If a bunch of people don't pay for a product and the product costs X amount of money to make the other bunch who DO pay has to pay more. As simple as that.
I don't exactly know what you mean by ``freeloaders'', so I'll assume we're talking about Napster-style copying.
Given that, a record company spends X amount on making a cd. Then, a Napster user rips the cd and puts it online. Now, it's available to many, many people. The record company has still spent exactly X amount on the cd. So, the people who listen and don't pay aren't costing the record company any more money than people who don't listen and don't pay.
So, if we accept your argument, even people who don't listen to a band's music should be forced to pay for their cds, so you who do can pay lower prices.
This is what bothers me about most socialists--they're only for the working class on a local level, not on a global level.
What, exactly, is your problem with a private redistribution of wealth from rich westerners to poor third-worlders? Is it simply that you aren't on the receiving end, like you usually are in socialism?
Um, the point is you can't get a subdirectory of a block device:
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ mount
/dev/hda6 on / type ext2 (rw)
none on/proc type proc (rw)
usbdevfs on/proc/bus/usb type usbdevfs (rw)
/dev/hda2 on/boot type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda9 on/home type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda8 on/tmp type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda5 on/usr type ext2 (rw)
none on/proc/bus/usb type usbdevfs (rw)
none on/dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
/dev/hda1 on/win32 type vfat (rw)
automount(pid795) on/misc type autofs (rw,fd=5,pgrp=795,minproto=2,maxproto=3)
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ ls/dev/hda6 -l
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 3, 6 Mar 23 22:37/dev/hda6
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ ls/dev/hda6/etc
ls:/dev/hda6/etc: Not a directory
Did you read my second paragraph? Even if you don't think Windows is open (which I grant you don't), Krumholtz said it was (according to the parent of your post). Your post's parent then questioned this statement. Nobody said Windows had to be open, just that M$ people should tell the truth. Or does Micro$oft's copyright on Windows cover lying, too?
<logic-police>Assume for the sake of argument M$ has every right to prevent anyone else from writing any software for Windows. Now, what is your argument that Windows is `open'? Just because closedness is legal doesn't make it openness.</logic-police>
Of course, you may simply be trying to point out Windows doesn't have to be `open', which is true. However, saying Windows is `open' when it isn't is not acceptable, which is the point of your parent post.
OK. First, how can you be `making themes for [OS FOO] before they were introduced'? (How do you make something that hasn't been introduced?)
Second, M$ sees a profitable market, and moves into it. That's not illegal--if you're a small enough company. If you're large, though, suddenly lots of/. kiddies jump all over you and say you should be blocked from the market. Whatever happened to equality before the law?
Third, the government's job is to protect said equality before the law, not to protect `several . . . companies biting their fingernails'.
If Chinese don't have these laws they are all set for the perfect Stallman style world, aren?t' they ?
No need for GPL.
NO. I am not RMS, but I believe we agree on this. A perfect world is one where the four freedoms that make up free software are the law. This goes a bit farther than just eliminating copyright; the law must guarantee access to source. Hence the GPL's source access requirements. Because China has no Copyleft laws and no Copyright laws to enforce the GPL with, China is actually farther from RMS's perfect world than the US is.
Um, no editor ever has said ``anything developed with the editor needs to be GPL'd''; furthermore, no editor can say that. What you write with any editor is copyright you; despite what M$ says sometimes, the copyright holder on the editor has no say on that.
Who moderated this funny? This is just annoying. A patent is the right to forbid someone else to do something. What the original poster meant was ``denying the use of patents'' to everyone else. Patents would be pretty useless if you couldn't implement them yourself. Besides, BASIC sucks.
Slashdot--Just like an insane asylum, except the inmates go around calling themselves geeks.
Stallman's a swell guy and all, but some people program to make money. We can't all teach and give lectures for a living.
Um... RMS has never given lectures for a living (unlike some leeches I could mention). When RMS began GNU, he sold software (Emacs) (what a novel idea!) Then, he took up software consulting (support). Now, he has a major grant from someone and doesn't have to work, but he has in the past and he's not opposed to people making money--even writing software.
I'm all for getting along & globalizing laws & not starting wars--as long as we've decided what the globalized laws look like ahead of time (and we all agree to them). The problem is, laws on information & such are not uniform, i.e. we can't agree on what they should look like. In this area, we need some more local experiments (keep the ill effects temporary & confined, instead of permanent and global) to decide what IP laws, censorship laws, etc. we want. Then we globalize those.
<<(ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, ``Potentially Viral Software'' means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that:.... By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software.... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU?s General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL)>>
This looks like it explicitly states that any product licensed under the ``GPL'' may not be used to `develop' any software used with the product. (Another part of the license explicitly includes all ``Open Source'' or ``Free Software'' products.) Before you complain this isn't really viral, consider: the license doesn't say `viral', it says `Potentially Viral'. If M$ says it might be viral, that's good enough for the purposes of the license.
BTW, this is not an exact quote; the dumb quotes M$ used have been sanitized.
Yes, you can run any arbitrary program you want (except if it's copy protected, or you're also running it on another computer, or...). But you cannot sell someone a program to change a document without telling them. If M$ changed the content of the web pages while you viewed them, and did not clearly mark the changes, that would be misrepresentation of what the original author was saying. That, in turn, would mean defrauding the customer.
That is what every one is complaining about--misrepresenting the author and defrauding the customer. Fraud is not fair use.
<<the BSD operating systems have - documentation that exists in a single form and written in a style that is consistent across the entire operating system. >>
Are the BSD manpages as sucky as the Linux versions? Last I checked, there was no cross-reference capability, very small granularity (do people really enjoy reading through 200 screenfulls of information just to get to what they missed last time?), and myriad other problems. Yes, Linux uses sucky documentation formats too--but not all Linux is sucky.
Slashdot Mirror
If a bunch of people don't pay for a product and the product costs X amount of money to make the other bunch who DO pay has to pay more. As simple as that.
I don't exactly know what you mean by ``freeloaders'', so I'll assume we're talking about Napster-style copying.
Given that, a record company spends X amount on making a cd. Then, a Napster user rips the cd and puts it online. Now, it's available to many, many people. The record company has still spent exactly X amount on the cd. So, the people who listen and don't pay aren't costing the record company any more money than people who don't listen and don't pay.
So, if we accept your argument, even people who don't listen to a band's music should be forced to pay for their cds, so you who do can pay lower prices.
This is what bothers me about most socialists--they're only for the working class on a local level, not on a global level.
What, exactly, is your problem with a private redistribution of wealth from rich westerners to poor third-worlders? Is it simply that you aren't on the receiving end, like you usually are in socialism?
Um, the point is you can't get a subdirectory of a block device:
/proc type proc (rw)
/proc/bus/usb type usbdevfs (rw)
/boot type ext2 (rw)
/home type ext2 (rw)
/tmp type ext2 (rw)
/usr type ext2 (rw)
/proc/bus/usb type usbdevfs (rw)
/dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
/win32 type vfat (rw)
/misc type autofs (rw,fd=5,pgrp=795,minproto=2,maxproto=3)
/dev/hda6 -l
/dev/hda6
/dev/hda6/etc
/dev/hda6/etc: Not a directory
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ mount
/dev/hda6 on / type ext2 (rw)
none on
usbdevfs on
/dev/hda2 on
/dev/hda9 on
/dev/hda8 on
/dev/hda5 on
none on
none on
/dev/hda1 on
automount(pid795) on
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ ls
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 3, 6 Mar 23 22:37
[jcast@cate2-108 jcast]$ ls
ls:
Ever heard of property rights?
Did you read my second paragraph? Even if you don't think Windows is open (which I grant you don't), Krumholtz said it was (according to the parent of your post). Your post's parent then questioned this statement. Nobody said Windows had to be open, just that M$ people should tell the truth. Or does Micro$oft's copyright on Windows cover lying, too?
<logic-police>Assume for the sake of argument M$ has every right to prevent anyone else from writing any software for Windows. Now, what is your argument that Windows is `open'? Just because closedness is legal doesn't make it openness.</logic-police>
Of course, you may simply be trying to point out Windows doesn't have to be `open', which is true. However, saying Windows is `open' when it isn't is not acceptable, which is the point of your parent post.
OK. First, how can you be `making themes for [OS FOO] before they were introduced'? (How do you make something that hasn't been introduced?)
Second, M$ sees a profitable market, and moves into it. That's not illegal--if you're a small enough company. If you're large, though, suddenly lots of /. kiddies jump all over you and say you should be blocked from the market. Whatever happened to equality before the law?
Third, the government's job is to protect said equality before the law, not to protect `several . . . companies biting their fingernails'.
For the acronym-impaired:
NO. I am not RMS, but I believe we agree on this. A perfect world is one where the four freedoms that make up free software are the law. This goes a bit farther than just eliminating copyright; the law must guarantee access to source. Hence the GPL's source access requirements. Because China has no Copyleft laws and no Copyright laws to enforce the GPL with, China is actually farther from RMS's perfect world than the US is.
qed
Um, no editor ever has said ``anything developed with the editor needs to be GPL'd''; furthermore, no editor can say that. What you write with any editor is copyright you; despite what M$ says sometimes, the copyright holder on the editor has no say on that.
Don't tell anybody, but /. is conducting secret experiments in artificial life.
(Once they succeed in bringing stories to life, they'll go on to add intelligence.)
Who moderated this funny? This is just annoying. A patent is the right to forbid someone else to do something. What the original poster meant was ``denying the use of patents'' to everyone else. Patents would be pretty useless if you couldn't implement them yourself. Besides, BASIC sucks.
Slashdot--Just like an insane asylum, except the inmates go around calling themselves geeks.
``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.''
Got any proof, or are you just a troll?
Stallman's a swell guy and all, but some people program to make money. We can't all teach and give lectures for a living.
Um... RMS has never given lectures for a living (unlike some leeches I could mention). When RMS began GNU, he sold software (Emacs) (what a novel idea!) Then, he took up software consulting (support). Now, he has a major grant from someone and doesn't have to work, but he has in the past and he's not opposed to people making money--even writing software.
I'm all for getting along & globalizing laws & not starting wars--as long as we've decided what the globalized laws look like ahead of time (and we all agree to them). The problem is, laws on information & such are not uniform, i.e. we can't agree on what they should look like. In this area, we need some more local experiments (keep the ill effects temporary & confined, instead of permanent and global) to decide what IP laws, censorship laws, etc. we want. Then we globalize those.
This looks like it explicitly states that any product licensed under the ``GPL'' may not be used to `develop' any software used with the product. (Another part of the license explicitly includes all ``Open Source'' or ``Free Software'' products.) Before you complain this isn't really viral, consider: the license doesn't say `viral', it says `Potentially Viral'. If M$ says it might be viral, that's good enough for the purposes of the license.
BTW, this is not an exact quote; the dumb quotes M$ used have been sanitized.
Yes, you can run any arbitrary program you want (except if it's copy protected, or you're also running it on another computer, or...). But you cannot sell someone a program to change a document without telling them. If M$ changed the content of the web pages while you viewed them, and did not clearly mark the changes, that would be misrepresentation of what the original author was saying. That, in turn, would mean defrauding the customer.
That is what every one is complaining about--misrepresenting the author and defrauding the customer. Fraud is not fair use.
<<the BSD operating systems have - documentation that exists in a single form and written in a style that is consistent across the entire operating system. >>
Are the BSD manpages as sucky as the Linux versions? Last I checked, there was no cross-reference capability, very small granularity (do people really enjoy reading through 200 screenfulls of information just to get to what they missed last time?), and myriad other problems. Yes, Linux uses sucky documentation formats too--but not all Linux is sucky.