Software patents are toxic, period. If you're afraid of being sued over software patents, you should be abusing the government and lobbying to have them abolished.
Wetting your pants over a software license that acknowledges this problem is the wrong solution, and you're only contributing to a problem you acknowledge exists yourself (or you just wish you could abuse and not be abused.)
I want to use VLC on it, but can't because of GPL over the distribution method.
False. If you jailbroke it and installed it yourself, you could. The problem comes with distribution via the App Store, which places additional restrictions on you that violate the GPL.
People complained that it is locked down, but don't want to pay full price.
They'd lock it down even if you pay full price. Go ask people who buy full priced Motorola devices in Europe. Locked down, just the same. It's about end-user control, monetization, and planned obsolescence.
It prohibits code signing and DRM which effectively prohibits some commercial use
Because code signing used to lock a device down and DRM are such good things.
I really hope the Version 3 of the license of GPL gets struck down by a court case challenge because I feel that it oversteps the bounds of copyright law.
Not at all. Most EULAs contain far more restrictive and punitive terms than the GPLv3.
Once a binary is produced, the GPL should have no enforcement other than requiring contribution of code changes.
Why? What value is there in FOSS when there's a route for corporations to completely negate the ability for the end user to actually utilize it?
Anyone should be free to take that binary and sign it with a key as required by some platforms.
Yes! But that's not what's happening. The vendor is reserving the ability to sign it for themselves, and denying that ability to the person who receives the GPL'd software.
. Just be honest about the fact that it only defends a subset of freedoms one could legitimately enjoy going with a public domain, BSD or MIT licensed project.
And yet another person mistakes the placement of the freedoms ensured by the GPL. I'm not surprised this ignorance still exists, though. People like FUD, and trying to take other people's work for free.
They don't want to play with companies that insist on denying end users the freedom that the license they chose was intended to grant.
No I'm not surprised, because many of the companies in question HATE user freedom and prefer control. It's more profitable when your users options are deliberately limited.
The GPL(3) is functioning just as it was designed, to limit commercial use of code.
No, it's limiting the lock down of otherwise Free Software. That it exposes corporations for being control freaks unwilling to respect end-user freedom is simply a benefit.
They decided on their values, formed the GPLv3, and stuck to those values.
Perhaps you misread what I said. I called the people who are pissed about the GPLv3 "control freak assholes." The GPLv3 was created by people who are more concerned with ensuring that people who receive GPLv3 software are not controlled.
Not being able to do everything you want with a product != you don't own it.
Effectively, yes it does. Especially if the vendor exerts control after the fact.
Does this mean I'm leasing my car?
No, but then that just means you haven't looked into disabling it. Might not be wise, though, as they have a point.
that's analogous to "jailbreaking" - which I could do on my phone as well. So how do these manufacturer restrictions mean I don't own my car?
Car analogies don't work real well as disabling those doesn't really grant you any additional capability in your car, nor will the vendor really fight you if you try. Whereas with mobile devices, it does grant you additional capability and they DO fight you. And, like Motorola, they use it against you when the next shiny model or the next rev of Android comes along.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
That's because it's not liberty for YOU (that's already been granted) but for whomever gets it from you. Stop being so greedy and self-centered with your thought process.
The same goes for pretty much any other non-FOSS license, where you need a lawyer to slog through it to make sure it's OK.
With the GPL, if you make a reasonable effort to understand and comply generally you won't have any problems. The only people who have serious problems are ones who deliberately ignore it and don't try at all.
The problem comes with the intention of allowing the user to modify and use the software. The GPLv2 allowed them to do an end run where you could modify and use the software, but never on the device that it was distributed on.
This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it.
Necessarily, since those methods and strategy are inherently anti-freedom.
Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit.
Indeed, it's too bad they have so much power and that they insist on locking down computing in the most restrictive ways possible. But then, there's no point to having FOSS when the end user is completely barred from taking advantage of it.
I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created.
Apparently you don't.
Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.
So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?
Man, you have a fucked up definition of "orwellian." Or perhaps standing up for the freedoms of others is simply antiquated to you. But then, I get the impression that control freaks don't like end-users having freedom, and thus the GPLv3 is inherently reprehensible to them.
The GPLv3 prevents someone from redistributing GPL'd software and saying to the end user "you cannot replace this software, you cannot alter or modify it in place." The only people who have a problem with the GPLv3 are those who enjoyed making an end-run around the spirit of the GPLv2 by distributing source but crippling the hardware it was used on.
The GPL3 is causing the same sort of "all or none" lock-in via legal instead of technical means. It is becoming very difficult to mix GPL3 software with commercial software.
Only if for some reason your "mix" includes a bunch of lock down designed to trap the user and control how they use whatever the software is installed on. If anything, it's designed to bar use of GPLv3 code in systems that are architected around locking the user in.
I'm not seeing how the GPLv3 is a problem to anyone but control freak assholes. If you aren't, then it's not terribly different from the GPLv2.
And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.
As has happened in other threads, you can go install "oldbar" to get the gimp autocomplete-only URL bar if you really want it.
The rest of us who enjoy having the ability to pull up a page even if the URL doesn't begin in www or we forget the URL completely will continue to use the Awesomebar.
Censoring and name-calling are the new tolerance and open-mindedness.
Because of course, being "tolerant" and "open-minded" also means accepting broken ideas founded upon magical thinking.
Slashdot is a site where bigotry against religious people is promoted and advanced.
No, religious people who insist on injecting their beliefs into the lives of others are (rightfully) attacked. Ones that spread terrible messages to make people feel unwelcome and less than human because their lives don't fit inside some narrowly defined space (with little factual basis) deserve rejection.
Slashdot editors and commenters also overwhelmingly approve of bigotry against corporate leaders and corporate workers.
And now we wander into nonsense-land. Have fun in there.
Microsoft had total control of the PC marketplace at the time they were prosecuted.
Apple, as much as a bunch of control freaks as they are, still has competition in the mobile space. Now if they decide to leverage the tablet space (where they hold 90%) to their exclusive advantage, then you might see fallout.
That said, I doubt anything would come of it as any such move would be attacked by Republicans as "destroying jobs" and millions of Apple fans would white knight for the company.
I think people do complain. And in turn MS has provided XNA and until recently on the PS3 you had OtherOS. Now the PS3 is under attack.
Not that either of those were truly sufficient, but don't go saying that people are selective in who they criticize over imposition of excessively restrictive DRM.
No, end-users should be able to run whatever they want on their device. Forcing everyone through your store (for your own benefit) limits them to what is available in the store (and has passed through your monetary and "philosophical" filters.)
Re:In before dumb comments about the cake being a
on
From Redmond With Love
·
· Score: 0
Very well. Oh by the way, starting next week a coal power plant is going in near next to your neighborhood, the fly ash is going to be stored in retention ponds on the hill above your property.
Slashdot Mirror
Software patents are toxic, period. If you're afraid of being sued over software patents, you should be abusing the government and lobbying to have them abolished.
Wetting your pants over a software license that acknowledges this problem is the wrong solution, and you're only contributing to a problem you acknowledge exists yourself (or you just wish you could abuse and not be abused.)
False. If you jailbroke it and installed it yourself, you could. The problem comes with distribution via the App Store, which places additional restrictions on you that violate the GPL.
They'd lock it down even if you pay full price. Go ask people who buy full priced Motorola devices in Europe. Locked down, just the same. It's about end-user control, monetization, and planned obsolescence.
Because code signing used to lock a device down and DRM are such good things.
Not at all. Most EULAs contain far more restrictive and punitive terms than the GPLv3.
Why? What value is there in FOSS when there's a route for corporations to completely negate the ability for the end user to actually utilize it?
Yes! But that's not what's happening. The vendor is reserving the ability to sign it for themselves, and denying that ability to the person who receives the GPL'd software.
And yet another person mistakes the placement of the freedoms ensured by the GPL. I'm not surprised this ignorance still exists, though. People like FUD, and trying to take other people's work for free.
They don't want to play with companies that insist on denying end users the freedom that the license they chose was intended to grant.
No I'm not surprised, because many of the companies in question HATE user freedom and prefer control. It's more profitable when your users options are deliberately limited.
No, it's limiting the lock down of otherwise Free Software. That it exposes corporations for being control freaks unwilling to respect end-user freedom is simply a benefit.
Perhaps you misread what I said. I called the people who are pissed about the GPLv3 "control freak assholes." The GPLv3 was created by people who are more concerned with ensuring that people who receive GPLv3 software are not controlled.
Effectively, yes it does. Especially if the vendor exerts control after the fact.
No, but then that just means you haven't looked into disabling it. Might not be wise, though, as they have a point.
Car analogies don't work real well as disabling those doesn't really grant you any additional capability in your car, nor will the vendor really fight you if you try. Whereas with mobile devices, it does grant you additional capability and they DO fight you. And, like Motorola, they use it against you when the next shiny model or the next rev of Android comes along.
That's because it's not liberty for YOU (that's already been granted) but for whomever gets it from you. Stop being so greedy and self-centered with your thought process.
The same goes for pretty much any other non-FOSS license, where you need a lawyer to slog through it to make sure it's OK.
With the GPL, if you make a reasonable effort to understand and comply generally you won't have any problems. The only people who have serious problems are ones who deliberately ignore it and don't try at all.
The problem comes with the intention of allowing the user to modify and use the software. The GPLv2 allowed them to do an end run where you could modify and use the software, but never on the device that it was distributed on.
This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it.
Necessarily, since those methods and strategy are inherently anti-freedom.
Indeed, it's too bad they have so much power and that they insist on locking down computing in the most restrictive ways possible. But then, there's no point to having FOSS when the end user is completely barred from taking advantage of it.
Apparently you don't.
So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?
Man, you have a fucked up definition of "orwellian." Or perhaps standing up for the freedoms of others is simply antiquated to you. But then, I get the impression that control freaks don't like end-users having freedom, and thus the GPLv3 is inherently reprehensible to them.
What?
The GPLv3 prevents someone from redistributing GPL'd software and saying to the end user "you cannot replace this software, you cannot alter or modify it in place." The only people who have a problem with the GPLv3 are those who enjoyed making an end-run around the spirit of the GPLv2 by distributing source but crippling the hardware it was used on.
Only if for some reason your "mix" includes a bunch of lock down designed to trap the user and control how they use whatever the software is installed on. If anything, it's designed to bar use of GPLv3 code in systems that are architected around locking the user in.
I'm not seeing how the GPLv3 is a problem to anyone but control freak assholes. If you aren't, then it's not terribly different from the GPLv2.
No, they have the liberty to disagree. They are then subject to copyright which by default disallows them to distribute copies of the software.
There is nothing "jacked up" about this.
And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.
As has happened in other threads, you can go install "oldbar" to get the gimp autocomplete-only URL bar if you really want it.
The rest of us who enjoy having the ability to pull up a page even if the URL doesn't begin in www or we forget the URL completely will continue to use the Awesomebar.
Because of course, being "tolerant" and "open-minded" also means accepting broken ideas founded upon magical thinking.
No, religious people who insist on injecting their beliefs into the lives of others are (rightfully) attacked. Ones that spread terrible messages to make people feel unwelcome and less than human because their lives don't fit inside some narrowly defined space (with little factual basis) deserve rejection.
And now we wander into nonsense-land. Have fun in there.
Microsoft had total control of the PC marketplace at the time they were prosecuted.
Apple, as much as a bunch of control freaks as they are, still has competition in the mobile space. Now if they decide to leverage the tablet space (where they hold 90%) to their exclusive advantage, then you might see fallout.
That said, I doubt anything would come of it as any such move would be attacked by Republicans as "destroying jobs" and millions of Apple fans would white knight for the company.
I think people do complain. And in turn MS has provided XNA and until recently on the PS3 you had OtherOS. Now the PS3 is under attack.
Not that either of those were truly sufficient, but don't go saying that people are selective in who they criticize over imposition of excessively restrictive DRM.
No, end-users should be able to run whatever they want on their device. Forcing everyone through your store (for your own benefit) limits them to what is available in the store (and has passed through your monetary and "philosophical" filters.)
Some real quality 4chan level commentary there.
Very well. Oh by the way, starting next week a coal power plant is going in near next to your neighborhood, the fly ash is going to be stored in retention ponds on the hill above your property.
At least it's not Nuclear!