We can have an evolution versus creationism flamewar any day, but this might be our only chance to have a reasoned debate on the correct pronunication of "Zdziarski".
As a committed Za-Jarskyist I'm appalled that Slashdot would give forntpage coverage to this absurd "Zarsky" pronunication. How much was he paying the editors and what was he smoking?
Can one truly claim that GNU "was a free software operating system started by Richard Stallman?"
Yes, although if you felt so inclined then you might want to say that having started it he didn't finish it:)
Regardless, the claim I was reponding to that if you use the name "GNU" then you have to explain what it stands for, and that that creates a problem, is clearly hopelessly silly.
But why does he say that trademarking Linux is unimportant?
Because he believes that trademarks are useful, but that the enforcement or non-enforcement of someone else's trademark isn't something that concerns him particularly. He has strong opinions on many things, but not on anything that's been happning re the Linux trademark.
This is my main point - that Linux played a VERY important role for GNU. It opened people's eyes to the world of GNU and the FSF. GNU and the FSF certaintly wouldn't be as well-known and successful as they are today without Linux.
Yes, so the existence of the Linux kernel definitely matters to him. The fact that it's released under a free software license, and in particular the GPL, matters a lot to him. The Linux trademark doesn't.
Who's he to go so far as to say that Linux trademarking is unimportant?
I think you're being silly. He's a guy who was asked a question by an interviewer. He cares about software licensing. He doesn't care about trademarking anywhere near as much, although he thinks it has a valid role. He wants to talk about software licensing, about which he cares, not about trademark issues about which he doesn't care so much. So when asked about people arguing about trademark issues he says that they're a side issue next to the software freedom that he cares about. Who is he to comment? He's the guy the journalist asked the question to.
Otherwise people and companies could hurt the Linux name/reputation by using the Linux name for their own products.
Yes, and people could do harm by misuing the GNU brand (one he cares about particularly) or Red Hat or Debian or lots of others. He just doesn't think there's an issue there worth having a big debate over - the Linux trademark licensing that is happening is not a problem, to him.
I wasn't arguing their right to demand that it be called "GNU/Linux" - I was contradicting Stallman's thought that the Linux trademark doesn't matter.
I don't see what that has to do with whether you can run GNU without Linux and Linux without GNU, which is what the pst I replied to was talking about.
The article is about the fact that Linus is starting to tell businesses not to use the Linux name for their own benefit unless they plan to pay. If you ask me, that's fair enough - it's his trademark, he has every right to protect it.
So you do agree with Stallman, at least on the main issue. He doesn't see a problem with Linus trademarking Linux and neither do you.
My understanding is that they haven't. I admit that that's only based on a news story, not a statement direct from Red Hat, but do you have a source to support your claim that have licensed it?
There's no "selective enforcement". If there was, the LMI would be opening themselves to a challenge of inadequately protecting the trademark.
"Your honour, if my client had selectively enforced his traemark then that would undermine it therefore he can't have done. I rest my case."
It's a valid point but isn't he hypocritical to say that the Linux trademark doesn't matter while making such a fuss about the GNU/Linux issue ?
No, not at all. What he's saying is that the Linux trademark isn't a problem, that Linus or whoever trademarking that word is not limiting anyone's freedom. Why would that be hypocritical?
If you say "GNU/Linux", and someone asks you "What's GNU", or if they know a bit about linux, maybe, "Is GNU a distribution?", you have to explain to them that "GNU means 'GNU's Not Unix', and you watch as their eyes roll back in their head because
What would happen if you didn't explain that? How about if you just said it was a free software operating system started by Richard Stallman or something? You could add that it's a stupid acronym if you wanted but it hardly seems important.
There may or may not be some supposedly funny story as to why Apple computers are called "Apple" computers but I don't know because I've never cared enough to ask and nobody's ever cared enough to tell me. I doubt anyone will be offended if you don't go into detail about the origins of the name "GNU".
Other than Linux being released under the GNU GPL, they have no real connection - Linux could run without GNU programs (for example, by running the original UNIX programs) just as GNU programs don't necessarily require (or even use) Linux
This is true. However, since nobody I know of is claiming that Linux (the kernel) should itself be called GNU, and nobody I know of is claiming that GNU software should itself be called Linux, that's all rather besides the point. What they're arguing about is naming conventions for systems that DO contain both Linux and GNU (and generally other things).
(I call such systems Linux. I just think that your argument is misguided).
Furthermore, if RMS wants people to be remembered, he should fight for everyone to be remembered, whether he agrees with their development model or not. Otherwise, he's just being hypocritical.
Nonsense. There's nothing hypocritical about someone seeking recognition for themselves or for the organisation they represent without seeking recognition for everyone else in the world.
I call the system Linux. It's short, simple and has name recognition. However, that doesn't mean that any criticism, no matter how absurd, of RMS is valid.
Real has not obtained, lawfully or otherwise, a the right to use a copy of the computer program Apple uses to implement their DRM. Hence, the entire DMCA subsection does not apply.
The section only says that theyhave to have legally obtained a copy of the program that they are circumventing. That they will have done if they purchased an iPod for this purpose. I suspect they did.
This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person
Not just wrong, but laughable. The word "individual" is one you added on your own. The word used in the Act is "person". Legally a company is, of course, a person.
Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering.
Again, this is something dredged up from your own fevered imagination.
There are very good arguments for saying that this section will not help Real, but not the nonsense you're producing here.
Regardless, the point of my post was that, contrary to what you originally said, they are indeed talking about the legality of reverse engineering. Again, as noted in my original post, that does not mean that they are legally in the clear.
If Apple sues them, I believe their lawyers would be guilty of barratry.
If you re-read the section you will note that it only applies to circumventing technological measures that control access to a particular portion of that program, not to measures that control access to pieces of music.
Whether you like that argument or not, arguing it is not barratry.
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
This would appear to permit circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work for the purposes of achieving interoperability (such circumvention otherwise being banned by secion 1201 (a)(1)(A)). That appears to be what Real have done. So it IS about the legality of reverse engineering in this particular scenario.
Note: I'm not saying that they are legally in the clear, just that reverse engineering (as the term is used in the DMCA) IS what they are talking about.
The BSD says you can do that, but you don't have to if you don't want to. The GPL says you must do that. Big difference.
True. Although the BSD zealots will whine, nag and rant interminably over how we should all be using their license, the BSDL itself isn't so demanding.
I'd say YOU lack sufficient "intelligence" to post on my posts
I'd say YOU failed to follow the thread properly. The person you indignantly replied to was not responding to your post. I'd guess you have your preferences set to hide posts below a certain score. Go back to his post and click "parent".
First of all, why would you compare two preachers that are talking about two totally different, completely unrelated things?
I'm not sure what you mean. In my example, their products are different but not dissimilar. There's no reason you can't compare a religious conviction that prevents you wearing clothes made of different fabrics (inconvenient) with one that prevents you cloning people (no problem - I wasn't going to anyway).
And second of all, if they were really getting with the times, why are they still around at all?
Because there's still a vast pool of customers for their services. They need to move with the times to provide the sort of religion that today's customers are looking for. If they don't do that then they really will go out of business but right now they're doing okay.
Wow, they had issues with cloning back when all the major relgions were getting started thousands of years ago?
No, but they have to move with the times just like any other business. If you have two preachers, one is saying that it's wrong to clone humans and the other is saying that it's wrong to wear clothes made of two different fabrics, which one do you think is going to get more sales in today's society?
First of all there are a lot of moral and religious objections to cloning a human.
There are a lot of moral and religious objections to plenty of things that happen every day.
Whether or not people have objections about cloning based on moral or religious reasons, I doubt that anyone would be willing to accept a 1 in 1000 success rate for attempting to clone a person.
Do you think you could find *anyone* who would be willing to experiment on captive humans? If yes then why do you think clones are over the line? If not then... well, go read a history book. Or the newspapers, it'll happen again.
Whether or not the clones have souls
Have whats?
are real people
In what sense might they be less "real" than other people? They might have a different legal status I guess but that's not a limitation on their reality.
I don't think people would want 999 failures out of 1000 tries.
Doesn't seem to be putting the lotteries out of business. I think your problem here is in believing that if something is outlawed in major western countries then it just can't happen. I think reality will prove you wrong.
All I did was try to answer your question as to why I would answer a question by telling someone to right click.
Common, real life, example: Friend, relative or coworker phones me. They're having trouble doing something on their computer and are hoping I can help. I don't have a computer in front of me, or it doesn't have the same applications, or otherwise isn't much help to me in answering the question. I *know* that right clicking in such-and-such a place is a solution, because that's how I do it. So that's what I say.
Have you ever had the joy of talking through a solution you don't use yourself over a phone? The guy on the other end reading through lists of words and then trying to describe the contents of windows that pop up? (Don't get me started on the evils of Microsoft's self-hiding menu items - complete insanity).
Help over the phone is at the extreme end because you can't see what's happening at all, but the same applies when you're standing there with the person too. You either get them to pull up menus and so forth until you find what you need or else you sit there in their place and do it. Either way is unsatisfactory when you *know* how to do it already with a right click and the person is asking you a quick question to which you can give a quick answer.
This is why I would be likely to advise someone to right-click when answering their question of how to do something.
I'm saying they're a poor excuse for good user interface
So what is the criteria here? Just what your neophytes can use? I'm a USER of computers. I'm one of the people the interface is there for. I find contextual menus useful. Does that count for anything?
I do not understand why, given two methods to solve a problem, you'd pick the harder one.
I do not understand why, given the existence and widespread use of context menus, that you would conclude that everyone in the world finds them harder to use than the alternatives. All you have to do is to be capable of trusting people who have nothing to gain by lying and who tell you "Actually, I find them convenient and I use them as a standard approach to doing stuff". It's as simple as that.
Some people find it easier to write with their left hand. I don't, but I believe the ones that do. They don't need to convince me.
My argument was "When you're explaining something to somebody, explain the least complex method." Usually, the "least complex method" does not involve the right mouse button.
When someone asks me how to do something, the least complex way is to tell them the way that I know how to do it. Please don't tell me that if I'm willing to be helpful then there should be no limits to the effort I'm willing to put into it.
I agree that impressionable young minds shouldn't be exposed to this fallacy
Yes, if we expose people to figures of speech at an early age then we run the risk of raising a generation that can use language effectively. This could be the end of the internet as we know it.
Slashdot Mirror
We can have an evolution versus creationism flamewar any day, but this might be our only chance to have a reasoned debate on the correct pronunication of "Zdziarski".
As a committed Za-Jarskyist I'm appalled that Slashdot would give forntpage coverage to this absurd "Zarsky" pronunication. How much was he paying the editors and what was he smoking?
Can one truly claim that GNU "was a free software operating system started by Richard Stallman?"
:)
Yes, although if you felt so inclined then you might want to say that having started it he didn't finish it
Regardless, the claim I was reponding to that if you use the name "GNU" then you have to explain what it stands for, and that that creates a problem, is clearly hopelessly silly.
But why does he say that trademarking Linux is unimportant?
Because he believes that trademarks are useful, but that the enforcement or non-enforcement of someone else's trademark isn't something that concerns him particularly. He has strong opinions on many things, but not on anything that's been happning re the Linux trademark.
This is my main point - that Linux played a VERY important role for GNU. It opened people's eyes to the world of GNU and the FSF. GNU and the FSF certaintly wouldn't be as well-known and successful as they are today without Linux.
Yes, so the existence of the Linux kernel definitely matters to him. The fact that it's released under a free software license, and in particular the GPL, matters a lot to him. The Linux trademark doesn't.
Who's he to go so far as to say that Linux trademarking is unimportant?
I think you're being silly. He's a guy who was asked a question by an interviewer. He cares about software licensing. He doesn't care about trademarking anywhere near as much, although he thinks it has a valid role. He wants to talk about software licensing, about which he cares, not about trademark issues about which he doesn't care so much. So when asked about people arguing about trademark issues he says that they're a side issue next to the software freedom that he cares about. Who is he to comment? He's the guy the journalist asked the question to.
Otherwise people and companies could hurt the Linux name/reputation by using the Linux name for their own products.
Yes, and people could do harm by misuing the GNU brand (one he cares about particularly) or Red Hat or Debian or lots of others. He just doesn't think there's an issue there worth having a big debate over - the Linux trademark licensing that is happening is not a problem, to him.
I wasn't arguing their right to demand that it be called "GNU/Linux" - I was contradicting Stallman's thought that the Linux trademark doesn't matter.
I don't see what that has to do with whether you can run GNU without Linux and Linux without GNU, which is what the pst I replied to was talking about.
The article is about the fact that Linus is starting to tell businesses not to use the Linux name for their own benefit unless they plan to pay. If you ask me, that's fair enough - it's his trademark, he has every right to protect it.
So you do agree with Stallman, at least on the main issue. He doesn't see a problem with Linus trademarking Linux and neither do you.
Wrong again. They have licensed it.
:)
My understanding is that they haven't. I admit that that's only based on a news story, not a statement direct from Red Hat, but do you have a source to support your claim that have licensed it?
There's no "selective enforcement". If there was, the LMI would be opening themselves to a challenge of inadequately protecting the trademark.
"Your honour, if my client had selectively enforced his traemark then that would undermine it therefore he can't have done. I rest my case."
Not exactly a convincing line of argument
What I find ridiculously funny is that whenever RMS opens his mouth it seems to be directed at Linus.
It's not something that I've ever noticed. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but could you provide some examples?
It's a valid point but isn't he hypocritical to say that the Linux trademark doesn't matter while making such a fuss about the GNU/Linux issue ?
No, not at all. What he's saying is that the Linux trademark isn't a problem, that Linus or whoever trademarking that word is not limiting anyone's freedom. Why would that be hypocritical?
If you say "GNU/Linux", and someone asks you "What's GNU", or if they know a bit about linux, maybe, "Is GNU a distribution?", you have to explain to them that "GNU means 'GNU's Not Unix', and you watch as their eyes roll back in their head because
What would happen if you didn't explain that? How about if you just said it was a free software operating system started by Richard Stallman or something? You could add that it's a stupid acronym if you wanted but it hardly seems important.
There may or may not be some supposedly funny story as to why Apple computers are called "Apple" computers but I don't know because I've never cared enough to ask and nobody's ever cared enough to tell me. I doubt anyone will be offended if you don't go into detail about the origins of the name "GNU".
Other than Linux being released under the GNU GPL, they have no real connection - Linux could run without GNU programs (for example, by running the original UNIX programs) just as GNU programs don't necessarily require (or even use) Linux
This is true. However, since nobody I know of is claiming that Linux (the kernel) should itself be called GNU, and nobody I know of is claiming that GNU software should itself be called Linux, that's all rather besides the point. What they're arguing about is naming conventions for systems that DO contain both Linux and GNU (and generally other things).
(I call such systems Linux. I just think that your argument is misguided).
Furthermore, if RMS wants people to be remembered, he should fight for everyone to be remembered, whether he agrees with their development model or not. Otherwise, he's just being hypocritical.
Nonsense. There's nothing hypocritical about someone seeking recognition for themselves or for the organisation they represent without seeking recognition for everyone else in the world.
I call the system Linux. It's short, simple and has name recognition. However, that doesn't mean that any criticism, no matter how absurd, of RMS is valid.
Real has not obtained, lawfully or otherwise, a the right to use a copy of the computer program Apple uses to implement their DRM. Hence, the entire DMCA subsection does not apply.
The section only says that theyhave to have legally obtained a copy of the program that they are circumventing. That they will have done if they purchased an iPod for this purpose. I suspect they did.
This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person
Not just wrong, but laughable. The word "individual" is one you added on your own. The word used in the Act is "person". Legally a company is, of course, a person.
Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering.
Again, this is something dredged up from your own fevered imagination.
There are very good arguments for saying that this section will not help Real, but not the nonsense you're producing here.
Regardless, the point of my post was that, contrary to what you originally said, they are indeed talking about the legality of reverse engineering. Again, as noted in my original post, that does not mean that they are legally in the clear.
For Real's actions to be legal under the DMCA, don't they need Library of Congress permission or something like that?
No. The DMCA does not say "everything is illegal unless you have permission from the Government". That's in Patriot III.
If Apple sues them, I believe their lawyers would be guilty of barratry.
If you re-read the section you will note that it only applies to circumventing technological measures that control access to a particular portion of that program, not to measures that control access to pieces of music.
Whether you like that argument or not, arguing it is not barratry.
It's about the reverse engineering exception under the DMCA. This concerns why it was done (interoperability) not how it was done.
DMCA 1201 (f) (1) provides:
This would appear to permit circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work for the purposes of achieving interoperability (such circumvention otherwise being banned by secion 1201 (a)(1)(A)). That appears to be what Real have done. So it IS about the legality of reverse engineering in this particular scenario.
Note: I'm not saying that they are legally in the clear, just that reverse engineering (as the term is used in the DMCA) IS what they are talking about.
How can a $300 software package be cheaper then free?
I don't think Star Office is free. I think you're confusing it with Open Office.
All you need to do to please ./ types these days is shout open source and they all start gormlessly clapping like guppies.
I wouldn't have thought guppies would be able to clap. Do they use their fins?
The BSD says you can do that, but you don't have to if you don't want to. The GPL says you must do that. Big difference.
True. Although the BSD zealots will whine, nag and rant interminably over how we should all be using their license, the BSDL itself isn't so demanding.
I'd say YOU lack sufficient "intelligence" to post on my posts
I'd say YOU failed to follow the thread properly. The person you indignantly replied to was not responding to your post. I'd guess you have your preferences set to hide posts below a certain score. Go back to his post and click "parent".
First of all, why would you compare two preachers that are talking about two totally different, completely unrelated things?
I'm not sure what you mean. In my example, their products are different but not dissimilar. There's no reason you can't compare a religious conviction that prevents you wearing clothes made of different fabrics (inconvenient) with one that prevents you cloning people (no problem - I wasn't going to anyway).
And second of all, if they were really getting with the times, why are they still around at all?
Because there's still a vast pool of customers for their services. They need to move with the times to provide the sort of religion that today's customers are looking for. If they don't do that then they really will go out of business but right now they're doing okay.
Wow, they had issues with cloning back when all the major relgions were getting started thousands of years ago?
No, but they have to move with the times just like any other business. If you have two preachers, one is saying that it's wrong to clone humans and the other is saying that it's wrong to wear clothes made of two different fabrics, which one do you think is going to get more sales in today's society?
First of all there are a lot of moral and religious objections to cloning a human.
There are a lot of moral and religious objections to plenty of things that happen every day.
Whether or not people have objections about cloning based on moral or religious reasons, I doubt that anyone would be willing to accept a 1 in 1000 success rate for attempting to clone a person.
Do you think you could find *anyone* who would be willing to experiment on captive humans? If yes then why do you think clones are over the line? If not then... well, go read a history book. Or the newspapers, it'll happen again.
Whether or not the clones have souls
Have whats?
are real people
In what sense might they be less "real" than other people? They might have a different legal status I guess but that's not a limitation on their reality.
I don't think people would want 999 failures out of 1000 tries.
Doesn't seem to be putting the lotteries out of business. I think your problem here is in believing that if something is outlawed in major western countries then it just can't happen. I think reality will prove you wrong.
All I did was try to answer your question as to why I would answer a question by telling someone to right click.
Common, real life, example: Friend, relative or coworker phones me. They're having trouble doing something on their computer and are hoping I can help. I don't have a computer in front of me, or it doesn't have the same applications, or otherwise isn't much help to me in answering the question. I *know* that right clicking in such-and-such a place is a solution, because that's how I do it. So that's what I say.
Have you ever had the joy of talking through a solution you don't use yourself over a phone? The guy on the other end reading through lists of words and then trying to describe the contents of windows that pop up? (Don't get me started on the evils of Microsoft's self-hiding menu items - complete insanity).
Help over the phone is at the extreme end because you can't see what's happening at all, but the same applies when you're standing there with the person too. You either get them to pull up menus and so forth until you find what you need or else you sit there in their place and do it. Either way is unsatisfactory when you *know* how to do it already with a right click and the person is asking you a quick question to which you can give a quick answer.
This is why I would be likely to advise someone to right-click when answering their question of how to do something.
I'm saying they're a poor excuse for good user interface
So what is the criteria here? Just what your neophytes can use? I'm a USER of computers. I'm one of the people the interface is there for. I find contextual menus useful. Does that count for anything?
I do not understand why, given two methods to solve a problem, you'd pick the harder one.
I do not understand why, given the existence and widespread use of context menus, that you would conclude that everyone in the world finds them harder to use than the alternatives. All you have to do is to be capable of trusting people who have nothing to gain by lying and who tell you "Actually, I find them convenient and I use them as a standard approach to doing stuff". It's as simple as that.
Some people find it easier to write with their left hand. I don't, but I believe the ones that do. They don't need to convince me.
My argument was "When you're explaining something to somebody, explain the least complex method." Usually, the "least complex method" does not involve the right mouse button.
When someone asks me how to do something, the least complex way is to tell them the way that I know how to do it. Please don't tell me that if I'm willing to be helpful then there should be no limits to the effort I'm willing to put into it.
I agree that impressionable young minds shouldn't be exposed to this fallacy
Yes, if we expose people to figures of speech at an early age then we run the risk of raising a generation that can use language effectively. This could be the end of the internet as we know it.