Second, imagine some radical group in the US. posting instructions on how to hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers on the internet. Don't you think your FBI would shut these sites down as soon as words gets out?
Did the September 11th hijackers visit such a helpful web site to learn how to hijack planes? No? Then what harm can putting the information up have? The bad guys already know. Can putting the information up potentially help? Certainly. I wish more bad guys would put their evil plans up on the web. Then the FBI could read the documents, identify the security weaknesses the bad guys are planning on using and fix the security weaknesses.
Criminals are perfectly capable and willing
to spread censored information amoung themselves.
After all, if you've decided to sacrifice your
life to kill innocents, what's going to stop you from
making some photocopies?
Flash itself is not to blame for usability problems on websites - check out
http://www.homestarrunner.com and tell me that
site isn't easy to navigate.
We'll let's take a look in my current browser...
[EMBED]
Wow, that is the easiest navigation I've ever seem. It's immediately clear the homestarrunner
specializes in minimalist poetry. Clearly, after extensive usability research, they
determined that too many options can confusing and reduced the navigation options to a bare minimum: none.
Because homestarrunner assumed I was able to view their animation, they haven't even bothered
to provide a brief summary for those of us without Flash. If they had provided a brief message explaining the
sites purpose and why I reasonably need flash, perhaps I'd open a Netscape window to check it out. As it
is, it's completely opaque. I see no reason to bother investigating further, so I'm gone. If
a blind user who wandered into the site he would be completely out of luck.
Flash can be useful and valuable. But if you use Flash the most important rule is provide
some sort of explaination message for those users who don't have it. Something like "Unfortunately,
you'll need Flash to view our entertaining cartoon" or "You'll need Flash to view the 3d model of
the the bike, however you can still browse the rest of our site without it."
Re:The true question....
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
My experience with "war-ez" has been that it's
used derisively. As in, "Look at me, I'm a way
kewl leeeet hax-or, I gotz me some mad p-fat
war-ez." It was used to make fun of those who
thought that trading warez really was cool in
some strange way. I was seeing war-ez used this
way around 1995. At the same time, ware-z was
still used to seriously refer to illegally
copied software. Only recently have started
seeing the "kewl leet hax-or" types using war-ez
to refer to themselves. Every time I hear it
I smile to think that they're using a pronunciation
intended to mock them to describe themselves.
There are people out there who depend on software sales for a living.
I depend on software sales for a living. I rely on copyright to make money. However, I still revile the practices of groups like the BSA and FAST. These groups massively misrepresent the real economic damage of illegal copies. Just because Johniee Warezer has a copy of of SQLServer doesn't mean Microsoft lost $1,000. Sure, some illegal copying does represent lost sales, but most doesn't. Many of these people simply would not ever purchase the software, so their illegal copy cannot be reasonably viewed as a loss. (Mind you, warezing is illegal and unethical. I'm not claiming warezers are right, simply that they aren't causing the economic damage the BSA and FAST claim they are.) Lieing about the actual damage makes their other claims suspect. Illegal copies of software software are a problem that needs to be worked on, but not worth turning neighbor about neighbor and employee against employer. Encouraging people to turn each other in, encouraging employers to stay legal themselves not
p.Just because you're against the BSA and FAST doesn't mean you are supporting warezers. I'm against people making illegal copies of software, but I'm also against those groups which would have us live in fear, acting as snitches and spies.
No. The EULA is the only thing that grants him any rights to use the
software; if it's invalidated by his age, he has no rights regarding
it except, perhaps, to sell it under the first-sale doctrine.
The claim that you have no rights to
use software if you don't agree to the EULA
is still being debated and has not been
well tested in court. I certainly
don't need any sort of EULA for other
copyright protected works I purchase
(music on tape, record, or CD; books; magazines;
movies on videotape or DVD; console video
games; arcade games; sheet music; etc).
Copyright only restricts the
right to make and distribute copies.
Personal use (including copies for personal
use) has never required any sort license
agreement. The claim that installation or
copying into RAM to run software represents
some sort of restricted copying is as
silly as claiming that making a tape copy
of a CD to listen to in the car is restricted.
So why is computer software somehow different?
Don't buy into the software industries claim
that you have no rights to a product you
purchase. It's on shaky legal ground and they
know it. There is no reason for citizens
to let them extend copyright in this
new way without a fight.
RMS is so biased towards
free software that anything that he
characterizes any attempt to charge
money for software as evil.
Not true.
Proprietary software is evil
in his mind. Even if you give software
away for free, it's evil in his mind if
it's proprietary. Selling software is
perfectly fine in his mind, so long as
it is "free
software".
In practice,
this makes it very hard, (and maybe
impossible) to sell software, but that's
not his goal, it's just a side effect.
Sorry Richard, but this is
how some of people put bread of the
table. There is nothing evil about
seeking training, obtaining a skill, and
then marketing that skill.
Your typical slaver was well trained
as a businessman and ship's captain who
simply used their skill. Illegal drug
dealers are provided training and skills
by their suppliers to increase their
success in selling their product. Opium
poppy farmers certainly have to learn
how to properly cultivate their plants
and work hard to bring them to market.
In all of these cases people are trying
to put bread on the table.
Ultimately, if society decides a
product, service, or business practice
is unethical, the fact that some people
would lose their jobs is irrelevant.
Stallman feels proprietary software in
unethical. The appropriate response is
to argue why it is ethical. Perhaps
Stallman is wrong, but he's not wrong
just because we might lose our jobs.
The software business would
not go away, it would just be different.
Different how? Details!
Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!
You're missing the point.
This is going to sound harsh.
Understand that I'm a software engineer
as well. I've so far worked exclusively
on commercial (and proprietary)
software. What I'm going to say applies
to me as well.
How you and I get paid is
irrelevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how we're
going to make money. We're not talking
about what is good for the economy.
We're talking about ethics. We're
talking about what is best for society.
(And society does not necessarily mean
the economy.) If society decides that a
given behavior pattern is harmful, the
loss of an industry associated with it
is an acceptable loss. A particular
business practice may make money today,
but society is under no commitment to
ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Maybe you believe that proprietary
software is completely ethical. Fine.
However, arguing that it's ethical
because you'll put people out of work
and destroy an industry is silly.
Societies have destroyed industries that
society felt were unethical before. In
just the United States we've destroyed
industries based on slavery, opium,
heroin, marijuana, prostitution, animal
fighting, and alcohol (briefly).
Instead, argue that proprietary software
is ethical for other reasons.
As a software engineer, I certainly
hope that I'll still be able to work in
the field. Unlikely though it is, I
have to accept the possibility that
society as a whole will decide what I do
is unethical. If I don't, I'm just a
hypocrite who should not be supporting
restrictions on any of the industries in
the "laundry list of evil" above.
But I can't understand why
anyone would use it to play RealMedia
content.
Neither can I, but I do understand
why CodeWeavers included the support.
First, they had customers asking for it.
I'm fine with the native Linux Real
support (or as fine as it is possible to
be with their poorly designed spyware),
but other people feel that the Windows
version is superior. I've seen a number
of people on their public support list
quite happy about using the Windows
player. Second, I suspect CodeWeavers
did it because they could. I suspect
every mainstream Windows program is
viewed as a challenge and they try to
support it because they can.
The only times I find myself booting into
Windows is to play video games or watch media files that I can't find
Linux players for...
Might I suggest
CrossOver.
It allows you to view QuickTime, Windows
Media Player, and Shockwave files under Linux.
It works great, support is excellent,
and they are
very serious about offering refunds if it
doesn't meet your needs. I've
been extremely pleased with it.
(I'm not affiliated with CodeWeavers, just
a very happy customer.)
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Slashdot visitors forget their
animosity towards the MPAA.
It never ceases to amaze me
how many people assume Slashdot is a
perfectly unified group of people who
methodically push a particular point of view.
Believe it or not, Slashdot does not
have an agenda, especially if you include the
visitors. If it had an agenda, it would
be a heck of a lot more coherent.
The destruction of fair use and expansion
of copyright is something that interests
lots of nerds, so Slashdot ("News for Nerds")
covers. Star Wars is something that interests
lots of nerds, so Slashdot (Still "News for Nerds")
covers it. Some nerds are worried about
copyright expansion and boycott the MPAA.
Some don't really care and don't.
Some feel that the best answer is somewhere
in the middle. Berating Slashdot and
Slashdot's visitors for be human, for being
different, for not being perfectly
uniform Slashbots is silly.
I'm glad you've found your own solution.
You're boycotting the MPAA's works. Great.
You probably would like to convince more
people to follow your path. Equally great.
Perhaps you would attract more people
if you didn't insult their behavior.
The DEVELOPER is the OWNER
of her own product. She does indeed have
exclusive rights to her own creation;...
Unfortunately, we're moving toward
this viewpoint, increasingly alienating
customers. We're increasingly facing
backlashes from our customers (cracks,
key generators, and easy file sharing
with tools like Gnutella). We need to
stop treating our customers like
thieves, we need to stop claiming that
the privledges granted by copyright are
absolute.
I am a professional software
engineer. I have been for five years.
Without copyright law, supporting myself
as a software developer would be much
harder. Copyright law is a good thing.
However, copyright has always been a
compromise between society and creators.
It is not an absolute right for
creators.
Despite the unfortunate term
"intellectual property", copyright does
not represent "ownership" in any
traditional sense. All copyright grants
you is the right to restrict copies. If you
sell a copy to someone else, in all sane
business fields (music, movies, books,
magazines, art), the person who bought
the copy clearly owns that one copy you
sold them. They can resell it, lend it,
make copies for personal use, quote from
it in new works, modify it, or destroy
it. The only thing they can't do is
redistribute copies.
Somehow the computer industry decided
that they were so special that they
could get away with "licensing" software
to users. That trick has not been
seriously tried in court, and may yet
change. If I go to Best Buy and
purchase a music CD, a Playstation game,
a book (probably a strategy guide for
the game), and a copy of Microsoft
Office, I can resell, lend, and pretty
much do what I want with any of them.
The terms of sale for all three look
identical to me. I gave the store
money, they gave me product. Until I
try to actually use the products. For
everything but the copy of Office, I'm
free to do what I want after using it.
Office claims to change the terms of my
purchase. Suddenly I can't lend it out,
I might not be able to resell it (I
certainly can't on Ebay), and I can't
modify it. This is a far stretch from
traditional copyright, and we may find
that we're building our industry on a
house of cards. Unfortunately, other
copyright based industries are seeing
our success and are trying to emulate
it.
In the long run this sort of action
will alienate us from our customers. If
we treat customers like thieves, if we
claim absolute right to control all use
of our creations, the backlash is going
to continue. Those who are pushing
copyright in more restrictive ways are
eroding the balance between creator and
citizen. Customers feel unjustly
restricted, and ethical or not, will
push back and violate copyright. It may
not be the right thing to do, but it's
what's going to happen. The long term
solution isn't for us to claim
increasing rights at the expense of the
customer. The long term solution is a
fair balance.
Translation: "Please stop using copy
protection so I don't have to go to all
this trouble."
That's like asking the attendant at
the gas station "Please, can you do me a
favor and allow me to rob you WITHOUT a
gun this time?"
If you're going to be a thief, then
you're going to be made to jump through
hoops. Tough luck for you, you thieving
loser.
The problem is that those of us who
aren't thieves, who purchase a great
deal of software, also get to jump
through hoops. I purchase about a dozen
computer games per year. There is
nothing quite as frustrating as entering
a stupid 12 or more digit registration
code into the software I paid for. I
chose to keep my CD-ROMs in a binder to
save space, so I need to carefully make
a copy of the stupid code printed on the
jewel case that I'm planning on
discarding. Oops, made a mistake in
copying, well, sucks to be me. Now that
I've paid my $60, used 500MB of disc
space or more, and entered the
registration code, I'm also forced to
keep the CD-ROM easily accessable so the
software can perform a check that is
from my point of view completely
unnecessary. If I'm using my laptop, I
have to remember to pack the original
disks for any games I'd like to play on
the trip.
Shareware? Most things called
shareware are crippleware. I upgraded
my Palm and a game I registered no
longer functions because it depended
upon my Palm's ID code which changed. I
needed to hard-wipe to Palm because of
some corruption, now I get to hunt down
the many registration codes and reenter
them all. (Nothing quite like entering
12 meaningless characters of
registration code using Palm's input
system.) Apparently because I'm not the
best organized person and I occasionally
misplace my copies of registration
codes, my punishment is to be denied
access to software I've paid for.
Not everyone who dislikes these "copy
protection" systems are thieves. Some
of us are legitimate customers,
perfectly happy to pay for good product,
who are tired of being treated like
thieves.
It would be crazy to say that "Open Source" have no liability while
"Closed Source" do...
It's perfectly sane to hold
Open Source software less liable than
proprietary software.
Open Source software is more likely to
be free (price) than proprietary software.
If you get software for free (open or
proprietary), lack of liability makes sense.
Someone (or some company) gave you something
for nothing, it seems a bit unfair to
sue them when the free thing didn't meet your
expectations.
Also, Open Source software is, well, open
source. The software is guaranteed to
behave as described in the source code
(given a properly functioning compiler and
computer). You're free to audit the software
for fitness for your use, free to adjust it
(or pay someone else to adjust it) to make
it fit. With proprietary software, you're
at the mercy of the supplier. If it doesn't
work, well, tough luck.
Prior to this incident, my Diablo II
addicted friends all played on Battlenet.
They disliked Battlenet and complained about
it frequently, but they weren't aware of
any real alternatives.
Yesterday these same friends were giving
each other tips on setting up bnetd servers.
I think Blizzard/Vivendia misjudged their
customers.
Because once it runs a general purpose OS, it is no longer treated as
a game conole by law and the free sale of archiving software and
archiving hardware is 100% legal.
I would be interested, and I'm
sure others would be as well, in where
the law specifies that software for
game consoles is treated significantly
differently from software for general
purpose computers. I'm having problems
imaging a non-silly definition that would
differentiate between the two cases.
I'm equally curious in why
entertainment software can be rented
under fair use but utility software
isn't equally protected. Apparently
I missed the part where entertainment
was considered the primary purpose
of fair use claims.
I'm completely pleased with my copy of CrossOver
as well. The QuickTime support (which I
bought it for) is excellent.
When I eventually ran into a PowerPoint
presentation I needed to look at, I was
happy to discover that CrossOver's support
for the Microsoft PowerPoint View was quite
solid. Their support is prompt, accurate,
and friendly. For $20 I am a very satisfied
customer.
But on the other hand, try
explaining to the average Windows user
that they have to change the themes
they're using in at least two places
(gtk and Qt) for it to work. Oh, and of
course your favourite theme for one set
isn't available for the
other.
I expect the average Windows user
would take it pretty well. Your average
Windows user is used to dealing with
software that has private
theming/skinning support (WinAmp,
Windows Media Player) and software that
ignores the global theme settings and
does its own thing (most CD burning
software, Cable modem branded Internet
Explorer, RealPlayer, QuickTime). Your
average Windows user is used to
Microsoft changing interface styles
leaving a glaring difference between new
and old apps (addition of gradient title
bars (originally on MS Office only), the
new XP widgets).
Many software developers feel the
need to be arty and throw the standard
Windows interface out the window. It's
unfortunate, (It hurts usability and
accessability), but it's the current
situation. Windows is no better than
Unix with X-Windows. The only way to
get highly consistent theming in Windows
is to use Microsoft applications
exclusively. To get highly consistent
theming under Unix, pick either Gnome or
KDE and stick with it.
Despite the finding of fact
in the antitrust lawsuit, you would have to show that it was
impossible or next to impossible for OEM's to sell PC's with alternate
OS's.
The key was impossible. Things have
changed in the last five years. Five years ago
Be still had a chance. Five years ago, Microsoft's
OEM agreements charged for a copy of Windows
on every machine shipped, even if Windows wasn't
actually installed. Five years ago Microsoft's
OEM agreements forbade putting a "Boot into BeOS"
icon on the desktop. Five years ago you could
not purchase a desktop PC from a mainstream
OEM with a non-Microsoft operating system.
Microsoft's tactics deliberately made it
nearly impossible for an OEM to offer customers
alternate operating systems. Maybe BeOS didn't
have what it takes to survive in the market,
but we'll never know, since Microsoft effectively
kept BeOS out of the market.
Most prior
Napster users were teenagers who simply didn't want to shell out a few
bucks to get the latest Britney album.
"Didn't want" and "couldn't afford" are different things.
I doubt there is any malice or intend to steal. They just want to get music they love but can't really afford. They recognize on a gut level that they aren't stealing in any traditional sense.
Scott McCloud summarized this well
in I
Can't Stop Thinking #6 (warning graphic heavy).
Furthermore, maybe those of us who use
Napster, Gnutella, and similar systems to
sample new music are a minority, but I think
we're a significant share. Most of my
professional technical friends use such systems.
Most of them us them to sample new music.
All of them spend a great deal of money on music.
You have pinpointed the
absolutely biggest strength with
Windows. You will always have the same
controls, things will be where you
assume them to be, the clipboard will
work, COM works, DirectX works, there is
one win32(64) etc etc etc.
I take it you don't do alot of
Windows development. COM most certainly
does not always work, and when it fails
it isn't terribly helpful at finding the
problem. DirectX is extremely dependent
upon independent hardware developers to
provide high quality drivers, a task
they're not all up to. As for the Win32
API, there are multiple versions with
many incompatibilities. You might find
Microsoft's list of incompatibilities
between versions of Windows
interesting reading.
One shouldn't be able to
escape the difficulties of contracting
by just including a EULA. If you want a
contract, then you must negotiate with
me - personally!
Actually, I'm fine with mass-produced
EULA. I just want them handled like
typical contracts. On paper, with my
signature before money or product
changes hands. Software publishers want
people to respect EULAs right? Few
things generate as much respect as your
signature on a legal document. I
suspect people would think alot harder
about EULAs if the casher refused to
sell them a product until they signed a
page of small type.
Liberalism (at least here in the USA) calls for the creation of a
socialist state "for the good of the citizen".
Conservatism (at least here in te USA) calls
for the creation of a theocracy "for the
good of the citizen".
Oh, does that statement unfairly paint
all conservatives with the same brush?
Am I making generalizations based on the beliefs
of only a few who claim to be conservative? Then I'd appreciate not
being lumped together with socialists.
Liberals are as varied as conservatives.
So, why, why WHY would
somebody waste their time installing
Linux on such a machine?
Option 1: The same reason some people "waste" their
time rebuilding engines on perfectly
functional cars. For some people,
tearing things apart and putting them
together in new ways is an entertaining,
educational experience. At the worst
the people in this project have learned
more about how their iMacs work and more
about how Linux works. They've gain
useful experience. And to venture a
guess, I bet they had fun.
Option 2: They really like the
hardware, but are dissatisfied with the
non-free software operating system.
Maybe you don't agree with that
philosophy, but many people find it very
important.
Option 3: They're intending to use
the iMac for something where MacOS is
perceived as not meeting their needs.
Perhaps they're interested in hardening
the system for use in a public kiosk.
They may feel that they cannot harden
MacOS well enough, but feel they can
harden Linux enough.
Open your mind. They're working
toward their own goals and are
presumably happy doing so. As far as I
know, their actions aren't interfering
with your life, property, or anything
else. Why should their actions "sicken"
you? If you wish to view them as silly,
or wasting their time, so be it. But
relax a bit.
I'm already finding that I
have to read the small print for every
damn piece of software/code that I use
just in case I end up using something
which I will have to pay for or be
prohibited from using if I use it
commercially.
How is this different from using third
party software and code on any other
platform?
If you're in the habit of using third
party software of code in your product
under Windows or Solaris without reading
the small print, you're making a very
dangerous mistake.
The fact that so many tools for Linux
use standard licenses like the BSD
license, LGPL, and GPL makes it easier
to consider using third party software
or code in your project. Consider each
of the major licenses and make a
decision on them. Is your project open
source? BSD, LGPL, and GPL are all fair
game. Closed source? BSD is safe, LGPL
is safe with a bit of caution, and GPL
software is safe to use but probably not
safe to take code from or link against.
Sure, there are a myraid of other
licenses. If you can't justify the time
to review them for compatibility with
your goals, just don't use them. You
can develop under and for Linux dealing
exclusively with the three big licenses
quite easily.
I urge everyone with a TiVo
to contact Philips about this matter and
tell them that you don't agree to this
or abide by the sending of these longs.
I, meanwhile, urge everyone with a
TiVo to read
TiVo's privacy policy and stop
panicking needlessly. TiVo's
information collection is anonymous.
Yes, they track button clicks. No, it's
not connected to you. If it really
bothers you, the privacy statement
clearly says the following:
If you don't want even your
Anonymous Viewing Information or
Diagnostic Information used in any way,
simply tell us by calling our toll free
number (1-877-367-8486).
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Transparent and friendly. People
reverse engineering TiVos have verified
that if you call them, they no longer
upload the data to TiVo at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the September 11th hijackers visit such a helpful web site to learn how to hijack planes? No? Then what harm can putting the information up have? The bad guys already know. Can putting the information up potentially help? Certainly. I wish more bad guys would put their evil plans up on the web. Then the FBI could read the documents, identify the security weaknesses the bad guys are planning on using and fix the security weaknesses.
Criminals are perfectly capable and willing to spread censored information amoung themselves. After all, if you've decided to sacrifice your life to kill innocents, what's going to stop you from making some photocopies?
We'll let's take a look in my current browser...
Wow, that is the easiest navigation I've ever seem. It's immediately clear the homestarrunner specializes in minimalist poetry. Clearly, after extensive usability research, they determined that too many options can confusing and reduced the navigation options to a bare minimum: none.
Because homestarrunner assumed I was able to view their animation, they haven't even bothered to provide a brief summary for those of us without Flash. If they had provided a brief message explaining the sites purpose and why I reasonably need flash, perhaps I'd open a Netscape window to check it out. As it is, it's completely opaque. I see no reason to bother investigating further, so I'm gone. If a blind user who wandered into the site he would be completely out of luck.
Flash can be useful and valuable. But if you use Flash the most important rule is provide some sort of explaination message for those users who don't have it. Something like "Unfortunately, you'll need Flash to view our entertaining cartoon" or "You'll need Flash to view the 3d model of the the bike, however you can still browse the rest of our site without it."
My experience with "war-ez" has been that it's used derisively. As in, "Look at me, I'm a way kewl leeeet hax-or, I gotz me some mad p-fat war-ez." It was used to make fun of those who thought that trading warez really was cool in some strange way. I was seeing war-ez used this way around 1995. At the same time, ware-z was still used to seriously refer to illegally copied software. Only recently have started seeing the "kewl leet hax-or" types using war-ez to refer to themselves. Every time I hear it I smile to think that they're using a pronunciation intended to mock them to describe themselves.
I depend on software sales for a living. I rely on copyright to make money. However, I still revile the practices of groups like the BSA and FAST. These groups massively misrepresent the real economic damage of illegal copies. Just because Johniee Warezer has a copy of of SQLServer doesn't mean Microsoft lost $1,000. Sure, some illegal copying does represent lost sales, but most doesn't. Many of these people simply would not ever purchase the software, so their illegal copy cannot be reasonably viewed as a loss. (Mind you, warezing is illegal and unethical. I'm not claiming warezers are right, simply that they aren't causing the economic damage the BSA and FAST claim they are.) Lieing about the actual damage makes their other claims suspect. Illegal copies of software software are a problem that needs to be worked on, but not worth turning neighbor about neighbor and employee against employer. Encouraging people to turn each other in, encouraging employers to stay legal themselves not p.Just because you're against the BSA and FAST doesn't mean you are supporting warezers. I'm against people making illegal copies of software, but I'm also against those groups which would have us live in fear, acting as snitches and spies.
The claim that you have no rights to use software if you don't agree to the EULA is still being debated and has not been well tested in court. I certainly don't need any sort of EULA for other copyright protected works I purchase (music on tape, record, or CD; books; magazines; movies on videotape or DVD; console video games; arcade games; sheet music; etc). Copyright only restricts the right to make and distribute copies. Personal use (including copies for personal use) has never required any sort license agreement. The claim that installation or copying into RAM to run software represents some sort of restricted copying is as silly as claiming that making a tape copy of a CD to listen to in the car is restricted. So why is computer software somehow different?
Don't buy into the software industries claim that you have no rights to a product you purchase. It's on shaky legal ground and they know it. There is no reason for citizens to let them extend copyright in this new way without a fight.
Not true.
Proprietary software is evil in his mind. Even if you give software away for free, it's evil in his mind if it's proprietary. Selling software is perfectly fine in his mind, so long as it is "free software". In practice, this makes it very hard, (and maybe impossible) to sell software, but that's not his goal, it's just a side effect.
Stallman doesn't even demand that you use the GPL. He would rather everyone use GPL, but GPL incompatible free licenses are acceptable.
Your typical slaver was well trained as a businessman and ship's captain who simply used their skill. Illegal drug dealers are provided training and skills by their suppliers to increase their success in selling their product. Opium poppy farmers certainly have to learn how to properly cultivate their plants and work hard to bring them to market. In all of these cases people are trying to put bread on the table.
Ultimately, if society decides a product, service, or business practice is unethical, the fact that some people would lose their jobs is irrelevant. Stallman feels proprietary software in unethical. The appropriate response is to argue why it is ethical. Perhaps Stallman is wrong, but he's not wrong just because we might lose our jobs.
You're missing the point.
This is going to sound harsh. Understand that I'm a software engineer as well. I've so far worked exclusively on commercial (and proprietary) software. What I'm going to say applies to me as well.
How you and I get paid is irrelevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how we're going to make money. We're not talking about what is good for the economy.
We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Maybe you believe that proprietary software is completely ethical. Fine. However, arguing that it's ethical because you'll put people out of work and destroy an industry is silly. Societies have destroyed industries that society felt were unethical before. In just the United States we've destroyed industries based on slavery, opium, heroin, marijuana, prostitution, animal fighting, and alcohol (briefly). Instead, argue that proprietary software is ethical for other reasons.
As a software engineer, I certainly hope that I'll still be able to work in the field. Unlikely though it is, I have to accept the possibility that society as a whole will decide what I do is unethical. If I don't, I'm just a hypocrite who should not be supporting restrictions on any of the industries in the "laundry list of evil" above.
Neither can I, but I do understand why CodeWeavers included the support. First, they had customers asking for it. I'm fine with the native Linux Real support (or as fine as it is possible to be with their poorly designed spyware), but other people feel that the Windows version is superior. I've seen a number of people on their public support list quite happy about using the Windows player. Second, I suspect CodeWeavers did it because they could. I suspect every mainstream Windows program is viewed as a challenge and they try to support it because they can.
Might I suggest CrossOver. It allows you to view QuickTime, Windows Media Player, and Shockwave files under Linux. It works great, support is excellent, and they are very serious about offering refunds if it doesn't meet your needs. I've been extremely pleased with it.
(I'm not affiliated with CodeWeavers, just a very happy customer.)
It never ceases to amaze me how many people assume Slashdot is a perfectly unified group of people who methodically push a particular point of view.
Believe it or not, Slashdot does not have an agenda, especially if you include the visitors. If it had an agenda, it would be a heck of a lot more coherent.
The destruction of fair use and expansion of copyright is something that interests lots of nerds, so Slashdot ("News for Nerds") covers. Star Wars is something that interests lots of nerds, so Slashdot (Still "News for Nerds") covers it. Some nerds are worried about copyright expansion and boycott the MPAA. Some don't really care and don't. Some feel that the best answer is somewhere in the middle. Berating Slashdot and Slashdot's visitors for be human, for being different, for not being perfectly uniform Slashbots is silly.
I'm glad you've found your own solution. You're boycotting the MPAA's works. Great. You probably would like to convince more people to follow your path. Equally great. Perhaps you would attract more people if you didn't insult their behavior.
Unfortunately, we're moving toward this viewpoint, increasingly alienating customers. We're increasingly facing backlashes from our customers (cracks, key generators, and easy file sharing with tools like Gnutella). We need to stop treating our customers like thieves, we need to stop claiming that the privledges granted by copyright are absolute.
I am a professional software engineer. I have been for five years. Without copyright law, supporting myself as a software developer would be much harder. Copyright law is a good thing. However, copyright has always been a compromise between society and creators. It is not an absolute right for creators.
Despite the unfortunate term "intellectual property", copyright does not represent "ownership" in any traditional sense. All copyright grants you is the right to restrict copies. If you sell a copy to someone else, in all sane business fields (music, movies, books, magazines, art), the person who bought the copy clearly owns that one copy you sold them. They can resell it, lend it, make copies for personal use, quote from it in new works, modify it, or destroy it. The only thing they can't do is redistribute copies.
Somehow the computer industry decided that they were so special that they could get away with "licensing" software to users. That trick has not been seriously tried in court, and may yet change. If I go to Best Buy and purchase a music CD, a Playstation game, a book (probably a strategy guide for the game), and a copy of Microsoft Office, I can resell, lend, and pretty much do what I want with any of them. The terms of sale for all three look identical to me. I gave the store money, they gave me product. Until I try to actually use the products. For everything but the copy of Office, I'm free to do what I want after using it. Office claims to change the terms of my purchase. Suddenly I can't lend it out, I might not be able to resell it (I certainly can't on Ebay), and I can't modify it. This is a far stretch from traditional copyright, and we may find that we're building our industry on a house of cards. Unfortunately, other copyright based industries are seeing our success and are trying to emulate it.
In the long run this sort of action will alienate us from our customers. If we treat customers like thieves, if we claim absolute right to control all use of our creations, the backlash is going to continue. Those who are pushing copyright in more restrictive ways are eroding the balance between creator and citizen. Customers feel unjustly restricted, and ethical or not, will push back and violate copyright. It may not be the right thing to do, but it's what's going to happen. The long term solution isn't for us to claim increasing rights at the expense of the customer. The long term solution is a fair balance.
The problem is that those of us who aren't thieves, who purchase a great deal of software, also get to jump through hoops. I purchase about a dozen computer games per year. There is nothing quite as frustrating as entering a stupid 12 or more digit registration code into the software I paid for. I chose to keep my CD-ROMs in a binder to save space, so I need to carefully make a copy of the stupid code printed on the jewel case that I'm planning on discarding. Oops, made a mistake in copying, well, sucks to be me. Now that I've paid my $60, used 500MB of disc space or more, and entered the registration code, I'm also forced to keep the CD-ROM easily accessable so the software can perform a check that is from my point of view completely unnecessary. If I'm using my laptop, I have to remember to pack the original disks for any games I'd like to play on the trip.
Shareware? Most things called shareware are crippleware. I upgraded my Palm and a game I registered no longer functions because it depended upon my Palm's ID code which changed. I needed to hard-wipe to Palm because of some corruption, now I get to hunt down the many registration codes and reenter them all. (Nothing quite like entering 12 meaningless characters of registration code using Palm's input system.) Apparently because I'm not the best organized person and I occasionally misplace my copies of registration codes, my punishment is to be denied access to software I've paid for.
Not everyone who dislikes these "copy protection" systems are thieves. Some of us are legitimate customers, perfectly happy to pay for good product, who are tired of being treated like thieves.
It's perfectly sane to hold Open Source software less liable than proprietary software.
Open Source software is more likely to be free (price) than proprietary software. If you get software for free (open or proprietary), lack of liability makes sense. Someone (or some company) gave you something for nothing, it seems a bit unfair to sue them when the free thing didn't meet your expectations.
Also, Open Source software is, well, open source. The software is guaranteed to behave as described in the source code (given a properly functioning compiler and computer). You're free to audit the software for fitness for your use, free to adjust it (or pay someone else to adjust it) to make it fit. With proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the supplier. If it doesn't work, well, tough luck.
Prior to this incident, my Diablo II addicted friends all played on Battlenet. They disliked Battlenet and complained about it frequently, but they weren't aware of any real alternatives.
Yesterday these same friends were giving each other tips on setting up bnetd servers.
I think Blizzard/Vivendia misjudged their customers.
I would be interested, and I'm sure others would be as well, in where the law specifies that software for game consoles is treated significantly differently from software for general purpose computers. I'm having problems imaging a non-silly definition that would differentiate between the two cases.
I'm equally curious in why entertainment software can be rented under fair use but utility software isn't equally protected. Apparently I missed the part where entertainment was considered the primary purpose of fair use claims.
I'm completely pleased with my copy of CrossOver as well. The QuickTime support (which I bought it for) is excellent. When I eventually ran into a PowerPoint presentation I needed to look at, I was happy to discover that CrossOver's support for the Microsoft PowerPoint View was quite solid. Their support is prompt, accurate, and friendly. For $20 I am a very satisfied customer.
I expect the average Windows user would take it pretty well. Your average Windows user is used to dealing with software that has private theming/skinning support (WinAmp, Windows Media Player) and software that ignores the global theme settings and does its own thing (most CD burning software, Cable modem branded Internet Explorer, RealPlayer, QuickTime). Your average Windows user is used to Microsoft changing interface styles leaving a glaring difference between new and old apps (addition of gradient title bars (originally on MS Office only), the new XP widgets).
Many software developers feel the need to be arty and throw the standard Windows interface out the window. It's unfortunate, (It hurts usability and accessability), but it's the current situation. Windows is no better than Unix with X-Windows. The only way to get highly consistent theming in Windows is to use Microsoft applications exclusively. To get highly consistent theming under Unix, pick either Gnome or KDE and stick with it.
The key was impossible. Things have changed in the last five years. Five years ago Be still had a chance. Five years ago, Microsoft's OEM agreements charged for a copy of Windows on every machine shipped, even if Windows wasn't actually installed. Five years ago Microsoft's OEM agreements forbade putting a "Boot into BeOS" icon on the desktop. Five years ago you could not purchase a desktop PC from a mainstream OEM with a non-Microsoft operating system.
Microsoft's tactics deliberately made it nearly impossible for an OEM to offer customers alternate operating systems. Maybe BeOS didn't have what it takes to survive in the market, but we'll never know, since Microsoft effectively kept BeOS out of the market.
"Didn't want" and "couldn't afford" are different things. I doubt there is any malice or intend to steal. They just want to get music they love but can't really afford. They recognize on a gut level that they aren't stealing in any traditional sense. Scott McCloud summarized this well in I Can't Stop Thinking #6 (warning graphic heavy).
Furthermore, maybe those of us who use Napster, Gnutella, and similar systems to sample new music are a minority, but I think we're a significant share. Most of my professional technical friends use such systems. Most of them us them to sample new music. All of them spend a great deal of money on music.
I take it you don't do alot of Windows development. COM most certainly does not always work, and when it fails it isn't terribly helpful at finding the problem. DirectX is extremely dependent upon independent hardware developers to provide high quality drivers, a task they're not all up to. As for the Win32 API, there are multiple versions with many incompatibilities. You might find Microsoft's list of incompatibilities between versions of Windows interesting reading.
Actually, I'm fine with mass-produced EULA. I just want them handled like typical contracts. On paper, with my signature before money or product changes hands. Software publishers want people to respect EULAs right? Few things generate as much respect as your signature on a legal document. I suspect people would think alot harder about EULAs if the casher refused to sell them a product until they signed a page of small type.
Conservatism (at least here in te USA) calls for the creation of a theocracy "for the good of the citizen".
Oh, does that statement unfairly paint all conservatives with the same brush? Am I making generalizations based on the beliefs of only a few who claim to be conservative? Then I'd appreciate not being lumped together with socialists. Liberals are as varied as conservatives.
Signed, a Liberal.
Option 1: The same reason some people "waste" their time rebuilding engines on perfectly functional cars. For some people, tearing things apart and putting them together in new ways is an entertaining, educational experience. At the worst the people in this project have learned more about how their iMacs work and more about how Linux works. They've gain useful experience. And to venture a guess, I bet they had fun.
Option 2: They really like the hardware, but are dissatisfied with the non-free software operating system. Maybe you don't agree with that philosophy, but many people find it very important.
Option 3: They're intending to use the iMac for something where MacOS is perceived as not meeting their needs. Perhaps they're interested in hardening the system for use in a public kiosk. They may feel that they cannot harden MacOS well enough, but feel they can harden Linux enough.
Open your mind. They're working toward their own goals and are presumably happy doing so. As far as I know, their actions aren't interfering with your life, property, or anything else. Why should their actions "sicken" you? If you wish to view them as silly, or wasting their time, so be it. But relax a bit.
How is this different from using third party software and code on any other platform?
If you're in the habit of using third party software of code in your product under Windows or Solaris without reading the small print, you're making a very dangerous mistake.
The fact that so many tools for Linux use standard licenses like the BSD license, LGPL, and GPL makes it easier to consider using third party software or code in your project. Consider each of the major licenses and make a decision on them. Is your project open source? BSD, LGPL, and GPL are all fair game. Closed source? BSD is safe, LGPL is safe with a bit of caution, and GPL software is safe to use but probably not safe to take code from or link against.
Sure, there are a myraid of other licenses. If you can't justify the time to review them for compatibility with your goals, just don't use them. You can develop under and for Linux dealing exclusively with the three big licenses quite easily.
I, meanwhile, urge everyone with a TiVo to read TiVo's privacy policy and stop panicking needlessly. TiVo's information collection is anonymous. Yes, they track button clicks. No, it's not connected to you. If it really bothers you, the privacy statement clearly says the following:
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Transparent and friendly. People reverse engineering TiVos have verified that if you call them, they no longer upload the data to TiVo at all.