If you are re-distributing non-commercially and unaltered code you do not have to provide source.
The flip side is that if either of the two clauses are FALSE, you do have to provide source:
If you are re-distributing commercially but unaltered code, you do have to provide source. If you are re-distributing non-commercially and altered code, you do have to provide source.
The only way you can "simply point the user to the upstream provider" is if you are non commercial AND unaltered. As soon as you apply a patch, you are no longer unaltered, even if you are non-commercial, and if you are commercial, even if you are providing unaltered code, you need to provide the source.
That is definitely not how I interpreted the parent post. To quote:
And then they whine that they have to provide the source for the free stuff they're reselling.
It sounds more like the parent poster is saying, "then whining that you have to provide source to stuff they haven't modified but are selling and distributing," which is distinctly different from what you say, "then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."
In other words, a distro maker has to provide the whole distro, even if they only change one line, which isn't implied by your statement, "you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."
Your statement expects the reader to know what "the same rules" are, while the parent post seems very clear: The rule to follow is, "if you are selling it or distributing it, you have to provide the source, even if you didn't write the source."
OK, these "distro makers" are downloading vast amounts of material covered by the GPL for free and then redistributing it for money or advertising.
This is perfectly acceptable to the GPL, to my understanding.
The problem arises when someone wants the source and the distro maker does not have the capability of providing it; they are obligated to provide it, even if it's a measly single line patch+original source.
Linotype claims over 6,500 fonts available. Adobe claims over 2,200 typefaces available. Bitstream claims over 1,400 fonts available.
If you look at MyFonts.com you will see that the list over 49,105 fonts available from 282 font foundries, out 574 known foundries listed on that site.
Yeah, and the RIAA isn't the only source of music. If you want to buy non RIAA music, it is certainly possible, even within the iTMS. Yes, it will be DRM, but it will send the message to the RIAA: I don't approve of the RIAA, but I still approve of music.
You do realize that a consequence of "people living longer" is "outrageous medicare, social security, and nursing homes" right?
The death rate isn't down: people may die at a later age now than 50 years ago, but this is balanced by the fact that most of the world is not acheiving a replacement rate. More people die than are born; that translates to death rate is UP.
I only really think I'm doing myself a favor by reproducing, but if it helps everyone else I'm not going to be greedy:)
If you haven't heard, most of the world is facing a population decline in the near future. If more of us weren't selfish and conceited, who would be paying the taxes for your future medicare, social security, and staffing the nursing homes?
Mow your lawn Make your lunch Give you a hug Smile Hold your hand Carry your bag Laugh Get sick Cry Call you at work Run into you
No matter how many laptops you buy, you won't be able to share your life, your lessons, your beliefs, or your ideas with a laptop. Though if you get sterilized, at least you can adopt a kid.
They did drop the price on Shake for Linux. 2 years ago, it used to cost $9,990 for Linux and $4,950 for Mac. 3 years later it's now $4,999 for Linux and $499 for Mac.
AAC is ISO MPEG 4 Advanced Audio Codec MP3 is ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3
So because Linux can't play AAC, Apple is at fault? If Linux can't play MP3 files, is it also Apple's fault because Apple also provides you the option of encoding in MP3?
And iTunes originally did support multiple hardware because the iPod wasn't released until 2001, and iTunes is at least as old as 1999. Creative's Nomad did indeed work with iTunes, and it may still if it is a mass storage device, but I don't know anyone who has tried since the iPod was released.
Seems obvious to me. Look for the column view. This was implemented by Apple in the year 2000; they also had implementations like this even earlier in 1986.
Instead of "Cube" or "Network" you have two genres like "Country" and "Anime" Instead of "Applications", "Developer", "Library", "Mac OS 9", "System", and "Users" you have albums. Instead of a list of applications, you have a list of songs
So the only secret sauce Apple added to column view to make it work on an iPod is to make the screen of the iPod exactly one column wide.
It isn't Apple's fault that they get 11 cents on the dollar. The same service hands out 55 cents to the dollar, displayed on the very page you linked to, when the artist uses CDBaby instead.
So Weird Al should switch to CDBaby and get 5x as much money.
It does make sense on multiple levels why married workers are worth more:
More experience in a mentor relationship Spouse has already done some kind of cost benefit analysis towards a person's "commitment" Worker has already demonstrated a willingness to commit A worker with kids has more incentive to stay than a single childless twenty something
Why not? You aren't losing anything, whereas someone who does have kids and a spouse would be losing their kids and spouse during a move.
My own experience, however, has shown me that married workers are more capable, whether it be because of the daily, constant, successful ability to handle stress, emergencies, delegation, risk, and reward, or some other aspect.
So a married working would be more valuable than a single worker anyway:)
I wouldn't say history has repeated itself until the iPod goes down. If there is anything that is repeating, it is how Apple is dominanting to become the 800lb gorilla in the same way Microsoft did:
iPod::Apple Windows::Microsoft
The funny part is this: Mac::Apple XBox::Microsoft
So their fortunes are reversed; Microsoft was able to successfully dominate the PC world, where Apple could not, while Apple is successfully dominating the consumer eletronics market where Microsoft does not.
Too bad you are every bit as an elitist as the Mac users and iPod owners are portrayed to be. Were it not for your choice of iAudio, your rant would fit in perfectly with all the Mac users decrying the Windows monopoly.
I too wish competition; competition makes everything better, and if I happen to prefer Apple, so what? If the rise of Sandisk forces Apple to create a superior MP3 player, would you complain? It is only unfortunate that you see the world in as defensive a manner as your dyed in the wool Mac user. You should look them up, I'm sure you would sympathize with their crusade against the faceless drones who use Windows.
Yes, but MP3 and AAC are not iTunes or Apple proprietary formats. The original poster was complaining about iTunes proprietary formats. If I am not mistaken, the PSP, PS3, XBox360, and other devices also play AAC as well as MP3.
How can we trust, then, that their reviews are both accurate and meaningful if they do not review iPods? That means their reviews are effectively unable to compare to an iPod because they cannot review an iPod to the same standards as the rest of the MP3 players on that site.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, hold that thought.
If you are re-distributing non-commercially and unaltered code you do not have to provide source.
The flip side is that if either of the two clauses are FALSE, you do have to provide source:
If you are re-distributing commercially but unaltered code, you do have to provide source.
If you are re-distributing non-commercially and altered code, you do have to provide source.
The only way you can "simply point the user to the upstream provider" is if you are non commercial AND unaltered. As soon as you apply a patch, you are no longer unaltered, even if you are non-commercial, and if you are commercial, even if you are providing unaltered code, you need to provide the source.
So my point still holds.
It sounds more like the parent poster is saying, "then whining that you have to provide source to stuff they haven't modified but are selling and distributing," which is distinctly different from what you say, "then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."
In other words, a distro maker has to provide the whole distro, even if they only change one line, which isn't implied by your statement, "you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."
Your statement expects the reader to know what "the same rules" are, while the parent post seems very clear: The rule to follow is, "if you are selling it or distributing it, you have to provide the source, even if you didn't write the source."
This is perfectly acceptable to the GPL, to my understanding.
The problem arises when someone wants the source and the distro maker does not have the capability of providing it; they are obligated to provide it, even if it's a measly single line patch+original source.
Linotype claims over 6,500 fonts available.
Adobe claims over 2,200 typefaces available.
Bitstream claims over 1,400 fonts available.
If you look at MyFonts.com you will see that the list over 49,105 fonts available from 282 font foundries, out 574 known foundries listed on that site.
Yeah, and the RIAA isn't the only source of music. If you want to buy non RIAA music, it is certainly possible, even within the iTMS. Yes, it will be DRM, but it will send the message to the RIAA: I don't approve of the RIAA, but I still approve of music.
You do realize that a consequence of "people living longer" is "outrageous medicare, social security, and nursing homes" right?
:)
The death rate isn't down: people may die at a later age now than 50 years ago, but this is balanced by the fact that most of the world is not acheiving a replacement rate. More people die than are born; that translates to death rate is UP.
I only really think I'm doing myself a favor by reproducing, but if it helps everyone else I'm not going to be greedy
If you haven't heard, most of the world is facing a population decline in the near future. If more of us weren't selfish and conceited, who would be paying the taxes for your future medicare, social security, and staffing the nursing homes?
Mow your lawn
Make your lunch
Give you a hug
Smile
Hold your hand
Carry your bag
Laugh
Get sick
Cry
Call you at work
Run into you
No matter how many laptops you buy, you won't be able to share your life, your lessons, your beliefs, or your ideas with a laptop. Though if you get sterilized, at least you can adopt a kid.
They did drop the price on Shake for Linux. 2 years ago, it used to cost $9,990 for Linux and $4,950 for Mac. 3 years later it's now $4,999 for Linux and $499 for Mac.
AAC is ISO MPEG 4 Advanced Audio Codec
MP3 is ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3
So because Linux can't play AAC, Apple is at fault? If Linux can't play MP3 files, is it also Apple's fault because Apple also provides you the option of encoding in MP3?
And iTunes originally did support multiple hardware because the iPod wasn't released until 2001, and iTunes is at least as old as 1999. Creative's Nomad did indeed work with iTunes, and it may still if it is a mass storage device, but I don't know anyone who has tried since the iPod was released.
Why do you think the audiophiles exist in any significant number?
So if Apple licenses Fairplay at half a million, we're all dandy right?
Seems obvious to me. Look for the column view. This was implemented by Apple in the year 2000; they also had implementations like this even earlier in 1986.
Instead of "Cube" or "Network" you have two genres like "Country" and "Anime"
Instead of "Applications", "Developer", "Library", "Mac OS 9", "System", and "Users" you have albums.
Instead of a list of applications, you have a list of songs
So the only secret sauce Apple added to column view to make it work on an iPod is to make the screen of the iPod exactly one column wide.
And if Apple DIDN'T steal anything?
Look at the OS X/NeXTStep File browser, it's exactly how the iPod UI is implemented, and that has been implemented since 1986.
It isn't Apple's fault that they get 11 cents on the dollar. The same service hands out 55 cents to the dollar, displayed on the very page you linked to, when the artist uses CDBaby instead.
So Weird Al should switch to CDBaby and get 5x as much money.
Aren't we? Isn't the average IQ only 100? Isn't 50% of the population between 90 and 110, with 75% of the population below 110?
So it seems par for the course to expect everyone is stupid; you'll be right 3 out of 4 times!
They are much more numerous than iTunes tracks, and are equally DRM restricted!
It does make sense on multiple levels why married workers are worth more:
More experience in a mentor relationship
Spouse has already done some kind of cost benefit analysis towards a person's "commitment"
Worker has already demonstrated a willingness to commit
A worker with kids has more incentive to stay than a single childless twenty something
Why not? You aren't losing anything, whereas someone who does have kids and a spouse would be losing their kids and spouse during a move.
:)
My own experience, however, has shown me that married workers are more capable, whether it be because of the daily, constant, successful ability to handle stress, emergencies, delegation, risk, and reward, or some other aspect.
So a married working would be more valuable than a single worker anyway
I wouldn't say history has repeated itself until the iPod goes down. If there is anything that is repeating, it is how Apple is dominanting to become the 800lb gorilla in the same way Microsoft did:
iPod::Apple
Windows::Microsoft
The funny part is this:
Mac::Apple
XBox::Microsoft
So their fortunes are reversed; Microsoft was able to successfully dominate the PC world, where Apple could not, while Apple is successfully dominating the consumer eletronics market where Microsoft does not.
Too bad you are every bit as an elitist as the Mac users and iPod owners are portrayed to be. Were it not for your choice of iAudio, your rant would fit in perfectly with all the Mac users decrying the Windows monopoly.
I too wish competition; competition makes everything better, and if I happen to prefer Apple, so what? If the rise of Sandisk forces Apple to create a superior MP3 player, would you complain? It is only unfortunate that you see the world in as defensive a manner as your dyed in the wool Mac user. You should look them up, I'm sure you would sympathize with their crusade against the faceless drones who use Windows.
Two serious questions:
1) Why would the above described device outsell the iPod?
2) How would the manufacturers make a profit?
To get a 60GB drive below $200 requires the use of a laptop 2.5" HDD and immediately HUGE compared to an iPod of comparable capacity and battery life.
Yes, but MP3 and AAC are not iTunes or Apple proprietary formats. The original poster was complaining about iTunes proprietary formats. If I am not mistaken, the PSP, PS3, XBox360, and other devices also play AAC as well as MP3.
How can we trust, then, that their reviews are both accurate and meaningful if they do not review iPods? That means their reviews are effectively unable to compare to an iPod because they cannot review an iPod to the same standards as the rest of the MP3 players on that site.
Yes, but look how effective Apple's adverts have been at growing Mac marketshare.
I doubt SanDisk will fare much better.