Nope, geeks get paid to develop software that doesn't exist, since people still need software, they'd still pay someone to make it. Even with the current copyright laws most software developed is not for public distribution.
The main concern is Trident's performance compared to V8 or TraceMonkey.
I can't help thinking that sponsoring a node.js port to Windows is part of the solution. It's V8 and has threading, if they can hook it into IE for the rendering it might make for a decent platform.
The strawman about pushing your opinions onto a crowd is predictably irrelevant. You have to seek out his videos and keep watching, this is very much nothing like addressing an audience that has to actively avoid you if they choose to do so.
Sure, I defend his right to post whatever he wants on YouTube, that's pretty much what it's there for - but what happens afterwards is entirely his responsibility to deal with.
There are lynchings at the end of this road. Continue [y/n]?
A 7 character alphanumeric password has an entropy of ~41 bits, a 7 word passphrase (using his 225 000 possible words) has an entropy of ~124, the equivalent of a 21 character alphanumeric password. Care to revise the 28 second estimate?
But for the examples given (codecs) there is usually enough separation through frameworks like gstreamer that the licenses don't have to be compatible. Not sure where it falls for libraries though.
GPL is not about keeping software free, it's about forcing future software to be like itself.
One would presume that future versions of software are still software. With the presumption that the GPL is indeed your statement is tautologically false. If you are to argue that the mere keeping is making it non-free you will have to use less circular logic.
All the GPL does is limit the freedoms on so-called free code,
That is "all" that every legal framework trying to preserve certain freedoms does.
truly free software wouldn't care how derivative works were used, and they don't.
The GPL doesn't care how derivative works are used, only how they are distributed. Let's assume you did mean "distributed", surely truly free software like the one distributed under modern (without advertising clause and such) BSD licenses wouldn't place restrictions on distribution!
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Except for forcing future source code to be like itself that is...
And requiring attribution.
And preventing the usage of language that appears as if the authors are 'endorsing' it.
But yes, aside from the restrictions that is has it doesn't have any.
Have Linux and GCC made the world a better place? Definitely.
Moreso than the BSD equivalents would have? Of course.
how is using SQLite in a proprietary program any different from using Linux in proprietary hardware?
If no other useful changes are made and it doesn't ease porting to less proprietary hardware there is no difference. Hence GPLv3 as the next step up in licensing options. It is still different on less proprietary hardware.
It's not as if anyone is taking SQLite, modifying it, and selling their modified copy.
It is mostly used as a library, yes. This is why the LGPL exists and why the FSF and common sense suggest licensing some things under a permissive license.
Who'd buy it when SQLite is so good?
People who don't know of SQLite or that what they buying is modified SQLite. People who need a feature in the modified version. If the support is cheaper then from the original author but only given to the proprietary version, that might convince some people as well.
In the end GPL vs more permissive licenses isn't always a personal preference. There are practical considerations as well.
Just because someone makes a closed fork, doesn't mean the original disappears. The original is still there and still free for users, still free for other developers, and society. Your statement is pure copyleft FUD.
The fork however isn't free in most senses.
The whole reason the BSD license exists is to explicitly provide protections to the original author that public domain doesn't explicitly provide, like indemnity to lack of fitness, warranty etc.
Or require contributors listed in ads, you are forgetting your history here. It might be gone, but you can't leave it out of reasons the "license exists". BSD licenses also happen to be file-level copyleft, another thing you conveniently left out (though, most people don't even realise this).
The whole reason the GPL licesne to explicitly provide protections to the original author and all downstream users and developers that public domain doesn't explicitly provide. Two can play this game.
Things you want but don't have aren't your property. Removing the ability of a community to pool their resources to help themselves OTOH can be seen as them being deprived of liberty.
Is that why I don't ever see Apple ads on TV and in magazines, because they don't need them? Someone tell the shareholders that they are wasting money on useless ads. Their mindshare comes from and is maintained with publicity, not all of it explicit, but all of it necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the save button could be a link to the PDF.
As you said, tradition.
Nope, geeks get paid to develop software that doesn't exist, since people still need software, they'd still pay someone to make it. Even with the current copyright laws most software developed is not for public distribution.
I can't help thinking that sponsoring a node.js port to Windows is part of the solution. It's V8 and has threading, if they can hook it into IE for the rendering it might make for a decent platform.
Dear Foredecker. Windows isn't "Windows software" and Office is not "quite a bit". Learn to read. -AC
Wait, you can patent an 8 year old innovation by adding it to a 10 year old patent? And here I thought I had a good grasp on this insanity...
Right the jury or judge doesn't need to find anyone innocent, they are presumed to be unless found guilty.
I also cut weight and batteries...
There are lynchings at the end of this road. Continue [y/n]?
I think you mean "don't dodge taxes if you are not ready to keep the needed features around".
7 random words would be quite easy to remember though.
A 7 character alphanumeric password has an entropy of ~41 bits, a 7 word passphrase (using his 225 000 possible words) has an entropy of ~124, the equivalent of a 21 character alphanumeric password. Care to revise the 28 second estimate?
I might agree with the overall point but that is a stupid argument, for the most obvious problem try to think about bees instead of chimps.
Does it matter if the original is free at all? Derivatives being free matters (or doesn't as the case may be) for the same reasons.
But for the examples given (codecs) there is usually enough separation through frameworks like gstreamer that the licenses don't have to be compatible. Not sure where it falls for libraries though.
Of course the BSD tells you what you can do! If it didn't copyright would prevent most of what the license explicitly allows.
I'd say the patent issues are more of a concern.
One would presume that future versions of software are still software. With the presumption that the GPL is indeed your statement is tautologically false. If you are to argue that the mere keeping is making it non-free you will have to use less circular logic.
That is "all" that every legal framework trying to preserve certain freedoms does.
The GPL doesn't care how derivative works are used, only how they are distributed. Let's assume you did mean "distributed", surely truly free software like the one distributed under modern (without advertising clause and such) BSD licenses wouldn't place restrictions on distribution!
Except for forcing future source code to be like itself that is...
And requiring attribution.
And preventing the usage of language that appears as if the authors are 'endorsing' it.
But yes, aside from the restrictions that is has it doesn't have any.
Make that "Moreso than the BSD equivalents have done? Of course." Need to get coffee.
Have Linux and GCC made the world a better place? Definitely.
Moreso than the BSD equivalents would have? Of course.
If no other useful changes are made and it doesn't ease porting to less proprietary hardware there is no difference. Hence GPLv3 as the next step up in licensing options. It is still different on less proprietary hardware.
It is mostly used as a library, yes. This is why the LGPL exists and why the FSF and common sense suggest licensing some things under a permissive license.
People who don't know of SQLite or that what they buying is modified SQLite. People who need a feature in the modified version. If the support is cheaper then from the original author but only given to the proprietary version, that might convince some people as well.
In the end GPL vs more permissive licenses isn't always a personal preference. There are practical considerations as well.
Code for code is a "free handout"?
The fork however isn't free in most senses.
Or require contributors listed in ads, you are forgetting your history here. It might be gone, but you can't leave it out of reasons the "license exists". BSD licenses also happen to be file-level copyleft, another thing you conveniently left out (though, most people don't even realise this).
The whole reason the GPL licesne to explicitly provide protections to the original author and all downstream users and developers that public domain doesn't explicitly provide. Two can play this game.
Things you want but don't have aren't your property. Removing the ability of a community to pool their resources to help themselves OTOH can be seen as them being deprived of liberty.
Granting monopolies to convince providers to come into town on the other hand is the free market at work...
Is that why I don't ever see Apple ads on TV and in magazines, because they don't need them? Someone tell the shareholders that they are wasting money on useless ads. Their mindshare comes from and is maintained with publicity, not all of it explicit, but all of it necessary.