You know, I'm starting to take issue with comments that protest the use of the M$, Micro$oft etc. memes. I know how something can get on your tits - articles that identify companies by their stock symbols is a particular irritant of mine.
But being annoying to a given reader does not cause a comment to lose all credibility. I mean, you can judge a comment by any criteria you choose, even moderate that way if you like. But you and I can't have a conversation either, if at any time you might write off everything I've said because I violated some arbitrary boundary you have. It's like people who dismiss an otherwise intelligent comment because it was posted AC. Again, it's their prerogative, but it makes it hard for the rest of us to talk to them.
And I am not suggesting the comment you replied to was "otherwise intelligent." The comment you replied to was obviously a troll, and should be dismissed for that reason. I would agree that a user who says something like "Winblows" isn't making any kind of lucid point with that act, but he may just be really frustrated for a good reason. Let him vent - he "paid" for that right - then see if he has an actual point.
In defense of the use of M$ etc, I see it as sort of a short hand, like Garry Trudeau would do with politicians. A feather for Dan Qualye, a bomb for Newt Gingrich... To a passionate free software advocate, M$ is a concise, efficient and - IMO - accurate moniker.
In two characters, the anonymous poster - who is probably Twitter - told us all we need to know about his opinion of Microsoft. I don't think an anti-Microsoft - or anti-Google/Linux/Apple bias for that matter - invalidates anyone's opinion. If it does, good grief we're all doomed.
Yeah, he also could have closed those ports on the firewall when his wife wasn't actually working on the course material, and had her use Firefox with no-script etc. for everything *but* the course work.
He would be better off picking up a cheap laptop for his wife to use for these courses than trying to run VMs and whatnot. Even one of those ASUS eepcs might do, or a used notebook if she needs a better display.
What's he gonna do when the setup borks while his wife is in the middle of something important? You're sure not going to get support from whoever is supplying the curriculum for your XP-running-in-a-VM-ware-session-running-in-Fedora setup.
The difference is that you didn't purchase that ebook/song/program--your purchased a license to use it as the owner sees fit, but they remain the owner.
Actually, I purchased a DVD, or a CD, which is a physical object that contains information. I don't own the information the object contains, which is the reason I can not distribute it, but I did not purchase - or agree to the terms of - a license. A lot of people seem to have bought in to the idea that the person who sold me the physical object is entitled to control how I use that object after it becomes my property, but that is simply not the case.
I will do as I please with that object, because it is my property. I am prohibited from copying the information contained on that object for the purpose of distributing it to others, since I don't own the information. But the CD/DVD/whatever is my property - much like the box of Rice Krispies - and I will do with it as I please.
My thought exactly. Especially when listening through those crappy ear buds that came with my girlfriend's iPod. I don't recall ever hearing anything that sounded like a "sizzle." Low quality mp3s sound more like you're listening to music with cotton in your ears.
That's the shining light in all of this. Flickr is a great outlet for people to get their photography out, for example. Podcast-type audio programs, blogs and sites like Youtube provide an outlet for amateurs as well as an alternative to the mainstream. You just need to stand out from the crowd.
Anyone who has ever wanted to create music or films has it within their grasp now to do so. You will still need an instrument or camera. And you'll still need to actually have something you're dying to get out of you. But that technological/cost barrier that has necessitated turning a lot of forms of expression into business enterprises is steadily eroding.
At the same time as the tools are becoming available, so are the forums. If you can get your film in the can, so to speak, you will have opportunities to show it to people.
That's what those idiots at the RIAA/MPAA need to worry about.
So go ahead, Mickey Valenti. Put DRM on your crappy CDs and movies (and your good ones, for that matter). Give people another reason to look elsewhere for entertainment and enlightenment.
Wrong. The copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyrighted works, regardless of whether they are licensed to others under the GPL or not.
I've already replied elsewhere that I should have said "the only person being restricted by the GPL is the person distributing the software," but if that person happens to be the copyright holder, (s)he is certainly bound by the terms of the GPL. You may license your code under as many licenses as you wish, but once you license it to me under the GPL, you are bound by its terms.
So yes, the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyrighted works, provided he does not violate the terms of any licensing agreements he has already made with those copyrighted works.
Sadly, yes. See here. (You will need to click "Proceed to download" and select a mirror).
Not only will the download not begin until you check the box stating "I accept these terms and conditions," but you must "accept" the terms of the GPL a second time during the installation process, or the program will not install (and therefore not run). This is clearly in violation of freedom 0, which guarantees "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose."
This isn't the only example I have seen of misguided software vendors creating confusion over what the GPL is and who is bound by it, but it's the only one I can cite an example of at this point.
You are, of course, correct. The user is not bound by the terms of the GPL unless (s)he intends to re-distribute the software licensed under it. I just wish more software distributors understood this.
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes
DRM is a technological measure designed to govern how someone uses a copyrighted work; the GPL is a license that governs how a copyrighted work may be distributied. Other than both being related to copyrighted works, they really couldn't be more different. If the GPL attempted to put restrictions on how people use works licensed under it, you would have a point.
A couple of things. First, you've kind of slid from DRM in to EULAs, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Regardless, I didn't agree to anything which I purchased the DVD. I handed a retailer some cash and left with my purchase. At that stage, the sale is over. Attempting to attach further conditions to the sale after the fact - whether it be by forcing me to click "I Agree" to some EULA or simply putting technological obstacles in place in an attempt to control how I use the product - does not make it a "contract," and does not bind me to those conditions.
If I choose to use my new laptop as a hammer while building my sundeck, I am free to do so regardless of what Dell thinks of that. I may void my warranty; certainly they can not be held responsible for anything that happens as a result of me using the product in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. But I am free to do as I please with my property.
The same goes for the DVDs. I did not sign a contract agreeing that I would not rip the contents of the DVD to my file server for convenience and to protect my investment, and I doubt a contract which attempted to prevent me from making use of my property in any way I see fit would stand up in court. It is simply not a reasonable thing for the manufacturer to ask.
As a society, we have agreed to protect copyright holders from competition for a limited period of time by outlawing the distribution of their work by anyone but themselves. In exchange for this protection, we are guaranteed certain exemptions from the limits on distribution by the same law. This is were DRM runs afoul of copyright law, by attempting to restrict uses of which I am guaranteed by copyright law.
Any attempt by the copyright holder to extend their control beyond what is allowed for under copyright law is a matter of contract law, and would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You can't just put whatever you like in a contract and expect a court to enforce it, especially if you have been granted a monopoly by the very same party you are attempting to hold to those conditions.
You started off comparing the GPL to DRM, which is like comparing just plain wrong. The GPL governs the distribution of a copyrighted work, not its use. You must agree to and abide by the terms of the GPL in order to distribute the work.
You don't have to agree to anything to use a piece of software licensed under the GPL. Freedom 0 guarantees that.
That's a distortion and a half. I cannot copy a song on iTunes, and I redistribute GPL code, unless I comply with either license.
That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think you are saying that only the copyright holder may distribute the copyrighted material. That is correct, and no additional license is needed.
We are talking about DRM, which attempts to control how the person who purchased the copyrighted material may use it, which copyright law does not allow for. This control in many cases prevents uses that are guaranteed under copyright law, which means that it actually violates copyright law in some cases.
If you can invent for yourself a new kind of right that lets you make and distribute unlimited copies of a song, then certainly someone else can invent for themselves the right to redistribute GPL code in proprietary products.
Excuse me, what? Who has a right to make and distribute unlimited copies of a song? The copyright holder. Pretty straight forward. If the copyright holder so chooses, (s)he may extend further rights to distribute the song by granting a license. The copyright holder is well within their rights to do this.
Either you agree that the copyright holder has a right to control distribution, that is, you believe in copyrights, or you don't.
Of course the copyright holder has the right to control distribution. That's what copyright law is. But we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
It's really very simple, and what you are offering, instead, is that people must comply with YOUR copyrights, that is, the GPL, but you don't have to comply with THEIRS.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
Ah yes, the final solution. I will be a survivalist. I will grow my own wheat, mill it and make it in to bread. I will grow cotton, and spend the hours in the fields picking it, then produce cloth material from which I will sew my own garments. I will harvest the timber needed to build my house, first milling it in to lumber. I will also need to forge the steel necessary to produce nails, screws and other fasteners needed for my abode.
I will entertain myself with music of my own composition, played on instruments of my own making. I will study medicine to treat my own illnesses, but not from any copyrighted medical book. I will develop my own discipline through trial-and-error.
Or I could simply say, I purchased this DVD and will use it in any manner I see fit provided I do not violate copyright law by doing so. Any other restrictions placed on the DVD's use by the manufacturer are wishful thinking on his part, and will be defeated when they conflict with my enjoyment of the product I purchased.
So when all manufacturers start attaching unreasonable terms to the use of their product, you will simply not eat. Is this the way you want the world to work? If not, why the staunch defense of DRM?
Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.
Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.
The point is that while you or I may not necessarily care "how" someone uses it, some people DO care how people use it, and they've got the right to have you agree not to use it in a conflicting way before they give you the content.
So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?
I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.
So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that.
You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
This is as it should be.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.
DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
Not to mention a string quartet for Eleanor Rigby.
That's the problem I see with a Beatles version of Guitar Hero. Once the band stopped touring, it gave them the freedom to record songs that would have been tough to play live, especially with a couple of guitars, bass and drums. They weren't really a "riff-oriented" band, but I guess we'll see when the game comes out.
If an anonymous statement holds no weight, then why is journalism filled with "anonymous sources say" and "unnamed government officials state"?
In that case, you are considering the credibility of the journalist who is protecting the source. If some supermarket tabloid full of stories about alien abductions and Elvis sightings cites "anonymous sources" in a story, you should not give that story any more credibility that you would anything else they publish. They have not earned your trust, so you should suspect anything they print.
On the other hand, if a journalist or publication you respect cites anonymous sources, you may give more weight to what they say, because the journalist or paper has earned your trust.
Take the example of Woodward and Bernstein. Much of what they reported came from an anonymous source, and at the time they were just a couple of unknown reporters. They didn't really have the reputation to back up the allegations they were making. But the editors and publishers at the Washington Post backed them up, putting their reputations - and that of the paper - on the line. This lent credibility to the reporters and their story.
If it had turned out that they were wrong, it's the Post's reputation that would have suffered.
You're absolutely right on with that comment. Quebec is quite a ways from where I live, but I find myself identifying with Quebecers on a lot of issues, and strangely alienated from a lot of other "left-coasters" who live in the more rural areas of my province.
I'm sure there is the same broad spectrum of people there as in other areas, but in general Quebec strikes me as quite progressive with regard to social issues, while still fiercely libertarian on a personal level.
I doubt this will go very far; Quebecers are not shy about telling someone to fuck off, in any language.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'm starting to take issue with comments that protest the use of the M$, Micro$oft etc. memes. I know how something can get on your tits - articles that identify companies by their stock symbols is a particular irritant of mine.
But being annoying to a given reader does not cause a comment to lose all credibility. I mean, you can judge a comment by any criteria you choose, even moderate that way if you like. But you and I can't have a conversation either, if at any time you might write off everything I've said because I violated some arbitrary boundary you have. It's like people who dismiss an otherwise intelligent comment because it was posted AC. Again, it's their prerogative, but it makes it hard for the rest of us to talk to them.
And I am not suggesting the comment you replied to was "otherwise intelligent." The comment you replied to was obviously a troll, and should be dismissed for that reason. I would agree that a user who says something like "Winblows" isn't making any kind of lucid point with that act, but he may just be really frustrated for a good reason. Let him vent - he "paid" for that right - then see if he has an actual point.
In defense of the use of M$ etc, I see it as sort of a short hand, like Garry Trudeau would do with politicians. A feather for Dan Qualye, a bomb for Newt Gingrich ... To a passionate free software advocate, M$ is a concise, efficient and - IMO - accurate moniker.
In two characters, the anonymous poster - who is probably Twitter - told us all we need to know about his opinion of Microsoft. I don't think an anti-Microsoft - or anti-Google/Linux/Apple bias for that matter - invalidates anyone's opinion. If it does, good grief we're all doomed.
BTW, I agree with you about the suicide remark.
I'm on the pavement
Thinkin 'bout the government
At least we know what to get you for your birthday
Yeah, he also could have closed those ports on the firewall when his wife wasn't actually working on the course material, and had her use Firefox with no-script etc. for everything *but* the course work.
He would be better off picking up a cheap laptop for his wife to use for these courses than trying to run VMs and whatnot. Even one of those ASUS eepcs might do, or a used notebook if she needs a better display.
What's he gonna do when the setup borks while his wife is in the middle of something important? You're sure not going to get support from whoever is supplying the curriculum for your XP-running-in-a-VM-ware-session-running-in-Fedora setup.
Actually, I purchased a DVD, or a CD, which is a physical object that contains information. I don't own the information the object contains, which is the reason I can not distribute it, but I did not purchase - or agree to the terms of - a license. A lot of people seem to have bought in to the idea that the person who sold me the physical object is entitled to control how I use that object after it becomes my property, but that is simply not the case.
I will do as I please with that object, because it is my property. I am prohibited from copying the information contained on that object for the purpose of distributing it to others, since I don't own the information. But the CD/DVD/whatever is my property - much like the box of Rice Krispies - and I will do with it as I please.
My thought exactly. Especially when listening through those crappy ear buds that came with my girlfriend's iPod. I don't recall ever hearing anything that sounded like a "sizzle." Low quality mp3s sound more like you're listening to music with cotton in your ears.
Sure. I probably didn't read what you wrote originally closely enough.
That's the shining light in all of this. Flickr is a great outlet for people to get their photography out, for example. Podcast-type audio programs, blogs and sites like Youtube provide an outlet for amateurs as well as an alternative to the mainstream. You just need to stand out from the crowd.
Anyone who has ever wanted to create music or films has it within their grasp now to do so. You will still need an instrument or camera. And you'll still need to actually have something you're dying to get out of you. But that technological/cost barrier that has necessitated turning a lot of forms of expression into business enterprises is steadily eroding.
At the same time as the tools are becoming available, so are the forums. If you can get your film in the can, so to speak, you will have opportunities to show it to people.
That's what those idiots at the RIAA/MPAA need to worry about.
So go ahead, Mickey Valenti. Put DRM on your crappy CDs and movies (and your good ones, for that matter). Give people another reason to look elsewhere for entertainment and enlightenment.
I've already replied elsewhere that I should have said "the only person being restricted by the GPL is the person distributing the software," but if that person happens to be the copyright holder, (s)he is certainly bound by the terms of the GPL. You may license your code under as many licenses as you wish, but once you license it to me under the GPL, you are bound by its terms.
So yes, the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyrighted works, provided he does not violate the terms of any licensing agreements he has already made with those copyrighted works.
Sadly, yes. See here. (You will need to click "Proceed to download" and select a mirror).
Not only will the download not begin until you check the box stating "I accept these terms and conditions," but you must "accept" the terms of the GPL a second time during the installation process, or the program will not install (and therefore not run). This is clearly in violation of freedom 0, which guarantees "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose."
This isn't the only example I have seen of misguided software vendors creating confusion over what the GPL is and who is bound by it, but it's the only one I can cite an example of at this point.
You are, of course, correct. The user is not bound by the terms of the GPL unless (s)he intends to re-distribute the software licensed under it. I just wish more software distributors understood this.
DRM is a technological measure designed to govern how someone uses a copyrighted work; the GPL is a license that governs how a copyrighted work may be distributied. Other than both being related to copyrighted works, they really couldn't be more different. If the GPL attempted to put restrictions on how people use works licensed under it, you would have a point.
A couple of things. First, you've kind of slid from DRM in to EULAs, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Regardless, I didn't agree to anything which I purchased the DVD. I handed a retailer some cash and left with my purchase. At that stage, the sale is over. Attempting to attach further conditions to the sale after the fact - whether it be by forcing me to click "I Agree" to some EULA or simply putting technological obstacles in place in an attempt to control how I use the product - does not make it a "contract," and does not bind me to those conditions.
If I choose to use my new laptop as a hammer while building my sundeck, I am free to do so regardless of what Dell thinks of that. I may void my warranty; certainly they can not be held responsible for anything that happens as a result of me using the product in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. But I am free to do as I please with my property.
The same goes for the DVDs. I did not sign a contract agreeing that I would not rip the contents of the DVD to my file server for convenience and to protect my investment, and I doubt a contract which attempted to prevent me from making use of my property in any way I see fit would stand up in court. It is simply not a reasonable thing for the manufacturer to ask.
As a society, we have agreed to protect copyright holders from competition for a limited period of time by outlawing the distribution of their work by anyone but themselves. In exchange for this protection, we are guaranteed certain exemptions from the limits on distribution by the same law. This is were DRM runs afoul of copyright law, by attempting to restrict uses of which I am guaranteed by copyright law.
Any attempt by the copyright holder to extend their control beyond what is allowed for under copyright law is a matter of contract law, and would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You can't just put whatever you like in a contract and expect a court to enforce it, especially if you have been granted a monopoly by the very same party you are attempting to hold to those conditions.
You started off comparing the GPL to DRM, which is like comparing just plain wrong. The GPL governs the distribution of a copyrighted work, not its use. You must agree to and abide by the terms of the GPL in order to distribute the work.
You don't have to agree to anything to use a piece of software licensed under the GPL. Freedom 0 guarantees that.
That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think you are saying that only the copyright holder may distribute the copyrighted material. That is correct, and no additional license is needed.
We are talking about DRM, which attempts to control how the person who purchased the copyrighted material may use it, which copyright law does not allow for. This control in many cases prevents uses that are guaranteed under copyright law, which means that it actually violates copyright law in some cases.
Excuse me, what? Who has a right to make and distribute unlimited copies of a song? The copyright holder. Pretty straight forward. If the copyright holder so chooses, (s)he may extend further rights to distribute the song by granting a license. The copyright holder is well within their rights to do this.
Of course the copyright holder has the right to control distribution. That's what copyright law is. But we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
Ah yes, the final solution. I will be a survivalist. I will grow my own wheat, mill it and make it in to bread. I will grow cotton, and spend the hours in the fields picking it, then produce cloth material from which I will sew my own garments. I will harvest the timber needed to build my house, first milling it in to lumber. I will also need to forge the steel necessary to produce nails, screws and other fasteners needed for my abode.
I will entertain myself with music of my own composition, played on instruments of my own making. I will study medicine to treat my own illnesses, but not from any copyrighted medical book. I will develop my own discipline through trial-and-error.
Or I could simply say, I purchased this DVD and will use it in any manner I see fit provided I do not violate copyright law by doing so. Any other restrictions placed on the DVD's use by the manufacturer are wishful thinking on his part, and will be defeated when they conflict with my enjoyment of the product I purchased.
So when all manufacturers start attaching unreasonable terms to the use of their product, you will simply not eat. Is this the way you want the world to work? If not, why the staunch defense of DRM?
Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.
So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?
I think you need to think this through a little.
I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.
You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:
In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
This is as it should be.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.
DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.
That's it. We're bombing the Baldwins.
Not to mention a string quartet for Eleanor Rigby.
That's the problem I see with a Beatles version of Guitar Hero. Once the band stopped touring, it gave them the freedom to record songs that would have been tough to play live, especially with a couple of guitars, bass and drums. They weren't really a "riff-oriented" band, but I guess we'll see when the game comes out.
The Beetles?
Turn in your music-geek card.
In that case, you are considering the credibility of the journalist who is protecting the source. If some supermarket tabloid full of stories about alien abductions and Elvis sightings cites "anonymous sources" in a story, you should not give that story any more credibility that you would anything else they publish. They have not earned your trust, so you should suspect anything they print.
On the other hand, if a journalist or publication you respect cites anonymous sources, you may give more weight to what they say, because the journalist or paper has earned your trust.
Take the example of Woodward and Bernstein. Much of what they reported came from an anonymous source, and at the time they were just a couple of unknown reporters. They didn't really have the reputation to back up the allegations they were making. But the editors and publishers at the Washington Post backed them up, putting their reputations - and that of the paper - on the line. This lent credibility to the reporters and their story.
If it had turned out that they were wrong, it's the Post's reputation that would have suffered.
You're absolutely right on with that comment. Quebec is quite a ways from where I live, but I find myself identifying with Quebecers on a lot of issues, and strangely alienated from a lot of other "left-coasters" who live in the more rural areas of my province.
I'm sure there is the same broad spectrum of people there as in other areas, but in general Quebec strikes me as quite progressive with regard to social issues, while still fiercely libertarian on a personal level.
I doubt this will go very far; Quebecers are not shy about telling someone to fuck off, in any language.
Especially considering lots of Americans aren't even born in the USA.
Judging by the number of Windows machines that are active members of botnets, it's not just the Linux desktop "MOST users" are not ready for.