Comparing apples to oranges. You must compare ONE company to one government, or all companies to all governments:
In 6 years, how many prime ministers in the world have been dismissed? How many countries have changed government, or have lost power or influence while their competitors have grown?
So, when such a prediction comes confirmed by observation, evolution models are changed to reflect it (that's science as usual). What changes will make ID models so as to reflect all of its predictions that are proven wrong by observation?
(BTW, that's how my question is relevant. A model is not 'true' or 'false', but 'better' or 'worse' depending on the number and accuracy of events it predicts. A vague 'all DNA has a function, but we don't know anything about it' is not of great value.)
(And Darwinism has nothing to do with god-hating - science doesn't pronounce about religion!)
If they can do it...anyone can do it. Talk about non-sequiturs...
if one can succeed, any normally intelligent able bodied person can do it. You mean, anyone that has exactly the same combination of sheer luck and specific contacts than the one who got special conditions, those that took him out of the expected outcome for their class?
if you're able bodied and minded, you CAN do what it takes to succeed. Keep repeating your religious mantra, it doesn't make it more rational nor more true.
Any big company has patents of their own and usually patents that they exclusively license from competitors. E.g. consider Intel and AMD. Intel sued AMD for patent infringement and in the end there was a settlement. AMD has granted Intel an exclusive license to its patents and vice versa. AMD apparently ended up paying Intel since their portfolio was smaller. I realise that this is mostly hardware patents, but there are analogous cases with software patents I'm sure.
Now inside those companies, developers contribute to a GPL2 project where the patent licensing clause is not present but the "or later clause" is. When GPL3 is released their users can take the code an AMD developer contributed and opt to license it under GPL3 and demand AMD grant them a license to Intels's patents which they can't do without going back to court. Most likely this would be the end of AMD. That's why big corporations have lawyer departments, isn't it? In your constructed case, the legal team wouldn't allow the individual developer to release code under a license that could be changed by the FSF at any time. So that's not a realistic scenario.
You can still use the GPL version 2, but if you DO include the "or later, as publised by the FSF" clause, then you KNOW you are affected by FSF decisions. If you CAN'T do that because you are tied by other companies patents, then you have no right to distribute the GPL code in the first place. How is that different to any other kind of licensed, proprietary code?
They guy that wrote the code probably didn't know about the patent as I keep saying. His employer's legal department might have done, but since GPL2 doesn't mention patents and he probably didn't ask them, he thought he was doing everyone a favour with no downside. So, you're blaming the license for the possibility that irresponsible developers, that release enterprise code without consulting their legal department, could not comply with copyright legal terms?
What happens if the developer contributed code to a GPL2 project which had the "or later clause". They could do this have no intention of licensing their patents. If you license your code with a license that gives power to a third party, don't complain when that third party uses that power. If the developer didn't want to license their patent, they shouldn't have published it under GPLv3 (which they did when added the "or later" clause, which could have been omitted). Damn, if they didn't want to license the patent, they shouldn't publish the code under GPLv2 either - GPL'ed code is meant to be shared and shared alike, not encumbered by patents.
Remember kiddies: Restrictions are freedom. Yes, precisely because your freedom begins where mine ends. If I have no restrictions, you have no freedom.
it seems like the developer has lost some freedom to keep his patents and keys private, but that can't be correct can it? Nope, developers have freedom to keep his patents and keys private, as long as they don't include GPLv3 code in their project (and later distribute it). What they won't have is freedom to do both things at the same time, but since doing so would be against the four protected freedoms for the other users, there is no point in GPL to allow for that possibility.
The GPL is not a free as in freedom license, it is restrictive. This comes from the school of thought that assumes "freedom==lack of restrictions". It's unfortunate that this school of thought is internally inconsistent, since freedom for one person always implies a restriction for others - no one is allowed to act in a way that interferes with that person's freedom.
1. It has never been implemented with any great success GPL
2. There is little incentive for the individual to perform at his or her best because the marginal contribution of a single person has almost zero effect on the collective Linux
3. It encourages irresponsible behavior by shifting the cost of personal decisions onto the society Debian (ok, that one might be considered as irresponsible behavior) 8-P
Maybe someone could create an online jigsaw puzzle game, and let the internet people reassemble those docs. Man, you've just found the idea that will revolutionize MMORPGs! a Big Brother-Tetris crossover!
Maybe you should re-read grandparent's post? Surely $US17 is not unreasonably high to buy once in a while to the average income, but it certainly put it in the deliberate rational decision, which actually *does* motivate people to don't buy the CD. By pricing it at $2 they might sell 10 times more CDs thus increasing their net income.
The dollars to hours of entertainment ratio for a $20 CD is close to 0 over its lifetime Only if you're fish-memoried. Otherwise its entertainment value has diminishing returns with each replay (more so with movies than with music CDs, though) so the cost is not amortized.
why as an author who has created something create that people want, should i give up my right to charge for that creation in 6 months ? Why should i not be able to charge for it longer ? Because that right is not yours as a divine gift, but because the rest of society allows you to have it. If we don't see benefits in respecting your right any longer, we won't.
You can support BSD without supporting copyright, as it doesn't take advantage of many copyright protections. You think so? How do you force redistributors to copy the copyright notice & license, without copyright enforcement? The very thing that separates BSD licensing from public domain, which is attribution, is also unenforzable unless you resort to copyright.
Code tells the "how". Good documentation (including code comments) must tell the "why"; the programmer's intent is something that cannot be captured by a programming language.
It does seem pretty extreme just to do an interview. Especially about never mentioning the word "Google" ever again, even if you don't get the job. You guys are having it wrong. The NDA doesn't forbid to ever speack the word "Google" again - that would be impossible, anyway. This is forbidden only "relating to this Agreement", which covers trade secrets, financial, business and technical information... so mentionin Google is forbidden just in this context.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing apples to oranges. You must compare ONE company to one government, or all companies to all governments:
In 6 years, how many prime ministers in the world have been dismissed? How many countries have changed government, or have lost power or influence while their competitors have grown?
There, corrected for you.
Look, there's one behind you!
So, when such a prediction comes confirmed by observation, evolution models are changed to reflect it (that's science as usual). What changes will make ID models so as to reflect all of its predictions that are proven wrong by observation?
(BTW, that's how my question is relevant. A model is not 'true' or 'false', but 'better' or 'worse' depending on the number and accuracy of events it predicts. A vague 'all DNA has a function, but we don't know anything about it' is not of great value.)
(And Darwinism has nothing to do with god-hating - science doesn't pronounce about religion!)
If they can do it...anyone can do it.
Talk about non-sequiturs...
if one can succeed, any normally intelligent able bodied person can do it.
You mean, anyone that has exactly the same combination of sheer luck and specific contacts than the one who got special conditions, those that took him out of the expected outcome for their class?
if you're able bodied and minded, you CAN do what it takes to succeed.
Keep repeating your religious mantra, it doesn't make it more rational nor more true.
Oh yes? So what was EXACTLY the function predicted by intelligent design for "junk DNA"?
Just ask the settlers that lived there at the time the war started.
Now inside those companies, developers contribute to a GPL2 project where the patent licensing clause is not present but the "or later clause" is. When GPL3 is released their users can take the code an AMD developer contributed and opt to license it under GPL3 and demand AMD grant them a license to Intels's patents which they can't do without going back to court. Most likely this would be the end of AMD. That's why big corporations have lawyer departments, isn't it? In your constructed case, the legal team wouldn't allow the individual developer to release code under a license that could be changed by the FSF at any time. So that's not a realistic scenario.
You can still use the GPL version 2, but if you DO include the "or later, as publised by the FSF" clause, then you KNOW you are affected by FSF decisions. If you CAN'T do that because you are tied by other companies patents, then you have no right to distribute the GPL code in the first place. How is that different to any other kind of licensed, proprietary code? They guy that wrote the code probably didn't know about the patent as I keep saying. His employer's legal department might have done, but since GPL2 doesn't mention patents and he probably didn't ask them, he thought he was doing everyone a favour with no downside. So, you're blaming the license for the possibility that irresponsible developers, that release enterprise code without consulting their legal department, could not comply with copyright legal terms?
Because public standards are a cornerstone for free software, and state-supported open standards would allow for widespread free software?
Too late to prepare... they're already here!
And then you'll have reputation farms, like we now have link farms, that spammers will use to build reputation.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. This would turn spamming into a expensive resource, thus reducing its overall effect on the net.
What happens in your nice little world of people charging just enough to get by is that, in the long run, benefits are reduced for everyone.
Care to prove that assertion? I've always found that part of the libertarian creed to be baseless.
Maybe you should re-read grandparent's post? Surely $US17 is not unreasonably high to buy once in a while to the average income, but it certainly put it in the deliberate rational decision, which actually *does* motivate people to don't buy the CD. By pricing it at $2 they might sell 10 times more CDs thus increasing their net income.
The dollars to hours of entertainment ratio for a $20 CD is close to 0 over its lifetime
Only if you're fish-memoried. Otherwise its entertainment value has diminishing returns with each replay (more so with movies than with music CDs, though) so the cost is not amortized.
Real Programmers do write their own compilers!
And once you've written yours, then you... er...
Ever heard of bootstrapping?
Code tells the "how". Good documentation (including code comments) must tell the "why"; the programmer's intent is something that cannot be captured by a programming language.
Would you stop watching TV at all just because cinema is better? This was the original reasoning to which I was responding.
And you expect the Slashdot crowd to have a valid answer for that question?