You're absolutely wrong, and I do have firsthand knowledge. VNRs are generally not paid for by the station. Fining stations $32,500 per VNR will likely shut down hundreds of smaller stations.
States' rights. Oh, wait, you're now going to call me a racist since I support states' rights, aren't you? I guess that whole deal with the Crow laws was just a convoluted way to have states' rights be automatically ignored because of how it was being used. Never mind that the 9th and 10th Amendments are still on the books.
Then that is a problem with those particular people, and not "Christianity" as a whole. I'm not a religious person myself, but I've known many such people and none of them ever forced any belief on anyone. Your anecdote means nothing, and neither does mine. It just shows that you painting "Christianity" with that broad brush is just the same as "Christians" painting all of those who aren't "Christian" with the same brush.
In my opinion, the GPLv3 goes too far, into a realm where the software developers shouldn't have any rights whatsoever. Here's what Linus said and I agree 100%:
I literally feel that we do not--as software developers--have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that cooperation and openness works better.
And:
Side note: the reason GPLv2 is so successful at fighting the root problem of using copyright to fight restrictive copyrights is that it makes "interesting material" available under a license that forbids further restricting it.
I would suggest that anybody who wants to fight DRM practices seriously look at the equivalent angle. If you create interesting content, you can forbid that content ever be encrypted or limited.
In other words, I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than it is in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that content by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes.
Afaik, all the Creative Commons licenses already require that you can't use technological measures to restrict the rights you give with the CC licenses. The "Share Alike" license in particular requires all work based on it also to be shared alike--that is, it has the "GPL feel" to it.
If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't "marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the point where fewer people at least worry about it.
As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your couch, Disney & Co. will always be able to control the content you see. DRM is the smallest part of it--the crap we see and hear every day (regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue.
The GPL already requires source code (that is, non-protected content). So the GPL already does have an anti-DRM clause as far as the software is concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to create non-software content, and fight it there.
I realize that programmers are bad at content creation. So many programmers feel that they can't fight DRM that way. Tough. Spread the word instead. Don't try to fight DRM the wrong way.
The FSF certainly can (and according to RMS will) force the adoption of GPL v3 on all of the code controlled by the FSF. That's a reasonably significant part of the code in a Linux distro.
Only on new releases. Even on software that includes the "or any later version" clause, I can still distribute it under the original license it was released under.
We have that, it's called the Libertarian Party. If everyone who is disappointed with the Big Two would vote Libertarian, then change could actually happen. As long as you have people screaming "if you don't vote for B, you're essentially voting for A", this will never happen.
Here we have a story pointing out where Symantec fucked up pretty bad, and most of what I see is anti-religious zealotry, just because the people that got screwed were religious? I'm no religious person, but you zealots are as bad as the people you hate so much. Symantec is the problem here, not the churches.
Go fuck a tree, zealots. Leave the rational discussion to the grownups.
That's not the original use of 0-day. It came from the warez scene, and indicated warez that took "0 days" from retail release to get a cracked version out - generally acquired from an inside source and cracked before retail release.
I still say that technology advances should now make it possible to do the Virtual Boy right - actually make it lightweight and portable, actually make it full-color, and it should sell.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely wrong, and I do have firsthand knowledge. VNRs are generally not paid for by the station. Fining stations $32,500 per VNR will likely shut down hundreds of smaller stations.
States' rights. Oh, wait, you're now going to call me a racist since I support states' rights, aren't you? I guess that whole deal with the Crow laws was just a convoluted way to have states' rights be automatically ignored because of how it was being used. Never mind that the 9th and 10th Amendments are still on the books.
That's not WGA, that's just standard activation.
Then that is a problem with those particular people, and not "Christianity" as a whole. I'm not a religious person myself, but I've known many such people and none of them ever forced any belief on anyone. Your anecdote means nothing, and neither does mine. It just shows that you painting "Christianity" with that broad brush is just the same as "Christians" painting all of those who aren't "Christian" with the same brush.
And:
Only on new releases. Even on software that includes the "or any later version" clause, I can still distribute it under the original license it was released under.
Who cares? If Linus says the kernel is not going to be GPLv3, then what does it matter what others say? It means the kernel's not going to be GPLv3.
We have that, it's called the Libertarian Party. If everyone who is disappointed with the Big Two would vote Libertarian, then change could actually happen. As long as you have people screaming "if you don't vote for B, you're essentially voting for A", this will never happen.
Fuck off, bigot. You're just as bad as Christians who try to force their religion on you, unlike the vast majority of them who don't.
Zealot.
Here we have a story pointing out where Symantec fucked up pretty bad, and most of what I see is anti-religious zealotry, just because the people that got screwed were religious? I'm no religious person, but you zealots are as bad as the people you hate so much. Symantec is the problem here, not the churches.
Go fuck a tree, zealots. Leave the rational discussion to the grownups.
I think you meant "gist".
There are more than just Repubicans and Democrats, you know. That mindset is what truly destroys our electoral system.
Why is this under the Linux section when Torvalds has explicitly stated that the kernel will not be GPLv3?
Both are illegal in the US.
Only for torrents which the user is specifically connected to. It's not like Freenet.
That's not the original use of 0-day. It came from the warez scene, and indicated warez that took "0 days" from retail release to get a cracked version out - generally acquired from an inside source and cracked before retail release.
I still say that technology advances should now make it possible to do the Virtual Boy right - actually make it lightweight and portable, actually make it full-color, and it should sell.
What the fuck?
Self-censorship sucks. Grow a pair and learn how to actually write "fuck" and "dick".
That was a pirate cart. Officially, the original SMB2 never saw cartridge, either for the Famicom or the NES.
With different Luigi physics, no wind, and no worlds 9 or A-D.
Works wonders.
Wow, you completely missed the sarcasm.
No, it'll be one of those 800 numbers that redirects you to a 900 number.