One reason to use the GPL is the hope that someone will give back. Having said this, if anyone wanted to use any of my GPL'd works under another license, I'd let them. I agree with you that it's better the code gets used, why else am I making it freely available in the first place?
I still licence with the GPL though, because as said, I hope people will contribute, and the GPL does encourage that to a certain extent.
I still feel miffed when some middle-man company makes money for doing nothing with some GPL code, ie rebranding and selling. But that's because everyone who contributes nothing to the world pisses me off. Fucking middle-men. But Apple using the code? That's good as far as I can see.
All you GNOME fanatics who haven't tried KDE in years seem to miss the fact that KDE is obviously faster than GNOME nowadays. Thus your point about c++ is not proven this time, although I'm sure you could find an example as I don't deny it.
Like everyone else here, I also want to see it. Can you upload it somewhere anonymously, or something? I can't believe you haven't shared your work at all, but perhaps you haven't shared it with the Net. I'd understand why you wouldn't but it would be great!:)
Of course it's flamebait! The guy insults the OP multiple times! Does it really need to be pointed out that insults tend to inspire flame-war?
In addition the guy's point is obvious, and no doubt has been stated by a non-flaming poster somewhere else, so it will hamper the conversation zero to mod this guy down and mod the non-flaming alternative up.
Given the choice between inventing something and making money, or doing sod all, or accountancy or something, I think most invention-driven firms would invent anyway.
I don't personally think withdrawing the monopoly incentive would make much difference, but if it did, I reckon it would only remove the crappiest innovators from the market.
Real inventors invent because they love it, not because they have a patent incentive anyway. Sure big corps need patent-incentive, but they still have it, just no monopoly rights.
Considering the idea is obvious and fundamental I'd hardly describe it as stealing as much as implementing something obvious and demanded by users world-wide.
I agree with you that many manufacturers throw in a standby mode where it is unecessary and frankly environmentally immoral. My parents have a gas-fireplace with a standby mode. It just sits there and uses very little gas with a tiny flame. I cannot fathom how this is a good thing or a useful thing or anything!
Governments would do us all a favor by making this kind of thing at least discouraged.
I think most people are aware that standby is non-zero wattage. But, I really don't understand why the standby-is-evil thing is quoted so often by Government and do-gooder alike. If most households just turned off their ovens 5 minutes earlier when cooking they'd save the equivalent in energy.
To reiterate my point, I care about the state of the world a great deal, and I worry that making people guilty for leaving their TV on standby just alienates them from our cause.
The graph in the pdf you linked shows less oil consumption, so perhaps my quote was wrong. Although I remember getting it from a similar reputable document.
It's a small price to pay (moving you ass to turn it on) for big savings.
Anyone with any sense with a career in environmental protection tries to make people take one less flight per year (all the cars in uk produce 1 tenth the emissions all the airflights in the UK produce! They persuade people that if they recycle anything, to recycle their aluminium because the carbon savings from, eg glass, are neglible if not negative, but the savings from aluminium are immense. They persuade people to buy electricity from companies that at least pretend to care about emissions. They persuade people to buy food that doesn't have to be flown from New Zealand to get to their plates.
They do not have a go at people about leaving devices on standby.
Standby is there to make life a little easier, and almost all devices make standby easy, and full-power-off harder. Standby wastes relatively, bugger-all electricity. So put things in perspective and don't make people feel guilty about trivial shit, because they will assume that saving the environment is all as tedious and unpleasant, and choose to not do anything at all.
If writing is his method of getting food to the table, then firstly he will want sufficient money in his bank, via the medium of selling his work. After that is satisfied, he will probably want his work to be in the hands of as many people as possible.
That is if he isn't a greedy tosser like Rowling, Madonna, etc. People like that make me sick. Yes, I make money through creative processes too.
Wow, apparently I'm not "anyone" because I find it great. In fact when I first used it I thought, "anyone who doesn't like this must be a effeminate moron!". So you're an effeminate moron? *scans posting history* Yep.
Do you really think the reason Windows succeeded where the other examples did not is multi-user support? I'm tend to put more faith in the fact they dominated the PC market at the time.
I'm 24, and kids fucking ruin MMORPGs for me. Not all of them, just the immature ones.
I stopped playing WoW because I just got fed up with them. When I started playing there weren't many kids playing, and when I left there were apparently still not many kids playing, but for sure, the loud, vocal, wankers were all 12 year olds and less.
I got fed up with having instance-run arguments with morons who couldn't reason and were as rational as my cat. Especially since they can never be bothered to type properly and everything is a translation effort for me. "Lol m8 u suk!" etc.
In summary, I want servers on MMORPGS that are 18+ only. I'm willing to pay a premium for this.
Disclaimer: yes some adults are just as bad, and yes not all kids are bad, in fact, I met some awesome pre-teens that I got on well with. In true/. style, I am generalising.
90% of free-software authors would be happy if some company could make use of their contributions to open-source.
Yes, I'm one of the 90%.
I only use the GPL on my software because I hope it will encourage companies, etc. to contribute back to my work, and thus my software might improve a little where it may not have if I made it pure-BSD. But in reality, I don't care if they violate the licence I assign.
So in conclusion, I feel most artists/creative people in the world are greedy sods. Thank you.
However! Copyright has to stay. But I frankly feel 20 years is more than enough. And get rid of the stupid, stupid, 70 years after death part. I want my children to have to work to put bread on the table, and I want everyone else's too as well. Too many free-loaders = a less prosperous economy and a poorer world overall.
Slashdot Mirror
One reason to use the GPL is the hope that someone will give back. Having said this, if anyone wanted to use any of my GPL'd works under another license, I'd let them. I agree with you that it's better the code gets used, why else am I making it freely available in the first place?
I still licence with the GPL though, because as said, I hope people will contribute, and the GPL does encourage that to a certain extent.
I still feel miffed when some middle-man company makes money for doing nothing with some GPL code, ie rebranding and selling. But that's because everyone who contributes nothing to the world pisses me off. Fucking middle-men. But Apple using the code? That's good as far as I can see.
All you GNOME fanatics who haven't tried KDE in years seem to miss the fact that KDE is obviously faster than GNOME nowadays. Thus your point about c++ is not proven this time, although I'm sure you could find an example as I don't deny it.
You don't seem to understand that sometimes adding people to a project doesn't make anything go faster. And sometimes you have to start again.
But anyway, the fact that neither of the above has happened here shows you don't have a fucking clue anyway.
You're supposed to feel like this is the last pointless comment you're going to write at slashdot. I hope it sticks, kthxbye.
Well said. I pity most of the posters here.
What's it like? Being a dickless fuckwit?
Like everyone else here, I also want to see it. Can you upload it somewhere anonymously, or something? I can't believe you haven't shared your work at all, but perhaps you haven't shared it with the Net. I'd understand why you wouldn't but it would be great! :)
yep 100% moron, I totally agree.
Of course it's flamebait! The guy insults the OP multiple times! Does it really need to be pointed out that insults tend to inspire flame-war?
In addition the guy's point is obvious, and no doubt has been stated by a non-flaming poster somewhere else, so it will hamper the conversation zero to mod this guy down and mod the non-flaming alternative up.
The fact that some people here don't realise this makes me sad. I'm with you all the way.
Given the choice between inventing something and making money, or doing sod all, or accountancy or something, I think most invention-driven firms would invent anyway.
I don't personally think withdrawing the monopoly incentive would make much difference, but if it did, I reckon it would only remove the crappiest innovators from the market.
Real inventors invent because they love it, not because they have a patent incentive anyway. Sure big corps need patent-incentive, but they still have it, just no monopoly rights.
Considering the idea is obvious and fundamental I'd hardly describe it as stealing as much as implementing something obvious and demanded by users world-wide.
You can turn it off too, the modes are on, off and standby. The standby doesn't seem to have any real purpose.
Linux I believe. But only based on their job requirements for wow page wanting linux server admin skills. So it's my guess.
I played EVE on the 14 day trial, loved lots of elements of it, but just couldn't figure out how to have fun, so stopped playing.
What should I have done?
I agree with you that many manufacturers throw in a standby mode where it is unecessary and frankly environmentally immoral. My parents have a gas-fireplace with a standby mode. It just sits there and uses very little gas with a tiny flame. I cannot fathom how this is a good thing or a useful thing or anything!
Governments would do us all a favor by making this kind of thing at least discouraged.
I think most people are aware that standby is non-zero wattage. But, I really don't understand why the standby-is-evil thing is quoted so often by Government and do-gooder alike. If most households just turned off their ovens 5 minutes earlier when cooking they'd save the equivalent in energy.
To reiterate my point, I care about the state of the world a great deal, and I worry that making people guilty for leaving their TV on standby just alienates them from our cause.
The graph in the pdf you linked shows less oil consumption, so perhaps my quote was wrong. Although I remember getting it from a similar reputable document.
Anyone with any sense with a career in environmental protection tries to make people take one less flight per year (all the cars in uk produce 1 tenth the emissions all the airflights in the UK produce! They persuade people that if they recycle anything, to recycle their aluminium because the carbon savings from, eg glass, are neglible if not negative, but the savings from aluminium are immense. They persuade people to buy electricity from companies that at least pretend to care about emissions. They persuade people to buy food that doesn't have to be flown from New Zealand to get to their plates.
They do not have a go at people about leaving devices on standby.
Standby is there to make life a little easier, and almost all devices make standby easy, and full-power-off harder. Standby wastes relatively, bugger-all electricity. So put things in perspective and don't make people feel guilty about trivial shit, because they will assume that saving the environment is all as tedious and unpleasant, and choose to not do anything at all.
If writing is his method of getting food to the table, then firstly he will want sufficient money in his bank, via the medium of selling his work. After that is satisfied, he will probably want his work to be in the hands of as many people as possible.
That is if he isn't a greedy tosser like Rowling, Madonna, etc. People like that make me sick. Yes, I make money through creative processes too.
Wow, apparently I'm not "anyone" because I find it great. In fact when I first used it I thought, "anyone who doesn't like this must be a effeminate moron!". So you're an effeminate moron? *scans posting history* Yep.
Do you really think the reason Windows succeeded where the other examples did not is multi-user support? I'm tend to put more faith in the fact they dominated the PC market at the time.
I'm 24, and kids fucking ruin MMORPGs for me. Not all of them, just the immature ones.
/. style, I am generalising.
I stopped playing WoW because I just got fed up with them. When I started playing there weren't many kids playing, and when I left there were apparently still not many kids playing, but for sure, the loud, vocal, wankers were all 12 year olds and less.
I got fed up with having instance-run arguments with morons who couldn't reason and were as rational as my cat. Especially since they can never be bothered to type properly and everything is a translation effort for me. "Lol m8 u suk!" etc.
In summary, I want servers on MMORPGS that are 18+ only. I'm willing to pay a premium for this.
Disclaimer: yes some adults are just as bad, and yes not all kids are bad, in fact, I met some awesome pre-teens that I got on well with. In true
It's not a niggle, I was finding it pretty hard to figure out what he meant.
Me and all my work colleagues found your comment hilarious. LOL you twat.
90% of free-software authors would be happy if some company could make use of their contributions to open-source.
Yes, I'm one of the 90%.
I only use the GPL on my software because I hope it will encourage companies, etc. to contribute back to my work, and thus my software might improve a little where it may not have if I made it pure-BSD. But in reality, I don't care if they violate the licence I assign.
So in conclusion, I feel most artists/creative people in the world are greedy sods. Thank you.
However! Copyright has to stay. But I frankly feel 20 years is more than enough. And get rid of the stupid, stupid, 70 years after death part. I want my children to have to work to put bread on the table, and I want everyone else's too as well. Too many free-loaders = a less prosperous economy and a poorer world overall.
So in your world things people do are either good or bad, with no part of the "thing" being possibly bad?
I wish people like you would stfu.