation/
What do you have against bikers? You're so mean.
You should move to Africa, you would find a lot more people to hate.
BUT the internet did not exist when the constitution was written[citation needed]
and trees harvest themselves and walk to paper the factory?
and trashed paper walks to the landfill?
and making paper from tree takes less energy than recycling it?
I do not have any hard number on this but I'm really not sure recycling paper is more wastful then trashing it.
I would put such a laptop in the trash, or just reformat it.
Don't try to limit what they can do with it, because they can do whatever they want with it. You have no control at all.
If you recycle it you end up with carbon free paper, and the carbon goes in the air?
I don't think so.
If you put it in the trash and it get burnt sure, but not if it's recycled.
Yeah, they should put billboards in the classrooms, placement ads in schoolbooks and have sponsored classes.
Hi children, this English class is brought to you by McDonald's.
"I mean does anyone get mad over seeing a billboard or some ads on a bus?"
I, for one, do.
"So, why stymie that process with a new bureaucracy that simply funds the big record labels?"
Because it funds the big record labels.
That's the reason!
Ok, next question please.
Report all cherubs images here
Now I know why all those priest turned child abusers. It was not the sexual repression, it was because they were exposed to these filthy child porn images.
Join me in my campaign make the internet clean.
Report all cherubs images here
whooosh
This the user himself inserting things on it's own computer from it's own computer. Not the same as ISPs inserting adds at all.
The precedent it would create would not be good at all. It would be like making it illegal to write stuff on a store catalog that you got in in you mail box while sitting on the can in you own house.