Yes, and just look at how well that's ended up for you Swedes! Something like 70-85% of the population doesn't even believe in a personal god. What good is it educating people about religion if it doesn't make them more religious?! It could be that exposing students to such a variety of beliefs actually makes them less religious. Why would we want the government giving our children an education that may result in them choosing to doom their souls for eternity?
A friend's child (8 years old at the time, or so) got a mythology encyclopedia as a birthday present a couple of years ago. A week later, after dinner, he asked his parents if he could have a word with them, in a quite serious tone. The three of them sat down, and the kid proceeded to explain to his parents that although he knew his parents did not believe in god, he had started believing. And he went on to tell them about Thor...
You can code an absolutely unusable, inaccessible, infamously UIed app that does not withstand with any sort of grace not even a change of constrast level in your monitor in perfectly good, compliant ANSI C.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Excuse a rather poor translation from the French done by a Spanish speaking person:
I believe that, short of believing in miracles, one can only expect the progress of reason from a rationally oriented political action towards the defense of the social conditions necessary for the exercise of reason, from a permanent movilization of all cultural producers with the purpose of defending---by the means of continued and modest interventions---the intellectual bases of intellectual activity. Every project aiming at developing the human spirit which, having forgotten the historical rooting of reason, trusts only on the force of reason and and of rational discourse to cause progress for the causes of reason, and which does not appeal to the political struggle in order to endow reason and freedom with the instruments of properly political nature which constitute the condition for their realization in history, continues to be, still, a prisoner of the scholastic illusion.
English in not my mother tongue and most of the people I know that can speak English do not have it as a mother tongue. I have never seen that mistake be done by a non-native speaker, actually.
It's the kind of spelling error that shows the writer did not bother to read what he himself wrote. It turns out in most cases he did not read what he is responding to, either.
It doesn't invalidate patent claims but does not let people that make them distribute GPL3ed code. One would think the companies making these agreements will be interested in distributing, say, gcc...
If you are not able to comply with the license, then you are not able to distribute it. That's all there is to it.
I do not understand what you say that in that situation does not make sense. A does not become a derivative: the whole "A linked to B" is what is a derivative. Clearly, B has to preexist for there to be a "A linked to B".
I honestly fail to see in what way the GPL is about controlling others. That's not what caught my attention in your post: what's wrong with pushing an agenda? I would understand that you find exception at someone hiddenly and covertly and underhandedly pushing an agenda, but you cannot say, IMHO, that the FSF and the rest of the GPL proposing people have been secretive about the their purposes. It's on the blessed license text!
Including the object files with the release does not mean, at all, that you'll end up having to link at installation time or anything remotely similar. It only means that you need to include the object files of your non-open code so that, if the user so chooses, he can link with them a modified version of the open dependencies.
You seem to have ignored the fact that the one who gets to choose which version of the GPL to use in case the code has the ``or later'' clause is the one who's agreeing, not the copyright owner.
The GPL one takes care of distribution. The only way your scheme could work if you somehow managed to convince the GP to distribute his code with your foolib.so
and a stable OS that doesn't have to rely on 'trusted repositories' of known programs in order to download and run tools that I need.
Your other points might have some weight (although, really, I can't remember the last time that something did not just work for me and, call me special, I do not need to run any program that needs wine or Cedega...) but I have never ever imagined anyone could use the fact that there are trusted repositories of code available for you to download innumerable different apps as a point against anything...
Doesn't that point apply to anything written by anyone but god himself or jesus, and for which a manuscript exists? It's not like, say, genesis did not go through innumerable editorial rounds...
Total freedom is a concept that appears realistic or even desirable only to a vocal minority, who---I'm quite sure---has never really relfected on what it would entail.
That the idea of inalieble rights is based on belief in things not demonstrated by scientific proof is, just as the "prove that you love your father" from some book/movie, irrelevant to anything.
In the name of whatever you want to invoke in this situations! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read up on what a theory is, on why changing theory is a pleonasm, etc. Otherwise you do nothing but embarrass yourself.
Slashdot should have, along with its code which flags comments written all in caps, a filter which detects `it's just a theory' as applied to evolution.
BTW, as noted by Bierce, non-functionng wings are explained by the fact that the animals with non-functioning wings do not fly: why would a non-flying animal need functioning wings?!
Slashdot Mirror
A friend's child (8 years old at the time, or so) got a mythology encyclopedia as a birthday present a couple of years ago. A week later, after dinner, he asked his parents if he could have a word with them, in a quite serious tone. The three of them sat down, and the kid proceeded to explain to his parents that although he knew his parents did not believe in god, he had started believing. And he went on to tell them about Thor...
I read your `clawologists' and now you owe me a keyboard
"Many large companies do X" and "Many large companies do not X" can both be true at the same time.
You can code an absolutely unusable, inaccessible, infamously UIed app that does not withstand with any sort of grace not even a change of constrast level in your monitor in perfectly good, compliant ANSI C.
XHTML is no different.
Quoth the QPL:
It appears it does not agree with you...
Hm. Google books provides a smoother translation in the footnote to page 228 in the book which comes up by searching for
This link might take you there.
Excuse a rather poor translation from the French done by a Spanish speaking person:
English in not my mother tongue and most of the people I know that can speak English do not have it as a mother tongue. I have never seen that mistake be done by a non-native speaker, actually.
It's the kind of spelling error that shows the writer did not bother to read what he himself wrote. It turns out in most cases he did not read what he is responding to, either.
'would of took'?
I love when people compare themselves to Einstein...
It doesn't invalidate patent claims but does not let people that make them distribute GPL3ed code. One would think the companies making these agreements will be interested in distributing, say, gcc...
They might be more interested in the software that'll end up being GPL3'ed, though...
If you are not able to comply with the license, then you are not able to distribute it. That's all there is to it.
I do not understand what you say that in that situation does not make sense. A does not become a derivative: the whole "A linked to B" is what is a derivative. Clearly, B has to preexist for there to be a "A linked to B".
I honestly fail to see in what way the GPL is about controlling others. That's not what caught my attention in your post: what's wrong with pushing an agenda? I would understand that you find exception at someone hiddenly and covertly and underhandedly pushing an agenda, but you cannot say, IMHO, that the FSF and the rest of the GPL proposing people have been secretive about the their purposes. It's on the blessed license text!
Including the object files with the release does not mean, at all, that you'll end up having to link at installation time or anything remotely similar. It only means that you need to include the object files of your non-open code so that, if the user so chooses, he can link with them a modified version of the open dependencies.
You seem to have ignored the fact that the one who gets to choose which version of the GPL to use in case the code has the ``or later'' clause is the one who's agreeing, not the copyright owner.
The GPL one takes care of distribution. The only way your scheme could work if you somehow managed to convince the GP to distribute his code with your foolib.so
The fact that most people do not care is absolutely irrelevant. If no one had ever cared, you'd be running Windows or some thing similar.
Your other points might have some weight (although, really, I can't remember the last time that something did not just work for me and, call me special, I do not need to run any program that needs wine or Cedega...) but I have never ever imagined anyone could use the fact that there are trusted repositories of code available for you to download innumerable different apps as a point against anything...
Do you really find it appealing?
Clearly. You cannot do that to coffee and expect to make a living out of it.
Doesn't that point apply to anything written by anyone but god himself or jesus, and for which a manuscript exists? It's not like, say, genesis did not go through innumerable editorial rounds...
Total freedom is a concept that appears realistic or even desirable only to a vocal minority, who---I'm quite sure---has never really relfected on what it would entail.
That the idea of inalieble rights is based on belief in things not demonstrated by scientific proof is, just as the "prove that you love your father" from some book/movie, irrelevant to anything.
In the name of whatever you want to invoke in this situations! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read up on what a theory is, on why changing theory is a pleonasm, etc. Otherwise you do nothing but embarrass yourself.
Slashdot should have, along with its code which flags comments written all in caps, a filter which detects `it's just a theory' as applied to evolution.
BTW, as noted by Bierce, non-functionng wings are explained by the fact that the animals with non-functioning wings do not fly: why would a non-flying animal need functioning wings?!