Ah, but you forget. Their profits will go up massively in the short term as we buy hundreds of DVD players. Then, of course, we all have enough to last us the rest of our lifetime and our children's lifetime and our children's children's lifetime, so the DVD making companies start complaining that we are obviously pirating DVD players and the DVD-making industry will lobby the legislators to make laws preventing the stocking of DVDs! Reminds me of revolutionary Paris...
I fail to see the problem. In Stallman's opinion, you should always release the source. But that's his choice. He isn't changing the law and turning up at your door with guns forcing you to release the source, is he? (It is his goal that all software be free, but even once this goal is obtained, the only thing stopping you from releasing non-free software would be your desire not to be anti-social.)
The only time Stallman is forcing you to release the source is when you have agreed to use software copyrighted by him that has a licence requiring you to release the source. In that case, the incursion into your freedom is a culturally and legally accepted one, and you freely agreed to it when you agreed to the licensing conditions (remember that US copyright grants you only limited ability to modify software, even if code is available, and the GPL doesn't infringe upon any of those already-available options). If you use Stallman's code, you have to agree with Stallman's terms and conditions, but no-one's forcing you to do the former if you object to the latter.
Sorry, but a lot of developers will take offense to being called "anti-social" just because they, gasp, don't release all their source code and make everything free.
Perhaps that's the point. Perhaps Stallman is offended by people who don't release their code. Stallman is all for freedom of choice, but he doesn't want you to choose to limit his freedom.
When Stallman says that you should release all your code free, you have the option of doing that or not doing that. When you don't release all your code free, Stallman doesn't have tho option to modify your code. Clearly only one of those represents an incursion of freedom of choice, and it's not Stallman's position! (Alternatively, opinions are a dime a dozen, but there's only one source code to Windows XP.)
Anyone who claims that GPLed libraries and software are bad because you can't make them non-free, and that they're limiting your freedom to infringe upon mine: imagine the GPLed software is already non-free. Then you can't even use it at all! I know which one's freer...
Or seeing the color purguent. I can't see it yet, but if I try hard enough, eventually my eyes will adapt and I'll learn something new! It's clearly the same plocess as learning how to make fire!
He quotes a paper by ESR about the relative frequency of 'free software' and 'open source', and finds that '"open source"' is significantly more common than '"free software"', even amongst developers. I of course was suspicious about this, because I'm almost certain I see software described as 'free/open source' as frequently as I see it described as 'open source', and I'm sure I see it described as 'free' a decent amount. Of course, he's only looking for '"open source"' and '"free software"' as phrases, totally ignoring cases when I say that my software project is 'free, meaning you can do whatever you like'.
If you think he provides compelling reason to use the phrase "open source", you might be wrong. 'Open source software' only has a mere nineteen thousand hits on sourceforge.net using Yahoo!, in comparison to the ninety thousand ESR says 'free software' has. Obviously the open source movement has lost, and we should all be go back to the FSF!
Except those of us who reckon Mac OS X is not the most easy to use environment and that Debian's installation system is a flawed stupid brainless piece of junk that should never have been thought up (I know... there's a problem with the current system... so instead of fixing it, we'll just tack on a hack!). As for Windows Vendor support, do they plan on a reasonable licence, or is it that proprietry crud they force onto Windows users? I think I'd rather pass if so. As for Solaris 10, well, I know jack about it, so I'll not complain.
I think your 'all' and '100%' was a bit too optimistic.
I dunno... maybe it's that Glögg doesn't work in summer, but I tried some recently and was less then impressed, as were the other people who work with me at the Sweden Shop of an Ikea in Australia. (Julmust, on the other hand, is good.)
I never denied you the ability to sell your code or give it away. Neither does RMS. In fact, he very frequently points out that you're most welcome to. If that's what you're talking about, I fully agree, and apologise for the confusion. You should be able to sell it or give it away free, so long as I can do whatever I want with it once I get it.
As for the second one, I maintain that there is a similarity between compelling you to provide the source and denying you the opportunity to kill someone. Both involve limiting your freedom for the greater good. One of the things about living in a society is that we have to make sacrifices.
Incidentally, I notice your sig talks of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. IIRC, LvM is a Libertarian. As such I have no expectations of being able to sway your (misguided, IMHO) opinion.
No-one who knows what to do with a terabyte of storage has a girlfriend. I'm sick of all you lying slashdotters, my girlfriend this, my wife that... Or maybe I'm just jealous...
Not all beerfree software is speechfree, though, so he still needs to maintain the distinction...
Re:I wish they would define "derivative work" bett
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
You've missed a big point. These people using GPLed libraries in their own code have... agreed to a licence that says 'if you use my libraries in your code, you have to distribute it under my licence'. This is entirely fair and within the rights of the library-writer. To say it isn't fair because it means the second person can't choose his own licence is contradictory; the first person must be able to choose his own licence.
If it's fully fair for my customer to choose his own licence on his own, it's fully fair for me to choose my licence on my own. No-one's forcing you to use my code.
Most of Linux is released under the GPL version 2 and only version 2. As the licensor, you are free to choose whether you want it under just version two or under version two or later. As for the FSF, it contains more idealists than just RMS. If RMS dies, I don't think the 'many millions' would be enough to buy the GPL off. If I was concerned, I would retroactively re-licence my software under versions of the GPL as they're created. As a maintainer of software, I would only let people contribute if they allow this (i.e. retroactive relicensing under future versions of the GPL that maintain the spirit).
The FSF does not promote the use of the LGPL for various reasons, including, I think, things like this.
Quite right; the software cannot be distributed (unless the patent-holder choses to license the patent under appropriate terms). This applies to any software, though. It can be corrected by simply removing the patented parts.
(I think, I am not a know-everything GPL zealot, I just try to be.)
I draw the line at contracts that require secrecy. Other contracts may be bad for different reasons.
And just because I'm not forced into an NDA doesn't mean Apple's not bad for having them. When I'm ruler of half the world and kill everyone who doesn't say 'cheese!' when I take a photo of them, but don't limit migration, I'm still bad. (I don't mean this by way of comparing the badness of an NDA to the badness of killing people. Killing people and NDAs are both examples of something bad, even though there's lightyears of difference between them. I'm just exaggerating to make my point slightly clearer.)
(Indicentally, I hope Apple can compete on the value of their products and don't require NDAs to be successful.)
That's not what I was talking about. On those grounds I mostly agree with you. But I don't have much sympathy for Apple for forcing people to sign NDAs and then having their trust broken. In this case, it's my view that neither party was in the ethical right, and so I can criticise both. They will both be punished when I am ruler of the world!
In case you'd forgotten, one of the driving events for the free software movement was that RMS was screwed by an NDA. Perhaps a lot of other people here dislike NDAs, too?
I don't get why all calendar reform proposals bother with months & years, nor why they're cyclical. Thus, I propose the following:
Today (Dec 22) shall henceforth be day 1 aka 1 d. Tomorrow will be 2 d (not 2d., which is tuppence!). A week hence will be 8 d. In seven hundred and sixty four thousand, three hundred and eighty-nine days, it will be 764 389 d, though in colloquial use I'm sure...89 d will suffice.
It might be useful to retain a week for a working purposes, and so a week would obvious start on a Wednesday and continue until Tuesday; you can work out the day by dividing the daycount by seven and mapping the remainder according to the algorithm Tuesday=0, Wednesday=1, Thursday=2,..., Monday=6. Alternatively, you might prefer to replace the week by a ten-day period, creating the days Earthenday, Weresday (wurzday, meaning Man's day) and Wisday (wizday, meaning Woman's day, all three formed from the Old English genitive+day, then contracted). Then, obviously, you say the week goes Tuesday=0,..., Saturday=4, Earthenday=5, Weresday=6, Wisday=7, Sunday=8, Monday=9.
When people are 6500 d old, they can drink, drive and are required to vote (though not all at the same time!) in Victoria. Companies can use 100 d periods for their financials, longer than a current quarter, but shorter than a third.
Things like seasons aren't really all that important that they need to be in a calendar. I know that last decade (10 d, not 10 years!) was a bit colder than this one, and that next decade will be warmer. People that really care about this stuff can still use the archaic calendar if they want, though.
The only difficulty is that we lose birthdays and other anniversaries, because we've lost the year. Well, nevermind; if we steamroll headlong into this new system, we'll work it out eventually.
Yay! for the yearless calendar!
PS: I'm not sure if I'm serious. I didn't mean to be, but it's such a good idea! Incidentally, with the three new days, feminists can revel in the fact that man's day sounds like 'worse day' and woman's 'wise day'.
I think this image answers your questions. It's from an article about the Global Conveyor shutting down. For those who can't, for whatever reason, see the image, it's a picture of an angry beast being prodded by a boy, labelled 'us'.
Slashdot Mirror
Pity Apple didn't take their own advice. Goddamn it's impossible to use a webbrowser on a Mac.
Ah, but you forget. Their profits will go up massively in the short term as we buy hundreds of DVD players. Then, of course, we all have enough to last us the rest of our lifetime and our children's lifetime and our children's children's lifetime, so the DVD making companies start complaining that we are obviously pirating DVD players and the DVD-making industry will lobby the legislators to make laws preventing the stocking of DVDs! Reminds me of revolutionary Paris...
I fail to see the problem. In Stallman's opinion, you should always release the source. But that's his choice. He isn't changing the law and turning up at your door with guns forcing you to release the source, is he? (It is his goal that all software be free, but even once this goal is obtained, the only thing stopping you from releasing non-free software would be your desire not to be anti-social.)
The only time Stallman is forcing you to release the source is when you have agreed to use software copyrighted by him that has a licence requiring you to release the source. In that case, the incursion into your freedom is a culturally and legally accepted one, and you freely agreed to it when you agreed to the licensing conditions (remember that US copyright grants you only limited ability to modify software, even if code is available, and the GPL doesn't infringe upon any of those already-available options). If you use Stallman's code, you have to agree with Stallman's terms and conditions, but no-one's forcing you to do the former if you object to the latter.
Stallman's opinion is not the law.
Sorry, but a lot of developers will take offense to being called "anti-social" just because they, gasp, don't release all their source code and make everything free.
Perhaps that's the point. Perhaps Stallman is offended by people who don't release their code. Stallman is all for freedom of choice, but he doesn't want you to choose to limit his freedom.
When Stallman says that you should release all your code free, you have the option of doing that or not doing that. When you don't release all your code free, Stallman doesn't have tho option to modify your code. Clearly only one of those represents an incursion of freedom of choice, and it's not Stallman's position! (Alternatively, opinions are a dime a dozen, but there's only one source code to Windows XP.)
Anyone who claims that GPLed libraries and software are bad because you can't make them non-free, and that they're limiting your freedom to infringe upon mine: imagine the GPLed software is already non-free. Then you can't even use it at all! I know which one's freer...
Or seeing the color purguent. I can't see it yet, but if I try hard enough, eventually my eyes will adapt and I'll learn something new! It's clearly the same plocess as learning how to make fire!
He quotes a paper by ESR about the relative frequency of 'free software' and 'open source', and finds that '"open source"' is significantly more common than '"free software"', even amongst developers. I of course was suspicious about this, because I'm almost certain I see software described as 'free/open source' as frequently as I see it described as 'open source', and I'm sure I see it described as 'free' a decent amount. Of course, he's only looking for '"open source"' and '"free software"' as phrases, totally ignoring cases when I say that my software project is 'free, meaning you can do whatever you like'.
If you think he provides compelling reason to use the phrase "open source", you might be wrong. 'Open source software' only has a mere nineteen thousand hits on sourceforge.net using Yahoo!, in comparison to the ninety thousand ESR says 'free software' has. Obviously the open source movement has lost, and we should all be go back to the FSF!
Except those of us who reckon Mac OS X is not the most easy to use environment and that Debian's installation system is a flawed stupid brainless piece of junk that should never have been thought up (I know... there's a problem with the current system... so instead of fixing it, we'll just tack on a hack!). As for Windows Vendor support, do they plan on a reasonable licence, or is it that proprietry crud they force onto Windows users? I think I'd rather pass if so. As for Solaris 10, well, I know jack about it, so I'll not complain.
I think your 'all' and '100%' was a bit too optimistic.
I dunno... maybe it's that Glögg doesn't work in summer, but I tried some recently and was less then impressed, as were the other people who work with me at the Sweden Shop of an Ikea in Australia. (Julmust, on the other hand, is good.)
I never denied you the ability to sell your code or give it away. Neither does RMS. In fact, he very frequently points out that you're most welcome to. If that's what you're talking about, I fully agree, and apologise for the confusion. You should be able to sell it or give it away free, so long as I can do whatever I want with it once I get it.
As for the second one, I maintain that there is a similarity between compelling you to provide the source and denying you the opportunity to kill someone. Both involve limiting your freedom for the greater good. One of the things about living in a society is that we have to make sacrifices.
Incidentally, I notice your sig talks of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. IIRC, LvM is a Libertarian. As such I have no expectations of being able to sway your (misguided, IMHO) opinion.
No-one who knows what to do with a terabyte of storage has a girlfriend. I'm sick of all you lying slashdotters, my girlfriend this, my wife that... Or maybe I'm just jealous...
I don't like being told I'm not allowed to do what I want, so murder should stop being unethical.
(Exaggeration; same general idea. Not intending to equate propriatery software and the death of a person.)
Not all beerfree software is speechfree, though, so he still needs to maintain the distinction...
You've missed a big point. These people using GPLed libraries in their own code have ... agreed to a licence that says 'if you use my libraries in your code, you have to distribute it under my licence'. This is entirely fair and within the rights of the library-writer. To say it isn't fair because it means the second person can't choose his own licence is contradictory; the first person must be able to choose his own licence.
If it's fully fair for my customer to choose his own licence on his own, it's fully fair for me to choose my licence on my own. No-one's forcing you to use my code.
(I think, I am not a know-everything GPL zealot, I just try to be.)
I thought it was on-topic ;)
Replace line two with:
His etiquette complaints they did torque us
and you get the rhyme back.
I draw the line at contracts that require secrecy. Other contracts may be bad for different reasons.
And just because I'm not forced into an NDA doesn't mean Apple's not bad for having them. When I'm ruler of half the world and kill everyone who doesn't say 'cheese!' when I take a photo of them, but don't limit migration, I'm still bad. (I don't mean this by way of comparing the badness of an NDA to the badness of killing people. Killing people and NDAs are both examples of something bad, even though there's lightyears of difference between them. I'm just exaggerating to make my point slightly clearer.)
(Indicentally, I hope Apple can compete on the value of their products and don't require NDAs to be successful.)
That's not what I was talking about. On those grounds I mostly agree with you. But I don't have much sympathy for Apple for forcing people to sign NDAs and then having their trust broken. In this case, it's my view that neither party was in the ethical right, and so I can criticise both. They will both be punished when I am ruler of the world!
In case you'd forgotten, one of the driving events for the free software movement was that RMS was screwed by an NDA. Perhaps a lot of other people here dislike NDAs, too?
I don't get why all calendar reform proposals bother with months & years, nor why they're cyclical. Thus, I propose the following:
...89 d will suffice.
..., Monday=6. Alternatively, you might prefer to replace the week by a ten-day period, creating the days Earthenday, Weresday (wurzday, meaning Man's day) and Wisday (wizday, meaning Woman's day, all three formed from the Old English genitive+day, then contracted). Then, obviously, you say the week goes Tuesday=0, ..., Saturday=4, Earthenday=5, Weresday=6, Wisday=7, Sunday=8, Monday=9.
Today (Dec 22) shall henceforth be day 1 aka 1 d. Tomorrow will be 2 d (not 2d., which is tuppence!). A week hence will be 8 d. In seven hundred and sixty four thousand, three hundred and eighty-nine days, it will be 764 389 d, though in colloquial use I'm sure
It might be useful to retain a week for a working purposes, and so a week would obvious start on a Wednesday and continue until Tuesday; you can work out the day by dividing the daycount by seven and mapping the remainder according to the algorithm Tuesday=0, Wednesday=1, Thursday=2,
When people are 6500 d old, they can drink, drive and are required to vote (though not all at the same time!) in Victoria. Companies can use 100 d periods for their financials, longer than a current quarter, but shorter than a third.
Things like seasons aren't really all that important that they need to be in a calendar. I know that last decade (10 d, not 10 years!) was a bit colder than this one, and that next decade will be warmer. People that really care about this stuff can still use the archaic calendar if they want, though.
The only difficulty is that we lose birthdays and other anniversaries, because we've lost the year. Well, nevermind; if we steamroll headlong into this new system, we'll work it out eventually.
Yay! for the yearless calendar!
PS: I'm not sure if I'm serious. I didn't mean to be, but it's such a good idea! Incidentally, with the three new days, feminists can revel in the fact that man's day sounds like 'worse day' and woman's 'wise day'.
were=man, so it couldn't be a girlfriend. It's probably a wifewolf, and most wives are somewhat like wolves.
I've obviously got a poor sense of tumor, but I don't find that funny...
OMG Weblogs are online now??
You're right. MS can't win. But they chose to use an unethical method of software limitation, so screw them.
I think this image answers your questions. It's from an article about the Global Conveyor shutting down. For those who can't, for whatever reason, see the image, it's a picture of an angry beast being prodded by a boy, labelled 'us'.