The clones came because IBM designed - by choice, but not really considering the concept of a "clone" - the IBM "Personal Computer" around cheap, off-the-shelf parts. The BIOS was simple, and (relatively) easy to re-engineer. As far as the "reverse engineering" part: any decent electronics enthusiast with an oscilloscope could have done so. ("Off the shelf parts...")
They didn't create an "open" system, in terms of planning-/allowing-for compatibles. They actually only copied Apple's ][ regard to the slotted design. It was an obvious way to allow for an upgradable system, which had many perceived positive aspects for recurring business and loyalties of their purchasers.
Even so, IBM's biggest threat was not the clones per se, but rather IBM's unwillingness to be competitive. The technology changes from the PC to the XT, finally to the AT were too little, and far too long in the coming. IBM was still the 800 pound gorilla, so they led the industry in terms of the design, but not in performance.
The openness of the PC architecture wasn't the problem. The clones weren't the problem. IBM's pride, its hubris, was.
I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me?
I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two...;)
With applicable apologies, as appropriate...:)
Larz
I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me?
I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two...;)
With applicable apologies...:)
Larz
Any company that uses (L)GPL code is legally bound by the applicable license.
While I would never advocate they should make all their code viewable by The World + 1 (thereby making their proprietary code "open source"), any code they did use makes them, for those parts, liable for the license terms.
Presumably they've specified any parts so bound in various "info" listings. Presumably the FSF didn't get an advance iPhone, nor any type of release from Apple specifying such, before they made their statement. (Even so, I'd suggest it's a rather innocuous statement.)
The point is, various parties are curious about "how much", for various reasons. (I wager any self-respecting OSS advocate would be curious for bragging rights, for example!;)
For those trying to make gold from this hay, I have a suggestion: the only entity needing to "beware" to any FSF saber rattling is Apple, and it's doubtful the FSF would take any (legal) action without due diligence, isn't it? (Now, if the FSF were a deep-pockets competitor, that might be a different story, but last I heard/read... they're not exactly rolling on dough...;)
I'm not unaware that Apple (and/or any other companies) "uses" open source software. But (primarily) only in the same sense that a TV manufacturer "uses" those resistors in the television set they make.
This sort of statement seems absurd to me: the purpose of the device/software is the end user. Other than those who simply love to create, I'd wager that any company would skip the whole "developpement" thing and go straight to the "Tada!" stage of product sales any day of the week. For a software/device company, the open source code is merely a means to an end, not the end itself.
It is intended to be the tool of we, the purchasers of finished product. So I reassert: WE are the "user".
---
Ahhh where to start? Ok. First of all GPL2 was never about the hardware.
I've never asserted anything else. But the spirit of the license made the short-sighted (in retrospect) assumption you state. How else would you explain the "need" (by FSF/RMS) for a v3...?
---
RE: Tivo...
I have never, nor would ever, talk about the lack of a "right" for TiVo (et al, and anybody else with their respective software/device) to make whatever toaster they wish. And, indeed, it's for me, the buyer, to "beware" and make a judgement call as to whether I wish to purchase a thing despite its shortcomings.
Firstly, I assert it's not just, nor morally "right" for TiVo to sell a locked device. But they have every right to. And I purchased it anyway. But that still doesn't invalidate my feelings on the matter: there's no real reason/need to have most of the system locked - preventing me, the owner, from "tinkering".
Secondly, TiVo made a choice - for business reasons - to sell at below cost (way-back-when; tell me another fable that they're still under-priced with current hardware costs). That's still their choice. That their business model was based on the long-term subscription model isn't my fault.
Furthermore, the parts of the system that deal with the "locking the box except to subscribers" is surely separate, and therefore separately lockable, from "the rest of the system"? Then the arbitrariness of the lock-down is moot on this point. I understand perfectly well the various reasons TiVo's are locked as much as they are. I could, however, debate the reasonableness/validity of the vast majority of them.
Lastly, I hope you don't think I'm "anti TiVo". I'm not. (Did I mention I bought 2, plus one for parts?) I merely pointed out some obvious, honest items. (To make my argument.) And even those who are "anti TiVo" - at least the majority that I've read/seen - aren't complaining about getting TiVo equipment at sub-cost levels - alternative, "generic" hardware isn't much different in cost than actual TiVo equipment. Matter of fact, any "anti TiVo" people I've read/seen seem to focus on some complaints that seem perfectly valid to me, like:
[1] Many of the "shortcomings" I've mentioned, and others, and the fact that since the software is locked, workarounds cannot be made by the end users. This is only necessary as TiVo themselves see no business case for making the changes desired.
[2] That upgrading, service, repair, and other such things are severely limited, technically illegal, and/or impossible because of many software lock-downs TiVo chose to do; lock-downs not necessary for their subscription service, but just for General Principals.
[3] TiVo hardware is locked-down with regards recordings in ways other devices/technologies already aren't, and this is more a complaint about "rights holders" than TiVo themselves, except that TiVo "caves" to their desires. (And this is understandably regrettably due to business necessity: see "ReplayTV"...)
[4] A lack of hardware sold at a "reasonable cost/pr
I've never thought, nor would I, that There Can Be Only ONE! (Namely, the GPL.)
"Proprietary" isn't a "boogeyman".
But, for the user, who makes up the vast majority of entities who deals with the software, proprietary software is much less free than GPL'd.
Regarding BSD-stylings: indeed, this is a slightly restricted version of public domain. It's open source. It allows commercial entities to use it as a base, modify it, and then keep their modifications closed. (NOT speaking to you using a BSD system, but in the way others may USE said BSD source.)
But then the freedoms of the users are now, again, limited.
I'm not a zealot, nor crazy: it is honestly a question of who has the (most) freedom, and who "should" have the most freedom.
As someone who purchases/uses/relies on software every day, I certainly value the freedom to not be forced to pay all over again for software I purchased already to get the new version that is now fixed (but mostly the same old program). From a software company's perspective, I understand the beauty of the business plan.
But as the user of said software: it's not fair, it's arbitrarily ridiculous, and it's ridiculously unnecessary.
I don't think most who advocate a GPL-like world dream of "forcing" or "outlawing" other people's freedoms. We simply clearly state one truth about the situation: if you're a user of software, if you rely upon it - as the vast majority of us do - then it works to make it a better situation for us. At the expense of some freedoms a company might value. (But then they never "have" to use GPL-like-licensed code.)
I don't believe GPL advocates are debating "choice", we're debating "what would work in your (as a user) best interest?"
Course, I could be wrong.;)
For me, at least, that's my view, my point.
Tell me, though: why are those who have a bitter taste regarding the GPL view those who value/prefer it as zealots, or crazy, or trying to force the choice of others, or against other people doing what they prefer, etc.?
Honestly, I'm curious (not trolling, not picking a fight, just honestly curious). As I've said in a prior post, most pro-GPL'ers seem even-keeled. (There are always exceptions, but to me at least, doesn't seem the rule.)
Perhaps some of my posts seemed a bit sarcastic. That's me. Mea culpa. But I'm certainly no "zealot"...
Indeed, I assure you... well, as I misinterpreted what you'd written... if it had been as I'd read it, then to suggest it was trolling would have been valid.:) As for the bold/caps: there are few means with HTML to stress things, let alone break up the tone of writing. I try to convey the way I speak (not monotone;), but can fail regularly... - L
Oh, pish! I was/am breathing just fine, thank you; sorry if you took me too harshly. (Certainly wasn't intending to be "personal"...:)
There is no legal obligation, but there is a moral one. Yes, I know they're a business, designed to make money. But was Apple really founded to be only that...?
Still, I would never speak that they have no "right" to do as they please. But I don't think it's "right" to artificially lock up a marvelous device. I disagree that opening it up would be fiscal suicide, nor bad business. As they disagree, or at least find it more advantageous to do as they have, obviously my one opinion has no bearing. But that doesn't change what I believe is a valid position: not only would an open software architecture - note I didn't say "open source", although that would be great, too;) - be morally better, more helpful to humanity, it would make an iPhone many orders of magnitude more popular, influential, and useful.
As for them selling well: I'm sure they'll continue to. Without any serious comparable competition (and I've yet to see any on the horizon), I'm sure demand will outstrip supply (at full capacity, even!;) for a long time. I hope it does, as I respect the marvel of design, engineering (the autopsy anandtech did shows this amazingly), thought, and even courage.
I just think it could be so much more.
And the "love it or leave it" answer ("Buy something else then.") doesn't seem honest nor reasonable to me. It only works with commodities, and even then, only when there's legitimate competition (in terms of service, price, etc.).
Apple has a (well-deserved, and honest, and respected [by me at least]) monopoly on this object. If I, and others, would like to see changes to it, who else to suggest/complain to other than the manufacturer?
The parent made no claim on the iPhone (in general).
As to "it is none of your business...": can't the parent, and me, too, and anybody else, dream and want Apple (and others) to make cooler, more-open, freer devices/software?
The parent, nor anybody else, can force Apple (or any other Company) to do/not do things with their devices/software. I think we're all well aware of that fact. Nor has anybody argued for/to that concept.
So, why do you argue about it? What dog to you have in that hunt? And if none, why is it somehow your business to get in the mix and chastise?
If you dislike the terms, don't buy it. Let the rest of us make our own decision.
Tell us: why do you fee threatened? The parent, nor anybody else, would ever dream of taking away your freedom.
Matter of fact, we all hope, and advocate (not "try to force") for a day that would grant you even more freedom and choice than to simply accept the scraps companies see fit to allow you...
Granted there may be some things I would like it to do that it won't. Buy something else then.
Like what? Only Apple makes an iPhone. If I like 60-99.999999843% of how it works, I have no right to wish it either did better, and/or that I had the ability/right to change it myself? (Or, to apply a patch made by someone who knows more/better than I.)
What if I want to upgrade it (in way[s] Apple doesn't explicitly provide)? Repair, replace, etc.? WHAT IF, YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I'D LIKE TO SEVERELY MODIFY IT TO A NEW FUNCTIONALITY I DESIRE FOR IT?
By your (il)logic, I have neither the right to do so, nor should I. Actually, you seem to be saying that this current model/scenario is a Great Thing, and The Way Things Should Be. Heaven forbid we, we mere mortals, we Users, have any more freedom than They deem fit...
Obviously no sane, rational person thinks There Should Be A Law! to force companies from opening their proprietary software/devices.
Without open software for these glorious devices that are all programmable computers, we have less freedom with the things we buy. ARTIFICIAL limitations.
The argument is NOT about the rights (nor forced compliance) of The Companies. It's about each of us having the rights to the devices we purchase that are ARTIFICIALLY restricted by their makers.
Why is that position, that ideal, a "bad" thing...?
While the slant of/. is generally one of "we like the GPL and what it stands for", I must say...
[1] Most posts by pro-GPL'ers seem to be attempts to enlighten and/or correct misinterpretations/mis-characterizations. There are fanboys of ever strip, to be sure, but most pro-GPL folk seem less zealot-like and simply more annoyed by the FUD'ers.
[2] Most posts decrying the GPL generally fall in to the unhinged category for me: it's as if it's the most detrimental threat to capitalism since...nothing, really, but they're out there!
I mean, am I living the past many years in some sort of poorly written Twilight Zone episode? The fearful, nut-job hoards are actually the anti-GPL peeps, who then yell as loud as possible, at every chance, spin the genuine FUD, get downright rude, name-call, ridiculously exaggerate, post false dilemmas, and then wrap up every post with such epithets as "FSF zealots".
Did we accidentally piss in their cornflakes? Is it penis-envy?
Or am I just "too naive/jaded to see 'the truth'"??
I don't believe so, if for no other reason than they never seem to provide evidence, genuine counter-argument, and/or honestly say JUST WHAT PROBLEM(S) THEY HAVE WITH A WORLD WERE THEY WOULD HAVE MORE FREEDOM WITH THEIR DEVICES/SOFTWARE...
Also, since their argument generally hinges on the limits the GPL forces upon poor, little, defenseless software/device companies... you know, the ones that are somehow magically forced to base their projects upon GPL code, versus do it the old fashioned way: keep reinventing the wheel in-house.
If my tinfoil hat weren't in the shop, I'd swear most of them are on the Microsoft dole...;)
Sincerely,
Confused (AKA: Larz)
--
But, specifically to this post: this is tiredly disingenuous... please explain to all of us what's wrong with requesting, wishing, wanting a company that makes a product we want to be just a bit better is "a bad thing"? "Unreasonable"? "Ridiculous"? Indeed, if I have not the need, if another product is more to my liking, if a different one is more in my budget - if any at all ever are - I, of course, am free to vote with my wallet.
But that wouldn't stop me from dreaming a little dream...
Am I to believe you think it right and true that I don't have a "right" do to so? To wish companies would become any sort of Corporate Citizen?
The statement you make, Sir, is void of merit.
The argument isn't that "we" have a problem with those who buy a device because it's "good enough" for them. (And/or they are willing to shrug their shoulders and make do. This is basically the way I am about my TiVo's...) It's that we'd like more from the devices/software companies make. And most importantly for the software/devices WE buy (or at least dream of purchasing).
"I will not feed the trolls... I will NOT feed the trolls..."
Ah, but assuming you're being some-sort of sincere here...
Let's use your analogy. I'll clean it up for you:
Are we, The Users, the players in a schoolyard, "freer" if a bully, A Corporation, is allowed to beat up upon us by locking us out of the software/devices we purchased from them?
You tell me. (My answer would be, uh... "no"...)
The GPL is about YOUR freedom. MY freedom. NOT Apple's, Microsoft's, whatever able-to-take-care-of-themselves entity you, and for-some-unknown-reason flipped-out apologists like you, "defend".
Even going with your ill-chosen perspective of is there a state of "freer" in a world that would be dominated by the GPL, well, let's see...
Proprietary software: the few who own/work at The Company have more freedom than the vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users. The majority's freedoms are stifled by the few.
GPL'd software: the few who own/work at The Company have a (perceived) lack of freedom in that they have to allow us access to the whole device/software they sold us, including the ability to change, upgrade, repair, whatever, it. That annoying little "car with a welded shut versus not welded shut engine compartment" analogy comes to mind. The vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users now have more freedom, though the few now face some (perceived) limitations.
You tell me: which system has a generally higher freedom quotient...?
The problem I have is the FSF is apparently spreading accusations that Apple may have violated the terms of the GPL.
I just Googled for the quote from Peter Brown - not the *complete* quote, but enough to key for it - and found 4, count 'em, ***4*** links. 3 were blog listings referring back to/., then/. The original seems to originate from TFA...
Thus, they, as in the FSF, certainly isn't *spreading* "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"...
FURTHERMORE, if one bothers to read (and comprehend) the quote, it's a generalization: there is (L)GPL code on the iPhone. Wouldn't we all be curious "how much"...
Is there, or is there not any that GPLv3 covers? NO! (Well, DUH!)
Is there any that v2 would force Apple to "unlockdown" their new baby? NO!
The point is not that Apple/iPhone is infringing, but that if the code in question were under GPLv3 (not v2, and not the LGPL), then, at least the portions/code covered by said license, would be disallowed from being "locked down" by Apple.
The point is users deserve - and some of us actually WANT - un-crippled gear. For our own reasons. It's OUR gear. (The company gave up rights to it upon sale; we're not licensing, nor leasing it.)
The point of the F'n Art is NOT that Apple IS infringing, but in a perfect world they WOULD be, and so wouldn't do so - either from removing the thumb screws from their devices, and/or using non-GPL code. (Please don't belaborly argue "There's no GPL'd code!" It's a non-issue. It's quite beside the point.)
To decry Mr. Brown's comment is to take him out of context and to change/insert words where there aren't any.
YES, the FSF wants a world where TiVo's AREN'T locked down. Nor iPhones. Nor any other device that has a general purpose, programmable CPU.
I want to live in that world, too.
THAT is the point of the GPLv3. Of the article discussing the relative theme of the iPhone and GPLv3 being released at the same time. Context. Relevance. Topicalness.
If he wants to publicly attack users (and supporters) of the GPL and create his own version of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about whether it is safe to issue or use GPL software then who are we to question his reasoning.
I really don't understand statements/attitudes like this one. WE are the users of GPL'd software, NOT APPLE! They happen to be a company that wants to save some time, (more easily) ensure higher quality software, get some publicity/good-karma, etc., by utilizing - even if only a base - OSS. That they still believe that "propriety software" is where it's at, that's why they use mostly BSD licensed parts. The (L)GPL'd parts were used... due to greater maturity? Greater flexibility? Whatever the reason(s), surely Apple had it/them!
(Regarding Apple still holding on to the proprietary software model: I'd counter that people buy an iPod/iPhone due to the entire package. Being that they're affordable to middle-class++ people, but the bulk, certainly of the "cooler models", are relatively expensive [but OH-so cheap for what they are!;], they're definitely a status symbol. Apple will always hold the trademark for the logo, name, etc. THOSE are the crown jewels, not the underlying software. W
Neither the article, nor the FSF quote-giver claim the GLPv3 covers *anything*.
Sadly, you, and many other/.-ers either don't recognize, or don't care, that various "claims" aren't being made, but, rather, this is an article about linked themes.
The kind of un-hackability of the iPhone is one of the things v3 is meant to address. The goal is (from the FSF and its supporters) that all GPL code be moved to a v3 license. Obviously, v2 (or v1!;) code has the same status, but newer, more up-to-date (via The Community) code would be.
Then TiVo and Apple (iPhone) wouldn't use **GPL** code and still lock the owners, the users, out of said **GPL'd** code/program - out from modifying, updating, whatever.
It's a dream, but for most of the biggest companies/their products, for the foreseeable future, this obviously won't come to be. As has already been said by others, they'd just use older forks, use other-licensed OSS, and/or go back to purely proprietary code.
v3 doesn't, in and of itself, change anything. But Stallman/FSF hope it can/will/might. If nothing else, it's the point that counts.
And I, for one, agree: it's my black box, damn it! Let me tinker, update, repair, modify, speed-up, secure, whatever, MY stuff! I already paid you, and there'll always be early adopters/mindless "consumers" to keep you afloat... they don't believe it, but I, and people like me, ARE NOT THEIR TARGET CUSTOMER! Not in the "treadmill" aspect, anyway. I choose when, how, what, and for what monetary threshold I'll make a purchase.
The point lost on them, and their apologists, is that those who are NOT like me don't want to, need to, and/nor like to "tinker" with their stuff.
So their desire to paranoidly "protect" their business plan at my expense floors - and GALLS - me.
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.
We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using [SOME!] GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
Emphasis mine.
Your brilliant response?
Whoa there! FSF makes an accusation and you swallow it without question? There is no proof that there is any GPL software in the iPhone and until such proof becomes available, how are you any better than RIAA or SCO in assuming otherwise?
It's generally known - or at least reasonably assumed, after figuring they'd reuse rather than rewrite working code used in OSX - that the FSF-rep-given quote is true. There aresome (L)GPL'd items used.
You indirectly assert - or disingenuously "suggest" - that "we" don't "know" that.
Fine, bell the cat: cite your sources, your contradictory evidence, and/or your "reasoning" that Apple'd abandon the work they'd already done on major pieces of the (presumably obviously recycled) code from their other product(s), namely OSX...
Regarding your laughable assertion that "it is not that much more difficult to rewrite than it is to reuse":
[1] Then why on earth would they use/contribute-to OSS?
and
[2] You claim that's what you'd do... really? What project(s)/company(/ies) have you written your proprietary code for...?
Wait, I may be mistaken... are those crickets chirping...!?;)
For practical purposes, the term "piracy", as applies to copyright, should be left to its older, but less romantic usage: large scale duplication and sale in lieu of the real article. The reason this is illegal is the original intent of copyright (speaking as an American about our Constitutional notion of copyright): it's a protection of business, sure, but for the more important goal of disseminating information and increasing the collective wealth, both figuratively - as in "mental" wealth - and literally. Protect the business interests of copyright holders, sure, but, along with trade mark law - which, contrary to popular myth, is about protecting the PURCHASER, -not- (especially) the seller - PROTECT THE END PURCHASER, THE CITIZEN.
But file sharing is hardly "piracy". Regardless of how worry-warts of Media Giants would puff up about.
The vast majority of people are "normal"; we have "normal" wealth, which means it's LIMITED. We have limited discretionary funds. We must therefore be selective in how we use it.
Blanket-labeling of file-sharers as "thieves" belies this.
We have only so much money to spend on life's fluff: movies, the theater, dining, gas, rentals, live performances/concerts, museums, books, pre-recorded items, cable TV, software, video games, etc.
It's convenient to believe the world is so simple that "if people have to pay for something, they will." It's a logical fallacy. You moral-superiority types must get along great with the doomsdayers of Big Media. Yes, I said "Big Media" - they're the only ones beating this tired, dead horse.
It's a simple mind-game you can play at home: if you have limited funds to spend, and something drops off the list of priorities for you, would you still buy that thing that you can't afford that's no longer on your priority list?
Honest truth is that many hoard. They'd never buy all they have if they "had" to. They download all the movies/CD's/video games just for bragging rights. MANY of them will OFTEN actually BUY something that they truly value.
Painting all file-sharers as cheapskates also ignores another truth in the argument: people are either "collector" types, or not. Are either "I do it the 'right' way because it's more convenient", or not. I mean this: if you're not prone to buying item X in the first place, you're not stealing it in the second place if you download it. You're decidedly NOT in the "loss" column. Similarly, if you typically purchase movies/CD's/games in stores, even if you -could- download it for free, you're still typically going to purchase what you truly value anyway.
And by value, this means different things to different people. Some of us prefer/like the cover art, liner notes, "extras", and/or the mere convenience of having separate media that's in a convenient package which I may place upon my shelf when not in use. These are all valid reasons why some us PREFER to buy CD's, DVD's, and/or video games.
Media Giants, with regards to music groups specifically, have gone to great lengths over the years to hearken back to the days of yesteryear when bands/singers were a dime a dozen; where it was their one-hit wonder that mattered, not The Group. This is better in their eyes in that it keeps artists at a negotiating disadvantage. Unfortunately, their shortsightedness breeds another outcome that they DON'T like: disposable, generic music/artists have no value. Silly boys...
Sorry, I started to get off target. The point is, no, gentle reader, people don't "always" get for free what they -can-, but what they choose to. And most of us supplant one form of frivolous purchase for another, so that the sum total of our purchases are STILL going to Big Media. They complain we're stealing their movies. Okay, but I'm still buying CD's, and/or more of those. Or vice versa. They can't get blood from a stone, nor money from an empty piggy bank: if I don't have i
Many, sadly here on Slashdot, too, subscribe to the thought that "artists *deserve*" this-or-that. That it's their "right" for such-and-such. Okay, let's accept that for a moment. Then riddle me this:
[1] (Forget your employment contract, as most of you conveniently forget the actual contract between an "artist" and a (typically) Media Giant.) Do -you- have a "right" to royalties for a work you performed for your employer? This is a "moral" question to you all. Not a technicality one. Please answer accordingly.
[2] Do you see a difference in the "right" for royalties - future compensation on work done "today" - of the following:
A picture painter?
A portrait photographer?
A code monkey working at corporation X?
The guy who mows your lawn/cleans your pool?
A waiter at the restaurant you ate at? (LAST WEEK!)
The gal who sized and sold you your suit?
The grease monkey who fixed your engine's knock?
A singer at a bar?
Old Kids Down the Block?
Movie Star Y?
[3] After you've answered "Yes!" (because if you didn't, then you can't POSSIBLY see file sharing as "stealing", you dolt!), please explain WHY?
[4] If I'm passing a street performer and, though I enjoyed the performance they gave, I didn't donate into their hat, do you consider me a "thief"? (I'd be the first to feel a heel, and "rude", but that's not the question!)
[5] What's the difference between:
A street musician singing a song? (I can listen, but don't don't donate.)
A singer singing outside of a bar to attract customers? (I can listen, but don't go in.)
A singer singing inside of that same bar, but I can still hear them?
[6] WHY "should" an "artist" receive recurring payments for a job performed ONCE, while a, uh, bricklayer, trash-man, flight attendant, hooker, cab driver, teacher, mechanic, PC repair tech, etc., etc.,..., etc. NOT?
If you STILL feel inclined to hold your misguided, fanciful, but NOT-thought-out *beliefs* after reading this, and choose to reply... I don't know if you're more stupid or brave...
TECHNICALLY, seems the GPL prohibits what Kororaa is doing with their Live CD. HOWEVER, seems Linus would side with them. HOWEVER HOWEVER, this would have to be legally debated, in other words, "defended". There's no explicit legal protection, and to get a judgment call would require money, lawyers, and being tangled in a lawsuit.
All of which would be silly and embarrassing both inside, and outside, of The Community.
I, personally, am very much in favor of "completely free (as in speech)" software. Mr. Stallman may be a "stickler", but I find him heroically inflexible. The world needs MORE Mr. Stallmans who actually and honestly stand tall, stand proud for what they believe in. And I'm not kissing ass here: I share his vision, but am far weaker in my convictions.
The pragmatist in me thinks that the Linux kernel's license should be changed to the LGPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html) I know full well, however, that this would be a huge step backward for Freedom. (Anybody saying otherwise is either [1.a] simply not intelligent enough to understand, or [1.b] hasn't bothered to consider the implications, [2] has ulterior motives, and/or [3] has a personal vendetta against RMS due to personality conflict. "Consider the messenger...")
But PRACTICALLY, it would enable real headway on the driver/support front. I think ATI and nVidia (and every other closed-source **DRIVER** maker) is quite daft. But they have their "reasons", even if we neither know, nor understand them.
It's laudable to DREAM of a world where all software is Free, both as in Speech AND as in Beer. Bur for now, and for the foreseeable future, we all live and work in the Real World. Unless we're friendly and play nice with the other children, most proprietary companies, especially hardware creators, may very well choose to take their balls and go home. (To those who cry, "GOOD RIDDANCE!", I ask for you to tell us all of the open-source-hardware, with accompanying open-source drivers, to replace their wares with!) Free and Open (Source) Software makes its virtues self-evident. We need not be antagonistic.
The truth of the matter is that the hardware we want open-sourced drivers for the most is made by companies comfortably at the top of their game. They sell PLENTY of hardware to not need to worry/care about The Community one iota. They ha
Re:What about web shells for programming languages
on
Do Kids Still Program?
·
· Score: 1
I haven't checked it out much (just cursorily saw that it was a JavaScript BASIC interpreter and seemed to work well [enough;]), and it doesn't have saving/loading - but those can be accomplished if students can save/load their own text files, and/or email (themselves) either locally, or have a free email service (if allowed by the network gnomes) in another browser tab/window.
How fun is that??:) Ah, the memories! Thanks, always, Google, for helping me find this needle in the Inet haystack!
As for your rhetorical question on whether youngin's "should" learn text-based programming, I offer this posit: has television, movies, or radio replaced the written, textual, word? For all the same reasons the answer to this question is "no", I believe we'll always have a textual interface with computers. Dictation to a PC sounds romantic - and COOL! - but imagine a cube farm with everybody yapping at their computers all day. If we got a thought-link, I could see it. But even then, there seems to be a visceral connection to writing that we humans relate to; we, or at least I know "I", think in language, and the written word is a natural, familiar, even if contrived representation that works well. I think writing will always be with us, and by extension, for the same comforts and efficiencies, we'll keep typing away to communicate with our computers, too...
Wow, how this discussion hearkens back memories. By your post, our about a year younger than I: was born in '72.
First PC was a Timex Sinclair 1000. Then C=64. Dabbled with Apple ]['s at school. My parents got me my first IBM-compatible the summer between Jr. & Sr. high. (No hard drive, nor modem; upgraded the motherboard, N20 processor, full 640 **K** of ram, 1200 bps modem, 20 **MB** hard drive [was considered defective by the district's tech guy, but I low-leveled it and it chugged away for many years until I replaced my entire system:], and EGA [ATI EGA Wonder, no less] my sophomore or junior year, thanks to the computer teacher.)
Anyway, sorry to blather. The book series you mention, perhaps the "Basic Fun" books? Loved those, too! And, specifically, on the text adventure where you're a CIA operative - you know, and the "bad guy" is a Rusky. This one was "Basic Fun With Adventure Games", if I'm correct. (See Amazon for a cover pic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0380874865)
Funny, but I've done much programming in python with Notepad. NO problem!
And as for a primer "required" for use/learning of python: the parent was joking, right??
Space works as expected
Use tabs for indenting like you would in any language as a "real" programmer
Hit enter at the end of a line, again as you would in any language as a "real" programmer
I don't want to be guilty of the post that either ignites the "python sucks due to white space nonsense", nor the pythonista "spaces for indentation! no, tabs!!" war.
However...
Whitespace is NOT a barrier, nor a hindrance - it's a blessing, and, yes Judy, you do already use it as expected.
And **I** find tabs are easier on every level to use for indentation, rather than spaces. Pity there's an "argument" to be had by otherwise sane, rational people.
Eh.
Anywho, no, one may use Notepad to make python programs just fine. In case you didn't know.:)
-Larz
/.-ers aren't as bad at spelling as we may think!
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: 1
I was reading Slashdot, like I do. Page after page of post upon post written about education, grammar, spelling, homework - "school".
Most of us have this elitist view that the majority of posters produce something just above white noise. Compounded by "the fact" that most of what's written is so full of spelling and grammar errors as to be dismissed.
That most cretins who post here are linguistically inept.
Then it hit me: speaking strictly of the language use errors, the volume is easily explained by the sheer number of disparate posters.
It's not that "most" Slashdotters are morons. We all make mistakes! (I shudder to think at how many I've already made, and the future ones made below.;)
It's that there're a higher number of innocent errors getting through.
I spill chuck. I prof reed. but still, errors will sleep thru, despot ma beast affords.
(The above was for dramatic effect...:)
Sure, there -are- those writings by folks you want to slap upside the head and go, "English, muthafucka - DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?"
But the rest are just honest mistakes.
What's my point? To err on the side of optimism and cut -most- of us some slack: we -do- try to spell correctly and use correct wordage. For the rest, take that grain of salt (or the whole damned block if you need), see -if- they have anything useful/interesting to say behind those faux pas, and move on.
Using correct spelling -is- important. As is using correct grammar. DO try to maintain high standards in your writings. (At least if you wish to be taken seriously.)
I'm 98% Libertarian, but I don't understand how ordinarily sane, rational, intelligent people can have it so wrong. Your statements belie a fundamental flaw in logic shared by, unfortunately, a great many (of all political denominations): don't make any changes in the broken system.
I have a better suggestion: fix the system!
Corporations and Governments are treated, legally, as entities in their own right. Their plan of framing the arguments, of changing perceptions, has been so completely successful that most around us even think of them as such: Big Oil, Evil Corporations, The Government.
Newsflash: They're run by PEOPLE. P-E-O-P-L-E, PEOPLE!
From the smallest to the largest company/governmental body, they're all planned, operated, and owned by INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. (Even groups/collectives are made up of multiple INDIVIDUALS...)
Change the broken legal (and other) system(s) to take this reality into account: hold the PEOPLE who make, enforce, enact, enable, and/or subvert company/government resources to do bad things accountable for THEIR actions. Don't slap Evil Corporations with a fine - it's big money to you-and-me, but always a mere drop to their corporate bottom line. (Plus, as a loss, it's a tax write-off. Go figure. Furthermore, who in the company REALLY suffers? The peons at the bottom who do the actually work in the company, that's who; layoffs, pay decreases and/or lack of raises, less hires [so more work required of those left behind], etc.) If the PEOPLE involved in the wrong-doing are held PERSONALLY accountable, with FINES, IMPRISONMENT (real time, too), SIEZERS, etc., then I think the INDIVIDUALS considering driving companies/governments to do bad things would think twice.
Why Libertarians, of all people, who are all about individuals being personally responsible for their own actions, can't, or won't see this obvious (to me) truth and use THAT as a rallying point, I'll never know.
INDIVIDUALS can only make a CHOICE when there are more options than... or cake; neither you nor I have any direct say in how the power that comes out of our sockets is made. Or by what proportion each type of energy source is used, even. We don't really even have the choice in our power company. (It's a logical choice, but, since the prices are so similar between competing companies, and the inconvenience factor is too high today, how many of us who know that such a choice is possible make it?) We do have a "choice": power versus no power. Honestly, is that really a "choice"? No, it isn't. (And for those who'd say one could always go independant: if you have the moola that takes, you probably don't even care about the issue, or at least you have the luxary of being flip about it. For the rest of us, we have to do such things as eat and pay rent.)
Again, as a 98% Libertarian, I believe the government, fundamentally, exists for a few simple purposes, like to protect ME from all of YOU. (Whomever YOU turns out to be; an angry mob, "terrorists", a foreign power, etc.) It's to be the Great Equalizer when it comes to Li'l' ol' Me v. Big Bad Deep-Pockets Corporation. By all means, let me make my own decisions, take personal responsibilities, live in a truly free society, with truly free markets. (Well, I dream of such a day...;) But The Government also has a responsibility to provide me with those things I can't reasonably provide myself: education, medical care, and access to collective resources, such as power. (NOTE: I never said the government would be my only source for these things; freedom of choice is paramount to all, but the Have Nots have a choice between nothing and nothing, which in reality is to say they have
Slashdot Mirror
The clones came because IBM designed - by choice, but not really considering the concept of a "clone" - the IBM "Personal Computer" around cheap, off-the-shelf parts. The BIOS was simple, and (relatively) easy to re-engineer. As far as the "reverse engineering" part: any decent electronics enthusiast with an oscilloscope could have done so. ("Off the shelf parts...")
They didn't create an "open" system, in terms of planning-/allowing-for compatibles. They actually only copied Apple's ][ regard to the slotted design. It was an obvious way to allow for an upgradable system, which had many perceived positive aspects for recurring business and loyalties of their purchasers.
Even so, IBM's biggest threat was not the clones per se, but rather IBM's unwillingness to be competitive. The technology changes from the PC to the XT, finally to the AT were too little, and far too long in the coming. IBM was still the 800 pound gorilla, so they led the industry in terms of the design, but not in performance.
The openness of the PC architecture wasn't the problem. The clones weren't the problem. IBM's pride, its hubris, was.
Cheers,
Larz
I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me? I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two... ;)
With applicable apologies, as appropriate... :)
Larz
I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me? I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two... ;)
With applicable apologies... :)
Larz
Doubtful. But the government/police would.
;)
;)
Any company that uses (L)GPL code is legally bound by the applicable license.
While I would never advocate they should make all their code viewable by The World + 1 (thereby making their proprietary code "open source"), any code they did use makes them, for those parts, liable for the license terms.
Presumably they've specified any parts so bound in various "info" listings. Presumably the FSF didn't get an advance iPhone, nor any type of release from Apple specifying such, before they made their statement. (Even so, I'd suggest it's a rather innocuous statement.)
The point is, various parties are curious about "how much", for various reasons. (I wager any self-respecting OSS advocate would be curious for bragging rights, for example!
For those trying to make gold from this hay, I have a suggestion: the only entity needing to "beware" to any FSF saber rattling is Apple, and it's doubtful the FSF would take any (legal) action without due diligence, isn't it? (Now, if the FSF were a deep-pockets competitor, that might be a different story, but last I heard/read... they're not exactly rolling on dough...
Cheers,
Larz
I'm not unaware that Apple (and/or any other companies) "uses" open source software. But (primarily) only in the same sense that a TV manufacturer "uses" those resistors in the television set they make.
This sort of statement seems absurd to me: the purpose of the device/software is the end user. Other than those who simply love to create, I'd wager that any company would skip the whole "developpement" thing and go straight to the "Tada!" stage of product sales any day of the week. For a software/device company, the open source code is merely a means to an end, not the end itself.
It is intended to be the tool of we, the purchasers of finished product. So I reassert: WE are the "user".
---
I've never asserted anything else. But the spirit of the license made the short-sighted (in retrospect) assumption you state. How else would you explain the "need" (by FSF/RMS) for a v3...?
---
RE: Tivo...
I have never, nor would ever, talk about the lack of a "right" for TiVo (et al, and anybody else with their respective software/device) to make whatever toaster they wish. And, indeed, it's for me, the buyer, to "beware" and make a judgement call as to whether I wish to purchase a thing despite its shortcomings.
Firstly, I assert it's not just, nor morally "right" for TiVo to sell a locked device. But they have every right to. And I purchased it anyway. But that still doesn't invalidate my feelings on the matter: there's no real reason/need to have most of the system locked - preventing me, the owner, from "tinkering".
Secondly, TiVo made a choice - for business reasons - to sell at below cost (way-back-when; tell me another fable that they're still under-priced with current hardware costs). That's still their choice. That their business model was based on the long-term subscription model isn't my fault.
Furthermore, the parts of the system that deal with the "locking the box except to subscribers" is surely separate, and therefore separately lockable, from "the rest of the system"? Then the arbitrariness of the lock-down is moot on this point. I understand perfectly well the various reasons TiVo's are locked as much as they are. I could, however, debate the reasonableness/validity of the vast majority of them.
Lastly, I hope you don't think I'm "anti TiVo". I'm not. (Did I mention I bought 2, plus one for parts?) I merely pointed out some obvious, honest items. (To make my argument.) And even those who are "anti TiVo" - at least the majority that I've read/seen - aren't complaining about getting TiVo equipment at sub-cost levels - alternative, "generic" hardware isn't much different in cost than actual TiVo equipment. Matter of fact, any "anti TiVo" people I've read/seen seem to focus on some complaints that seem perfectly valid to me, like:
[1] Many of the "shortcomings" I've mentioned, and others, and the fact that since the software is locked, workarounds cannot be made by the end users. This is only necessary as TiVo themselves see no business case for making the changes desired.
[2] That upgrading, service, repair, and other such things are severely limited, technically illegal, and/or impossible because of many software lock-downs TiVo chose to do; lock-downs not necessary for their subscription service, but just for General Principals.
[3] TiVo hardware is locked-down with regards recordings in ways other devices/technologies already aren't, and this is more a complaint about "rights holders" than TiVo themselves, except that TiVo "caves" to their desires. (And this is understandably regrettably due to business necessity: see "ReplayTV"...)
[4] A lack of hardware sold at a "reasonable cost/pr
I've never thought, nor would I, that There Can Be Only ONE! (Namely, the GPL.)
;)
"Proprietary" isn't a "boogeyman".
But, for the user, who makes up the vast majority of entities who deals with the software, proprietary software is much less free than GPL'd.
Regarding BSD-stylings: indeed, this is a slightly restricted version of public domain. It's open source. It allows commercial entities to use it as a base, modify it, and then keep their modifications closed. (NOT speaking to you using a BSD system, but in the way others may USE said BSD source.)
But then the freedoms of the users are now, again, limited.
I'm not a zealot, nor crazy: it is honestly a question of who has the (most) freedom, and who "should" have the most freedom.
As someone who purchases/uses/relies on software every day, I certainly value the freedom to not be forced to pay all over again for software I purchased already to get the new version that is now fixed (but mostly the same old program). From a software company's perspective, I understand the beauty of the business plan.
But as the user of said software: it's not fair, it's arbitrarily ridiculous, and it's ridiculously unnecessary.
I don't think most who advocate a GPL-like world dream of "forcing" or "outlawing" other people's freedoms. We simply clearly state one truth about the situation: if you're a user of software, if you rely upon it - as the vast majority of us do - then it works to make it a better situation for us. At the expense of some freedoms a company might value. (But then they never "have" to use GPL-like-licensed code.)
I don't believe GPL advocates are debating "choice", we're debating "what would work in your (as a user) best interest?"
Course, I could be wrong.
For me, at least, that's my view, my point.
Tell me, though: why are those who have a bitter taste regarding the GPL view those who value/prefer it as zealots, or crazy, or trying to force the choice of others, or against other people doing what they prefer, etc.?
Honestly, I'm curious (not trolling, not picking a fight, just honestly curious). As I've said in a prior post, most pro-GPL'ers seem even-keeled. (There are always exceptions, but to me at least, doesn't seem the rule.)
Perhaps some of my posts seemed a bit sarcastic. That's me. Mea culpa. But I'm certainly no "zealot"...
Cheers,
-Larz
Indeed, I assure you... well, as I misinterpreted what you'd written... if it had been as I'd read it, then to suggest it was trolling would have been valid. :) As for the bold/caps: there are few means with HTML to stress things, let alone break up the tone of writing. I try to convey the way I speak (not monotone ;), but can fail regularly... - L
Oh, pish! I was/am breathing just fine, thank you; sorry if you took me too harshly. (Certainly wasn't intending to be "personal"... :)
;) - be morally better, more helpful to humanity, it would make an iPhone many orders of magnitude more popular, influential, and useful.
;) for a long time. I hope it does, as I respect the marvel of design, engineering (the autopsy anandtech did shows this amazingly), thought, and even courage.
There is no legal obligation, but there is a moral one. Yes, I know they're a business, designed to make money. But was Apple really founded to be only that...?
Still, I would never speak that they have no "right" to do as they please. But I don't think it's "right" to artificially lock up a marvelous device. I disagree that opening it up would be fiscal suicide, nor bad business. As they disagree, or at least find it more advantageous to do as they have, obviously my one opinion has no bearing. But that doesn't change what I believe is a valid position: not only would an open software architecture - note I didn't say "open source", although that would be great, too
As for them selling well: I'm sure they'll continue to. Without any serious comparable competition (and I've yet to see any on the horizon), I'm sure demand will outstrip supply (at full capacity, even!
I just think it could be so much more.
And the "love it or leave it" answer ("Buy something else then.") doesn't seem honest nor reasonable to me. It only works with commodities, and even then, only when there's legitimate competition (in terms of service, price, etc.).
Apple has a (well-deserved, and honest, and respected [by me at least]) monopoly on this object. If I, and others, would like to see changes to it, who else to suggest/complain to other than the manufacturer?
-L
I sincerely apologize for misreading your post. I read it as sarcasm; my bad.
;)
I do, however, request you re-read me as well: I certainly wasn't/am not "angry", nor was I "yelling".
Perhaps you misread me...?
Cheers,
-Larz
As to "it is none of your business...": can't the parent, and me, too, and anybody else, dream and want Apple (and others) to make cooler, more-open, freer devices/software?
The parent, nor anybody else, can force Apple (or any other Company) to do/not do things with their devices/software. I think we're all well aware of that fact. Nor has anybody argued for/to that concept.
So, why do you argue about it? What dog to you have in that hunt? And if none, why is it somehow your business to get in the mix and chastise?
If you dislike the terms, don't buy it. Let the rest of us make our own decision.
Tell us: why do you fee threatened? The parent, nor anybody else, would ever dream of taking away your freedom.
Matter of fact, we all hope, and advocate (not "try to force") for a day that would grant you even more freedom and choice than to simply accept the scraps companies see fit to allow you...
-Larz
What if I want to upgrade it (in way[s] Apple doesn't explicitly provide)? Repair, replace, etc.? WHAT IF, YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I'D LIKE TO SEVERELY MODIFY IT TO A NEW FUNCTIONALITY I DESIRE FOR IT?
By your (il)logic, I have neither the right to do so, nor should I. Actually, you seem to be saying that this current model/scenario is a Great Thing, and The Way Things Should Be. Heaven forbid we, we mere mortals, we Users, have any more freedom than They deem fit...
Obviously no sane, rational person thinks There Should Be A Law! to force companies from opening their proprietary software/devices.
Without open software for these glorious devices that are all programmable computers, we have less freedom with the things we buy. ARTIFICIAL limitations.
The argument is NOT about the rights (nor forced compliance) of The Companies. It's about each of us having the rights to the devices we purchase that are ARTIFICIALLY restricted by their makers.
Why is that position, that ideal, a "bad" thing...?
-Larz
While the slant of /. is generally one of "we like the GPL and what it stands for", I must say...
;)
[1] Most posts by pro-GPL'ers seem to be attempts to enlighten and/or correct misinterpretations/mis-characterizations. There are fanboys of ever strip, to be sure, but most pro-GPL folk seem less zealot-like and simply more annoyed by the FUD'ers.
[2] Most posts decrying the GPL generally fall in to the unhinged category for me: it's as if it's the most detrimental threat to capitalism since...nothing, really, but they're out there!
I mean, am I living the past many years in some sort of poorly written Twilight Zone episode? The fearful, nut-job hoards are actually the anti-GPL peeps, who then yell as loud as possible, at every chance, spin the genuine FUD, get downright rude, name-call, ridiculously exaggerate, post false dilemmas, and then wrap up every post with such epithets as "FSF zealots".
Did we accidentally piss in their cornflakes? Is it penis-envy?
Or am I just "too naive/jaded to see 'the truth'"??
I don't believe so, if for no other reason than they never seem to provide evidence, genuine counter-argument, and/or honestly say JUST WHAT PROBLEM(S) THEY HAVE WITH A WORLD WERE THEY WOULD HAVE MORE FREEDOM WITH THEIR DEVICES/SOFTWARE...
Also, since their argument generally hinges on the limits the GPL forces upon poor, little, defenseless software/device companies... you know, the ones that are somehow magically forced to base their projects upon GPL code, versus do it the old fashioned way: keep reinventing the wheel in-house.
If my tinfoil hat weren't in the shop, I'd swear most of them are on the Microsoft dole...
Sincerely,
Confused (AKA: Larz)
--
But, specifically to this post: this is tiredly disingenuous... please explain to all of us what's wrong with requesting, wishing, wanting a company that makes a product we want to be just a bit better is "a bad thing"? "Unreasonable"? "Ridiculous"? Indeed, if I have not the need, if another product is more to my liking, if a different one is more in my budget - if any at all ever are - I, of course, am free to vote with my wallet.
But that wouldn't stop me from dreaming a little dream...
Am I to believe you think it right and true that I don't have a "right" do to so? To wish companies would become any sort of Corporate Citizen?
The statement you make, Sir, is void of merit.
The argument isn't that "we" have a problem with those who buy a device because it's "good enough" for them. (And/or they are willing to shrug their shoulders and make do. This is basically the way I am about my TiVo's...) It's that we'd like more from the devices/software companies make. And most importantly for the software/devices WE buy (or at least dream of purchasing).
Ah, but assuming you're being some-sort of sincere here...
Let's use your analogy. I'll clean it up for you:
You tell me. (My answer would be, uh... "no"...)
The GPL is about YOUR freedom. MY freedom. NOT Apple's, Microsoft's, whatever able-to-take-care-of-themselves entity you, and for-some-unknown-reason flipped-out apologists like you, "defend".
Even going with your ill-chosen perspective of is there a state of "freer" in a world that would be dominated by the GPL, well, let's see...
Proprietary software: the few who own/work at The Company have more freedom than the vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users. The majority's freedoms are stifled by the few.
GPL'd software: the few who own/work at The Company have a (perceived) lack of freedom in that they have to allow us access to the whole device/software they sold us, including the ability to change, upgrade, repair, whatever, it. That annoying little "car with a welded shut versus not welded shut engine compartment" analogy comes to mind. The vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users now have more freedom, though the few now face some (perceived) limitations.
You tell me: which system has a generally higher freedom quotient...?
-Larz
I just Googled for the quote from Peter Brown - not the *complete* quote, but enough to key for it - and found 4, count 'em, ***4*** links. 3 were blog listings referring back to /., then /. The original seems to originate from TFA...
Thus, they, as in the FSF, certainly isn't *spreading* "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"...
FURTHERMORE, if one bothers to read (and comprehend) the quote, it's a generalization: there is (L)GPL code on the iPhone. Wouldn't we all be curious "how much"...
Is there, or is there not any that GPLv3 covers? NO! (Well, DUH!)
Is there any that v2 would force Apple to "unlockdown" their new baby? NO!
The point is not that Apple/iPhone is infringing, but that if the code in question were under GPLv3 (not v2, and not the LGPL), then, at least the portions/code covered by said license, would be disallowed from being "locked down" by Apple.
The point is users deserve - and some of us actually WANT - un-crippled gear. For our own reasons. It's OUR gear. (The company gave up rights to it upon sale; we're not licensing, nor leasing it.)
The point of the F'n Art is NOT that Apple IS infringing, but in a perfect world they WOULD be, and so wouldn't do so - either from removing the thumb screws from their devices, and/or using non-GPL code. (Please don't belaborly argue "There's no GPL'd code!" It's a non-issue. It's quite beside the point.)
To decry Mr. Brown's comment is to take him out of context and to change/insert words where there aren't any.
YES, the FSF wants a world where TiVo's AREN'T locked down. Nor iPhones. Nor any other device that has a general purpose, programmable CPU.
I want to live in that world, too.
THAT is the point of the GPLv3. Of the article discussing the relative theme of the iPhone and GPLv3 being released at the same time. Context. Relevance. Topicalness.
I really don't understand statements/attitudes like this one. WE are the users of GPL'd software, NOT APPLE ! They happen to be a company that wants to save some time, (more easily) ensure higher quality software, get some publicity/good-karma, etc., by utilizing - even if only a base - OSS. That they still believe that "propriety software" is where it's at, that's why they use mostly BSD licensed parts. The (L)GPL'd parts were used... due to greater maturity? Greater flexibility? Whatever the reason(s), surely Apple had it/them!
;], they're definitely a status symbol. Apple will always hold the trademark for the logo, name, etc. THOSE are the crown jewels, not the underlying software. W
(Regarding Apple still holding on to the proprietary software model: I'd counter that people buy an iPod/iPhone due to the entire package. Being that they're affordable to middle-class++ people, but the bulk, certainly of the "cooler models", are relatively expensive [but OH-so cheap for what they are!
RTFA...
/.-ers either don't recognize, or don't care, that various "claims" aren't being made, but, rather, this is an article about linked themes.
;) code has the same status, but newer, more up-to-date (via The Community) code would be.
:)
Neither the article, nor the FSF quote-giver claim the GLPv3 covers *anything*.
Sadly, you, and many other
The kind of un-hackability of the iPhone is one of the things v3 is meant to address. The goal is (from the FSF and its supporters) that all GPL code be moved to a v3 license. Obviously, v2 (or v1!
Then TiVo and Apple (iPhone) wouldn't use **GPL** code and still lock the owners, the users, out of said **GPL'd** code/program - out from modifying, updating, whatever.
It's a dream, but for most of the biggest companies/their products, for the foreseeable future, this obviously won't come to be. As has already been said by others, they'd just use older forks, use other-licensed OSS, and/or go back to purely proprietary code.
v3 doesn't, in and of itself, change anything. But Stallman/FSF hope it can/will/might. If nothing else, it's the point that counts.
And I, for one, agree: it's my black box, damn it! Let me tinker, update, repair, modify, speed-up, secure, whatever, MY stuff! I already paid you, and there'll always be early adopters/mindless "consumers" to keep you afloat... they don't believe it, but I, and people like me, ARE NOT THEIR TARGET CUSTOMER! Not in the "treadmill" aspect, anyway. I choose when, how, what, and for what monetary threshold I'll make a purchase.
The point lost on them, and their apologists, is that those who are NOT like me don't want to, need to, and/nor like to "tinker" with their stuff.
So their desire to paranoidly "protect" their business plan at my expense floors - and GALLS - me.
But I digress. [SIGH] Sorry...
-Larz
Emphasis mine.
Your brilliant response?
It's generally known - or at least reasonably assumed, after figuring they'd reuse rather than rewrite working code used in OSX - that the FSF-rep-given quote is true. There are some (L)GPL'd items used.
You indirectly assert - or disingenuously "suggest" - that "we" don't "know" that.
Fine, bell the cat: cite your sources, your contradictory evidence, and/or your "reasoning" that Apple'd abandon the work they'd already done on major pieces of the (presumably obviously recycled) code from their other product(s), namely OSX...
Regarding your laughable assertion that "it is not that much more difficult to rewrite than it is to reuse":
Wait, I may be mistaken... are those crickets chirping...!?
-Larz
For practical purposes, the term "piracy", as applies to copyright, should be left to its older, but less romantic usage: large scale duplication and sale in lieu of the real article. The reason this is illegal is the original intent of copyright (speaking as an American about our Constitutional notion of copyright): it's a protection of business, sure, but for the more important goal of disseminating information and increasing the collective wealth, both figuratively - as in "mental" wealth - and literally. Protect the business interests of copyright holders, sure, but, along with trade mark law - which, contrary to popular myth, is about protecting the PURCHASER, -not- (especially) the seller - PROTECT THE END PURCHASER, THE CITIZEN.
But file sharing is hardly "piracy". Regardless of how worry-warts of Media Giants would puff up about.
The vast majority of people are "normal"; we have "normal" wealth, which means it's LIMITED. We have limited discretionary funds. We must therefore be selective in how we use it.
Blanket-labeling of file-sharers as "thieves" belies this.
We have only so much money to spend on life's fluff: movies, the theater, dining, gas, rentals, live performances/concerts, museums, books, pre-recorded items, cable TV, software, video games, etc.
It's convenient to believe the world is so simple that "if people have to pay for something, they will." It's a logical fallacy. You moral-superiority types must get along great with the doomsdayers of Big Media. Yes, I said "Big Media" - they're the only ones beating this tired, dead horse.
It's a simple mind-game you can play at home: if you have limited funds to spend, and something drops off the list of priorities for you, would you still buy that thing that you can't afford that's no longer on your priority list?
Honest truth is that many hoard. They'd never buy all they have if they "had" to. They download all the movies/CD's/video games just for bragging rights. MANY of them will OFTEN actually BUY something that they truly value.
Painting all file-sharers as cheapskates also ignores another truth in the argument: people are either "collector" types, or not. Are either "I do it the 'right' way because it's more convenient", or not. I mean this: if you're not prone to buying item X in the first place, you're not stealing it in the second place if you download it. You're decidedly NOT in the "loss" column. Similarly, if you typically purchase movies/CD's/games in stores, even if you -could- download it for free, you're still typically going to purchase what you truly value anyway.
And by value, this means different things to different people. Some of us prefer/like the cover art, liner notes, "extras", and/or the mere convenience of having separate media that's in a convenient package which I may place upon my shelf when not in use. These are all valid reasons why some us PREFER to buy CD's, DVD's, and/or video games.
Media Giants, with regards to music groups specifically, have gone to great lengths over the years to hearken back to the days of yesteryear when bands/singers were a dime a dozen; where it was their one-hit wonder that mattered, not The Group. This is better in their eyes in that it keeps artists at a negotiating disadvantage. Unfortunately, their shortsightedness breeds another outcome that they DON'T like: disposable, generic music/artists have no value. Silly boys...
Sorry, I started to get off target. The point is, no, gentle reader, people don't "always" get for free what they -can-, but what they choose to. And most of us supplant one form of frivolous purchase for another, so that the sum total of our purchases are STILL going to Big Media. They complain we're stealing their movies. Okay, but I'm still buying CD's, and/or more of those. Or vice versa. They can't get blood from a stone, nor money from an empty piggy bank: if I don't have i
If you STILL feel inclined to hold your misguided, fanciful, but NOT-thought-out *beliefs* after reading this, and choose to reply... I don't know if you're more stupid or brave...
(Is it "brave" to be steadfastly wrong?
TECHNICALLY, seems the GPL prohibits what Kororaa is doing with their Live CD. HOWEVER, seems Linus would side with them. HOWEVER HOWEVER, this would have to be legally debated, in other words, "defended". There's no explicit legal protection, and to get a judgment call would require money, lawyers, and being tangled in a lawsuit.
All of which would be silly and embarrassing both inside, and outside, of The Community.
I, personally, am very much in favor of "completely free (as in speech)" software. Mr. Stallman may be a "stickler", but I find him heroically inflexible. The world needs MORE Mr. Stallmans who actually and honestly stand tall, stand proud for what they believe in. And I'm not kissing ass here: I share his vision, but am far weaker in my convictions.
The pragmatist in me thinks that the Linux kernel's license should be changed to the LGPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html) I know full well, however, that this would be a huge step backward for Freedom. (Anybody saying otherwise is either [1.a] simply not intelligent enough to understand, or [1.b] hasn't bothered to consider the implications, [2] has ulterior motives, and/or [3] has a personal vendetta against RMS due to personality conflict. "Consider the messenger...")
But PRACTICALLY, it would enable real headway on the driver/support front. I think ATI and nVidia (and every other closed-source **DRIVER** maker) is quite daft. But they have their "reasons", even if we neither know, nor understand them.
It's laudable to DREAM of a world where all software is Free, both as in Speech AND as in Beer. Bur for now, and for the foreseeable future, we all live and work in the Real World. Unless we're friendly and play nice with the other children, most proprietary companies, especially hardware creators, may very well choose to take their balls and go home. (To those who cry, "GOOD RIDDANCE!", I ask for you to tell us all of the open-source-hardware, with accompanying open-source drivers, to replace their wares with!) Free and Open (Source) Software makes its virtues self-evident. We need not be antagonistic.
The truth of the matter is that the hardware we want open-sourced drivers for the most is made by companies comfortably at the top of their game. They sell PLENTY of hardware to not need to worry/care about The Community one iota. They ha
How fun is that??
As for your rhetorical question on whether youngin's "should" learn text-based programming, I offer this posit: has television, movies, or radio replaced the written, textual, word? For all the same reasons the answer to this question is "no", I believe we'll always have a textual interface with computers. Dictation to a PC sounds romantic - and COOL! - but imagine a cube farm with everybody yapping at their computers all day. If we got a thought-link, I could see it. But even then, there seems to be a visceral connection to writing that we humans relate to; we, or at least I know "I", think in language, and the written word is a natural, familiar, even if contrived representation that works well. I think writing will always be with us, and by extension, for the same comforts and efficiencies, we'll keep typing away to communicate with our computers, too...
Cheers,
Larry
Wow, how this discussion hearkens back memories. By your post, our about a year younger than I: was born in '72.
:], and EGA [ATI EGA Wonder, no less] my sophomore or junior year, thanks to the computer teacher.)
First PC was a Timex Sinclair 1000. Then C=64. Dabbled with Apple ]['s at school. My parents got me my first IBM-compatible the summer between Jr. & Sr. high. (No hard drive, nor modem; upgraded the motherboard, N20 processor, full 640 **K** of ram, 1200 bps modem, 20 **MB** hard drive [was considered defective by the district's tech guy, but I low-leveled it and it chugged away for many years until I replaced my entire system
Anyway, sorry to blather. The book series you mention, perhaps the "Basic Fun" books? Loved those, too! And, specifically, on the text adventure where you're a CIA operative - you know, and the "bad guy" is a Rusky. This one was "Basic Fun With Adventure Games", if I'm correct. (See Amazon for a cover pic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0380874865)
Cheers! -Larz
I don't want to be guilty of the post that either ignites the "python sucks due to white space nonsense", nor the pythonista "spaces for indentation! no, tabs!!" war.
However...
Whitespace is NOT a barrier, nor a hindrance - it's a blessing, and, yes Judy, you do already use it as expected.
And **I** find tabs are easier on every level to use for indentation, rather than spaces. Pity there's an "argument" to be had by otherwise sane, rational people.
Eh.
Anywho, no, one may use Notepad to make python programs just fine. In case you didn't know.
-Larz
Most of us have this elitist view that the majority of posters produce something just above white noise. Compounded by "the fact" that most of what's written is so full of spelling and grammar errors as to be dismissed.
That most cretins who post here are linguistically inept.
Then it hit me: speaking strictly of the language use errors, the volume is easily explained by the sheer number of disparate posters.
It's not that "most" Slashdotters are morons. We all make mistakes! (I shudder to think at how many I've already made, and the future ones made below. ;)
It's that there're a higher number of innocent errors getting through.
I spill chuck. I prof reed. but still, errors will sleep thru, despot ma beast affords.
(The above was for dramatic effect... :)
Sure, there -are- those writings by folks you want to slap upside the head and go, "English, muthafucka - DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?"
But the rest are just honest mistakes.
What's my point? To err on the side of optimism and cut -most- of us some slack: we -do- try to spell correctly and use correct wordage. For the rest, take that grain of salt (or the whole damned block if you need), see -if- they have anything useful/interesting to say behind those faux pas, and move on.
Using correct spelling -is- important. As is using correct grammar. DO try to maintain high standards in your writings. (At least if you wish to be taken seriously.)
But, as for Grammar Nazis: just say NO!
Some ramblings, -Larry
I'm 98% Libertarian, but I don't understand how ordinarily sane, rational, intelligent people can have it so wrong. Your statements belie a fundamental flaw in logic shared by, unfortunately, a great many (of all political denominations): don't make any changes in the broken system.
... or cake; neither you nor I have any direct say in how the power that comes out of our sockets is made. Or by what proportion each type of energy source is used, even. We don't really even have the choice in our power company. (It's a logical choice, but, since the prices are so similar between competing companies, and the inconvenience factor is too high today, how many of us who know that such a choice is possible make it?) We do have a "choice": power versus no power. Honestly, is that really a "choice"? No, it isn't. (And for those who'd say one could always go independant: if you have the moola that takes, you probably don't even care about the issue, or at least you have the luxary of being flip about it. For the rest of us, we have to do such things as eat and pay rent.)
;) But The Government also has a responsibility to provide me with those things I can't reasonably provide myself: education, medical care, and access to collective resources, such as power. (NOTE: I never said the government would be my only source for these things; freedom of choice is paramount to all, but the Have Nots have a choice between nothing and nothing, which in reality is to say they have
I have a better suggestion: fix the system!
Corporations and Governments are treated, legally, as entities in their own right. Their plan of framing the arguments, of changing perceptions, has been so completely successful that most around us even think of them as such: Big Oil, Evil Corporations, The Government.
Newsflash: They're run by PEOPLE. P-E-O-P-L-E, PEOPLE!
From the smallest to the largest company/governmental body, they're all planned, operated, and owned by INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. (Even groups/collectives are made up of multiple INDIVIDUALS...)
Change the broken legal (and other) system(s) to take this reality into account: hold the PEOPLE who make, enforce, enact, enable, and/or subvert company/government resources to do bad things accountable for THEIR actions. Don't slap Evil Corporations with a fine - it's big money to you-and-me, but always a mere drop to their corporate bottom line. (Plus, as a loss, it's a tax write-off. Go figure. Furthermore, who in the company REALLY suffers? The peons at the bottom who do the actually work in the company, that's who; layoffs, pay decreases and/or lack of raises, less hires [so more work required of those left behind], etc.) If the PEOPLE involved in the wrong-doing are held PERSONALLY accountable, with FINES, IMPRISONMENT ( real time, too), SIEZERS, etc., then I think the INDIVIDUALS considering driving companies/governments to do bad things would think twice.
Why Libertarians, of all people, who are all about individuals being personally responsible for their own actions, can't, or won't see this obvious (to me) truth and use THAT as a rallying point, I'll never know.
INDIVIDUALS can only make a CHOICE when there are more options than
Again, as a 98% Libertarian, I believe the government, fundamentally, exists for a few simple purposes, like to protect ME from all of YOU. (Whomever YOU turns out to be; an angry mob, "terrorists", a foreign power, etc.) It's to be the Great Equalizer when it comes to Li'l' ol' Me v. Big Bad Deep-Pockets Corporation. By all means, let me make my own decisions, take personal responsibilities, live in a truly free society, with truly free markets. (Well, I dream of such a day...