The freedom to create networks has already been corrupted by sweetheart deals between massive corporations and local governments. This is why the consumers are being screwed. I currently am using internet from the local monopoly. The other companies won't even attempt to install internet or cable here because they've worked out with our city that this is not to happen. Prices are insanely high if you want to access the internet, something which should be available to everyone. There's now a significant disadvantage for people who don't have it. It's akin to not having plumbing or power. So, yes I do believe it should be considered a utility. When corporations are using my own government against me I choose to use my government against them. Damn the Republicans for being on the wrong side of this one. They could have taken the stance for breaking up the local monopolies and making that illegal. Then I'd be on their side 100% and they'd still be ideologically consistent with their voters. But they clearly are taking the side of the corporation over the individual. Somehow they equate freedom to mean freedom for large companies not individuals.
Yes, but this only demonstrates the potential loophole in the GPL+ type licenses. Not licenses like the Linux kernel uses that says only GPLv2. Linus has even talked about the pitfalls of using "or future version". I suppose people are choosing between either the proprietary companies finding loopholes in the future and protecting against that with GPLv+ or something happening to the founders and people that run the FSF and bad GPL licenses coming out in the future. If copyright assignment is granted over to the people that run your particular project then you can re-license after reading the new GPL versions and everything is fine. The problem with that is now people have to trust your project leaders more than the FSF. Well, the FSF proposes to fix this by assigning them your copyright. But in that case you may as well have just let everyone keep their copyright and done a GPLv+ license and hope for the best in the future. I suppose the worst case is that a new GPL would come out that allows Microsoft to do whatever they want, but that really may not be much different than a BSD style license, specific to Microsoft mind you, but not a bad license really.
God I swear the Java world is overrun with this kind of stuff. It requires you to fully jump into their world instead of just using a piece of it happily and moving on with your day. You have to go install the kitchen sink IDE, server, and whatever else. It's a career path just learning all of the lingo.
Slashdot Mirror
The freedom to create networks has already been corrupted by sweetheart deals between massive corporations and local governments. This is why the consumers are being screwed. I currently am using internet from the local monopoly. The other companies won't even attempt to install internet or cable here because they've worked out with our city that this is not to happen. Prices are insanely high if you want to access the internet, something which should be available to everyone. There's now a significant disadvantage for people who don't have it. It's akin to not having plumbing or power. So, yes I do believe it should be considered a utility. When corporations are using my own government against me I choose to use my government against them. Damn the Republicans for being on the wrong side of this one. They could have taken the stance for breaking up the local monopolies and making that illegal. Then I'd be on their side 100% and they'd still be ideologically consistent with their voters. But they clearly are taking the side of the corporation over the individual. Somehow they equate freedom to mean freedom for large companies not individuals.
Yes, but this only demonstrates the potential loophole in the GPL+ type licenses. Not licenses like the Linux kernel uses that says only GPLv2. Linus has even talked about the pitfalls of using "or future version". I suppose people are choosing between either the proprietary companies finding loopholes in the future and protecting against that with GPLv+ or something happening to the founders and people that run the FSF and bad GPL licenses coming out in the future. If copyright assignment is granted over to the people that run your particular project then you can re-license after reading the new GPL versions and everything is fine. The problem with that is now people have to trust your project leaders more than the FSF. Well, the FSF proposes to fix this by assigning them your copyright. But in that case you may as well have just let everyone keep their copyright and done a GPLv+ license and hope for the best in the future. I suppose the worst case is that a new GPL would come out that allows Microsoft to do whatever they want, but that really may not be much different than a BSD style license, specific to Microsoft mind you, but not a bad license really.
God I swear the Java world is overrun with this kind of stuff. It requires you to fully jump into their world instead of just using a piece of it happily and moving on with your day. You have to go install the kitchen sink IDE, server, and whatever else. It's a career path just learning all of the lingo.