That's great. Thing about the library of congress, it's in Washington DC. Most people, are not. Compare this to the collected works of Shakespeare or the Bible.. copyright reduces availability.. that's the purpose of copyright, to make something scarce that would otherwise be plentiful, so people can profit off it. Oh, and the promotion of progress or something.. yeah.
The vast majority of it is *not* available. Most books do not see a second print run. There's literally millions of films that never made it to VCR and millions more that never made it to DVD. This is not because people are uninterested in buying them. It's because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make new copies and they choose not to. It's more profitable for them to print copies of new works for which they can ask a higher price.
Well, for starters, I keep my memories in my head.. but if you're talking about records and history then I think copyright is a bigger culprit than digitization any day. Most of the culture of the 20th century is unavailable because the copyright holders have carte blanche to suppress it so it doesn't compete with their latest offerings.
It's one thing to care about the environment. It's another thing entirely to use the force of criminal law to impose your conservationist concerns on the rest of society.
No. You fail. To understand what the LGPL means you need to actually read the LGPL. I know it's scary, but there ya go. The provisions actually say that you have to permit reverse engineering of the application, and take no action to permit said reverse engineering, so that one can debug changes to the LGPL library. The purpose of these provisions is to allow someone to fix problems in the LGPL library and have your application work with those changes.
Note the words "reverse engineering". If you forbid reverse engineering, as typical EULAs do, for any purpose, then that is forbidding reverse engineering for debugging modifications to the library. So they at least need to modify their EULA to permit reverse engineering for this purpose. And it also means they can't put any anti-debugging tricks in the application, because it will interfere with that reverse engineering.
This is true. And you no longer have to worry about the insanity of Trolltech's lawyers who claimed that you couldn't do private commercial development with the GPL licensed library.
For too many years the GPL has been killing adoption of Qt. That's a fact. Maybe it shouldn't have. Maybe people should be willing to be dictated to on what license they can use for their product because they dare to use the Qt framework. Maybe that's your opinion.
Of course, now that so many people are piling on-board to use Qt thanks to the license change, I wonder how many of them have actually bothered to read the LGPL. My favourite part is section 4.
You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications,
Yeah, didn't see that did ya? Almost every boiler plate EULA includes a clause prohibiting reverse engineering and I wonder how many have not been updated to comply with the LGPL (thankfully a lot of us can just ignore these restrictions as the government in our part of the world recognizes reverse engineering as a right that cannot be contracted out of).
I'll be looking for violations.. just for shits and giggles.
Or collecting solar power is considered so primitive to an "advanced" civilization that your prediction that stars are going to blink out from them building solar collectors around them is just naive.
You specifically mentioned RSI, as if it was the same thing as CTS. My claim was that you get CTS from trying to reduce movement. You may disagree with me, but at least get my argument right first.
What's so fucking hard to understand here? You can't have a "market" of things that are free. That's why I say "there is no market". Opera used to moan and complain about everyone giving away the browser for free.. why should we think their attitude has changed? Just because they finally got with the program?
Slashdot Mirror
That's great. Thing about the library of congress, it's in Washington DC. Most people, are not. Compare this to the collected works of Shakespeare or the Bible.. copyright reduces availability.. that's the purpose of copyright, to make something scarce that would otherwise be plentiful, so people can profit off it. Oh, and the promotion of progress or something.. yeah.
The vast majority of it is *not* available. Most books do not see a second print run. There's literally millions of films that never made it to VCR and millions more that never made it to DVD. This is not because people are uninterested in buying them. It's because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make new copies and they choose not to. It's more profitable for them to print copies of new works for which they can ask a higher price.
Well, for starters, I keep my memories in my head.. but if you're talking about records and history then I think copyright is a bigger culprit than digitization any day. Most of the culture of the 20th century is unavailable because the copyright holders have carte blanche to suppress it so it doesn't compete with their latest offerings.
d) take a gun to school and shoot the teacher.
I keed. I keed.
Also known as the Geek Defense. Hope it works as well for you as it did for Hans ;)
He's a suit. 'nuff said.
Actually read the article.
Huh? If they made the price of 100W lightbulbs excessive then it would affect my wallet, but they didn't, they banned it.
Ya, and such an attitude can be used to justify anything.
Dude, they banned the sane of 100W bulbs.
As in, you sell it, you go to jail.
It's one thing to care about the environment. It's another thing entirely to use the force of criminal law to impose your conservationist concerns on the rest of society.
Heh, good point.
Embrace - you are here.
Extend
Extinguish
No. You fail. To understand what the LGPL means you need to actually read the LGPL. I know it's scary, but there ya go. The provisions actually say that you have to permit reverse engineering of the application, and take no action to permit said reverse engineering, so that one can debug changes to the LGPL library. The purpose of these provisions is to allow someone to fix problems in the LGPL library and have your application work with those changes.
Hehe. So according to that logic, there's a market for shit because people are making money from toilets.
Whatever you say man.
Note the words "reverse engineering". If you forbid reverse engineering, as typical EULAs do, for any purpose, then that is forbidding reverse engineering for debugging modifications to the library. So they at least need to modify their EULA to permit reverse engineering for this purpose. And it also means they can't put any anti-debugging tricks in the application, because it will interfere with that reverse engineering.
This is true. And you no longer have to worry about the insanity of Trolltech's lawyers who claimed that you couldn't do private commercial development with the GPL licensed library.
For too many years the GPL has been killing adoption of Qt. That's a fact. Maybe it shouldn't have. Maybe people should be willing to be dictated to on what license they can use for their product because they dare to use the Qt framework. Maybe that's your opinion.
Of course, now that so many people are piling on-board to use Qt thanks to the license change, I wonder how many of them have actually bothered to read the LGPL. My favourite part is section 4.
You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications,
Yeah, didn't see that did ya? Almost every boiler plate EULA includes a clause prohibiting reverse engineering and I wonder how many have not been updated to comply with the LGPL (thankfully a lot of us can just ignore these restrictions as the government in our part of the world recognizes reverse engineering as a right that cannot be contracted out of).
I'll be looking for violations.. just for shits and giggles.
become?
There is no search engine market. There is, however, an online ad placement market which is driven somewhat by search engine popularity.
They did not.
It's not my fault you have such a short memory.
And since Opera became free of charge, their desktop revenue has increased by 50-100% quarterly!
I don't even know what you can possibly mean by "desktop revenue".
Or collecting solar power is considered so primitive to an "advanced" civilization that your prediction that stars are going to blink out from them building solar collectors around them is just naive.
You specifically mentioned RSI, as if it was the same thing as CTS. My claim was that you get CTS from trying to reduce movement. You may disagree with me, but at least get my argument right first.
As I said to the other dude (and I wish Slashdot readers would learn basic etiquette and read the entire thread before replying), RSI != CTS.
What's so fucking hard to understand here? You can't have a "market" of things that are free. That's why I say "there is no market". Opera used to moan and complain about everyone giving away the browser for free.. why should we think their attitude has changed? Just because they finally got with the program?