If I buy a book, I can resell it. If I buy a CD I can resell it. If I buy a copy of OSX, I can't resell it. Surely you can see the flaw. If someone ignores the GPL and distributes they're guilty of copyright infringement, without using legal gymnastics to claim that loading a legally purchased copy of OSX into RAM without Apple's consent infringes copyright.
The GPL and Apple's license are quite different. The GPL grants you freedoms that you did not legally have. Apple's license tries to restrict your legal freedoms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
WTF. They are making 'open' software to support sharing between systems, so they want to restrict the use of the software! They should be removing restrictions, not adding them.
They are making 'free' software and want to ensure that everyone that uses their software has the 4 freedoms. It sucks if you're a middle-man trying to deprive your customers of their freedom, but it's great if you're an end user.
I would agree that this aspect of GPLv3 might be contrary to US Copyright Law in the same way that 99% of EULAs are contrary to the law.
There is a huge difference. The GPLv3 grants the user more rights than they would ordinarily have under copyright law if they abide by the terms. 99% of EULAs attempt to further restrict the users rights.
If you're "companies that want the ability to fix problems themselves", then why are you using RHEL to begin with? Certification and support only apply to binaries provided by Redhat.
What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code?
What good is source code if you can not run binaries created from that source code?
I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to.
You're free to defecate on as many CDs as you like as long as you don't try to pass them off to others without following the terms of the license.
I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
You are completely bound by the wishes of the author if you want them to give you the right to distribute their works. Remember you have no innate right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works no matter how much you stomp your feet about it.
The GPL is designed to protect the freedoms of end users, not that of multinational corporations that want to make a buck off someone else's work without reciprocating.
I believe the Banshee developers are already on Novell's payroll. I think that's what pisses me off most. Novell would have been well within their rights to do what Canonical is trying to, but instead decided to let the Gnome project have any referrer money. Not only does Canonical give almost nothing back to the community, they actually go out of their way to bite the hand that feeds them.
Notes haven't always worked with Preview.app, so you'll have to pardon my mistaken guess.
An 11 year old game is hardly modern. I have 11 year old Macintosh software that no longer runs, and ditto for Windows (installed Final Fantasy 7 lately?)
I'll say it again since you missed it the first time. Skype runs on Linux. I have no idea how good the native client is, because I don't use it, but they released one. If it sucks, the blame can hardly be placed upon Linux though.
The purpose of my post wasn't to question your use of proprietary software, because I use quite a bit myself. It was to point out that the applications you use COULD run on Linux if the companies only bothered to port them. How can developers choosing not to release Linux ports be Linux's fault?
As far as my last sentence goes I was genuinely curious as to what you do freely to help your fellow man. I wouldn't dream of going to a soup kitchen and telling them that their soup sucks, and I suspect neither would you.
And how is any of that the fault of the Linux software stack? I assume by modern game you really mean proprietary game written for Windows. Heck the fact that you can even play those at all is a testament to the strength of Linux + Wine. Skype runs on Linux, but once again, that is a proprietary application. PDF support could be better, but again I assume you're comparing your experiences to the proprietary application Adobe Acrobat. You should be noticing a definite trend here. In your eyes the lack of proprietary applications are what make Linux painful for you. This is hardly the fault of Linux, and entirely the fault of the vendors of said applications. That fact that there are even what you consider to be inferior replacements available freely in both meanings of the word is amazing. I'm curious, but what you do freely with your time as an attempt to make the world a better place for your fellow man?
You assume that people actually care if Windows users convert. If they convert, good for them. If they don't, oh well business as usual for me. The last thing either side needs is a bad Windows clone.
The point was there is no need for a second Internet. All that's needed is regulation preventing prioritizing traffic by strong arming content providers. The content providers already pay for their bandwith, I already pay for mine. Why should the providers have to pay twice for "preferred" speeds. If you think that ISPs are going to expand their backbones to provide that priority rather than penalize those who don't pay for protection err priority, I've got a bridge for sale.
That's exactly what it is, a glorified trade school. Notice they are accredited by a trade school accreditor. I'm not saying that vocational schools don't have a place, but you don't see the local beauty school trying to pass off their program as a MS is Hair Science.
Oh Oh I know the answer to this one. Is it the power companies interests?
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking more along the lines of garbage collection, closures, and REPL style programming, but now that you mention it there's some of the features of CLOS as well.
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
"And you're right: we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp. Aren't you happy?" -- Guy Steele (One of the creators of the Java language)
Implying that advances in Lisp stopped in 1958 is disingenuous. Many languages are just now popularizing what Lisp offered in the 1980s.
Slashdot Mirror
If I buy a book, I can resell it. If I buy a CD I can resell it. If I buy a copy of OSX, I can't resell it. Surely you can see the flaw. If someone ignores the GPL and distributes they're guilty of copyright infringement, without using legal gymnastics to claim that loading a legally purchased copy of OSX into RAM without Apple's consent infringes copyright.
The GPL and Apple's license are quite different. The GPL grants you freedoms that you did not legally have. Apple's license tries to restrict your legal freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
s/Cummings/Cummins/
They should send it back then. Powerstrokes are terrible compared to Cummings or Duramax.
1.1? Get off my lawn.
They will accept help, but they're not willing to spend time bringing new people up to speed when they're already behind schedule.
WTF. They are making 'open' software to support sharing between systems, so they want to restrict the use of the software! They should be removing restrictions, not adding them.
They are making 'free' software and want to ensure that everyone that uses their software has the 4 freedoms. It sucks if you're a middle-man trying to deprive your customers of their freedom, but it's great if you're an end user.
I would agree that this aspect of GPLv3 might be contrary to US Copyright Law in the same way that 99% of EULAs are contrary to the law.
There is a huge difference. The GPLv3 grants the user more rights than they would ordinarily have under copyright law if they abide by the terms. 99% of EULAs attempt to further restrict the users rights.
If you're "companies that want the ability to fix problems themselves", then why are you using RHEL to begin with? Certification and support only apply to binaries provided by Redhat.
What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code?
What good is source code if you can not run binaries created from that source code?
I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to.
You're free to defecate on as many CDs as you like as long as you don't try to pass them off to others without following the terms of the license.
I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
You are completely bound by the wishes of the author if you want them to give you the right to distribute their works. Remember you have no innate right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works no matter how much you stomp your feet about it.
The GPL is designed to protect the freedoms of end users, not that of multinational corporations that want to make a buck off someone else's work without reciprocating.
Mint's version of Debian is coming along quite nicely actually. They'll be just fine if Ubuntu disappears.
I believe the Banshee developers are already on Novell's payroll. I think that's what pisses me off most. Novell would have been well within their rights to do what Canonical is trying to, but instead decided to let the Gnome project have any referrer money. Not only does Canonical give almost nothing back to the community, they actually go out of their way to bite the hand that feeds them.
It was maintained by a company that nobody had heard of for longer than it was by Novell. Somehow I'm sure they'll get by.
All of your local gas stations get their gas from the same place. It doesn't matter what brand the label on the pump says.
Notes haven't always worked with Preview.app, so you'll have to pardon my mistaken guess.
An 11 year old game is hardly modern. I have 11 year old Macintosh software that no longer runs, and ditto for Windows (installed Final Fantasy 7 lately?)
I'll say it again since you missed it the first time. Skype runs on Linux. I have no idea how good the native client is, because I don't use it, but they released one. If it sucks, the blame can hardly be placed upon Linux though.
The purpose of my post wasn't to question your use of proprietary software, because I use quite a bit myself. It was to point out that the applications you use COULD run on Linux if the companies only bothered to port them. How can developers choosing not to release Linux ports be Linux's fault?
As far as my last sentence goes I was genuinely curious as to what you do freely to help your fellow man. I wouldn't dream of going to a soup kitchen and telling them that their soup sucks, and I suspect neither would you.
And how is any of that the fault of the Linux software stack? I assume by modern game you really mean proprietary game written for Windows. Heck the fact that you can even play those at all is a testament to the strength of Linux + Wine. Skype runs on Linux, but once again, that is a proprietary application. PDF support could be better, but again I assume you're comparing your experiences to the proprietary application Adobe Acrobat. You should be noticing a definite trend here. In your eyes the lack of proprietary applications are what make Linux painful for you. This is hardly the fault of Linux, and entirely the fault of the vendors of said applications. That fact that there are even what you consider to be inferior replacements available freely in both meanings of the word is amazing. I'm curious, but what you do freely with your time as an attempt to make the world a better place for your fellow man?
You assume that people actually care if Windows users convert. If they convert, good for them. If they don't, oh well business as usual for me. The last thing either side needs is a bad Windows clone.
The point was there is no need for a second Internet. All that's needed is regulation preventing prioritizing traffic by strong arming content providers. The content providers already pay for their bandwith, I already pay for mine. Why should the providers have to pay twice for "preferred" speeds. If you think that ISPs are going to expand their backbones to provide that priority rather than penalize those who don't pay for protection err priority, I've got a bridge for sale.
That's exactly what it is, a glorified trade school. Notice they are accredited by a trade school accreditor. I'm not saying that vocational schools don't have a place, but you don't see the local beauty school trying to pass off their program as a MS is Hair Science.
I'm going with C. Regulations that prevent ISPs from double dipping and let the only Internet remain open.
Oh Oh I know the answer to this one. Is it the power companies interests?
I was thinking more along the lines of garbage collection, closures, and REPL style programming, but now that you mention it there's some of the features of CLOS as well.
"And you're right: we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp. Aren't you happy?" -- Guy Steele (One of the creators of the Java language)
Implying that advances in Lisp stopped in 1958 is disingenuous. Many languages are just now popularizing what Lisp offered in the 1980s.
Interesting. Are they given a choice, or is this corporate policy?