Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.
In other words, you are required to act in a certain way even without distributing the software. That's a EULA, and sucks whether it's MS or the FSF. I love the FSF and have been a proud supporter, but they're wrong on this one.
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.
No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.
If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it. This is a new right never before enforced by the GPL family of licenses, as none have ever placed requirements on end users. The thinking is that somehow web services are magically different from every other software publishing method ever employed, and I strongly disagree.
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Hey, someone had to be the first.
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA. The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable.
Dang! I can't believe I forgot to mention CD Baby. They have a "X sounds like Y" database to help you find bands you might like, the prices are great, and their collection is wonderful. I've bought some truly excellent music from them.
I agree with you. I didn't ask how they could live with what they'd done. My question is how they rest securely knowing that there might be people gunning for them.
Sounds like a perfect excuse for the French to stop paying sales tax. If the item doesn't actually belong to you, why should you be responsible for paying for it?
Oh, and I think LVHM might want to explain to government why they've been hiding at least $61M of their property from the tax authorities.
I never have advocated out-and-out piracy... you want an album to keep in your collection you should buy it instead of downloading or borrowing.
Ummm, why? So that the only party who profits off the transaction can use the money to pass laws against you? I'd maybe feel a bit different if anyone other than the labels and maybe 20 big music acts was making money from selling albums. However, seeing as how most of the music's creators are being ripped off by the people who are supposedly representing them, why should I care? Seriously?
If you don't like piracy, buy used. Support your local music store and keep money away from the labels at the same time. It's nice being able to say that you haven't infringed any copyrights and are legally and morally clear, but still get to hear what you want.
How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've driven people into the ground, that some of them no longer have anything to lose and want to see you dead? The money must be nice, but what's your price for giving up the freedom to live among other people? Remember, your security detail has to have a perfect record, while the little guy you destroyed only has to get lucky one time.
I am not - NOT! - calling for violence, but I'm continually surprised that no one has resorted to it. I think it's inevitable that if we continue down this road, someone will decide to exercise their second amendment rights, if not against the people who passed the bills, then against the people who paid to have them written.
The AGPL is easily ignored, and frankly, its FSF-sanctioned existence pisses me off. It's one thing - a good thing! - to place Freedom-preserving restrictions on distribution. It's another thing altogether to put Freedom-removing restrictions on usage. For some reason, the FSF has endorsed the idea that hosting an application via the web is distribution, even if hosting that same application via a console session is merely usage.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason is that GPLed software is well entrenched, and the FSF feels they have the leverage to begin forcing users to share changes even if they're not distributing them. Want to use Free software? Here are the new rules!
That sucks. I'm a huge RMS fanboy, but I think the AGPL and the principles behind it are fundamentally broken and should be abandoned.
no they dont. the local Car audio shop charges the same price for a specific stereo to be installed in a car.
Right, which is analogous to saying that the local computer shop will charge the same to upgrade an Apple or a Dell.
now at the dealer is a different story. only fools get work or upgrades at the dealer.
Which was my whole point. Buying RAM from Apple is like buying a CD changer from BMW. It's not going to be better than what you could get from a local audio shop, and is almost guaranteed to cost you a lot more.
I am sorry fan boy, you are paying for exactly 3 things. 1) Brand 2) Style 3)Status which can really all just be called the same thing. You also get the OS that isn't Windows. Thats it.
I am sorry, you are ass-uming much about me. I'm typing this on a Model M keyboard attached to a Dell running Kubuntu. I don't mind getting my hands dirty, and I've never in my life paid for a hardware upgrade that could be done with available parts.
The fact that Apple realized that people are willing to pay extra to have this done for them means that they are better at business than you are.
In other news: radio upgrades cost more on a BMW than on a Hyundai. With that or with RAM upgrades, you can either do it yourself (or hire someone), or you can let the dealer do it. Guess which is always more expensive?
Apple is quite literally ripping off those who aren't able to upgrade hardware themselves.
The early internet consisted of a bunch of mainframes operated by a bunch of BOFH (Bastard Operators From Hell). The only guys (usually male) allowed to log on were military types or civilian employees of defense contractors, who had a whack of security clearances.
For liking to pretend that you were there when it all started, you don't seem to understand what a peer is.
ARPANET and the Internet were built around the idea that computers could talk to each other. NAT breaks that. QED, NAT is not what the Internet was meant to be like.
I'm confused. Why mention it, then? You said threading is a must, but it's clearly not. It's also not even remotely the same thing as multiprocessing, which suffers none of the GIL problems.
Palm OS was brilliant at running PDA-style apps. However, that's not the direction portable computing was going, and Palm never did much to address the future. When every other platform was moving into media, Palm was proud of its third-party support calendars with more buttons.
And don't get me started about the Graffiti 2 debacle ("Easy to learn, even if you'll never get faster!"). Instead of working out a deal to keep using Jot and its trickier-but-faster strokes, they switched to that two-stroke abomination that instantly cut power users' data entry speed in half. Way to save a penny, Palm!
Lets face it, with NAT and other technologies, the need to migrate to a new standard has been severely reduced.
Not even close. NAT breaks networks horribly by its very nature, and voids the original Internet ideal of a collection of peers. Consider that with NAT it's impossible to connect to another machine which is also behind NAT without going through a third party. While governments might love the idea of forcing you to funnel traffic through a central, easily-tappable server, it sucks for end users. Not only is it bad for privacy, but for reliability: now you can't talk to your friend's machine if the helper server is down or out of bandwidth. That's not acceptable!
Having had a little bit of experience working with big networks based on IPV4, the migration to IPV6 is going to be pretty awesome... like the titanic sinking, or an entire city being leveled by an earth quake.
Having apparently a bit more, I don't think it's going to be that bad. You don't have to start with a complete cutover, or even make a complete transition at all. Right now, today, odds are that you could start using link local addresses on your LAN for testing. You can get an IPv6 allocation and start with little things: configure your mailserver to use it and start publishing DNS to it. Once you're convinced it's up, try again with your webserver. Maybe configure a couple of workstations for the geeks in your company and let them bang away at it. If any of that fails, no big deal! You're still live with IPv4.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.
In other words, you are required to act in a certain way even without distributing the software. That's a EULA, and sucks whether it's MS or the FSF. I love the FSF and have been a proud supporter, but they're wrong on this one.
No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.
No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.
If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it. This is a new right never before enforced by the GPL family of licenses, as none have ever placed requirements on end users. The thinking is that somehow web services are magically different from every other software publishing method ever employed, and I strongly disagree.
Hey, someone had to be the first.
I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA. The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable.
Dang! I can't believe I forgot to mention CD Baby. They have a "X sounds like Y" database to help you find bands you might like, the prices are great, and their collection is wonderful. I've bought some truly excellent music from them.
No, they don't pay me. I just like their stuff.
I agree with you. I didn't ask how they could live with what they'd done. My question is how they rest securely knowing that there might be people gunning for them.
While the height does offset the too-low monitor problem
My physical therapist, my optometrist, and OSHA say that most monitors are too high.
Sounds like a perfect excuse for the French to stop paying sales tax. If the item doesn't actually belong to you, why should you be responsible for paying for it?
Oh, and I think LVHM might want to explain to government why they've been hiding at least $61M of their property from the tax authorities.
I never have advocated out-and-out piracy... you want an album to keep in your collection you should buy it instead of downloading or borrowing.
Ummm, why? So that the only party who profits off the transaction can use the money to pass laws against you? I'd maybe feel a bit different if anyone other than the labels and maybe 20 big music acts was making money from selling albums. However, seeing as how most of the music's creators are being ripped off by the people who are supposedly representing them, why should I care? Seriously?
If you don't like piracy, buy used. Support your local music store and keep money away from the labels at the same time. It's nice being able to say that you haven't infringed any copyrights and are legally and morally clear, but still get to hear what you want.
How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've driven people into the ground, that some of them no longer have anything to lose and want to see you dead? The money must be nice, but what's your price for giving up the freedom to live among other people? Remember, your security detail has to have a perfect record, while the little guy you destroyed only has to get lucky one time.
I am not - NOT! - calling for violence, but I'm continually surprised that no one has resorted to it. I think it's inevitable that if we continue down this road, someone will decide to exercise their second amendment rights, if not against the people who passed the bills, then against the people who paid to have them written.
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates.
BS. Ron Paul got higher than 5% and his existence was barely acknowledged.
That isn't going to stop me from voting for a third party this time around, but I'm not kidding myself about what my vote will change.
Consumer Reports didn't like Dysons, if you care about such things. I bought a much cheaper Hoover Wind Tunnel canister vacuum a love it.
The AGPL is easily ignored, and frankly, its FSF-sanctioned existence pisses me off. It's one thing - a good thing! - to place Freedom-preserving restrictions on distribution. It's another thing altogether to put Freedom-removing restrictions on usage. For some reason, the FSF has endorsed the idea that hosting an application via the web is distribution, even if hosting that same application via a console session is merely usage.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason is that GPLed software is well entrenched, and the FSF feels they have the leverage to begin forcing users to share changes even if they're not distributing them. Want to use Free software? Here are the new rules!
That sucks. I'm a huge RMS fanboy, but I think the AGPL and the principles behind it are fundamentally broken and should be abandoned.
Are you saying that Windows 3.1 was not Windows?
By the time I'd Win 3.1 came out in '92, I'd been using AmigaOS for 7 years. Acquaintances had been using Macs for a little longer. Windows was:
Yep. Windows 3.1 was definitely Windows.
no they dont. the local Car audio shop charges the same price for a specific stereo to be installed in a car.
Right, which is analogous to saying that the local computer shop will charge the same to upgrade an Apple or a Dell.
now at the dealer is a different story. only fools get work or upgrades at the dealer.
Which was my whole point. Buying RAM from Apple is like buying a CD changer from BMW. It's not going to be better than what you could get from a local audio shop, and is almost guaranteed to cost you a lot more.
I am sorry fan boy, you are paying for exactly 3 things. 1) Brand 2) Style 3)Status which can really all just be called the same thing. You also get the OS that isn't Windows. Thats it.
I am sorry, you are ass-uming much about me. I'm typing this on a Model M keyboard attached to a Dell running Kubuntu. I don't mind getting my hands dirty, and I've never in my life paid for a hardware upgrade that could be done with available parts.
The fact that Apple realized that people are willing to pay extra to have this done for them means that they are better at business than you are.
In other news: radio upgrades cost more on a BMW than on a Hyundai. With that or with RAM upgrades, you can either do it yourself (or hire someone), or you can let the dealer do it. Guess which is always more expensive?
Apple is quite literally ripping off those who aren't able to upgrade hardware themselves.
That would literally hurt.
The early internet consisted of a bunch of mainframes operated by a bunch of BOFH (Bastard Operators From Hell). The only guys (usually male) allowed to log on were military types or civilian employees of defense contractors, who had a whack of security clearances.
For liking to pretend that you were there when it all started, you don't seem to understand what a peer is.
ARPANET and the Internet were built around the idea that computers could talk to each other. NAT breaks that. QED, NAT is not what the Internet was meant to be like.
You sound pretty mad about it.
If you are a small ISP with a OC-3 and you have 1000 lines, that means if all lines are active, each one would only have an average speed of 6Kbps.
155Mbps/(1 OC-3) * (1 OC-3/1000 lines) = 155Kbps/line.
Why on earth are you paying $1/min for your cell phone coverage?
Knowing Palm, support was a 1-900 number.
I'm confused. Why mention it, then? You said threading is a must, but it's clearly not. It's also not even remotely the same thing as multiprocessing, which suffers none of the GIL problems.
Palm OS was brilliant at running PDA-style apps. However, that's not the direction portable computing was going, and Palm never did much to address the future. When every other platform was moving into media, Palm was proud of its third-party support calendars with more buttons.
And don't get me started about the Graffiti 2 debacle ("Easy to learn, even if you'll never get faster!"). Instead of working out a deal to keep using Jot and its trickier-but-faster strokes, they switched to that two-stroke abomination that instantly cut power users' data entry speed in half. Way to save a penny, Palm!
Lets face it, with NAT and other technologies, the need to migrate to a new standard has been severely reduced.
Not even close. NAT breaks networks horribly by its very nature, and voids the original Internet ideal of a collection of peers. Consider that with NAT it's impossible to connect to another machine which is also behind NAT without going through a third party. While governments might love the idea of forcing you to funnel traffic through a central, easily-tappable server, it sucks for end users. Not only is it bad for privacy, but for reliability: now you can't talk to your friend's machine if the helper server is down or out of bandwidth. That's not acceptable!
Having had a little bit of experience working with big networks based on IPV4, the migration to IPV6 is going to be pretty awesome... like the titanic sinking, or an entire city being leveled by an earth quake.
Having apparently a bit more, I don't think it's going to be that bad. You don't have to start with a complete cutover, or even make a complete transition at all. Right now, today, odds are that you could start using link local addresses on your LAN for testing. You can get an IPv6 allocation and start with little things: configure your mailserver to use it and start publishing DNS to it. Once you're convinced it's up, try again with your webserver. Maybe configure a couple of workstations for the geeks in your company and let them bang away at it. If any of that fails, no big deal! You're still live with IPv4.
You can't get a responsive UI with fork()?