I'm not aware of it even being used for piracy. I have the Homebrew Channel installed and it's great fun to play a few things on, plus occasionally turn the Wii into a media player.
IIRC it can be used to play out-of-region games. Which is a GOOD thing.
Is it morally superior to just give money away to whoever asks or to put it towards something that will definitely continue to do the public good, ensuring that those that gain advantage from it also help?
"In other words, thank God we've got Richard Stallman to use the legal system to beat people into submission, and force them to do exactly what WE want them to do. It might be unfortunate, but given that said people work for corporations, they're not as equal as we are, and hence, their wellbeing doesn't count.
I love the smell of freedom, don't you?"
Where do you get this steaming bullshit?
Everyone is equal under the GPL, equally bound to give out the source for any binaries they distribute. If you want to say that's less "free" then go ahead, but it's hardly inequal. You want to play with GPL code, you have to reciprocate.
"Linux pundits represent meaninglessness in its worst form - they don't contribute source code, they don't earn money off it, they don't do Linux support, they only spend money on games."
I do all of those things, except *only* spending money on games, but I do spend money on games.
We have different words for these things because they are not the same. This does not make either of them right or wrong, or justify doing one but not the other.
If you can't hold more than one idea in your head at a time then you're the moron.
There have been a lot of cases (the linksys modding scene for instance) in which the lack of GPL would have meant no release of source or tools. There are a variety of other examples.
I also don't believe for a second that linux would have got where it is today, with multiple big-name companies supporting it and contributing to it if they had not been forced to reopen their changes.
Thirdly, lots of people don't like the idea of contributing to a project which can then be swept up and used by commercial entities without them being made to have the courtesy to contribute back.
At this point BSD is basically an also-ran. Great project, great OS I'm sure, but not on the same level as linux or supported in anything like the same way in terms of FOSS and commercial software. At least a some of this is down to the environment created by the differing licenses.
"Your second paragraph makes slightly more sense, but I don't think you're right at all. The original from which you derived is still available, and still just as free, you're not taking anything away there."
You're taking someone's work without their permission, that's the abuse.
Because we just call them muffins over here. Very tasty, not too popular these days though. We also call the US style muffins (cakey things) muffins, just so we can keep things clear.
You're getting into a VERY grey area there. GPL v2 clause 3 (just after subsection c) -
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Now, if your code is dynamically linked at build time and won't even start without the GPL library, I would argue that you're not in the clear. If, however, you code something to dynamically load up a GPL library at runtime, if it's available, and otherwise use some other facility, and the general operation of your program is much the same... well you're probably OK. Probably.
Nope, sorry, I think it's you that misunderstands.
BSD licensed products cannot use GPL components as they are not under the GPL. BSD code can be brought into a GPL project, but GPL code and GPL libraries cannot be used by BSD.
"If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A together)."
What is a derived work is a contentious issue, but using dynamic links does NOT absolve you of the need to go GPL, regardless of your distribution policy. Just shipping things on separate media doesn't stop you being a derivative work.
"Let's face it: If the source code of a shareware app is released, it'll be cloned and ripped off within days."
Right, and what you're wanting to do by using GPL code without adhering to the rules is different from "ripping off" how? It was released so it can be used by others who are playing the same game, openness.
You want people to pay for your closed source app, not to give your source back to the community, this is a totally different arena and not what the GPL'ers were aiming at. Sorry, open the source or write your own.
It depends how much of his seed becomes sterile. And it also depends on whether he sells his crop for food or to other farmers as seed. It could ruin him.
"And most to get back to my point above, his own seed isn't contaminated with sterility or any such nonsense."
Ummm - are you trying to be funny or are you actually developmentally challenged?
The terminator gene prevents seed from germinating, not the plants from fertilising each other.
Farmer A grows terminator, farmer B does not. Farmer B finds that much of the seed he saved from his crop will not grow because his plants happen to be downwind of and thus fertilised by Farmer A's DRM crop.
"I was talking about deliberate chemical or viral manipulation not being the same as either form of selection."
Should read
"I was talking about direct, deliberate chemical or viral manipulation of DNA, particularly insertion of genes across species or human invented sequences, not being the same as either form of selection as it does not take place via selection".
Does this mean things are going to be harmful? Not necessarily, but we ought to be careful.
"I do not know you as an individual so I cannot say 'you'."
Yes you can, you were replying directly to my post
However, I can address the population that uses the phrase that you have used as that population I have had many experiences with.
No, you can make assumptions and generalisations based on what you think I'm like due to a combination of life experiences and media characterisation. This gives you an excuse to address stereotypes and straw-men rather than the content of my argument.
And it does have quite a bit to do with the argument at hand, artificial selection and natural selection are all mechanics of evolution and a means to change genetic material. Semantics matter, no educational debate can be had without an agreement of terms. In this particular instance, to say that artificial selection isn't evolution negates your argument. Personally I blame poor teachers and pop culture for indoctrinating you into believing otherwise.
I didn't say anything about artificial selection not being evolution. I was talking about deliberate chemical or viral manipulation not being the same as either form of selection.
I'm sorry if that was ambiguous, I didn't think it was *that* ambiguous though.
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy, I haven't bought any for about six months anyway.
I meant, is there a way to avoid a bricking of the nintendo products I already own?
I'm not aware of it even being used for piracy. I have the Homebrew Channel installed and it's great fun to play a few things on, plus occasionally turn the Wii into a media player.
IIRC it can be used to play out-of-region games. Which is a GOOD thing.
What exactly do they have to gain here?
What's the best course of action here?
I don't have BootMii installed at present.
There's nothing wrong with certificates.
You just need the browser to not include all the broken ones, and potentially have a "bank mode" that only uses a CA run by your actual bank.
Morally superior. Cute.
Is it morally superior to just give money away to whoever asks or to put it towards something that will definitely continue to do the public good, ensuring that those that gain advantage from it also help?
You're a zealot.
"In other words, thank God we've got Richard Stallman to use the legal system to beat people into submission, and force them to do exactly what WE want them to do. It might be unfortunate, but given that said people work for corporations, they're not as equal as we are, and hence, their wellbeing doesn't count.
I love the smell of freedom, don't you?"
Where do you get this steaming bullshit?
Everyone is equal under the GPL, equally bound to give out the source for any binaries they distribute. If you want to say that's less "free" then go ahead, but it's hardly inequal. You want to play with GPL code, you have to reciprocate.
And that's supposed to fix your ridiculous rant is it?
You're still wrong.
"Linux pundits represent meaninglessness in its worst form -
they don't contribute source code, they don't earn money off it,
they don't do Linux support, they only spend money on games."
I do all of those things, except *only* spending money on games, but I do spend money on games.
Next unfounded rant please.
FreeBSD was mentioned in particular, and that's what I was addressing.
But I agree, there are quite a few places where BSD licensed code is used.
Sure about that?
I'm not talking about desktop systems here. Look at the server room and the embedded markets and I think you'll see something quite, quite different.
We have different words for these things because they are not the same. This does not make either of them right or wrong, or justify doing one but not the other.
If you can't hold more than one idea in your head at a time then you're the moron.
Do ignore the other reply you got from that vulgar poster.
It's a cow pat.
Ah, the BSD troll.
There have been a lot of cases (the linksys modding scene for instance) in which the lack of GPL would have meant no release of source or tools. There are a variety of other examples.
I also don't believe for a second that linux would have got where it is today, with multiple big-name companies supporting it and contributing to it if they had not been forced to reopen their changes.
Thirdly, lots of people don't like the idea of contributing to a project which can then be swept up and used by commercial entities without them being made to have the courtesy to contribute back.
At this point BSD is basically an also-ran. Great project, great OS I'm sure, but not on the same level as linux or supported in anything like the same way in terms of FOSS and commercial software. At least a some of this is down to the environment created by the differing licenses.
Old troll is old.
"Your second paragraph makes slightly more sense, but I don't think you're right at all. The original from which you derived is still available, and still just as free, you're not taking anything away there."
You're taking someone's work without their permission, that's the abuse.
Are you english?
Because we just call them muffins over here. Very tasty, not too popular these days though. We also call the US style muffins (cakey things) muffins, just so we can keep things clear.
You're getting into a VERY grey area there. GPL v2 clause 3 (just after subsection c) -
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Now, if your code is dynamically linked at build time and won't even start without the GPL library, I would argue that you're not in the clear. If, however, you code something to dynamically load up a GPL library at runtime, if it's available, and otherwise use some other facility, and the general operation of your program is much the same... well you're probably OK. Probably.
Nope, sorry, I think it's you that misunderstands.
BSD licensed products cannot use GPL components as they are not under the GPL. BSD code can be brought into a GPL project, but GPL code and GPL libraries cannot be used by BSD.
"If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A together)."
What is a derived work is a contentious issue, but using dynamic links does NOT absolve you of the need to go GPL, regardless of your distribution policy. Just shipping things on separate media doesn't stop you being a derivative work.
"Let's face it: If the source code of a shareware app is released, it'll be cloned and ripped off within days."
Right, and what you're wanting to do by using GPL code without adhering to the rules is different from "ripping off" how?
It was released so it can be used by others who are playing the same game, openness.
You want people to pay for your closed source app, not to give your source back to the community, this is a totally different arena and not what the GPL'ers were aiming at. Sorry, open the source or write your own.
The inherent abuse is in that you wouldn't be allowed to have the VLC source if you didn't agree to the rules.
It's not as simple as "code you yourself wrote", because it's code you yourself wrote as a derivative of something else.
It depends how much of his seed becomes sterile. And it also depends on whether he sells his crop for food or to other farmers as seed. It could ruin him.
"And most to get back to my point above, his own seed isn't contaminated with sterility or any such nonsense."
No, it just won't ever germinate. Great!
Ummm - are you trying to be funny or are you actually developmentally challenged?
The terminator gene prevents seed from germinating, not the plants from fertilising each other.
Farmer A grows terminator, farmer B does not. Farmer B finds that much of the seed he saved from his crop will not grow because his plants happen to be downwind of and thus fertilised by Farmer A's DRM crop.
Just to avoid further ambiguity -
"I was talking about deliberate chemical or viral manipulation not being the same as either form of selection."
Should read
"I was talking about direct, deliberate chemical or viral manipulation of DNA, particularly insertion of genes across species or human invented sequences, not being the same as either form of selection as it does not take place via selection".
Does this mean things are going to be harmful? Not necessarily, but we ought to be careful.
"I do not know you as an individual so I cannot say 'you'."
Yes you can, you were replying directly to my post
However, I can address the population that uses the phrase that you have used as that population I have had many experiences with.
No, you can make assumptions and generalisations based on what you think I'm like due to a combination of life experiences and media characterisation. This gives you an excuse to address stereotypes and straw-men rather than the content of my argument.
And it does have quite a bit to do with the argument at hand, artificial selection and natural selection are all mechanics of evolution and a means to change genetic material. Semantics matter, no educational debate can be had without an agreement of terms. In this particular instance, to say that artificial selection isn't evolution negates your argument. Personally I blame poor teachers and pop culture for indoctrinating you into believing otherwise.
I didn't say anything about artificial selection not being evolution. I was talking about deliberate chemical or viral manipulation not being the same as either form of selection.
I'm sorry if that was ambiguous, I didn't think it was *that* ambiguous though.
[CITATION NEEDED]