Why not try to add provisions that make the DMCA undesirable to AOL-TW and friends?
For example, put a requirement in there that protects "fair use". Maybe something that requires "fair use" to be easily accomplished. I know we can't think of ways off hand to to make it easy, but it would force the other side to have to come up with it.
This would be like what the FBI did (or at least tried to do) to laws attempting to allow the free use of encryption.
I understand their complaint that Yahoo should notify them, but isn't the main problem with the courts.
If Yahoo receives a subpoena, should it not obey the court?
Another thought: if Yahoo tries to defend against the subpoena, it might be held liable for the content. By just passing the information under court order, they remove themselves from the appearance of moderation. In courts, moderation == liability for content.
All thoughts above are just ideas. Assembly language would be easier to develop in than learning law.:)
And if someone calls the GPL a "virus", he obviously wants to unfairly take advantage of other peoples work without contributing anything by himself.
If you can't kill the message, attack the messengers. You should go into politics.
Personally, I think of the GPL as a "virus". I was happy to see Enlightenment go to a BSD license. I have not yet stolen a single line of code. I have submitted a patch though.
the big question i have (paranoia alert!) is that PostgreSQL is under a BSD license, so they don't need to release any changes...
If they try to make it proprietary, someone will just fork off the last open version and leave the proprietary version in the dust. Two examples would be OpenSSH and XFree86 (the threat to proceed independently under an open license kept X11R6.4 open).
We do. And they don't. And don't. And don't. And don't. And don't. And don't.
I guess this will surprise IBM (JFS), SGI (XFS), and SCO (cscope). Many more companies have donated code to different projects. Some do contribute and some don't. Stop whining about it.
Our machine froze four times in less than three hours.
Either the hardware is defective or the OS needs major work. I know this is Microsoft, but I can't believe they would try to sell something that crashes this often.
P.S. Does Slashdot have "moron moderators" to control the flood of firsts and other nonsense? I am talking about people with enough points (like 100+) to wipeout the morons that just seem to have to post junk all over the place.
I thought you were FUD'ing the BSD license. Jokes are allowed.:)
I think cscope will be immune to Microsoft. I believe Visual Studio already has a lot of the functionality of cscope built in. I say believe because I have not yet tried cscope; I have only read the man page.
And thanks for pointing out that the GPL applies to software and the Constitution to people, that's something I never realized before.
Since more than you are reading this, I made mention of that for others. I realized you realized this before.:)
I just don't think people should be trying to compare the Constitution to the GPL. It gives some people the wrong impression. They end up using the GPL to protect themselves. According to RMS, it is for the software.
I guess I should go back and reread Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Franklin.
By the definition you're using, ALL code is proprietary unless it is public domain.
Agreed.
they have no right to complain about Open Source software being "proprietary."
What they might be complaining about is open source advocates complaining about proprietary software when open source itself is proprietary. Maybe he is upset about the stove calling the kettle proprietary.
First of all, I'll echo the obligatory "BSD licencse rulez! GPL SUCKZ!"
Why does someone have to post something like this every time something is open-sourced with a BSD license? It is getting to be the same as the "First" posters to me.
Mickeysoft could go off and take SCO's stuff and come out with Visual (insert name of SCO tool here)++.
They won't. It would be too obvious. Microsoft has too much pride. They don't want anyone to know that they are actively using open source. By anyone I mean businesses as opposed to us developers.
Then the US Constitution is tyrannical because it FORCES those archiac freedoms on its citizens!
Umm, right.
The Constituiton says what freedoms you have regardless if you agree with the constitution or not. If you are a citizen of the U.S., those freedoms are yours even if you don't want them. The GPL places stipulations on what you can do with the software as long as you follow its rules.
Also, remember that the Constitution is freedom for people while the GPL is "freedom" (according to RMS) for software. Big difference!
You are wrong. Proprietary means someone owns it. Last I checked almost all open source software has a copyright on it showing who OWNS it. Check out definition 2 of proprietor .
The way I think of GPL software is under a group proprietary. It allows someone to alter it, but it and the alterations (as long as the software is distributed) still belongs to GNU's community. I didn't say open source because that is a larger set with licenses outside GNU's community.
I remember connecting to BBS's on my fast 1200-baud modem. I can still remember the text scrolling so quickly across the screen compared to that 300-baud I had just replace.
I can't wait until my connection to the GII (TLA I got from school a few years ago: Global Information Infrastructure) is as quick as it is in the movies. I would almost swear watching particular techie movies that they have a T1 for each packet coming across the line.
Motto of the story: Whatever you have, it is not enough.
You are not thinking right: Windows programs can take out the OS much easier than a UNIX OS. As a developer, I would love to run a virtual Windows box. If my program dies and takes the OS with it, my development environment will still be safe.
Also, a developer can run a virgin install of Windows inside VMWare. Most users have installed different drivers and software to their Windows box. Running software within a virtual virgin (grin) install can reduce the number of factors attributed to a failure of your program. It would be easier to decide if it was your fault or Windows.
It is still ok to blame Microsoft; it is politically correct.:)
OpenSSH - A genuinely Open Source clone of SSH 1.x.
I believe OpenSSH is not a clone but a split. They took an earlier version of SSH with a BSD license and patched it up. I don't recall which version of SSH it is based upon.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I think they just wanted to stress that binaries compiled by their compiler had no restrictions imposed by them.
Why not try to add provisions that make the DMCA undesirable to AOL-TW and friends?
For example, put a requirement in there that protects "fair use". Maybe something that requires "fair use" to be easily accomplished. I know we can't think of ways off hand to to make it easy, but it would force the other side to have to come up with it.
This would be like what the FBI did (or at least tried to do) to laws attempting to allow the free use of encryption.
I understand their complaint that Yahoo should notify them, but isn't the main problem with the courts.
:)
If Yahoo receives a subpoena, should it not obey the court?
Another thought: if Yahoo tries to defend against the subpoena, it might be held liable for the content. By just passing the information under court order, they remove themselves from the appearance of moderation. In courts, moderation == liability for content.
All thoughts above are just ideas. Assembly language would be easier to develop in than learning law.
And if someone calls the GPL a "virus", he obviously wants to unfairly take advantage of other peoples work without contributing anything by himself.
If you can't kill the message, attack the messengers. You should go into politics.
Personally, I think of the GPL as a "virus". I was happy to see Enlightenment go to a BSD license. I have not yet stolen a single line of code. I have submitted a patch though.
the big question i have (paranoia alert!) is that PostgreSQL is under a BSD license, so they don't need to release any changes...
If they try to make it proprietary, someone will just fork off the last open version and leave the proprietary version in the dust. Two examples would be OpenSSH and XFree86 (the threat to proceed independently under an open license kept X11R6.4 open).
We do. And they don't. And don't. And don't. And don't. And don't. And don't.
I guess this will surprise IBM (JFS), SGI (XFS), and SCO (cscope). Many more companies have donated code to different projects. Some do contribute and some don't. Stop whining about it.
Thank you for possibility.
Any chance for a FreeBSD version? Please? :)
A native version is always perferred, but I wonder if this can be run under Linux emulation.
Our machine froze four times in less than three hours.
Either the hardware is defective or the OS needs major work. I know this is Microsoft, but I can't believe they would try to sell something that crashes this often.
P.S. Does Slashdot have "moron moderators" to control the flood of firsts and other nonsense? I am talking about people with enough points (like 100+) to wipeout the morons that just seem to have to post junk all over the place.
I thought you were FUD'ing the BSD license. Jokes are allowed. :)
I think cscope will be immune to Microsoft. I believe Visual Studio already has a lot of the functionality of cscope built in. I say believe because I have not yet tried cscope; I have only read the man page.
It was a JOKE fer Christ's sake.
:)
:)
Sorry to be so abrupt.
And thanks for pointing out that the GPL applies to software and the Constitution to people, that's something I never realized before.
Since more than you are reading this, I made mention of that for others. I realized you realized this before.
I just don't think people should be trying to compare the Constitution to the GPL. It gives some people the wrong impression. They end up using the GPL to protect themselves. According to RMS, it is for the software.
I guess I should go back and reread Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Franklin.
Who?
By the definition you're using, ALL code is proprietary unless it is public domain.
Agreed.
they have no right to complain about Open Source software being "proprietary."
What they might be complaining about is open source advocates complaining about proprietary software when open source itself is proprietary. Maybe he is upset about the stove calling the kettle proprietary.
P.S. Why does "Extrans" not work? Sigh.
First of all, I'll echo the obligatory "BSD licencse rulez! GPL SUCKZ!"
Why does someone have to post something like this every time something is open-sourced with a BSD license? It is getting to be the same as the "First" posters to me.
Mickeysoft could go off and take SCO's stuff and come out with Visual (insert name of SCO tool here)++.
They won't. It would be too obvious. Microsoft has too much pride. They don't want anyone to know that they are actively using open source. By anyone I mean businesses as opposed to us developers.
If it wasn't proprietary, anyone could do anything they wanted with it. Check the copyright out on software. Someone or some organization owns it.
Then the US Constitution is tyrannical because it FORCES those archiac freedoms on its citizens!
Umm, right.
The Constituiton says what freedoms you have regardless if you agree with the constitution or not. If you are a citizen of the U.S., those freedoms are yours even if you don't want them. The GPL places stipulations on what you can do with the software as long as you follow its rules.
Also, remember that the Constitution is freedom for people while the GPL is "freedom" (according to RMS) for software. Big difference!
If that's the case, then why does every proprietary software package come with a 1000-word essay on what you may not do with the software?
I hope you don't think the GPL is short (output from wc -w):
2965 COPYING
One big reason I prefer the BSD license over the GPL is the length. Here is the number of words from a 2-clause BSD license:
195 LICENSE
All licenses tell you what you can and cannot do with it. From the BSDL to the GPL to Microsoft's licenses, they all put stipulations on the software.
You are wrong. Proprietary means someone owns it. Last I checked almost all open source software has a copyright on it showing who OWNS it. Check out definition 2 of proprietor .
The way I think of GPL software is under a group proprietary. It allows someone to alter it, but it and the alterations (as long as the software is distributed) still belongs to GNU's community. I didn't say open source because that is a larger set with licenses outside GNU's community.
... drive-by flamings about BSD licenses being "obviously superior," ...
:) (quote from Spock)
I will not remind you of which you know so well.
You fail to read the license at significant peril.
I definately agree with this. Always read the license.
And Gates thought 640K would be enough.
I remember connecting to BBS's on my fast 1200-baud modem. I can still remember the text scrolling so quickly across the screen compared to that 300-baud I had just replace.
I can't wait until my connection to the GII (TLA I got from school a few years ago: Global Information Infrastructure) is as quick as it is in the movies. I would almost swear watching particular techie movies that they have a T1 for each packet coming across the line.
Motto of the story: Whatever you have, it is not enough.
You are not thinking right: Windows programs can take out the OS much easier than a UNIX OS. As a developer, I would love to run a virtual Windows box. If my program dies and takes the OS with it, my development environment will still be safe.
:)
Also, a developer can run a virgin install of Windows inside VMWare. Most users have installed different drivers and software to their Windows box. Running software within a virtual virgin (grin) install can reduce the number of factors attributed to a failure of your program. It would be easier to decide if it was your fault or Windows.
It is still ok to blame Microsoft; it is politically correct.
Thanks for the support from the others who posted concerning the poor moderation. This is where meta-moderation is useful.
:)
It probably was a Trekkie.
MS sure did release a browser fast when Mr. Gates realized the internet was important.
:)
In Microsoft's defense, they do have lots of monkeys and keyboards (typewriters did not crash enough).
Irrelevant. Microsoft would probably have just rewritten it all--they have enough developers--to get around the GPL.
OpenSSH - A genuinely Open Source clone of SSH 1.x.
I believe OpenSSH is not a clone but a split. They took an earlier version of SSH with a BSD license and patched it up. I don't recall which version of SSH it is based upon.
I am waiting for an ELF FreeBSD version. I guess I will have to wait until Mozilla is out.