Quoting GPL: "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns".
It isn't about the license, it is about the building blocks of the operating system and about the principal author of the system whose development begun as GNU.
Your scheme requires that the users don't have access to the software which plays the files on the media. For that you need non-free software which is unacceptable. No DRM for me thanks, I don't like my rights restricted.
The site is quite unresponsive at the moment but I really hope that he put some kind of a electro magnetic interference shielding in place. My friend has a computer which lays wide open on his floor and I couldn't even hear the local 2m repeater in the whole building because of the noise. That's not even the worst of it; the components could even radiate on some police/fire etc. repeater input and jam their systems.
You have less freedom with your nvidia. There is always a choice of not using that hardware. I have a radeon 8500 and it works well with 100% free software, opengl and all. IMHO freedom is more important than usability.
That's not so much of a problem. If the users want tried and true java(tm) compatibility they should use sun's official java(tm).
Re:Is the objective of GNU/Linux to recreate Windo
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 1
I thought the objective of Linux was to give people more choices.
This gives people another choice.
Having an option to become someone's slave isn't a good thing. "Linux" was about giving people freedom. You don't get the freedom talk because the OSS folk doesn't want to talk about it.
Re:Is the objective of GNU/Linux to recreate Windo
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 1
I don't get it. Is the objective of GNU/Linux to simply invent another Windows? A platform where essential utilities (and IMHO, a CD/DVD burner program is essential) are commercial?
By sending the letters, the companies who are doing this understand that we're not all rabid loser anti-corporate zealots. Making threats will do nothing more than sour them on the GPL and open source in general.
What if you infriged the copyright of some of the companies who don't obey GPL. Would they be nice? Hell no, you would have the police, the BSA, lawyers and all the shit over you in no time.
See http://oh3tr.ele.tut.fi/english/modifications.html. They need to be reprogrammed and need some hardware hacks but they work. I have an RD58 moppe on my desk which I use to make contacts through local 70cm repeaters. I'm not sure if that is possible for those proprietary phones.
You all tout desktop linux like it's in the near future, then when a company brings a trusted name over to the linux desktop, all you see are complaints about how it's not free.
That's because we value freedom more than popularity.
Yeah, people forget the ideals of GNU when they say only linux and that makes it easy to bundle non-free software. Say free software if you value freedom, not open source:>.
Would you like to open your beloved OperatingSystem to the mainstream, would you want to see it become a real alternative to Windows, with commercial and proprietary applications?
Quoting rms:People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".
Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.
GNU/Linux was developed because developers wanted freedom. It is not wise to lose it simply because you value popularity more.
Linux used to be like that little kid who mowed peoples lawn for next to nothing.. now the kid decided to start it's own business and has to deal with politics.
Except the thing started because of politics. RMS wanted freedom and he started the GNU project whose importance the OSS people constantly play down. Linux is only a kernel and open source is a development methodology.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't one hear better news regarding IP laws?
Calling them "IP laws" is a part of the problem.
That wouldn't be neither free software nor open source then
Quoting GPL: "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns".
It isn't about the license, it is about the building blocks of the operating system and about the principal author of the system whose development begun as GNU.
...Maybe eventually FSF will prevent me from using my own code in commercial products or something.
They can't do that. If you have written the code you can do whatever you wish with it. GPL allows you to use the software under it commercially.
It's time for something that follows pragmatic wishes of most free software developers rather than one person's political agenda.
I don't know about you but I value my freedom with free software. The pragmatical POW is too narrow.
Your scheme requires that the users don't have access to the software which plays the files on the media. For that you need non-free software which is unacceptable. No DRM for me thanks, I don't like my rights restricted.
Unless you include that penguin logo on boot. The graphical desktops have icons, not some kernels.
The site is quite unresponsive at the moment but I really hope that he put some kind of a electro magnetic interference shielding in place. My friend has a computer which lays wide open on his floor and I couldn't even hear the local 2m repeater in the whole building because of the noise. That's not even the worst of it; the components could even radiate on some police/fire etc. repeater input and jam their systems.
You have less freedom with your nvidia. There is always a choice of not using that hardware. I have a radeon 8500 and it works well with 100% free software, opengl and all. IMHO freedom is more important than usability.
"The GNU has grown [strong] teeth!" is more appropriate. When the GPL came out linux didn't even exist.
I have to say that don't even think about some proprietary binary no matter how wrapped and supported it was by distributions.
rms on the subject if someone hasn't read that yet.
The OSS licence agreement requires intellectual property right laws to be in full effect to work.
Why not say that FS/OSS licenses need copyright to function. No need to introduce that stupid IP concept.
rms on trusted computing
That's not so much of a problem. If the users want tried and true java(tm) compatibility they should use sun's official java(tm).
I thought the objective of Linux was to give people more choices. This gives people another choice.
Having an option to become someone's slave isn't a good thing. "Linux" was about giving people freedom. You don't get the freedom talk because the OSS folk doesn't want to talk about it.
I don't get it. Is the objective of GNU/Linux to simply invent another Windows? A platform where essential utilities (and IMHO, a CD/DVD burner program is essential) are commercial?
Commerciality is not bad, non-free software is.
By sending the letters, the companies who are doing this understand that we're not all rabid loser anti-corporate zealots. Making threats will do nothing more than sour them on the GPL and open source in general.
What if you infriged the copyright of some of the companies who don't obey GPL. Would they be nice? Hell no, you would have the police, the BSA, lawyers and all the shit over you in no time.
See http://oh3tr.ele.tut.fi/english/modifications.html . They need to be reprogrammed and need some hardware hacks but they work. I have an RD58 moppe on my desk which I use to make contacts through local 70cm repeaters. I'm not sure if that is possible for those proprietary phones.
Cut the free software crap.
This free software crap brought you GNU/Linux and all the free software we love.
You all tout desktop linux like it's in the near future, then when a company brings a trusted name over to the linux desktop, all you see are complaints about how it's not free.
That's because we value freedom more than popularity.
Yeah, people forget the ideals of GNU when they say only linux and that makes it easy to bundle non-free software. Say free software if you value freedom, not open source :>.
Quoting rms:People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".
Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.
GNU/Linux was developed because developers wanted freedom. It is not wise to lose it simply because you value popularity more.
Piracy is Theft
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Linux used to be like that little kid who mowed peoples lawn for next to nothing.. now the kid decided to start it's own business and has to deal with politics.
Except the thing started because of politics. RMS wanted freedom and he started the GNU project whose importance the OSS people constantly play down. Linux is only a kernel and open source is a development methodology.