No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software.
In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.
Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.
A non-developer user would care about those freedoms because that's the only way they can guarantee they control the program and what it does for them. More info here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
A developer would pick a license that puts users first when the developer thinks that the users of the program should have control of the said program, and what it does.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.
The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.
Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.
No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second. If that's a good or bad thing is rather subjective though. Personally, I dislike that, but I understand that others think that keep software free is more important the individuals.
No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.
Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.
The FSF critizicies copyright, but uses it as a key tool maintain it's goals. Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes
Hm, I would say that replicant has total control over their future, due to the fact that it is a free software project. If its upstream (Cyanogenmod) turns to a direction Replicant doesn't like (either by CM's decision or AOSP), they can simply not pull those changes into Replicant.
...so, honestly curious, why is the FSF engaged in an exercise which promotes the Google ecosystem?
They're being pragmatic, promoting the only working Free Operating System for smartphones out there.
The fact that Replicant is a fork of Cyanogenmod, which is a fork of AOSP, it's of no consequence.
If your point is that "their work gets no attention" of even "their work is useless", I might agree with you. But if you're saying they're lobby puppets, then I want proof, that is all.
Unfortunately not every country is like Finland on that regard: in Portugal, for instance, every citizen has to own and carry their ID card (which, on the other hand, has no RFID, so you have to use a card reader).
Also, if you read the report, you'll see that the problem isn't only on RFID, so having an RFID-blocking wallet won't help you that much...
Funny, according to their website (which is not what you linked, BTW) none of their members seem to be part of any lobby, much less representatives of entities such as Symantec, Microsoft and so on. I could be wrong, but I'll have to ask you to please back up your statements with evidence...
Debian don't consider the kernel part of the distribution. It's still Sarge, whether it's running on 2.2 (yes, you can), 2.4 or 2.6.
I'm sorry, but that's completely false. The kernel is part of the distro, and the kernel-image for sarge is 2.6.8 (not vulnerable). And yes, I know there are also packages for 2.2 and 2.4 on Debian.
Man, no Debian packages where compromised, so no Debian users where compromised, so the only guys affected where those maintainingn and using gluck. Troll.
You're thinking in the wrong scale there. For instance, if you see that someone's downloading an mp3 from a p2p network... is the mp3 copyrighted? And even if it is, is the guy downloading it "unauthorized" to do so? You have no way to check on that.
But rest assured, the traffic analysis is child's play. If ISPs want to stop BT traffic, encryption won't present any impediments.
Yeah. Fortunately there are better p2p networks... Yes, we're discussing how to avoid being caught while doing something illegal, instead of discussing about if it should be illegal.
On the claims that this gives us nothing new but the ISP part, RTFA again:
The legislation, approved by Congress on Thursday, toughens previous provisions. An early May circular from Spain's fiscal general del estado, or chief prosecutor, allowed downloads for purely personal use.
And, although the article doesn't enlighten us well about the issue, and so it is quite difficult to understand what they mean with "authorization" (legal authorization? network authorization? explicit authorization?), there's any part of the article that says that this only covers copyrighted material. Check:
Now Spaniards caught grabbing content from, say, eMule, will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track.
Once again, I think my position has been misunderstood: I totally agree with you, specially when you talk about art. What I wanted to say is that the FSF efforts are really good, but it would be better to try to focus more on educating the consumers (show them why DRM is bad in the same way the corporations are trying to paint it as a good thing), since trying to convince the corporations that "invest billions in confusing the consumer about the consequences of DRM" to stop doing it seems quite an impossible mission.
I think I probably didn't made myself clear. I agree with you, but that's why I think that it is a problem not to the DRM-makers (who only want to get money and don't care about us) but to the consummers, so I think that lots of efforts has to be made, but to show to the general public that DRM sucks, and asking them to boycott DRM'd stuff and companies who have a policy of making DRM'd stuff!
This article is so full of nonsense, that you might skip it all, until the part where you can read:
For DRM to fail in the entertainment industry, all that needs to happen is for customers to choose not to buy it, which in turn should convince artists not to use it.
This is really true and most people fail to see it. The rest of the article is pure delusive nonsense.
Well, then it would be great if in the Operating System dropdown menu one could have a choice "Other", so we could do our beta testing when those client tech tests come...
Because first you have to find "who is Linux", and then, someone would have to care about this kind of competition. Once again, Linux isn't about competing against Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software. In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.
Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.
A non-developer user would care about those freedoms because that's the only way they can guarantee they control the program and what it does for them. More info here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A developer would pick a license that puts users first when the developer thinks that the users of the program should have control of the said program, and what it does.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.
Yes, those licenses are closer to the public domain. They both have problems, tho: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.
Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.
No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second. If that's a good or bad thing is rather subjective though. Personally, I dislike that, but I understand that others think that keep software free is more important the individuals.
No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.
Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.
The FSF critizicies copyright, but uses it as a key tool maintain it's goals. Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes
Hm, I would say that replicant has total control over their future, due to the fact that it is a free software project. If its upstream (Cyanogenmod) turns to a direction Replicant doesn't like (either by CM's decision or AOSP), they can simply not pull those changes into Replicant.
...so, honestly curious, why is the FSF engaged in an exercise which promotes the Google ecosystem?
They're being pragmatic, promoting the only working Free Operating System for smartphones out there. The fact that Replicant is a fork of Cyanogenmod, which is a fork of AOSP, it's of no consequence.
Prove.
If your point is that "their work gets no attention" of even "their work is useless", I might agree with you. But if you're saying they're lobby puppets, then I want proof, that is all.
Unfortunately not every country is like Finland on that regard: in Portugal, for instance, every citizen has to own and carry their ID card (which, on the other hand, has no RFID, so you have to use a card reader). Also, if you read the report, you'll see that the problem isn't only on RFID, so having an RFID-blocking wallet won't help you that much...
Funny, according to their website (which is not what you linked, BTW) none of their members seem to be part of any lobby, much less representatives of entities such as Symantec, Microsoft and so on. I could be wrong, but I'll have to ask you to please back up your statements with evidence...
More importantly, it means that gluck isn't using Debian stable, which is obviously a shameless wrong decision.
Man, no Debian packages where compromised, so no Debian users where compromised, so the only guys affected where those maintainingn and using gluck. Troll.
Why re-invent what already exists?
Since the law isn't effective yet, it's (3), your ISP isn't ready to acomplish yet.
Broadband lines can be used for TV and voice communications too.
Oh, can you please just shutdown the internet? We don't need another mind-controlling media device, we already have television.
You're thinking in the wrong scale there. For instance, if you see that someone's downloading an mp3 from a p2p network... is the mp3 copyrighted? And even if it is, is the guy downloading it "unauthorized" to do so? You have no way to check on that.
On the claims that this gives us nothing new but the ISP part, RTFA again:
And, although the article doesn't enlighten us well about the issue, and so it is quite difficult to understand what they mean with "authorization" (legal authorization? network authorization? explicit authorization?), there's any part of the article that says that this only covers copyrighted material. Check:Once again, I think my position has been misunderstood: I totally agree with you, specially when you talk about art. What I wanted to say is that the FSF efforts are really good, but it would be better to try to focus more on educating the consumers (show them why DRM is bad in the same way the corporations are trying to paint it as a good thing), since trying to convince the corporations that "invest billions in confusing the consumer about the consequences of DRM" to stop doing it seems quite an impossible mission.
I think I probably didn't made myself clear. I agree with you, but that's why I think that it is a problem not to the DRM-makers (who only want to get money and don't care about us) but to the consummers, so I think that lots of efforts has to be made, but to show to the general public that DRM sucks, and asking them to boycott DRM'd stuff and companies who have a policy of making DRM'd stuff!
This isn't about internet, it's about web...
Well, then it would be great if in the Operating System dropdown menu one could have a choice "Other", so we could do our beta testing when those client tech tests come...
Their games are for Win* users only. I'm out.
Because first you have to find "who is Linux", and then, someone would have to care about this kind of competition. Once again, Linux isn't about competing against Windows.