Neither did the people who didn't buy 10 copies of GTA, assuming they didn't actually pirate it. The point was that 250G$ was a bit high, and they must have been using calculations that result in numbers far in excess of the amount of actual piracy.
You were claiming though, that "open source" applied to code that was "look, don't touch" - that as long as it's visible, they'd call it open, and that using it only for code that can be freely used and modified (either with a license or implicitly) is a "hijacking" of the term. That's a lot different from saying that it was unenforced and often public-domain. (and if you're going to cite something that goes against your point to illustrate that the person you're citing is wrong and why, you should at least say you're doing so)
The first one doesn't clearly support your claim. It seems to me that "who could use it as needed" mean that there is at least some free licensing involved, and that what they are claiming has been added on to it is a LACK of copyleft (that is, its original meaning could mean either copyleft or bsd/mit, and now it only means bsd/mit)
The second, the only one that actually supports your claim... well, it's not contemporary. someone with the same misconception as you do might have written that.
The third doesn't support it at all, and it's not clear why you cited it.
The fourth directly opposes it, stating that "open source" was _newly invented_ (that is, did not have a previous, different meaning) to describe what had been called "free software" while avoiding the confusion with free as in beer.
What i meant was you should provide cites of people actually using open source in what you claim is the old meaning - maybe in old articles or on usenet.
Even adding a token of appreciation in fan mail would be unlikely to get through. Whoever has been hired to answer the mail would be more than able to lift it without anybody being any the wiser.
Send a check made out to the artist (NOT the band name), then. Sending cash through the mail is stupid no matter WHO it's sent to.
Seriously, that has to be a moderation - since there can't be any other reason i'm not seeing it already in the comments.
They're not releasing it so that you can't put it on a Dell. If you could combine the OSX kernel (with modifications to make it run on any old PC), with the x86 binaries for stuff like aqua and everything, why would anyone buy a mac?
Is it wrong? Is it unreasonable? maybe. But it's not like it's some big mystery.
Seriously, am I the only one here who gets this? If it were ANY other possible reason, they either wouldn't be releasing any open-source at all (userspace, etc) for anything other than what they have to (gcc), or they at least wouldn't be releasing the PPC kernel either.
Greetings and welcome to terminology 101. Our phrase of the day is "open source." The term means the source code is open to the public to view. It does not imply that the code is freely licensed, able to be legally copied, or under any specific license at all.
The correct term for that is "shared source". Open source means it's freely licensed, able to be legally copied, and probably under a license that conforms to the open source definition published by OSI.
His claim was that for the particular people he was talking about, it was the satellite, cell phones, etc, that "got in the way" more than the housing and taxes.
No, but he could go somewhere that he could plausibly spend a reasonable amount of time at (say, a friend's house), turn it off, go do whatever bad things, come back to the same "good" location, turn it back on, and claim that "it must have been a dead zone. weird."
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
The flip side of "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you say who you are?" is "If you're not going to do anything to him, why do you need to know who he is?"
However, maybe I should clarify my statement: There is no reason why any ordinary Canadian citizen would feel the need to hide his identity when publishing legitimate satire about a Canadian politician.
Yeah - you'd like to think that. Sometimes even so-called "liberal democracies" don't live up to what's expected. Particularly given the fact that the site _was_ in fact pulled based on content rather than false registration data, one has to wonder what this politician would have done if he'd been able to track him down.
As far as I know (NAL), there isn't any existing _law_ against linking to copyrighted material in the US - only a series of court decisions, which are not binding on Sweden (a civil law country anyway, so even if they were Swedish court decisions...)
Your example is a bad one. If you don't reveal the secrets that are [part of] the basis for your opinion, It seems ridiculous that you could be thrown in jail for giving your opinion itself. Your opinion is not an official secret, and the government has no right to make it one.
What does "cap usage (not bandwidth) daily" mean? Opposing it to daily bandwidth limits seems to imply that you mean someone should only be allowed a certain number of "minutes" each day, regardless of how much you're downloading/uploading during those minutes, that is, that basically the maximum price will be paid by anyone who listens to a 24kbps audio stream or even is on IRC for a mere trickle of data, 24/7. That's not what you meant, is it? (I assume you meant only allow a certain amount of data to be downloaded per day - which is also the only thing that "daily bandwidth cap" as opposed to "bandwith cap" per se, could mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither did the people who didn't buy 10 copies of GTA, assuming they didn't actually pirate it. The point was that 250G$ was a bit high, and they must have been using calculations that result in numbers far in excess of the amount of actual piracy.
You were claiming though, that "open source" applied to code that was "look, don't touch" - that as long as it's visible, they'd call it open, and that using it only for code that can be freely used and modified (either with a license or implicitly) is a "hijacking" of the term. That's a lot different from saying that it was unenforced and often public-domain. (and if you're going to cite something that goes against your point to illustrate that the person you're citing is wrong and why, you should at least say you're doing so)
Is it actually spyware, or do you just not like the idea of something automatically sending avertisements?
GAIM automatically (or used to) puts something about itself in your profile.
The first one doesn't clearly support your claim. It seems to me that "who could use it as needed" mean that there is at least some free licensing involved, and that what they are claiming has been added on to it is a LACK of copyleft (that is, its original meaning could mean either copyleft or bsd/mit, and now it only means bsd/mit)
The second, the only one that actually supports your claim... well, it's not contemporary. someone with the same misconception as you do might have written that.
The third doesn't support it at all, and it's not clear why you cited it.
The fourth directly opposes it, stating that "open source" was _newly invented_ (that is, did not have a previous, different meaning) to describe what had been called "free software" while avoiding the confusion with free as in beer.
What i meant was you should provide cites of people actually using open source in what you claim is the old meaning - maybe in old articles or on usenet.
Even adding a token of appreciation in fan mail would be unlikely to get through. Whoever has been hired to answer the mail would be more than able to lift it without anybody being any the wiser.
Send a check made out to the artist (NOT the band name), then. Sending cash through the mail is stupid no matter WHO it's sent to.
Cite.
The ambiguity is in the imagination of those who want to use the term without opening their source.
Seriously, that has to be a moderation - since there can't be any other reason i'm not seeing it already in the comments.
They're not releasing it so that you can't put it on a Dell. If you could combine the OSX kernel (with modifications to make it run on any old PC), with the x86 binaries for stuff like aqua and everything, why would anyone buy a mac?
Is it wrong? Is it unreasonable? maybe. But it's not like it's some big mystery.
Seriously, am I the only one here who gets this? If it were ANY other possible reason, they either wouldn't be releasing any open-source at all (userspace, etc) for anything other than what they have to (gcc), or they at least wouldn't be releasing the PPC kernel either.
Greetings and welcome to terminology 101. Our phrase of the day is "open source." The term means the source code is open to the public to view. It does not imply that the code is freely licensed, able to be legally copied, or under any specific license at all.
The correct term for that is "shared source". Open source means it's freely licensed, able to be legally copied, and probably under a license that conforms to the open source definition published by OSI.
His claim was that for the particular people he was talking about, it was the satellite, cell phones, etc, that "got in the way" more than the housing and taxes.
No, but he could go somewhere that he could plausibly spend a reasonable amount of time at (say, a friend's house), turn it off, go do whatever bad things, come back to the same "good" location, turn it back on, and claim that "it must have been a dead zone. weird."
CSI? geez, the autopsy rooms are as bright as day compared to the courtrooms.
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
how do you get the fancy quote markers - looks a lot better than just italics
The flip side of "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you say who you are?" is "If you're not going to do anything to him, why do you need to know who he is?"
Sure. Which the torrent tracker may be guilty of.
Fortunately, the law doesn't (AFAIK/IANAL) recognize double-indirect contributory infringement.
This is Canada we're talking about, not some right-wing police state like, um... well, the USA.
So you're saying that bad people don't exist in canada? Or just never get voted into office?
You can never be too careful - the right to anonymity is an important one.
However, maybe I should clarify my statement: There is no reason why any ordinary Canadian citizen would feel the need to hide his identity when publishing legitimate satire about a Canadian politician.
Yeah - you'd like to think that. Sometimes even so-called "liberal democracies" don't live up to what's expected. Particularly given the fact that the site _was_ in fact pulled based on content rather than false registration data, one has to wonder what this politician would have done if he'd been able to track him down.
As far as I know (NAL), there isn't any existing _law_ against linking to copyrighted material in the US - only a series of court decisions, which are not binding on Sweden (a civil law country anyway, so even if they were Swedish court decisions...)
it's now equal in keyfeel to the best keyboards I could find at local superstores,
...right...
Um....
pass.
There is no reason any ordinary citizen would feel the need to hide his identity when publishing legitimate satire.
Bullshit.
Your example is a bad one. If you don't reveal the secrets that are [part of] the basis for your opinion, It seems ridiculous that you could be thrown in jail for giving your opinion itself. Your opinion is not an official secret, and the government has no right to make it one.
What does "cap usage (not bandwidth) daily" mean? Opposing it to daily bandwidth limits seems to imply that you mean someone should only be allowed a certain number of "minutes" each day, regardless of how much you're downloading/uploading during those minutes, that is, that basically the maximum price will be paid by anyone who listens to a 24kbps audio stream or even is on IRC for a mere trickle of data, 24/7. That's not what you meant, is it? (I assume you meant only allow a certain amount of data to be downloaded per day - which is also the only thing that "daily bandwidth cap" as opposed to "bandwith cap" per se, could mean.
I've never heard of this program. If anyone's "the next Netscape" it's Ad-Aware or Spybot.
It is limited by the speed of sound.