My point is that it's a difference in opinion. You don't to share with people who won't share with you. I do. That's it.
Why though? If they won't share they're the kind of people you shouldn't be helping.
The reasons to pick the GPL are practical. Without demanding a price for software the companies that use it won't reciprocate and users won't benefit.
I already responded to this in my last comment -- Theoretically companies could use BSD-licensed software without releasing their changes back to the community, but in practice, companies that use open source software tend to realize that there are huge benefits to working with the community (no one wants to maintain a fork if they don't have to).
Right up until it suits them (and not the users) to stop.
What are we [arguing] about?
Our views on software licensing, and helping the greedy. Why do you ask?
And trying to figure out why you think corporate welfare is good...
How is sharing code "corporate welfare"?
Providing it under a license that lets them use it without any cost is.
Is every use of open source software a form of welfare now?
Only that with no strings attached, specifically made for people who wouldn't reciprocate.
The reason I want software usable by companies is that I work for one, and I like being able to use open source software where I work. I'm not the boss; I don't decide what gets open sourced and what does,
Exactly. Your company makes unprofitable decisions and you go save them from the consequences. They learn nothing and help nobody.
I don't particularly care if they reciprocate
In doing so though, you help the greedy and encourage less code getting to users.
You want people to be able to use your code but your actions hurt more programmers than they help by providing sharing-free alternatives that don't even require them to hire programmers to create.
(again, a personal choice, not something to argue about).
What do you argue about then? Facts? Tautological mathematical statements?
If that happens to make companies I don't work for more productive, then who cares?
If you're going to help the greedy at least make them pay like they'd make you pay. Otherwise you breed sociopaths and equivalently hurt the honest who don't realize the same gains, the users, and the other programmers.
I don't care if they don't open source their drivers.
B.S. If you've ever had driver issues with any hardware you know the benefits you'd get from open source drivers. If you don't want them you're trying to not understand the benefits.
I don't want to create a liability
The liability is their own unsharable code that they created by entering into unfavorable licensing deals. All I'd ask is that you not go out of your way to mitigate problems that 1) they got into themselves or 2) are the consequence of not sharing.
I just want people to use my code
All giving it to a big company under the BSDL does is get one small group to use your code. The GPL gets your code out to more people, and people who would benefit more from it. Instead they lose all the benefits of open source because it gets closed before they hear about it, let alone use it.
You're just saving the company from paying someone to write it for them.
What are we [arguing] about?
"less ideological purity."
This. And trying to figure out why you think corporate welfare is good...
The BSDL is the ideological license that says any restriction, however small and essential, is too much. And that ideology hurts users everywhere. The reasons to pick the GPL are practical. Without demanding a price for software the companies that use it won't reciprocate and users won't benefit.
Some people want their code to be usable by anyone
Exactly. And the GPL is the best license for achieving this.
By usable by anyone, I mean even people who don't want to give back to the community
For every one of those there's tens of thousands of users they'd deny the benefits to. In serving that one person you're hurting many others.
even if it means less ideological purity.
Nope, simple practicality. The crazy pure ideology is BSDL insisting that if Bill Gates can't appropriate your code it's not truly free.
Contrary to popular belief, open sourcing all of your code isn't always possible.
No, open-sourcing your code isn't always possible if you want to use proprietary code. That's a choice you make.
If nvidia can improve their code by using a library I wrote, I'd be happy to have them use it.
But why? All you giving them something for free does is further remove any incentive to share. If not for people like you their unsharable code might become a liability and encourage them to change their ways.
I understand that not everyone agrees, and it's your code so do what you want. My point was that BSD-style licenses aren't as scary as the GP was making them out to be.
They aren't scary, they're just almost always the wrong choice. Perhaps you could help nVidia, but if you didn't that code might end up helping a company with open-source drivers, and help thousands of people, instead of just enabling nVidia to not pay their programmers.
If you used the GPL the only person inconvenienced is someone who wants to 1) use someone's code without paying, 2) without passing the benefits to the users. Everyone else would have as much, or far more, access.
The GPL and BSD-style licenses are pretty much identical when it comes to using code without paying so I don't see your point for #1. #2 isn't as black-and-white as you're making it out to be for the reasons I mentioned above (not everyone can open-source their code, and some of us don't care if they do).
1 and 2 go together to describe a single person who wants to use other people's work without paying or giving back. This is the person the GPL hinders. Not from spite (though it is fun watching them gnash their teeth), but because nothing else creates open software for users.
And nobody doesn't care about open source - it lowers TCO and allows independent audits. Businesses may not often get a chance to choose based on those criteria but they'd certainly care.
Oh wait, I must be living in an alternate universe than you, because I'm not seeing the horror stories you're complaining about.
Isn't KHTML licensed under the LGPL? Wouldn't Apple have had to give that code back?
But regardless, the point is that the horror story is largely theoretical. The BSDL trolls keep saying the GPL is meaningfully less free even though the GPLs "lack of freedom" only interferes with those who'd take everything and give nothing back. Further, the BSDLers always miss the point that most GPLers find the users of the software, and their access to code (even if they don't currently understand the benefits), to be more important than the right of the developer to get code for free.
All they do is harp on about ideological purity, and how (from their POV) the GPL lacks it.
But, at this point that would make IPv6 a recurring meme like the "year of the Linux desktop". IPv6 has been something that's going to happen Real Soon Now for a decade.
That happened, it just coincided with the death of desktops so you didn't notice. You can get mostly-Linux on more smart-phones these days than you can get mostly-Mac or Mostly-Windows.
No free alternative will ever (consistently) have as many users as the commercial product because companies are literally willing to bribe people to use their product - especially if it has lock-in. This will remain true until gullibility is bred out of us.
Is anyone looking at some kind of moderation to flush that kind of post, such that we don't have to waste time with it?
Why, you some sort of censor? Ignore it, or better yet, get good at putting it in its place amusingly.
I'd rather deal with it here than be blindsided by it when trying to actually get something done. Here we get to hone our attacks and learn which way to best mock these people when we encounter them.
Some people want their code to be usable by anyone, even if it means less ideological purity.
Exactly. And the GPL is the best license for achieving this. The miniscule extra freedom the BSDL could have to offer is at the cost of its effectiveness. The small compromise the GPL makes vastly increases its real-world usefulness.
To make your code usable, and helpful, to everyone it's got to be available to them. Even if they never look they'll benefit from being able to hire consultants to change it. The BSDL doesn't attempt this, the GPL does.
If you use the BSDL other programmers aren't disadvantaged because they know where to go to get your original code even if it's been eclipsed by a closed-source version. But users are simply stuck with a closed-source package and it's far less useful in the long run.
If you used the GPL the only person inconvenienced is someone who wants to 1) use someone's code without paying, 2) without passing the benefits to the users. Everyone else would have as much, or far more, access.
BSD trolls (because non-trolls don't care) go on and on about how the GPL isn't free because it wouldn't have been as convenient for a Bill Gates as the BSDL is, but they miss that 1) this person is far rarer than most users, 2) this person is an absolute jerk - trying to deny their users the benefits they've had. So, to the degree the GPL does hurt this person, good. It's protecting everyone else from them.
I think you mean "A EULA purports to spell out [...]"
It's not binding because you didn't see it. The only reason people started to think EULAs were valid is that they claimed things that were true, like that copying was restricted, etc. Then some idiot got the idea that he was bound by whatever it said. Ridiculous. Imagine if fortune cookies were binding.
Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?
You've seriously never had a single answer to this in ten years?
It's not greed based for an archivist, a genre-fan, a generous person, anyone annoyed at the concept of missing Shakespeare plays, people who want different files but who want to help seed for others, people studying a subject or era, someone collecting media for a group trip, anyone making a time capsule,...
In a digital world where having more is having more chances to share, having more is good, not greedy. No hoarding or denying of access is involved.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. -- GW Bush - Address to the American People 20010920
Following this speech he invaded two countries on false pretenses, killing well over a million people - as in the case of most wars, the vast majority civilians and children - and considering the charges were bogus, all innocent.
Even allies weren't safe - many foreign citizens were kidnapped and sent overseas for years of concerted torture simply because of their name, or an anonymous tip.
He stood back, horrified at the deadly actions of someone the world called a madman - then calmly ordered the deaths of 50 times more people.
But you know this and still you support his actions by funding their war machine. Go you, indirect slayer of children and the unarmed.
And people made fun of Bush for his "you're either with us or against us" speech....
That's because he was saying "Everyone who doesn't justify our invasion of an unrelated country to catch someone we can't prove is guilty is themselves a terrorist."
Had he said something reasonable like "Anyone who deals with this guy until we can investigate his involvement is going to be aiding someone we believe to be a killer and we beseech them not to" he'd have been totally supported.
I can see why you have to warn people you're not American, you do come off as GW Bush's asshole polisher.
Well, you'd be an idiot.
It's an opinion, and it's yours, and you must be very proud, but you couldn't support it to save your life.
I on the other hand am justified in calling you an idiot because you don't understand the difference between the statements above. Idiot.
How could you not be supporting their actions (even only logistically) by giving them financial support?
If you were kidnapped and I, knowing this, did business with your kidnapper allowing him to continue to keep you captive, wouldn't you feel that I aided your kidnapper?
If the USA had been doing to my family what they were doing to the Iraqis, after faking evidence about our owning WMDs, and had you blithely gone shopping there knowing but not caring what they do and what they support, I'd sure think so. How could you not be supporting their actions (even only logistically) by giving them financial support?
It's pretty straight forward - deal with a mobster, support the mob. Deal with the USA, support their wars.
Right, the world looks at you with barely disguised hatred for the games you've played with them and the unjust wars you've started, just so that you can inefficiently drive your Hummer H2s without a thought for the consequences.
What do all the guards on the transit system cost? I think if you ditched the fare machines, the accountants, the enforcement guards (on Vancouver's system, they aren't the ones who arrest criminals), the signage, stopped inflicting the time-wasting hassle, etc, that you'd end up ahead in the big picture. I'd agree we should do it anyways, but I think it makes sense in a strict economic point of view too.
Similarly, instead of the patent system, government agencies, lawyers, lobbyists, judges, juries, bailiffs, marshals, we could just take all the resources it wasted and give them to the people the industry voted had actually produced the tools that advanced them. Do this retrospectively so that we have a better idea of what was actually useful and what was a flash in the pan. And who did the best job of teaching the new methods, not just the guy who discovered, documented, and moved on.
Not only would this remove the huge drag on innovators and industry but it'd actually come close to rewarding the people responsible instead of the guy who filed the paperwork.
RMS proposed a similar copyright system, if we must have one. We all voluntarily self-report (with some auditing to interpret the wider results) what media we have, and consume, and the pool of tax money for rewarding creative people is split accordingly. The joy of this system is that it encourages copying. If you want your favorite artist to get paid more you give their music to more people, hoping they'll like it and increase the artist's share.
If we found a way to leverage the power of computers we'd be unstoppable, instead our governments insist on trying futilely legislating them away.
It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair.
Haha! Had you helped more nations instead of installing convenient dictators there wouldn't be whole countries of cheap labor. And now they're pissed because you kept them down when it was profitable to do so, so when they get the top position they won't be nice.
But you brought that on yourselves so in a sense it is totally fair. You and ten-thousand people could congregate at GW Bush's next speaking engagement and arrest him to be delivered to the Iraqis (maybe to Sweden, on behalf of the Iraqis) for war-crimes trials, but the idea that even the most responsible of you be held responsible for your obvious crimes so disgusts you that you'll laugh at this. And that is why not only is the world against you, but that they find it so funny to watch you stumble.
What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people.
Patriotism to your nation even if it fucked someone else over is a filthy idea. The USA is a criminal entity that should not be supported.
But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.
Hmmm, what huge country went out of their way for force copyright, patents, and a million other restriction on the free market onto the rest of the world? Oh yeah, the USA.
I dunno, if a non-free market is your goal when it helps you I don't see how you get to bitch when it rolls around and hurts you.
You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.
Globalism rocks. Global trade at the behest of the USA, and only when it benefits them, does not.
BTW, if we "Hate America" it's because of people like you who don't see why we would. You're like a mob wife crying about getting hurt in a drive-by - what did you think your way of life was based on you idiot?
ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask: In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this?
I don't believe it. But it's much more in line with all the physical evidence than "Spaceghost made us cuz he was lonely".
have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?
Once again, not a belief. But yes, a tremendous windfall - being able to independently evaluate thing has helped in all facets of life. From avoiding a bad mortgage to avoiding beliefs.
Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no. Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have.
Being religious strongly correlates with believing what people tell you. Many people believed GW Bush's lies about Iraq because they trusted a fellow religious believer, and over a million people were wrongly killed, and now they've got that blood on their hands.
In other news that same stupidity caused many people to buy a mortgage they knew they couldn't pay back without questioning the system that allowed this. How's it feel when your whole country's wealth is stolen in a Ponzi scheme?
As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.
Unless it convinces you to avoid medical treatment. Or any of the other problems associated with being gullible.
Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life.
Or, you can't but you just don't know it yet.
I'm ignorant of the precise internal workings of a hybrid electric automobile, as well as how the exact details of how the north-bridge in a computer works. I'm also ignorant of the exact details of the rise and fall of the Byzantine empire, but not knowing these things does not prevent me from having a decent life,
But surely you know that there are right answers to these things and just making them up isn't going to work. If you needed to fix your hybrid would you pray or read the book?
This whole blood feud between religion and science is pretty pointless when it comes down to the day to day lives of most of us, and I'm starting to get tired of it.
Oh no! We assumed y'all were having fun. We'll stop pointing out that belief in magic is retarded then. After all, your feelings, and the burden of protecting them, weighs so heavily on us all.
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
That's quite a testimonial for your school.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs.
Why? If you don't think evolution is right why not teach Pastafarianism or something else you don't believe?
But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Both. ROFL. As if there's only "A god did it" and "A god didn't do it". There are 900 types of baptists, let alone all christian sects, or worse, all religious beliefs. And then there are the "Aliens did it" and other beliefs. Do you teach your children about the Greys AND the Klingons? How do you explain the head-bump/no-head-bump schism in Klingon society?
I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots"
Of course not, someone with beliefs is hardly in the position to be throwing the idiot stone.
I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.
It wouldn't matter, a valid point is valid even if rude, and a wrong one wrong even if polite.
Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.
Ahh yes, and if the government school taught holocaust denial, or that HIV was good for you, you'd still be fine with the taxes and the influence on your kids? Even though it'd take much work (and without money to send them to a better school you'd be doing it all alone) just to address all the lies and unfounded claims, let alone give them an actually useful education as well?
There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed,
Not at all. But even if you're blind to the reasons why, the point is that once they have the system in place we can't stop them - even if it took a while.
and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.
Government powers are always used, and abused by the original definitions. If you don't understand the possible outcomes of a censorship system that got out of hand you aren't qualified to support it.
Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics.
But they require exactly the same infrastructure. Isn't that funny...
If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system [...]
No, the question is if you believe that laws that 1) enable and encourage abuses and 2) are crazier than the soviets banning private ownership of photocopiers and 3) won't work, should be passed just so the government appears to be doing something that only certain lobbyists wanted anyways.
Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.
Speaking as someone who has served aboard an Ohio class submarine, I cannot stress strongly enough how incredibly wrong you are.
First, I think you're wrong - that those secrets aren't as important, dangerous, or secret as you think.. I don't think they'd influence the success of either of us building a deadly device with the resources we could plausibly have (where do we get the material?). And it's not that well kept of a secret or so hard that a government (capable of aquiring useful amounts of material) wouldn't have stolen or re-invented the knowledge.
Preventing the spread of these secrets is less important than just keeping an eye out for signs of weapons tests, etc, because no matter how hard we clamp down on secrets they'll always be leaked or reinvented eventually. Only actual preparedness is worth anything.
Second, even if we assume these secrets are as deadly as you suggest with your "Trust me, I had a badge", and that they'd enable anyone who could get 10KG of appropriate material to make a weapon, is it enough of a threat increase to justify a global censorship net capable of detecting you leaking one of these secrets and preventing its spread?
But never mind that, they're only bothering to use stopping copyright infringement to justify enacting ultimately the same controls. They aren't even breaking out the child porn angle, let alone the nuclear secrets argument, and you're still willing to go along with it.
As we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, China, Libya, and others, the government having the ability to block internet or phone access for some or all users is going to get many people killed one day. And how do they get this power to censor? By blocking other things (porn, copyrighted material, etc).
Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that it's a difference in opinion. You don't to share with people who won't share with you. I do. That's it.
Why though? If they won't share they're the kind of people you shouldn't be helping.
The reasons to pick the GPL are practical. Without demanding a price for software the companies that use it won't reciprocate and users won't benefit.
I already responded to this in my last comment -- Theoretically companies could use BSD-licensed software without releasing their changes back to the community, but in practice, companies that use open source software tend to realize that there are huge benefits to working with the community (no one wants to maintain a fork if they don't have to).
Right up until it suits them (and not the users) to stop.
What are we [arguing] about?
Our views on software licensing, and helping the greedy. Why do you ask?
And trying to figure out why you think corporate welfare is good...
How is sharing code "corporate welfare"?
Providing it under a license that lets them use it without any cost is.
Is every use of open source software a form of welfare now?
Only that with no strings attached, specifically made for people who wouldn't reciprocate.
The reason I want software usable by companies is that I work for one, and I like being able to use open source software where I work. I'm not the boss; I don't decide what gets open sourced and what does,
Exactly. Your company makes unprofitable decisions and you go save them from the consequences. They learn nothing and help nobody.
I don't particularly care if they reciprocate
In doing so though, you help the greedy and encourage less code getting to users.
You want people to be able to use your code but your actions hurt more programmers than they help by providing sharing-free alternatives that don't even require them to hire programmers to create.
(again, a personal choice, not something to argue about).
What do you argue about then? Facts? Tautological mathematical statements?
If that happens to make companies I don't work for more productive, then who cares?
If you're going to help the greedy at least make them pay like they'd make you pay. Otherwise you breed sociopaths and equivalently hurt the honest who don't realize the same gains, the users, and the other programmers.
I don't care if they don't open source their drivers.
B.S. If you've ever had driver issues with any hardware you know the benefits you'd get from open source drivers. If you don't want them you're trying to not understand the benefits.
I don't want to create a liability
The liability is their own unsharable code that they created by entering into unfavorable licensing deals. All I'd ask is that you not go out of your way to mitigate problems that 1) they got into themselves or 2) are the consequence of not sharing.
I just want people to use my code
All giving it to a big company under the BSDL does is get one small group to use your code. The GPL gets your code out to more people, and people who would benefit more from it. Instead they lose all the benefits of open source because it gets closed before they hear about it, let alone use it.
You're just saving the company from paying someone to write it for them.
What are we [arguing] about?
"less ideological purity."
This. And trying to figure out why you think corporate welfare is good...
The BSDL is the ideological license that says any restriction, however small and essential, is too much. And that ideology hurts users everywhere. The reasons to pick the GPL are practical. Without demanding a price for software the companies that use it won't reciprocate and users won't benefit.
Some people want their code to be usable by anyone
Exactly. And the GPL is the best license for achieving this.
By usable by anyone, I mean even people who don't want to give back to the community
For every one of those there's tens of thousands of users they'd deny the benefits to. In serving that one person you're hurting many others.
even if it means less ideological purity.
Nope, simple practicality. The crazy pure ideology is BSDL insisting that if Bill Gates can't appropriate your code it's not truly free.
Contrary to popular belief, open sourcing all of your code isn't always possible.
No, open-sourcing your code isn't always possible if you want to use proprietary code. That's a choice you make.
If nvidia can improve their code by using a library I wrote, I'd be happy to have them use it.
But why? All you giving them something for free does is further remove any incentive to share. If not for people like you their unsharable code might become a liability and encourage them to change their ways.
I understand that not everyone agrees, and it's your code so do what you want. My point was that BSD-style licenses aren't as scary as the GP was making them out to be.
They aren't scary, they're just almost always the wrong choice. Perhaps you could help nVidia, but if you didn't that code might end up helping a company with open-source drivers, and help thousands of people, instead of just enabling nVidia to not pay their programmers.
If you used the GPL the only person inconvenienced is someone who wants to 1) use someone's code without paying, 2) without passing the benefits to the users. Everyone else would have as much, or far more, access.
The GPL and BSD-style licenses are pretty much identical when it comes to using code without paying so I don't see your point for #1. #2 isn't as black-and-white as you're making it out to be for the reasons I mentioned above (not everyone can open-source their code, and some of us don't care if they do).
1 and 2 go together to describe a single person who wants to use other people's work without paying or giving back. This is the person the GPL hinders. Not from spite (though it is fun watching them gnash their teeth), but because nothing else creates open software for users.
And nobody doesn't care about open source - it lowers TCO and allows independent audits. Businesses may not often get a chance to choose based on those criteria but they'd certainly care.
Oh wait, I must be living in an alternate universe than you, because I'm not seeing the horror stories you're complaining about.
Isn't KHTML licensed under the LGPL? Wouldn't Apple have had to give that code back?
But regardless, the point is that the horror story is largely theoretical. The BSDL trolls keep saying the GPL is meaningfully less free even though the GPLs "lack of freedom" only interferes with those who'd take everything and give nothing back. Further, the BSDLers always miss the point that most GPLers find the users of the software, and their access to code (even if they don't currently understand the benefits), to be more important than the right of the developer to get code for free.
All they do is harp on about ideological purity, and how (from their POV) the GPL lacks it.
But, at this point that would make IPv6 a recurring meme like the "year of the Linux desktop". IPv6 has been something that's going to happen Real Soon Now for a decade.
That happened, it just coincided with the death of desktops so you didn't notice. You can get mostly-Linux on more smart-phones these days than you can get mostly-Mac or Mostly-Windows.
No free alternative will ever (consistently) have as many users as the commercial product because companies are literally willing to bribe people to use their product - especially if it has lock-in. This will remain true until gullibility is bred out of us.
Of the numbers you mention, what portion of them are approved?
120% of them. Fridays are double-patent days.
Seriously though, the system "works" by approving anything where you don't color outside the lines, reasonable or not.
Is strawman the only fallacy you know? Like thick-headed is your only rhetorical style?
Is anyone looking at some kind of moderation to flush that kind of post, such that we don't have to waste time with it?
Why, you some sort of censor? Ignore it, or better yet, get good at putting it in its place amusingly.
I'd rather deal with it here than be blindsided by it when trying to actually get something done. Here we get to hone our attacks and learn which way to best mock these people when we encounter them.
You can pretend to miss the point but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Some people want their code to be usable by anyone, even if it means less ideological purity.
Exactly. And the GPL is the best license for achieving this. The miniscule extra freedom the BSDL could have to offer is at the cost of its effectiveness. The small compromise the GPL makes vastly increases its real-world usefulness.
To make your code usable, and helpful, to everyone it's got to be available to them. Even if they never look they'll benefit from being able to hire consultants to change it. The BSDL doesn't attempt this, the GPL does.
If you use the BSDL other programmers aren't disadvantaged because they know where to go to get your original code even if it's been eclipsed by a closed-source version. But users are simply stuck with a closed-source package and it's far less useful in the long run.
If you used the GPL the only person inconvenienced is someone who wants to 1) use someone's code without paying, 2) without passing the benefits to the users. Everyone else would have as much, or far more, access.
BSD trolls (because non-trolls don't care) go on and on about how the GPL isn't free because it wouldn't have been as convenient for a Bill Gates as the BSDL is, but they miss that 1) this person is far rarer than most users, 2) this person is an absolute jerk - trying to deny their users the benefits they've had. So, to the degree the GPL does hurt this person, good. It's protecting everyone else from them.
Jealous much?
I think you mean "A EULA purports to spell out [...]"
It's not binding because you didn't see it. The only reason people started to think EULAs were valid is that they claimed things that were true, like that copying was restricted, etc. Then some idiot got the idea that he was bound by whatever it said. Ridiculous. Imagine if fortune cookies were binding.
Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?
You've seriously never had a single answer to this in ten years?
It's not greed based for an archivist, a genre-fan, a generous person, anyone annoyed at the concept of missing Shakespeare plays, people who want different files but who want to help seed for others, people studying a subject or era, someone collecting media for a group trip, anyone making a time capsule,...
In a digital world where having more is having more chances to share, having more is good, not greedy. No hoarding or denying of access is involved.
Yup, not if your life depended on it.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. -- GW Bush - Address to the American People 20010920
Following this speech he invaded two countries on false pretenses, killing well over a million people - as in the case of most wars, the vast majority civilians and children - and considering the charges were bogus, all innocent.
Even allies weren't safe - many foreign citizens were kidnapped and sent overseas for years of concerted torture simply because of their name, or an anonymous tip.
He stood back, horrified at the deadly actions of someone the world called a madman - then calmly ordered the deaths of 50 times more people.
But you know this and still you support his actions by funding their war machine. Go you, indirect slayer of children and the unarmed.
And people made fun of Bush for his "you're either with us or against us" speech ....
That's because he was saying "Everyone who doesn't justify our invasion of an unrelated country to catch someone we can't prove is guilty is themselves a terrorist."
Had he said something reasonable like "Anyone who deals with this guy until we can investigate his involvement is going to be aiding someone we believe to be a killer and we beseech them not to" he'd have been totally supported.
I can see why you have to warn people you're not American, you do come off as GW Bush's asshole polisher.
Well, you'd be an idiot.
It's an opinion, and it's yours, and you must be very proud, but you couldn't support it to save your life.
I on the other hand am justified in calling you an idiot because you don't understand the difference between the statements above. Idiot.
How could you not be supporting their actions (even only logistically) by giving them financial support?
If you were kidnapped and I, knowing this, did business with your kidnapper allowing him to continue to keep you captive, wouldn't you feel that I aided your kidnapper?
Yeah, essentially.
If the USA had been doing to my family what they were doing to the Iraqis, after faking evidence about our owning WMDs, and had you blithely gone shopping there knowing but not caring what they do and what they support, I'd sure think so. How could you not be supporting their actions (even only logistically) by giving them financial support?
It's pretty straight forward - deal with a mobster, support the mob. Deal with the USA, support their wars.
Those who pay US taxes have.
Right, the world looks at you with barely disguised hatred for the games you've played with them and the unjust wars you've started, just so that you can inefficiently drive your Hummer H2s without a thought for the consequences.
In fact, posting the truth about something like this on official company forums is likely to get you banned.
What do all the guards on the transit system cost? I think if you ditched the fare machines, the accountants, the enforcement guards (on Vancouver's system, they aren't the ones who arrest criminals), the signage, stopped inflicting the time-wasting hassle, etc, that you'd end up ahead in the big picture. I'd agree we should do it anyways, but I think it makes sense in a strict economic point of view too.
Similarly, instead of the patent system, government agencies, lawyers, lobbyists, judges, juries, bailiffs, marshals, we could just take all the resources it wasted and give them to the people the industry voted had actually produced the tools that advanced them. Do this retrospectively so that we have a better idea of what was actually useful and what was a flash in the pan. And who did the best job of teaching the new methods, not just the guy who discovered, documented, and moved on.
Not only would this remove the huge drag on innovators and industry but it'd actually come close to rewarding the people responsible instead of the guy who filed the paperwork.
RMS proposed a similar copyright system, if we must have one. We all voluntarily self-report (with some auditing to interpret the wider results) what media we have, and consume, and the pool of tax money for rewarding creative people is split accordingly. The joy of this system is that it encourages copying. If you want your favorite artist to get paid more you give their music to more people, hoping they'll like it and increase the artist's share.
If we found a way to leverage the power of computers we'd be unstoppable, instead our governments insist on trying futilely legislating them away.
It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair.
Haha! Had you helped more nations instead of installing convenient dictators there wouldn't be whole countries of cheap labor. And now they're pissed because you kept them down when it was profitable to do so, so when they get the top position they won't be nice.
But you brought that on yourselves so in a sense it is totally fair. You and ten-thousand people could congregate at GW Bush's next speaking engagement and arrest him to be delivered to the Iraqis (maybe to Sweden, on behalf of the Iraqis) for war-crimes trials, but the idea that even the most responsible of you be held responsible for your obvious crimes so disgusts you that you'll laugh at this. And that is why not only is the world against you, but that they find it so funny to watch you stumble.
What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people.
Patriotism to your nation even if it fucked someone else over is a filthy idea. The USA is a criminal entity that should not be supported.
But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.
Hmmm, what huge country went out of their way for force copyright, patents, and a million other restriction on the free market onto the rest of the world? Oh yeah, the USA.
I dunno, if a non-free market is your goal when it helps you I don't see how you get to bitch when it rolls around and hurts you.
You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.
Globalism rocks. Global trade at the behest of the USA, and only when it benefits them, does not.
BTW, if we "Hate America" it's because of people like you who don't see why we would. You're like a mob wife crying about getting hurt in a drive-by - what did you think your way of life was based on you idiot?
BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.
Be careful, knowledge burns them.
ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask:
In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this?
I don't believe it. But it's much more in line with all the physical evidence than "Spaceghost made us cuz he was lonely".
have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?
Once again, not a belief. But yes, a tremendous windfall - being able to independently evaluate thing has helped in all facets of life. From avoiding a bad mortgage to avoiding beliefs.
Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no. Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have.
Being religious strongly correlates with believing what people tell you. Many people believed GW Bush's lies about Iraq because they trusted a fellow religious believer, and over a million people were wrongly killed, and now they've got that blood on their hands.
In other news that same stupidity caused many people to buy a mortgage they knew they couldn't pay back without questioning the system that allowed this. How's it feel when your whole country's wealth is stolen in a Ponzi scheme?
As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.
Unless it convinces you to avoid medical treatment. Or any of the other problems associated with being gullible.
Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life.
Or, you can't but you just don't know it yet.
I'm ignorant of the precise internal workings of a hybrid electric automobile, as well as how the exact details of how the north-bridge in a computer works. I'm also ignorant of the exact details of the rise and fall of the Byzantine empire, but not knowing these things does not prevent me from having a decent life,
But surely you know that there are right answers to these things and just making them up isn't going to work. If you needed to fix your hybrid would you pray or read the book?
This whole blood feud between religion and science is pretty pointless when it comes down to the day to day lives of most of us, and I'm starting to get tired of it.
Oh no! We assumed y'all were having fun. We'll stop pointing out that belief in magic is retarded then. After all, your feelings, and the burden of protecting them, weighs so heavily on us all.
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
That's quite a testimonial for your school.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs.
Why? If you don't think evolution is right why not teach Pastafarianism or something else you don't believe?
But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Both. ROFL. As if there's only "A god did it" and "A god didn't do it". There are 900 types of baptists, let alone all christian sects, or worse, all religious beliefs. And then there are the "Aliens did it" and other beliefs. Do you teach your children about the Greys AND the Klingons? How do you explain the head-bump/no-head-bump schism in Klingon society?
I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots"
Of course not, someone with beliefs is hardly in the position to be throwing the idiot stone.
I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.
It wouldn't matter, a valid point is valid even if rude, and a wrong one wrong even if polite.
Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.
Ahh yes, and if the government school taught holocaust denial, or that HIV was good for you, you'd still be fine with the taxes and the influence on your kids? Even though it'd take much work (and without money to send them to a better school you'd be doing it all alone) just to address all the lies and unfounded claims, let alone give them an actually useful education as well?
There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed,
Not at all. But even if you're blind to the reasons why, the point is that once they have the system in place we can't stop them - even if it took a while.
and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.
Government powers are always used, and abused by the original definitions. If you don't understand the possible outcomes of a censorship system that got out of hand you aren't qualified to support it.
Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics.
But they require exactly the same infrastructure. Isn't that funny...
If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system [...]
No, the question is if you believe that laws that 1) enable and encourage abuses and 2) are crazier than the soviets banning private ownership of photocopiers and 3) won't work, should be passed just so the government appears to be doing something that only certain lobbyists wanted anyways.
Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.
Speaking as someone who has served aboard an Ohio class submarine, I cannot stress strongly enough how incredibly wrong you are.
First, I think you're wrong - that those secrets aren't as important, dangerous, or secret as you think.. I don't think they'd influence the success of either of us building a deadly device with the resources we could plausibly have (where do we get the material?). And it's not that well kept of a secret or so hard that a government (capable of aquiring useful amounts of material) wouldn't have stolen or re-invented the knowledge.
Preventing the spread of these secrets is less important than just keeping an eye out for signs of weapons tests, etc, because no matter how hard we clamp down on secrets they'll always be leaked or reinvented eventually. Only actual preparedness is worth anything.
Second, even if we assume these secrets are as deadly as you suggest with your "Trust me, I had a badge", and that they'd enable anyone who could get 10KG of appropriate material to make a weapon, is it enough of a threat increase to justify a global censorship net capable of detecting you leaking one of these secrets and preventing its spread?
But never mind that, they're only bothering to use stopping copyright infringement to justify enacting ultimately the same controls. They aren't even breaking out the child porn angle, let alone the nuclear secrets argument, and you're still willing to go along with it.
As we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, China, Libya, and others, the government having the ability to block internet or phone access for some or all users is going to get many people killed one day. And how do they get this power to censor? By blocking other things (porn, copyrighted material, etc).
Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.