Anyone who claims that he can do design work efficiently without Photoshop is either inexperienced or a zealot
And the AC who wrote that comment is unfamiliar with the other tools in the field; that unfamiliarity has led to comments that are nonsensical. There are tools that way outperform Photoshop in various areas; better at area selection, better at paintbrushes, better at layered image editing, better at animation and special effects, better at lighting effects... etc. Photoshop is great, but it isn't the only way, or even always the best way, to get things done.
I use CMYK all the time for non-prepress, as you do; additional uses include extracting keys and masks. It isn't all about prepress by any means. Nor all about Photoshop; Photoshop is missing a lot of things I use regularly, particularly in the area of layer flexibility. HSV and similar modes also allow for adjustment of shadows and other luma-based detail independently of saturation and hue, I use them all the time. RGB is way cool, but it certainly isn't the end of the road.
I can think of a few reasons why supreme court judges would be legitimately rated low. Support for blatant ex post facto laws; commerce clause inversion; allowing states to take people's property; allowing wiretapping before a warrant is issued (FISA); Allowing congress to blackmail the states by withholding highway (and other) funds; allowing the right to bear arms to be infringed upon; allowing government support of Christianity; outright ignoring the 10th amendment (see earlier reference to blackmail); cowardly and un-statesmanlike refusal to hear critical cases of government malfeasance (like Robert Newdow's); allowing the state to infringe upon the liberties of the citizens (drug war, censorship, marriage, sexuality, unreasonable copyright and patent terms and mechanisms; allowing the feds to step beyond the enumerated powers without requiring a constitutional convention; restricting freedom of speech (free speech zones, censorship, funeral zones, etc.)... that's all just off the top of my head.
Yeah, I could definitely see low supreme court ratings.
Probably you are right here. By letting your clients see your source code they could see, for instance, you are illegally including third party code without rights to do so
Look up ad hominem, a grade school level failure of argument style. Then try again. If you can mange to rise to the level of normal courtesy, I'll respond. Good night.
I'm not calling the GPL license "freedom", I'm saying it *promotes* freedom, because it protects the code licensed under it from being incorporated into products by people who would deny me the right to study, modify, extend and distribute such software in the manner I see fit.
And what I am telling you is that source code that is PD is also protected just as well, plus it is useable by many more developers, regardless of people's prejudices for or against how they choose to develop, and that it in no way denies you the right to study, modify, extend and distribute the PD code itself. What it does not do is magically give you the right to person B's invention, just because person A decided to put out their invention. It leaves decisions in the hands of the inventor at every level, instead of taking those decisions and pre-determining what they must be.
In the meantime, my PD code is available to you without any conditions at all, and your GPL code is not available to me unless I toe some very specific lines that I am entirely disenchanted with. So where does the maximum promotion of freedom really reside, eh?
Let's not, as it is completely, utterly irrelevant. There is no one, and no thing, suffering under oppression, denial of free will, etc.
Public domain (or BSD-like licenses) is like being a southern landowner that takes the decision to free their own slaves;
PD source code is like a phrase in a sentence, given freely, yet still usable by the originator, now also usable by the listener, who can share it further without concern because it was given freely. It can be incorporated in a diary for nothing, in a newspaper article, in a book for profit, or in a great speech. Regardless of how it is incorporated, it remains usable, and interesting, and unaltered, in its original form, for everyone to use. PD source code is nothing like, and has nothing to do with, the concept of slavery.
GPL is like organize an army to fight against slavery.
GPL is like an army that says "You can't use that phrase in a book, because we don't like that kind of use." I have no use for such an army, and consequently, I don't have any traffic with the GPL. PD doesn't need anything that the GPL has to offer, because it is better on every front. There's nothing you can do about it; jumping up and down and making up really bad analogies won't change anything. PD is superior on every front and particularly with regard to freedom to use the source code in question as explained elsewhere in the thread (please read before firing off duplicate arguments.)
Now you can think about it and end up saying that the former is the "freer" option because you don't force other landowners' freedom about having slaves. Or, you can end up saying that the later is the "freer" option because it ends up slavery and it's no freedom the "freedom to enslave".
Thinking about it makes me shake my head at your slavery comparison. As if the source code was deserving of humanitarian consideration. Source code is a thing like a brick or a pencil, except that, if people like the GPL'ers can be kept away, everyone can use it any way they want, while pencils and bricks don't offer this benefit. When GPL'ers get in there, then the number of uses available decreases; ergo, GPL source code is not an improvement over PD source code.
If you want to try to make an analogy that has a chance of succeeding, pick a domain where the characteristics are at least similar to source code. Slavery - and human conditions in general - aren't going to produce a reasonable comparison.
I'm an evil multimillionaire genius who wants to screw the users and developers of said PD code.
Huh. Pleased to meet you.
I hijack the project by embracing and extending it so end users will prefer my fork
Um, no. You can't "hijack it." It's yours. You know, PD = Public Domain. You're the public. It's yours. But thanks for improving it. That's great. You say users prefer your version? Because it's better? Maybe users are smarter than some people give them credit for. Good for them. And good for you!
I create a paid version offering a sweetener (support and/or more functionality etc...)
...and users can buy this if they choose to, right? But you've gone out of your way to give them a reason. Well, again, good for the users who make a trade of money for your offering and good for you for increasing your multimillionaire situation. Still looks really good all around to me. Outstanding!
...and then do a frog boil by letting the free version fall behind (no bug fixes or functionality extensions etc),
Um... so something you didn't ask for payment for, you're not going to choose to spend more time on? Ok, that seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. After all, no one paid you, so no obligation has been established. The producers of the original PD work might have made the same choice, in fact, perhaps that's why the project was PD in the first place. Of course, that's just speculation and in no way impugns what you've done.
and because I'm the only one with redistribution rights I can kill it completely at my whim.
Well - let's be clear here - you can kill your enhanced free version (and/or your paid version), but you can't do anything about the actual PD project, of course. It's still out there, and it's still PD, and anyone can still do anything with it that doesn't infringe on any IP you may have invested into your version. Now that your free version is discontinued, you've even provided an incentive to begin extending the PD version in new directions. Just so you know.
.(I'll probably keep in around though because it will suck people into using my product, and when they become frustrated with limitations they'll pay me for the real thing).
So what you're saying is that the free version really did add value, or else people would be using the PD one. In fact, it added enough value to serve as a "get them in the door" tease for an even more advanced product. This is sound, smart business, and does no harm whatsoever to the PD project, plus, all of your customers will benefit, plus, you'll pay more in taxes, people will be employed, society gains ground because your product adds efficiency and/or cheer to people's lives and/or businesses undertakings, and all because you were a good citizen and took the gift of a lowly PD project and moved us all forward. This is simply wonderful. I'm going to speak to the mayor and nominate you for the keys to the city. Seriously.
If you try to extend the PD product to match mine (mine MINE!!! ahahaha!!!) I open up with my patent and/or copyright war chest and sue your arse back into the nerd hobbit-hole you came from
Well, of course. You didn't release your improvements as PD, did you? So why would anyone allow your stuff to be stolen, just because you accepted a freely offered gift? That'd be like me giving a bicycle to my kid, he goes out and creates a paper route business with it, and then I try to take his paper route, reasoning that because I gave him the bicycle, he somehow owes me something. But the bicycle was a gift; that route is his, and his alone. As are your improvements. Unless he, or you, choose to do something along those lines. You know, choice...
Yet exactly how often is commercial software available with the source code as well?
(a) We're not talking about commercial software vs. the GPL, we're talking about PD source code vs. GPL'd source code. (b) Commercial software may offer no source, some (as we do, for instance for scripts, for plugins) or all; again, this is entirely up to the developer, but in no way does this relate to PD offerings.
The issue of proprietary drivers alone is a major reason many people look for GPL version if they exist. This ability to go in, dig around, fix a couple of variables or lines of code and make it work is huge.
And PD source code for drivers as opposed to GPL'd source code for drivers would hurt or diminish this ability, exactly how?
Yes, the commercial companies could do this. They never, ever do. That all are asses about it.
Nope, not all of 'em. Many are pretty myopic, certainly, but not all. For example, we released the entire mechanism for our plug-ins (essentially, plug-ins are drivers for our image and animation manipulation engine) free of charge. You can use that mechanism to write stuff for our app, or, for instance, you could take the code and jam it into the Gimp and thus make the gimp run our plug-ins. No restrictions. The code and details are online, and begin here. Previously, when we were doing hardware, we coded up an entire paint program and handed out the source code - essentially a specialized driver for the graphics hardware. You're not going to get me to argue that holding back driver details for software or hardware targets is the socially best-scenario move; clearly, it isn't, and we don't go that way ourselves. Nor do we find that we need the GPL to get us into, or keep us in, the proper mindset.
fyngyrz, your view of freedom is backwards here, because real life situations almost never involve a user nerfing other users
No? Where are all these viruses and worms coming from, then? Why do I see perfectly good and on-topic posts on slashdot being crushed by moderators, who are really (usually) just other users? Why is it that a bunch of users will promote a product based upon familiarity or looks when functionality is far superior in another product? I'll tell you why: Because people "nerf" other people all the time. Some people don't, and those drive the community forward. You can't legislate or bind by rules when it comes to behaviors that cannot be controlled; you can't impose your opinions on people who will not listen, and it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you simply can't do it. Those people who wish to contribute, or do business in a manner that benefits the community in ways that may not lead to direct profits, will do so regardless of rules. They aren't doing it because they were told to. They're doing it because they want to.
The developers of GPL saw this a long time ago. They saw that one day companies would copyright everything in sight, even down to trying to patent life itself. This required aggressive action on their part to KEEP it from happening.
It hasn't been prevented, or even slowed down. That's a fact. On the other hand, the GPL has served to prevent ideas from reaching large numbers of people by making the task of including GPL'd source code in commercial products much harder than it needs to be. Conversely, PD source code can't be glommed by a company any more than GPL'd code can, and this brings up the question, why use GPL at all if your goal is to get ideas in at the "you can't isolate this idea" level? Put the idea in PD source, distribute it reasonably well (trivial to do), and that's it - it'll never be non-PD, it can't be patented because the PD is prior art, it can't be copyrighted because the PD is
PD doesn't make sure that when I get a copy of program X that was released as PD by its author, I can (if I choose) modify program X and run the modified version
PD source code does, and that is what we are talking about here. You can't win the argument by moving it to a new venue. However, since you brought it up, PD executables ensure that you can run the program and you can give it away; you don't have source code, so freedom to do things with said source code is entirely irrelevant. You don't have freedom to use resources on the author's computer, either, but again, such freedom wasn't offered, so it isn't relevant. And wouldn't you know it, the freedom to choose how to release a product rests with the author of the product. How weird is that?
Nor does it ensure that I can redistribute my modified version.
Again, PD source code does ensure precisely that. And again, that's what the discussion is about.
This is all explained in the FSF's FAQs. Look up the four freedoms.
I am aware of, and am not interested in being limited to, the FSF's four freedoms. With PD, I have more than those four offer, and the experience is broader, more empowering, less controlling of others, and of greater value to the end user community, in my personal opinion.
But for fun, let's look at 'em. 1 - "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." Yes, PD source code gives me that. Only "any purpose" includes in aid of, or within as a part of, a commercial product without any restrictions or legal hurdles, so really, PD source code is a lot better than GPL'd source code here.
2 - "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs." Yep, PD source code gives everyone that, too, and I'd say both PD and GPL source code do just fine in this regard.
3 - "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." Yep, PD source code gives me that as well. But I can distribute them commercially without restrictions, so GPL'd source code doesn't measure up here - you can help more than your GPL-compliant neighbors with PD source code.
Lastly, 4 - "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." And of course, PD source code gives me this too, only I can give it to a far wider audience, because I don't provide limitations with my offer. So the definition of "whole community" is a lot more accurate for PD source code than it is when considered in the limited context of the FSF's use of the term.
So as we can see, PD source code also offers everything in the FSF's fab four, while doing a better job of achieving the stated goals than GPL'd source code does at the same time.
But, wait, there's more! PD also offers the ability to embed that source code in a commercial app. It offers the ability to link it any way you want. It offers the ability to mix it with proprietary techniques. It offers considerably greater ability to avoid legal entanglements. You can make libraries, applications, distribute fragments, improvements, neglect to distribute them, put the code in a book... this is why PD source code is superior in every way unless your objective is not actually freedom, but a specific set of goals that you will accept as compensation. Which is what the GPL exists to do.
No. I'm talking about source code here when I say "product", and in that context, it is precisely accurate. GPL with regard to use of a compliant executable is, at least as far as I know, irrelevant. It is when a developer, by manipulating the source code, does something forbidden (like mix proprietary code with GPL'd code) that restrictions upon the developer come into play.
You do have to abide by [the GPL's] conditions if you want to modify or redistribute [GPL'd software], but you typically can't do that at all with proprietary software, even after you've paid for the ability to use it.
But that is a developer's choice, and it isn't by any means a defining characteristic of commercial software. For instance, it isn't true of ours: See here. Specifically, you can redistribute our software. Even if you haven't paid for it. Or in other words, you are free to do so. Freedom springs up where you least expect it sometimes. Funny old world, isn't it?
the GPL isn't the most free license there is, that's obvious
Right. PD is.
I don't want to give my code away...
Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You want to restrict people's use of your code, and that's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is calling the imposition of such restrictions as the condition of the transaction "freedom." It is the polar opposite of freedom.
...and by making sure any improvement done to my software is given to the community just like the original was, I'm doing them a much bigger favor than just throwing them a.zip with some source files and saying "there, go and do whatever you want with it, I don't care".
At the very least, your assertion is debatable. PD software can be changed and returned as new PD. Or not. Either way, some additional end users can get to use those changes, because return to the pool of changes has no effect upon distribution of any derivative product. So the end users clearly benefit greatly in this regard from PD. There certainly isn't anything about PD that is stopping a PD change from returning to the PD pool of art.
On the other hand, GPL software can be improved and not returned, simply by not distributing the improvements beyond the person doing the improving. This actually causes those improvements to reach fewer end users, and so this disadvantages the users. Furthermore, the GPL provides a motivation to not distribute such changes - it creates extra work and liability for the developer, and so some developers - us, for a concrete example - refuse to do any such changing or distribution.
This causes GPL'd works to exist outside the stream of developers who consider such liabilities and/or workload increases to be unacceptable. For example, Apple doesn't include, or improve, Midnight Commander in OS X because of the license; we don't include, or improve, Gimp filters because of the license; the list of similar non-distributions is probably immensely long. From where I sit, the user community loses, and the GPL developer community gets to sit there and go "nyah nyah" to no apparent gain at all. On the other hand, PD materials are valid candidates for our (and anyone else's) inclusion, consequently the odds of an end user benefitting from PD code are much better.
ohh, and most sensible people wouldn't describe "anarchy" as the only free system, so I don't see why it'd apply to software... the GPL is a free license, it's just less free than BSD or Public Domain.
Giving software source code away isn't anarchy any more than giving $50 to a cat shelter is anarchy. Both can promote uplift, both hand off power unselfishly and by choice, neither say "but you must do what *I* want you to do or you can't have the money / source code" and neither are antisocial or self-destructive by any stretch of the imagination. You're conflating a grasp at power - controlling other people's actions - with the idea of freedom. I don't buy it. Also, if "less free" is to be your metric for acceptability, then I presume you'd have no objection to jail, right? After all, jail is simply less free than not being in jail. It certainly could be a lot worse; you could be in an iron maiden, or murdered. Personally, when it comes to issues of freedom, I'll opt for the maximum that is compatible with the good of the community, and it seems very clear to me that in the case of donations of infinitely re-distributable work product, the less restrictions put on said donations, the more freedom everyone involved, including me, will enjoy.
When I'm not outright donating work product (time, advice, executables, source code, materials), I prefer to specify that the exchange be made for money. This is the most flexible form of compensation, and no one is under any illusion that I am asking for an excha
The GPL *is* about freedom, but it's the freedom of the end user - the freedom of EVERYONE, not just yours
By definition, "everyone" includes giving me freedom, but the GPL doesn't do that, it specifically restricts me. So we're not talking about "everyone" and with the GPL, we never were. That's just for starters. Next, PD offers more freedom than the GPL does. All end users, all developers, people writing books, website code aggregators, blog publishers, the public sector, government, foreigners, aliens, Bonobo apes, etc. Maximum freedom, minimum restrictions. The GPL does not offer this. The more people use the code, the more people are restricted to specific behaviors defined by the GPL, and forbidden other behaviors. The reasons are irrelevant; the point is, the GPL is less free than PD is. By a significant degree.
You want to use the GPL, great, have at it. But PD is considerably more free, and nothing you can do or say will change that; and nothing you can do or say would make me opt for the restrictions of the GPL for my community projects when I have a considerably more free alternative to use. That alternative is PD. I am unaware of a more free, more open and more flexible release mechanism. I am aware of the GPL, and one thing I can tell you for certain is that the GPL isn't a candidate for such an exalted characterization.
As for your sally with regard to democracy, I don't think the word means what you think it means. But that's entirely another discussion.
However, preserving my freedoms requires restricting your freedom to take my freedoms away from me.
Really? Then explain how PD does less for freedom than the GPL. Explain how you have to agree to the idea of PD, or even be aware of it, to use PD software. Explain how you are not free when you are using PD software. Finally, explain how when you use PD software, you have "take my freedoms from me." I'm all ears. Eyes.
Then explain how PD does not do more, by being able to be used in more software with less trouble and legal hoops to jump through. PD can be enhanced and returned to the pool, just as GPL'd software can be. PD can be acknowledged, just as GPL'd software can be. In fact, PD is superior to GPL in every way I am aware of except for the case where a software developer really isn't interested in giving the code away, but instead, expects something in return - the GPL specifies what those returns (as well as some limitations) must be.
The premise that the GPL is more free than PD software is bankrupt. Not for developers, and not for end users. These assertions are propaganda; no more. You can't successfully defend these ideas and you can't justify them on that basis (freedom.) And this is why I say the GPL is about restrictions, not freedom. Not that I mind in the least if you choose the GPL. I don't. I just mind when people define "freedom" by a set of transactional restrictions that while they may have benefits, certainly are not required in order to ensure maximum range of action with software, something most sensible people would agree pretty much describes "freedom."
If the GPL is about restrictions, then what are proprietary licenses about? Enslavement?
No. Just different restrictions and different currency. The GPL's currency is limiting one's behavior on the one hand, and expecting certain behaviors (such as returning modifications) on the other. Either you pay in these currencies, or you can't use the product. A commercial product (generally) expects money as payment, which is an abstraction of work product in general, meaning, you can pay by selling your body, renting your garage, from your normal income, or from your birthday money. In many ways, it is a lot less restrictive than the very specific behavior exchange demanded by the GPL.
No one can "enslave" a (potential) customer if a license is clearly written. We can accept it, or not. If I don't accept the terms, I'll take the product back and get my money back. No harm, no foul. I have my money, they lost a sale. That's my choice. Slaves don't have choices. They take orders. No one can order me to buy a product with my funds that I are unwilling to buy. If, on the other hand, I buy it with the intent of not accepting the terms the seller has laid down, then I am abusing the seller. I am the problem. Mind you, not all licenses are clearly written, and that is a universally bad thing.
I'm not against the GPL or any other transactional release mechanism. What I object to is seeing it mischaracterized as the epitome of software freedom. It isn't. PD represents software freedom, because PD has the absolute minimum of restrictions and makes the absolute minimum of demands. A single demand, an inherent one, and that is simply that the code that is released is PD, and it can't become "not PD" by any action anyone takes. It is an infinitely available gift.
I'm not against any other release scheme either, transactional or otherwise, as long as it is clearly set forth so no one is confused. I am against the misrepresentation of any scheme because people are misled by such actions.
You are free to do with the software what you will, but you are not allowed to steal it, or claim it as your own.
This is not true. The GPL isn't about giving credit or "stealing" something that is being given away. I am more than happy to give credit where credit is due and desired. In fact, although I wrote most of the code in the product, my name isn't even on that list, because I don't care about credit personally. The GPL has nothing to do with "claims of work as one's own", nor does such a thing present any kind of a barrier. What the GPL restricts is the ability to use that code without exposing your own IP or complicating distribution issues, while adding a layer of legal concerns that represent a looming potential liability which a real company, doing real work under real constraints which it is duty and honor bound to consider because it affects the company, the company's shareholders and/or owners, employees, customers, and of course the product itself. We can't just go dancing off into the night willy-nilly when something has a restrictive license; it has to go to lawyers, everything has to be examined to the last detail including what is a library, what is compiled in, where the source code will be, what provisions for maintaining access to it will be set up, and so on. The GPL sets up barriers to commercial use, intentionally so, and that - not anything to do with "credit" or "theft" - is the sum total of the problem.
The last time "free" meant what you mean was in the time of the Greeks, when you were not truly free unless you could enslave someone else. That's not my kind of free
Again, not so. I can release something PD and you can do anything with it. The fact that it is PD and public sets the lower bound, and it becomes impossible for anyone to say "that isn't PD anymore", while there is no upper bound, no need to be concerned about source code, compilation, libraries, modification, etc. And you can still acknowledge the author(s) (give credit) and you are not in any way "stealing." The "right thing", as you put it, is anything you would like to do. If the ability to do this ever went away, it would be a tragedy. And it certainly hasn't gone away at this point in time; I use PD for my community minded works and I would never choose the GPL because it restricts what people can do with my contribution, and I am not interested in restricting them. Plus, look at it the other way: You can use my PD code in your project just as easily - no, more easily - than you can GPL'd code. Because there are no concerns beyond those you would have for code you wrote yourself. I don't demand recognition, I don't demand exposure of your (or my) code, I don't demand you do - or don't - change it, I don't impose "responsibilities" on you, I don't demand anything. I'm just saying, here's this code, I wrote it, it does thus-and-such, and if you'd like to use, modify, or ignore it in whole or in part, you're free to do any combination of those things without any additional concerns imposed by me, whether in my direction or anyone else's.
As I said initially, if you want to use GPL, by all means, please do. But don't go imagining that the GPL is the bottom line in freedom. It isn't. PD represents freedom. GPL is just a license that isolates use that is restricted to a subset of the choices one could make were the code PD or one's own. Choosing the GPL is choosing restrictions. Choosing the GPL is fine, but pretending that the GPL is definitive of "freedom" or even just "free software" is misleading at best.
Also - and this is so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it - When I give you my code, you are not enslaving me. I wrote the code, I made a choice about what to do with that work product, and I was the one who set the limits
Speaking as a commercial developer (most of the time), and the owner of a very successful software firm, I don't like the GPL because the licensing opens the door to an additional legal minefield we'd just as soon avoid, makes distribution and maintenance more complicated, and poses linking issues, forcing decisions about embedded code vs. external libraries based on exposure of our own IP. Not saying the GPL is wrong or anything, by all means, if that's your thing, proceed — but that's why we won't touch it.
From where I sit, if you want your code to be used by the most people in the most ways, issue your code as PD. That's what I do when I code for the community. Also... Free means free. Not "restricted." At least it does to me. I never did like Orwellian double-talk. The GPL isn't about freedom, it is about restriction.
No, I understand that perfectly; that's not what I am describing. The process is: (a) left click and drag out an anchored area selection and (b) while still holding the left mouse button, press the right mouse button as well - this releases the area selection anchor - and now you can re-position [instead of size] the area selection (c) release the right mouse button while still holding the left, and go back to re-sizing the area selection. This is a huge increase in efficiency for placing and sizing area selections compared to place-and-edit approaches, and it can't be done with the Apple trackpad, no matter what settings you use, as far as I know. Hence, a real two discrete button mouse (you can't use a rocker mouse that does left OR right, either - you need discrete buttons that allow arbitrary switching between left, right, left AND right, all while dragging.)
Serioulsy, does anyone even really miss it these day? Tapping on the touchpad with two fingers for a right-click really does not make me miss a second button.
Yes, I miss it. It cripples advanced mouse use. For instance, I can't left click and drag, clicking and releasing the right button as I go in order to anchor and un-anchor area selections, switching from sizing to dragging, which is HUGELY useful. Nothing substitutes for two (or more) mouse buttons; I give the two button emulation an A for effort in software, but what they *really* should have done was provide two mouse buttons in HARDWARE, period. They're just being stubborn. Maybe even stupid. I paid almost three thousand dollars for my Macbook Pro and I have to attach a mouse to it to do advanced graphics editing. That's just annoying and wrong. But I do it, because they left me no choice.
Let's worry about the attitudes they're learning, not the language.
Fine. But, you do the worrying by controlling your toddler's access to public materials. Use the v-chip. Put a switch on the AC cord (see Radio Shack.) Throw the TV out of the house or disconnect the cable, satellite, and antenna, and control the DVD collection (best idea yet, IMHO.) Don't censor public materials for everyone because of your preferences for your child. No matter what the words, acts or exhortations, there will be contexts where they are news, where they are entertainment, where they are social commentary, where they are a signal we need to be aware of, where they are simply light-hearted. Government censorship is not a good idea. Of any kind. Period.
Sure it does antialiasing. And some other interesting tricks with boundaries as well. However, those buttons were made at that resolution, with antialiasing off, because they are they product of a script a customer supplied (see here for that one, and some other scripts that use antialiasing). We're perfectly happy to use those buttons as they are as a "thank you" for the script. We're not too concerned that they're a little jaggy. Thanks for your feedback, though.
My company's WinImages offers most of what Photoshop does, plus a considerable number of features that Photoshop does not, particularly in the area of layered image editing. WinImages is about $50, starts and runs faster, has a smaller footprint, and offers UI methods that can save a step for every application of a filter or effect, particularly helpful when you're doing extensive image repairs or editing, for instance. The $50 price is a discount that applies if you have any Adobe, Corel or JASC product, so for instance, if you have Adobe's free PDF reader, you're eligible, meaning, anyone is eligible if they want to be.
WinImages is Windows-only, though it runs perfectly under Parallels on OSX. Not aware of how it might behave under Wine, though I would think it should do ok; we're not "deep-dippers" when it comes to OS features, preferring to create our own in-program solutions.
Slashdot inhabitants should also know if they put "slash" anywhere in the second line of the address, we'll apply a 25% discount to the overall order.
I've discussed slash moderation in detail here if you're interested.
The bottom line is that I have to read slash at -1, because moderation is often punitive (opinion-based) and doesn't serve to bring all of the good posts up to reading level. Most anonymous posts are ignored, and many of them are better than the posts with strong positive moderation. The unwillingness of the powers that be to fix this inherently broken system is well known.
We have all seen too many forums with no good way to... accommodate branching discussions.
And then there are the forums with the habit of squashing branching discussions, even providing tools to specifically accomplish this. Like, I don't know, maybe...
-1, Offtopic
I couldn't possibly count the number of times I've seen anally retentive moderators attempt to crush excellent threads / discussions that way.
Slashdot Mirror
And the AC who wrote that comment is unfamiliar with the other tools in the field; that unfamiliarity has led to comments that are nonsensical. There are tools that way outperform Photoshop in various areas; better at area selection, better at paintbrushes, better at layered image editing, better at animation and special effects, better at lighting effects... etc. Photoshop is great, but it isn't the only way, or even always the best way, to get things done.
I use CMYK all the time for non-prepress, as you do; additional uses include extracting keys and masks. It isn't all about prepress by any means. Nor all about Photoshop; Photoshop is missing a lot of things I use regularly, particularly in the area of layer flexibility. HSV and similar modes also allow for adjustment of shadows and other luma-based detail independently of saturation and hue, I use them all the time. RGB is way cool, but it certainly isn't the end of the road.
Correction: "Robert Newdow" should be "Michael Newdow." Told you it was off the top of my head. :) My apologies for the error.
I can think of a few reasons why supreme court judges would be legitimately rated low. Support for blatant ex post facto laws; commerce clause inversion; allowing states to take people's property; allowing wiretapping before a warrant is issued (FISA); Allowing congress to blackmail the states by withholding highway (and other) funds; allowing the right to bear arms to be infringed upon; allowing government support of Christianity; outright ignoring the 10th amendment (see earlier reference to blackmail); cowardly and un-statesmanlike refusal to hear critical cases of government malfeasance (like Robert Newdow's); allowing the state to infringe upon the liberties of the citizens (drug war, censorship, marriage, sexuality, unreasonable copyright and patent terms and mechanisms; allowing the feds to step beyond the enumerated powers without requiring a constitutional convention; restricting freedom of speech (free speech zones, censorship, funeral zones, etc.)... that's all just off the top of my head.
Yeah, I could definitely see low supreme court ratings.
Look up ad hominem, a grade school level failure of argument style. Then try again. If you can mange to rise to the level of normal courtesy, I'll respond. Good night.
And what I am telling you is that source code that is PD is also protected just as well, plus it is useable by many more developers, regardless of people's prejudices for or against how they choose to develop, and that it in no way denies you the right to study, modify, extend and distribute the PD code itself. What it does not do is magically give you the right to person B's invention, just because person A decided to put out their invention. It leaves decisions in the hands of the inventor at every level, instead of taking those decisions and pre-determining what they must be.
In the meantime, my PD code is available to you without any conditions at all, and your GPL code is not available to me unless I toe some very specific lines that I am entirely disenchanted with. So where does the maximum promotion of freedom really reside, eh?
Let's not, as it is completely, utterly irrelevant. There is no one, and no thing, suffering under oppression, denial of free will, etc.
PD source code is like a phrase in a sentence, given freely, yet still usable by the originator, now also usable by the listener, who can share it further without concern because it was given freely. It can be incorporated in a diary for nothing, in a newspaper article, in a book for profit, or in a great speech. Regardless of how it is incorporated, it remains usable, and interesting, and unaltered, in its original form, for everyone to use. PD source code is nothing like, and has nothing to do with, the concept of slavery.
GPL is like an army that says "You can't use that phrase in a book, because we don't like that kind of use." I have no use for such an army, and consequently, I don't have any traffic with the GPL. PD doesn't need anything that the GPL has to offer, because it is better on every front. There's nothing you can do about it; jumping up and down and making up really bad analogies won't change anything. PD is superior on every front and particularly with regard to freedom to use the source code in question as explained elsewhere in the thread (please read before firing off duplicate arguments.)
Thinking about it makes me shake my head at your slavery comparison. As if the source code was deserving of humanitarian consideration. Source code is a thing like a brick or a pencil, except that, if people like the GPL'ers can be kept away, everyone can use it any way they want, while pencils and bricks don't offer this benefit. When GPL'ers get in there, then the number of uses available decreases; ergo, GPL source code is not an improvement over PD source code.
If you want to try to make an analogy that has a chance of succeeding, pick a domain where the characteristics are at least similar to source code. Slavery - and human conditions in general - aren't going to produce a reasonable comparison.
Huh. Pleased to meet you.
Um, no. You can't "hijack it." It's yours. You know, PD = Public Domain. You're the public. It's yours. But thanks for improving it. That's great. You say users prefer your version? Because it's better? Maybe users are smarter than some people give them credit for. Good for them. And good for you!
Um... so something you didn't ask for payment for, you're not going to choose to spend more time on? Ok, that seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. After all, no one paid you, so no obligation has been established. The producers of the original PD work might have made the same choice, in fact, perhaps that's why the project was PD in the first place. Of course, that's just speculation and in no way impugns what you've done.
Well - let's be clear here - you can kill your enhanced free version (and/or your paid version), but you can't do anything about the actual PD project, of course. It's still out there, and it's still PD, and anyone can still do anything with it that doesn't infringe on any IP you may have invested into your version. Now that your free version is discontinued, you've even provided an incentive to begin extending the PD version in new directions. Just so you know.
So what you're saying is that the free version really did add value, or else people would be using the PD one. In fact, it added enough value to serve as a "get them in the door" tease for an even more advanced product. This is sound, smart business, and does no harm whatsoever to the PD project, plus, all of your customers will benefit, plus, you'll pay more in taxes, people will be employed, society gains ground because your product adds efficiency and/or cheer to people's lives and/or businesses undertakings, and all because you were a good citizen and took the gift of a lowly PD project and moved us all forward. This is simply wonderful. I'm going to speak to the mayor and nominate you for the keys to the city. Seriously.
Well, of course. You didn't release your improvements as PD, did you? So why would anyone allow your stuff to be stolen, just because you accepted a freely offered gift? That'd be like me giving a bicycle to my kid, he goes out and creates a paper route business with it, and then I try to take his paper route, reasoning that because I gave him the bicycle, he somehow owes me something. But the bicycle was a gift; that route is his, and his alone. As are your improvements. Unless he, or you, choose to do something along those lines. You know, choice...
(a) We're not talking about commercial software vs. the GPL, we're talking about PD source code vs. GPL'd source code. (b) Commercial software may offer no source, some (as we do, for instance for scripts, for plugins) or all; again, this is entirely up to the developer, but in no way does this relate to PD offerings.
And PD source code for drivers as opposed to GPL'd source code for drivers would hurt or diminish this ability, exactly how?
Nope, not all of 'em. Many are pretty myopic, certainly, but not all. For example, we released the entire mechanism for our plug-ins (essentially, plug-ins are drivers for our image and animation manipulation engine) free of charge. You can use that mechanism to write stuff for our app, or, for instance, you could take the code and jam it into the Gimp and thus make the gimp run our plug-ins. No restrictions. The code and details are online, and begin here. Previously, when we were doing hardware, we coded up an entire paint program and handed out the source code - essentially a specialized driver for the graphics hardware. You're not going to get me to argue that holding back driver details for software or hardware targets is the socially best-scenario move; clearly, it isn't, and we don't go that way ourselves. Nor do we find that we need the GPL to get us into, or keep us in, the proper mindset.
No? Where are all these viruses and worms coming from, then? Why do I see perfectly good and on-topic posts on slashdot being crushed by moderators, who are really (usually) just other users? Why is it that a bunch of users will promote a product based upon familiarity or looks when functionality is far superior in another product? I'll tell you why: Because people "nerf" other people all the time. Some people don't, and those drive the community forward. You can't legislate or bind by rules when it comes to behaviors that cannot be controlled; you can't impose your opinions on people who will not listen, and it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you simply can't do it. Those people who wish to contribute, or do business in a manner that benefits the community in ways that may not lead to direct profits, will do so regardless of rules. They aren't doing it because they were told to. They're doing it because they want to.
It hasn't been prevented, or even slowed down. That's a fact. On the other hand, the GPL has served to prevent ideas from reaching large numbers of people by making the task of including GPL'd source code in commercial products much harder than it needs to be. Conversely, PD source code can't be glommed by a company any more than GPL'd code can, and this brings up the question, why use GPL at all if your goal is to get ideas in at the "you can't isolate this idea" level? Put the idea in PD source, distribute it reasonably well (trivial to do), and that's it - it'll never be non-PD, it can't be patented because the PD is prior art, it can't be copyrighted because the PD is
PD source code does, and that is what we are talking about here. You can't win the argument by moving it to a new venue. However, since you brought it up, PD executables ensure that you can run the program and you can give it away; you don't have source code, so freedom to do things with said source code is entirely irrelevant. You don't have freedom to use resources on the author's computer, either, but again, such freedom wasn't offered, so it isn't relevant. And wouldn't you know it, the freedom to choose how to release a product rests with the author of the product. How weird is that?
Again, PD source code does ensure precisely that. And again, that's what the discussion is about.
I am aware of, and am not interested in being limited to, the FSF's four freedoms. With PD, I have more than those four offer, and the experience is broader, more empowering, less controlling of others, and of greater value to the end user community, in my personal opinion.
But for fun, let's look at 'em. 1 - "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." Yes, PD source code gives me that. Only "any purpose" includes in aid of, or within as a part of, a commercial product without any restrictions or legal hurdles, so really, PD source code is a lot better than GPL'd source code here.
2 - "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs." Yep, PD source code gives everyone that, too, and I'd say both PD and GPL source code do just fine in this regard.
3 - "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." Yep, PD source code gives me that as well. But I can distribute them commercially without restrictions, so GPL'd source code doesn't measure up here - you can help more than your GPL-compliant neighbors with PD source code.
Lastly, 4 - "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." And of course, PD source code gives me this too, only I can give it to a far wider audience, because I don't provide limitations with my offer. So the definition of "whole community" is a lot more accurate for PD source code than it is when considered in the limited context of the FSF's use of the term.
So as we can see, PD source code also offers everything in the FSF's fab four, while doing a better job of achieving the stated goals than GPL'd source code does at the same time.
But, wait, there's more! PD also offers the ability to embed that source code in a commercial app. It offers the ability to link it any way you want. It offers the ability to mix it with proprietary techniques. It offers considerably greater ability to avoid legal entanglements. You can make libraries, applications, distribute fragments, improvements, neglect to distribute them, put the code in a book... this is why PD source code is superior in every way unless your objective is not actually freedom, but a specific set of goals that you will accept as compensation. Which is what the GPL exists to do.
No. I'm talking about source code here when I say "product", and in that context, it is precisely accurate. GPL with regard to use of a compliant executable is, at least as far as I know, irrelevant. It is when a developer, by manipulating the source code, does something forbidden (like mix proprietary code with GPL'd code) that restrictions upon the developer come into play.
But that is a developer's choice, and it isn't by any means a defining characteristic of commercial software. For instance, it isn't true of ours: See here. Specifically, you can redistribute our software. Even if you haven't paid for it. Or in other words, you are free to do so. Freedom springs up where you least expect it sometimes. Funny old world, isn't it?
Right. PD is.
Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You want to restrict people's use of your code, and that's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is calling the imposition of such restrictions as the condition of the transaction "freedom." It is the polar opposite of freedom.
At the very least, your assertion is debatable. PD software can be changed and returned as new PD. Or not. Either way, some additional end users can get to use those changes, because return to the pool of changes has no effect upon distribution of any derivative product. So the end users clearly benefit greatly in this regard from PD. There certainly isn't anything about PD that is stopping a PD change from returning to the PD pool of art.
On the other hand, GPL software can be improved and not returned, simply by not distributing the improvements beyond the person doing the improving. This actually causes those improvements to reach fewer end users, and so this disadvantages the users. Furthermore, the GPL provides a motivation to not distribute such changes - it creates extra work and liability for the developer, and so some developers - us, for a concrete example - refuse to do any such changing or distribution.
This causes GPL'd works to exist outside the stream of developers who consider such liabilities and/or workload increases to be unacceptable. For example, Apple doesn't include, or improve, Midnight Commander in OS X because of the license; we don't include, or improve, Gimp filters because of the license; the list of similar non-distributions is probably immensely long. From where I sit, the user community loses, and the GPL developer community gets to sit there and go "nyah nyah" to no apparent gain at all. On the other hand, PD materials are valid candidates for our (and anyone else's) inclusion, consequently the odds of an end user benefitting from PD code are much better.
Giving software source code away isn't anarchy any more than giving $50 to a cat shelter is anarchy. Both can promote uplift, both hand off power unselfishly and by choice, neither say "but you must do what *I* want you to do or you can't have the money / source code" and neither are antisocial or self-destructive by any stretch of the imagination. You're conflating a grasp at power - controlling other people's actions - with the idea of freedom. I don't buy it. Also, if "less free" is to be your metric for acceptability, then I presume you'd have no objection to jail, right? After all, jail is simply less free than not being in jail. It certainly could be a lot worse; you could be in an iron maiden, or murdered. Personally, when it comes to issues of freedom, I'll opt for the maximum that is compatible with the good of the community, and it seems very clear to me that in the case of donations of infinitely re-distributable work product, the less restrictions put on said donations, the more freedom everyone involved, including me, will enjoy.
When I'm not outright donating work product (time, advice, executables, source code, materials), I prefer to specify that the exchange be made for money. This is the most flexible form of compensation, and no one is under any illusion that I am asking for an excha
By definition, "everyone" includes giving me freedom, but the GPL doesn't do that, it specifically restricts me. So we're not talking about "everyone" and with the GPL, we never were. That's just for starters. Next, PD offers more freedom than the GPL does. All end users, all developers, people writing books, website code aggregators, blog publishers, the public sector, government, foreigners, aliens, Bonobo apes, etc. Maximum freedom, minimum restrictions. The GPL does not offer this. The more people use the code, the more people are restricted to specific behaviors defined by the GPL, and forbidden other behaviors. The reasons are irrelevant; the point is, the GPL is less free than PD is. By a significant degree.
You want to use the GPL, great, have at it. But PD is considerably more free, and nothing you can do or say will change that; and nothing you can do or say would make me opt for the restrictions of the GPL for my community projects when I have a considerably more free alternative to use. That alternative is PD. I am unaware of a more free, more open and more flexible release mechanism. I am aware of the GPL, and one thing I can tell you for certain is that the GPL isn't a candidate for such an exalted characterization.
As for your sally with regard to democracy, I don't think the word means what you think it means. But that's entirely another discussion.
Really? Then explain how PD does less for freedom than the GPL. Explain how you have to agree to the idea of PD, or even be aware of it, to use PD software. Explain how you are not free when you are using PD software. Finally, explain how when you use PD software, you have "take my freedoms from me." I'm all ears. Eyes.
Then explain how PD does not do more, by being able to be used in more software with less trouble and legal hoops to jump through. PD can be enhanced and returned to the pool, just as GPL'd software can be. PD can be acknowledged, just as GPL'd software can be. In fact, PD is superior to GPL in every way I am aware of except for the case where a software developer really isn't interested in giving the code away, but instead, expects something in return - the GPL specifies what those returns (as well as some limitations) must be.
The premise that the GPL is more free than PD software is bankrupt. Not for developers, and not for end users. These assertions are propaganda; no more. You can't successfully defend these ideas and you can't justify them on that basis (freedom.) And this is why I say the GPL is about restrictions, not freedom. Not that I mind in the least if you choose the GPL. I don't. I just mind when people define "freedom" by a set of transactional restrictions that while they may have benefits, certainly are not required in order to ensure maximum range of action with software, something most sensible people would agree pretty much describes "freedom."
No. Just different restrictions and different currency. The GPL's currency is limiting one's behavior on the one hand, and expecting certain behaviors (such as returning modifications) on the other. Either you pay in these currencies, or you can't use the product. A commercial product (generally) expects money as payment, which is an abstraction of work product in general, meaning, you can pay by selling your body, renting your garage, from your normal income, or from your birthday money. In many ways, it is a lot less restrictive than the very specific behavior exchange demanded by the GPL.
No one can "enslave" a (potential) customer if a license is clearly written. We can accept it, or not. If I don't accept the terms, I'll take the product back and get my money back. No harm, no foul. I have my money, they lost a sale. That's my choice. Slaves don't have choices. They take orders. No one can order me to buy a product with my funds that I are unwilling to buy. If, on the other hand, I buy it with the intent of not accepting the terms the seller has laid down, then I am abusing the seller. I am the problem. Mind you, not all licenses are clearly written, and that is a universally bad thing.
I'm not against the GPL or any other transactional release mechanism. What I object to is seeing it mischaracterized as the epitome of software freedom. It isn't. PD represents software freedom, because PD has the absolute minimum of restrictions and makes the absolute minimum of demands. A single demand, an inherent one, and that is simply that the code that is released is PD, and it can't become "not PD" by any action anyone takes. It is an infinitely available gift.
I'm not against any other release scheme either, transactional or otherwise, as long as it is clearly set forth so no one is confused. I am against the misrepresentation of any scheme because people are misled by such actions.
This is not true. The GPL isn't about giving credit or "stealing" something that is being given away. I am more than happy to give credit where credit is due and desired. In fact, although I wrote most of the code in the product, my name isn't even on that list, because I don't care about credit personally. The GPL has nothing to do with "claims of work as one's own", nor does such a thing present any kind of a barrier. What the GPL restricts is the ability to use that code without exposing your own IP or complicating distribution issues, while adding a layer of legal concerns that represent a looming potential liability which a real company, doing real work under real constraints which it is duty and honor bound to consider because it affects the company, the company's shareholders and/or owners, employees, customers, and of course the product itself. We can't just go dancing off into the night willy-nilly when something has a restrictive license; it has to go to lawyers, everything has to be examined to the last detail including what is a library, what is compiled in, where the source code will be, what provisions for maintaining access to it will be set up, and so on. The GPL sets up barriers to commercial use, intentionally so, and that - not anything to do with "credit" or "theft" - is the sum total of the problem.
Again, not so. I can release something PD and you can do anything with it. The fact that it is PD and public sets the lower bound, and it becomes impossible for anyone to say "that isn't PD anymore", while there is no upper bound, no need to be concerned about source code, compilation, libraries, modification, etc. And you can still acknowledge the author(s) (give credit) and you are not in any way "stealing." The "right thing", as you put it, is anything you would like to do. If the ability to do this ever went away, it would be a tragedy. And it certainly hasn't gone away at this point in time; I use PD for my community minded works and I would never choose the GPL because it restricts what people can do with my contribution, and I am not interested in restricting them. Plus, look at it the other way: You can use my PD code in your project just as easily - no, more easily - than you can GPL'd code. Because there are no concerns beyond those you would have for code you wrote yourself. I don't demand recognition, I don't demand exposure of your (or my) code, I don't demand you do - or don't - change it, I don't impose "responsibilities" on you, I don't demand anything. I'm just saying, here's this code, I wrote it, it does thus-and-such, and if you'd like to use, modify, or ignore it in whole or in part, you're free to do any combination of those things without any additional concerns imposed by me, whether in my direction or anyone else's.
As I said initially, if you want to use GPL, by all means, please do. But don't go imagining that the GPL is the bottom line in freedom. It isn't. PD represents freedom. GPL is just a license that isolates use that is restricted to a subset of the choices one could make were the code PD or one's own. Choosing the GPL is choosing restrictions. Choosing the GPL is fine, but pretending that the GPL is definitive of "freedom" or even just "free software" is misleading at best.
Also - and this is so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it - When I give you my code, you are not enslaving me. I wrote the code, I made a choice about what to do with that work product, and I was the one who set the limits
Speaking as a commercial developer (most of the time), and the owner of a very successful software firm, I don't like the GPL because the licensing opens the door to an additional legal minefield we'd just as soon avoid, makes distribution and maintenance more complicated, and poses linking issues, forcing decisions about embedded code vs. external libraries based on exposure of our own IP. Not saying the GPL is wrong or anything, by all means, if that's your thing, proceed — but that's why we won't touch it.
From where I sit, if you want your code to be used by the most people in the most ways, issue your code as PD. That's what I do when I code for the community. Also... Free means free. Not "restricted." At least it does to me. I never did like Orwellian double-talk. The GPL isn't about freedom, it is about restriction.
No, I understand that perfectly; that's not what I am describing. The process is: (a) left click and drag out an anchored area selection and (b) while still holding the left mouse button, press the right mouse button as well - this releases the area selection anchor - and now you can re-position [instead of size] the area selection (c) release the right mouse button while still holding the left, and go back to re-sizing the area selection. This is a huge increase in efficiency for placing and sizing area selections compared to place-and-edit approaches, and it can't be done with the Apple trackpad, no matter what settings you use, as far as I know. Hence, a real two discrete button mouse (you can't use a rocker mouse that does left OR right, either - you need discrete buttons that allow arbitrary switching between left, right, left AND right, all while dragging.)
Yes, I miss it. It cripples advanced mouse use. For instance, I can't left click and drag, clicking and releasing the right button as I go in order to anchor and un-anchor area selections, switching from sizing to dragging, which is HUGELY useful. Nothing substitutes for two (or more) mouse buttons; I give the two button emulation an A for effort in software, but what they *really* should have done was provide two mouse buttons in HARDWARE, period. They're just being stubborn. Maybe even stupid. I paid almost three thousand dollars for my Macbook Pro and I have to attach a mouse to it to do advanced graphics editing. That's just annoying and wrong. But I do it, because they left me no choice.
Fine. But, you do the worrying by controlling your toddler's access to public materials. Use the v-chip. Put a switch on the AC cord (see Radio Shack.) Throw the TV out of the house or disconnect the cable, satellite, and antenna, and control the DVD collection (best idea yet, IMHO.) Don't censor public materials for everyone because of your preferences for your child. No matter what the words, acts or exhortations, there will be contexts where they are news, where they are entertainment, where they are social commentary, where they are a signal we need to be aware of, where they are simply light-hearted. Government censorship is not a good idea. Of any kind. Period.
Sure it does antialiasing. And some other interesting tricks with boundaries as well. However, those buttons were made at that resolution, with antialiasing off, because they are they product of a script a customer supplied (see here for that one, and some other scripts that use antialiasing). We're perfectly happy to use those buttons as they are as a "thank you" for the script. We're not too concerned that they're a little jaggy. Thanks for your feedback, though.
Kai's came along long after our products hit the market. Sorry. :)
My company's WinImages offers most of what Photoshop does, plus a considerable number of features that Photoshop does not, particularly in the area of layered image editing. WinImages is about $50, starts and runs faster, has a smaller footprint, and offers UI methods that can save a step for every application of a filter or effect, particularly helpful when you're doing extensive image repairs or editing, for instance. The $50 price is a discount that applies if you have any Adobe, Corel or JASC product, so for instance, if you have Adobe's free PDF reader, you're eligible, meaning, anyone is eligible if they want to be.
WinImages is Windows-only, though it runs perfectly under Parallels on OSX. Not aware of how it might behave under Wine, though I would think it should do ok; we're not "deep-dippers" when it comes to OS features, preferring to create our own in-program solutions.
Slashdot inhabitants should also know if they put "slash" anywhere in the second line of the address, we'll apply a 25% discount to the overall order.
I've discussed slash moderation in detail here if you're interested.
The bottom line is that I have to read slash at -1, because moderation is often punitive (opinion-based) and doesn't serve to bring all of the good posts up to reading level. Most anonymous posts are ignored, and many of them are better than the posts with strong positive moderation. The unwillingness of the powers that be to fix this inherently broken system is well known.
And then there are the forums with the habit of squashing branching discussions, even providing tools to specifically accomplish this. Like, I don't know, maybe... -1, Offtopic
I couldn't possibly count the number of times I've seen anally retentive moderators attempt to crush excellent threads / discussions that way.