I started a web site in 1996 that's still going... that makes me pretty darn old in Internet years. So keep the noise down, ya dang kids! And I'm not cleaning the carpet this time around neither!
Thanks to the original Napster, I discovered David Shutrick ("Finland" is one the best pop songs of all time), Garrison Starr ("Superhero"), and Voice of the Beehive; plus, I got to hear countless British radio programs ("Goon Show", "Navy Lark", "That Was The Week That Was", "Take It From Here"). Thanks to the RIAA: 1) I can't share any of it with you. All we can do is reminisce about the "good old days". 2) Either this material can't be downloaded from its legal owners, or it can be at insane prices or with crippleware (DRM) attached.
Someone who owns the IP rights needs to fix this broken system.
I buy from Magnatune, where 50% of the purchase price goes to the artist as royalties, and I'm lumped in with the warez kids? Sorry, your argument is a non-starter.
it's pushed a lot of people into the pro-piracy side who wouldn't have been there otherwise
I'm one of them. Politically, I lean to the right on most issues. On copyright-related issues, my views have become left-wing, even though my views have not essentially changed in the last fifteen years. But certain corporations, backed by pro-business and pro-IP Republicans and Democrats, have decided that they own you once you buy one of their products. Oh yes, and they own what they own forever. How else can you respond to this but by opposition?
I've moved to downloading from Magnatune and recently Amazon's DRM-free mp3's because I do not enjoy breaking the law (sad as it may be at time) and because I want the artists to receive royalties. But every so often the temptation rises to download a movie that's not even for sale. I'd love to hear a cogent explanation as to why this ought to be a crime -- I want to hear the moral basis for the argument that I am causing a loss of revenue when no revenue stream exists.
The Motley Fool ought to help reach the business people who actually want to make a profit rather than attack their customer base. It's time for a world where, with just a few mouse clicks, you download a movie from Tri-Star, a commentary from Roger Ebert, and cover art by some guy named 2Cool who lives in northern Finland, mix them together, and voila... a custom, legal, remixed DVD.
An Islamic extremist detonated a bomb she was wearing on the front of her blouse at Logan Airport earlier today. She and ten bystanders, including one security guard, were killed instantly. When a guard who survived the blast was asked why the woman was not detained, he replied: "We thought she was just exercising her right to free expression with a battery, silly putty, wires, and a circuit board over her blouse. How could we have known?"
Angry Slashdotters called the airport security "imbecilic" and staffed by "morons" for not arresting the woman and inspecting the bomb. Ironically, these are the same Slashdotters who stated that airport security overreacted not too long ago when MIT Student Star Simpson wore a similar device at Logan Airport, causing a minor uproar that led to her arrest and eventual release. Logan Airport issued a statement vowing to continue their efforts to keep Slashdotters who want everything both ways happy.
A whitelist of torrents would help the college I work at. It doesn't make sense to block torrenting per se, but they have no (legal) choice. As more and more big downloads become available via torrent, I hope we'll see the third-party security companies offer content filtering on this basis.
YOU: "Here is my dual-licensed code. You may alter it, etc., using the either the 'enforced share' license or the 'optional share' license."
ME: "OK, I'll choose the 'enforced share'."
YOU: "_But_ you have to include the license code of the 'optional share' license in your derivative code."
ME: "Why? You said I could chose."
YOU: "That's the nature of the 'optional share' license. You have to keep the text of the license in your new code."
ME: "But you said I could choose one or the other. I chose the other. That license says nothing about keeping the test of the 'optional share' license intact."
YOU: "Ah, but this is dual-licensed code."
ME: "Right, and we went over that when I chose the license I wanted to use."
YOU: "But you must keep the text of the 'optional share' license intact anyway."
ME: "So you're forcing me to continue dual-licensing this code, even though you said I could choose between the two licenses."
YOU: "Yes."
ME: "So your code is just as viral as the 'enforced share' license. I really _can't_ choose one or the other; we're only pretending. I'm forced to offer the option of an 'optional share' license on my new code even though I was told I wouldn't have to do that. Do I have this right?"
I'm not trying to start a flamewar -- this is really how I see the situation. If I'm wrong, no problem. Please tell me if I summarized the essentials correctly and where this hypothetical conversation would go from here.
After all of this BS, it seems to me that the claim of "the BSD license grants more freedom than the GPL" has gone out the window. It's clear that the license's main proponents have an agenda to keep, and that this supposedly free license comes with a number of restrictions in regards to dual-licensing. If I were going to license software and make it free as in FREE, I'd put it in the public domain. If I were going to license software where I wanted to see what changes others had made, I would use the GPL. The BSD seems to be in the awkward middle, where some changes can be kept to yourself while others are to be kept open lest you be called names and be threatened with legal action by certain obnoxious people.
If this is the way things are going to be, with all of this "you-can-but-you-can't" nonesense concerning the license's "gray areas", the BSD ought to be replaced by: 1. code explicitly placed in the public domain 2. MIT (especially for dual-licensing) 3. GPL if you don't want to lose others' modifications
And if this same junk pops up with MIT dual-licensed code, options #1 and #3 still work.
Hello, I'm RMS, and I deserve to be more popular than Linus Torvalds. WAYYY more popular. And I deserve more dates. WAYYYY more dates. With supermodels.
Basically, I'm jealous. He has the street cred with the young hackers that I ought to have. I personally wrote the GPL, all of its versions, using emacs. The lawyers came in just to fix my spelling. Really! I also wrote GCC. All of it. Every single version. I used a lot of pseudonyms to make it look like a collaboration, but I did it all.
I wrote ncurses. But no one thanks me for that....
I also coded all of Linux. At least I would have, if HURD would have worked just like the Linux kernel does. Did you know that HURD works on my desktop at home? If you had the same hardware I have, it would work for you too. Then we would have freedom!
Did you also know I invented free software? All of it. Even the bits labeled with a BSD license. As I said, I use a lot of pseudonyms. I had to work at not throwing up all over the keyboard when I typed the BSD license into my code. It worked almost every time.
Basically, you should all listen to me and do what I do. That's freedom. That's the way we'll make a better world. You do _want_ a better world, don't you? You shouldn't listen to Linus Torvalds. He has a big nose. And don't listen to Theo The Rat. He's obnoxious. Don't listen to Bruce Perens -- OK, nobody _is_ listening to Bruce Perens, but my overall point is listen to me. Me, me, me. So, la, fah, tee, doh! Freedom is me, and I am freedom! Let freedom reign!
I still need a girlfriend, too.
Did you know that I invented freedom?
Uh, thank you, RMS. Could you please sit down so we can continue the Egocentrics Anonymous meeting?
One of the reasons I decided to stop being afraid of math was the film "Stand and Deliver". At the time, I had an MFA in Creative Writing. At this time, once I complete my thesis, and I will have an MS in Mathematics.
Just say it. That's what you want us to be reduced to. Democracy will just become a minor interruption as we spend our days in economic servitude. Admit it, guys!
The GPL enforces code sharing, while the BSD license codifies how the code will be given away. According to the author of the original code, the code was given away correctly. Any problems with the above can be settled by choosing your license wisely. Nothing else to see here, move along.
Theo's position apparently is: if you take my code, make your changes, and never tell me what you did -- never even show me the changes -- that's your freedom. Enjoy it. The BSD license rocks. BUT, if you take my code, make your changes, and I find out what they are and can't reuse them myself, then you've abused the freedom I've given you.
Problem: that's an ethical argument, an argument about how one should or should not play the game of open source software. The BSD license is a work of law -- how the game may or may not be played, regardless on intention. IANAL, but the law probably supports the return of the BSD license text. Beyond that, the license did its job -- the code was indeed given away.
That sounds like a really good idea, actually. How good for society would it be if a man starts choking in a Burger King and 1/4 of the teenagers and 20-somethings in the room know the Heimlich maneuver? It would really help adult society deal better with young people.
Are you running for something? Can I vote for you?
But I actually think service should remain optional, even for civilian public service. You should lose out on loads of state benefits for declining, but you should have that option.
You have a Jeffersonian bent. Personally, I take after Adams.
A chance for specialization, yes, but not someone forcing them into it! That only leads to bitterness and regrets.
If a "general studies" track were available, it would indeed help. But right now, we're forcing students _not_ to specialize, and that also leads to bitterness and regret. I don't think we'll get away from that completely as long as we live an uber-safe world where nothing is allowed to happen to you until you turn 18. (This is one way that the modern world is _more_ primitive that medieval Europe: apprenticeships would do more for our society that having teens wonder when their lives will start.)
On the other hand, I don't want to let the current government and "national service" (ie: military) infrastructure anywhere near kids.
The only way to get political traction on this idea (in the US anyway) would be to offer public service (volunteer firefighting, for example) as the default, with national service (military) requiring a parental signature. Which is how it should be, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you make change for this new space QUID? That's right, you need 100 space BOB!
*ba-ching*
Can a lady with a wooden leg change for a pound note? NO! Why? She's only got HALF A KNICKER!
(Ducks after having vegetables thrown at him from audience.)
Praise God! I love hearing good news for a change.
I started a web site in 1996 that's still going... that makes me pretty darn old in Internet years. So keep the noise down, ya dang kids! And I'm not cleaning the carpet this time around neither!
Thanks to the original Napster, I discovered David Shutrick ("Finland" is one the best pop songs of all time), Garrison Starr ("Superhero"), and Voice of the Beehive; plus, I got to hear countless British radio programs ("Goon Show", "Navy Lark", "That Was The Week That Was", "Take It From Here"). Thanks to the RIAA:
1) I can't share any of it with you. All we can do is reminisce about the "good old days".
2) Either this material can't be downloaded from its legal owners, or it can be at insane prices or with crippleware (DRM) attached.
Someone who owns the IP rights needs to fix this broken system.
I buy from Magnatune, where 50% of the purchase price goes to the artist as royalties, and I'm lumped in with the warez kids? Sorry, your argument is a non-starter.
I'm one of them. Politically, I lean to the right on most issues. On copyright-related issues, my views have become left-wing, even though my views have not essentially changed in the last fifteen years. But certain corporations, backed by pro-business and pro-IP Republicans and Democrats, have decided that they own you once you buy one of their products. Oh yes, and they own what they own forever. How else can you respond to this but by opposition?
I've moved to downloading from Magnatune and recently Amazon's DRM-free mp3's because I do not enjoy breaking the law (sad as it may be at time) and because I want the artists to receive royalties. But every so often the temptation rises to download a movie that's not even for sale. I'd love to hear a cogent explanation as to why this ought to be a crime -- I want to hear the moral basis for the argument that I am causing a loss of revenue when no revenue stream exists.
The Motley Fool ought to help reach the business people who actually want to make a profit rather than attack their customer base. It's time for a world where, with just a few mouse clicks, you download a movie from Tri-Star, a commentary from Roger Ebert, and cover art by some guy named 2Cool who lives in northern Finland, mix them together, and voila... a custom, legal, remixed DVD.
Just to kick on the bit that didn't uncoil and ride it all the way down, waving his cowboy hat.
I have a good idea of what the result will be: Ubuntu 8.0 based on PCBSD.
An Islamic extremist detonated a bomb she was wearing on the front of her blouse at Logan Airport earlier today. She and ten bystanders, including one security guard, were killed instantly. When a guard who survived the blast was asked why the woman was not detained, he replied: "We thought she was just exercising her right to free expression with a battery, silly putty, wires, and a circuit board over her blouse. How could we have known?"
Angry Slashdotters called the airport security "imbecilic" and staffed by "morons" for not arresting the woman and inspecting the bomb. Ironically, these are the same Slashdotters who stated that airport security overreacted not too long ago when MIT Student Star Simpson wore a similar device at Logan Airport, causing a minor uproar that led to her arrest and eventual release. Logan Airport issued a statement vowing to continue their efforts to keep Slashdotters who want everything both ways happy.
A whitelist of torrents would help the college I work at. It doesn't make sense to block torrenting per se, but they have no (legal) choice. As more and more big downloads become available via torrent, I hope we'll see the third-party security companies offer content filtering on this basis.
It's come true! Come on, all you Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis out there! How come you left it up to a Yank to point this out? ;)
YOU: "Here is my dual-licensed code. You may alter it, etc., using the either the 'enforced share' license or the 'optional share' license."
ME: "OK, I'll choose the 'enforced share'."
YOU: "_But_ you have to include the license code of the 'optional share' license in your derivative code."
ME: "Why? You said I could chose."
YOU: "That's the nature of the 'optional share' license. You have to keep the text of the license in your new code."
ME: "But you said I could choose one or the other. I chose the other. That license says nothing about keeping the test of the 'optional share' license intact."
YOU: "Ah, but this is dual-licensed code."
ME: "Right, and we went over that when I chose the license I wanted to use."
YOU: "But you must keep the text of the 'optional share' license intact anyway."
ME: "So you're forcing me to continue dual-licensing this code, even though you said I could choose between the two licenses."
YOU: "Yes."
ME: "So your code is just as viral as the 'enforced share' license. I really _can't_ choose one or the other; we're only pretending. I'm forced to offer the option of an 'optional share' license on my new code even though I was told I wouldn't have to do that. Do I have this right?"
I'm not trying to start a flamewar -- this is really how I see the situation. If I'm wrong, no problem. Please tell me if I summarized the essentials correctly and where this hypothetical conversation would go from here.
After all of this BS, it seems to me that the claim of "the BSD license grants more freedom than the GPL" has gone out the window. It's clear that the license's main proponents have an agenda to keep, and that this supposedly free license comes with a number of restrictions in regards to dual-licensing. If I were going to license software and make it free as in FREE, I'd put it in the public domain. If I were going to license software where I wanted to see what changes others had made, I would use the GPL. The BSD seems to be in the awkward middle, where some changes can be kept to yourself while others are to be kept open lest you be called names and be threatened with legal action by certain obnoxious people.
If this is the way things are going to be, with all of this "you-can-but-you-can't" nonesense concerning the license's "gray areas", the BSD ought to be replaced by:
1. code explicitly placed in the public domain
2. MIT (especially for dual-licensing)
3. GPL if you don't want to lose others' modifications
And if this same junk pops up with MIT dual-licensed code, options #1 and #3 still work.
Creative Zen
But how do you clean the filter? Clean water?
Bruce: "He's pointing them at _me_ again! Make him stop!!"
Hello, I'm RMS, and I deserve to be more popular than Linus Torvalds. WAYYY more popular. And I deserve more dates. WAYYYY more dates. With supermodels.
Basically, I'm jealous. He has the street cred with the young hackers that I ought to have. I personally wrote the GPL, all of its versions, using emacs. The lawyers came in just to fix my spelling. Really! I also wrote GCC. All of it. Every single version. I used a lot of pseudonyms to make it look like a collaboration, but I did it all.
I wrote ncurses. But no one thanks me for that....
I also coded all of Linux. At least I would have, if HURD would have worked just like the Linux kernel does. Did you know that HURD works on my desktop at home? If you had the same hardware I have, it would work for you too. Then we would have freedom!
Did you also know I invented free software? All of it. Even the bits labeled with a BSD license. As I said, I use a lot of pseudonyms. I had to work at not throwing up all over the keyboard when I typed the BSD license into my code. It worked almost every time.
Basically, you should all listen to me and do what I do. That's freedom. That's the way we'll make a better world. You do _want_ a better world, don't you? You shouldn't listen to Linus Torvalds. He has a big nose. And don't listen to Theo The Rat. He's obnoxious. Don't listen to Bruce Perens -- OK, nobody _is_ listening to Bruce Perens, but my overall point is listen to me. Me, me, me. So, la, fah, tee, doh! Freedom is me, and I am freedom! Let freedom reign!
I still need a girlfriend, too.
Did you know that I invented freedom?
Uh, thank you, RMS. Could you please sit down so we can continue the Egocentrics Anonymous meeting?
Dead on. Thank you.
then they should try being a conservative sometime.
One of the reasons I decided to stop being afraid of math was the film "Stand and Deliver". At the time, I had an MFA in Creative Writing. At this time, once I complete my thesis, and I will have an MS in Mathematics.
Just say it. That's what you want us to be reduced to. Democracy will just become a minor interruption as we spend our days in economic servitude. Admit it, guys!
The GPL enforces code sharing, while the BSD license codifies how the code will be given away. According to the author of the original code, the code was given away correctly. Any problems with the above can be settled by choosing your license wisely. Nothing else to see here, move along.
Theo's position apparently is: if you take my code, make your changes, and never tell me what you did -- never even show me the changes -- that's your freedom. Enjoy it. The BSD license rocks. BUT, if you take my code, make your changes, and I find out what they are and can't reuse them myself, then you've abused the freedom I've given you.
Problem: that's an ethical argument, an argument about how one should or should not play the game of open source software. The BSD license is a work of law -- how the game may or may not be played, regardless on intention. IANAL, but the law probably supports the return of the BSD license text. Beyond that, the license did its job -- the code was indeed given away.