Eliminate? No probably not. That's the entire point of this though isn't it? You can't eliminate it.
What you can do is make it a much smaller problem. iTunes, Spotify and various other competing services do this for Music. Music piracy seems to be less and less common as a result.
Make something like that for movies and tv shows, where people can download good quality, DRM-free stuff for a few bucks, regardless of which country they're in, and watch piracy shrink massively.
Sure I think that handing out condoms in schools promotes unwanted behavior,
Unwanted by whom?
I would support a bill that put a free condom on every lunch tray if it also made abortions illegal(excluding those deemed medically necessary)
Well, we ain't never going to agree on that. But you admit at least that you are anti-sex in general, so you're not really going against my point there.
I can't say I've seen the driver issues you talk about.
Things tend (for me) to either work in linux, because the driver is supplied as a kernel module, or there's just no driver. In fact, for me, it's now considerably easier than windows. You don't even have to think about installing or rolling back drivers, because they're either just there already, or not available.
That's just me though, and what you're used to is a large part of it. I certainly do fall into the 1% here though.
Was 2004 the last time you tried linux?
I didn't really start using it seriously until about '06.
And you don't think they'd be on the hook for millions of dollars if they say used it in the PS4 and by giving out the changes made the PS4 a pirate's paradise?
That hypothetical situaion is not them having to pay out millions to a third party.
Now who is bullshitting.
You, as usual.
there are reason for a company to want to lock down a device.
Of course there are, in which case they shouldn't be using any GPL code. They probably want to make sure they're not using any unlicensed commercial stuff as well, checking the supply chain. Likely allo that would happen is that they'd have to stop shipping until the matter was resolved and the offending code removed. This would also happen with commercial code. It's very unlikely that they could be forced to open their codebase if they took these actions.
look at all the shitfits over Win 8 putting the lock on the WinARM bootloader, but notice how nobody said anything about how Win 7 has become so widely pirated (Hint...its the bootloader) so anyone with eyes can see why a company would want to lock down the way they got hacked the last time.
You're way off base here.
The bootloader locking is to prevent malware from being loading itself before the OS, and to prevent the loading of alternate, "untrusted" operating systems. Even a pirate version of the operating system loads a real windows kernel...
Besides which, presumably a windows tablet comes with windows? What's the concern with piracy of the OS there? It's non-windows tablets that are the possible problem, and they won't have locked bootloaders.
I don't believe Windows 7 was pirated due to PCs having open bootloaders I'm afraid. Plus MS has never shown an interest in stopping this behaviour either, because it benefits them to maintain the mindshare.
While the GPL is fine for SOME use cases it simply isn't the perfect match for ALL use cases which is why we have everything from BSD to proprietary licenses.
Exactly, there are all sorts of licenses for all sorts of different situations. If you have no intention of opening your code, don't use GPL'd software. It's pretty easy. No need to go waving your arms about in panic about accidental compliance violations.
The busybox cases that people seem to get up in arms about are where a company has deliberately used busybox and is not complying license, despite being asked and reminded about it multiple times. These companies are in knowing violation and continue to violate.
This does not make the GPL "a shitty license for corporate use", IMHO, just one that some companies feel (rightly in many cases) that they can get away with violating.
So frankly I don't see what the problem is, it isn't like Sony has any control over BusyBox, it'll still be there tomorrow,
On the surface of it? No, no problem. The motive, however, seems to be to provide an alternative so that companies can continue to violate the GPL, just without the bit that people get serious over. This is what people have a problem with.
if you don't like what Sony is doing simply don't buy their products
"Commercially licensed code is not the only other option. This discussion compares using GPLed code to developing in-house, where there is no chance of liability."
Except TFA refers to an open source model (Sony dev putting out a call to other developers), the whole discussion is about the removal of busybox as a way to sidestep the GPL and the problems it supposedly causes, and the guy I was replying to made the absolute statement that the GPL was a pain in the ass at the corporate level and only good for hobbyists, opening it up for comparison against other licensing models.
Yes, I've heard of this sort of thing, seems a neat enough way to sidestep copyright.
It's considerably more complex than just "transcribing code", I'm sure it's been done as much in the pursuit of FOSS as in the pursuit of closed source software.
Out of interest, has this been tried in a court in recent years? Just wondering if the general IP hysteria has affected whether or not this procedure is legal.
Just add a rule that blocks facebook.com and fbcdn.com unless you're on a facebook site. Job done:)
And if you're someone that is of the opinion that Ad Blocking is immoral somehow, then just make sure you run Adblock Plus without a subscription to any adblock feeds, so you only ever block things manually.
The problem with ARM is there are literally millions of x86 programs that have become an integral part of peoples lives, this is also why even though Linux has been getting better each year it fails to find any real gains.
I'll just stop you there.
The problem with ARM is that it's not x86. Yet Linux is x86 and it's not making any gains.
I think you might be trying to say that anything that's not Windows on x86 is going to be a failure?
I wonder, do you have the same attitude to Windows 8's much touted ARM version?
Ah, but if you've violated the terms you've lost the license, and may need to comply with other terms in order for the copyright holder or their representative to grant you a new one.
At least that's my understanding of how the SFLC says it works.
If you are aware of someone breaking your copyright, and do NOT take action to correct it within a certain timeframe, you effectively lose your ability to sue anyone in the future.
Actually that applies to trademarks, not usually copyright.
I never copyrighted anything, after learning I had to defend the copyright to keep it valid.
Copyright is automatic in most nations. In the US I believe things are a little more complicated, and there are caps on compensation and legal remedies available to you if you haven't registered something. However things are still automatically covered by copyright - this law was necessary for the US to join one of the international copyright treaties a few decades back (IIRC).
(or so a copyright lawyer told me years ago, when I discussed something that would have made me rich by now.)
It may be worth getting a second opinion on that....
OTOH, IANAL, so YMMV, and I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time!
I hate this line of argument. A mechanism to keep the source flowing is useful even in a world where reverse engineering and distribution of binaries is allowed.
I'm not sure how you would achieve it, but it's still useful.
It's a matter of the (L)GPL being a shitty license for corporate use. If they wish to use the code they are under restrictions that can mean big problems if they are even accidentally violated.
This is pretty much pure FUD.
If they "accidentally" violate a commercial license then they could be on the hook for millions of dollars. With the GPL the choice is generally to distribute the source or stop distributing. Hell, even with the recent "aggressive" enforcement, the only really onerous bit is paying $5k per time to have future FOSS projects vetted. Compared to settling a lawsuit with a commercial vendor, it's peanuts.
Why *wouldn't* they put the time into rewriting it in house? It's pretty easy when you're essentially transcribing source code.
If they're transcribing source code then they've absolutely within the bounds of derivative work and will fall foul of copyright law.
The GPL is a great hobbyist license but it's a pain in the ass at the corporate level, especially when you aren't really a software firm.
It's less onerous that many commercial licenses. The problem comes from the lax attitude towards it. If people further down your supply chain were including commercial code or libraries without the proper license compliance then things would be worse.
"Don't take it from me, look up the website for any professional engineering body and see what the requirements are to join."
Sure, have done, would be joined now if there was a way as the criteria are not that onerous.
"Nice little joke but I'm trying to be serious here."
Then I'll say what I said to the other guy - the engineering ethics code is pretty much just promising not to do things that are already against the law, and to be nice on top. Not all that meaningful.
Fair enough, but "I could have been a contender" does not equal champion even if the rules are skewed to unfairly keep you out of the ring.
If you think that's what I'm trying to say then you haven't been listening.
Most of the stuff in the code is illegal to transgress whoever you are, the rest is ill defined and fluffy, and along the lines of being a decent human being.
For instance I doubt many people go to prison over this one -
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.
If they fail to train underlings, yet I'm pretty sure this one -
Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption
The engineer uses the hammer too, because management have decided there is not enough time or resource to implement the perfect fit, despite the future savings in support costs.
"just don't try to pretend like some of the others above that it makes you equivalent to a professional engineer."
Tell me how it's not equivalent.
The I haven't signed a code of ethics does not mean I do not adhere to one (or agree to something very, very similar every year, it's called business conduct). That I don't have the certification/accreditation is down to the IEEE dithering for decades on the subject.
Let me know when the IEEE has come up with a certification for software engineers, and I'll take it.
Until such time I'm going to continue to call myself a Software Engineer, because it's the title that one of the world's largest computer and tech firms gives me, and it's the role I perform.
The only advantage I can see right now is the battery life.
The kind of phones I like don't have the battery life of the mp3 player I lost a few weeks ago. The phones have more storage than the mp3 player did, but the battery in that battered old Archos Gmini XS202 lasted weeks!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. With a resume like that, I sure as hell wouldn't hire you without some pretty good convincing.
Looks to me like you've never held down a job more than a year.
Eliminate? No probably not. That's the entire point of this though isn't it? You can't eliminate it.
What you can do is make it a much smaller problem. iTunes, Spotify and various other competing services do this for Music. Music piracy seems to be less and less common as a result.
Make something like that for movies and tv shows, where people can download good quality, DRM-free stuff for a few bucks, regardless of which country they're in, and watch piracy shrink massively.
Agreed - we disagree and it's hard, if not impossible, to prove what proportion fall in which camp. I have my suspicions, you have yours.
I suggest we each open another beer in the name of gettin' along :)
Unwanted by whom?
Well, we ain't never going to agree on that. But you admit at least that you are anti-sex in general, so you're not really going against my point there.
Very few people really believe that though.
They'll use it, sure, but what they really believe is that women shouldn't be having sex and then having an easy way out of the ensuing pregnancy.
It's why the same people are usually anti-contraception as well.
Oh sure, I was just wondering if the ever-expanding area of IP law had encroached on this area lately, DMCA and onwards?
I can't say I've seen the driver issues you talk about.
Things tend (for me) to either work in linux, because the driver is supplied as a kernel module, or there's just no driver. In fact, for me, it's now considerably easier than windows. You don't even have to think about installing or rolling back drivers, because they're either just there already, or not available.
That's just me though, and what you're used to is a large part of it. I certainly do fall into the 1% here though.
Was 2004 the last time you tried linux?
I didn't really start using it seriously until about '06.
That hypothetical situaion is not them having to pay out millions to a third party.
You, as usual.
Of course there are, in which case they shouldn't be using any GPL code. They probably want to make sure they're not using any unlicensed commercial stuff as well, checking the supply chain. Likely allo that would happen is that they'd have to stop shipping until the matter was resolved and the offending code removed. This would also happen with commercial code. It's very unlikely that they could be forced to open their codebase if they took these actions.
You're way off base here.
The bootloader locking is to prevent malware from being loading itself before the OS, and to prevent the loading of alternate, "untrusted" operating systems. Even a pirate version of the operating system loads a real windows kernel...
Besides which, presumably a windows tablet comes with windows? What's the concern with piracy of the OS there? It's non-windows tablets that are the possible problem, and they won't have locked bootloaders.
I don't believe Windows 7 was pirated due to PCs having open bootloaders I'm afraid. Plus MS has never shown an interest in stopping this behaviour either, because it benefits them to maintain the mindshare.
Exactly, there are all sorts of licenses for all sorts of different situations. If you have no intention of opening your code, don't use GPL'd software. It's pretty easy. No need to go waving your arms about in panic about accidental compliance violations.
The busybox cases that people seem to get up in arms about are where a company has deliberately used busybox and is not complying license, despite being asked and reminded about it multiple times. These companies are in knowing violation and continue to violate.
This does not make the GPL "a shitty license for corporate use", IMHO, just one that some companies feel (rightly in many cases) that they can get away with violating.
On the surface of it? No, no problem. The motive, however, seems to be to provide an alternative so that companies can continue to violate the GPL, just without the bit that people get serious over. This is what people have a problem with.
Yup, I don't buy Sony any more.
"Commercially licensed code is not the only other option. This discussion compares using GPLed code to developing in-house, where there is no chance of liability."
Except TFA refers to an open source model (Sony dev putting out a call to other developers), the whole discussion is about the removal of busybox as a way to sidestep the GPL and the problems it supposedly causes, and the guy I was replying to made the absolute statement that the GPL was a pain in the ass at the corporate level and only good for hobbyists, opening it up for comparison against other licensing models.
Otherwise sure, totally irrelevant.
*facepalm*
Yes, I've heard of this sort of thing, seems a neat enough way to sidestep copyright.
It's considerably more complex than just "transcribing code", I'm sure it's been done as much in the pursuit of FOSS as in the pursuit of closed source software.
Out of interest, has this been tried in a court in recent years?
Just wondering if the general IP hysteria has affected whether or not this procedure is legal.
It's called Adblock Plus.
Just add a rule that blocks facebook.com and fbcdn.com unless you're on a facebook site. Job done :)
And if you're someone that is of the opinion that Ad Blocking is immoral somehow, then just make sure you run Adblock Plus without a subscription to any adblock feeds, so you only ever block things manually.
I'll just stop you there.
The problem with ARM is that it's not x86.
Yet Linux is x86 and it's not making any gains.
I think you might be trying to say that anything that's not Windows on x86 is going to be a failure?
I wonder, do you have the same attitude to Windows 8's much touted ARM version?
Yes, of course, we should always moderate how we behave in order that we might better fit into our next interchangeable corporate shoebox!
http://xkcd.com/137/
Ah, but if you've violated the terms you've lost the license, and may need to comply with other terms in order for the copyright holder or their representative to grant you a new one.
At least that's my understanding of how the SFLC says it works.
Actually that applies to trademarks, not usually copyright.
Copyright is automatic in most nations. In the US I believe things are a little more complicated, and there are caps on compensation and legal remedies available to you if you haven't registered something. However things are still automatically covered by copyright - this law was necessary for the US to join one of the international copyright treaties a few decades back (IIRC).
It may be worth getting a second opinion on that....
OTOH, IANAL, so YMMV, and I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time!
Yup, because dissassembly is so easy!
I hate this line of argument. A mechanism to keep the source flowing is useful even in a world where reverse engineering and distribution of binaries is allowed.
I'm not sure how you would achieve it, but it's still useful.
This is pretty much pure FUD.
If they "accidentally" violate a commercial license then they could be on the hook for millions of dollars. With the GPL the choice is generally to distribute the source or stop distributing. Hell, even with the recent "aggressive" enforcement, the only really onerous bit is paying $5k per time to have future FOSS projects vetted. Compared to settling a lawsuit with a commercial vendor, it's peanuts.
If they're transcribing source code then they've absolutely within the bounds of derivative work and will fall foul of copyright law.
It's less onerous that many commercial licenses. The problem comes from the lax attitude towards it. If people further down your supply chain were including commercial code or libraries without the proper license compliance then things would be worse.
Don't worry! There will be more than enough time for that after college. I think they call it an office job...
"Don't take it from me, look up the website for any professional engineering body and see what the requirements are to join."
Sure, have done, would be joined now if there was a way as the criteria are not that onerous.
"Nice little joke but I'm trying to be serious here."
Then I'll say what I said to the other guy - the engineering ethics code is pretty much just promising not to do things that are already against the law, and to be nice on top. Not all that meaningful.
Fair enough, but "I could have been a contender" does not equal champion even if the rules are skewed to unfairly keep you out of the ring.
If you think that's what I'm trying to say then you haven't been listening.
Most of the stuff in the code is illegal to transgress whoever you are, the rest is ill defined and fluffy, and along the lines of being a decent human being.
For instance I doubt many people go to prison over this one -
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.
If they fail to train underlings, yet I'm pretty sure this one -
Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption
Is a matter of law anyway.
And wow, did you think I was claiming that an MCSE made me an engineer?
LOL. I was going more along the lines of ten years of designing and writing stable, mission-critical server systems.
The engineer uses the hammer too, because management have decided there is not enough time or resource to implement the perfect fit, despite the future savings in support costs.
Tell me how it's not equivalent.
The I haven't signed a code of ethics does not mean I do not adhere to one (or agree to something very, very similar every year, it's called business conduct). That I don't have the certification/accreditation is down to the IEEE dithering for decades on the subject.
Let me know when the IEEE has come up with a certification for software engineers, and I'll take it.
Until such time I'm going to continue to call myself a Software Engineer, because it's the title that one of the world's largest computer and tech firms gives me, and it's the role I perform.
The only advantage I can see right now is the battery life.
The kind of phones I like don't have the battery life of the mp3 player I lost a few weeks ago. The phones have more storage than the mp3 player did, but the battery in that battered old Archos Gmini XS202 lasted weeks!