But once again you're just using the word "viral" to mean "spreads".
I'm using the word "viral" to mean "behaving in the same manner as a virus." Sorry, I know that's way out of line, using words to mean what they actually mean and all...;-)
Look, I'm sorry you don't like the word "viral," but I'm not arguing that we should use it because it's nice. I'm arguing that we should use it because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the most correct word for describing the GPL. Sorry, but saying "the GPL spreads" just doesn't cover it. Is that "spreads" as in "bedspreads" or "spreads" as in "peanut butter?"
All licenses are like this.
That's demonstrably false.
The GPL dictates the terms as being you must make the derivative product GPL'd as well. Note that it's only the derivative product, not the original product.
Um. I think you're confused. A derivative work based on a GPL-licensed product has to be licensed under the GPL, yes. But this is because the original work was, indeed, licensed under the GPL.
Besides, and this is what I'm trying to get across here, the GPL doesn't only apply to derived works. It also applies to any work that calls a GPL-licensed library.
So the GPL is only viral if you concede that ALL copyright is viral.
It's not, though, because of what I just said.
Let's construct an analogy. I write a program that calls Readline. I also write a book that refers to another book by another author. In my program, I essentially have a line that says, "Go execute some code from the Readline library and then come back." In my book, I have a line that says, "Go read a chapter from this other book and then come back."
My program has been "infected," for lack of a better word, by the GPL. My program must to licensed under the GPL. My book, on the other hand, is not covered by the other author's copyright. It's covered only by my own.
This is why the GPL is viral. It isn't only passed on to derivative works; it is also passed "sideways" to works that merely refer to GPL-licensed works.
The GPL is just a license. You can choose to use it, or choose not to use it, but with a virus you don't get the choice.
If you come into contact with a person who is infected with a virus, and the right set of circumstances exists for that virus to be transmitted and to infect your body, you're going to get it. You don't get a choice.
If your program comes into contact with a library that is licensed under the GPL, and the right set of circumstances exists for that license to be transmitted and to apply to your program (in other words, if your program calls that library), then you're going to get it. You don't get a choice.
In each case, there is a point where you have a choice and a point where you don't. If you decide to avoid contact with a person who is infected with a virus, then you won't get it; if you decide not to call any GPL-licensed libraries, then you're not going to get the GPL. But once you make that contact, once you call that library, you're infected.
The ownership of source code to a PUBLISHED work is NOT a natural right.
Yeah... except it sort of is. Why? For a number of rational, logical reasons, but one very pragmatic reason is overwhelmingly the most important: tradition. Human cultures have, as I said, an intellectual property tradition that goes back at least 60,000 years.
For 2,500 generations, the ownership of intellectual property has been considered a natural, moral right by cultures all over the world. No amount of collectivist revisionism can change that fact, and I'm afraid that no amount of collectivist revisionism can erase that tradition, either.
There is a moral case for the GPL.
There's a moral case for having vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate, too. There's a moral case for everything. But a moral case does not translate into a moral imperative. If a person-- say, me-- were to disagree with your assumptions, or find flaw with your reasoning, your moral case about which you are so strident would evaporate like dew in the morning sun. Poof. Gone.
Genetic is a good description because it shows that the licensing only affects derivative works.
First of all, "genetic" is not a good word to describe something that affects derivative works. Secondly, the GPL doesn't only affect derivative works. If I write a program that links with the Readline library, which is licensed under the GPL, that program must be licensed under the GPL. My program is not a derivative work of the Readline library; it merely calls the Readline library. And yet the GPL "infects" my program through contact with Readline.
"Genetic," apart from being completely wrong in other ways, does not reflect this attribute.
The reason Microsoft's own licensing is relevant is that your practice of railing against the horrors of GPL licensing while completely ignoring the evils of Microsoft licensing renders you nothing but a hypocrite.
Please stop trying to push your political agenda. "Blah blah Microsoft is evil blah blah," and so on. I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested. If you don't want to talk about the subject currently under discussion in this thread, then please take your posts to a different thread. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding people who want to discuss the relative merits of the GPL versus the various Microsoft source code licenses in this forum; I, however, am not one of them.
Now, if you've got something to say on the subject of the truth or falsehood of the viral nature of Microsoft Office file formats, let's hear it. Otherwise... well, you know.
What the hell is this supposed to be? Argument by search-and-replace? I really don't mind if people disagree with me; I wouldn't bother posting these things if I did. But at least have the common courtesy to read and understand what is said before attempting to refute it. It's really the least you could do.
The GPL is viral, as everyone knows by now, because introducing it into a project as part of a linked component means that the entire project must carry the GPL; it is not possible to use the GPL for library X and use some other license, or indeed no source code license at all, for the body of your program. The GPL itself prohibits this. So when the GPL is introduced to a project, it spreads to encompass the entire project. Ergo, viral.
If I were to send you a document in Microsoft Word format, nothing at all would happen to any of the other documents on your computer. You would still be free to use SurfWriter or what-have-you to create other documents. Saying that Microsoft Word is a viral format because you have to use it as a common medium of exchange is equivalent to saying that the English language is viral because you have to use it to communicate when that is the only language spoken by another party.
Does that clear it up? GPL: viral. Microsoft Office file formats: not viral.
You use the word "viral" as if it just meant "replicates" but there's more to a virus than that.
Noooo.... "Replicating" is not the right word to apply here. We're talking about something that, when introduced as a part of a system, spreads autonomously to all parts of that system. "Infectious?" Maybe. "Genetic?" Absolutely not; that's just silly.
I stand by my assertion: "viral" is the best word I've found so far to describe the behavior of the GPL, connotations or no connotations.
Linking GPL code in with your project does not compel your project to be GPL, unless you distribute the resulting project. It is amazing how often incorrect myths like your statement are perpetuated.
Oh, for crying out loud. What is the point of having a project if one does not distribute it? The assumption that we're talking about public projects is implicit in this whole discussion. Try to focus on the important points, and avoid the nits, okay?
Second of all, you conveniently neglect to mention the fact that if you link MS code in with your project and distribute it, you go to jail.
"Conveniently neglect to mention?" I guess you're right, if by "conveniently neglect to mention" you mean "didn't mention because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here." I didn't say that the sky is blue or that strawberries are yummy, either. So what?
In OOP, child classes inherits the characteristics of its parent class. They call this inheritance, not "a viral infection that attaches the characteristics of the parent class to all of its child classes".
The word "inheritance" cannot be reasonably applied to the GPL, however, because it doesn't merely affect "child classes," to use your metaphor. The GPL doesn't only apply to derived works; it applies to works that merely link GPL-licensed object code.
To extend the analogy, it would be as if any class that called a method of a given class were to acquire the characteristics of that given class. Which, as I'm sure you can see, isn't anything remotely like inheritance.
The motivation behind the original choice of the word "viral" to describe the GPL is certainly up for debate, but ultimately it makes no difference. "Viral" is, connotations notwithstanding, the best word for the job.
("Cancer" is dumb, though. Even a cursory examination reveals that the GPL behaves nothing like a cancer.)
I mean science has been operating the same way for hundreds of years
Apples and oranges. Progress in the sciences-- at least when it comes to pure research-- is driven by a desire for knowledge for knowledge's sake, and almost always takes place in the context of a university or other funded institution.
Progress in the commercial arts, on the other hand, is driven by the profit motive, and the profit motive only. Take away the profit motive, and the wheels of industry grind to a halt.
When the two overlap-- when science is driven by the profit motive-- we see that the commercial model supercedes the academic one.
I'd say that this new paradigm, that companies have absolute power over their creations, is the one that is new and unusual.
Oh, you'd be wrong about that. The tradition of intellectual property-- albeit divorced from the tradition of commerce-- goes back 60,000 years or more. The aboriginal peoples of Australia, whose culture predates written history by 50 millennia, have a strong tradition of intellectual property; songs and stories are owned things, and taking them without permission is seen as a crime of property tantamount to theft.
The same basic tradition, as near as anybody can tell having evolved independently, is found in the Tlingit and Haida peoples of ancient North America. So not only is the tradition of intellectual property old, it's also something that has arisen independently in different cultures over time.
I'm not going to argue that the keep-the-secrets idea is any more or less valid than the share-what-you-know idea, because in point of fact they're not really comparable. But the tradition of exclusivity goes back many thousands of years before the tradition of collectivism.
Until you need to exchange documents with somebody using MS word. Then, it acts like a virus.
No... the defining characteristic of a virus is that it spreads. If needing to use Microsoft Word for document X (the one you need to share) made it difficult or impossible to use SurfWriter for documents A, B, and C, you might have a point. But since that isn't the case at all... well, you get the picture.
PS: how come nobody ever talks about the right of a creator to REFRAIN from distributing his work, since he knows that it can easily be copied? And how come Microsoft never exercises this right?
Microsoft exercises this right all the time. Call them up and ask them for the source code to... um... to something they don't release the source code for. (I don't know enough about this subject to be able to list which products are available in source form from Microsoft and which aren't.) They will tell you, in polite but firm terms, that they are exercising their right not to distribute that work.
Nearly every other action they have taken as a company has shown contempt for the spirit of the GPL.
This seems fair to me. Every action the FSF has taken, including the creation of the GPL in the first place, has shown contempt for Microsoft's business model.
You are under no obligation to send your changes back to the community under the GPL.
However, if you base your product on or incorporate GPL-licensed code, and you release that product to anyone through any channel, you are required to give a machine-readable copy of your source code at no charge to anybody who asks for it. Which is effectively the same thing.
I have no idea if this is covered in a FAQ or not; please refer to the actual license.
Methinks it might just be possible that you don't understand what "viral" means in this context.
The Microsoft Office document formats are not viral, because they affect nothing other than themselves. If you install Microsoft Word on your computer, all of your SurfWriter documents remain in SurfWriter format; nothing changes.
The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.
Timothy, I have a question. It's not a troll, and it's not flamebait; it's just a simple question, one that could be addressed with a simple answer.
What does this have to do with "your rights online?"
I have come to accept, over the past several years, that the Slashdot idea of "rights" is wildly different from my own. This bothers me deeply, but I see little point in arguing about it in broad strokes. But I fail to see how this story fits in with even the Slashdot-standard idea of "rights."
Can you-- indeed, can anyone-- clear this up for me, please?
I don't think it's too much hyperbole to claim that the iMac was one of the most revolutionary computers -- ever.
I'm gonna nit-pick now. I know that's out of character for me, but y'all just bear with me.
I don't think "revolutionary" is really the right word to use here. I think a better word would be "influential."
The Apple II was revolutionary; it created the personal computer market from scratch. The Macintosh was revolutionary; it changed the way people interact with computers. The iMac was more evolutionary than revolutionary, but the combination of its design (rounded, transluscent, tinted, happy-looking) and its design philosophy (easy and fun to use) touch everything.
So I think I would say that the iMac was the second-most influential computer ever. The most influential? The IBM PC, of course.
All Macs use only one power outlet, unless you attach some third-party gear. On my machine right now, the mouse is plugged into the keyboard via USB, which is plugged into the monitor via USB, which is plugged into the computer via ADC, which is plugged into the wall. That's it. No other plugs.
I wouldn't buy a computer that looks like a lamp. I want my computer to look like a computer, damn it.
Computers are supposed to look like lamps. I don't know what the heck you people are thinking, buying computers that look like a cross between a television and a typewriter. Bizarre.
This was not a Windows/Mac comparison, it was an Apple/Whoever Made the DVD burner comparison.
No, it was a burn-a-DVD-on-a-PC/burn-a-DVD-on-a-Mac comparison.
But complaining about a stupid DVD package is not a comparison betweeen Mac and Windows. It is a comparison between what Apple shipped with their machine and what shipped with the DVD burner.
The fact that Mac users don't have to worry about what kind of software shipped with their DVD burners, and whether that software is good or not, is a major selling point for the Macintosh. This comparison bears that out.
Comparing Vegas+DVD to DVD Studio Pro + Final Cut Pro would probably come out favorably for Vegas. Final Cut and DVD Studio are definately more fully featured, but Vegas is also quite capable. The difference? $999 vs $2999.
Um. Your math is a little off. DVD Studio Pro plus Final Cut Pro would cost $1998, not $2999. Not quite sure where the $2999 figure comes from.
Also, Vegas+DVD is now going for $599.
I'm not going to say anything about whether Vegas+DVD is any good or not, because I've never used it. I have looked at the documentation and the screen shots, though, and... well, I'm just not going to say anything at all.
Oh, for crying out loud. If you're going to go completely off-topic in order to invoke Heinlein, at least have the decency to quote the book and not the movie.
But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"
They had tangled before-- since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea-- a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue-- and thoroughly immoral-- doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
He sighed. "Another year, another class-- and, for me, another failure. One can lead a child to knowledge but one cannot make him think." Suddenly he pointed his stump at me. "You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"
"The difference," I answered carefully," lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."
"The exact words of the book," he said scornfully. "But do you understand it? Do you believe it?"
"Uh, I don't know, sir."
"Of course you don't! I doubt if any of you here would recognize 'civic virtue' if it came up and barked in your face!" He glanced at his watch. "And that is all, a final all. Perhaps we shall meet again under happier circumstances. Dismissed."
You just hit the nail right on the head. Geri's Game, a four-minute short film, was more fun to watch and more engaging than the entire 100-minute mess that was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Besides, Final Fantasy lost me when they got to the mannequin of Ben Affleck with Alec Baldwin's voice coming out of it. That just made no sense at all.
Slashdot Mirror
But once again you're just using the word "viral" to mean "spreads".
;-)
I'm using the word "viral" to mean "behaving in the same manner as a virus." Sorry, I know that's way out of line, using words to mean what they actually mean and all...
Look, I'm sorry you don't like the word "viral," but I'm not arguing that we should use it because it's nice. I'm arguing that we should use it because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the most correct word for describing the GPL. Sorry, but saying "the GPL spreads" just doesn't cover it. Is that "spreads" as in "bedspreads" or "spreads" as in "peanut butter?"
All licenses are like this.
That's demonstrably false.
The GPL dictates the terms as being you must make the derivative product GPL'd as well. Note that it's only the derivative product, not the original product.
Um. I think you're confused. A derivative work based on a GPL-licensed product has to be licensed under the GPL, yes. But this is because the original work was, indeed, licensed under the GPL.
Besides, and this is what I'm trying to get across here, the GPL doesn't only apply to derived works. It also applies to any work that calls a GPL-licensed library.
So the GPL is only viral if you concede that ALL copyright is viral.
It's not, though, because of what I just said.
Let's construct an analogy. I write a program that calls Readline. I also write a book that refers to another book by another author. In my program, I essentially have a line that says, "Go execute some code from the Readline library and then come back." In my book, I have a line that says, "Go read a chapter from this other book and then come back."
My program has been "infected," for lack of a better word, by the GPL. My program must to licensed under the GPL. My book, on the other hand, is not covered by the other author's copyright. It's covered only by my own.
This is why the GPL is viral. It isn't only passed on to derivative works; it is also passed "sideways" to works that merely refer to GPL-licensed works.
The GPL is just a license. You can choose to use it, or choose not to use it, but with a virus you don't get the choice.
If you come into contact with a person who is infected with a virus, and the right set of circumstances exists for that virus to be transmitted and to infect your body, you're going to get it. You don't get a choice.
If your program comes into contact with a library that is licensed under the GPL, and the right set of circumstances exists for that license to be transmitted and to apply to your program (in other words, if your program calls that library), then you're going to get it. You don't get a choice.
In each case, there is a point where you have a choice and a point where you don't. If you decide to avoid contact with a person who is infected with a virus, then you won't get it; if you decide not to call any GPL-licensed libraries, then you're not going to get the GPL. But once you make that contact, once you call that library, you're infected.
The ownership of source code to a PUBLISHED work is NOT a natural right.
Yeah... except it sort of is. Why? For a number of rational, logical reasons, but one very pragmatic reason is overwhelmingly the most important: tradition. Human cultures have, as I said, an intellectual property tradition that goes back at least 60,000 years.
For 2,500 generations, the ownership of intellectual property has been considered a natural, moral right by cultures all over the world. No amount of collectivist revisionism can change that fact, and I'm afraid that no amount of collectivist revisionism can erase that tradition, either.
There is a moral case for the GPL.
There's a moral case for having vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate, too. There's a moral case for everything. But a moral case does not translate into a moral imperative. If a person-- say, me-- were to disagree with your assumptions, or find flaw with your reasoning, your moral case about which you are so strident would evaporate like dew in the morning sun. Poof. Gone.
Genetic is a good description because it shows that the licensing only affects derivative works.
First of all, "genetic" is not a good word to describe something that affects derivative works. Secondly, the GPL doesn't only affect derivative works. If I write a program that links with the Readline library, which is licensed under the GPL, that program must be licensed under the GPL. My program is not a derivative work of the Readline library; it merely calls the Readline library. And yet the GPL "infects" my program through contact with Readline.
"Genetic," apart from being completely wrong in other ways, does not reflect this attribute.
The reason Microsoft's own licensing is relevant is that your practice of railing against the horrors of GPL licensing while completely ignoring the evils of Microsoft licensing renders you nothing but a hypocrite.
Please stop trying to push your political agenda. "Blah blah Microsoft is evil blah blah," and so on. I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested. If you don't want to talk about the subject currently under discussion in this thread, then please take your posts to a different thread. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding people who want to discuss the relative merits of the GPL versus the various Microsoft source code licenses in this forum; I, however, am not one of them.
Now, if you've got something to say on the subject of the truth or falsehood of the viral nature of Microsoft Office file formats, let's hear it. Otherwise... well, you know.
Eh? If the GPL is viral, then MSOffice is too.
What the hell is this supposed to be? Argument by search-and-replace? I really don't mind if people disagree with me; I wouldn't bother posting these things if I did. But at least have the common courtesy to read and understand what is said before attempting to refute it. It's really the least you could do.
The GPL is viral, as everyone knows by now, because introducing it into a project as part of a linked component means that the entire project must carry the GPL; it is not possible to use the GPL for library X and use some other license, or indeed no source code license at all, for the body of your program. The GPL itself prohibits this. So when the GPL is introduced to a project, it spreads to encompass the entire project. Ergo, viral.
If I were to send you a document in Microsoft Word format, nothing at all would happen to any of the other documents on your computer. You would still be free to use SurfWriter or what-have-you to create other documents. Saying that Microsoft Word is a viral format because you have to use it as a common medium of exchange is equivalent to saying that the English language is viral because you have to use it to communicate when that is the only language spoken by another party.
Does that clear it up? GPL: viral. Microsoft Office file formats: not viral.
You use the word "viral" as if it just meant "replicates" but there's more to a virus than that.
Noooo.... "Replicating" is not the right word to apply here. We're talking about something that, when introduced as a part of a system, spreads autonomously to all parts of that system. "Infectious?" Maybe. "Genetic?" Absolutely not; that's just silly.
I stand by my assertion: "viral" is the best word I've found so far to describe the behavior of the GPL, connotations or no connotations.
Linking GPL code in with your project does not compel your project to be GPL, unless you distribute the resulting project. It is amazing how often incorrect myths like your statement are perpetuated.
Oh, for crying out loud. What is the point of having a project if one does not distribute it? The assumption that we're talking about public projects is implicit in this whole discussion. Try to focus on the important points, and avoid the nits, okay?
Second of all, you conveniently neglect to mention the fact that if you link MS code in with your project and distribute it, you go to jail.
"Conveniently neglect to mention?" I guess you're right, if by "conveniently neglect to mention" you mean "didn't mention because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here." I didn't say that the sky is blue or that strawberries are yummy, either. So what?
In OOP, child classes inherits the characteristics of its parent class. They call this inheritance, not "a viral infection that attaches the characteristics of the parent class to all of its child classes".
The word "inheritance" cannot be reasonably applied to the GPL, however, because it doesn't merely affect "child classes," to use your metaphor. The GPL doesn't only apply to derived works; it applies to works that merely link GPL-licensed object code.
To extend the analogy, it would be as if any class that called a method of a given class were to acquire the characteristics of that given class. Which, as I'm sure you can see, isn't anything remotely like inheritance.
The motivation behind the original choice of the word "viral" to describe the GPL is certainly up for debate, but ultimately it makes no difference. "Viral" is, connotations notwithstanding, the best word for the job.
("Cancer" is dumb, though. Even a cursory examination reveals that the GPL behaves nothing like a cancer.)
I mean science has been operating the same way for hundreds of years
Apples and oranges. Progress in the sciences-- at least when it comes to pure research-- is driven by a desire for knowledge for knowledge's sake, and almost always takes place in the context of a university or other funded institution.
Progress in the commercial arts, on the other hand, is driven by the profit motive, and the profit motive only. Take away the profit motive, and the wheels of industry grind to a halt.
When the two overlap-- when science is driven by the profit motive-- we see that the commercial model supercedes the academic one.
I'd say that this new paradigm, that companies have absolute power over their creations, is the one that is new and unusual.
Oh, you'd be wrong about that. The tradition of intellectual property-- albeit divorced from the tradition of commerce-- goes back 60,000 years or more. The aboriginal peoples of Australia, whose culture predates written history by 50 millennia, have a strong tradition of intellectual property; songs and stories are owned things, and taking them without permission is seen as a crime of property tantamount to theft.
The same basic tradition, as near as anybody can tell having evolved independently, is found in the Tlingit and Haida peoples of ancient North America. So not only is the tradition of intellectual property old, it's also something that has arisen independently in different cultures over time.
I'm not going to argue that the keep-the-secrets idea is any more or less valid than the share-what-you-know idea, because in point of fact they're not really comparable. But the tradition of exclusivity goes back many thousands of years before the tradition of collectivism.
Until you need to exchange documents with somebody using MS word. Then, it acts like a virus.
No... the defining characteristic of a virus is that it spreads. If needing to use Microsoft Word for document X (the one you need to share) made it difficult or impossible to use SurfWriter for documents A, B, and C, you might have a point. But since that isn't the case at all... well, you get the picture.
PS: how come nobody ever talks about the right of a creator to REFRAIN from distributing his work, since he knows that it can easily be copied? And how come Microsoft never exercises this right?
Microsoft exercises this right all the time. Call them up and ask them for the source code to... um... to something they don't release the source code for. (I don't know enough about this subject to be able to list which products are available in source form from Microsoft and which aren't.) They will tell you, in polite but firm terms, that they are exercising their right not to distribute that work.
Nearly every other action they have taken as a company has shown contempt for the spirit of the GPL.
This seems fair to me. Every action the FSF has taken, including the creation of the GPL in the first place, has shown contempt for Microsoft's business model.
You are under no obligation to send your changes back to the community under the GPL.
However, if you base your product on or incorporate GPL-licensed code, and you release that product to anyone through any channel, you are required to give a machine-readable copy of your source code at no charge to anybody who asks for it. Which is effectively the same thing.
I have no idea if this is covered in a FAQ or not; please refer to the actual license.
Methinks it might just be possible that you don't understand what "viral" means in this context.
The Microsoft Office document formats are not viral, because they affect nothing other than themselves. If you install Microsoft Word on your computer, all of your SurfWriter documents remain in SurfWriter format; nothing changes.
The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.
See the difference?
Timothy, I have a question. It's not a troll, and it's not flamebait; it's just a simple question, one that could be addressed with a simple answer.
What does this have to do with "your rights online?"
I have come to accept, over the past several years, that the Slashdot idea of "rights" is wildly different from my own. This bothers me deeply, but I see little point in arguing about it in broad strokes. But I fail to see how this story fits in with even the Slashdot-standard idea of "rights."
Can you-- indeed, can anyone-- clear this up for me, please?
I don't think it's too much hyperbole to claim that the iMac was one of the most revolutionary computers -- ever.
I'm gonna nit-pick now. I know that's out of character for me, but y'all just bear with me.
I don't think "revolutionary" is really the right word to use here. I think a better word would be "influential."
The Apple II was revolutionary; it created the personal computer market from scratch. The Macintosh was revolutionary; it changed the way people interact with computers. The iMac was more evolutionary than revolutionary, but the combination of its design (rounded, transluscent, tinted, happy-looking) and its design philosophy (easy and fun to use) touch everything.
So I think I would say that the iMac was the second-most influential computer ever. The most influential? The IBM PC, of course.
All Macs use only one power outlet, unless you attach some third-party gear. On my machine right now, the mouse is plugged into the keyboard via USB, which is plugged into the monitor via USB, which is plugged into the computer via ADC, which is plugged into the wall. That's it. No other plugs.
Computers are supposed to look like lamps. I don't know what the heck you people are thinking, buying computers that look like a cross between a television and a typewriter. Bizarre.
;-)
Uh-huh. And what's your opinion on the whole Kirk vs. Picard question? ;-)
This was not a Windows/Mac comparison, it was an Apple/Whoever Made the DVD burner comparison.
No, it was a burn-a-DVD-on-a-PC/burn-a-DVD-on-a-Mac comparison.
But complaining about a stupid DVD package is not a comparison betweeen Mac and Windows. It is a comparison between what Apple shipped with their machine and what shipped with the DVD burner.
The fact that Mac users don't have to worry about what kind of software shipped with their DVD burners, and whether that software is good or not, is a major selling point for the Macintosh. This comparison bears that out.
Comparing Vegas+DVD to DVD Studio Pro + Final Cut Pro would probably come out favorably for Vegas. Final Cut and DVD Studio are definately more fully featured, but Vegas is also quite capable. The difference? $999 vs $2999.
Um. Your math is a little off. DVD Studio Pro plus Final Cut Pro would cost $1998, not $2999. Not quite sure where the $2999 figure comes from.
Also, Vegas+DVD is now going for $599.
I'm not going to say anything about whether Vegas+DVD is any good or not, because I've never used it. I have looked at the documentation and the screen shots, though, and... well, I'm just not going to say anything at all.
iSync 1.0 has been out for months.
Are you kidding? Look at the spot between his eyebrows, and the corners of his eyes. It looks like a painting, nothing more.
Yeah, you are giving us the typical "the government can't do anything right" drivel.
;-)
Read more carefully, please. I am giving you the "the government can't run a utility" drivel. Get it straight.
You just hit the nail right on the head. Geri's Game, a four-minute short film, was more fun to watch and more engaging than the entire 100-minute mess that was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Besides, Final Fantasy lost me when they got to the mannequin of Ben Affleck with Alec Baldwin's voice coming out of it. That just made no sense at all.