That is the problem. If there was such a system it'd have to be something simple and easily passed, like an open-book fact-based test that merely prompted someone to read something and fill in the blank. A content-based captcha (obscure, not something anyone would be expected to know, but easily found).
"Which politician proposed X, in the Foo bill? See attached pages 401-403 of Foo."
Ideally you'd ask them questions that'd have surprising answers, like where some republican drafted a section of what's seen as a pro-democrat bill. Things that might open their eyes. Where "death panels" are the buzzwords, have people read the relevant sections of the bill to find the page number that mentions X. Being forced to actually examine the thing long enough to find the answer would give them a chance to actually examine the text of the issues at hand, themselves, and in private.
Of course the failing is that the voting question in poor areas wouldn't (coincidentally, I'm sure) have the printouts to read, or some other nonsense, but there's no static solution that will work. Partisans are always trying to purge the voting records, lie about voting dates, etc. You simply can't let your guard down - the system is only fair when properly watched, no set of rules can guarantee franchise. Nor though is any given small obstacle going to stand in the way of a dedicated voter and frankly I'm not sure we want any other kind.
Couldn't be any more fucked up than a two-party first-past-the-post system...
Actually it is. Note how many of the responses to my first post are personal attacks on me and attacks on conservatism.
No, attacks on idiots and idiotic statements. You just caught the flack because you're an idiot and you posted idiotic statements.
It isnt debate when one side is calling the other an idiot over and over.
Then stop being one.
No, SERIOUSLY. We're saying it because it's true.
Your only point so far is that liberals don't listen, but in trying to make it you implied that anyone who is sick of creationist retards is a liberal and that's just fucking dumb. So we tried to point it out but your head is so far up your ass you'd never clue.
You have no point beyond that. There's no debate because all you're doing is saying "My imaginary scarecrow opponents are stupid and anyone who believes in evolution is one of them." If you actually wanted to bring up something I think you'd get ten liberals (authentic card-carrying ones, if you wish) who'd smack you upside the head with enough facts to stun a street-preacher. But a discussion where facts mattered isn't what you want, you want to use your own version of politically-correct to demand equal time without supplying equal thought.
Prove me wrong. Ask a deep question then, but don't make it about Clinton, Obama, or the democrats, because I'm not a supporter of theirs (or Bush, etc) and care not for tiresome justifications and comparisons to blowjows. But say something, if you have it to say, instead of just running around bawling that you don't get treated with respect by liberals. (Or you'll never get any respect from anyone.)
I've never heard O'Reilly demand the other side be silenced, only his own right to be heard.
Strange, the first clip I ever heard had him ask a question, try to cut off the answer part-way through, three or four times, then demand "someone kill his mike", before he proceeded to deliver his sermon - having thoroughly ignored the response to the question he asked.
So you're an idiot or a liar. Well, both or you wouldn't feel the need to lie and yet do it so badly. But this is why you don't get respect, a tremendous disconnect with reality.
Ahhh the irony. You just proved my point better than I could myself.
No shitbird, you proved mine. You're still going on about this being a liberal issue despite that you're using the term as it relates to USA politics and I and presumably many others mocking your failings are not, as you would pick out of a line-up, liberal.
The evolution example, is just that.
Yes, an example of tired religious dogma being forced on us by liars who won't just admit that it's religion. Instead of being able to say "Yeah, sure, you merely think differently than me? Meh, go for it." they try to force you to acknowledge them as an equal to the latest discoveries in fields they can't even comprehend.
I don't go kicking in church doors and terrorizing the people inside, but I have zero patience for fucking trash like you who lie instead of discussing. Anyone capable of reading understands that the issue with ID isn't ID, in that there are people who believe far crazier and they're left alone, but that ID is presented as being science, not religion.
when was the last time you saw a conservative complaining something wasnt politically correct?
Yesterday.
Oh, they didn't say "politically correct" of course, they tried to spin it (pornography) as evil. But they still tried to tell everyone else what they couldn't do.
Or, right people, who, being right, don't want to listen to a bunch of fairy stories. Why should people waste their time dealing with religious idiots pushing the same tired shit generation after generation?
Discuss all you wish, but forcing schools to disseminate creationist tripe under the guise of discussion is a lie. You might as well advocate making Mein Kampf a textbook to provide both sides of the nazi issue.
But yeah, liberal, because nobody else could possibly think intelligent-design supporters are idiots who should shut their holes. Pft.
It's also disgusting to even think about going back the days when polling tests or other criteria (like land ownership) were use to prevent the poor, newly immigrated, and women out of the political arena.
If the criteria was maleness or property ownership, then yes, it would be sexist, elitist, and such.
But if the criteria was being able to understand the issues... wow. Imagine people on both sides able to say something other than 'Death Panels' and 'Criticizing Obama is racist'.
Even going back to evolution vs intelligent design in schools, all the conservatives I have talked to would be fine with presentation of both.
Of course they would, ID supporters are assholes who merely want to fuck with other people's freedom to speak truthfully. All they ever want it to insert some idiotic religious graffiti into an otherwise useful discourse.
That you call people liberals simply because they think evolution makes more sense than creationism just goes to show you're a fucking imbecile with no idea about your opponents.
The sole right to be heard belongs to those who make sense.
As you point out, commercial programmers certainly can get rich. But the programmers who get rich via Adobe are, for these purposes, Adobe. That'd only be helping programmers (in general) if they donated to a scholarship, or the OLPC project, or shipped visible source code so that users could become programmers.
I got into programming probably because the programs on the Apple 2+ system disk had visible source code. Not some obscure library used as an inscrutable part of something larger, but whole actual programs (even if simple in retrospect) - things I wanted to be able to write. I want this sort of environment to be available for others and there's no way closing source can ever bring that closer.
So it's not helping programmers I mean, it's helping people by giving them the tools to become programmers if they want. And to solve their real-life problems, not just in a flipping Java 9-to-5 way. That means access to the software they want to use.
And yes, closing the source is a choice. It's a choice I want you to NOT have... when writing something derived from my code. Or, I want you to pay me for that choice. I see no reason why I should do anything for free for someone who isn't willing to pass the favor on.
The favor, by the way, is providing the code you want now, because it solves your problem. For you that might be my code, but for your user it is your code - to them my code would do nothing, and if they wanted it, it's already available.
It costs me, er progrsmmers who use the GPL too, tyme, money, and effort.
How so? In having to open your project? Not a cost I care about.
With no provision to prevent others from profiting while the programmer goes hungry.
So my free code doesn't come with a profit guarantee and that's the problem?
I don't care about you eating.
Well now I didn't say anything about me closing your code.
I did. Up three posts. Source to whatever inspired a program isn't the same as source for the currently running version. By my definition, that IS closing my program, and that is why I like the GPL.
The BSD does not allow that. What it does do is allow me to close my code.
So does the GPL. Any code you write is yours to release however you want. It's only when you write it INTO my code that you don't own it all anymore.
Two, even closed source code benefits people.
Yeah, but not programmers, and not in the way I intend so I don't give a shit. Photoshop mainly benefits Adobe and for that they can pay.
Why would I care about the 'freedom' of a jerk to use my code and withhold his own? It's a feature that people like that dislike the GPL.
I was being belligerent, your mistake was assuming it was just that. An unpleasant message and we're all too willing to assume it's empty.
As for freaks/fans, it would be interesting to know which posts inspired them.
That's so cute, you've got two freaks. You could get to know them personally.
Well, I'm not going to respond to flaming with more flaming.
I don't think that's very honest...
I prefer a precision strike over carpet-bombing;)
I don't think you understand precision then. You attacked fat, unix-geek, etc, all broad categories without any idea of what would bug me. Precision would be doing research and saying, "How you treated your younger brother, that was unconscionable", "by cheating on that test you are showing a lack of character", or something else about ME and my actions, not my body or circumstances.
What you did perpetuated the general climate of mockery and ridicule for the fat, etc. Other people reading this thread will feel worse about themselves because you think fat people are worth mocking. Far more collateral damage than simply telling me what you think of me in even the rudest terms.
But that's pretty much my point about this law again, such as it could be bent to the 'Calling your mom a cunt' angle. It's a way to punish those who say unpopular things, like 'bad' words, and is never applied (could never be) to the people who actually make life miserable for others.
Of course, that's not to imply that I was intentionally trying to inflict emotional distress..
Rather, I think it's exactly what you wanted. (Unix is irrelevant, and I'm fat!?).
I agree about the trade-off you mention, but I don't see why you (BSDLers) think we (GPLers) don't see it.
We just think that closing a project like that not only is rude but costs more people more pain than it legitimately benefits you.
It comes down to not thinking there are many legitimate reasons to hide source. That it makes you money is weak, considering that it costs me usability and training material. If it were just you and I it would be a toss-up, but when only you benefit and everyone else loses surely you can see why your rights to keep people out (of my code) don't matter much to me, or in fact is a negative.
Relative to having two apples, having one is a loss.
What you're missing is that the RIAA claimed damages, not just a vague hypothetical, but actual cash damages -massively out of sync with reality.
I was comparing a (hypothetical) program released under BSDL and GPL. By our/my metrics one license provides more benefit to the ecosystem than the other. Going with the non-optimum choice, relatively speaking, is a loss. That is all.
Sure, you're right, the quality of the code in some quick patch isn't going to be triple-A. But so what, it's otherwise free. But you're so busy explaining how you don't need it that not only do you look fail to look at value you could get (use the code as a test case, not production code), etc, but you fail to see side benefits such as finding willing and obviously capable developers without a long search.
But before you attempt to go on about how worthless this all is, especially to you, hear that it's not a one-size fit's all solution. That it doesn't fit you doesn't win you some prize or anything, and it also doesn't invalidate the tremendous benefits others get from this.
Too bad for you, because not only does it compute, it's right. Fedex costs more because they aren't allowed to offer a competitive service.
Furthermore, if you do get your mail delivered by special courier under an exception, you have to attach & cancel the full amount of stamps even though the post office has nothing to do with it.
If socialism works (in some implied business context), and the USPS is an example of this, then why are there special laws to help it along?
Think through the implications of all your slogans before you chant them.
That wasn't a straw-man because it was my argument.
You seem to think that if you write a project and GPL part of it that you'd be forced to open the rest. This isn't true because you can ignore your own license.
The only time this would be true is if you accepted patches, then you'd be bound by the GPL on the patch you received - if you accepted it.
As to your point of BSD being freer, to one person, I totally agree. I find the GPL the freer alternative from everyone's point-of-view, not because it places no restrictions, but because those restrictions serve to enhance long-term user freedoms.
You also run into the problem that most patches are probably worth about two bucks at most
If you count the number of characters, yes. But if you count the bug-report/feature request implicit in the new code, as well as the functionality, it'd be worth far more.
The business value of a bug report and test case for any major software (Windows, Photoshop, Norton's crap, etc) is easily in the tens of thousands of dollars, and they'd usually pay testers/coders/managers a significant portion of that to discover the problem.
IMHO you'd be a sap to help a business without expecting payment, and a realistic amount. You might volunteer the work the first time if it helps you too, but if they don't volunteer adequate (what they'd pay a consultant) payment you'll be less likely to do so again.
We'll see what the value of a patch is by how well the company offering $2 does.
Because that's not our issue, that's the rude simplification you use as straw-man.
Yes, we know the original code is still there. When we talk about lost freedom we're referring to versus a GPLed solution.
Of course, MS could still have just written something inspired by the GPLed code, so this specific situation wouldn't have been different.
Realistically though in the sense of being free to fix your (what you use) software, old copies of the original BSD base would be nigh unto worthless, compared to GPLed software where you had the source to the version you are running.
I think what will happen is that people will finally admit linking isn't a derivative-work. Even deep (non-API) linking.
For example, I bought Oblivion and used Ruby and some mem-hacking tools to interface to certain commands. I could read lists of items, input console commands, patch code, etc.
But this code wasn't derived from Oblivion, it merely called it. In fact, I wrote the original memhack code against my own test programs and merely changed some constants when scanning the game, more-over, the same tools worked in other games.
This is analogous to buying a toy (Oblivion) and ripping it apart for the motors and sensors. You own the parts, but not the IP (patents, etc) that went into them. Similarly, I could rip a GPLed program apart (look at it for entry-points) and wire it into an existing hodge-podge.
At the level of a game hacker people instinctively understand this. But it's just as valid when (for example) calling MS Office's spell-checker directly.
The problem with the freedom for who, coders vs users question is that is draws a line between the two. By being focused on only the current coders and users. Users become coders - if they have the means.
Yes, the BSDL offers one more freedom, for THAT coder, the right the close the source.
The GPL offers that coder one less freedom, but offers all the rest to everyone else in perpetuity. Not only do they have access to the code you originally wrote, but to anything current which is based on it. Not just some neat old code, but code to THE binaries they're currently running.
But frankly, I've never seen a 'GPL is bad/BSD good' post that was anything other than an entitlement whine. "I should be able to close-source your code or I can't really use it, wah."
To anyone who feels this way, good. I mean great. Any license that keeps you from profiting and being stingy is doing its job.
This is a tempest in a tea-pot though. I challenge anyone to point out a real developer (other than Microsoft) with this GPL-bad attitude. The reality is that the GPL is no-more viral than a proprietary license. By mixing your code with someone else's you no-longer have full control over it. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
I've certainly never seen a prominent BSD community member with this attitude. Not that BSDers love the GPL, but that no real open-source BSD dev is whining about their inability to close-source some GPL'd project. Their complaints are that our (GPLers) caring about what they see as a minor issue harms open-source in general by preventing BSD/GPL mixing.
Real coders and users don't fight over the BSD/GPL, because they benefit from both - whiners are never happy and will lie about their reasons (greed).
Neither. Any number of photographers who took identical photos would have their own copyright. Only the one whose photo was traced (if indeed one was) would have a case. If the artist looked at photos but drew his own he's likely fine, unless he took extreme attention to detail.
If this had been a frame from a video it would (more) likely fall under fair use being an insignificant part of the whole. Each still photo is individually copyrighted, borrowing one still photo is less 'fair' than one frame of a video.
Frankly any outcome of this trial/issue is counter-factual because we keep insisting you can own ideas. We should all just ignore the law extra hard for a while and hope it goes away.
you would have needed permission from Starbucks and
Oh get real. Your reasons are silly.
For starters, what company would ever say yes to anything? They'd assume you were trying to get them to take responsibility for it. You're essentially arguing that nobody should do anything because there's no way you could get written permission to leave your own condo (try it...) let alone anything else.
But what obligation does he really have with Starbucks? I've bought coffee-shop net access and it's always a straight purchase, just like software. There's often a bunch of mumbo-jumbo after I've paid, similar to a EULA, but as it too purports to be a post-sale contractual modification it's similarly worthless. And even if the contract was binding, what are the damages?
Then the university. Does he have any obligation to the university? He didn't appear to be a student, just attending a seminar hosted there in a room rented by SANS (and thus officially welcome to use the attending facilities). And again, would they ever say yes even if it was vitally important?
And if SANS purports to retroactively deny certs, I guess that's about the limit of their credibility. A certificate of accomplishment states you have done something. To revoke someone's certs is to claim they didn't do the work. To use that claim for anything else is tantamount to fraud.
Besides, not only would a revoked cert (ie, cert) be just as good anywhere I've been, but you'd just say "Scored 4.7/5 on SANS xyz" instead of "have cert xyz" and it avoids the whole issue.
The law, in general (unauthorized access, etc) is his only reason not to. (Assuming it's a demo it's not unethical.)
For everything there is a cost. Banding together around a large factory-process isn't very agile, so while there would be a niche for in-character guilds they would by necessity not be doing the expensive one-off commission armor, etc.
And yes, smithing is probably more lucrative than baking - if there's only one in town. But that economic process is how the game would auto-correct if it was left to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the problem. If there was such a system it'd have to be something simple and easily passed, like an open-book fact-based test that merely prompted someone to read something and fill in the blank. A content-based captcha (obscure, not something anyone would be expected to know, but easily found).
"Which politician proposed X, in the Foo bill? See attached pages 401-403 of Foo."
Ideally you'd ask them questions that'd have surprising answers, like where some republican drafted a section of what's seen as a pro-democrat bill. Things that might open their eyes. Where "death panels" are the buzzwords, have people read the relevant sections of the bill to find the page number that mentions X. Being forced to actually examine the thing long enough to find the answer would give them a chance to actually examine the text of the issues at hand, themselves, and in private.
Of course the failing is that the voting question in poor areas wouldn't (coincidentally, I'm sure) have the printouts to read, or some other nonsense, but there's no static solution that will work. Partisans are always trying to purge the voting records, lie about voting dates, etc. You simply can't let your guard down - the system is only fair when properly watched, no set of rules can guarantee franchise. Nor though is any given small obstacle going to stand in the way of a dedicated voter and frankly I'm not sure we want any other kind.
Couldn't be any more fucked up than a two-party first-past-the-post system...
Actually it is. Note how many of the responses to my first post are personal attacks on me and attacks on conservatism.
No, attacks on idiots and idiotic statements. You just caught the flack because you're an idiot and you posted idiotic statements.
It isnt debate when one side is calling the other an idiot over and over.
Then stop being one.
No, SERIOUSLY. We're saying it because it's true.
Your only point so far is that liberals don't listen, but in trying to make it you implied that anyone who is sick of creationist retards is a liberal and that's just fucking dumb. So we tried to point it out but your head is so far up your ass you'd never clue.
You have no point beyond that. There's no debate because all you're doing is saying "My imaginary scarecrow opponents are stupid and anyone who believes in evolution is one of them." If you actually wanted to bring up something I think you'd get ten liberals (authentic card-carrying ones, if you wish) who'd smack you upside the head with enough facts to stun a street-preacher. But a discussion where facts mattered isn't what you want, you want to use your own version of politically-correct to demand equal time without supplying equal thought.
Prove me wrong. Ask a deep question then, but don't make it about Clinton, Obama, or the democrats, because I'm not a supporter of theirs (or Bush, etc) and care not for tiresome justifications and comparisons to blowjows. But say something, if you have it to say, instead of just running around bawling that you don't get treated with respect by liberals. (Or you'll never get any respect from anyone.)
I've never heard O'Reilly demand the other side be silenced, only his own right to be heard.
Strange, the first clip I ever heard had him ask a question, try to cut off the answer part-way through, three or four times, then demand "someone kill his mike", before he proceeded to deliver his sermon - having thoroughly ignored the response to the question he asked.
So you're an idiot or a liar. Well, both or you wouldn't feel the need to lie and yet do it so badly. But this is why you don't get respect, a tremendous disconnect with reality.
Ahhh the irony. You just proved my point better than I could myself.
No shitbird, you proved mine. You're still going on about this being a liberal issue despite that you're using the term as it relates to USA politics and I and presumably many others mocking your failings are not, as you would pick out of a line-up, liberal.
The evolution example, is just that.
Yes, an example of tired religious dogma being forced on us by liars who won't just admit that it's religion. Instead of being able to say "Yeah, sure, you merely think differently than me? Meh, go for it." they try to force you to acknowledge them as an equal to the latest discoveries in fields they can't even comprehend.
I don't go kicking in church doors and terrorizing the people inside, but I have zero patience for fucking trash like you who lie instead of discussing. Anyone capable of reading understands that the issue with ID isn't ID, in that there are people who believe far crazier and they're left alone, but that ID is presented as being science, not religion.
when was the last time you saw a conservative complaining something wasnt politically correct?
Yesterday.
Oh, they didn't say "politically correct" of course, they tried to spin it (pornography) as evil. But they still tried to tell everyone else what they couldn't do.
Or, right people, who, being right, don't want to listen to a bunch of fairy stories. Why should people waste their time dealing with religious idiots pushing the same tired shit generation after generation?
Discuss all you wish, but forcing schools to disseminate creationist tripe under the guise of discussion is a lie. You might as well advocate making Mein Kampf a textbook to provide both sides of the nazi issue.
But yeah, liberal, because nobody else could possibly think intelligent-design supporters are idiots who should shut their holes. Pft.
It's also disgusting to even think about going back the days when polling tests or other criteria (like land ownership) were use to prevent the poor, newly immigrated, and women out of the political arena.
If the criteria was maleness or property ownership, then yes, it would be sexist, elitist, and such.
But if the criteria was being able to understand the issues... wow. Imagine people on both sides able to say something other than 'Death Panels' and 'Criticizing Obama is racist'.
Even going back to evolution vs intelligent design in schools, all the conservatives I have talked to would be fine with presentation of both.
Of course they would, ID supporters are assholes who merely want to fuck with other people's freedom to speak truthfully. All they ever want it to insert some idiotic religious graffiti into an otherwise useful discourse.
That you call people liberals simply because they think evolution makes more sense than creationism just goes to show you're a fucking imbecile with no idea about your opponents.
The sole right to be heard belongs to those who make sense.
Then stop browsing sex articles to check out the pictures and upload some photos for the other articles.
They're a needless duplication of code.
It's funny how you've gotten five different answers.
As you point out, commercial programmers certainly can get rich. But the programmers who get rich via Adobe are, for these purposes, Adobe. That'd only be helping programmers (in general) if they donated to a scholarship, or the OLPC project, or shipped visible source code so that users could become programmers.
I got into programming probably because the programs on the Apple 2+ system disk had visible source code. Not some obscure library used as an inscrutable part of something larger, but whole actual programs (even if simple in retrospect) - things I wanted to be able to write. I want this sort of environment to be available for others and there's no way closing source can ever bring that closer.
So it's not helping programmers I mean, it's helping people by giving them the tools to become programmers if they want. And to solve their real-life problems, not just in a flipping Java 9-to-5 way. That means access to the software they want to use.
And yes, closing the source is a choice. It's a choice I want you to NOT have... when writing something derived from my code. Or, I want you to pay me for that choice. I see no reason why I should do anything for free for someone who isn't willing to pass the favor on.
The favor, by the way, is providing the code you want now, because it solves your problem. For you that might be my code, but for your user it is your code - to them my code would do nothing, and if they wanted it, it's already available.
It costs me, er progrsmmers who use the GPL too, tyme, money, and effort.
How so? In having to open your project? Not a cost I care about.
With no provision to prevent others from profiting while the programmer goes hungry.
So my free code doesn't come with a profit guarantee and that's the problem?
I don't care about you eating.
Well now I didn't say anything about me closing your code.
I did. Up three posts. Source to whatever inspired a program isn't the same as source for the currently running version. By my definition, that IS closing my program, and that is why I like the GPL.
The BSD does not allow that. What it does do is allow me to close my code.
So does the GPL. Any code you write is yours to release however you want. It's only when you write it INTO my code that you don't own it all anymore.
Two, even closed source code benefits people.
Yeah, but not programmers, and not in the way I intend so I don't give a shit. Photoshop mainly benefits Adobe and for that they can pay.
Why would I care about the 'freedom' of a jerk to use my code and withhold his own? It's a feature that people like that dislike the GPL.
I was being belligerent, your mistake was assuming it was just that. An unpleasant message and we're all too willing to assume it's empty.
As for freaks/fans, it would be interesting to know which posts inspired them.
That's so cute, you've got two freaks. You could get to know them personally.
Well, I'm not going to respond to flaming with more flaming.
I don't think that's very honest...
I prefer a precision strike over carpet-bombing ;)
I don't think you understand precision then. You attacked fat, unix-geek, etc, all broad categories without any idea of what would bug me. Precision would be doing research and saying, "How you treated your younger brother, that was unconscionable", "by cheating on that test you are showing a lack of character", or something else about ME and my actions, not my body or circumstances.
What you did perpetuated the general climate of mockery and ridicule for the fat, etc. Other people reading this thread will feel worse about themselves because you think fat people are worth mocking. Far more collateral damage than simply telling me what you think of me in even the rudest terms.
But that's pretty much my point about this law again, such as it could be bent to the 'Calling your mom a cunt' angle. It's a way to punish those who say unpopular things, like 'bad' words, and is never applied (could never be) to the people who actually make life miserable for others.
Of course, that's not to imply that I was intentionally trying to inflict emotional distress..
Rather, I think it's exactly what you wanted. (Unix is irrelevant, and I'm fat!?).
I agree about the trade-off you mention, but I don't see why you (BSDLers) think we (GPLers) don't see it.
We just think that closing a project like that not only is rude but costs more people more pain than it legitimately benefits you.
It comes down to not thinking there are many legitimate reasons to hide source. That it makes you money is weak, considering that it costs me usability and training material. If it were just you and I it would be a toss-up, but when only you benefit and everyone else loses surely you can see why your rights to keep people out (of my code) don't matter much to me, or in fact is a negative.
Relative to having two apples, having one is a loss.
What you're missing is that the RIAA claimed damages, not just a vague hypothetical, but actual cash damages -massively out of sync with reality.
I was comparing a (hypothetical) program released under BSDL and GPL. By our/my metrics one license provides more benefit to the ecosystem than the other. Going with the non-optimum choice, relatively speaking, is a loss. That is all.
I'm talking to you, not about you.
Sure, you're right, the quality of the code in some quick patch isn't going to be triple-A. But so what, it's otherwise free. But you're so busy explaining how you don't need it that not only do you look fail to look at value you could get (use the code as a test case, not production code), etc, but you fail to see side benefits such as finding willing and obviously capable developers without a long search.
But before you attempt to go on about how worthless this all is, especially to you, hear that it's not a one-size fit's all solution. That it doesn't fit you doesn't win you some prize or anything, and it also doesn't invalidate the tremendous benefits others get from this.
Nope, does not compute.
Too bad for you, because not only does it compute, it's right. Fedex costs more because they aren't allowed to offer a competitive service.
Furthermore, if you do get your mail delivered by special courier under an exception, you have to attach & cancel the full amount of stamps even though the post office has nothing to do with it.
If socialism works (in some implied business context), and the USPS is an example of this, then why are there special laws to help it along?
Think through the implications of all your slogans before you chant them.
That wasn't a straw-man because it was my argument.
You seem to think that if you write a project and GPL part of it that you'd be forced to open the rest. This isn't true because you can ignore your own license.
The only time this would be true is if you accepted patches, then you'd be bound by the GPL on the patch you received - if you accepted it.
As to your point of BSD being freer, to one person, I totally agree. I find the GPL the freer alternative from everyone's point-of-view, not because it places no restrictions, but because those restrictions serve to enhance long-term user freedoms.
You also run into the problem that most patches are probably worth about two bucks at most
If you count the number of characters, yes. But if you count the bug-report/feature request implicit in the new code, as well as the functionality, it'd be worth far more.
The business value of a bug report and test case for any major software (Windows, Photoshop, Norton's crap, etc) is easily in the tens of thousands of dollars, and they'd usually pay testers/coders/managers a significant portion of that to discover the problem.
IMHO you'd be a sap to help a business without expecting payment, and a realistic amount. You might volunteer the work the first time if it helps you too, but if they don't volunteer adequate (what they'd pay a consultant) payment you'll be less likely to do so again.
We'll see what the value of a patch is by how well the company offering $2 does.
[you] think that because you make one tiny contribution to something that instantly everyone else's work should be available to you
Huh?
Because that's not our issue, that's the rude simplification you use as straw-man.
Yes, we know the original code is still there. When we talk about lost freedom we're referring to versus a GPLed solution.
Of course, MS could still have just written something inspired by the GPLed code, so this specific situation wouldn't have been different.
Realistically though in the sense of being free to fix your (what you use) software, old copies of the original BSD base would be nigh unto worthless, compared to GPLed software where you had the source to the version you are running.
I think what will happen is that people will finally admit linking isn't a derivative-work. Even deep (non-API) linking.
For example, I bought Oblivion and used Ruby and some mem-hacking tools to interface to certain commands. I could read lists of items, input console commands, patch code, etc.
But this code wasn't derived from Oblivion, it merely called it. In fact, I wrote the original memhack code against my own test programs and merely changed some constants when scanning the game, more-over, the same tools worked in other games.
This is analogous to buying a toy (Oblivion) and ripping it apart for the motors and sensors. You own the parts, but not the IP (patents, etc) that went into them. Similarly, I could rip a GPLed program apart (look at it for entry-points) and wire it into an existing hodge-podge.
At the level of a game hacker people instinctively understand this. But it's just as valid when (for example) calling MS Office's spell-checker directly.
The problem with the freedom for who, coders vs users question is that is draws a line between the two. By being focused on only the current coders and users. Users become coders - if they have the means.
Yes, the BSDL offers one more freedom, for THAT coder, the right the close the source.
The GPL offers that coder one less freedom, but offers all the rest to everyone else in perpetuity. Not only do they have access to the code you originally wrote, but to anything current which is based on it. Not just some neat old code, but code to THE binaries they're currently running.
But frankly, I've never seen a 'GPL is bad/BSD good' post that was anything other than an entitlement whine. "I should be able to close-source your code or I can't really use it, wah."
To anyone who feels this way, good. I mean great. Any license that keeps you from profiting and being stingy is doing its job.
This is a tempest in a tea-pot though. I challenge anyone to point out a real developer (other than Microsoft) with this GPL-bad attitude. The reality is that the GPL is no-more viral than a proprietary license. By mixing your code with someone else's you no-longer have full control over it. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
I've certainly never seen a prominent BSD community member with this attitude. Not that BSDers love the GPL, but that no real open-source BSD dev is whining about their inability to close-source some GPL'd project. Their complaints are that our (GPLers) caring about what they see as a minor issue harms open-source in general by preventing BSD/GPL mixing.
Real coders and users don't fight over the BSD/GPL, because they benefit from both - whiners are never happy and will lie about their reasons (greed).
Neither. Any number of photographers who took identical photos would have their own copyright. Only the one whose photo was traced (if indeed one was) would have a case. If the artist looked at photos but drew his own he's likely fine, unless he took extreme attention to detail.
If this had been a frame from a video it would (more) likely fall under fair use being an insignificant part of the whole. Each still photo is individually copyrighted, borrowing one still photo is less 'fair' than one frame of a video.
Frankly any outcome of this trial/issue is counter-factual because we keep insisting you can own ideas. We should all just ignore the law extra hard for a while and hope it goes away.
No, you don't fear the homosexual, you fear homosexuality.
you would have needed permission from Starbucks and
Oh get real. Your reasons are silly.
For starters, what company would ever say yes to anything? They'd assume you were trying to get them to take responsibility for it. You're essentially arguing that nobody should do anything because there's no way you could get written permission to leave your own condo (try it...) let alone anything else.
But what obligation does he really have with Starbucks? I've bought coffee-shop net access and it's always a straight purchase, just like software. There's often a bunch of mumbo-jumbo after I've paid, similar to a EULA, but as it too purports to be a post-sale contractual modification it's similarly worthless. And even if the contract was binding, what are the damages?
Then the university. Does he have any obligation to the university? He didn't appear to be a student, just attending a seminar hosted there in a room rented by SANS (and thus officially welcome to use the attending facilities). And again, would they ever say yes even if it was vitally important?
And if SANS purports to retroactively deny certs, I guess that's about the limit of their credibility. A certificate of accomplishment states you have done something. To revoke someone's certs is to claim they didn't do the work. To use that claim for anything else is tantamount to fraud.
Besides, not only would a revoked cert (ie, cert) be just as good anywhere I've been, but you'd just say "Scored 4.7/5 on SANS xyz" instead of "have cert xyz" and it avoids the whole issue.
The law, in general (unauthorized access, etc) is his only reason not to. (Assuming it's a demo it's not unethical.)
But that's the answer, not the problem.
For everything there is a cost. Banding together around a large factory-process isn't very agile, so while there would be a niche for in-character guilds they would by necessity not be doing the expensive one-off commission armor, etc.
And yes, smithing is probably more lucrative than baking - if there's only one in town. But that economic process is how the game would auto-correct if it was left to do that.