If you want to see just how full of horse pucky the FSF really is, look at what they say on their home page, and contrast that to how un-free the GPL is.
From the FSF home page (and only in an image, so it doesn't get picked up by the web crawlers - a really dirty trick) - my notes after the # sign:
You deserve to use software that is:-
free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
free to learn and adapt # you have restrictions on distributing your adaptations, not just for the code, but for any patents you have
free to work with others # the gpl does not play well with many other licenses, both permissive and proprietary
Then again, Stallman is a liar anyway (remember all the anti-Android FUD he pushed last year?)
You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well
Actually, that's not entirely true. If you rewrite all the elements that are protected under copyright law, you can license the result any way you want.
In other words, strip out the comments (expressive under copyright law), rewrite the function and method bodies (creative under copyright law), and replace any copyright text, sounds, and artwork, and you're pretty much good to go.
APIs aren't protected (scenes a faire doctrine), nor are things like class hierarchies, etc. for the same reason, so you can even preserve binary compatibility in your closed fork.
The FSF tried to do some android FUD wrt the linux headers doing this, as did Florian Mueller - didn't work in either case - the GPL license only covers that which any copyright license covers - it doesn't take away existing rights. Apache did something like this with Harmony.
Or that they're wasting time at work, on a computer that they don't have admin rights to, so no installing extra browsers. Or they're kids using their parents computer. Or they now have a "good enough" browser so they don't care any more.
Instead of attacking the messenger, why not attack the message?
BTW - it's easy enough to take any gpl project and make a proprietary version under current copyright law. Neither data in the headers, nor function names, are expressive enough to actually be covered by copyright. So, just strip out any custom artwork and any proprietary strings, all comments (comments *are* expressive), and rewrite the function bodies and you now have a program that you can license any way you wish, including binary-only distribution, that maintains binary compatibility with the original.
It worked for Apache Harmony (java implementation - class and function names are not protected material) and Google incorporating linux headers into Android, it can work for anyone anywhere. The license doesn't trump copyright law, which only protects a limited subset of original material (not all original material is eligible for copyright protection. For example, "scene a faire" functionality - functionality that there is only one way to do it - is not protected even if it is original - you can just copy the code).
Don't like that someone else can do that? Shouldn't have released the source in the first place, hmmm?
I expect that once Oracle vs Google concludes and re-affirms all this, that there will be more than a few projects that will be "privatized", allowing for the generating of a revenue stream to ensure ongoing development and support through the sale of copies of the software itself.
Debian is not "cherry picking". It is perhaps picking based on a criteria, like non-trivial number of users.
In that case, they should have picked Windows.
Or even OSX.
Or the IOS ecosystem.
Or even the Android ecosystem.
Of course, all that would show that the vast majority of software is anything *but* gpl, and that if you really want to make any money selling software, the gpl is not the way to go.
don't bother with slack-current - I checked several ftp servers, and they've only had a couple dozen files updated in the last 8 months. There are distros that get that many updates a day!
When opensuse updates got too buggy, I decided to go back to slack. ISo I downloaded the latest slackware dvd, then, before installing, went to look at the package list for updates. Nasty surprise - it's been broken for almost a year.
A distro that can't be updated between releases is a dead distro.
So I ended up installing Fedoro instead, and I have to say it makes opensuse look... dated. Opensuse really lost steam when Attachmate bought Novell.
You missed a step. First they need to come up with some incentive, let's call it a Judas goat, to sign on and let their programs sift through our pictures.
They already have - they've ripped off the government excuse - security. "Turn all your cameras on and be able to monitor everything." And if you do, they "give" you 1 gig of storage. (which they would need anyway to do any video datamining).
And he wants the camera companies in on it - selling the cameras below cost in return for getting a kickback on the revenue stream.
Can someone please take this retarded idea out behind the barn and shoot it?
War back then was simpler. You didn't have to worry about civilian casualties or public relations so much.
I think you didn't get the memo. Nowadays civilian casualties are a PR bonus, a lever to use to try to blackmail your opponents. "If you attack us back you will cause enormous civilian loss of life." "If you interfere with us slaughtering our citizens, you will only cause even greater casualties."
you left out the most relevant part, which was that one should love God more than their children or parents.
I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breathe.
As for religion causing discord between you and your daughter, maybe it's time to lay off a bit? After all, it's not your decision as to what she believes provided she is not in immediate danger.
We could get into the whole "sovereign god vs action" bit, but ultimately being a good parent means giving them the tools to make their own decisions, and then respecting them, even when we disagree.
If anybody wants static websites to generate buzz and help you target robust e-tailers while you matrix vertical relationships in order to synthesize mission-critical partnerships on linkedin, email me:
larryish@gmail.com
I will create the domains/subdomains, create the sites, and host them, turnkey, for $1 per website per year.
This offer is for static sites only and does not include any sort of scripting or updates.
Investing in domain registration: $8/year
Cheap hosting: $ALMOST_NULL
Having the goods on liars when they do get a job: $PRICELESS
At some point, such a mechanical transformation to create such derived works will no longer be creative, and as such, copyright will continue to vest solely in the original users. So remember kiddies, register your copyrights in bulk to be eligible for your $150,000 per infraction payday.
Maybe for once we can use the legal system to route around damage.
No, it's not the same - but if you insist on making invalid comparisons dating back to the slave trade, I'll throw in "It's the same as Canadians going down to Philadelphia for KKK-organized 'coon shoots' less than 100 years ago." Both comparisons are equally stupid.
This was a gambling site that was operating illegally in both countries. The US seized the domain - good for them. Legal gambling is already too big a social problem.
On the other hand, web sites are not "The Internet" - and overall, I suspect that if web sites were to disappear tomorrow, it would be a net improvement. The web is just too commercialized.
Nobody really believes the stuff on linkedin will be checked.
We used to look at our former coworkers profiles and laugh. Sure, they're full of exaggerations, lies, etc. The problem with verifying them is that most employers have a strict policy that they will only verify the start and end dates an employee worked, nothing else. In some places it's the law, in other places they just don't want lawsuits from former employees. And in some cases, they're just hoping that their biggest competitor hires the t*rd and ends up costing them a bundle.
If someone called, there was no way we would say "that's a lie." We would confirm only the duration of employment, say that they left with no hard feelings, we wish them the best in their new endeavors, thank you very much have a nice day click!
There's nothing to stop a dozen people creating fake linkedin profiles, as well as a phony website (what - $8 a year?) and giving each other references.
They want to call head office? A burn phone is $25 a month. Split the cost among the dozen and it's $2 a month each. Or just list your former employer as a recent corporate bankruptcy - there's enough of them around.
Faxes? "We don't do faxes - what is this, the stone age?" Create the head office in some area far enough away, and all they can do is google earth it.
"But if the employer finds out, they can fire you!"... so what - in the meantime, you have a job. And they won't even bother if you list a bankrupt biz no longer in operation as your former employer.
To paraphrase Tennyson:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better* to have had a job and lost
Than never to have had a job at all.
*or at least more profitable.
Now, would I lie? Are you kidding? The truth is awesome* enough:-p
*disclamer: chocolate required for proper functioning. valid for some very non-standard value(s) of "awesome." ymmv. batteries not included. avoid elevators, operating heavy machinery, and slashdot. seek professional advice if non-professional advice doesn't work. ignore previous sentence as it is non-professional advice. all rights reserved. parking reserved. reservations reserved. Why yes, I do have reservations, serious reservations, but everyone here else seems to think this place is good enough to eat at.
Your counter-example is flawed. There is nothing illegal about viewing videos of Tiananmen Square in the US. However, both Canada and the US have laws against unlicensed gambling operations.
Bodog does not hold a permit from any Canadian province or American state. Therefore, there is no problem with Canada honouring an American warrant, same as the US will honour Canadian warrants for stuff that is a crime in both countries.
If you want other examples, look at the fines google had to pay for knowingly carrying online pharmaceutical ads targeted at the US from Canadian operators - it's illegal in both countries to sell drugs online, but but operators tried to create a jurisdictional problem. It ultimately failed, and cost them half a billion dollars in fines. And don't think that you can sell kiddie porn to Americans from a Canadian server, or vice versa. You'll get nailed either way.
Stop paying for your car in Canada, drive to the US thinking it won't be repossessed? Wrong - happens all the time. And plenty of individual states have bilateral agreement with individual canadian provinces for things like demerits, speeding fines, license suspensions, etc. And look at all the arrests in Canada for telemarketing fraud directed at US customers. Fraud is a crime in both countries.
One more thing, christianity has the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged". That basically means that we are supposed to tolerate others in society with wrong headed ideas and allow god to judge them. I'm here to judge you because I will leave that up to god but I will try to clear up your misconceptions as best as I can.
Jesus changed his mind on that at some point: Matthew 10:34ff
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Also in Luke 12:51ff
12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Typical self-righteous moralizing S.O.B. The type of person you have to bring to the restaurant twice - once to eat, and once to apologize. No wonder he looks so much like that other cult leader, RMS. And has anyone ever noticed that nobody has ever seen the two of them at the same time? Sort of like Superman and Clark Kent... and it's doubtful either one of them ever got laid much... leastwise with another human - though Jesus liked "his sheep" and RMS likes a parrot.... both of them spent their time wandering around preaching to their followers - and they both have weird dietary rules.
International treaties say otherwise. The US is allowed to get a warrant for illegal activity taking place with US citizens who are currently in the US, even when the server is outside the US. The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.
Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?
Working within existing treaties is not "interfering in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation."
So again, "Quit yer winin' eh?" Or the US might be tempted to send Celine Dion packing (bad enough they ruined Tim Hortons).
Slashdot Mirror
From the FSF home page (and only in an image, so it doesn't get picked up by the web crawlers - a really dirty trick) - my notes after the # sign:
You deserve to use software that is:-
free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
free to learn and adapt # you have restrictions on distributing your adaptations, not just for the code, but for any patents you have
free to work with others # the gpl does not play well with many other licenses, both permissive and proprietary
Then again, Stallman is a liar anyway (remember all the anti-Android FUD he pushed last year?)
Actually, that's not entirely true. If you rewrite all the elements that are protected under copyright law, you can license the result any way you want.
In other words, strip out the comments (expressive under copyright law), rewrite the function and method bodies (creative under copyright law), and replace any copyright text, sounds, and artwork, and you're pretty much good to go.
APIs aren't protected (scenes a faire doctrine), nor are things like class hierarchies, etc. for the same reason, so you can even preserve binary compatibility in your closed fork.
The FSF tried to do some android FUD wrt the linux headers doing this, as did Florian Mueller - didn't work in either case - the GPL license only covers that which any copyright license covers - it doesn't take away existing rights. Apache did something like this with Harmony.
Or that they're wasting time at work, on a computer that they don't have admin rights to, so no installing extra browsers. Or they're kids using their parents computer. Or they now have a "good enough" browser so they don't care any more.
BTW - it's easy enough to take any gpl project and make a proprietary version under current copyright law. Neither data in the headers, nor function names, are expressive enough to actually be covered by copyright. So, just strip out any custom artwork and any proprietary strings, all comments (comments *are* expressive), and rewrite the function bodies and you now have a program that you can license any way you wish, including binary-only distribution, that maintains binary compatibility with the original.
It worked for Apache Harmony (java implementation - class and function names are not protected material) and Google incorporating linux headers into Android, it can work for anyone anywhere. The license doesn't trump copyright law, which only protects a limited subset of original material (not all original material is eligible for copyright protection. For example, "scene a faire" functionality - functionality that there is only one way to do it - is not protected even if it is original - you can just copy the code).
Don't like that someone else can do that? Shouldn't have released the source in the first place, hmmm?
I expect that once Oracle vs Google concludes and re-affirms all this, that there will be more than a few projects that will be "privatized", allowing for the generating of a revenue stream to ensure ongoing development and support through the sale of copies of the software itself.
In that case, they should have picked Windows.
Or even OSX.
Or the IOS ecosystem.
Or even the Android ecosystem.
Of course, all that would show that the vast majority of software is anything *but* gpl, and that if you really want to make any money selling software, the gpl is not the way to go.
And multiple packages, each with its' own copy of the license, within the same project as separate "projects."
And he has the nerve to call other studies "unscientific?" This is just FSF FUD.
The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro.
GM didn't have to suspend sales - the consumers already did it for them - which is way worse than if GM had suspended sales.
don't bother with slack-current - I checked several ftp servers, and they've only had a couple dozen files updated in the last 8 months. There are distros that get that many updates a day!
It really is, for all practical purposes, dead.
When opensuse updates got too buggy, I decided to go back to slack. ISo I downloaded the latest slackware dvd, then, before installing, went to look at the package list for updates. Nasty surprise - it's been broken for almost a year.
A distro that can't be updated between releases is a dead distro.
So I ended up installing Fedoro instead, and I have to say it makes opensuse look ... dated. Opensuse really lost steam when Attachmate bought Novell.
They already have - they've ripped off the government excuse - security. "Turn all your cameras on and be able to monitor everything." And if you do, they "give" you 1 gig of storage. (which they would need anyway to do any video datamining).
And he wants the camera companies in on it - selling the cameras below cost in return for getting a kickback on the revenue stream.
Can someone please take this retarded idea out behind the barn and shoot it?
Reminds me of the BOfH Excuse Generator: sample:
plain-text list of excuses - kind of dated but still good for a laugh.
I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breathe.
As for religion causing discord between you and your daughter, maybe it's time to lay off a bit? After all, it's not your decision as to what she believes provided she is not in immediate danger.
We could get into the whole "sovereign god vs action" bit, but ultimately being a good parent means giving them the tools to make their own decisions, and then respecting them, even when we disagree.
There's nothing preventing you from representing yourself pro se, for example.
Investing in domain registration: $8/year
Cheap hosting: $ALMOST_NULL
Having the goods on liars when they do get a job: $PRICELESS
Maybe for once we can use the legal system to route around damage.
No, it's not the same - but if you insist on making invalid comparisons dating back to the slave trade, I'll throw in "It's the same as Canadians going down to Philadelphia for KKK-organized 'coon shoots' less than 100 years ago." Both comparisons are equally stupid.
This was a gambling site that was operating illegally in both countries. The US seized the domain - good for them. Legal gambling is already too big a social problem.
On the other hand, web sites are not "The Internet" - and overall, I suspect that if web sites were to disappear tomorrow, it would be a net improvement. The web is just too commercialized.
Nobody really believes the stuff on linkedin will be checked.
We used to look at our former coworkers profiles and laugh. Sure, they're full of exaggerations, lies, etc. The problem with verifying them is that most employers have a strict policy that they will only verify the start and end dates an employee worked, nothing else. In some places it's the law, in other places they just don't want lawsuits from former employees. And in some cases, they're just hoping that their biggest competitor hires the t*rd and ends up costing them a bundle.
If someone called, there was no way we would say "that's a lie." We would confirm only the duration of employment, say that they left with no hard feelings, we wish them the best in their new endeavors, thank you very much have a nice day click!
There's nothing to stop a dozen people creating fake linkedin profiles, as well as a phony website (what - $8 a year?) and giving each other references.
They want to call head office? A burn phone is $25 a month. Split the cost among the dozen and it's $2 a month each. Or just list your former employer as a recent corporate bankruptcy - there's enough of them around.
Faxes? "We don't do faxes - what is this, the stone age?" Create the head office in some area far enough away, and all they can do is google earth it.
"But if the employer finds out, they can fire you!" ... so what - in the meantime, you have a job. And they won't even bother if you list a bankrupt biz no longer in operation as your former employer.
To paraphrase Tennyson:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better* to have had a job and lost
Than never to have had a job at all.
*or at least more profitable.
Now, would I lie? Are you kidding? The truth is awesome* enough :-p
*disclamer: chocolate required for proper functioning. valid for some very non-standard value(s) of "awesome." ymmv. batteries not included. avoid elevators, operating heavy machinery, and slashdot. seek professional advice if non-professional advice doesn't work. ignore previous sentence as it is non-professional advice. all rights reserved. parking reserved. reservations reserved. Why yes, I do have reservations, serious reservations, but everyone here else seems to think this place is good enough to eat at.
Your counter-example is flawed. There is nothing illegal about viewing videos of Tiananmen Square in the US. However, both Canada and the US have laws against unlicensed gambling operations.
Bodog does not hold a permit from any Canadian province or American state. Therefore, there is no problem with Canada honouring an American warrant, same as the US will honour Canadian warrants for stuff that is a crime in both countries.
If you want other examples, look at the fines google had to pay for knowingly carrying online pharmaceutical ads targeted at the US from Canadian operators - it's illegal in both countries to sell drugs online, but but operators tried to create a jurisdictional problem. It ultimately failed, and cost them half a billion dollars in fines. And don't think that you can sell kiddie porn to Americans from a Canadian server, or vice versa. You'll get nailed either way.
Stop paying for your car in Canada, drive to the US thinking it won't be repossessed? Wrong - happens all the time. And plenty of individual states have bilateral agreement with individual canadian provinces for things like demerits, speeding fines, license suspensions, etc. And look at all the arrests in Canada for telemarketing fraud directed at US customers. Fraud is a crime in both countries.
I thought both sides had the motto "Kill everyone and let $DIETY sort it out." The flip side of "You're either with us or against us."
Jesus changed his mind on that at some point: Matthew 10:34ff
Also in Luke 12:51ff
Typical self-righteous moralizing S.O.B. The type of person you have to bring to the restaurant twice - once to eat, and once to apologize. No wonder he looks so much like that other cult leader, RMS. And has anyone ever noticed that nobody has ever seen the two of them at the same time? Sort of like Superman and Clark Kent ... and it's doubtful either one of them ever got laid much ... leastwise with another human - though Jesus liked "his sheep" and RMS likes a parrot .... both of them spent their time wandering around preaching to their followers - and they both have weird dietary rules.
International treaties say otherwise. The US is allowed to get a warrant for illegal activity taking place with US citizens who are currently in the US, even when the server is outside the US. The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.
Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?
Working within existing treaties is not "interfering in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation."
So again, "Quit yer winin' eh?" Or the US might be tempted to send Celine Dion packing (bad enough they ruined Tim Hortons).