It's not a question of letting go. I'll always remember. My flame was for his blatant disrespect of the whole situation. Ya know, Pearl Harbor as a long time ago. I suppose that was no big deal either.
You sir have no clue. The WTC....ahhh....two buildings in NYC as you know them....was and still is a big deal. Just because you had no connection to them doesn't make them less important. It just puts you out of touch. You're freaking attitude about 911 just makes me want to kick your ass. Get the hell out of this country you disrespectful fool!
As for your rants about SCO...again...get a clue. Do you really think anyone on slash is "concerned" about the lawsuit? No you freaking moron. We read it for the sake of humor. I can't wait for the next tid bit of SCO FUD. But forget it. You're disrespect for the WTC disaster just labels you as the biggest fuck in my world. You can have your dumbass opinions about the press coverage, but to say it was no big deal. Damn you're such an ass. I wish you had my old office at the time (103rd North Tower). Yeah, none of my friends made it out....I just wish you were there instead of them!
FACT. The only industry that has ever been truly deregulated is the airline industry. I don't see anyone complaining about the price of airline tickets.
No, but after 9/11, we sure have alot to complain about with security. Deregulation is a good thing in that it promotes competition and hence lower cost. Unfortunately, competition also promotes "lowest bidder" mentallity. Who knows, maybe somday we'll "off-shore" our power generators because we just don't want that sorta stuff in our backyards anymore. Detracts the view of the golf course ya know.
OT: Face it, we're all snotty Americans. Hypocritical to the last. We all feel we "deserve" that 2500sq ft home, two car garage and our own automobile when we hit 16yr. We all want the comfort of living in the USA, but if we ever go to war, many would do anything to duck the draft. Hell, we even elect draft dogers for presidents and for some reason, we're ok with that. I love America as much as the next guy, but the general mentallity of it's citizens (myself included) just sickens me. I think the first major overhaul the USA needs is a mentallity adjustment. Get away from the "me first" mentallity and "it's not my fault" court cases. Get back to love and respect thy fellow man/woman and then....just then....maybe the right decisions will start to flow.
if you don't accomodate people's preferred social models, they will go somewhere else.
I think that's exactly what the Friendster people would like to happen. I've never been on Friendster, but I can respect what type of site they'ld like to run. The net is full of Anonymous Cowards. So here's a site that wants to build a community of genuine real people. For the internet, I think it's about time.
Deleting fake profiles may be more drastic of a solution, but I think the post indicating the use of a "karma" system is the best solution. Basically have a system where people can rate each other. Act like an ass, and you get an ass profile. As far as "fake" profiles go....hell, you'll never get rid of those. The internet is inherantly a place where people live an althernate/fake life. A karma system is just a means to put a value on that fake identity. Whether you're a fake or not, most people's true personalities will show through in a well implemented karma system.....but of course, this isn't always the case.
In retrospect, freedom allows one to choose their own friends. So if the Friendster people don't want fakes, then bye bye they go. Those fakes can then join Fakester and be happy there.
not to be believed! It is well known that Dr. Watson has a weakness for liquor, and fraternizes with a known cocaine addict.
I know that was meant to be funning, but Holmes was the cocaine addict and neither (that I'm aware of) had a weakness for liquor.
I'm surprized that no one commented on Microsoft's "third party code" claim. Let's face it, the majority of Microsoft code is bought. That's the history of Microsoft. All the way back to QBasic, they bought the code and marketed it. Even the early developement of DOS was bought for like $50 or $500 or something like that from an outside source. So when they say "third party", are they referring to the code they bought and bundled into their OS package?
It's funny, but your argument for stability being a system that doesn't change much is exactly why I love NetBSD. I pretty much use Linux for everything...ok...I use Win98 to play StarCraft....but I run NetBSD on anything I want to make an appliance. It's the only distro I've seen that can turn old buggy *hardware* into something useful. Bleeding edge for my desktop, but NetBSD for my toaster. In all, Open Source is a good plan. Although, I don't run Debian on anything. I tried it once a while back and found the package installation to be buggy. I find it ironic that others hear seem to boost about the very thing I had issues with. Maybe the kinks are worked on by now.....I'll have to give it another try.
I couldn't finish reading your post because it seems quite obvious you didn't finish mine. Either that, or you completely missed the point.
Really, all you had to do was read the bold faced words. Guess you missed that or just don't understand. The flaw in the voting process is in it's design, NOT ITS IMPLEMENTATION. Meaning, it doesn't matter how a vote is cast, because once you disconnect the vote from the voter, there's no way to perform an accurate audit. All the dumb ass reasons you gave in support of paper is completely bogus. Even hear of ballot box stuffing? Maybe a crocked poll operator? You may cast your paper ballot, but the fairness of an anonymous election all boils down to trusting the operators. Whos the say they aren't on someone's payroll.
Now, before you go piss and moan again. I'm not saying that removing anonymous status will solve all issues with voting. On the contrary, it just opens up many other issues. The point is it's a trade-off. You want to vote with anonymous status, then you take the chance of running a crocked election (ie: it can be hacked with no accountibility). Counting physical ballots doesn't mean a thing if you can't verify those ballots are actual votes from living people.
Still with this approach, at best you could track a vote back to a serial number. Such a system would provide a means for the voter to verify their vote actually counted, but there's still no means for a canidate to verify that the ballot box wasn't rigged. They could verify the correct number of votes, but there would be no way for them to verify those votes weren't tampered with. Even with the reciepts and vending machine approach. All could be hacked. The only absolute best way to verify an election would be if a canidate could do a random sample of the ballots and verify that 1) the ballot does indeed belong to a voter and 2) the voter did indeed vote as indicated on the ballot. Once we separate a voter from the ballot, we introduce the ability to tamper with the transaction. No paper trail means no audit can be made on validity. It's just a fundimental flaw of anonymous voting. It has it's merrits, but it also has it's obsticles that can not be overcome.
We could introduce a means of encryption to hide ones identity. But as others have noted, encryption can be broken, keys can be stolen, identities can be compromised.
I for one thing we should go ahead with internet voting. I don't see it any more insecure than the method we have now. One could argue that it's more easy to hack/rig an election, but weighed against the ability to immediately tally results and not have ambiguous ballots (ie: like the chat crap in Florida). I think it's worth the trade off. Besides, the current voting booths can be tampered with just as easily as any computer system. Whether it's a punch card or a machine, we have to trust the operators of the election to be honest.
In the end, if we started using instant internet voting, we may be able to vote on more than just our idiot canidates. We may be able to start voting on individual issues. If done propperly, we may even get rid of the stupid outdated electoral college. It'll never be perfect, but I think the advances in using the technology far outweigh the outdated system we have now.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Being anonymous is great at the cost of a corrupt voting system. Not to say it's bad....but being anonymous does have it's cost. That's what you need to understand. Being anonymous isn't a right....it's an excuse.
The examples you pointed out are note worthy though. But don't you think if someone lost their job over voting that there wouldn't be some legal action that could be taken?
Am I the only one missing why the vote has to be anonymous???
No, it's quite understandible why a voter would want to be anonymous. Just pointing out how it leaves open the possibility for a rigged election.
It's not just voting. It's any transaction where the parties are kept anonymous. The protection that being anonymous offers creates the problem of transaction accountibility. If you can't account for a transaction (ie: someone is anonymous), then there's always the risk of corruption. But because you can't track the transaction, you can't even prove if there is any corruption. Yes, being anonymous is important, but is it worth the price of a corrupt transaction?
Seeing as how you posted Anonymously, you must fear the thought of persecution.
I'm pretty sure the parent of your post meant something similar to this method: you go vote very much the way you do now (by presenting your id and signing a sheet of paper)...then you assign your vote to a number (that is not associated with your name in any record) and you make those numbers public, so that you can check against them. I think this system is also good because you can check certain numbers (for example 10,354 voters showed up at this voting location, so there should have been exactly 10,354 vote numbers assigned)
This method works for voter accountibility, but it doesn't work for election accountibility. Who's to say that somewhere along the line, some of those 10,354 votes don't get changed? Someone may suspect that the vote was rigged, so they go back to the ballots and can trace the votes back to a ballot id. How could they ever know if that was a valid ballot or one that was hacked?
I read that artical, but what the author doesn't admit to is that paper ballots are just as suspect as a computer ballot.
He does key on one aspect and that is banking vs voting. Computer banking works because transactions can be traced. Because you can't track a computer vote is why it won't work. But think of it, you can't track an anonymous vote whether it's computerized or not. So in it's current form, the voting system we have/use is broken and always was.
I suppose you could implement the concept of a vote reciept. Say you register and you cast a vote, then you recieve a reciept with a transaction number (ie: vote record). At any point, you should be able to use that transaction number to verify your vote. That may work for individuals having a piece of mind in casting a ballot, but there would still be a void when trying to vallidate an election. The problem centers around the "anonymous" vote. No matter how a system is designed, once the ballot becomes anonymous, you loose all tracking ability and hence leaves a large hole for hacking or rigging an election. This has nothing to do with computers mind you. It's just the nature of performing an anonymous transaction. Encryption doesn't help. The flaw is in the transaction design, not it's implementation.
Voting seems like a strange issue to track. You need accountibility for each person casting only one vote, yet you need a method to hide ones identity. I think it's the anonymous issue is what causes all the loop holes.
Even with the current voting system, sure only registered voters can vote, so that's suppose to limit multiple votes from one person. But have you ever thought that after you pulled the levers and made your choice that your choice was actually recorded? Am I the only one paranoid about this? There's no way for me to go back after 5 days and say, "I want to see and verify my ballot".
The problem is trying to preserve that anonymous status. I think all ballots should be tracked backed to each individual. Granted, you may loose those rights of casting an anonymous vote, but in the case of running a fare election, I don't see another way. It's a trade off.
I know this is way off topic, but I'd say after Stardock dumped the OS/2 world and tried to make a buisness in the Windows world is when it all started going down hill. Granted, OS/2 was dieing fast and it was out of their control. I always felt that if *only if* Stardock had the cash to buy OS/2 from IBM and continued developement on their own that OS/2, would still be a contender for the PC desktop. Just my thoughts.
And you see the "free code" argument from only one side. I don't think you'll find anyone on the BSD if they feel like they've been screwed because everyone has ripped their ip stack, including the Linux zealots that ripped the code, then released it under another license. Choose the license that best fits YOUR needs, but to say GPL is more free....damn....you're just so misguided. It's just a different perspective and not necessarily the correct one for everyone. BSD is better at promoting standards because everyone can use it. GPL is better for a community project that's in competition with the commercial world. They both have merrits, but I definitely wouldn't say GPL is more free....that's just wrong.
And what's wrong with that? That's what GNU zealots just don't get. What's wrong with picking something up and improving it for their own personal gain? Don't get me wrong, but giving something back to the free community is great, but why make it a requirement? Let everyone make their own moral decisions.
It's not like people are ripping free code, deleting the credits, and putting their own name at the top. I'm sure some companies do that, but those same people would do that sort of thing no matter what the license read. The initial code is still free, Microsoft, Sun, IBM can't take that away, but I see nothing wrong with them using my code as a base for theirs.
No it wont. It's not because YOU think BSD has a problem that EVERYBODY think the same. I'm for one a pro-BSD. I *don't give a crap* that someone take my code and use it in a closed-software. I just don't care. You think people that use BSD license do it without full knowledge of what it is ? You think if you take the code I released under BSD, with full knowledge, that I'll be pissed because you branch it in GPL ? Why should I care at all ?
And that Sir is exactly why you're called a PROGRAMMER. To program for the love of programming.
But it IS true. The end users have more choices than they had if the original code had been under GPL: they could choose the original, any open forks off of it, AND the proprietary fork.
You are so dead on with this comment and it's the one thing that all GPL zealots don't seem to get. Just because you release some code for free, be it BSD or public domain or whatever, and some commercial entity hyjaks the code, how did your initial contribution become "less free?". Everyone can still use YOUR free code. In fact, another commercial corp can hyjak your code again and be a competitor to the first commercial hyjak. Who cares? YOUR CODE IS STILL FREE!
Don't get me wrong, I like the GPL as well, but I see the GPL as applying Intellectual Proprety Rights to free code. Whereas the motive may be good, the purpose is to limit it's useability. Sure you can say GPL is more free because it virally mandates that all derived works must be free, hence this increases the overall amount of free code availible on the net. That's great and you'll save the world by putting a few commercial programmers out of a job. BSD code can be said to be more free because you can do whatever the hell you want to do with it. A larger audience can use it and hence more free.
It depends on your perspective, but I like the BSD definition of free and it's more meaniful. In regards to protecting a personal free project from being hyjaked, the GPL is a good vehicle. Just don't lie and think you're doing a better service to the world because you use GPL. People who use GPL do it for themselves and no one else.
I never understood the appeal of Napster. I tried to use it a few times, but the signal to noise ratio was so pathetic it wasn't worth
the effort. Nice try, interesting concept, largely unusable in my experience.
Wouldn't be great if the music industry had the same point of view. In a way, I sorta agree with the guy. The file share concept is great, but in practice, most of the music is poorly ripped and the latency is sad. In generaly, I'd hardly believe that file sharing actually hurt the sales of music CDs other than a percentage point or two. But....the economy is slowing down...must get greedy and sue someone right?
Personally, I use to download a song or two, then search on the artist. If I downloaded four or more songs I actually liked, I went out and bought the CD. Many times, I'd get multiple CDs for that artist. Now, with the music industry being so greedy, I just stopped altogether. I now just hit my local library and sign out the CDs then rip them myself. We all rebel in our own ways I guess.
and if you'll rake the whole village for $100 dollars, i'd say either you're the wrong person to listen to on any sort of matters of economics. either that or i'll take you up on that offer and then get the 40 houses on my street to chip in $5 each for their lawns.
Silly Ahab....you didn't read carefully. That's $100 a yard. So, I'll take on your street of 40 houses for a quick $4000:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a question of letting go. I'll always remember. My flame was for his blatant disrespect of the whole situation. Ya know, Pearl Harbor as a long time ago. I suppose that was no big deal either.
You sir have no clue. The WTC....ahhh....two buildings in NYC as you know them....was and still is a big deal. Just because you had no connection to them doesn't make them less important. It just puts you out of touch. You're freaking attitude about 911 just makes me want to kick your ass. Get the hell out of this country you disrespectful fool!
As for your rants about SCO...again...get a clue. Do you really think anyone on slash is "concerned" about the lawsuit? No you freaking moron. We read it for the sake of humor. I can't wait for the next tid bit of SCO FUD. But forget it. You're disrespect for the WTC disaster just labels you as the biggest fuck in my world. You can have your dumbass opinions about the press coverage, but to say it was no big deal. Damn you're such an ass. I wish you had my old office at the time (103rd North Tower). Yeah, none of my friends made it out....I just wish you were there instead of them!
FACT. The only industry that has ever been truly deregulated is the airline industry. I don't see anyone complaining about the price of airline tickets.
No, but after 9/11, we sure have alot to complain about with security. Deregulation is a good thing in that it promotes competition and hence lower cost. Unfortunately, competition also promotes "lowest bidder" mentallity. Who knows, maybe somday we'll "off-shore" our power generators because we just don't want that sorta stuff in our backyards anymore. Detracts the view of the golf course ya know.
OT: Face it, we're all snotty Americans. Hypocritical to the last. We all feel we "deserve" that 2500sq ft home, two car garage and our own automobile when we hit 16yr. We all want the comfort of living in the USA, but if we ever go to war, many would do anything to duck the draft. Hell, we even elect draft dogers for presidents and for some reason, we're ok with that. I love America as much as the next guy, but the general mentallity of it's citizens (myself included) just sickens me. I think the first major overhaul the USA needs is a mentallity adjustment. Get away from the "me first" mentallity and "it's not my fault" court cases. Get back to love and respect thy fellow man/woman and then....just then....maybe the right decisions will start to flow.
if you don't accomodate people's preferred social models, they will go somewhere else.
I think that's exactly what the Friendster people would like to happen. I've never been on Friendster, but I can respect what type of site they'ld like to run. The net is full of Anonymous Cowards. So here's a site that wants to build a community of genuine real people. For the internet, I think it's about time.
Deleting fake profiles may be more drastic of a solution, but I think the post indicating the use of a "karma" system is the best solution. Basically have a system where people can rate each other. Act like an ass, and you get an ass profile. As far as "fake" profiles go....hell, you'll never get rid of those. The internet is inherantly a place where people live an althernate/fake life. A karma system is just a means to put a value on that fake identity. Whether you're a fake or not, most people's true personalities will show through in a well implemented karma system.....but of course, this isn't always the case.
In retrospect, freedom allows one to choose their own friends. So if the Friendster people don't want fakes, then bye bye they go. Those fakes can then join Fakester and be happy there.
not to be believed! It is well known that Dr. Watson has a weakness for liquor, and fraternizes with a known cocaine addict.
I know that was meant to be funning, but Holmes was the cocaine addict and neither (that I'm aware of) had a weakness for liquor.
I'm surprized that no one commented on Microsoft's "third party code" claim. Let's face it, the majority of Microsoft code is bought. That's the history of Microsoft. All the way back to QBasic, they bought the code and marketed it. Even the early developement of DOS was bought for like $50 or $500 or something like that from an outside source. So when they say "third party", are they referring to the code they bought and bundled into their OS package?
It's funny, but your argument for stability being a system that doesn't change much is exactly why I love NetBSD. I pretty much use Linux for everything...ok...I use Win98 to play StarCraft....but I run NetBSD on anything I want to make an appliance. It's the only distro I've seen that can turn old buggy *hardware* into something useful. Bleeding edge for my desktop, but NetBSD for my toaster. In all, Open Source is a good plan. Although, I don't run Debian on anything. I tried it once a while back and found the package installation to be buggy. I find it ironic that others hear seem to boost about the very thing I had issues with. Maybe the kinks are worked on by now.....I'll have to give it another try.
Thankyou for that quote. I think it sums up the voting system quite accurately.
I couldn't finish reading your post because it seems quite obvious you didn't finish mine. Either that, or you completely missed the point.
Really, all you had to do was read the bold faced words. Guess you missed that or just don't understand. The flaw in the voting process is in it's design, NOT ITS IMPLEMENTATION. Meaning, it doesn't matter how a vote is cast, because once you disconnect the vote from the voter, there's no way to perform an accurate audit. All the dumb ass reasons you gave in support of paper is completely bogus. Even hear of ballot box stuffing? Maybe a crocked poll operator? You may cast your paper ballot, but the fairness of an anonymous election all boils down to trusting the operators. Whos the say they aren't on someone's payroll.
Now, before you go piss and moan again. I'm not saying that removing anonymous status will solve all issues with voting. On the contrary, it just opens up many other issues. The point is it's a trade-off. You want to vote with anonymous status, then you take the chance of running a crocked election (ie: it can be hacked with no accountibility). Counting physical ballots doesn't mean a thing if you can't verify those ballots are actual votes from living people.
Still with this approach, at best you could track a vote back to a serial number. Such a system would provide a means for the voter to verify their vote actually counted, but there's still no means for a canidate to verify that the ballot box wasn't rigged. They could verify the correct number of votes, but there would be no way for them to verify those votes weren't tampered with. Even with the reciepts and vending machine approach. All could be hacked. The only absolute best way to verify an election would be if a canidate could do a random sample of the ballots and verify that 1) the ballot does indeed belong to a voter and 2) the voter did indeed vote as indicated on the ballot. Once we separate a voter from the ballot, we introduce the ability to tamper with the transaction. No paper trail means no audit can be made on validity. It's just a fundimental flaw of anonymous voting. It has it's merrits, but it also has it's obsticles that can not be overcome.
We could introduce a means of encryption to hide ones identity. But as others have noted, encryption can be broken, keys can be stolen, identities can be compromised.
I for one thing we should go ahead with internet voting. I don't see it any more insecure than the method we have now. One could argue that it's more easy to hack/rig an election, but weighed against the ability to immediately tally results and not have ambiguous ballots (ie: like the chat crap in Florida). I think it's worth the trade off. Besides, the current voting booths can be tampered with just as easily as any computer system. Whether it's a punch card or a machine, we have to trust the operators of the election to be honest.
In the end, if we started using instant internet voting, we may be able to vote on more than just our idiot canidates. We may be able to start voting on individual issues. If done propperly, we may even get rid of the stupid outdated electoral college. It'll never be perfect, but I think the advances in using the technology far outweigh the outdated system we have now.
Being anonymous is great at the cost of a corrupt voting system. Not to say it's bad....but being anonymous does have it's cost. That's what you need to understand. Being anonymous isn't a right....it's an excuse.
The examples you pointed out are note worthy though. But don't you think if someone lost their job over voting that there wouldn't be some legal action that could be taken?
No, it's quite understandible why a voter would want to be anonymous. Just pointing out how it leaves open the possibility for a rigged election.
It's not just voting. It's any transaction where the parties are kept anonymous. The protection that being anonymous offers creates the problem of transaction accountibility. If you can't account for a transaction (ie: someone is anonymous), then there's always the risk of corruption. But because you can't track the transaction, you can't even prove if there is any corruption. Yes, being anonymous is important, but is it worth the price of a corrupt transaction?
Seeing as how you posted Anonymously, you must fear the thought of persecution.
This method works for voter accountibility, but it doesn't work for election accountibility. Who's to say that somewhere along the line, some of those 10,354 votes don't get changed? Someone may suspect that the vote was rigged, so they go back to the ballots and can trace the votes back to a ballot id. How could they ever know if that was a valid ballot or one that was hacked?
I read that artical, but what the author doesn't admit to is that paper ballots are just as suspect as a computer ballot.
He does key on one aspect and that is banking vs voting. Computer banking works because transactions can be traced. Because you can't track a computer vote is why it won't work. But think of it, you can't track an anonymous vote whether it's computerized or not. So in it's current form, the voting system we have/use is broken and always was.
I suppose you could implement the concept of a vote reciept. Say you register and you cast a vote, then you recieve a reciept with a transaction number (ie: vote record). At any point, you should be able to use that transaction number to verify your vote. That may work for individuals having a piece of mind in casting a ballot, but there would still be a void when trying to vallidate an election. The problem centers around the "anonymous" vote. No matter how a system is designed, once the ballot becomes anonymous, you loose all tracking ability and hence leaves a large hole for hacking or rigging an election. This has nothing to do with computers mind you. It's just the nature of performing an anonymous transaction. Encryption doesn't help. The flaw is in the transaction design, not it's implementation.
Voting seems like a strange issue to track. You need accountibility for each person casting only one vote, yet you need a method to hide ones identity. I think it's the anonymous issue is what causes all the loop holes.
Even with the current voting system, sure only registered voters can vote, so that's suppose to limit multiple votes from one person. But have you ever thought that after you pulled the levers and made your choice that your choice was actually recorded? Am I the only one paranoid about this? There's no way for me to go back after 5 days and say, "I want to see and verify my ballot".
The problem is trying to preserve that anonymous status. I think all ballots should be tracked backed to each individual. Granted, you may loose those rights of casting an anonymous vote, but in the case of running a fare election, I don't see another way. It's a trade off.
I know this is way off topic, but I'd say after Stardock dumped the OS/2 world and tried to make a buisness in the Windows world is when it all started going down hill. Granted, OS/2 was dieing fast and it was out of their control. I always felt that if *only if* Stardock had the cash to buy OS/2 from IBM and continued developement on their own that OS/2, would still be a contender for the PC desktop. Just my thoughts.
Damn that was one sorry post...but it has me laughing my ass off.
And you see the "free code" argument from only one side. I don't think you'll find anyone on the BSD if they feel like they've been screwed because everyone has ripped their ip stack, including the Linux zealots that ripped the code, then released it under another license. Choose the license that best fits YOUR needs, but to say GPL is more free....damn....you're just so misguided. It's just a different perspective and not necessarily the correct one for everyone. BSD is better at promoting standards because everyone can use it. GPL is better for a community project that's in competition with the commercial world. They both have merrits, but I definitely wouldn't say GPL is more free....that's just wrong.
And what's wrong with that? That's what GNU zealots just don't get. What's wrong with picking something up and improving it for their own personal gain? Don't get me wrong, but giving something back to the free community is great, but why make it a requirement? Let everyone make their own moral decisions.
It's not like people are ripping free code, deleting the credits, and putting their own name at the top. I'm sure some companies do that, but those same people would do that sort of thing no matter what the license read. The initial code is still free, Microsoft, Sun, IBM can't take that away, but I see nothing wrong with them using my code as a base for theirs.
And that Sir is exactly why you're called a PROGRAMMER. To program for the love of programming.
You are so dead on with this comment and it's the one thing that all GPL zealots don't seem to get. Just because you release some code for free, be it BSD or public domain or whatever, and some commercial entity hyjaks the code, how did your initial contribution become "less free?". Everyone can still use YOUR free code. In fact, another commercial corp can hyjak your code again and be a competitor to the first commercial hyjak. Who cares? YOUR CODE IS STILL FREE!
Don't get me wrong, I like the GPL as well, but I see the GPL as applying Intellectual Proprety Rights to free code. Whereas the motive may be good, the purpose is to limit it's useability. Sure you can say GPL is more free because it virally mandates that all derived works must be free, hence this increases the overall amount of free code availible on the net. That's great and you'll save the world by putting a few commercial programmers out of a job. BSD code can be said to be more free because you can do whatever the hell you want to do with it. A larger audience can use it and hence more free.
It depends on your perspective, but I like the BSD definition of free and it's more meaniful. In regards to protecting a personal free project from being hyjaked, the GPL is a good vehicle. Just don't lie and think you're doing a better service to the world because you use GPL. People who use GPL do it for themselves and no one else.
Wouldn't be great if the music industry had the same point of view. In a way, I sorta agree with the guy. The file share concept is great, but in practice, most of the music is poorly ripped and the latency is sad. In generaly, I'd hardly believe that file sharing actually hurt the sales of music CDs other than a percentage point or two. But....the economy is slowing down...must get greedy and sue someone right?
Personally, I use to download a song or two, then search on the artist. If I downloaded four or more songs I actually liked, I went out and bought the CD. Many times, I'd get multiple CDs for that artist. Now, with the music industry being so greedy, I just stopped altogether. I now just hit my local library and sign out the CDs then rip them myself. We all rebel in our own ways I guess.
Very insightful and well spoken. I couldn't agree more.
and I was going to mention the fact that A was on the outside right along with the Z,X, and Q seems to contradic his explaination as well.
Silly Ahab....you didn't read carefully. That's $100 a yard. So, I'll take on your street of 40 houses for a quick $4000 :)