Ok, let me explain a few things to you:
Linux != the entire Open Source community
Linux != most userland programs that come with linux distros
Linux = the kernel used in linux distros
GNU = most userland programs in linux distros
GNU != the entire Open Source Community
GPL != Open Source
GPL = one of many open source licences
Yes, they are a commercial establishment but that music is for the enjoyment of both guests and staff and it is not being sold as part of the service nor is it a true "performance". Even so, many establishments subscribe to digital music services sold specifically to businesses to provide ambiance. Simply put, it is bought and paid for already.
Many establishments subscribe to a digital radio. Those tunes are bought and paid for for the specific enjoyment of the guests of the establishment.
Those lawyers need a new hobby and the publishers need to be more creative about generating revenue. Here is a novel idea, why not encourage and publish artists/songs people actually want?
We Canadians also already pay for the music we supposedly steal regardless of whether we actually illegally download music each time we buy an MP3 player or blank CD-Rs/CD-RW/DVD-R/RW/+R/+RW/RAM etc... in the form of a blank media levy. It does not matter if we are using them to backup non-media related data.
The music industry in Canada and the CRIA can go and f*ck themselves. We have already paid many times over by buying your crappy Audio CDs of music and in blank media levys.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
on
FreeBSD Moves to X.Org
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why? I like the XNU kernel and kernel extensions. I thought the last thing we wanted was a monoculture? Aren't we all trying to escape the monoculture of MSFT? Why advocate creating a new one?
Now that Gentoo has been ported to OSX, we have Darwin ports, fink and Gentoo Portage. Do you understand that Linux is just a kernel? We already have the userland BSD "and" GNU (what you seem to think is linux) on OSX so I don't see the point of switching kernels.
Apple contributes to KDE KHTML, BSD and various other open source projects. What is it exactly that you are complaining about again?
I know. It was an attempt at humor. I know what the Canadian and other governments are already collecting concerning individuals/companies and organizations already. I have to deal with this kind of stuff at work.
You can stream other sounds with Nicecast in conjunction with iTunes but the delay would be unacceptable for video. Even if your could do it without Nicecast, the delay would be unacceptable.
The problem with that would be the audio would be out of sync with the video because of the time it would take to re-encode, encrypt, stream, decrypt and decode on the other end.
Yes, that's right. What did you expect? This is designed for use with "iTunes", not as wireless speaker system. Hence, it has the name of "AirTunes". Get it?
Sorry but you are forgetting other Unix workstations running on non-X86 hardware. I doubt those units are included in the "PC" marketshare numbers since they are not intended for the general markets.
"Similarly, the BSD license does not allow taking existing code away from a project but does allow reducing its ability to draw from a pool of coders -- and thus may still damage the project (relative to its potential state under the GPL)."
I'm afraid it is zealotry that limits the pool of developers, not the license. One could argue that RMS turns people off from contributing to GPL'ed projects.
Sorry but the GPL does not inherently create code that will magically remain maintained. The only way a GPL'ed or BSD licensed project remains viable is if it is able to sustain interest within the developer community.
You precious GPL does not maintain the code, people do.
"* BSD TCP stack, used in the Windows kernel."
Would you have preferred companies develop several competing incompatible network stacks? TCP/IP won out because of the BSD license.
Grow up. You are not making your point come across and more clearly by swearing.
Stop spreading FUD. GPL does not prevent in-house development without releasing code. One company cannot control BSD code since a version of the code will continue to be developed within the community as long as interest remains in the community to continue development. All GPL prevents is binary distribution outside an organization without code release.
Freedom is about choice. It is in the businesses best interest to release any beneficial changes back to the community. This is especially true if the code supports a new standards that the company wants to have other competitors use for interoperability. The BSD TCP/IP stack is a perfect example of this. There is nothing preventing a company from taking GPL code and using it within their company for inhouse software as long as they do not try to resell it. They are not compelled to contribute back changes to the community unless they intend on distributing the product outside of their organization.
BSD also does not require you to give back changes but because you can incorporate code into proprietary products for resale, more companies have an incentive of participating in the project.
Say a developer from company A, solves problem 1 but cannot seem to solve problem 2. Now what if company B has figured out the solution to problem 2 and these two issues are related to each other. Also, what if changes used to fix problem 2 cause a performance issue? Should these companies not release their fixes to the community for additional input from other parties?
Re:How many licenses can fit on the head of a pin?
on
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Excuse me but I thought freedom allowed you to do things rather than prevent you from doing something. GNU/Freedom is not freedom at all. You cannot have true freedom with strings attached. Freedom is a gift.
The GPL is not freedom as in free speech because it limits how you can express your free speech.
BSD licenses offer freedom as in the right to liberty and free as in beer and speech. Projects under BSD licenses rely on people using their freedom of choice to contribute back to the community. That is real freedom as there is no coercion. involved.
I respect the right of people to choose their license be it BSD or GPL but the GPL is not an example of freedom. IMHO.
Umm.. yeah. There is no big movement for DIY consumer electronics because most "consumers" are not geeks. They want ready made devices that are ready to use out of the box.
I believe millions of people don't need what you are looking for. Just look at the sales figures.
Well, a lacie mobile FW harddrive from lacie is 179 USD http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10105
Now that is just a HD whereas the iPod is a smaller form factor HD and a music player.
If you consider all MFG cost, your suggestion would create a loss leader without a follow up product to make money on.
The iTMS is already the loss leader driving iPod sales. Based on their sales figures, they are doing fine with the current and future prices. They don't need "your" money because others are fine with their prices apparently.
They are not releasing it to the public. They are releasing an alpha build to developers. It is even older than the one they demoed at the WWDC because of previous leaks through warez channels for Panther builds.
Consider:
-US library, GPL
-French person modifies library and uses CeCILL (which is compatible with GPL only within France)
-UK person uses library under the provision of CeCILL that GPL can supersedes it effectively meaning it is still under GPL
Given that CeCILL is "compatible" with GPL, they are interchangeable. The fact is that GPL is not enforceable under French law due to differences with regard to liability.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the userland "linux" distros, there are a lot of them and most of them are incompatible with each other.
Linux != the entire Open Source community
Linux != most userland programs that come with linux distros
Linux = the kernel used in linux distros
GNU = most userland programs in linux distros
GNU != the entire Open Source Community
GPL != Open Source
GPL = one of many open source licences
Got it?
Yes, they are a commercial establishment but that music is for the enjoyment of both guests and staff and it is not being sold as part of the service nor is it a true "performance". Even so, many establishments subscribe to digital music services sold specifically to businesses to provide ambiance. Simply put, it is bought and paid for already.
Those lawyers need a new hobby and the publishers need to be more creative about generating revenue. Here is a novel idea, why not encourage and publish artists/songs people actually want?
We Canadians also already pay for the music we supposedly steal regardless of whether we actually illegally download music each time we buy an MP3 player or blank CD-Rs/CD-RW/DVD-R/RW/+R/+RW/RAM etc... in the form of a blank media levy. It does not matter if we are using them to backup non-media related data.
The music industry in Canada and the CRIA can go and f*ck themselves. We have already paid many times over by buying your crappy Audio CDs of music and in blank media levys.
Now that Gentoo has been ported to OSX, we have Darwin ports, fink and Gentoo Portage. Do you understand that Linux is just a kernel? We already have the userland BSD "and" GNU (what you seem to think is linux) on OSX so I don't see the point of switching kernels.
Apple contributes to KDE KHTML, BSD and various other open source projects. What is it exactly that you are complaining about again?
I know. It was an attempt at humor. I know what the Canadian and other governments are already collecting concerning individuals/companies and organizations already. I have to deal with this kind of stuff at work.
You can stream other sounds with Nicecast in conjunction with iTunes but the delay would be unacceptable for video. Even if your could do it without Nicecast, the delay would be unacceptable.
Well, he could use saling clicker with a bluetooth phone or a Sony Clie. With the latter, you also get album art if your library has them.
The problem with that would be the audio would be out of sync with the video because of the time it would take to re-encode, encrypt, stream, decrypt and decode on the other end.
Yes, that's right. What did you expect? This is designed for use with "iTunes", not as wireless speaker system. Hence, it has the name of "AirTunes". Get it?
Sorry but you are forgetting other Unix workstations running on non-X86 hardware. I doubt those units are included in the "PC" marketshare numbers since they are not intended for the general markets.
I'm afraid it is zealotry that limits the pool of developers, not the license. One could argue that RMS turns people off from contributing to GPL'ed projects.
You precious GPL does not maintain the code, people do.
"* BSD TCP stack, used in the Windows kernel."
Would you have preferred companies develop several competing incompatible network stacks? TCP/IP won out because of the BSD license.
Stop spreading FUD. GPL does not prevent in-house development without releasing code. One company cannot control BSD code since a version of the code will continue to be developed within the community as long as interest remains in the community to continue development. All GPL prevents is binary distribution outside an organization without code release.
BSD also does not require you to give back changes but because you can incorporate code into proprietary products for resale, more companies have an incentive of participating in the project.
Say a developer from company A, solves problem 1 but cannot seem to solve problem 2. Now what if company B has figured out the solution to problem 2 and these two issues are related to each other. Also, what if changes used to fix problem 2 cause a performance issue? Should these companies not release their fixes to the community for additional input from other parties?
The GPL is not freedom as in free speech because it limits how you can express your free speech.
BSD licenses offer freedom as in the right to liberty and free as in beer and speech. Projects under BSD licenses rely on people using their freedom of choice to contribute back to the community. That is real freedom as there is no coercion. involved.
I respect the right of people to choose their license be it BSD or GPL but the GPL is not an example of freedom. IMHO.
You are free to develop console apps or develop OS X apps that run on X-Windows.
I believe millions of people don't need what you are looking for. Just look at the sales figures.
Now that is just a HD whereas the iPod is a smaller form factor HD and a music player.
If you consider all MFG cost, your suggestion would create a loss leader without a follow up product to make money on.
The iTMS is already the loss leader driving iPod sales. Based on their sales figures, they are doing fine with the current and future prices. They don't need "your" money because others are fine with their prices apparently.
Don't like it? Stop voting them into power.
Did you even bother listening to the conference call? They have been adding to the cash reserve constantly given that they have no debt.
They are not releasing it to the public. They are releasing an alpha build to developers. It is even older than the one they demoed at the WWDC because of previous leaks through warez channels for Panther builds.
-US library, GPL
-French person modifies library and uses CeCILL (which is compatible with GPL only within France)
-UK person uses library under the provision of CeCILL that GPL can supersedes it effectively meaning it is still under GPL
Given that CeCILL is "compatible" with GPL, they are interchangeable. The fact is that GPL is not enforceable under French law due to differences with regard to liability.