The article mentioned isn't what we are discussing, at least directly, in this thread. We are discussing this assertion by InsightIn140Bytes. If you have a beef with this thread talking about GPL only, have it with him.
Next point:
Distribution is most certainly involved in using the software - if you didn't receive it, how can you use it?
No, distribution is involved in distributing the software. Otherwise, every Internet network involved in allowing me to access the software is bound by its license terms. And that doesn't happen. Your logic fails again, sorry: "a implies b" doesn't mean "b implies a". Having a distribution chain so I can use something doesn't mean the distributors use it. Once again, does eBay use an item when they only intermediated between the vendor and the buyer? How, if the item never was in eBay's posession?
So, restrictions on distribution most certainly affect use.
They affect _your_ use. The distributor never opened the box, never used the software in it, possibly never even had access to it.
Oh, since GPL is a dead end, I guess all that GPL software like the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE or Qt will magically disappear and be substituted with something else. Keep on wishing.
First, the AGPL imposes restrictions on use as well as distribution. (or are you going to claim that the AGPL, which is cited as a major problem in the article, is not part of the GPL license family, as is the LGPL?)
Of course I am going to claim it, because it is true. They are similar licenses but not the same. They are designed with different objectives and as such lumping them all together is like complaining all Ford cars are gas guzzlers just because Ford SUVs may be.
Second, distribution IS one use of code. In fact it's the primary one for anyone who wants to sell or otherwise distribute a product,
No it isn't. The fact is the distributor isn't using the software: that's why commercial software licenses apply to you, the last step in the chain and _not_ to everybody else in between who didn't even open the package. Talking about a distributor using software he may not even get ahold of is like stating eBay used a scanner I just bought from someone else. They didn't, they just put the vendor and me in contact and got some money for doing so.
You quote an analogy about letting others have freedom of speech and then twist it around to talking about letting others have freedom of speech. There is a difference between talking about not letting others have freedom of speech and actually not letting them have it.
The rest of your argument is based on that misinterpretation and is invalid.
BSD is about the freedom to make choices for everyone in the distribution chain.
And what I just remarked is what is wrong with BSD... from a GPL POV. Keeping everyone else in the distribution chain able to make their own choices (except restricting anybody else) is, for GPL advocates, more important than you losing the ability to forbid everyone to do anything with the code you "inherited".
GPL is about imposing restrictions ON THE USE OF THE CODE for everyone in the distribution chain.
And that is false. There is one restriction on distribution, and none on use. You don't use software when you distribute it. Please remember that.
You make no sense. GPL allows you to use the software as you wish. If you can't make private modifications for your own use you aren't free to use it: if you profit while doing it, so much the better for you. GPL never was about _not_ profiting.
Google isn't selling you GPL code. Not at least in the case you want to use to bash online service providers. If you want to make sure that your code is protected against that, there is AGPL.
But, since it is essentially the same, answer this hypothetical question: say I modify some GPL CAD software so it can drive a CNC. Should I give my clients the designs of the pieces I produce for them, or my code, just because they bought those pieces from me?
Language has no race, as shown by the fact that anyone can speak a language as well or as bad as anyone else, depending on their education. Next time you want to bandy racism around take the time to check what it really means. Abusing it for shock value just diminishes its real worth.
And no, prejudice is not racism (even if racism can be considered a form of prejudice).
I'm afraid you miss the mark in this case. Lamarckist evolution and darwinist evolution are somewhat different;). The fact that lamarckism is wrong isn't relevant to the discussion: darwinism is a valid term even in scientific circles, although it is today conflated with evolutionism (quite rightly so, since it is basically correct).
This may be a bit like the hacker/cracker terminology discussion, though.
My manager says I need the software, along with all other management up my chain of command to the VP and CEO. The IT guy who's only been here 2 weeks has absolutely no authority to tell me "no".
He has the authority to tell you no. It is the upper echelons he must pay attention to on what he must/can install on your computer. And if both of you know that there is little problem to be had: either the software you request is in the approved list and it should be installed or it isn't and you should get your permission slip to show it to him (substitute with mail "from above"). It is the way it's worked everywhere I worked at, either as user or as IT technician.
Not everyone is downloading porn but IT will treat every single user as a baby not allowed to touch a computer without permission and they'll justify it by calling the users stupid.
Come back to tell me about it after you have to "fix" (clean, reinstall, reimage, whatever tickles your fancy) dozens of computers (not all at the same time, fortunately) because users thought they weren't getting into dangerous websites. Just restricting some permissions like install privileges turns into a very good idea. And there is no need to call the users stupid because if they really are you can't fix it, and if they aren't then they are just knowledgeless about the situation and that can be fixed.
However I've seen IT people stupid enough to tell us to put on antivirus onto a DOS only machine disconnected from the network that is used to generate certificates
A DOS only machine to generate certificates... I find that a bit hard to believe, but there's ancient systems chugging along everywhere. In any case having an antivirus in such a sensitive computer isn't that farfetched.
...it's usually because of the IT department knowing better than end users...
FTFY.;)
Joking aside, most usually IT will have to install software as decided by the higher echelons of the organization... and nothing else without direct permission. End users knowing better than IT what software they need is, in many cases, irrelevant. And that assumes that end users know what software they need when they usually will want some software when an approved version of another software will do well enough (and I mean that they acknowledge it works well enough and they still want their pet software).
I call bullshit. Most ITs I have ever been in contact with have, like most people, no desire to do needless extra work. They will cut down your ability to install software because you don't usually do it anyway and it drives the incidences number down because you can't mess that up any more. They will set up proxies because it suddenly becomes trendy watching the same videos at Youtube once and again, and the organization has better uses for its inbound bandwidth than downloading the same thing once and again.
Then again, some IT departments are bent on keeping their power share. I pity the people unlucky enough to deal with those.
I see a lot more cyclists willfully violating the traffic laws than I do cars and pedestrians.
Cars have less ability to zig-zag among other cars that are stopped. You might want to compare cyclists and motorcyclists, and you would probably find the difference isn't so noticeable: cyclists are usually narrower so they can get in tighter spots, but usually not much narrower than a moped. And pedestrians don't usually walk through tightly packed moving cars, if only because they aren't moving in the same direction as the cars at a somewhat comparable speed but perpendicular to them.
The reaction locally to a string of pedestrian deaths was to crack down on jay walking. The reaction to a string of cyclists being hit was to crack down on the motorists.
Perhaps the fact that pedestrians aren't supposed to step on the road out of the assigned lanes and cyclists are supposed to share the road with the rest of vehicles has something to do with it. A pedestrian hit outside a crosswalk is automatically breaking the rules. A cyclist hit on the road may or may not be doing so.
Around here delaying more than 5 vehicles is illegal and can net you a ticket.
Under which circumstances?
As for speed, you can't drive on the freeways if you're vehicle isn't capable of keeping up...
I don't know how the USA freeway system is setup. Here in Spain freeways often leave no alternative road to travel on. Highways (as in pay ones, excuse me if I'm using wrong terms in English) _must_ have an alternative road that goes to the same place. All this being like it is, freeways allow for slow traffic though it must keep as much off the drivelanes as possible.
The problem around here is that cyclists don't get issued citations except on rare occasions and since they don't have license plates good luck reporting them to the police.
That happens here in Spain too. And yet I have seen bicycles towed away.
They're supposed to adhere to the normal rules that apply to other vehicles on the road but generally don't.
Neither do motorcyclists... and many car drivers. This doesn't excuse bicycle riders, of course, but singling them out doesn't do much for your argument. It is an unrelated problem with different solutions (yes, I'm being optimistic at thinking it can actually be solved).
And they regularly don't comply with the minimum speed limit regulations creating an unsafe situation for everybody involved when people have to drive along at a crawl and figure out how to pass.
I don't know how is it where you live, but here in Spain only freeways and highways have a minimum speed limit regulation. I strongly suspect it is the same where you live, if only because there are other vehicles which have their own speed limits (e.g., harvesters) and you don't get to complain if you have to wait to overtake them.
And yes, that's illegal in all 50 states, you can't impede the flow of traffic.
I don't know if it is illegal in all 50 states or not, but I strongly suspect that there is a wilfullness component on its being illegal. I mean, if you are driving a harvester on the only road that takes you where you need to go it is hard to complain about you willingly impeding the flow of traffic.
Just because it is called copy-right it doesn't become a right, as shown by the fact that it was originally a royal prerrogative to hold the monopoly on printed production. When the crown dropped that privilege, the organizations charged with managing that monopoly lobbied to keep copyright alive so they would still be able to exist.
And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.
If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.
Two completely different points: "they" have already waived their right to privacy when they made copies and distributed them. If I make a movie of my kid _and_ give a copy of it to someone else I also have. I may not like it, I may shun the person that shared it, I may even sue them if they agreed to some privacy contract, but that's it.
If you want to keep your works secret, that's fine and dandy. If you publish, you publish knowing it is now public. If you didn't want it to be public you should have thought about it first.
You can sigh all you want. Lousy programmers will write lousy code whether it is open source or not, whether it is C or not. I know, I have had to maintain it (and certainly written it at some time). Just sprinkle ten or so non-named constants in your code to signal for some database offsets and you are in for a few entertaining hours/days of repurposing.
According to that timeline, version 1 of Mosaic Netscape/Netscape Navigator is still a bit earliear than Opera 1. Either that or one of us has some severe astigmatism problem.
But let's not pay attention to the Wikipedia, let's check Opera's own browser history page, which appeared on April 1995. I find it hard to reconcile this with Wikipedia's assertion that the company was founded on August 1995, so I will just accept that Opera already existed by April 1995. It still seems to be later than Netscape, and even more than its predecessor Mosaic Communications Corporation whose webpage seems to have been last updated in October 1994.
Where does your timeline come from? AFAICS Netscape was founded on April 4th, 1994 (as Mosaic Communications and just two years and a bit after the first HTML specification came into being) and Opera was founded on Augst 30th, 1995.
It's missing weight. As other poster has already said, one of the problems of lacking an arm is the body becoming unbalanced. The muscles you lack will be lacking whether you wear a prosthesis or not, but wearing it will at least partly compensate your balance. Your back will be grateful. And since it is a good thing to have a prosthesis with adequate weight, if only for the aforementioned reason, you can fill that weight with whatever you need/want/consider good.
Ok, what part of having the same weight as before did you miss? I mean, it's not as if the person in question would be lifting more weight than before losing half an arm, right?
Are you a previously fat, now skinny emphysematous chain-smoker diabetic who congenitally lacked an upper limb and just lost the other one traumatically? I feel for you, man.
Slashdot Mirror
Next point:
Distribution is most certainly involved in using the software - if you didn't receive it, how can you use it?
No, distribution is involved in distributing the software. Otherwise, every Internet network involved in allowing me to access the software is bound by its license terms. And that doesn't happen. Your logic fails again, sorry: "a implies b" doesn't mean "b implies a". Having a distribution chain so I can use something doesn't mean the distributors use it. Once again, does eBay use an item when they only intermediated between the vendor and the buyer? How, if the item never was in eBay's posession?
So, restrictions on distribution most certainly affect use.
They affect _your_ use. The distributor never opened the box, never used the software in it, possibly never even had access to it.
Oh, since GPL is a dead end, I guess all that GPL software like the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE or Qt will magically disappear and be substituted with something else. Keep on wishing.
First, the AGPL imposes restrictions on use as well as distribution. (or are you going to claim that the AGPL, which is cited as a major problem in the article, is not part of the GPL license family, as is the LGPL?)
Of course I am going to claim it, because it is true. They are similar licenses but not the same. They are designed with different objectives and as such lumping them all together is like complaining all Ford cars are gas guzzlers just because Ford SUVs may be.
Second, distribution IS one use of code. In fact it's the primary one for anyone who wants to sell or otherwise distribute a product,
No it isn't. The fact is the distributor isn't using the software: that's why commercial software licenses apply to you, the last step in the chain and _not_ to everybody else in between who didn't even open the package. Talking about a distributor using software he may not even get ahold of is like stating eBay used a scanner I just bought from someone else. They didn't, they just put the vendor and me in contact and got some money for doing so.
More like the freedom of speech only existing if you are able to repeat everything you hear anyone else say, even if they don't want you to.
FTFY.
That would be AGPL.
The rest of your argument is based on that misinterpretation and is invalid.
BSD is about the freedom to make choices for everyone in the distribution chain.
And what I just remarked is what is wrong with BSD... from a GPL POV. Keeping everyone else in the distribution chain able to make their own choices (except restricting anybody else) is, for GPL advocates, more important than you losing the ability to forbid everyone to do anything with the code you "inherited".
GPL is about imposing restrictions ON THE USE OF THE CODE for everyone in the distribution chain.
And that is false. There is one restriction on distribution, and none on use. You don't use software when you distribute it. Please remember that.
Google isn't selling you GPL code. Not at least in the case you want to use to bash online service providers. If you want to make sure that your code is protected against that, there is AGPL.
But, since it is essentially the same, answer this hypothetical question: say I modify some GPL CAD software so it can drive a CNC. Should I give my clients the designs of the pieces I produce for them, or my code, just because they bought those pieces from me?
And no, prejudice is not racism (even if racism can be considered a form of prejudice).
This may be a bit like the hacker/cracker terminology discussion, though.
My manager says I need the software, along with all other management up my chain of command to the VP and CEO. The IT guy who's only been here 2 weeks has absolutely no authority to tell me "no".
He has the authority to tell you no. It is the upper echelons he must pay attention to on what he must/can install on your computer. And if both of you know that there is little problem to be had: either the software you request is in the approved list and it should be installed or it isn't and you should get your permission slip to show it to him (substitute with mail "from above"). It is the way it's worked everywhere I worked at, either as user or as IT technician.
Not everyone is downloading porn but IT will treat every single user as a baby not allowed to touch a computer without permission and they'll justify it by calling the users stupid.
Come back to tell me about it after you have to "fix" (clean, reinstall, reimage, whatever tickles your fancy) dozens of computers (not all at the same time, fortunately) because users thought they weren't getting into dangerous websites. Just restricting some permissions like install privileges turns into a very good idea. And there is no need to call the users stupid because if they really are you can't fix it, and if they aren't then they are just knowledgeless about the situation and that can be fixed.
However I've seen IT people stupid enough to tell us to put on antivirus onto a DOS only machine disconnected from the network that is used to generate certificates
A DOS only machine to generate certificates... I find that a bit hard to believe, but there's ancient systems chugging along everywhere. In any case having an antivirus in such a sensitive computer isn't that farfetched.
...it's usually because of the IT department knowing better than end users...
FTFY. ;)
Joking aside, most usually IT will have to install software as decided by the higher echelons of the organization... and nothing else without direct permission. End users knowing better than IT what software they need is, in many cases, irrelevant. And that assumes that end users know what software they need when they usually will want some software when an approved version of another software will do well enough (and I mean that they acknowledge it works well enough and they still want their pet software).
Then again, some IT departments are bent on keeping their power share. I pity the people unlucky enough to deal with those.
I see a lot more cyclists willfully violating the traffic laws than I do cars and pedestrians.
Cars have less ability to zig-zag among other cars that are stopped. You might want to compare cyclists and motorcyclists, and you would probably find the difference isn't so noticeable: cyclists are usually narrower so they can get in tighter spots, but usually not much narrower than a moped. And pedestrians don't usually walk through tightly packed moving cars, if only because they aren't moving in the same direction as the cars at a somewhat comparable speed but perpendicular to them.
The reaction locally to a string of pedestrian deaths was to crack down on jay walking. The reaction to a string of cyclists being hit was to crack down on the motorists.
Perhaps the fact that pedestrians aren't supposed to step on the road out of the assigned lanes and cyclists are supposed to share the road with the rest of vehicles has something to do with it. A pedestrian hit outside a crosswalk is automatically breaking the rules. A cyclist hit on the road may or may not be doing so.
Around here delaying more than 5 vehicles is illegal and can net you a ticket.
Under which circumstances?
As for speed, you can't drive on the freeways if you're vehicle isn't capable of keeping up...
I don't know how the USA freeway system is setup. Here in Spain freeways often leave no alternative road to travel on. Highways (as in pay ones, excuse me if I'm using wrong terms in English) _must_ have an alternative road that goes to the same place. All this being like it is, freeways allow for slow traffic though it must keep as much off the drivelanes as possible.
I suspect you don't really know as far as you think ;) unless you equate tomato sauce with ketchup, which is wrong IMO.
The problem around here is that cyclists don't get issued citations except on rare occasions and since they don't have license plates good luck reporting them to the police.
That happens here in Spain too. And yet I have seen bicycles towed away.
They're supposed to adhere to the normal rules that apply to other vehicles on the road but generally don't.
Neither do motorcyclists... and many car drivers. This doesn't excuse bicycle riders, of course, but singling them out doesn't do much for your argument. It is an unrelated problem with different solutions (yes, I'm being optimistic at thinking it can actually be solved).
And they regularly don't comply with the minimum speed limit regulations creating an unsafe situation for everybody involved when people have to drive along at a crawl and figure out how to pass.
I don't know how is it where you live, but here in Spain only freeways and highways have a minimum speed limit regulation. I strongly suspect it is the same where you live, if only because there are other vehicles which have their own speed limits (e.g., harvesters) and you don't get to complain if you have to wait to overtake them.
And yes, that's illegal in all 50 states, you can't impede the flow of traffic.
I don't know if it is illegal in all 50 states or not, but I strongly suspect that there is a wilfullness component on its being illegal. I mean, if you are driving a harvester on the only road that takes you where you need to go it is hard to complain about you willingly impeding the flow of traffic.
Just because it is called copy-right it doesn't become a right, as shown by the fact that it was originally a royal prerrogative to hold the monopoly on printed production. When the crown dropped that privilege, the organizations charged with managing that monopoly lobbied to keep copyright alive so they would still be able to exist.
So no, copyright is a privilege given to a person or a group and it diminishes the human right of access to culture for "the free development of his personality".
And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.
If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.
Two completely different points: "they" have already waived their right to privacy when they made copies and distributed them. If I make a movie of my kid _and_ give a copy of it to someone else I also have. I may not like it, I may shun the person that shared it, I may even sue them if they agreed to some privacy contract, but that's it.
If you want to keep your works secret, that's fine and dandy. If you publish, you publish knowing it is now public. If you didn't want it to be public you should have thought about it first.
Back on track, do you have anything useful to add besides pining for the fjords?
You can sigh all you want. Lousy programmers will write lousy code whether it is open source or not, whether it is C or not. I know, I have had to maintain it (and certainly written it at some time). Just sprinkle ten or so non-named constants in your code to signal for some database offsets and you are in for a few entertaining hours/days of repurposing.
That's not old news, that's News at 11...0a1 ;)
Hey, it was Apple who came up with the "Think different" slogan. Why shouldn't Androidites use "Think smart" as their own? ;)
But let's not pay attention to the Wikipedia, let's check Opera's own browser history page, which appeared on April 1995. I find it hard to reconcile this with Wikipedia's assertion that the company was founded on August 1995, so I will just accept that Opera already existed by April 1995. It still seems to be later than Netscape, and even more than its predecessor Mosaic Communications Corporation whose webpage seems to have been last updated in October 1994.
Where does your timeline come from? AFAICS Netscape was founded on April 4th, 1994 (as Mosaic Communications and just two years and a bit after the first HTML specification came into being) and Opera was founded on Augst 30th, 1995.
It's missing weight. As other poster has already said, one of the problems of lacking an arm is the body becoming unbalanced. The muscles you lack will be lacking whether you wear a prosthesis or not, but wearing it will at least partly compensate your balance. Your back will be grateful. And since it is a good thing to have a prosthesis with adequate weight, if only for the aforementioned reason, you can fill that weight with whatever you need/want/consider good.
Ok, what part of having the same weight as before did you miss? I mean, it's not as if the person in question would be lifting more weight than before losing half an arm, right?
...personal experience
Are you a previously fat, now skinny emphysematous chain-smoker diabetic who congenitally lacked an upper limb and just lost the other one traumatically? I feel for you, man.