Lol.. Then we are in agreement that it places arbitrary restrictions on my ability to use DRM from third party sources.
There is no such thing as a non-arbitrary restriction...
Great, when MS is the only provider of DRM and Linux is relegated back to a hacker OS because of dominant market forces requiring the DRM we can look and say nobody is using your code because it doesn't allow the freedom they need.
I could not care less. I really do not mind that my code is not used by the dominant market forces. I simply do not care.
You know, I don't understand this entire "if it's GPLed, it's my code" stick.
Huh? The only people saying that are the code authors. It is them who wrote the code and who chose the licence with which the code was released. No one else can pick the licence for the code.
The code I've written and which I've released is GPL'ed because I chose to do so.
I seriously doubt that every person who contributes code has contributed code to every project and all that code is still in use to this day. So in essence, it isn't your code and you have just as much choice not to give a project your code as someone should have for creating a project. Even if you have contributed something, it simply isn't "your code" when it comes to a project that you don't agree with and don't contribute to.
People's code never stops being their code. I have no idea where you got this from...
Maybe we should get off this greedy vanity thing that attempts to take ownership of everything in order to impose your will over it and get back to what the basics of "free" actually mean.
I have no idea where you are getting this from. It is the people writing the code that pick whatever licence they want to put on their code.
They are free to do whatever they want with their code.
I'll give you a hint, Free isn't supposed to mean "If you or someone you know agrees with it".
My code is licenced in whatever way I want. You have absolutely no say in the conditions I pick. If you do not like the conditions I impose on using my code do not use it.
This entire no DRM stand is basically saying that I can't have the option to purchase something or enter into some agreement with a company in a fair and free society.
Not at all.
What the stand is basically saying is: do all you want but do not use my code.
In addition, the comment in my sig is more than just about metacity. Havoc was one of the architects of the whole dumbing down of Gnome. Gnome 1.x was way more usable and configurable than Gnome 2.x. The only two things Gnome 2.x had going for it after it came out was that it was the "future", and it was based on gtk2.
But, in that case, it is not Havoc who's the `bane', but the whole of the GNOME community. It's not exactly him alone that did the change. Do you consider the rest of the GNOME developers just mindless drones that followed Havoc's orders? At most, what you can say is that `GNOME is the bane of your Linux desktop'.
Once you realize that, you have to ponder: why do you keep using GNOME? And: why do essentially all big distros use GNOME? Masochism? Or maybe those choices that turned GNOME into your `bane' where the correct ones for lots and lots of other people?
And, again, once you ask yourself that, you come to the following question: wasn't the GNOME community at complete liberty to choose its audience? If that community at some point chose to favour the part of the audience which does not think having more preferences is better, and unfocus the preference-hungry part of the audience, was it not their choice to make?
In the name of full-disclosure, I have to say that I took some part in that process which you call `dumbing down'...
The simple alternative would have been a preference, but Havoc hates preferences, hence he is a bane.
This is an absurd argument for calling him a `bane'. It was his window manager, it was him doing the all work so he was absolutely free to have it do whatever it pleased him, don't you think? Moreover, he provided you with enough freedom so that you could actually change whatever you wanted to change in the wm, and you seem to have done precisely that.
What is needed in order to not be a `bane': do whatever other people want?
The bane of your desktop is your inability to pick a window manager which suits your preferences and ideas regarding window management. It's not like there is not choice... (And Havoc is one of the people you have to thank for the existing interoperability which makes that choice possible!)
The problem is that even after the average end user KNOWS they care, they don't have the ability to do anything about it GPL3 or no.
That's rather irrelevant.
Without the GPL or equivalent approaches, it is impossible to do anything. With it, you have at least the possibilty of doing something. It is irrelevant whether `doing something' means `hiring the only person in the world capable of doing something' or something else.
No licencing scheme is going to magically turn everyone into people capable of doing what they want.
"End users" by the definition probably don't give a crap if they can see the code. If they did anything with it, they'd be developers. I don't see how end users lose out either way -- license arguments really only affect other developers....
They don't care until $APPLICATION_THEY_DEPEND_ON stops being maintained or the manufacturer of $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT decides it needs more money so the people that bought its hardware should better move on and buy a new $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT and, to `motivate' them, stops releasing drivers...
End users do not care about licenses in the same way as people being subjected to experimental drugs unwillingly do not care: they do not know they care.
Of course, because there are so many ways to do a word-processor... and also, of course, we all know that MS came up with the whole concept and design and interface all by themselves. Ah, the nerve of FOSS!
The only excuse for your attitude is extreme youth---something like less than 6 years old...
Slashdot Mirror
Nice way to insert immigrants-as-the-plage line in a random thread...
What are you comparing with? Methinks you need to travel more...
Most of what you wrote does not make much sense. It is not the first time I've noticed that in talking to you here...
There is no such thing as a non-arbitrary restriction...
Great, when MS is the only provider of DRM and Linux is relegated back to a hacker OS because of dominant market forces requiring the DRM we can look and say nobody is using your code because it doesn't allow the freedom they need.I could not care less. I really do not mind that my code is not used by the dominant market forces. I simply do not care.
You know, I don't understand this entire "if it's GPLed, it's my code" stick.Huh? The only people saying that are the code authors. It is them who wrote the code and who chose the licence with which the code was released. No one else can pick the licence for the code.
The code I've written and which I've released is GPL'ed because I chose to do so.
I seriously doubt that every person who contributes code has contributed code to every project and all that code is still in use to this day. So in essence, it isn't your code and you have just as much choice not to give a project your code as someone should have for creating a project. Even if you have contributed something, it simply isn't "your code" when it comes to a project that you don't agree with and don't contribute to.People's code never stops being their code. I have no idea where you got this from...
Maybe we should get off this greedy vanity thing that attempts to take ownership of everything in order to impose your will over it and get back to what the basics of "free" actually mean.I have no idea where you are getting this from. It is the people writing the code that pick whatever licence they want to put on their code. They are free to do whatever they want with their code.
I'll give you a hint, Free isn't supposed to mean "If you or someone you know agrees with it".My code is licenced in whatever way I want. You have absolutely no say in the conditions I pick. If you do not like the conditions I impose on using my code do not use it.
Not at all.
What the stand is basically saying is: do all you want but do not use my code.
You must be quite an optimist...
I'm sorry, but you are in no position of demanding anything.
That is not my logic. My logic is, let everyone do what they think is best. I cannot believe you are suggesting otherwise.
I simply cannot understand where this feeling of entitlement you are evincing comes from, and in what way you justify it.
No one owes you anything.
But, in that case, it is not Havoc who's the `bane', but the whole of the GNOME community. It's not exactly him alone that did the change. Do you consider the rest of the GNOME developers just mindless drones that followed Havoc's orders? At most, what you can say is that `GNOME is the bane of your Linux desktop'.
Once you realize that, you have to ponder: why do you keep using GNOME? And: why do essentially all big distros use GNOME? Masochism? Or maybe those choices that turned GNOME into your `bane' where the correct ones for lots and lots of other people?
And, again, once you ask yourself that, you come to the following question: wasn't the GNOME community at complete liberty to choose its audience? If that community at some point chose to favour the part of the audience which does not think having more preferences is better, and unfocus the preference-hungry part of the audience, was it not their choice to make?
In the name of full-disclosure, I have to say that I took some part in that process which you call `dumbing down'...
This is an absurd argument for calling him a `bane'. It was his window manager, it was him doing the all work so he was absolutely free to have it do whatever it pleased him, don't you think? Moreover, he provided you with enough freedom so that you could actually change whatever you wanted to change in the wm, and you seem to have done precisely that.
What is needed in order to not be a `bane': do whatever other people want?
The bane of your desktop is your inability to pick a window manager which suits your preferences and ideas regarding window management. It's not like there is not choice... (And Havoc is one of the people you have to thank for the existing interoperability which makes that choice possible!)
You demand?
You have to wait till the pills-over-IP protocol RFC is published and implemented...
A president who only sometimes thinks on his own.
That'd make a great ad!
What makes you think real political parties are not extremely corrupt and say anything necessary to get control?
That's rather irrelevant.
Without the GPL or equivalent approaches, it is impossible to do anything. With it, you have at least the possibilty of doing something. It is irrelevant whether `doing something' means `hiring the only person in the world capable of doing something' or something else.
No licencing scheme is going to magically turn everyone into people capable of doing what they want.
They don't care until $APPLICATION_THEY_DEPEND_ON stops being maintained or the manufacturer of $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT decides it needs more money so the people that bought its hardware should better move on and buy a new $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT and, to `motivate' them, stops releasing drivers...
End users do not care about licenses in the same way as people being subjected to experimental drugs unwillingly do not care: they do not know they care.
So it'll be 20% - 1? I can already hear the desperate cries from the developers!
You probably should take a look at Wikipedia's Grain of salt page...
Huh?
Well, you seem to think that LaTeX is a word processor... so one has to take everything you say on the subject with a block of salt.
Of course, because there are so many ways to do a word-processor... and also, of course, we all know that MS came up with the whole concept and design and interface all by themselves. Ah, the nerve of FOSS!
The only excuse for your attitude is extreme youth---something like less than 6 years old...
If it matters that little, how come MS went through all the motions?
And with `logic' like that, you are probably an enemy of common sense...