what software does this on other platforms? Can you give us some names? In general you're not going to get specialty software written with the OSS model. The people who use the software must be the authors. Either by writing the code themselves or by hiring others.
Again, you are forgetting the intent of copyright. It is to create a limited monopoly for the author of a work.
That is not an ends, how can it be an intent? What's the purpose of this limited monopoly? I claim the purpose is to change the behaviour of artists and other creators of copyrightable work. You seem to claim that it is for either no purpose or to satisfy some inalienable right.
using CAPITALS doesn't make your argument any STRONGER. Believe it or not, a lot of people think more about their kids wellbeing than their own. So if copyright ended with the life of the artists and you were given the choice between dedicating your life to making great works of art or science vs say, aquiring a lot of real estate, you're going to choose the later. So copyright will have failed. Someone who had the ability to produce something great doesn't produce anything. That's why copyright was extended to a period after the death of the artist.
There is no WAY that the ORIGINAL copyright holder is going to benefit from a copyright 70 years after they are DEAD. How can a person benefit from something after they are dead?
Copyright isn't supposed to benefit authors, it is suppose to change their behaviour. Someone who might never create anything without an incentive may choose to write a great novel because they feel a responsibility to provide an inheritence to their children. That's why copyright is valid for 50 years after the death of the author (or whatever your country equivilent is).
I fully don't agree. I think Hurd is attempt to solve problems from eons ago. Namely: you have 50 people on a time sharing system and only those with root access can do kernel development and even if they do they risk taking down the machine for others. Well so what? We all have our own PCs now. There's no need for Hurd if this is the only goal.
I know I'm replying to a troll of a troll but what the hell. Suppose someone was upright and forthwith unlike this guy in the article. Suppose that person made a LOT of changes to an open source project. They tried to contribute the changes back to the open source project but they were ignored. The usual response at this point is to fork the project, creating a new open source project which is based on the old. This is considered normal and reasonable behaviour and leads to the great diversity of open source software that we have today. If most of the code is written by a single author (the new author) and the remainder of the code is written by an author who is ignoring his obligations in running an open source project, then why should the new author be required to stick with the original author's choice of license? The BSD folks would say "man, don't just rewrite that other dudes' code and you're free to change the license to whatever you want". Well I don't think that is the case do you? The new code will be a derived work of the old code, just as the changes were a derived work. In fact, to make it NOT a derived work you're going to have to go out of your way to do things in a brand new way. If that original code was fundimentally right, that means going out of your way to write bad code.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes?
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
Giving the user ways to run untrusted applications in chroot jails and with restricted library/syscall access is a good start. Almost all the ways to do this on any platform, linux or win32 or bsd or whatever, are unnecessarily complicated.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes?
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
I know the line is blurred very differently when it comes to Open Source software but the problem is not the user running rm -rf on their home dir. The problem is an untrusted application (one the user didn't write) doing the same. It's fair to say we can trust rm. It isn't fair to say we can trust any arbitary binary we download from the net. As for root vs non-root, the issue is mute because most binary distributed linux apps require root to install the software.
But what's funny is that many of us are not going to die. Medical science is going to keep those of us who can afford it alive forever - yeah, I know every generation says this, but ours is the first generation to have not only the means but the economic necessity for it. When I talk to the older generation they say "do you wanna work forever? How are you going to get by if you don't save for your retirement." To them work is something that they had to do but now (or soon) it will be over and they can do all the things they wanted to do. Where as the successful of my generation are the ones that can turn a profit doing what they love. Even if they retired tomorrow they'd keep on "working" cause it is what they do for fun.
Unlike the "golden generation" we don't all have kids. We don't all want kids like they did back then. A large percentage of my generation see children as an unacceptable burden. We don't have em, so why would we vote for a politician that considers their future interests over our immediate interests? Here in Australia we recently just had an election dominated by "family oriented" policy. This was squarely aimed at the last generation, not my generation. The vast amount of people my age (25-30) and living in the cities see child raising as a chore. If we have children we make as much use of professional child carers as possible. Assuming we don't all change our mind tomorrow (and after all, that isn't too unlikely, the maternal drive will probably hit the females of my generation in just another 5 to 8 years) will the next generation be just like us? From what I've seen it will, and if it isn't then it sure is going to have an uphill battle. So where will the generation after that come from? If are large percentage of us just stop having kids then where will this new generation come from? And if there is no next generation, then why bother making a better world for them?
I wonder what other sites are considered "news" because the geeks who read the queue don't happen to know anything about the field that the site supports.
Slashdot Mirror
what software does this on other platforms? Can you give us some names? In general you're not going to get specialty software written with the OSS model. The people who use the software must be the authors. Either by writing the code themselves or by hiring others.
I really hope that this guy didn't get a grant to research this.
You have it backwards. The war is fought to ensure the poor are around. Otherwise all that wealth would build up and everyone would be rich.
Well duh, *doublethink*.
Again, you are forgetting the intent of copyright. It is to create a limited monopoly for the author of a work.
That is not an ends, how can it be an intent? What's the purpose of this limited monopoly? I claim the purpose is to change the behaviour of artists and other creators of copyrightable work. You seem to claim that it is for either no purpose or to satisfy some inalienable right.
using CAPITALS doesn't make your argument any STRONGER. Believe it or not, a lot of people think more about their kids wellbeing than their own. So if copyright ended with the life of the artists and you were given the choice between dedicating your life to making great works of art or science vs say, aquiring a lot of real estate, you're going to choose the later. So copyright will have failed. Someone who had the ability to produce something great doesn't produce anything. That's why copyright was extended to a period after the death of the artist.
I'm looking at the source right now and there's some files that look like an ARM backend to me.
If someone violates the GPL in a country that doesn't have copyright laws you've got about zero chance of enforcing the GPL.
it has something to do with Freedom.
That's already the case.
It's a UI patch. If they had a proper patch submission process, a mailing list, or some delegation of work, they'd get a lot more done.
Unlike the US:h for a country started by slave owners it sure hasn't changed much at all.
Britney Spears != "useful Arts"
Copyright isn't supposed to benefit authors, it is suppose to change their behaviour. Someone who might never create anything without an incentive may choose to write a great novel because they feel a responsibility to provide an inheritence to their children. That's why copyright is valid for 50 years after the death of the author (or whatever your country equivilent is).
Can ya get him to accept my patch then? I've only emailed it to him about 5 times. Nothin' like gettin' snubbed by someone you're doing free work for.
I fully don't agree. I think Hurd is attempt to solve problems from eons ago. Namely: you have 50 people on a time sharing system and only those with root access can do kernel development and even if they do they risk taking down the machine for others. Well so what? We all have our own PCs now. There's no need for Hurd if this is the only goal.
more commonly refered to as "that virtual reality wanker".
In regards to your sig, you might want to read a comical rant I made about the Copenhagen interpretation, it's called Why Physicists Can't Fight.
What's your opinion on MIT's biobricks initiative?
I know I'm replying to a troll of a troll but what the hell. Suppose someone was upright and forthwith unlike this guy in the article. Suppose that person made a LOT of changes to an open source project. They tried to contribute the changes back to the open source project but they were ignored. The usual response at this point is to fork the project, creating a new open source project which is based on the old. This is considered normal and reasonable behaviour and leads to the great diversity of open source software that we have today. If most of the code is written by a single author (the new author) and the remainder of the code is written by an author who is ignoring his obligations in running an open source project, then why should the new author be required to stick with the original author's choice of license? The BSD folks would say "man, don't just rewrite that other dudes' code and you're free to change the license to whatever you want". Well I don't think that is the case do you? The new code will be a derived work of the old code, just as the changes were a derived work. In fact, to make it NOT a derived work you're going to have to go out of your way to do things in a brand new way. If that original code was fundimentally right, that means going out of your way to write bad code.
Giving the user ways to run untrusted applications in chroot jails and with restricted library/syscall access is a good start. Almost all the ways to do this on any platform, linux or win32 or bsd or whatever, are unnecessarily complicated.
I know the line is blurred very differently when it comes to Open Source software but the problem is not the user running rm -rf on their home dir. The problem is an untrusted application (one the user didn't write) doing the same. It's fair to say we can trust rm. It isn't fair to say we can trust any arbitary binary we download from the net. As for root vs non-root, the issue is mute because most binary distributed linux apps require root to install the software.
But what's funny is that many of us are not going to die. Medical science is going to keep those of us who can afford it alive forever - yeah, I know every generation says this, but ours is the first generation to have not only the means but the economic necessity for it. When I talk to the older generation they say "do you wanna work forever? How are you going to get by if you don't save for your retirement." To them work is something that they had to do but now (or soon) it will be over and they can do all the things they wanted to do. Where as the successful of my generation are the ones that can turn a profit doing what they love. Even if they retired tomorrow they'd keep on "working" cause it is what they do for fun.
Unlike the "golden generation" we don't all have kids. We don't all want kids like they did back then. A large percentage of my generation see children as an unacceptable burden. We don't have em, so why would we vote for a politician that considers their future interests over our immediate interests? Here in Australia we recently just had an election dominated by "family oriented" policy. This was squarely aimed at the last generation, not my generation. The vast amount of people my age (25-30) and living in the cities see child raising as a chore. If we have children we make as much use of professional child carers as possible. Assuming we don't all change our mind tomorrow (and after all, that isn't too unlikely, the maternal drive will probably hit the females of my generation in just another 5 to 8 years) will the next generation be just like us? From what I've seen it will, and if it isn't then it sure is going to have an uphill battle. So where will the generation after that come from? If are large percentage of us just stop having kids then where will this new generation come from? And if there is no next generation, then why bother making a better world for them?
I wonder what other sites are considered "news" because the geeks who read the queue don't happen to know anything about the field that the site supports.