Except that people don't block these ads. Most ABP users allow "acceptable ads," including me. Now the rough part is, due to so many bad apples, it costs money to maintain these lists and the makers of the ad blockers charge to be part of the acceptable list. That I can see as somewhat unfair. But the fact is many people (I'd venture most) wouldn't block a simple JPG.
OTOH, there is a lot of content that I *want* to pay for in additional to what I already pay for. I buy a monthly cable TV subscription (although mostly because I supply it to tenants in a multi-unit property), Amazon Prime (which is about 80% of the TV/Movies that I watch), and subscriptions to New York Times, The Economist, The Nation, Christian Science Monitor, and Science News.
I would like to subscribe to some scientific journals but they don't have Kindle editions and I'm not going to carry a bunch of dead trees around.
I don't by BluRay or DVD because I can't stand the forced ads. I'm also an iTunes Match subscriber (because the backup service is worth $25/year).
I go see movies at the fork and screen theater and pay the premium price.
There's no lack of people willing to pay for quality products.
I also use ABP and will continue to do so. I shouldn't have to turn the volume down to mute in order to browse the web without getting shocked out of my seat.
The difference is that Disney sets the price well in advance. With Uber, you could want a taxi at a non-peak time and then suddenly it's raining and everybody wants a ride so the price goes way up and some people get left in the rain.
At Disney you won't get an exceptionally nice day, show up at the gate, and be given a higher price than you normally would during that season. Although "surge pricing" is *largely* predictable, it is a function of actions taken by users. Season pricing is made in advance and not adjusted based on actual usage during short time periods.
They wanted to have it sooner but their US IT team wasn't up to the task. Now that the H1Bs are there, they cranked it out in a few days thanks to the tremendous skills of their managers. (Sorry for those who have trouble with sarcasm)
I'm not sure if you are using the phrase universal inbox generically or referring to the product by that name. A screenshot of the Blackberry Hub is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Right now I'm using iPhone and to verify whether or not I have any unhandled action items, I first open the mail app for corporate mail. Then gmail app. Yes I get work emails that way now and again, but not for any good reason. Then the Facebook App. Then SMS/MMS. Then Google Voice. Then regular voice mail. With BB hub, you just have one list. The closest you can get on iOS/Android is to not dismiss your notifications but this isn't nearly as functional. With BB Hub, you get something in, you handle it, then delete it from the hub (Doesn't delete the original). And again all of the data is composted. Right now if I get an SMS from a colleage that's not in my phone address book (not even sure which source it's using for address book, but its not our corporate exchnge server, thats' for sure), it just shows up as a number. With BB Hub if it's in any of my contact lists, I get a name.
I'm a huge Blackberry fan and I'm actually excited about a Priv (once I can get one for less than $700 that is) There are two great things about the Blackberry Q devices. The keyboard and the hub. If you haven't ever used Blackberry Hub you don't know what your missing. Kind of like somebody who has never had air conditioning. It used to be that Android security was too weak to build anything actually secure. (Give an app every permission it wants or don't install it). That's no longer the case. Since it's not the QNX based OS that is the differentiating feature, this isn't a surprise.
The hub only works wonderfully if the apps are implemented properly. The hub allows composting of data between multiple apps without any of it leaking. So you get a list of things in chronological order. Also can do things like look in all of your address books for incoming calls. (iOS and Android can't do this if the address books are in virtual secure areas which is how all enterprises configure). And of course a keyboard.
Right. So somebody makes a device that does this automatically and also has built-in DDNS to make it super-easy. And it gets put on the front page of/. as "secret phoning home." You just can't win!
Indeed if it were trivial, there wouldn't be entire DDNS businesses! Even with DDNS you have some work to do. AFAIK the default configuration on most wireless APs is to use NAT. So even if I know unrouetable IP address of the camera it wouldn't help. I'd venture that the manufacturers get way more calls saying its too hard to get configured than requests for the information necessary to secure these things.
It's a problem for the owners of the corporation. In publicly traded companies, there is a separation of ownership from control. This level of CEO pay causes two problems. The first is that it's like a tax. Granted it's a small tax relative to profit. Second, there's no way you can expect the rank and file to stay motivated when they can't afford dental care due to their low pay and the CEO just bought a new yacht.
I'd like to see some data on this. From what I've seen, it depends on how you allocate costs. Football brings in a lot of money but the athletic programs, overall, lose money. (Badmitton just doesn't have the same draw). But I don't know which share of the costs are assigned to less popular sports. If those were shut down (and not shouldering a loss) would football still be able to show a profit? I don't think so. Only at the top few I would imagine. Part of undergraduate tuition is an athletic fee.
This is reminiscent of Microsoft FUD from the 90s. If you find GPL code valuable and want to use it, don't begrudge giving your changes back. That covers about 90% of the cases. If you're out combining multiple pieces of different software, you have to be aware of the license terms. There are lawyers who specialize in this and even entire software products dedicated to it. But the problem isn't a function of any particular license it's a function of having disparate licenses. The FSF has actually gone to great lengths to make this easy. The way I handle this is I look at the list of GPL-compatible free software licenses at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li... and only accept code with licenses on the list.
Sun licensed ZFS in a way intended to make it incompatible with the GPL. They achieved their goal. How can you fault the FSF for this? If the GPL terms had been different, CDDL would have been adjusted to maintain the incompatibility. An organization set out to create this situation, they succeeded in creating it, somebody points out their success and somehow it's a third-parties fault. I'm having trouble following that logic. This seems more like an emotional reaction to the GPL. When I first heard of it I certainly had one. I made my living writing software and these "free software" guys were driving the value of software to zero dollars. It's only later, now that I understand a lot of about software security, that I realize source code distribution is the only real way to make software secure.
The issue here is not the *user* doing at. As you've said that's fine. The issue is that Canonical is doing it and distributing it. Some argue that they shouldn't be doing that. The argument being made is that Canonical can't distribute their binaries. Most of us think that they *can* distribute the binaries as we consider their Linux distribution to be a collection of individual works not a work that is a derivate of all of them. I can combine GPL with non-GPL and do certain things with it as you have said. GPLv3 makes it even clearer that I could, for internal use at a company, do this as long as I keep it within the company. But in this case Canonical is releasing a product. I think that they are in the clear but I still think there's value in understanding the argument against it.
It is very important to understand that distributing source and having the user compile it is another form of distributing a binary. Attempts have been made in the past to violate the GPL but creating tools to compile the source, delete it, and then claim that this is allowed because no binary is being distributed. A lot of effort went into crafting the GPL in order to ensure certain freedoms. If it could be easily circumvented, those freedoms would be lost. Sometimes compliance is tedious (such as in this case) for commercial entities but it's a small price to pay for what we get. None of this affects individual users since we aren't commercial distributors.
IANAL so I can't really answer the question about the small PC shop.
In terms of selling to your neighbor, you would be considered a casual not commercial distributor of the software. If you received the software in compliance with the GPL, your sale to your neighbor will remain in compliance.
Commercial distributors have a higher burden because they can't rely on a third-party offer for compliance. Again, IANAL, but the the GPL FAQ does talk about this.
As a small PC shop, you should consider installing the software as an agent of the purchaser rather than distributing it. I'm not entirely sure how the mechanics of that would work.
I do know from experience that some defense customers are still buying Windows/XP machines. The customer procures the license and then the seller installs on their behalf. Almost no difference on the surface except the customer has to do more paperwork.
The reality is that, as a small seller, who isn't creating any derivative works, you're not a target for anybody and it probably doesn't matter either way.
Well if we want people to use software, you're unlikely to achieve it by setting a record for the most number of f bombs in a single post. TFA (yes I read it) asserts that what Canonical is doing qualifies as creating a derivative work. Other posters (in less colorful language) have managed to make a distinction between a distribution that combines multiple works and a derivative work. Hopefully moderation will pull those posts up and yours down.
This doesn't "get around" anything. Having the user compile them is just another means of distributing a binary. The user compiles the NVidia drivers because it's the easiest way to ensure that they are compatible with the running kernel. The NVidia driver is a hybrid model. The user compiles part of it and part of it is a blob. The user-compiled part is GPL. The interesting stuff is in the blob.
This is what I get for feeding trolls. The OP to which I'm responding seemed to think that the GPL somehow limited what you can do with software. I was pointing out that it only limits *distribution*. Combining two pieces of software to make a derivative work *is* changing the software albeit not in the way we normally think about it. There's no doubt that some licenses cannot be combined with GPL to make a work that is derivative of the two. SFC argues that Linux kernel + ZFS = derivative work that can't possibly be distributed in compliance with both licenses. Smarter heads argue that this isn't a derivative work. But neither is relevant in terms of the OP since neither license limits what you can do with the software only how you can distribute it.
I wish you had posted this in a way that somebody could moderate it up. The headers are subject to copyright but there is a way to make hybrid kernel modules. Doing so is tedious and the result, from a technical standpoint, is something almost identical. But it creates a clear line where one license ends and the next begins and that's valuable.
IANAL but it's not required to assign the copyright to the Linux foundation. Many people contribute to the Kernel. It's GPL so you could fork it. And the Linux Foundation would definitely *not* automatically get copyright to your version. It's ultimately the Linux Foundation who could prove copyright to large swaths and take action bu the foundation could not take the kernel as is and relicense it under GPLv3 for example. They'd have to rewrite all the parts for which they don't hold the copyright.
The goal of the GPL is not to get the most widely used software (although that's a noble goal). The goal is to ensure that the users of the software are able to maintain and secure it so they don't get left hanging out to dry if something happens to their upstream vendor. When you receive software under the GPL you expect to have these freedoms. When software with multiple licenses is combined, users have to become lawyers to know what rights they actually have and whether these freedoms are protected. I'm not sure it's a concern in this particular case since both GPL and CDDLv1 protect the user's rights. (It's only distributors who are affected by this). But knowing that you can secure and maintain software is valuable. It would be undesirable to get into a situation where you think you have that right, but it turns out that you don't.
Software freedom means that you can't create derivative works and then distribute them with a license that restricts other people's freedom. It's the same reason that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. You can do anything you want with the software and combine it with proprietary software even. You just can't *distribute* the changes.
Regardless of the legal situation, the holder of the copyright to the vast majority of the kernel doesn't object to binary modules. There are those who would argue that even certain user-space binaries are a GPL violation. Fortunately those voices haven't prevailed. I guess, at some point, to squelch any doubts, ZFS will have to get turned into something akin to a hybrid driver where code to load interchangeable binary blobs with a certain interface is contributed to the kernel under GPL and the blobs come with their own license. In this case it will be CDDLv1. This is somewhat of a PITA but it's actually good in the medium-term because it means that users face less ambiguity in terms of knowing under which license they are receiving code.
Also on/. if you contribute (post) any reasonable amount, you are given the option to disable the advertising. (But not the slashvertisements, unfortunately)
Slashdot Mirror
Except that people don't block these ads. Most ABP users allow "acceptable ads," including me. Now the rough part is, due to so many bad apples, it costs money to maintain these lists and the makers of the ad blockers charge to be part of the acceptable list. That I can see as somewhat unfair. But the fact is many people (I'd venture most) wouldn't block a simple JPG. OTOH, there is a lot of content that I *want* to pay for in additional to what I already pay for. I buy a monthly cable TV subscription (although mostly because I supply it to tenants in a multi-unit property), Amazon Prime (which is about 80% of the TV/Movies that I watch), and subscriptions to New York Times, The Economist, The Nation, Christian Science Monitor, and Science News. I would like to subscribe to some scientific journals but they don't have Kindle editions and I'm not going to carry a bunch of dead trees around. I don't by BluRay or DVD because I can't stand the forced ads. I'm also an iTunes Match subscriber (because the backup service is worth $25/year). I go see movies at the fork and screen theater and pay the premium price. There's no lack of people willing to pay for quality products. I also use ABP and will continue to do so. I shouldn't have to turn the volume down to mute in order to browse the web without getting shocked out of my seat.
What about the evil ones who use commercial breaks to go to the bathroom?
The difference is that Disney sets the price well in advance. With Uber, you could want a taxi at a non-peak time and then suddenly it's raining and everybody wants a ride so the price goes way up and some people get left in the rain. At Disney you won't get an exceptionally nice day, show up at the gate, and be given a higher price than you normally would during that season. Although "surge pricing" is *largely* predictable, it is a function of actions taken by users. Season pricing is made in advance and not adjusted based on actual usage during short time periods.
They wanted to have it sooner but their US IT team wasn't up to the task. Now that the H1Bs are there, they cranked it out in a few days thanks to the tremendous skills of their managers. (Sorry for those who have trouble with sarcasm)
And then pump it into the ground. Use nuclear energy to power the process and we could have net negative carbon emissions!
I'm not sure if you are using the phrase universal inbox generically or referring to the product by that name. A screenshot of the Blackberry Hub is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Right now I'm using iPhone and to verify whether or not I have any unhandled action items, I first open the mail app for corporate mail. Then gmail app. Yes I get work emails that way now and again, but not for any good reason. Then the Facebook App. Then SMS/MMS. Then Google Voice. Then regular voice mail. With BB hub, you just have one list. The closest you can get on iOS/Android is to not dismiss your notifications but this isn't nearly as functional. With BB Hub, you get something in, you handle it, then delete it from the hub (Doesn't delete the original). And again all of the data is composted. Right now if I get an SMS from a colleage that's not in my phone address book (not even sure which source it's using for address book, but its not our corporate exchnge server, thats' for sure), it just shows up as a number. With BB Hub if it's in any of my contact lists, I get a name.
I'm a huge Blackberry fan and I'm actually excited about a Priv (once I can get one for less than $700 that is) There are two great things about the Blackberry Q devices. The keyboard and the hub. If you haven't ever used Blackberry Hub you don't know what your missing. Kind of like somebody who has never had air conditioning. It used to be that Android security was too weak to build anything actually secure. (Give an app every permission it wants or don't install it). That's no longer the case. Since it's not the QNX based OS that is the differentiating feature, this isn't a surprise. The hub only works wonderfully if the apps are implemented properly. The hub allows composting of data between multiple apps without any of it leaking. So you get a list of things in chronological order. Also can do things like look in all of your address books for incoming calls. (iOS and Android can't do this if the address books are in virtual secure areas which is how all enterprises configure). And of course a keyboard.
Right. So somebody makes a device that does this automatically and also has built-in DDNS to make it super-easy. And it gets put on the front page of /. as "secret phoning home." You just can't win!
Indeed if it were trivial, there wouldn't be entire DDNS businesses! Even with DDNS you have some work to do. AFAIK the default configuration on most wireless APs is to use NAT. So even if I know unrouetable IP address of the camera it wouldn't help. I'd venture that the manufacturers get way more calls saying its too hard to get configured than requests for the information necessary to secure these things.
It's a problem for the owners of the corporation. In publicly traded companies, there is a separation of ownership from control. This level of CEO pay causes two problems. The first is that it's like a tax. Granted it's a small tax relative to profit. Second, there's no way you can expect the rank and file to stay motivated when they can't afford dental care due to their low pay and the CEO just bought a new yacht.
I'd like to see some data on this. From what I've seen, it depends on how you allocate costs. Football brings in a lot of money but the athletic programs, overall, lose money. (Badmitton just doesn't have the same draw). But I don't know which share of the costs are assigned to less popular sports. If those were shut down (and not shouldering a loss) would football still be able to show a profit? I don't think so. Only at the top few I would imagine. Part of undergraduate tuition is an athletic fee.
This is reminiscent of Microsoft FUD from the 90s. If you find GPL code valuable and want to use it, don't begrudge giving your changes back. That covers about 90% of the cases. If you're out combining multiple pieces of different software, you have to be aware of the license terms. There are lawyers who specialize in this and even entire software products dedicated to it. But the problem isn't a function of any particular license it's a function of having disparate licenses. The FSF has actually gone to great lengths to make this easy. The way I handle this is I look at the list of GPL-compatible free software licenses at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li... and only accept code with licenses on the list.
Sun licensed ZFS in a way intended to make it incompatible with the GPL. They achieved their goal. How can you fault the FSF for this? If the GPL terms had been different, CDDL would have been adjusted to maintain the incompatibility. An organization set out to create this situation, they succeeded in creating it, somebody points out their success and somehow it's a third-parties fault. I'm having trouble following that logic. This seems more like an emotional reaction to the GPL. When I first heard of it I certainly had one. I made my living writing software and these "free software" guys were driving the value of software to zero dollars. It's only later, now that I understand a lot of about software security, that I realize source code distribution is the only real way to make software secure.
The issue here is not the *user* doing at. As you've said that's fine. The issue is that Canonical is doing it and distributing it. Some argue that they shouldn't be doing that. The argument being made is that Canonical can't distribute their binaries. Most of us think that they *can* distribute the binaries as we consider their Linux distribution to be a collection of individual works not a work that is a derivate of all of them. I can combine GPL with non-GPL and do certain things with it as you have said. GPLv3 makes it even clearer that I could, for internal use at a company, do this as long as I keep it within the company. But in this case Canonical is releasing a product. I think that they are in the clear but I still think there's value in understanding the argument against it.
It is very important to understand that distributing source and having the user compile it is another form of distributing a binary. Attempts have been made in the past to violate the GPL but creating tools to compile the source, delete it, and then claim that this is allowed because no binary is being distributed. A lot of effort went into crafting the GPL in order to ensure certain freedoms. If it could be easily circumvented, those freedoms would be lost. Sometimes compliance is tedious (such as in this case) for commercial entities but it's a small price to pay for what we get. None of this affects individual users since we aren't commercial distributors.
IANAL so I can't really answer the question about the small PC shop. In terms of selling to your neighbor, you would be considered a casual not commercial distributor of the software. If you received the software in compliance with the GPL, your sale to your neighbor will remain in compliance. Commercial distributors have a higher burden because they can't rely on a third-party offer for compliance. Again, IANAL, but the the GPL FAQ does talk about this. As a small PC shop, you should consider installing the software as an agent of the purchaser rather than distributing it. I'm not entirely sure how the mechanics of that would work. I do know from experience that some defense customers are still buying Windows/XP machines. The customer procures the license and then the seller installs on their behalf. Almost no difference on the surface except the customer has to do more paperwork. The reality is that, as a small seller, who isn't creating any derivative works, you're not a target for anybody and it probably doesn't matter either way.
Well if we want people to use software, you're unlikely to achieve it by setting a record for the most number of f bombs in a single post. TFA (yes I read it) asserts that what Canonical is doing qualifies as creating a derivative work. Other posters (in less colorful language) have managed to make a distinction between a distribution that combines multiple works and a derivative work. Hopefully moderation will pull those posts up and yours down.
This doesn't "get around" anything. Having the user compile them is just another means of distributing a binary. The user compiles the NVidia drivers because it's the easiest way to ensure that they are compatible with the running kernel. The NVidia driver is a hybrid model. The user compiles part of it and part of it is a blob. The user-compiled part is GPL. The interesting stuff is in the blob.
This is what I get for feeding trolls. The OP to which I'm responding seemed to think that the GPL somehow limited what you can do with software. I was pointing out that it only limits *distribution*. Combining two pieces of software to make a derivative work *is* changing the software albeit not in the way we normally think about it. There's no doubt that some licenses cannot be combined with GPL to make a work that is derivative of the two. SFC argues that Linux kernel + ZFS = derivative work that can't possibly be distributed in compliance with both licenses. Smarter heads argue that this isn't a derivative work. But neither is relevant in terms of the OP since neither license limits what you can do with the software only how you can distribute it.
I wish you had posted this in a way that somebody could moderate it up. The headers are subject to copyright but there is a way to make hybrid kernel modules. Doing so is tedious and the result, from a technical standpoint, is something almost identical. But it creates a clear line where one license ends and the next begins and that's valuable.
IANAL but it's not required to assign the copyright to the Linux foundation. Many people contribute to the Kernel. It's GPL so you could fork it. And the Linux Foundation would definitely *not* automatically get copyright to your version. It's ultimately the Linux Foundation who could prove copyright to large swaths and take action bu the foundation could not take the kernel as is and relicense it under GPLv3 for example. They'd have to rewrite all the parts for which they don't hold the copyright.
The goal of the GPL is not to get the most widely used software (although that's a noble goal). The goal is to ensure that the users of the software are able to maintain and secure it so they don't get left hanging out to dry if something happens to their upstream vendor. When you receive software under the GPL you expect to have these freedoms. When software with multiple licenses is combined, users have to become lawyers to know what rights they actually have and whether these freedoms are protected. I'm not sure it's a concern in this particular case since both GPL and CDDLv1 protect the user's rights. (It's only distributors who are affected by this). But knowing that you can secure and maintain software is valuable. It would be undesirable to get into a situation where you think you have that right, but it turns out that you don't.
Software freedom means that you can't create derivative works and then distribute them with a license that restricts other people's freedom. It's the same reason that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. You can do anything you want with the software and combine it with proprietary software even. You just can't *distribute* the changes.
Regardless of the legal situation, the holder of the copyright to the vast majority of the kernel doesn't object to binary modules. There are those who would argue that even certain user-space binaries are a GPL violation. Fortunately those voices haven't prevailed. I guess, at some point, to squelch any doubts, ZFS will have to get turned into something akin to a hybrid driver where code to load interchangeable binary blobs with a certain interface is contributed to the kernel under GPL and the blobs come with their own license. In this case it will be CDDLv1. This is somewhat of a PITA but it's actually good in the medium-term because it means that users face less ambiguity in terms of knowing under which license they are receiving code.
Also on /. if you contribute (post) any reasonable amount, you are given the option to disable the advertising. (But not the slashvertisements, unfortunately)