I'm not a fan of George Bush, but Paul Krugman is as bad Rush Limbaugh. Be careful about believing anything he says, he tends to do Michael Moore/Al Gore "Cherry Picking" of data and has been known to outright lie.
"I'm sick of lies and lying liars. I'm sick of people who rewrite the facts to justify doing something and then rewrite history to protect themselves from that fuckup."
Get used to it. Whomever wins (Democrat or Republican) the whitehouse will
1. Blame the previous administration for anything that goes wrong domestic or foreign for I predict at least 2 years and probably 3.
2. Spin Spin Spin until you puke like riding that thing that kids ride at parks.
3. Probably keep 90 to 95% of every executive order that Bush signed to use for their own political advantage.
Assuming some students are "well to do" and have $$$ from family or otherwise. If one of those students objects and says the college was wrong and he/she was NOT downloading unauthorized copyrighted material I'd expect some lawsuits.
If that's the way the college wants it, so be it. But there are some students and families who have the money and will have NO problem taking their complaints to court.
Remember, you can sue anybody for anything in the U.S.
I don't agree that it's your hardware (unless you are leasing it to somebody).
If I buy your device with money the hardware is mine. The design may not be, but the physical item and all of it's molecules are my property to do with as I wish.
Flaming occurs when somebody says something to personally attack somebody else (ad homimem)
My statement about Microsoft was a general one concerning the fact that I don't hear the same people complaining about far more restrictive licenses. I put it on a separate line for that purpose.
You'll note that my response did'nt address your point's directly. This is because I was not responding directly to your post but to the overall posture of the thread.
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Ummm..actually it's made by the copyleft OWNER of the code.
If you have software (any code) that was licensed to you under the GPLv2 that code cannot be re-distributed with a different license. The wording must be exactly the same.
That's the price you pay by using somebody else's code. The license they put with it dictates to you how THEIR code can be used. In the case where your code is mixed with theirs, their license supersedes because you accepted the terms of their license by using it.
The only person/organization that can make the change is the original code owner AND if the code being distributed is 100% their code and nobody else's.
Did those companies make comments when the drafts were out? Many did (IBM, government agencies, etc)
The goals of the FSF have not changed. The hardware provision closes the loophole which circumvents a main FSF principal that code licensed under the GPL be under the control of the USER. It's central to the FSF's philosophy that users should have control over software. This was true under GPLv2 and GPLv3's hardware provision ensures that this is the case.
If I license software under the GPL I don't want my code used in a way that keeps users from controlling/modifying the code. I gave them that right by GPLing the software. Putting my code in a closed box and locking it takes that right away from the user (technically speaking).
You assume that people who use the GPL for their code don't care if the rights they grant to people/companies using/distributing their code are circumvented. I think you are wrong. There are MANY people who are pissed (and I'm one of them) that there are companies using their code that is clearly against the principals that the license was written for.
Far more developers will be moving to GPLv3 because of this than you think (in my humble angry opinion!)
The said aforementioned companies you stated used the GPLv2 license in bad faith knowing full well (or being plain ignorant)of the spirit of the license.
The point of the hardware provision is so that the rights that YOU have decided to let end users have when using and distributing YOUR code are not changed or loopholed around. It's YOUR code. YOU get to decide by the license how people legally can use it. That's what the license agreement is for.
The GPL states your RESTRICTIONS (in this case non-restrictions) that you require of the user/distributer of your code. I don't want people taking my code and using it in a box that violates principals that the GPL was written for.
You should also have: (from the previous paragraph on the website) "The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity."
Now you can disagree with the FSF's statement. That's OK. You don't have to. But its THEIR license and the license reflects the values of the FSF. By using it I'm agreeing with it and applying the license restrictions to my code.
If you don't like it, don't use my code and don't use code with the GPLv3.
Why are people so bitched up over the FSF's license when Microsoft's license is FAR more restrictive AND you have to pay $$$ for it?
You know, they had their chance to comment on it. I'd bet a large percentage of people bitching didn't do a damn thing while the comment period on the drafts were up and THOUSANDS of people including corporations, hackers, government agencies, etc made clear the areas of the license they didn't like.
Is that alternate computing platforms have finally started to gain enough clout that those choosing Microsoft only solutions will have to think twice about ignoring non-windows platforms.
3 or 4 years ago choosing a windows only solution would not cause you any pain. Increasingly, for popular internet multimedia sites, choosing a Windows only solution is more likely to cause you pain.
"He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3."
Does this mean that Linus didn't understand that the FSF is a organization with specific goals based on the morals of it's members? It's kinda obvious.
actually it's HOW nicotine is delivered that makes it addicting (to a large extent).
There are many stimulants on the market that do not cause withdrawl but would if you were to smoke them (like crystal meth).
Smoking is the quickest way to get something into your blood, quicker than injection. Smoking gets nictoine to your brain in a big jolt, then after a smoker is done the drug goes away quickly and the smoker needs to do it again.
patches and pills have FAR less withdrawl and in many cases none. (chemical withdraw).
Linus has been a little muddy on this point of late. He gave some examples (for instance if Sun releases Solaris under GPLv3) that would probably convince him to change the license on the kernel.
Sun has said they would like to release Solaris under GPLv3 if possible.
Linus said he is also not near as up in arms over the new version of the GPL as he once was.
All this does is move us one step closer to having some sort of system that validates people as who they really are. There ARE systems out there that work fairly well but are not cost effective. At some point I'd pay for some sort of encrypted certificate that PROVED that I am who I say I am and an organization on the web could use it to validate.
Yes, there are all sorts of privacy questions and "well I could just bla bla bla" to get around it. But at some point it's GOING to have to be addressed.
Yup, Before being an operator on one of the Sperry/Unisys Class of systems my REAL first job was watching a line printer in a Banking back office with a B series MCP based system. Never got to be a console jocky on that one though. Looked at the manuals MCP confused me:)
Wow...maybe I should put that line back in my resume about being the lead computer operator and later batch scheduler (it was my first job back in the early 90's).
Reading the article I can believe IBM is moving the mainframe forward.
It's hard to believe that ANYTHING Unisys does with it's mainframe is anything decent. (The system I was in charge of was a Unisys 2200/622)
We all know what will happen if it does not work. That's just plane boring to talk about. Also reading people make jokes about snake oil is boring too.
What's more interesting is to think of what WOULD happen if it were true. How would the politics of the world change? Would it plunge the world into war? Would peace brake out?
As a thought experiment independent of this being true how would the world change in 3 months, 6 months, 6 years if unlimited engergy was discovered?
Yes, but how much POWER does it take to run the Microwave equipment? If you are using more electricity to melt the plastic into fuel what is the point?
Although I like Google desktop, I REALLY wish there was a way to have my results come up in some sort of file management application like explorer(windows), or Konqueror (File manager, not browser), or my file management app of choice.
You can't work with the results when they come up in your browser window.
This is one thing that Spotlight really does have going for it. Being able to have a search folder which dynamically has all the results I want whenever I open it is really useful. Now spotlight needs some work and is not perfect, but google desktop is really lacking in this area.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a fan of George Bush, but Paul Krugman is as bad Rush Limbaugh. Be careful about believing anything he says, he tends to do Michael Moore/Al Gore "Cherry Picking" of data and has been known to outright lie.
"I'm sick of lies and lying liars. I'm sick of people who rewrite the facts to justify doing something and then rewrite history to protect themselves from that fuckup."
Get used to it. Whomever wins (Democrat or Republican) the whitehouse will
1. Blame the previous administration for anything that goes wrong domestic or foreign for I predict at least 2 years and probably 3.
2. Spin Spin Spin until you puke like riding that thing that kids ride at parks.
3. Probably keep 90 to 95% of every executive order that Bush signed to use for their own political advantage.
Assuming some students are "well to do" and have $$$ from family or otherwise. If one of those students objects and says the college was wrong and he/she was NOT downloading unauthorized copyrighted material I'd expect some lawsuits.
If that's the way the college wants it, so be it. But there are some students and families who have the money and will have NO problem taking their complaints to court.
Remember, you can sue anybody for anything in the U.S.
Ahh..yes. Another fine example of the inevitable truth of Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
I don't agree that it's your hardware (unless you are leasing it to somebody).
If I buy your device with money the hardware is mine. The design may not be, but the physical item and all of it's molecules are my property to do with as I wish.
Flaming occurs when somebody says something to personally attack somebody else (ad homimem)
My statement about Microsoft was a general one concerning the fact that I don't hear the same people complaining about far more restrictive licenses. I put it on a separate line for that purpose.
You'll note that my response did'nt address your point's directly. This is because I was not responding directly to your post but to the overall posture of the thread.
I call bullshit. The FSF's principal philosophies have not changed since GPLv2.
The key point(S) of the GPL...ANY version is the principals that FSF are trying to achieve. You mentioned only ONE.
Try reading the other 4. Pay attention to the first one.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Ummm..actually it's made by the copyleft OWNER of the code.
If you have software (any code) that was licensed to you under the GPLv2 that code cannot be re-distributed with a different license. The wording must be exactly the same.
That's the price you pay by using somebody else's code. The license they put with it dictates to you how THEIR code can be used. In the case where your code is mixed with theirs, their license supersedes because you accepted the terms of their license by using it.
The only person/organization that can make the change is the original code owner AND if the code being distributed is 100% their code and nobody else's.
Did those companies make comments when the drafts were out? Many did (IBM, government agencies, etc)
The goals of the FSF have not changed. The hardware provision closes the loophole which circumvents a main FSF principal that code licensed under the GPL be under the control of the USER. It's central to the FSF's philosophy that users should have control over software. This was true under GPLv2 and GPLv3's hardware provision ensures that this is the case.
If I license software under the GPL I don't want my code used in a way that keeps users from controlling/modifying the code. I gave them that right by GPLing the software. Putting my code in a closed box and locking it takes that right away from the user (technically speaking).
You assume that people who use the GPL for their code don't care if the rights they grant to people/companies using/distributing their code are circumvented. I think you are wrong. There are MANY people who are pissed (and I'm one of them) that there are companies using their code that is clearly against the principals that the license was written for.
Far more developers will be moving to GPLv3 because of this than you think (in my humble angry opinion!)
The said aforementioned companies you stated used the GPLv2 license in bad faith knowing full well (or being plain ignorant)of the spirit of the license.
The point of the hardware provision is so that the rights that YOU have decided to let end users have when using and distributing YOUR code are not changed or loopholed around. It's YOUR code. YOU get to decide by the license how people legally can use it. That's what the license agreement is for.
The GPL states your RESTRICTIONS (in this case non-restrictions) that you require of the user/distributer of your code. I don't want people taking my code and using it in a box that violates principals that the GPL was written for.
From the FSF Website:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
You should also have: (from the previous paragraph on the website)
"The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity."
Now you can disagree with the FSF's statement. That's OK. You don't have to. But its THEIR license and the license reflects the values of the FSF. By using it I'm agreeing with it and applying the license restrictions to my code.
If you don't like it, don't use my code and don't use code with the GPLv3.
Why are people so bitched up over the FSF's license when Microsoft's license is FAR more restrictive AND you have to pay $$$ for it?
You know, they had their chance to comment on it. I'd bet a large percentage of people bitching didn't do a damn thing while the comment period on the drafts were up and THOUSANDS of people including corporations, hackers, government agencies, etc made clear the areas of the license they didn't like.
President Bush introduced a bill this week to provide unlimited funds from the pentagon budget to further research at MIT.
Is that alternate computing platforms have finally started to gain enough clout that those choosing Microsoft only solutions will have to think twice about ignoring non-windows platforms.
3 or 4 years ago choosing a windows only solution would not cause you any pain. Increasingly, for popular internet multimedia sites, choosing a Windows only solution is more likely to cause you pain.
I consider this a good thing.
"He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3."
Does this mean that Linus didn't understand that the FSF is a organization with specific goals based on the morals of it's members? It's kinda obvious.
actually it's HOW nicotine is delivered that makes it addicting (to a large extent).
There are many stimulants on the market that do not cause withdrawl but would if you were to smoke them (like crystal meth).
Smoking is the quickest way to get something into your blood, quicker than injection. Smoking gets nictoine to your brain in a big jolt, then after a smoker is done the drug goes away quickly and the smoker needs to do it again.
patches and pills have FAR less withdrawl and in many cases none. (chemical withdraw).
Linus has been a little muddy on this point of late. He gave some examples (for instance if Sun releases Solaris under GPLv3) that would probably convince him to change the license on the kernel.
Sun has said they would like to release Solaris under GPLv3 if possible.
Linus said he is also not near as up in arms over the new version of the GPL as he once was.
All this does is move us one step closer to having some sort of system that validates people as who they really are. There ARE systems out there that work fairly well but are not cost effective. At some point I'd pay for some sort of encrypted certificate that PROVED that I am who I say I am and an organization on the web could use it to validate.
Yes, there are all sorts of privacy questions and "well I could just bla bla bla" to get around it. But at some point it's GOING to have to be addressed.
Yup, Before being an operator on one of the Sperry/Unisys Class of systems my REAL first job was watching a line printer in a Banking back office with a B series MCP based system. Never got to be a console jocky on that one though. Looked at the manuals MCP confused me :)
Wow...maybe I should put that line back in my resume about being the lead computer operator and later batch scheduler (it was my first job back in the early 90's).
Reading the article I can believe IBM is moving the mainframe forward.
It's hard to believe that ANYTHING Unisys does with it's mainframe is anything decent. (The system I was in charge of was a Unisys 2200/622)
We all know what will happen if it does not work. That's just plane boring to talk about. Also reading people make jokes about snake oil is boring too.
What's more interesting is to think of what WOULD happen if it were true. How would the politics of the world change? Would it plunge the world into war? Would peace brake out?
As a thought experiment independent of this being true how would the world change in 3 months, 6 months, 6 years if unlimited engergy was discovered?
If it was a political story related to tech I'd understand it being on slashdot.
But what the hell is this story on the front page of Slashdot for?
Steve Jobs is one of the most stubborn, recalcitrant people on the planet.
With the state of Apple's sales what are the chances of the Steve caving? Less than -1.
Yes, but how much POWER does it take to run the Microwave equipment? If you are using more electricity to melt the plastic into fuel what is the point?
Although I like Google desktop, I REALLY wish there was a way to have my results come up in some sort of file management application like explorer(windows), or Konqueror (File manager, not browser), or my file management app of choice.
You can't work with the results when they come up in your browser window.
This is one thing that Spotlight really does have going for it. Being able to have a search folder which dynamically has all the results I want whenever I open it is really useful. Now spotlight needs some work and is not perfect, but google desktop is really lacking in this area.
As long as content providers continue to dance around DRM distribution bittorrent sites will thrive.
nuff said