If you don't believe something isn't a right you most certainly are disparaging it from the perspective of those who do.
It's less ridiculous if one argues that only sociopaths wouldn't be able to comprehend the argument that restricting options can increase freedom as such, whether they agree or not. I can certainly understand the argument for BSD granting more freedom, even if I can't agree for the general case. Sadly I have encountered people that are completely unable to see the argument for GPL, I wouldn't assert that they are all out sociopaths but, again, I can see where that argument is coming from.
Code signing doesn't cease to be a security feature just because you have the mere ability to do it yourself. Claiming that GPL(v3) forbids code signing indicates you never bothered to understand it. So please kindly stop regurgitating arguments made by other people who couldn't be bothered either.
Not to mention that even though a person can ask to give up their freedom (say, burn the private keys that were provided for them to sign their own code), doesn't mean that they can ask everyone else to give up their freedoms ("You can't license your code in a way that ensures this freedom, because I don't want it.") And of course any distributor who doesn't want to pass this freedom along is perfectly free to not use code which requires it.
The majority of software is produced wrongly, just like the majority of it sucks and the majority of any creative work is crap. Web and webapp development needs to develop practices that don't create IE6 situations (which is what Mozilla is trying to avoid, people were trying to calcify with 3.6 before Mozilla was doing rapid releases!) and if you don't think it's possible, you should ask my bank how they managed to run an internet banking suite that has never denied me entrance, not with the Mozilla suite, not with Phoenix after that, and certainly not with Firefox. It's perfectly possible to do better than shitty whitelisting of hand-tested browsers, it's just that most developers don't seem to have a clue how to deal with compatibility, so they give up and write for a specific platform. Then they wonder how they got stuck in a dead end.
The only thing that is more common with FLOSS is that you actually see the problem. Proprietary software has all the same year old bugs and all the same mostly-useless reports, you just don't see all of it.
Mozilla developers are still not your personal IT department, what is it exactly that you are offering to them to bend over backwards to fit with your particular policies?
Sorry, but there is still no new license, as you put it yourself, there is no spooky action at a distance that attaches a different license to a different copy. Random tautologies about parts not covered under copyright not being covered under copyright don't change that. That meat is that you get a License to modify and distribute the Program under the terms and conditions of the License the first time you receive it as there is exactly one Program and on License in question. And that is the end of the story.
It's not an example, it's an analogy. And since I've sufficiently demonstrated that the GPL doesn't apply to copies, but the distribution of a copyrighted work as such, to you in other replies I'll ignore the rest of the repeated selective quoting that ignores even the other parts of section 6 as it doesn't add anything new. No other terms are not additional restrictions, no there is no instancing for the same code. Now go read the whole license.
According to the reasoning that one has to be 'delusional' to believe that a school project is more professional than a multimillion dollar project it is not a fluke. Clearly everyone involved in picking that as their tool was delusional. The logic is flawed because whether or not something is professional depends solely on a professional's decision to use it.
Depends on whether the given metadata is understood by GIMP. If it doesn't read the metadata of a given format correctly you might want to file a bug/feature request.
Anyway, datapharmer complained about JPEGs in particular. Thing is, most cameras explicitly specify a DPI of 72, you can hardly blame GIMP for using that.
Each Program, as defined in the license, is separately licensed.
Download a copy, burn it to 5 CDs, give the CDs to 5 friends, and erase the original. Where is your license? It is GONE! Without a copy of the software, you don't have a license.
Oh come on, you have based your argument on section 6, which clearly states that you get a license when acquiring a copy, nowhere does it state that your license is tied to that copy, much less that it is terminated by destroying said copy. Once you aquire a copy you have a License for the Program, whether you have a copy on hand or not, until it is terminated per 4 or no longer applies (the Program is no longer under copyright protection).
Alternative scenario - download the program, and copy it to 5 different laptops. Someone violates the terms on ONE laptop.
That isn't possible, you either violated the terms when copying it onto the laptop, or someone violated the terms when redistributing that copy. You can't violate the GPLv2 simply by using or modifying any number of copies by yourself.
Do all of the laptops suddenly become unlicensed?
The GPL doesn't cover either the laptop or the particular copy, it gives you permission to distribute, what happens on the laptop itself is "outside its scope" since "the act of running the Program is not restricted".
There's no magical "quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance between the copies", because nobody received their license from anyone except the original licensor.
Correct, the license doesn't apply to any particular copies, there is no entanglement that makes your new copy any less the same Program under the same License than the last one. Your reasoning is correct on that, it just leads to the wrong conclusion.
You're trying to deny the reality of section 6
You cannot narrow down the whole license to parts of sections 6.
Yes, it's for "the program" - the program being the copy they downloaded, not some mythical copy sitting a thousand miles away.
That is absolutely wrong, the Program is the copyrighted work itself, not any particular copy (neither on your hard drive nor a thousand miles a way). Read the definition of Program and, if you disagree, point out where it discusses any specific copies. Music companies might give you a license to have a copy, that doesn't mean that the GPL does that, it specifically says that it doesn't cover your copy, it covers your distribution rights.
Each time a recipient downloads a new copy, they automatically get a new instance of the license for that software - not ALL GPL software.
You have yet to substanciate the instance claim (I never claimed that you lost your license for all GPL software, merely the Program as defined in the license, GPLv2 for the particular Program, not copy or instance, is what no longer applies to you), the license never discusses license instances or individual copies, it discusses the License as it applies to the Program in question:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Yeah, that would include more than the immediate copy.
This is why, if someone falls afoul of the GPL on one piece of software, say "Foobinator", they can still copy, modify and distribute "Frobinator Deluxe".
Not if Frobintor Deluxe is a derived work, as per above, explicitly in the license.
How hard is that to understand?
I have no problem understanding the argument, it just happens to be based on selective quoting and associated mental gymnastics.
You can not "detect" DPI as it is meta information. There literally isn't anything in the image data that it could be derived from, you can tell it what the DPI should be, that's as good as it gets.
I'm so delusional I honestly believe that a kid's exercise in scheduling the printing of A and B just for fun is at least as good of server than a multimillion dollar software ecosystem. Now could you drop the origin bullshit, it doesn't matter where things start, only where they are now.
PS: A bad hack of an early version of this school project was better for film retouching than Photoshop, explain that with your "logic" of origins.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a new license, notwithstanding any license terminations as per 4,
Popularity from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify this particular copy of the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
...you might have a point. It does not, as such the license you receive "each time" is also the same GPLv2 each time. If you are blacklisted from an establishment you don't receive new permission to enter every time you go through the door, even if it says that "You're welcome".
Yes, you repeated the same bullshit as before, that doesn't change that "this License" (the GPLv2, nowhere does it claim to be per copy, your license is to "the Program", not this "this copy of the Program", not explicit is not there according to you, so be consistent) has been terminated and section six is still "subject to these terms and conditions" nor does it make section four any less part of the license, hence not an additional restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't believe something isn't a right you most certainly are disparaging it from the perspective of those who do.
It's less ridiculous if one argues that only sociopaths wouldn't be able to comprehend the argument that restricting options can increase freedom as such, whether they agree or not. I can certainly understand the argument for BSD granting more freedom, even if I can't agree for the general case. Sadly I have encountered people that are completely unable to see the argument for GPL, I wouldn't assert that they are all out sociopaths but, again, I can see where that argument is coming from.
They don't believe that downstream users should have those rights, how does that not fit "disparaging".
That's why you provide the key with the device, not at request.
Code signing doesn't cease to be a security feature just because you have the mere ability to do it yourself. Claiming that GPL(v3) forbids code signing indicates you never bothered to understand it. So please kindly stop regurgitating arguments made by other people who couldn't be bothered either.
Not to mention that even though a person can ask to give up their freedom (say, burn the private keys that were provided for them to sign their own code), doesn't mean that they can ask everyone else to give up their freedoms ("You can't license your code in a way that ensures this freedom, because I don't want it.") And of course any distributor who doesn't want to pass this freedom along is perfectly free to not use code which requires it.
I don't think you understand the concept of analogy. It's not a direct comparison, absolute magnitude doesn't matter, only relative.
The majority of software is produced wrongly, just like the majority of it sucks and the majority of any creative work is crap. Web and webapp development needs to develop practices that don't create IE6 situations (which is what Mozilla is trying to avoid, people were trying to calcify with 3.6 before Mozilla was doing rapid releases!) and if you don't think it's possible, you should ask my bank how they managed to run an internet banking suite that has never denied me entrance, not with the Mozilla suite, not with Phoenix after that, and certainly not with Firefox. It's perfectly possible to do better than shitty whitelisting of hand-tested browsers, it's just that most developers don't seem to have a clue how to deal with compatibility, so they give up and write for a specific platform. Then they wonder how they got stuck in a dead end.
.doc is preferable only in the sense that no-one is surprised when things break.
The only thing that is more common with FLOSS is that you actually see the problem. Proprietary software has all the same year old bugs and all the same mostly-useless reports, you just don't see all of it.
Mozilla developers are still not your personal IT department, what is it exactly that you are offering to them to bend over backwards to fit with your particular policies?
Sorry, but there is still no new license, as you put it yourself, there is no spooky action at a distance that attaches a different license to a different copy. Random tautologies about parts not covered under copyright not being covered under copyright don't change that. That meat is that you get a License to modify and distribute the Program under the terms and conditions of the License the first time you receive it as there is exactly one Program and on License in question. And that is the end of the story.
Since Apple didn't add any decorative aspects...
No, when a clause uses definitions from another and limits itself to the terms and conditions of them it certainly doesn't modify them.
That's not how law works. AND section 6 explicitly depends on the rest of the license, no matter how much you ignore that part of it.
Cheap shilling of your site + not being able to keep artists and drafters straight. Troll.
It's not an example, it's an analogy. And since I've sufficiently demonstrated that the GPL doesn't apply to copies, but the distribution of a copyrighted work as such, to you in other replies I'll ignore the rest of the repeated selective quoting that ignores even the other parts of section 6 as it doesn't add anything new. No other terms are not additional restrictions, no there is no instancing for the same code. Now go read the whole license.
Yes, working on the right features, as in, this UI change is not the focus of 2.8, GEGL integration (the groundwork for extended color support) is.
According to the reasoning that one has to be 'delusional' to believe that a school project is more professional than a multimillion dollar project it is not a fluke. Clearly everyone involved in picking that as their tool was delusional. The logic is flawed because whether or not something is professional depends solely on a professional's decision to use it.
Depends on whether the given metadata is understood by GIMP. If it doesn't read the metadata of a given format correctly you might want to file a bug/feature request.
Anyway, datapharmer complained about JPEGs in particular. Thing is, most cameras explicitly specify a DPI of 72, you can hardly blame GIMP for using that.
Each Program, as defined in the license, is separately licensed.
Oh come on, you have based your argument on section 6, which clearly states that you get a license when acquiring a copy, nowhere does it state that your license is tied to that copy, much less that it is terminated by destroying said copy. Once you aquire a copy you have a License for the Program, whether you have a copy on hand or not, until it is terminated per 4 or no longer applies (the Program is no longer under copyright protection).
That isn't possible, you either violated the terms when copying it onto the laptop, or someone violated the terms when redistributing that copy. You can't violate the GPLv2 simply by using or modifying any number of copies by yourself.
The GPL doesn't cover either the laptop or the particular copy, it gives you permission to distribute, what happens on the laptop itself is "outside its scope" since "the act of running the Program is not restricted".
Correct, the license doesn't apply to any particular copies, there is no entanglement that makes your new copy any less the same Program under the same License than the last one. Your reasoning is correct on that, it just leads to the wrong conclusion.
You cannot narrow down the whole license to parts of sections 6.
That is absolutely wrong, the Program is the copyrighted work itself, not any particular copy (neither on your hard drive nor a thousand miles a way). Read the definition of Program and, if you disagree, point out where it discusses any specific copies. Music companies might give you a license to have a copy, that doesn't mean that the GPL does that, it specifically says that it doesn't cover your copy, it covers your distribution rights.
You have yet to substanciate the instance claim (I never claimed that you lost your license for all GPL software, merely the Program as defined in the license, GPLv2 for the particular Program, not copy or instance, is what no longer applies to you), the license never discusses license instances or individual copies, it discusses the License as it applies to the Program in question:
Yeah, that would include more than the immediate copy.
Not if Frobintor Deluxe is a derived work, as per above, explicitly in the license.
I have no problem understanding the argument, it just happens to be based on selective quoting and associated mental gymnastics.
You can not "detect" DPI as it is meta information. There literally isn't anything in the image data that it could be derived from, you can tell it what the DPI should be, that's as good as it gets.
They also know that raw is an acronym.
I'm so delusional I honestly believe that a kid's exercise in scheduling the printing of A and B just for fun is at least as good of server than a multimillion dollar software ecosystem. Now could you drop the origin bullshit, it doesn't matter where things start, only where they are now.
PS: A bad hack of an early version of this school project was better for film retouching than Photoshop, explain that with your "logic" of origins.
Yes, you repeated the same bullshit as before, that doesn't change that "this License" (the GPLv2, nowhere does it claim to be per copy, your license is to "the Program", not this "this copy of the Program", not explicit is not there according to you, so be consistent) has been terminated and section six is still "subject to these terms and conditions" nor does it make section four any less part of the license, hence not an additional restriction.