May I be the first to do so regardless of whether anything is legitimised; that would make it even worse IMO--as I don't download non-free (as in freedom) music or software, and this would be very unfair to copyright holders who do not join the local German monopolistic protection racketeers.
I guess because you have found their links to be good in the past or you know they have similar interests to you. Like http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html is a sort of blog. Also, the same applies somewhat to journals too.
Actually a lot of people, if they think about it, care about the freedom of controlling their computer (even if they employ others to fix things).
No one wants to not be in control of their computer. Users do want to be able to customsie their computer to do what they want and at least be able to get someone else to fix problems (at competitive prices). Users don't want their computer having spyware or viruses or being cracked or reporting their activities or sensitive data back to Microsoft or deleting content that Microsoft considers inappropriate or locking them out of reading their own documents. Users want to know what programs their machine is running or what it is downloading. All of these are arguments for using free software.
A computer is a tool. Why would anyone have a tool which they could not control, which has a mind of its own?
Actually, as has been said before, internal documents at Microsoft reveal that they try to encourage unlawful copying of their software by private individuals as part of their business strategy (to lock-in the government and corporate markets).
Well, I think he's a bit of an extremist. Of course, you need someone like that to start the revolution.
I have news for you buddy: we still are fighting the revolution and will be for a long time to come.
In fact now is probably the most dangerous time for free software as Microsoft, The SCO Group, et al are on the attack, and software patents, "trusted" computing, &c loom large.
Linus is a nice guy but when did you last see him really doing something to help the movement get past these distructive forces...
I naturally pronounced it the same was a RMS when I first heard it because it was capitalised so was obviously an acronym, and acronyms are usually either spelled out or pronounced letter by letter phonetically (without silent letters).
Clearly saying "nu" would cause confusion so no one would call it that--thought they may spell it out (but nothing wrong with that).
Actually the GNU project did not fill in the holes that others left out; it was the original idea to create a free operating system. The FSF produced all the basic parts of GNU which needed to exist before the kernel could be written. The FSF kept changing the design of their own kernel for various reasons (technical and copyright) and in the end Linus made a working kernel with GNU before the FSF (althought their Hurd kernel is now relatively stable--I used it the other day).
Acknowledging that "software as service" can be just like using the software on your own machine in certain circumstances will be the main difference between version 3 and version 2 of the GNU GPL. RMS should be producing a draft of verson 3 sometime soon (in next year or so).
This brevity thing seems like an argument the other way to me as `GNU' is shorter and sweeter than `Linux'. The majority of the software in your average distro carries the GNU label, all the non-kernel core components are by the FSF and GNU was the original name for the OS (or family of distros) before Linus came along (and non-Linux-based GNU systems work much the same as Linux ones).
I think, with hindsight, what made him look silly was calling it "GNU/Linux" (instead of just "GNU")--the butt of many a joke.
Why the compromise, which no one is seriously going to use in everyday conversation? If he was going to give into Linus he should have gone the whole hog, or better still stuck to his guns.
I call it "GNU" when I'm talking about the OS as a whole and "Linux" when I'm talking about the kernel.
There is a confusion with using "Linux" for both which this solves (as well as acknowledging the much larger role of the FSF than Linus and making links to freedom).
"GNU" sounds nicer and is shorter than "Linux". But both are a lot shorter than "GNU slash Linux".
Of course, GNU was the original name after all and non-Linux-based GNU systems are very similar to Linux-based ones from the point of view of the end user (and in philosophy).
Except drudge doesn't usually write anything, so it's not really a blog. Usually just posts links to news articles already out there.
That is actually the original meaning of "blog" or "web log"--a log of web pages (or news articles) one has recently visited on the web. Many consider that the wider use of the term is incorrect and these should be described as online journals.
Of course, if you seriously have created a musical work and want to reduce your risk of being sued by key players, you may wish to pay your local monpolistic protection gang (e.g.: RIAA) to not sue you (and even to have their money/contacts/lawyers/hitmen/crackers/bribed judges and politicians/&c at your disposal). Do bare in mind that you may then be held responsible for any criminal activity they perform on your behalf though.
As far as I know (and this obviously depends on jurisdiction) the burden of proof needed would be no greater than that for any other civil or criminal case.
That is, in the UK, where I am, (and I believe many other jurisdictions) "beyond reasonable doubt" if it is a criminal prosecution and "on the balance of probability" for a civil suit.
If you have not copied anyone elses work in the making of your work (even if by conicidence it happens to be similar or the same as an existing copyrighted work), you own the copyright on the work. Therefore, you can issue licenses to whoever you wish.
If someone does then come along and claim you violated their copyright, they have to prove that you used their work in the creation of yours or that it would be impossible for you to come up with a work so similar.
In this respect copyright is different from patents (where the patent holder can sue you for infringement even if you came up with the idea entirely independently and knew nothing of their patent).
Obviously. That is distributing as opposed to using the software.
I was talking about Microsoft not being able to restrict your use of the software after you have bought it (for instance they say you cannot use their software to write anything which is critical of Microsoft, that you reliquesh rights such as your rights to privacy (and data protection) and to not have your machine cracked and maliciously damaged by Microsoft and their associates).
I'm sorry but this is one of the most dumbass comments in this increasingly ignorance-filled discussion so I felt I had to comment.
Yet another reason to NOT use windows
I think you'll find that (whatever objections you may have about percievied user-friendliness) the GUI employed has nothing to do with security or privacy as the underlying technlogies and libraries/source may be and often are the same. The real issue is that the software cannot be trusted and security issues cannot easily be fixed as it is proprietary.
Yet another reason TO USE Macs
I think you'll find that this is a reason not to use Macs and MacOS which are based on opaque, proprietary software and hardware and heavily employ DRM and other anti-privacy technologies. Also Apple are heavily involved with the RIAA et al.
And the point of visiting their WWW sites, is? All looks like lies and BS to me.
The MSW EULA is clearly not a valid contract in any jurisdiction AFAIK--ask your lawyer--for many reasons including the following.
Clicking a button does not constitute legally binding agreement.
You have been sold the software so now own it and can use it in anyway you like.
The attempt at a contract is not valid because it is one-sided (i.e.: only Microsoft gets anything out of it). A contract must be, by definition, two way, otherwise it is only a promise.
It also is invalid as it contains unfair terms and unlawfully does not allow both sides to change its terms (at least in the EU).
It also attempts to increase Microsoft's criminal monopoly in the US and the EU.
Some of its terms are also explicitly illegal in many jurisdictions (particularly the one quoted).
Is the assumption to be that everything is copyrighted and therefore undistributable without an explicit licence?
Yes, that is the assumption in all jurisdictions that recognise copyright (i.e.: are signed up to the Berne convention) and you also do not need to register copyright (and indeed, except in the case of the USA, there are no registration procedures). A "license" means explicit permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful.
Is so, would that not mean that public domain material have to be explicitely labelled as such in order for people to safely share it?
You have to understand that/. has a massive pro-US bias (and most of its readers come from there).
<SI>If Bush doesn't like the country then it must be undemocratic (because every one knows that Bush was democratically elected) so we must drop bombs on all the civilians.</SI>
Slashdot Mirror
May I be the first to do so regardless of whether anything is legitimised; that would make it even worse IMO--as I don't download non-free (as in freedom) music or software, and this would be very unfair to copyright holders who do not join the local German monopolistic protection racketeers.
I guess because you have found their links to be good in the past or you know they have similar interests to you. Like http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html is a sort of blog. Also, the same applies somewhat to journals too.
No one wants to not be in control of their computer. Users do want to be able to customsie their computer to do what they want and at least be able to get someone else to fix problems (at competitive prices). Users don't want their computer having spyware or viruses or being cracked or reporting their activities or sensitive data back to Microsoft or deleting content that Microsoft considers inappropriate or locking them out of reading their own documents. Users want to know what programs their machine is running or what it is downloading. All of these are arguments for using free software.
A computer is a tool. Why would anyone have a tool which they could not control, which has a mind of its own?
Actually, as has been said before, internal documents at Microsoft reveal that they try to encourage unlawful copying of their software by private individuals as part of their business strategy (to lock-in the government and corporate markets).
In fact now is probably the most dangerous time for free software as Microsoft, The SCO Group, et al are on the attack, and software patents, "trusted" computing, &c loom large.
Linus is a nice guy but when did you last see him really doing something to help the movement get past these distructive forces...
Clearly saying "nu" would cause confusion so no one would call it that--thought they may spell it out (but nothing wrong with that).
Actually the GNU project did not fill in the holes that others left out; it was the original idea to create a free operating system. The FSF produced all the basic parts of GNU which needed to exist before the kernel could be written. The FSF kept changing the design of their own kernel for various reasons (technical and copyright) and in the end Linus made a working kernel with GNU before the FSF (althought their Hurd kernel is now relatively stable--I used it the other day).
Acknowledging that "software as service" can be just like using the software on your own machine in certain circumstances will be the main difference between version 3 and version 2 of the GNU GPL. RMS should be producing a draft of verson 3 sometime soon (in next year or so).
This brevity thing seems like an argument the other way to me as `GNU' is shorter and sweeter than `Linux'. The majority of the software in your average distro carries the GNU label, all the non-kernel core components are by the FSF and GNU was the original name for the OS (or family of distros) before Linus came along (and non-Linux-based GNU systems work much the same as Linux ones).
Why the compromise, which no one is seriously going to use in everyday conversation? If he was going to give into Linus he should have gone the whole hog, or better still stuck to his guns.
I call it "GNU" when I'm talking about the OS as a whole and "Linux" when I'm talking about the kernel. There is a confusion with using "Linux" for both which this solves (as well as acknowledging the much larger role of the FSF than Linus and making links to freedom).
"GNU" sounds nicer and is shorter than "Linux". But both are a lot shorter than "GNU slash Linux".
Of course, GNU was the original name after all and non-Linux-based GNU systems are very similar to Linux-based ones from the point of view of the end user (and in philosophy).
Actually both are registered trademarks, but they are freely licensed trademarks AFAIK.
Actually FYI India is probably were the greatest innovation is happening ATM in the software (esp. free software) industry.
They have to prove that you significantly copied from that song that you may have heard 15 years ago.
There is a difference.
Of course, if you seriously have created a musical work and want to reduce your risk of being sued by key players, you may wish to pay your local monpolistic protection gang (e.g.: RIAA) to not sue you (and even to have their money/contacts/lawyers/hitmen/crackers/bribed judges and politicians/&c at your disposal). Do bare in mind that you may then be held responsible for any criminal activity they perform on your behalf though.
That is, in the UK, where I am, (and I believe many other jurisdictions) "beyond reasonable doubt" if it is a criminal prosecution and "on the balance of probability" for a civil suit.
If someone does then come along and claim you violated their copyright, they have to prove that you used their work in the creation of yours or that it would be impossible for you to come up with a work so similar.
In this respect copyright is different from patents (where the patent holder can sue you for infringement even if you came up with the idea entirely independently and knew nothing of their patent).
I was talking about Microsoft not being able to restrict your use of the software after you have bought it (for instance they say you cannot use their software to write anything which is critical of Microsoft, that you reliquesh rights such as your rights to privacy (and data protection) and to not have your machine cracked and maliciously damaged by Microsoft and their associates).
And the point of visiting their WWW sites, is? All looks like lies and BS to me.
What's wrong with Ogg Vorbis or MP3?
In what way does this case relate in any way to protecting property?
They want to destroy the WWW and replace it with their own proprietary versions of HTTP and HTML.
Yes, it is more democratic than the US of A.
/. has a massive pro-US bias (and most of its readers come from there).
You have to understand that
<SI>If Bush doesn't like the country then it must be undemocratic (because every one knows that Bush was democratically elected) so we must drop bombs on all the civilians.</SI>