I doubt anybody will ever sue you for mixing of gplv2(-) & v3 source.
Firstly, I think that's an awfully large assumption given the visceral opinions on both sides of the issue, as well as the existence of a legal entity specifically set up to prosecute GPL violations.
Secondly, a corporation developing GPL-derivative software does not have the option of ignoring the letter of the law and hoping that nobody will sue. Corporate directors supporting such actions could find themselves personally liable for the consequences.
Given the legal intelligence of the FSF team, they must have foreseen this outcome, as well as the fact that it would split the community. Their arrogance is frankly disgusting.
the original source perhaps, but tools exist to extract something close-enough to it from any binary, it is only copyright that really stops this from happening on a dramatic scale
In the United States, reverse engineering is legal and not covered by copyright. And I'm not aware of any project that has quickly reverse-engineered any non-trivial piece of software, other than BIOS. For example, Windows NT has been around for almost 15 years, while the reverse engineered version (ReactOS) is nowhere near ready for production use after nine years of work. It doesn't even have network support yet.
Well, you might have thought that's convincing, but it could be CompTIA, the American Competitiveness Institute, or the Alexis de Toqueville Institute (organizations that have been active in anti-Open-Source FUD as mouthpiece of some corporate). So, how about you work for a hospital or the ASPCA?
I made that statement to draw attention to your use of the ad-hominem attack. I'd like to know why you think every disagreement with FSF's philosophy must have some ulterior motive, and why you appear not to think that intelligent people can disagree.
I'm a professor at a university. I teach computer science and computer engineering, I don't have any corporate research funding, and neither does the department as a whole, to my knowledge (though some of my colleagues might, I'm not sure).
Also, I'd like to apologize for my tone in my reply to your comment from yesterday. It was a product of a long day and a long week. If you'd prefer to continue this conversation off-site, my website (and contact info) are here: http://www.andreweckford.com/
RMS isn't writing much lately because he blew out his fingers with RSI writing as much as he did. He still has pain and can't help it. I'm sure it is a source of continuing sadness to him that he can't code as he once did.
I would be happy to recommend a good voice-to-text program to RMS.
IMO, if Linus had not come along with a working kernel, someone else would have.
I am confused why people espouse this "RMS is special but Linus is not" nonsense. The key idea behind the GPL -- that I will show you my source code if you agree to show me any derivatives you make -- is relatively simple. So simple that it is completely ridiculous to claim that only one man in the history of computing could possibly have thought of it. I will agree wholeheartedly that RMS was ahead of his time and deserves lots of credit for the GPL -- but in that case, by your own argument (who had "come along" by the time Linux was released? not Hurd), so was Linus.
Well, look at what Linus has said about GPL3 on a number of occassions. RMS is not responding in kind. RMS response is much more even-tempered than that of Linus.
Your revisionist view of history is somewhere between baffling and appalling. Linus heavily criticized the GPLv3 during its draft stages. Ultimately said he was "pretty pleased" and "much happier" with the final version (source). His most recent comment is that he thinks GPLv3 is okay, but does not support its philosophical outlook (source). Perhaps Linus' language was undiplomatic in his criticism, but his most recent comments are rather conciliatory. He has also expressed his "love" for GPLv2 (source).
The invective is certainly not one-way from Linus to FSF, proof of which is found in your own posts in this thread (as well as, I would argue, RMS's own comments that prompted this article).
You seem to be suggesting that it is not permissible to criticize even a draft version of an FSF publication. You furthermore seem to be suggesting that everyone in the open source movement must completely agree with the goals and philosophy of the FSF.
You have said previously that your job is to convince companies of the benefits of open source. Has it occurred to you that the bizarre RMS cult-of-personality, into which you appear to have bought, is one reason why companies need so much convincing?
And, before you attempt to criticize me as a corporate shill (as you did that anonymous coward above), you should be aware that I work for a not-for-profit organization.
Are you actually being serious? Suddenly, you don't seem to be as smart as I thought you were.
I don't agree with RMS -- in fact I disagree vehemently with him on a number of points -- but at least he is in a position to lecture Linus on duty. You aren't.
I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit.
Right, because if you modify my child, say by replacing his arm with a laser gun, I want to be able to benefit from the modification for home repairs and such when he's on leave from your borg army. That's how the GPL works.
only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.
You're right, your argument is totally sane and well thought out.
My point, which was missed by both himself and you, is that whatever social policy successes Castro has had, it emphatically does not give him a free pass for his human rights abuses -- abuses which have been well documented by any number of internationally respected NGOs. The two are orthogonal to one another.
I agree that the ex-pat community has no incentive to portray him in a good light, but they are at worst exaggerating, and not outright making things up. (Unlike another famous ex-pat.)
I'm astonished that my motives and intelligence are being questioned for making this point, which I think is fairly obvious. I'm not calling for democracy to be imposed on Cuba. I'm not even an American. If it were up to me, the embargo (which has probably caused far more harm than Castro ever could have) would be lifted tomorrow, and those ex-pats with the delusional idea of reclaiming their former properties would be given the finger.
But I'm not going to be silent about Castro's regime jailing and beating those who disagree with him, just because you can get decent medical care in Havana.
But that's only a small part of the population that lives in Cuba whereas it's a sizable part of the group that has left Cuba. As such, the fact that you've gotten your opinions based on those of people who've left Cuba means that you're not getting the whole story... Like it or not, there is more than one viewpoint on Castro and not everyone believes he's the monster that you believe him to be.
Put another way, since Castro is nice to his friends, it's less important (to you) that he brutally represses dissidents. You made the same point in your previous post.
It is not a surprise that some people like Castro. Cronyism is a feature of every government on Earth. I can't see why this means he shouldn't be held to account for his abuses.
The fact is, those people you've talked to left for a reason. Castro's government, for better or for worse, is very divisive. Many Cubans, if not most who live there, do approve of his leadership and he is beloved by a large percentage of his people.
Yes -- the reason they left (according to the GP) is that "they've had family members tortured and killed in some of the most horrif and brutal ways immaginable" (sic). So you're saying that, aside from the brutal torture and murder, Castro's a great guy? That's awesome.
Clearly you're right; all those Cubans floating across the Straits of Florida are risking their lives to let America know about the superiority of their system.
All you do when you create a "Gun-Free Zone" is ensure the criminals that no one will be able to defend themselves. It pisses me off that everyone started talking about more gun control after this happened. It was already illegal for him to have it there and shoot those people. Did it stop him? Not at all. Would he have made it past the first 2 victims if students were allowed to carry firearms on campus? Hell no.
I'm not worried about being "unarmed" in a mass shooting, because those events are incredibly rare. You may as well wear a lightning rod and an aluminum body suit wherever you go, arguing that it's necessary to protect you against lightning strikes. It's about as likely to happen to you.
The thing is, I don't trust Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel to use his gun properly, especially since he can buy it down at the K-mart without training, testing, licensing, or even a background check that will pick up whether he is mentally unstable (as happened in the case of this Cho kid).
I am worried that Cletus will blow my head off as I reach for my wallet, which he mistakes for a gun. Or that he won't store it properly and his kid will blow my kid's head off as they play cops and robbers. Or a hundred other things that can go wrong when deadly weapons are as common and as well regulated as toasters.
I don't trust the potentially unskilled and irresponsible to have guns. If that means I can't have one either, so be it.
It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see
Wrong on two counts.
In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.
In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.
My main objection to the book is that the author doesn't ask the right questions. For instance, he presents his own study claiming that real estate agents get a better price when selling their own homes rather than selling their clients' homes (because they're willing to put more work in for themselves), and then concludes that you don't need a real estate agent.
But even as someone without a lot of degrees in economics, I can see that the argument is horseshit: the real question is, how much extra do you get for your house when employing a real estate agent, compared to a private sale?
The book is full of half-answered questions, followed by sweeping generalizations. The irony is that the authors criticize "expertise" constantly (such as in the real-estate agent case), but then turn around and make sweeping statements that depend on their own status as experts.
The time I spent reading the book was wasted. If you consider yourself an independent thinker, don't buy it.
1. How much of the $21.50 goes to the companies and/or individuals who hold the patents? 2. How many innovators (engineers, etc.) are employed as a result of the $21.50? 3. How much of the $21.50 is eaten up with legal fees?
I've got no problem paying a license fee as long as I am getting a significant amount of innovation for my money.
The news doesn't generally show you the really graphic stuff.
The main problem is that the anti-game lobby has a compelling story to tell: "Participating in simulated violence predisposes you to commit violent acts." It's intuitive and easy to understand, which is why it has currency -- even if it's incorrect.
Meanwhile, the gamers' story is: "If a nine-year-old wants to blow somebody's simulated head off, and see the blood run everywhere, over and over, hundreds of times a night, there's nothing wrong with that." Not exactly endearing to the general public.
My point is that gamers need to get a better story to tell. The anti-gamers are cleaning your clocks in the political sphere because you don't have anything to offer.
Technically, the structure of the internet is built on a 'Default allow' schema. Essentially, if you don't say 'no' then I can.
You seem to be saying that hackers have the right to exploit vulnerable ports, and then engage in privilege escalation to run arbitrary code as root, when the owner's intent would be to say "no" if s/he were aware of your activity.
My view is that the default, unsecured configuration of a wireless router out of the box is a vulnerability, which does not provide the (uninformed) user with a means of saying "no".
Seriously - what is the difference between a blog posting and sticking a flyter on a telephone pole? Would you give one more credibility than another? If so - WHY?!?!
I personally wouldn't. But for a demonstration on why this is irrelevant, please reply to this with your name and address, and I will come to your neighborhood and plaster it with anonymous posters stating that you are a registered sex offender.
Will you and your neighbors get together and have a good laugh about it? If so, you are in the extreme minority. Anonymous attacks -- be they on the internet or in real life -- are only harmless if most people know you.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt anybody will ever sue you for mixing of gplv2(-) & v3 source.
Firstly, I think that's an awfully large assumption given the visceral opinions on both sides of the issue, as well as the existence of a legal entity specifically set up to prosecute GPL violations.
Secondly, a corporation developing GPL-derivative software does not have the option of ignoring the letter of the law and hoping that nobody will sue. Corporate directors supporting such actions could find themselves personally liable for the consequences.
Given the legal intelligence of the FSF team, they must have foreseen this outcome, as well as the fact that it would split the community. Their arrogance is frankly disgusting.
the original source perhaps, but tools exist to extract something close-enough to it from any binary, it is only copyright that really stops this from happening on a dramatic scale
In the United States, reverse engineering is legal and not covered by copyright. And I'm not aware of any project that has quickly reverse-engineered any non-trivial piece of software, other than BIOS. For example, Windows NT has been around for almost 15 years, while the reverse engineered version (ReactOS) is nowhere near ready for production use after nine years of work. It doesn't even have network support yet.
Well, you might have thought that's convincing, but it could be CompTIA, the American Competitiveness Institute, or the Alexis de Toqueville Institute (organizations that have been active in anti-Open-Source FUD as mouthpiece of some corporate). So, how about you work for a hospital or the ASPCA?
I made that statement to draw attention to your use of the ad-hominem attack. I'd like to know why you think every disagreement with FSF's philosophy must have some ulterior motive, and why you appear not to think that intelligent people can disagree.
I'm a professor at a university. I teach computer science and computer engineering, I don't have any corporate research funding, and neither does the department as a whole, to my knowledge (though some of my colleagues might, I'm not sure).
Also, I'd like to apologize for my tone in my reply to your comment from yesterday. It was a product of a long day and a long week. If you'd prefer to continue this conversation off-site, my website (and contact info) are here: http://www.andreweckford.com/
RMS isn't writing much lately because he blew out his fingers with RSI writing as much as he did. He still has pain and can't help it. I'm sure it is a source of continuing sadness to him that he can't code as he once did.
I would be happy to recommend a good voice-to-text program to RMS.
IMO, if Linus had not come along with a working kernel, someone else would have.
I am confused why people espouse this "RMS is special but Linus is not" nonsense. The key idea behind the GPL -- that I will show you my source code if you agree to show me any derivatives you make -- is relatively simple. So simple that it is completely ridiculous to claim that only one man in the history of computing could possibly have thought of it. I will agree wholeheartedly that RMS was ahead of his time and deserves lots of credit for the GPL -- but in that case, by your own argument (who had "come along" by the time Linux was released? not Hurd), so was Linus.
Well, look at what Linus has said about GPL3 on a number of occassions. RMS is not responding in kind. RMS response is much more even-tempered than that of Linus.
Your revisionist view of history is somewhere between baffling and appalling. Linus heavily criticized the GPLv3 during its draft stages. Ultimately said he was "pretty pleased" and "much happier" with the final version (source). His most recent comment is that he thinks GPLv3 is okay, but does not support its philosophical outlook (source). Perhaps Linus' language was undiplomatic in his criticism, but his most recent comments are rather conciliatory. He has also expressed his "love" for GPLv2 (source).
The invective is certainly not one-way from Linus to FSF, proof of which is found in your own posts in this thread (as well as, I would argue, RMS's own comments that prompted this article).
You seem to be suggesting that it is not permissible to criticize even a draft version of an FSF publication. You furthermore seem to be suggesting that everyone in the open source movement must completely agree with the goals and philosophy of the FSF.
You have said previously that your job is to convince companies of the benefits of open source. Has it occurred to you that the bizarre RMS cult-of-personality, into which you appear to have bought, is one reason why companies need so much convincing?
And, before you attempt to criticize me as a corporate shill (as you did that anonymous coward above), you should be aware that I work for a not-for-profit organization.
Are you actually being serious? Suddenly, you don't seem to be as smart as I thought you were.
I don't agree with RMS -- in fact I disagree vehemently with him on a number of points -- but at least he is in a position to lecture Linus on duty. You aren't.
"Troll", huh? Multiple "Insightful" for the original post? Wow, you guys are actually serious.
K, that's it, I'm outta here. It's been a slice.
I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit.
Right, because if you modify my child, say by replacing his arm with a laser gun, I want to be able to benefit from the modification for home repairs and such when he's on leave from your borg army. That's how the GPL works.
only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.
You're right, your argument is totally sane and well thought out.
I... I looked at the code... My eyes.... they burn! My face... it's melting! The goggles, they do nothing!
instantaneously by the perspective of the traveller
Unfortunately the traveller would not percieve the passage of time any more, having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces.
I understand exactly what he's saying.
My point, which was missed by both himself and you, is that whatever social policy successes Castro has had, it emphatically does not give him a free pass for his human rights abuses -- abuses which have been well documented by any number of internationally respected NGOs. The two are orthogonal to one another.
I agree that the ex-pat community has no incentive to portray him in a good light, but they are at worst exaggerating, and not outright making things up. (Unlike another famous ex-pat.)
I'm astonished that my motives and intelligence are being questioned for making this point, which I think is fairly obvious. I'm not calling for democracy to be imposed on Cuba. I'm not even an American. If it were up to me, the embargo (which has probably caused far more harm than Castro ever could have) would be lifted tomorrow, and those ex-pats with the delusional idea of reclaiming their former properties would be given the finger.
But I'm not going to be silent about Castro's regime jailing and beating those who disagree with him, just because you can get decent medical care in Havana.
Put another way, since Castro is nice to his friends, it's less important (to you) that he brutally represses dissidents. You made the same point in your previous post.
It is not a surprise that some people like Castro. Cronyism is a feature of every government on Earth. I can't see why this means he shouldn't be held to account for his abuses.
Yes -- the reason they left (according to the GP) is that "they've had family members tortured and killed in some of the most horrif and brutal ways immaginable" (sic). So you're saying that, aside from the brutal torture and murder, Castro's a great guy? That's awesome.
Clearly you're right; all those Cubans floating across the Straits of Florida are risking their lives to let America know about the superiority of their system.
All you do when you create a "Gun-Free Zone" is ensure the criminals that no one will be able to defend themselves. It pisses me off that everyone started talking about more gun control after this happened. It was already illegal for him to have it there and shoot those people. Did it stop him? Not at all. Would he have made it past the first 2 victims if students were allowed to carry firearms on campus? Hell no.
I'm not worried about being "unarmed" in a mass shooting, because those events are incredibly rare. You may as well wear a lightning rod and an aluminum body suit wherever you go, arguing that it's necessary to protect you against lightning strikes. It's about as likely to happen to you.
The thing is, I don't trust Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel to use his gun properly, especially since he can buy it down at the K-mart without training, testing, licensing, or even a background check that will pick up whether he is mentally unstable (as happened in the case of this Cho kid).
I am worried that Cletus will blow my head off as I reach for my wallet, which he mistakes for a gun. Or that he won't store it properly and his kid will blow my kid's head off as they play cops and robbers. Or a hundred other things that can go wrong when deadly weapons are as common and as well regulated as toasters.
I don't trust the potentially unskilled and irresponsible to have guns. If that means I can't have one either, so be it.
It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see
Wrong on two counts.
In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.
In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.
My main objection to the book is that the author doesn't ask the right questions. For instance, he presents his own study claiming that real estate agents get a better price when selling their own homes rather than selling their clients' homes (because they're willing to put more work in for themselves), and then concludes that you don't need a real estate agent.
But even as someone without a lot of degrees in economics, I can see that the argument is horseshit: the real question is, how much extra do you get for your house when employing a real estate agent, compared to a private sale?
The book is full of half-answered questions, followed by sweeping generalizations. The irony is that the authors criticize "expertise" constantly (such as in the real-estate agent case), but then turn around and make sweeping statements that depend on their own status as experts.
The time I spent reading the book was wasted. If you consider yourself an independent thinker, don't buy it.
MS makes most of its money from its money from server versions and Office. It could give away its desktop software and still make billions.
If that's true, why don't they? That would virtually kill Linux.
1. How much of the $21.50 goes to the companies and/or individuals who hold the patents?
2. How many innovators (engineers, etc.) are employed as a result of the $21.50?
3. How much of the $21.50 is eaten up with legal fees?
I've got no problem paying a license fee as long as I am getting a significant amount of innovation for my money.
The news doesn't generally show you the really graphic stuff.
The main problem is that the anti-game lobby has a compelling story to tell: "Participating in simulated violence predisposes you to commit violent acts." It's intuitive and easy to understand, which is why it has currency -- even if it's incorrect.
Meanwhile, the gamers' story is: "If a nine-year-old wants to blow somebody's simulated head off, and see the blood run everywhere, over and over, hundreds of times a night, there's nothing wrong with that." Not exactly endearing to the general public.
My point is that gamers need to get a better story to tell. The anti-gamers are cleaning your clocks in the political sphere because you don't have anything to offer.
Technically, the structure of the internet is built on a 'Default allow' schema. Essentially, if you don't say 'no' then I can.
You seem to be saying that hackers have the right to exploit vulnerable ports, and then engage in privilege escalation to run arbitrary code as root, when the owner's intent would be to say "no" if s/he were aware of your activity.
My view is that the default, unsecured configuration of a wireless router out of the box is a vulnerability, which does not provide the (uninformed) user with a means of saying "no".
I'm a gaming and simulation design engineering major. I really hope they don't find any way to blame this on video games, like most school shootings.
Quite. In fact, you should request to see the crime scene photos, to make sure your blood spatter models are right.
Seriously - what is the difference between a blog posting and sticking a flyter on a telephone pole? Would you give one more credibility than another? If so - WHY?!?!
I personally wouldn't. But for a demonstration on why this is irrelevant, please reply to this with your name and address, and I will come to your neighborhood and plaster it with anonymous posters stating that you are a registered sex offender.
Will you and your neighbors get together and have a good laugh about it? If so, you are in the extreme minority. Anonymous attacks -- be they on the internet or in real life -- are only harmless if most people know you.
Raytheon Polar Services is the contractor providing services on all US antarctic installations.
Yes, I forgot to say that my opinion on the situation was limited to the known universe. Thanks for catching that for me, though.
I'll let it slide this time, but you should know better.
They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.
Stupider things have happened. You remember that kid who wanted to bomb mailboxes across America in the shape of a giant happy face?