Re:A good thing...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The GPL ensures that Linux will never cost money itself,...
That's simply not true. There is nothing in the GPL about money. It's about software retaining its freedom. You are substituting "free software" with "linux" which is foolish because linux is only a kernel.
MP3 has open source implementations too, but the difference between MP3 and OGG Vorbis is that Vorbis people tell us that they don't use any sw-patented features. It has nothing to do with open source.
Take for instance RMS, who says not only should software be given away for $0, but if you charge money for software, you are committing an unethical act.
Nope, it's about freedom, freedom only. Learn some GNU philosophy before you open your mouth.
Yeah, and Digital Restrictions Management doesn't even stop where the law ends. At least in USA breaking the DRM is illegal which gives the companies the ability to write their own copyright law.
nethack has always been superior in quite many aspects when compared to commercial games, partly because no commercial game can take that kind of risks in pissing off the gamer.
You confuse non-free and commercial software. Many free software packages accept donations and RMS even sold emacs for a nice profit back in the 80's. Some people are even paid to write free software.
IMHO the name GNU/Linux is good not only for reasons rms suggests but because every GNU/Linux system has the GNU "feel" in them. So, if you have GNU/foobar the users can be quite sure that it behaves like the previous GNU systems they have used.
You Are An Idiot,...Idiots. It just never occurs to you pea-brains...
Ad hominem times two.
And how, exactly, do you propose to keep any sort of reasonable industry afloat if said industry is required to make its products free?
I didn't write anything like that. I was only writing about a revision needed to the current copying monopoly law.
Get the hell over yourselves you content-stealing jackasses. The majority of people would scream bloody murder if the professional content industries crumbled, and that's exactly what would happen if your communist "utopia" were allowed to happen.
Yeah, we need stronger "intellectual property" laws to make sure that they will remain in power forever, owning the ideas of yesterday, making it impossible for new "disneys" to use them in clever ways nobody thought before.
How are they supposed to recover their cost of production in a world where you are making free copies without their persmission?
Isn't it like that today? None of my friends even care about the copyrights in movies, they leech, share and watch all the time. Despite of that movies still get people to the theaters and people buy DVDs.
"There are a lot of similarities with the drug war," said David Israelite, chairman of the U.S. Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task Force. "You never really are going to eliminate the problem, but what you hope to do is stop its growth."
Why not eliminate the "problem" by making non-profit copying legal? Maybe the activity shouldn't be illegal when the half of the population is doing it and doesn't even consider it wrong. Too bad the term intellectual "property" makes this kind of consideration hard, just like the big media wants.
Of course, I think when RMS says "freedom" he means, "freedom from capitalism." I also think that that definition has been demonstrated to be moot by groups like MySQL AB and TrollTech.
You are wrong. RMS himself sold tapes of GNU emacs in the 80's.
Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.
Since when is "friend" defined as non-commercial? Also are you incapable of having friends that do not share your religion? Most of us are not that narrow minded.
He didn't even mention the word non-commercial. Apple is a maker of non-free software and of proprietary hardware. In that perspect it is not any better than Microsoft or nvidia.
It is Free Software philosophy which brought you all the wonderful GNU libraries, tools and things.
It's been said a thousand times in/. and I'll say it again.
Unauthorized copying isn't stealing.
Don't let the "intellectual property" term fool you. Nobody has lost anything and in some of the cases the gain for the society as a whole is posivite (a poor guy copies a $$$ program because he doesn't have money to buy the license).
listing free, daily-use software that is free from spyware, adware, and other malicious/intrusive components.
You can only be sure of that by having the source of the program. I see that you have many pieces of non-free software there in the same list as free. What makes you so sure that a non-free program which you use doesn't have a secret mode in which it obeys its coder, not you.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# Piracy
"Piracy"
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."
The problem isn't that they DRMed their stuff. Fine. Let them. It's theirs, not ours, even if we really, really want it to be.
The problem is that DRM allows the media companies to write their own copyright law. First they put technical measures to prevent copying and after that legal ones to make breaking the copying restriction illegal.
I don't really get this "It's theirs, not ours" thing. The society grants copyrights for progress, not because of intellectual "property".
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL ensures that Linux will never cost money itself,...
That's simply not true. There is nothing in the GPL about money. It's about software retaining its freedom. You are substituting "free software" with "linux" which is foolish because linux is only a kernel.
MP3 has open source implementations too, but the difference between MP3 and OGG Vorbis is that Vorbis people tell us that they don't use any sw-patented features. It has nothing to do with open source.
"Gambling sites are fighting back against extortion from hackers using Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks.
/..
C'mon, this is slashdot and we know the difference between hackers and crackers. Main stream media is allowed to do such a mistake but not
And what happens when some day far far away the copyrights do expire but the DRM is on the way.
Take for instance RMS, who says not only should software be given away for $0, but if you charge money for software, you are committing an unethical act.
Nope, it's about freedom, freedom only. Learn some GNU philosophy before you open your mouth.
Yeah, and Digital Restrictions Management doesn't even stop where the law ends. At least in USA breaking the DRM is illegal which gives the companies the ability to write their own copyright law.
nethack has always been superior in quite many aspects when compared to commercial games, partly because no commercial game can take that kind of risks in pissing off the gamer.
You confuse non-free and commercial software. Many free software packages accept donations and RMS even sold emacs for a nice profit back in the 80's. Some people are even paid to write free software.
I've always thought there should be two versions of linux: bleeding edge, and ignorant housewife editions.
As soon as Linus creates the 2.7 branch we will have both.
IMHO the name GNU/Linux is good not only for reasons rms suggests but because every GNU/Linux system has the GNU "feel" in them. So, if you have GNU/foobar the users can be quite sure that it behaves like the previous GNU systems they have used.
My friends also buy/rent/ go to watch movies.
You Are An Idiot, ...Idiots. It just never occurs to you pea-brains...
Ad hominem times two.
And how, exactly, do you propose to keep any sort of reasonable industry afloat if said industry is required to make its products free?
I didn't write anything like that. I was only writing about a revision needed to the current copying monopoly law.
Get the hell over yourselves you content-stealing jackasses. The majority of people would scream bloody murder if the professional content industries crumbled, and that's exactly what would happen if your communist "utopia" were allowed to happen.
Yeah, we need stronger "intellectual property" laws to make sure that they will remain in power forever, owning the ideas of yesterday, making it impossible for new "disneys" to use them in clever ways nobody thought before.
Intellectual property has you.
How are they supposed to recover their cost of production in a world where you are making free copies without their persmission?
Isn't it like that today? None of my friends even care about the copyrights in movies, they leech, share and watch all the time. Despite of that movies still get people to the theaters and people buy DVDs.
"There are a lot of similarities with the drug war," said David Israelite, chairman of the U.S. Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task Force. "You never really are going to eliminate the problem, but what you hope to do is stop its growth."
Why not eliminate the "problem" by making non-profit copying legal? Maybe the activity shouldn't be illegal when the half of the population is doing it and doesn't even consider it wrong. Too bad the term intellectual "property" makes this kind of consideration hard, just like the big media wants.
Nope, it compensates the "loss" of big media because of private copying.
With the EUCD (EU's DMCA) and DRM in place laws of this type don't make any sense.
With the EUCD (EU's DMCA) and DRM in place laws of this type don't make any sense.
Of course, I think when RMS says "freedom" he means, "freedom from capitalism." I also think that that definition has been demonstrated to be moot by groups like MySQL AB and TrollTech.
You are wrong. RMS himself sold tapes of GNU emacs in the 80's.
Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.
Since when is "friend" defined as non-commercial? Also are you incapable of having friends that do not share your religion? Most of us are not that narrow minded.
He didn't even mention the word non-commercial. Apple is a maker of non-free software and of proprietary hardware. In that perspect it is not any better than Microsoft or nvidia.
It is Free Software philosophy which brought you all the wonderful GNU libraries, tools and things.
Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired).
Mathematics is by definition not patentable. Math is not invented, it is discovered.
It's been said a thousand times in /. and I'll say it again.
Unauthorized copying isn't stealing.
Don't let the "intellectual property" term fool you. Nobody has lost anything and in some of the cases the gain for the society as a whole is posivite (a poor guy copies a $$$ program because he doesn't have money to buy the license).
Shouldn't there be at least a debate on whether or not piracy is really a bad thing?
It would help to use neutral terms, "unauthorized sharing" for example. Piracy is a propaganda term introduced by the publishers.
listing free, daily-use software that is free from spyware, adware, and other malicious/intrusive components.
You can only be sure of that by having the source of the program. I see that you have many pieces of non-free software there in the same list as free. What makes you so sure that a non-free program which you use doesn't have a secret mode in which it obeys its coder, not you.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# Piracy
"Piracy"
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."
The problem isn't that they DRMed their stuff. Fine. Let them. It's theirs, not ours, even if we really, really want it to be.
The problem is that DRM allows the media companies to write their own copyright law. First they put technical measures to prevent copying and after that legal ones to make breaking the copying restriction illegal.
I don't really get this "It's theirs, not ours" thing. The society grants copyrights for progress, not because of intellectual "property".
People let goofy ass politics in the way of practicality.
The goofy ass politics have brought you almost all free software that exists. I think that having policies to gain a certain goal is very practical.