'BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA...spoken like a True Linux Zealot who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd *love* to see you say this, face to face, to people who actually do know what they're talking about. You'd have to be quite patient though, it would probably be a while before they stopped laughing.'
Truly, I am humbled by the great and all knowing AC who just told me my subjective opinion on a subjective topic is incorrect. I shall quickly amend my ways. Thank you, oh mighty AC.
'So combining these thrusters with a nuclear power source might be *technically* possible, I expect it to remain a political impossibility for the foreseeable future.'
It's all a question of spin. As long as you call it a laser powered craft rather than a nuclear powered craft you might throw those groups off the scent long enough to get it in operation. Once it's in use and didn't kill anyone nobody will listen to those crazies anymore (despite the fact that reaching conclusions based on one instance of 'didn't destroy the world' is as bad as the crazies to begin with).
'The real question: how the hell are they going to power this laser? For micro-thrusts for satellites, solar panels are fine, but for an interplanetary trip you'd need something like a nuclear reactor'
Didn't you just answer your own question. I'm pretty sure we managed nuclear technology at some point.
'Precisely. And if you received source code under a dual BSD/GPL licence, you have to redistribute it under the same terms. Removing the BSD licence is removing a freedom (the freedom to pick the other licence), and that violates the GPL as well as the BSD licence.'
Lets try this another way. Precisely how would you pick the GPL without being able to apply the terms of the GPL? What would picking the GPL do for you? If you couldn't actually use the code for GPL'd work then why have a dual license at all?
'You have a choice which license to use in reguards to certain aspects of "use".'
No they don't, neither license grants or restricts the right to use the software. Copyright law does not restrict usage of copyrighted works, it grants the right to creator to control distribution. Both licenses relax the restrictions imposed by copyright law, neither imposes additional restrictions.
You are aware you don't need a license to use a copyrighted work you possess right? If not, I'd like you to immediately pay for a license to allow you to read this post.;) If you obtain a work legally, you are entitled to use it without any sort of license.
I think new users will use whatever is turned on by default, which hopefully will be the 3d desktop since it provides a better user experience and requires no special knowledge to use. It's also pretty.
'Salaries are deductible to the corporation and it does not pay tax on them. Corporate tax is on retained earnings. If you pay out all above your cost of doing business in salaries, the corporation pays only a nominal minimum tax.'
It's not that simple. At the end of each year you figure out the optimal amount to pay as salary vs the amount paid as dividends but the IRS puts a percentage cap on it to prevent you from avoiding corporate tax on all of it. Furthermore, why should you have to pay taxes on money that is still invested in your business? You haven't actually made any profit until you pay yourself.
'I do enjoy the fact that excellent karma means I can post non-anonymously and get modded to -1 without having to worry too much (as long as I don't do it too often, there is a karma cap after all).'
True there is a cap but I haven't paid attention to what I post in years and my karma never drops below the excellent range.
'However, as for mod points, I haven't gotten any for more than a year. Ironically, I at one point unchecked the "willing to moderate" box in the preferences because I was sick of getting TOO MANY mod points. Ever since I decided to moderate again and checked the "willing to moderate" box again, I haven't received a single mod point. Maybe if you ever uncheck that box you get black-balled forever or something.'
Maybe, I suspect mod points are assigned mainly with how long you've had excellent karma. I know it actually took a couple years before I started getting mod points. Maybe that timer reset when you unchecked the box. Either way it's gotta be a bug, I can't imagine anyone intended that behavior.
A slight addition to the informative yet off-topic comments by the AC. Karma whoring is usually engaged in by new accounts. After a short period of time your karma will reach 'Excellent' and you will gain a bonus to the score of your posts. After a while yet, you will get to meta-moderate and stick it to bad moderators and even further down the line you will find you have moderation points yourself.
This is the point I like to call funtime. You get to engage in all sorts of goodness and fun. You no longer have to worry about karma whoring because your karma is ungodly and never drops below excellent no matter what you say or do. This opens up all kinds of fun such as Troll Tuesday(R).
If you haven't heard of Compiz/Beryl and you use a Linux desktop it is time for a doubletake. This technology is already being used by pretty much every linux desktop user and this inclusion is just recognition of that fact.
Seriously you haven't seen the wobbly windows and such? The Linux 3D desktop blows anything in MacOS or Vista away.
'It's about the hypocrisy of linux saying we want to share and then running off with the code and/or putting roadblocks in the way of it being shared back by putting it under their own license when its already under the bsd one.'
Some of us are ethically opposed to the BSD license (or some of the actions it allows). If you want to code for Microsoft that is your concern but that doesn't mean I have to be willing to give them my code in order to share back with you. The GPL coders ARE sharing back with the license they are comfortable. It is a fair and permissive license that doesn't block ethical usage of the code.
'it's actually implied by the ideology(oss)'
No, sharing back is implied by the ideology of free software and thus is part of the license. The OSS ideology is about gifting software.
'Would you agree that is a valid exception to your statement? Considering the discussion is directly related to the altering of a license for distribution by a party that does not hold the copyright, e.g. Microsoft changing the license of BSD networking code used for Windows, I'd say you are mistaken.
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...'
Exactly, the GPL simply applies fewer restrictions than Microsoft's license. People keep talking about the difference being between source and binary but AFAIK except where the distinction is made by the license itself copyright law sees the two as the same thing. An automated translation of a work (like a binary) is covered under the same copyright as the source and is not considered a separate and distinct work.
As I understand it the file in question was credited incorrectly but that could have been resolved with a simple, quiet, and dignified email. This grand drama is the only truly unethical part of this story.
'In order license code under the GPL, you have to own the copyright to the code. The people who made the license changes do not own the copyright, therefore could not simply re-release the code under a new license.'
Yes but since those who put a GPL license on it can license their modifications (regardless of how significant) and the conglomeration of the two under the GPL, in practice this is a one liner giving credit to the original author.
'Besides, if one wants the additional freedom for one's code to be used in closed source scenarios, why would welcome a change that prevents that?'
The change doesn't prevent that, it prevents people from doing so with the GPL modifications that aren't under the BSD license. Those contributors wanted their code protected from unethical use. The original author's wishes aren't being thwarted because the original BSD version hasn't magically disappeared, the only difference between the two are changes and modifications the original author has no claim on.
'Well considering they probably have 10 accountants who work year after year on schemes on how to get Larry and Sergey's taxes minimized, it probably is taxpayer money. Then again I'm one of those crazy people who think you should just pay whatever your tax is without trying to do a dozen shady schemes in order to avoid it.'
You know I hear people complaining about this crap in Fortune 500 corporations and it sounds fine and dandy. It isn't until you look at the little guy that you realize why there are so many republicans fighting for these tax breaks.
I am a small business owner. I am incorporated because if anything were to ever go wrong it would basically end me financially ever after if I were not. Every dime I make gets taxed twice. The corporation is taxed, and then I am taxed. You bet I do everything legally possible to avoid taxation because I am paying double taxes! Forget private jets, those tax breaks impact my grocery budget.
This problem doesn't change in a bigger company, just the number of people involved in the scale. All of the profits are paid to employees or shareholders. The employees are taxed and the shareholders are taxed, in many cases the shareholders also invested after-tax money.
The solution is simple, abolish corporate taxes altogether since their profits are either reinvested or paid out to others who have to report them as income. Furthermore the payouts to shareholders should be taxed as income because for your average corporation the one or three shareholders are the owners.
I also think all car expenses, utilities, rent, phone, internet, and food should be deductions on personal income tax.
I have to admit I am a little confused. You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Maybe some technical violation occurred in the credits or some such but this just sounds to me like sour grapes because they can't have the changes. They can't have the changes when the source is used in a closed commercial environment, the BSD guys maintain that as ethical so they really don't have any ground to stand on here. Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back."
'If I am caught up in a newsworthy event, say a huge fire and if I, staggering from the burning building, tell a journalist what I saw in there and he then just goes off and prints what I've told him then where is my cut of that wealth ?'
You do realize it isn't a big enough pie to go around? If you wanted a cut you shouldn't have told the reporter, you should have advised them that someone will have to pay for your story.
'An online newspaper publishes articles which include copyrighted images (company logos for example) under fair use. So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'
I realize I already replied to this once with another point but something else has just occurred to me. That is a fairly terrible example. Newspapers couldn't exist without fair use. A fairly huge portion of any given newspaper is spent quoting people interviewed and excerpts of outside sources of information. In fact, if a reporter has done their job, a news article won't really contain any original material of note, just a collection of facts included from outside sources under fair use.
'So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'
That is easily offset by the fact that profits from copyrighted materials are credited across the board despite the fact that copyright may not be responsible for those materials existing. After all, there were songs, plays, books, and works of art before copyright and there likely would be movies, books, albums, plays, and works of art if copyright didn't exist today.
'I'm sorry, but I just did more this week, than the last person did in a year.'
That's why I fired him, nobody is that much better than a competent employee and fortunately there are only 5 firms that could support an employee of your salary and thousands of employees to fit your position. Goodbye and don't stand by the phone.
My ethics prevent me from snooping outside the scope of my job but it wouldn't matter if I did because ethics also prevent me from reporting anyone for anything.
A cornerstone of my code of ethics is confidentiality. Outside a courtroom, no sensitive information I see or hear while working for a client will be disclosed to anyone.
There are no references or exceptions for the law in my code of ethics (although I do have a rule on pirated software). The reason is simple, the law is neither ethical nor moral. In fact, in many cases the law is decidedly immoral. Further, I am not a judge or jury and it is not for me to decide if what I have seen is in fact a crime or not. I leave that for my client and their attorneys to determine and for law enforcement, judges, and juries to contradict.
I am utterly baffled by anyone who thinks a different policy is appropriate. How could you call a code of ethics that turns someone into a state informer ethical?
I also think this story is a farse. Playing the whole 'child' pornography card is a plea to emotion that should be dismissed. This has nothing to do with the children and protecting children, it has everything to do with disclosing confidential and sensitive information and/or informing.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you meant to reply to the GP? That is sort of the same argument I was making.
'BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA...spoken like a True Linux Zealot who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd *love* to see you say this, face to face, to people who actually do know what they're talking about. You'd have to be quite patient though, it would probably be a while before they stopped laughing.'
Truly, I am humbled by the great and all knowing AC who just told me my subjective opinion on a subjective topic is incorrect. I shall quickly amend my ways. Thank you, oh mighty AC.
'So combining these thrusters with a nuclear power source might be *technically* possible, I expect it to remain a political impossibility for the foreseeable future.'
It's all a question of spin. As long as you call it a laser powered craft rather than a nuclear powered craft you might throw those groups off the scent long enough to get it in operation. Once it's in use and didn't kill anyone nobody will listen to those crazies anymore (despite the fact that reaching conclusions based on one instance of 'didn't destroy the world' is as bad as the crazies to begin with).
'The real question: how the hell are they going to power this laser? For micro-thrusts for satellites, solar panels are fine, but for an interplanetary trip you'd need something like a nuclear reactor'
Didn't you just answer your own question. I'm pretty sure we managed nuclear technology at some point.
'Precisely. And if you received source code under a dual BSD/GPL licence, you have to redistribute it under the same terms. Removing the BSD licence is removing a freedom (the freedom to pick the other licence), and that violates the GPL as well as the BSD licence.'
Lets try this another way. Precisely how would you pick the GPL without being able to apply the terms of the GPL? What would picking the GPL do for you? If you couldn't actually use the code for GPL'd work then why have a dual license at all?
'You have a choice which license to use in reguards to certain aspects of "use".'
;) If you obtain a work legally, you are entitled to use it without any sort of license.
No they don't, neither license grants or restricts the right to use the software. Copyright law does not restrict usage of copyrighted works, it grants the right to creator to control distribution. Both licenses relax the restrictions imposed by copyright law, neither imposes additional restrictions.
You are aware you don't need a license to use a copyrighted work you possess right? If not, I'd like you to immediately pay for a license to allow you to read this post.
I think new users will use whatever is turned on by default, which hopefully will be the 3d desktop since it provides a better user experience and requires no special knowledge to use. It's also pretty.
'Salaries are deductible to the corporation and it does not pay tax on them. Corporate tax is on retained earnings. If you pay out all above your cost of doing business in salaries, the corporation pays only a nominal minimum tax.'
It's not that simple. At the end of each year you figure out the optimal amount to pay as salary vs the amount paid as dividends but the IRS puts a percentage cap on it to prevent you from avoiding corporate tax on all of it. Furthermore, why should you have to pay taxes on money that is still invested in your business? You haven't actually made any profit until you pay yourself.
'I do enjoy the fact that excellent karma means I can post non-anonymously and get modded to -1 without having to worry too much (as long as I don't do it too often, there is a karma cap after all).'
True there is a cap but I haven't paid attention to what I post in years and my karma never drops below the excellent range.
'However, as for mod points, I haven't gotten any for more than a year. Ironically, I at one point unchecked the "willing to moderate" box in the preferences because I was sick of getting TOO MANY mod points. Ever since I decided to moderate again and checked the "willing to moderate" box again, I haven't received a single mod point. Maybe if you ever uncheck that box you get black-balled forever or something.'
Maybe, I suspect mod points are assigned mainly with how long you've had excellent karma. I know it actually took a couple years before I started getting mod points. Maybe that timer reset when you unchecked the box. Either way it's gotta be a bug, I can't imagine anyone intended that behavior.
A slight addition to the informative yet off-topic comments by the AC. Karma whoring is usually engaged in by new accounts. After a short period of time your karma will reach 'Excellent' and you will gain a bonus to the score of your posts. After a while yet, you will get to meta-moderate and stick it to bad moderators and even further down the line you will find you have moderation points yourself.
This is the point I like to call funtime. You get to engage in all sorts of goodness and fun. You no longer have to worry about karma whoring because your karma is ungodly and never drops below excellent no matter what you say or do. This opens up all kinds of fun such as Troll Tuesday(R).
'Nah, they'll use "Hungry Hungry Hippo", once it becomes bloated with other stuff like this that new users won't likely use.'
You don't think users will use a 3D accelerated desktop? Forget the breathtaking effects this brings, the performance makes 2D X look slow and crappy.
If you haven't heard of Compiz/Beryl and you use a Linux desktop it is time for a doubletake. This technology is already being used by pretty much every linux desktop user and this inclusion is just recognition of that fact.
Seriously you haven't seen the wobbly windows and such? The Linux 3D desktop blows anything in MacOS or Vista away.
'It's about the hypocrisy of linux saying we want to share and then running off with the code and/or putting roadblocks in the way of it being shared back by putting it under their own license when its already under the bsd one.'
Some of us are ethically opposed to the BSD license (or some of the actions it allows). If you want to code for Microsoft that is your concern but that doesn't mean I have to be willing to give them my code in order to share back with you. The GPL coders ARE sharing back with the license they are comfortable. It is a fair and permissive license that doesn't block ethical usage of the code.
'it's actually implied by the ideology(oss)'
No, sharing back is implied by the ideology of free software and thus is part of the license. The OSS ideology is about gifting software.
'Would you agree that is a valid exception to your statement? Considering the discussion is directly related to the altering of a license for distribution by a party that does not hold the copyright, e.g. Microsoft changing the license of BSD networking code used for Windows, I'd say you are mistaken.
Yes, you can alter the license for material for which you do not hold the copyright, as long as it's permitted by the license. There's the core difference between BSD and GPL...'
Exactly, the GPL simply applies fewer restrictions than Microsoft's license. People keep talking about the difference being between source and binary but AFAIK except where the distinction is made by the license itself copyright law sees the two as the same thing. An automated translation of a work (like a binary) is covered under the same copyright as the source and is not considered a separate and distinct work.
As I understand it the file in question was credited incorrectly but that could have been resolved with a simple, quiet, and dignified email. This grand drama is the only truly unethical part of this story.
'In order license code under the GPL, you have to own the copyright to the code. The people who made the license changes do not own the copyright, therefore could not simply re-release the code under a new license.'
Yes but since those who put a GPL license on it can license their modifications (regardless of how significant) and the conglomeration of the two under the GPL, in practice this is a one liner giving credit to the original author.
'Besides, if one wants the additional freedom for one's code to be used in closed source scenarios, why would welcome a change that prevents that?'
The change doesn't prevent that, it prevents people from doing so with the GPL modifications that aren't under the BSD license. Those contributors wanted their code protected from unethical use. The original author's wishes aren't being thwarted because the original BSD version hasn't magically disappeared, the only difference between the two are changes and modifications the original author has no claim on.
'Well considering they probably have 10 accountants who work year after year on schemes on how to get Larry and Sergey's taxes minimized, it probably is taxpayer money. Then again I'm one of those crazy people who think you should just pay whatever your tax is without trying to do a dozen shady schemes in order to avoid it.'
You know I hear people complaining about this crap in Fortune 500 corporations and it sounds fine and dandy. It isn't until you look at the little guy that you realize why there are so many republicans fighting for these tax breaks.
I am a small business owner. I am incorporated because if anything were to ever go wrong it would basically end me financially ever after if I were not. Every dime I make gets taxed twice. The corporation is taxed, and then I am taxed. You bet I do everything legally possible to avoid taxation because I am paying double taxes! Forget private jets, those tax breaks impact my grocery budget.
This problem doesn't change in a bigger company, just the number of people involved in the scale. All of the profits are paid to employees or shareholders. The employees are taxed and the shareholders are taxed, in many cases the shareholders also invested after-tax money.
The solution is simple, abolish corporate taxes altogether since their profits are either reinvested or paid out to others who have to report them as income. Furthermore the payouts to shareholders should be taxed as income because for your average corporation the one or three shareholders are the owners.
I also think all car expenses, utilities, rent, phone, internet, and food should be deductions on personal income tax.
I have to admit I am a little confused. You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Maybe some technical violation occurred in the credits or some such but this just sounds to me like sour grapes because they can't have the changes. They can't have the changes when the source is used in a closed commercial environment, the BSD guys maintain that as ethical so they really don't have any ground to stand on here. Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back."
'If I am caught up in a newsworthy event, say a huge fire and if I, staggering from the burning building, tell a journalist what I saw in there and he then just goes off and prints what I've told him then where is my cut of that wealth ?'
You do realize it isn't a big enough pie to go around? If you wanted a cut you shouldn't have told the reporter, you should have advised them that someone will have to pay for your story.
I think we've left any credible claim of caring about Iraq long in the dust.
'Can you really fight terrorists with giant bombs?'
You can if you bring the troops home.
'An online newspaper publishes articles which include copyrighted images (company logos for example) under fair use. So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'
I realize I already replied to this once with another point but something else has just occurred to me. That is a fairly terrible example. Newspapers couldn't exist without fair use. A fairly huge portion of any given newspaper is spent quoting people interviewed and excerpts of outside sources of information. In fact, if a reporter has done their job, a news article won't really contain any original material of note, just a collection of facts included from outside sources under fair use.
'So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'
That is easily offset by the fact that profits from copyrighted materials are credited across the board despite the fact that copyright may not be responsible for those materials existing. After all, there were songs, plays, books, and works of art before copyright and there likely would be movies, books, albums, plays, and works of art if copyright didn't exist today.
lol touche, although I am a small business owner.
'I'm sorry, but I just did more this week, than the last person did in a year.'
That's why I fired him, nobody is that much better than a competent employee and fortunately there are only 5 firms that could support an employee of your salary and thousands of employees to fit your position. Goodbye and don't stand by the phone.
My ethics prevent me from snooping outside the scope of my job but it wouldn't matter if I did because ethics also prevent me from reporting anyone for anything.
A cornerstone of my code of ethics is confidentiality. Outside a courtroom, no sensitive information I see or hear while working for a client will be disclosed to anyone.
There are no references or exceptions for the law in my code of ethics (although I do have a rule on pirated software). The reason is simple, the law is neither ethical nor moral. In fact, in many cases the law is decidedly immoral. Further, I am not a judge or jury and it is not for me to decide if what I have seen is in fact a crime or not. I leave that for my client and their attorneys to determine and for law enforcement, judges, and juries to contradict.
I am utterly baffled by anyone who thinks a different policy is appropriate. How could you call a code of ethics that turns someone into a state informer ethical?
I also think this story is a farse. Playing the whole 'child' pornography card is a plea to emotion that should be dismissed. This has nothing to do with the children and protecting children, it has everything to do with disclosing confidential and sensitive information and/or informing.