It's possible that they're just not comfortable guaranteeing the legality of code prior to this release because they haven't reviewed it. Just a thought.
The GPL might be less free and, by forcing cooperation, the better for it and the future of the software under its wing.
And that may very well be the case, but the problem I'm having is that it's being done under the banner of "Freedom", which "forced cooperation" certainly does not mean. Perhaps, instead of "Free Software", it should be renamed, "Cooperative Software", but even that's a misnomer, since GPL software often is unable to really cooperate with anything other than other GPL software consistently and predictably.
The author's freedom is also protected by the Microsoft EULA and by copyright laws. I'm not convinced that the GPL provides any additional protection for the author. As a matter of fact, the GPL proponents would say otherwise -- that the author is giving up some of his freedoms provided by copyright so that somebody else can benefit from the source. The question is who benefits? My thinking is that it's developers who share the collectivist ideology that RMS calls "freedom". Which just makes me think "Freedom to do what?" or "Freedom from what?".
Allowing freedom includes allowing people to do things you don't necessarily agree with. I used to defend the GPL consistently, but I'm starting to feel like "Free as in Speech" should also include unpopular speech, and that's what the BSD license protects that the GPL does not.
In the words of Theo de Raadt:...software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
As opposed to the the GPL, which exists as Stallman's attempt to redefine "Free Software" as any software that suits his political ideology.
The GPL as a strategy is fine, but to call it "freedom" is less than honest. Whose freedom is being protected by the GPL? The developers? Not really. The developers are only allowed to use the source as long as they conform to the RMS ideology that the work they do should benefit the collective and not necessarily just the individual who wrote the software. As for the users, what freedom do they gain by using GPL software over BSD licensed software? The freedom to use software that does not co-exist peacefully with others? The freedom to view the source code they don't understand or care to understand? Besides, the original BSD software always remains free as in speech and beer, even if the Hated Proprietary Software Vendor of the Week exercises their right to protect their own interests.
I'm certain that I'll be moderated as a troll, but this something that I've been pondering quite a bit lately, and I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.
they are actually doing is targetting people which publish their referrer logs
Hmmm, who reads the logs that aren't published? Geeks with no girlfriends, maybe? Sounds like a good target audience for a porn site to me.
"Hey, why is [insert favorite porn site here] linking to my geek portal/blog? They must be a good site if they link to mine, and I can easily explain my visit to the boss!"
Create a BSD licensed application that accesses the XML format, so that users will have a choice other than MS Word.
It seems that Microsoft has inadvertently demonstated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom, as is its intent. If the user can only use MS Word or some other highly restrictive software to access these file formats, because somebody has decided to be a GPL zealot, then the GPL has become a hindrance to the users' freedom.
I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it until people stop making this absurd arguement. Apache runs 2/3rds of the web according to Netcraft, yet IIS is responsible for, I would guess, at least 90% of the web-based worms. Using your logic, Apache should be begging for mercy from the worm writers.
Is the code open source? As we are still exploring commercial possibilities with 3D17 we would rather not rule anything out by releasing the code at this time
That's fine and dandy, but I wonder if anybody realizes that even if they don't release the source, that they will immediately face competition from software that is built on the collaboration principle that makes this project work -- Open Source. It seems like that cat's out of the bag now, so it may be a little too late to explore those options at this point.
The fact remains that ESR is wasting a lot of time trying to control his environment and prevent "Hacker" from taking on the negative meaning that it has today. Sorry, Eric, but it's time to move on to more meaningful debates instead of spinning your wheels on an issue that is next to meaningless. Let's just call ourselves "developers" or something be done with it. It sure would help with the marketing of OSS.
Giving them credit for something that is not finalized, I still have to say that I'm disappointed with the direction this is headed. It seems that the file selector and Nautilus both have gone the complete opposite direction as the rest of the GNOME and GTK projects in that they're not simplifying and making the desktop more intuitive and usable. Even if everything else is perfect, the usablity of GNOME will suffer greatly as long as the foundational elements of the file selection and file management are not done properly. Even copying the UI of the KDE and Windows file selectors would be a dramatic improvement over the existing product.
The more bad patent laws negatively affect business, the more likely patent law reform is to happen. Microsoft is already out $500 million because they wanted to use plugins, and now these guys are paying $4.3 million for this "innovation". Eventually, so many businesses are going to be screwed out of so many dollars, they will start to seek reform, and we'll all be better off.
Zeal is impractical passion which is easily overcome by real world experience. Anybody that is a zealot for any cause lives in a bubble that allows them to be unwavering in their ideology. Practical passion for a cause, however, endures because it is flexible and able to adapt to new enviroments. OSS zealots are just as endangered as Microsoft when they cannot adapt to an environment they don't control. RMS and ESR, for instance, have become so out of touch with reality that they are constantly struggling to maintain their definitions of "Free" and "Hacker", but if they were less eager to control their environment, they might actually convince more people to use OSS, which is infinitely more adaptable than they have demonstrated themselves to be.
The only way to change the law is to stop giving the RIAA more power by proving they're relevant. You prove they're relevant by downloading RIAA artists that you know about as a result of RIAA marketing. You want the RIAA to go away? Download music from independent artists who want you to share their music and demonstrate that the RIAA is no longer needed.
I recommend that you use a form that does NOT have the user's email address in a hidden input. Just have the user's ID, then on the server, find the address based on that ID and send the message accordingly. I know you want to keep the mailto: link thing happening, but if you do that, harvesters will always find a way to decode whatever you're doing.
In about 1997, Phil Greenspun wrote in his How to be a Web Whore Just like Me book in Chapter 8: "You should learn Java. I predict that it will gradually supplant C over the next ten years. Java is going to be big. You heard it here first."
In this particular post, he is not saying that Java is not ever useful or practical. He merely states that people who develop in Java are often using a tool that is not especially suited to the task -- that it's not always the right tool for the job. This is exactly like a single guy who does nothing with his SUV except do a one hour commute to work and home -- it works, but there are more practical solutions.
If popularity is what makes Windows insecure, then why is IIS being hit many more times than Apache even while Apache runs 60% of the websites out there?
The WHOIS data is a problem because it ties personal information to information that may not be very popular on the web. If you run an anti-DMCA site, for instance, or anti-anything for that matter, and your personal information is tied to that site, then it leaves you open to harrassment by organizations or individuals that you're campaigning against. This is just one example that demonstrates the differences between the WHOIS database and the phone book. The phone book doesn't expose your potentially unpopular ideology, and the phone company does give the people the option to be unlisted.
On the other hand, it's very easy to get around publishing personal info in the WHOIS database: whois -h whois.melbourneit.com stallman.org shows Richard M. Stallman as being based in the UK, which is obviously not accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible that they're just not comfortable guaranteeing the legality of code prior to this release because they haven't reviewed it. Just a thought.
Aliens have left us a message in the image caption. Be afraid.
Yeah, I know...lame joke. *sigh*
The GPL might be less free and, by forcing cooperation, the better for it and the future of the software under its wing.
And that may very well be the case, but the problem I'm having is that it's being done under the banner of "Freedom", which "forced cooperation" certainly does not mean. Perhaps, instead of "Free Software", it should be renamed, "Cooperative Software", but even that's a misnomer, since GPL software often is unable to really cooperate with anything other than other GPL software consistently and predictably.
The author's freedom is also protected by the Microsoft EULA and by copyright laws. I'm not convinced that the GPL provides any additional protection for the author. As a matter of fact, the GPL proponents would say otherwise -- that the author is giving up some of his freedoms provided by copyright so that somebody else can benefit from the source. The question is who benefits? My thinking is that it's developers who share the collectivist ideology that RMS calls "freedom". Which just makes me think "Freedom to do what?" or "Freedom from what?".
Allowing freedom includes allowing people to do things you don't necessarily agree with. I used to defend the GPL consistently, but I'm starting to feel like "Free as in Speech" should also include unpopular speech, and that's what the BSD license protects that the GPL does not.
...software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
In the words of Theo de Raadt:
As opposed to the the GPL, which exists as Stallman's attempt to redefine "Free Software" as any software that suits his political ideology.
The GPL as a strategy is fine, but to call it "freedom" is less than honest. Whose freedom is being protected by the GPL? The developers? Not really. The developers are only allowed to use the source as long as they conform to the RMS ideology that the work they do should benefit the collective and not necessarily just the individual who wrote the software. As for the users, what freedom do they gain by using GPL software over BSD licensed software? The freedom to use software that does not co-exist peacefully with others? The freedom to view the source code they don't understand or care to understand? Besides, the original BSD software always remains free as in speech and beer, even if the Hated Proprietary Software Vendor of the Week exercises their right to protect their own interests.
I'm certain that I'll be moderated as a troll, but this something that I've been pondering quite a bit lately, and I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.
they are actually doing is targetting people which publish their referrer logs
Hmmm, who reads the logs that aren't published? Geeks with no girlfriends, maybe? Sounds like a good target audience for a porn site to me.
"Hey, why is [insert favorite porn site here] linking to my geek portal/blog? They must be a good site if they link to mine, and I can easily explain my visit to the boss!"
Create a BSD licensed application that accesses the XML format, so that users will have a choice other than MS Word.
It seems that Microsoft has inadvertently demonstated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom, as is its intent. If the user can only use MS Word or some other highly restrictive software to access these file formats, because somebody has decided to be a GPL zealot, then the GPL has become a hindrance to the users' freedom.
I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it until people stop making this absurd arguement. Apache runs 2/3rds of the web according to Netcraft, yet IIS is responsible for, I would guess, at least 90% of the web-based worms. Using your logic, Apache should be begging for mercy from the worm writers.
Here is an article concerning the possiblity of using scorpion venom to cure cancer.
XMMS is a shining example of what happens when an open source project copies a Windows app created by amateurs that know nothing about usability.
Is this a demonstration of the "innovation" that we hear so much about coming out of Redmond?
Is the code open source?
As we are still exploring commercial possibilities with 3D17 we would rather not rule anything out by releasing the code at this time
That's fine and dandy, but I wonder if anybody realizes that even if they don't release the source, that they will immediately face competition from software that is built on the collaboration principle that makes this project work -- Open Source. It seems like that cat's out of the bag now, so it may be a little too late to explore those options at this point.
The fact remains that ESR is wasting a lot of time trying to control his environment and prevent "Hacker" from taking on the negative meaning that it has today. Sorry, Eric, but it's time to move on to more meaningful debates instead of spinning your wheels on an issue that is next to meaningless. Let's just call ourselves "developers" or something be done with it. It sure would help with the marketing of OSS.
Giving them credit for something that is not finalized, I still have to say that I'm disappointed with the direction this is headed. It seems that the file selector and Nautilus both have gone the complete opposite direction as the rest of the GNOME and GTK projects in that they're not simplifying and making the desktop more intuitive and usable. Even if everything else is perfect, the usablity of GNOME will suffer greatly as long as the foundational elements of the file selection and file management are not done properly. Even copying the UI of the KDE and Windows file selectors would be a dramatic improvement over the existing product.
The more bad patent laws negatively affect business, the more likely patent law reform is to happen. Microsoft is already out $500 million because they wanted to use plugins, and now these guys are paying $4.3 million for this "innovation". Eventually, so many businesses are going to be screwed out of so many dollars, they will start to seek reform, and we'll all be better off.
OK. I'm being just a tad optimistic, aren't I?
Zeal is impractical passion which is easily overcome by real world experience. Anybody that is a zealot for any cause lives in a bubble that allows them to be unwavering in their ideology. Practical passion for a cause, however, endures because it is flexible and able to adapt to new enviroments. OSS zealots are just as endangered as Microsoft when they cannot adapt to an environment they don't control. RMS and ESR, for instance, have become so out of touch with reality that they are constantly struggling to maintain their definitions of "Free" and "Hacker", but if they were less eager to control their environment, they might actually convince more people to use OSS, which is infinitely more adaptable than they have demonstrated themselves to be.
The only way to change the law is to stop giving the RIAA more power by proving they're relevant. You prove they're relevant by downloading RIAA artists that you know about as a result of RIAA marketing. You want the RIAA to go away? Download music from independent artists who want you to share their music and demonstrate that the RIAA is no longer needed.
I recommend that you use a form that does NOT have the user's email address in a hidden input. Just have the user's ID, then on the server, find the address based on that ID and send the message accordingly. I know you want to keep the mailto: link thing happening, but if you do that, harvesters will always find a way to decode whatever you're doing.
Luckily the world was saved from this possibility.
:)
Not Really.
Ian Hickson makes a good case here that using XHTML may not be the right direction to go -- at least at this point.
Looks like Viagra could get some real competition with a brainwave controlled "limb".
I wrote a PHP/MySQL web app for such a task about a year ago. Feel free to contact me if you're interested.
In about 1997, Phil Greenspun wrote in his How to be a Web Whore Just like Me book in Chapter 8:
"You should learn Java. I predict that it will gradually supplant C over the next ten years. Java is going to be big. You heard it here first."
In this particular post, he is not saying that Java is not ever useful or practical. He merely states that people who develop in Java are often using a tool that is not especially suited to the task -- that it's not always the right tool for the job. This is exactly like a single guy who does nothing with his SUV except do a one hour commute to work and home -- it works, but there are more practical solutions.
If popularity is what makes Windows insecure, then why is IIS being hit many more times than Apache even while Apache runs 60% of the websites out there?
The WHOIS data is a problem because it ties personal information to information that may not be very popular on the web. If you run an anti-DMCA site, for instance, or anti-anything for that matter, and your personal information is tied to that site, then it leaves you open to harrassment by organizations or individuals that you're campaigning against. This is just one example that demonstrates the differences between the WHOIS database and the phone book. The phone book doesn't expose your potentially unpopular ideology, and the phone company does give the people the option to be unlisted.
On the other hand, it's very easy to get around publishing personal info in the WHOIS database:
whois -h whois.melbourneit.com stallman.org shows Richard M. Stallman as being based in the UK, which is obviously not accurate.