Regardless of its name, it's hard to find a justification that copyright is a right. "Intellectual property" has been forfeited for one reason or another in the past; look at Bayer's forfeiture of its patents and trademarks in the US after the first world war.
Copyright is a protection that our society grants the authors of creative works. Without that legal protection, there is nothing preventing me from methodically printing Slashdot's content elsewhere and putting my ads on it for profit.
Every person is entitled to a different opinion on that legal protection, and there is no overriding moral reason that anyone must restrain their actions based on it.
If I believe that I should be able to download Britney's latest album but that Maui X-Stream shouldn't have used PearPC's code in a proprietary application, there is nothing hypocritical about that -- and that is the criticism I'm trying to address.
Of course, if I said that I should be able to download Britney's latest album because copyright is evil, and that Maui X-Stream should be ashamed of itself for violating the sanctity of our proud nation's copyright laws, then I'd be a hypocrite.
I'm trying to see where you lose rights as a programmer with the GPL existing. Trying and failing.
You could conceivably lose the privilege of incorporating another person's source code into a proprietary application if that person chose to release it under the GPL rather than under, say, the BSD license.
Of course, it was never your right to use anyone else's code whatsoever. Such a right would imply a lack of the right to license and control your source code as you see fit.
I must note that there's no such thing as the "free software police", and what GPL enforcement there is will certainly be much more forgiving than the enforcement if you rebrand and sell a proprietary application.
Some people would disagree with you. The obvious difference is that the GPL promotes redistribution, while the ??AA etc. are attempting to prevent redistribution.
It isn't distributed under a free software license. Pretty simple. Any free software written for Java that makes use of features present in Sun's distribution but not in GCJ/Classpath is not truly free, since it depends on proprietary software to run.
1) The GPL is considered to be a social good. Strong enforcement of media copyright is considered to be a social bad. This applies to a small group of people, and is independent of their opinion of copyright as a whole.
Legal equivalence does not equal moral equivalence.
2) There are hundreds of thousands of Slashdotters. It is entirely reasonable that out of that group, hundreds could post regularly in favor of violating media copyrights and hundreds more could post regularly in favor of enforcing the GPL -- without those two groups overlapping whatsoever.
I keep in mind the various quirks of the major browsers in use today. I avoid using browser-specific features or CSS properties that are poorly supported.
Then, I make sure the site degrades gracefully by browsing it with an assortment of browsers: konqueror, links, lynx, etc. I also browse it with Mozilla with images and Javascript off.
With a conscientious approach to web design that actually focuses on information rather than 500KB animations of me taking a bonghit with my kitty, I rarely run into an issue with Explorer.
1. Usability does not equal 'consumer behavior'. The majority of computer users need plastic drool covers on their keyboards, and the way they should use computers should involve a steel cage and semaphore flags. 2. The percentage of total free software developers that work on graphical environments is not particularly high. 3. The percentage of those developers who concentrate on usability is, again, low (regrettably). 4. The small percentage of total free software developers who actually do make usability by others a focus are to a large extent paid for that work, by Red Hat, IBM, and the like. 5. Linux is about as widely used as BSD on the desktop -- barely. Don't delude yourself into believing there's this massive revolution of Tuxes bursting across the PC universe. 6. Most usability work is not done for Linux but instead for X. That work transfers handily over to BSD, so the point is pretty dumb anyway. 7. Lists should have an odd number of points, so your mother was a whore and your father was a syphilitic dwarf.
I'm trying to see what possessed you to make such an utterly ludicrous strawman argument, but I don't think I can stoop that low.
I was explaining why and how my computer works for me in a way that is different than the way your computer works for you. That includes certain keyboard shortcuts. It could also include big black dildos smacking me in the face. That doesn't make a statement about whether other systems include keyboard shortcuts or big black dildos.
I'm not an idiot. Don't treat me like one. In the end, my sentiment is the same as yours -- what works for me works for me. Don't force what works for you on me.
The difference is that you're a smartass, and I'm just an asshole.
The usability on Linux isn't bad. I make great use of it every day. I have everything I need to do mapped to keyboard shortcuts.
This is because I am using a window manager (ion) and applications (vim, mutt, naim) which were not designed with 'consumer behavior' in mind. They were designed to the personal preferences of their designers, and I happily share those preferences.
If Linux somehow started emulating Windows or, worse, Mac OS X, I'd very quickly switch to something else. I'd pay good money to see FreeBSD given software suspend support to get away from that.
What an utter and complete asshole. There are a great number of free browsers out there. Opera isn't one of them. If you want to use Opera, pay for it, you bum.
Slashdot Mirror
Not direct cash flow, that is.
Remove public education, and you'll see just how much cash flow teachers are responsible as American industry finishes going down the tubes.
Regardless of its name, it's hard to find a justification that copyright is a right. "Intellectual property" has been forfeited for one reason or another in the past; look at Bayer's forfeiture of its patents and trademarks in the US after the first world war.
Copyright is a protection that our society grants the authors of creative works. Without that legal protection, there is nothing preventing me from methodically printing Slashdot's content elsewhere and putting my ads on it for profit.
Every person is entitled to a different opinion on that legal protection, and there is no overriding moral reason that anyone must restrain their actions based on it.
If I believe that I should be able to download Britney's latest album but that Maui X-Stream shouldn't have used PearPC's code in a proprietary application, there is nothing hypocritical about that -- and that is the criticism I'm trying to address.
Of course, if I said that I should be able to download Britney's latest album because copyright is evil, and that Maui X-Stream should be ashamed of itself for violating the sanctity of our proud nation's copyright laws, then I'd be a hypocrite.
I'm trying to see where you lose rights as a programmer with the GPL existing. Trying and failing.
You could conceivably lose the privilege of incorporating another person's source code into a proprietary application if that person chose to release it under the GPL rather than under, say, the BSD license.
Of course, it was never your right to use anyone else's code whatsoever. Such a right would imply a lack of the right to license and control your source code as you see fit.
I must note that there's no such thing as the "free software police", and what GPL enforcement there is will certainly be much more forgiving than the enforcement if you rebrand and sell a proprietary application.
See how Eben Moglen describes his enforcement tactics.
Some people would disagree with you. The obvious difference is that the GPL promotes redistribution, while the ??AA etc. are attempting to prevent redistribution.
The means are not at issue here. The ends are.
It isn't distributed under a free software license. Pretty simple. Any free software written for Java that makes use of features present in Sun's distribution but not in GCJ/Classpath is not truly free, since it depends on proprietary software to run.
See The Java Trap.
Two reasons:
1) The GPL is considered to be a social good. Strong enforcement of media copyright is considered to be a social bad. This applies to a small group of people, and is independent of their opinion of copyright as a whole.
Legal equivalence does not equal moral equivalence.
2) There are hundreds of thousands of Slashdotters. It is entirely reasonable that out of that group, hundreds could post regularly in favor of violating media copyrights and hundreds more could post regularly in favor of enforcing the GPL -- without those two groups overlapping whatsoever.
You have it backwards.
Free software will benefit from a free Java.
And, of course, the management class has final say on all names used for software.
Invoking Godwin's has become even cheaper than a Nazi reference.
I keep in mind the various quirks of the major browsers in use today. I avoid using browser-specific features or CSS properties that are poorly supported.
Then, I make sure the site degrades gracefully by browsing it with an assortment of browsers: konqueror, links, lynx, etc. I also browse it with Mozilla with images and Javascript off.
With a conscientious approach to web design that actually focuses on information rather than 500KB animations of me taking a bonghit with my kitty, I rarely run into an issue with Explorer.
1. Usability does not equal 'consumer behavior'. The majority of computer users need plastic drool covers on their keyboards, and the way they should use computers should involve a steel cage and semaphore flags.
2. The percentage of total free software developers that work on graphical environments is not particularly high.
3. The percentage of those developers who concentrate on usability is, again, low (regrettably).
4. The small percentage of total free software developers who actually do make usability by others a focus are to a large extent paid for that work, by Red Hat, IBM, and the like.
5. Linux is about as widely used as BSD on the desktop -- barely. Don't delude yourself into believing there's this massive revolution of Tuxes bursting across the PC universe.
6. Most usability work is not done for Linux but instead for X. That work transfers handily over to BSD, so the point is pretty dumb anyway.
7. Lists should have an odd number of points, so your mother was a whore and your father was a syphilitic dwarf.
I'm trying to see what possessed you to make such an utterly ludicrous strawman argument, but I don't think I can stoop that low.
I was explaining why and how my computer works for me in a way that is different than the way your computer works for you. That includes certain keyboard shortcuts. It could also include big black dildos smacking me in the face. That doesn't make a statement about whether other systems include keyboard shortcuts or big black dildos.
I'm not an idiot. Don't treat me like one. In the end, my sentiment is the same as yours -- what works for me works for me. Don't force what works for you on me.
The difference is that you're a smartass, and I'm just an asshole.
*ahem*
The current release of Safari does not pass the ACID 2 test. A patch was written to make it pass, but it does not pass yet.
Like the Las Vegas strip is clean, sharp, and to the point?
The usability on Linux isn't bad. I make great use of it every day. I have everything I need to do mapped to keyboard shortcuts.
This is because I am using a window manager (ion) and applications (vim, mutt, naim) which were not designed with 'consumer behavior' in mind. They were designed to the personal preferences of their designers, and I happily share those preferences.
If Linux somehow started emulating Windows or, worse, Mac OS X, I'd very quickly switch to something else. I'd pay good money to see FreeBSD given software suspend support to get away from that.
Not that I don't agree, but the parent really was referring to psychiatry. Note the references to medication and the DSM.
And psychiatrists can be just as bad as psychologists. Only difference is that the psychologist can't prescribe health-damaging medications.
What the hell could dilbert.com have that is so useful as to merit endless battles to block irritating ads? Just looks like a comic strip to me.
Do you not have a newspaper or something?
You'll find that most people who are doing programming work for free don't give a flying fuck about 'consumer behavior.'
A serious problem. I have devised the fabulous workaround of asking someone who has IE to check it out and make sure it looks all right.
Shocking, I know, but it actually works.
You mean psychiatry, I believe.
Um, the original poster stated that he had a fix. Do you have a nerve issue with your knee or something?
"(cracked) Opera"
What an utter and complete asshole. There are a great number of free browsers out there. Opera isn't one of them. If you want to use Opera, pay for it, you bum.
Then why was the worm created in the first place?
Kick a ball down a hill.
You're not needed to guide the ball down the hill, but you were needed to kick it in the first place.
I'd be all for teaching intelligent design as an example of a non-scientific, non-falsifable "theory."