You missed the analogy there; Grandparent was suggesting that the pub was analogous to the tracker in Sweden, and US pressure was what shut it down. No, it's not legal to download infringing works in the US, however, that would be a penalty that the end user downloading the file would face. It shouldn't be one for which the tracker, operating a system that is entirely legal in their country of origin, should have to pay.
Thumb prints are taken of visitors and (as a mandatory measure) immigrants quite regularly now. See the DHS's page on the US VISIT program. They have my fingerprints on file and I really had no choice in the matter.
I think kids will see this the same as they saw Captain Planet: lame. This won't even have the TV show going for it, AND the fact that anything being pushed to them by teachers is automatically uncool.
But in actuality, you sell software for as much as you can get for it.
Well, obviously, like everything else in the business world, the price is determined by the market. But what I'm saying is...
I don't buy the argument that making good software is "too hard".
No, making good software is a valiant goal and one most companies strive for. Making perfect software is nearly impossible. A "missing curly bracket" isn't usually what we're talking about in terms of bugs. That sort of bug would be caught by the compiler / parser and can be fixed instantly. The sort of bugs that might make it into production software are usually logic errors, issues where the program itself appears to work fine but something is slightly off, perhaps in a rarely used area of the program.
Working as a doctor trying to diagnose an obscure illness, that's hard. Rocket to the moon and back with 3 people on board? Hard. Remembering to close your curly braces? Give me a break.
Fuck you. Everything comes in shades of difficulty, especially in an area as large as software development. What if I'm the developer making the biological software to try to cure that obscure illness? What if I'm the developer creating the software and firmware driving the systems of that rocket? Would you call that easy?
I think you misunderstand the term "liability" in this context. Liability isn't limited to the purchase price (unless specified in the EULA, and I believe this article is suggesting prohibiting such limitations), it could be that you lost millions of dollars due to a bug in a software product; this is suggesting the original developer should be forced to pay you back for that loss.
My main argument against this is that no human, not even a team of humans, is perfect. Bugs happen, even in production environments. The only way we can get them all is either extensive, extensive testing and possibly certification (which would be prohibitively expensive to small companies), or to let us fix the bugs as quickly as we can (the real world). Obviously some testing needs to be done before software is deployed but suggesting that all bugs should or even can be found prior to putting software into production implies to me that the author hasn't worked for a small software company before.
The only way we can sell you software for the price we do is because we are able to limit our liability. If you don't like it, buy from someone else.
For a variety of reasons, I have been considering starting visa proceedings so I can go over, work, and live with my GF in the States. However, if they want to implant a tracking chip in me, I hate to say it, but that's a dealbreaker.
I love my GF more than anything but if this becomes the case she should come up to Canada to live with me.
That said, of course, I seriously doubt this will come to pass, at least not in the next few years. I mean, the idea's coming from the CEO of an RFID manufacturer.
Any piece of software that would have failed spectacularly due to Y2K had way too much reliance on dates to have been using a two digit year in the first place.
Y2K had largely no effect because most code would simply display 00 or 1900 rather than 2000. Odd, yes, life-threatening, no, and if it is, why the fuck didn't they think of that when they were programming their software in the first place?
Note that I said OpenGL or another, possibly entirely new graphics language. OpenGL has stagnated for a while, at least in terms of the uptake by the major video card companies. I remember though, that back in the day, 3dfx had their own API, Glide, that was apparently the easiest of the three in which to program. So who knows, especially with the recent revolutions in terms of MVC frameworks like Rails and Django, perhaps another will come of age for 3D?
Nice post. I'd mod it up if I didn't write the grandparent.;^)
A bunch of posts here are making that same point: Microsoft may effectively be stagnating DirectX development because many game companies will refuse to make games in pure DX10 format, as that would cut out a significant chunk of their potential userbase. If they make this and future versions of DX10 Vista-only, I predict that OpenGL or an entirely new graphic language will eventually take the place of DirectX as the de facto game API.
From a marketing standpoint, this is the only way Microsoft is going to get a lot of people to buy their new OS.
I can only speak for myself but from what I've heard, Vista will offer few enhancements over XP that I really need in an OS. Better searching? I don't particularly need it, but Google Desktop. IE7? Not a chance, Firefox has me hooked and has many more features. "Gadgets"? No thanks, but Konfabulator (now Yahoo Widgets) if you wanted them.
Additionally, I'm still concerned about Microsoft's (and other companies') plan to control our PCs, even though we haven't heard a lot about it recently. So by the time Vista comes out, I'm likely going to move over to a Linux distribution, probably either Ubuntu or Gentoo, and this is really the only thing I might still want out of Windows: gaming.
This move smacks of Microsoft-brand lock-in, and it still won't convince me to move.
In your first example, if you use software entirely internally, then yes, you don't have to release modifications, but how does one define internal? Take, for example, the original idea of a hardware company putting GPL'd software in their router's firmware; I would define that as publishing software which would require them to also publish the source.
For the idea of selling it for profit, yes, you are correct and I apologize. That said, it's rather a moot point anyway as the person who obtains the software can then redistribute it for free per the GPL.
And hell, if you want to release your modifications in the public domain instead of through the GPL, that's fine with me, they're even more open.
In my last argument, my use of the word "use" was incorrect. I meant distribution, I apologize for my miswording. Once again, though, that does not allow you to close up the project and use it in your own closed-source project, as that is covered in distribution.
This is not what I meant; read it again, I said that in the context of a rebuttal to someone arguing effectively that they should be able to use GPL'd software any way they see fit without respecting the terms of the GPL. Sorry for the confusion.
The thing about the Wii and other Nintendo consoles thusfar is that obtaining the devkit requires Nintendo to approve you, and that means you have to have a pretty good company portfolio already. But yeah, the Wii development costs listed there are surprisingly low.
Because it's their software and it's their right to release it the way they want. Closing my software, software that you didn't develop and do not own, is something completely different.
I'm sorry, you must phrase your rebuttal in the form of quotes from the GPL, otherwise I'll believe you're talking out your ass. I've read the GPL many, many times and none of the statements you've mentioned bear any form of truth (other than the last one, but that's only under the LGPL, not the full GPL).
You need not accept the GPL on my software; however, without accepting it, you have no right to use it under copyright law. It is exactly like an end-user license agreement. The only way you can use it without accepting the GPL is if I, as the copyright holder, give you the option of using it under another license.
I've answered this question too many times and it's getting to be grating. That said, in a few words:
No, you're not stealing if you use GPL code without adhering to the license. You're using unlicensed code, which is as illegal as any other sort of piracy. Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes, attempting to sell it for profit, just plain not releasing modifications under the GPL, etc.
As a developer, if you use my code without adhering to my terms to keep it free, you're damn right I'm going to go after you. I completely expect other developers to do the same, whether their license is commercial, open, free, or otherwise. That said, I'm not going to pay... *checks* US$649(!) for Photoshop. I use it so rarely that it's not worth it. However, if I were indeed to download and use Photoshop, I'm only using it on a small scale for amateur photo and graphic editing. What you are talking about, downloading software and circumventing / breaking the GPL, implies that you are taking my software and somehow making money off it without my authorization (otherwise, why would you need to close it?).
In my opinion, the scale of these two things is the difference that matters in my mind. But yes, they do have some similarities. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the analogy there; Grandparent was suggesting that the pub was analogous to the tracker in Sweden, and US pressure was what shut it down. No, it's not legal to download infringing works in the US, however, that would be a penalty that the end user downloading the file would face. It shouldn't be one for which the tracker, operating a system that is entirely legal in their country of origin, should have to pay.
Yep. From the Tags FAQ:
Our article tagger will know about tags like "dupe" or "typo".
For you non-subscribers, BTW, the very first tag on this article (and from my memory, since its creation) is dupe.
Index finger prints, not thumb prints. That said, I believe it's all fingers for immigrants anyway.
Thumb prints are taken of visitors and (as a mandatory measure) immigrants quite regularly now. See the DHS's page on the US VISIT program. They have my fingerprints on file and I really had no choice in the matter.
DNA isn't that far off.
That would put it at roughly double the price that they are in the States (give or take 20 cents).
I think kids will see this the same as they saw Captain Planet: lame. This won't even have the TV show going for it, AND the fact that anything being pushed to them by teachers is automatically uncool.
But in actuality, you sell software for as much as you can get for it.
Well, obviously, like everything else in the business world, the price is determined by the market. But what I'm saying is...
I don't buy the argument that making good software is "too hard".
No, making good software is a valiant goal and one most companies strive for. Making perfect software is nearly impossible. A "missing curly bracket" isn't usually what we're talking about in terms of bugs. That sort of bug would be caught by the compiler / parser and can be fixed instantly. The sort of bugs that might make it into production software are usually logic errors, issues where the program itself appears to work fine but something is slightly off, perhaps in a rarely used area of the program.
Working as a doctor trying to diagnose an obscure illness, that's hard. Rocket to the moon and back with 3 people on board? Hard. Remembering to close your curly braces? Give me a break.
Fuck you. Everything comes in shades of difficulty, especially in an area as large as software development. What if I'm the developer making the biological software to try to cure that obscure illness? What if I'm the developer creating the software and firmware driving the systems of that rocket? Would you call that easy?
I think you misunderstand the term "liability" in this context. Liability isn't limited to the purchase price (unless specified in the EULA, and I believe this article is suggesting prohibiting such limitations), it could be that you lost millions of dollars due to a bug in a software product; this is suggesting the original developer should be forced to pay you back for that loss.
My main argument against this is that no human, not even a team of humans, is perfect. Bugs happen, even in production environments. The only way we can get them all is either extensive, extensive testing and possibly certification (which would be prohibitively expensive to small companies), or to let us fix the bugs as quickly as we can (the real world). Obviously some testing needs to be done before software is deployed but suggesting that all bugs should or even can be found prior to putting software into production implies to me that the author hasn't worked for a small software company before.
The only way we can sell you software for the price we do is because we are able to limit our liability. If you don't like it, buy from someone else.
Personally, if he answered "no", I'm afraid that wouldn't be good enough for me.
Indeed.
:^D
Clearly we should have elected the pirates instead.
For a variety of reasons, I have been considering starting visa proceedings so I can go over, work, and live with my GF in the States. However, if they want to implant a tracking chip in me, I hate to say it, but that's a dealbreaker.
I love my GF more than anything but if this becomes the case she should come up to Canada to live with me.
That said, of course, I seriously doubt this will come to pass, at least not in the next few years. I mean, the idea's coming from the CEO of an RFID manufacturer.
Any piece of software that would have failed spectacularly due to Y2K had way too much reliance on dates to have been using a two digit year in the first place.
Y2K had largely no effect because most code would simply display 00 or 1900 rather than 2000. Odd, yes, life-threatening, no, and if it is, why the fuck didn't they think of that when they were programming their software in the first place?
Note that I said OpenGL or another, possibly entirely new graphics language. OpenGL has stagnated for a while, at least in terms of the uptake by the major video card companies. I remember though, that back in the day, 3dfx had their own API, Glide, that was apparently the easiest of the three in which to program. So who knows, especially with the recent revolutions in terms of MVC frameworks like Rails and Django, perhaps another will come of age for 3D?
The files aren't encrypted at all.
Nice post. I'd mod it up if I didn't write the grandparent. ;^)
A bunch of posts here are making that same point: Microsoft may effectively be stagnating DirectX development because many game companies will refuse to make games in pure DX10 format, as that would cut out a significant chunk of their potential userbase. If they make this and future versions of DX10 Vista-only, I predict that OpenGL or an entirely new graphic language will eventually take the place of DirectX as the de facto game API.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest that Microsoft change anything; this was only my opinion of the situation. Of course it's their choice.
I'm confused at what you're actually trying to say here.
From a marketing standpoint, this is the only way Microsoft is going to get a lot of people to buy their new OS.
I can only speak for myself but from what I've heard, Vista will offer few enhancements over XP that I really need in an OS. Better searching? I don't particularly need it, but Google Desktop. IE7? Not a chance, Firefox has me hooked and has many more features. "Gadgets"? No thanks, but Konfabulator (now Yahoo Widgets) if you wanted them.
Additionally, I'm still concerned about Microsoft's (and other companies') plan to control our PCs, even though we haven't heard a lot about it recently. So by the time Vista comes out, I'm likely going to move over to a Linux distribution, probably either Ubuntu or Gentoo, and this is really the only thing I might still want out of Windows: gaming.
This move smacks of Microsoft-brand lock-in, and it still won't convince me to move.
Sure. If, however, they start selling or distributing that Linux-based system, they need to open up their changes.
In your first example, if you use software entirely internally, then yes, you don't have to release modifications, but how does one define internal? Take, for example, the original idea of a hardware company putting GPL'd software in their router's firmware; I would define that as publishing software which would require them to also publish the source.
For the idea of selling it for profit, yes, you are correct and I apologize. That said, it's rather a moot point anyway as the person who obtains the software can then redistribute it for free per the GPL.
And hell, if you want to release your modifications in the public domain instead of through the GPL, that's fine with me, they're even more open.
In my last argument, my use of the word "use" was incorrect. I meant distribution, I apologize for my miswording. Once again, though, that does not allow you to close up the project and use it in your own closed-source project, as that is covered in distribution.
I'm sure it's not what you meant, but that first quote you mentioned is British, not American.
This is not what I meant; read it again, I said that in the context of a rebuttal to someone arguing effectively that they should be able to use GPL'd software any way they see fit without respecting the terms of the GPL. Sorry for the confusion.
The thing about the Wii and other Nintendo consoles thusfar is that obtaining the devkit requires Nintendo to approve you, and that means you have to have a pretty good company portfolio already. But yeah, the Wii development costs listed there are surprisingly low.
Because it's their software and it's their right to release it the way they want. Closing my software, software that you didn't develop and do not own, is something completely different.
I'm sorry, you must phrase your rebuttal in the form of quotes from the GPL, otherwise I'll believe you're talking out your ass. I've read the GPL many, many times and none of the statements you've mentioned bear any form of truth (other than the last one, but that's only under the LGPL, not the full GPL).
You need not accept the GPL on my software; however, without accepting it, you have no right to use it under copyright law. It is exactly like an end-user license agreement. The only way you can use it without accepting the GPL is if I, as the copyright holder, give you the option of using it under another license.
*sigh*
I've answered this question too many times and it's getting to be grating. That said, in a few words:
No, you're not stealing if you use GPL code without adhering to the license. You're using unlicensed code, which is as illegal as any other sort of piracy. Whether or not you feel it is more or less wrong is up to you, but in my opinion, you're breaking a social (and legal, for that matter) contract if you then attempt to use the software in a method against the GPL, i.e., closing it up in your own hardware without releasing changes, attempting to sell it for profit, just plain not releasing modifications under the GPL, etc.
As a developer, if you use my code without adhering to my terms to keep it free, you're damn right I'm going to go after you. I completely expect other developers to do the same, whether their license is commercial, open, free, or otherwise. That said, I'm not going to pay... *checks* US$649(!) for Photoshop. I use it so rarely that it's not worth it. However, if I were indeed to download and use Photoshop, I'm only using it on a small scale for amateur photo and graphic editing. What you are talking about, downloading software and circumventing / breaking the GPL, implies that you are taking my software and somehow making money off it without my authorization (otherwise, why would you need to close it?).
In my opinion, the scale of these two things is the difference that matters in my mind. But yes, they do have some similarities. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.