People are free to create binary-only derivatives of your source code.
Ah, but you are free to legally decompile the source and do whatever you want with it. And, unlike current "reverse engineering," you don't have to have separate people deciphering the original and writing the new -- you can just copy.
Besides, in a world without copyright, no business model that I can think of that depends on closed source would be viable anyway. All these closed-source vendors would go out of business because they'd only be able to sell a very small number of copies before somebody put it up on the Internet (and in a nice conspicuous place too, unlike today's situation where legal threats and shame limit it).
Sure, it's a trade-off, but it's arguable that it would be a worthwhile one.
Tell you what, how 'bout you name a counterexample: a medical device that
is owned by the end-user rather than a hospital or the like,
must not be able to be altered by the end-user in order to receive certification and must not be allowed to be used in an decertified state (even if the user did the "de-certifying" himself), and
must be able to have updates applied by the end user.
That's a bad analogy, because you're still looking at it from the "forcing distributors to provide source code" perspective. Instead, you should see that it's permissive from the "allowing users to get source code" perspective.
Prohibiting users to get the source code is restrictive. Forcing users to get the source code is restrictive. Allowing users to get the source code is permissive. The GPL does the third thing, so it is indeed permissive. And any restrictions on distributors are irrelevant.
So all that means is that under Queen Anne terms GCC would have been public domain in 2001, and Skype came out in 2003, just in time. Good thing there were no copyright extensions to spoil that GPL "spirit".
No, the very first version of GCC would be public domain. Newer versions (i.e., ones created in 1993 or later) would still be under copyright (and the GPL).
And that's good enough -- after all, why shouldn't old versions of GCC be Public Domain?
Like it are not, all those extensions that benefit the (MP|RI)AA also end up benefiting the open source world as well
I assume you're talking about the benefit of copyleft (i.e., enforcing the sharing) versus plain permissive (e.g. Public Domain). The thing is, plain permissive really isn't all that much worse than copyleft. In contrast, (from the RIAA's perspective) public domain is very much worse than proprietary. So, having a longer copyleft term doesn't benefit the Free Software community nearly as much as having a longer copyright term benefits the RIAA.
Besides, old music remains valuable to society. For the most part, old code doesn't.
For both of those reasons, it is unnecessary for Free Software to have long copyright, and thus most Free Software advocates oppose copyright extensions. The fact that the RIAA et al. abuse copyright only confirms that position more.
The GPL is permissive, and thus turns the usual function of copyright on it's head.
In other words, usually when people violate copyright it's through an act that increases the spread of the information, and prosecuting them for it would restict that spread. In contrast, when people violate copyright by failing to abide by the GPL, they themselves are restricting the spread of the information and prosecuting them restores it.
If one (e.g., a "loyal drone") consistently believes that spreading information is good and restricting it is bad, there is no contradiction.
What do you mean? Opposing the RIAA means supporting the user's freedom. Enforcing the GPL also means supporting the user's freedom. There is no contradiction.
Yeah, functional languages are good (at least, for some things -- one of which is introducing novices to programming). I wouldn't want to start kids off with Common LISP itself, though; they're better off with cleaner, simpler implementations such as Scheme or LOGO.
Okay, so just give the person the encryption key to change the code! It's not as they're going to surgically remove it from their chest (in order to attach the pacemaker to a computer, to load the new version) anyway!
Besides, that's where my third bullet point -- burning the software to ROM -- should come in, since you're not going to be issuing patches (as that software must be correct the first time).
One of the programming languages that is coming with the OLPC is Smalltalk. That means there will be a new generation of millions 3rd world LISP-like hackers spread all throughout the world.
Since when was Smalltalk LISP-like? They're not even the same paradigm, for crying out loud (huge Common Lisp specification with tacked-on OO notwithstanding)!
After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World". (As Hannah Arendt explains, "The Third World is not a reality but an ideology.")
It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable.
You're wrong, and here's why:
First of all, medical devices are not "User Products," so the requirement to provide keys doesn't apply to begin with!
Second, the certification can always be revoked if the user modifies the code.
Third, if you really "absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries," you ought to be simply burning the thing into read-only memory instead!
The dementors didn't see them! As you said, the cloak makes them invisible -- they can still be heard, or touched, or smelled. Along the same vein, the dementors could sense their fear.
One thing that bothered me was how the 3 kept wearing the locket/horcrux. Why? They could tell it was bad for them because they figured out they needed to swap it around. But why wear it at all?
For the same reason Harry wore the pouch Hagrid gave him, and that Hermione stuck her purse in her sock: so they wouldn't lose it!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you are free to legally decompile the source and do whatever you want with it. And, unlike current "reverse engineering," you don't have to have separate people deciphering the original and writing the new -- you can just copy.
Besides, in a world without copyright, no business model that I can think of that depends on closed source would be viable anyway. All these closed-source vendors would go out of business because they'd only be able to sell a very small number of copies before somebody put it up on the Internet (and in a nice conspicuous place too, unlike today's situation where legal threats and shame limit it).
Sure, it's a trade-off, but it's arguable that it would be a worthwhile one.
Whoops -- off-by-one error. s/"1993 or later"/"later than 1993"/g.
Sure, why not?
Tell you what, how 'bout you name a counterexample: a medical device that
That's a bad analogy, because you're still looking at it from the "forcing distributors to provide source code" perspective. Instead, you should see that it's permissive from the "allowing users to get source code" perspective.
Prohibiting users to get the source code is restrictive. Forcing users to get the source code is restrictive. Allowing users to get the source code is permissive. The GPL does the third thing, so it is indeed permissive. And any restrictions on distributors are irrelevant.
No, the very first version of GCC would be public domain. Newer versions (i.e., ones created in 1993 or later) would still be under copyright (and the GPL).
And that's good enough -- after all, why shouldn't old versions of GCC be Public Domain?
If we didn't have copyright laws, we wouldn't need the GPL anyway!
Aw, you didn't like Deskmate?
I assume you're talking about the benefit of copyleft (i.e., enforcing the sharing) versus plain permissive (e.g. Public Domain). The thing is, plain permissive really isn't all that much worse than copyleft. In contrast, (from the RIAA's perspective) public domain is very much worse than proprietary. So, having a longer copyleft term doesn't benefit the Free Software community nearly as much as having a longer copyright term benefits the RIAA.
Besides, old music remains valuable to society. For the most part, old code doesn't.
For both of those reasons, it is unnecessary for Free Software to have long copyright, and thus most Free Software advocates oppose copyright extensions. The fact that the RIAA et al. abuse copyright only confirms that position more.
I see no reason why adults would lose the ability to do magic on their own.
Hey, we're having a legal discussion here -- pedantry is necessary!
The GPL is permissive, and thus turns the usual function of copyright on it's head.
In other words, usually when people violate copyright it's through an act that increases the spread of the information, and prosecuting them for it would restict that spread. In contrast, when people violate copyright by failing to abide by the GPL, they themselves are restricting the spread of the information and prosecuting them restores it.
If one (e.g., a "loyal drone") consistently believes that spreading information is good and restricting it is bad, there is no contradiction.
What do you mean? Opposing the RIAA means supporting the user's freedom. Enforcing the GPL also means supporting the user's freedom. There is no contradiction.
Yeah, functional languages are good (at least, for some things -- one of which is introducing novices to programming). I wouldn't want to start kids off with Common LISP itself, though; they're better off with cleaner, simpler implementations such as Scheme or LOGO.
Okay, so just give the person the encryption key to change the code! It's not as they're going to surgically remove it from their chest (in order to attach the pacemaker to a computer, to load the new version) anyway!
Besides, that's where my third bullet point -- burning the software to ROM -- should come in, since you're not going to be issuing patches (as that software must be correct the first time).
Ah, yes. Having Scheme on there along with Smalltalk (and maybe LOGO?) would be awesome.
Is Mexico a member of NATO? Is Mexico a former Warsaw Pact country? No?
Then yes, Mexico is considered "third-world" (in the original sense), just like Switzerland, Japan, and a whole bunch of other countries.
Since when was Smalltalk LISP-like? They're not even the same paradigm, for crying out loud (huge Common Lisp specification with tacked-on OO notwithstanding)!
I wonder how much good Linux's "Laptop Mode" would do, with or without the flash wear-leveling...
See Wikipedia:
You're wrong, and here's why:
Like I said, the events surrounding it were compelling, but the spell itself was not impressive.
Actually, the former Soviet countries are "second-world," by definition.
The dementors didn't see them! As you said, the cloak makes them invisible -- they can still be heard, or touched, or smelled. Along the same vein, the dementors could sense their fear.
For the same reason Harry wore the pouch Hagrid gave him, and that Hermione stuck her purse in her sock: so they wouldn't lose it!
Antagonists, fool! He's talking about Sauron and Saruman, not Bilbo and Frodo!