Actually, from the sound of it, TI are preventing the hobbyists from distributing software that TI hold the copyright for and the hobbyists do not have permission to distribute - can't really see an issue there.
Its been several years since Google Maps made an appearance with that functionality, and still I have yet to see a decent third party library that can do it for my own projects.
oddly enough the shuttle has the same safety as soyuz with roughly 2% failure. Of course no one wants to actually say that. We have lost 2 shuttles, but have launched 2.5 times more shuttles/people than russia has 3 man capsules.
One point that has to be made is that with the Shuttle its 'manned or no flight', while the Soyuz system is actually three different 'configurations' for different situations - the Soyuz manned capsule for launching three people into orbit plus a small payload, the Progress unmanned capsule for launching a medium payload into orbit and the Soyuz booster for launching other payloads.
Based on the above, I think the whole Soyuz/Shuttle record needs to be looked at from a different angle - as already noted, with the Shuttle the people are sent up regardless of whether the core mission requires it, and thats not a good situation.
Yes it is arrogance - you are once again forcing your chosen definition on to other people, whether they like it or not. Just because the OSI have defined it in a particular way, and you (and others) have chosen to use that definition does not make it the only one, nor the overriding one regardless of your opinion on perceived convention, because no such convention exists - the very fact that we are having this conversation proves that.
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source. There is the possibility that that someone does not yet know what open source means, or that he is trying to twist its meaning, but there is a general convention about what we mean when we say "open source".
I'm sorry, but that's just arrogant. So if someone doesn't use your exact adopted meaning, then they either are ignorant or malicious? Your opinion is showing.
Uhm, I have absolutely no need to do any research at all and as such I am not being lazy - if you are referencing my "if they even did" comment, then I stand by that *regardless* of what their own website says.
You see, by using such terminology (enslavement), no matter what I say can be misconstrued or misrepresented to put me in bad light, when infact RMS's ideal already contains the right to enslave.
I find it amusing that straw man arguments are regularly derided here on Slashdot, but RMS's "Right to Read" story seems to be given a pass when its nothing but a straw man...
Re:The Internet as a business
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
With all due respect, the vast majority of 'information wants to be free' touting users today seem to be those happily downloading from TPB et al the content supplied by those "business interests". Or in other words, its justification for a given behaviour.
Since we have to rely on this PDF , and there is no way to prove that that code was actually in UNIX at the moment ( as it's closed , there's no way to check ).
I am left to conclude that it's much easier to copy from Linux (which is open ) , than from UNIX ( which is closed ).
In other words , using this PDF , i could also claim to SCO stole from Linux , and then implemented it in their commercial product , thus violating the GPL.
While I disagree with the SCO case, your assertion that its impossible to check is wrong - UNIX may be 'closed' but that doesn't mean that the code base is impossible to get hold of. One of the licenses you could buy was full source code access, and many companies and academic institutes took this license (I for example have seen the code base to AIX and HPUX several times at different places).
'Closed' doesn't always mean 'you can never have the source code', it can just mean 'you can't do what you want with the source code'. UNIX is one of these cases.
I would really love for something like this (or Baldurs Gate) on the iPad - I have been waiting for a decent RPG to come out for the iPhone platform since it was released.
When a car meets a person with a speed difference of 30mph, who generally comes off worse? I'd rather take the current situation than accelerate myself to 30mph without the extensive safety cage and crumple zones thanks.
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how
I passed my UK driving test in January 2008, and changing a tyre was not on either the theory or practical syllabuses, my instructor never mentioned it (and he supplied me with a 10 page list of the question-answer things that the tester will ask during the practical - changing a tyre is not on it, I just checked) and my tester never asked about it. None of the reading materials I used (and still have) mention it as a test requirement.
The UK test has part that are designed to ensure that you can keep a car running safely and economically - it covers such stuff as identifying a slack handbrake, testing levels and topping up fluids and knowing the legal limits on tyres, but it does not require you to be able to change a tyre.
Not everyone has high definition TV, and yet the BBC do broadcast in HD on some channels - should my lack of HD capability prevent others from benefiting? No.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, "because they want to".
Thats not a good answer.
Why should hobbyists be allowed to distribute TIs (buggy or out of date) software without permission?
Actually, from the sound of it, TI are preventing the hobbyists from distributing software that TI hold the copyright for and the hobbyists do not have permission to distribute - can't really see an issue there.
Its been several years since Google Maps made an appearance with that functionality, and still I have yet to see a decent third party library that can do it for my own projects.
oddly enough the shuttle has the same safety as soyuz with roughly 2% failure. Of course no one wants to actually say that. We have lost 2 shuttles, but have launched 2.5 times more shuttles/people than russia has 3 man capsules.
One point that has to be made is that with the Shuttle its 'manned or no flight', while the Soyuz system is actually three different 'configurations' for different situations - the Soyuz manned capsule for launching three people into orbit plus a small payload, the Progress unmanned capsule for launching a medium payload into orbit and the Soyuz booster for launching other payloads.
Based on the above, I think the whole Soyuz/Shuttle record needs to be looked at from a different angle - as already noted, with the Shuttle the people are sent up regardless of whether the core mission requires it, and thats not a good situation.
Yes it is arrogance - you are once again forcing your chosen definition on to other people, whether they like it or not. Just because the OSI have defined it in a particular way, and you (and others) have chosen to use that definition does not make it the only one, nor the overriding one regardless of your opinion on perceived convention, because no such convention exists - the very fact that we are having this conversation proves that.
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source. There is the possibility that that someone does not yet know what open source means, or that he is trying to twist its meaning, but there is a general convention about what we mean when we say "open source".
I'm sorry, but that's just arrogant. So if someone doesn't use your exact adopted meaning, then they either are ignorant or malicious? Your opinion is showing.
Hate to break it to you, but no they do not - the OSI do not hold a trademark on the term "open source".
Again with the "citation needed" rubbish - its not a claim, its an opinion and I do not need any "citation" for an opinion.
Uhm, I have absolutely no need to do any research at all and as such I am not being lazy - if you are referencing my "if they even did" comment, then I stand by that *regardless* of what their own website says.
Their definition is *a* valid one, regardless of the fact that they 'invented' the term (if they even did), they do not get a monopoly on it.
That's *an* open source definition, not *the* open source definition.
You see, by using such terminology (enslavement), no matter what I say can be misconstrued or misrepresented to put me in bad light, when infact RMS's ideal already contains the right to enslave.
Even under RMS's personal ideal you could never "do with information as you see fit".
I find it amusing that straw man arguments are regularly derided here on Slashdot, but RMS's "Right to Read" story seems to be given a pass when its nothing but a straw man...
With all due respect, the vast majority of 'information wants to be free' touting users today seem to be those happily downloading from TPB et al the content supplied by those "business interests". Or in other words, its justification for a given behaviour.
Since we have to rely on this PDF , and there is no way to prove that that code was actually in UNIX at the moment ( as it's closed , there's no way to check ) .
I am left to conclude that it's much easier to copy from Linux (which is open ) , than from UNIX ( which is closed ). In other words , using this PDF , i could also claim to SCO stole from Linux , and then implemented it in their commercial product , thus violating the GPL .
While I disagree with the SCO case, your assertion that its impossible to check is wrong - UNIX may be 'closed' but that doesn't mean that the code base is impossible to get hold of. One of the licenses you could buy was full source code access, and many companies and academic institutes took this license (I for example have seen the code base to AIX and HPUX several times at different places).
'Closed' doesn't always mean 'you can never have the source code', it can just mean 'you can't do what you want with the source code'. UNIX is one of these cases.
2250 times what exactly? The price of an mp3 or the value of unlimited international distribution rights?
The Final Fantasy games have never interested me unfortunately.
I would really love for something like this (or Baldurs Gate) on the iPad - I have been waiting for a decent RPG to come out for the iPhone platform since it was released.
When a car meets a person with a speed difference of 30mph, who generally comes off worse? I'd rather take the current situation than accelerate myself to 30mph without the extensive safety cage and crumple zones thanks.
The difference is?
Ahh looks like the affliction has also spread to the Troll moderation option.
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how
I passed my UK driving test in January 2008, and changing a tyre was not on either the theory or practical syllabuses, my instructor never mentioned it (and he supplied me with a 10 page list of the question-answer things that the tester will ask during the practical - changing a tyre is not on it, I just checked) and my tester never asked about it. None of the reading materials I used (and still have) mention it as a test requirement.
The UK test has part that are designed to ensure that you can keep a car running safely and economically - it covers such stuff as identifying a slack handbrake, testing levels and topping up fluids and knowing the legal limits on tyres, but it does not require you to be able to change a tyre.
Not everyone has high definition TV, and yet the BBC do broadcast in HD on some channels - should my lack of HD capability prevent others from benefiting? No.