but to say GPL is more free....damn....you're just so misguided.
I didn't say it was "more free". I said it has a specific purpose, to create exclusive advantages to Free Software developers, that are not available to proprietary software developers.
BSD is better at promoting standards
Correct, if you want proprietary people to use the standards too.
GPL is better for a community project that's in competition with the commercial world
If you have a medical degree, I think that is a slightly different matter from a normal 4 year degree, especially in CS. In medcine it could cost lives if the professors are totally out of touch and don't teach you well.
In CS, it's expected that the professors have their heads up their asses.
At least there are chain of custody rules for anything to be used as evidence in a court of law. This is a slight safeguard against tampering, since anyone caught tampering with evidence would probably be in for some serious shit.
GIFs are free in the US now, but there are still some outstanding international patents on LZW. The LZW issue isn't really about an obselete 256 color graphic format anyway, it's about a general purpose (textbook) compression algorithm being patented. Think "patented bubble sort". TIFF and several other things can use LZW.
I see the GPL as applying Intellectual Proprety Rights to free code
Correct
Whereas the motive may be good, the purpose is to limit it's useability
Again, correct.
this increases the overall amount of free code availible on the net.
Also correct.
That's great and you'll save the world by putting a few commercial programmers out of a job.
Not necessarily. While you may destroy jobs at companies that made money solely by fucking over customers, resting on the laurels of aged and buggy software, you will create opportunities at disruptive compatitors that leverage the power of open source to make solutions that actually are responsive to customer demand. Think of it as a way to make sure software doesn't stagnate.
People who use GPL do it for themselves and no one else.
Totally wrong. The FSF is pretty honest about their goals, they want to give exclusive advantages to the Free Software community that are not available to proprietary developers. They make no excuses for this position, it has been their position from the start. Their justification is that proprietary software companies have vast resources to use to generate code, the Free Software community does not, and therefore to level the field, the GPL is used.
A correct version of your conclusion: People who GPL do it for the exclusive benefit of the Free Software community, to give said community an edge over proprietary software companies.
but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia
Courts have rules that it does indeed apply to individual ownership of firearms. See the Emerson case.
Also, from a common sense point of view, look at the rest of the bill of rights, they are rights that are recognized as belonging to individuals. Why would the 2nd be any different?
The really funny part of that is, as is obvious to anyone who has used them, if you don't know what you're doing you're really only dangerous to yourself.
It's amazing how many laws are based on what legislators see in movies and in the news, rather than on reality.
I think it was one too many kung fu movies that caused those stupid laws, the same as it was too many spy movies that inpsired the various lockpick laws, too many "date rape" scare stories in movies and on dramatic TV series got GHB banned.
I wish an IQ test was required of legislators, and the scores prominately posted on the ballot. I can't imagine who would oppose such a law, except the stupid and inept.
Re:the slashdot story is mis-interpreting the post
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure what you are saying, but that could be because of my ignorance of Java.
If a Java app uses a LGPL library, there is no way to modify the LGPL library and have the closed app use the new version?
That's the real intent of the LGPL, preserving the right of the user to modify the library and relink it with the closed program.
The locksmith, the AAA guy, and the police officer have good reasons to have these things.
People have no business owning soldering irons, an electrical engineer has a good reason to own one, but anyone else caught with one has a germane bit of explaining to do.
I know how to pick locks; I never intend to use it for any crime. If I accidentally lock myself out of somewhere I'm allowed to be in, I'll save myself a pretty good chunk of money.
I know how to solder and repair electronics. The soldering iron can also be used for installing mod chips or building satellite card programmers.
Tools are tools. They don't have to have a compelling legitimate use to untrained people to be legal. Anything else is facist.
I use it with a reverse proxy system. My web app on the internet facing server runs a PHP script that makes a HTTP request to an internal host that does the image processing.
Done this way, it mitigates most security risks. I still scrub the data that can be influenced by the user, just in case.
Well commercial gain could also refer to something as simple as including a URL to your web site in the filename. They speak of "promoting a commercial interest"...
Upon further inspection, it appears this bill only amends the part that is referred to by 506(a)(1) of title 17, infringing distribution for commercial gain.
So basically if you share a file, "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" that you do not have authorization to share, the $2500/10 requirement doesn't apply, and it's automatically a felony.
It looks like you still have to violate the Title 17 statutes before you become subject to the Title 18 ones.
And the part it amends only applies to "Any person who infringes a copyright willfully.. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
2319(b) of title 18 provides for criminal penalties in cases involving "during a 180-day period, [the distribution] of at least 10 copies of [one or more] work[s] with [total] retail values of more than $2,500."
This bill says that sharing any file without authorization, even if no one downloads it, even if it is worthless crap that has no commercial value, it automatically considered to to be the same as distributing at least 10 copies, with a value over $2,500..
Get it now?
They are basically repealing part of the older law, the part that required you to distribute a lot before you were considered a felon.
It says you are in trouble if you provide the ability for the public to copy more than 10 copies at a value of more than $2,500.
You misread.
The part you are probably referring to says that merely making files available to the public over a computer network is automatically considered to satisfy the 10 copy/$2,500 requirement, even if no one downloads it.
It makes the mere act of sharing a single file fall under the criminal penalties, whereas before they had to prove you distributed significant amounts of copyrighted materials.
-------------- For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-sible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.
You have a valid, and probably more relevant, point, but I was referring to TCP/IP itself. Things start to crumble when latencies approach 1 second. I don't know the exact technical reason, but I think the retries start to avalanche.
Slashdot Mirror
but to say GPL is more free....damn....you're just so misguided.
I didn't say it was "more free". I said it has a specific purpose, to create exclusive advantages to Free Software developers, that are not available to proprietary software developers.
BSD is better at promoting standards
Correct, if you want proprietary people to use the standards too.
GPL is better for a community project that's in competition with the commercial world
That's my point.
If you have a medical degree, I think that is a slightly different matter from a normal 4 year degree, especially in CS. In medcine it could cost lives if the professors are totally out of touch and don't teach you well.
In CS, it's expected that the professors have their heads up their asses.
At least there are chain of custody rules for anything to be used as evidence in a court of law. This is a slight safeguard against tampering, since anyone caught tampering with evidence would probably be in for some serious shit.
delphion.
GIFs are free in the US now, but there are still some outstanding international patents on LZW. The LZW issue isn't really about an obselete 256 color graphic format anyway, it's about a general purpose (textbook) compression algorithm being patented. Think "patented bubble sort".
TIFF and several other things can use LZW.
"If you're going to go into a marketplace where people play hardball, that's what hardball looks like," Scheirer warned.
I'm generally a pacifist, but don't assholes like this get anyone else's blood boiling?
I guess it's time to give more money to the EFF.
EVERY time I went there looking for something, I would find nothing
Maybe the something that you seek is really nothing at all.
I recommend yoga.
I see the GPL as applying Intellectual Proprety Rights to free code
Correct
Whereas the motive may be good, the purpose is to limit it's useability
Again, correct.
this increases the overall amount of free code availible on the net.
Also correct.
That's great and you'll save the world by putting a few commercial programmers out of a job.
Not necessarily. While you may destroy jobs at companies that made money solely by fucking over customers, resting on the laurels of aged and buggy software, you will create opportunities at disruptive compatitors that leverage the power of open source to make solutions that actually are responsive to customer demand. Think of it as a way to make sure software doesn't stagnate.
People who use GPL do it for themselves and no one else.
Totally wrong. The FSF is pretty honest about their goals, they want to give exclusive advantages to the Free Software community that are not available to proprietary developers. They make no excuses for this position, it has been their position from the start. Their justification is that proprietary software companies have vast resources to use to generate code, the Free Software community does not, and therefore to level the field, the GPL is used.
A correct version of your conclusion: People who GPL do it for the exclusive benefit of the Free Software community, to give said community an edge over proprietary software companies.
but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia
Courts have rules that it does indeed apply to individual ownership of firearms. See the Emerson case.
Also, from a common sense point of view, look at the rest of the bill of rights, they are rights that are recognized as belonging to individuals. Why would the 2nd be any different?
The really funny part of that is, as is obvious to anyone who has used them, if you don't know what you're doing you're really only dangerous to yourself.
It's amazing how many laws are based on what legislators see in movies and in the news, rather than on reality.
I think it was one too many kung fu movies that caused those stupid laws, the same as it was too many spy movies that inpsired the various lockpick laws, too many "date rape" scare stories in movies and on dramatic TV series got GHB banned.
I wish an IQ test was required of legislators, and the scores prominately posted on the ballot. I can't imagine who would oppose such a law, except the stupid and inept.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but that could be because of my ignorance of Java.
If a Java app uses a LGPL library, there is no way to modify the LGPL library and have the closed app use the new version?
That's the real intent of the LGPL, preserving the right of the user to modify the library and relink it with the closed program.
And neither of you can spell fascism.
:)
Maybe I spelled it wrong deliberately to see if the other guy would notice or not.
OK, I'm not quite that clever.
The locksmith, the AAA guy, and the police officer have good reasons to have these things.
People have no business owning soldering irons, an electrical engineer has a good reason to own one, but anyone else caught with one has a germane bit of explaining to do.
I know how to pick locks; I never intend to use it for any crime. If I accidentally lock myself out of somewhere I'm allowed to be in, I'll save myself a pretty good chunk of money.
I know how to solder and repair electronics. The soldering iron can also be used for installing mod chips or building satellite card programmers.
Tools are tools. They don't have to have a compelling legitimate use to untrained people to be legal. Anything else is facist.
If you are going to run a proprietary operating system, why bother using an open source office suite?
Slashdot has to make money somehow. Taco already admitted they were getting paid to run stories. Think of it as "edutainment".
I use it with a reverse proxy system. My web app on the internet facing server runs a PHP script that makes a HTTP request to an internal host that does the image processing.
Done this way, it mitigates most security risks. I still scrub the data that can be influenced by the user, just in case.
There is no license for music, it's "all rights reserved". There are no license terms, only copyright law.
Well commercial gain could also refer to something as simple as including a URL to your web site in the filename. They speak of "promoting a commercial interest"...
Don't worry, I was partly wrong too, this only applies to doing it for finiancial gain. See my other comments for details.
ornamental plant to be placed in public areas that will turn color when it's been exposed to various biological agents.
I've already invented weeds that turn yellow when exposed to Roundup. Maybe we should collaborate?
I was kinda wrong.
Upon further inspection, it appears this bill only amends the part that is referred to by 506(a)(1) of title 17, infringing distribution for commercial gain.
So basically if you share a file, "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" that you do not have authorization to share, the $2500/10 requirement doesn't apply, and it's automatically a felony.
Ah, I misread too.
.. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".
It looks like you still have to violate the Title 17 statutes before you become subject to the Title 18 ones.
And the part it amends only applies to "Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
By virtue of the Title 17 law it refers back to.
You misunderstand the intent of the bill.
2319(b) of title 18 provides for criminal penalties in cases involving "during a 180-day period, [the distribution] of at least 10 copies of [one or more] work[s] with [total] retail values of more than $2,500."
This bill says that sharing any file without authorization, even if no one downloads it, even if it is worthless crap that has no commercial value, it automatically considered to to be the same as distributing at least 10 copies, with a value over $2,500..
Get it now?
They are basically repealing part of the older law, the part that required you to distribute a lot before you were considered a felon.
It says you are in trouble if you provide the ability for the public to copy more than 10 copies at a value of more than $2,500.
You misread.
The part you are probably referring to says that merely making files available to the public over a computer network is automatically considered to satisfy the 10 copy/$2,500 requirement, even if no one downloads it.
It makes the mere act of sharing a single file fall under the criminal penalties, whereas before they had to prove you distributed significant amounts of copyrighted materials.
--------------
For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-sible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.
Macrovision will not affect your ability to capture video on your computer clearly.
It will if your capture card has AGC that is freaked out by macrovision.
You have a valid, and probably more relevant, point, but I was referring to TCP/IP itself. Things start to crumble when latencies approach 1 second. I don't know the exact technical reason, but I think the retries start to avalanche.