"Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it."
There may be some of those, but then there are some who believe the world is flat. Meanwhile, there are many who don't believe in (manmade) global warming for other, more legitimate, reasons. Some of us who are old enough still remember the imminent threat of the upcoming ice age. Just because scientists say it doesn't mean they have enough information to know.
"Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "right to get paid"."
But there is a "right to get paid for providing the sheet music" when he owns the copyright. He gets to choose the terms and his terms require payment.
"So my son, disappointed, did not share it with his friends, stopped listening to it, and no additional copies were ever made. OR SOLD!... The album died on the junk heap of history, as most do. And without at least a half a dozen potential ardent young fans."
Amazing story. Your son singlehandedly destroyed all future sales of an album by morally refusing to commit copyright violations. Apparently he was the only one left who liked it.
"The girl should have asked if he would be willing to sell his product at 30 cents a pop if that meant he'd get 100x more sales."
It's not the girl's place to challenge his business decisions. Who says competition is missing from the equation? Just because she wants it for free doesn't mean he has overpriced anything.
"This composer clearly believes that when someone downloads a copy of his music, it somehow deprives him of something by the examples he gives."
And he is right. Control over copying of his works is what is being deprived of him.
"You see, that's the problem with suggesting you are deserved future profits."
Nowhere did the author suggest that.
"That being said, it is your right to deny her your music."
The author did not deny her his music. He neither prevented her from obtaining future music nor requested that she give up illegal copies that she had. He simply asked her to stop violating his rights.
"I think you'd have offered to email her a copy if she sent you $4 in an envelope (or even a money order)."
Did it occur to you that perhaps he doesn't desire to be a store or perhaps doing so might actually be a violation of a contract?
"iPhone apps can't call the equivalent even of Windows 3.1 yield();..."
and it doesn't need to.
"...they either run in the foreground, or they're suspended - like the DOS 5.0 task swapper."
They can also be preempted because the kernel can do that. It is a UI decision and one that helps mitigate the lack of hardware resources of the device. It was never a technical limitation of the kernel. You're the one who needs to "try again".
Adapt to what? You don't understand the history of computing, there's no reason to believe you understand its future nor who's young enough to cope with it either.
Just because you don't need a "full computer" often doesn't mean the lame excuse for one you've substituted is a "laptop". I have an ARM processor in my phone but that doesn't mean ARM is suitable for a laptop either.
I expect my laptop to run my laptop software. ARM doesn't do any of that.
"Considering the way that the iPhone and iPad function,...those products use an excessive amount of bandwidth."
In what way does the iPhone/iPad function that causes it to "use an excessive amount of bandwidth"? It's bandwidth usage is no different than other devices. It's users may be different.
Or he may have rewritten a little more to remove the GPL entirely or he might have not done the project at all. The GPL doesn't promise that future projects will exist. That seems to be hard for for GPL fanboys to understand.
Oddly enough, the author used existing open source to contribute to a new project in compliance with and in the spirit of the license for that source, yet people complain because THEY can't have the new source despite having contributed to none of it. The GPL wouldn't have promised the source to you anyway, it only promises source to the users of the work.
"If I was basing something, for example a security audit, on this offer I'd want to know that someone independent had actually downloaded the source and verified that they could build the end module."
How would that be any different with a GPL'ed project?
Once all the GPL code is removed, what is left of the "structure" that is still GPL? Who could possibly say that the program was based on a "GPL work" at that point (if it ever was)? You can't copyright knowledge or ideas.
"There is more to it than what a commercial/proprietary interest will not be able to "take" from the community. There is also the moral, ethical and even emotional/spiritual aspects of F/OSS that need to be guarded."
But they didn't "take" from the community, the community gave it to them. It was moral, ethical, and emotional/spiritual as well as all the other BS words you can think to throw into it.
It's curious that GPL advocates care so much about the desires of the original developers except when those developers don't see things the same way as the GPL does. Then the GPL apparently need to be the champion of what their interests SHOULD be if they weren't so deluded.
Slashdot Mirror
It took you that long to realize this? It was very specifically the point of the show.
"Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it."
There may be some of those, but then there are some who believe the world is flat. Meanwhile, there are many who don't believe in (manmade) global warming for other, more legitimate, reasons. Some of us who are old enough still remember the imminent threat of the upcoming ice age. Just because scientists say it doesn't mean they have enough information to know.
Perhaps you should have posted that comment in the right place.
"maybe if they'd TRIMmed the whole drive with a decent OS and started from there without zeroing they'd have gotten significantly different results."
maybe. maybe not. I own a mac with a Samsung drive. It's performance sucks. It sucks no less than any benchmark I've seen published on it though.
"Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "right to get paid"."
But there is a "right to get paid for providing the sheet music" when he owns the copyright. He gets to choose the terms and his terms require payment.
"So my son, disappointed, did not share it with his friends, stopped listening to it, and no additional copies were ever made. OR SOLD! ... The album died on the junk heap of history, as most do. And without at least a half a dozen potential ardent young fans."
Amazing story. Your son singlehandedly destroyed all future sales of an album by morally refusing to commit copyright violations. Apparently he was the only one left who liked it.
"The girl should have asked if he would be willing to sell his product at 30 cents a pop if that meant he'd get 100x more sales."
It's not the girl's place to challenge his business decisions. Who says competition is missing from the equation? Just because she wants it for free doesn't mean he has overpriced anything.
"This composer clearly believes that when someone downloads a copy of his music, it somehow deprives him of something by the examples he gives."
And he is right. Control over copying of his works is what is being deprived of him.
"You see, that's the problem with suggesting you are deserved future profits."
Nowhere did the author suggest that.
"That being said, it is your right to deny her your music."
The author did not deny her his music. He neither prevented her from obtaining future music nor requested that she give up illegal copies that she had. He simply asked her to stop violating his rights.
"I think you'd have offered to email her a copy if she sent you $4 in an envelope (or even a money order)."
Did it occur to you that perhaps he doesn't desire to be a store or perhaps doing so might actually be a violation of a contract?
"Of course, if you were a little bit smarter..."
Listen to you!
"If you put a good SSD (e.g. Intel) in your Mac the behavior will be completely different."
Completely different from what?
I have put an Intel SSD in a Mac, in fact 2 in a RAID 0 configuration, and it doesn't behave like you are insinuating it does.
The performance of the Samsung drives does suck but it isn't because they are "pre-degraded".
Considering how wrong you are about AT&T / Cingular, how can anyone take anything you say seriously?
Standard fanboy practice, equating legality with morality.
"I haven't noticed any dropped calls, or any 'no service', but I have seen signal drop by 1-2 bars. Putting any case on it also resolves it."
How do you know? You haven't noticed any dropped calls, remember?
Just not one that worked. Meanwhile, by 1985 Xenix on the PC was years old.
"iPhone apps can't call the equivalent even of Windows 3.1 yield();..."
and it doesn't need to.
"...they either run in the foreground, or they're suspended - like the DOS 5.0 task swapper."
They can also be preempted because the kernel can do that. It is a UI decision and one that helps mitigate the lack of hardware resources of the device. It was never a technical limitation of the kernel. You're the one who needs to "try again".
It appears that some people don't understand what cooperative OR preemptive multitasking is.
Adapt to what? You don't understand the history of computing, there's no reason to believe you understand its future nor who's young enough to cope with it either.
You think it's consumers who are driving that? You are a fool.
Consumer hardware was never sold based on the needs of the developers who write for it.
Just because you don't need a "full computer" often doesn't mean the lame excuse for one you've substituted is a "laptop". I have an ARM processor in my phone but that doesn't mean ARM is suitable for a laptop either.
I expect my laptop to run my laptop software. ARM doesn't do any of that.
"Saying that Mac OS X does not have any viruses at this point in time is 100% true."
I'm sure that will be great comfort to the victims of OS X malware.
"Considering the way that the iPhone and iPad function,...those products use an excessive amount of bandwidth."
In what way does the iPhone/iPad function that causes it to "use an excessive amount of bandwidth"? It's bandwidth usage is no different than other devices. It's users may be different.
That's right, not all code is gold and not all forced code releases represent value.
Or he may have rewritten a little more to remove the GPL entirely or he might have not done the project at all. The GPL doesn't promise that future projects will exist. That seems to be hard for for GPL fanboys to understand.
Oddly enough, the author used existing open source to contribute to a new project in compliance with and in the spirit of the license for that source, yet people complain because THEY can't have the new source despite having contributed to none of it. The GPL wouldn't have promised the source to you anyway, it only promises source to the users of the work.
"If I was basing something, for example a security audit, on this offer I'd want to know that someone independent had actually downloaded the source and verified that they could build the end module."
How would that be any different with a GPL'ed project?
Once all the GPL code is removed, what is left of the "structure" that is still GPL? Who could possibly say that the program was based on a "GPL work" at that point (if it ever was)? You can't copyright knowledge or ideas.
"There is more to it than what a commercial/proprietary interest will not be able to "take" from the community. There is also the moral, ethical and even emotional/spiritual aspects of F/OSS that need to be guarded."
But they didn't "take" from the community, the community gave it to them. It was moral, ethical, and emotional/spiritual as well as all the other BS words you can think to throw into it.
It's curious that GPL advocates care so much about the desires of the original developers except when those developers don't see things the same way as the GPL does. Then the GPL apparently need to be the champion of what their interests SHOULD be if they weren't so deluded.