Use the GPL if you have strong philosophical objections to the basic idea of intellectual property.
If you're against intellectual property, then you have to be against the GPL. In fact your only stance is to release everything as public domain. After all, if you release software under the GPL, then you're using IP laws to force people to redistribute the source when they use your code. If there was no intellectual property, then they could take GPL code, include it in a programme, distribute the binary but not the source. You haven't lost anything, so you can't complain.
I'd divide the flamefests into two categories. The first are the crap flamewars, that don't really matter. With the second category, flamewars actually have some meat to them.
The first category:
Emacs vs. vi: Just a matter of key-combinations and other fluff, doesn't make a real solid difference, they both let you write code. No-one really takes such flamewars seriously.
KDE vs Gnome: Just a matter of which icon is in which place and which is more/less bloated, in the end it's just fluff, not functionality. The only people who take part in flamewars like this are people obsessed with transparent windows who don't actually produce anything worthwhile (other than themes...)
Microsoft vs SCO: It's not a flamewar when no-one supports either side.
PHP vs Ruby on Rails: I don't know what either of those are.
Python vs. Perl: Again, just fluff. They do the same thing, only one doesn't have a braindead forced-whitespace system.
The second category:
BSD licence vs GPL: Can affect the way your entire organisation runs. Using the GPL can mean the lawyers coming round and closing your business. This makes it unviable for anything more serious than home servers made to control your wi-fi toaster.
Linux vs BSD: Again, completely different things. For example Linux is an amateur toy, whereas OpenBSD is a secure, efficient professional operating system. Notice how on netcraft the top servers all run BSD, not Linux.
C++ vs Java: Two completely different things. Notice how Java programmes take ten weeks to open, and then they're ugly and slow? And its main feature (being cross-platform) doesn't actually work. You may as well use C++.
Linux vs Windows: This always causes fireworks. Mainly ignited from the heat given out by rabid Linux zealots foaming and the mouth whilst sparks fly out of their ears when someone points out that Linux is a disorganised mess of ugly, bloated interfaces, hacked libraries and poor imitations of commercial software.
Latex vs Word. This might provide a good flamewar once Word manages to cope with more than 6 pages without choking. And when two-word documents aren't 150kB. And when they don't contain viruses.
Ip4 vs Ip6: Usually ends pretty quickly when someone points out to the Ip4 zealot who says that NAT is acceptable and there are enough addresses that he's a hypocrite because he has his own IP address and won't accept NAT himself, but wants everyone else to. However whilst it lasts it's a good flamewar when you compare Ip4 to horseless carriages and mention the 'No-one will ever need more than 640k' analogy.
I don't know if it's bit anyone in the arse. Maybe no-one has contributed back, but then they're no worse off than if they didn't release the source at all. It's not like the source has been taken from them. The same way as if you download an MP3, the copyright holder hasn't actually lost anything. You can't say that these projects would have contributed back if it were GPL: they probably wouldn't have used it at all.
How many of these projects wouldn't have happened if the code were GPL? But the projects ARE here, and no doubt a lot of people have benefitted from these closed-source spin-offs, even if the original projects don't see the derivative source.
Another aspect of the BSD licence is that if you're a company who uses an open source product, if it's under the BSD licence it's less likely to have a sting in the tail. With the GPL, there's the impression (whether right or wrong), that eventually you'll end up violating some clause and have to distribute your source. That's not much fun for a commercial organisation where the source is highly-guarded.
Imagine you're a programmer for an organisation, you convince your boss to use some GPL code in your systems to save money. Then a few years down the line, it turns out some of the products you've released are tainted with GPL code, and now RMS is at your door with a subpoena for your code. This wouldn't happen with the BSD licence, so it's not quite as clear as you'd like to think.
That's probably the most insightful thing I've read on this site regarding copyright. However it won't ever happen, because neither side will like it.
1. The record/film industries won't like it as it restricts their rights to fuck us up the arse, sue us and leech us for every penny. 2. The slashbots won't like it as it doesn't allow them free reign to download anything they want.
Why should he have to show them how good he is? They asked HIM to come. They begged him to work for them. He took him out from HIS OWN schedule to talk to them, and when he gets there they start trying to test him. What terrible manners. When you want something from someone and they are interested in helping you, you don't treat them like dirt, you should be grateful.
Microsoft's arrogance costs them, AGAIN.
he could easily be the arrogant or thoughtless type who writes substandard code
Are you thinking of the same Arthur Sorkin I am? And if he's arrogant or thoughtless, why did they beg him (twice) to work for them?
Microsoft don't pay very well at all. For someone like Sorkin, he can get much more money working for others companies. In fact, the interview should have consisted of the Microsoft interviewers on their knees begging him to work for them.
Microsoft is suited for medium-skilled sheep. High-skilled, independent thinking people would be stifled by the terrible Microsoft culture of beaurocracy, monopolisation and low standards.
Microsoft's clever little quizes actually put people on the spot and make them show that they can think instead of only doing what's expected. I think it's brilliant.
Yeah, so brilliant in fact that it lost them what would have been a tremendous asset to the company. Their interview technique works, this man was obviously a terrible candidate, not suited to doing anything at all. He clearly has no skills whatsoever.
I'm sure Microsoft will be much better off hiring someone with a fraction of the resume, who'll suck up to them and jump through all the hoops.
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. If you think Microsoft's arrogance is bad, Google is even worse. There's so much hype, and so many fanboys, that anyone working at Google thinks they're God's gift. Their hiring practices are even more arrogant than Microsoft. Rather than day-long interviews, think interviews lasting days or even weeks. And they don't pay much of a salary either, even less than Microsoft.
As for innovation, Google don't innovate much at all. Desktop search is the most overrated thing since blogs, only even less useful. Other than that they just rehash old services, but release them with more hype. Don't be fooled by the 'aura'.
A day long interview with idiots and arrogant bastards, and they didn't even give you a job? I hope you billed them for your time. What a bunch of arseholes. Treating someone effectively like a slave who can spend all his time jumping through hoops for Microsoft...
If I go to an interview for a job, they're going to be telling me why I should work for them, not the other way round.
I think you're reading too much into the article text. If Sorkin himself had written that he'd probably have worded it differently. The word 'application' was only used by some hack, not by either Microsoft or Sorkin.
Because then taxes don't need to be as high. Or are you fine with the concept of having a portion of your wages forcibly seized by the government in order to put it straight in Bill Gates' pocket?
You must be joking. The old Italian Job was a classic, the new one is utter garbage. Not a seeming redeeming aspect. For another shitty remake, see the War of the Worlds. The sooner Spielburg is ousted as the overrated hack he is, the better.
It's a trick question: man-hole covers are square. Anyone giving an answer about how circular lids can't fall down the hole is thinking inside the box, and is therefore an unsuitable employee.
If you're going for a business lunch, then the company should pay for it. If not, then get the money from a cash machine. I don't see how logging onto a bank account at work gets you your money, unless your computer is connected to a note forger machine.
If you don't want non-work passwords to be logged, then don't enter non-work passwords on work computers. Key-logging is perfectly acceptable. In my company we put loggers on all the computers to see what the employees are up to. I don't see how this is any worse than watching them on a camera or going round in person watching them. Is standing behind someone whilst they work an invasion of privacy?
Why do Google care? This technology won't be anywhere near Google HQ, they have their own fast connections. As long as their shareholders are happy, that's all that matters. Remember their motto: 'Don't be evil...to investors.'
Great works having their roots in other works isn't the same as remixing. For example when an author borrows concepts from another book, it's not the same as some rap 'artists' remixing a song.
Remixing a book would be like doing the following: 1. Take an existing book and cut out all the pages. 2. Photocopy a few pages of the book. 3. Glue these pages together in a random order. 4. Read it whilst a black man stands behind you talking.
An article about the internal structure of dinosaur bones has scientific value, and therefore has no place on Slashdot.
You should have posted something about copyright infringement, hacking, installing Linux or wardriving, i.e. Slashdotters' favourite activities. I think you've been drawn in by the 'News for Nerds' marketing, and you may have thought it was about intelligent articles written for an educated audience. I was that naive once.
That's a good point. These extortionate prices are going to put off all but the most hardcore fans, which in my mind is cutting away a huge potential market.
I for one haven't seen '24', but I've heard good things about it. If I saw it on sale for $72, there's no way I'd buy it. No fucking way. If it cost say $10, I might pay that. If I'd seen a few episodes and liked it, I might pay $15 or $20. Considering how much it costs to press a DVD, this is extortion.
You can do the numbers and work out that you're only paying $x per episode, but when you've got a programme which has dozens of episodes, each episode being very long, the average quality in each episode is going to be low. The best programmes are about 6 episodes per series, half an hour per episode. Any more than that, and it's going to be stretched.
With 24 hour-long episodes, the average quality is going to be low. The script won't be tight, the tension won't be maintained, it's going to feel like it's spread too thinly. It might be good to watch on TV, but on DVD you're expecting a higher average quality, and it's not fun to pay $72 to sit through what's mainly filler to get to the good bits.
Bear in mind, we're talking about the real world, not the geek world. I bought a computer a few years ago, and there's no TV-out. Most people have computers where the graphics card is built into the motherboard, lacking anything but the most basic features.
Most people don't have the computer next to the TV, it's often in a different room altogether.
And most people don't want their TV/DVD to be interrupted because of system slowdown because whoever's on the computer is doing something processor-intensive.
And they don't want their programme to be interrupted everything the computer crashes, or a screensaver comes up or an error or IM or anything that is part of the hassle of running a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the GPL if you have strong philosophical objections to the basic idea of intellectual property.
If you're against intellectual property, then you have to be against the GPL. In fact your only stance is to release everything as public domain. After all, if you release software under the GPL, then you're using IP laws to force people to redistribute the source when they use your code. If there was no intellectual property, then they could take GPL code, include it in a programme, distribute the binary but not the source. You haven't lost anything, so you can't complain.
The first category:
The second category:
I don't know if it's bit anyone in the arse. Maybe no-one has contributed back, but then they're no worse off than if they didn't release the source at all. It's not like the source has been taken from them. The same way as if you download an MP3, the copyright holder hasn't actually lost anything. You can't say that these projects would have contributed back if it were GPL: they probably wouldn't have used it at all.
How many of these projects wouldn't have happened if the code were GPL? But the projects ARE here, and no doubt a lot of people have benefitted from these closed-source spin-offs, even if the original projects don't see the derivative source.
Another aspect of the BSD licence is that if you're a company who uses an open source product, if it's under the BSD licence it's less likely to have a sting in the tail. With the GPL, there's the impression (whether right or wrong), that eventually you'll end up violating some clause and have to distribute your source. That's not much fun for a commercial organisation where the source is highly-guarded.
Imagine you're a programmer for an organisation, you convince your boss to use some GPL code in your systems to save money. Then a few years down the line, it turns out some of the products you've released are tainted with GPL code, and now RMS is at your door with a subpoena for your code. This wouldn't happen with the BSD licence, so it's not quite as clear as you'd like to think.
That's probably the most insightful thing I've read on this site regarding copyright. However it won't ever happen, because neither side will like it.
1. The record/film industries won't like it as it restricts their rights to fuck us up the arse, sue us and leech us for every penny.
2. The slashbots won't like it as it doesn't allow them free reign to download anything they want.
Why should he have to show them how good he is? They asked HIM to come. They begged him to work for them. He took him out from HIS OWN schedule to talk to them, and when he gets there they start trying to test him. What terrible manners. When you want something from someone and they are interested in helping you, you don't treat them like dirt, you should be grateful.
Microsoft's arrogance costs them, AGAIN.
he could easily be the arrogant or thoughtless type who writes substandard code
Are you thinking of the same Arthur Sorkin I am? And if he's arrogant or thoughtless, why did they beg him (twice) to work for them?
Microsoft don't pay very well at all. For someone like Sorkin, he can get much more money working for others companies. In fact, the interview should have consisted of the Microsoft interviewers on their knees begging him to work for them.
Microsoft is suited for medium-skilled sheep. High-skilled, independent thinking people would be stifled by the terrible Microsoft culture of beaurocracy, monopolisation and low standards.
Microsoft's clever little quizes actually put people on the spot and make them show that they can think instead of only doing what's expected. I think it's brilliant.
Yeah, so brilliant in fact that it lost them what would have been a tremendous asset to the company. Their interview technique works, this man was obviously a terrible candidate, not suited to doing anything at all. He clearly has no skills whatsoever.
I'm sure Microsoft will be much better off hiring someone with a fraction of the resume, who'll suck up to them and jump through all the hoops.
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. If you think Microsoft's arrogance is bad, Google is even worse. There's so much hype, and so many fanboys, that anyone working at Google thinks they're God's gift. Their hiring practices are even more arrogant than Microsoft. Rather than day-long interviews, think interviews lasting days or even weeks. And they don't pay much of a salary either, even less than Microsoft.
As for innovation, Google don't innovate much at all. Desktop search is the most overrated thing since blogs, only even less useful. Other than that they just rehash old services, but release them with more hype. Don't be fooled by the 'aura'.
How many guitarists these days improvise or compose? There don't seem to be any good guitar players these days.
A day long interview with idiots and arrogant bastards, and they didn't even give you a job? I hope you billed them for your time. What a bunch of arseholes. Treating someone effectively like a slave who can spend all his time jumping through hoops for Microsoft...
If I go to an interview for a job, they're going to be telling me why I should work for them, not the other way round.
I think you're reading too much into the article text. If Sorkin himself had written that he'd probably have worded it differently. The word 'application' was only used by some hack, not by either Microsoft or Sorkin.
Because then taxes don't need to be as high. Or are you fine with the concept of having a portion of your wages forcibly seized by the government in order to put it straight in Bill Gates' pocket?
You must be joking. The old Italian Job was a classic, the new one is utter garbage. Not a seeming redeeming aspect. For another shitty remake, see the War of the Worlds. The sooner Spielburg is ousted as the overrated hack he is, the better.
It's a trick question: man-hole covers are square. Anyone giving an answer about how circular lids can't fall down the hole is thinking inside the box, and is therefore an unsuitable employee.
No way. What the hell do you do with her for the extra 26 minutes?
Help her with her homework.
No, it's hard for nerds to procreate because they look like this:
p g 0 at%20Penguicon.jpg
http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~rgevaert/gnulinux/rms.j
or this:
http://www.pinatariders.org/freon/tanstaafl/ESR%2
Yes. My IT department has at least 300GB of them.
If you're going for a business lunch, then the company should pay for it. If not, then get the money from a cash machine. I don't see how logging onto a bank account at work gets you your money, unless your computer is connected to a note forger machine.
If you don't want non-work passwords to be logged, then don't enter non-work passwords on work computers. Key-logging is perfectly acceptable. In my company we put loggers on all the computers to see what the employees are up to. I don't see how this is any worse than watching them on a camera or going round in person watching them. Is standing behind someone whilst they work an invasion of privacy?
Why do Google care? This technology won't be anywhere near Google HQ, they have their own fast connections. As long as their shareholders are happy, that's all that matters. Remember their motto: 'Don't be evil...to investors.'
Does that make Gibson a homotextual?
Great works having their roots in other works isn't the same as remixing. For example when an author borrows concepts from another book, it's not the same as some rap 'artists' remixing a song.
Remixing a book would be like doing the following:
1. Take an existing book and cut out all the pages.
2. Photocopy a few pages of the book.
3. Glue these pages together in a random order.
4. Read it whilst a black man stands behind you talking.
An article about the internal structure of dinosaur bones has scientific value, and therefore has no place on Slashdot.
You should have posted something about copyright infringement, hacking, installing Linux or wardriving, i.e. Slashdotters' favourite activities. I think you've been drawn in by the 'News for Nerds' marketing, and you may have thought it was about intelligent articles written for an educated audience. I was that naive once.
Mod parent down. The previous article was him being arrested, this is him being charged. Two completely different events.
Note the titles:
6th: "Man Arrested for Using Open Wireless Network"
7th: "Florida Man Charged for Stealing Wi-Fi"
The arrest precedes the charge.
That's a good point. These extortionate prices are going to put off all but the most hardcore fans, which in my mind is cutting away a huge potential market.
I for one haven't seen '24', but I've heard good things about it. If I saw it on sale for $72, there's no way I'd buy it. No fucking way. If it cost say $10, I might pay that. If I'd seen a few episodes and liked it, I might pay $15 or $20. Considering how much it costs to press a DVD, this is extortion.
You can do the numbers and work out that you're only paying $x per episode, but when you've got a programme which has dozens of episodes, each episode being very long, the average quality in each episode is going to be low. The best programmes are about 6 episodes per series, half an hour per episode. Any more than that, and it's going to be stretched.
With 24 hour-long episodes, the average quality is going to be low. The script won't be tight, the tension won't be maintained, it's going to feel like it's spread too thinly. It might be good to watch on TV, but on DVD you're expecting a higher average quality, and it's not fun to pay $72 to sit through what's mainly filler to get to the good bits.
Bear in mind, we're talking about the real world, not the geek world. I bought a computer a few years ago, and there's no TV-out. Most people have computers where the graphics card is built into the motherboard, lacking anything but the most basic features.
Most people don't have the computer next to the TV, it's often in a different room altogether.
And most people don't want their TV/DVD to be interrupted because of system slowdown because whoever's on the computer is doing something processor-intensive.
And they don't want their programme to be interrupted everything the computer crashes, or a screensaver comes up or an error or IM or anything that is part of the hassle of running a computer.