There are 57 million Americans who use file-sharing services today, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group.
I bet there are more people then that that use
and or have used p2p. There are about 291M people in the USA. That means at least 23% of the citizens are using or have used p2p.I personally think anly law(s) that is/are broken by at least 23% or more of the people need to really be reexamined. I think that the majority of US citizens are decent people and if that many of the poplulation feel that it is OK then we need remove laws like the DMCA. We the people did not raise up the USA to ensure the RIAA/MPAA's business plan. They need to go down hard. I have serious doubts that more then 23% of the population are corrupted as the RIAA portrays. Is there really anything wrong with sharing? How many of us have listened to a friends music cd or watched a friends VHS/DVD? Are we ripping off the MPAA/RIAA? I don't think so. I know with digital data things are a bit different. However, how can they claim to own a pattern of electric/magnetic information. If the sectors on my harddrive are arranged similar to a sound file that they make, how can they claim ownership of that? I hope we get some law makers in the USA that stop being protitutes for the lobbiest and make decisions again to benefit the people. Maybe in 10 years or so these old dinosaurs will die off and are nation can progress.
I see the point you are trying to make and I do agree. However, I look at software as science. In science there are not any "new" discoveries, all are made with the help of prior knowlegde. It is the same for software. There is not any great new technology that did not have it's roots some where else. I don't believe in software patents and until/if they are removed, I guess I would just like to see a license that can help level the playing field and not give all the advantages to the big corporations with tons of cash to out sue, harrass and market the rest.
No they are not the same as me. I do not send money to the members of congress to bribe them to pass unconstitutional laws such as the DMCA. I do not send money when the government may make a software decision that does not benefit my company. I have never flown to India to bribe them with $500M when they are making a decision not to choose my product. I do not make software that is incompatible or non-standard to try to remove any compition. I don not make software to try to remove a persons freedom of choice or lock them in.
I do not have anything against the corporate workers, it is the rich, greedy executives that I can't stand. I work as a programmer for a fortune 500 company. They are VERY ethical and family driven. I would not work there if it was any other way. Your life may be ran by money, however I live my life based on morals and I make decisions to uphold those morals even if the decision would be hard.
I am also not against a corporation just because it is large. Look at walmart, I think they are great because they use their huge buying power to constantly cut prices, they remove smut from their stores, they work for the customer which is what corporate American was once about.
I actually thing the *BSD licences are great as well
as all the *BSD's. I just think that big corporate America has been getting away with too much and would like to see some legal means to put them back in their place. By having a license a little more
restrictive then the *BSD, it just may help things out. I just fear some really great protocols, codecs, etc would get release under a *BSD type license and then have some greedy corporate dirt back rip it off, modify it to make it incompatible with the origninal and have the original work become useless. With big corportate money to market the "new and improved" version, it would be hard to compete on fair grounds. Also, I feel that there is more to free/open source software then just a few people contributing to it. I think that it could be a better way for society to share knowledge like other disiplines of science such as astronomy enjoys. A system where knowledge is shared freely and there are measures in place to remove the abusers.
"We" the people: yes
"We" the big ugly corporation: probably no
But then again, nations are not formed by big corporations for big corporate profit. They are formed by the poeple and for the people. Every decision a government makes should be in the best interest of the people. Sadly, I don't think there is one nation left on Earth that works this way anymore.
I'd have to dissagree. It is not the Governments money, it is the TAXPAYERS money. The government NEEDS to ensure that the taxpayers investment remains free. The BSD would allow a nasty company like MS to come along after the development is all done and then "embrace and extend" the work thus making it incompatible with the old version. Then using their monopoly, they can force feed this application/technology to the people who originally paid for it, causing them to pay twice, and MS would get all this will little investment. Taxpayer funded research/development NEEDS to remain in the public domain and not allow any greedy company to come along and steal it or patent it. The only way to ensure that the peoples investment is secure is with the GPL. The GPL will allow any interested party to continue to contribute to the peoples investment without the ability to steal it out from under them. Many dirty commercial companies would love for the taxpayers to fund a project and then be able to come along and steal it for no cost and sell it back to the people.
Wrong bone head. The Free OS'es combined have more
market share then Mac. Those numbers are also
only counting purchased copies and not copies that
have been freely downloaded. Also, as another
poster stated, the majority of "piracy" is commited
by you windoze users, why the hell would the RIAA
want to trust you?
Music piricy will continue to be a massive problem until a low cost alternative (like Apple iTunes) is made available to Windows users.
Umm, why the hell should music only be made available to ms-windows users? Shouldn't Linux, Mac, FreeBSD, etc get music as well? Why in the
hell should someone not be allowed to listen to music because of their choice in an OS?
Umm, and how many developers at MS do you
think work on the MS-Windows KERNEL. I would
guess around 50, and no more then 100. The majority
of MS's programmers do not work on the Kernel, the
kernel team is a a relativly small team, and much
smaller then the 1,000's of developers who have
contributed to the Linux kernel. This doesn't
even count the tens of thousands of developers
world wide that contribute to GNU/Linux as a whole,
including GNOME, KDE, ICEwm, libraries, codecs, applications, etc.
Does it matter that MS has changed the wording
around in their EULA for win2k? They are still
going to try to force their will upon you. Look
at the Media player 9 EULA. It gives M$ the right
to remove "content" they beleive to be violating
a copyright holder. Just when did M$ get the
damn power to be police of the world? Where was
I when that power was granted? There is no
need for any of this garbage. There are laws to
protect copyrights, let the copyright holders
use the legal system just like the rest of us have
to. Just don't give in to the MS FUD or the MS monoply.
Excellent. Instead of 99, it should
be 85MPH and the airbags dont' deploy, the
seat belts unfasten and the James Bond
style ejector seat is fired off. That
will make the roads safe once more.
You don't need to undertand the internals of
the kernel to use Linux. You don't need to
understand C, C++, Perl, Sed, Awk, etc to use
Linux. With driving a car you are expected
to know how to use the gas and brake pedels, the
steering wheel and shifter. You are also required
to know the rules and laws of the road. It is
very similar with Linux. You need to know how to
use a keyboard and mouse. You also are expected
to want to learn a little and most importantly,
you need to know HOW to ask and where to go.
www.google.com is great, they even have a site
just for Linux searches at www.google.com/linux.
There are also great mailing list to get help
at such as:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redhat/
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linux/
Myself and several others put in MANY hours each
week to help help ALL Linux users. There are
only a few rules, no top-posting, not HTML mails,
and try to find the answer BEFORE you ask.
If the GPL is too restrictive, why not release under the LGPL? You can use the LGPL commercially and not have to release ANY source. The only source that would ever be required to be released is the ORIGINAL source IF you modified it. I think other Open Source licenses are good to a point, however they allow too much commercial abuse/greed.
Take the Linux Kernel. There has been 1,000's of man hours put into development. If that was NOT released under a GPL type license, then any greedy corporation can come along and just steal it. Market it as their product and profit without returning anything back to the original project. What would stop a greedy company like MS from taking it and putting their marketing machine behind it and killing off the original project? They get all the profits with non of the work.
All things cost something. With the GPL, instead of saying, give me 5,000 USD per developer to use this library or application, the GPL says, use it freely and IF you want to profit off of it, you don't pay with money, you pay with knowledge. I'd prefer a society that transfers knowledge over money any day.
I think it also comes down to scale. If I put out a small "helper" type library, then I would not care who can use it for whatever purpose. However, if I and a team of developers put many, many hours into a project, I want to ensure that no commercial greed will be able to strip that away.
I also just feel that the free transfer of knowledge is critical to mankind. We are moving fast toward a world where all knowledge will cost money. While all the wealthy corporations in the USA may love that idea, the rest of the world probably does not. Think about this, the USA makes up ONLY 5% of the worlds population, yet has 50% of the worlds wealth. That means that 95% of the people in the world have to share only 50%, while the small 5% of us Americans get to horde the rest. I think licenses like the GPL, LGPL help the spread of free knowledge which can better ALL mankind and not just the greedy 5% trying to hoard it all.
Yup, your right on the money. I am a programmer for a fortune 500 company and our admins would NEVER run winders update on our production server. I work with some of the admins helping them with a Linux/Unix migration since we are moving most of our platform to Linux/Solaris (thank GOD). When there is a patch for the MS vulnerability of the week, they test in in a huge test lab on its own subnet away isolated from our network. Many times things come crashing down because of stupid undocumented changes. Anyway, you would have to be a nitwit to run winders update on any server that you depended on.
Sure it does, MS did not want to implement
HTML, CSS and JavaScript which are all formal
standards because they want all sites out there
to ONLY work in IE. Take this HTML
The width and heigth of the divs are far too
small to fit the contents, this is just bad HTML.
IE ignores the standards and expands the divs
to fit the content. While Moz and others display
it by the book (which looks pretty bad). IE and MS tools in general do
this sort of thing and actually encourage sloppy
web design and app development. This only helps
further their empire by having most apps/sites
only work "properly" with their tools. This is
a very bad service to the IT industry since all
it does is lock people into one product/environment and furthers MS's monopoly.
One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
Here is also some good html to try with IE
<html>
<form>
<input type crash>
</form>
</html>
Re:Maybe I'm a little slow...
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and IE is known for it's great security
and MS is known for their quick turn around times
for patches. Get real, as of 16 May 2003: There are
currently 15 unpatched IE vulnerabilities.
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
Compare that to the number of known mozilla 1.2.1
vulnerabilities. Yup, IE makes a great product
to roll out to an organization. The open source community has a far faster turn around time for security issues then MS can ever dream of.
IE 6 is far from being standards compliant.
Mozilla spanks it in the standars compliant
area. What is document.all any way? That
is not part of the DOM. MS just put that there
to make other browsers not work. The only sites
that look better in IE are broken sites make for
a broken browser.
For those stupid sites that say "requires IE", send
them an email complaining about their stupidity. Really, building a web page is not programming
and it is one of the easiest things you could do. How hard is it to make a stinking standards compliant web page? My little daughter can sit
down with vim and do that.
I thought part of that whole anti-trust case
stuff was that they couldn't "integrate" IE and
other applications into the OS as a way to force
out the competition? I guess they payed off that
"board" that was suppose to make sure they stick
to the settlement? I think the industry as a
whole needs to phase MS out of existence over
the next 2-5 years.
but how so many people can blindly hate Microsoft because of the hate trend makes me want them to succeed.
Ok Bill, stop looking for sympathy votes. Most people do not hat MS because it is the cool thing(tm). They hate them because they are an EVIL and convicted monopoly that got let off easy. They stifle competition and hamper innovation. They do not innovate, they only steal what others have done "embrace and extend" it and market it as their own. They then kill off any competition with their $40 Billion USD. Also, why should non-American nations want to dump all their IT money into a nasty American company. It is not like MS is a great American company to be proud of. However, with MS they get locked in and are bascially forced to use MS products. MS called Linux un-American, they are the ones that are un-American. America was founded by the people and for the people. In the same light, Linux is developed by the people and for the people. It is the "Peoples OS". It is not that all monopolies are a bad thing. Some are good and beneficial to the people. Take Walmart for example. They are the largest company in the world and make MS look like a mom-and-pop company. They are a monopoly and it is almost impossible to compete with them. However, customers are happy because this monopoly uses it's buying power for their customers! They are constantly rolling back prices which benefits the customer. In contrast, MS is constantly uping prices, finding was to lock customers into their products, make it increasingly difficult for a customer to exercise their free choice to choose another product and are holding back technology from growing. So there is a huge difference and the common hate for MS is a justified hate. They have no products that have not/can not be duplicated and/or surpassed. I hope that all the other big players in IT come together and build a road map to phase out MS. The world does not need them and then technology can be free again to innovate and compete.
Well if Novell is correct in there response, then
SCO has no patents, copyrights to sue over. This is
MS FUD trying to stall Linux from beating them in
the server room so they can have more time with longhorn.
IBM, Linux, or the rest have nothing to worry
about since Novell announced that SCO has no
patents on Unix and Novell still owns the IP.
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/p r03033.html
Slashdot Mirror
I bet there are more people then that that use and or have used p2p. There are about 291M people in the USA. That means at least 23% of the citizens are using or have used p2p.I personally think anly law(s) that is/are broken by at least 23% or more of the people need to really be reexamined. I think that the majority of US citizens are decent people and if that many of the poplulation feel that it is OK then we need remove laws like the DMCA. We the people did not raise up the USA to ensure the RIAA/MPAA's business plan. They need to go down hard. I have serious doubts that more then 23% of the population are corrupted as the RIAA portrays. Is there really anything wrong with sharing? How many of us have listened to a friends music cd or watched a friends VHS/DVD? Are we ripping off the MPAA/RIAA? I don't think so. I know with digital data things are a bit different. However, how can they claim to own a pattern of electric/magnetic information. If the sectors on my harddrive are arranged similar to a sound file that they make, how can they claim ownership of that? I hope we get some law makers in the USA that stop being protitutes for the lobbiest and make decisions again to benefit the people. Maybe in 10 years or so these old dinosaurs will die off and are nation can progress.
I see the point you are trying to make and I do agree. However, I look at software as science. In science there are not any "new" discoveries, all are made with the help of prior knowlegde. It is the same for software. There is not any great new technology that did not have it's roots some where else. I don't believe in software patents and until/if they are removed, I guess I would just like to see a license that can help level the playing field and not give all the advantages to the big corporations with tons of cash to out sue, harrass and market the rest.
No they are not the same as me. I do not send money to the members of congress to bribe them to pass unconstitutional laws such as the DMCA. I do not send money when the government may make a software decision that does not benefit my company. I have never flown to India to bribe them with $500M when they are making a decision not to choose my product. I do not make software that is incompatible or non-standard to try to remove any compition. I don not make software to try to remove a persons freedom of choice or lock them in.
I do not have anything against the corporate workers, it is the rich, greedy executives that I can't stand. I work as a programmer for a fortune 500 company. They are VERY ethical and family driven. I would not work there if it was any other way. Your life may be ran by money, however I live my life based on morals and I make decisions to uphold those morals even if the decision would be hard.
I am also not against a corporation just because it is large. Look at walmart, I think they are great because they use their huge buying power to constantly cut prices, they remove smut from their stores, they work for the customer which is what corporate American was once about.
I actually thing the *BSD licences are great as well as all the *BSD's. I just think that big corporate America has been getting away with too much and would like to see some legal means to put them back in their place. By having a license a little more restrictive then the *BSD, it just may help things out. I just fear some really great protocols, codecs, etc would get release under a *BSD type license and then have some greedy corporate dirt back rip it off, modify it to make it incompatible with the origninal and have the original work become useless. With big corportate money to market the "new and improved" version, it would be hard to compete on fair grounds. Also, I feel that there is more to free/open source software then just a few people contributing to it. I think that it could be a better way for society to share knowledge like other disiplines of science such as astronomy enjoys. A system where knowledge is shared freely and there are measures in place to remove the abusers.
"We" the people: yes
"We" the big ugly corporation: probably no
But then again, nations are not formed by big corporations for big corporate profit. They are formed by the poeple and for the people. Every decision a government makes should be in the best interest of the people. Sadly, I don't think there is one nation left on Earth that works this way anymore.
I'd have to dissagree. It is not the Governments money, it is the TAXPAYERS money. The government NEEDS to ensure that the taxpayers investment remains free. The BSD would allow a nasty company like MS to come along after the development is all done and then "embrace and extend" the work thus making it incompatible with the old version. Then using their monopoly, they can force feed this application/technology to the people who originally paid for it, causing them to pay twice, and MS would get all this will little investment. Taxpayer funded research/development NEEDS to remain in the public domain and not allow any greedy company to come along and steal it or patent it. The only way to ensure that the peoples investment is secure is with the GPL. The GPL will allow any interested party to continue to contribute to the peoples investment without the ability to steal it out from under them. Many dirty commercial companies would love for the taxpayers to fund a project and then be able to come along and steal it for no cost and sell it back to the people.
Wrong bone head. The Free OS'es combined have more market share then Mac. Those numbers are also only counting purchased copies and not copies that have been freely downloaded. Also, as another poster stated, the majority of "piracy" is commited by you windoze users, why the hell would the RIAA want to trust you?
Music piricy will continue to be a massive problem until a low cost alternative (like Apple iTunes) is made available to Windows users.
Umm, why the hell should music only be made available to ms-windows users? Shouldn't Linux, Mac, FreeBSD, etc get music as well? Why in the hell should someone not be allowed to listen to music because of their choice in an OS?
What utter stupidity!
Umm, and how many developers at MS do you think work on the MS-Windows KERNEL. I would guess around 50, and no more then 100. The majority of MS's programmers do not work on the Kernel, the kernel team is a a relativly small team, and much smaller then the 1,000's of developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel. This doesn't even count the tens of thousands of developers world wide that contribute to GNU/Linux as a whole, including GNOME, KDE, ICEwm, libraries, codecs, applications, etc.
Does it matter that MS has changed the wording around in their EULA for win2k? They are still going to try to force their will upon you. Look at the Media player 9 EULA. It gives M$ the right to remove "content" they beleive to be violating a copyright holder. Just when did M$ get the damn power to be police of the world? Where was I when that power was granted? There is no need for any of this garbage. There are laws to protect copyrights, let the copyright holders use the legal system just like the rest of us have to. Just don't give in to the MS FUD or the MS monoply.
Excellent. Instead of 99, it should be 85MPH and the airbags dont' deploy, the seat belts unfasten and the James Bond style ejector seat is fired off. That will make the roads safe once more.
You don't need to undertand the internals of the kernel to use Linux. You don't need to understand C, C++, Perl, Sed, Awk, etc to use Linux. With driving a car you are expected to know how to use the gas and brake pedels, the steering wheel and shifter. You are also required to know the rules and laws of the road. It is very similar with Linux. You need to know how to use a keyboard and mouse. You also are expected to want to learn a little and most importantly, you need to know HOW to ask and where to go. www.google.com is great, they even have a site just for Linux searches at www.google.com/linux. There are also great mailing list to get help at such as:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redhat/
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linux/
Myself and several others put in MANY hours each week to help help ALL Linux users. There are only a few rules, no top-posting, not HTML mails, and try to find the answer BEFORE you ask.
Yup, my bad. I meant the ORIGINAL as in the library and not the code that is using the library.
If the GPL is too restrictive, why not release under the LGPL? You can use the LGPL commercially and not have to release ANY source. The only source that would ever be required to be released is the ORIGINAL source IF you modified it. I think other Open Source licenses are good to a point, however they allow too much commercial abuse/greed.
Take the Linux Kernel. There has been 1,000's of man hours put into development. If that was NOT released under a GPL type license, then any greedy corporation can come along and just steal it. Market it as their product and profit without returning anything back to the original project. What would stop a greedy company like MS from taking it and putting their marketing machine behind it and killing off the original project? They get all the profits with non of the work.
All things cost something. With the GPL, instead of saying, give me 5,000 USD per developer to use this library or application, the GPL says, use it freely and IF you want to profit off of it, you don't pay with money, you pay with knowledge. I'd prefer a society that transfers knowledge over money any day.
I think it also comes down to scale. If I put out a small "helper" type library, then I would not care who can use it for whatever purpose. However, if I and a team of developers put many, many hours into a project, I want to ensure that no commercial greed will be able to strip that away.
I also just feel that the free transfer of knowledge is critical to mankind. We are moving fast toward a world where all knowledge will cost money. While all the wealthy corporations in the USA may love that idea, the rest of the world probably does not. Think about this, the USA makes up ONLY 5% of the worlds population, yet has 50% of the worlds wealth. That means that 95% of the people in the world have to share only 50%, while the small 5% of us Americans get to horde the rest. I think licenses like the GPL, LGPL help the spread of free knowledge which can better ALL mankind and not just the greedy 5% trying to hoard it all.
Yup, your right on the money. I am a programmer for a fortune 500 company and our admins would NEVER run winders update on our production server. I work with some of the admins helping them with a Linux/Unix migration since we are moving most of our platform to Linux/Solaris (thank GOD). When there is a patch for the MS vulnerability of the week, they test in in a huge test lab on its own subnet away isolated from our network. Many times things come crashing down because of stupid undocumented changes. Anyway, you would have to be a nitwit to run winders update on any server that you depended on.
Sounds like a good plan.
1. Sue and get paid $11,000 USD
2. Pay out $15,000 USD in legal fees
3. ???
4. Profit
You have to love the US legal system!
Wow, I am impressed little boy, that was such a great comeback. I guess when you have nothing intelligent to say you stop your feet and pout.
Your argument makes no sense
Sure it does, MS did not want to implement HTML, CSS and JavaScript which are all formal standards because they want all sites out there to ONLY work in IE. Take this HTML
<html>
<head><title>Test</title</head>
<body>
<div style="width:5px; height:5px;">
really, really, really, really, really, really, really long
text.
</div><br>
<div style="width:5px; height:5px;">
really, really, really, really, really, really, really long
text.
</div>
</body>
</html>
The width and heigth of the divs are far too small to fit the contents, this is just bad HTML. IE ignores the standards and expands the divs to fit the content. While Moz and others display it by the book (which looks pretty bad). IE and MS tools in general do this sort of thing and actually encourage sloppy web design and app development. This only helps further their empire by having most apps/sites only work "properly" with their tools. This is a very bad service to the IT industry since all it does is lock people into one product/environment and furthers MS's monopoly. One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
Here is also some good html to try with IE
<html>
<form>
<input type crash>
</form>
</html>
Yeah, and IE is known for it's great security and MS is known for their quick turn around times for patches. Get real, as of 16 May 2003: There are currently 15 unpatched IE vulnerabilities.
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
Compare that to the number of known mozilla 1.2.1 vulnerabilities. Yup, IE makes a great product to roll out to an organization. The open source community has a far faster turn around time for security issues then MS can ever dream of.
IE 6 is far from being standards compliant. Mozilla spanks it in the standars compliant area. What is document.all any way? That is not part of the DOM. MS just put that there to make other browsers not work. The only sites that look better in IE are broken sites make for a broken browser.
For those stupid sites that say "requires IE", send them an email complaining about their stupidity. Really, building a web page is not programming and it is one of the easiest things you could do. How hard is it to make a stinking standards compliant web page? My little daughter can sit down with vim and do that.
I thought part of that whole anti-trust case stuff was that they couldn't "integrate" IE and other applications into the OS as a way to force out the competition? I guess they payed off that "board" that was suppose to make sure they stick to the settlement? I think the industry as a whole needs to phase MS out of existence over the next 2-5 years.
but how so many people can blindly hate Microsoft because of the hate trend makes me want them to succeed.
Ok Bill, stop looking for sympathy votes. Most people do not hat MS because it is the cool thing(tm). They hate them because they are an EVIL and convicted monopoly that got let off easy. They stifle competition and hamper innovation. They do not innovate, they only steal what others have done "embrace and extend" it and market it as their own. They then kill off any competition with their $40 Billion USD. Also, why should non-American nations want to dump all their IT money into a nasty American company. It is not like MS is a great American company to be proud of. However, with MS they get locked in and are bascially forced to use MS products. MS called Linux un-American, they are the ones that are un-American. America was founded by the people and for the people. In the same light, Linux is developed by the people and for the people. It is the "Peoples OS". It is not that all monopolies are a bad thing. Some are good and beneficial to the people. Take Walmart for example. They are the largest company in the world and make MS look like a mom-and-pop company. They are a monopoly and it is almost impossible to compete with them. However, customers are happy because this monopoly uses it's buying power for their customers! They are constantly rolling back prices which benefits the customer. In contrast, MS is constantly uping prices, finding was to lock customers into their products, make it increasingly difficult for a customer to exercise their free choice to choose another product and are holding back technology from growing. So there is a huge difference and the common hate for MS is a justified hate. They have no products that have not/can not be duplicated and/or surpassed. I hope that all the other big players in IT come together and build a road map to phase out MS. The world does not need them and then technology can be free again to innovate and compete.
Well if Novell is correct in there response, then SCO has no patents, copyrights to sue over. This is MS FUD trying to stall Linux from beating them in the server room so they can have more time with longhorn.
IBM, Linux, or the rest have nothing to worry about since Novell announced that SCO has no patents on Unix and Novell still owns the IP.p r03033.html
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/