www.slashdot.com is basically held by a domain squatter. Yuck! -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Re:I hate to think I'm the first...
on
A 140GB CD-ROM?
·
· Score: 1
You all know the AOL mentality! They look at the 'Magic Space Age Disc' and assume 'Well, it LOOKS indestructable' and proceed to use it as a coaster, a chew toy for their mongrel child or as a mirror to pop pimples
Well what else are supposed to do with an AOL CD? You aren't suggesting people are actually dumb enough to use AOL, are you? -------- "I already have all the latest software."
They were programming! Instead of worrying about nitpicking details (yes, that is what this is), they decided to spend their time on actual coding.
Besides, this is a beta version anyway, isn't it? File a bug report. Say it should have an "opt-out" option, and should warn you.
John's an okay guy. We shouldn't be such an edgy lynch mob. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just saying it's only a bug. Let id fix it. Now if id refuses to fix it, that's another story. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
No kidding. I live in Western Canada, and we already can't stand the USA. They make treaties, then break them whenever they want. They also break international law, and anything else they want.
My opinion: If you want to have stupid patents in your country, go ahead, but don't impose your stupidity on the rest of the planet.
Maybe I should just move to China, where I won't have to put up with problems like these. In 10 years I'll have no more rights here than there anyway. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
GNU/Linux? That's Aladdin/WINE/KDE/GNOME/SPI/BSD/SYSV/VNC/X/GNU/Linu x, mister, or just Linux, for short.
I used to call it GNU/Linux, then I realised that the GNU is obvious, because there is currently no other system that runs on top of Linux. I see where RMS is coming from, he wants credit, but until we need to say "GNU/Linux" to distinguish it from another Linux-based system, there's really no need to call it anything other than "Linux". GNU/Linux is a technical term, but the informal (colloquial?) form is, and will remain just "Linux". -------- "I already have all the latest software."
no he doesn't. depending on how the law (not corel's motive, but canadian law, which corel is SUBJECT to, and does not control) is interpreted, they may be REQUIRED to put such a clause in whether they want to or not! open source people should read into things before they open their mouths for their feet to enter....
So you're basically saying you shouldn't have posted this until you actually checked out Canadian law and seen if it's actually required, instead of just speculating, like the rest of us are. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I've had much more abrasive posts directed at me. Basically, in order to talk directly to a computer, it has to have some sense of what "you" means, and whether you are referring to it or speaking to it. This would make the voice-recognition system much better.
But even lesser things, such as context, cannot be fully and correctly interpreted unless the computer has a full awareness of what's around it, including colloquial and incorrect language. It also has to know how to ask questions (and what question to ask) when it doesn't understand something.
I'd also like to stress the point that I don't think voice recognition isn't feasible for computers, but we will not be able to talk to computers like we talk to other people without the computer having most of the capabilities of a conscious AI system. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
-------- "I already have all the latest software."
The clause is actually quite moot in Canada, where that law applies, because minors cannot be held to the "I agree that I am under 18" clause. The only thing this clause does is cause problems for minors in other countries. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Sorry to say it, but voice-recognition won't get too much better until we come up with semi-conscious AI. Context is a major part of language, and you simply can't do real voice recognition without it. (eg. How do you make the computer know when you're talking *to* it, and when you're talking *about* it?)
Voice synthesis has room for improvement, but it's pretty much in the same boat. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
It won't actually be a problem, because unlike Windows, good Linux apps separate applications from libraries. Windows tends to embed stuff by running the program, but swallowing the program's window in another window. Good Linux programmers, OTOH, tend to make and use libraries that do individual tasks, instead of just running the full-blown program in a swallowed window.
It's like if you'd have to start up the GIMP, every time you want to use a GTK app.
Microsoft has good ideas, but awful programmers and software engineers.
Anyone notice how whenever MS first buys out a piece of software, it works great, but it throws its programmers it it, it turns to bloatware crap? Remember IE? I started off with IE2.0, which was a great, light, fast web browser (probably mostly SpyGlass code), then with evey new version, it got slower, buggier, and more bloated, once Microsoft code took it over.
-------- "I already have all the latest software."
I think the worst enemy of free software is not software forking, but license splintering. As much as I think the BSDL is too lax, it is at least compatible with the GPL, so we, as open-source programmers, can share our code between projects.
What we really need is for OSI (or the FSF, or SPI - someone we trust) to make a list of open-source licenses, with their standing in `restrictiveness'. Then any open source project can include the clause: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the , or (at your option) and license of equal or greater restrictiveness, as deemed by the Open Source Initiative (see http://www.opensource.org/)." -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Come on, people! We all want cheap, distributed, 10Mbps, wireless, non-line-of-sight WAN hardware. Think of the fun, 70-ping, Quake tourneys in your neighbourhood! (And you could share the cost of a few internet connections!) -------- "I already have all the latest software."
I found listening to RMS sing his free software song to be quite funny. No forced laughing here! And I'm a free software advocate! -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Someone should take the *BSD source, change the symantics of a single line of code, and relicense it under a proprietary license (eg. the M$ EULA). The BSD license allows it. Oh? What's this? The BSD license isn't that great after all? The GPL wouldn't have this problem? Thought so. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
With *any* license you (as the original author of the code or holder of the license) have the right to release future versions of the code under a different license or to not release it at all - because YOU originally wrote the code, YOU have complete control over future licensing. However, previously released versions must remain under the GPL... once it's out, it's out, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want to release an existing version under a non-GPL license, just change a line or two of the code and re-release it.
Exactly. I'll also mention that at that point, there will be a fork in development. Others will work on the GPLled code, and you will work on yours, and there will be nothing you can do to stop them.
Also, you can only re-license the product it you retain the copyright to the entire work. If Joe Smith writes you a patch and you incorporate it in your product, you're screwed (unless you can somehow "unincorporate" it), because he hasn't licensed his code to you under anything other than the GPL. Of course, you could ask him, or do as the FSF does and require everyone to sign over copyright to you, but a lot of people may be unwilling to do so.
<Offtopic SCORE="-1"> Whatever happened to the announcement that Qt-2.0 would be released as GPL? The QPL sucks, but KDE rules. We should resume the FreeQt efforts.
Running GNOME with kfm rules! </Offtopic> -------- "I already have all the latest software."
How much of a pain in the add the license is. It is not protecting them, it is burdening them. It is not called the GPV for nothing. It has wormed its way in and infected his product. A truly free license would not have done that.
Comsider this:
I'm a developer. I want software to be free. I buy into a lot of what RMS, ESR, etc say. I know that in order for free software to propagate, it has to prove it's better than its proprietary counterparts. I therefore want to give free software an advantage: my work can only be included in other free software projects. I don't want to work for Microsoft for free. If Microsoft wants to use my code, they can pay me, but if Alan Cox wants to use my code for some drivers he's working on, he can feel free to do so. So, I go to hire a lawyer to draft me a license that outlines these terms, but wait! There's already a license I can use that suits my purpose: the GNU General Public License. Richard Stallman just saved me a bunch of lawyer's fees.
The BSD license is a good license, but it's ahead of its time. When all software is free, and the thought that it should be proprietary becomes generally absurd, the BSDL will be the perfect solution for everyone. However, not all software is free, and free software developers want to separate themselves from proprietary companies. These developers don't want to work for Company X for free, but they are willing to share their work with others like them. So they choose the GPL.
When all software is free (as in speech), I'll start writing BSD-licensed software. Until then, it's GPL for me. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
So supposing I overcome my reluctance of going back 30 years to a command-line development system:-), am I obliged to ship a CD with every unit?
Nope. Read the GPL. You just have to make the source available (for a nominal fee), and make sure your users (customers) know this.
And where does my advantage go if I publish my source code for my competitors to download, anyway?
You were the first to the market with it.
Say I write you a nifty program. You want to embed in in your appliance. My license says (and therefore I say) that you can if you distribute the modifications as well. I am not willing to give you a monopolistic advantage with my software. If you want that advantage, don't use my code.
Also, Copyright law allows you to have more than one license, and you can do whatever you want with your code, as long as it is not derived from my code. Why? It's your code, right? Well you're not allowed to have/distribute my code unless you agree to license any modifications you make under the same license you got the original software from.
You can legally distribute diffs (even somehow in binary form) by themselves under any license you want, but when those diffs are included with (applied to) my code, in order for you to legally distribute my code, you must release those changes under my license, because those are the terms of my license.
Bottom line: Read the GPL. It's not that long, read it. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Re:Actually doing something?
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree that would be ideal, but we, the internet geek community, aren't really that much the source of the RIIA's total revenue. In short: we won't have enough influence anyway. -------- "I already have all the latest software."
Slashdot Mirror
www.slashdot.com is basically held by a domain squatter. Yuck!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
You all know the AOL mentality! They look at the 'Magic Space Age Disc' and assume 'Well, it LOOKS indestructable' and proceed to use it as a coaster, a chew toy for their mongrel child or as a mirror to pop pimples
Well what else are supposed to do with an AOL CD? You aren't suggesting people are actually dumb enough to use AOL, are you?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Hm...
How Appropriate
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
They were programming! Instead of worrying about nitpicking details (yes, that is what this is), they decided to spend their time on actual coding.
Besides, this is a beta version anyway, isn't it? File a bug report. Say it should have an "opt-out" option, and should warn you.
John's an okay guy. We shouldn't be such an edgy lynch mob. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just saying it's only a bug. Let id fix it. Now if id refuses to fix it, that's another story.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
No kidding. I live in Western Canada, and we already can't stand the USA. They make treaties, then break them whenever they want. They also break international law, and anything else they want.
My opinion: If you want to have stupid patents in your country, go ahead, but don't impose your stupidity on the rest of the planet.
Maybe I should just move to China, where I won't have to put up with problems like these. In 10 years I'll have no more rights here than there anyway.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
GNU/Linux? That's Aladdin/WINE/KDE/GNOME/SPI/BSD/SYSV/VNC/X/GNU/Linu x, mister, or just Linux, for short.
I used to call it GNU/Linux, then I realised that the GNU is obvious, because there is currently no other system that runs on top of Linux. I see where RMS is coming from, he wants credit, but until we need to say "GNU/Linux" to distinguish it from another Linux-based system, there's really no need to call it anything other than "Linux". GNU/Linux is a technical term, but the informal (colloquial?) form is, and will remain just "Linux".
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Heh heh. That's a good one. And Microsoft isn't an abusive monopoly, either! :)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
no he doesn't. depending on how the law (not corel's motive, but canadian law, which corel is SUBJECT to, and does not control) is interpreted, they may be REQUIRED to put such a clause in whether they want to or not! open source people should read into things before they open their mouths for their feet to enter....
So you're basically saying you shouldn't have posted this until you actually checked out Canadian law and seen if it's actually required, instead of just speculating, like the rest of us are.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I've had much more abrasive posts directed at me. Basically, in order to talk directly to a computer, it has to have some sense of what "you" means, and whether you are referring to it or speaking to it. This would make the voice-recognition system much better.
But even lesser things, such as context, cannot be fully and correctly interpreted unless the computer has a full awareness of what's around it, including colloquial and incorrect language. It also has to know how to ask questions (and what question to ask) when it doesn't understand something.
I'd also like to stress the point that I don't think voice recognition isn't feasible for computers, but we will not be able to talk to computers like we talk to other people without the computer having most of the capabilities of a conscious AI system.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
The clause is actually quite moot in Canada, where that law applies, because minors cannot be held to the "I agree that I am under 18" clause. The only thing this clause does is cause problems for minors in other countries.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Sorry to say it, but voice-recognition won't get too much better until we come up with semi-conscious AI. Context is a major part of language, and you simply can't do real voice recognition without it. (eg. How do you make the computer know when you're talking *to* it, and when you're talking *about* it?)
Voice synthesis has room for improvement, but it's pretty much in the same boat.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
It won't actually be a problem, because unlike Windows, good Linux apps separate applications from libraries. Windows tends to embed stuff by running the program, but swallowing the program's window in another window. Good Linux programmers, OTOH, tend to make and use libraries that do individual tasks, instead of just running the full-blown program in a swallowed window.
It's like if you'd have to start up the GIMP, every time you want to use a GTK app.
Microsoft has good ideas, but awful programmers and software engineers.
Anyone notice how whenever MS first buys out a piece of software, it works great, but it throws its programmers it it, it turns to bloatware crap? Remember IE? I started off with IE2.0, which was a great, light, fast web browser (probably mostly SpyGlass code), then with evey new version, it got slower, buggier, and more bloated, once Microsoft code took it over.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I think the worst enemy of free software is not software forking, but license splintering. As much as I think the BSDL is too lax, it is at least compatible with the GPL, so we, as open-source programmers, can share our code between projects.
What we really need is for OSI (or the FSF, or SPI - someone we trust) to make a list of open-source licenses, with their standing in `restrictiveness'. Then any open source project can include the clause:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the , or (at your option) and license of equal or greater restrictiveness, as deemed by the Open Source Initiative (see http://www.opensource.org/)."
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
http://dlitzpower.tripod.com/pokebsod/
A little blatent self-promotion never hurt anyone.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Exactly. It is a 30 kilowatt computer. It requires a constant supply of 30 kilowatts.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Just make the sources reasonably available, and everyone will be happy.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Come on, people! We all want cheap, distributed, 10Mbps, wireless, non-line-of-sight WAN hardware. Think of the fun, 70-ping, Quake tourneys in your neighbourhood! (And you could share the cost of a few internet connections!)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I found listening to RMS sing his free software song to be quite funny. No forced laughing here! And I'm a free software advocate!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
But who would use it? I doubt many would.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Someone should take the *BSD source, change the symantics of a single line of code, and relicense it under a proprietary license (eg. the M$ EULA). The BSD license allows it. Oh? What's this? The BSD license isn't that great after all? The GPL wouldn't have this problem? Thought so.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
With *any* license you (as the original author of the code or holder of the license) have the right to release future versions of the code under a different license or to not release it at all - because YOU originally wrote the code, YOU have complete control over future licensing. However, previously released versions must remain under the GPL... once it's out, it's out, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want to release an existing version under a non-GPL license, just change a line or two of the code and re-release it.
Exactly. I'll also mention that at that point, there will be a fork in development. Others will work on the GPLled code, and you will work on yours, and there will be nothing you can do to stop them.
Also, you can only re-license the product it you retain the copyright to the entire work. If Joe Smith writes you a patch and you incorporate it in your product, you're screwed (unless you can somehow "unincorporate" it), because he hasn't licensed his code to you under anything other than the GPL. Of course, you could ask him, or do as the FSF does and require everyone to sign over copyright to you, but a lot of people may be unwilling to do so.
<Offtopic SCORE="-1">
Whatever happened to the announcement that Qt-2.0 would be released as GPL? The QPL sucks, but KDE rules. We should resume the FreeQt efforts.
Running GNOME with kfm rules!
</Offtopic>
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
How much of a pain in the add the license is. It is not protecting them, it is burdening them. It is not called the GPV for nothing. It has wormed its way in and infected his product. A truly free license would not have done that.
Comsider this:
I'm a developer. I want software to be free. I buy into a lot of what RMS, ESR, etc say. I know that in order for free software to propagate, it has to prove it's better than its proprietary counterparts. I therefore want to give free software an advantage: my work can only be included in other free software projects. I don't want to work for Microsoft for free. If Microsoft wants to use my code, they can pay me, but if Alan Cox wants to use my code for some drivers he's working on, he can feel free to do so. So, I go to hire a lawyer to draft me a license that outlines these terms, but wait! There's already a license I can use that suits my purpose: the GNU General Public License. Richard Stallman just saved me a bunch of lawyer's fees.
The BSD license is a good license, but it's ahead of its time. When all software is free, and the thought that it should be proprietary becomes generally absurd, the BSDL will be the perfect solution for everyone. However, not all software is free, and free software developers want to separate themselves from proprietary companies. These developers don't want to work for Company X for free, but they are willing to share their work with others like them. So they choose the GPL.
When all software is free (as in speech), I'll start writing BSD-licensed software. Until then, it's GPL for me.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
So supposing I overcome my reluctance of going back 30 years to a command-line development system :-), am I obliged to ship a CD with every unit?
Nope. Read the GPL. You just have to make the source available (for a nominal fee), and make sure your users (customers) know this.
And where does my advantage go if I publish my source code for my competitors to download, anyway?
You were the first to the market with it.
Say I write you a nifty program. You want to embed in in your appliance. My license says (and therefore I say) that you can if you distribute the modifications as well. I am not willing to give you a monopolistic advantage with my software. If you want that advantage, don't use my code.
Also, Copyright law allows you to have more than one license, and you can do whatever you want with your code, as long as it is not derived from my code. Why? It's your code, right? Well you're not allowed to have/distribute my code unless you agree to license any modifications you make under the same license you got the original software from.
You can legally distribute diffs (even somehow in binary form) by themselves under any license you want, but when those diffs are included with (applied to) my code, in order for you to legally distribute my code, you must release those changes under my license, because those are the terms of my license.
Bottom line: Read the GPL. It's not that long, read it.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Yes, I agree that would be ideal, but we, the internet geek community, aren't really that much the source of the RIIA's total revenue. In short: we won't have enough influence anyway.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."