If, for example, your industry is a very niche one... what you're actually effectively selling them is an insurance policy along the lines of "you can sue us if it doesn't work"
Right, selling support would still be possible. But that's not the same as selling retail copies of software in a box, which is what I've been talking about the whole time.
Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that."
"I have a Freedom to own and use a gun (the 2nd Amendment affirms it!). It's not my fault the bullet ended up in your brain. Laws against so-called 'murder' are bunk; all they do is call my freedom 'bad freedom' and try to restrict it!"
Yeah, right.
People's right to do what they want with GPL software ends when they try to restrict the freedom of others, in the same way that my freedom to shoot a gun ends at your head.
This is somewhat akin to me putting my stereo in your living room, then calling the police and telling them you stole it. And that's what the clause is in particular trying to prevent.
Though I have to wonder if this has ever actually happened, and if it did, could there be some sort of implicit license argument made?
Ah, but you're forgetting one thing: the GPL is designed to grant redistribution rights too (that's the part detractors call "viral").
In other words, the better analogy is that you put your stereo in my living room, then I give it to somebody else, who gives it to yet a fourth person, and so on until it ends up in the hands of somebody you've never met who might be using it in a way you don't approve of. Then you call the police on them.
It's easy to suppose an "implicit license" might protect me, but would it protect them? Moreover, would it protect them without requiring everybody in the chain to be involved in the litigation? What if some people involved in the chain don't even remember who they gave the stereo to? What if, even though I'm not liable for stealing it myself since you gave it to me, it turns out that I am liable for improperly passing it on?
This is the scenario Microsoft is deliberately trying to create with their deal with Novell, and which the GPLv3 tries to prevent.
I don't think a judge is going to actually hold them to that promise unless some sort of consideration was involved on part of the receiver of the promise (this would then be a contract).
"Consideration" is involved: the licensee has to abide by the GPL too, by making the source available it he redistributes, licensing any patents of his own he implements in the code, etc.
I am a BSD-supporter and used to be anti-GPL since thought it was motivated by paranoia. But now, sadly I see that it is almost a necessary means to protect the FOSS environment.
Indeed, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you!
With this in mind, a copyright-free world would be BSD-like in that someone could withhold their source.
They could, but what good would it do them when they can't sell the software?
This would probably see some (possibly niche) use in people adding useful-but-not-obvious algorithms to common software and then milking these proprietary additions for the weeks, months or years it would take open source to catch up.
"Milk it" how? Without copyright, they'll only be able to sell the software exactly once. In that environment, they'd go out of business before being able to "milk" anything.
I agree completely. However, you can tell from the picture that it unfortunately doesn't swivel. Also, the article says it has a TrackPoint and makes no mention of a stylus.
First off, EFI is a replacement for an ancient BIOS that most x86/x64 machines still slug along with. Since Apple could start with a clean slate, why not adopt the modern firmware for a mainboard over something filled with 20 years of legacy Apple didn't need?
Apple already had a perfectly good BIOS replacement, you fool! It's called "Open Firmware" and -- unlike EFI -- is a widely-supported open standard.
There were exactly two reasons for EFI to exist, and neither of them are good: Intel's Not-Invented-Here syndrome and DRM. That's it.
Also, the Macs currently shipping lack the TPM chip needed to implement Trusted Computing.
How do you know? Can you cite a source that actually disassembled a Mac to check? 'Cause what I heard is that Apple just made it so that the TPM doesn't show up in the device manager, but is still there (in fact, I recall hearing reports of people with Macs that most certainly had TPMs noticing them mysteriously disappear after a software update).
Sleep on a Mac? Maybe not quite instant, but it's damn close! My iBook G4 took about 1 (one) second, both going to sleep and waking up. Sadly, my Thinkpad X60 doesn't come close to this performance, in Windows or Linux (but Vista is especially slow -- so slow I might go back to XP even despite the fact that Vista has worthwhile improvements for Tablet PCs).
You push ONE button on your powerbook, and up pops the email client from your treo right there on the powerbook screen? And you can edit all your email and any attachments right there? And the email stays on the treo?
Why the hell would you want to do that? The laptop would have it's own perfectly good email client that would stay synced to the server (via IMAP) and thus (presumably) synced to the Treo too.
When you send email from your powerbook, it sends it from the treo using the cellular network so you don't have to be logged in a local wi-fi network (if any) for it to work?
Does the Treo have bluetooth? If so, use it as a modem.
No, it's not counter-productive, because having something merely called Free, but which actually isn't, doesn't do us any good anyway!
Personally, I don't give a shit about "Open Source" software. "Free Software," on the other hand, is important, as is keeping it Free. If those companies wanted to have their product be restricted, they should have used something BSD-licensed instead.
Some time after the introduction of GPL v3, Novell might end up as the only company in the Linux distribution business that is not permitted to distribute kernel 2.6.xx in any form.
Between the huge amount of time and effort it would take and the desire to avoid confusion, I'd bet that if the kernel switched to GPLv3 the version would be bumped to 2.8 (or later).
To oversimplify somewhat less drastically: you can use the GPLv3 with patented software, but you're required to license the patent Freely along with it (regardless of whether they got the GPL'd code from you or from anyone else).
What it means is that for the kernel to go v3, 60% of the code would have to be relicensed. While still very significant, it's at least easier to accomplish than 100%...
I think that hardware companies that use embedded OSS have the most to fear, as it opens up a huge can of worms for product liability and support, especially with the so-called "mission critical" applications. Many such companies feel the need to standardize and lock in on a specific set of often specially modified code that has been customized and tuned to their specific hardware. Allowing unrestricted modifications to the underlying software presents a spectrum of potential problems.
On the other hand, they surely took that into consideration before building the project and chose the GPL'd software anyway (Right...?). Therefore, they must have been fully aware that it would require the hardware to remain open in order to comply with the letter of GPLv3 (and the spirit of all previous versions).
Openness is the price of Free GPL code. If these companies thought they were getting something for nothing they were severely mistaken, and I have no sympathy for them.
Huh? Subscripts and superscripts aren't just (or even primarily) for citing sources, you know. In fact, in this case I was complaining about the inability to write the variable "f(sub)p" correctly.
And how many systems have we looked at? It seems with the rate we're finding new planets nowadays, we might be able to start narrowing down the possible values of fp
(Side note: I really wish Slashdot would allow <sub> and <sup> tags. I know only a subset of HTML is allowed to prevent abuse, but there's nothing harmful about subscripts and superscripts!)
100HP isn't going to... go up a mountain interstate at 65.
As the owner of a 103HP Hyundai Accent, I beg to differ. It'll go up mountains just fine (even at more than 65 mph)... you just might need to downshift.
If that were the case, I would have expected U.S. politicians to like it better than otherwise!
But I agree: any international anti-pollution treaty really ought to include developing nations, including China and India, because they are or will soon be even bigger polluters than the United States. Of course, it would have the added benefit (from our perspective) of keeping a relatively level economic playing field...
Still, I think the U.S. should have supported Kyoto even if it wouldn't have been very effective, because it would have at least been a (symbolic) step in the right direction, and a point with which to apply pressure to China later (i.e. "we've done our part, now it's your turn").
Of course! After all, the US's primary objection to the original Kyoto Protocol (and probably this too; I haven't R'd TFA yet) was that it didn't apply to China and other "developing" countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, because nobody would buy it.
Right, selling support would still be possible. But that's not the same as selling retail copies of software in a box, which is what I've been talking about the whole time.
"I have a Freedom to own and use a gun (the 2nd Amendment affirms it!). It's not my fault the bullet ended up in your brain. Laws against so-called 'murder' are bunk; all they do is call my freedom 'bad freedom' and try to restrict it!"
Yeah, right.
People's right to do what they want with GPL software ends when they try to restrict the freedom of others, in the same way that my freedom to shoot a gun ends at your head.
Ah, but you're forgetting one thing: the GPL is designed to grant redistribution rights too (that's the part detractors call "viral").
In other words, the better analogy is that you put your stereo in my living room, then I give it to somebody else, who gives it to yet a fourth person, and so on until it ends up in the hands of somebody you've never met who might be using it in a way you don't approve of. Then you call the police on them.
It's easy to suppose an "implicit license" might protect me, but would it protect them? Moreover, would it protect them without requiring everybody in the chain to be involved in the litigation? What if some people involved in the chain don't even remember who they gave the stereo to? What if, even though I'm not liable for stealing it myself since you gave it to me, it turns out that I am liable for improperly passing it on?
This is the scenario Microsoft is deliberately trying to create with their deal with Novell, and which the GPLv3 tries to prevent.
"Consideration" is involved: the licensee has to abide by the GPL too, by making the source available it he redistributes, licensing any patents of his own he implements in the code, etc.
Indeed, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you!
They could, but what good would it do them when they can't sell the software?
"Milk it" how? Without copyright, they'll only be able to sell the software exactly once. In that environment, they'd go out of business before being able to "milk" anything.
I agree completely. However, you can tell from the picture that it unfortunately doesn't swivel. Also, the article says it has a TrackPoint and makes no mention of a stylus.
Apple already had a perfectly good BIOS replacement, you fool! It's called "Open Firmware" and -- unlike EFI -- is a widely-supported open standard.
There were exactly two reasons for EFI to exist, and neither of them are good: Intel's Not-Invented-Here syndrome and DRM. That's it.
How do you know? Can you cite a source that actually disassembled a Mac to check? 'Cause what I heard is that Apple just made it so that the TPM doesn't show up in the device manager, but is still there (in fact, I recall hearing reports of people with Macs that most certainly had TPMs noticing them mysteriously disappear after a software update).
Sleep on a Mac? Maybe not quite instant, but it's damn close! My iBook G4 took about 1 (one) second, both going to sleep and waking up. Sadly, my Thinkpad X60 doesn't come close to this performance, in Windows or Linux (but Vista is especially slow -- so slow I might go back to XP even despite the fact that Vista has worthwhile improvements for Tablet PCs).
Why the hell would you want to do that? The laptop would have it's own perfectly good email client that would stay synced to the server (via IMAP) and thus (presumably) synced to the Treo too.
Does the Treo have bluetooth? If so, use it as a modem.
No, it's not counter-productive, because having something merely called Free, but which actually isn't, doesn't do us any good anyway!
Personally, I don't give a shit about "Open Source" software. "Free Software," on the other hand, is important, as is keeping it Free. If those companies wanted to have their product be restricted, they should have used something BSD-licensed instead.
Between the huge amount of time and effort it would take and the desire to avoid confusion, I'd bet that if the kernel switched to GPLv3 the version would be bumped to 2.8 (or later).
I don't think the distro would work to well with the toolchain and half the basic userland (bash, etc.) being "optional."
To oversimplify somewhat less drastically: you can use the GPLv3 with patented software, but you're required to license the patent Freely along with it (regardless of whether they got the GPL'd code from you or from anyone else).
What it means is that for the kernel to go v3, 60% of the code would have to be relicensed. While still very significant, it's at least easier to accomplish than 100%...
On the other hand, they surely took that into consideration before building the project and chose the GPL'd software anyway (Right...?). Therefore, they must have been fully aware that it would require the hardware to remain open in order to comply with the letter of GPLv3 (and the spirit of all previous versions).
Openness is the price of Free GPL code. If these companies thought they were getting something for nothing they were severely mistaken, and I have no sympathy for them.
Huh? Subscripts and superscripts aren't just (or even primarily) for citing sources, you know. In fact, in this case I was complaining about the inability to write the variable "f(sub)p" correctly.
He probably means one of the weirder kinds of ice.
And how many systems have we looked at? It seems with the rate we're finding new planets nowadays, we might be able to start narrowing down the possible values of fp
(Side note: I really wish Slashdot would allow <sub> and <sup> tags. I know only a subset of HTML is allowed to prevent abuse, but there's nothing harmful about subscripts and superscripts!)
You're right: "open source" can mean using Linux, Solaris, BSD, or even HURD. However, it does also mean "not Windows!"
Don't fool yourself. MS changed the audio (and video) system for Vista for one reason only: in order to enforce DRM.
As the owner of a 103HP Hyundai Accent, I beg to differ. It'll go up mountains just fine (even at more than 65 mph)... you just might need to downshift.
Generally speaking, valet keys can't open the trunk, glove box, or any other locked storage compartment.
If that were the case, I would have expected U.S. politicians to like it better than otherwise!
But I agree: any international anti-pollution treaty really ought to include developing nations, including China and India, because they are or will soon be even bigger polluters than the United States. Of course, it would have the added benefit (from our perspective) of keeping a relatively level economic playing field...
Still, I think the U.S. should have supported Kyoto even if it wouldn't have been very effective, because it would have at least been a (symbolic) step in the right direction, and a point with which to apply pressure to China later (i.e. "we've done our part, now it's your turn").
Of course! After all, the US's primary objection to the original Kyoto Protocol (and probably this too; I haven't R'd TFA yet) was that it didn't apply to China and other "developing" countries.
I only know about resources for RAZRs (since that's the kind of phone I have), but this might be a good starting point. Also, Google is your friend.