Wasn't there a time we were trying to get a legal key for GPL DVD decoders? And wasn't there another attempt to allow FreeSoftware users to buy a license and key to decode DVDs however they wish?
I recall there being a lot tried during the decss escapade.
If I could buy a reasonably priced license (hell I don't care if it's a piece of paper that says "You can decode DVDs//Love, Valenti"), I would.
If I could buy a properly licensed GPL DVD suite, I would.
Hell, these days I'd be far more willing to spend money on GPL software than I would proprietary software (except GPL games, thus far proprietary games are still better).
Its just that you hear all the negative stuff and tend to remember it more.
Definately, but you also remember the bad personal experiences more than the good. When an infrastructure guy sets up a ticketing system, he's not thinking about how he'll hardly see his buddy in accounting anymore, or his manager's manager (who he gets along with), he's thinking about how he won't have to see the other users or his direct manager.
As just one example.
I guess my big point was that inefficiency doesn't have to be stamped out everywhere, especially where it might be helping you personally. There are, of course, many other systems in a company that could use improvement before the user-help-request process.
I think I, personally, as well as many others in tech should also keep our egos in check. As much as I despise non-compliant web pages, for instance; if the customer insists on a feature that requires non-compliance (despite reasonable warnings) then I should give the customer what they want, not what I want. It's their money I'm working on, after all, they are entitled to direct my actions.
Look, no offense, but you don't need every exception to every statement spelled out for you do you? Of course not all management sucks, and not all users are morons.
Perhaps it would be better to suggest more social skills in general.
We spent so much time distancing ourselves from management and users (granted, it's justified and understandable) that they end up not caring who (or where) we are.
She had blonde hair since Super-Metroid. However, strangely enough, Nintendo Power ran a comic for a few months centered around Metroid at the time of Super Metroid's release. In the comic, she still had green hair.
(She's much hotter with the green hair, but her recent, blonde, get-up in Metroid: Zero Mission [Which I highly reccomend] is, admittedly, a good look.)
But that copy does belong to him if he acquired it legally. If I'm the only occupant in my living space and I have twelve individuals computers comprising an obscene amount of redundant backup storage, and I make twelve freaggin' copies of every piece of data legally acquired by myself, plus a DVD for the television, and a CD for the stereo, it still shouldn't make a lick of difference to musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living, because they succeeded in selling one copy to one consumer.
End of story, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this license restriction crap.
I don't know how, I just know that no Tech article on slashdot is complete without someone ignorantly declaring said technology's promising future in enhancing cellphone functionality.
You should be fine as long as you continue to focus on the middle of the screen.
You see, as each new frame is drawn your eyes are already adjusted to being crossed, the next frame will have roughly the same depth so your eyes won't uncross.
I imagine the difficult part would be establishing a focus on a moving scene.
But really, I hated looking left or right and losing it immediately... I'd have to have a large monitor and enormous fov setting to play that way.
Actually, you can focus your eyes at a distance greater than 18" right in front of your monitor! http://plaza.ufl.edu/lewey/download/SIRD/q2/index. html
You definately have a point. If your entire site (or significant section of your site) contains tabular data (such as a forum) then you obviously should consider a templating system.
However, the parent also has a very good point. When your markup looks like this:
The difference is that anyone can closed-source-distribute the BSD-licensed software, while only the original copyright holder can closed-source-distribute the GPL-licensed software.
I guess that's my point. In my opinion (mine, I'm not Merriam Webster) the definition of free software is it will always be free to every licensee. Whereas the BSD license is free up to the first licensee.
BSD definately gives every licensor more options and is more free in that sense, I'm not trying to sidestep that point, or diminish its importance. It's significant.
It just makes more sense to call the program that will always be open to modification and/or redistribution "free" while referring to the other as "open."
As I said in my original post though, I never expect the market to be where the cutting edge is, or at least where the cutting edge is for me. That's my point really. It's just frustrating to see phrases like "best _thing_ ever." The best thing ever almost never is. There's always better stuff already in the market available, that just doesn't have the hype.
So you enjoy 24-bit 96 kHz audio in 7.1 channels on your iPod? If you do, well, I'd still want vorbis on it:
Vorbis is a general purpose perceptual audio CODEC intended to allow maximum encoder flexibility, thus allowing it to scale competitively over an exceptionally wide range of bitrates. At the high quality/bitrate end of the scale (CD or DAT rate stereo, 16/24 bits) it is in the same league as MPEG-2 and MPC. Similarly, the 1.0 encoder can encode high-quality CD and DAT rate stereo at below 48kbps without resampling to a lower rate. Vorbis is also intended for lower and higher sample rates (from 8kHz telephony to 192kHz digital masters) and a range of channel representations (monaural, polyphonic, stereo, quadraphonic, 5.1, ambisonic, or up to 255 discrete channels).
Oh, and with bitrate peeling, I could just keep cramming songs onto the damn thing until I found a noticable decrease in quality. I haven't heard of AAC being capable of such a feature, but I'd love to hear about it if it did.
Like I said elsewhere though, if I want the best I'll acquire something else. If I have to give up features for what's popular, well, I'll just be unpopular.
My point is that "the market" often ends up with inferior formats. MS Word's "doc" format compared to OO.o's "sxw," Macromedia's Flash against W3C's SVG+SMIL, "gif" vs. "png."
Mozilla vs. IE, Outlook vs. Evolution. Hell, Windows vs. Linux.
I was playing FPS mods long by the time counter-strike came out, "the market" was already missing other great mods like Gloom. "The market" isn't an omnipotent force that knows all the options and always picks the best. No, it's the well informed that get the best deal, it's "the market" that puts up with crap for the sake of "convenience."
Keep your industry-leading formats and software. That's all it has going for it is it leads an industry. My formats and software perform a hell of a lot better, I'll stick with them.
All the naysayers and open sores advocates can go buy something else, but like every other time, they will add up to maybe a couple of thousand people. Meanwhile the rest of us will go on enjoying state of the art portable music. Thanks again Apple!
All the naysayers and apple sores advocates can go buy something else, and like every other time, they will add up to the bulk of electronics purchasers. Meanwhile the rest of us will go on enjoying beyond-state-of-the-art portable music. Thanks again Xiph.org!
I could develop a GUI front end to OpenBSD's pf, pfsync, and carp, sell it binary only.
A company could buy this product, implement it, and spend many hours training users to use it (okay, a company isn't going to spend thousands of dollars teaching end-users firewall software, but this is just an example).
Now if I refused to implement updates to this software coming from the OpenBSD team, and instead relied on my own mediocre updates developed in-house and behind-schedule, that company that bought this software from me is going to be stuck.
Without access to the source, which the BSD license does not require me to distribute, the company is reserved to keep using my broken software, or change over to the original BSD-Licensed software which, by this time, could be wholly incompatible with systems based on my software.
The BSD license is "more free" to a licensor; someone who redistributes the program acquired under a free license to users under an un-free license. The licensee in this situation won't have a whole lot of freedom.
The GPL license is "more free" to every licensee. And much more restrictive of the licensor.
It all depends on how you look at it.
All GPL software will always be available to modify and redistribute.
BSD software is available to modify and redistribute, but any of those redistributions could not be.
You're right that we don't have to worry about Free/Net/Open/Dragonfly BSD suddenly turning evil and closing their source.
But just remember that the FSF, Richard Stallman, Gnu Developers, and Linus Torvalds don't even have the option of suddenly turning evil and closing their source.
From where I'm sitting, BSD/GPL licenses really don't matter. I'll always distribute openly. For BSD software I'd modify, I'd retain a BSD license, likewise for GPL software (of course). But if I wrote my own software from scratch, I'd definately go GPL after listening to a few of Stallman's speeches. I'd just feel a lot better knowing that every licensee of my program is getting a fair deal, whether I'm licensing it to them or someone else is.
They're both free, just different flavors of it. I like the flavor that, pardon my opinion, "looks out for the little guy."
BSD Licenses are Open Source, but not all software acquired under a BSD License can be considered free. See, I could go download a BSD-Licensed program, modify it, and sell it without distributing the source. This program, though mostly based on open-source software, would no longer be considered free at this point.
So Free-Software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software which is licensed with terms that make it perpetually free. The software's source will always be available, otherwise the licenser is violating their license.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want a network hosted on the internet to be interoperated with it should be password protected and encrypted...
...making a wacky com-protocol isn't security. It's just an odd, but very public, network.
Wasn't there a time we were trying to get a legal key for GPL DVD decoders? And wasn't there another attempt to allow FreeSoftware users to buy a license and key to decode DVDs however they wish? I recall there being a lot tried during the decss escapade. If I could buy a reasonably priced license (hell I don't care if it's a piece of paper that says "You can decode DVDs//Love, Valenti"), I would. If I could buy a properly licensed GPL DVD suite, I would. Hell, these days I'd be far more willing to spend money on GPL software than I would proprietary software (except GPL games, thus far proprietary games are still better).
You know what, nevermind the *nix list. It changes depending on the distribution... Most if it's already there.
Windows (2000)Sorry if I was hostile too.
Its just that you hear all the negative stuff and tend to remember it more.
Definately, but you also remember the bad personal experiences more than the good. When an infrastructure guy sets up a ticketing system, he's not thinking about how he'll hardly see his buddy in accounting anymore, or his manager's manager (who he gets along with), he's thinking about how he won't have to see the other users or his direct manager.
As just one example.
I guess my big point was that inefficiency doesn't have to be stamped out everywhere, especially where it might be helping you personally. There are, of course, many other systems in a company that could use improvement before the user-help-request process.
I think I, personally, as well as many others in tech should also keep our egos in check. As much as I despise non-compliant web pages, for instance; if the customer insists on a feature that requires non-compliance (despite reasonable warnings) then I should give the customer what they want, not what I want. It's their money I'm working on, after all, they are entitled to direct my actions.
Look, no offense, but you don't need every exception to every statement spelled out for you do you? Of course not all management sucks, and not all users are morons.
Perhaps it would be better to suggest more social skills in general.
We spent so much time distancing ourselves from management and users (granted, it's justified and understandable) that they end up not caring who (or where) we are.
She had blonde hair since Super-Metroid. However, strangely enough, Nintendo Power ran a comic for a few months centered around Metroid at the time of Super Metroid's release. In the comic, she still had green hair.
(She's much hotter with the green hair, but her recent, blonde, get-up in Metroid: Zero Mission [Which I highly reccomend] is, admittedly, a good look.)
Once my DVD player has Artificial Intelligence, and a job, it can buy stuff too. Same goes for the computers and the CD Player.
But that copy does belong to him if he acquired it legally. If I'm the only occupant in my living space and I have twelve individuals computers comprising an obscene amount of redundant backup storage, and I make twelve freaggin' copies of every piece of data legally acquired by myself, plus a DVD for the television, and a CD for the stereo, it still shouldn't make a lick of difference to musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living, because they succeeded in selling one copy to one consumer.
End of story, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this license restriction crap.
I don't know how, I just know that no Tech article on slashdot is complete without someone ignorantly declaring said technology's promising future in enhancing cellphone functionality.
I applaud any open source release. Here's to you Microsoft(R).
We look forward to more (real) open source contributions!
You should be fine as long as you continue to focus on the middle of the screen.
You see, as each new frame is drawn your eyes are already adjusted to being crossed, the next frame will have roughly the same depth so your eyes won't uncross.
I imagine the difficult part would be establishing a focus on a moving scene.
But really, I hated looking left or right and losing it immediately... I'd have to have a large monitor and enormous fov setting to play that way.
Actually, you can focus your eyes at a distance greater than 18" right in front of your monitor! http://plaza.ufl.edu/lewey/download/SIRD/q2/index. html
You definately have a point. If your entire site (or significant section of your site) contains tabular data (such as a forum) then you obviously should consider a templating system.
However, the parent also has a very good point. When your markup looks like this:
(excuse the potential crap php statements, it's been a while, and excuse the non-XHTML compliance, hell just use your imagination)
When your markup looks like that using a template system is hardly advisable, or even sane.
Me too. But hey, Cadillac trunks are pretty big right? There's room for both of us if we remove the spare tire...
BSD definately gives every licensor more options and is more free in that sense, I'm not trying to sidestep that point, or diminish its importance. It's significant.
It just makes more sense to call the program that will always be open to modification and/or redistribution "free" while referring to the other as "open."
We keep reservoirs in the ocean?
As I said in my original post though, I never expect the market to be where the cutting edge is, or at least where the cutting edge is for me. That's my point really. It's just frustrating to see phrases like "best _thing_ ever." The best thing ever almost never is. There's always better stuff already in the market available, that just doesn't have the hype.
Vorbis I specification
Oh, and with bitrate peeling, I could just keep cramming songs onto the damn thing until I found a noticable decrease in quality. I haven't heard of AAC being capable of such a feature, but I'd love to hear about it if it did.
Like I said elsewhere though, if I want the best I'll acquire something else. If I have to give up features for what's popular, well, I'll just be unpopular.
I don't recall claiming victory.
My point is that "the market" often ends up with inferior formats. MS Word's "doc" format compared to OO.o's "sxw," Macromedia's Flash against W3C's SVG+SMIL, "gif" vs. "png."
Mozilla vs. IE, Outlook vs. Evolution. Hell, Windows vs. Linux.
I was playing FPS mods long by the time counter-strike came out, "the market" was already missing other great mods like Gloom. "The market" isn't an omnipotent force that knows all the options and always picks the best. No, it's the well informed that get the best deal, it's "the market" that puts up with crap for the sake of "convenience."
Keep your industry-leading formats and software. That's all it has going for it is it leads an industry. My formats and software perform a hell of a lot better, I'll stick with them.
I want to see Ogg Vorbis support on the iPods too.
Call me a nutcase, but I see the sanity in it.
I could develop a GUI front end to OpenBSD's pf, pfsync, and carp, sell it binary only.
A company could buy this product, implement it, and spend many hours training users to use it (okay, a company isn't going to spend thousands of dollars teaching end-users firewall software, but this is just an example).
Now if I refused to implement updates to this software coming from the OpenBSD team, and instead relied on my own mediocre updates developed in-house and behind-schedule, that company that bought this software from me is going to be stuck.
Without access to the source, which the BSD license does not require me to distribute, the company is reserved to keep using my broken software, or change over to the original BSD-Licensed software which, by this time, could be wholly incompatible with systems based on my software.
The BSD license is "more free" to a licensor; someone who redistributes the program acquired under a free license to users under an un-free license. The licensee in this situation won't have a whole lot of freedom.
The GPL license is "more free" to every licensee. And much more restrictive of the licensor.
It all depends on how you look at it.
All GPL software will always be available to modify and redistribute.
BSD software is available to modify and redistribute, but any of those redistributions could not be.
You're right that we don't have to worry about Free/Net/Open/Dragonfly BSD suddenly turning evil and closing their source.
But just remember that the FSF, Richard Stallman, Gnu Developers, and Linus Torvalds don't even have the option of suddenly turning evil and closing their source.
From where I'm sitting, BSD/GPL licenses really don't matter. I'll always distribute openly. For BSD software I'd modify, I'd retain a BSD license, likewise for GPL software (of course). But if I wrote my own software from scratch, I'd definately go GPL after listening to a few of Stallman's speeches. I'd just feel a lot better knowing that every licensee of my program is getting a fair deal, whether I'm licensing it to them or someone else is.
They're both free, just different flavors of it. I like the flavor that, pardon my opinion, "looks out for the little guy."
Not flamebait, just a misunderstanding.
BSD Licenses are Open Source, but not all software acquired under a BSD License can be considered free. See, I could go download a BSD-Licensed program, modify it, and sell it without distributing the source. This program, though mostly based on open-source software, would no longer be considered free at this point.
So Free-Software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software which is licensed with terms that make it perpetually free. The software's source will always be available, otherwise the licenser is violating their license.
Not so odd, in my humble opinion.