You are solving the wrong problem. The problem is not technical. A single zone will scale to millions of entries: the.com zone is an existance proof of that. The problem is political: NSI has too much political power.
-russ
The first bluebooth implementations are only going to be sold as cable replacements. So it won't really matter that J. Random combinations of bluebooth devices don't work -- because they don't work if you have a cable either.
-russ
In other words, the same entity that supposedly is going to protect us from corporations is being used by corporations to carry out their evil deeds. Okay, sure, yeah, um-hum, right.
-russ
Stationary pollution is easier to deal with. Plus, nuclear plants don't contribute to global warming, don't emit ordinary pollutants, and are cheaper than any other technology when all costs are accounted for. And yes, the risk of a nuclear power plant has been socialized. Then again, so has the pollution from a coal plant, or the pollution from producing solar panels.
But rather than argue about it, we should just make sure that each technology has to pay the full cost of its operation. Then we let the free market choose.
If this is for a kiosk, maybe you could put a USB camera at the top looking down at the monitor. You know what the screen *should* look like, because you have access to the screen contents. The difference is the person's hand. Pick the topmost occluded point, and that's the person's finger.
-russ
Private entities don't get to use violence. Corporations only have persuasion in their toolchest. Governments get to kidnap, steal, and yes, even murder uncooperative citizens.
-russ
So you admit that Stallman didn't say that he wanted to destroy programmer's livelihoods?
In any case, I fully expect that you will find that RMS has modified his views over the years since the GNU Manifesto was published. It's certainly not proper to say that he "wants" this. It's much more truthful to say that he "wanted" this, given the age of that document.
-russ
I've already explained to you that and why the GPL does not violate sections 5 and 6. If you refuse to address my reasoning, but instead keep on repeating your incorrect assertions, I have nothing more to say to you.
-russ
Heck, I just say "libre" and "gratis" in the context of free software. People who don't already understand can figure it out from context pretty quickly.
-russ
RMS usually is very careful with his language. I can't imagine that he said "force" in this context. Instead, what he expects will happen is that anyone who wants to sell a better mousetrap will have to start with the existing one, and sell its creation as a service, not a product.
-russ
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. If you have a piece of OSI Certified code (no matter which of the approved licenses it uses), you can modify and redistribute it under the same license. That's our assurance to you. We say NOTHING about whether you can modify and redistribute it under a different license. Assuring people of that freedom is not a goal of ours.
-russ
I don't think anybody's worried about it. What about (e.g.) packet drivers written in MSDOS assembly language? There is no open source assembler for MSDOS-format x86 assembly language. You have to own Borland TASM or Microsoft MASM to make anything of the otherwise open source packet drivers.
Or, as someone else pointed out, what if the program is simply written poorly?
Or, (getting ridiculous now), what if you lack the skill to make the changes you desire?
OSI Certified(tm) doesn't ensure that you can make the changes you want. It just ensures that nobody can stop you from making the changes you want and redistributing them.
-russ
Is there anybody who wants to modify IOCCC code?? It's like a work of art -- leave it well enough alone.
I can't imagine any changes to the OSD which would allow IOCCC code to be certified without also allowing companies to publish obscured source code.
-russ
Well, see, all the spam that I ever get claims not to be spam, so that I figured if I sent out spam that claimed to actually *be* spam, nobody would mind. Read this post over your left shoulder with a mirror, and it will all make sense, trust me.
-russ
The GPL confiscates your rights to your own code if you include even one line of GPLed code.
You could make a good argument for fair use in this case.
the misuse of copyright for an end not specifically contemplated by the Constitution.
Ha! Most of what the federal government does violates the Constitution. You think anybody is going to worry about "copyright abuse"? The copyright period has been extended and extended, so obviously nobody has read the part about "for a limited time."
the OSI should reject the GPL and state that it simply is not an open source license
We would have to modify the OSD first, for reasons I've stated elsewhere.
-russ
Nobody ever said that free software was zero cost. Sounds like you can't afford free software. Other people can. Some day soon you might find yourself competing against them. Maybe you'll find a way to afford free software then?
-russ
This is one of Richard Stallman's stated goals: to make it impossible for anyone to make a living by writing software.
Brett, Richard and I have our philosophical differences, but I'll defend Richard here and say that you are lying, flat out. I have never heard Richard say what you claim he says.
-russ
In a sentence, the goal of "OSI Certified" Open Source is to identify software that people can modify and/or redistribute. We intentionally say *nothing* about whether you can re-license a piece of Open Source code so that it is not Open Source.
Given that goal and non-goal respectively, the GPL does not discriminate against people who want to deny OSD rights to recipients of their code. Such people are perfectly free to modify and/or redistribute GPL'ed code.
-russ
No. If they use an existing OSI-approved license, we have to certify the software as open source. That would be the easy version. The hard version would be if they wanted us to approve the Microsoft Open Source License. If it complied with the OSD, we'd have a hard time disapproving it.
-russ
Re:This is no different than an interstate
on
Fiddler on the RUF
·
· Score: 2
This is no different in the respect you object to. In other respects it is different. Is this so hard to understand?
-russ
1) Capacity: eliminate parking lots at train stations. How much less dense is your corridor?
2) Cost: how much safer are these rail systems? How much denser are they? With an adequate control system and a way to merge into a moving traffic stream, you can have traffic moving at 100km/hr without stopping.
Slashdot Mirror
You are solving the wrong problem. The problem is not technical. A single zone will scale to millions of entries: the .com zone is an existance proof of that. The problem is political: NSI has too much political power.
-russ
Oh damn, I'm going to kick myself in the morning, but "Me too!" I was assaulted on a daily basis in Jr. High.
-russ
The first bluebooth implementations are only going to be sold as cable replacements. So it won't really matter that J. Random combinations of bluebooth devices don't work -- because they don't work if you have a cable either.
-russ
In other words, the same entity that supposedly is going to protect us from corporations is being used by corporations to carry out their evil deeds. Okay, sure, yeah, um-hum, right.
-russ
Stationary pollution is easier to deal with. Plus, nuclear plants don't contribute to global warming, don't emit ordinary pollutants, and are cheaper than any other technology when all costs are accounted for. And yes, the risk of a nuclear power plant has been socialized. Then again, so has the pollution from a coal plant, or the pollution from producing solar panels.
But rather than argue about it, we should just make sure that each technology has to pay the full cost of its operation. Then we let the free market choose.
If this is for a kiosk, maybe you could put a USB camera at the top looking down at the monitor. You know what the screen *should* look like, because you have access to the screen contents. The difference is the person's hand. Pick the topmost occluded point, and that's the person's finger.
-russ
Private entities don't get to use violence. Corporations only have persuasion in their toolchest. Governments get to kidnap, steal, and yes, even murder uncooperative citizens.
-russ
Moderators: please moderate the parent of this posting down because the real, true, authentic cry for freedom is "ALL hail Linux!"
-russ
So you admit that Stallman didn't say that he wanted to destroy programmer's livelihoods?
In any case, I fully expect that you will find that RMS has modified his views over the years since the GNU Manifesto was published. It's certainly not proper to say that he "wants" this. It's much more truthful to say that he "wanted" this, given the age of that document.
-russ
I've already explained to you that and why the GPL does not violate sections 5 and 6. If you refuse to address my reasoning, but instead keep on repeating your incorrect assertions, I have nothing more to say to you.
-russ
Heck, I just say "libre" and "gratis" in the context of free software. People who don't already understand can figure it out from context pretty quickly.
-russ
RMS usually is very careful with his language. I can't imagine that he said "force" in this context. Instead, what he expects will happen is that anyone who wants to sell a better mousetrap will have to start with the existing one, and sell its creation as a service, not a product.
-russ
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. If you have a piece of OSI Certified code (no matter which of the approved licenses it uses), you can modify and redistribute it under the same license. That's our assurance to you. We say NOTHING about whether you can modify and redistribute it under a different license. Assuring people of that freedom is not a goal of ours.
-russ
I don't think anybody's worried about it. What about (e.g.) packet drivers written in MSDOS assembly language? There is no open source assembler for MSDOS-format x86 assembly language. You have to own Borland TASM or Microsoft MASM to make anything of the otherwise open source packet drivers.
Or, as someone else pointed out, what if the program is simply written poorly?
Or, (getting ridiculous now), what if you lack the skill to make the changes you desire?
OSI Certified(tm) doesn't ensure that you can make the changes you want. It just ensures that nobody can stop you from making the changes you want and redistributing them.
-russ
Is there anybody who wants to modify IOCCC code?? It's like a work of art -- leave it well enough alone.
I can't imagine any changes to the OSD which would allow IOCCC code to be certified without also allowing companies to publish obscured source code.
-russ
Well, see, all the spam that I ever get claims not to be spam, so that I figured if I sent out spam that claimed to actually *be* spam, nobody would mind. Read this post over your left shoulder with a mirror, and it will all make sense, trust me.
-russ
The GPL confiscates your rights to your own code if you include even one line of GPLed code.
You could make a good argument for fair use in this case.
the misuse of copyright for an end not specifically contemplated by the Constitution.
Ha! Most of what the federal government does violates the Constitution. You think anybody is going to worry about "copyright abuse"? The copyright period has been extended and extended, so obviously nobody has read the part about "for a limited time."
the OSI should reject the GPL and state that it simply is not an open source license
We would have to modify the OSD first, for reasons I've stated elsewhere.
-russ
Nobody ever said that free software was zero cost. Sounds like you can't afford free software. Other people can. Some day soon you might find yourself competing against them. Maybe you'll find a way to afford free software then?
-russ
This is a good summary of our differences.
-russ
This is one of Richard Stallman's stated goals: to make it impossible for anyone to make a living by writing software.
Brett, Richard and I have our philosophical differences, but I'll defend Richard here and say that you are lying, flat out. I have never heard Richard say what you claim he says.
-russ
In a sentence, the goal of "OSI Certified" Open Source is to identify software that people can modify and/or redistribute. We intentionally say *nothing* about whether you can re-license a piece of Open Source code so that it is not Open Source.
Given that goal and non-goal respectively, the GPL does not discriminate against people who want to deny OSD rights to recipients of their code. Such people are perfectly free to modify and/or redistribute GPL'ed code.
-russ
I can see that you desire that I never try to help you again. Consider it done. Or rather, not done. You know what I mean.
-russ
No. If they use an existing OSI-approved license, we have to certify the software as open source. That would be the easy version. The hard version would be if they wanted us to approve the Microsoft Open Source License. If it complied with the OSD, we'd have a hard time disapproving it.
-russ
This is no different in the respect you object to. In other respects it is different. Is this so hard to understand?
-russ
1) Capacity: eliminate parking lots at train stations. How much less dense is your corridor?
2) Cost: how much safer are these rail systems? How much denser are they? With an adequate control system and a way to merge into a moving traffic stream, you can have traffic moving at 100km/hr without stopping.
3) Hey, consumers buy cars.