yeah right...but then they seized your car for going 8 MPH over the limit, and then went to your home and seized your wife's car, and your kid's bikes. "Same old, same old" in your neck of the woods, maybe. Not in mine. And it shouldn't be in yours.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. "
So if they download, isn't it GPL? Don't they have to mail you first to get to commercial standing?
"Giving people the additional freedom to keep those changes secret and still distribute the product is perfectly fine, as long as you wrote all the code (or it was given to you)."
But if the people who are distributing modifications to you are accepting the GPL in order to do so, then you don't get to reliscense the GPL-ed code as commercial. The patch can't be "given" to you without the "secret" be distributed and hence GPL-ed.
But if you recieved the right to make your patch by agreeing to the GPL, then "by requiring that any patches folded into the main tree have the copyright assigned to the Company/group developing it" means you are assigning to them the right to distribute your patch under the GPL. They could use the patch freely so long as they don't distribute the patch or anything derived from it, but in order to do the latter they themselves have to accept the GPL on your patch. Yes?
Thats modifications that you submit to them...not merely modifications that you make. So a fork wouldn't be subject to their commerical liscence. I don't think they can use your modifications for their commercial work anyway, though, because you recieved it with the right to use it but to modify/distribute it you have to accept the GPL. When you submit it back, you are distributing your modifications. Hence, what they recieve is at that point GPL-ed, and even though they own the original rights (for which they can have multiple liscenses) your modifications are not subject to multiple liscenses...your modifications are GPL only. Yes? The only way around it would be if they said "wait, don't give us that modification, here is a commercial liscense and the source you started with...NOW lets see you do the same modifications and submit it to us". But that means you know have a commercial liscense too...
" (c) is just redundant, and uneccessary. Read up on what makes the GPL tick. If they don't agree with the GPL, then they can't use the code in any way, read item 6 I believe from the GPL. The GPL isn't a contract, its a copyright agreement."
Not true. Using the software isn't covered by the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People always buy products that represent the lifestyle they aspire to.
But the emperor has no clothes! I suggest you confuse needs with desires. Marketing sells desire. Self-affirmation is more than a "slightly hipper form of rap".
- "No, OSS GUI interfaces are not broken, they are in fact superior (just not...well usable)" obviously trolling
- "X is so much more advanced" when it is in fact a pain in the ass and slow as hell even when used over what it is made for - network connections. It is network transparent with complexity costs. And yes, this does mean its more advanced.
- "By the way text mode is the way to the future, GUI is for faggots" which I think doesn't need any further comment obviously trolling: the right tool for the job; nobody does Computational Visualization work without graphics
- "Linux has sooo *not* a dependency hell but Windows has" ignoring the fact that Linux libraries situation (source and compiled objects alike) is totally out of hand because often times you can't even run two apps alongside because they need different versions which means they aren't from the same distribution versions...i had to ditch my CDBurner's software when I upgraded to w2k...oh well
- "Linux software installation is just so smooth" when in reality one can install even complicated apps on Windows and OSX within mere minutes while on Linux you are lucky if it takes under 2 hours to get something running. depends on what your doing: apt-get is the sweetest updater i've *ever* used, rpm is coming along (grpmi looks sweet), and if you stay within your distribution its mostly a no-brainer as long as hardware doesn't bite your butt, which mandrake seems to have a handle on with autoprobing
We do have issues to resolve, but I'd hate to give up Xfree when Moore's law seems to suggest the cost/benifit will be ever lessening and just as network transparancy could really start being useful.
Except that you assume that the customer's needs/desires are what motivate the for-profit corp., when actually its all about increasing shareholder value. With fair-competition, the two would (should) be synonomous. Today, we've a monopoly in control, and its obvious that UI issues and bug reports and security issues aren't all that important. Else, I'd be able to right-click block images.ad.in.your.face.com. DRM isn't from the user's side of interfacing. With Free Software we actually have software written to work the way users want it too, rather than the way consumers are to be trained to act.
I disagree. I think different vehicles are for different moods. When I want to play specific selections I load the playlist, sure. But sometimes I want to be surprised. Thats why radio works. Thats why streaming will work. People will hear music for the first time on streams, and look for more info via internet searches, and go to concerts and buy shirts and artwork. Money could still be made selling (higher quality audio) CDs if it was cheap enough that its not worth the time obtaining it by other means. Its not like anyone is against music, its the perception of being ripped-off and manifpulated by non-artists who do marketing and control rather than art that has people in revolt.
A well reasoned sounding post until you became specific with two artists for whom I switch the dial. When shows that tastes differ. Perhaps with a radical enough increase in diversity all kinds of good new sounds would surface. Would be fun to experience:-)
Well but it wasn't that long ago when recording studios started at a few million, and pressing records wasn't doable in garages, and distribution meant shipping physical objects around the country...and the labels actually had something to offer. Consider the cost now of a decent garage studio that generates decent CD quality and/or MP3 and a server and some bandwidth. Big difference. Its a tech-induced reverse economy of scale. This is why I don't fear their content distribution lock on music today. It can't last. There is nothing backing it up. If they bring nothing to the party, eventually they won't be invited back.
yeah and if we were all "peaceful, honest people" then it might have a chance...but its really to simplistic: reduce the feedback and the circuit will run more effeciently...
"The most common use of civil liberties protections is to make it harder for police (and prosecutors) to catch and convict guilty people. "
I rather suspect the most common of use of civil liberties involve living one's life, enjoying one's liberty, and pursuing happiness while particpating individually in self-governance and the evolution of our culture. Civil liberties are used by everyone every day. Its only when we lose them that we even realize they were legal protections. We're both using our civil liberties even as we participate in this discussion. I suggest that 99.99% of civil liberties don't involve criminals at all but rather the behavior of free citizendry.
My problem with your take on this issue is that you focus on solving one problem and don't consider the injustice of the means used. If you catch one criminal, and violate the civil rights of 10 people, were you effective? Lets say the criminal is prosecuted. Good. Shouldn't the civil rights violations lead to prosecution? So how "effective " is a method that is criminal by its nature? Isn't this another version of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it?"
So like have a javascript button on your toolbar that will post something witty for you. That way if you see your in line for a first post, at least it looks like your smart.
I was told that Applebees restaurants sing "happy happy birthday birthday" because they'd have to pay royalties for a live rendition of "Happy Birthday". I've also heard this rumor applied to singing HB on live TV shows. "Dinner and a Movie" hosts joked that what one of them was singing was HB, but that due to royalty payment concerns, it was sung while eatting...and hence incomprehensible. So is this just rumor?
"unless you take a ps-file and convert that to pdf. That would be to complicated to tell my secretary however."
I've date a few and worked with many who'd be seriously offended at your suggesting they are too dumb to run ps2pdf on a file. My God man, what are your hiring qualifications?
"Except that Microsoft has, for all intents and purposes, given away its operating system to everyone who bought a brand name computer in the last 10 years. For new computer buyers, this is a net change of essentially zero."
What you really mean is what you say "isn't consistent with the economics". You are inconsistent within your post. An "essentially free perk" that you admit costs quite a bit upfront. And black is white, and war is peace. Try to use the language to express what you mean in such a way that you remain selfconsistent. Or get a job in marketing writing ads.
Well except that it wasn't until Windows that Word could compete with WordPerfect. Borland's Quattro Pro blew excel out of the water. It was extremely fast. Excel was compatible with Word but not really a mature product. Likewise Paradox was miles ahead. To suggest it was a merit based ascent is to not remember the history. It was marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah right...but then they seized your car for going 8 MPH over the limit, and then went to your home and seized your wife's car, and your kid's bikes. "Same old, same old" in your neck of the woods, maybe. Not in mine. And it shouldn't be in yours.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. "
So if they download, isn't it GPL? Don't they have to mail you first to get to commercial standing?
"Giving people the additional freedom to keep those changes secret and still distribute the product is perfectly fine, as long as you wrote all the code (or it was given to you)."
But if the people who are distributing modifications to you are accepting the GPL in order to do so, then you don't get to reliscense the GPL-ed code as commercial. The patch can't be "given" to you without the "secret" be distributed and hence GPL-ed.
But if you recieved the right to make your patch by agreeing to the GPL, then "by requiring that any patches folded into the main tree have the copyright assigned to the Company/group developing it" means you are assigning to them the right to distribute your patch under the GPL. They could use the patch freely so long as they don't distribute the patch or anything derived from it, but in order to do the latter they themselves have to accept the GPL on your patch. Yes?
Thats modifications that you submit to them...not merely modifications that you make. So a fork wouldn't be subject to their commerical liscence. I don't think they can use your modifications for their commercial work anyway, though, because you recieved it with the right to use it but to modify/distribute it you have to accept the GPL. When you submit it back, you are distributing your modifications. Hence, what they recieve is at that point GPL-ed, and even though they own the original rights (for which they can have multiple liscenses) your modifications are not subject to multiple liscenses...your modifications are GPL only. Yes? The only way around it would be if they said "wait, don't give us that modification, here is a commercial liscense and the source you started with...NOW lets see you do the same modifications and submit it to us". But that means you know have a commercial liscense too...
Not true. Using the software isn't covered by the GPL:
But the emperor has no clothes!
I suggest you confuse needs with desires. Marketing sells desire. Self-affirmation is more than a "slightly hipper form of rap".
Consider:
You are both right: permission is denied to tell anyone that evolution ever existed!
- "No, OSS GUI interfaces are not broken, they are in fact superior (just not ...well usable)"
obviously trolling
- "X is so much more advanced" when it is in fact a pain in the ass and slow as hell even when used over what it is made for - network connections.
It is network transparent with complexity costs. And yes, this does mean its more advanced.
- "By the way text mode is the way to the future, GUI is for faggots" which I think doesn't need any further comment
obviously trolling: the right tool for the job; nobody does Computational Visualization work without graphics
- "Linux has sooo *not* a dependency hell but Windows has" ignoring the fact that Linux libraries situation (source and compiled objects alike) is totally out of hand because often times you can't even run two apps alongside because they need different versions
which means they aren't from the same distribution versions...i had to ditch my CDBurner's software when I upgraded to w2k...oh well
- "Linux software installation is just so smooth" when in reality one can install even complicated apps on Windows and OSX within mere minutes while on Linux you are lucky if it takes under 2 hours to get something running.
depends on what your doing: apt-get is the sweetest updater i've *ever* used, rpm is coming along (grpmi looks sweet), and if you stay within your distribution its mostly a no-brainer as long as hardware doesn't bite your butt, which mandrake seems to have a handle on with autoprobing
We do have issues to resolve, but I'd hate to give up Xfree when Moore's law seems to suggest the cost/benifit will be ever lessening and just as network transparancy could really start being useful.
Except that you assume that the customer's needs/desires are what motivate the for-profit corp., when actually its all about increasing shareholder value. With fair-competition, the two would (should) be synonomous. Today, we've a monopoly in control, and its obvious that UI issues and bug reports and security issues aren't all that important. Else, I'd be able to right-click block images.ad.in.your.face.com. DRM isn't from the user's side of interfacing. With Free Software we actually have software written to work the way users want it too, rather than the way consumers are to be trained to act.
just m-x viper-mode and you've the best of both worlds (literally, you can use the emacs movement commands while in edit-mode :-)
Moral: emacs support gives you vi support, buth vi support doesn't give you emacs support.
I disagree. I think different vehicles are for different moods. When I want to play specific selections I load the playlist, sure. But sometimes I want to be surprised. Thats why radio works. Thats why streaming will work. People will hear music for the first time on streams, and look for more info via internet searches, and go to concerts and buy shirts and artwork. Money could still be made selling (higher quality audio) CDs if it was cheap enough that its not worth the time obtaining it by other means. Its not like anyone is against music, its the perception of being ripped-off and manifpulated by non-artists who do marketing and control rather than art that has people in revolt.
A well reasoned sounding post until you became specific with two artists for whom I switch the dial. When shows that tastes differ. Perhaps with a radical enough increase in diversity all kinds of good new sounds would surface. Would be fun to experience :-)
Well but it wasn't that long ago when recording studios started at a few million, and pressing records wasn't doable in garages, and distribution meant shipping physical objects around the country...and the labels actually had something to offer. Consider the cost now of a decent garage studio that generates decent CD quality and/or MP3 and a server and some bandwidth. Big difference. Its a tech-induced reverse economy of scale. This is why I don't fear their content distribution lock on music today. It can't last. There is nothing backing it up. If they bring nothing to the party, eventually they won't be invited back.
yeah and if we were all "peaceful, honest people" then it might have a chance...but its really to simplistic: reduce the feedback and the circuit will run more effeciently...
"The most common use of civil liberties protections is to make it harder for police (and prosecutors) to catch and convict guilty people. "
I rather suspect the most common of use of civil liberties involve living one's life, enjoying one's liberty, and pursuing happiness while particpating individually in self-governance and the evolution of our culture. Civil liberties are used by everyone every day. Its only when we lose them that we even realize they were legal protections. We're both using our civil liberties even as we participate in this discussion. I suggest that 99.99% of civil liberties don't involve criminals at all but rather the behavior of free citizendry.
It isn't fair... but its effective."
My problem with your take on this issue is that you focus on solving one problem and don't consider the injustice of the means used. If you catch one criminal, and violate the civil rights of 10 people, were you effective? Lets say the criminal is prosecuted. Good. Shouldn't the civil rights violations lead to prosecution? So how "effective " is a method that is criminal by its nature? Isn't this another version of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it?"
So like have a javascript button on your toolbar that will post something witty for you. That way if you see your in line for a first post, at least it looks like your smart.
Come on now, if they get paid they are whores, but if its free they are sluts. Sluts != whores! And sometimes, they're just friendly ;-)
The meaning of "or" in English is the same as the meaning of "or" in Boolean logic: either this, or that, or both.
Yet when someone asks me if I'd like pie or cake for dessert, and I answer politely "Yes, I would", they get upset the 2nd or 3rd time.
I was told that Applebees restaurants sing "happy happy birthday birthday" because they'd have to pay royalties for a live rendition of "Happy Birthday". I've also heard this rumor applied to singing HB on live TV shows. "Dinner and a Movie" hosts joked that what one of them was singing was HB, but that due to royalty payment concerns, it was sung while eatting...and hence incomprehensible. So is this just rumor?
Actually, no. As well as Star/Open office ps/pdf support, there is Panda - A GPL'ed PDF generation library.
BePDF is also gpl.
"unless you take a ps-file and convert that to pdf. That would be to complicated to tell my secretary however."
I've date a few and worked with many who'd be seriously offended at your suggesting they are too dumb to run ps2pdf on a file. My God man, what are your hiring qualifications?
Well except that it wasn't until Windows that Word could compete with WordPerfect. Borland's Quattro Pro blew excel out of the water. It was extremely fast. Excel was compatible with Word but not really a mature product. Likewise Paradox was miles ahead. To suggest it was a merit based ascent is to not remember the history. It was marketing.