If I create something with my own hands (a chair, a book, or a computer program) and wish to charge for the use of it, that is my right in a free market society.
It is NOT your right to use it without my permission.
If, to get my permission, you must pay a license fee, then that's what you have to do. To use it for free is wrong. It's stealing. It's just the same as if you go into the corner store and walk out with groceries without paying. In fact, if I am a professional programmer, that's what you are doing. Because you choose to steal from me, I may not be able to eat!
You seem to be confusing our society with one that gives everyone everything they need. That society does not exist, and never has.
When we live in a Star Trek world, where money is not needed, then all software can be free. Of course, that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Personally, I started my BBS BEFORE the PC came out. At that point, C=64's were "high end". The 128's hadn't shipped yet. The fastest modems available were 1200bps. Many people were still using acustic (sp) couplers. It's been up for about 15 years, and the internet was still for the government and Universities only. People who didn't have an *in* with either of those entities couldn't use it.
It's still up and running at http://www.dimstar.net or 1-503-259-8585.
That is not reasonable. All of the 2.2.x releases are considered "stable". The 2.3.x releases are "developement" releases.
As a professional in the software industry, I realize that it's physically impossible to fully test any non-trivial program. It would take more time that is left in the universe to fully test any program.
As far as the "mission critical" systems go, you should never install any new software on these systems until you have personally tested it for compatibility with your setup. Otherwise you're asking for trouble, due to the fact presented above.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that O.J. Simpson was really innocent just because the original jury said so.
Um, that's the definition of innocent in our system of justice in this country.
"Innocent until 'PROVEN' guilty."
In my mind, it was impossible for O.J. to get a fair trial anywhere in the US. The media spread too much FUD.
NO ONE who only watched what happened on TV can really say what happened. I can't have a well informed opinion, as I was not there in the courtroom, I didn't participate in the investigation, and I was not there when Ms. Brown-Simpson died. Without these vital details, it's impossible to come to a logical and non-emotion based opinion.
> Oh yeah thats a great idea, I suppose you think > I shouldn't be allowed to ride a motorcycle > without a helmet (dumb, but my right), drive > without a seatbelt (dangerous to no-one but > myself),
Excuse me, but if you wreck yourself up when not wearing a helmet, or without your seatbelt, who pays your bills? If you end up disabled for the rest of your life, who supports you?
I'll tell you. ME! and everyone else who is still working.
Of course, if you kill yourself, then we still foot the bill for cleaning your blood spatters from the wall/highway/etc.
Laws that protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others are good.
Driving is NOT a right. It's a privledge, and stupid people shouldn't drive.
Some of what you said I actually agree with. However, leave my pocketbook out of it.
If memory serves, the original reason (circa WWII) was because most encryption was done by the government, for the government. That was done specifically for the armed forces. Since no one at the time thought that anyone but the military would use encryption (code) they classified coded correspondence in with munitions.
It also helped that some of the most powerful codes of the time came from the US, and the US wanted to protect that.
This all changed when computers became available for the "regular" folks.
Just WHERE does the GPL say you "MUST" redistribute a work based on a GPL covered program?
I.E. If I download a GPL program, modify it for my own uses, but never distribute it to any other entity or offer it for distribution, am I violating the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
You have the right to " PURSUE " happiness. Not catch it.
Actually, I thought we all lived on the continent of North America, making both U.S. citizens and Canadians, "Americans".
Brazilians are "Americans" too. So are Argentinians, Chilians, etc.
IMNSHO, that's out and out wrong.
If I create something with my own hands (a chair, a book, or a computer program) and wish to charge for the use of it, that is my right in a free market society.
It is NOT your right to use it without my permission.
If, to get my permission, you must pay a license fee, then that's what you have to do. To use it for free is wrong. It's stealing. It's just the same as if you go into the corner store and walk out with groceries without paying. In fact, if I am a professional programmer, that's what you are doing. Because you choose to steal from me, I may not be able to eat!
You seem to be confusing our society with one that gives everyone everything they need. That society does not exist, and never has.
When we live in a Star Trek world, where money is not needed, then all software can be free. Of course, that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
However, the local government DOES have the authority to regulate LOCAL SERVICES. As an ISP or NSP, AT&T becomes a local service provider.
However, since this ruling, AT&T is now re-thinking as to wether they will deploy, AT ALL, in Oregon.
:( )
I'm using GTE DSL, no problems.
When I had US West ISDN in Eugene, I had no problems either. (DSL was 900 feet out of range...
Um, according to Websters, there's no such word.
Personally, I started my BBS BEFORE the PC came out. At that point, C=64's were "high end". The 128's hadn't shipped yet. The fastest modems available were 1200bps. Many people were still using acustic (sp) couplers. It's been up for about 15 years, and the internet was still for the government and Universities only. People who didn't have an *in* with either of those entities couldn't use it.
It's still up and running at http://www.dimstar.net or 1-503-259-8585.
That is not reasonable. All of the 2.2.x releases are considered "stable". The 2.3.x releases are "developement" releases.
As a professional in the software industry, I realize that it's physically impossible to fully test any non-trivial program. It would take more time that is left in the universe to fully test any program.
As far as the "mission critical" systems go, you should never install any new software on these systems until you have personally tested it for compatibility with your setup. Otherwise you're asking for trouble, due to the fact presented above.
Then maybe you could use a valid example, and not one based on a privledge. (Driving.)
Um, that's the definition of innocent in our system of justice in this country.
"Innocent until 'PROVEN' guilty."
In my mind, it was impossible for O.J. to get a fair trial anywhere in the US. The media spread too much FUD.
NO ONE who only watched what happened on TV can really say what happened. I can't have a well informed opinion, as I was not there in the courtroom, I didn't participate in the investigation, and I was not there when Ms. Brown-Simpson died. Without these vital details, it's impossible to come to a logical and non-emotion based opinion.
Airneil
> Oh yeah thats a great idea, I suppose you think
> I shouldn't be allowed to ride a motorcycle
> without a helmet (dumb, but my right), drive
> without a seatbelt (dangerous to no-one but
> myself),
Excuse me, but if you wreck yourself up when not wearing a helmet, or without your seatbelt, who pays your bills? If you end up disabled for the rest of your life, who supports you?
I'll tell you. ME! and everyone else who is still working.
Of course, if you kill yourself, then we still foot the bill for cleaning your blood spatters from the wall/highway/etc.
Laws that protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others are good.
Driving is NOT a right. It's a privledge, and stupid people shouldn't drive.
Some of what you said I actually agree with. However, leave my pocketbook out of it.
If memory serves, the original reason (circa WWII) was because most encryption was done by the government, for the government. That was done specifically for the armed forces. Since no one at the time thought that anyone but the military would use encryption (code) they classified coded correspondence in with munitions.
It also helped that some of the most powerful codes of the time came from the US, and the US wanted to protect that.
This all changed when computers became available for the "regular" folks.
It's not the software that's patented. It's the procedure, or idea.
The way something works, not the written instructions of how it works.
The software is still covered under a copyright (or copyleft).
I think that was the point. Nothing outside of Europe was included in the survey.
That makes it a bogus survey in my mind.
Just WHERE does the GPL say you "MUST" redistribute a work based on a GPL covered program?
I.E. If I download a GPL program, modify it for my own uses, but never distribute it to any other entity or offer it for distribution, am I violating the GPL?