As far as a contract goes, I'm still convinced that it's null and void because there's no consideration involved.
I don't, because the GPL isn't a contract; it's a unilateral grant of permission to perform actions normally prohibited by copyright. (However, I do believe that most commercial EULAs are or should be invalid due to lack of consideration, among other reasons). Regardless, there are two ways the GPL could be found "null and void": 1. The GPL is ruled to be entirely meaningless. Standard copyright law now applies to formerly GPLed software. Among other things, this means that *nobody* can distribute Linux since it has multiple authors. 2. The redistrution permission is upheld, but the requirements to provide source are found to be invalid, essentially turning the GPL into another BSD license.
Which of these do you believe will happen? Both seem unlikely to me, especially 2.
Bull. They just photograph the screen with a digital camera, or just write down what it says. If someone can see something, they can copy it. No technical hoops can change that.
Just quoting this AC at +2 because he's absolutely right.
SCO is a bit more like RAMBUS was.. Other than RAMBUS had some legal legs to stand on... Wheres RAMBUS now ?
Sadly, doing quite well. Prior to SCO I considered them the most unethical company in the industry, and it's annoying that their blatant fraud is being rewarded. Fortunately, you're right that SCO has even less of a legal claim than they did.
Look at Texas for a model in deregulation. Their energy prices are low, and they have a 20% surplus on even the hottest days in summer. Texas, BTW, has its own power grid separate from the other main grids in the US.
Deregulation can work, but as you seem to imply, only if it is properly thought out. This is a very rare occurance in politics and government.
Just quoting this unusally intelligent AC comment at +2. I agree completely; the free market can work quite well, but half-assed "deregulation" like that inflicted on California invariably leads to the worst of both worlds.
Hmm...Apple as the Minbari works pretty well. Years ago they lost a war they could easily have won (by licensing their OS), but are now allies, and have fanatical followers ("We live for the Steve, we die for the Steve"). And in collaboration with IBM they've produced the White Star fleet, er, the dual G5.
Yes, it is. The OS just doesn't support its full functionality yet. Likewise, a dual processor Xeon running Windows 98 is still a dual processor machine. If you said "A G5 running Mac OS X 10.3 is not a true 64-bit platform", then you'd have a case.
There is no such thing as a customer's right to find a better bargain.
Er, what? A customer absolutely has the right to compare products from different sellers and buy from who he believes provides the best deal. How could it be otherwise?
It isn't spam, it's a preinstalled trojan. It would be an improvement if it *were* spam, like if it used that stupid Windows Messenger service to pop up a message on clients connected to it. Instead, it is broken by design because it deliberately fails to do what it claims to, i.e. route packets to their requested destination.
you can't take away any of the rights and freedoms agreed to by the UN nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and really, neither should you... read it over... some of those are actually kind of nice.
Some are nice, and some are not. For example, I believe minimum wage laws (as mandated by article 23) cause unemployment and are economically harmful. You may disagree, but according the the UN I don't even have the right to express that opinion, and that is ludicrous.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
So you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anthing the UN disagrees with.
International treaties entered by the United States are given equal weight as the US Constitution.
Not according to this. I don't know who's legally right, but as a practical matter I can't believe that Thomas Jefferson and friends would knowingly leave such a gaping loophole.
Care to tell us just what someone who can reliably throw an object 50 some odd yards is actually contributing to society at large?
Because many members of society place a positive value watching him throw objects, as indicated by their willingness to pay to do so. Perhaps you don't agree with their preferences, but that doesn't mean they're not valid.
However, if you block ads (other than potentially harmful ads like ActiveX or popups) then you are essentially stealing from the site.
Sorry, not behaving in accordance with your business model is not "stealing". If it were, it would also be stealing if I see the ads and fail to alter my buying decisions.
You're telling me that it helps pay for the site. In other words, it allows you to fraudulently claim that the fact that I see the ad has a net benefit to the advertiser when, in fact, it does not. On the contrary, it has the opposite effect.
Bingo. Many of the people whining about ad blockers are really just annoyed that they can't rip off their advertisers as effectively as before.
And content providers wouldn't have had to come up with innovations like pop-unders and shoshkeles if end-users viewed regular banner ads instead of blocking them.
I don't buy this. Ad blockers have never been used by any significant portion of web users. Advertisers went to more obnoxious techniques not because banners were being blocked, but because they were being ignored.
Extending GPL coded classes in object-oriented code - Not OK in any version of the GPL that I am aware of
This is the one I don't get, and maybe it's related to #3. Say there's a GPLed Java library that contains a class named Foo. I make a Bar subclass and use it in my application which is *not* distributed with Foo (i.e. users are required to have a Foo class available on their systems). How is this a derivative work? My code doesn't include any GPLed code, it just assumes the existence of a Foo class that conforms to a certain API, and APIs aren't copyrightable (afaik).
The GPL does not allow proprietary and GPL code to occupy the same memory space
I don't see how this can always be true either. Suppose there's a non-GPL program that dynamically loads plugins. If I write a plugin, it's going to be sharing a memory space with the main program, so can I not release my plugin under the GPL?
They might be able to get away with it if they stop distributing and cut the gpl'd code out of their next release but that doesn't make it legal.
Yeah, they're in violation. But if they correct it quickly they shouldn't be liable for more than actual damages, which I suspect are in the vicinity of $0. There are some demanding that the only acceptable alternative is to force them to release all their code whether they want to or not. This is extremely foolish and only serves to validate Microsoft's propaganda of "you make one mistake with GPL software and you lose control of all your code".
There's certain tasks where the user MUST drop to the command line.
Like what?
The user is much more dependent on installers.
In my experience OS X is less dependent on installers. Almost all programs are "installed" by copying them to a hard drive. A minority actually do require installers (like those which need to install hardware drivers), and some others use installers for no good reason; these tend to be badly ported OS 9 apps.
No more drag-n-drop of Extension icons
That's because there's no more extensions, and no more extension conflicts; one of the many reasons OS X tends to be much less fragile than OS 9.
It brings about a certain fear factor among the normal Mac userbase.
While this is true, *any* change is going to do that, and it doesn't mean that the OS X is objectively less usable. OS 9 isn't as easy to use as a lot of "classic" Mac users think. I've mentioned the extension conflicts; there's also the ridiculously primitive manual memory allocation, and I've watched dozens of users repeatedly double-click an application and not realize it was already running with no windows visible.
Why do some applications quit when I close the last window, and others don't?
Because some should and some shouldn't. Single-window utility programs like Calculator do, document-based apps like TextEdit don't. This is also the case on OS 9.
Why can't all applications use the "services" menu?
All Cocoa applications get services for free. Carbon apps have to explicitly add support for them. I wish Apple would publicize services more, and moving them out of the hard-to-reach submenu would be nice. (They seem like a perfect candidate for context menus).
Why is the GUI still significantly slower than OS 9's GUI?
Because Quartz is orders of magnitude more complex than Quickdraw, and because the entire OS doesn't block when you pull down a menu or move a window.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I would. See Voltaire.
I don't, because the GPL isn't a contract; it's a unilateral grant of permission to perform actions normally prohibited by copyright. (However, I do believe that most commercial EULAs are or should be invalid due to lack of consideration, among other reasons). Regardless, there are two ways the GPL could be found "null and void":
1. The GPL is ruled to be entirely meaningless. Standard copyright law now applies to formerly GPLed software. Among other things, this means that *nobody* can distribute Linux since it has multiple authors.
2. The redistrution permission is upheld, but the requirements to provide source are found to be invalid, essentially turning the GPL into another BSD license.
Which of these do you believe will happen? Both seem unlikely to me, especially 2.
Just quoting this AC at +2 because he's absolutely right.
Sadly, doing quite well. Prior to SCO I considered them the most unethical company in the industry, and it's annoying that their blatant fraud is being rewarded. Fortunately, you're right that SCO has even less of a legal claim than they did.
Um, because it's 2003.
Deregulation can work, but as you seem to imply, only if it is properly thought out. This is a very rare occurance in politics and government.
Just quoting this unusally intelligent AC comment at +2. I agree completely; the free market can work quite well, but half-assed "deregulation" like that inflicted on California invariably leads to the worst of both worlds.
Man, do I need a life.
I agree, but SCO's lawyers would make sure that anybody with half a technical clue was removed during jury questioning.
Yes, it is. The OS just doesn't support its full functionality yet. Likewise, a dual processor Xeon running Windows 98 is still a dual processor machine. If you said "A G5 running Mac OS X 10.3 is not a true 64-bit platform", then you'd have a case.
Er, what? A customer absolutely has the right to compare products from different sellers and buy from who he believes provides the best deal. How could it be otherwise?
Sure, if you felt like tipping the Apple Store guys $370.
It isn't spam, it's a preinstalled trojan. It would be an improvement if it *were* spam, like if it used that stupid Windows Messenger service to pop up a message on clients connected to it. Instead, it is broken by design because it deliberately fails to do what it claims to, i.e. route packets to their requested destination.
I hope it's not, because I agree completely.
Some are nice, and some are not. For example, I believe minimum wage laws (as mandated by article 23) cause unemployment and are economically harmful. You may disagree, but according the the UN I don't even have the right to express that opinion, and that is ludicrous.
So you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anthing the UN disagrees with.
Not according to this. I don't know who's legally right, but as a practical matter I can't believe that Thomas Jefferson and friends would knowingly leave such a gaping loophole.
Because many members of society place a positive value watching him throw objects, as indicated by their willingness to pay to do so. Perhaps you don't agree with their preferences, but that doesn't mean they're not valid.
Sorry, not behaving in accordance with your business model is not "stealing". If it were, it would also be stealing if I see the ads and fail to alter my buying decisions.
Bingo. Many of the people whining about ad blockers are really just annoyed that they can't rip off their advertisers as effectively as before.
I don't buy this. Ad blockers have never been used by any significant portion of web users. Advertisers went to more obnoxious techniques not because banners were being blocked, but because they were being ignored.
This is the one I don't get, and maybe it's related to #3. Say there's a GPLed Java library that contains a class named Foo. I make a Bar subclass and use it in my application which is *not* distributed with Foo (i.e. users are required to have a Foo class available on their systems). How is this a derivative work? My code doesn't include any GPLed code, it just assumes the existence of a Foo class that conforms to a certain API, and APIs aren't copyrightable (afaik).
The GPL does not allow proprietary and GPL code to occupy the same memory space
I don't see how this can always be true either. Suppose there's a non-GPL program that dynamically loads plugins. If I write a plugin, it's going to be sharing a memory space with the main program, so can I not release my plugin under the GPL?
Yeah, they're in violation. But if they correct it quickly they shouldn't be liable for more than actual damages, which I suspect are in the vicinity of $0. There are some demanding that the only acceptable alternative is to force them to release all their code whether they want to or not. This is extremely foolish and only serves to validate Microsoft's propaganda of "you make one mistake with GPL software and you lose control of all your code".
Like what?
The user is much more dependent on installers.
In my experience OS X is less dependent on installers. Almost all programs are "installed" by copying them to a hard drive. A minority actually do require installers (like those which need to install hardware drivers), and some others use installers for no good reason; these tend to be badly ported OS 9 apps.
No more drag-n-drop of Extension icons
That's because there's no more extensions, and no more extension conflicts; one of the many reasons OS X tends to be much less fragile than OS 9.
It brings about a certain fear factor among the normal Mac userbase.
While this is true, *any* change is going to do that, and it doesn't mean that the OS X is objectively less usable. OS 9 isn't as easy to use as a lot of "classic" Mac users think. I've mentioned the extension conflicts; there's also the ridiculously primitive manual memory allocation, and I've watched dozens of users repeatedly double-click an application and not realize it was already running with no windows visible.
Because some should and some shouldn't. Single-window utility programs like Calculator do, document-based apps like TextEdit don't. This is also the case on OS 9.
Why can't all applications use the "services" menu?
All Cocoa applications get services for free. Carbon apps have to explicitly add support for them. I wish Apple would publicize services more, and moving them out of the hard-to-reach submenu would be nice. (They seem like a perfect candidate for context menus).
Why is the GUI still significantly slower than OS 9's GUI?
Because Quartz is orders of magnitude more complex than Quickdraw, and because the entire OS doesn't block when you pull down a menu or move a window.
Sadly I don't have a mod point for you. (If I did, I'm not sure whether it should be "Funny" or "Informative").