Exactly, the GPL is changing from a contract based on copyright to a more general EULA. Modifying code and running it on your web server is not a copyright violation, but GPL still wants their contract to impose restrictions on how this is done.
Every time someone talks about the GPL being about freedom of speech, I need to assume his thinking skills are seriously impaired. GPL promotes control, not freedom. It adds a set of restrictions to code you modify and then wish to redistribute. Adding restrictions does not create freedom, but instead control by the original author in the way his code can be used by other coders.
The only people who were free to do whatever they want with the code were end users who had no intention of redistributing modified code. So GPL3 is addressing this "loophole" by saying if other people are using your code running on your web server, they must have source code access. Thus, a code user has been more broadly scoped in order to extend the control of GPL.
In the future more such indirect uses of code will be indentified to increase control of GPL. Why? In the end people have selfish interests in obtaining power. GPL is no exception, but instead a perfect example of the selfish nature of people. This isn't a bad thing, since many great things have been accomplished by self-interested people. But quit lying about your altruistic motives.
from the article: "Crest's IT manager, Anthony Horton, oversaw the deployment of SAP on Linux in November 2004, after inheriting the decision when he took the job. Having previously run SAP on AIX - IBM's version of Unix - Horton was comfortable with deploying such a mission-critical application on Linux."
There have been comments suggesting that not only does the source code needs to be transparent, but the binary needs to be verified to represent the source code acurrately without tampering. Trusted computing makes it a lot easier to prevent tampering of the binary by an attacker that has been signed off on as good. Of course you always need to trust people with physical access to the machines, so election monitors need to be more sophisticated to detect physical tampering.
"The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it. In a real free market economy the consumer has a third, more powerful option, to find a cheaper supplier."
Free market is not the same as anarchy. In a free market theft of products is not considered a viable option. So why should someone who has put no effort in developing a song be allowed to sell it simply because it's easy to copy? In a free market you're expected to sell your own work, not leech off of others without their permission.
Enterprise and Star Trek TOS were the only shows in the genre where people acted like real people instead of one-dimensional politically correct cardboard cutouts. Battlestar Galactica belongs at number 1, but the fact that it actually made it to number 2 on this list was surprising, given the crap that got high rankings.
No but they deserve a music distributor that isn't putting iPod sales above potential profit in music sales. Jobs is selling songs artificially low to boost iPod sales. If Microsoft were doing this, everyone would be up in arms.
"I don't think so. Why should they deserve a share of iPod sales?"
He's saying Jobs likes the $0.99 price point because it fules iPod sales, which is Jobs' primary interest. But the music companies get nothing from iPod sales, so they want more money from selling popular songs. Jobs is just as greedy, but better at hiding it.
"Regarding the "charitable" Mr Gates... let me just say this: if a thief breaks into your house, steals all your money and then donates 1% of it to charitable causes, will you commend him for being such a good person?"
OK. So copyright infringement is not theft, but selling a product to someone who voluntarily buys it is? Dumbass. Learn something about economics before posting stupid comment like this in the future.
"I think it's equally fair to recognize that their contributions are like the societal and charitable contributions of mobsters or fascist dictators or whatever "Lawful Evil" entity you want to name."
Your comparsion is fundamentally flawed. Mobsters and Fascist dictators rule by force, i.e. through violence. Microsoft doesn't point guns at people to dictate policy. And no, claiming their influence is equivalent to pointing a gun is flawed in a free market system. Anyone can always walk away without physical harm.
"As opposed to a for-profit corporation. They would never do something like that.
At least the Government is ultimately answerable the citizens. The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron)."
A company has to make a profit. To do so, it needs to provide a service that people are willing to pay for. If you don't like their service, boycotting it sends a lot stronger message to the company, than voting for or against a congress person once every few years. That's why capitalism works Companies answer to their customers, who ultimately pay the bills.
Govenrments answer to voters and political donors, which is a much weaker feedback system for acting on customer complaints.
"Sounds like damn good response time to me! When was this first discovered? How many days total did it take for the patch to be released? Yes, it sucks that the vulnerability was there to begin with, but you have to admit that this is a good demonstration of how well an open source community project can respond."
Yes, the open source community did a great job showing hackers exactly what the problem was, so an exploit could be developed for the unpatched systems. Great work guys.
"Ummm, so basically Mozilla was ahead of the game as far as this hole is concerned, having already released a patched version of the browser before the exploit became known?"
Did it occur to you the patch may have been reverse engineered, and the exploit created from the patch? There is a reason MS doesn't like to patch holes that haven't been exploited.
The version of firefox I'm using is unpatched and vulnerable since the IT guy here hasn't bothered to patch it yet.
1) Play iTunes songs. 2) Be used as a thumb drive."
All mp3 players can be used as thumb drives. The Dell player probably loads songs using standard file copy software for whatever OS is on the computer it's connected to.
If iTunes support is a must, you probably aren't interested in anything but an Apple mp3 player anyway. It's up to Apple to make its software compatible with other players, and shouldn't be hard. Complain to Apple if iTunes doesn't work with your mp3 player.
Dell has a much better player. They don't need a stupid slogan like "Life is Random" to make up for the fact that there is no LCD screen to allow you to select the song you want to hear.
The only reason Apple has the lion's share of the mp3 player market is that they're the only one's who put any serious money in advertising. Most people have never heard of any of the competing brands
"Funny how the pc-pro with &%#%& advertisement over the text in Firefox, said that the AAC/mp3 format of the ipod is a tie in and this way suggesting that WMA is not a tie in. Very funny."
Anyone can license WMA. Real does, Napster does, Yahoo, does, etc. Many of these companies wanted to to Lincense fairplay too. Apple is tying iPod and iTMS, so no deal. There's a difference. Maybe you shouldn't think different, since that phrase isn't even correct English
"The facts Symantec have stated are true, but they've used them to try to convince the reader that switching to Firefox isn't going to help obviate the need for Norton Antivirus/Internet Security/AntiSpyware, and *that's* the lie."
I guess you're trying to say that Symantec hasn't provided any data that shows anybody cares enough about firefox to exploit the security holes in the code. This is the only logical conclusion I can reach based on your comments anyway. Data clearly shows that firefox has exploits. You say there is no need for countermeasures. Therefore, no one cares enough about firefox to exploit its bugs.
"2. After switching to Firefox while still running Windows, I had zero infections. ZERO. Nothing else on the system changed."
A lot of people in New Orleans thought the same way about hurricanes until recently. It's irrational to ignore an impending problem because you haven't seen it's effect yet.
" Actually Apple have a history of being closely involved in processor design. They were part owners of ARM and had hands-on involvement in design. They were also part of the original PowerPC consortium along with IBM and Motorola."
Participating in a architecture discussions doesn't make you capable of designing a processor.
"As for what Apple knows about music production, everyday that passes sees more Apple hardware and software being used in music production. In fact you could create an album entirely on a Mac and distribute it exclusively on iTunes. No traditional record company required."
Understanding how the equipment works doesn't make you capable of producing hit artists.
The main purpose of iTMS is to get people hooked on iPods. Cheap music via iTMS provides further incentive for people to buy iPods. No surprise, therefore, that Steve Jobs doesn't want the price of online music to grow.
As an aside, it's pathetic that threat of piracy should influence the price of online music. How would you like to be a shop owner who had to keep his prices lower than he'd like to prevent shoplifting.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the Subject. Your one of them.
" Its possible for there to be a correlation and actually still have it DROP the shoplifting rate."
Yes, teenagers who used to steal cds are now just stealing the music online (oh sorry copyright infringing music online).
Exactly, the GPL is changing from a contract based on copyright to a more general EULA. Modifying code and running it on your web server is not a copyright violation, but GPL still wants their contract to impose restrictions on how this is done.
Every time someone talks about the GPL being about freedom of speech, I need to assume his thinking skills are seriously impaired. GPL promotes control, not freedom. It adds a set of restrictions to code you modify and then wish to redistribute. Adding restrictions does not create freedom, but instead control by the original author in the way his code can be used by other coders.
The only people who were free to do whatever they want with the code were end users who had no intention of redistributing modified code. So GPL3 is addressing this "loophole" by saying if other people are using your code running on your web server, they must have source code access. Thus, a code user has been more broadly scoped in order to extend the control of GPL.
In the future more such indirect uses of code will be indentified to increase control of GPL. Why? In the end people have selfish interests in obtaining power. GPL is no exception, but instead a perfect example of the selfish nature of people. This isn't a bad thing, since many great things have been accomplished by self-interested people. But quit lying about your altruistic motives.
from the article:
"Crest's IT manager, Anthony Horton, oversaw the deployment of SAP on Linux in November 2004, after inheriting the decision when he took the job. Having previously run SAP on AIX - IBM's version of Unix - Horton was comfortable with deploying such a mission-critical application on Linux."
This isn't a Windows guy.
There have been comments suggesting that not only does the source code needs to be transparent, but the binary needs to be verified to represent the source code acurrately without tampering. Trusted computing makes it a lot easier to prevent tampering of the binary by an attacker that has been signed off on as good. Of course you always need to trust people with physical access to the machines, so election monitors need to be more sophisticated to detect physical tampering.
"Its still a long way for OO
A long social way. The technical one is basically done already."
With an attitude like that, it's no wonder zealots are confused when people in the real world say they hate OO.
"The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it. In a real free market economy the consumer has a third, more powerful option, to find a cheaper supplier."
Free market is not the same as anarchy. In a free market theft of products is not considered a viable option. So why should someone who has put no effort in developing a song be allowed to sell it simply because it's easy to copy? In a free market you're expected to sell your own work, not leech off of others without their permission.
Enterprise and Star Trek TOS were the only shows in the genre where people acted like real people instead of one-dimensional politically correct cardboard cutouts. Battlestar Galactica belongs at number 1, but the fact that it actually made it to number 2 on this list was surprising, given the crap that got high rankings.
No but they deserve a music distributor that isn't putting iPod sales above potential profit in music sales. Jobs is selling songs artificially low to boost iPod sales. If Microsoft were doing this, everyone would be up in arms.
"I don't think so. Why should they deserve a share of iPod sales?"
He's saying Jobs likes the $0.99 price point because it fules iPod sales, which is Jobs' primary interest. But the music companies get nothing from iPod sales, so they want more money from selling popular songs. Jobs is just as greedy, but better at hiding it.
"Regarding the "charitable" Mr Gates... let me just say this: if a thief breaks into your house, steals all your money and then donates 1% of it to charitable causes, will you commend him for being such a good person?"
OK. So copyright infringement is not theft, but selling a product to someone who voluntarily buys it is? Dumbass. Learn something about economics before posting stupid comment like this in the future.
"I think it's equally fair to recognize that their contributions are like the societal and charitable contributions of mobsters or fascist dictators or whatever "Lawful Evil" entity you want to name."
Your comparsion is fundamentally flawed. Mobsters and Fascist dictators rule by force, i.e. through violence. Microsoft doesn't point guns at people to dictate policy. And no, claiming their influence is equivalent to pointing a gun is flawed in a free market system. Anyone can always walk away without physical harm.
"As opposed to a for-profit corporation. They would never do something like that.
At least the Government is ultimately answerable the citizens. The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron)."
A company has to make a profit. To do so, it needs to provide a service that people are willing to pay for. If you don't like their service, boycotting it sends a lot stronger message to the company, than voting for or against a congress person once every few years. That's why capitalism works Companies answer to their customers, who ultimately pay the bills.
Govenrments answer to voters and political donors, which is a much weaker feedback system for acting on customer complaints.
"Sounds like damn good response time to me! When was this first discovered? How many days total did it take for the patch to be released? Yes, it sucks that the vulnerability was there to begin with, but you have to admit that this is a good demonstration of how well an open source community project can respond."
Yes, the open source community did a great job showing hackers exactly what the problem was, so an exploit could be developed for the unpatched systems. Great work guys.
"Ummm, so basically Mozilla was ahead of the game as far as this hole is concerned, having already released a patched version of the browser before the exploit became known?"
Did it occur to you the patch may have been reverse engineered, and the exploit created from the patch? There is a reason MS doesn't like to patch holes that haven't been exploited.
The version of firefox I'm using is unpatched and vulnerable since the IT guy here hasn't bothered to patch it yet.
" The iPod Shuffle can:
1) Play iTunes songs.
2) Be used as a thumb drive."
All mp3 players can be used as thumb drives. The Dell player probably loads songs using standard file copy software for whatever OS is on the computer it's connected to.
If iTunes support is a must, you probably aren't interested in anything but an Apple mp3 player anyway. It's up to Apple to make its software compatible with other players, and shouldn't be hard. Complain to Apple if iTunes doesn't work with your mp3 player.
Dell has a much better player. They don't need a stupid slogan like "Life is Random" to make up for the fact that there is no LCD screen to allow you to select the song you want to hear.
The only reason Apple has the lion's share of the mp3 player market is that they're the only one's who put any serious money in advertising. Most people have never heard of any of the competing brands
"Funny how the pc-pro with &%#%& advertisement over the text in Firefox, said that the AAC/mp3 format of the ipod is a tie in and this way suggesting that WMA is not a tie in. Very funny."
Anyone can license WMA. Real does, Napster does, Yahoo, does, etc. Many of these companies wanted to to Lincense fairplay too. Apple is tying iPod and iTMS, so no deal. There's a difference. Maybe you shouldn't think different, since that phrase isn't even correct English
"The facts Symantec have stated are true, but they've used them to try to convince the reader that switching to Firefox isn't going to help obviate the need for Norton Antivirus/Internet Security/AntiSpyware, and *that's* the lie."
I guess you're trying to say that Symantec hasn't provided any data that shows anybody cares enough about firefox to exploit the security holes in the code. This is the only logical conclusion I can reach based on your comments anyway. Data clearly shows that firefox has exploits. You say there is no need for countermeasures. Therefore, no one cares enough about firefox to exploit its bugs.
"2. After switching to Firefox while still running Windows, I had zero infections. ZERO. Nothing else on the system changed."
A lot of people in New Orleans thought the same way about hurricanes until recently. It's irrational to ignore an impending problem because you haven't seen it's effect yet.
"Microsoft still bundling? What are they being accused of bundling this time?"
Notepad?
" Actually Apple have a history of being closely involved in processor design. They were part owners of ARM and had hands-on involvement in design. They were also part of the original PowerPC consortium along with IBM and Motorola."
Participating in a architecture discussions doesn't make you capable of designing a processor.
"As for what Apple knows about music production, everyday that passes sees more Apple hardware and software being used in music production. In fact you could create an album entirely on a Mac and distribute it exclusively on iTunes. No traditional record company required."
Understanding how the equipment works doesn't make you capable of producing hit artists.
The main purpose of iTMS is to get people hooked on iPods. Cheap music via iTMS provides further incentive for people to buy iPods. No surprise, therefore, that Steve Jobs doesn't want the price of online music to grow.
As an aside, it's pathetic that threat of piracy should influence the price of online music. How would you like to be a shop owner who had to keep his prices lower than he'd like to prevent shoplifting.