And your interpretation is extremely blind in my opinion. How does any piece of software or code get put under the GPL. Simple that author chooses it place it there. It is there because of the authors wishes. It is often a great choice on the authors part and I have released code under the GPL and I have release software into the public domain with the source code because the GPL had not been written yet but I had heard about and loved the idea of the GNU project. The thing is I decided to grant those rights and to produce that work. You are not entitled to take what you want. Your only entitled to take what the author gives you. FOSS software is a gift that the authors decided to give. This sense of entitlement is just some of the worst self indulgent twaddle that I have ever seen and is not what the GPL is about.
It also restricts what and end user can do with the copy he has. He can not for example distribute just the binary and he must include the GPL with it. So yes their are restrictions and they are enforced under copyright law. If there was no copyright law nothing would keep me from putting lots of DRM on to a piece of software that includes GPL code and selling it. The GPL uses copyright law for exactly what the copyright law was intended to do. Protect the rights of the author. In the cause of the GPL the author wants the code to be Open Sourced forever. In other cases the author wants to get paid. In both cases it is the wishes of the author that are protected.
And I love how people on slashdot think that they are above national and international law and how they think that they can tell people what they can and can do with their work. I have not written any text book. I have written software and I have placed it in the Public Domain with source code because the GPL wasn't written yet and I have contributed patches to the Linux Kernel under the GPL. It is my right to choose to do that. It is the text book authors right to choose how his work is used as well. Looser you and the rest of the freaking leaches just make me nuts. You think that because you can do something that it makes it Moral. Heck I could take sections of GPL code and put it into a closed source product and sell it. I would probably never get caught but it would still be immoral. And just as you leeches like to put it I wouldn't be taking anything from the author at all since it is all digital. Nothing but his rights to control how his work is used that is.
The FOSS isn't about piracy and really isn't ok with it it. Everybody that pirates hurts the FOSS movement because they are still using closed source software.
And what he wants to do is to get paid to write books. You have the right to not pay him but you don't have the write to not pay him copy his book and give it to others. You are taking his choice and freedom away from him. It was his choice to put those conditions on his work. If you don't like then don't read his book. So NO YOU ARE TOTALY WRONG UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW!!!!! NO YOU DON"T HAVE THAT RIGHT UNDER LAW IN JUST ABOUT EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!
The GPL is enforced under copyright law. Sueing pirates is probably not worth the effort but a take down notice is fair. The main difference is that you agree with the GPL and you think pirating a book is just find and dandy. In both cases it is somebody violating the right of the Author to have some control over product of his or her work. In one case the author wants money in an other the author wants to control what is done with the work after the fact.
Then you should spend your time writing some. Really stop playing video games, watching TV, going to the movies, spending time with your friends and start making and giving away educational materials. NOW DO IT NOW.
So do you like being told what to do with your time, knowledge, and effort?
Funny but when people violate the GPL then people on Slashdot are gung ho about legal action. I suggest a take down notice and then contact your publisher and let their legal department go after them. How to fight pirates? And your asking here?
Except. It would probably cost around $200 per trip. Unless he is having a meeting in the train station he will then probably have to add in the cost of in city transportation. So the train would still cost more not counting the time. And if the train would really cost 27 billion to build even if the tickets cost $200 and $100 just went to the debt it still wouldn't be practical to build.
Simple. Do you really think that if they didn't launch the Hubble update mission that the money would have gone to JPL, Keck, the 30 Meter telescope, or the JWST? If so I have a lot of very valuable real estate in south Florida I can sell you cheap. If we let Hubble fail then I can actually see them not funding the JWST because we can live without a space telescope. Also I do not hear many Astronomers that want to be without the HST. Frankly the more Telescopes the better.
Because it makes it all sound so exciting. Really that is the answer. That and most people in the Press and for that matter politics tend to have a terrible grasp of science. You are correct that it is probably much harder to land on an Aircraft carrier than perform a docking. Now the actual space walk can be another matter. Those can be a very stressful and exhausting operation.
Ahh I didn't see his post. I can see his logic because I honestly think that if you don't count time then driving will still be cheaper than the train. I see high speed rail competing with airlines and not cars. Light rail and Commuter rail competes with cars.
"Suppose the rail saves $1 billion worth of CO2 emissions annually, then what? Paid off in less than 27 years! " It will not. That is the issue there just isn't enough traffic. You want use that money to reduce carbon? Use it to replace coal plants with nuclear, solar, and maybe wind. Use it for as you said light rail. It is so funny that when you show that a high speed rail system is a stupid waste people think you are anti mass transit. Not at all I love light rail, subways, and trolleys/streetcars " the original light rail". Even high speed rail where it makes sense but this is just a scam. It really is the Simpsons Monorail.
You must not realize that I put $100 as the profit per ticket and not the cost. It is a guess and is probably generous. Right now Amtrack charges around $210 for "high speed rail" between Boston and New York. That service is a lot slower than proposed system and a heck of a lot cheaper to run and maintain. So I will guess that the ticket will run you around $200. Now once you get there if the city doesn't have great public transport then you will need to rent a car or take take a taxi which adds to the cost. Even if they do have good public transport if you destination isn't in the city center you may have to rent a car. The big question is "how many people fly between these two cities". High speed rail really competes with airlines and not cars. I don't think there is enough traffic to justify this gold plated fantasy. Reduce the speed down and drop the cost and you may have workable system but this is just a stupid waste of money for even for the study since anybody with a calculator can see that it is a waste.
I am not anti public transport. I am anti stupid wastes of money. If you want to reduce carbon then use the solar power as part of the grid and reduce use of Coal. If you want to spend money on mass transit use it to improve mass transit in the cities. This is just a huge waste of money. It will never be built but they will waste money on studies and the money will flow in a lot of suits pockets.
Not at all but the gas tax is used for highway funds. It may not foot the entire bill but it is used for that. But then take a look at that Arizona transportation plan. This high speed boondoggle would be cost more than half of that total plan and would only move passengers in that corridor.
Yea you are. The highways are supported by the Tax on gas. The Highway will be used by not just passangers but also cargo. Also the highway will be used not just for travel between those two cities but also for people and cargo going through the state. So yea your really fuzzy on the math. Also I would be willing to bet that the highway cost a lot less than 27 billion.
They claim the cost will be 27 billion dollars. If they make 100 dollars per rider it will take how many riders? If they build it using bond money you will have to pay the interest as well. It would take 270,000,000 riders and that is without interest. So if you had a million riders a year it would only take 270 years to pay it off. So I would say that it is insane. Yes you could charge more for the ticket but I was using $100 as the profit on the ticket. You will still have to pay for up keep and other operating expenses.
Does Snaptic offer ratings, reviews, or a way to sell software? Yea I use Snaptic all the time as well but I feel that for Linux to work on the desktop there has to be a way to also sell software as well as producing FOSS. I do not believe that there is a workable FOSS business model for things like casual games, CAD/CAM,,high end video games, tax software, and a number of other categories that FOSS just doesn't do well in.
Well adding dependency tracking I would consider a given. A popularity contest? Don't we all ready have that in FOSS? If a project is popular it gets mindshare and developers. A good example is the DVD creation program I use. It is called DeeVeeDee. It is simple and works really well but I bet most people have never heard of it. If all you want to do is burn DVDs and put simple menus on them then I think it is a great program but I don't think it is very popular.
Well there is no reason that 9" iTouch couldn't run OpenOffice. AutoCad???? I have used SolidWorks and even on a normal notebook it is PAINFUL. Maybe your only doing 2d but for 3d work a notebook will crawl with even a slightly complex model unless your notebook has a lot of ram, GPU and a good amount of CPU. Your games are just a matter of porting. With an ARM based system they are talking about around $199 for a netbook so yes a lot cheaper. Your right that it may not be the right device for you but I think it would be for a lot of people. Hey there is nothing stopping AutoCad from porting to Linux/ARM if they want too.
Except that a repository doesn't offer a way to sell software. I see that as the key. Just like the AppStore you should have a mix of free and for none free software. Just like with the IPhone if you gave people a way to make money off their software I think you would see a lot of good software available.
That and allow people to rate which program is better like the App store. For instance do you know which DVD authoring program for Linux is better? Or which CAD system. Or which Twitter app?
An App store would give developers and the distro a revenue stream that they could use to improve there software. Plus if you don't like paying for software keep using the free stuff and let those that are want to pay help pay for the development of the Distro.
Slashdot Mirror
It could also be used for say a large digital picture frame.
Not at all what it comes down to is the GPL like uses the Copyright laws to enforce the wishes of the author of how the his work is to be used.
That is all that it does and it is no different than any other copyright. It can not be because it is a copyright and is enforced under copyright law.
If you think it is okay to ignore a copyright then it is okay to ignore the GPL.
And your interpretation is extremely blind in my opinion.
How does any piece of software or code get put under the GPL.
Simple that author chooses it place it there.
It is there because of the authors wishes. It is often a great choice on the authors part and I have released code under the GPL and I have release software into the public domain with the source code because the GPL had not been written yet but I had heard about and loved the idea of the GNU project. The thing is I decided to grant those rights and to produce that work. You are not entitled to take what you want. Your only entitled to take what the author gives you. FOSS software is a gift that the authors decided to give. This sense of entitlement is just some of the worst self indulgent twaddle that I have ever seen and is not what the GPL is about.
It also restricts what and end user can do with the copy he has.
He can not for example distribute just the binary and he must include the GPL with it.
So yes their are restrictions and they are enforced under copyright law.
If there was no copyright law nothing would keep me from putting lots of DRM on to a piece of software that includes GPL code and selling it.
The GPL uses copyright law for exactly what the copyright law was intended to do. Protect the rights of the author. In the cause of the GPL the author wants the code to be Open Sourced forever.
In other cases the author wants to get paid. In both cases it is the wishes of the author that are protected.
And I love how people on slashdot think that they are above national and international law and how they think that they can tell people what they can and can do with their work.
I have not written any text book. I have written software and I have placed it in the Public Domain with source code because the GPL wasn't written yet and I have contributed patches to the Linux Kernel under the GPL.
It is my right to choose to do that. It is the text book authors right to choose how his work is used as well. Looser you and the rest of the freaking leaches just make me nuts. You think that because you can do something that it makes it Moral. Heck I could take sections of GPL code and put it into a closed source product and sell it. I would probably never get caught but it would still be immoral. And just as you leeches like to put it I wouldn't be taking anything from the author at all since it is all digital. Nothing but his rights to control how his work is used that is.
The FOSS isn't about piracy and really isn't ok with it it. Everybody that pirates hurts the FOSS movement because they are still using closed source software.
And those torrent sites don't run ads? Funny but they sure look like it to me.
And what he wants to do is to get paid to write books. You have the right to not pay him but you don't have the write to not pay him copy his book and give it to others.
You are taking his choice and freedom away from him. It was his choice to put those conditions on his work.
If you don't like then don't read his book.
So NO YOU ARE TOTALY WRONG UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW!!!!! NO YOU DON"T HAVE THAT RIGHT UNDER LAW IN JUST ABOUT EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!
The GPL is enforced under copyright law.
Sueing pirates is probably not worth the effort but a take down notice is fair.
The main difference is that you agree with the GPL and you think pirating a book is just find and dandy.
In both cases it is somebody violating the right of the Author to have some control over product of his or her work.
In one case the author wants money in an other the author wants to control what is done with the work after the fact.
Then you should spend your time writing some. Really stop playing video games, watching TV, going to the movies, spending time with your friends and start making and giving away educational materials. NOW DO IT NOW.
So do you like being told what to do with your time, knowledge, and effort?
Funny but when people violate the GPL then people on Slashdot are gung ho about legal action.
I suggest a take down notice and then contact your publisher and let their legal department go after them. How to fight pirates? And your asking here?
Except.
It would probably cost around $200 per trip.
Unless he is having a meeting in the train station he will then probably have to add in the cost of in city transportation.
So the train would still cost more not counting the time. And if the train would really cost 27 billion to build even if the tickets cost $200 and $100 just went to the debt it still wouldn't be practical to build.
Simple.
Do you really think that if they didn't launch the Hubble update mission that the money would have gone to JPL, Keck, the 30 Meter telescope, or the JWST?
If so I have a lot of very valuable real estate in south Florida I can sell you cheap.
If we let Hubble fail then I can actually see them not funding the JWST because we can live without a space telescope.
Also I do not hear many Astronomers that want to be without the HST. Frankly the more Telescopes the better.
Because it makes it all sound so exciting. Really that is the answer. That and most people in the Press and for that matter politics tend to have a terrible grasp of science.
You are correct that it is probably much harder to land on an Aircraft carrier than perform a docking. Now the actual space walk can be another matter. Those can be a very stressful and exhausting operation.
Ahh I didn't see his post.
I can see his logic because I honestly think that if you don't count time then driving will still be cheaper than the train. I see high speed rail competing with airlines and not cars. Light rail and Commuter rail competes with cars.
"Suppose the rail saves $1 billion worth of CO2 emissions annually, then what? Paid off in less than 27 years! "
It will not. That is the issue there just isn't enough traffic.
You want use that money to reduce carbon? Use it to replace coal plants with nuclear, solar, and maybe wind.
Use it for as you said light rail.
It is so funny that when you show that a high speed rail system is a stupid waste people think you are anti mass transit. Not at all I love light rail, subways, and trolleys/streetcars " the original light rail". Even high speed rail where it makes sense but this is just a scam. It really is the Simpsons Monorail.
You must not realize that I put $100 as the profit per ticket and not the cost.
It is a guess and is probably generous. Right now Amtrack charges around $210 for "high speed rail" between Boston and New York. That service is a lot slower than proposed system and a heck of a lot cheaper to run and maintain.
So I will guess that the ticket will run you around $200.
Now once you get there if the city doesn't have great public transport then you will need to rent a car or take take a taxi which adds to the cost.
Even if they do have good public transport if you destination isn't in the city center you may have to rent a car.
The big question is "how many people fly between these two cities". High speed rail really competes with airlines and not cars. I don't think there is enough traffic to justify this gold plated fantasy.
Reduce the speed down and drop the cost and you may have workable system but this is just a stupid waste of money for even for the study since anybody with a calculator can see that it is a waste.
I am not anti public transport. I am anti stupid wastes of money.
If you want to reduce carbon then use the solar power as part of the grid and reduce use of Coal.
If you want to spend money on mass transit use it to improve mass transit in the cities.
This is just a huge waste of money. It will never be built but they will waste money on studies and the money will flow in a lot of suits pockets.
The merits are that it can handle HD Video and is low cost.
Not at all but the gas tax is used for highway funds. It may not foot the entire bill but it is used for that.
But then take a look at that Arizona transportation plan. This high speed boondoggle would be cost more than half of that total plan and would only move passengers in that corridor.
Yea you are. The highways are supported by the Tax on gas. The Highway will be used by not just passangers but also cargo. Also the highway will be used not just for travel between those two cities but also for people and cargo going through the state. So yea your really fuzzy on the math.
Also I would be willing to bet that the highway cost a lot less than 27 billion.
They claim the cost will be 27 billion dollars. If they make 100 dollars per rider it will take how many riders?
If they build it using bond money you will have to pay the interest as well. It would take 270,000,000 riders and that is without interest. So if you had a million riders a year it would only take 270 years to pay it off.
So I would say that it is insane. Yes you could charge more for the ticket but I was using $100 as the profit on the ticket. You will still have to pay for up keep and other operating expenses.
Does Snaptic offer ratings, reviews, or a way to sell software? ,high end video games, tax software, and a number of other categories that FOSS just doesn't do well in.
Yea I use Snaptic all the time as well but I feel that for Linux to work on the desktop there has to be a way to also sell software as well as producing FOSS. I do not believe that there is a workable FOSS business model for things like casual games, CAD/CAM,
Well adding dependency tracking I would consider a given. A popularity contest? Don't we all ready have that in FOSS? If a project is popular it gets mindshare and developers. A good example is the DVD creation program I use. It is called DeeVeeDee. It is simple and works really well but I bet most people have never heard of it. If all you want to do is burn DVDs and put simple menus on them then I think it is a great program but I don't think it is very popular.
Well there is no reason that 9" iTouch couldn't run OpenOffice. AutoCad???? I have used SolidWorks and even on a normal notebook it is PAINFUL. Maybe your only doing 2d but for 3d work a notebook will crawl with even a slightly complex model unless your notebook has a lot of ram, GPU and a good amount of CPU.
Your games are just a matter of porting. With an ARM based system they are talking about around $199 for a netbook so yes a lot cheaper. Your right that it may not be the right device for you but I think it would be for a lot of people. Hey there is nothing stopping AutoCad from porting to Linux/ARM if they want too.
Except that a repository doesn't offer a way to sell software.
I see that as the key. Just like the AppStore you should have a mix of free and for none free software.
Just like with the IPhone if you gave people a way to make money off their software I think you would see a lot of good software available.
That and allow people to rate which program is better like the App store.
For instance do you know which DVD authoring program for Linux is better?
Or which CAD system.
Or which Twitter app?
An App store would give developers and the distro a revenue stream that they could use to improve there software.
Plus if you don't like paying for software keep using the free stuff and let those that are want to pay help pay for the development of the Distro.