Comparatively, yes. Around 92 I paid over $1000 for a 1 Gig Micropolis 2112 AV external SCSI.
Looked at another way, for an investment of $10,000 - $20,000 for a well equiped workstation, you can have capabilities that would have cost $200,000 - $2,000,000 back then. Actually, greater capabilities, as they didn't have HD back then. Now, get off my lawn.
The only real differences I see between satellite radio and net radio is that sat radio is subscription based Bingo. The music business likes subscription models. Really, really likes them.
You have the reading comprehension of something that doesn't have a very admirable level of reading comprehension. I love using constructions like this. It's a sign of a very lazy mind. It's especially fitting for an insult, since it says, "I cannot be bothered to even think up a good insult." You made me very happy.
Modded down to -1? Who knew there were humorless eco-lesbians on slashdot? Feh, probably just humorless eco-lesbians trapped in overweight flabby men's bodies.
Exactly! People shouldn't be complaining! They should be opening up spas on Lake Michigan and offering sludge facials. It's well known that toxic elements and compounds will tighten the pores, slough off dead skin, and leave your face feeling invigorating. That tingling? That means it's working!
Ammmonia isn't bad! It's our friend! Besides, I don't see how this dumping of ammonia is all that different from all the humans, animals, and fish that are already peeing in Lake Michigan. Are we going to stop the fish from peeing in the water?
The GPL is not a law, it is a license agreement. The intent of those party to the agreement (i.e., Licensor and Licensee) are all that matters, not some third party, even if that third party constructed the agreement. If the GPL 2 didn't properly express the intent of the parties involved (the Licensor and the Licensee), then they would find some other agreement that better reflected their intent.
Bringing in a third party's intent into a two way transaction is nonsensical, as is speaking of the "intent" or "spirit" of the GPL 2. Why can't we just say that the GPL 2 didn't correctly express the intent of the FSF so they decided to create the GPL 3, instead of making up some metaphysical bullshit about the GPL 2. GPL 2 is what it is. Personifying it is not going to change what it is. As soon as I hear people going on about the "spirit" of the GPL, I get ready to hear arguments based on emotions rather than logic. I get ready for someone to start mashing the "freedom" button, because how could anyone be against freedom?
Here's what I said:
Linus apparently likes the GPL 2 just fine. It's certain provisions of GPL 3 that he finds impossible to accept. If you believe that Linus is against the GPL or (even worse) against "the spirit of the GPL", you're swallowing a load of bullshit. My contention is that talking about the "spirit" of the GPL or being against the "spirit" is nonsense, especially in terms of someone who has wholeheartedly embraced the GPL 2. But mostly it's nonsense because it's theological. Let's see, we've got the Spirit of the GPL, now is RMS the Father, and Moglen the Son? or is it the other way around.
If you want to talk about spirit or intent, assign those things to the FSF. The GPLs are software licenses. They are agreements regarding the distribution of software. If I choose to use the GPL 2, it doesn't mean I've enrolled into the FSF religion.
Here, let's try this. Party A releases code under the GPL 2 because the language* of the GPL 2 expresses the intent of Party A. The intentions of the FSF don't enter into it. It's between the licensor and the licensee.
OK, let's try this another way. If the FSF did intend something different than what is expressed in the language* of the GPL 2, then why didn't they write that into the GPL 2? If situations arise where the GPL 2 doesn't express the intent of the FSF, then you can no longer talk about some "spirit" being inherent in the GPL 2.
I'm not conflating intent with the letter. Supposed intent only comes into a matter if the document is unclear. I don't see how the GPL 2 can be any more clear than it already is. It's quid pro quo, tit-for-tat, code for code. If anyone is conflating anything, it is you and your fellow FSFers, who are confusing your own intentions, agendas, spirits, or whatever, with what is a software license.
Perhaps the breakdown is because the license is an insufficient vessel in which to pour all your longing for a better world. If this is the case, I doubt that the GPL 3 is going to be an adequate substitute. It's still a software license. It's not the 95 Theses. It's not the Declaration of Independence and it's not the Constitution.
I'm sorry to see that you must resort to attacks instead of addressing the issue. But I can't say I'm surprised, given our previous history on this matter. It's a pity, because I once liked you, before you began interpreting a disagreement as some sort of personal attack on the very bedrock of your being.
*language, i.e., what is expressed in the actual words of the GPL 2
But that's where you're wrong. With the upcoming Mac OS X Leopard, I'll just use the built in time machine to go back and cover my tracks. Can Vista do that?
I don't understand your question. Are you asking what parts of GPL 3 Linus and the other kernel developers are OK with? From what I can tell, the main sticking point is the Anti-Tivo section. I haven't heard any criticisms of the other sections since GPL 3 was released.
No, I'm not talking about the intent of the FSF here at all. I'm talking about actual things. The two licenses are very different.
Mr. Chaotica, I understand perfectly. However, as I do not agree with the intent of the FSF, mostly because I do not agree with their definitions, I do not agree that Tivo did an "end run" or did anything wrong. I do not think there is a "Tivo Bug" in the GPL 2. I think that the whole Tivo section of the GPL 3 is a mistake. Be condescending and say that I do not understand, or be hostile and call me names. I really don't care at this point. I'm tired of the theology (or ideology, if you prefer).
I don't see what's stopping you from hacking either their hardware or their software. They make the source code available you know. As far as being able to load your hacked software onto their box, there is nothing preventing you from figuring out a way to do it, if it's important to you (obviously, it's not). If you are prevented from doing so by a law, then work to change the law. Or practice civil disobedience. Don't blame Tivo for the law.
The GPL is a license, not a religious book. The license says what it says. It contains its own meaning, and that meaning is very clear. Futhermore, a license is between the licensor and the licensee. A third party's intentions don't enter into it. You don't need to dress it up with spirits and ghosts.
Now, if you were to say that, as it turns out, the GPL 2 doesn't really represent the "spirit" or agenda of the FSF so they needed to create the GPL 3, I'll buy that. The GPL 2 had unintended consequences that were in conflict with the FSF and Stallman's intentions (or "spirits").
So, there's really no need to clothe a software license in religious trappings. We're rational adults here. We can talk about reality as it is.
Try this on for size:
> You mean all the misunderstandings?;-) [written by Alexandre Oliva]
I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and cannot read or think for themselves.
Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert condescending voice) the issue.
_Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is _not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience".
Linus Remind me not to let you tidy up my house. I don't have fire insurance.
I actually think it's worse than how you describe. I think the FSF sent out it's goons to troll to get just such a reaction from Linus, so that they could then take it out of context and smear him with some planted news stories. And then it gets picked up on slashdot and other places where the lower level FSF tools have their opportunity to smear Linus.
The funny thing is that the actual record, i.e., the LKML archives, support Linus, as you note. (I was actually looking at Jun 8-15 / 07">this mirror.
The funny thing is that all the smearing isn't going to matter. Linus is not trying to be the leader of a movement. He has what he thinks is a better way of doing things, and so far, the world more or less agrees (and that agreement is growing). People look to Linus for leadership because he gets things done, but he's not trying to win anyone over with a message.
Stallman, on the other hand is a leader of a political movement. It appears religious in nature in much the same way as Marxism appears religious. Stallman wants to bring about a revolution in society. The story about the printer driver is just so much hagiographic bullshit, a story to tell children. (It doesn't matter if it's based on real events, it's being used as a creation myth.)
Stallman is 54(?) now? He's probably starting to get a real sense of his own mortality. I'd guess that he's trying to hurry along the revolution so he can see the perfect society before he dies. If you already believe that the ends justify the means, how much more are the means justified when you're on a deadline?
Let's say I hear you make a speech. Afterwards, I tell a friend about it, interspersed with many snide comments. If your speech where licensed under the GPL, I'd have to write down everything you said and make it available.
And if I wrote it in an undecipherable code, I'd be breaking the GPL 3.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparatively, yes. Around 92 I paid over $1000 for a 1 Gig Micropolis 2112 AV external SCSI.
Looked at another way, for an investment of $10,000 - $20,000 for a well equiped workstation, you can have capabilities that would have cost $200,000 - $2,000,000 back then. Actually, greater capabilities, as they didn't have HD back then. Now, get off my lawn.
Don't you find it difficult to pry it open when you need to install a new battery?
Bah. Dogs invented blogging long before there were even computers. They call it "pissing on trees".
If you mention the one button mouse, I'm going to plug my ears with my fingers and sing the Lalalalalala I can't hear you song.
Can I just say here, pipinguy, for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?
Is there a CowboyNeal galaxy option?
Modded down to -1? Who knew there were humorless eco-lesbians on slashdot? Feh, probably just humorless eco-lesbians trapped in overweight flabby men's bodies.
Exactly! People shouldn't be complaining! They should be opening up spas on Lake Michigan and offering sludge facials. It's well known that toxic elements and compounds will tighten the pores, slough off dead skin, and leave your face feeling invigorating. That tingling? That means it's working!
That still doesn't give the RIAA the right to abuse and game the legal system.
Ammmonia isn't bad! It's our friend! Besides, I don't see how this dumping of ammonia is all that different from all the humans, animals, and fish that are already peeing in Lake Michigan. Are we going to stop the fish from peeing in the water?
The GPL is not a law, it is a license agreement. The intent of those party to the agreement (i.e., Licensor and Licensee) are all that matters, not some third party, even if that third party constructed the agreement. If the GPL 2 didn't properly express the intent of the parties involved (the Licensor and the Licensee), then they would find some other agreement that better reflected their intent.
Bringing in a third party's intent into a two way transaction is nonsensical, as is speaking of the "intent" or "spirit" of the GPL 2. Why can't we just say that the GPL 2 didn't correctly express the intent of the FSF so they decided to create the GPL 3, instead of making up some metaphysical bullshit about the GPL 2. GPL 2 is what it is. Personifying it is not going to change what it is. As soon as I hear people going on about the "spirit" of the GPL, I get ready to hear arguments based on emotions rather than logic. I get ready for someone to start mashing the "freedom" button, because how could anyone be against freedom?
Apparently, OS X has another feature that Windows users don't get. It's called "a joke". =)
If you want to talk about spirit or intent, assign those things to the FSF. The GPLs are software licenses. They are agreements regarding the distribution of software. If I choose to use the GPL 2, it doesn't mean I've enrolled into the FSF religion.
Which comment were you responding to?
I have no idea.
Here, let's try this. Party A releases code under the GPL 2 because the language* of the GPL 2 expresses the intent of Party A. The intentions of the FSF don't enter into it. It's between the licensor and the licensee.
OK, let's try this another way. If the FSF did intend something different than what is expressed in the language* of the GPL 2, then why didn't they write that into the GPL 2? If situations arise where the GPL 2 doesn't express the intent of the FSF, then you can no longer talk about some "spirit" being inherent in the GPL 2.
I'm not conflating intent with the letter. Supposed intent only comes into a matter if the document is unclear. I don't see how the GPL 2 can be any more clear than it already is. It's quid pro quo, tit-for-tat, code for code. If anyone is conflating anything, it is you and your fellow FSFers, who are confusing your own intentions, agendas, spirits, or whatever, with what is a software license.
Perhaps the breakdown is because the license is an insufficient vessel in which to pour all your longing for a better world. If this is the case, I doubt that the GPL 3 is going to be an adequate substitute. It's still a software license. It's not the 95 Theses. It's not the Declaration of Independence and it's not the Constitution.
I'm sorry to see that you must resort to attacks instead of addressing the issue. But I can't say I'm surprised, given our previous history on this matter. It's a pity, because I once liked you, before you began interpreting a disagreement as some sort of personal attack on the very bedrock of your being.
*language, i.e., what is expressed in the actual words of the GPL 2
But that's where you're wrong. With the upcoming Mac OS X Leopard, I'll just use the built in time machine to go back and cover my tracks. Can Vista do that?
=)
I don't understand your question. Are you asking what parts of GPL 3 Linus and the other kernel developers are OK with? From what I can tell, the main sticking point is the Anti-Tivo section. I haven't heard any criticisms of the other sections since GPL 3 was released.
No, I'm not talking about the intent of the FSF here at all. I'm talking about actual things. The two licenses are very different.
Mr. Chaotica, I understand perfectly. However, as I do not agree with the intent of the FSF, mostly because I do not agree with their definitions, I do not agree that Tivo did an "end run" or did anything wrong. I do not think there is a "Tivo Bug" in the GPL 2. I think that the whole Tivo section of the GPL 3 is a mistake. Be condescending and say that I do not understand, or be hostile and call me names. I really don't care at this point. I'm tired of the theology (or ideology, if you prefer).
I don't see what's stopping you from hacking either their hardware or their software. They make the source code available you know. As far as being able to load your hacked software onto their box, there is nothing preventing you from figuring out a way to do it, if it's important to you (obviously, it's not). If you are prevented from doing so by a law, then work to change the law. Or practice civil disobedience. Don't blame Tivo for the law.
The GPL is a license, not a religious book. The license says what it says. It contains its own meaning, and that meaning is very clear. Futhermore, a license is between the licensor and the licensee. A third party's intentions don't enter into it. You don't need to dress it up with spirits and ghosts.
Now, if you were to say that, as it turns out, the GPL 2 doesn't really represent the "spirit" or agenda of the FSF so they needed to create the GPL 3, I'll buy that. The GPL 2 had unintended consequences that were in conflict with the FSF and Stallman's intentions (or "spirits").
So, there's really no need to clothe a software license in religious trappings. We're rational adults here. We can talk about reality as it is.
I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and
cannot read or think for themselves.
Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert
condescending voice) the issue.
_Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the
FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is
_not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience".
Linus Remind me not to let you tidy up my house. I don't have fire insurance.
Crap. It's late, I didn't preview. This mirror: Jun 8-15 / 07
I actually think it's worse than how you describe. I think the FSF sent out it's goons to troll to get just such a reaction from Linus, so that they could then take it out of context and smear him with some planted news stories. And then it gets picked up on slashdot and other places where the lower level FSF tools have their opportunity to smear Linus.
The funny thing is that the actual record, i.e., the LKML archives, support Linus, as you note. (I was actually looking at Jun 8-15 / 07">this mirror.
The funny thing is that all the smearing isn't going to matter. Linus is not trying to be the leader of a movement. He has what he thinks is a better way of doing things, and so far, the world more or less agrees (and that agreement is growing). People look to Linus for leadership because he gets things done, but he's not trying to win anyone over with a message.
Stallman, on the other hand is a leader of a political movement. It appears religious in nature in much the same way as Marxism appears religious. Stallman wants to bring about a revolution in society. The story about the printer driver is just so much hagiographic bullshit, a story to tell children. (It doesn't matter if it's based on real events, it's being used as a creation myth.)
Stallman is 54(?) now? He's probably starting to get a real sense of his own mortality. I'd guess that he's trying to hurry along the revolution so he can see the perfect society before he dies. If you already believe that the ends justify the means, how much more are the means justified when you're on a deadline?
What a juicy analogy!
Let's say I hear you make a speech. Afterwards, I tell a friend about it, interspersed with many snide comments. If your speech where licensed under the GPL, I'd have to write down everything you said and make it available.
And if I wrote it in an undecipherable code, I'd be breaking the GPL 3.