SSL is reasonably easy on the client side, but serving SSL still causes a significant performance hit on a server. A server that could handle 5000 requests per second with normal HTTP might only be able to handle 1500 with SSL enabled.
Digital certificate issuance is a horrible mess. If you don't get a certificate from one of a very few issuers, browsers will flip their shit and tell the end user that your page is horribly insecure. Becoming an issuer in that category is possible, but Microsoft policy makes it costs about $50,000/year (and IE compatibility is pretty important) - which is why there is no mainstream non-profit certificate issuer.
International differences are very important when dealing with legal questions, that's true. It's not relevant to this particular point though - the GPL text is the same everywhere, and that text operates as a copyright license.
And again, all the kid has to do is not break the law. It's. Not. That. Hard.
Some students will download pirated data, regardless of the school's policies. The question isn't if they should have done that - they will do that. The question is whether or not the school should mess up their education (and potentially the school's research, depending on which students get tagged) in response.
But if the punishment is easy then it's not going to be much of a deterrent, is it?
The University has two choices: they can focus on trying to deter students from file sharing, or they can focus on education and research and not massively disrupt those things by denying a student internet access in their dorm. Personally, I think that trying to deter file sharing should be somewhere behind stocking a sixth flavor of ice tea in the cafeteria in the University's list of priorities - not ahead of education and research.
Continue to extend that logic and releaseing code which will not work on a given platform is wrong. If I release, for example assembly code under the GPL for the SPARC platform I have, if we take your interpretation, violated the spirit of the GPL because if you want to use it on an Intel chip you can not.
Not at all. Just the opposite in fact. If you wrote software designed for a Sparc, I'd expect to be able to run my modified versions on a Sparc too.
No, it does not. It prevent you from running anything but their distribution on the hardware they sell! you are, in the spirit of the GPL, free to modify their code so it will run on another piece of hardware.
The spirit of the GPL is that you can modify the software that you're using. If the software that you're using is running on a Tivo, then you should be able to modify that copy of the software - not just other copies of the software that aren't running on the device you want to use.
Tivo distributes software expressly intended to run on specific hardware. One of the basic goals of the GPL is to allow any user to modify the software he uses so it behaves the way he wants it to. Tivo prevents users from performing such modifications - the software being used, on the Tivo, cannot be modified.
The GPL protects Users and Developers, the V3 says to hell with developers.
The GPLv2 protects users by ensuring that they can modify their software. It protects developers by ensuring that intermediate distributors can't take away that right from the end users. The GPLv3 does the same.
Other than IBM selling a 15.8 gig drive for around a grand, I've seen a few companies that I've never heard of before selling these, but that seems to be basically it.
Solid state disks are memory products, so it's the memory vendors that will be selling them. That means that companies like Transcend and Super Talent are the brands you should be expecting to see.
I strongly doubt that there are many other people in the world who are sufficiently obsessed with hating GPLv3 that they'll go through contortions to avoid using any application with that license. I can see not wanting to release code under the new license - especially if you work for Tivo and think you need to prevent your end users from exercising their freedom to modify the GPL software you distribute.
Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure it's "GCC with a linking exception" so as to be even cleaner than the LGPL. A lot of effort has been put into making sure that there are no license restrictions on code compiled with GCC.
Free software means, at very least, that every user have the ability to fix bugs in a program that he is using. Tivoization prevents some users from doing that, and is therefore incompatible with free software. And no, the ability to fix the bug in some other copy of the program from the one he's using isn't relevant.
That is *not* the issue and its damn deceiptful of RMS and the gpl3 pushers to say it is.
That damn well is the issue. Saying that someone has a right to modify software pretty strongly implies that they have the right to use modified versions of software on the hardware that they have.
If I receive a piece of free software on an appliance and I find a bug I want to fix, I can fix the bug and not have to deal with it on my appliance anymore. Anything less and it wasn't really free software.
All three operating systems allow you to write programs under whatever license you want to run on them, and provide full sets of system libraries that can be used without license restrictions.
The only time you need to worry about what the GPL says is if you use GPL'd code or libraries (LGPL libraries are safe). That's pretty much equally possible on Windows, Mac, and GNU/Linux - yes, it's possible for a Windows or Mac OS program to include GPL code by mistake.
Even further, GPL license issues aren't that big a deal. If you screw up, all you need to do is remove the GPL'd code from your program.
Okay, enlighten me. Exactly where do we draw the line on stealing? A car? A computer? A ring? What can I habitually steal such that I deserve no punishment whatsoever?
I don't know - but any policy that expels a university student for the first offense of stealing a whiteboard marker is obviously absurd. Hell, the student could have grabbed a whiteboard marker that was lying around in order to give a presentation. Someone who habitually steals every whiteboard marker should be treated completely differently.
Matter of viewpoint. To me, unreasonable would be expulsion. Thus is just blocking access to the service that's being abused.
They're taking away internet access from a student's residence. Removing access to one of the primary forms of modern communication and information access (the primary form for many university students) from the place where a student is required to live is pretty drastic.
Protest all you want. Just don't download stuff to which you're not entitled. How hard is that?
The extent to which students should be downloading pirate content on a university residential network would make for an interesting discussion. I'd love to have that discussion at some point.
This story has nothing to do with that question though. This story is 100% about due process and appropriate penalties. Even if we assume that students should be downloading zero pirate content, the school IT department shouldn't be interfering with the primary goals of the school (education and research) with an unreasonable zero tolerance policy. That's like expelling a student for stealing a whiteboard marker.
As a current student at another university, I can assure you that giving up quietly would not be my response to this sort of unreasonable policy. I'd be rounding up other students to determine what the most efficient protest technique would be.
You say "a few hours worth of work" as though that has anything to do with determining the value of art.
The value of art to society is precisely this: people get to enjoy it. The more enjoyment, the more value. Copyright means that less people enjoy the work, so there is less total enjoyment, and therefore less value.
Therefore, using copyright to promote the creation of art is counterproductive - since it encourages the art by eliminating its potential value.
In the talk, he separates works into three categories: Functional works, artistic works, and position statements (like this lecture, where he gives his personal opinion on a topic). For position statements, he thinks it's reasonable for authors to be able to restrict modification - since modifications would mostly just allow people to mis-represent the opinions of others.
My point is that simply selling compiled source code cannot possibly be interpreted as an act of coercion
That's arguable. One way to look at it is that selling proprietary software is the same as selling heroin. It's not so much that the initial transaction is coercive, it's that in every future transaction the seller will be in a position of power over the buyer. Hell, with heroin at least you can go to another dealer - with the proprietary software, the seller has both the only source code and a government granted monopoly on modifying the binaries.
The other problem is that model only allows one to make money off of software that is commissioned.
That's how most programmers earn a living.
If I'm a lone programmer who creates a tool (for sorting photos, for instance) is it really a crime against humanity for me to adopt a shareware scheme and release the full version for 5$? Keep in mind I happen to be a starving university student.
I wouldn't say it's a crime against humanity. It's simply no contribution to society, so we shouldn't have laws that promote such practices.
His ideas for free software have nothing to do with freedom, but with the denial of the private property.
You are assuming that "intellectual property" (copyright specifically) and "physical property" are similar enough to be treated the same. Getting people to make that assumption is exactly why the term "intellectual property" was introduced.
But... they're not the same. Physical property is a social mechanism to control the allocation of limited resources. Copies of artworks or software are not a limited resource - anyone can produce as many copies as they want at almost no cost. That means that treating the right to copy as property is absurd, since there is no contention to be resolved.
That leaves us with the question that Stallman covers in his speech: What social mechanisms are appropriate for dealing with artworks, software, and other similar works? That's a very interesting topic, but saying that copyright is property and people who oppose it are communists doesn't add to the discussion at all.
You seem to have missed Stallman's response to the initial question. Let me repeat it for you.
Most paid software developers do not develop proprietary software. They develop custom software for a single user (normally a company) that isn't distributed at all. This work (the majority of all software development work) would continue to be available even if proprietary software was outright illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Two problems:
International differences are very important when dealing with legal questions, that's true. It's not relevant to this particular point though - the GPL text is the same everywhere, and that text operates as a copyright license.
Some students will download pirated data, regardless of the school's policies. The question isn't if they should have done that - they will do that. The question is whether or not the school should mess up their education (and potentially the school's research, depending on which students get tagged) in response.
The University has two choices: they can focus on trying to deter students from file sharing, or they can focus on education and research and not massively disrupt those things by denying a student internet access in their dorm. Personally, I think that trying to deter file sharing should be somewhere behind stocking a sixth flavor of ice tea in the cafeteria in the University's list of priorities - not ahead of education and research.
Not at all. Just the opposite in fact. If you wrote software designed for a Sparc, I'd expect to be able to run my modified versions on a Sparc too.
The spirit of the GPL is that you can modify the software that you're using. If the software that you're using is running on a Tivo, then you should be able to modify that copy of the software - not just other copies of the software that aren't running on the device you want to use.
Tivo distributes software expressly intended to run on specific hardware. One of the basic goals of the GPL is to allow any user to modify the software he uses so it behaves the way he wants it to. Tivo prevents users from performing such modifications - the software being used, on the Tivo, cannot be modified.
The GPLv2 protects users by ensuring that they can modify their software. It protects developers by ensuring that intermediate distributors can't take away that right from the end users. The GPLv3 does the same.
Solid state disks are memory products, so it's the memory vendors that will be selling them. That means that companies like Transcend and Super Talent are the brands you should be expecting to see.
Aren't you paying per page view anyway? Doesn't that mean that any popularity rating based on page views can be factored out?
I strongly doubt that there are many other people in the world who are sufficiently obsessed with hating GPLv3 that they'll go through contortions to avoid using any application with that license. I can see not wanting to release code under the new license - especially if you work for Tivo and think you need to prevent your end users from exercising their freedom to modify the GPL software you distribute.
I'm pretty sure it's "GCC with a linking exception" so as to be even cleaner than the LGPL. A lot of effort has been put into making sure that there are no license restrictions on code compiled with GCC.
Free software means, at very least, that every user have the ability to fix bugs in a program that he is using. Tivoization prevents some users from doing that, and is therefore incompatible with free software. And no, the ability to fix the bug in some other copy of the program from the one he's using isn't relevant.
That damn well is the issue. Saying that someone has a right to modify software pretty strongly implies that they have the right to use modified versions of software on the hardware that they have.
If I receive a piece of free software on an appliance and I find a bug I want to fix, I can fix the bug and not have to deal with it on my appliance anymore. Anything less and it wasn't really free software.
The license issues are not OS-dependent.
All three operating systems allow you to write programs under whatever license you want to run on them, and provide full sets of system libraries that can be used without license restrictions.
The only time you need to worry about what the GPL says is if you use GPL'd code or libraries (LGPL libraries are safe). That's pretty much equally possible on Windows, Mac, and GNU/Linux - yes, it's possible for a Windows or Mac OS program to include GPL code by mistake.
Even further, GPL license issues aren't that big a deal. If you screw up, all you need to do is remove the GPL'd code from your program.
I don't know - but any policy that expels a university student for the first offense of stealing a whiteboard marker is obviously absurd. Hell, the student could have grabbed a whiteboard marker that was lying around in order to give a presentation. Someone who habitually steals every whiteboard marker should be treated completely differently.
They're taking away internet access from a student's residence. Removing access to one of the primary forms of modern communication and information access (the primary form for many university students) from the place where a student is required to live is pretty drastic.
The extent to which students should be downloading pirate content on a university residential network would make for an interesting discussion. I'd love to have that discussion at some point.
This story has nothing to do with that question though. This story is 100% about due process and appropriate penalties. Even if we assume that students should be downloading zero pirate content, the school IT department shouldn't be interfering with the primary goals of the school (education and research) with an unreasonable zero tolerance policy. That's like expelling a student for stealing a whiteboard marker.
As a current student at another university, I can assure you that giving up quietly would not be my response to this sort of unreasonable policy. I'd be rounding up other students to determine what the most efficient protest technique would be.
Sure, but usually it's 3:1 or maybe 6:1 - not "download 7 DVDs before your email with a photo attached finishes sending".
24:1 ? WTF? Is that even usable? That's like a highway with a speed limit of 50mph one way and 2mph back.
The value of art to society is precisely this: people get to enjoy it. The more enjoyment, the more value. Copyright means that less people enjoy the work, so there is less total enjoyment, and therefore less value.
Therefore, using copyright to promote the creation of art is counterproductive - since it encourages the art by eliminating its potential value.
In the talk, he separates works into three categories: Functional works, artistic works, and position statements (like this lecture, where he gives his personal opinion on a topic). For position statements, he thinks it's reasonable for authors to be able to restrict modification - since modifications would mostly just allow people to mis-represent the opinions of others.
That's arguable. One way to look at it is that selling proprietary software is the same as selling heroin. It's not so much that the initial transaction is coercive, it's that in every future transaction the seller will be in a position of power over the buyer. Hell, with heroin at least you can go to another dealer - with the proprietary software, the seller has both the only source code and a government granted monopoly on modifying the binaries.
That's how most programmers earn a living.
I wouldn't say it's a crime against humanity. It's simply no contribution to society, so we shouldn't have laws that promote such practices.
I've never heard Stallman advocate for the elimination of private property. Are you getting confused by the term "intellectual property"?
You are assuming that "intellectual property" (copyright specifically) and "physical property" are similar enough to be treated the same. Getting people to make that assumption is exactly why the term "intellectual property" was introduced.
But... they're not the same. Physical property is a social mechanism to control the allocation of limited resources. Copies of artworks or software are not a limited resource - anyone can produce as many copies as they want at almost no cost. That means that treating the right to copy as property is absurd, since there is no contention to be resolved.
That leaves us with the question that Stallman covers in his speech: What social mechanisms are appropriate for dealing with artworks, software, and other similar works? That's a very interesting topic, but saying that copyright is property and people who oppose it are communists doesn't add to the discussion at all.
You seem to have missed Stallman's response to the initial question. Let me repeat it for you.
Most paid software developers do not develop proprietary software. They develop custom software for a single user (normally a company) that isn't distributed at all. This work (the majority of all software development work) would continue to be available even if proprietary software was outright illegal.