Copyright exists. The GPL exists. People who break the terms of the GPL are guilty of copyright infringement and can be sued for big bucks. Proprietary software makers play the same game with their EULAs. (Hint: this is the actual world.)
SCENARIO B
Copyright does not exist. The proprietary software people play the same game, but using lots of DRM in the mix instead of copyright law. Free software is all essentially BSD'd. Why? Because once anyone has the source, they can do whatever they like with it including copying, changing, compiling, and distributing binaries for money.
How is scenario B good for FSF types? No-one would need to share source because there would be no threat of copyright violation damages. There would be constant forking and very little would get done.
I would disagree, it to compensate people for their ideas.
Stop thinking about it in terms of 'compensation'! You want society to compensate you for having a brilliant idea? No. No society has ever done this, because people have always had brilliant ideas regardless of copyright/patent law. (Ask Socrates.) Patents and copyrights are both incentives to publish. And there the resemblance between them ends.
Copyright is looking less and less justified in the light of ubiquitous near-free Internet distribution. Any information is now essentially free to publish.
Patents have separate practical enforcement problems which relate to the attempt to allow patents on software. Patents on software are wrong because they constrain the publishing of information (software is information). No other kind of patent can constrain publishing. You might as well let people patent sentences of English. (Imagine the deCSS code as a sentence of English.)
To repeat: a patent on a drug could (say) stop poor people getting the drug. But it would not stop them knowing how to make the drug, and so after the patent expires they could make it. But a patent on a piece of computer code stops people from even knowing how the code works, because no free source implementation of it is legal to publish.
I think you're largely right. However, you're wrong that open source is essentially the same as free software. Free software is really about copyleft, and the FSF recommends copyleft licenses. Open source is a more permissive idea.
One of the problems with the ' free software' brand is that it has the word 'software' in it and so it can't easily be applied to other domains. The 'sharealike' concept from Creative Commons is better and expresses essentially the same idea. GPL'd software = sharealike open source. Sharealike even has a logo -- that's right, it's copyleft.
I prefer 'sharelike' to 'copyleft' (although either one is good). It expresses what I really like about GPL'd software like Linux. Anyone can share in it, but they all share back as well.
I think anti-trust might be an issue here. These companies are already pretty huge. Even if an acquisition was announced, the sheer amount of work needed to unify all the product lines is enormous. That would scare investors and IBM's share price would crash.
The Java language is an open specification -- you are free to implement it.
Sun/IBM are thinking about releasing an open-source implementation.
An open-source implementation by definition has an open-source license.
Any Java implementation is a platform because it provides a runtime environment, libraries etc.
An implementation of Java may not use the 'Java' mark unless it is compatible with the spec.
What is confusing or perplexing here? I think it's obvious what most people want -- an open-source (hopefully GPL!) Java implementation. Obviously we also want it to conform to spec.
BSD-licensed software can be forked indiscriminately and the source need never surface again.
Using the GPL guarantees that any non-private forks can later be merged (consider gcc/egcs). Practically speaking there are few incentives to maintain a separate fork.
While Java stays Sun's closed-source product, Sun retains control over it. Releasing it open-source would mean relinquishing that control forever.
Kind of like how Linus Torvalds completely lost control of Linux? </sarcasm>
Sun would retain copyright and the right to relicense or dual-license. The scenario could be parallel to Mozilla or Qt, but with Sun Java's existing huge userbase.
If the JVM (at least) was Qt style relicensed GPL, we might perhaps see some performance enhancements on Linux, as well as integration of Sun's JVM into GNU/Linux distros like Debian and Fedora Core. Sun would surely like that.
This makes a lot more sense than relicensing under BSD, as that would enable MS (say) to quickly release broken/incompatible JVMs in their future OSs without breaching their legal obligations and without giving the source away.
(Open) standards are nice because they promote competition. For example, we have many competing email programs because email is a vendor-neutral standard and anyone can write to it. BTW the same goes for the web (HTTP, HTML) and graphics cards (AGP, VESA, OpenGL, DirectX).
Competition between standards makes a lot less sense. With Betamax vs. VHS a lot of people, consumers and manufacturers, wasted a lot of time investing in and supporting the wrong one. (DVD writing is a similar, which was saved in part by the shared form factor). This could easily happen here, though I personally think Bluetooth and WUSB are very different (different topologies, for one thing).
You do have a point though. Some protocols/standards are just better, and there should be competition between groups to get their standard accepted. But this should happen before large-scale adoption of one or the other, to minimise 'damage' to the early adopters. At the moment it looks like Intel is jumping the gun, because its standard is not ratified by the IEEE (the relevant standards agency). Better for everyone if an open standard is agreed by everyone before devices are put on the shelf. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.
Clearly backward compatibility is one of the major selling points. It means I can plug my existing USB 2.0 media player/hard drive into a little WUSB dongle when I get near my house. I can then immediately sync it with my PC as I walk around the room, rather than having to plug it in. If the dongle is small enough, I might even be able to leave it plugged into the player permanently.
Also, it ensures an old PC is forward compatible with new WUSB peripherals, as you can get a WUSB hub for wired USB. No new motherboard/PCI cards required.
For instance, you could put a WUSB hub on each floor of your house. Now your WUSB webcam can be moved around the whole house streaming video to your PC. That's pretty cool.
Bad argument. From 'religionists cause wars' we cannot infer 'atheists cause no wars'.
Of course, there are some evil atheists. But the 'people will find an excuse' argument is just weak. You might as well defend racist beliefs on the basis that 'Southerners would have found an excuse to string up black people anyway'.
Religion, in general, is a system of false beliefs that cause people to behave badly. Just like racism. EOT
My version of Nautilus (2.4.2) has the 'edit launcher' context menu item. This allows you to easily change the launcher target etc. No problems. Grandparent post is just wrong.
I'm not sure why they didn't just fold the launcher-editor into 'properties', but it seems to be reserved for the other things like permissions and emblems.
For a new and upcoming company, it's a decision between using stable and good (enough) software coming from a stable company who would be able to provide good and timely support, as opposed to some software created by a group of people all around the world, where the only way of getting any support is by posting on a newsgroup and hoping somebody replies.
Erm, no. It's free software, so you always have the support option of changing the code yourself (or paying a 'local' programmer or company). There are lots of highly trained computing professionals in India available to do this.
Also, you seem to think you can get 'good and timely support' from companies like (say) Microsoft. This is a fantasy, even more so in developing countries.
This is old news, but proves what one of my philosphy professors once said, "Don't listen to Enviromentalist, most don't know what they hell they are saying".
What? Surely you have to listen to some of the environmentalists. Otherwise what is your motivation for moving to clean forms of power in the first place?
The reason no-one wants nuclear plants in their back yard is not environmental, in any case. It's the fear of meltdowns. There are also concerns over terrorists stealing fissile material. I'm not saying these fears are justified, but they are there. And because they are there, nuclear energy is incredibly expensive.
You can't deny that tidal/wind power is preferable in terms of cheapness and security.
commercial = "Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome." (dictionary.com)
proprietary = "Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.... Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug." (dictionary.com)
Spot the difference. If you're having trouble, try to realise that the Linux kernel is commercial and not proprietary. It is for sale. It is GPL'd. See? HAND.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously this wouldn't have happened if each of the forks had different licenses than the GPL. The GPL helps keeps software mergeable.
SCENARIO A
Copyright exists. The GPL exists. People who break the terms of the GPL are guilty of copyright infringement and can be sued for big bucks. Proprietary software makers play the same game with their EULAs. (Hint: this is the actual world.)
SCENARIO B
Copyright does not exist. The proprietary software people play the same game, but using lots of DRM in the mix instead of copyright law. Free software is all essentially BSD'd. Why? Because once anyone has the source, they can do whatever they like with it including copying, changing, compiling, and distributing binaries for money.
How is scenario B good for FSF types? No-one would need to share source because there would be no threat of copyright violation damages. There would be constant forking and very little would get done.
Stop thinking about it in terms of 'compensation'! You want society to compensate you for having a brilliant idea? No. No society has ever done this, because people have always had brilliant ideas regardless of copyright/patent law. (Ask Socrates.) Patents and copyrights are both incentives to publish. And there the resemblance between them ends.
Copyright is looking less and less justified in the light of ubiquitous near-free Internet distribution. Any information is now essentially free to publish.
Patents have separate practical enforcement problems which relate to the attempt to allow patents on software. Patents on software are wrong because they constrain the publishing of information (software is information). No other kind of patent can constrain publishing. You might as well let people patent sentences of English. (Imagine the deCSS code as a sentence of English.)
To repeat: a patent on a drug could (say) stop poor people getting the drug. But it would not stop them knowing how to make the drug, and so after the patent expires they could make it. But a patent on a piece of computer code stops people from even knowing how the code works, because no free source implementation of it is legal to publish.
One of the problems with the ' free software' brand is that it has the word 'software' in it and so it can't easily be applied to other domains. The 'sharealike' concept from Creative Commons is better and expresses essentially the same idea. GPL'd software = sharealike open source. Sharealike even has a logo -- that's right, it's copyleft.
I prefer 'sharelike' to 'copyleft' (although either one is good). It expresses what I really like about GPL'd software like Linux. Anyone can share in it, but they all share back as well.
I think anti-trust might be an issue here. These companies are already pretty huge. Even if an acquisition was announced, the sheer amount of work needed to unify all the product lines is enormous. That would scare investors and IBM's share price would crash.
- The Java language is an open specification -- you are free to implement it.
- Sun/IBM are thinking about releasing an open-source implementation.
- An open-source implementation by definition has an open-source license.
- Any Java implementation is a platform because it provides a runtime environment, libraries etc.
- An implementation of Java may not use the 'Java' mark unless it is compatible with the spec.
What is confusing or perplexing here? I think it's obvious what most people want -- an open-source (hopefully GPL!) Java implementation. Obviously we also want it to conform to spec.Using the GPL guarantees that any non-private forks can later be merged (consider gcc/egcs). Practically speaking there are few incentives to maintain a separate fork.
Kind of like how Linus Torvalds completely lost control of Linux? </sarcasm>
Sun would retain copyright and the right to relicense or dual-license. The scenario could be parallel to Mozilla or Qt, but with Sun Java's existing huge userbase.
If the JVM (at least) was Qt style relicensed GPL, we might perhaps see some performance enhancements on Linux, as well as integration of Sun's JVM into GNU/Linux distros like Debian and Fedora Core. Sun would surely like that.
This makes a lot more sense than relicensing under BSD, as that would enable MS (say) to quickly release broken/incompatible JVMs in their future OSs without breaching their legal obligations and without giving the source away.
To sum up, My answer to your query (2) is 'GPL'.
Or block that part of the screen out with your other hand as you type ... for the truly wary.
I assume this man-in-the-middle would not work because they also hash the quantity withdrawn. Your conversation won't work for $300, sorry.
Competition between standards makes a lot less sense. With Betamax vs. VHS a lot of people, consumers and manufacturers, wasted a lot of time investing in and supporting the wrong one. (DVD writing is a similar, which was saved in part by the shared form factor). This could easily happen here, though I personally think Bluetooth and WUSB are very different (different topologies, for one thing).
You do have a point though. Some protocols/standards are just better, and there should be competition between groups to get their standard accepted. But this should happen before large-scale adoption of one or the other, to minimise 'damage' to the early adopters. At the moment it looks like Intel is jumping the gun, because its standard is not ratified by the IEEE (the relevant standards agency). Better for everyone if an open standard is agreed by everyone before devices are put on the shelf. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.
Also, it ensures an old PC is forward compatible with new WUSB peripherals, as you can get a WUSB hub for wired USB. No new motherboard/PCI cards required.
For instance, you could put a WUSB hub on each floor of your house. Now your WUSB webcam can be moved around the whole house streaming video to your PC. That's pretty cool.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/200402 11101426.html
(thank you Google)
I figured that saying this would be more effective than just bombing the parent with all my mod points.
Of course, there are some evil atheists. But the 'people will find an excuse' argument is just weak. You might as well defend racist beliefs on the basis that 'Southerners would have found an excuse to string up black people anyway'.
Religion, in general, is a system of false beliefs that cause people to behave badly. Just like racism. EOT
worm -> worms
virus -> viruses
See, it's easy!
I'm not sure why they didn't just fold the launcher-editor into 'properties', but it seems to be reserved for the other things like permissions and emblems.
Do you use ed?
Erm, no. It's free software, so you always have the support option of changing the code yourself (or paying a 'local' programmer or company). There are lots of highly trained computing professionals in India available to do this.
Also, you seem to think you can get 'good and timely support' from companies like (say) Microsoft. This is a fantasy, even more so in developing countries.
In short, you're a dumbass.
I still think 'mate' was funnier
Available on GNU/Linux.
Really? What about routing the packets? Can you get a green ISP as well? </genuinely curious>
What? Surely you have to listen to some of the environmentalists. Otherwise what is your motivation for moving to clean forms of power in the first place?
The reason no-one wants nuclear plants in their back yard is not environmental, in any case. It's the fear of meltdowns. There are also concerns over terrorists stealing fissile material. I'm not saying these fears are justified, but they are there. And because they are there, nuclear energy is incredibly expensive.
You can't deny that tidal/wind power is preferable in terms of cheapness and security.
commercial = "Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome." (dictionary.com)
proprietary = "Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital. ... Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug." (dictionary.com)
Spot the difference. If you're having trouble, try to realise that the Linux kernel is commercial and not proprietary. It is for sale. It is GPL'd. See? HAND.
You give beggars money to buy crack?
n/t