* the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work
There's no law against taking scissors to your copy of the newspaper. Modifying your copy of a webpage is obviously the same thing.
That just means that an adaptation or re-arrangement of a copyrighted work is essentially the original and still under copyright. But essentially, as long as you aren't copying (just modifying the one copy) you're fine.
It's the use of Javascript that makes this work - NoScript is just providing the users a convenient set of scissors to remove one piece of content - the javascript. They aren't distributing these modified works, the user is getting the original and telling their computer to hack away at it until it's ready to display.
We want... support... much more then we want source code.
You realize why mission-critical systems rely only on second-sourceable parts, right? It's so that if any manufacturer jacks up the price or goes out of business (imagine that!) you aren't stuck unable to get replacement parts. Software, and support, is like that too. You want options when your main supplier starts playing licensing games, or goes under, or end-of-lifes your product just in time to help their yearly earnings. Sure, there are third-party consultants available for proprietary products, but they're unlikely to have access to the source code either and for that and other reasons be unable to diagnose and fix the product as effectively.
It's just like with physical products, you might not ever use the diagram of the housing screw you bought in thousand-lots (via your builder) but the fact that the specifications for that model were available to any manufacturer is precisely why it was so cheap and available in the first place.
The code doesn't have to be open in the traditional sense, just visible (perhaps only after the company's failure), for these benefits. But where are you going to get a pool of third-party support and developers unless it is.
If the support contract you refer to doesn't provide you with access to the source code in the event of the company's failure to provide support it's not much good. And unless that code's already in escrow waiting for that moment, good luck collecting on the promise. (Steam users, pay attention!)
If you need it as much as you insist, isn't that going to ruin you?
Shipping and manufacturing are getting more expensive now. Digital distribution is low-cost and getting lower.
Sure, a read-only disc is cheap, but what good is it? It only holds the one thing, and you have to pay a fortune compared to its manufacturing costs to package, ship, warehouse, and retail it, plus the costs the customer incurs coming to your store... And then you end up making too many, or too few, or making them in the wrong area.
You can understand the ugly realities of war without viewing pictures like that.
Then why are people noticeably more upset about a tragedy when they see photos of the victims? Could it be because they couldn't really understand it on a personal level until then?
Whatever it is though, if it wakes them up it's generally a good thing.
Besides why do you get upset at those who dropped the bombs? Was it their fault?
Um, the trigger is under your finger, whose 'fault' do you think pulling it would be? Mine?
You seem to have a real problem understanding blame/fault.
"You know Sarah, you really are ugly" or "You're fat Bob. And stupid and lazy to boot"? Or should a husband tell his wife, "You know what? That dress actually does make you look fat"?
People don't want to know all the ugly truth. No, it is not always better or more beautiful than a pleasing lie. Sometimes knowing nothing but the pleasing lie is what allows people to continue living.
Which of those facts, if told to someone who didn't know them, wouldn't be in their best interests to know?
I'm sure Sarah would love to know she was considered ugly. Not just random drive-by but "Your teeth are so big that you look silly when you smile and people laugh behind your back." She could avoid smiling that widely and might actually look better.
Ditto with Bob. I'm sure he'd be embarrassed if he had tried to squeeze into a size M shirt which didn't fit, then proceeded to lumber his 300 pounds over to complain and found out the sad truth from the clerk in front of a bunch of people who laughed. If you'd told him this last week when he complained that a bag of cheese-doodles doesn't feed the average fellow, he'd be a lot better off. Similarly learning about motivational and intellectual challenges he might finally abandon his father's dreams of decades of med school and go tend bar like he always wanted.
And most of all, your wife REALLY WANTS TO KNOW if that dress makes her look fat! Why the fuck did you think she asks? If she knew that she never would have bought it! It's up to you how to break it to her that it's not the dress... but even that she'd be happier knowing.
Or else are posting something you merely know someone doesn't want you to.
Need I remind you that by choosing not to post something to WikiLeaks you are denying me the ability to read it and judge it for myself. Not a very neighborly thing to do in most cases. It's censorship, in principle if not in technicality.
In fact I'd say your theory on the belief in God on faith and the reasoning on how the universe works based on science not being compatible is easily debunked. Thousands if not millions of people use both simultaneously.
They may think they are, but if they do, they aren't. Or rather, if they are religious and using science it's in a small area of life and they refuse to apply it to their core beliefs.
Enjoy your vendetta against organized religion but don't pretend that science can replace religion. They serve different purposes. You yourself seem to be confused.
One is a means of learning through observation and experimentation, the other is a comfort blanket based on mythological silliness. They're nothing alike.
The only reason people get them confused is because opening their eyes to the way the world works usually cures them of religion. But to confuse the two is mistaking the cure for the cold.
Science does not say if there is or is not a god or gods.
Of course not, science is never done - it's a process not a goal. And you can't prove a negative.
Who's to say that God didn't give the spark of life and let it evolve and...
Nobody. Who needs to say that the flying spaghetti monster not only likely did not create the world but also likely does not exist? It'd be silly to assume either, or any other crazy thing, without some sort of proof.
Only people care.
Yes, they care too much. They care so much that they lie to themselves and others. They blatantly make up shit because they're afraid of dying. They decide that because the world is scary without a god that there must be one.
This is the antithesis of science.
I tend to find this, well, blind fanaticism that all points brought up by religion is by default wrong kind of annoying.
Well, it is wrong, and by default. It's like starting a math paper with the assumption that 2+2=5. You might get interesting results but it's not going to reflect reality. As a philosophical pass-time wondering where we came from and even making up crazy guesses is harmless, but when you start believing your own crazy assumptions...
Anything based on religion is like one of those proofs that 1 equals 0 by using a division by zero or other undefined operation. The mathematicians in the audience have a duty to point out the flaws in these to the rest of us in the audience. Similarly, those of us who can understand the fallacious reasoning underpinning religion have a duty to point out its flaws to those who don't yet understand.
Particularly on a harmless subject such as saying religion doesn't have to hate science.
At issue here is the ability to think clearly and critically - likely the most important thing anyone has. We're lying to people if we pretend there's any value in religion. This is a crucial point in their mental development - they need to understand that wish-fulfillment doesn't work. Reality is, whether or not you like it. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's the gateway to adulthood.
Religion, by definition, is stuff you can't just reach out and touch. Further, this is usually directly acknowledged as part of the religion in that you just have to trust without any evidence (except gut feelings and such that anyone who knows anything about self-bias knows is worthless as evidence). Religion is what you simply have to take on faith.
You wouldn't encourage gamblers(?), whose belief in a system and their eventual fortune is just as faith-based, just as counter to evidence, just as thought-clouding, as religion. So why is one set of myths sacred and another not?
I mean, you aren't helping anything.
No. It's you who isn't helping anyone. You're trying to include everyone, by saying that everyone is
Presumably only the believers would get spontaneously healed.
But yes, if god is doing the healing why don't new limbs and eyes just appear fully grown? Why does god only help cure the things that could plausibly heal themselves when it's exactly those things which need the least help.
Really, I want to go to a web page and get bombarded with 30 pop ups telling me about the licenses for the scripts on the page, the fonts on the page, and what my rights are about copying the text.
Then I imagine you'd go into the options dialog and select the 'always' option on the show license information areas of the Privacy or Content tabs...
You can safely assume the right to use software that was freely sent to you, and view content, etc. The browser would never need to show you any licenses by default because no license could say "You can't use/read this."
There is no need to add legitimacy to the bullshit licenses...
Nothing would make EULAs go away like making people read them in full before being able to purchase the software.
If you make it difficult to use your content you'll lose readers/users.
What constitutes checking? Um... Never trusting anything the customer sends back on the web any more than if they read it out over the phone.
Scenario 1, Phone: You call someone and tell them about a product, its stock number, price, etc, and take their order. You ask how many of this product they want, but you don't ask them the price.
Scenario 2, Web: You display a product along with an order dialog (or a 'add this item' link). You do trust the customer to properly report which item they want, and how many, but you do the product lookup and price calculations on your end.
Besides, I can already submit my own choices to lists and can change your javascript for malicious or testing reasons with various webdev and ad-blocking plugins (DOM Viewer, Grease Monkey, etc). RMS's idea is about browser makers adding UI that would let a user do this quickly and usefully. You, as a developer, already need to think about the data the user is sending you. If anything this will inform and encourage people like you to fix already existing bugs, likely making everything safer.
"What's that boys? The lawyer says he's not guilty because of a technicality and that we should let him down? Well ain't that funny."
But, just to play the game, I think it fits the legal definition too.
Anyone who takes power in an illegal fashion is an enemy.
If some Iraqi national showed up in the USA and was caught tampering with vote results to make himself president we'd rightly acknowledge the action as one of war, yet if one of our own people did it you'd have us think it's fundamentally different.
Static linking is a problem as you say, but the idea of having private copies of the DLL is still valid. The system could hash the DLL at load and merge identical ones for the same space savings.
It's not like the company and its valuable assets are burned out of spite. They'd be auctioned off to someone else - likely many employees could go day-to-day and barely notice this happen.
Which version of Debian is it that comes with the media tools? Can you get that one with the office tools or do you have to pay more to buy them as on add-on? Does it forbid more than 10 tcp connections unless you have the business version?
Err, what? My Eee PC 901 with an extra gig of ram is more of a machine in every way than my gaming station from a few years back.
It usually has Firefox with tons of tabs, a gnome-terminal, screen, a ton of cli apps, Dwarf Fortress... Often including GIMP, Open Office, evince, VLC, Nexuiz, etc.
No, seriously. It's not just the upfront cost, the $1 or $100 even, it's pulling out the credit card (not an issue for app store, but elsewhere), the EULAs, the non-returnability that makes you pissed when you bought the wrong thing, the time spent fighting its DRM, the time wasted in the future not able to fix the bugs on your own. Then consider than you have to try a few apps to find the one you really want.
Free apps don't have most of those hassles. They're all in the Debian archives (and similar would exist for any free platform) so install is seamless - zero-click simple. There's no DRM, no lock-in, no EULAs - they're totally benign in a business sense. There's no feeling of wanting to throw good-time after bad-money to make up for the purchase price - if you don't like it you move on with no regrets. The FOSS apps are coded to a standard - they don't leave crud all over your system. Most importantly you can get a third party to fix bugs or add features.
Can you imagine if anyone actually considered the cost of all this proprietary nonsense when doing TCO calculations. What does it really cost to read all the EULAs, check that they didn't change between versions, or re-read it from scratch, and actually follow the crazy restrictions, like figuring out how to prevent you employees from publishing unauthorized reviews (Oracle?), etc. Tracking installs, making sure a product isn't installed onto the wrong hardware (too many CPU cores, not an Apple-branded board, not allowed to run in a virtual machine, etc, etc).
Consider the case for switching to DRM if you weren't there already. "Hey boss, the publisher of ProgramX wants to install spyware with the app to make sure we use it correctly - can we do this and maintain confidentially for our patients?"
How about a kill-switch in the OS, or your critical apps. How much better would the program have to be than its competitors that you'd accept it despite being unable to guarantee it'll keep working. One bug with a licensing server marking your programs as invalid right in the middle of crunch time and you could be out of business.
So yes, non-free software is too expensive, even at $0.
No, I'm saying Microsoft should have taken steps to get software for their platform to conform to a useful standard early on. It was easier for Microsoft to complacently sit by and let developers install program files everywhere and write to any area of the registry, etc. They wanted non-stop development, quantity over quality, and they got it.
Similarly, they could have tried to help users by cleaning up the minefield of EULAs and such. Instead they embraced this anti-user attitude. They could have tried to get rid of things like Flash which violate any sane security model, but instead they try to create their own versions.
Instead of actually trying to produce a product that a new user could safely attach to the internet and browse with they've taken the same old rust-bucket and slapped UAC onto it. Whenever anything happens they can blame the user.
Slashdot Mirror
* the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work
There's no law against taking scissors to your copy of the newspaper. Modifying your copy of a webpage is obviously the same thing.
That just means that an adaptation or re-arrangement of a copyrighted work is essentially the original and still under copyright. But essentially, as long as you aren't copying (just modifying the one copy) you're fine.
It's the use of Javascript that makes this work - NoScript is just providing the users a convenient set of scissors to remove one piece of content - the javascript. They aren't distributing these modified works, the user is getting the original and telling their computer to hack away at it until it's ready to display.
We want ... support ... much more then we want source code.
You realize why mission-critical systems rely only on second-sourceable parts, right? It's so that if any manufacturer jacks up the price or goes out of business (imagine that!) you aren't stuck unable to get replacement parts. Software, and support, is like that too. You want options when your main supplier starts playing licensing games, or goes under, or end-of-lifes your product just in time to help their yearly earnings. Sure, there are third-party consultants available for proprietary products, but they're unlikely to have access to the source code either and for that and other reasons be unable to diagnose and fix the product as effectively.
It's just like with physical products, you might not ever use the diagram of the housing screw you bought in thousand-lots (via your builder) but the fact that the specifications for that model were available to any manufacturer is precisely why it was so cheap and available in the first place.
The code doesn't have to be open in the traditional sense, just visible (perhaps only after the company's failure), for these benefits. But where are you going to get a pool of third-party support and developers unless it is.
If the support contract you refer to doesn't provide you with access to the source code in the event of the company's failure to provide support it's not much good. And unless that code's already in escrow waiting for that moment, good luck collecting on the promise. (Steam users, pay attention!)
If you need it as much as you insist, isn't that going to ruin you?
Shipping and manufacturing are getting more expensive now. Digital distribution is low-cost and getting lower.
Sure, a read-only disc is cheap, but what good is it? It only holds the one thing, and you have to pay a fortune compared to its manufacturing costs to package, ship, warehouse, and retail it, plus the costs the customer incurs coming to your store... And then you end up making too many, or too few, or making them in the wrong area.
You can understand the ugly realities of war without viewing pictures like that.
Then why are people noticeably more upset about a tragedy when they see photos of the victims? Could it be because they couldn't really understand it on a personal level until then?
Whatever it is though, if it wakes them up it's generally a good thing.
Besides why do you get upset at those who dropped the bombs? Was it their fault?
Um, the trigger is under your finger, whose 'fault' do you think pulling it would be? Mine?
You seem to have a real problem understanding blame/fault.
"You know Sarah, you really are ugly" or "You're fat Bob. And stupid and lazy to boot"? Or should a husband tell his wife, "You know what? That dress actually does make you look fat"?
People don't want to know all the ugly truth. No, it is not always better or more beautiful than a pleasing lie. Sometimes knowing nothing but the pleasing lie is what allows people to continue living.
Which of those facts, if told to someone who didn't know them, wouldn't be in their best interests to know?
I'm sure Sarah would love to know she was considered ugly. Not just random drive-by but "Your teeth are so big that you look silly when you smile and people laugh behind your back." She could avoid smiling that widely and might actually look better.
Ditto with Bob. I'm sure he'd be embarrassed if he had tried to squeeze into a size M shirt which didn't fit, then proceeded to lumber his 300 pounds over to complain and found out the sad truth from the clerk in front of a bunch of people who laughed. If you'd told him this last week when he complained that a bag of cheese-doodles doesn't feed the average fellow, he'd be a lot better off. Similarly learning about motivational and intellectual challenges he might finally abandon his father's dreams of decades of med school and go tend bar like he always wanted.
And most of all, your wife REALLY WANTS TO KNOW if that dress makes her look fat! Why the fuck did you think she asks? If she knew that she never would have bought it! It's up to you how to break it to her that it's not the dress... but even that she'd be happier knowing.
Or else are posting something you merely know someone doesn't want you to.
Need I remind you that by choosing not to post something to WikiLeaks you are denying me the ability to read it and judge it for myself. Not a very neighborly thing to do in most cases. It's censorship, in principle if not in technicality.
In fact I'd say your theory on the belief in God on faith and the reasoning on how the universe works based on science not being compatible is easily debunked. Thousands if not millions of people use both simultaneously.
They may think they are, but if they do, they aren't. Or rather, if they are religious and using science it's in a small area of life and they refuse to apply it to their core beliefs.
Enjoy your vendetta against organized religion but don't pretend that science can replace religion. They serve different purposes. You yourself seem to be confused.
One is a means of learning through observation and experimentation, the other is a comfort blanket based on mythological silliness. They're nothing alike.
The only reason people get them confused is because opening their eyes to the way the world works usually cures them of religion. But to confuse the two is mistaking the cure for the cold.
Science does not say if there is or is not a god or gods.
Of course not, science is never done - it's a process not a goal. And you can't prove a negative.
Who's to say that God didn't give the spark of life and let it evolve and ...
Nobody. Who needs to say that the flying spaghetti monster not only likely did not create the world but also likely does not exist? It'd be silly to assume either, or any other crazy thing, without some sort of proof.
Only people care.
Yes, they care too much. They care so much that they lie to themselves and others. They blatantly make up shit because they're afraid of dying. They decide that because the world is scary without a god that there must be one.
This is the antithesis of science.
I tend to find this, well, blind fanaticism that all points brought up by religion is by default wrong kind of annoying.
Well, it is wrong, and by default. It's like starting a math paper with the assumption that 2+2=5. You might get interesting results but it's not going to reflect reality. As a philosophical pass-time wondering where we came from and even making up crazy guesses is harmless, but when you start believing your own crazy assumptions...
Anything based on religion is like one of those proofs that 1 equals 0 by using a division by zero or other undefined operation. The mathematicians in the audience have a duty to point out the flaws in these to the rest of us in the audience. Similarly, those of us who can understand the fallacious reasoning underpinning religion have a duty to point out its flaws to those who don't yet understand.
Particularly on a harmless subject such as saying religion doesn't have to hate science.
At issue here is the ability to think clearly and critically - likely the most important thing anyone has. We're lying to people if we pretend there's any value in religion. This is a crucial point in their mental development - they need to understand that wish-fulfillment doesn't work. Reality is, whether or not you like it. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's the gateway to adulthood.
Religion, by definition, is stuff you can't just reach out and touch. Further, this is usually directly acknowledged as part of the religion in that you just have to trust without any evidence (except gut feelings and such that anyone who knows anything about self-bias knows is worthless as evidence). Religion is what you simply have to take on faith.
You wouldn't encourage gamblers(?), whose belief in a system and their eventual fortune is just as faith-based, just as counter to evidence, just as thought-clouding, as religion. So why is one set of myths sacred and another not?
I mean, you aren't helping anything.
No. It's you who isn't helping anyone. You're trying to include everyone, by saying that everyone is
Your priest is dead wrong, so are you. Religion is based on faith, science is not. If you think they are compatible you are ignorant.
Even if you consider genesis to be mere poetry, you take it for granted that whatever happened, happened because of god.
Presumably only the believers would get spontaneously healed.
But yes, if god is doing the healing why don't new limbs and eyes just appear fully grown? Why does god only help cure the things that could plausibly heal themselves when it's exactly those things which need the least help.
Really, I want to go to a web page and get bombarded with 30 pop ups telling me about the licenses for the scripts on the page, the fonts on the page, and what my rights are about copying the text.
Then I imagine you'd go into the options dialog and select the 'always' option on the show license information areas of the Privacy or Content tabs...
You can safely assume the right to use software that was freely sent to you, and view content, etc. The browser would never need to show you any licenses by default because no license could say "You can't use/read this."
There is no need to add legitimacy to the bullshit licenses ...
Nothing would make EULAs go away like making people read them in full before being able to purchase the software.
If you make it difficult to use your content you'll lose readers/users.
Bullshit. If you see demons/spirits/angels running around you're delusional and not suited for most work.
What constitutes checking? Um... Never trusting anything the customer sends back on the web any more than if they read it out over the phone.
Scenario 1, Phone: You call someone and tell them about a product, its stock number, price, etc, and take their order. You ask how many of this product they want, but you don't ask them the price.
Scenario 2, Web: You display a product along with an order dialog (or a 'add this item' link). You do trust the customer to properly report which item they want, and how many, but you do the product lookup and price calculations on your end.
Besides, I can already submit my own choices to lists and can change your javascript for malicious or testing reasons with various webdev and ad-blocking plugins (DOM Viewer, Grease Monkey, etc). RMS's idea is about browser makers adding UI that would let a user do this quickly and usefully. You, as a developer, already need to think about the data the user is sending you. If anything this will inform and encourage people like you to fix already existing bugs, likely making everything safer.
It'd be one of our people doing it so instead of just an act of war it'd be treasonous.
Surely accepting Iran's help wouldn't require implementation of sharia law beforehand, and I wouldn't imagine we'd let them carry weapons...
So why shouldn't our enemies be allowed to come and observe our elections? What are we trying to hide?
Besides, if the USA accepted election overseers from various (including hostile) countries it'd make it easier to convince dictatorships to do so.
"What's that boys? The lawyer says he's not guilty because of a technicality and that we should let him down? Well ain't that funny."
But, just to play the game, I think it fits the legal definition too.
Anyone who takes power in an illegal fashion is an enemy.
If some Iraqi national showed up in the USA and was caught tampering with vote results to make himself president we'd rightly acknowledge the action as one of war, yet if one of our own people did it you'd have us think it's fundamentally different.
Soap, ammo, jury, and leave ballot because it doesn't change anything anyways.
Static linking is a problem as you say, but the idea of having private copies of the DLL is still valid. The system could hash the DLL at load and merge identical ones for the same space savings.
It's not like the company and its valuable assets are burned out of spite. They'd be auctioned off to someone else - likely many employees could go day-to-day and barely notice this happen.
Which version of Debian is it that comes with the media tools? Can you get that one with the office tools or do you have to pay more to buy them as on add-on? Does it forbid more than 10 tcp connections unless you have the business version?
This software licensing is so complex!
Err, what? My Eee PC 901 with an extra gig of ram is more of a machine in every way than my gaming station from a few years back.
It usually has Firefox with tons of tabs, a gnome-terminal, screen, a ton of cli apps, Dwarf Fortress... Often including GIMP, Open Office, evince, VLC, Nexuiz, etc.
And it fits in my coat pocket.
Yah, because !free = too expensive.
Yah, because !free = too expensive.
No, seriously. It's not just the upfront cost, the $1 or $100 even, it's pulling out the credit card (not an issue for app store, but elsewhere), the EULAs, the non-returnability that makes you pissed when you bought the wrong thing, the time spent fighting its DRM, the time wasted in the future not able to fix the bugs on your own. Then consider than you have to try a few apps to find the one you really want.
Free apps don't have most of those hassles. They're all in the Debian archives (and similar would exist for any free platform) so install is seamless - zero-click simple. There's no DRM, no lock-in, no EULAs - they're totally benign in a business sense. There's no feeling of wanting to throw good-time after bad-money to make up for the purchase price - if you don't like it you move on with no regrets. The FOSS apps are coded to a standard - they don't leave crud all over your system. Most importantly you can get a third party to fix bugs or add features.
Can you imagine if anyone actually considered the cost of all this proprietary nonsense when doing TCO calculations. What does it really cost to read all the EULAs, check that they didn't change between versions, or re-read it from scratch, and actually follow the crazy restrictions, like figuring out how to prevent you employees from publishing unauthorized reviews (Oracle?), etc. Tracking installs, making sure a product isn't installed onto the wrong hardware (too many CPU cores, not an Apple-branded board, not allowed to run in a virtual machine, etc, etc).
Consider the case for switching to DRM if you weren't there already. "Hey boss, the publisher of ProgramX wants to install spyware with the app to make sure we use it correctly - can we do this and maintain confidentially for our patients?"
How about a kill-switch in the OS, or your critical apps. How much better would the program have to be than its competitors that you'd accept it despite being unable to guarantee it'll keep working. One bug with a licensing server marking your programs as invalid right in the middle of crunch time and you could be out of business.
So yes, non-free software is too expensive, even at $0.
It's easier for the attacker than the victim. The attacker can, largely, break off at any time to limit their spending.
Well, not having a car I'm more interested in the profit as the middleman... :)
But that was my way of questioning the parking costs in your post. Save $30?! Like three times ten? Wow.
haven't just bought a ticket to save $30 on parking!
That can't be right. Parking costs WHAT?
Okay, the business model is to buy tickets to movies, pay bums $10 to watch the movie, and resell the parking spaces.
With all the pain they're adding to the process it's like free just got cheaper.
No, I'm saying Microsoft should have taken steps to get software for their platform to conform to a useful standard early on. It was easier for Microsoft to complacently sit by and let developers install program files everywhere and write to any area of the registry, etc. They wanted non-stop development, quantity over quality, and they got it.
Similarly, they could have tried to help users by cleaning up the minefield of EULAs and such. Instead they embraced this anti-user attitude. They could have tried to get rid of things like Flash which violate any sane security model, but instead they try to create their own versions.
Instead of actually trying to produce a product that a new user could safely attach to the internet and browse with they've taken the same old rust-bucket and slapped UAC onto it. Whenever anything happens they can blame the user.