If this were released into the public domain, or with a less laden license such as the BSDL, then both profit and non profit users would have the same starting position and no advantage over each other.
The best thing about the GPL is that it's simply not possible for a company to then exploit it without giving some benefit back to the people who paid for it. (And yes, I understand that companies pay taxes too). For example, the GPL prevents small, meaningless changes which simply change protocols without adding value.
Suppose you're a government funded researcher who produces some nice chat software which is placed into the public domain. What can stop AOL, which is a huge and influential company, from making a slight change to that software and then bundling it with AOL 10? If they bundle their new, incompatible chat software, they create a huge user-base without contributing anything. They could then leave it at that, or charge non-AOLers $10 if they want to be able to chat with their customers. You might argue that this is a good thing, but I think it's doubtful. And this approach isn't available to anyone except big SW companies.
Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.
If you read the article, it says that they tested it by firing multiple RPG rounds at it. The target suffered only cosmetic damage and was able to leave under its own power.
I just caught the end of a Darl McBride interview on the BBC. Unfortunately reception was a bit poor, but what I think he said was,
"And I for one welcome our new Novell overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted CEO, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground SUSE caves."
The point Fnkmaster was making is that if Baystar got into a court-case with SCO for their $50m back, assuming they won, that would be $50m which SCO wouldn't have any more.
GBP1 per litre? Last I saw was 81 pence. I heard it was going up to ~92 pence because of the latest attack on foreign oil workers in Saudi Arabia. Where are you paying GBP1/litre?
If the author doesn't understand why famous Technology Product A won its market then it is a good bet he doesn't understand why Technology Product B will win its market.
This is nonsense, unless Product A and B are similar. But the point is that the author of the article believes an urban myth about a technology which was introduced 25 years ago. That doesn't preclude him from talking about the future of the web. For all we know, he is an expert on the technologies on which the web is based, even if he doesn't know why VHS won out over Betamax. The poster I responded to took his knowledge of the VHS vs BetaMax issue and used that as a reason for people not to read the article. His reasoning was a non sequitur, because he was suggesting that anyone who believed the VHS vs BetaMax urban myth was not qualified to talk about web standards, which is obviously nonsensical.
Yes it is a non sequitur. Not knowing why one type of video format won out over another type of video format does not preclude someone from having something interesting to say about the future of web-browsers.
Re:I stopped reading this when...
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But if the author doesn't understand why VHS won, then its a good bet why he can't or won't understand which browser will win and why.
This is as good an example of a non sequitur as I have ever seen. No doubt you would be appalled if I said that your comment was not worth discussing because you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's".
You can't be this naive, surely? They didn't ask for these powers just so they could not use them. And they're not preventing the ACLU talking about the powers they are exercising for the fun of it. If you don't want to care about such things, that is your privilege. But don't come on here telling other people not to care about their government grabbing powers to spy on its citizens.
The government actaully has minimal say in the running of the BBC, much to the current governments dislike.
Don't forget the dislike of the previous government. And the one before that. And the one before that as well. One of the best features of the BBC is that it contrives to be disliked by *every* government, *and* by whichever party is in opposition. They must be doing something right.
Ever heard of a man named Andrew Gilligan? The Hutton Report? The whole thing was a cut-and-dried case of the BBC asserting its right to distort stories and transmit outright lies.
No it wasn't! What the hell are you talking about? They have never asserted that they have a right to transmit lies. It would be completely impossible for them to do so. They can make mistakes, which they acknowledged in the Kelly case. But they could never stand up in court and say that they have the right to distort the truth and transmit information which they know to be incorrect. This is exactly what Fox did. If you believe that the BBC could do that, you're just not paying attention.
So, if in your mind outrage dictates popularity I would hate to be introduced to your social skills.
This makes no sense. I speculated that >930 (now >1160) responses meant that this issue matters. I still think that it matters. But it's just an opinion. I think CmdrTaco was right on this occasion. You disagree. So what?
Much of Riefenstahl's work in the 30s and 40s was paid for by the Fascist German Government. It can hardly be a compliment (note the spelling) to be compared with her.
Riefenstahl was employed by the Nazi government as their National film expert. The Nazi government waged war across all of Europe and instigated a policy whose aim was to eradicate an entire racial group. I think that that is the defining characteristic of Riefenstahl's work. There is nothing in Moore's work which can compare with that. To put it in simpler terms, Riefenstahl was an establishment figure, whose work was paid for and supported by a corrupt state. You could hardly describe Moore in that way, could you?
Let's see: You mis-wrote in your post. I responded to your post as written (since I'm not a mind-reader, I wasn't privy to what you actually meant). Now I get to be insulted for responding to what you wrote. Well, thanks very much.
I'm still trying to figure out how this is news for nerds.
Well, the phrase is, "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". At the point when I posted this, there had been over 930 responses, so it seems to matter to the population here.
Perhaps a bit like calling George Bush a Nazi? Do you get so worked up when someone draws the comparison between Bush and Hitler, or do you turn a blind eye because it is in accordance with your political view?
The original poster compared Moore with Riefenstahl. I said that that wasn't a meaningful comparison. Now you're talking about people calling Bush a Nazi? The fact that people call Bush a Nazi doesn't make it right or appropriate to compare Moore and Riefenstahl.
For your information, my "political view" is not that Bush is similar to Hitler. I have no idea at all why you would think that I do think that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! That's precisely why they should use the GPL.
The best thing about the GPL is that it's simply not possible for a company to then exploit it without giving some benefit back to the people who paid for it. (And yes, I understand that companies pay taxes too). For example, the GPL prevents small, meaningless changes which simply change protocols without adding value.
Suppose you're a government funded researcher who produces some nice chat software which is placed into the public domain. What can stop AOL, which is a huge and influential company, from making a slight change to that software and then bundling it with AOL 10? If they bundle their new, incompatible chat software, they create a huge user-base without contributing anything. They could then leave it at that, or charge non-AOLers $10 if they want to be able to chat with their customers. You might argue that this is a good thing, but I think it's doubtful. And this approach isn't available to anyone except big SW companies.
Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.
If you read the article, it says that they tested it by firing multiple RPG rounds at it. The target suffered only cosmetic damage and was able to leave under its own power.
It's called "Alan Turing Way". It's out to the South East of the city, near the City of Manchester Stadium.
The point Fnkmaster was making is that if Baystar got into a court-case with SCO for their $50m back, assuming they won, that would be $50m which SCO wouldn't have any more.
GBP1 per litre? Last I saw was 81 pence. I heard it was going up to ~92 pence because of the latest attack on foreign oil workers in Saudi Arabia. Where are you paying GBP1/litre?
This is nonsense, unless Product A and B are similar. But the point is that the author of the article believes an urban myth about a technology which was introduced 25 years ago. That doesn't preclude him from talking about the future of the web. For all we know, he is an expert on the technologies on which the web is based, even if he doesn't know why VHS won out over Betamax. The poster I responded to took his knowledge of the VHS vs BetaMax issue and used that as a reason for people not to read the article. His reasoning was a non sequitur, because he was suggesting that anyone who believed the VHS vs BetaMax urban myth was not qualified to talk about web standards, which is obviously nonsensical.
Yes it is a non sequitur. Not knowing why one type of video format won out over another type of video format does not preclude someone from having something interesting to say about the future of web-browsers.
This is as good an example of a non sequitur as I have ever seen. No doubt you would be appalled if I said that your comment was not worth discussing because you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's".
You can't be this naive, surely? They didn't ask for these powers just so they could not use them. And they're not preventing the ACLU talking about the powers they are exercising for the fun of it. If you don't want to care about such things, that is your privilege. But don't come on here telling other people not to care about their government grabbing powers to spy on its citizens.
Actually, if he wants to carry a gun, he should move back to the United States. Seriously.
Don't forget the dislike of the previous government. And the one before that. And the one before that as well. One of the best features of the BBC is that it contrives to be disliked by *every* government, *and* by whichever party is in opposition. They must be doing something right.
No it wasn't! What the hell are you talking about? They have never asserted that they have a right to transmit lies. It would be completely impossible for them to do so. They can make mistakes, which they acknowledged in the Kelly case. But they could never stand up in court and say that they have the right to distort the truth and transmit information which they know to be incorrect. This is exactly what Fox did. If you believe that the BBC could do that, you're just not paying attention.
This makes no sense. I speculated that >930 (now >1160) responses meant that this issue matters. I still think that it matters. But it's just an opinion. I think CmdrTaco was right on this occasion. You disagree. So what?
Are you suggesting that the jury was brainwashed by the French? What are you talking about?
Much of Riefenstahl's work in the 30s and 40s was paid for by the Fascist German Government. It can hardly be a compliment (note the spelling) to be compared with her.
Riefenstahl was employed by the Nazi government as their National film expert. The Nazi government waged war across all of Europe and instigated a policy whose aim was to eradicate an entire racial group. I think that that is the defining characteristic of Riefenstahl's work. There is nothing in Moore's work which can compare with that. To put it in simpler terms, Riefenstahl was an establishment figure, whose work was paid for and supported by a corrupt state. You could hardly describe Moore in that way, could you?
Let's see: You mis-wrote in your post. I responded to your post as written (since I'm not a mind-reader, I wasn't privy to what you actually meant). Now I get to be insulted for responding to what you wrote. Well, thanks very much.
Well, the phrase is, "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". At the point when I posted this, there had been over 930 responses, so it seems to matter to the population here.
Hollywood? Why? This is the Canne film festival. What does Hollywood have to do with it? Did you even read the article?
Let me get this straight: you believe that a liberal would be likely to support the "neonazi" party. Correct?
Really? Have you seen it? If not, how do you come to that conclusion?
The phrase is, "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Maybe this falls into the latter category?
The original poster compared Moore with Riefenstahl. I said that that wasn't a meaningful comparison. Now you're talking about people calling Bush a Nazi? The fact that people call Bush a Nazi doesn't make it right or appropriate to compare Moore and Riefenstahl.
For your information, my "political view" is not that Bush is similar to Hitler. I have no idea at all why you would think that I do think that way.
FYI, if you read through the responses below, you'll find that four of the nine jurors were Americans. Only one was French.