selling gpl is not 'charging for someone else's free software', it's selling a product which you spent resources on acquiring.
You don't have to give away the software and sell services to be ethical, it's perfectly ethical to sell openoffice.org, and it wasn't someone else's, they had a legitimate licence to sell copies of openoffice.org, as does anyone else with a GPL licenced copy.
Tell me why I shouldn't include $200 for Linux and $250 for ooo and $100 for labour as seperate line items on my legitimate bill?
Just because the cost to me is very low, there is no reason at all why I should charge less than the customer will pay, especially if I even tell them that they can almost certainly get it cheaper elsewhere, and that it's legal for them to download it themselves.
Why are all you slashdotters so against the sale of GPL software? I see more comments complaining about the sale aspect than the deceitful way in which is was done.
I love GPL software, I can make good money from it, and so can you.
Except he's still out of pocket for his share of the losses in bailouts, and in forgone tax revenue, and in forgone profits if he's a businessowner, or maybe he's out of his job.
The entire affair, as with everything else the neocons do, is blatant class warfare, but the Amercians just can't bring themselves to see it. Always keep an eye on things that move money from the poor, or the public purse, to the rich.
They aren't. All advertising is morally and ethically suspect.
For the market to work properly there's an implicit assumption that the purchasers are well-informed, which is the ostensible purpose of advertising. However, not only is most advertising deliberately misleading, and of course never mentions the bad parts, there's also the two problems that almost all advertising encourages spending behaviour, and it's used mostly not to inform but to manipulate in order to generate and arguably false demand for a product.
"There is a fixed amount of [...] resources, of which we're using the most miniscule fraction."
Wait what? This only works if "we" means, like the people reading this article, and not the global population.
How do you determine that 12,800,000,000 litres of crude oil per day is the most miniscule fraction?
Habitat destruction on every continent is so severe that the extinction of species is no longer a shocking tragedy.
Why is clean water now under strong pressure in almost every major city in the world?
Furthermore, one cannot "create" a natural resource, since, you know, it's natural. As for cheaply, there's nothing cheap about tar sands or deep sea oil.
You really, really, need to read up on this stuff. "most miniscule fraction" my hairy arse!
Re:I find Ann Coulter funny and brave
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 1
"In the UK, you'd actually have to address what she says with debate and criticism beyond the mere ad hominem."
And the oceans were supposed to have risen by now, too.
They have, look into vanuatu, tuvalu and so on.
In fact, if the polar ice caps are melting as quickly as they're alleged to be doing, why isn't LA underwater by now?
The bulk of the rise is from an increase in volume from thermal expansion. I can't speak for LA, but I suspect that it's more than a metre above 1980s sea levels.
And if it's getting hotter, why was this summer the mildest, most pleasant I've experienced since the 70s?
Because of personal subjective perceptions (have you any AC?) and because of El Nina this year.
Oh, right. Global warming makes nice weather, too.
You can't in intelligence assert that the design purpose and functional intent of the features of a tool have no bearing on the amount of danger involved in its use.
You would seriously have us belive that a loaded AK47 is as dangerous an object to leave lying around as a cable tester?
If the 'tool', which a firearm is not, any more than a sabre is, can easily cause death and misery by accident, regardless of the intent of the wielder then it's dangerous.
You don't need a reason to allow someone to continue living. This implies that people have to justify their existence or be exterminated on principle!
When US troops marched into Iraq and Afghanistan, halved the food production, killed or imprisioned hundreds of thousands of men, raped some women and created a desperate and improverished middle class, freely exploited by the multinationals moving in.... Did this act as a deterrent?
When the Romans did this in many counttries around the world, did it act as a deterrent to the European tribes who eventually sacked the city?
I'm not sure why you even bring the romans into this. They were nasty and brutal in many ways and places, and I would not like a modern power to attempt to duplicate their behaviour or collapse.
We (the west) pretend top play by the rules becuase it's ethically and morally correct to do so, and because we claim to be demonstrating a better way of running a society than "might makes right".
"In the Pacific we didn't bother because the Japanese refused to follow them"
This implies that you are happy to set a moral standard for your soldiers equivalent to that of whatever entity you are fighting at the time. I don't think that this is a wise decision, as it essentially allows your enemy a way of dictating your behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
they couldn't find enough Americans capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration.
The banks could have _trained_ people. It's called 'investing', and banks are supposed to be good at it.
There's also nothing wrong with selling the SOFTWARE, with or without any service!
selling gpl is not 'charging for someone else's free software', it's selling a product which you spent resources on acquiring.
You don't have to give away the software and sell services to be ethical, it's perfectly ethical to sell openoffice.org, and it wasn't someone else's, they had a legitimate licence to sell copies of openoffice.org, as does anyone else with a GPL licenced copy.
Tell me why I shouldn't include $200 for Linux and $250 for ooo and $100 for labour as seperate line items on my legitimate bill?
Just because the cost to me is very low, there is no reason at all why I should charge less than the customer will pay, especially if I even tell them that they can almost certainly get it cheaper elsewhere, and that it's legal for them to download it themselves.
Why are all you slashdotters so against the sale of GPL software? I see more comments complaining about the sale aspect than the deceitful way in which is was done.
I love GPL software, I can make good money from it, and so can you.
well argued sir, you have some strong counterpoints there!
what's an 'application'; like a job submission? or are applications the new name for 'product' on your face and hair?
The #1 barrier is lingual, IMHO.
the formatting could get munged a little bit, [...], more formatting can get changed or lost. It will, I assure you, end in tears.
F.U.D.
yep; all men were created equal. I thought this was self-evident? It's egalitarianism.
Wasn't Nixon framed by the Bush/Prescott group of aristocrats anyway?
he didn't say that, the movie added that bit for spice.
Your education has been sadly neglected, and accordingly you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sorry.
That's their problem. Why should we dumb our language down to accomodate the ignorant? Perhaps they can learn what a red herring is.
Except he's still out of pocket for his share of the losses in bailouts, and in forgone tax revenue, and in forgone profits if he's a businessowner, or maybe he's out of his job.
The entire affair, as with everything else the neocons do, is blatant class warfare, but the Amercians just can't bring themselves to see it. Always keep an eye on things that move money from the poor, or the public purse, to the rich.
They aren't. All advertising is morally and ethically suspect.
For the market to work properly there's an implicit assumption that the purchasers are well-informed, which is the ostensible purpose of advertising. However, not only is most advertising deliberately misleading, and of course never mentions the bad parts, there's also the two problems that almost all advertising encourages spending behaviour, and it's used mostly not to inform but to manipulate in order to generate and arguably false demand for a product.
"There is a fixed amount of [...] resources, of which we're using the most miniscule fraction."
Wait what? This only works if "we" means, like the people reading this article, and not the global population.
How do you determine that 12,800,000,000 litres of crude oil per day is the most miniscule fraction?
Habitat destruction on every continent is so severe that the extinction of species is no longer a shocking tragedy.
Why is clean water now under strong pressure in almost every major city in the world?
Furthermore, one cannot "create" a natural resource, since, you know, it's natural. As for cheaply, there's nothing cheap about tar sands or deep sea oil.
You really, really, need to read up on this stuff. "most miniscule fraction" my hairy arse!
"In the UK, you'd actually have to address what she says with debate and criticism beyond the mere ad hominem."
Done:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/11/18/194559/27
And the oceans were supposed to have risen by now, too.
They have, look into vanuatu, tuvalu and so on.
In fact, if the polar ice caps are melting as quickly as they're alleged to be doing, why isn't LA underwater by now?
The bulk of the rise is from an increase in volume from thermal expansion. I can't speak for LA, but I suspect that it's more than a metre above 1980s sea levels.
And if it's getting hotter, why was this summer the mildest, most pleasant I've experienced since the 70s?
Because of personal subjective perceptions (have you any AC?) and because of El Nina this year.
Oh, right. Global warming makes nice weather, too.
Global warming affects climate, not weather.
Silly me.
Indeed.
femtech are also very very good, a small ISP in QLD.
You can't in intelligence assert that the design purpose and functional intent of the features of a tool have no bearing on the amount of danger involved in its use.
You would seriously have us belive that a loaded AK47 is as dangerous an object to leave lying around as a cable tester?
If the 'tool', which a firearm is not, any more than a sabre is, can easily cause death and misery by accident, regardless of the intent of the wielder then it's dangerous.
This does NOT solve the problem of car theft or mugging, it only moves the criminal on to someone without one.
meth is easy to fix because only multi-billion dollar multinationals can afford the plant and space required to setup pseudo-ephedrine labs.
Unlike other drugs, you can't make meth from plants grown in a jungle clearing.
Meth is an easy problem to solve.
Ban Pseudo-ephedrine. It can't be home-made.
"make your own connectors to suit yourself."
While I'm at it, as a busy executive perhaps I will cook all my own meals, repair my own car and write all my own software.
You need to understand that having someone do stuff for you is worth money. You should make your products more user-friendly and make more profit!
I used to coax Win 3.11 to run on a 286 with 1024LKb RAM.
That was a desktop then, but would probably qualify as embedded today!
insightful? I don't think so.
You don't need a reason to allow someone to continue living. This implies that people have to justify their existence or be exterminated on principle!
When US troops marched into Iraq and Afghanistan, halved the food production, killed or imprisioned hundreds of thousands of men, raped some women and created a desperate and improverished middle class, freely exploited by the multinationals moving in.... Did this act as a deterrent?
When the Romans did this in many counttries around the world, did it act as a deterrent to the European tribes who eventually sacked the city?
I'm not sure why you even bring the romans into this. They were nasty and brutal in many ways and places, and I would not like a modern power to attempt to duplicate their behaviour or collapse.
We (the west) pretend top play by the rules becuase it's ethically and morally correct to do so, and because we claim to be demonstrating a better way of running a society than "might makes right".
"In the Pacific we didn't bother because the Japanese refused to follow them"
This implies that you are happy to set a moral standard for your soldiers equivalent to that of whatever entity you are fighting at the time. I don't think that this is a wise decision, as it essentially allows your enemy a way of dictating your behaviour.