Why not just legalize tobacco for kids? If the kids are going to smoke behind the gym, then no video camera is going to stop them. Parenting should be left to parents, and not vending machines.
p.s. Oh, and while we're at it, legalize pot for adults too...
Oh, I just checked, and the OpenMotif sources ARE at motifzone! Just go to the download page and there they are! Only the CVS repo is being hosted at sourceforge, the release tarballs are still at www.motifzone.org.
I do contribute to GPL software, but only as a contributor. Any project that I control I put under the BSD or MIT license. That's because I have absolutely no interest in suing my users.
p.s. "Communist" is a bad word to use, because development of GPL software is still voluntary. Under communism labor was forced and centrally directed. GPL software is more like a gated community of anarcho-syndicalists.
Motif was never BSD or MIT licensed. It was always a proprietary or semi-proprietary library.
Also, the Unix wars occured during a time when neither GNU nor BSD had fully functional Free Software operating systems available. If you wanted an operating system, Unix or otherwise, it was proprietary.
There are two reasons why BSD software will never be public domain. First, it's legally impractical to place something into the public domain. Everything is automatically copyrighted upon creation, but you need a lawyer to actually relinquish that copyright. Second, without a copyright you have nothing to hang a warrantly disclaimer on. The danger is not that someone can file off your name and pretend it is their own, but rather that they can distribute it without your disclaimer.
Now if this were GPL software, lawsuits would be flying already! Obviously NetBSD has a rather radical definition of freedom, one that has not been approved by our moral arbiters at GNU.
companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products, but modelers may not be able to prevent others from copying their work.
Oh noes! Teh courts can't tell the difference between proprietary and free! We should be able to copy Toyota wireframes because Toyota is Evil Corp, but Toyota can't use our mods on the wireframe because we put them under teh GPL. Next thing you know, some dumb judge will say it's okay for RIAA to do mashups of our mashups!
Sue the bastards! People can't just do what they want with the software. What do they think it is, free or something? Sue the bastards and keep suing them until they respect our authority! Freedom is about suing people who don't follow the rules! Gawd how I wish there were a clause in the GPL that would let me kick these f*ckers in the nuts.
No, it's not at all clear. Where not talking about Stallman's wishes, we're talking about copyright law. It's one thing to live a sheltered existance in the FSF echo chamber, but it's quite another when you're out interacting with the real world.
Did the dealer distribute software to me when he sold me a Honda Civic? What about my MP3 player? Printer? Toaster? Mouse? They might not all of software on them today, but the time is not far off when EVERY piece of hardware will have microcode somewhere in it. If that microcode happens to have Busybox on it, will I get sued if I lend my neighbor my car?
The GPL, DMCA and EULAs all have one thing in common: the use of government granted copyrights to dictate what the user can or cannot do with the software they have legally aquirred. In a just world I should be able to give a copy of the software to a friend, with or without the source code.
Because it's not at all clear that you have to post the source code to Busybox! You haven't modified Busybox, you haven't made a derivative work, you haven't done anything at all to its source code. Hell, you probably haven't even SEEN the source code, since you got it from a binary. I work with a lot of embedded device manufacturers, and they do not use LFS, they use prepackaged embedded Linux systems or kits.
It's also not at all clear that distributing hardware is also distributing the software. There is no clear point at which the software is an integral part of the hardware and when it is an end user product.
The GPL claims it is based on copyright law, but copyright law is extremely vague on a lot of points.
p.s. I would LOVE to see a lot more "privatization" of functions that do not properly belong to the government. But that's not what the Bush administration has done. Instead they have presided over the largest buildup of government in world history. I'm not talking just about Iraq, I'm talking about all areas of government, from education to prescription pills to eminent domain. Bush makes Clinton look almost laissez faire in comparison.
I think I missed that privatization. Other than a few "faith based" replacements for midnight basketball, and mercenaries in Iraq, I haven't seen much outsourcing of government functions to private firms at the federal level. Implying that the Bush administration are a bunch of free market fanatics run amok is stupid.
I was the one who alerted the busybox developers about the GPL violation
Snitch. That's what he is, a snitch. Ratting out people due to a malformed sense of justice. The inability to mind one's own business. All we have is a network appliance being voluntarily purchased by willing consumers. But the poster has a twisted morality so he finks to the developers.
Disgusting.
This is the same sort of person who rats out their neighbor to the RIAA, who calls the BSA when their boss uses a pirated copy of MSOffice, who tattles to the MPAA when his mom rips a movie off of a Netflix DVD. The presence or lack of GPL has nothing to do with it, a desire to get people in trouble does. No one is being hurt. No one is being damaged, defrauded or lied to. No one is being stolen from. I bet this is the same guy snitched to the kindergarten teacher when someone was chewing gum.
they refused to provide me the GPL sources several times.
The sources for Busybox are trivially available elsewhere. There was no need to snitch to get them.
ARPAnet was a military project. But unlike most military projects, it was run in a very hands-off manner. If congress was there micromanaging it, like they want to do with Net Neutrality, we would still be arguing over the details of the protocol.
I am not an anarchist. There is this HUGE area between total anarchy and total state. Not every call for limiting the domain of government activity is a rallying call for anarchy. There are legitimate roles for the government, but it needs to limit itself to only those roles. The fact that it managed to fund the TCP/IP protocol as part of a military defense project does not give government the legitimacy to tell me what I can or cannot do with my node on the network. If I want to shape the traffic moving through my node and you don't like it, just route around me.
Everything the government touches turns to shit. It's like that guy in the Skittles commercial, but with little rabbit turds instead. If the government had been making technology decisions twenty years ago, we would all be stuck on ISDN. Net Neutrality assumes a static technological world that only changes in predetermined ways.
People like to pretend that the only problem wrong with government is that the right people are not in charge. But that's fantasy. Obama can no more write a routing protocol than McCain. This is the gang of fools that gave us the DMCA, and now you trust them to run the internet? Hah!
I say get the government out of technology. This is a problem we can solve without their help.
People believe what they want to believe. Conspiracies: 9/11 Troof, Obama "whitey" tapes, faked moonshot, 1947 Roswell, Bilderbergers, communist flouridation, vast rightwing conspiracy, etc. Fake science/technology: magnets in gas tank, cold fusion, perpetual motion, perpetual oil, etc.
Now combine the two: Big Petroleum is keeping this technology off the market, but if you subscribe to my newsletter, I'll tell you how to get an extra 10MPG!
Actually, it is my right to fly. If an airline and myself come to an economic arrangement whereupon I give them money and they agree to fly me to a different airport, then it's NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS! Saying I don't have a right to fly is like saying I don't have a right to buy a sandwich at a sandwich shop.
If the airport wants to make rules about the passengers using their property, fine. But it's not the airports doing this, it's a government agency imposing it on the airports. I'm lucky enough to live less than an hour from three different major airports. If one airport pisses me off, I can take my business elsewhere. But if the TSA pisses me off, I have to say "yessah massah!"
For my next business trip, I've simply chosen not to fly. I'm going to drive six hours instead.
Yeah, that's what that creepy doctor told me during my last prostate exam...
I think we've hit the peak and are irreversibly headed towards outright totalitarianism (and I'm not just talking about the US). We've given up our precious freedoms for counterfeit security. The only choices we seem to be left with are fascist totalitarianism or socialist totalitarianism. Frankly, I don't want either one.
I see that Slashdot is up to its usual echo chamber standards. The parent post gets modded insightful, and my direct reply to it gets modded offtopic. Sigh.
The 1929 crash was caused by a variety of factors. But the depression that followed was prolonged through the distrous policies of Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover's policy of wage controls kept it going long enough for Roosevelt to come into to office. His subsequent "let's try random policies to see what works" New Deal kept the depression going.
We didn't get out of the depression until AFTER world war II. The myth is that the war got us out, but that's nothing more than lying through statistics. Unemployment certainly disappeared, but that's ONLY because the unemployed got drafted!
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but your high school history teacher lied to you.
Slashdot Mirror
There were no video cameras on cigarette vending machines when I was a kid. Guess what? The world managed to survive!
Why not just legalize tobacco for kids? If the kids are going to smoke behind the gym, then no video camera is going to stop them. Parenting should be left to parents, and not vending machines.
p.s. Oh, and while we're at it, legalize pot for adults too...Oh, I just checked, and the OpenMotif sources ARE at motifzone! Just go to the download page and there they are! Only the CVS repo is being hosted at sourceforge, the release tarballs are still at www.motifzone.org.
I do contribute to GPL software, but only as a contributor. Any project that I control I put under the BSD or MIT license. That's because I have absolutely no interest in suing my users.
p.s. "Communist" is a bad word to use, because development of GPL software is still voluntary. Under communism labor was forced and centrally directed. GPL software is more like a gated community of anarcho-syndicalists.Did you send a note to the OpenMotif admins? Bitching on Slashdot doesn't fix the problem.
Motif was never BSD or MIT licensed. It was always a proprietary or semi-proprietary library.
Also, the Unix wars occured during a time when neither GNU nor BSD had fully functional Free Software operating systems available. If you wanted an operating system, Unix or otherwise, it was proprietary.
There are two reasons why BSD software will never be public domain. First, it's legally impractical to place something into the public domain. Everything is automatically copyrighted upon creation, but you need a lawyer to actually relinquish that copyright. Second, without a copyright you have nothing to hang a warrantly disclaimer on. The danger is not that someone can file off your name and pretend it is their own, but rather that they can distribute it without your disclaimer.
Now if this were GPL software, lawsuits would be flying already! Obviously NetBSD has a rather radical definition of freedom, one that has not been approved by our moral arbiters at GNU.
Oh noes! Teh courts can't tell the difference between proprietary and free! We should be able to copy Toyota wireframes because Toyota is Evil Corp, but Toyota can't use our mods on the wireframe because we put them under teh GPL. Next thing you know, some dumb judge will say it's okay for RIAA to do mashups of our mashups!
Sue the bastards! People can't just do what they want with the software. What do they think it is, free or something? Sue the bastards and keep suing them until they respect our authority! Freedom is about suing people who don't follow the rules! Gawd how I wish there were a clause in the GPL that would let me kick these f*ckers in the nuts.
No, it's not at all clear. Where not talking about Stallman's wishes, we're talking about copyright law. It's one thing to live a sheltered existance in the FSF echo chamber, but it's quite another when you're out interacting with the real world.
Did the dealer distribute software to me when he sold me a Honda Civic? What about my MP3 player? Printer? Toaster? Mouse? They might not all of software on them today, but the time is not far off when EVERY piece of hardware will have microcode somewhere in it. If that microcode happens to have Busybox on it, will I get sued if I lend my neighbor my car?
The GPL, DMCA and EULAs all have one thing in common: the use of government granted copyrights to dictate what the user can or cannot do with the software they have legally aquirred. In a just world I should be able to give a copy of the software to a friend, with or without the source code.
GPL: License to sue
Because it's not at all clear that you have to post the source code to Busybox! You haven't modified Busybox, you haven't made a derivative work, you haven't done anything at all to its source code. Hell, you probably haven't even SEEN the source code, since you got it from a binary. I work with a lot of embedded device manufacturers, and they do not use LFS, they use prepackaged embedded Linux systems or kits.
It's also not at all clear that distributing hardware is also distributing the software. There is no clear point at which the software is an integral part of the hardware and when it is an end user product.
The GPL claims it is based on copyright law, but copyright law is extremely vague on a lot of points.
p.s. I would LOVE to see a lot more "privatization" of functions that do not properly belong to the government. But that's not what the Bush administration has done. Instead they have presided over the largest buildup of government in world history. I'm not talking just about Iraq, I'm talking about all areas of government, from education to prescription pills to eminent domain. Bush makes Clinton look almost laissez faire in comparison.
I think I missed that privatization. Other than a few "faith based" replacements for midnight basketball, and mercenaries in Iraq, I haven't seen much outsourcing of government functions to private firms at the federal level. Implying that the Bush administration are a bunch of free market fanatics run amok is stupid.
Snitch. That's what he is, a snitch. Ratting out people due to a malformed sense of justice. The inability to mind one's own business. All we have is a network appliance being voluntarily purchased by willing consumers. But the poster has a twisted morality so he finks to the developers.
Disgusting.
This is the same sort of person who rats out their neighbor to the RIAA, who calls the BSA when their boss uses a pirated copy of MSOffice, who tattles to the MPAA when his mom rips a movie off of a Netflix DVD. The presence or lack of GPL has nothing to do with it, a desire to get people in trouble does. No one is being hurt. No one is being damaged, defrauded or lied to. No one is being stolen from. I bet this is the same guy snitched to the kindergarten teacher when someone was chewing gum.
The sources for Busybox are trivially available elsewhere. There was no need to snitch to get them.
ARPAnet was a military project. But unlike most military projects, it was run in a very hands-off manner. If congress was there micromanaging it, like they want to do with Net Neutrality, we would still be arguing over the details of the protocol.
I am not an anarchist. There is this HUGE area between total anarchy and total state. Not every call for limiting the domain of government activity is a rallying call for anarchy. There are legitimate roles for the government, but it needs to limit itself to only those roles. The fact that it managed to fund the TCP/IP protocol as part of a military defense project does not give government the legitimacy to tell me what I can or cannot do with my node on the network. If I want to shape the traffic moving through my node and you don't like it, just route around me.
San Ramon is also about 80% hardcore progressive Democrat. These guys probably met the only gun owner within ten miles.
Everything the government touches turns to shit. It's like that guy in the Skittles commercial, but with little rabbit turds instead. If the government had been making technology decisions twenty years ago, we would all be stuck on ISDN. Net Neutrality assumes a static technological world that only changes in predetermined ways.
People like to pretend that the only problem wrong with government is that the right people are not in charge. But that's fantasy. Obama can no more write a routing protocol than McCain. This is the gang of fools that gave us the DMCA, and now you trust them to run the internet? Hah!
I say get the government out of technology. This is a problem we can solve without their help.
People believe what they want to believe. Conspiracies: 9/11 Troof, Obama "whitey" tapes, faked moonshot, 1947 Roswell, Bilderbergers, communist flouridation, vast rightwing conspiracy, etc. Fake science/technology: magnets in gas tank, cold fusion, perpetual motion, perpetual oil, etc.
Now combine the two: Big Petroleum is keeping this technology off the market, but if you subscribe to my newsletter, I'll tell you how to get an extra 10MPG!
Actually, it is my right to fly. If an airline and myself come to an economic arrangement whereupon I give them money and they agree to fly me to a different airport, then it's NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS! Saying I don't have a right to fly is like saying I don't have a right to buy a sandwich at a sandwich shop.
If the airport wants to make rules about the passengers using their property, fine. But it's not the airports doing this, it's a government agency imposing it on the airports. I'm lucky enough to live less than an hour from three different major airports. If one airport pisses me off, I can take my business elsewhere. But if the TSA pisses me off, I have to say "yessah massah!"
For my next business trip, I've simply chosen not to fly. I'm going to drive six hours instead.
Yeah, that's what that creepy doctor told me during my last prostate exam...
I think we've hit the peak and are irreversibly headed towards outright totalitarianism (and I'm not just talking about the US). We've given up our precious freedoms for counterfeit security. The only choices we seem to be left with are fascist totalitarianism or socialist totalitarianism. Frankly, I don't want either one.
Linux is nothing more than a bootloader for Emacs...
Oh wait, did I just say that on a FreeBSD thread?
I see that Slashdot is up to its usual echo chamber standards. The parent post gets modded insightful, and my direct reply to it gets modded offtopic. Sigh.
The 1929 crash was caused by a variety of factors. But the depression that followed was prolonged through the distrous policies of Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover's policy of wage controls kept it going long enough for Roosevelt to come into to office. His subsequent "let's try random policies to see what works" New Deal kept the depression going.
We didn't get out of the depression until AFTER world war II. The myth is that the war got us out, but that's nothing more than lying through statistics. Unemployment certainly disappeared, but that's ONLY because the unemployed got drafted!
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but your high school history teacher lied to you.