Ya got me. Complain to Hemos (but he'll just complain to us, saying "Yo! Where's that OSI logo you started working on, lemme see, *three* years ago", and he'll be right.).
-russ
Well, the problem is that there *is* no good solution. The people who have chosen different licenses have done so because they wish the software to be distributed with the particular set of restrictions. If the licenses are compatible, then you have no problem. But how do you determine this? It's not obvious.
If you're not going to distribute the software, you have no problem. But I think you want to be able to give the software away without charging for it.
-russ
Well, but what if you want to lift some software and put it into a GPL'ed package? You should at least start by restricting your search to OSI Certified Open Source, eh? I understand that you're only going to use the GPL for your own software, yes. But that doesn't make our approval meaningless.
-russ
Of course! I wouldn't pick any other type of license. Actually, if I had the choice, I would probably pick the GPL. For sentient software, it's the license of choice.
-russ
Apology accepted. So what criteria do you require of a license which makes our approval meaningless to you? Is there something missing from the OSD?
-russ
And your ability to hire lawyers is related to whether or not you have registered the copyright on your software. It makes the difference between triple damages and statutory penalties. So go register that copyright!
-russ
I think that, if you listen carefully, we discourage unnecessary license proliferation. On the other hand, we can't NOT approve a license if it meets our requirements.
Is the picture referenced in your signature for real or is it edited??? Hard to believe that people could be that unconscious.
-russ
I recommend being cautious about "releasing your code into the public domain". The problem is that there is *no* language in the Berne Convention whereby an author can bypass the lapsing of copyright which puts a work into the public domain. Some countries treat author's rights as inalienable, so they cannot put something in to the public domain.
Much better just to license your code under one of the licenses whose only restriction is "Don't remove this copyright."
-russ
You're quite right, you should always be concerned about the license itself. All that we do is tell people that a license grants a certain number of specific freedoms. That's all, but it's still worth doing.
-russ
Re:Are these domains legitimate or not?
on
Dot-God vs DotGod?
·
· Score: 2
Of course. They only work on machines where people have specifically enabled *just* those domains served by Pacific root. As far as I can tell, everyone running an alternate root is a lunatic, exceeded only in lunacy by NSI, of course.
-russ
You're overlooking the role of customers in this. Why do people buy from Wal*Mart? Because it's cheaper than the mom-n-pop stores. Are the customers being mean to the mom-n-pops? Yes. But that's not Wal*Mart's fault, that's the customers fault. They're just choosing the best offer available to them.
If you think you can do better, then you should. That's how we do things in America. Instead of arguing about who's being fair and who's being unfair, we have free markets. So those people who see unfair deals can do something about them.
Are you willing to do something about the unfair deal you see happening? If so, do it! If not, then I have to think that you don't really believe your own arguments.
-russ
I agree with you that Internet access isn't a necessity, and we shouldn't take tax dollars away from more important activities to pay for it. If people actually want Internet access, they'll pay for it.
Many times a private association will do "the right thing to do" even though it isn't profitable.
-russ
The problem is that people will NEVER agree on what is fair and what is not fair. So rather than try to do what is not possible, it makes more sense to do what is efficient, and let people choose to make up for the unfairness on their own. The efficiency gives them the resources to do it, and the freedom of the market gives them the ability to do it.
So no, private associations many times will do things that are not profitable. For example, the Shriners, or the Kiwanis, or the Rotary, or the Red Cross, or.... the examples are numerous.
-russ
If it's "the right thing to do", then why won't a private association be able to do it?
By the way, do you think that a store infrastructure is too important to leave to market forces? If so, explain why Wal*Mart has successfully lowered the cost of purchasing for the poor.
You have no clue what you're talking about when you refer to market forces as being something where the rich win and the poor lose. Get your head out of your butt and learn some economics before you graduate. Too bad economics isn't a required subject for engineers anymore.
-russ
You're perfectly correct. Just like gun control disarms victims, encryption control disarms victims. You want to protect yourself from terrorists? Use cryptography so they can't listen to you. Use crypography so they cannot pretend to be you.
-russ
Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
It never works this way, Jon. The income tax was supposed to be temporary, to be abolished after we won *that* world war. Has it proven to be? You ought to listen more closely to libertarians when we say "War is the health of the state."
-russ
Private associations may or may not choose to discriminate, but at least you only have to worry about the people you've chosen to associate with instead of every single yahoo taxpayer.
-russ
Sorry, piecewise, I have to disagree. When government does stuff private businesses do, everyone pays for it, even the people who don't want it. That's wrong, and generally leads to political fights, which get ugly and waste time. It's better to form a private assocation -- a bandwidth cooperative -- to solve this problem, and work closely with government to get permission to run cables, use public rights of way, etc.
-russ
No, the same thing will never work again. Everybody except flight 93 expected to be held for ransom. From now on, you can expect passengers to fight for their lives. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are armed plainclothes police on every flight, with orders to shoot to kill.
-russ
Slashdot Mirror
How can I play these on my Linux box? Is there a codec for xanim, or do I need a different player?
-russ
Ya got me. Complain to Hemos (but he'll just complain to us, saying "Yo! Where's that OSI logo you started working on, lemme see, *three* years ago", and he'll be right.).
-russ
but the users have to understand them all. The main question user's have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
Great! You've just reinvented OSI Certified Open Source. If we've approved the license, then you can copy it. That's the whole point.
-russ
Well, the problem is that there *is* no good solution. The people who have chosen different licenses have done so because they wish the software to be distributed with the particular set of restrictions. If the licenses are compatible, then you have no problem. But how do you determine this? It's not obvious.
If you're not going to distribute the software, you have no problem. But I think you want to be able to give the software away without charging for it.
-russ
Well, but what if you want to lift some software and put it into a GPL'ed package? You should at least start by restricting your search to OSI Certified Open Source, eh? I understand that you're only going to use the GPL for your own software, yes. But that doesn't make our approval meaningless.
-russ
If you shop around, you can get a mono iPAQ for less than twice the price.
-russ
Of course! I wouldn't pick any other type of license. Actually, if I had the choice, I would probably pick the GPL. For sentient software, it's the license of choice.
-russ
Apology accepted. So what criteria do you require of a license which makes our approval meaningless to you? Is there something missing from the OSD?
-russ
And your ability to hire lawyers is related to whether or not you have registered the copyright on your software. It makes the difference between triple damages and statutory penalties. So go register that copyright!
-russ
I think that, if you listen carefully, we discourage unnecessary license proliferation. On the other hand, we can't NOT approve a license if it meets our requirements.
Is the picture referenced in your signature for real or is it edited??? Hard to believe that people could be that unconscious.
-russ
I recommend being cautious about "releasing your code into the public domain". The problem is that there is *no* language in the Berne Convention whereby an author can bypass the lapsing of copyright which puts a work into the public domain. Some countries treat author's rights as inalienable, so they cannot put something in to the public domain.
Much better just to license your code under one of the licenses whose only restriction is "Don't remove this copyright."
-russ
You're quite right, you should always be concerned about the license itself. All that we do is tell people that a license grants a certain number of specific freedoms. That's all, but it's still worth doing.
-russ
Of course. They only work on machines where people have specifically enabled *just* those domains served by Pacific root. As far as I can tell, everyone running an alternate root is a lunatic, exceeded only in lunacy by NSI, of course.
-russ
You're overlooking the role of customers in this. Why do people buy from Wal*Mart? Because it's cheaper than the mom-n-pop stores. Are the customers being mean to the mom-n-pops? Yes. But that's not Wal*Mart's fault, that's the customers fault. They're just choosing the best offer available to them.
If you think you can do better, then you should. That's how we do things in America. Instead of arguing about who's being fair and who's being unfair, we have free markets. So those people who see unfair deals can do something about them.
Are you willing to do something about the unfair deal you see happening? If so, do it! If not, then I have to think that you don't really believe your own arguments.
-russ
I agree with you that Internet access isn't a necessity, and we shouldn't take tax dollars away from more important activities to pay for it. If people actually want Internet access, they'll pay for it.
Many times a private association will do "the right thing to do" even though it isn't profitable.
-russ
The problem is that people will NEVER agree on what is fair and what is not fair. So rather than try to do what is not possible, it makes more sense to do what is efficient, and let people choose to make up for the unfairness on their own. The efficiency gives them the resources to do it, and the freedom of the market gives them the ability to do it.
.... the examples are numerous.
So no, private associations many times will do things that are not profitable. For example, the Shriners, or the Kiwanis, or the Rotary, or the Red Cross, or
-russ
If it's "the right thing to do", then why won't a private association be able to do it?
By the way, do you think that a store infrastructure is too important to leave to market forces? If so, explain why Wal*Mart has successfully lowered the cost of purchasing for the poor.
You have no clue what you're talking about when you refer to market forces as being something where the rich win and the poor lose. Get your head out of your butt and learn some economics before you graduate. Too bad economics isn't a required subject for engineers anymore.
-russ
You're perfectly correct. Just like gun control disarms victims, encryption control disarms victims. You want to protect yourself from terrorists? Use cryptography so they can't listen to you. Use crypography so they cannot pretend to be you.
-russ
Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
It never works this way, Jon. The income tax was supposed to be temporary, to be abolished after we won *that* world war. Has it proven to be? You ought to listen more closely to libertarians when we say "War is the health of the state."
-russ
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities.
Exactly. Many people are not in their right mind these days.
-russ
Private associations may or may not choose to discriminate, but at least you only have to worry about the people you've chosen to associate with instead of every single yahoo taxpayer.
-russ
Private associations may not work any better, but they won't waste your tax dollars.
-russ
Sorry, piecewise, I have to disagree. When government does stuff private businesses do, everyone pays for it, even the people who don't want it. That's wrong, and generally leads to political fights, which get ugly and waste time. It's better to form a private assocation -- a bandwidth cooperative -- to solve this problem, and work closely with government to get permission to run cables, use public rights of way, etc.
-russ
No, the same thing will never work again. Everybody except flight 93 expected to be held for ransom. From now on, you can expect passengers to fight for their lives. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are armed plainclothes police on every flight, with orders to shoot to kill.
-russ
If I had a URL to it, I would have posted it, eh wot?
-russ