Even if we use Corel's definition of distribution, this license still doesn't work. Here's why:
They put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to people that qualify as testers, agreeing "not to distribute it". They say, relating to the GPL, that this is "not distribution."
So couldn't you put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to whoever you deemed worthy. Under their OWN definition in getting around the GPL, this is "not distribution." So, therefore, under the same definition, anyone else doing it is "not distribution" either.
Whatever way you look at it, their license makes no sense. Either it violates the GPL, or it creates a definition of distribution which nullifies it. Based on simple logic, there is really no way this license can work.
A GPL license is supposed to follow a product everywhere it goes. Therefore, internal/external, released/unreleased, etc. has nothing to do with the GPL. The GPL is meant to guarantee that you will be able to freely distribute a product, and that source code will always be available.
You really can't make a license that obligates them to upload it to their FTP server. The GPL doesn't say "Said product must be uploaded to an FTP server." However, you cannot prosecute or sue someone for copying a GPL licensed product. Corel derived much of Corel Linux from GPL'd code. So making a copy of that code and giving it to whoever should be legal. Period.
Nuf said. I didn't get to rant about this yesterday, so I figured today was a good day.
Peace, Barleyguy.
Re:What are you so damn afraid of?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. The reason we have civil rights is to protect us from persecution for speaking out mind. For example, I could say "Fuck the government", and they might think I'm a revolutionary. (They might be right:-) Therefore, they might decide to start listening to me, and persecute me for something that has no effect on anyone else, but can somehow be interpreted as being illegal. Then I quietly end up in prison, and people like you automatically think I'm guilty because they said so on the news before my trial. It's the way things really work sometimes.
Who's watching the watchmen?
Re:What about proxies?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Under the true definition of free speech, you can't be forced to keep records. What you choose to write down or not write down is your own free choice.
However, today's world government doesn't seem to be respecting free speech. So we have two choices - do it anyway, or cower like sheep. After all, we have the right - that's why they're called rights.
Re:About "tapping" the Internet...
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 3
About using "drug dealers" to justify invasion of privacy:
I think maybe robot sports needs its own TV channel. I recently heard about a robot soccer tournament, as well as a robot death battle in Vegas. If not an entire channel, maybe a weekly special or something. Or at least a web site with centralized links. Any volunteers to build it?
My point with the pledge has nothing to do with any of this. My point is, that the flag stands for the people, not for the government. The red stripes in the flag actually represent the people's seperation from England. Also, I do not pledge my allegence to the republic, but to my fellow people of the country. If it ever came down to the people against the government, I already know which side I would be on. That's what our flag represents - freedom and revolution - not blind allegence to a republic. That's why I say the pledge that way. Also, I do not agree with the belief that pure democracy would necessitate fear. Fear is a state of mind. There are many laws that do not represent the views of the majority. Also, the people are actually free to make laws, through initiative and referendum. We can even make constitutional amendments, by achieving a 2/3 majority of popular vote. This doesn't work, however, because anything controversial never actually gets printed on the ballot. But this country was not designed in a way that 500 people were supposed to control 250 million. I believe it was originally designed as a republic because of the impossibility of a democracy at the time. But anyhow.
I personally prefer to change the word "republic" to "people". "and to the people for which it stands." This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people.
The amazing thing is, I disagree with you almost exactly on your views of freedom. OR the bits of your message, and you'll be pretty close to how I feel.
First, I think freedom of speech should be ABSOLUTE. Why? Because if you let the government say "we hearby outlaw obscene speech" or "we hereby outlaw hateful speech", then they are free to whittle away at the definition of obscenity or hate. Now, if someone's actions get hateful, that's a different matter entirely. My view on free speech is this, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will NEVER hurt me." The words are someone elses, but your perception and feelings about those words are a totally personal thing.
As far as guns being legal, the reason for that is because you have an obligation to protect your life. Also, if it does come to a point where freedom is being oppressed, you have an obligation to stand up for what you believe in by any means possible. The American Revolution would have been virtually impossible without a few muskets. I live in a place where gun ownership is somewhere around 90-95%, and our murder rate many years is absolute zero. So I can't logically, from my perspective, see anything wrong with having guns. I'm glad we have that type of freedom. Very glad. And I'll be on the front lines if they ever take it away.
Luckily, one of the things we actually have in the U.S. is an open reception policy. You are free to receive anything you want, as long as it's not "scrambled". This is a constitutional law policy, as well as the policy of the FCC. So if you could broadcast from "nowhere", reception shouldn't be a problem.
As far as all the other countries in the world, I'm not sure if they use the same guidelines. But having a covert 6" LEO dish in your attic shouldn't be too difficult. Heck, it's even smaller than a pot plant!
As far as 128 processor SGI's, it would be cool if SGI would contribute some of their IRIX multiprocessor code to the open source community. Would that be better than the current 2.3 stuff?
The CNN article said " Like PGP, GnuPG uses 128-bit encryption." Doesn't PGP support up to 2048 bit encryption? Well, you can't expect technical perfection from mainstream media.:-)
It depends on the content. If the MP3 file loses different frequencies than the SDMI file, you could get something that had a lot of irratating artifacts. Or you could get lucky and get something that sounds great.
It's kind of like converting between lossy graphics formats - sometimes it looks great, sometimes you get complete crap.
I've worked with a lot of Alpha's. All the way from the pizza box 233's to the new DS10. I've NEVER seen NT loaded on one, EVER. I don't think that it's really that relevant. The company I'm at now uses VMS, Digital Unix, and Linux on our Alphas, but the Alpha version of NT is never even considered. It's a joke, really.
I have opinions on both sides of this issue. On one hand, I think open source software on Windows is a good thing, because open source in general is a good thing. I won't waste my time telling you why, because most of you already know why. On the other hand, some of the advantages of open source don't apply to Windows, because the OS itself is closed. One of the greatest advantages to open source is that the open source community can fix bugs from the kernel level upward, which allows us to avoid kludges and workarounds from bugs in the OS. On Windows, if you find a bug in the OS that affects your program, you have no choice but to kludge around it. Under Linux, BSD etc., you can try to find the bug instead of working around it. Actually, you are less likely to have these type of problems in the first place, because someone else may have already done this.
I guess my point is, that open source software on Windows is a good thing, but many of the advantages of open source will never exist on a closed source platform.
Here in the U.S. the government thinks it is much easier to slip in socialism if you pretend that we are free. Neat experiment. But when people finally wake up and figure out what is going on, they're gonna be upset. By the time the sheep figure it out, the gate will already be locked.
What would be really cool, but may not happen, is if SGI decided to open source IRIX, or contribute some of its code to Linux. IRIX has some great things in it, such as 3 shared memory standards, high-end graphics support, etc. Some of that code would be a really great thing to have in the open.
I'm always sorry to hear that SGI is having trouble making money. They have always been a great company for one thing - ideas. They have never been afraid to cut their own path and innovate a little. Maybe they can make some extra cash from working with NVidia.
As far as NT goes, I'm glad they decided to switch to Linux. When high-end, innovative companies choose Linux, it makes the platform look good to other such companies.
First of all, in order to be paranoid, you must be scared. It's very much a different matter to be paying attention. The reason we get upset about this is because we are SUPPOSED to be free. The ONLY reason the government was originally created was to protect out borders from outside interference, and to standardize the economy. Controlling the general population was not even intended. For some reason, you seem to think our founding fathers were not smart enough to see what direction things would be headed. I think exactly the opposite. The reason they TRIED (and apparently are failing) to protect our freedoms is because they did see what direction things were headed. I do NOT think they would support infringing on the people rights in order to create a "greater good". This is the sacrificing of rights for a false illusion of safety. If you think they are protecting you, you are a fool. When you decide to call them to protect you, they will be happy to show up and clean up the mess afterwards. "THE LAW" was created by the people - out of fear. The people trying to protect freedom are not the ones who are paranoid. The ones who blindly give up freedom for a false sense of security are the ones who are paranoid. I DON'T support the "law"'s "right" to fight back by infriging freedom. And I don't hold a fear of fighting against it.
The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" analogy is also pure bull. What if the law makes something illegal that you believe in? Liberty is the right to do what you believe in. We have a right to liberty. Should we hide our liberty, so we have nothing to fear? NO! NO! NO!
When it comes down to it, it's really about good and evil. Evil comes in many forms. There is the evil the law is pretending to protect us from, and there is the evil the law creates - by lack of freedom, by giving crime as an option, and by having a standard "consequence" for evil actions. Law has very little true effect on the balance of good and evil on the planet. So allowing law to do evil, in order to feel protected, is pure foolishness. It simply makes it easier for abuse of power to occur.
This is the information age. It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with information. They are trying to figure who is on their side, and who's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I'm quite bright, so I'm not a lawyer.
Sorry, just had to.
Damn. Now I have that stupid song stuck in my head.
Even if we use Corel's definition of distribution, this license still doesn't work. Here's why:
They put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to people that qualify as testers, agreeing "not to distribute it". They say, relating to the GPL, that this is "not distribution."
So couldn't you put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to whoever you deemed worthy. Under their OWN definition in getting around the GPL, this is "not distribution." So, therefore, under the same definition, anyone else doing it is "not distribution" either.
Whatever way you look at it, their license makes no sense. Either it violates the GPL, or it creates a definition of distribution which nullifies it. Based on simple logic, there is really no way this license can work.
I disagree strongly with Corel on this, actually.
A GPL license is supposed to follow a product everywhere it goes. Therefore, internal/external, released/unreleased, etc. has nothing to do with the GPL. The GPL is meant to guarantee that you will be able to freely distribute a product, and that source code will always be available.
You really can't make a license that obligates them to upload it to their FTP server. The GPL doesn't say "Said product must be uploaded to an FTP server." However, you cannot prosecute or sue someone for copying a GPL licensed product. Corel derived much of Corel Linux from GPL'd code. So making a copy of that code and giving it to whoever should be legal. Period.
Nuf said. I didn't get to rant about this yesterday, so I figured today was a good day.
Peace,
Barleyguy.
I disagree. The reason we have civil rights is to protect us from persecution for speaking out mind. For example, I could say "Fuck the government", and they might think I'm a revolutionary. (They might be right :-) Therefore, they might decide to start listening to me, and persecute me for something that has no effect on anyone else, but can somehow be interpreted as being illegal. Then I quietly end up in prison, and people like you automatically think I'm guilty because they said so on the news before my trial. It's the way things really work sometimes.
Who's watching the watchmen?
Under the true definition of free speech, you can't be forced to keep records. What you choose to write down or not write down is your own free choice.
However, today's world government doesn't seem to be respecting free speech. So we have two choices - do it anyway, or cower like sheep. After all, we have the right - that's why they're called rights.
About using "drug dealers" to justify invasion of privacy:
Choose 1:
[ ] Drug Free America
[ ] Free America
Remember - you only get 1 choice.
Well, maybe the source they did release could get rolled into another open source product...
(By the way, I thought that was informative, not flamebait.)
I think maybe robot sports needs its own TV channel. I recently heard about a robot soccer tournament, as well as a robot death battle in Vegas. If not an entire channel, maybe a weekly special or something. Or at least a web site with centralized links. Any volunteers to build it?
Just some ideas,
Barleyguy.
My point with the pledge has nothing to do with any of this. My point is, that the flag stands for the people, not for the government. The red stripes in the flag actually represent the people's seperation from England. Also, I do not pledge my allegence to the republic, but to my fellow people of the country. If it ever came down to the people against the government, I already know which side I would be on. That's what our flag represents - freedom and revolution - not blind allegence to a republic. That's why I say the pledge that way.
Also, I do not agree with the belief that pure democracy would necessitate fear. Fear is a state of mind. There are many laws that do not represent the views of the majority.
Also, the people are actually free to make laws, through initiative and referendum. We can even make constitutional amendments, by achieving a 2/3 majority of popular vote. This doesn't work, however, because anything controversial never actually gets printed on the ballot. But this country was not designed in a way that 500 people were supposed to control 250 million. I believe it was originally designed as a republic because of the impossibility of a democracy at the time. But anyhow.
It has an assumed noun and verb of "It is". You understood it, didn't you? Then it's not really a sentence fragment. Should we keep going?
I personally prefer to change the word "republic" to "people". "and to the people for which it stands." This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people.
The amazing thing is, I disagree with you almost exactly on your views of freedom. OR the bits of your message, and you'll be pretty close to how I feel.
First, I think freedom of speech should be ABSOLUTE. Why? Because if you let the government say "we hearby outlaw obscene speech" or "we hereby outlaw hateful speech", then they are free to whittle away at the definition of obscenity or hate. Now, if someone's actions get hateful, that's a different matter entirely. My view on free speech is this, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will NEVER hurt me." The words are someone elses, but your perception and feelings about those words are a totally personal thing.
As far as guns being legal, the reason for that is because you have an obligation to protect your life. Also, if it does come to a point where freedom is being oppressed, you have an obligation to stand up for what you believe in by any means possible. The American Revolution would have been virtually impossible without a few muskets. I live in a place where gun ownership is somewhere around 90-95%, and our murder rate many years is absolute zero. So I can't logically, from my perspective, see anything wrong with having guns. I'm glad we have that type of freedom. Very glad. And I'll be on the front lines if they ever take it away.
Luckily, one of the things we actually have in the U.S. is an open reception policy. You are free to receive anything you want, as long as it's not "scrambled". This is a constitutional law policy, as well as the policy of the FCC. So if you could broadcast from "nowhere", reception shouldn't be a problem.
As far as all the other countries in the world, I'm not sure if they use the same guidelines. But having a covert 6" LEO dish in your attic shouldn't be too difficult. Heck, it's even smaller than a pot plant!
As far as 128 processor SGI's, it would be cool if SGI would contribute some of their IRIX multiprocessor code to the open source community. Would that be better than the current 2.3 stuff?
My guess would be that it is GPL, but mainstream media is unaware of the difference.
The CNN article said " Like PGP, GnuPG uses 128-bit encryption." Doesn't PGP support up to 2048 bit encryption? Well, you can't expect technical perfection from mainstream media. :-)
This article is different on a microbiological level. Just like the cloned sheep. :-)
It depends on the content. If the MP3 file loses different frequencies than the SDMI file, you could get something that had a lot of irratating artifacts. Or you could get lucky and get something that sounds great.
It's kind of like converting between lossy graphics formats - sometimes it looks great, sometimes you get complete crap.
I've worked with a lot of Alpha's. All the way from the pizza box 233's to the new DS10. I've NEVER seen NT loaded on one, EVER. I don't think that it's really that relevant. The company I'm at now uses VMS, Digital Unix, and Linux on our Alphas, but the Alpha version of NT is never even considered. It's a joke, really.
---
I have opinions on both sides of this issue. On one hand, I think open source software on Windows is a good thing, because open source in general is a good thing. I won't waste my time telling you why, because most of you already know why.
On the other hand, some of the advantages of open source don't apply to Windows, because the OS itself is closed. One of the greatest advantages to open source is that the open source community can fix bugs from the kernel level upward, which allows us to avoid kludges and workarounds from bugs in the OS. On Windows, if you find a bug in the OS that affects your program, you have no choice but to kludge around it. Under Linux, BSD etc., you can try to find the bug instead of working around it. Actually, you are less likely to have these type of problems in the first place, because someone else may have already done this.
I guess my point is, that open source software on Windows is a good thing, but many of the advantages of open source will never exist on a closed source platform.
Peace.
Here in the U.S. the government thinks it is much easier to slip in socialism if you pretend that we are free. Neat experiment. But when people finally wake up and figure out what is going on, they're gonna be upset. By the time the sheep figure it out, the gate will already be locked.
What would be really cool, but may not happen, is if SGI decided to open source IRIX, or contribute some of its code to Linux. IRIX has some great things in it, such as 3 shared memory standards, high-end graphics support, etc. Some of that code would be a really great thing to have in the open.
I'm always sorry to hear that SGI is having trouble making money. They have always been a great company for one thing - ideas. They have never been afraid to cut their own path and innovate a little. Maybe they can make some extra cash from working with NVidia.
As far as NT goes, I'm glad they decided to switch to Linux. When high-end, innovative companies choose Linux, it makes the platform look good to other such companies.
First of all, in order to be paranoid, you must be scared. It's very much a different matter to be paying attention. The reason we get upset about this is because we are SUPPOSED to be free. The ONLY reason the government was originally created was to protect out borders from outside interference, and to standardize the economy. Controlling the general population was not even intended.
For some reason, you seem to think our founding fathers were not smart enough to see what direction things would be headed. I think exactly the opposite. The reason they TRIED (and apparently are failing) to protect our freedoms is because they did see what direction things were headed. I do NOT think they would support infringing on the people rights in order to create a "greater good". This is the sacrificing of rights for a false illusion of safety. If you think they are protecting you, you are a fool. When you decide to call them to protect you, they will be happy to show up and clean up the mess afterwards.
"THE LAW" was created by the people - out of fear. The people trying to protect freedom are not the ones who are paranoid. The ones who blindly give up freedom for a false sense of security are the ones who are paranoid. I DON'T support the "law"'s "right" to fight back by infriging freedom. And I don't hold a fear of fighting against it.
The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" analogy is also pure bull. What if the law makes something illegal that you believe in? Liberty is the right to do what you believe in. We have a right to liberty. Should we hide our liberty, so we have nothing to fear? NO! NO! NO!
When it comes down to it, it's really about good and evil. Evil comes in many forms. There is the evil the law is pretending to protect us from, and there is the evil the law creates - by lack of freedom, by giving crime as an option, and by having a standard "consequence" for evil actions. Law has very little true effect on the balance of good and evil on the planet. So allowing law to do evil, in order to feel protected, is pure foolishness. It simply makes it easier for abuse of power to occur.
This is the information age. It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with information. They are trying to figure who is on their side, and who's not.
By the way, I'M NOT ON YOUR SIDE, YOU BASTARDS!!!