"The OSI certification made it mandatory for source code to be made available. Else, the certification will be revoked. Read the OSD again at http://opensource.org/docs/osd and burn the document contents on your mind. With BSD license, making the source code available IS MANDATORY!"
1. It's not in the license. 2. Still doesn't mean people down the chain can necessarily get at it, and they certainly aren't guaranteed access to derived code. 3. You might want to check out this thread in which it is discussed and people come to the conclusion the the OSI term "source must be available" refers to whether a piece of software is open source, not a given license.
"With many companies and individuals listed in my previous post out there, I dare say I am living in col-hard reality!"
Yet end users still don't have the freedom to get the source code for derived versions under the BSD license, a freedom granted under GPL, and a freedom you don't consider worth protecting. I don't consider the freedom to make closed derivatives worth protecting. If you still don't accept that GPL and BSD provide different freedoms for different people, well, I've done my best. You're still wrong.
"The reason for your hypothetical situation is technical, not legal. In this Internet day and age, the mandatory availability of the source code by Developer A, who will likely use third-party repositories like sourceforge/github, will ensure that your scenario will not happen."
you have a different understanding of the word mandatory to everyone else in the world. The BSD license does no make it mandatory to do this.
"My point is BSD will give all the freedoms that GPL gives the users and developers, plus even more. BSD is a super-set of GPL. Different freedoms? Hell no!"
Then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's that simple.
"How many times I have said that transfer of copyright is possible, like in CC-BY? I can take a CC-BY article, change a font and typeface here and there, and make the authorship as me as long as the credit is given."
If you owned the copyright then you wouldn't have to give credit. You have a license to use the original content and you have copyright over the derived versions (or parts of it). There are differences. This is the last I will say on this topic as it's clear you have trouble understanding.
"So, your problem is mostly technical instead of legal. Here I thought Developer A actively prevent User C from accessing Developer A's source code. Then there is nothing wrong at all with what Developer A or B has done, under the BSD license. You have to prove malice upon the part of Developer A to even make this fly on self-respecting USA courts."
Make what fly? There is no legal issue here and there's nothing for the courts to get involved with. Under BSD nobody has any legal obligation to provide source, so it's possible that if a user wants source to an application under BSD they won't be able to get it, because nobody wants to give it to them. Perfectly legal. No need to get any courts involved. I don't know what the hell you're driving at here, but you're not making any sense.
I'm pointing out the difference between the two licenses, that in a BSD situation customer C might not be able to get source to the software running on their device, but under GPL they can. Do you dispute this? Because if you do we may as well give up here.
"The freedom to deny freedom to others is a plus"
Not to a lot of people. What don't you understand about this? How long is it going to take to get through your incredibly thick skull to the slow, half-dead brain-matter that's inside it? This is not seen by everyone as a plus, or "more" free than the other way. In fact many people see that as a massive negative.
This has been my whole point since the first post, people disagree about what constitutes freedom, If you want the freedom to deny freedom to others you go for it. People like me will continue grant freedom to end users in what we do, and deny people like you the freedom to make closed versions of our code. There are different freedoms. GPL gives some, BSD gives others.
The transfer of copyright happened when the term of the license is complied to (credit).
Really, it didn't, you might want to look at the legal situation a bit more closely if you think that's the case. There is no transfer of copyright. You simply have a license to use the code under the terms of the BSD license. These terms are very, very permissive as we know, but they are still there and must be complied with. If copyright was actually transferred you wouldn't have to abide by the attribution clause because you would own the copyright. What you have is a license, how many more times does this need to be said?
So I can actually make a BSD-licensed software but yet not make the source code available? Somehow I feel that argument of yours will not fly in any self-respecting courts in the US.
Yes. It would be totally pointless, but you could, easily do so.
More to the point I was actually trying to make - Developer A writes BSD code. Developer B grabs a copy, alters it, embeds it in some device or program. This takes them 2 years. User C buys the device or program. In those two years Developer A got bored and took down their website. Now there is no code at all available to user C, let alone the code that is actually running on their device. With GPL Developer B would be responsible for getting the code to User C. With BSD nobody has to give it to them.
Considering that WD use off-the-shelf parts for their NAS, I will beg to differ. Disclaimer: I work for Western Digital until the end of last year.
Then you should know that even when using the same ARM core, things can be set up and attached to the core in multiple different ways, with multiple different GPIO/MPP/IRQ configurations, onboard memory devices, ethernet controllers, SATA setups, custom button and LED controllers and a multitude of other board specific stuff.
I raise you GPLv3/APGL. Tivo and Google has done nothing wrong with their usage of Linux, yet FSF and RMS sees it fits to create GPLv3 and AGPL. Thank God Mr. Torvalds doesn't bite. GPLv3 and AGPL reflects the militant stance of FSF and RMS.
What is right and wrong in this situation? Some GPL code contributors didn't want people to be able to use their code in a situation where the user has no freedom to alter their device, so they went to GPLv3. Some had a problem with software patents and so they went to GPLv3. Some thought that what Tivo did was fine, so they stuck with v2. They were making a trade-off between the rights of developers and the rights of end users. BSD is further along towards developer rights, GPL more towards user rights.
"The option by derivative programs to not offer source code is a freedom given to you by the BSD license, not a drawback. That's why BSD is superior than GPL. It is called flexibility.
It's a freedom to deny freedom to others. It is a drawback for anybody that you give the derivative program too. They have no rights under BSD.
And by using BSD license, source code availability is pretty much guaranteed.
No, it isn't, as discussed above, it's only available as long as someone wants to provide it, and then it's quite likely not to be the version you're running.
Can you cite any famous BSD-licensed project that doesn't make their source code available?
Why would I cite a famous one? it's the less famous ones that will suffer from this, the stuff round the edges.
Do you realize that BSD is an OSI-approved license? I wonder if OSI will approve the license if source code is not guaranteed."
Sorry, can you point to the part in the BSD license that says that I have to make any code I release under BSD available forever and to anyone that asks?
I don't remember that section.
The BSD does nothing to guarantee that someone who receives a binary can get the source, any source. That is the fact of the matter. It does nothing to guarantee anything and that's its strength to you, it's also its weakness to me.
typo - "The BSD does give the user the right to the source of the code they are running." should read "The BSD does not give the user the right to the source of the code they are running."
"Considering that credit has already being given, why not?"
Because that's not how it works, the author is not assigning the copyright to you. If they were there would be no legal need for attribution as you would be the copyright owner.
"With BSD, recipients of the binaries can also get the source code. Since when this isn't so"
They have no right to get the source code for the binary they have been given. The original author has no obligation to to provide anything either. The BSD does give the user the right to the source of the code they are running.
Yet, just in case if Western Digital uses a BSD OS, and did not release the source code, I as a developer and a user, can go straight to the source that Western Digital also uses for their NAS,
Which may or may not be available anywhere and doesn't have any of the stuff in it that make it work on that model, so good luck with that.
"and get the source code there. And with the terrible job Western Digital has done with their own customized BSD OS (if your claim is accurate), I might as well do so."
Except that the device specific initialisation is going to be missing, and it's going to cost you months instead of days to get any useful results.
I have already said to you in this post that both users and developers benefits more on BSD license, as opposed to GPL which only benefits users.
Yes, and you were just as wrong then as you are now.
If I write software, I will make it available on BSD license so that users and developers can actually use them as they sees fit, not tied down by the policies of RMS and FSF.
The GPL doesn't tie you to the policies of RMS and the FSF either.
BSD can guarantee source code availability
Not of the derivative program I'm running and not really at all, nobody is obliged to provide any source under BSD.
(no more bullsh*t about BSD programs doesn't give you source codes)
It's not bullshit.
and the licensing flexibility that developers won't get from GPLed codes.
Yes, the flexibility to deny source code to their users.
"Yet the YAMP 2010's copyright belongs to the derivative developers, not the owner of the original program."
The produced binary, yes. The source, no. Their alterations are under their copyright, the original bits are licensed under the terms of the BSD license.
The original developer who makes the BSD-licensed original program cannot go to the courts, claiming ownership to the GPL (or closed source) new program (with proper credit) and win
Yes they could, easily. WHAT they could win is not a lot, probably only attribution, but they could still win it because they copyright is not given to the new developer, only licensed.
If I take a BSD-licensed application, change the bare minimum so that trademarked portions of the program was changed/removed, and make it available as mine (under GPL, with credit), I for sure can claim copyright for it.
You are confused about copyright law. If you had complete copyright control of the new thing then you wouldn't have to attribute it to anyone as you would own it completely. You are using the code under the terms of the BSD license and must attribute as you yourself admit.
"You need to have the ability to switch copyright ownership to be able to make BSD-licensed code be available under different license(s)."
You really don't. Nobody is assigning you their copyrights by using the BSD license, they are just giving you a very permissive license.
"If the derivative program is not mine, why on earth should I get lawful access to the source code of the derivative program?"
Unless someone has given you the binary, then you don't. If someone has given you the binary, then you should get access to the source because that's what the original developer wanted, because the GPL has given you the freedom that the BSD didn't, to have the source of the program you are running.
"Developers and users can still get access to my BSD-licensed source code."
Which is useless because it won't run on $Hardware that the extended version came on.
GPL may give users access to the source code of the YAMP 2010 (a freedom attained), but it prevents developers from using them for whatever purpose and license they want to use (another freedom lost).
This is rather the point, that each has different freedoms. If you want users to be able to get the source for a binary they are given, then use GPL. If you want developers to be able to distribute binaries without source further down the line, then use BSD.
Me, as a user of devices that have come with linux on them, and being interested in customising them, I'm very glad that the likes of western digital are required to release the source for the software on the NAS I bought, because I have the freedom to look at what they did and change it without having to completely reverse engineer the platform support. As a user I now have freedom and control over my device which the BSD license would not have allowed me. And given the terrible state of the source tarball I did get from WD I have no doubt that if they had used BSD software they just wouldn't have released it.
"And if the derivative program developers used a closed source license for YAMP 2010, the end users and developers can still have the source code of AMP 2010, with complete freedom to do what they please with it."
Not necessarily any use at all, as explained above.
Look - I'm not out for a dick-waving contest here, or a "my license is better than yours" contest (Ok, so I may have said that in the last post, but it was just a reaction to your initial assertions. Just realise that that neither is 'more free' than the other, they provide different freedoms. I personally prefer the GPL because if I write open software for 'the community' then if you want to use it then I want you to play by the same rules and let people further down the chain continue to have freedom to examine and modify their software. That's important to me. If it means a third party ca
I love it. It's not changed massively in the last few years, true, but I don't really get why it should. It works, it looks fine, it's pretty responsive and light enough for general use....
Freedom of the user to access source code for a binary they've been given, therefore granting the user just as much freedom as everyone else in the chain. This is the big one BSD is missing.
Dev A writes a BSD licensed component. Dev B takes it, extends it, ports it to a new device and sells the device to user C.
User C, under BSD, has no right to the code running on the device (s)he bought. Under the GPL they do have this right, and the freedom to then change, develop and redistribute. This is how things like the linksys router scene crop up. The GPL protects the users freedom, BSD doesn't.
"that person who make the derivative software will own the copyright to every single line of the newly-made GPL-ed software,"
False.
They own the copyright to their changes, as in the previous situation, but they are using the rest under the license granted by the copyright holder, the BSD license.
"My right will be preserved, and I don't have to whine for access to source codes of any other software which copyright I don't own (Yet Another Music Player 2010)."
And that's fine, if you don't mind not having access to stuff that used your code as a base, and if you don't mind users not having access to the source code for the programs they are running. The GPL provides those users with the rights to the source for YAMP 2010, with the freedom to change and redistribute the program. If the people who relicensed your code chose a closed license then their end users would not have these rights.
This is why GPL is always better than BSD any day, because the user has the freedom to modify and redistribute.
The old. tired BSD vs GPL argument is not needed here.
There are good reasons to use one over the other, but I'm sorry, freedom has different definitions. GPL grants freedoms to end users that BSD does not. BSD grants rights to developers and distributors that GPL does not. It is not magically "more free".
There was a time when most laptops came with an IR port.
And surprisingly enough, you could do similar transfers with windows. Also mobile phones used to have IR and you could use it between phone and PC or between two phones.
It is about a decade old. Trigger Happy TV was one of those things that was only really enjoyable in its time. Which is strange for something that's not really topical.
"Because what it sounds like, is someone hacked the game and developed a cheating tool that works in both multi-player and single-player, and Blizzard banned some people who used the tool but only used it in single player."
No. Blizzard are pursuing legal action against folks who made a tool to poke around in the memory on their own computer, and distributed this tool.
Ban them from your network all you like. Legal action on that is just wrong.
Re:Glad I play games just to have fun
on
Diablo 3 Hands-On
·
· Score: 1
So because 99% of other people lend their support to something you find unacceptable, you should just give in and support it too?
Screw that. The only way anything is going to change on this planet is if people have some principles and stick to them. Maybe it'll take 50 years, maybe nothing will ever happen, but if people actually started to think about what they're buying we'd be in a better place.
"the DRM wouldn't affect pirates who crack the software, but it would affect the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know. The average user doesn't know how and wouldn't do this, right?"
The average user knows about P2P, and can download a cracked version from there. It delays things by a few days usually. The average user then participates in a bittorrent swarm, uploading bits and pieces to others that need it. And then they can burn copies for their friends.
DRM annoys the hell out of me, and it's not 'cos I want to rip stuff off. That's easy.
We watched it all about a year ago. Start to finish.
S1 was cheesy. S2-4 were great fun and compelling. The start of S5 felt kinda like they were just killing time. The end of S5, Crusade and the other spinoffs/pilots just felt like punishment.
Really? Most people were put off by difficulty in NG?
I played Ninja Gaiden Sigma, not black, though AFAICT they were pretty much the same game. Normal was a challenge, sure, but it wasn't impossible. And it was so much fun that trying again wasn't a chore.
We're talking about mobile operating systems. FWIW, ATMs seem to use a 'normal' version of windows rather than CE. MS do embedded versions of their mainstream OS.
Slashdot Mirror
"The OSI certification made it mandatory for source code to be made available. Else, the certification will be revoked. Read the OSD again at http://opensource.org/docs/osd and burn the document contents on your mind. With BSD license, making the source code available IS MANDATORY!"
1. It's not in the license.
2. Still doesn't mean people down the chain can necessarily get at it, and they certainly aren't guaranteed access to derived code.
3. You might want to check out this thread in which it is discussed and people come to the conclusion the the OSI term "source must be available" refers to whether a piece of software is open source, not a given license.
"With many companies and individuals listed in my previous post out there, I dare say I am living in col-hard reality!"
Yet end users still don't have the freedom to get the source code for derived versions under the BSD license, a freedom granted under GPL, and a freedom you don't consider worth protecting. I don't consider the freedom to make closed derivatives worth protecting.
If you still don't accept that GPL and BSD provide different freedoms for different people, well, I've done my best. You're still wrong.
"The reason for your hypothetical situation is technical, not legal. In this Internet day and age, the mandatory availability of the source code by Developer A, who will likely use third-party repositories like sourceforge/github, will ensure that your scenario will not happen."
you have a different understanding of the word mandatory to everyone else in the world. The BSD license does no make it mandatory to do this.
"My point is BSD will give all the freedoms that GPL gives the users and developers, plus even more. BSD is a super-set of GPL. Different freedoms? Hell no!"
Then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's that simple.
"How many times I have said that transfer of copyright is possible, like in CC-BY? I can take a CC-BY article, change a font and typeface here and there, and make the authorship as me as long as the credit is given."
If you owned the copyright then you wouldn't have to give credit.
You have a license to use the original content and you have copyright over the derived versions (or parts of it). There are differences.
This is the last I will say on this topic as it's clear you have trouble understanding.
"So, your problem is mostly technical instead of legal. Here I thought Developer A actively prevent User C from accessing Developer A's source code. Then there is nothing wrong at all with what Developer A or B has done, under the BSD license. You have to prove malice upon the part of Developer A to even make this fly on self-respecting USA courts."
Make what fly? There is no legal issue here and there's nothing for the courts to get involved with. Under BSD nobody has any legal obligation to provide source, so it's possible that if a user wants source to an application under BSD they won't be able to get it, because nobody wants to give it to them. Perfectly legal. No need to get any courts involved. I don't know what the hell you're driving at here, but you're not making any sense.
I'm pointing out the difference between the two licenses, that in a BSD situation customer C might not be able to get source to the software running on their device, but under GPL they can. Do you dispute this? Because if you do we may as well give up here.
"The freedom to deny freedom to others is a plus"
Not to a lot of people. What don't you understand about this? How long is it going to take to get through your incredibly thick skull to the slow, half-dead brain-matter that's inside it? This is not seen by everyone as a plus, or "more" free than the other way. In fact many people see that as a massive negative.
This has been my whole point since the first post, people disagree about what constitutes freedom, If you want the freedom to deny freedom to others you go for it. People like me will continue grant freedom to end users in what we do, and deny people like you the freedom to make closed versions of our code. There are different freedoms. GPL gives some, BSD gives others.
End of fucking story.
The transfer of copyright happened when the term of the license is complied to (credit).
Really, it didn't, you might want to look at the legal situation a bit more closely if you think that's the case. There is no transfer of copyright. You simply have a license to use the code under the terms of the BSD license. These terms are very, very permissive as we know, but they are still there and must be complied with. If copyright was actually transferred you wouldn't have to abide by the attribution clause because you would own the copyright. What you have is a license, how many more times does this need to be said?
So I can actually make a BSD-licensed software but yet not make the source code available? Somehow I feel that argument of yours will not fly in any self-respecting courts in the US.
Yes. It would be totally pointless, but you could, easily do so.
More to the point I was actually trying to make - Developer A writes BSD code. Developer B grabs a copy, alters it, embeds it in some device or program. This takes them 2 years. User C buys the device or program. In those two years Developer A got bored and took down their website. Now there is no code at all available to user C, let alone the code that is actually running on their device. With GPL Developer B would be responsible for getting the code to User C. With BSD nobody has to give it to them.
Considering that WD use off-the-shelf parts for their NAS, I will beg to differ. Disclaimer: I work for Western Digital until the end of last year.
Then you should know that even when using the same ARM core, things can be set up and attached to the core in multiple different ways, with multiple different GPIO/MPP/IRQ configurations, onboard memory devices, ethernet controllers, SATA setups, custom button and LED controllers and a multitude of other board specific stuff.
I raise you GPLv3/APGL. Tivo and Google has done nothing wrong with their usage of Linux, yet FSF and RMS sees it fits to create GPLv3 and AGPL. Thank God Mr. Torvalds doesn't bite. GPLv3 and AGPL reflects the militant stance of FSF and RMS.
What is right and wrong in this situation? Some GPL code contributors didn't want people to be able to use their code in a situation where the user has no freedom to alter their device, so they went to GPLv3. Some had a problem with software patents and so they went to GPLv3. Some thought that what Tivo did was fine, so they stuck with v2. They were making a trade-off between the rights of developers and the rights of end users. BSD is further along towards developer rights, GPL more towards user rights.
"The option by derivative programs to not offer source code is a freedom given to you by the BSD license, not a drawback. That's why BSD is superior than GPL. It is called flexibility.
It's a freedom to deny freedom to others. It is a drawback for anybody that you give the derivative program too. They have no rights under BSD.
And by using BSD license, source code availability is pretty much guaranteed.
No, it isn't, as discussed above, it's only available as long as someone wants to provide it, and then it's quite likely not to be the version you're running.
Can you cite any famous BSD-licensed project that doesn't make their source code available?
Why would I cite a famous one? it's the less famous ones that will suffer from this, the stuff round the edges.
Do you realize that BSD is an OSI-approved license? I wonder if OSI will approve the license if source code is not guaranteed."
Sorry, can you point to the part in the BSD license that says that I have to make any code I release under BSD available forever and to anyone that asks?
I don't remember that section.
The BSD does nothing to guarantee that someone who receives a binary can get the source, any source.
That is the fact of the matter.
It does nothing to guarantee anything and that's its strength to you, it's also its weakness to me.
typo - "The BSD does give the user the right to the source of the code they are running." should read "The BSD does not give the user the right to the source of the code they are running."
"Considering that credit has already being given, why not?"
Because that's not how it works, the author is not assigning the copyright to you. If they were there would be no legal need for attribution as you would be the copyright owner.
"With BSD, recipients of the binaries can also get the source code. Since when this isn't so"
They have no right to get the source code for the binary they have been given. The original author has no obligation to to provide anything either. The BSD does give the user the right to the source of the code they are running.
Yet, just in case if Western Digital uses a BSD OS, and did not release the source code, I as a developer and a user, can go straight to the source that Western Digital also uses for their NAS,
Which may or may not be available anywhere and doesn't have any of the stuff in it that make it work on that model, so good luck with that.
"and get the source code there. And with the terrible job Western Digital has done with their own customized BSD OS (if your claim is accurate), I might as well do so."
Except that the device specific initialisation is going to be missing, and it's going to cost you months instead of days to get any useful results.
I have already said to you in this post that both users and developers benefits more on BSD license, as opposed to GPL which only benefits users.
Yes, and you were just as wrong then as you are now.
If I write software, I will make it available on BSD license so that users and developers can actually use them as they sees fit, not tied down by the policies of RMS and FSF.
The GPL doesn't tie you to the policies of RMS and the FSF either.
BSD can guarantee source code availability
Not of the derivative program I'm running and not really at all, nobody is obliged to provide any source under BSD.
(no more bullsh*t about BSD programs doesn't give you source codes)
It's not bullshit.
and the licensing flexibility that developers won't get from GPLed codes.
Yes, the flexibility to deny source code to their users.
"Yet the YAMP 2010's copyright belongs to the derivative developers, not the owner of the original program."
The produced binary, yes. The source, no. Their alterations are under their copyright, the original bits are licensed under the terms of the BSD license.
The original developer who makes the BSD-licensed original program cannot go to the courts, claiming ownership to the GPL (or closed source) new program (with proper credit) and win
Yes they could, easily. WHAT they could win is not a lot, probably only attribution, but they could still win it because they copyright is not given to the new developer, only licensed.
If I take a BSD-licensed application, change the bare minimum so that trademarked portions of the program was changed/removed, and make it available as mine (under GPL, with credit), I for sure can claim copyright for it.
You are confused about copyright law. If you had complete copyright control of the new thing then you wouldn't have to attribute it to anyone as you would own it completely. You are using the code under the terms of the BSD license and must attribute as you yourself admit.
"You need to have the ability to switch copyright ownership to be able to make BSD-licensed code be available under different license(s)."
You really don't. Nobody is assigning you their copyrights by using the BSD license, they are just giving you a very permissive license.
"If the derivative program is not mine, why on earth should I get lawful access to the source code of the derivative program?"
Unless someone has given you the binary, then you don't. If someone has given you the binary, then you should get access to the source because that's what the original developer wanted, because the GPL has given you the freedom that the BSD didn't, to have the source of the program you are running.
"Developers and users can still get access to my BSD-licensed source code."
Which is useless because it won't run on $Hardware that the extended version came on.
GPL may give users access to the source code of the YAMP 2010 (a freedom attained), but it prevents developers from using them for whatever purpose and license they want to use (another freedom lost).
This is rather the point, that each has different freedoms. If you want users to be able to get the source for a binary they are given, then use GPL. If you want developers to be able to distribute binaries without source further down the line, then use BSD.
Me, as a user of devices that have come with linux on them, and being interested in customising them, I'm very glad that the likes of western digital are required to release the source for the software on the NAS I bought, because I have the freedom to look at what they did and change it without having to completely reverse engineer the platform support. As a user I now have freedom and control over my device which the BSD license would not have allowed me. And given the terrible state of the source tarball I did get from WD I have no doubt that if they had used BSD software they just wouldn't have released it.
"And if the derivative program developers used a closed source license for YAMP 2010, the end users and developers can still have the source code of AMP 2010, with complete freedom to do what they please with it."
Not necessarily any use at all, as explained above.
Look - I'm not out for a dick-waving contest here, or a "my license is better than yours" contest (Ok, so I may have said that in the last post, but it was just a reaction to your initial assertions. Just realise that that neither is 'more free' than the other, they provide different freedoms. I personally prefer the GPL because if I write open software for 'the community' then if you want to use it then I want you to play by the same rules and let people further down the chain continue to have freedom to examine and modify their software. That's important to me. If it means a third party ca
What's actually wrong with Gnome?
I love it. It's not changed massively in the last few years, true, but I don't really get why it should. It works, it looks fine, it's pretty responsive and light enough for general use....
Freedom of the user to access source code for a binary they've been given, therefore granting the user just as much freedom as everyone else in the chain. This is the big one BSD is missing.
Dev A writes a BSD licensed component. Dev B takes it, extends it, ports it to a new device and sells the device to user C.
User C, under BSD, has no right to the code running on the device (s)he bought. Under the GPL they do have this right, and the freedom to then change, develop and redistribute. This is how things like the linksys router scene crop up. The GPL protects the users freedom, BSD doesn't.
"that person who make the derivative software will own the copyright to every single line of the newly-made GPL-ed software,"
False.
They own the copyright to their changes, as in the previous situation, but they are using the rest under the license granted by the copyright holder, the BSD license.
"My right will be preserved, and I don't have to whine for access to source codes of any other software which copyright I don't own (Yet Another Music Player 2010)."
And that's fine, if you don't mind not having access to stuff that used your code as a base, and if you don't mind users not having access to the source code for the programs they are running. The GPL provides those users with the rights to the source for YAMP 2010, with the freedom to change and redistribute the program. If the people who relicensed your code chose a closed license then their end users would not have these rights.
This is why GPL is always better than BSD any day, because the user has the freedom to modify and redistribute.
Stop right there. Really.
The old. tired BSD vs GPL argument is not needed here.
There are good reasons to use one over the other, but I'm sorry, freedom has different definitions. GPL grants freedoms to end users that BSD does not. BSD grants rights to developers and distributors that GPL does not. It is not magically "more free".
Go ahead.
You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.
my thoughts too. Plug in, mkfs.ext2 /dev/sdb1, done.
There was a time when most laptops came with an IR port.
And surprisingly enough, you could do similar transfers with windows. Also mobile phones used to have IR and you could use it between phone and PC or between two phones.
What if it wasn't accidental?
The kid was 4!!
It is about a decade old. Trigger Happy TV was one of those things that was only really enjoyable in its time. Which is strange for something that's not really topical.
I drove 27000 around the coast of australia this year. maybe instead I should have driven from the UK to Perth.
"Because what it sounds like, is someone hacked the game and developed a cheating tool that works in both multi-player and single-player, and Blizzard banned some people who used the tool but only used it in single player."
No. Blizzard are pursuing legal action against folks who made a tool to poke around in the memory on their own computer, and distributed this tool.
Ban them from your network all you like. Legal action on that is just wrong.
So because 99% of other people lend their support to something you find unacceptable, you should just give in and support it too?
Screw that. The only way anything is going to change on this planet is if people have some principles and stick to them. Maybe it'll take 50 years, maybe nothing will ever happen, but if people actually started to think about what they're buying we'd be in a better place.
"the DRM wouldn't affect pirates who crack the software, but it would affect the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know. The average user doesn't know how and wouldn't do this, right?"
The average user knows about P2P, and can download a cracked version from there. It delays things by a few days usually. The average user then participates in a bittorrent swarm, uploading bits and pieces to others that need it. And then they can burn copies for their friends.
DRM annoys the hell out of me, and it's not 'cos I want to rip stuff off. That's easy.
We watched it all about a year ago. Start to finish.
S1 was cheesy.
S2-4 were great fun and compelling.
The start of S5 felt kinda like they were just killing time.
The end of S5, Crusade and the other spinoffs/pilots just felt like punishment.
Kinda what I was thinking. I love sci-fi, but friday night's when I'm out doing fun stuff with friends and/or dates.
"but the potential for Windows Phone 7 is enormous"
What is this meme and where did it come from, or are you a paid shill?
MS has been an also ran in the mobile OS market for as long as it's been in it, and one more release makes little to no difference to that.
Really? Most people were put off by difficulty in NG?
I played Ninja Gaiden Sigma, not black, though AFAICT they were pretty much the same game. Normal was a challenge, sure, but it wasn't impossible. And it was so much fun that trying again wasn't a chore.
I loved that game.
Did you miss the important word in the summary?
I admit that I did on first read.
MOBILE
We're talking about mobile operating systems. FWIW, ATMs seem to use a 'normal' version of windows rather than CE. MS do embedded versions of their mainstream OS.
Also, ATMs, hotel televisions... not mobile.