making changes for the sole purpose of making it work better with your proprietary software.
But case #3 doesn't do it solely for the purpose of my program - it might be information that would be desirable to some users of GPLShare, but wasn't originally displayed. The changes to the original program are available, so users don't have to use my closed app to make use of this new feature. I may have written it with self-interest in mind, but that doesn't mean it only serves that end (and that's how most good software is written anyway).
It would be especially annoying to see some Mac OS X shareware developer take something I'd done, replace the UI with a shiny Mac OS X GUI, and then charge USD15 for using the result.
But you wouldn't be annoyed if someone did the exact same thing, providing they didn't alter your code? From an end-user point of view, cases #1 and #2 are identical - I have replaced your UI with my own. #2 potentially adds some functionality it didn't have before (theoretically making a better app), but #1 is the only option acceptable to you? Even though I might slap a GUI on your code and charge $15 for it?
I see your point, you'd rather not see someone use your free code to make themselves money, but if you choose a license that allows it, shouldn't you expect it? I doubt the authors of the GPL were unaware of this particular possibility, but they didn't add a clause to prevent it (if that's even legally possible, I don't know the details for any country's legal system).
I'm perfectly within my rights to disagree with the actions of others, legal or otherwise.
Absolutely, I just said it was pretty narrow minded to call it scummy. You can disagree all you like, but I don't see why you should impugn the developers and imply they are being immoral.
For example, if I took "GPLShare", a fictional P2P program that used terminal I/O, and wrote a GUI wrapper program around it that redirected input and output internally and sent control 'keystrokes' in response to the GUI, that wouldn't be scummy by your reasoning, because that's basically what my IDE would do with GCC (I would need to capture gcc's output at least - I wouldn't necessarily send keystrokes).
However, if I modified GPLShare to make communication between it and my GUI wrapper more effective in some way (perhaps to get access to some internal info) that IS scummy.
A third possibility is that I modify GPLShare so it displays the information I want to receive via the terminal, then alter my app to read this as in the first example. Is it scummy now? Where is the line?
(In each case, assume I have released changes as required, but not the code to my GUI wrapper)
To claim it's scummy behaviour is pretty narrow-minded of you, IMO. You may not like it, but it's legitimate, just as it would be for me to make a proprietary IDE that uses GCC to compile the code. It may not please RMS, but that's not the only measuring stick for good software. If you don't like that way they create their product, don't use it.
I remember something else that sounded great, too: the first XBox. Microsoft released ridiculous specs that gradually became less and less ridiculous as time went on, right up to the point the system was actually released, when it barely had better specs than either of the two main competitors.
Why are some people so adamant that / and/boot be on different partitions? I'm not saying they're wrong, just that it's never been explained. With usr, var, tmp and home all on different partitions, there's not a hell of a lot left, so what conflicts with the miniscule amount of data in/boot? Is this just a holdover from the bad old days of kernel-under-1024-cylinders-or-bust?
Oops, my mistake, apparently NZ is the only place that has their dial in this order. I thought our original phone said it was made in the UK, so I assumed their dials were the same. I guess it's possible the phone was made in the UK, but to get a telepermit they had to have the plastic dial replaced (?)
Is pulse dialing in the US different to pulse dialing in the rest of the world? If I read what you've said correctly, US pulse phones started at 0 then counted backwards from 9 to 1, while the phones we had started at 0 then counted upwards from 1 to 9 (meaning 9 only used 1 pulse, while 1 used 9 pulses). You can test this on a tone-dialling phone by tapping the hang-up lever to generate the pulses (the rule in this country is that you always subtract the digit you want to dial from 10).
Now that I think about it, this made the English 999 a hell of a lot faster to dial in an emergency, whereas my country's 111 is quite a bit slower. One thing you don't want when someone is trying to smash their way into your house is to stand around waiting for that damn dial to rotate back all the way around... not that it applies these days.
However, we're talking about a tool you use for development, not something that is traditionally integrated into an application.
I think the key word in your comment is traditionally. OpenBSD want a system that can be given to anyone and everyone and let them use it or build on it how they will. I realise it's not the Unix way to embed CVS in your app when you could just make a system call to the existing binary, but someone may come up with an idea that takes it beyond the uses you (or I, or the OpenBSD team) see for it, and need to integrate some or all of that code into something else (for example, the file system). They can't do that without restriction if CVS is still under the GPL.
You realize that this means even the FBI can't test Gator to see if it snags people's data and sends it "home". Nobody can, legally.
That's crap. One FBI agent installs it, another sets up a sniffer on the same network. The guy who installed it (theoretically) can't sniff or capture the packets, but the other guy never agreed to any retarded license.
Not that I believe for a second an EULA is a valid agreement of any kind.
I bet the Market Research department has decided that "Service Pack" makes people associate Windows with buggy, insecure and untrustworthy, while "Update Rollup" makes people think of Uncle Toby and fruity snacks.
On the flip side, most computer games cost the same amount up front as WoW does
Not exactly true - if I buy any other non-MMORPG game, I get to play that game as often as I like over the entire lifetime of my machine (and very probably my next three machines too).
I am waiting for someone to hack the shit out of WoW so I can play it single player offline. THEN it will be worth $50... I don't give a crap about the social aspect of WoW right now, I want to see all the beautiful locations and follow the various stories for the races, while building up a character doing quests and killing stuff. That 4+ GB sitting on my drive MUST have pretty much all the content - why can't I buy it as a single player game and pay for the online stuff when I actually want to interact with other players (like Diablo)? If it's true that the cost of the game will cover their development costs, then they have nothing to lose under this model.
Slashdot Mirror
making changes for the sole purpose of making it work better with your proprietary software.
But case #3 doesn't do it solely for the purpose of my program - it might be information that would be desirable to some users of GPLShare, but wasn't originally displayed. The changes to the original program are available, so users don't have to use my closed app to make use of this new feature. I may have written it with self-interest in mind, but that doesn't mean it only serves that end (and that's how most good software is written anyway).
It would be especially annoying to see some Mac OS X shareware developer take something I'd done, replace the UI with a shiny Mac OS X GUI, and then charge USD15 for using the result.
But you wouldn't be annoyed if someone did the exact same thing, providing they didn't alter your code? From an end-user point of view, cases #1 and #2 are identical - I have replaced your UI with my own. #2 potentially adds some functionality it didn't have before (theoretically making a better app), but #1 is the only option acceptable to you? Even though I might slap a GUI on your code and charge $15 for it?
I see your point, you'd rather not see someone use your free code to make themselves money, but if you choose a license that allows it, shouldn't you expect it? I doubt the authors of the GPL were unaware of this particular possibility, but they didn't add a clause to prevent it (if that's even legally possible, I don't know the details for any country's legal system).
I'm perfectly within my rights to disagree with the actions of others, legal or otherwise.
Absolutely, I just said it was pretty narrow minded to call it scummy. You can disagree all you like, but I don't see why you should impugn the developers and imply they are being immoral.
For example, if I took "GPLShare", a fictional P2P program that used terminal I/O, and wrote a GUI wrapper program around it that redirected input and output internally and sent control 'keystrokes' in response to the GUI, that wouldn't be scummy by your reasoning, because that's basically what my IDE would do with GCC (I would need to capture gcc's output at least - I wouldn't necessarily send keystrokes).
However, if I modified GPLShare to make communication between it and my GUI wrapper more effective in some way (perhaps to get access to some internal info) that IS scummy.
A third possibility is that I modify GPLShare so it displays the information I want to receive via the terminal, then alter my app to read this as in the first example. Is it scummy now? Where is the line?
(In each case, assume I have released changes as required, but not the code to my GUI wrapper)
To claim it's scummy behaviour is pretty narrow-minded of you, IMO. You may not like it, but it's legitimate, just as it would be for me to make a proprietary IDE that uses GCC to compile the code. It may not please RMS, but that's not the only measuring stick for good software. If you don't like that way they create their product, don't use it.
Come on over, the sheep are great.
(A New Zealander who's quite happy thank you)
I remember something else that sounded great, too: the first XBox. Microsoft released ridiculous specs that gradually became less and less ridiculous as time went on, right up to the point the system was actually released, when it barely had better specs than either of the two main competitors.
Interesting... the thought of not mounting /boot at all had never even occurred to me.
Mounting it ro doesn't seem as good a reason though, as many people recommend mounting / ro as well (good advice IMO).
Why are some people so adamant that / and /boot be on different partitions? I'm not saying they're wrong, just that it's never been explained. With usr, var, tmp and home all on different partitions, there's not a hell of a lot left, so what conflicts with the miniscule amount of data in /boot? Is this just a holdover from the bad old days of kernel-under-1024-cylinders-or-bust?
Will this show have the nude patch installed?
Fifteen minutes later, Apple announced the new Lawsuit Mini (tm).
Ever thought to invest in a functional sense of humour?
I believe there are some... 'medicinal' solutions for your malady.
confifendtail
Fuck, that one's so bad it even breaks Google's spellchecker
(In case they fix it before you click, it asks me "did you mean confiendtial?")
A list of new features as compared to 7.x? I can't find one on the PostgreSQL website.
Here you go. To find a link to it, I had to go to the original announcement of the beta...
Oops, my mistake, apparently NZ is the only place that has their dial in this order. I thought our original phone said it was made in the UK, so I assumed their dials were the same. I guess it's possible the phone was made in the UK, but to get a telepermit they had to have the plastic dial replaced (?)
Is pulse dialing in the US different to pulse dialing in the rest of the world? If I read what you've said correctly, US pulse phones started at 0 then counted backwards from 9 to 1, while the phones we had started at 0 then counted upwards from 1 to 9 (meaning 9 only used 1 pulse, while 1 used 9 pulses). You can test this on a tone-dialling phone by tapping the hang-up lever to generate the pulses (the rule in this country is that you always subtract the digit you want to dial from 10).
Now that I think about it, this made the English 999 a hell of a lot faster to dial in an emergency, whereas my country's 111 is quite a bit slower. One thing you don't want when someone is trying to smash their way into your house is to stand around waiting for that damn dial to rotate back all the way around... not that it applies these days.
Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.
Earth is fine. It's HUMANS who might be in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.
You did that on purpose, right?
Rite!
However, we're talking about a tool you use for development, not something that is traditionally integrated into an application.
I think the key word in your comment is traditionally. OpenBSD want a system that can be given to anyone and everyone and let them use it or build on it how they will. I realise it's not the Unix way to embed CVS in your app when you could just make a system call to the existing binary, but someone may come up with an idea that takes it beyond the uses you (or I, or the OpenBSD team) see for it, and need to integrate some or all of that code into something else (for example, the file system). They can't do that without restriction if CVS is still under the GPL.
You realize that this means even the FBI can't test Gator to see if it snags people's data and sends it "home". Nobody can, legally.
That's crap. One FBI agent installs it, another sets up a sniffer on the same network. The guy who installed it (theoretically) can't sniff or capture the packets, but the other guy never agreed to any retarded license.
Not that I believe for a second an EULA is a valid agreement of any kind.
defend ourselves from violet felons that don't care about bans or laws.
Damn those coloured people and their disregard for society!
As a public service, I knocked this guy offline before he could re-use that damned BBS joke yet again.
No charge.
This is Slashdot... all we think we know about these tools comes from QuickBasic ;)
I bet the Market Research department has decided that "Service Pack" makes people associate Windows with buggy, insecure and untrustworthy, while "Update Rollup" makes people think of Uncle Toby and fruity snacks.
On the flip side, most computer games cost the same amount up front as WoW does
Not exactly true - if I buy any other non-MMORPG game, I get to play that game as often as I like over the entire lifetime of my machine (and very probably my next three machines too).
I am waiting for someone to hack the shit out of WoW so I can play it single player offline. THEN it will be worth $50... I don't give a crap about the social aspect of WoW right now, I want to see all the beautiful locations and follow the various stories for the races, while building up a character doing quests and killing stuff. That 4+ GB sitting on my drive MUST have pretty much all the content - why can't I buy it as a single player game and pay for the online stuff when I actually want to interact with other players (like Diablo)? If it's true that the cost of the game will cover their development costs, then they have nothing to lose under this model.
Sure, Inara was, but the house full of women was a house full of SPACEWHORES.
I was sitting around yesterday wondering to myself "How can I make the inside of my computer hotter than the fires of hell?".