"Right, so all those times Sun took BSD code and closed it screwing over the users..."
Screwing over which users, as compared to what (fictional) alternative scenario? A BSD license says anyone can use the code anywhere. Even companies you don't like who don't do any thing nice for the original project. The author of the code chose that license presumably because they didn't have a problem with that, so I'm not sure why you think it's up to you to have a problem with what somebody does with somebody elses code.
All I'm saying, is that contrary to the typical slashdot image of the selfish proprietary code authors hoarding their IP, I and other closed-source authors happily cooperate on some BSD code. I find that encouraging voluntary cooperation out of mutual self interest sometimes produces better results than attempting to compel altruism.
"OTOH, as an objective measure, GPL projects get more support from companies than BSD project do, on the average. LOTS more."
What "objective measure" are you using? You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't see any objective way to measure it at all.
Certainly big projects, supported by big companies and representing stand-alone products tend to be GPL (Linux, Firefox, Java). But I don't need to integrate anything like that into my own project. I use all three of those, but not their source code. For libraries I'm going to integrate to add some commodity functionality to my product, my experience is that there is usually a BSD option that is best, I presume because lots of small companies can work together making small contributions. Cannonical examples might be the Xerces XML parser, or MapServer map rendering engine. Things that don't do anything useful on their own.
Yeah, but I have to make sure I link to stuff, not compile it in. I could use LGPL stuff, but it's a hassle. BSDish, no hassle.
And I have to keep track of the license and worry that I'm obeying it. What if some coder I hire a year from now cut-and-pastes some stuff into another project? If it's BSD, no problem. LGPL, I just violate dthe license, so I need to have procedures in place to prevent that. Again, hassle.
"Again, your case is specifically what is targeted by the GPL. If you aren't using it in a completely open application, you don't get to play."
I totally understand that, and have no problem with it. GPL licensers don't want me to play, so I won't.
"And evidently it's working fine, given the amount of GPL stuff there is, and the number of companies supporting it and giving back, compared against BSD."
Hmmm, my experience is that there are far more companies supporting and giving back to BSDish projects. It probably depends on what sort of projects you're looking at. The big high-profile GPL projects (i.e. Linux and Firefox) are one thing, but I'm not integrating those into my code anyway. For smaller libraries I'm going to integrate to fill out the corners of my code, I generally find a BSD option that's the best thing going.
"Please name exactly the GPL project you wish to use but cannot."
Beats the hell out of me. As noted, I don't even bother looking at GPL options. I assume there are decent GPL packages in some of the same areas I use BSDish or closed source, but I don't bother to find out, because I'm not going to use them.
I don't use LGPL either. I want to decide whether code gets compiled into a single package or dynamically linked based on technical needs, not licensing issues. I do look at LGPL options, because if it was enough better than anything else, I could put up with the hassle of using it. But I haven't reached that conclusion so far. In my experience, for some random software library area, there is a BSDish option that is as good as anything else, if not better. I assume this is because I'm not the only guy who can get paid contribute to them, but not to GPL stuff. Obviously, YMMV.
It's not that there is some GPL or LGPL package I really want to use, and am sad I can't. It's that every time I've looked for something, there has been a BSDish option good enough that I don't want to use an LGPL one.
Actually...
I work for a company that makes closed source software. We have a few pieces of core code we're not willing to open. But to make that stuff useful, we integrate with vast amounts of other tools and libraries that aren't our critical core, that we're perfectly happy to share with others.
So the first thing we look for when we need some particular functionality is a BSDish license. We can use it however we need to, but we, and others can all share our improvements. As a result, we wind up spending a fair bit of money paying developers to write open source code on BSD projects.
GPL is a deal killer. We can't use how we need to, so we respect the authors wishes and don't touch it. Unfortunately, that means we're never going to contribute any code to a GPL project.
So while in theory GPL requires quid-pro-quo contributions, in practice BSD gets more. At least from me.
Please note that if you are just philosophically dedicated to GPL and don't want no stinkin' code from dark-side sometimes-closed-source developers like me, I have no problem with that.
"You could link to something that contains quotes and indicates you are correct. Or you could just keep saying 'trust me, my story makes sense, and yer stupid if you don't buy into it'"
Actually, it's: My story sems plausible to me, and fits with my recollection of what I've heard from the players involved. I cannot entirely comprehend what your competing story is. Best I can come up with is: "All Democrats, Specter (and 1 more Republican) already vote together on everything, so no Republican bothers to filibuster and provoke a cloture vote (which any single one could do acting alone) because they know they'd lose, and they're so dedicated to not being obstructionist that they don't throw up any pointless procedure hurdles. The Democrats have endless discussion on whether to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid filibusters, despite having no actual need to do so."
I find this explanation somewhat lacking.
"What's keeping you from producing the quotes?"
Honestly, I don't care enough. I've presented my theory; you've presented yours (I guess). Anyone who want's to actually understand should look into it themselves and not take my word for it, quotes or no quotes. I don't get the impression that includes you in any case.
"That a plausable story. What indication is there that it's true?"
That the lack of cloture votes is due to everybody understanding how they would go and not bothering with the futility? The public statements of numerous senators on both sides, and nobody I'm aware of saying otherwise.
That the R leadership forced a vote on the stimulus despite knowing they'd lose with the intention of putting the defectors on record? That's my analysis. I'm going out on a limb and saying that the only effect it had was related to why they did it.
"If you go by what has actually happened, there is no change."
Yup, if you just figure there are some guys there and they vote on stuff, it's still the same guys, no change. I must say that your approach to analyzing American politics by ignoring the existence of political parties is impressively rigorous. It might be hard to get a terribly complete picture though.
Since the remaining parts of the Republican party in Pennsylvania no longer share his views, it would be only polite of Specter to leave, and let them select a candidate more to their liking.
This will also enable the broader base of his constituents, who do appear to share his views, the opportunity to vote for him, which they would otherwise be denied by Pennsylvania's closed primary system.
Really, the primary system is premised on the assumption that people will run in the part that is best aligned with their views. Why should Specter be expected to buck that system?
"If he and his constituents share each others views, what does a party matter?"
He and his constituents share each others views. The Republican party does not share their views. What's so hard to understand?
What fraction of bills do you think Specter is willing to go to the mat for? To stand up to the leadership of his party and vote against their wishes, political consequences be dammed?
Specter is senior enough to get away with it, centrist, mavericky, whatever... He decides it's worth bucking the party leadership more than about anyone, and I imagine that will continue, but really, how often is it? 20% of the time? 30?
There is going to be some huge amount of Senate business where Specter (and other fence sitters) are close enough to undecided to go along with the party leadership, and those votes are going to go differently now.
Watch, particularly, how often Specter votes against a bill but doesn't support a filibuster of it.
"The Stimulus vote is the proof that the Republicans didn't have 41 votes to filibuster anything."
No, it's proof they didn't have 40 votes to filibuster the stimulus. They clearly had them to filibuster all sorts of other things.
"You can't filibuster with less than 41 votes." There are 99 senators at present, check your math.
"There was exactly 1 test vote on cloture this session"
Oh come on. Regardless of your political bent, can we accept that Harry Reid can count to 1? Votes haven't been scheduled that don't have a Republican on board, because Republicans were taken at their word that they would filibuster everything. Republicans didn't filibuster anything that had the votes for cloture because they didn't want to look weak. Until they decided they were getting too many defections, so they'd make an example of Specter by forcing him to actually vote on the stimulus. Another shrewd tactic of political genius.
"What changed?" The 80% of Senate action that was stalled because borderline Republicans like Specter didn't think was worth going to the mat against their own party for, is now up to whether the borderline Democrats think it's worth going to the mat against their party for. As the Democratic party is radically more powerful than the Republicans just now, going against them on a particular issue will be proportionally more expensive, and hence less likely.
All this takes effect after Franken gets seated of course.
So you think those 200,000 voters in Pennsylvania switched parties as a crass political maneuver? How is his switch different from theirs? 200,001 Pennsylvanians have=e found their political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
"Toomey was going to win" Indicating Pennsylvania Republicans are not in line with Specter on issues.
"so he's going to try playing for the other team." In the expectation they are more in line with him on issues.
"I didn't see him actually change any of his stances on the issues" So that obviously speaks well of him.
Sorry, I thought you were going to be saying there was some sort of problem, did you mean the "Seriously, I love..." non-sarcastically?
No, he switched his party allegiance because he continues to believe the same things, which have always put him barely over the center line, and the Republican party has shrunk, shedding it's moderates, and hence moving to the right.
200K of his constituents, who presumably believe many of the same things as he, have made the same switch. What crass, invalid motives to you ascribe to them?
Let's see, if I wanted a "real" Republican, but all I was "offered" (for whatever that means in an election cycle he didn't run during) was a moderate like Specter, would I then become a Democrat? Is that the question you're asking? Is there some way this isn't a stupid question?
If (as he apparently thinks, and seems likely) the statewide voters will elect him, but the Republican primary voters will not, doesn't that make his move perfectly reasonable, even principled? His positions and those of the Pennsylvania Republicans are no longer aligned.
Public disclosure of private facts has been actionable since before the Constitution existed.
The only part of the constitution (as far as I can tell) that comes close to it at all is the first amendment. But there is no evidence that the framers of the first amendment intended that one could not be sued for what one said, and no court I am aware of has ever interpreted the first amendment in that way. The first amendment prevents the government from telling you you can't speak. But all the reasons individuals could sue you for what you said still apply. Public disclosure of private facts is one of these.
So I don't see the deterioration or small actors over time. This has been an actionable offense since before the constitution existed, and the constitution did nothing to change it.
I guess it sucks not being able to trick people into confiding embarrassing personal information and broadcasting it for your own amusement with no civil liability. But if that sounds like slavery to you, have you considered the possibility that you may be a moron?
If you leave all your net worth in an unprotected pile of gold, and some guy comes by and steals it, it is probable I will have a low opinion of both of you.
In the case at hand, thinking the guy who sent his personal information to an improbable craiglist sex ad is an idiot does not prevent me from thinking the guy who poseted the ad and then published the information is an asshole.
You should not trust anonymous strangers on the internet, because they might be assholes who will abuse that trust. When someone fails to grasp this, how does that make the guy who abused their trust not an asshole? He is an asshole, that's the whole problem in the first place.
"Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public [oddstrument.com]. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable for broadcasting your public information to the world,"
Yes, obviously.
"So what if i make an email address that forwards your email verbatim to an email list? Is that the same..."
Yes, obviously.
You set up an ad that claims a particular contact method is a way to initiate a private person-to-person contact. Someone foolishly trust you. Saying, "Sucker! You should have known I might be a lying douchebag" doesn't make you not a lying douchebag.
Sounds pretty open and shut. Any idea why dozens of judges have consistently disagreed over the course of two centuries?
Hint: Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be sued for what you say after the fact. One reason for you to get sued is if what you said was false, but that's not the only one.
"Actually, none of that is true. Again, just look at the universities where the wealthy kids go and you'll find them to be extremely liberal. They don't call it 'the People's Republic of Berkeley' for nothing."
It's your impression that UC Berkely ($5K a semester) is a rich kids school?
Slashdot Mirror
"Right, so all those times Sun took BSD code and closed it screwing over the users..."
Screwing over which users, as compared to what (fictional) alternative scenario? A BSD license says anyone can use the code anywhere. Even companies you don't like who don't do any thing nice for the original project. The author of the code chose that license presumably because they didn't have a problem with that, so I'm not sure why you think it's up to you to have a problem with what somebody does with somebody elses code.
All I'm saying, is that contrary to the typical slashdot image of the selfish proprietary code authors hoarding their IP, I and other closed-source authors happily cooperate on some BSD code. I find that encouraging voluntary cooperation out of mutual self interest sometimes produces better results than attempting to compel altruism.
"OTOH, as an objective measure, GPL projects get more support from companies than BSD project do, on the average. LOTS more."
What "objective measure" are you using? You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't see any objective way to measure it at all.
Certainly big projects, supported by big companies and representing stand-alone products tend to be GPL (Linux, Firefox, Java). But I don't need to integrate anything like that into my own project. I use all three of those, but not their source code. For libraries I'm going to integrate to add some commodity functionality to my product, my experience is that there is usually a BSD option that is best, I presume because lots of small companies can work together making small contributions. Cannonical examples might be the Xerces XML parser, or MapServer map rendering engine. Things that don't do anything useful on their own.
Yeah, but I have to make sure I link to stuff, not compile it in. I could use LGPL stuff, but it's a hassle. BSDish, no hassle.
And I have to keep track of the license and worry that I'm obeying it. What if some coder I hire a year from now cut-and-pastes some stuff into another project? If it's BSD, no problem. LGPL, I just violate dthe license, so I need to have procedures in place to prevent that. Again, hassle.
"Again, your case is specifically what is targeted by the GPL. If you aren't using it in a completely open application, you don't get to play."
I totally understand that, and have no problem with it. GPL licensers don't want me to play, so I won't.
"And evidently it's working fine, given the amount of GPL stuff there is, and the number of companies supporting it and giving back, compared against BSD."
Hmmm, my experience is that there are far more companies supporting and giving back to BSDish projects. It probably depends on what sort of projects you're looking at. The big high-profile GPL projects (i.e. Linux and Firefox) are one thing, but I'm not integrating those into my code anyway. For smaller libraries I'm going to integrate to fill out the corners of my code, I generally find a BSD option that's the best thing going.
"Please name exactly the GPL project you wish to use but cannot."
Beats the hell out of me. As noted, I don't even bother looking at GPL options. I assume there are decent GPL packages in some of the same areas I use BSDish or closed source, but I don't bother to find out, because I'm not going to use them.
I don't use LGPL either. I want to decide whether code gets compiled into a single package or dynamically linked based on technical needs, not licensing issues. I do look at LGPL options, because if it was enough better than anything else, I could put up with the hassle of using it. But I haven't reached that conclusion so far. In my experience, for some random software library area, there is a BSDish option that is as good as anything else, if not better. I assume this is because I'm not the only guy who can get paid contribute to them, but not to GPL stuff. Obviously, YMMV.
It's not that there is some GPL or LGPL package I really want to use, and am sad I can't. It's that every time I've looked for something, there has been a BSDish option good enough that I don't want to use an LGPL one.
I am going to reciprocate, so I find something BSD.
When I use some particular library, I want to be able to share my improvements to that library without being required to share all my other code.
Actually...
I work for a company that makes closed source software. We have a few pieces of core code we're not willing to open. But to make that stuff useful, we integrate with vast amounts of other tools and libraries that aren't our critical core, that we're perfectly happy to share with others.
So the first thing we look for when we need some particular functionality is a BSDish license. We can use it however we need to, but we, and others can all share our improvements. As a result, we wind up spending a fair bit of money paying developers to write open source code on BSD projects.
GPL is a deal killer. We can't use how we need to, so we respect the authors wishes and don't touch it. Unfortunately, that means we're never going to contribute any code to a GPL project.
So while in theory GPL requires quid-pro-quo contributions, in practice BSD gets more. At least from me.
Please note that if you are just philosophically dedicated to GPL and don't want no stinkin' code from dark-side sometimes-closed-source developers like me, I have no problem with that.
"You could link to something that contains quotes and indicates you are correct. Or you could just keep saying 'trust me, my story makes sense, and yer stupid if you don't buy into it'"
Actually, it's: My story sems plausible to me, and fits with my recollection of what I've heard from the players involved. I cannot entirely comprehend what your competing story is. Best I can come up with is:
"All Democrats, Specter (and 1 more Republican) already vote together on everything, so no Republican bothers to filibuster and provoke a cloture vote (which any single one could do acting alone) because they know they'd lose, and they're so dedicated to not being obstructionist that they don't throw up any pointless procedure hurdles. The Democrats have endless discussion on whether to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid filibusters, despite having no actual need to do so."
I find this explanation somewhat lacking.
"What's keeping you from producing the quotes?"
Honestly, I don't care enough. I've presented my theory; you've presented yours (I guess). Anyone who want's to actually understand should look into it themselves and not take my word for it, quotes or no quotes. I don't get the impression that includes you in any case.
"That a plausable story. What indication is there that it's true?"
That the lack of cloture votes is due to everybody understanding how they would go and not bothering with the futility? The public statements of numerous senators on both sides, and nobody I'm aware of saying otherwise.
That the R leadership forced a vote on the stimulus despite knowing they'd lose with the intention of putting the defectors on record? That's my analysis. I'm going out on a limb and saying that the only effect it had was related to why they did it.
"If you go by what has actually happened, there is no change."
Yup, if you just figure there are some guys there and they vote on stuff, it's still the same guys, no change. I must say that your approach to analyzing American politics by ignoring the existence of political parties is impressively rigorous. It might be hard to get a terribly complete picture though.
Since the remaining parts of the Republican party in Pennsylvania no longer share his views, it would be only polite of Specter to leave, and let them select a candidate more to their liking.
This will also enable the broader base of his constituents, who do appear to share his views, the opportunity to vote for him, which they would otherwise be denied by Pennsylvania's closed primary system.
Really, the primary system is premised on the assumption that people will run in the part that is best aligned with their views. Why should Specter be expected to buck that system?
"If he and his constituents share each others views, what does a party matter?"
He and his constituents share each others views. The Republican party does not share their views. What's so hard to understand?
What fraction of bills do you think Specter is willing to go to the mat for? To stand up to the leadership of his party and vote against their wishes, political consequences be dammed?
Specter is senior enough to get away with it, centrist, mavericky, whatever... He decides it's worth bucking the party leadership more than about anyone, and I imagine that will continue, but really, how often is it? 20% of the time? 30?
There is going to be some huge amount of Senate business where Specter (and other fence sitters) are close enough to undecided to go along with the party leadership, and those votes are going to go differently now.
Watch, particularly, how often Specter votes against a bill but doesn't support a filibuster of it.
"The Stimulus vote is the proof that the Republicans didn't have 41 votes to filibuster anything."
No, it's proof they didn't have 40 votes to filibuster the stimulus. They clearly had them to filibuster all sorts of other things.
"You can't filibuster with less than 41 votes."
There are 99 senators at present, check your math.
"There was exactly 1 test vote on cloture this session"
Oh come on. Regardless of your political bent, can we accept that Harry Reid can count to 1? Votes haven't been scheduled that don't have a Republican on board, because Republicans were taken at their word that they would filibuster everything. Republicans didn't filibuster anything that had the votes for cloture because they didn't want to look weak. Until they decided they were getting too many defections, so they'd make an example of Specter by forcing him to actually vote on the stimulus. Another shrewd tactic of political genius.
"What changed?"
The 80% of Senate action that was stalled because borderline Republicans like Specter didn't think was worth going to the mat against their own party for, is now up to whether the borderline Democrats think it's worth going to the mat against their party for. As the Democratic party is radically more powerful than the Republicans just now, going against them on a particular issue will be proportionally more expensive, and hence less likely.
All this takes effect after Franken gets seated of course.
So you think those 200,000 voters in Pennsylvania switched parties as a crass political maneuver? How is his switch different from theirs? 200,001 Pennsylvanians have=e found their political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
"Toomey was going to win"
Indicating Pennsylvania Republicans are not in line with Specter on issues.
"so he's going to try playing for the other team."
In the expectation they are more in line with him on issues.
"I didn't see him actually change any of his stances on the issues"
So that obviously speaks well of him.
Sorry, I thought you were going to be saying there was some sort of problem, did you mean the "Seriously, I love..." non-sarcastically?
No, he switched his party allegiance because he continues to believe the same things, which have always put him barely over the center line, and the Republican party has shrunk, shedding it's moderates, and hence moving to the right.
200K of his constituents, who presumably believe many of the same things as he, have made the same switch. What crass, invalid motives to you ascribe to them?
Let's see, if I wanted a "real" Republican, but all I was "offered" (for whatever that means in an election cycle he didn't run during) was a moderate like Specter, would I then become a Democrat? Is that the question you're asking? Is there some way this isn't a stupid question?
So you're saying Pennsylvania Republicans don't think he represents their views? Since he agrees, isn't it only proper of him to leave?
If (as he apparently thinks, and seems likely) the statewide voters will elect him, but the Republican primary voters will not, doesn't that make his move perfectly reasonable, even principled? His positions and those of the Pennsylvania Republicans are no longer aligned.
Public disclosure of private facts has been actionable since before the Constitution existed.
The only part of the constitution (as far as I can tell) that comes close to it at all is the first amendment. But there is no evidence that the framers of the first amendment intended that one could not be sued for what one said, and no court I am aware of has ever interpreted the first amendment in that way. The first amendment prevents the government from telling you you can't speak. But all the reasons individuals could sue you for what you said still apply. Public disclosure of private facts is one of these.
So I don't see the deterioration or small actors over time. This has been an actionable offense since before the constitution existed, and the constitution did nothing to change it.
"I'd like to see that ad. If it contains something as 'privacy guaranteed' or other fine prints..."
No fine print required. That's what "reasonable expectations" are all about.
I guess it sucks not being able to trick people into confiding embarrassing personal information and broadcasting it for your own amusement with no civil liability. But if that sounds like slavery to you, have you considered the possibility that you may be a moron?
Yes, it's easy to assume everyone who disagrees with you part of a grand conspiracy.
Intelligent conversations with adults are harder.
If you leave all your net worth in an unprotected pile of gold, and some guy comes by and steals it, it is probable I will have a low opinion of both of you.
In the case at hand, thinking the guy who sent his personal information to an improbable craiglist sex ad is an idiot does not prevent me from thinking the guy who poseted the ad and then published the information is an asshole.
You should not trust anonymous strangers on the internet, because they might be assholes who will abuse that trust. When someone fails to grasp this, how does that make the guy who abused their trust not an asshole? He is an asshole, that's the whole problem in the first place.
"Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public [oddstrument.com]. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable for broadcasting your public information to the world,"
Yes, obviously.
"So what if i make an email address that forwards your email verbatim to an email list? Is that the same..."
Yes, obviously.
You set up an ad that claims a particular contact method is a way to initiate a private person-to-person contact. Someone foolishly trust you. Saying, "Sucker! You should have known I might be a lying douchebag" doesn't make you not a lying douchebag.
Sounds pretty open and shut. Any idea why dozens of judges have consistently disagreed over the course of two centuries?
Hint: Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be sued for what you say after the fact. One reason for you to get sued is if what you said was false, but that's not the only one.
"Actually, none of that is true. Again, just look at the universities where the wealthy kids go and you'll find them to be extremely liberal. They don't call it 'the People's Republic of Berkeley' for nothing."
It's your impression that UC Berkely ($5K a semester) is a rich kids school?