Perhaps that 2 year old's parents should do their fucking job and fucking monitor what the fucking kid watches instead of putting them in front of the fucking television and walking away.
Or perhaps people can grow the fuck up and realize that fuck is just a fucking word and it isn't going to hurt anyone unless the fuckers let it hurt themselves.
Actually for web designers I would recommend Gimp. Allow the coders to interpret the user interface into something workable, most likely there will be compromises that have to be made, but so will there be compromises to be made if you want a website that will be decently designed for a variety of monitors.
Same thing can happen to Tivos, but GPLv3 forces tivo to allow it to happen, whereas ZyXEL (assuming its only for businesses) isn't forced. Seems unfair to me.
Not true at all. There is a consumer base that will enjoy, and buy, whatever is played on the radio enough There is a consumer base that will buy whatever is advertised enough. Is advertising now immoral as well?
If we're going to require that the most secure OS for IE7 be used to test it, shouldn't we use the most secure OS for Firefox 2.0 be used to test it? If so then a Linux distro is required for Firefox and none of these holes work (or so people here claim, if you've got evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to hear it).
Or we could simply use the most common OS that IE7 and Firefox is used in, which would be XP. Your choice.
Perhaps you should be working at work, instead of planning sex? I'm sorry, but that's simply the most ridiculous reason I've seen for encrypting mail. People are certainly welcome to do it without being accused of peddling in child pornography (something the OP doesn't understand), but that's a ridiculous reason to encrypt it.
Do you close the envelope of a regular snail-mail letter? If so, do YOU have something to hide?? No, I simply want to ensure it goes to the correct receiver (which if it fell out, wouldn't happen). I would put it on a postcard but it was simply too long. Next straw man!
So because they didn't speak with anyone that has a problem with it, they're willing to deny businesses the same freedoms they give consumers? Wow. I have trouble understanding why it works for businesses to be restricted and that's okay, but it doesn't work for consumers and that's bad.
Which may not be legal for a point of sale or some other regulated systems. Surely there exists non-tivoized hardware for these systems that run GPL code, yes? Can you give any examples where GPL code is used but there is no non-tivoized hardware available to purchase?
Business have the same choice. Let's not muddy the waters. They have less choice then consumers.
It is a lot easier for business to organize through one of the organizations that they belong to, to not support a product than it is to get enough consumers to do the same to be effective. Correction, it is easier for big business to organize through one of the organizations that they belong to, to not support a product. Little businesses quite often do NOT have this bargaining power to any greater degree then individual consumers.
That industry group could very easily put enough pressure on a company selling a Tivoized product and get that company to ease up the restrictions. Provided enough members of the industry group thought it was worthwhile.
I think the point of wanting locked down hardware is that if you have corrupt employees, they cannot mess with it easily. "Freedom" to not remove the DRM does not address this. Then they are free to secure the hardware further themselves or hire someone else to. The same argument could be made for consumers, "I don't want a hacker to be able to break into my computer and modify my software!" The consumer is free to secure their computer further themselves.
You're mistaken, at least about what I'm saying. Let's have some definitions: Definition #1: Consuming person - a consumer that is an individual person. They will use the hardware and software sold to them. Definition #2: Consuming business - a consumer that is a business. They will use the hardware and software sold to them. Freedom X: A particular freedom defined in the GPLv3
The GPLv3 gives freedom X to consuming person but not consuming business. Legally both consuming person and consuming business can have this freedom, but the GPLv3 only guarantees it for consuming person, not consuming business.
As I understand it, the 'consumer products' restriction was put in because of pressure from companies. I've addressed this point here where I respond with:
Then these business are free not to remove the DRM placed on it by the distributor. Just as consumers are free to do. Or was it the producing businesses that "wanted it this way" not the consuming businesses?
businesses can't vote, businesses can be bought and sold, businesses can be terminated by their owners, businesses can repeatedly kill people without being imprisoned. All of these differences have to do with the fundamental nature of businesses, there is nothing fundamental about a business that says it should be allowed to be restricted by tivoized hardware while consumers shouldn't.
unless you think that Microsoft are anti-business when they sell cheap "educational" licences to students, but not to businesses. If anything Microsoft is anti-non-students, not anti-business (not that I'm saying its anti-non-student, this discount is given because students typically have less incomes, whereas the GPLv3 difference has nothing to do with price).
I was referring to point of sale software My apologies, it wasn't very clear for me.
As for whether or not the software should be editable, if it is released under the GPL then it is editable, they just have to run it on non-tivoized hardware.
Being able to modify the pieces of code that control, say, tax reporting, is generally frowned upon And is possible if it is used by a consumer. I don't see what the point is to raising this.
I am not anti-business. That is neither here nor there when discussing whether or not the GPL protects businesses the same way it protects consumers, which it clearly doesn't. I'm a bit confused as to what the point of your post is.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
you claim ownership upon other peoples work, just because you added a (tiny) bit to it ? I claim the ability to control the license on software that was built by standing on my shoulders. If they don't want my support with this one tiny stipulation, they're welcome to go get their help elsewhere.
Your "freedom" seems to be to deny other people theirs.:-| I believe in the freedom to be able to "do what [I] want" with software that I've provided the base for. GPL ensures that, licenses such as the OP described don't. Therefore the GPL is about ensuring people's freedoms while the OP's license isn't, despite what the OP claimed.
No business buys a physical product based on the software inside only. If it's open source that is nice. Is the product ( the "tivo" ) suitable to their needs? If so, buy it, if not, don't. There is nothing in this world keeping someone else from kaing their own tivo, and *GASP* mythTV exists precisely for that reason.
Everyone is all huffing an puffing about tivo, but they *do* put out all the sourcecode for all the opensource they use. Their core binaries that they devleoped themselves are not GPLed. No consumer buys a physical product based on the software inside only. If it's open source that is nice. Is the product ( the "tivo" ) suitable to their needs? If so, buy it, if not, don't.
Where's the problem here? That consumers are given more protections with GPLv3 then small business owners are.
Having said all that, I think I've been trolled:(
But as the owner of a small business (in a hypothetical situation), I am not being protected whereas I, being the same person, would be protected if I were simply a consumer. Doesn't sound right or fair to me. It also goes to show once more that the GPLv3 is anti-business.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I'm guessing you got second and first mixed around.
Actually I would say the second promotes the freedom "not to get shot in the head." As with many things, perspective determines how you view a matter with two perspectives viewing the same thing in different lights.
Regardless my example is one that is possible, given the GPLv3's criterion.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
You're thinking of freedom in terms of the original product. I'm thinking of freedom in terms of the original product and all subsequent derivatives. I don't necessarily have freedom in the derivatives, therefore licenses as the OP described are about taking away the freedom people have with derivatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck, someone should have locked my mother up for child abuse then. She would often say "Fuck that's fucking fucked."
Perhaps that 2 year old's parents should do their fucking job and fucking monitor what the fucking kid watches instead of putting them in front of the fucking television and walking away. Or perhaps people can grow the fuck up and realize that fuck is just a fucking word and it isn't going to hurt anyone unless the fuckers let it hurt themselves.
Its a step in the right fucking direction though.
Actually for web designers I would recommend Gimp. Allow the coders to interpret the user interface into something workable, most likely there will be compromises that have to be made, but so will there be compromises to be made if you want a website that will be decently designed for a variety of monitors.
Same thing can happen to Tivos, but GPLv3 forces tivo to allow it to happen, whereas ZyXEL (assuming its only for businesses) isn't forced. Seems unfair to me.
If we're going to require that the most secure OS for IE7 be used to test it, shouldn't we use the most secure OS for Firefox 2.0 be used to test it? If so then a Linux distro is required for Firefox and none of these holes work (or so people here claim, if you've got evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to hear it). Or we could simply use the most common OS that IE7 and Firefox is used in, which would be XP. Your choice.
Perhaps you should be working at work, instead of planning sex? I'm sorry, but that's simply the most ridiculous reason I've seen for encrypting mail. People are certainly welcome to do it without being accused of peddling in child pornography (something the OP doesn't understand), but that's a ridiculous reason to encrypt it.
So because they didn't speak with anyone that has a problem with it, they're willing to deny businesses the same freedoms they give consumers? Wow. I have trouble understanding why it works for businesses to be restricted and that's okay, but it doesn't work for consumers and that's bad.
You're mistaken, at least about what I'm saying. Let's have some definitions:
Definition #1: Consuming person - a consumer that is an individual person. They will use the hardware and software sold to them.
Definition #2: Consuming business - a consumer that is a business. They will use the hardware and software sold to them.
Freedom X: A particular freedom defined in the GPLv3
The GPLv3 gives freedom X to consuming person but not consuming business. Legally both consuming person and consuming business can have this freedom, but the GPLv3 only guarantees it for consuming person, not consuming business.
Clearer?
But as the owner of a small business (in a hypothetical situation), I am not being protected whereas I, being the same person, would be protected if I were simply a consumer. Doesn't sound right or fair to me. It also goes to show once more that the GPLv3 is anti-business.
I'm guessing you got second and first mixed around. Actually I would say the second promotes the freedom "not to get shot in the head." As with many things, perspective determines how you view a matter with two perspectives viewing the same thing in different lights.
Regardless my example is one that is possible, given the GPLv3's criterion.
You're thinking of freedom in terms of the original product. I'm thinking of freedom in terms of the original product and all subsequent derivatives. I don't necessarily have freedom in the derivatives, therefore licenses as the OP described are about taking away the freedom people have with derivatives.