The reason an EULA is there is to protect the IP rights of the owner of the IP. These are hard things to protect without IP law.
You are confusing a EULA with the copyright license itself. A license like the GPL enumerates conditions under which a piece of copyrighted work may be copied and modified+redistributed. A EULA gives you no distribution/modification rights; rather, it seeks to limit your ability to use the software for which you have (ostensibly) already paid money for.
I don't think you really believe that someone who sells something should be able to dictate the terms under which that something is used by the purchaser, that's why I make this distinction.
You have chosen to work in an industry where the product is infinitely reproducible except for artificial restrictions placed upon it, which are imperfect and which are enforced by imperfect human beings. Deal with it, or start manufacturing truck tires or something. Don't try to control me after I have bought your software.
I get paid to develop software. Every time you pirate that software, it hurts me, or people like me.
Wrong. Every time someone takes an illegal copy of software instead of making a purchase, it represents a loss of opportunity for people like you. It is not like "taking money out of your pockets", which implies you had the money in the first place. In addition, how do you know it hurts you? Maybe the nasty pirate who bootlegs a copy of your software when they couldn't afford the price was doing a mass evaluation of software for a purchasing contract. Or maybe they are a student who will bring their knowledge of your software with them when they land a career with a design firm, and ask the firm to standardize on your software.
Bottom line is, you can generalize all you want about how pirates are bad and serve nothing but to ruin software businesses, but most software companies are doing fine in spite of rampant piracy, and may in fact be benefitting from it in these rough times where everyone is more watchful of where their dollars are being spent.
If you want to remove one more excuse for piracy, tell your retailers to accept opened returns of software. Nothing burns me more than buying a broken product and not being able to return it because I broke the seal.
There's a name for this ideology. Hmm, what was it again? Oh yeah... Communism.
So, do you actually have a reason for why government should financially support private interests over public ones? Or are you just going to keep throwing out that buzzword every time your position is challenged, in the hopes that using it as a label will scare away people from the target of your derision, as if it were some sort of boogeyman?
Here's something to chew on: government spending LESS MONEY is about as far from communism as you can get.
What's false? Linux has failed in the marketplace and now it's proponents have moved to relying on forced government mandates.
Do you even read what you write? Now instead of one falsehood, you've constructed two.
1) How many companies successfully selling free software do you need to constitute non-failure? How has the idea of free software "failed" when there are new startups every day and new innovations being made constantly?
2) The "government mandate" that you wave around so fervently is a BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURE. The government in question has decided that using free software is best for its internal practices due to the benefits that are unique to it, such as document interchange, maintainability, etc.
Why do you resent this so much? I see you have a MCSE logo on your site. Does it hurt you financially that more people are using open source software? If so, just come out and say it! Don't cloak your emotions in a shroud of pseudo-logic, when all you really want to say is that you feel threatened by the success of free software.
If you can't deal with that simple fact, then maybe you need to reevaluate your position.
I don't accept falsehoods or generalizations, especially from people who have never shown me a shred of reason in the past. Unlike you, I can accept reasonable arguments from people that I disagree with. You simply haven't presented one.
Well I've long been of the opinion that those who are angered by my statements are ignorant. The fact that you are proud of your ignorance does in no way invalidate my points.
Way to go, Dogbert! You just used your incredible ego to shred any credibility you might have had.
Here's a hint for future interpersonal communications: People don't like other people sitting up in ivory towers and telling them what to do. This includes you and your "points", which consist of insubstantial personal attacks and holier-than-thou statements.
Why do you continue to post on a website that 1) you obviously hate, and 2) that you make absolutely no reasonable contribution to the discussions on? No, personal attacks (Those communist GNU hippies) and generalizations (All GNU users are simpleminded herd-followers) don't count as reasonable discussion. That may be news to you, but someone had to break it.
You might find that if you construct reasonable arguments that are actually relevant to your audience and don't consist simply of abrasive ad hominems, people might actually listen to you instead of assuming you are just another troll. Because, you know, your posts sound just like any other run of the mill troll -- except you actually seem to believe what you say. Which is the only reason I'm allowing myself to be trolled by responding:P
Open Source is now part of the anti-globalism, anti-capitalism movement which means a bunch of elitist middle class white kids forcing their "choice" down your throat.
Once more, you keep making this baseless generalization and personal attacks on RMS every time an open source story comes up; it gets shot down every time you post it, and yet you keep coming back for more.
Perhaps you would care to explain, if Stallman is such a rabid communist and elitist, why he is enamored with the fact that software and hardware companies alike are building global businesses on GPL-licensed software. Bonus points if you come up with a licensing scheme that has a better overall benefit to the users of the software and the creators of it.
Except that charity food banks aren't going around claiming farmers should give away all their food for free. Libertarians don't believe in government mandates.
Wow, you never cease to be a dipshit, sheldon. Every article about open source comes up, you can be guaranteed to be posting flamebait malarkey in it and then whining when you get modded down.
To answer your irrelevant analogy, this is about open source IN GOVERNMENT. Not forcing citizens to use open source -- this is policy for the internal machinations of a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have rules; they are not democratic; they create rules that people are FORCED, yes FORCED to follow in order to produce the most efficient bureaucratic process. If that includes open source/free software, then I don't really see the problem with it. Perhaps you would care to explain your objections beyond false analogies and flamebait.
Did I just hear the words 'mission-critical' and 'DSL' in the same sentence? I have yet to see a DSL line, business or otherwise, that won't go down like a two-dollar whore at a moments notice.
I think you're talking about DSL service from a telco. I'm talking about point-to-point DSL. The only thing the telco does in this case is provide the copper pair for us to run our own DSL over.
How is parent insightful? As a business owner with two locations, I would benefit from this product's availability immensely. No more dealing with the hassles of long-range wireless or paying $1000's to get fiber laid in order to have a decent pipe from location to location for our VPN operations and fault tolerant co-location.
DSL Consumers, look elsewhere. For people with mission-critical bandwidth needs, this will be a godsend.
No, because they refuse to interoperate with the rest of the industry. For example, they pulled out of the OASIS working group that would have created an industry standard document format.
Even though they are in an industry leading position, they refuse to lead; they would rather be an annoyance and a barrier to everyone who isn't in bed with them. Quite sad.
Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.
Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related.
For anyone wondering how to categorize the RIAA's fallacy here, it is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" -- it happened thereafter, thus it happened because. In other words, the RIAA uses the sneaky implication that since use of P2P is correlated with decreasing sales, the decreasing sales are concluded to be caused by the P2P applications. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation, it simply suggests it.
Such propaganda tactics are tricky to pick out of a smooth-sounding line of reasoning, but invalidate the argument nonetheless.
In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?
This has to hold the world record for the biggest strawman argument ever. The RIAA guy is answering the claim "I feel justified by downloading RIAA music for free because the RIAA is stealing from the artists" when no such claim was made, at least that I can see. Are propaganda techniques all they have to fall back on now?
At least not there enough to get people [who by nature resist change] to change.
Don't you think that's a bit of a generalization? Maybe *you* resist change, and maybe *many people* resist change; but how many people buy a new car every year? A new house? Move 5 times before finally settling down? Take 3 vacations a year?
Actually, I could just as easily make the claim that people can't get enough of fresh, new experiences. It's just as much of a generalization. To write off something new on the grounds that "people, who by nature resist change" won't consider it, is naive at best, and perhaps even foolish.
What are you talking about? My Jabber server has never crashed or needed to be restarted for any reason. I don't recall reports of instability of the server from anyone else on the jadmin mailing list, either.
Moreover, Psi (psi.sourceforge.net) is a perfectly usable (just like ICQ) and cross-platform client. If GNOME is your style, there's Gabber.
Re:Speaking of FUD
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Informative
ASP is not a language. PHP is a language (I'm being generous here).
PHP actually is not a language. PHP is an engine for embedded scripting languages in markup documents. Zend is the scripting language that most people generalize as "PHP", but any other scripting language could also be developed and used with the PHP engine.
The Program refers to the GPLed code, which they don't necessarily need to modify in order to make AP software. If so, they can just send you a tgz of a very useless set of already-available unmodified GPLed source.
The "Program" refers to the binary that is distributed. In the case of a binary linked against GPL code, it is considered to be a derivative work. LGPL makes an exception that covers dynamic linking only.
No need to release anything if you don't change anything, to comply with the GPL.
Erm, take a look at Section 3 of the GPL -- it quite clearly states that if the program is redistributed in binary form, it must be accompanied by the source code or a written offer for the source code.
You may be thinking of the LGPL instead, which relaxes redistribution requirements.
If they want to make a DRM'd DVD that can only play in a special DVD player that is their right to do so. You do not have the right to force these companies to make the product that you want. You do have a right not to buy it.
Yes, producers have a right to produce copy protected products, and I have a right not to buy them. However, I cannot know if there is copy protection on the product or not until I have bought it, opened it, and examined the media and/or the license that came with it.
Since I can't return the product in the case that it turns out to be copy protected, currently, I don't buy any form of digital media because I have no idea which ones will restrict my use and which ones don't. If there were mandatory labeling, I would buy more.
Requiring labeling for copy protection accomplishes the same goal as any other labeling -- it allows the consumer to make a more informed and confident decision. Informed and confident consumers are a pillar of free markets and healthy economies.
Ok fine, the commodore had better 80column support and everything supported 64k unlike
The C64? You may be thinking of the C128. The C64 needed a special program which I can't recall the name to do 80 column mode; C128 had it in hardware (and required a RGB monitor to display it on).
and ya know I still hate the "load "$",8" followed by "list". Both atari and apples at the very least offered boot disk support.
You're right that the C64 didn't boot, but a C128 would seek for a disk when powered on, and you could also boot the disk by entering "BOOT" in basic.
The Super Nintendo used a 3Mhz Motorola 65816, the same processor used in an Apple IIgs.
Not Motorola, it was WDC (Western Design, not the HDD mfg). You were probably thinking of either the Motorola 6800, which the 6502 was a cheap clone of, or the 68000.
It takes more time to set up an AFS cell than a NFS server, but the rewards are pretty tremendous IMO.
It's become such a part of my day to day life that I can't really describe the things I was missing before. The best things about it are probably the strong, flexible security and ease of administration. It also gives you everything you need from a small shop all the way up to a globally available decentralized data store.
There seems to be a good comparison here. I would strongly recommend AFS for all of your distributed filesystem needs. (The OpenAFS developers are cool too!)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you really believe that someone who sells something should be able to dictate the terms under which that something is used by the purchaser, that's why I make this distinction.
You have chosen to work in an industry where the product is infinitely reproducible except for artificial restrictions placed upon it, which are imperfect and which are enforced by imperfect human beings. Deal with it, or start manufacturing truck tires or something. Don't try to control me after I have bought your software.
Wrong. Every time someone takes an illegal copy of software instead of making a purchase, it represents a loss of opportunity for people like you. It is not like "taking money out of your pockets", which implies you had the money in the first place. In addition, how do you know it hurts you? Maybe the nasty pirate who bootlegs a copy of your software when they couldn't afford the price was doing a mass evaluation of software for a purchasing contract. Or maybe they are a student who will bring their knowledge of your software with them when they land a career with a design firm, and ask the firm to standardize on your software.Bottom line is, you can generalize all you want about how pirates are bad and serve nothing but to ruin software businesses, but most software companies are doing fine in spite of rampant piracy, and may in fact be benefitting from it in these rough times where everyone is more watchful of where their dollars are being spent.
If you want to remove one more excuse for piracy, tell your retailers to accept opened returns of software. Nothing burns me more than buying a broken product and not being able to return it because I broke the seal.
Here's something to chew on: government spending LESS MONEY is about as far from communism as you can get.
1) How many companies successfully selling free software do you need to constitute non-failure? How has the idea of free software "failed" when there are new startups every day and new innovations being made constantly?
2) The "government mandate" that you wave around so fervently is a BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURE. The government in question has decided that using free software is best for its internal practices due to the benefits that are unique to it, such as document interchange, maintainability, etc.
Why do you resent this so much? I see you have a MCSE logo on your site. Does it hurt you financially that more people are using open source software? If so, just come out and say it! Don't cloak your emotions in a shroud of pseudo-logic, when all you really want to say is that you feel threatened by the success of free software.
I don't accept falsehoods or generalizations, especially from people who have never shown me a shred of reason in the past. Unlike you, I can accept reasonable arguments from people that I disagree with. You simply haven't presented one.Here's a hint for future interpersonal communications: People don't like other people sitting up in ivory towers and telling them what to do. This includes you and your "points", which consist of insubstantial personal attacks and holier-than-thou statements.
Why do you continue to post on a website that 1) you obviously hate, and 2) that you make absolutely no reasonable contribution to the discussions on? No, personal attacks (Those communist GNU hippies) and generalizations (All GNU users are simpleminded herd-followers) don't count as reasonable discussion. That may be news to you, but someone had to break it.
You might find that if you construct reasonable arguments that are actually relevant to your audience and don't consist simply of abrasive ad hominems, people might actually listen to you instead of assuming you are just another troll. Because, you know, your posts sound just like any other run of the mill troll -- except you actually seem to believe what you say. Which is the only reason I'm allowing myself to be trolled by responding :P
Perhaps you would care to explain, if Stallman is such a rabid communist and elitist, why he is enamored with the fact that software and hardware companies alike are building global businesses on GPL-licensed software. Bonus points if you come up with a licensing scheme that has a better overall benefit to the users of the software and the creators of it.
To answer your irrelevant analogy, this is about open source IN GOVERNMENT. Not forcing citizens to use open source -- this is policy for the internal machinations of a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have rules; they are not democratic; they create rules that people are FORCED, yes FORCED to follow in order to produce the most efficient bureaucratic process. If that includes open source/free software, then I don't really see the problem with it. Perhaps you would care to explain your objections beyond false analogies and flamebait.
Thanks!
DSL Consumers, look elsewhere. For people with mission-critical bandwidth needs, this will be a godsend.
Even though they are in an industry leading position, they refuse to lead; they would rather be an annoyance and a barrier to everyone who isn't in bed with them. Quite sad.
Such propaganda tactics are tricky to pick out of a smooth-sounding line of reasoning, but invalidate the argument nonetheless.
Actually, I could just as easily make the claim that people can't get enough of fresh, new experiences. It's just as much of a generalization. To write off something new on the grounds that "people, who by nature resist change" won't consider it, is naive at best, and perhaps even foolish.
Moreover, Psi (psi.sourceforge.net) is a perfectly usable (just like ICQ) and cross-platform client. If GNOME is your style, there's Gabber.
So, what's the real problem?
You're right, of course. I like dyxlesia!
Remember, PHP is to ASP as Zend is to VBScript.
You may be thinking of the LGPL instead, which relaxes redistribution requirements.
Since I can't return the product in the case that it turns out to be copy protected, currently, I don't buy any form of digital media because I have no idea which ones will restrict my use and which ones don't. If there were mandatory labeling, I would buy more.
Requiring labeling for copy protection accomplishes the same goal as any other labeling -- it allows the consumer to make a more informed and confident decision. Informed and confident consumers are a pillar of free markets and healthy economies.
The C64? You may be thinking of the C128. The C64 needed a special program which I can't recall the name to do 80 column mode; C128 had it in hardware (and required a RGB monitor to display it on).You're right that the C64 didn't boot, but a C128 would seek for a disk when powered on, and you could also boot the disk by entering "BOOT" in basic.
I stole that config off one of the Ultras in 213.. it's been working great for me ever since.
(I'm AFS ID rcuca4 if you want to email me about it)
It's become such a part of my day to day life that I can't really describe the things I was missing before. The best things about it are probably the strong, flexible security and ease of administration. It also gives you everything you need from a small shop all the way up to a globally available decentralized data store.
There seems to be a good comparison here. I would strongly recommend AFS for all of your distributed filesystem needs. (The OpenAFS developers are cool too!)