If SCO really has their way, I don't know about you, but I'm going to run something called FreeBSD. Why pay license fees when other quality free operating systems exist?
Even one ORA book-- to wit, the one on Mastering Algorithms With C, with the pink cover-- noted that its code was tested on "Linux 8.0" (!!!).
It notes no such thing. The readme on the CD says it was tested with "Linux 5.1," but the book itself says it was tested on "Red Hat Linux 5.1."
To get back on-topic, though, is it possible this confusion might have something to do with the similar version numbers in some distros? IIRC, Red Hat and Mandrake both released a version 8.0 at around the same time.
It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"!
It's both. Speaking of confusion, though, it would be good if the concepts of "open-source" and "free software" weren't so commonly confused. Open-source needs to stop pretending it's free software with a new name (go read the Open Source Definition and tell me it doesn't do this) and start marketing itself as a development methodology, which is what it is.
Maybe he said GNU/Linux, but the editors changed it. Remember that lots of people have heard of Linux but comparatively few have heard of GNU/Linux. I usually just say "Linux" on Slashdot to avoid people calling me a GNU/hippie and sidetracking the discussion.
the author should be willing to jump through some hoops, so secure is he that his work will later profit him. If he's not, it seems rather wasted to give him protection for something he doesn't value economically. I say economically because copyright only benefits an author in that fashion; if an author wants to create art for art's sake, or wants the fame, he'll be encouraged without the copyright.
That's where you're wrong, assuming it's all about profit. I happen to be a vegetarian, and if I wrote a song that was then used by some food company in a commercial for a meat product, that would displease me greatly. Copyright allows me to prevent such a scenario. For at least the term of the copyright, I won't be inadvertently supporting something I don't like.
I do think another poster's suggestion of simply requiring an explicit copyright notice is much more reasonable proposal, and one I will consider endorsing. But every time I make any creative work, according to you and Lawrence Lessig, I should have to spend money and waste my time completing some registration process. Or I can risk having my creation used against me. Or I can keep it to myself as long as possible. Which choice I'll most often pick is left as an exercise to the reader (hint: it isn't #1 or #2), but none of the choices are good for me or for the public.
It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Yeah right, patches that contain Windows IP so they can say that open-source projects "stole" it. With the whole SCO situation going on right now, wouldn't you be apprehensive about accepting a patch from MS?
Has he forgotten that the intent of copyright is to get people to make stuff? I wouldn't write most of my e-mails, notes, and blogs if I couldn't copyright them. I also compose songs and distribute them on the Internet, but if I couldn't copyright them, I would keep them to myself. And maybe not even make them to begin with.
# Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different?
Deposit requirement.
Registration requirement.
Anyone else think these two are unreasonable? They deal no harm to huge corporations of the kind that now own our culture, but they would be a major obstacle to people who just want to make stuff. If I had to go fill out forms and spend money every time I wrote an article or composed a song, I would do much less of those things.
Actually, making the code available online is just fine if that's where the binaries are. See the GPL FAQ; source and binaries have to be "in the same place." I know that doesn't apply in this case, since the binaries aren't online, but as a general statement about everything GPL'ed, what you've said is not true.
There is a big difference between selling a product that violates copyrights and downloading something copyrighted that you aren't supposed to have. If Linksys is indeed violating the GPL, they're making money from it. If I download some song I didn't buy, I am not actually profiting. Not that it's okay to do so, but it is less bad.
Thus, it wouldn't be entirely hypocritical to download copyright-restricted songs and consider GPL violations a bad thing. Besides, most of the comments I've seen here don't endorse the former anyway. They do oppose egregiously harsh penalties for it.
No, then you'll have to pay less for new computers. Also, if you RTFA (yes, the site's slashdotted, but someone posted the full text in another comment), you'll notice that the article specifically notes "Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do." The work involved in getting that $199 refund is not cost-effective in any sense of the word.
That sounds like a lot of work for $199. Are we that desperate for money?
If this is intended as a protest of some sort, I can't see what effect it will have. I know few people who run Linux/BSD and don't also dual-boot Windows occasionally, and fewer who will proceed carefully, document everything, be persistent and keep their cool just to accomplish something as seemingly insignificant as getting a $199 refund.
The Condorcet method of voting requires that each voter rank the candidates from best to worst. It's generally a good system, but has been criticised for being hard to understand (maybe not for those of us on/., but for the stupid voters). Another interesting voting method is range voting, which assigns a number value to each candidate based on that candidate's desirability.
An improved voting system would certainly make lots of things better (though due to Arrow's paradox, a perfect system is impossible). I think we also need to improve the voters. The most heard criticism of Condorcet's method is that it's hard to understand, and it's really not all that complex at all.
That's what I thought at first too, but the review begins by saying:
Can you use a Linux system successfully in a Windows-dominated environment? That's what SuSE's Linux Desktop is designed to facilitate.
In other words, SLD is intended specifically for being compatible with Windows networks.
I do object to the "maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all" comment in the/. summary. If you use it in an environment that isn't Windows-dominated, the most major problems the review mentions will be eliminated.
There was no story on/. when the music-making program Psycle became open-source. Not many people had heard of Psycle at the time. Then again, judging by the comments on this article, not many people have heard of MSWL Olmec either.
Really, does every single closed-source project that becomes open-source deserve a story about it? I don't think so. There isn't enough room for that many stories.
Desktop/GUI innovation is dead. There is not much progress one can make from this point on.
Funny you should say that. I was just thinking about this 1843 quote from patent commissioner Henry Ellsworth: "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end."
Wan't to make a GPL program from a BSD program? sure, easy. Want to make non-gpl program from a gpl program? I haven't seen it done.
Want to make a closed-source program from a BSD program? Sure, easy. Want to make a BSD program from a closed-source program? You won't be seeing it done.
To suggest that it's okay for non-free programs to stay non-free but not okay for free programs to stay free shows that you are against free software in general. Stop looking at open-source programs as raw material to be refined into proprietary software, and start looking at them as finished products in their own right. Then you will see why the GPL is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Xfree86 and GNOME and KDE are not parts of the system. You can use GNU/Linux without them. Try using "Linux" without any of the GNU tools.
If SCO really has their way, I don't know about you, but I'm going to run something called FreeBSD. Why pay license fees when other quality free operating systems exist?
To get back on-topic, though, is it possible this confusion might have something to do with the similar version numbers in some distros? IIRC, Red Hat and Mandrake both released a version 8.0 at around the same time.
It's both. Speaking of confusion, though, it would be good if the concepts of "open-source" and "free software" weren't so commonly confused. Open-source needs to stop pretending it's free software with a new name (go read the Open Source Definition and tell me it doesn't do this) and start marketing itself as a development methodology, which is what it is.Maybe he said GNU/Linux, but the editors changed it. Remember that lots of people have heard of Linux but comparatively few have heard of GNU/Linux. I usually just say "Linux" on Slashdot to avoid people calling me a GNU/hippie and sidetracking the discussion.
I agree. Linux is a product developed by a process. The point is that it's the process, not the product, that makes Linux special.
Did you read the full answer to the first question? The whole point is that politics really isn't as corrupt as you think it is.
Hey, quit stealing definitions from dictionary.com!
I do think another poster's suggestion of simply requiring an explicit copyright notice is much more reasonable proposal, and one I will consider endorsing. But every time I make any creative work, according to you and Lawrence Lessig, I should have to spend money and waste my time completing some registration process. Or I can risk having my creation used against me. Or I can keep it to myself as long as possible. Which choice I'll most often pick is left as an exercise to the reader (hint: it isn't #1 or #2), but none of the choices are good for me or for the public.
Let me rephrase that, then... if I couldn't conveniently copyright them. The explicit copyright notice is a much more reasonable idea.
Has he forgotten that the intent of copyright is to get people to make stuff? I wouldn't write most of my e-mails, notes, and blogs if I couldn't copyright them. I also compose songs and distribute them on the Internet, but if I couldn't copyright them, I would keep them to myself. And maybe not even make them to begin with.
Does the router have some sort of access or copy control on it? If not, the DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Actually, making the code available online is just fine if that's where the binaries are. See the GPL FAQ; source and binaries have to be "in the same place." I know that doesn't apply in this case, since the binaries aren't online, but as a general statement about everything GPL'ed, what you've said is not true.
There is a big difference between selling a product that violates copyrights and downloading something copyrighted that you aren't supposed to have. If Linksys is indeed violating the GPL, they're making money from it. If I download some song I didn't buy, I am not actually profiting. Not that it's okay to do so, but it is less bad.
Thus, it wouldn't be entirely hypocritical to download copyright-restricted songs and consider GPL violations a bad thing. Besides, most of the comments I've seen here don't endorse the former anyway. They do oppose egregiously harsh penalties for it.
No, then you'll have to pay less for new computers. Also, if you RTFA (yes, the site's slashdotted, but someone posted the full text in another comment), you'll notice that the article specifically notes "Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do." The work involved in getting that $199 refund is not cost-effective in any sense of the word.
That sounds like a lot of work for $199. Are we that desperate for money?
If this is intended as a protest of some sort, I can't see what effect it will have. I know few people who run Linux/BSD and don't also dual-boot Windows occasionally, and fewer who will proceed carefully, document everything, be persistent and keep their cool just to accomplish something as seemingly insignificant as getting a $199 refund.
The Condorcet method of voting requires that each voter rank the candidates from best to worst. It's generally a good system, but has been criticised for being hard to understand (maybe not for those of us on /., but for the stupid voters). Another interesting voting method is range voting, which assigns a number value to each candidate based on that candidate's desirability.
Rated voting, which is a special case of range voting, was generally the best method (i.e., it maximised voter happiness) in a test of various voting systems. Also see ElectionMethods.org.
An improved voting system would certainly make lots of things better (though due to Arrow's paradox, a perfect system is impossible). I think we also need to improve the voters. The most heard criticism of Condorcet's method is that it's hard to understand, and it's really not all that complex at all.
In other words, SLD is intended specifically for being compatible with Windows networks.
I do object to the "maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all" comment in the
There was no story on /. when the music-making program Psycle became open-source. Not many people had heard of Psycle at the time. Then again, judging by the comments on this article, not many people have heard of MSWL Olmec either.
Really, does every single closed-source project that becomes open-source deserve a story about it? I don't think so. There isn't enough room for that many stories.
Indeed. Everyone knows what MSWL, Olmec, PBEM, and GPL'ed mean, but only the true nerds have heard of this "soccer game" thing.
I don't think you understand. PBEM means "Play By E-Mail." Graphics and speed are not really going to be major concerns for games by e-mail.
Innovation will never die.
zlib is not PD, actually. It's under a BSD-style license.
To suggest that it's okay for non-free programs to stay non-free but not okay for free programs to stay free shows that you are against free software in general. Stop looking at open-source programs as raw material to be refined into proprietary software, and start looking at them as finished products in their own right. Then you will see why the GPL is a good thing.