Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Ehm, IANAL, but I don't think so. The GPL covers distribution, not use. You don't have to agree with the GPL to use software it covers, that's only necessary when you want to distribute that software or derrived works.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Ehm, you do know Apache is not released under the GPL? Even if it were, this would be a very, very bad idea. One of the points of free software is that everyone can use it, and touching that principle means tearing apart the very foundations of the community you're trying to defend. Unless what you're trying to defend is a community in which geeks only want to be able to play with source files, in which case I believe that community deserves to die.
And saved many, many more in the long run. Or do you wanna live in a chemical wasteland? Also, there are alternatives for (using) DDT, as there are alternatives for most stuff the enviromentalists you so hate (while they try to pay attention to a world that's being fucked up bigtime, which might ultimately save your ungrateful ass). Its just that the megacorps and the anti-enviromentalists probably don't earn as much money from those. Do you want to know what has really killed a lot of people? Patents on drugs and medicines. Something that all "enviromentalists" I know fiercly oppose, and most megacorps (who are, as you might have guessed, anti-enviromentalist) really, really love.
I know I'll be modded down for this, since my opinion is non-libertarian. Free speech only if you're a market-loving anti-enviromentalist (American) geek.
First of all, the FSF does not promote Open Source at all. They're called the Free Software Foundation, and there's a difference between the two. They're job is to be objective, not to kiss the asses of companies that want in on a movement that's not theirs at all (the open source one).
If all you see on their page is criticism, you need to get a grip, or you're clearly biased. They call the APSL Free. That is very, very positive. Anything that's free is not evil, from the FSF's point of view. It is, however, not smart to use it. That is TRUE. It grants Apple some important rights that you don't get. I wouldn't want to use that kind of license if I didn't have to, and I'm sure many people think the same. You should THANK the FSF for being objective like this, instead of convering it up just to please Apple.
Thirdly, the FSF is the one institute that CAN lead the free software movement (note: I said FS, not OSS). Why? Because they ARE idealistic and they do NOT make compromises to kiss megacorp ass. If you start out with a compromise, you'll end up with nothing. Cheers to the FSF for remaining completely true to their goals.
What? Why? I think they're doing exactly that. Please quote where the FSF raises the issue of money/commercialism in relation to the APSL. Oh wait, you can't, 'cause they don't.
Pay attention, people. The APSL is now really free, thanks to the efforts of the FSF. However, there are still some things that would raise issues when the APSL is used to license new software to be included in free systems. The FSF reminds people of this, and thus recommends that the APSL shouldn't be used for new software, but that it's perfectly okay to use software licensed under it. All RMS and the FSF are saying is that it could raise (legal) issues when you use the APSL, and that it's prob better to use something like the GPL. What the heck is everyone's problem?
They can. But they can also try to make it better. I, for one, think it's good to see students thinking of social instead of financial progress. As far as I know, that' the whole point of science.
I agree that other jobs may reappear, but the examples you give are all very different from the services the robots are to replace. And yes, this is a problem. Not every McDonalds employee is able to become a supply chain specialist. I think most aren't, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's stupid to create jobs that need highly qualified people, lose jobs that are mostly occupied by less-qualified/educated people, and say that it doesn't make any difference. It might not make a difference to the economy as a whole, but it sure as hell matters to me if people loose their jobs for no reason and have a low chance of finding a new one (after all, they're not qualified enough to become a yup 'supply chain specialist', whatever use they have). After all, who needs the droids in those places? They're very useful elsewhere, but in most places, humans are quite good enough for the job.
I personally think a more important question is: would it be a good thing? And I don't think so. I don't think I'd like to be served by a robot waiter/waitress, or seeing more robots than people.
And after changing a little ID3 tag (or altering a part of the fil itself), the md sum is vastly different from what you have stored. Not to mention that this'll require you to have md5's of that song in allot of formats, and with allot of different bitstreams. That doesn't work.;) I'd actually like to know how he solved this problem. The only thing I can think of is to compare music itself, in a way that's smart enough to ignore minor differences. Not that I have a clue of how to do that.
On the other hand, I think there's nothing wrong with 'normal' p2p, so I don't care about legal downloads.
Ech-e-lon. TIA. Etc, etc. Open your eyes dude. It's going downhill WAY too fast, and I don't trust an agency like that can be used to do such things (and little other useful stuff, anyway). And you're still being not very smart. Herpes is a proble. Wear a condom, and you protect yourself from that problem. It's still a problem. Wouldn't it still be better if herpes dissapeared of the face of this earth?
Yeah, right... The CIA doesn't collect data on anyone from other countries. ha!
You should be more worried about your data being collected by more threatening non-US entities.
Axis of evil blahblahblah. Oh wait. The same threats that're being abused by your government to infringe on the privacy and rights of both US citizens and citizens of other countries!
And YES. That hapens. Please get your hands straight. The Patriot act DOES allow for non-us citizens to be placed under surveilance, and that does happen. The Patriot act happens. Remember a place called Guantanamo Bay?
Yes, and they could also install cameras in every room in your house and implant GPS tracking devices in your body. Will they? No. Would the people stand for such a thing? No. Should anyone waste their time worrying about hypothetical situations that have a near 0 probability of occuring? No.
If only people in China and Soviet Russia would have thought otherwise before it went wrong there.
True, but we have the ability to encrypt our communications (GPG email and SSL web) and prevent that monitoring from taking place.
Thanks. I already use encryption. I'm actually working on implementing encryption in an IM client. But you don't make any sense here. "It's not bad because we can stop it from happening" Right...
Is it not a government's job to keep an eye on what it's people are doing? Are you that shocked that we have an "information agency" who is - surprise - collecting information? Governments always have, and always will collect information on their people - get over it.
No, this is really smart. You can't help it, so you'd better like it.
Encrypt your communications if you are so concerned. It isn't like the government is sending an agent to your door daily to collect your web browser history, cache, and cookies. sheesh.
No. But as you so kindly pointed out with your China-example, they could.
What's important is that the USA goverment has no right to use major surveilance on its citizens without cause (without there being any reason to suspect someone of something). And even if it did, it has no authority whatsovever to collect data on people from other countries.
What's even more important is that any agency that for whatever reason tries to control the flow of free information is a threat to freedom of speech. You cared about that.
The only reason I care is because infringment of privacy and monitoring info the way they do is the first step to that privacy. If China couldn't monitor what was going on, they couldn't do the censorship thing, now could they?
No they don't, I think... the thing is, you only have a right to medical care because you have a right to live, which is derrived from the premise that men are free. As far as I can see, you can't do the same thing for the "right" to internet access.
How can something that's only been developed the last few decades become a fundamental human right? Before that, humans were all witheld that right? The creation of the internet was one of the higher goals of mankind?
I sure hope not.
I don't see why this is necessary, either. I understand the Internet is becomming more and more important for a lot of people, and I'm very much in favour granting as many people as possible access to the net, but only because it is a right to have access to those things you need to survive. If those things are moved to the net, you need to make sure everyone can still access them. That doesn't mean the Net is a right, though - just the things you really need to use it for.
I play soccer (casually), ride bike, walk (distances), and play chess. I can do most of it wearing good sturdy leather shoes, but I agree foorwear is handy. I don't consider that "new technology" though - not the subject of the question, anyway. What I'm talking about here is for example that bikes are today better than those who ride 'm. I don't think that has made ANY positive impact, no. The whole point of sports is that you do it yourself, or together, but always using your own resources. Racing machines against eachother is hardly more interesting than a benchmark test, IMHO.
Just read Office for X is a Carbon app, not a Cocoa one. Sorry, but I've never used Office for Mac (thank God). Same still goes, only for Carbon, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Ehm, IANAL, but I don't think so. The GPL covers distribution, not use. You don't have to agree with the GPL to use software it covers, that's only necessary when you want to distribute that software or derrived works.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Ehm, you do know Apache is not released under the GPL? Even if it were, this would be a very, very bad idea. One of the points of free software is that everyone can use it, and touching that principle means tearing apart the very foundations of the community you're trying to defend. Unless what you're trying to defend is a community in which geeks only want to be able to play with source files, in which case I believe that community deserves to die.
an action which has killed millions of people.
And saved many, many more in the long run. Or do you wanna live in a chemical wasteland? Also, there are alternatives for (using) DDT, as there are alternatives for most stuff the enviromentalists you so hate (while they try to pay attention to a world that's being fucked up bigtime, which might ultimately save your ungrateful ass). Its just that the megacorps and the anti-enviromentalists probably don't earn as much money from those. Do you want to know what has really killed a lot of people? Patents on drugs and medicines. Something that all "enviromentalists" I know fiercly oppose, and most megacorps (who are, as you might have guessed, anti-enviromentalist) really, really love.
I know I'll be modded down for this, since my opinion is non-libertarian. Free speech only if you're a market-loving anti-enviromentalist (American) geek.
First of all, the FSF does not promote Open Source at all. They're called the Free Software Foundation, and there's a difference between the two. They're job is to be objective, not to kiss the asses of companies that want in on a movement that's not theirs at all (the open source one).
If all you see on their page is criticism, you need to get a grip, or you're clearly biased. They call the APSL Free. That is very, very positive. Anything that's free is not evil, from the FSF's point of view. It is, however, not smart to use it. That is TRUE. It grants Apple some important rights that you don't get. I wouldn't want to use that kind of license if I didn't have to, and I'm sure many people think the same. You should THANK the FSF for being objective like this, instead of convering it up just to please Apple.
Thirdly, the FSF is the one institute that CAN lead the free software movement (note: I said FS, not OSS). Why? Because they ARE idealistic and they do NOT make compromises to kiss megacorp ass. If you start out with a compromise, you'll end up with nothing. Cheers to the FSF for remaining completely true to their goals.
So what about just using GPG sigs? ...
Oh of course... cryptography is bad and used by terrorists.
What? Why? I think they're doing exactly that. Please quote where the FSF raises the issue of money/commercialism in relation to the APSL. Oh wait, you can't, 'cause they don't.
Pay attention, people. The APSL is now really free, thanks to the efforts of the FSF. However, there are still some things that would raise issues when the APSL is used to license new software to be included in free systems. The FSF reminds people of this, and thus recommends that the APSL shouldn't be used for new software, but that it's perfectly okay to use software licensed under it. All RMS and the FSF are saying is that it could raise (legal) issues when you use the APSL, and that it's prob better to use something like the GPL. What the heck is everyone's problem?
They can. But they can also try to make it better. I, for one, think it's good to see students thinking of social instead of financial progress. As far as I know, that' the whole point of science.
Of course, GNU has nothing to do with Open Source.
I agree that other jobs may reappear, but the examples you give are all very different from the services the robots are to replace. And yes, this is a problem. Not every McDonalds employee is able to become a supply chain specialist. I think most aren't, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's stupid to create jobs that need highly qualified people, lose jobs that are mostly occupied by less-qualified/educated people, and say that it doesn't make any difference. It might not make a difference to the economy as a whole, but it sure as hell matters to me if people loose their jobs for no reason and have a low chance of finding a new one (after all, they're not qualified enough to become a yup 'supply chain specialist', whatever use they have). After all, who needs the droids in those places? They're very useful elsewhere, but in most places, humans are quite good enough for the job.
I personally think a more important question is: would it be a good thing? And I don't think so. I don't think I'd like to be served by a robot waiter/waitress, or seeing more robots than people.
Does that mean all the e-mail I got about Bill Gates donating a dollar for every time I resent the message were true, too?!
So much for Homeland "Security".
And after changing a little ID3 tag (or altering a part of the fil itself), the md sum is vastly different from what you have stored. Not to mention that this'll require you to have md5's of that song in allot of formats, and with allot of different bitstreams. That doesn't work. ;) I'd actually like to know how he solved this problem. The only thing I can think of is to compare music itself, in a way that's smart enough to ignore minor differences. Not that I have a clue of how to do that.
On the other hand, I think there's nothing wrong with 'normal' p2p, so I don't care about legal downloads.
Ech-e-lon. TIA. Etc, etc. Open your eyes dude. It's going downhill WAY too fast, and I don't trust an agency like that can be used to do such things (and little other useful stuff, anyway). And you're still being not very smart. Herpes is a proble. Wear a condom, and you protect yourself from that problem. It's still a problem. Wouldn't it still be better if herpes dissapeared of the face of this earth?
Yeah, right... The CIA doesn't collect data on anyone from other countries. ha!
You should be more worried about your data being collected by more threatening non-US entities.
Axis of evil blahblahblah. Oh wait. The same threats that're being abused by your government to infringe on the privacy and rights of both US citizens and citizens of other countries!
And YES. That hapens. Please get your hands straight. The Patriot act DOES allow for non-us citizens to be placed under surveilance, and that does happen. The Patriot act happens. Remember a place called Guantanamo Bay?
Yes, and they could also install cameras in every room in your house and implant GPS tracking devices in your body. Will they? No. Would the people stand for such a thing? No. Should anyone waste their time worrying about hypothetical situations that have a near 0 probability of occuring? No.
If only people in China and Soviet Russia would have thought otherwise before it went wrong there.
True, but we have the ability to encrypt our communications (GPG email and SSL web) and prevent that monitoring from taking place.
Thanks. I already use encryption. I'm actually working on implementing encryption in an IM client. But you don't make any sense here. "It's not bad because we can stop it from happening" Right...
Is it not a government's job to keep an eye on what it's people are doing? Are you that shocked that we have an "information agency" who is - surprise - collecting information? Governments always have, and always will collect information on their people - get over it.
No, this is really smart. You can't help it, so you'd better like it.
Encrypt your communications if you are so concerned. It isn't like the government is sending an agent to your door daily to collect your web browser history, cache, and cookies. sheesh.
No. But as you so kindly pointed out with your China-example, they could.
What's important is that the USA goverment has no right to use major surveilance on its citizens without cause (without there being any reason to suspect someone of something). And even if it did, it has no authority whatsovever to collect data on people from other countries.
What's even more important is that any agency that for whatever reason tries to control the flow of free information is a threat to freedom of speech. You cared about that.
The only reason I care is because infringment of privacy and monitoring info the way they do is the first step to that privacy. If China couldn't monitor what was going on, they couldn't do the censorship thing, now could they?
The same people who collect everything I do online?
Forgive me, but I hope they rot in hell with their compromised software.
No they don't, I think... the thing is, you only have a right to medical care because you have a right to live, which is derrived from the premise that men are free. As far as I can see, you can't do the same thing for the "right" to internet access.
How can something that's only been developed the last few decades become a fundamental human right? Before that, humans were all witheld that right? The creation of the internet was one of the higher goals of mankind?
I sure hope not.
I don't see why this is necessary, either. I understand the Internet is becomming more and more important for a lot of people, and I'm very much in favour granting as many people as possible access to the net, but only because it is a right to have access to those things you need to survive. If those things are moved to the net, you need to make sure everyone can still access them. That doesn't mean the Net is a right, though - just the things you really need to use it for.
Sure, I wasn't being overly serious myself. :P
You can't see the difference between arabic and brahmi scripts?
I play soccer (casually), ride bike, walk (distances), and play chess. I can do most of it wearing good sturdy leather shoes, but I agree foorwear is handy. I don't consider that "new technology" though - not the subject of the question, anyway. What I'm talking about here is for example that bikes are today better than those who ride 'm. I don't think that has made ANY positive impact, no. The whole point of sports is that you do it yourself, or together, but always using your own resources. Racing machines against eachother is hardly more interesting than a benchmark test, IMHO.
[quote]How have advances in sports technology enhanced your own performance and enjoyment of sport?[/quote]
They haven't. Sometimes, they've made it worse. Sports and challenges in general are best when there's as few things involved as possible.
Use gnuplot.
Just read Office for X is a Carbon app, not a Cocoa one. Sorry, but I've never used Office for Mac (thank God). Same still goes, only for Carbon, though.