That's not the truth. The truth is that a banal bunch in Hollywood think DRM is actually useful, and are trying to force their twisted view of reality on everyone else.
companies like wal-mart actually make the poor wealthier by providing material goods for less money.
No they don't. The goods they sell are less durable, requiring more frequent replacement. Their price demands drive jobs out of the country. And their unwillingness to pay their workers and compensate them fairly (healthcare) pushes additional burdens on society.
But hey, Wal-Mart is very profitable. Which is all that matters. Social costs? Who gives a fuck?
Except that EPA inspectors aren't employed by the corporations they monitor, and for good reason. The last thing we need are airline-specific ATC whose primary responsibility is getting as many planes out as possible as quickly as possible, and not doing so as safely as possible.
The FAA is part of the Federal Government, and it is tasked with managing the airspace above the United States, as well as implement and enforce air travel standards. As such, Air Traffic Controllers are employees of the FAA.
No, in this case the Federal Government is denying the people on the list the right to travel. If not for their interference it is unlikely that anyone stopped by the list would otherwise have trouble getting on the plane and going to their destination.
GPL isn't about freedom as you can see by GPL v3, which was created for the shear purpose of preventing someone else from exercising a specific freedom with the software.
If you don't buy software to use on your own computer, but simply run the services that they offer on their servers, this license would mean that you get to see, use and distribute their source code.
Well, it is GPL software and it is effectively being redistributed to 3rd parties.
all pro-RMS freeloaders
Oh good, we've devolved into petty name-calling already!
But sure, all pro-RMS freeloaders, feel free to go and demand that people who offer software as a service on their own computers and ain't giving you anything, other than the use of their hardware, give you the source code to the services they run for ya. That's a great idea!
I'm sorry, since when did it become such a noble cause to want to defy the spirit of the GPL, and then whine and gripe when it goes from spirit to legal fact? Again, you have to know the license of the software you're modifying before you go and do so, otherwise you're a damned fool.
I hate feeding worthless trolls, but here goes anyway:
How does forcing someone to give away their source count as 'freedom'.
You aren't forced to give away your source. If you're going to make modifications to GPL code, you should be fully aware of what the terms of redistribution are. Anything else means you're a damned, willful fool.
Oh, so you will say, "don't use GPL source if you don't want to be forced to give your code away." That is already putting a constraint on things.
And? Don't enter a contract if you don't want to be bound by its terms.
In either Apache or BSD, I cannot see any cost of freedom further downstream.
Are you the sole arbiter of such things?
The derived code from later programmers is not the issue.
It is, from the perspective from the GPL.
While the GPL side gives no freedom.
On the contrary, the GPL guarantees freedom. You cannot receive a modified copy of a GPL program without also receiving the sources in their entirety.
You must give away your code and short circuit any chance of making a living from your work.
Oh good, you preserved this little lie.
But I see you're from B.C. Probably work for the government or a college or university, and vote NDP. No understanding of real work.
Typical trolling AC, leading on for a while and blow it with a personal attack.
It has to do with keeping other people's code which is derived from it free.
It has to do with ensuring that whoever you give the software to has the same rights you have. Necessarily this includes any changes you made prior to them receiving it.
The claim that something can make that code not-free is FUD.
If you make a derivative work by altering the sources, then you aren't giving them what you received. You've created something different. And if you aren't giving them those sources, then yes that code is not free.
Lawyers love to abuse non-legalese. This is why the FAQ and preamble exist. And even at it's length, the GPL is shorter than virtually any commonly found EULA or other license agreement I've ever seen.
In the case of commercial applications, I like to think of the GPL as the asking price for my software. You're always free to re-negotiate if it's too high.
It does. You can't take GPL sources and integrate them into a closed source product.
Otherwise stuff like Word Perfect, Oracle, SimCity 3000, and Steam wouldn't exist for Linux. Free Software can co-exist quite peaceably with coders that want you to pay for their work.
This suggests that you don't understand the point you're trying to make. The GPL does not cover the products you listed.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the truth. The truth is that a banal bunch in Hollywood think DRM is actually useful, and are trying to force their twisted view of reality on everyone else.
No they don't. The goods they sell are less durable, requiring more frequent replacement. Their price demands drive jobs out of the country. And their unwillingness to pay their workers and compensate them fairly (healthcare) pushes additional burdens on society.
But hey, Wal-Mart is very profitable. Which is all that matters. Social costs? Who gives a fuck?
Where'd you copy and paste that from?
Yeah I could support that.
Except that EPA inspectors aren't employed by the corporations they monitor, and for good reason. The last thing we need are airline-specific ATC whose primary responsibility is getting as many planes out as possible as quickly as possible, and not doing so as safely as possible.
The FAA is part of the Federal Government, and it is tasked with managing the airspace above the United States, as well as implement and enforce air travel standards. As such, Air Traffic Controllers are employees of the FAA.
Wait, what's his political agenda? And why would him not calling it the obvious mean a damn thing?
No, in this case the Federal Government is denying the people on the list the right to travel. If not for their interference it is unlikely that anyone stopped by the list would otherwise have trouble getting on the plane and going to their destination.
The GPL was not created for developers, it was made for the people after the developers.
Because the AC in the initial post in this thread did.
We do, actually. The BSD TCP/IP stack isn't actually a part of windows.
None? Or do you mean, "acceptance by companies that are willing to take but unwilling to contribute"?
Care to come back when you're capable of coming up with an actual point rather than a spittle-flecked rant with little substance?
What freedom would that be?
Well, it is GPL software and it is effectively being redistributed to 3rd parties.
Oh good, we've devolved into petty name-calling already!
I'm sorry, since when did it become such a noble cause to want to defy the spirit of the GPL, and then whine and gripe when it goes from spirit to legal fact? Again, you have to know the license of the software you're modifying before you go and do so, otherwise you're a damned fool.
I hate feeding worthless trolls, but here goes anyway:
You aren't forced to give away your source. If you're going to make modifications to GPL code, you should be fully aware of what the terms of redistribution are. Anything else means you're a damned, willful fool.
And? Don't enter a contract if you don't want to be bound by its terms.
Are you the sole arbiter of such things?
It is, from the perspective from the GPL.
On the contrary, the GPL guarantees freedom. You cannot receive a modified copy of a GPL program without also receiving the sources in their entirety.
Oh good, you preserved this little lie.
Typical trolling AC, leading on for a while and blow it with a personal attack.
So are you seriously trying to start this flamewar again? Do you have nothing else to say?
Irony, seeing as how the GPLv3 is a direct reaction to the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA, as well as myriad other abusive lock down schemes.
It has to do with ensuring that whoever you give the software to has the same rights you have. Necessarily this includes any changes you made prior to them receiving it.
If you make a derivative work by altering the sources, then you aren't giving them what you received. You've created something different. And if you aren't giving them those sources, then yes that code is not free.
So you're unwilling, or unable, to defend your statement.
Lawyers love to abuse non-legalese. This is why the FAQ and preamble exist. And even at it's length, the GPL is shorter than virtually any commonly found EULA or other license agreement I've ever seen.
That's on them, then. They do give up leverage in many respects, such as the ability to re-license it.
Of course, the unrealistic explanation would be the first.
I'm not. I'm just annoyed by posts like the one I responded to where people deliberately misinterpret and bash the GPL for no good reason.
Note that this is only true for GPLv3 or later. GPLv2 software can still be used in that manner.
In the case of commercial applications, I like to think of the GPL as the asking price for my software. You're always free to re-negotiate if it's too high.
Not really. Unless your "commercial use" involves controlling the end user in some fashion.
You've presented nothing to indicate how the GPL directly inhibits this, particularly with how much GPL software is used in commercial products today.
It does. You can't take GPL sources and integrate them into a closed source product.
This suggests that you don't understand the point you're trying to make. The GPL does not cover the products you listed.
How is it not a Free Software license?
Really if you're going to make these kinds of statements, it'd help to answer the obvious question in your post...