They are redistributing without agreeing to the license. They can just stop redistributing, or say that they are OK with the GPL and they have no problmes anymore (on that front).
You are changing the definition of a platform, and doing it on purpose. But let me try a different statement.
A pure Java binary (class file) can be run without compilation on many different platforms (Linux, Solaris, Widows, Mac, etc), is this true for a compiled C++ program?
This is not about which language is better, but the definition of Write Once, Run Anywhere. Java is clearly more suited to WORA than standard C++ since it compiles to a format different from the platforms standard format.
It does not depend on the difference of what you mean with compile.
Interpretted languages are interpretted at run-time, while compiled languages are compiled before they are run.
Just In Time compiling is depending with what you call compile, but Java programs can be run in fully interpretted mode.
What is important here is that a QT binary will not run on other platforms, and it might recompile if you are lucky. A pure Java program on the other hand will run on any platform you can find a certified JVM. This is a very big difference.
If this is not monopoly abuse I don't know what is. Remeber office is a major reason for people to buy windows and a major part of MS income.
The bottom line is MS technology should not be used in any way, and we should not belive a bought department of justice will do something about it.
This may sound paranoid but is unfortunatly true. Once you are stuck with MS products they may change the license for new versions as they see fit. If it were not for Linux, Windows would be really expensive today.
Correct; we need a compitition, not a new master. That's why some market share for Apple along with some marketshare for Linux can only be good. The main problem with MS is not that they are evil, bot that they have a monopoly.
I think most of us see it your way. However, I think music downloading is, and should be, illegal if the copyrightholder wants it. There is no inherit right to transfer my music to my iPod or to a friend over a network.
They SHOULD allow me to do it, and I will buy no music which does not permit me playing it on my iPod.
It is up to them to license/restrict music they sell, just like it is my choice which license I put on my software.
I think that as long as you are living in a democracy or a capitalistic system you should fight back that way.
Fight for you politicians, don't buy thing from corporations you don't like. If downloading music is you political statement I think there are better causes out there.
They are not, there are other labels out there. But they are few I agree.
What I don't get is why the movie/music assosition is not monopolistic or at least price fixing. The whole DVD zone thing is just one big price fixing scam.
I agree with everything you say, except they I won't break laws to defeat them, just stop buying music they produce.
1. Both of those are legal, at least where I live. But I agree that there can be moral justification for breaking laws. Music sharing is in my opinion not one of them. You should also be prepared to face the consequence if you break the law willingly.
2. I was just trying to make a point. Note that you are slipping youself, you are comparing downloading a file with killing in self defence.
My point is that we should not encourage breaking of laws. If you don't agree with them try to get them change, we are living in democracies. And the simplest solution to RIAA is to stop buying from them.
You sue them and they sue you. Deal?
Seriously, don't get down on the level they are on. Just buy/use/listen to different music. It's not like Britney is that good anyway.
If all of us get involved in politics it can be a justice system instead of a legal system.
This is how democracy works, if you are not voting you should not complain.
Although I am in no way defending the lawsuits, stealing music is still stealing. It is bad karma and not something we should aprove of.
If you want the music pay the price, if not look elsewhere.
It IS bothways. You don't pay anything and you get the sourcecode.
Why do they have to do this? Because the cost are higher than the income. If this keeps opensource going I'm all for it.
Read the article, it is only during installation if you bother to use your own startpage for the browser and configure a new screensaver.
It is not adware like you are used to.
I couldn't agree more. You have several options open. Free but with ads. Pay - no ads. Another distro - no ads so far. This is a service they are providing for you, for free.
How can this be a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
They are redistributing without agreeing to the license. They can just stop redistributing, or say that they are OK with the GPL and they have no problmes anymore (on that front).
I saw that the parent had said liberal, not open, which is true. I was just confused by the other replies.
The reason for this is that the US sells most of what it produces to its own population.
A pure Java binary (class file) can be run without compilation on many different platforms (Linux, Solaris, Widows, Mac, etc), is this true for a compiled C++ program?
This is not about which language is better, but the definition of Write Once, Run Anywhere. Java is clearly more suited to WORA than standard C++ since it compiles to a format different from the platforms standard format.
Interpretted languages are interpretted at run-time, while compiled languages are compiled before they are run.
Just In Time compiling is depending with what you call compile, but Java programs can be run in fully interpretted mode.
What is important here is that a QT binary will not run on other platforms, and it might recompile if you are lucky. A pure Java program on the other hand will run on any platform you can find a certified JVM. This is a very big difference.
The bottom line is MS technology should not be used in any way, and we should not belive a bought department of justice will do something about it.
This may sound paranoid but is unfortunatly true. Once you are stuck with MS products they may change the license for new versions as they see fit. If it were not for Linux, Windows would be really expensive today.
Correct; we need a compitition, not a new master. That's why some market share for Apple along with some marketshare for Linux can only be good. The main problem with MS is not that they are evil, bot that they have a monopoly.
and what is getting extended
Note that he doesn't talk about anything illegal or proof, just that his income is lower now that linux is in town.
I think he is implying that he is missing both the G4 and panther.
They SHOULD allow me to do it, and I will buy no music which does not permit me playing it on my iPod.
It is up to them to license/restrict music they sell, just like it is my choice which license I put on my software.
Fight for you politicians, don't buy thing from corporations you don't like. If downloading music is you political statement I think there are better causes out there.
What I don't get is why the movie/music assosition is not monopolistic or at least price fixing. The whole DVD zone thing is just one big price fixing scam.
I agree with everything you say, except they I won't break laws to defeat them, just stop buying music they produce.
I'll answer you.
1. Both of those are legal, at least where I live. But I agree that there can be moral justification for breaking laws. Music sharing is in my opinion not one of them. You should also be prepared to face the consequence if you break the law willingly.
2. I was just trying to make a point. Note that you are slipping youself, you are comparing downloading a file with killing in self defence.
My point is that we should not encourage breaking of laws. If you don't agree with them try to get them change, we are living in democracies. And the simplest solution to RIAA is to stop buying from them.
I used stealing since it is shorter. When you break laws you break them, don't come here with moral justification.
What if I decide killing Bush is not immoral? Or you?
You sue them and they sue you. Deal?
Seriously, don't get down on the level they are on. Just buy/use/listen to different music. It's not like Britney is that good anyway.
But that is their choice. If you are taking their music and sharing/downloading it, then you are stealing (sorry, copyright infringing).
How hard is it to just stay away from the music they provide?
Then buy music from different labels.
If all of us get involved in politics it can be a justice system instead of a legal system.
This is how democracy works, if you are not voting you should not complain.
Although I am in no way defending the lawsuits, stealing music is still stealing. It is bad karma and not something we should aprove of. If you want the music pay the price, if not look elsewhere.
They could argue that they give you a bit RAM for free, the hard drives use the real number systems.
It IS bothways. You don't pay anything and you get the sourcecode. Why do they have to do this? Because the cost are higher than the income. If this keeps opensource going I'm all for it.
You are missing the point, if you pay you will get it ad free anyway. And how often are you installing anyway?
Read the article, it is only during installation if you bother to use your own startpage for the browser and configure a new screensaver. It is not adware like you are used to.
I couldn't agree more. You have several options open. Free but with ads. Pay - no ads. Another distro - no ads so far. This is a service they are providing for you, for free. How can this be a bad thing?