Oh goody! I, for one, can't wait until people start arguing that free beer isn't free, because you can't open, modify, and then redistribute it legally. That will make the whole "free as in beer" argument so much more exciting.
That would be true if they were suing for something that was obviously illegal in the first place. However, it's important because they're trying to argue that something ambiguously legal is actually illegal. The DMCA has a provision that indemnifies companies like Google from lawsuits if users upload copyrighted material. All they're required to do is take it down once they've been notified, which they have been doing. Viacom is arguing that they shouldn't have to police YouTube, and that Google should be pre-screening content. What they're essentially saying is that the "Safe Haven" clause of the DMCA is not legal. But if they're doing the exact same thing, it makes it much harder to argue.
For that kind of money, I'd probably just send the HD to data recovery specialists.
Well, this is the government. They probably didn't have a budget for data recovery, but they did have a budget for scanning documents...the actual dollar amounts of each probably matter very little;-)
If you want to refer to the no-money aspect of software you should use the word "Freeware", no need to trying to hijack the term Free Software for something for which the software world already has a perfectly fitting word.
Putting the word "free" in front of an object (like beer), by convention, generally means that you don't have to pay for it. This usage of the word free predates "Freeware" and the FSF definition of the term "Free Software" by several centuries. If anybody is hijacking "Free Software", it's the FSF, and the legions of people who for some reason can't understand basic usage of the English language, and who think the FSF has some sort of authority over the word "free". Until the FSF is appointed "Official English Language Words Group", they don't get to redefine what words or phrases mean. At best they can say that "Free Software" means "Free and Open Source Software", but they certainly can't say what it doesn't mean. As somebody else pointed out, "Open Software" is a much less ambiguous term.
Hope that unlike the HTML/Javascript/CSS soup we have now, this technology is designed from the ground up with security in mind.
Ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
[breath]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Okay, sorry. I'm done.
I just hope it works on mobile phones, it has to be a better solution than Sun's J2ME/JavaME mess.
I doubt it would help much. In my experience, the problems with J2ME have less to do with the language itself, and much more to do with the fact that every phone implements it just a little bit differently, which means that while an app should work on all phones, it'll crash for no apparent reason on some...There's also the problem that a lot of current phones are still not implementing MIDP2.0, and the minimum specs for both MIDP1.0 and MIDP2.0 are ridiculously low, given the current state of mobile technology.
Free has a lot of definitions. May I direct your attention to definition 11 below. You'll notice there's no requirement specified under #11 that says that any of the other definitions also have to be true in order for something to be considered free.
free -adjective 1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people. 2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: They were thankful to be living on free soil. 3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government: the free nations of the world. 4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent. 5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. 6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose. 7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor: The highway is now free of fallen rock. 8. not occupied or in use: I'll try to phone her again if the line is free. 9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of taxes. 10. having immunity or being safe (usually fol. by from): free from danger. 11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: free parking; a free sample. 12. given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of legal advice. 13. unimpeded, as motion or movement; easy, firm, or swift. 14. not held fast; loose; unattached: to get one's arm free. 15. not joined to or in contact with something else: The free end of the cantilever sagged. 16. acting without self-restraint or reserve: to be too free with one's tongue. 17. ready or generous in giving; liberal; lavish: to be free with one's advice. 18. given readily or in profusion; unstinted. 19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar. 20. unrestrained by decency; loose or licentious: free behavior. 21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The ship was given free passage. 22. of, pertaining to, or characterized by free enterprise: a free economy. 23. that may be used by or is open to all: a free market. 24. engaged in by all present; general: a free fight. 25. not literal, as a translation, adaptation, or the like; loose. 26. uncombined chemically: free oxygen. 27. traveling without power; under no force except that of gravity or inertia: free flight. 28. Phonetics. (of a vowel) situated in an open syllable (opposed to checked). 29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of): to be free of a friend's house. 30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.: The young students had an hour of free play between classes. 31. easily worked, as stone, land, etc. 32. Mathematics. (of a vector) having specified magnitude and direction but no specified initial point. Compare bound1 (def. 9). 33. Also, large. Nautical. (of a wind) nearly on the quarter, so that a sailing vessel may sail free. 34. not containing a specified substance (often used in combination): a sugar-free soft drink. 35. (of a linguistic form) occurring as an independent construction, without necessary combination with other forms, as most words. Compare bound1 (def. 11). 36. without cost, payment, or charge.
Of course. Thing is, there's a whole lot of nothing up in space. For an asteroid to travel 30 years without coming anywhere near a large object isn't that difficult to imagine...
Free doesn't exclusively mean without monetary cost.
And it doesn't exclusively mean without restriction either. Saying something isn't free, but not specifying under which definition of free, is at best, just confusing.
The grandparent said it wasn't "free". He didn't specify which "free" he was talking about. Since it is "free" under at least one definition of the word free, his statement is incorrect. While one who knows a bit about FOSS could assume that they meant free as in speech, they didn't explicitly *say* that. And since the majority of the population means "free as in beer" when they're talking about whether software is free, people who insist on claiming that software isn't free if it's not free as in speech are only making a conversation more confusing in ways that have no bearing on the main point as a whole.
Also, Ape is not free software, despite the availability of source for certain versions. It's only officially released for Windows.
To clarify, Monkey's Audio is a free (as in money) application. Why some people refuse to call free software "free" unless it's FOSS continues to escape my understanding...If you mean FOSS, why not just say "FOSS".
The same can be said for windows relative to linux... People are still using it because they always have.
Not at all. I'm all for Linux, but in art or digital audio, the tools available in Linux just don't stack up (yet) with ones available for Windows and OSX. Yes, there's the Gimp for graphics, and Audacity for audio (among a few others), but there's nothing that comes close to competing with ProTools, or any of the other major audio software applications, and I don't think there's much on Linux that competes with Illustrator or Quark, either.
How crazy do you have to be to think that an asteroid is a real threat for humankind? *shakes head*
Well, unless you've seen any dinosaurs lately, an extinction event has happened in the Earth's past at least once. Yeah, the chances of it happening again in our lifetime are infinitesimally small, but the consequences of *not* deflecting an asteroid if it comes our way are especially dire. I, for one, am all for the "just in case" planning in this regard.
There was an interview with a guy on NPR concerning this...from what he was saying, the answer is basically, yes...things in space don't change direction unless something else hits them, so in theory, it is possible to predict an impact 30 years in advance. The main problem is that our ability to model trajectories isn't fine-grained enough to do so, yet.
With all the taxable profit that generates it's hard to believe the USA still has a federal debt [google.com], isn't it?
Yes, we were all surprised to learn that taxes from SMS messages profit didn't cover the cost of running the entire federal government, plus our elective wars. Who could have guessed...
Hey, if it were up to me, the entire DMCA would be repealed...I'm just pointing out that the Google/Viacom thing is not exactly a cut-n-dry issue. I think Napster ran into trouble because the majority of the files shared were illegal...YouTube might be a different case, because there is plenty of legal content.
If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.
Actually, from what I understand (and IINAL), Section 512(c) of the DMCA includes a "safe harbor" provision that basically says that Google isn't liable unless they refuse to take down material that they have been told to remove by the copyright holder. For better or for worse, right now it's up to Viacom to check for their own content on YouTube, and alert Google when they find it.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Maybe because I've been a Christian my whole life, and "morals" to me are generally based around forgiving and helping other people. Sometimes I forget that the evangelists define "morals" as hating gays and abortions. Silly me...
He'd attempted to use flaws in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online
That's it? They finally get a serial abuser of the DMCA to apologize, and it's just some guy with a nudie picture that he didn't want people to see? How about getting an **AA or something to apologize for *really* infringing on free speech/expression?
Slashdot Mirror
provided you pour it in a glass first and your redistribution area doesn't extend beyond the property line.
Well, that doesn't sound very free, then, does it?
Oh goody! I, for one, can't wait until people start arguing that free beer isn't free, because you can't open, modify, and then redistribute it legally. That will make the whole "free as in beer" argument so much more exciting.
Define free.
3 92001
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226941&cid=18
So, is anybody going to argue that it's not "free" because you can't edit and redistribute it yourself?
That would be true if they were suing for something that was obviously illegal in the first place. However, it's important because they're trying to argue that something ambiguously legal is actually illegal. The DMCA has a provision that indemnifies companies like Google from lawsuits if users upload copyrighted material. All they're required to do is take it down once they've been notified, which they have been doing. Viacom is arguing that they shouldn't have to police YouTube, and that Google should be pre-screening content. What they're essentially saying is that the "Safe Haven" clause of the DMCA is not legal. But if they're doing the exact same thing, it makes it much harder to argue.
despite high profile cases such as FEMA and Alberto Gonzales, publicity and accountability for government administrative errors is rare.
Oh, they're still scapegoats. Same with Scooter Libby. They just happen to be scapegoats for people with a whole lot of power...
For that kind of money, I'd probably just send the HD to data recovery specialists.
;-)
Well, this is the government. They probably didn't have a budget for data recovery, but they did have a budget for scanning documents...the actual dollar amounts of each probably matter very little
If you want to refer to the no-money aspect of software you should use the word "Freeware", no need to trying to hijack the term Free Software for something for which the software world already has a perfectly fitting word.
Putting the word "free" in front of an object (like beer), by convention, generally means that you don't have to pay for it. This usage of the word free predates "Freeware" and the FSF definition of the term "Free Software" by several centuries. If anybody is hijacking "Free Software", it's the FSF, and the legions of people who for some reason can't understand basic usage of the English language, and who think the FSF has some sort of authority over the word "free". Until the FSF is appointed "Official English Language Words Group", they don't get to redefine what words or phrases mean. At best they can say that "Free Software" means "Free and Open Source Software", but they certainly can't say what it doesn't mean. As somebody else pointed out, "Open Software" is a much less ambiguous term.
Hope that unlike the HTML/Javascript/CSS soup we have now, this technology is designed from the ground up with security in mind.
Ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
[breath] Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Okay, sorry. I'm done.
I just hope it works on mobile phones, it has to be a better solution than Sun's J2ME/JavaME mess.
I doubt it would help much. In my experience, the problems with J2ME have less to do with the language itself, and much more to do with the fact that every phone implements it just a little bit differently, which means that while an app should work on all phones, it'll crash for no apparent reason on some...There's also the problem that a lot of current phones are still not implementing MIDP2.0, and the minimum specs for both MIDP1.0 and MIDP2.0 are ridiculously low, given the current state of mobile technology.
Free has a lot of definitions. May I direct your attention to definition 11 below. You'll notice there's no requirement specified under #11 that says that any of the other definitions also have to be true in order for something to be considered free.
free
-adjective
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government: the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.
7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor: The highway is now free of fallen rock.
8. not occupied or in use: I'll try to phone her again if the line is free.
9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of taxes.
10. having immunity or being safe (usually fol. by from): free from danger.
11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: free parking; a free sample.
12. given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of legal advice.
13. unimpeded, as motion or movement; easy, firm, or swift.
14. not held fast; loose; unattached: to get one's arm free.
15. not joined to or in contact with something else: The free end of the cantilever sagged.
16. acting without self-restraint or reserve: to be too free with one's tongue.
17. ready or generous in giving; liberal; lavish: to be free with one's advice.
18. given readily or in profusion; unstinted.
19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.
20. unrestrained by decency; loose or licentious: free behavior.
21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The ship was given free passage.
22. of, pertaining to, or characterized by free enterprise: a free economy.
23. that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.
24. engaged in by all present; general: a free fight.
25. not literal, as a translation, adaptation, or the like; loose.
26. uncombined chemically: free oxygen.
27. traveling without power; under no force except that of gravity or inertia: free flight.
28. Phonetics. (of a vowel) situated in an open syllable (opposed to checked).
29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of): to be free of a friend's house.
30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.: The young students had an hour of free play between classes.
31. easily worked, as stone, land, etc.
32. Mathematics. (of a vector) having specified magnitude and direction but no specified initial point. Compare bound1 (def. 9).
33. Also, large. Nautical. (of a wind) nearly on the quarter, so that a sailing vessel may sail free.
34. not containing a specified substance (often used in combination): a sugar-free soft drink.
35. (of a linguistic form) occurring as an independent construction, without necessary combination with other forms, as most words. Compare bound1 (def. 11).
36. without cost, payment, or charge.
-- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free
Of course. Thing is, there's a whole lot of nothing up in space. For an asteroid to travel 30 years without coming anywhere near a large object isn't that difficult to imagine...
Free doesn't exclusively mean without monetary cost.
And it doesn't exclusively mean without restriction either. Saying something isn't free, but not specifying under which definition of free, is at best, just confusing.
Monkey's Audio is not free software, it is proprietary software available at zero price.
Monkey's Audio is free software under at least one definition of the word free. The FSF can't just redefine or limit definitions of free.
The grandparent said it wasn't "free". He didn't specify which "free" he was talking about. Since it is "free" under at least one definition of the word free, his statement is incorrect. While one who knows a bit about FOSS could assume that they meant free as in speech, they didn't explicitly *say* that. And since the majority of the population means "free as in beer" when they're talking about whether software is free, people who insist on claiming that software isn't free if it's not free as in speech are only making a conversation more confusing in ways that have no bearing on the main point as a whole.
Also, Ape is not free software, despite the availability of source for certain versions. It's only officially released for Windows.
To clarify, Monkey's Audio is a free (as in money) application. Why some people refuse to call free software "free" unless it's FOSS continues to escape my understanding...If you mean FOSS, why not just say "FOSS".
The same can be said for windows relative to linux... People are still using it because they always have.
Not at all. I'm all for Linux, but in art or digital audio, the tools available in Linux just don't stack up (yet) with ones available for Windows and OSX. Yes, there's the Gimp for graphics, and Audacity for audio (among a few others), but there's nothing that comes close to competing with ProTools, or any of the other major audio software applications, and I don't think there's much on Linux that competes with Illustrator or Quark, either.
How crazy do you have to be to think that an asteroid is a real threat for humankind? *shakes head*
Well, unless you've seen any dinosaurs lately, an extinction event has happened in the Earth's past at least once. Yeah, the chances of it happening again in our lifetime are infinitesimally small, but the consequences of *not* deflecting an asteroid if it comes our way are especially dire. I, for one, am all for the "just in case" planning in this regard.
There was an interview with a guy on NPR concerning this...from what he was saying, the answer is basically, yes...things in space don't change direction unless something else hits them, so in theory, it is possible to predict an impact 30 years in advance. The main problem is that our ability to model trajectories isn't fine-grained enough to do so, yet.
With all the taxable profit that generates it's hard to believe the USA still has a federal debt [google.com], isn't it?
Yes, we were all surprised to learn that taxes from SMS messages profit didn't cover the cost of running the entire federal government, plus our elective wars. Who could have guessed...
Hey, if it were up to me, the entire DMCA would be repealed...I'm just pointing out that the Google/Viacom thing is not exactly a cut-n-dry issue. I think Napster ran into trouble because the majority of the files shared were illegal...YouTube might be a different case, because there is plenty of legal content.
typo...but yes, I suppose "I Is Not A Lawyer" works well enough...
If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.
Actually, from what I understand (and IINAL), Section 512(c) of the DMCA includes a "safe harbor" provision that basically says that Google isn't liable unless they refuse to take down material that they have been told to remove by the copyright holder. For better or for worse, right now it's up to Viacom to check for their own content on YouTube, and alert Google when they find it.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Maybe because I've been a Christian my whole life, and "morals" to me are generally based around forgiving and helping other people. Sometimes I forget that the evangelists define "morals" as hating gays and abortions. Silly me...
He'd attempted to use flaws in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online
That's it? They finally get a serial abuser of the DMCA to apologize, and it's just some guy with a nudie picture that he didn't want people to see? How about getting an **AA or something to apologize for *really* infringing on free speech/expression?
And don't forget gay marriage and abortion...