Get a clue dickweed. Copyright violations are not theft. No court would convict you of stealing. The media companies want you to think that it is theft so they can take a higher moral ground. Copyright violation is against the law and this guy will be convicted, but by law he is not a thief (at least, not for this act).
Engage brain before touching keyboard. I did not claim that such acts are not legally wrong. Copyright violation is against the law but it is not theft. Here's a clue. Copy-right. Hmmm, copy-right, what could that mean? Could it be something to do with the rights to copy? You're not a thief if you walk on someone's private land without permission. You're not a thief if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. You're not a thief if you drive 80mph down the wrong side of the freeway. But in all those cases you would be engaging in acts that you have no right to, and would be breaking the law. Your definition of property is not based in law but is based on the propaganda of big copyright holders.
I'm not American, but I've heard the anthem. I believe one of the lines includes "The Land of the Free". Well if America is "The Land of the Free" then Free Software is more in line with "The American Way" than proprietary. However the world is beginning to learn the cynical lesson that the land of the free is fast becoming the land of the corporate interest. When a country's dictator is a despot you can hope that someday he will be overthrown or will die of natural causes. When the dictator is money it will take a total economic collapse to depose it. That's why our governments MUST value the public interest over the corporate interest, and why I fear that the fast eroding freedom in America will turn it into Mega City 1 long before this century is half gone.
I stopped reading when I read the term "IP Theft". Do these people have a clue? You can't steal Intellectual Property. Why? Because it is not property. It is not governed by property laws. Sure, someone who violates copyright is breaking the law, but no court in the US or UK will convict them of theft. These people seriously need to get a clue before publishing uninformed rants.
C'mon ThinkGeek. When you gonna start selling hand held scanners that can detect these things? I'd love to be able to scan an item at the checkout, rip the rfid tag out of what is now my property, and hand it back befoer leaving.
BSD/MIT-style licences are inherently libertarian: they maximize individual liberty, and leave it up to the individual to decide whether or not to contribute their work to the public commons.
The GPL is inherently socalist: it maximizes social benefit by forcing individuals to contribute their work to the communal body of code.
Actually the GPL is libertarian by the standards quoted above. There is no legal obligation to contribute your changes to the public commons. You can keep the change to yourself in your own version of the software. It's only if you release your changes that you must include source code and pass on the same freedoms to others.
In fact the more recent BSD licenses are closer to the GPL than the original BSD. After Microsoft's embrace and extend of Kerberos the BSD people realised that their licensing was leaving them open to get burned.
In a free society certain freedoms must be restricted in order for that society to remain free and civilised. I am not free to whack you on the head and steal your wallet, but the converse of this is that I am happy in my knowledge that you are not free to do the same to me. The restrictions in the GPL are there to ensure freedom for all for the rest of time, and to restrict actions that would harm the fabric of the free information society that the GPL has helped to create.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government -- it creates the legal fiction that a piece of writing or composing (or, as technologies were created, a recorded performance) is property and can only be sold by those who have been licensed to do so by the copyright holder.
Does this guy have a clue? IANAL, but even I know that copyright has nothing to do with property rights.
Copyrighted material is not anyone's property, but only the copyright holder has the right to copy it. Hell, the word "copyright" itself is the best description of what it means, and still we get this BS about "property" and the rights to sell.
Ah, but this is the beauty of Free Software. Xine did not steal. They re-used code under the terms of the MPlayer license. If both packages had been proprietary then we'd have two players. One with a sucky UI, and one with sparse codec support. MPlayer has not lost. Everyone who wants to use or develop a Free media player have won.
Of course they look after their employees.
Microsoft have dreams of a future where all hardware runs their software. That's not going to happen if the competition treat their employees better, since they would then be unable to hire the brightest and best.
If they want to take over the world they also need to take over the jobs market.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you've got 2.2 running just fine, then upgrading should only occur if you either need 2.4 features, or see a bug fixed that affects you.
I recently upgraded a server to 2.4, but only because I had to. I wanted to add file server capabilities, and my data disk (40GB) was reiserfs formatted, and none of the 2.2 reiserfs patches would work, so I went up to 2.4.
I still have not managed to upgrade from ipchains to iptables though, since ipchains just works (at least according to my logs, and services such as Steve Gibson's).
Just one point to raise here. RMS insistance in using GNU/Linux rather than Linux when refering to the operating system is not in order to get ego stroking credit.
If people are led to believe that "the Linux operating system" was created by Linus Torvalds then they think it was created "Just for Fun".
By calling it GNU/Linux you draw attention to the fact that most of the operating system was written to further the cause of Free Software. The Free Software cause is different to the Open Source cause, or Linus's reasons for writing Linux.
RMS is keen for this distinction to get across so that the principles of Free Software are brought to the fore, and people can see why they are so important.
Firstly, did Anandtech REALLY have to use 27 pages (some of which were only a couple of lines) for their review. Secondly, this Media Centre is far too restrictive. It requires a PVR tuner card that can do hardware MPEG-2. You can't buy it as software, but only as a Media Centre PC. Why on Earth should we have to buy a Media Centre Operating System? All it is is XP with a MCE application, why not sell the app to those who already have XP? OK, so the Linux PVRs are still a little geeky. (Which may be a good thing, as projects like mythTV are simple to use once installed and configured, we could make cash installing it for others at a fraction of the Media Centre cost). But Linux PVRs don't have anywhere near the restrictions of Media Centre. They don't use proprietary codecs, and any niggles you may have with them can be ironed out by yourself. I don't think I'll be bothering with a Media Centre PC. They seem too inflexible for my tastes.
SMASH THE MACHINES!!!! Make us all wait in long queues while the checkout assistant adds up our bills with a pencil and enters it into a leatherbound ledger. Oh, wait, then we'd need to employ smarter checkout assistants that can actually do arithmetic.
Did Bruce say "Free Software Community"? There's still hope that he'll join the light of Free Software rather than the slightly off white of Open Source.
Having used Unix since 1992, GNU/Linux since 1998, and successfully building Linux From Scratch I'm not a newbie. But Mandrake is still my distro of choice.
While on the surface it has an easy to use GUI for just about anything it is still GNU/Linux under the hood, and can still be hacked through config files if you like that sort of thing. After all, the GUI is just a front end to the config files.
The purists out there can have no quarrel with Mandrake since it is both LSB1.2 compliant and 100% free software.
The only problem I have with Mandrake is that they neglect to use the word GNU in the name, but apart from that Mandrake is easily the best general purpose distro out there for both newbies and old farts alike.
Just when you thought it was safe, the next big thing in the UK is Pop Stars: The Rivals. Instead of one band like last year, they are creating two bands. A girl band and a boy band, and the two bands are duking it out for the coveted Christmas number 1. My initial reaction was "how presumptious!" Who's to say that a relatively unknown won't get the top spot like last year. Janis - I'd love to hear you vent your splean about the current state of manufactured pop, and how you feel that us music lovers can build a rich creative commons that the controllers of such garbage can't hijack in the name of defeating piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Darn.
Does this mean I owe roylaties to Apple whenever I read the Old Testament?
Get a job as a celebrity stalking journalist if you want to party for a living.
Is that really him talking on his cellphone, or is that the after effect tumor?
Get a clue dickweed.
Copyright violations are not theft.
No court would convict you of stealing.
The media companies want you to think that it is theft so they can take a higher moral ground.
Copyright violation is against the law and this guy will be convicted, but by law he is not a thief (at least, not for this act).
Engage brain before touching keyboard.
I did not claim that such acts are not legally wrong. Copyright violation is against the law but it is not theft. Here's a clue.
Copy-right.
Hmmm, copy-right, what could that mean? Could it be something to do with the rights to copy?
You're not a thief if you walk on someone's private land without permission.
You're not a thief if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You're not a thief if you drive 80mph down the wrong side of the freeway.
But in all those cases you would be engaging in acts that you have no right to, and would be breaking the law.
Your definition of property is not based in law but is based on the propaganda of big copyright holders.
I'm not American, but I've heard the anthem. I believe one of the lines includes "The Land of the Free".
Well if America is "The Land of the Free" then Free Software is more in line with "The American Way" than proprietary.
However the world is beginning to learn the cynical lesson that the land of the free is fast becoming the land of the corporate interest.
When a country's dictator is a despot you can hope that someday he will be overthrown or will die of natural causes. When the dictator is money it will take a total economic collapse to depose it.
That's why our governments MUST value the public interest over the corporate interest, and why I fear that the fast eroding freedom in America will turn it into Mega City 1 long before this century is half gone.
I think they mean a sharp edged prism.
I stopped reading when I read the term "IP Theft".
Do these people have a clue?
You can't steal Intellectual Property. Why? Because it is not property. It is not governed by property laws. Sure, someone who violates copyright is breaking the law, but no court in the US or UK will convict them of theft.
These people seriously need to get a clue before publishing uninformed rants.
C'mon ThinkGeek. When you gonna start selling hand held scanners that can detect these things?
I'd love to be able to scan an item at the checkout, rip the rfid tag out of what is now my property, and hand it back befoer leaving.
You think that's gonna stop ESR from packing heat if he's there?
Actually the GPL is libertarian by the standards quoted above. There is no legal obligation to contribute your changes to the public commons. You can keep the change to yourself in your own version of the software.
It's only if you release your changes that you must include source code and pass on the same freedoms to others.
In fact the more recent BSD licenses are closer to the GPL than the original BSD. After Microsoft's embrace and extend of Kerberos the BSD people realised that their licensing was leaving them open to get burned.
In a free society certain freedoms must be restricted in order for that society to remain free and civilised.
I am not free to whack you on the head and steal your wallet, but the converse of this is that I am happy in my knowledge that you are not free to do the same to me.
The restrictions in the GPL are there to ensure freedom for all for the rest of time, and to restrict actions that would harm the fabric of the free information society that the GPL has helped to create.
From the Website:-
> and everything goes faster.
Not when it's slashdotted it don't.
From the article:-
Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government -- it creates the legal fiction that a piece of writing or composing (or, as technologies were created, a recorded performance) is property and can only be sold by those who have been licensed to do so by the copyright holder.
Does this guy have a clue? IANAL, but even I know that copyright has nothing to do with property rights.
Copyrighted material is not anyone's property, but only the copyright holder has the right to copy it. Hell, the word "copyright" itself is the best description of what it means, and still we get this BS about "property" and the rights to sell.
Might as well blame the Wright brothers for 9/11.
Ah, but this is the beauty of Free Software. Xine did not steal. They re-used code under the terms of the MPlayer license.
If both packages had been proprietary then we'd have two players. One with a sucky UI, and one with sparse codec support.
MPlayer has not lost. Everyone who wants to use or develop a Free media player have won.
Yup, it IS childish and petty
Stallman does not want to 0wn Linux, since he is firmly of the opinion that software should not have owners.
Of course they look after their employees.
Microsoft have dreams of a future where all hardware runs their software. That's not going to happen if the competition treat their employees better, since they would then be unable to hire the brightest and best.
If they want to take over the world they also need to take over the jobs market.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you've got 2.2 running just fine, then upgrading should only occur if you either need 2.4 features, or see a bug fixed that affects you.
I recently upgraded a server to 2.4, but only because I had to. I wanted to add file server capabilities, and my data disk (40GB) was reiserfs formatted, and none of the 2.2 reiserfs patches would work, so I went up to 2.4.
I still have not managed to upgrade from ipchains to iptables though, since ipchains just works (at least according to my logs, and services such as Steve Gibson's).
Just one point to raise here. RMS insistance in using GNU/Linux rather than Linux when refering to the operating system is not in order to get ego stroking credit.
If people are led to believe that "the Linux operating system" was created by Linus Torvalds then they think it was created "Just for Fun".
By calling it GNU/Linux you draw attention to the fact that most of the operating system was written to further the cause of Free Software. The Free Software cause is different to the Open Source cause, or Linus's reasons for writing Linux.
RMS is keen for this distinction to get across so that the principles of Free Software are brought to the fore, and people can see why they are so important.
Firstly, did Anandtech REALLY have to use 27 pages (some of which were only a couple of lines) for their review.
Secondly, this Media Centre is far too restrictive. It requires a PVR tuner card that can do hardware MPEG-2. You can't buy it as software, but only as a Media Centre PC. Why on Earth should we have to buy a Media Centre Operating System? All it is is XP with a MCE application, why not sell the app to those who already have XP?
OK, so the Linux PVRs are still a little geeky. (Which may be a good thing, as projects like mythTV are simple to use once installed and configured, we could make cash installing it for others at a fraction of the Media Centre cost).
But Linux PVRs don't have anywhere near the restrictions of Media Centre. They don't use proprietary codecs, and any niggles you may have with them can be ironed out by yourself.
I don't think I'll be bothering with a Media Centre PC. They seem too inflexible for my tastes.
SMASH THE MACHINES!!!!
Make us all wait in long queues while the checkout assistant adds up our bills with a pencil and enters it into a leatherbound ledger.
Oh, wait, then we'd need to employ smarter checkout assistants that can actually do arithmetic.
Did Bruce say "Free Software Community"?
There's still hope that he'll join the light of Free Software rather than the slightly off white of Open Source.
Having used Unix since 1992, GNU/Linux since 1998, and successfully building Linux From Scratch I'm not a newbie. But Mandrake is still my distro of choice.
While on the surface it has an easy to use GUI for just about anything it is still GNU/Linux under the hood, and can still be hacked through config files if you like that sort of thing. After all, the GUI is just a front end to the config files.
The purists out there can have no quarrel with Mandrake since it is both LSB1.2 compliant and 100% free software.
The only problem I have with Mandrake is that they neglect to use the word GNU in the name, but apart from that Mandrake is easily the best general purpose distro out there for both newbies and old farts alike.
Just when you thought it was safe, the next big thing in the UK is Pop Stars: The Rivals.
Instead of one band like last year, they are creating two bands. A girl band and a boy band, and the two bands are duking it out for the coveted Christmas number 1.
My initial reaction was "how presumptious!" Who's to say that a relatively unknown won't get the top spot like last year.
Janis - I'd love to hear you vent your splean about the current state of manufactured pop, and how you feel that us music lovers can build a rich creative commons that the controllers of such garbage can't hijack in the name of defeating piracy.