wind (which takes 10's of thousands of acres of turbines to equal a medium-sized coal plant)
Citation needed!
Even if so, that land can still be used for other purposes. Minnesota corn farmers farm wind on the same land. This generates a second source of income for those farmers.
The only form I haven't heard environmentalists condemn is geothermal
I've never heard a nuclear power proponent turn down a subsidy. They are "Hooked On Subsidies".
It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.
Isn't it ironic that those who want nuclear power are "Hooked on Subsidies"?
there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well. Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....
Except nuclear power is not scalable. I can't install one on my roof or in my basement. Nor is it only those who want "renewables" who oppose it. Freemarket and business proponents also oppose it. The Freemarket CATO institute republished the Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies" explaining why "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Quite simply without massive subsides nuclear is not profitable and Wall Street would not fund it. Even in nations that do not have the regulations the US does nuclear power is not profitable. As TFA says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Oh but I suppose you and or others will say CATO and Forbes are really environmental organizations that oppose nuclear power. Or maybe Finland will be cited, saying nuclear power is profitable there. However "After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in , has climbed at least 50 percent." And "Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland" What's more is that the company building it is Areva and is owned by the French government.
If I'm producing hardware and there's a bug, the cost for a fix is astronomically high (pun intended) compared with the cost of fixing a software bug. As a result, hardware makers tend to be *very* thorough about fixing bugs prior to actual implementation.
Like Intel's Pentium Flaw they first refused to acknowledge then tried to downplay?
Look at what I wrote. I said BSD gives more freedom to programmers than GPL does, and you called it bullshit. BSD gives me the freedom to close my modification to others' BSD source code. GPL does not.
I had assumed you were talking about code you had written,
I specifically stated "Fortunately the BSD preserves me the right to do what I want with my code. If I want to prevent others from selling my code I can, except as part of the First-sale doctrine" so I was talking about code I wrote. The BSD preserves to me the right to close my code.
So Apple endorses you to use any software to transfer files between a PC and an iPod?
I don't know but Apple does not block file transfers between PCs and iPods. MP4 Converter transfers files from iPods to PCs as well as the other way, from PC to iPod. Aiseesoft iPod Transfer does the same. So there is no lock-in between iTunes and iPods.
Your argument is irrelevant since I was referring to the areas where Apple does force software upon its users.
It is your argument that is, not irrelevant but ignorant. Or a troll.
As for iPhones, the one lock-in I know of is the lock-in to ATT for cellphone service, which I disagree with. They have been jailbreaked but upgrading the iPhone OS turns them into door stops or bricks.
So they should have started from scratch with their own code then.
They could have done that or used BSD code.
If you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants, those giants must be acknowledged.
Agreed, but the GPL doesn't do that while the BSD does. The GPL requires code to remain open but does not require previous programmers be credited. BSD licenses allow programmers to close their own code but they have to include the names of programmers who contributed code previously. So strictly from the POV of crediting contributors the BSD is better.
The difference is that with BSD, if you ever release the source code (and if you didn't, who cares what license you use on it in-house?), anybody else can *also* sell it as a closed-source product.
The difference is that with the BSD you do not have to release your code, even if all you do is modify someone else's BSD code. You modify someone else's GPL code and you have to release your code if you distribute it.
"A general consequence when putting code under the BSD license or releasing new code based on existing BSD-licensed code is that the code can be kept closed. E.g. when shipping hardware, there is no need to add the source."
"The BSD philosophy seems to hold that creating and giving away code, then seeing it used by others, is victory and reward enough. But most of the GPL supporters disapproved of allowing "others" to close off source code and hide enhancements."
"The BSD license allows someone to take the code, improve it, and not share the improvements"
That does not answer my question. It doesn't list any hardware requirements. The hardware requirements page says nothing about what CPUs it will run on. Okay, I had to search it and look at a number of pages but I finally found a page listing Alpha CPUs supported by NetBSD. Now I need to dig up the documentation I have on my Alpha to see what version it is.
If and when I update Linux, I'll also need to see how to use Windows NT4's boot manager. I ordered it with 2 harddisks, one with NT4 and the other with Redhat. And it was setup to use NT4's boot manager to select the OS.
Bullshit. If you are the sole copyright holder, you can relicense your code any way you want. What you can't do is relicense someone else's code either that you used in addition to your code, or that somebody contributed to your project.
This is Bullshit! This is what got Tivo in trouble. They took GPL code, Linux, and tried to close source their modifications. You are not allowed to change the license of code you contribute to GPL code. But you are allowed to close your source when you modify BSD code.
You seem to think that if you write a project and GPL part of it that you'd be forced to open the rest. This isn't true because you can ignore your own license.
No, what I was saying was that I can not close my modifications to someone else's GPL code if I distribute it whereas I can with BSD code. BSD licenses give me more freedom, and if I am the programmer that's what's important to me. I want to be able to control my own code, even if it is a modification of others' code.
Of course I give up bug fixes and enhancements if I do close my source.
Neither the GPL nor the BSD licenses give you the ability to prevent people from distributing code you've already provided to them under those licenses. No matter what licenses you've previously provided code your own under, you're free to release that same code under whatever other licenses you please.
If I modify someone else's GPL code I can not close my modifications of the code if I distribute it. If I modify someone else's BSD code I can close my modifications when I distribute it. BSD gives me more freedom.
You hold the copyright for your code; you can license it however you please, irrespective of whether or not you have previously distributed it under the GPL.
Once released the code is always out there, there is nothing I can do to retract the code. All I could do once I GPL code is close modifications I make to it.
When GPL code is modified the modifications can not be closed. However BSD licenses allow programmers to close the modifications they make.
No you don't, you only need to meet the license conditions if you distribute code yourself. The GPL "is a distribution license, not a use license." From the same link "Acceptance of the GPL is NOT required to download and use Asterisk". From GNU: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?" "Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." "The GPL only requires that you make the source available to the same people that you distribute the software to. It only requires public "release" under the GPL if you're distributing the software to the general public."
Because the company that wants to distribute a product with Zed's code in it must either do it under the GPL or pay Zed to licence it commercially.
So how is the programmer getting paid if the code is released? With the GPL I can not prevent others from distributing my code whereas with the BSD I can.
Yes, we know the original code is still there. When we talk about lost freedom we're referring to versus a GPLed solution.
You're throwing up the straw-man. With GPL code I am not free to do what I want with my code however I am free to do so with my BSD code. If I distribute GPLed software I have to release all of the code. With BSDed code I have the freedom to close my own code. With the GPL the code is free whereas with the BSD the programmer is free. It's a trade-off, do you want to prevent others from selling your code? Or do you want the benefit of others contributing bug fixes and enhancements?
unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker.
Fortunately the BSD preserves me the right to do what I want with my code. If I want to prevent others from selling my code I can, except as part of the First-sale doctrine.
The truth is that the GPL simply allows the original author to control the terms under which derivitive works can be distributed.
No it doesn't. If I GPL code I programmed I may also close my code, dual license like MySQL AB did, but I can not close the modifications others add to it.
The GPL enables them to do a lot more than most licenses, even BSD. If someone takes BSD code, compiles it, and distributes it, any coder who receives it is out of luck.
If I use the GPL it denies me the freedom for me to close my source, if I use the BSD it allows me the freedom to close my source. One denies coders freedom the other preserves it.
The GPL empowers coders by preventing others from taking away their freedom. It also takes away a coders ability to restrict the freedom of other coders, but that's a small price to pay, and you come out ahead in the end.
You may, it's not guarantied, come out ahead if you don't mind being paid for service and support. If you use the BSD though you can prevent others from selling or giving away your code thus allowing you to sell it to those willing and able to pay for it. I'd rather be able to try to make money selling software than try to make money selling service and support.
The law protects you from being hit in the head by a stone. It also takes away your freedom to hit others in the head with stones.
One is a right, you have the right to not be harmed by another. And the other is not, you do not have the right to harm others. Not intensionally or maliciously cause harm when you are not being harmed or threatened yourself. I don't have the right the shoot just anybody walking down the sidewalk, but I have the right to shoot someone who breaks into my home while I am there.
Slashdot Mirror
wind (which takes 10's of thousands of acres of turbines to equal a medium-sized coal plant)
Citation needed!
Even if so, that land can still be used for other purposes. Minnesota corn farmers farm wind on the same land. This generates a second source of income for those farmers.
The only form I haven't heard environmentalists condemn is geothermal
I've never heard a nuclear power proponent turn down a subsidy. They are "Hooked On Subsidies".
Falcon
It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.
Isn't it ironic that those who want nuclear power are "Hooked on Subsidies"?
Falcon
Especially when you could achieve much better results with nuclear for a tiny tiny fraction of the cost.
Oh really? Then why isn't Wall Street lining up to pay for and invest in nuclear power plants instead of asking for more massive subsidies when they are paying for solar and wind?
Falcon
there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well. Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....
Except nuclear power is not scalable. I can't install one on my roof or in my basement. Nor is it only those who want "renewables" who oppose it. Freemarket and business proponents also oppose it. The Freemarket CATO institute republished the Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies" explaining why "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Quite simply without massive subsides nuclear is not profitable and Wall Street would not fund it. Even in nations that do not have the regulations the US does nuclear power is not profitable. As TFA says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Oh but I suppose you and or others will say CATO and Forbes are really environmental organizations that oppose nuclear power. Or maybe Finland will be cited, saying nuclear power is profitable there. However "After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in , has climbed at least 50 percent." And "Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland" What's more is that the company building it is Areva and is owned by the French government.
Falcon
If I'm producing hardware and there's a bug, the cost for a fix is astronomically high (pun intended) compared with the cost of fixing a software bug. As a result, hardware makers tend to be *very* thorough about fixing bugs prior to actual implementation.
Like Intel's Pentium Flaw they first refused to acknowledge then tried to downplay?
Falcon
Look at what I wrote. I said BSD gives more freedom to programmers than GPL does, and you called it bullshit. BSD gives me the freedom to close my modification to others' BSD source code. GPL does not.
Falcon
I had assumed you were talking about code you had written,
I specifically stated "Fortunately the BSD preserves me the right to do what I want with my code. If I want to prevent others from selling my code I can, except as part of the First-sale doctrine" so I was talking about code I wrote. The BSD preserves to me the right to close my code.
Falcon
So Apple endorses you to use any software to transfer files between a PC and an iPod?
I don't know but Apple does not block file transfers between PCs and iPods. MP4 Converter transfers files from iPods to PCs as well as the other way, from PC to iPod. Aiseesoft iPod Transfer does the same. So there is no lock-in between iTunes and iPods.
Your argument is irrelevant since I was referring to the areas where Apple does force software upon its users.
It is your argument that is, not irrelevant but ignorant. Or a troll.
As for iPhones, the one lock-in I know of is the lock-in to ATT for cellphone service, which I disagree with. They have been jailbreaked but upgrading the iPhone OS turns them into door stops or bricks.
Do you need further explanation?
Do you?
Falcon
So they should have started from scratch with their own code then.
They could have done that or used BSD code.
If you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants, those giants must be acknowledged.
Agreed, but the GPL doesn't do that while the BSD does. The GPL requires code to remain open but does not require previous programmers be credited. BSD licenses allow programmers to close their own code but they have to include the names of programmers who contributed code previously. So strictly from the POV of crediting contributors the BSD is better.
Falcon
I am? I said you don't own the software?
The difference is that with BSD, if you ever release the source code (and if you didn't, who cares what license you use on it in-house?), anybody else can *also* sell it as a closed-source product.
The difference is that with the BSD you do not have to release your code, even if all you do is modify someone else's BSD code. You modify someone else's GPL code and you have to release your code if you distribute it.
Falcon
"A general consequence when putting code under the BSD license or releasing new code based on existing BSD-licensed code is that the code can be kept closed. E.g. when shipping hardware, there is no need to add the source."
"The BSD philosophy seems to hold that creating and giving away code, then seeing it used by others, is victory and reward enough. But most of the GPL supporters disapproved of allowing "others" to close off source code and hide enhancements."
"The BSD license allows someone to take the code, improve it, and not share the improvements"
I suppose you're going to say they are wrong too.
Falcon
But will it run on my old Alpha?
here
That does not answer my question. It doesn't list any hardware requirements. The hardware requirements page says nothing about what CPUs it will run on. Okay, I had to search it and look at a number of pages but I finally found a page listing Alpha CPUs supported by NetBSD. Now I need to dig up the documentation I have on my Alpha to see what version it is.
If and when I update Linux, I'll also need to see how to use Windows NT4's boot manager. I ordered it with 2 harddisks, one with NT4 and the other with Redhat. And it was setup to use NT4's boot manager to select the OS.
Falcon
Bullshit. If you are the sole copyright holder, you can relicense your code any way you want. What you can't do is relicense someone else's code either that you used in addition to your code, or that somebody contributed to your project.
This is Bullshit! This is what got Tivo in trouble. They took GPL code, Linux, and tried to close source their modifications. You are not allowed to change the license of code you contribute to GPL code. But you are allowed to close your source when you modify BSD code.
Falcon
You seem to think that if you write a project and GPL part of it that you'd be forced to open the rest. This isn't true because you can ignore your own license.
No, what I was saying was that I can not close my modifications to someone else's GPL code if I distribute it whereas I can with BSD code. BSD licenses give me more freedom, and if I am the programmer that's what's important to me. I want to be able to control my own code, even if it is a modification of others' code.
Of course I give up bug fixes and enhancements if I do close my source.
Falcon
Neither the GPL nor the BSD licenses give you the ability to prevent people from distributing code you've already provided to them under those licenses. No matter what licenses you've previously provided code your own under, you're free to release that same code under whatever other licenses you please.
If I modify someone else's GPL code I can not close my modifications of the code if I distribute it. If I modify someone else's BSD code I can close my modifications when I distribute it. BSD gives me more freedom.
Falcon
Troll! Troll! Troll!
Falcon
You hold the copyright for your code; you can license it however you please, irrespective of whether or not you have previously distributed it under the GPL.
Once released the code is always out there, there is nothing I can do to retract the code. All I could do once I GPL code is close modifications I make to it.
When GPL code is modified the modifications can not be closed. However BSD licenses allow programmers to close the modifications they make.
Falcon
You can get the latest release of NetBSD for Alpha at netbsd.org
But will it run on my old Alpha? Or do I have to look high and low to find an older version? I've had my Alpha for more than 11 years.
Falcon
No you don't, you only need to meet the license conditions if you distribute code yourself. The GPL "is a distribution license, not a use license." From the same link "Acceptance of the GPL is NOT required to download and use Asterisk". From GNU: "If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?" "Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity." "The GPL only requires that you make the source available to the same people that you distribute the software to. It only requires public "release" under the GPL if you're distributing the software to the general public."
Falcon
Because the company that wants to distribute a product with Zed's code in it must either do it under the GPL or pay Zed to licence it commercially.
So how is the programmer getting paid if the code is released? With the GPL I can not prevent others from distributing my code whereas with the BSD I can.
Falcon
Yes, we know the original code is still there. When we talk about lost freedom we're referring to versus a GPLed solution.
You're throwing up the straw-man. With GPL code I am not free to do what I want with my code however I am free to do so with my BSD code. If I distribute GPLed software I have to release all of the code. With BSDed code I have the freedom to close my own code. With the GPL the code is free whereas with the BSD the programmer is free. It's a trade-off, do you want to prevent others from selling your code? Or do you want the benefit of others contributing bug fixes and enhancements?
Falcon
unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker.
Fortunately the BSD preserves me the right to do what I want with my code. If I want to prevent others from selling my code I can, except as part of the First-sale doctrine.
Falcon
The truth is that the GPL simply allows the original author to control the terms under which derivitive works can be distributed.
No it doesn't. If I GPL code I programmed I may also close my code, dual license like MySQL AB did, but I can not close the modifications others add to it.
Falcon
The GPL enables them to do a lot more than most licenses, even BSD. If someone takes BSD code, compiles it, and distributes it, any coder who receives it is out of luck.
If I use the GPL it denies me the freedom for me to close my source, if I use the BSD it allows me the freedom to close my source. One denies coders freedom the other preserves it.
The GPL empowers coders by preventing others from taking away their freedom. It also takes away a coders ability to restrict the freedom of other coders, but that's a small price to pay, and you come out ahead in the end.
You may, it's not guarantied, come out ahead if you don't mind being paid for service and support. If you use the BSD though you can prevent others from selling or giving away your code thus allowing you to sell it to those willing and able to pay for it. I'd rather be able to try to make money selling software than try to make money selling service and support.
The law protects you from being hit in the head by a stone. It also takes away your freedom to hit others in the head with stones.
One is a right, you have the right to not be harmed by another. And the other is not, you do not have the right to harm others. Not intensionally or maliciously cause harm when you are not being harmed or threatened yourself. I don't have the right the shoot just anybody walking down the sidewalk, but I have the right to shoot someone who breaks into my home while I am there.
Falcon
he GPL protects the freedom of coders by ensuring that they are free to modify code.
If I use the GPL it denies me freedom to close my source. If I use the BSD it allows me the freedom to close my source.
Falcon