Note to mods: Please mod parent +1 Insightful. If you feel so inclined, please mod my own post -1 Redundant, since people really should have learned better by now (especially people with a UID as low as the GP).
Please provide detailed examples of various problem sets that support this claim. I am genuinely intrigued, and would be delighted to analyze your response and potentially provide counterexamples. Please keep in mind the Unix philosophy of breaking tasks into smaller units (with strong integration of inputs and outputs from other units), as opposed to the typical Microsoft mentality of attempting to do everything in one place or very few places.
I've got some buddies who were once quite active in the shell demo scene that would take particular issue with your claim; they're the sort of dudes that will whip up insane stuff in bash just to prove a point. I'm the sort of dude who used to write usable applications in MS-DOS batch, half the time just to prove it could be done.
You should be aware that co is the ccTLD for Colombia, a country the United States enjoys a close relationship with. Well, it's a cozy relationship with one of their governments, anyhow. They've got the official government, the government with half the guns, and the government with most of the drugs. In any event, it's the official government that would be the issue if push came to shove over a domain.
Also, GoDaddy pimping anything is frequently a good reason to avoid whatever they're pimping.
There is no "allegedly" involved here. The only question is what those facilities are actually being used for. Iran says they're for peaceful civilian nuclear power research, and especially considering recent enrichment activities, a big chunk of the rest of the world says they might just be for producing precursors to nuclear weapons. Please pull your head out of our ass and cut the wanna intellectual replies.
I would agree with you on that if corporate CEOs and pretty much everyone who makes over a million dollars a year hadn't set the precedent that defrauding thousands of people at a time comes only with a slap on the wrist and a meager fine despite a huge profit margin.
Two wrongs make a right. Gotcha. You must be some kind of rebel freedom fighter.
Shit, that's the definition of how corporate America works. Why aren't they jailing the CEOs of the cable companies instead for charging >5000 times the amount they pay for bandwidth for the average user?
They aren't being jailing them because nobody has proven in a court of law that they've broken any laws. Please feel free to demand charges be pressed if you feel they're warranted. Maybe a few desperate law students can help you figure out a way to trump some charges up.
On a related note, I was born in 1981. I probably grew up in the same culture you did, and still have admiration for things like The Conscience of a Hacker. That said, you sure as shit ain't the guy that wrote that, nor are you really anything to write home about in terms of that culture. I ran a BBS here and there from the time I was a kid into my teens, and did some stuff that I'm pretty glad the statute of limitations has run out on around the same time. Looking back, the shady side of the stuff I did was utterly fucking stupid.
It's all ass-backward, and this guy just had the balls to do something about it. Do your time, but do it proudly.
Nobody does their time proudly, you dumb fuck, aside from people who have legitimately dodged grenades and slit throats for their country only to get locked up in some overseas shithole because they had the bad luck to get caught in the process (or similar scenario; go ahead and try to equate that to the crap you're defending here, I dare you). Have you ever been to a county jail, let alone served a prison term? I've got a brother who's done both; I'll be going to pick him up again when he gets released (again) next month. He's a tough son of a bitch, literally did UFC trial fights and failed to lose before getting his ass locked up again and screwing that opportunity (one of oh so many) up too. He'll be happy to demonstrate the finer points of correctional living to you if you need some help understanding it. I'll bet dollars to your nutsuck you wouldn't last 15 minutes in a drunk tank. Shit, put me in there with you, let's find out just to get it over with.
In short, I think you most likely fall into the wannabe vigilante category, and you probably stopped maturing around 14. Get a fucking life, and go do something about the stuff you're bitching about. Namely, go do something innovative to improve the situation, or shut the fuck up.
Look, it's perfectly obvious that back then, everybody was far too busy pulling out jives and jamboree handouts to concern themselves with silly inventions.
It doesn't transmit keystrokes back to a server. It simply logs them, and the administrator audits that later. There are a couple of commercial systems available that do this sort of thing.
The BIOS-based stuff has certain limitations, though. For extra fun, there's some evil stuff based on SMM floating around.
I'm not going to make a judgement call on the psychological state of any given company's management. That said, you might be surprised how many organizations are very interested in utilizing techniques like these to monitor all sorts of things. In the end, it is their equipment.
A dependency introduced on something equates to a restriction. Sure, I can distribute the binary without following the license, but then I'm (quite rightfully) subject to legal action on the part of the copyright holder(s). It doesn't make any sense to frame discussions of these things with the starting point of ignoring dependencies.
My perception is that this thread has, at least for the most part, very much been about what represents actual freedom. I absolutely agree with what you've said about reading the license and making an informed choice on whether the terms are acceptable or not. What I take issue with is the number of people who misrepresent what those terms actually mean, and instead opt to essentially redefine the word "freedom" to suit a particular ideology. I apologize if I've misunderstood your intent here.
I'll also readily accept that I'm guilty of framing "freedom" in terms of my own personal ideology, to the extent that I consider the existence of copyright law as being an acceptable thing. Others disagree with me on that point, which leads to a near-instant need to agree to just disagree on anything that depends on it.
In the end, I do indeed stay away from the GPL in terms of things I write or contribute to. Again, if at any point I've misunderstood your intent in this thread, I do apologize.
You're right about this. Copyright law represents the originating authority in all of this (which is why things like the GPL are referred to by the term "copyleft"), and it defaults to a restrictive effect. Unless that changes, discussion of licensing models will by necessity revolve around analysis of what freedoms each model grants, and it's sensible to keep that in mind.
I'm certainly not an advocate for abolishing copyright law, but I am a strong advocate for people understanding what effects different licenses have on individual usage rights. However, I would like to state that I think copyright terms have become utterly absurd.
The GPL doesn't restrict what you do with the code.
This is another false statement. The GPL absolutely restricts what you can do with the code. You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well. Conversely, you can go modify some BSD licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without being required to make the source available. Note that anybody else is still free to obtain the original BSD licensed code on the same terms. Nobody loses that ability just because somebody else did something else with the code.
Which of these affords you greater freedom and less restrictions?
It may surprise you, but I absolutely respect the sentiment expressed in your post. If we were to sit down over coffee and discuss various components of our views, we might well disagree on different points, but I suspect it would be a good conversation. I think what I really want is more real conversations, and less blind rhetoric. There seems to be entirely too much of the latter being tossed around on any given side.
No. The GPL enforces more of the existing restrictions present under copyright law than BSD licensing does. Put another way, BSD licensing expressly removes more of the default restrictions present under copyright law. To put it quite plainly, you are free to do more with BSD licensed code than you are allowed to do with GPL licensed code. It's that simple, and no amount of rhetoric from the FSF or those who fundamentally misunderstand copyright law and licensing mechanisms will change the facts.
Sorry for the double reply, but I'd also like to point out the fact that code getting incorporated into a closed source project in no way restricts your ability to use the same code that got incorporated. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
I must say, that sounds like some serious Newspeak. How does that equate to actual freedom? Really, this is starting to sound like a prime example of something the Ministry of Truth would disseminate.
You make this sounds like it's a bad thing. The copyleft ideal really is a "greater good at all costs" idea that frees a body of a work from the tyranny of it's own creator.
This is false. In terms of what it actually says and how it's actually applied, the GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others using the licensed work, and specifically as an attempt to guarantee ongoing benefits for the creator. Let's look at two example scenarios.
Scenario 1: I create SuperDuperWidget and distribute it under the BSD license. You can use it for your own purposes and freely distribute modifications in source or binary form according to the terms of the license. I can't prevent you from incorporating that version of my code into a commercial product, but I can always change my license later to prohibit such things. You're still protected against my potential "tyranny" with respect to the code you already have.
Scenario 2: I create SuperDuperWidget and distribute it under the GPL. You can use it for your own purposes and distribute modifications in source format under the same terms as the original code, and if you distribute binaries you must offer the modified source available under the terms of the license as well. You cannot otherwise distribute the work.
Which of these examples gives you more freedom to do what you want with the code? Which gives you more latitude in terms of my being able to tell you how to behave? I'm sorry, but in terms of freedom, BSD licensing clearly wins out here. Unless, of course, you want to redefine what "freedom" means.
That's not true at all. In both cases, you have permission to modify the code you already have. The differences lie in how/whether you're allowed to distribute the modified work.
Might I point out that this is not a destructive tendency at all? Contrary to if people were to choose much more permissive licenses as the default without understanding them.
Given the fact that the free software movement is supposedly all about freedom, I do view that as destructive. I would consider more permissive to equate to better, not worse.
I take issue with those who claim the GPL is all about freedom, when it is clearly a fairly restrictive license when contrasted with some other licenses. To me, freedom means freedom, not "freedom with strings A, B, and C attached."
Slashdot Mirror
Note to mods: Please mod parent +1 Insightful. If you feel so inclined, please mod my own post -1 Redundant, since people really should have learned better by now (especially people with a UID as low as the GP).
Powershell runs circles around bash.
Please provide detailed examples of various problem sets that support this claim. I am genuinely intrigued, and would be delighted to analyze your response and potentially provide counterexamples. Please keep in mind the Unix philosophy of breaking tasks into smaller units (with strong integration of inputs and outputs from other units), as opposed to the typical Microsoft mentality of attempting to do everything in one place or very few places.
I've got some buddies who were once quite active in the shell demo scene that would take particular issue with your claim; they're the sort of dudes that will whip up insane stuff in bash just to prove a point. I'm the sort of dude who used to write usable applications in MS-DOS batch, half the time just to prove it could be done.
Incidentally, it's PowerShell, not Powershell.
It looks like you're having open heart surgery. Would you like some help with stabilization of the left ventricle?
I care. Other /. members apparently care. Since you don't care, why did you waste your time posting a comment?
You should be aware that co is the ccTLD for Colombia, a country the United States enjoys a close relationship with. Well, it's a cozy relationship with one of their governments, anyhow. They've got the official government, the government with half the guns, and the government with most of the drugs. In any event, it's the official government that would be the issue if push came to shove over a domain.
Also, GoDaddy pimping anything is frequently a good reason to avoid whatever they're pimping.
Terrible things can happen when people begin to fiddle with nature.
There is no "allegedly" involved here. The only question is what those facilities are actually being used for. Iran says they're for peaceful civilian nuclear power research, and especially considering recent enrichment activities, a big chunk of the rest of the world says they might just be for producing precursors to nuclear weapons. Please pull your head out of our ass and cut the wanna intellectual replies.
I would agree with you on that if corporate CEOs and pretty much everyone who makes over a million dollars a year hadn't set the precedent that defrauding thousands of people at a time comes only with a slap on the wrist and a meager fine despite a huge profit margin.
Two wrongs make a right. Gotcha. You must be some kind of rebel freedom fighter.
Shit, that's the definition of how corporate America works. Why aren't they jailing the CEOs of the cable companies instead for charging >5000 times the amount they pay for bandwidth for the average user?
They aren't being jailing them because nobody has proven in a court of law that they've broken any laws. Please feel free to demand charges be pressed if you feel they're warranted. Maybe a few desperate law students can help you figure out a way to trump some charges up.
On a related note, I was born in 1981. I probably grew up in the same culture you did, and still have admiration for things like The Conscience of a Hacker. That said, you sure as shit ain't the guy that wrote that, nor are you really anything to write home about in terms of that culture. I ran a BBS here and there from the time I was a kid into my teens, and did some stuff that I'm pretty glad the statute of limitations has run out on around the same time. Looking back, the shady side of the stuff I did was utterly fucking stupid.
It's all ass-backward, and this guy just had the balls to do something about it. Do your time, but do it proudly.
Nobody does their time proudly, you dumb fuck, aside from people who have legitimately dodged grenades and slit throats for their country only to get locked up in some overseas shithole because they had the bad luck to get caught in the process (or similar scenario; go ahead and try to equate that to the crap you're defending here, I dare you). Have you ever been to a county jail, let alone served a prison term? I've got a brother who's done both; I'll be going to pick him up again when he gets released (again) next month. He's a tough son of a bitch, literally did UFC trial fights and failed to lose before getting his ass locked up again and screwing that opportunity (one of oh so many) up too. He'll be happy to demonstrate the finer points of correctional living to you if you need some help understanding it. I'll bet dollars to your nutsuck you wouldn't last 15 minutes in a drunk tank. Shit, put me in there with you, let's find out just to get it over with.
In short, I think you most likely fall into the wannabe vigilante category, and you probably stopped maturing around 14. Get a fucking life, and go do something about the stuff you're bitching about. Namely, go do something innovative to improve the situation, or shut the fuck up.
Where did I say all companies do that?
Look, it's perfectly obvious that back then, everybody was far too busy pulling out jives and jamboree handouts to concern themselves with silly inventions.
It doesn't transmit keystrokes back to a server. It simply logs them, and the administrator audits that later. There are a couple of commercial systems available that do this sort of thing.
The BIOS-based stuff has certain limitations, though. For extra fun, there's some evil stuff based on SMM floating around.
I'm not going to make a judgement call on the psychological state of any given company's management. That said, you might be surprised how many organizations are very interested in utilizing techniques like these to monitor all sorts of things. In the end, it is their equipment.
Key logging can also be done in BIOS.
Maybe he's got another account that has mod points. I disagree with such practices, but some folks roll that way.
A dependency introduced on something equates to a restriction. Sure, I can distribute the binary without following the license, but then I'm (quite rightfully) subject to legal action on the part of the copyright holder(s). It doesn't make any sense to frame discussions of these things with the starting point of ignoring dependencies.
My perception is that this thread has, at least for the most part, very much been about what represents actual freedom. I absolutely agree with what you've said about reading the license and making an informed choice on whether the terms are acceptable or not. What I take issue with is the number of people who misrepresent what those terms actually mean, and instead opt to essentially redefine the word "freedom" to suit a particular ideology. I apologize if I've misunderstood your intent here.
I'll also readily accept that I'm guilty of framing "freedom" in terms of my own personal ideology, to the extent that I consider the existence of copyright law as being an acceptable thing. Others disagree with me on that point, which leads to a near-instant need to agree to just disagree on anything that depends on it.
In the end, I do indeed stay away from the GPL in terms of things I write or contribute to. Again, if at any point I've misunderstood your intent in this thread, I do apologize.
You're right about this. Copyright law represents the originating authority in all of this (which is why things like the GPL are referred to by the term "copyleft"), and it defaults to a restrictive effect. Unless that changes, discussion of licensing models will by necessity revolve around analysis of what freedoms each model grants, and it's sensible to keep that in mind.
I'm certainly not an advocate for abolishing copyright law, but I am a strong advocate for people understanding what effects different licenses have on individual usage rights. However, I would like to state that I think copyright terms have become utterly absurd.
The GPL doesn't restrict what you do with the code.
This is another false statement. The GPL absolutely restricts what you can do with the code. You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well. Conversely, you can go modify some BSD licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without being required to make the source available. Note that anybody else is still free to obtain the original BSD licensed code on the same terms. Nobody loses that ability just because somebody else did something else with the code.
Which of these affords you greater freedom and less restrictions?
It may surprise you, but I absolutely respect the sentiment expressed in your post. If we were to sit down over coffee and discuss various components of our views, we might well disagree on different points, but I suspect it would be a good conversation. I think what I really want is more real conversations, and less blind rhetoric. There seems to be entirely too much of the latter being tossed around on any given side.
No. The GPL enforces more of the existing restrictions present under copyright law than BSD licensing does. Put another way, BSD licensing expressly removes more of the default restrictions present under copyright law. To put it quite plainly, you are free to do more with BSD licensed code than you are allowed to do with GPL licensed code. It's that simple, and no amount of rhetoric from the FSF or those who fundamentally misunderstand copyright law and licensing mechanisms will change the facts.
Sorry for the double reply, but I'd also like to point out the fact that code getting incorporated into a closed source project in no way restricts your ability to use the same code that got incorporated. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
I must say, that sounds like some serious Newspeak. How does that equate to actual freedom? Really, this is starting to sound like a prime example of something the Ministry of Truth would disseminate.
False. It enforces restriction of the freedom of others. Please reread the post you replied to.
For the rest of us it's a good thing whenever someone doesn't choose BSD.
How is it a good thing? BSD licensed code going into a proprietary project doesn't limit your access to or right to use the same code.
You make this sounds like it's a bad thing. The copyleft ideal really is a "greater good at all costs" idea that frees a body of a work from the tyranny of it's own creator.
This is false. In terms of what it actually says and how it's actually applied, the GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others using the licensed work, and specifically as an attempt to guarantee ongoing benefits for the creator. Let's look at two example scenarios.
Scenario 1: I create SuperDuperWidget and distribute it under the BSD license. You can use it for your own purposes and freely distribute modifications in source or binary form according to the terms of the license. I can't prevent you from incorporating that version of my code into a commercial product, but I can always change my license later to prohibit such things. You're still protected against my potential "tyranny" with respect to the code you already have.
Scenario 2: I create SuperDuperWidget and distribute it under the GPL. You can use it for your own purposes and distribute modifications in source format under the same terms as the original code, and if you distribute binaries you must offer the modified source available under the terms of the license as well. You cannot otherwise distribute the work.
Which of these examples gives you more freedom to do what you want with the code? Which gives you more latitude in terms of my being able to tell you how to behave? I'm sorry, but in terms of freedom, BSD licensing clearly wins out here. Unless, of course, you want to redefine what "freedom" means.
That's not true at all. In both cases, you have permission to modify the code you already have. The differences lie in how/whether you're allowed to distribute the modified work.
Might I point out that this is not a destructive tendency at all? Contrary to if people were to choose much more permissive licenses as the default without understanding them.
Given the fact that the free software movement is supposedly all about freedom, I do view that as destructive. I would consider more permissive to equate to better, not worse.
I take issue with those who claim the GPL is all about freedom, when it is clearly a fairly restrictive license when contrasted with some other licenses. To me, freedom means freedom, not "freedom with strings A, B, and C attached."