Anyone can use GPL software, but not everyone may be able to profit from it. Think about roads maintained by taxes. Anyone can drive over them, but corporations cannot charge tolls on people who use them.
That analogy doesn't hold up, because the original public domain code is still available, even if someone sells a closed derivative. The key to a toll road is that you cannot drive that road without paying, so you don't have a free alternative. A restaurant next to a road is a better comparison. It's only profitable at that location, so the entrepeneur is actually making a profit from road+restaurant. However, no one is forcing you have a bite at that restaurant. You can use the road without paying, as long as you don't use the restaurant (just like you can use the public domain code, you just can't use the proprietary changes without paying). Now, I don't have a problem with the restaurant owner making a profit from the road, and similarly, I don't have a problem with a software developer from making a profit from additions he makes to government sponsored code.
Why should corporations have the sacred right to get profits from software developed for the government, but not from roads built for the government?
Let's say you wanted to start a restaurant and you have two options: 1. Build it in the middle of the bush, without a road to your place. 2. Build it next to a high traffic road. Let's assume that all other factors are the same. If you choose option 2, then you should realize that corporations do profit from roads. The only thing they cannot do is to make a free copy of the road, enchance it and ask for toll (while keeping the original road toll free). However, that has to with the difference between roads and software and those pesky laws of physics. If it was possible, then I think we should let them.
In that case businesses take GPL code that all people paid for, modify it, profit from selling the binaries of the derivative and (possibly) not disclosing their new source? If businesses don't cooperate, people and the government then lose money.
Suppose that the software is available as public domain and a company sells a derivative. Then the people who pay for that are paying for the additions made by that company. You are free to use the costless, public domain version if you don't agree with that bargain and I think that many people will (unless the additions in the closed sourced versions are very compelling, in which case the additions seem to very valuable, and the company deserves to be paid for that).
What I don't understand is how people and the government lose money in all this. If you don't want to pay for a closed source derivative, then you are free to create an open source alternative or use the public domain version. If you believe that the derivative is valuable to spend money on (presumely, because it saves you more money than you have to spend on it), then you don't lose money there either. On the contrary, a rational Homo Economicus will only spend money to earn more, so he would actually make money.
I'll stick to the FSF on this: GPL gives better protection, unless there is a specific reason to opt for LGPL or public domain.
You may make this choice for your own software, but you should realize it is a quid pro quo. You spend your time to create software and in return you expect people to 'pay' you with the changes they make themselves. You don't actually give away your software in the sense that you don't expect anything in return. It is different for software created by the government. That software has been fully paid for and the government shouldn't expect people to 'pay' again, since many of the people who paid taxes don't want that (programmers who program open source software under a different license than the GPL or who program closed source software). In reality, GPL source code will be unusable by those groups of programmers, which means they pay taxes for something they cannot use.
GPL then would be better for government
That would depend on what their aim is:
If they want to stimulate the economy, then public domain is probably the best choice (since more people can use it and save money). And unlike the standard handouts to (big) coorporations, this one actually benefits small business and individuals as well.
If the goverment wants bug-fixes, then public domain (more eyes) is probably the best choice.
If they want to have more features added, then it's unclear. I don't think there has been any research into the amount of (valuable) code that is returned with different licenses. The GPL forces the return of code, but the public domain results in more users and my gut feeling is that willing contributions will generally be much more valuable than 'forced' contributions.
So in the end, the public domain may well be better for the government than the GPL.
... they can just babble, just as Einstein did about [...] pacifism
How did he babble? Remember that Einstein grew up between the world wars. An American WWI veteran said: "The Germans didn't win that war but neither did we. Only the war won that war." It was a house of cards that fell over, countries declared war because of their treaties and rarely because their own direct interests were at stake. And even the interests that were at stake, were more those of the elite than of the people. In the end, the war was not even succesful to put down Germany. The treaty of Versailles paved the way for WWII (with unbearable reparations). It's not surprising that many people became pacifists after WWI. Furthermore, in Germany at that time, militarists were the Nazi's and the believers in Great Germany. There is a big difference in being a pacifist opposing war against the Nazi's or being a pacifist opposing their war drive. Furthermore, when Einstein moved to the US, he did come to believe that the Nazi's had to be stopped and he became a strong supporter of the development of the atomic bomb. After WWII, he did become a pacifist again, because he didn't want war with the USSR. His goal of mutual disarmament became reality when Reagan sign INF and START I. IMHO, the improvement of the US-USSR relationship which resulted from these treaties was an important aspect in ending the cold war (without a big boom).
So how was Einstein wrong?
... they can just babble, just as Einstein did about socialism [...]
I just read his essay Why Socialism? and it struck me how well-written it is. His criticism of 'pure' capitalism is valid and while he calls for a planned economy, he correctly identifies two major problems that would have to be solved first (he forgets the problem of how demand should guide production, but two out of three ain't bad). Those are exactly the problems that the USSR and China were not able to solve in their planned economies.
All in all, a very well written essay worthy of reading. While we now know that no one has succeeded in creating a succesful economy, that wasn't at all clear in 1949, when the Soviet economy was still booming and this must have been one of the more reasonable voices among the communists and the communist-haters. And because the essay is so reasoned, it's still worthy of reading after over 50 years, which is often a sign of quality.
... it would be considerably more productive if people limited their interactions with journalists to the subjects they have actually been educated in.
Unfortunately, many of the 'experts' are extremely biased and worse, they can't even offer good arguments to support their position. Then I'd rather listen to an intelligent person who knows the scientific method and the limits of what he can claim. Those people can often talk very interestingly about subjects and even if they are wrong, there is still plenty to learn from their arguments.
That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process
"The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury. [...]
Those who point to the lack of jury trial as a weakness of the Court overlook the obvious impracticality of impaneling a jury to try, for example, Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia that was responsible for the genocide of over a million people.
Far fewer due process protections are guaranteed to American citizens accused of crimes abroad. They are subject to trial in foreign justice systems, many of which do not provide for a jury trial or other valued due process protections. An American brought before the ICC would actually have more rights than in most other national courts.
The United States has signed a number of extradition treaties that specifically allow Americans to be tried abroad in foreign courts without jury trials.
Even in the United States, American servicemembers are not guaranteed a jury trial under the Courts-Martial system."
I don't know what that refers to. Can you point out what part in the constitution you are referring to and how the ICC is in conflict with that?
and freedom from self-incrimination.
"...the accused shall be entitled...not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;..."(Art. 67(1)(g)) - Rome treaty
The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people.
The people are involved by the process of voting. Having your government sign & ratify a treaty is no less democratic than having your government sign a new law.
No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.
Nonsense, Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that torture is always forbidden, regardless of whether the victims have POW status. And we know that the US has been guilty of torture, directly and indirectly (the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria to be tortured).
The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training.
First of all, the US is always responsible for the well-being of their detainees. A lack of training and policing with regard to the actions of the torturers is the fault of the US leadership. It may not technically be against the law to be stupid at the expense of the well-being of others, but it definitely can and should be held against them.
However, the situation seems even worse with illegal orders from high-ups and willing disregard of the Geneva conventions on the highest level (yes, Rumsfeld).
Go check out the Third Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).
The fact that they don't have POW status doesn't mean that the US can do what they want. Both morally and legally, the US should treat everyone decently. As for the latter, Article 75 states that every detainee has the right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
They are thugs, murderers and criminals.
It's really scary to see how you've been indoctrinated into assuming that people are guilty without a fair trial. Besides, if they truly are thugs, murderers and criminals, then why not give them the same rights that we give to other people who are accused of these crimes?: - A speedy trial - No torture - Access to a lawyer - Assumed innocent until proven guilty
It's really scary to see people advocating a police state so easily (and no, the 'war' on terrorism is not comparable to WWII). An enemy who can 'only' kill thousands should not be a reason for us to turn our back on freedom.
So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.
I'm not anti-American, but pro-human rights. It's sad that those two are thought to be the same.
Because the currencies of the world exceeded the supply of gold and silver, these are no longer used as standards.
The US economy is backing the dollar. Nobody cares about gold anymore because they know that people will accept the dollar in exchange for goods. The EQ currency is only the official currency for a game, not for any real economy. You can't expect to buy any real goods with it. Sure, some people on eBay pay for it, but that can be over tomorrow when an EQ killer hits the scene. In that regard, the EQ currency is more like art than actual currency.
If everyone with a dollar wanted to sell it for Euros, then the dollar would become worthless and the value of the euro would rise.
Of course, but that wouldn't happen because the dollar can buy you food, a house and a car. What does a platinum buy you but some entertainment? The value of the EQ currency is just like the value of the 1928 stocks: only marginally related to any real-life value and mostly hype. One lack of faith and it's 1929 for the EQ platinums.
I agree, but I think that the article is flawed for another reason. You can't simply multiply the number of platinums with their current value to get at a meaningful number. The reason is that there is nothing backing up the EQ currency, but the desire of a limited number of people to save some time. If a large number of people would sell their platinums, the price would be close to zilch.
In contrast, the dollar or the yen are backed by the US and Japanese economies. They represent real goods. If the Saudis decide to 'sell' their dollars, loads of people will want to have them because they can be used to buy products in the US. This will limit the inflation. In contrast, the EQ platinums are bound to Everquest. They aren't bound to any real economies. You can only use them to buy stuff in Everquest and only a limited number of people like to cheat by buying platinums. So if a decent number of people starts selling platinums, you'd see enormous inflation.
I am not being trite when I say read the US Bill of Rights.
Why? It's not like it's being respected by lawmakers.
the USA has substantial advantages in the Ownership of Property
Except that the police can just confiscate your property and you have to sue (if you still have enough money left to do so) to get it back. In the majority of seizures, the people whose property gets taken do not even get charged with a crime. Here is a good essay on this issue. Some cases where money was taken without good grounds. And no, they can't do this where I live.
rights to political dissent
A US kid got suspended for wearing a T-shirt with "Anarchy." The government actively tries to prevent people from advertising messages that go against government policy. An anti-war community organization was infiltrated by the police.
These involve a vast improvement in the rights to relief from problems with the government via a court system that despite all its flaws is orders of magnitude more likely to answer to the interests of ordinary people when they dispute with the strong and powerful than in EU or elsewhere.
The US legal system has incarcerated an extremely large part of its population. Many of those are victim of the war on drugs. However, while drug use is no lower among caucasians, three quarter of the people convicted for these crimes are black or latino. The same goes for the death penalty. Black & latino see the needle far more than caucasians. In short, your legal system certainly seems to take it out on the lower class.
As for Europe trodding on the ordinary man, do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I don't see too much of that happening here.
In the USA most people take for granted that the Police and Courts actually will deal with problems and redress without bribery.
I never had to bribe the police or the courts. What parts of the EU are you talking about? Nigeria?
EU types have been raised under a system where they delt with a thousand years of entrenched bureaucracy with its systematic and embedded corruption at a level beyond any American Imagination.
In my country (The Netherlands), 10% of the workers are government employees. In the US, it is 14%. 'Nough said.
As for corruption and bribery: according to the 2003 Corruption Perceptions Index, my EU country is ranked 7th (with a 8.9/10). The US is ranked 18 (with a 7.5/10). The Bribe Payers Index 2002 ranked The Netherlands 6th (with a 7.8/10), while the US was ranked 13th (with a 5.3/10).
Much of the current Economic troubles in the USA and Social Discord are the result of this trend towards EU solutions and methods.
An important reason for social discord in the US seems to be that a small part of the population is screwing the rest. The only reason why many people have to work two jobs, while others have more money than they can spend in two lives, is because they believe the bullshit of "what is good for business is good for you."
In synopsis, the EU is a Bureacratic Super State where Citizens have no particular rights except those granted by PERMIT.
Do you know that the Union has a really low number of bureaucrats (~30.000) and that the nations have very strong control over what the Union does? NO, of COURSE you DIDN'T know, did you? Shouting hard is much easier than providing proof, isn't it?
The Brussels system will further dominate the area by an Oligarchy and the delivery of individual freedom in
The question of choice is crucial. If you are completely free to choose (where all possible options are available), then it is completely fair to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options (since you can and should just choose a better one).
Let me give an example:
You can choose between all different colors to paint your house. Each one is sold by a different shop (green shop, blue shop, etc). All paints cost the same. You like green, but you wind up in the blue shop. You ask for green. Is the owner wrong for telling you to go to the green shop (aka "bugger off")? Please answer that question.
You make artificial distinctions between my comparison of choosing countries and that of chosing other GUI. For instance, I have demonstrated that you can find similar restrictions for GUI or OS'es too, to which you respond by claiming it's incomparable because you can 'create' the one and not the other.
It is not artificial when there is really a difference. There is clearly a difference between the two, because I can probably (by learning programming and taking the effort) create my own software (or pay to have it created) if I don't like what is available. I cannot realistically create my own country when I don't like the available options.
First of all, the original post said: "If you don't like it, that's okay with them -- use a different WM/desktop." *USE*, not *create*. Thus, the analogy with use (go to) another country is the most correct one, and not create.
First of all, using something does not mean I can't choose to create it myself first. I can assemble a sandwich and then 'use' it. Secondly, you responded to & quoted me, that means that you have to respond to what I say, not something in another post. Thirdly, the choice you have to create your own software is important. If I lock you in a room, I am guilty of a crime (even if you manage to escape). If I leave the door open and you decide to stay in the room, I am not. The difference is whether I try to take away the choice to leave, not whether you stay in that room.
Well, if you can't create your own, pay some mercenaries to overthrow some little Island-state.
That is true and in real life, the question of choice is never absolute. You never have infinite choice and rarely no choice. However, the better your options are, the less reason you have to whine.
That is my argument. Not that "bugger off" is always acceptable. My point is that if you want A and A is available, then you shouldn't whine that B is not like A. You may of course complain that A and B are both not what you want, that is valid.
It's not even correct to state it's impossible to create one; the folks of Sealand have done it.
No, Sealand is not recognized as a sovereign state. It's in international waters, which means that laws of other countries don't apply there. It is no different than sailing to international waters in your ship. Then the ship doesn't suddenly become a country either.
It just takes a lot of money, which, granted, few of us have, but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
A true state like Israel or Lithuania requires quite a bit more than that, including many people, political skills, a sponsor and possibly violence. And even then it is extremely hard to be recognized (Turkish Cyprus anyone). So for the average malcontent, it would be impossible.
but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
No wait. I didn't say that it didn't matter to me. I said that it didn't matter to a pure capitalist. According to him, you don't deserve choice if you don't have cash. In this society, we have accepted capitalism. That also means that not having cash is a valid reason for people to say "bugger off." You may not like it
The one where selling the same thing for less is how to capture a market.
Ultimately that is a losers game. In a true free market, profit is zero. Generally it is better not to sell a commodity. Create a product with unique properties that only you can provide. Look at the iPod for a good example.
Besides, it seems silly to suggest that KDE and Gnome should compete on price, since their price is already zero.
The one where QWERTY and VHS beat DVORAK and Beta- where conforming to a suboptimal standard can be better than building an elegant idiosyncrity.
The one where CDs didn't manage to beat vinyl and we are still using horse and cart? I can come up with just as many cases where better standards did win and ultimately we are better off if people try to introduce a better standard, even when the odds are stacked against them.
Because it'll reduce your adoption rate?
Valid criticism, but somehow I think that unfair reviews are worse.
If I'm giving away cars for free, will I have more takers if I also move the accelerator and brake to the steering column?
You will certainly do well among the paraplegic. Otherwise it depends on whether your new car will be better, but I would certainly applaud an attempt to improve the interface of cars (although improving the propulsion can offer much higher gains, so I would prefer improvements there).
Gnome has 1 specific giant advantage over the Microsoft Windows GUI: Freeness.
KDE & Gnome both have that advantage. Gnome then has to set itself apart from KDE as well. There is no reason for Gnome to exist next to KDE if it doesn't try to be different.
Any other significant differences from Windows will just drive them off.
I don't share your opinion of "Please, don't innovate, I beg you." If you want make a identical, but free copy of Windows, go ahead. I won't stop you. But I think that creating something better* is what actually draws the majority of users, so I applaud Gnome for their attempt to make something better.
*And better can be cheaper too, if your product has a lower TCO (better resistance to spyware & viruses for instance).
That would be fine, except that the prominent Gnome spokesmen like Miguel Iczaza portray taking over from Windows as a main goal.
And how will this be helped if they have less choice? Linux guy to User: U - I want to switch to Linux because and my Windows machine crashes and is filled up with spyware and viruses. L - You can choose KDE or Gnome. U - So what's the difference? L - They are both exactly like Windows, but Free. U - I don't care about Free and I don't care about free. I want something better. L - Uhhh. U - Look, OS X. It's better. L - Uhhh. U - Stupid nerd.
What about this response: L - KDE is just like Windows and Gnome tries to be better. U - Uhhh. I like something better, but I'm insecure and feel threatened by new things. L - NP. Here, let me start up Knoppix and give a demonstration of KDE and Gnome. U - Wow, that is cool. Points at KDE or Gnome. L - Installs Linux for user. U - Wow, you are a cool geek.
If I'm a CIT wanting to try Linux desktops for better security, stability, or cost, then those are the only places I want major differences from the Microsoft way. In particular, there should not be any gratuitous GUI changes that'll get my users confused and crying for their Windows back.
Ok, then you use KDE with XP skin or a custom configuration of Gnome.
The spatial Nautilus in Gnome is like that. Although it might be better when examined in a vacuum, in the context of switching computer-users over to it, the differences just create problems.
The switch to cars also created problems. You don't want to know how much roads have cost and what infrastructure had to be changed to accomodate them. Clearly people considered it worth it. Of course, you m
1. Previous versions of the software have worked in a way I like
2. Current version of the software doesn't work as I like, but can be made to do so by editing a single halfway-hidden config file
3. So instead of either editing that config, or requesting that the setting be made less hidden, I should simply not use otherwise perfectly fine software.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
It's fine with me too if you take the effort to change it to your liking. Just don't do what Petreley did: blast the Gnome developers for shipping the software as they think it should be.
Why shouldn't the Gnome guys ship their software as they want to ship it? Besides, Gnome is Free software. Fork it if you dislike the direction the developers (who spend their time on this software) are taking.
All of those are design choices, and it's the author's perogative if they want to keep them.
Exactly. And IMHO that choice should be respected at least a little bit. Not with a rant in a magazine which scares everyone away from Gnome.
However, Petrely, myself, and many others believe choices like that are a mistake. As Petrely listed in the column, many older OSes used spatial-like filemanagers (Mac OS 9 most prominently)- and all of their modern descendants have moved away from the idea.
Technically, OS X is supposed to be a mix of spatial and browser (best of both world according to Apple, hybrid from hell according to me).
Anyway, even when other people do something, that doesn't mean it is the best thing to do or that you are wrong when you go in a different direction. True criticism is about what is wrong with something, not some FUD that no one else is using it X, so it must be crap. So why did Petreley denounce Nautilus as bad, when: 1. he doesn't actually dislike the spatial browser, but 'is not used to it anymore' and 2. all his other criticism boil down to one thing, which is easy adaptibility?
That hardly justifies the enormous scene he is making. Sure, some of his criticism on adaptibility is correct, but his reaction seems to be way out of proportion.
For a fringe filemanager that has few users but aspires to "taking over the world", it is further important that the learning curve be small and that the behavior resemble those of Mac and Windows.
Why not try to be different to stand out from the competition? I don't know which economy classes you attended, but in mine, they always told you to distinguish yourself from the competition. Gnome is clearly doing so. KDE is doing the browser thing, Gnome is doing the spatial thing. Choice is good right? Or do we need to try to destroy the thing which is not our preference?
For a fringe filemanager that has few users but aspires to "taking over the world", it is further important that the learning curve be small and that the behavior resemble those of Mac and Windows.
If you actually read the story, you will see that De Icaza is referring to Linux and OSS. Again you misread a story and it is getting tiresome.
Because, as you observe, Nick Petrely lost patience trying to get into the "spatial" Nautilus filemanager groove... and there is no reason to assume any other random user will be much more patient than he was.
I think that powerusers who have settled into a groove (which they like) are much less likely then the average user to change. After all, the average user who chooses Gnome is leaving another OS for a reason and should be willing to accept some changes. Petreley is a KDE fanboy who seems fairly content with it. He is just playing and not even very seriously, since he is unwilling to stick to the new way of working for even a week.
It seems a bit like 'reviewing' the Segway by using it for a few hours, deciding you prefer to walk and then drag the thing behind you. Followed by a big rant how cumbersome that is, of course. Sure, they Segway may still suck, but not because it is hard to drag along. That is unfair criticism. Catch my drift?
There is no law that says you can't move to another country as well (at least, in the USA).
I said "create a niche product," so the proper comparison would be the creation of a new country. Since that is nearly impossible, it already shows an important difference between the two situations.
My argument was about the fact that criticism is not made unvalid by the fact that one can go away, use something else or fork, etc. It was not about the validity of the critique in this particular instance, because, as I have said, I'm not really familiar enough with both GUI to make a sensible judgement on it.
I think that the way he expressed his criticism was also a major reason why people say: "bugger off." It was highly destructive (basically: 'I don't like it because it is different'). Positive criticism would probably be better recieved.
I could as well make up restrictions to the 'then create your own fork', for instance:
- he could not be a coder - he could not have the ability or means to do it - he may not want to leave his group of peers that work on the application - etc, etc.
True, but you can still pay someone who is able and willing to provide you with what you want. He may not have the money, but that hasn't stopped capitalists from saying "bugger off" to the poor. Nobody has called that "weak reasoning."
In this case your complaint is even less valid since the alternative already exists and is free to boot. The only thing what it requires is for him to say: "Gnome is not what I like it to be, I'll use KDE which is closer to my ideal."
Take, for instance, that non of your objections are met, and a person could go to another country without any problems...would it then be justified to say to him: 'If you don't like it, go to another country' when that person gives criticism?
If everyone could create their own country freely, without any restrictions, then that argument would be very strong. In that case we can even do away with democracy completely and use a capitalist model for countries to compete for citizens. However, we are very far from that now. You cannot create your own country and even if you could, some countries would have far better locations, natural resources, etc.
Once again, this does not matter in regard to the argument.
Yes, it does. For countries, we have deemed the capitalist model to be a bad fit, so we invented a democracy. A democracy gives you different abilities than a market-based system, such as the software market. Those differences mean that the way you should 'play the game' is also different. Choosing a different 'product' is usually not the way you play the 'democracy game,' instead you select the supplier. In the capitalism game you can't replace a supplier with another, but you can choose the product from a different supplier.
Take MS for example: it has a huge marketshare, but it still doesn't mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS.
Actually, MS is a monopoly which means that you don't have a good enough choice to buy another OS. That is also why there are laws that (can) change the game when a monopoly is involved. At that point, we feel that the capitalism game is no longer functioning. It also means that criticism of Windows is less a reason to say: "buy a competing OS," and more a reason to allow people to get their way in different ways (by using the law to control what the monopolist can do, for instance).
anyone can disagree with anyone for my part.
Yes, but the consequences can differ. If a Gnome guy says "bugger off," your only option is not to use Gnome. If a politicians says so, you can vote him out. That is an important difference.
'Bugger off' can be a statement indicating they are not willing to change, but it is a very weak response to criticism.
Why should criticism be unvalid because of the possibility to go away, not use it, fork, etc?
The reason is that there are different ways to do things. The Gnome people have chosen a certain way and they can make a good argument in favor of that. The criticism by Petreley basically boils down to: we don't like your way. The Gnome guys don't care about the people who like a totally different way of doing things and rightly so. There is no law that says that you cannot create a niche product which suits only a particular group of people. Or do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to create a GUI that appeals to less than 50% of the users?
It's the same sort of thing you get from, say, chauvinistic USA zealots that answer to every sort of criticism of the government or state/country of fellow americans with: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to another country?"
Not at all. In that case, there are many reasons which make it hard or even impossible to move: - No country may exist which suits you (and unlike software, you cannot simply program your own country). - The countries you like may not accept you. - You may not want to leave your family & friends. - You may have trouble finding a good job abroad. - etc, etc.
For many, the best option is to try and change the country they are already in. Furthermore, the idea is that in a democracy, you can try to chance the government through legal means. When using someone elses product, you can't vote or otherwise (legally) force them to do what you want. In a capitalist system, the idea is that you pick the product that suits you. If you think that you know better than anyone who offers a product, then you should build your own. The capitalist dogma say that if you really know better, you will drive the other guys out of the market. So if you think that the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak, then you should also have a problem with capitalism.
If the critique is valid, it remains valid, even if there are a zillion other things one can do.
Certainly. But the guys who spend their time and money to build something have got a right to disagree with you and tell you to build your own (or get someone else to build what you want). They don't have any obligation to change what they like into something you like.
...it mainly focuses on attacking Petrely's understanding of "spatial browser".
No, it doesn't. The ability to change the interface gets much more attention than the spatial browser. Did you actually read the rebuttal?
Problem: he never used the word "spatial".
Petrely's main argument is that the paradigm of the new file manager sucks. That paradigm happens to be called the spatial browser. A reporter who criticizes Nautilus should know this.
Also, when Petreley complains that you need to edit GConf to change the default behavior, instead of finding a prominent checkbox, Jorge (a) lists 3 ways to change the current behavior, and (b) attack's Petrely's technical understanding of GConf. He says that aside from GUI, GConf is nothing like the Windows registry. Well guess what? From the end-user's perspective, the GUI all that matters! If you need to use Registry or GConf to alter a setting, then it's impossible to call that setting easy-to-change.
That's nice and all, but the rebuttal never challenges Petreley on this. It says that if you don't like the new paradigm, you shouldn't bash it and complain about the lack of configurability. No, you should simply not use Gnome and respect the people who do like the spatial browser. Because that is exactly what is missing from Petreley's editorial: respect for people who like things differently.
Petreley's editorial wouldn't have been such a flamebait if he properly explained the spatial browser and gave his opinion (that he didn't like having it as the default). Instead, he dictates that the new paradigm should be hidden and says that Gnome is bad because it isn't (without ever saying anything bad about the spatial interface itself other than his personal preference).
The oped comes down to a very simple position: when a piece of software first gets a radically different, optional interaction mode, common-sense dictates that the new mode should be OFF by default.
Clearly, the new interface is not intended to be optional, witness the lack of an easy switch. Furthermore, users already face a learning curve when they have to adapt to the new paradigm and it requires a bit of persistence to 'get' the new way of working. It looks like Petreley never really tried to 'get' it and seemingly spend all his time looking for ways to turn off default behaviour. That clearly illustrates why you may need to hide the ability to go back to the 'old' paradigm. Otherwise you can never introduce something new, since people won't give it a chance.
Anyway, this clearly illustrates the difference in views between the Gnome guys & Petreley. A good reporter would report on these differences and perhaps offer a reasoned argument to advance his opinion. Petreley did no such thing.
An additional funny part is that both Nick and Jorge manage to mistate what the motiviation for Gnome was: Nick says "freedom from Windows", Jorge says "kickass desktop"... when in reality it was meant for "freedom from KDE" (as is well-documented historically)
It is also well-documented that the QT license change removed this reason and since then, Gnome has continued for other reasons.
None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads.
From one of the tapes from Bin Laden:
"Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.
Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed."
They're just very, very good at blowing shit up and killing people, and they have no ideology.
Nonsense. They want the creation of an Arabic state, which means that they want the US and the rest of the western world out of Arabic countries. By attacking the US, they knew that there would be a hard counter-attack and they hoped that this would piss off enough Muslims for a major jihad.
This is how Bin Laden puts it:
"In the aftermath of this event and now that senior US officials have spoken, beginning with Bush, the head of the world's infidels, and whoever supports him, every Muslim should rush to defend his religion. [...] These incidents divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us. [...] I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him."
Hampering the law doesn't have to be a bad thing. Before and during WWII, the Nazis used careful administration and an extensive spy network to keep track of people. This helped them immensely when they attacked communists, Jews and other 'terrorists.' Undoubtably, some real criminals were caught as well because of the advanced 'crime fighting' skills. However, if people would have created so much noise to effectively hamper this, the Nazis wouldn't have been so effective in their eradications.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is similar to Nazi Germany, but it is always important to keep in mind that steps which are taken to combat criminals can also be used against innocents. And I certainly see the extreme right wing in the US as being capable of some serious oppression. The "Americans are not like this" speech given by Bush after the torture in Iraq is indicative of their mindset. They are so convinced that they are good (vs evil), the best, God's own people, etc, that they don't see the need for laws to 'hamper them' or free speech for their opponents which will 'just spread lies.' I certainly think that Bush would choose to be a dictator if he could (remember his: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.") This feeling of superiority is certainly similar to the Ubermensch ideals which has blinded people before to the harm they do to others.
I feel actively encourages terrorism.
No, encouraging terrorism is when you drive people to terrorism. For example, when a government does not care about their prisoners enough to properly instruct MPs, causing awful treatment of human beings, then that would be encouraging terrorism. Another example is when you fire two million military trained men so they can go home and be angry at the US who took away their paycheck. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Now, please vote for Kerry in November, even if you don't like them, because those incompetent bastards are creating terrorists at an impressive rate.
BTW, if you really care about preserving the lives of US citizens, you should worry about speeding, drunken driving, bad roadways and other causes of traffic accidents. The chance of dying in traffic is much, much greater than the chance you die in a terrorists attack.
IANAL, but at this point it is a completely reasonable argument that employers should install anti-porn software by default and that failure to do so constitutes neglect.
I'm sorry, but that is a load of bull. You can do the same thing that you do when someone drops their pants in the middle of your office or snorts some coke: you warn/suspend/fire them. If you create a nice policy about this which you mail to every employee and which you consistently honor (no exceptions for the son's boss), then you should have nothing to worry about.
Nobody is suggesting that you chain employees to their chairs or glue their nose closed to prevent them from crossing the line, so why should you have to 'break' your internet by installing faulty filtering software (and they are all broken)?
It's kinda funny -- when the RIAA wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a BAD thing. When the EFF wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a GOOD thing.
Who says that the EFF's idea is a good thing? Just because we tend to like the EFF doesn't mean we like all their ideas. Especially because there are taxes on 'recording mediums' in some countries already and those are generally not divided that fairly. Furthermore, how do you keep track of the popularity of music? The EFF's white paper glosses over it, but there are many ways to do so, some of which will boost big name artists (# times played on the radio) and some of which will be better for small artists (P2P stats).
Because the plan does away with capitalism for music, you get all kinds of other problems. With the music store, we now see price differences and even free songs. I think that, when the music stores become more mature, price differentation will become very important for artists. Especially for small name artists who can sell cheaply or give away free songs to stand out between the establishment. Other problems are: who determines what the tax should be and how do you get people to pay it? Finally, that plan runs a great risks of protecting the RIAA from market forces. If they get to enforce a tax and get to funnel most money to 'their' artists (which will probably happen), then the RIAA can survive as the artist-abusing, payola-ridden monopoly that we all know and hate.
I was referring to distribution rights, not modification rights. I can put copies of Red Hat or Debian or (god forbid) Gentoo on my webiste and distribute it without fear of a lawsuit (or at least any lawsuit that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning). Notice how my comment said "freely distribute" and made no mention of modification? Or were you too busy trying to prove me wrong to actually read what I wrote?
You can only distribute without fear of a lawsuit if you provide the source code or a written offer (GPL, section 3). Of course, this is trivial if the source is part of the distribution. Still, the grant to distribute is not totally free (as in free from restrictions). It is important to realize that there is a quid pro quo. The author is asking something in return.
Consumer-protection laws allow people to sue the manufacturer of a dangerous item. That's why people sued the tobacco companies and not their local 7-11. And that's why a user whose computer exploded because of poor software would sue the creator of that program, not the distributor. A distributor might get in trouble if the plaintiff can prove that they knowingly distributed dangerous products, but the primary blame lies with the author.
That is true. But AFAIK there has never been a case where a software company had to pay up for shipping a lemon. The only succesful cases were when specific promises were made and the company did not come through. The case against an author who gives away his software is even weaker, so I really don't see this as a big threat to authors of GPL software (unless software lemon laws are instituted).
Picking through your god-awful use of pronouns leads me to believe you are, in fact, referring to Good Samaritan laws. While it's true that a FS/OSS developer may face fewer problems on the grounds that they are giving their work away, they still suffer from the fact that the end-user may not be bound to the warranty disclaimer. Just don't confuse that with GS laws (like you already have).
I do my best. In all fairness, you should try to write something in Dutch, then I can nitpick about your grammar. Anyway, what you say is true, but warranty disclaimers are always a bit fuzzy. In the case of the GPL, their warranty disclaimer seems especially weak because they explicitly state that you don't have to accept the license.
Well, sir, I am in awe of your command of the U.S. legal system to be able to interpret it and apply it in a far superior fashion to someone who has actually studied it. Either that, or somehow the case law of foreign countries somehow overrides established court precedent in this country.
If you want to look at "the big picture," then you cannot limit yourself to the laws of one country, now can you? I never said that our laws supercede yours, but I happen to be bound by our laws most of the time. And your laws don't supercede mine either.
The "advertising clause" generally refers to a special OSS licensing issue surrounding the old BSD license, requiring distributors to list everyone who contributed code under such license in every mention of that program.
That is not entirely correct. The original BSD license only required an acknowledgement of Berkeley in advertising materials which mention features or use of the software. That is definitely not every mention. Furthermore, other authors could simply use the original license and then their contributions would not have to be noted. The problem was that people created their own versions of the license, with advertisement claused for themselves. After lobbying by RMS, many big BSD contributors (including Berkeley) dropped the advertising clause and the new BSD license saw the light.
That is, in fact, what I was referring to in my original post, and what certain BSD zealots were crowing about in other posts, prompting me to post here initially.
PJ seemed to indicate that she wanted to see the GPL advertised prominen
I'm not disputing -- and have not disputed -- that someone can freely distribute GPL'ed code and face no penalty, so please stop claiming that scenario as a victory.
It's not free. It's a conditional license. The GPL requires payment in source code (of modifications) instead of money, but that is still a form of compensation for the authors.
Let's look at another scenario:
* Programmer A writes a program, and releases it under the GPL.
* Software vendor X adds A's work to their distribution, but slaps a propriety license on the outside of the box with their draconian terms and a notice saying all of X's copyrighted work is provided without warranty.
* Joe User uses A's program, which melts his computer, sets his hair on fire, and causes his wife to run away.
* Joe User sues A under his state's lemon laws. The court rules that vendor X complied with the GPL by placing a "check other licenses in subdirectory/foo/bar/baz/snafu/blech/not-ours/keep/going/" but that since Joe never saw it, according to court precedent the GPL's terms didn't kick in.
* Programmer A has to buy Joe a new computer, wig, and wife.
That can never happen, since programmer A has not sold anything to the user. Vendor X is the only one who can be sued by the user, since they have a contract with the vendor. The vendor might try to sue the programmer thereafter, but the vendor must have accepted the GPL, which includes a non-warranty clause. Furthermore, liability for something which is given freely is usually very limited. For instance, if you offer to help me move and you drop my expensive China vase, you will probably not be able to sue me for it (this might be different in your country, but in mine, there is case law to support this).
The GPL isn't only about copyright; copyright, warranty, and patent issues are all mentioned explicitly in the preamble to the GPL, and again in several sections of the full license. Focus on the big picture.
I agree that warranty statements are questionable in many situations, especially when you pay for software. However, I want to point out that this thread started with talking the advertising clause. I didn't respond to talk about the big picture (which you seem to define as every possible issue which is peripherally related to the GPL). Personally, I'd rather discuss one topic well, than a thousand topics badly.
while(1) { printf("It's not about advertising, it's about users knowing their rights, obligations, and limitations.\n"); }
And how are the users supposed to know their rights, obligations and limitations, except for advertising? Merriam-Webster defines advertise as: 1 : to make something known to 2 a : to make publicly and generally known b : to announce publicly especially by a printed notice or a broadcast c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize
But if each JDS CD comes with a big "You can't copy this CD, and the software on this CD is licensed under the WeOwnYou license" tag on it (as PJ observed), they're misrepresenting the rights you have w.r.t. the majority of the software on that CD. That sounds like trying to distract users from the rights they have and introduce more restrictions.
"Introducing more restrictions" is impossible since Sun cannot take away the rights granted by the GPL. So the only problem might be that they don't advertise properly. The GPL does not require much advertising. The source needs to be included or there needs to be an offer for the source in the docs. PJ didn't say that Sun didn't do that. Furthermore, Sun is perfectly within their rights to show a draconian EULA which applies to the software they write. Not allowing the CD to be copied is OK, because it contains proprietary software. That is also fine with the GPL. Sun cannot claim that everything on the CD is their copyright. If they did that, they'd b
And distribution, and modification, etc, etc. Yes, an EULA goes beyond what the GPL covers. [...] So the very case you cite plainly states that the license (or at least/something/ indicating a license) must be present in a prominent location for a person to be bound to the terms of that license.
Sigh. That difference is crucial. Let's try again: - When you buy software and there is no license included, do you have the right to use it? - When you buy software and there is no license included, do you have the right to distribute it?
The answer to the second question is no. This means that you will have to accept the license to have any distribution rights at all. The question of whether you are bound to the license is irrelevant because you don't have a right to distribute if you are not bound to the license. So there is no need for the author of the software to 'forcefully' bind you to that license. You can only distribute the software legally under the GPL. There is no other license (including in the law) that grants you that right.
Let's give an example: - You distribute GPLed software. - You do not comply to the GPL. - You are sued. - You argue in court that the GPL does not bind you. - The judge asks you: if the GPL does not bind you, then what right do you have to distribute that software? - You are convicted for copyright infringement.
You are free to tell me what GPL defensive there is in this scenario, because all I can see is a big fine/jailtime. I would also like to point out to you that no one has ever tried the defense that suggest. That can mean two things: 1. All the lawyers who had to deal with GPL infringements were less smart and knowledgable about the law than you. 2. You are wrong.
Occam's razor tells me that it's quite a bit more likely that you are wrong than people who deal with this for a living.
PJ's comments were made in the context of worrying whether Sun would continue to marginalize the GPL and see how far they could bend its provisions
I don't see how using GPLed software and complying* to the GPL is marginalyzing the GPL. Again, if the authors wanted more advertising, they should have used a different license.
*I will simply assume this from now on, because I will not honor wild guesses and a lack of research when it comes to bad-mouthing a company. I will require somewhat credible evidence to indicate otherwise before I will discuss this 'issue' because we can't intelligently say anything about it otherwise.
So if Sun can corral people into using their software and make them ignore the GPL, they can try to introduce other, more draconian restrictions on end-users and/or developers.
This makes no sense to me. Doesn't everyone who knows about programming also know about the GPL? Do you really think that the GPL community would not discuss this and point out the rights that user and developers have under the GPL? Do you think that people's rights could simply go away? The GPL was written explicitly to prevent this, you know.
What I am disputing is that a vendor or distributor of GPL'ed software might have to follow additional guidelines beyond those explicitly listed in the GPL (because of the case law) in order to be compliant with the GPL. Courts deal with this gray area all the time, and they often disagree.
Courts will always try to follow the license as strictly as possible and when in doubt, they will usually choose a less limiting explanation. Furthermore, in this case, they will probably look at GNU and other GPL software. In that software, it is very rare to have a lot of GPL advertising, so the court will most likely not want to impose those limits on all that software.
I would also like to point out that again, this is pure speculation on your part and PJ did never make this claim.
Don't think you're that brilliant just because you find something that contradicts what I'm saying; l
Excuse me? GPL = General Public License EULA = End User License Agreement
And what is this supposed to prove? A license is a grant of permission. That certainly does not have to mean that different licenses are completely the same in the face of the law. More specifically, an EULA is a license which governs the use of software. However, by buying the software, you have already entered into a contract with the vendor. Without an EULA, you could still use the software. In contrast, the GPL is a distribution license. It is the only thing which can allow you to distribute software, since by default, copyright disallows you to do so. Therefore, there is no debate among knowledgable people about the whether the GPL is binding, because you will have to accept it in order to have a right to distribute software. EULAs are much more disputed, because you will usually have more rights when you are not bound to them.
An EULA is a 'contract'
No, which is why software vendors were so desperate to get UCITA passed. It would give software vendors contract-like control over their users, which they only have in spotty parts of the country due to conflicting court cases.
The reason why software vendors wanted UCITA passed had to do with the problem that I previously mentioned, the question whether you are obliged to the contract provisions of the EULA or not. It has got nothing to do with the EULA being a contract or not. The decision in Softman vs Adobe agrees with me on this issue:
"Courts have required that assent to the formation of a contract be manifested in some way, by words or other conduct, if the contract is to be effective. [...] In the instant case, the Court finds that there is only assent on the part of the consumer, if at all, when the consumer loads the Adobe program and begins the installation process. It is undisputed that SoftMan has never attempted to load the software that it sells. Consequently, the Court finds that SoftMan is not subject to the Adobe EULA."
This quote clearly illustrates that the judge sees the EULA as a contract.
Ah, but there's the rub. You don't buy software (at least most commercial software). You license it. You don't actually own it, meaning that the first sale doctrine never kicks in, and that's how they can prevent you from reverse engineering it, regardless of the fact that RE is legal according to copyright law.
That is not the point here. The EULAs can't take that right away from you if they aren't valid.
But then I can apply my own morality and call it impertinent, unfair, etc. Because I find it offensive when authors [the authors of a GPL program] grant others certain rights [the right to copy and modify, subject to certain conditions] and you [Sun] try to come in between and redefine that grant. [confuse the user about their rights and obligations]
No. The authors of a GPL program granted Sun certain rights and PJ tried to come in and redefine that grant. You keep on talking out of your ass about GPL infringement, but again, that is not the point here. Let's do a little fact quiz:
- Is this story about PJs allegations? - Did PJ argue that Sun was violating the GPL (as in: according to the law)? - Is there any evidence that they did (not just questions or unsubstantiated allegations)? - Is Sun doing what the authors of the GPLed software requested if they simply comply with the license (regardless of whether they actually did, which PJ did not argue against)? - Are the authors complaining that Sun isn't complying with the license or otherwise should do more? - Is PJ an author of that software?
After answering these questions, it should be clear to you what the question really is. Then we can talk about whether Sun should do what the authors asked of them or do what PJ asks of them.
And what, pray tell, does your emphasis actually prove? Sun is distributing verbatim copies of the source code, and it is questionable as to whether or not they're posting a conspicious copyright notice and warranty disclaimer.
First of all, I don't know whether they ship the source in the distribution. They are not required to. Secondly, I fully expect that they just left the already existing copyright notices in the source code. That is what is required according to this section of the GPL. It doesn't require any advertisement to the user when the binary runs (there is another piece of the GPL with something about that, but Sun seems to comply with that too).
The GPL is a bit fuzzy, yes, but the courts have tended to say that for a EULA to be valid (and the GPL is a EULA) it has to be displayed to the user.
The GPL is not an EULA. An EULA is a 'contract' which reduces your rights, while a license grants you rights (and is not a contract). After you buy a product, you are normally granted many rights (reselling, sueing the maker when the product fails, etc). EULAs will generally try to take these rights away from you after you already bought the software (which makes them illegal in my country, since the seller cannot add conditions to the sale after the fact). In contrast, you don't have the right to distribute the software when you buy it (note: distributing != reselling). Therefore, the right to distribute can only be granted. For GPLed software, the GPL is (usually) the only license that grants you this right under certain conditions. You are free to disagree with these conditions, but then you may not distribute (due to copyright).
check out the rejection of a preliminary injunction in Adobe Software v. SoftMan Systems or Quality King Distribution v. L'Anza Research (IIRC).
EULA cases and therefore not relevant to this case.
Whether or not Sun is following the GPL and the law is up for debate.
Perhaps, but not this debate. PJ never claimed that Sun broke the GPL. And here we are discussing PJs claims, broadening the debate beyond what she claimed is not appropriate (unless you want to start an entire seperate discussion).
but she does have some potentially valid points if Sun is misleading customers as to their obligations under copyright law and the licensing of applications on the CD with JDS.
What I am wondering is whether Sun includes a written offer for the source or whether they include the source (either of which is required to comply with the GPL). But again, this is not the issue at hand, since PJ never claimed that they breached the GPL by not including this offer or the source.
I see it as both; the GPL is a very moral and legal license.
Of course and PJ is allowed to feel that people who use GPLed software need to go beyond the license. But then I can apply my own morality and call it impertinent, unfair, etc. Because I find it offensive when authors grant others certain rights and you try to come in between and redefine that grant. That is very disrespectful to the authors and the party who honestly tries to respect the wishes of the authors (as described in the license), and who is confronted by new limitations and political bickering.
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [emphasis mine]
Notice that the GPL requires you to display the license agreement, not the names of the developers.
No. Your quote says that there should be a copyright notice on the source code. A copyright notice is something like "this file is copyrighted by Sinterklaas under the GPL." That is totally different from the entire GPL license. Nowhere in the GPL does it say that you have to display the license to the user, you only have to provide it.
Of course, your entire quote is beside the point. PJ indicated that the JDS was evil because it didn't sufficiently advertise the use of GPLed software. IANAL and not very knowledgeable about the JDS, so I can't say whether the GPL is properly followed. However, that is not even the point since PJ never suggested that the JDS broke the GPL. She definately seems to think that Sun has a moral obligation to go beyond the GPL. She is allowed to have that opinion, but it is definately strange for a GPL advocate to: - want to 'add' extra limitations for distributing GPLed software, something which is very much against the spirit of the GPL - want to 'add' an obligation to advertise the GPL, while many GPL advocates derided the old BSD license for having a similar clause.
PJ's complaint: not about advertising, but about licensing.
No, it isn't. If it was, she wouldn't come up with a morality argument, but she would simply state what parts of the GPL are breached by the JDS.
THWACK!!!
Ouch, doesn't it hurt to be wrong when you act so condescending?
Fair use is inherently a grey area, with great leniency for the judge. Normally, four factors are considered: purpose, nature, amount, effect.
Purpose: Nonprofit educational use is valued over commercial use. In your case, this will probably work in your favor.
Nature: Copies of educational texts are more likely to be considered fair use than artistic works (such as music). The way you use the copyrighted work is also important. For instance, giving out copies of a newspaper article for an assignment is likely to be considered fair use. Your use of music to spice up the videos (more entertainment than education) is likely to work against you.
Amount: Although the law doesn't say anything about it, the judge will certainly consider the amount that was used. Copying an entire book will be much less well recieved than just copying a few pages. I certainly wouldn't try to broadcast an entire CD in full, but broadcasting entire songs may also be held against you.
Effect: The more likely it is that your 'fair use' will cost money to the copyright owner, the more likely it is for your actions to be considered infringement. For instance, just broadcasting music might mean that people no longer buy music for their music player or listen to the radio. The fact that such a service is 'competing' with these options would be very much against you. In your case, it probably depends on how you use the music. Creating your own music videos would be bad, but background music to a very school-specific video might be ok.
Anyway, the RIAA could certainly sue your school if they wanted to. They might not win (I'm really not sure how it would pan out), but your school might not have the resources to fight them off. Then you might be looking at a nasty settlement fee. The safest bet might be too try and use freely available music whenever possible and otherwise try to reduce the amount of copyrighted music you use. And I would definately try to keep under the radar, drawing publicity to this in the mainstream media (by having a local station air the best videos made by students, for instance) would be dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone can use GPL software, but not everyone may be able to profit from it. Think about roads maintained by taxes. Anyone can drive over them, but corporations cannot charge tolls on people who use them.
That analogy doesn't hold up, because the original public domain code is still available, even if someone sells a closed derivative. The key to a toll road is that you cannot drive that road without paying, so you don't have a free alternative. A restaurant next to a road is a better comparison. It's only profitable at that location, so the entrepeneur is actually making a profit from road+restaurant. However, no one is forcing you have a bite at that restaurant. You can use the road without paying, as long as you don't use the restaurant (just like you can use the public domain code, you just can't use the proprietary changes without paying). Now, I don't have a problem with the restaurant owner making a profit from the road, and similarly, I don't have a problem with a software developer from making a profit from additions he makes to government sponsored code.
Why should corporations have the sacred right to get profits from software developed for the government, but not from roads built for the government?
Let's say you wanted to start a restaurant and you have two options:
1. Build it in the middle of the bush, without a road to your place.
2. Build it next to a high traffic road.
Let's assume that all other factors are the same. If you choose option 2, then you should realize that corporations do profit from roads. The only thing they cannot do is to make a free copy of the road, enchance it and ask for toll (while keeping the original road toll free). However, that has to with the difference between roads and software and those pesky laws of physics. If it was possible, then I think we should let them.
Suppose that the software is available as public domain and a company sells a derivative. Then the people who pay for that are paying for the additions made by that company. You are free to use the costless, public domain version if you don't agree with that bargain and I think that many people will (unless the additions in the closed sourced versions are very compelling, in which case the additions seem to very valuable, and the company deserves to be paid for that).
What I don't understand is how people and the government lose money in all this. If you don't want to pay for a closed source derivative, then you are free to create an open source alternative or use the public domain version. If you believe that the derivative is valuable to spend money on (presumely, because it saves you more money than you have to spend on it), then you don't lose money there either. On the contrary, a rational Homo Economicus will only spend money to earn more, so he would actually make money.
I'll stick to the FSF on this: GPL gives better protection, unless there is a specific reason to opt for LGPL or public domain.
You may make this choice for your own software, but you should realize it is a quid pro quo. You spend your time to create software and in return you expect people to 'pay' you with the changes they make themselves. You don't actually give away your software in the sense that you don't expect anything in return. It is different for software created by the government. That software has been fully paid for and the government shouldn't expect people to 'pay' again, since many of the people who paid taxes don't want that (programmers who program open source software under a different license than the GPL or who program closed source software). In reality, GPL source code will be unusable by those groups of programmers, which means they pay taxes for something they cannot use.
GPL then would be better for government
That would depend on what their aim is:
- If they want to stimulate the economy, then public domain is probably the best choice (since more people can use it and save money). And unlike the standard handouts to (big) coorporations, this one actually benefits small business and individuals as well.
- If the goverment wants bug-fixes, then public domain (more eyes) is probably the best choice.
- If they want to have more features added, then it's unclear. I don't think there has been any research into the amount of (valuable) code that is returned with different licenses. The GPL forces the return of code, but the public domain results in more users and my gut feeling is that willing contributions will generally be much more valuable than 'forced' contributions.
So in the end, the public domain may well be better for the government than the GPL.... they can just babble, just as Einstein did about [...] pacifism
... they can just babble, just as Einstein did about socialism [...]
... it would be considerably more productive if people limited their interactions with journalists to the subjects they have actually been educated in.
How did he babble? Remember that Einstein grew up between the world wars. An American WWI veteran said: "The Germans didn't win that war but neither did we. Only the war won that war." It was a house of cards that fell over, countries declared war because of their treaties and rarely because their own direct interests were at stake. And even the interests that were at stake, were more those of the elite than of the people. In the end, the war was not even succesful to put down Germany. The treaty of Versailles paved the way for WWII (with unbearable reparations). It's not surprising that many people became pacifists after WWI. Furthermore, in Germany at that time, militarists were the Nazi's and the believers in Great Germany. There is a big difference in being a pacifist opposing war against the Nazi's or being a pacifist opposing their war drive. Furthermore, when Einstein moved to the US, he did come to believe that the Nazi's had to be stopped and he became a strong supporter of the development of the atomic bomb. After WWII, he did become a pacifist again, because he didn't want war with the USSR. His goal of mutual disarmament became reality when Reagan sign INF and START I. IMHO, the improvement of the US-USSR relationship which resulted from these treaties was an important aspect in ending the cold war (without a big boom).
So how was Einstein wrong?
I just read his essay Why Socialism? and it struck me how well-written it is. His criticism of 'pure' capitalism is valid and while he calls for a planned economy, he correctly identifies two major problems that would have to be solved first (he forgets the problem of how demand should guide production, but two out of three ain't bad). Those are exactly the problems that the USSR and China were not able to solve in their planned economies.
All in all, a very well written essay worthy of reading. While we now know that no one has succeeded in creating a succesful economy, that wasn't at all clear in 1949, when the Soviet economy was still booming and this must have been one of the more reasonable voices among the communists and the communist-haters. And because the essay is so reasoned, it's still worthy of reading after over 50 years, which is often a sign of quality.
Unfortunately, many of the 'experts' are extremely biased and worse, they can't even offer good arguments to support their position. Then I'd rather listen to an intelligent person who knows the scientific method and the limits of what he can claim. Those people can often talk very interestingly about subjects and even if they are wrong, there is still plenty to learn from their arguments.
"The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury. [...]
- Those who point to the lack of jury trial as a weakness of the Court overlook the obvious impracticality of impaneling a jury to try, for example, Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia that was responsible for the genocide of over a million people.
- Far fewer due process protections are guaranteed to American citizens accused of crimes abroad. They are subject to trial in foreign justice systems, many of which do not provide for a jury trial or other valued due process protections. An American brought before the ICC would actually have more rights than in most other national courts.
- The United States has signed a number of extradition treaties that specifically allow Americans to be tried abroad in foreign courts without jury trials.
- Even in the United States, American servicemembers are not guaranteed a jury trial under the Courts-Martial system."
sourceequal protection
I don't know what that refers to. Can you point out what part in the constitution you are referring to and how the ICC is in conflict with that?
and freedom from self-incrimination.
"...the accused shall be entitled...not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;..."(Art. 67(1)(g))
- Rome treaty
The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people.
The people are involved by the process of voting. Having your government sign & ratify a treaty is no less democratic than having your government sign a new law.
No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.
Nonsense, Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that torture is always forbidden, regardless of whether the victims have POW status. And we know that the US has been guilty of torture, directly and indirectly (the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria to be tortured).
The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training.
First of all, the US is always responsible for the well-being of their detainees. A lack of training and policing with regard to the actions of the torturers is the fault of the US leadership. It may not technically be against the law to be stupid at the expense of the well-being of others, but it definitely can and should be held against them.
However, the situation seems even worse with illegal orders from high-ups and willing disregard of the Geneva conventions on the highest level (yes, Rumsfeld).
Go check out the Third Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).
The fact that they don't have POW status doesn't mean that the US can do what they want. Both morally and legally, the US should treat everyone decently. As for the latter, Article 75 states that every detainee has the right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
They are thugs, murderers and criminals.
It's really scary to see how you've been indoctrinated into assuming that people are guilty without a fair trial. Besides, if they truly are thugs, murderers and criminals, then why not give them the same rights that we give to other people who are accused of these crimes?:
- A speedy trial
- No torture
- Access to a lawyer
- Assumed innocent until proven guilty
It's really scary to see people advocating a police state so easily (and no, the 'war' on terrorism is not comparable to WWII). An enemy who can 'only' kill thousands should not be a reason for us to turn our back on freedom.
So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.
I'm not anti-American, but pro-human rights. It's sad that those two are thought to be the same.
Because the currencies of the world exceeded the supply of gold and silver, these are no longer used as standards.
The US economy is backing the dollar. Nobody cares about gold anymore because they know that people will accept the dollar in exchange for goods. The EQ currency is only the official currency for a game, not for any real economy. You can't expect to buy any real goods with it. Sure, some people on eBay pay for it, but that can be over tomorrow when an EQ killer hits the scene. In that regard, the EQ currency is more like art than actual currency.
If everyone with a dollar wanted to sell it for Euros, then the dollar would become worthless and the value of the euro would rise.
Of course, but that wouldn't happen because the dollar can buy you food, a house and a car. What does a platinum buy you but some entertainment? The value of the EQ currency is just like the value of the 1928 stocks: only marginally related to any real-life value and mostly hype. One lack of faith and it's 1929 for the EQ platinums.
I agree, but I think that the article is flawed for another reason. You can't simply multiply the number of platinums with their current value to get at a meaningful number. The reason is that there is nothing backing up the EQ currency, but the desire of a limited number of people to save some time. If a large number of people would sell their platinums, the price would be close to zilch.
In contrast, the dollar or the yen are backed by the US and Japanese economies. They represent real goods. If the Saudis decide to 'sell' their dollars, loads of people will want to have them because they can be used to buy products in the US. This will limit the inflation. In contrast, the EQ platinums are bound to Everquest. They aren't bound to any real economies. You can only use them to buy stuff in Everquest and only a limited number of people like to cheat by buying platinums. So if a decent number of people starts selling platinums, you'd see enormous inflation.
I am not being trite when I say read the US Bill of Rights.
Why? It's not like it's being respected by lawmakers.
the USA has substantial advantages in the Ownership of Property
Except that the police can just confiscate your property and you have to sue (if you still have enough money left to do so) to get it back. In the majority of seizures, the people whose property gets taken do not even get charged with a crime. Here is a good essay on this issue. Some cases where money was taken without good grounds. And no, they can't do this where I live.
rights to political dissent
A US kid got suspended for wearing a T-shirt with "Anarchy." The government actively tries to prevent people from advertising messages that go against government policy. An anti-war community organization was infiltrated by the police.
These involve a vast improvement in the rights to relief from problems with the government via a court system that despite all its flaws is orders of magnitude more likely to answer to the interests of ordinary people when they dispute with the strong and powerful than in EU or elsewhere.
The US legal system has incarcerated an extremely large part of its population. Many of those are victim of the war on drugs. However, while drug use is no lower among caucasians, three quarter of the people convicted for these crimes are black or latino. The same goes for the death penalty. Black & latino see the needle far more than caucasians. In short, your legal system certainly seems to take it out on the lower class.
As for Europe trodding on the ordinary man, do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I don't see too much of that happening here.
In the USA most people take for granted that the Police and Courts actually will deal with problems and redress without bribery.
I never had to bribe the police or the courts. What parts of the EU are you talking about? Nigeria?
EU types have been raised under a system where they delt with a thousand years of entrenched bureaucracy with its systematic and embedded corruption at a level beyond any American Imagination.
In my country (The Netherlands), 10% of the workers are government employees. In the US, it is 14%. 'Nough said.
As for corruption and bribery: according to the 2003 Corruption Perceptions Index, my EU country is ranked 7th (with a 8.9/10). The US is ranked 18 (with a 7.5/10). The Bribe Payers Index 2002 ranked The Netherlands 6th (with a 7.8/10), while the US was ranked 13th (with a 5.3/10).
Much of the current Economic troubles in the USA and Social Discord are the result of this trend towards EU solutions and methods.
An important reason for social discord in the US seems to be that a small part of the population is screwing the rest. The only reason why many people have to work two jobs, while others have more money than they can spend in two lives, is because they believe the bullshit of "what is good for business is good for you."
In synopsis, the EU is a Bureacratic Super State where Citizens have no particular rights except those granted by PERMIT.
Do you know that the Union has a really low number of bureaucrats (~30.000) and that the nations have very strong control over what the Union does? NO, of COURSE you DIDN'T know, did you? Shouting hard is much easier than providing proof, isn't it?
The Brussels system will further dominate the area by an Oligarchy and the delivery of individual freedom in
The question of choice is crucial. If you are completely free to choose (where all possible options are available), then it is completely fair to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options (since you can and should just choose a better one).
Let me give an example:
You can choose between all different colors to paint your house. Each one is sold by a different shop (green shop, blue shop, etc). All paints cost the same. You like green, but you wind up in the blue shop. You ask for green. Is the owner wrong for telling you to go to the green shop (aka "bugger off")? Please answer that question.
You make artificial distinctions between my comparison of choosing countries and that of chosing other GUI. For instance, I have demonstrated that you can find similar restrictions for GUI or OS'es too, to which you respond by claiming it's incomparable because you can 'create' the one and not the other.
It is not artificial when there is really a difference. There is clearly a difference between the two, because I can probably (by learning programming and taking the effort) create my own software (or pay to have it created) if I don't like what is available. I cannot realistically create my own country when I don't like the available options.
First of all, the original post said: "If you don't like it, that's okay with them -- use a different WM/desktop." *USE*, not *create*. Thus, the analogy with use (go to) another country is the most correct one, and not create.
First of all, using something does not mean I can't choose to create it myself first. I can assemble a sandwich and then 'use' it. Secondly, you responded to & quoted me, that means that you have to respond to what I say, not something in another post. Thirdly, the choice you have to create your own software is important. If I lock you in a room, I am guilty of a crime (even if you manage to escape). If I leave the door open and you decide to stay in the room, I am not. The difference is whether I try to take away the choice to leave, not whether you stay in that room.
Well, if you can't create your own, pay some mercenaries to overthrow some little Island-state.
That is true and in real life, the question of choice is never absolute. You never have infinite choice and rarely no choice. However, the better your options are, the less reason you have to whine.
That is my argument. Not that "bugger off" is always acceptable. My point is that if you want A and A is available, then you shouldn't whine that B is not like A. You may of course complain that A and B are both not what you want, that is valid.
It's not even correct to state it's impossible to create one; the folks of Sealand have done it.
No, Sealand is not recognized as a sovereign state. It's in international waters, which means that laws of other countries don't apply there. It is no different than sailing to international waters in your ship. Then the ship doesn't suddenly become a country either.
It just takes a lot of money, which, granted, few of us have, but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
A true state like Israel or Lithuania requires quite a bit more than that, including many people, political skills, a sponsor and possibly violence. And even then it is extremely hard to be recognized (Turkish Cyprus anyone). So for the average malcontent, it would be impossible.
but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
No wait. I didn't say that it didn't matter to me. I said that it didn't matter to a pure capitalist. According to him, you don't deserve choice if you don't have cash. In this society, we have accepted capitalism. That also means that not having cash is a valid reason for people to say "bugger off." You may not like it
The one where selling the same thing for less is how to capture a market.
Ultimately that is a losers game. In a true free market, profit is zero. Generally it is better not to sell a commodity. Create a product with unique properties that only you can provide. Look at the iPod for a good example.
Besides, it seems silly to suggest that KDE and Gnome should compete on price, since their price is already zero.
The one where QWERTY and VHS beat DVORAK and Beta- where conforming to a suboptimal standard can be better than building an elegant idiosyncrity.
The one where CDs didn't manage to beat vinyl and we are still using horse and cart? I can come up with just as many cases where better standards did win and ultimately we are better off if people try to introduce a better standard, even when the odds are stacked against them.
Because it'll reduce your adoption rate?
Valid criticism, but somehow I think that unfair reviews are worse.
If I'm giving away cars for free, will I have more takers if I also move the accelerator and brake to the steering column?
You will certainly do well among the paraplegic. Otherwise it depends on whether your new car will be better, but I would certainly applaud an attempt to improve the interface of cars (although improving the propulsion can offer much higher gains, so I would prefer improvements there).
Gnome has 1 specific giant advantage over the Microsoft Windows GUI: Freeness.
KDE & Gnome both have that advantage. Gnome then has to set itself apart from KDE as well. There is no reason for Gnome to exist next to KDE if it doesn't try to be different.
Any other significant differences from Windows will just drive them off.
I don't share your opinion of "Please, don't innovate, I beg you." If you want make a identical, but free copy of Windows, go ahead. I won't stop you. But I think that creating something better* is what actually draws the majority of users, so I applaud Gnome for their attempt to make something better.
*And better can be cheaper too, if your product has a lower TCO (better resistance to spyware & viruses for instance).
That would be fine, except that the prominent Gnome spokesmen like Miguel Iczaza portray taking over from Windows as a main goal.
And how will this be helped if they have less choice? Linux guy to User:
U - I want to switch to Linux because and my Windows machine crashes and is filled up with spyware and viruses.
L - You can choose KDE or Gnome.
U - So what's the difference?
L - They are both exactly like Windows, but Free.
U - I don't care about Free and I don't care about free. I want something better.
L - Uhhh.
U - Look, OS X. It's better.
L - Uhhh.
U - Stupid nerd.
What about this response:
L - KDE is just like Windows and Gnome tries to be better.
U - Uhhh. I like something better, but I'm insecure and feel threatened by new things.
L - NP. Here, let me start up Knoppix and give a demonstration of KDE and Gnome.
U - Wow, that is cool. Points at KDE or Gnome.
L - Installs Linux for user.
U - Wow, you are a cool geek.
If I'm a CIT wanting to try Linux desktops for better security, stability, or cost, then those are the only places I want major differences from the Microsoft way. In particular, there should not be any gratuitous GUI changes that'll get my users confused and crying for their Windows back.
Ok, then you use KDE with XP skin or a custom configuration of Gnome.
The spatial Nautilus in Gnome is like that. Although it might be better when examined in a vacuum, in the context of switching computer-users over to it, the differences just create problems.
The switch to cars also created problems. You don't want to know how much roads have cost and what infrastructure had to be changed to accomodate them. Clearly people considered it worth it. Of course, you m
That sounds so totally wrong... lets see.
1. Previous versions of the software have worked in a way I like
2. Current version of the software doesn't work as I like, but can be made to do so by editing a single halfway-hidden config file
3. So instead of either editing that config, or requesting that the setting be made less hidden, I should simply not use otherwise perfectly fine software.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
It's fine with me too if you take the effort to change it to your liking. Just don't do what Petreley did: blast the Gnome developers for shipping the software as they think it should be.
Why shouldn't the Gnome guys ship their software as they want to ship it? Besides, Gnome is Free software. Fork it if you dislike the direction the developers (who spend their time on this software) are taking.
All of those are design choices, and it's the author's perogative if they want to keep them.
Exactly. And IMHO that choice should be respected at least a little bit. Not with a rant in a magazine which scares everyone away from Gnome.
However, Petrely, myself, and many others believe choices like that are a mistake. As Petrely listed in the column, many older OSes used spatial-like filemanagers (Mac OS 9 most prominently)- and all of their modern descendants have moved away from the idea.
Technically, OS X is supposed to be a mix of spatial and browser (best of both world according to Apple, hybrid from hell according to me).
Anyway, even when other people do something, that doesn't mean it is the best thing to do or that you are wrong when you go in a different direction. True criticism is about what is wrong with something, not some FUD that no one else is using it X, so it must be crap. So why did Petreley denounce Nautilus as bad, when:
1. he doesn't actually dislike the spatial browser, but 'is not used to it anymore' and
2. all his other criticism boil down to one thing, which is easy adaptibility?
That hardly justifies the enormous scene he is making. Sure, some of his criticism on adaptibility is correct, but his reaction seems to be way out of proportion.
For a fringe filemanager that has few users but aspires to "taking over the world", it is further important that the learning curve be small and that the behavior resemble those of Mac and Windows.
Why not try to be different to stand out from the competition? I don't know which economy classes you attended, but in mine, they always told you to distinguish yourself from the competition. Gnome is clearly doing so. KDE is doing the browser thing, Gnome is doing the spatial thing. Choice is good right? Or do we need to try to destroy the thing which is not our preference?
For a fringe filemanager that has few users but aspires to "taking over the world", it is further important that the learning curve be small and that the behavior resemble those of Mac and Windows.
If you actually read the story, you will see that De Icaza is referring to Linux and OSS. Again you misread a story and it is getting tiresome.
Because, as you observe, Nick Petrely lost patience trying to get into the "spatial" Nautilus filemanager groove... and there is no reason to assume any other random user will be much more patient than he was.
I think that powerusers who have settled into a groove (which they like) are much less likely then the average user to change. After all, the average user who chooses Gnome is leaving another OS for a reason and should be willing to accept some changes. Petreley is a KDE fanboy who seems fairly content with it. He is just playing and not even very seriously, since he is unwilling to stick to the new way of working for even a week.
It seems a bit like 'reviewing' the Segway by using it for a few hours, deciding you prefer to walk and then drag the thing behind you. Followed by a big rant how cumbersome that is, of course. Sure, they Segway may still suck, but not because it is hard to drag along. That is unfair criticism. Catch my drift?
There is no law that says you can't move to another country as well (at least, in the USA).
I said "create a niche product," so the proper comparison would be the creation of a new country. Since that is nearly impossible, it already shows an important difference between the two situations.
My argument was about the fact that criticism is not made unvalid by the fact that one can go away, use something else or fork, etc. It was not about the validity of the critique in this particular instance, because, as I have said, I'm not really familiar enough with both GUI to make a sensible judgement on it.
I think that the way he expressed his criticism was also a major reason why people say: "bugger off." It was highly destructive (basically: 'I don't like it because it is different'). Positive criticism would probably be better recieved.
I could as well make up restrictions to the 'then create your own fork', for instance:
- he could not be a coder
- he could not have the ability or means to do it
- he may not want to leave his group of peers that work on the application
- etc, etc.
True, but you can still pay someone who is able and willing to provide you with what you want. He may not have the money, but that hasn't stopped capitalists from saying "bugger off" to the poor. Nobody has called that "weak reasoning."
In this case your complaint is even less valid since the alternative already exists and is free to boot. The only thing what it requires is for him to say: "Gnome is not what I like it to be, I'll use KDE which is closer to my ideal."
Take, for instance, that non of your objections are met, and a person could go to another country without any problems...would it then be justified to say to him: 'If you don't like it, go to another country' when that person gives criticism?
If everyone could create their own country freely, without any restrictions, then that argument would be very strong. In that case we can even do away with democracy completely and use a capitalist model for countries to compete for citizens. However, we are very far from that now. You cannot create your own country and even if you could, some countries would have far better locations, natural resources, etc.
Once again, this does not matter in regard to the argument.
Yes, it does. For countries, we have deemed the capitalist model to be a bad fit, so we invented a democracy. A democracy gives you different abilities than a market-based system, such as the software market. Those differences mean that the way you should 'play the game' is also different. Choosing a different 'product' is usually not the way you play the 'democracy game,' instead you select the supplier. In the capitalism game you can't replace a supplier with another, but you can choose the product from a different supplier.
Take MS for example: it has a huge marketshare, but it still doesn't mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS.
Actually, MS is a monopoly which means that you don't have a good enough choice to buy another OS. That is also why there are laws that (can) change the game when a monopoly is involved. At that point, we feel that the capitalism game is no longer functioning. It also means that criticism of Windows is less a reason to say: "buy a competing OS," and more a reason to allow people to get their way in different ways (by using the law to control what the monopolist can do, for instance).
anyone can disagree with anyone for my part.
Yes, but the consequences can differ. If a Gnome guy says "bugger off," your only option is not to use Gnome. If a politicians says so, you can vote him out. That is an important difference.
'Bugger off' can be a statement indicating they are not willing to change, but it is a very weak response to criticism.
It depends. Some criticism is simply a matte
Why should criticism be unvalid because of the possibility to go away, not use it, fork, etc?
The reason is that there are different ways to do things. The Gnome people have chosen a certain way and they can make a good argument in favor of that. The criticism by Petreley basically boils down to: we don't like your way. The Gnome guys don't care about the people who like a totally different way of doing things and rightly so. There is no law that says that you cannot create a niche product which suits only a particular group of people. Or do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to create a GUI that appeals to less than 50% of the users?
It's the same sort of thing you get from, say, chauvinistic USA zealots that answer to every sort of criticism of the government or state/country of fellow americans with: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to another country?"
Not at all. In that case, there are many reasons which make it hard or even impossible to move:
- No country may exist which suits you (and unlike software, you cannot simply program your own country).
- The countries you like may not accept you.
- You may not want to leave your family & friends.
- You may have trouble finding a good job abroad.
- etc, etc.
For many, the best option is to try and change the country they are already in. Furthermore, the idea is that in a democracy, you can try to chance the government through legal means. When using someone elses product, you can't vote or otherwise (legally) force them to do what you want. In a capitalist system, the idea is that you pick the product that suits you. If you think that you know better than anyone who offers a product, then you should build your own. The capitalist dogma say that if you really know better, you will drive the other guys out of the market. So if you think that the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak, then you should also have a problem with capitalism.
If the critique is valid, it remains valid, even if there are a zillion other things one can do.
Certainly. But the guys who spend their time and money to build something have got a right to disagree with you and tell you to build your own (or get someone else to build what you want). They don't have any obligation to change what they like into something you like.
...it mainly focuses on attacking Petrely's understanding of "spatial browser".
No, it doesn't. The ability to change the interface gets much more attention than the spatial browser. Did you actually read the rebuttal?
Problem: he never used the word "spatial".
Petrely's main argument is that the paradigm of the new file manager sucks. That paradigm happens to be called the spatial browser. A reporter who criticizes Nautilus should know this.
Also, when Petreley complains that you need to edit GConf to change the default behavior, instead of finding a prominent checkbox, Jorge (a) lists 3 ways to change the current behavior, and (b) attack's Petrely's technical understanding of GConf. He says that aside from GUI, GConf is nothing like the Windows registry. Well guess what? From the end-user's perspective, the GUI all that matters! If you need to use Registry or GConf to alter a setting, then it's impossible to call that setting easy-to-change.
That's nice and all, but the rebuttal never challenges Petreley on this. It says that if you don't like the new paradigm, you shouldn't bash it and complain about the lack of configurability. No, you should simply not use Gnome and respect the people who do like the spatial browser. Because that is exactly what is missing from Petreley's editorial: respect for people who like things differently.
Petreley's editorial wouldn't have been such a flamebait if he properly explained the spatial browser and gave his opinion (that he didn't like having it as the default). Instead, he dictates that the new paradigm should be hidden and says that Gnome is bad because it isn't (without ever saying anything bad about the spatial interface itself other than his personal preference).
The oped comes down to a very simple position: when a piece of software first gets a radically different, optional interaction mode, common-sense dictates that the new mode should be OFF by default.
Clearly, the new interface is not intended to be optional, witness the lack of an easy switch. Furthermore, users already face a learning curve when they have to adapt to the new paradigm and it requires a bit of persistence to 'get' the new way of working. It looks like Petreley never really tried to 'get' it and seemingly spend all his time looking for ways to turn off default behaviour. That clearly illustrates why you may need to hide the ability to go back to the 'old' paradigm. Otherwise you can never introduce something new, since people won't give it a chance.
Anyway, this clearly illustrates the difference in views between the Gnome guys & Petreley. A good reporter would report on these differences and perhaps offer a reasoned argument to advance his opinion. Petreley did no such thing.
An additional funny part is that both Nick and Jorge manage to mistate what the motiviation for Gnome was: Nick says "freedom from Windows", Jorge says "kickass desktop"... when in reality it was meant for "freedom from KDE" (as is well-documented historically)
It is also well-documented that the QT license change removed this reason and since then, Gnome has continued for other reasons.
None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads.
From one of the tapes from Bin Laden:
"Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.
Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed."
They're just very, very good at blowing shit up and killing people, and they have no ideology.
Nonsense. They want the creation of an Arabic state, which means that they want the US and the rest of the western world out of Arabic countries. By attacking the US, they knew that there would be a hard counter-attack and they hoped that this would piss off enough Muslims for a major jihad.
This is how Bin Laden puts it:
"In the aftermath of this event and now that senior US officials have spoken, beginning with Bush, the head of the world's infidels, and whoever supports him, every Muslim should rush to defend his religion.
[...]
These incidents divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us.
[...]
I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him."
Hampering the law doesn't have to be a bad thing. Before and during WWII, the Nazis used careful administration and an extensive spy network to keep track of people. This helped them immensely when they attacked communists, Jews and other 'terrorists.' Undoubtably, some real criminals were caught as well because of the advanced 'crime fighting' skills. However, if people would have created so much noise to effectively hamper this, the Nazis wouldn't have been so effective in their eradications.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is similar to Nazi Germany, but it is always important to keep in mind that steps which are taken to combat criminals can also be used against innocents. And I certainly see the extreme right wing in the US as being capable of some serious oppression. The "Americans are not like this" speech given by Bush after the torture in Iraq is indicative of their mindset. They are so convinced that they are good (vs evil), the best, God's own people, etc, that they don't see the need for laws to 'hamper them' or free speech for their opponents which will 'just spread lies.' I certainly think that Bush would choose to be a dictator if he could (remember his: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.") This feeling of superiority is certainly similar to the Ubermensch ideals which has blinded people before to the harm they do to others.
I feel actively encourages terrorism.
No, encouraging terrorism is when you drive people to terrorism. For example, when a government does not care about their prisoners enough to properly instruct MPs, causing awful treatment of human beings, then that would be encouraging terrorism. Another example is when you fire two million military trained men so they can go home and be angry at the US who took away their paycheck. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Now, please vote for Kerry in November, even if you don't like them, because those incompetent bastards are creating terrorists at an impressive rate.
BTW, if you really care about preserving the lives of US citizens, you should worry about speeding, drunken driving, bad roadways and other causes of traffic accidents. The chance of dying in traffic is much, much greater than the chance you die in a terrorists attack.
IANAL, but at this point it is a completely reasonable argument that employers should install anti-porn software by default and that failure to do so constitutes neglect.
I'm sorry, but that is a load of bull. You can do the same thing that you do when someone drops their pants in the middle of your office or snorts some coke: you warn/suspend/fire them. If you create a nice policy about this which you mail to every employee and which you consistently honor (no exceptions for the son's boss), then you should have nothing to worry about.
Nobody is suggesting that you chain employees to their chairs or glue their nose closed to prevent them from crossing the line, so why should you have to 'break' your internet by installing faulty filtering software (and they are all broken)?
It's kinda funny -- when the RIAA wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a BAD thing. When the EFF wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a GOOD thing.
Who says that the EFF's idea is a good thing? Just because we tend to like the EFF doesn't mean we like all their ideas. Especially because there are taxes on 'recording mediums' in some countries already and those are generally not divided that fairly. Furthermore, how do you keep track of the popularity of music? The EFF's white paper glosses over it, but there are many ways to do so, some of which will boost big name artists (# times played on the radio) and some of which will be better for small artists (P2P stats).
Because the plan does away with capitalism for music, you get all kinds of other problems. With the music store, we now see price differences and even free songs. I think that, when the music stores become more mature, price differentation will become very important for artists. Especially for small name artists who can sell cheaply or give away free songs to stand out between the establishment. Other problems are: who determines what the tax should be and how do you get people to pay it? Finally, that plan runs a great risks of protecting the RIAA from market forces. If they get to enforce a tax and get to funnel most money to 'their' artists (which will probably happen), then the RIAA can survive as the artist-abusing, payola-ridden monopoly that we all know and hate.
No, bad plan.
I was referring to distribution rights, not modification rights. I can put copies of Red Hat or Debian or (god forbid) Gentoo on my webiste and distribute it without fear of a lawsuit (or at least any lawsuit that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning). Notice how my comment said "freely distribute" and made no mention of modification? Or were you too busy trying to prove me wrong to actually read what I wrote?
You can only distribute without fear of a lawsuit if you provide the source code or a written offer (GPL, section 3). Of course, this is trivial if the source is part of the distribution. Still, the grant to distribute is not totally free (as in free from restrictions). It is important to realize that there is a quid pro quo. The author is asking something in return.
Consumer-protection laws allow people to sue the manufacturer of a dangerous item. That's why people sued the tobacco companies and not their local 7-11. And that's why a user whose computer exploded because of poor software would sue the creator of that program, not the distributor. A distributor might get in trouble if the plaintiff can prove that they knowingly distributed dangerous products, but the primary blame lies with the author.
That is true. But AFAIK there has never been a case where a software company had to pay up for shipping a lemon. The only succesful cases were when specific promises were made and the company did not come through. The case against an author who gives away his software is even weaker, so I really don't see this as a big threat to authors of GPL software (unless software lemon laws are instituted).
Picking through your god-awful use of pronouns leads me to believe you are, in fact, referring to Good Samaritan laws. While it's true that a FS/OSS developer may face fewer problems on the grounds that they are giving their work away, they still suffer from the fact that the end-user may not be bound to the warranty disclaimer. Just don't confuse that with GS laws (like you already have).
I do my best. In all fairness, you should try to write something in Dutch, then I can nitpick about your grammar. Anyway, what you say is true, but warranty disclaimers are always a bit fuzzy. In the case of the GPL, their warranty disclaimer seems especially weak because they explicitly state that you don't have to accept the license.
Well, sir, I am in awe of your command of the U.S. legal system to be able to interpret it and apply it in a far superior fashion to someone who has actually studied it. Either that, or somehow the case law of foreign countries somehow overrides established court precedent in this country.
If you want to look at "the big picture," then you cannot limit yourself to the laws of one country, now can you? I never said that our laws supercede yours, but I happen to be bound by our laws most of the time. And your laws don't supercede mine either.
The "advertising clause" generally refers to a special OSS licensing issue surrounding the old BSD license, requiring distributors to list everyone who contributed code under such license in every mention of that program.
That is not entirely correct. The original BSD license only required an acknowledgement of Berkeley in advertising materials which mention features or use of the software. That is definitely not every mention. Furthermore, other authors could simply use the original license and then their contributions would not have to be noted. The problem was that people created their own versions of the license, with advertisement claused for themselves. After lobbying by RMS, many big BSD contributors (including Berkeley) dropped the advertising clause and the new BSD license saw the light.
That is, in fact, what I was referring to in my original post, and what certain BSD zealots were crowing about in other posts, prompting me to post here initially.
PJ seemed to indicate that she wanted to see the GPL advertised prominen
I'm not disputing -- and have not disputed -- that someone can freely distribute GPL'ed code and face no penalty, so please stop claiming that scenario as a victory.
/foo/bar/baz/snafu/blech/not-ours/keep/going/" but that since Joe never saw it, according to court precedent the GPL's terms didn't kick in.
It's not free. It's a conditional license. The GPL requires payment in source code (of modifications) instead of money, but that is still a form of compensation for the authors.
Let's look at another scenario:
* Programmer A writes a program, and releases it under the GPL.
* Software vendor X adds A's work to their distribution, but slaps a propriety license on the outside of the box with their draconian terms and a notice saying all of X's copyrighted work is provided without warranty.
* Joe User uses A's program, which melts his computer, sets his hair on fire, and causes his wife to run away.
* Joe User sues A under his state's lemon laws. The court rules that vendor X complied with the GPL by placing a "check other licenses in subdirectory
* Programmer A has to buy Joe a new computer, wig, and wife.
That can never happen, since programmer A has not sold anything to the user. Vendor X is the only one who can be sued by the user, since they have a contract with the vendor. The vendor might try to sue the programmer thereafter, but the vendor must have accepted the GPL, which includes a non-warranty clause. Furthermore, liability for something which is given freely is usually very limited. For instance, if you offer to help me move and you drop my expensive China vase, you will probably not be able to sue me for it (this might be different in your country, but in mine, there is case law to support this).
The GPL isn't only about copyright; copyright, warranty, and patent issues are all mentioned explicitly in the preamble to the GPL, and again in several sections of the full license. Focus on the big picture.
I agree that warranty statements are questionable in many situations, especially when you pay for software. However, I want to point out that this thread started with talking the advertising clause. I didn't respond to talk about the big picture (which you seem to define as every possible issue which is peripherally related to the GPL). Personally, I'd rather discuss one topic well, than a thousand topics badly.
while(1) {
printf("It's not about advertising, it's about users knowing their rights, obligations, and limitations.\n"); }
And how are the users supposed to know their rights, obligations and limitations, except for advertising? Merriam-Webster defines advertise as:
1 : to make something known to
2 a : to make publicly and generally known b : to announce publicly especially by a printed notice or a broadcast c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize
But if each JDS CD comes with a big "You can't copy this CD, and the software on this CD is licensed under the WeOwnYou license" tag on it (as PJ observed), they're misrepresenting the rights you have w.r.t. the majority of the software on that CD. That sounds like trying to distract users from the rights they have and introduce more restrictions.
"Introducing more restrictions" is impossible since Sun cannot take away the rights granted by the GPL. So the only problem might be that they don't advertise properly. The GPL does not require much advertising. The source needs to be included or there needs to be an offer for the source in the docs. PJ didn't say that Sun didn't do that. Furthermore, Sun is perfectly within their rights to show a draconian EULA which applies to the software they write. Not allowing the CD to be copied is OK, because it contains proprietary software. That is also fine with the GPL. Sun cannot claim that everything on the CD is their copyright. If they did that, they'd b
And distribution, and modification, etc, etc. Yes, an EULA goes beyond what the GPL covers. /something/ indicating a license) must be present in a prominent location for a person to be bound to the terms of that license.
[...]
So the very case you cite plainly states that the license (or at least
Sigh. That difference is crucial. Let's try again:
- When you buy software and there is no license included, do you have the right to use it?
- When you buy software and there is no license included, do you have the right to distribute it?
The answer to the second question is no. This means that you will have to accept the license to have any distribution rights at all. The question of whether you are bound to the license is irrelevant because you don't have a right to distribute if you are not bound to the license. So there is no need for the author of the software to 'forcefully' bind you to that license. You can only distribute the software legally under the GPL. There is no other license (including in the law) that grants you that right.
Let's give an example:
- You distribute GPLed software.
- You do not comply to the GPL.
- You are sued.
- You argue in court that the GPL does not bind you.
- The judge asks you: if the GPL does not bind you, then what right do you have to distribute that software?
- You are convicted for copyright infringement.
You are free to tell me what GPL defensive there is in this scenario, because all I can see is a big fine/jailtime. I would also like to point out to you that no one has ever tried the defense that suggest. That can mean two things:
1. All the lawyers who had to deal with GPL infringements were less smart and knowledgable about the law than you.
2. You are wrong.
Occam's razor tells me that it's quite a bit more likely that you are wrong than people who deal with this for a living.
PJ's comments were made in the context of worrying whether Sun would continue to marginalize the GPL and see how far they could bend its provisions
I don't see how using GPLed software and complying* to the GPL is marginalyzing the GPL. Again, if the authors wanted more advertising, they should have used a different license.
*I will simply assume this from now on, because I will not honor wild guesses and a lack of research when it comes to bad-mouthing a company. I will require somewhat credible evidence to indicate otherwise before I will discuss this 'issue' because we can't intelligently say anything about it otherwise.
So if Sun can corral people into using their software and make them ignore the GPL, they can try to introduce other, more draconian restrictions on end-users and/or developers.
This makes no sense to me. Doesn't everyone who knows about programming also know about the GPL? Do you really think that the GPL community would not discuss this and point out the rights that user and developers have under the GPL? Do you think that people's rights could simply go away? The GPL was written explicitly to prevent this, you know.
What I am disputing is that a vendor or distributor of GPL'ed software might have to follow additional guidelines beyond those explicitly listed in the GPL (because of the case law) in order to be compliant with the GPL. Courts deal with this gray area all the time, and they often disagree.
Courts will always try to follow the license as strictly as possible and when in doubt, they will usually choose a less limiting explanation. Furthermore, in this case, they will probably look at GNU and other GPL software. In that software, it is very rare to have a lot of GPL advertising, so the court will most likely not want to impose those limits on all that software.
I would also like to point out that again, this is pure speculation on your part and PJ did never make this claim.
Don't think you're that brilliant just because you find something that contradicts what I'm saying; l
Excuse me?
GPL = General Public License
EULA = End User License Agreement
And what is this supposed to prove? A license is a grant of permission. That certainly does not have to mean that different licenses are completely the same in the face of the law. More specifically, an EULA is a license which governs the use of software. However, by buying the software, you have already entered into a contract with the vendor. Without an EULA, you could still use the software. In contrast, the GPL is a distribution license. It is the only thing which can allow you to distribute software, since by default, copyright disallows you to do so. Therefore, there is no debate among knowledgable people about the whether the GPL is binding, because you will have to accept it in order to have a right to distribute software. EULAs are much more disputed, because you will usually have more rights when you are not bound to them.
An EULA is a 'contract'
No, which is why software vendors were so desperate to get UCITA passed. It would give software vendors contract-like control over their users, which they only have in spotty parts of the country due to conflicting court cases.
The reason why software vendors wanted UCITA passed had to do with the problem that I previously mentioned, the question whether you are obliged to the contract provisions of the EULA or not. It has got nothing to do with the EULA being a contract or not. The decision in Softman vs Adobe agrees with me on this issue:
"Courts have required that assent to the formation of a contract be manifested in some way, by words or other conduct, if the contract is to be effective. [...] In the instant case, the Court finds that there is only assent on the part of the consumer, if at all, when the consumer loads the Adobe program and begins the installation process. It is undisputed that SoftMan has never attempted to load the software that it sells. Consequently, the Court finds that SoftMan is not subject to the Adobe EULA."
This quote clearly illustrates that the judge sees the EULA as a contract.
Ah, but there's the rub. You don't buy software (at least most commercial software). You license it. You don't actually own it, meaning that the first sale doctrine never kicks in, and that's how they can prevent you from reverse engineering it, regardless of the fact that RE is legal according to copyright law.
That is not the point here. The EULAs can't take that right away from you if they aren't valid.
But then I can apply my own morality and call it impertinent, unfair, etc. Because I find it offensive when authors [the authors of a GPL program] grant others certain rights [the right to copy and modify, subject to certain conditions] and you [Sun] try to come in between and redefine that grant. [confuse the user about their rights and obligations]
No. The authors of a GPL program granted Sun certain rights and PJ tried to come in and redefine that grant. You keep on talking out of your ass about GPL infringement, but again, that is not the point here. Let's do a little fact quiz:
- Is this story about PJs allegations?
- Did PJ argue that Sun was violating the GPL (as in: according to the law)?
- Is there any evidence that they did (not just questions or unsubstantiated allegations)?
- Is Sun doing what the authors of the GPLed software requested if they simply comply with the license (regardless of whether they actually did, which PJ did not argue against)?
- Are the authors complaining that Sun isn't complying with the license or otherwise should do more?
- Is PJ an author of that software?
After answering these questions, it should be clear to you what the question really is. Then we can talk about whether Sun should do what the authors asked of them or do what PJ asks of them.
All
And what, pray tell, does your emphasis actually prove? Sun is distributing verbatim copies of the source code, and it is questionable as to whether or not they're posting a conspicious copyright notice and warranty disclaimer.
First of all, I don't know whether they ship the source in the distribution. They are not required to. Secondly, I fully expect that they just left the already existing copyright notices in the source code. That is what is required according to this section of the GPL. It doesn't require any advertisement to the user when the binary runs (there is another piece of the GPL with something about that, but Sun seems to comply with that too).
The GPL is a bit fuzzy, yes, but the courts have tended to say that for a EULA to be valid (and the GPL is a EULA) it has to be displayed to the user.
The GPL is not an EULA. An EULA is a 'contract' which reduces your rights, while a license grants you rights (and is not a contract). After you buy a product, you are normally granted many rights (reselling, sueing the maker when the product fails, etc). EULAs will generally try to take these rights away from you after you already bought the software (which makes them illegal in my country, since the seller cannot add conditions to the sale after the fact). In contrast, you don't have the right to distribute the software when you buy it (note: distributing != reselling). Therefore, the right to distribute can only be granted. For GPLed software, the GPL is (usually) the only license that grants you this right under certain conditions. You are free to disagree with these conditions, but then you may not distribute (due to copyright).
check out the rejection of a preliminary injunction in Adobe Software v. SoftMan Systems or Quality King Distribution v. L'Anza Research (IIRC).
EULA cases and therefore not relevant to this case.
Whether or not Sun is following the GPL and the law is up for debate.
Perhaps, but not this debate. PJ never claimed that Sun broke the GPL. And here we are discussing PJs claims, broadening the debate beyond what she claimed is not appropriate (unless you want to start an entire seperate discussion).
but she does have some potentially valid points if Sun is misleading customers as to their obligations under copyright law and the licensing of applications on the CD with JDS.
What I am wondering is whether Sun includes a written offer for the source or whether they include the source (either of which is required to comply with the GPL). But again, this is not the issue at hand, since PJ never claimed that they breached the GPL by not including this offer or the source.
I see it as both; the GPL is a very moral and legal license.
Of course and PJ is allowed to feel that people who use GPLed software need to go beyond the license. But then I can apply my own morality and call it impertinent, unfair, etc. Because I find it offensive when authors grant others certain rights and you try to come in between and redefine that grant. That is very disrespectful to the authors and the party who honestly tries to respect the wishes of the authors (as described in the license), and who is confronted by new limitations and political bickering.
Let me put the emphasis differently:
From the GPL, Section 1
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [emphasis mine]
Notice that the GPL requires you to display the license agreement, not the names of the developers.
No. Your quote says that there should be a copyright notice on the source code. A copyright notice is something like "this file is copyrighted by Sinterklaas under the GPL." That is totally different from the entire GPL license. Nowhere in the GPL does it say that you have to display the license to the user, you only have to provide it.
Of course, your entire quote is beside the point. PJ indicated that the JDS was evil because it didn't sufficiently advertise the use of GPLed software. IANAL and not very knowledgeable about the JDS, so I can't say whether the GPL is properly followed. However, that is not even the point since PJ never suggested that the JDS broke the GPL. She definately seems to think that Sun has a moral obligation to go beyond the GPL. She is allowed to have that opinion, but it is definately strange for a GPL advocate to:
- want to 'add' extra limitations for distributing GPLed software, something which is very much against the spirit of the GPL
- want to 'add' an obligation to advertise the GPL, while many GPL advocates derided the old BSD license for having a similar clause.
PJ's complaint: not about advertising, but about licensing.
No, it isn't. If it was, she wouldn't come up with a morality argument, but she would simply state what parts of the GPL are breached by the JDS.
THWACK!!!
Ouch, doesn't it hurt to be wrong when you act so condescending?
Fair use is inherently a grey area, with great leniency for the judge. Normally, four factors are considered: purpose, nature, amount, effect.
Purpose: Nonprofit educational use is valued over commercial use. In your case, this will probably work in your favor.
Nature: Copies of educational texts are more likely to be considered fair use than artistic works (such as music). The way you use the copyrighted work is also important. For instance, giving out copies of a newspaper article for an assignment is likely to be considered fair use. Your use of music to spice up the videos (more entertainment than education) is likely to work against you.
Amount: Although the law doesn't say anything about it, the judge will certainly consider the amount that was used. Copying an entire book will be much less well recieved than just copying a few pages. I certainly wouldn't try to broadcast an entire CD in full, but broadcasting entire songs may also be held against you.
Effect: The more likely it is that your 'fair use' will cost money to the copyright owner, the more likely it is for your actions to be considered infringement. For instance, just broadcasting music might mean that people no longer buy music for their music player or listen to the radio. The fact that such a service is 'competing' with these options would be very much against you. In your case, it probably depends on how you use the music. Creating your own music videos would be bad, but background music to a very school-specific video might be ok.
Anyway, the RIAA could certainly sue your school if they wanted to. They might not win (I'm really not sure how it would pan out), but your school might not have the resources to fight them off. Then you might be looking at a nasty settlement fee. The safest bet might be too try and use freely available music whenever possible and otherwise try to reduce the amount of copyrighted music you use. And I would definately try to keep under the radar, drawing publicity to this in the mainstream media (by having a local station air the best videos made by students, for instance) would be dangerous.
Some more info