With Open source there's no problem. I can hear about a thing, test it, look at code, and decide whether it's an issue to me. Or if it's outside of my abilities, That wonderful peer review process can do the job for me. People who are being paid to say good things soon fall silent or get drowned out in the face of proof to the contrary from many sources who are not being paid, but do it out of interest.
With closed source code of any type I have no such option. Instead all I get is 'experts' to tell me. But these guys have to eat, so they get paid by someone, and have a vested interest in being paid tomorrow. Therefore there can be no impartial advice.
Heck, if the cheif engineer on the shuttle program can be convinced to retract his refusal to sign off the shuttle because of O-ring problems, what hope is there for trustworthy answer from anyone regarding closed source software?
Ok, possibly I'm being too extreme with my example, but seriously I worry about the *true* safety of using an operating system which has not, in fact, been designed with consumers in mind. It is, by microsofts own cheerful admission, purposely built to help 'rights holders' of stuff you use keep you from deviating from their precious business plan. Perhaps this is fair enough, but there should be a trade off. I see no evidence that the rights of the OS purchaser are being properly considered. Even XP assumes you are a pirate unless proven otherwise. That reveals a lot about their views of the lowly home consumer.
Well I certainly find the idea of shrinking matter hard to get my head around. I can see the equivilence, but it's definatelly counter intuitive. Weren't Xeno's paradoxes all about proving that discrete values don't work well as models of the world (universe, whatever).
It certainly is an interesting idea. My work is strictly concerning the Newtonian model of the universe, I don't get to play with such complex idea's outside of discussing them, just big rocks orbitting other bigger rocks, and tiny little metal things sort of pootling about the place.
Would that not cause problems at the level of the very small? Can, for instance, a quark shrink and still be a quark?
If matter were shrinking, that means atoms would have to shrink too, or run out of room.
If, rather, matter remained a constant 'size', then relative to the size of the universe they would be shrinking as the universe expanded, but no reduction of actual size would take place, just relative size
where that happening, it is likely that you would need an entirely different universe from which to make the measurement from that would enable you to confirm the hypothesis.
While it could be said to be a mathematical equivilence, I suspect it is not a valid hypothesis, since it cannot be tested.
The main problem is that many people already have a dvd/video/tv/music system installed.
Why replace all of those things with a media centre? Your friends won't be impressed by a computer system, they'll be impressed by your large plasma screen tv (this seems to be what my brother in law thinks anyway, I don't have a tv). You don't need a computer to have a large tv screen on the go.
The only reason media centre pc's got any attention is because the people who make the hardware and software for them wanted people to like them and buy them. There was no demand, and they were unable to create one.
This is a situation frequently encountered in this new computing market (yes, it's only 20 or 30 years old, that's still new). Companies spend loads of money researching stuff that they want people to want, and it goes tits up when product hits the shelves. Or in the case of microsoft, where people seem to think everyone else is both rich and obsessed by computers too, they come up with obsurd tech that barely anyone in the normal world wants to purchase. Origami anyone?
Also, pc's crash (well, windows pc's crash). Whether conciously or not, perhaps customers were thinking about the risk of a pc failing when the game is on?
I assume you mean the gaalaxies themselves flying apart.
It doesn't happen because the gravitational pull of the galaxy holds it together against the expansion of the universe. In the space between the galaxies there is no strong gravitational influence as strong, so the galaxies glide apart as the universe expands.
Superclusters of galaxies are a slightly different case. The combined gravitational effect of the group holds it together. So on a large scale you have superclusters flying away from each other, while the superclusters themselves converge slowly.
If the universe continued expanding you'd end up with grouped superclusters of galaxies, with the space between them and other superclusters infinatelly larger then the current visible universe. That's a depressing end to the universe, and one I'm not at all sure I accept.
Dark matter is not my area of interest. However I beleive it's currently thought to reside inside black holes.
expansion can be tricky to understand. OK, lets use your baloon analogy.
You take a balloon that's been partially inflated, and paint loads of evenly spaced dots all over it.
Then you further inflate the baloon. Each dot move away from each other dot at a uniform rate (well, more or less).
Universal expansion can be thought of in a similer fashion. It isn't that the edge of the universe is moving farther out, leaving just more and more space inside, it's that the 'space' between( for simplicities sake, galaxies), is increasing in size, expanding outward in every direction. Thus all the galaxies are moving away from each other in much the same way as the dots on the balloon.
Space is expanding like this everywhere, but in small uneven pockets of gravity such as clusters of galaxies, or inside a galaxy, the expansion is less obvious, because of gravity's effects.
Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, universal expansion isn't the same thing as light speed.
The universe is expanding away from us in all directions. Well, it's expanding at every point.
So it is possible for a photon of light which started it's life at the opposite end of the universe when the universe was much smaller then it is now, to have not yet reached us, and indeed for it to never reach us, because of the universes expansion. No matter how far it travels, we will always be out of reach, and accelerating. Note I am ignoring the concept of the big crunch here, as it's an unproven concept.
However we are not travelling faster then the speed of light, even though we stay out of reach, what's happening is that the universe in which the speed of light is a constant is itself increasing in size. Thus the distance this imaginary photon must cover to reach us keeps getting larger.
The problem with irradicating us for a resource is this. What resource? Besides hydrocarbons (oils/gas/coal) everything else is floating out in space around any star, by the multiple trillions of tons. They wouldn't even have to land, they could just scoop up smaller asteroids.
And to be frank, what would a spacefaring race need oil for? Everything made from oil can be made artificially. The only reason we don't is because we already use oil, so we use it for plastics and so on as well.
You mean they'd come all this way, potentially thousands of light years, just to collect us up and take us off somewhere?
From a logistical standpoint alone the idea is absurd.
And enslaving us on earth? Well, the earth is a big place, and there are billions of us. Again it's a logistics thing. The difficulty involved would outwiegh the benifits vastly, if there were any benifits.
Nor would they eat us. The chances of a race getting to the point where they can acheive the seemingly impossible (for us, absolutelly impossible) task of travelling the distances involved, then intend to eat the races they found, and be *able* to eat what they found would be crazy small. That they would intend this is even more ridiculous. It's no more then a fantasy that this would occur.
Killing us for sport? Well, um, I refer you to the aforementioned billions. That's a whole lotta sport, and along the way they'd be training up potentially a pissed off army of hundreds of millions. So no, not going to be a wise move. Remember Spartacus? Ok, the man was an idiot, because he got away and turned back to rome, so perhaps not a great example..
I suspect that the most likely outcome of visitors from space would be trade with the aliens. Trade is a reliable way of building up a relationship with a people without actually allying with them.
Don't even get me started on abduction. Good greif, people just don't seem to realise how hugely huge the huge distances between stars in space are. Most people I know who beleive in that crap think going to another country on holiday is a long journey. Really, they have no idea.
The idea of aliens coming here to steal people just makes me laugh. Hell, most of those people think aliens are all hairless mute goblins who strap people to dentists chairs and have simulated sex with them, and they get taken _seriously_ ffs..../rant
I have property deeds from the 16th century in what is now oxfordshire, that I found years ago in a jumble sale of all places. I can track them back even further now.
I'm simply stating facts. I see nothing in my post that indicates I was being unpleasant. Just realistic, something which isn't always pleasent, you'll have to get used to that.
I was from a staggeringly poor family, so much so that I remember my first visit to a kentucky fried chicken as if it was some kind of magical day out (which it was, but this was 1973). That was a very long time ago now though, the world has changed.
I can't look down on poor people because to do so would be to degrade my parent. We are wealthy now, but it was a long, hard road, and I don't forget where we started from.
I think ad-supported computers are a bad idea, because it re-inforces their role as passive receivers of information that is deemed correct for them (something which we were subjected to when I was a kid, albeit in a different technological era). They will not easily break out of the role that data-mining and marketing droids will assign to them.
Some will, most won't, and I don't like that one bit.
I imagine that the length of time a congressman/woman talks on a subject is directly proportional to the importance of that issue to them personally.
This would of course be subject to certain modifiers.
- Time to next election - money from interested lobbyists - need to oppose the issues raised by competitors to keep their succes rate down.
I'm sure if you could accuratelly calculate the above modifiers and apply them to any subject spoken about in congress you'd get an accurate prediction.
By that I mean the same people who make life decisions based on television advertising, worry about characters in soap opera's as if they were real people, and think a family outing to macdonalds is a treat (I'm not joking, I know people like that).
In short, the very poorly informed people who have no proper understanding of the consequences will jump at this.
Will that be enough people to allow this to succeed? I don't know about that. All it has to do is break even and the likes of microsoft will keep it going, claiming huge success.
I wouldn't ever have such a system, but I'll probably be forced to use one at some point to send email.
I think of all the new star treks, Deep Space 9 was the best by far. It was the only one with a decent set of plotlines. Alas said plotlines do make it less appealing in the UK as a pick up and watch show of an afternoon. Or at least that's the way it seems. Mostly we get stargate and star trek. Even stargate is pushing it a bit because of the ongoing story that had, but they have loads of standalone stories.
and they were't trying to compete with babylon 5 or anything, honest.....
I have exactly the same problem. I'm stuck having to keep a windows machine around (well, a duel boot win32/gentoo box) because I need some windows software for which no decent linux analogue exists, and I get msword documents from colleagues all the time.
Fortunatelly for me, since I program primarily using ansi c and standard c++ without external platform specific libraries (my main work is algorithm development and backend stuff), my programs can be compiled and run in windows and linux without recoding, so if I must use windows for a bit I'm not blocked from working (plus windows has putty if I really need linux for something).
Windows not being properly posix complient does cause major headaches sometimes though. As a result I haven't coded anything beyond simple utilities in wondows for many years, I just can't be bothered.
I've been an open source developer for four years now, and manage two projects used for orbital mechanics based research.
95% ish of the programs I use are open source, but I still use some closed source programs, and can see no reason why those programs should not remain closed source.
What people seem to forget is that while the software as service model is gaining ground, there are a large number of high quality products out there that simply cannot be moved to the service/rental model.
A prime example is Adobe Photoshop. That is an amazing program, far superior to Gimp (for graphics designers that is, I use Gimp). Until Gimp can match it feature for feature, Photoshop will remain dominant, and rightly so.
Waving pitchforks and torches at the proprietary world does no good. It seems to me, as an active open source developer, that all the serious open source developers I know are quite happy with the existance of closed source software. It's only the people who, to be honest, don't really understand the issue, and/or are not involved in the creation of software themselves who complain loudly.
There are the Totally Free Software people yes, well, every movement has it's fanatics.
I use GPL V2 (wording is gpl 2.0 or later). I see no equivilent licence I can use that is better then the GPL.
Yes it has its faults, but I can't find anything better.
I will admit to being nervous about GPL 3.0. I'm doing a new release soon, and I may change the wording to gpl 2.0 *only*. I'm not sure yet, I need to do more research on the issue first
The reason that MMO's with a fantasy element are 'better' is principally down to Tolkein. He spent years of his life creating a beleivable fantasy world which people enjoy, and will do for many years to come.
From him we get the rich depth that so many MMO's rely on. I love his work, it populated my imagination when I was a child.
There has been no equivilent story world in the conventional or sci-fi world. The Dune universe, which I enjoy more than Tolkeins work, almost gets there, but it's never been tried as an MMO. Even Dune uses an analogue to magic (melange and it's associated effects), so probably doesn't count. Star wars doesn't count as sci-fi different from fantasy, because it *is* fantasy of a sort, and has magic, albeit by a different name.
everyone uses the crutch of magic these days. It speaks not of originality, but of unwillingness to venture beyond what is known to sell.
Where, I ask, are the risk takers, prepared to move in a new direction with an MMO?
The problem is it would take years of work to create a new rich 'motherlode' story. The potential for such stories exist, but the games industry is scared to venture into any field that might reduce their precious profit margin.
"Um... is it legal for me to do this? How about this? Will I get sued if I do this?" That goes against the spirit of Free Software."
No sir, that is in fact *exactly* the point of open source/free software. It aloows freedom whilst restricting freeloaders from just taking whatever they want and pretending it's their own.
They could ask for take open source proprietary, copyright holders have the right to change licences at any point.
Slashdot Mirror
With Open source there's no problem. I can hear about a thing, test it, look at code, and decide whether it's an issue to me. Or if it's outside of my abilities, That wonderful peer review process can do the job for me. People who are being paid to say good things soon fall silent or get drowned out in the face of proof to the contrary from many sources who are not being paid, but do it out of interest.
With closed source code of any type I have no such option. Instead all I get is 'experts' to tell me. But these guys have to eat, so they get paid by someone, and have a vested interest in being paid tomorrow. Therefore there can be no impartial advice.
Heck, if the cheif engineer on the shuttle program can be convinced to retract his refusal to sign off the shuttle because of O-ring problems, what hope is there for trustworthy answer from anyone regarding closed source software?
Ok, possibly I'm being too extreme with my example, but seriously I worry about the *true* safety of using an operating system which has not, in fact, been designed with consumers in mind. It is, by microsofts own cheerful admission, purposely built to help 'rights holders' of stuff you use keep you from deviating from their precious business plan.
Perhaps this is fair enough, but there should be a trade off. I see no evidence that the rights of the OS purchaser are being properly considered. Even XP assumes you are a pirate unless proven otherwise. That reveals a lot about their views of the lowly home consumer.
Well I certainly find the idea of shrinking matter hard to get my head around.
I can see the equivilence, but it's definatelly counter intuitive.
Weren't Xeno's paradoxes all about proving that discrete values don't work well as models of the world (universe, whatever).
It certainly is an interesting idea. My work is strictly concerning the Newtonian model of the universe, I don't get to play with such complex idea's outside of discussing them, just big rocks orbitting other bigger rocks, and tiny little metal things sort of pootling about the place.
Would that not cause problems at the level of the very small? Can, for instance, a quark shrink and still be a quark?
If matter were shrinking, that means atoms would have to shrink too, or run out of room.
If, rather, matter remained a constant 'size', then relative to the size of the universe they would be shrinking as the universe expanded, but no reduction of actual size would take place, just relative size
where that happening, it is likely that you would need an entirely different universe from which to make the measurement from that would enable you to confirm the hypothesis.
While it could be said to be a mathematical equivilence, I suspect it is not a valid hypothesis, since it cannot be tested.
Fun idea mind....
a couple of freinds of mine have a homebrew media centre, with everything tied together using linux, so I get what you mean.
They have never considered a commercial solution, since theirs is unencumbered by drm or other controlling inluences.
As for me, I have to telly, so media centres don't interest me
The main problem is that many people already have a dvd/video/tv/music system installed.
Why replace all of those things with a media centre? Your friends won't be impressed by a computer system, they'll be impressed by your large plasma screen tv (this seems to be what my brother in law thinks anyway, I don't have a tv). You don't need a computer to have a large tv screen on the go.
The only reason media centre pc's got any attention is because the people who make the hardware and software for them wanted people to like them and buy them. There was no demand, and they were unable to create one.
This is a situation frequently encountered in this new computing market (yes, it's only 20 or 30 years old, that's still new). Companies spend loads of money researching stuff that they want people to want, and it goes tits up when product hits the shelves. Or in the case of microsoft, where people seem to think everyone else is both rich and obsessed by computers too, they come up with obsurd tech that barely anyone in the normal world wants to purchase. Origami anyone?
Also, pc's crash (well, windows pc's crash). Whether conciously or not, perhaps customers were thinking about the risk of a pc failing when the game is on?
I assume you mean the gaalaxies themselves flying apart.
It doesn't happen because the gravitational pull of the galaxy holds it together against the expansion of the universe. In the space between the galaxies there is no strong gravitational influence as strong, so the galaxies glide apart as the universe expands.
Superclusters of galaxies are a slightly different case. The combined gravitational effect of the group holds it together. So on a large scale you have superclusters flying away from each other, while the superclusters themselves converge slowly.
If the universe continued expanding you'd end up with grouped superclusters of galaxies, with the space between them and other superclusters infinatelly larger then the current visible universe. That's a depressing end to the universe, and one I'm not at all sure I accept.
Dark matter is not my area of interest. However I beleive it's currently thought to reside inside black holes.
Yup, Pareto trade off space is great. I use it to detect neucleotide sequences.
space kittens....
well, ok, I don't know that one. I suspect Brane theory may hold the answers, but I don't work in that area. I'm strictly a celestial dynamics guy.
expansion can be tricky to understand. OK, lets use your baloon analogy.
You take a balloon that's been partially inflated, and paint loads of evenly spaced dots all over it.
Then you further inflate the baloon. Each dot move away from each other dot at a uniform rate (well, more or less).
Universal expansion can be thought of in a similer fashion. It isn't that the edge of the universe is moving farther out, leaving just more and more space inside, it's that the 'space' between( for simplicities sake, galaxies), is increasing in size, expanding outward in every direction. Thus all the galaxies are moving away from each other in much the same way as the dots on the balloon.
Space is expanding like this everywhere, but in small uneven pockets of gravity such as clusters of galaxies, or inside a galaxy, the expansion is less obvious, because of gravity's effects.
Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, universal expansion isn't the same thing as light speed.
The universe is expanding away from us in all directions. Well, it's expanding at every point.
So it is possible for a photon of light which started it's life at the opposite end of the universe when the universe was much smaller then it is now, to have not yet reached us, and indeed for it to never reach us, because of the universes expansion. No matter how far it travels, we will always be out of reach, and accelerating. Note I am ignoring the concept of the big crunch here, as it's an unproven concept.
However we are not travelling faster then the speed of light, even though we stay out of reach, what's happening is that the universe in which the speed of light is a constant is itself increasing in size. Thus the distance this imaginary photon must cover to reach us keeps getting larger.
The problem with irradicating us for a resource is this. What resource? Besides hydrocarbons (oils/gas/coal) everything else is floating out in space around any star, by the multiple trillions of tons. They wouldn't even have to land, they could just scoop up smaller asteroids.
And to be frank, what would a spacefaring race need oil for? Everything made from oil can be made artificially. The only reason we don't is because we already use oil, so we use it for plastics and so on as well.
why would they enslave us?
/rant
You mean they'd come all this way, potentially thousands of light years, just to collect us up and take us off somewhere?
From a logistical standpoint alone the idea is absurd.
And enslaving us on earth? Well, the earth is a big place, and there are billions of us. Again it's a logistics thing. The difficulty involved would outwiegh the benifits vastly, if there were any benifits.
Nor would they eat us. The chances of a race getting to the point where they can acheive the seemingly impossible (for us, absolutelly impossible) task of travelling the distances involved, then intend to eat the races they found, and be *able* to eat what they found would be crazy small. That they would intend this is even more ridiculous. It's no more then a fantasy that this would occur.
Killing us for sport? Well, um, I refer you to the aforementioned billions. That's a whole lotta sport, and along the way they'd be training up potentially a pissed off army of hundreds of millions. So no, not going to be a wise move. Remember Spartacus? Ok, the man was an idiot, because he got away and turned back to rome, so perhaps not a great example..
I suspect that the most likely outcome of visitors from space would be trade with the aliens. Trade is a reliable way of building up a relationship with a people without actually allying with them.
Don't even get me started on abduction. Good greif, people just don't seem to realise how hugely huge the huge distances between stars in space are. Most people I know who beleive in that crap think going to another country on holiday is a long journey. Really, they have no idea.
The idea of aliens coming here to steal people just makes me laugh. Hell, most of those people think aliens are all hairless mute goblins who strap people to dentists chairs and have simulated sex with them, and they get taken _seriously_ ffs....
I have property deeds from the 16th century in what is now oxfordshire, that I found years ago in a jumble sale of all places. I can track them back even further now.
Sounds like it, anyway.
who said I was looking down on those people?
I'm simply stating facts. I see nothing in my post that indicates I was being unpleasant. Just realistic, something which isn't always pleasent, you'll have to get used to that.
I was from a staggeringly poor family, so much so that I remember my first visit to a kentucky fried chicken as if it was some kind of magical day out (which it was, but this was 1973). That was a very long time ago now though, the world has changed.
I can't look down on poor people because to do so would be to degrade my parent. We are wealthy now, but it was a long, hard road, and I don't forget where we started from.
I think ad-supported computers are a bad idea, because it re-inforces their role as passive receivers of information that is deemed correct for them (something which we were subjected to when I was a kid, albeit in a different technological era). They will not easily break out of the role that data-mining and marketing droids will assign to them.
Some will, most won't, and I don't like that one bit.
I imagine that the length of time a congressman/woman talks on a subject is directly proportional to the importance of that issue to them personally.
This would of course be subject to certain modifiers.
- Time to next election
- money from interested lobbyists
- need to oppose the issues raised by competitors to keep their succes rate down.
I'm sure if you could accuratelly calculate the above modifiers and apply them to any subject spoken about in congress you'd get an accurate prediction.
Some people might consider it.
By that I mean the same people who make life decisions based on television advertising, worry about characters in soap opera's as if they were real people, and think a family outing to macdonalds is a treat (I'm not joking, I know people like that).
In short, the very poorly informed people who have no proper understanding of the consequences will jump at this.
Will that be enough people to allow this to succeed? I don't know about that. All it has to do is break even and the likes of microsoft will keep it going, claiming huge success.
I wouldn't ever have such a system, but I'll probably be forced to use one at some point to send email.
I think of all the new star treks, Deep Space 9 was the best by far. It was the only one with a decent set of plotlines. Alas said plotlines do make it less appealing in the UK as a pick up and watch show of an afternoon. Or at least that's the way it seems. Mostly we get stargate and star trek. Even stargate is pushing it a bit because of the ongoing story that had, but they have loads of standalone stories.
and they were't trying to compete with babylon 5 or anything, honest.....
I have exactly the same problem. I'm stuck having to keep a windows machine around (well, a duel boot win32/gentoo box) because I need some windows software for which no decent linux analogue exists, and I get msword documents from colleagues all the time.
Fortunatelly for me, since I program primarily using ansi c and standard c++ without external platform specific libraries (my main work is algorithm development and backend stuff), my programs can be compiled and run in windows and linux without recoding, so if I must use windows for a bit I'm not blocked from working (plus windows has putty if I really need linux for something).
Windows not being properly posix complient does cause major headaches sometimes though. As a result I haven't coded anything beyond simple utilities in wondows for many years, I just can't be bothered.
My response is 'if you don't like a thing, make a better one'. Can the complainers make a better slashdot? Hmm, let me see.
Do the abilities required for such a venture require
a) A willingness to try and realise there will be the odd piece of news that is repeated.
b)Being a Whining Biatch.
Well, if it's (b), then the whiners are for teh win. Somehow I have my doubts...
I agree
I've been an open source developer for four years now, and manage two projects used for orbital mechanics based research.
95% ish of the programs I use are open source, but I still use some closed source programs, and can see no reason why those programs should not remain closed source.
What people seem to forget is that while the software as service model is gaining ground, there are a large number of high quality products out there that simply cannot be moved to the service/rental model.
A prime example is Adobe Photoshop. That is an amazing program, far superior to Gimp (for graphics designers that is, I use Gimp). Until Gimp can match it feature for feature, Photoshop will remain dominant, and rightly so.
Waving pitchforks and torches at the proprietary world does no good. It seems to me, as an active open source developer, that all the serious open source developers I know are quite happy with the existance of closed source software. It's only the people who, to be honest, don't really understand the issue, and/or are not involved in the creation of software themselves who complain loudly.
There are the Totally Free Software people yes, well, every movement has it's fanatics.
Hmm
I wonder if a slow projectile would get through? Ok, obligatory Dune reference in the heading, but still I wonder...
I use GPL V2 (wording is gpl 2.0 or later). I see no equivilent licence I can use that is better then the GPL.
Yes it has its faults, but I can't find anything better.
I will admit to being nervous about GPL 3.0. I'm doing a new release soon, and I may change the wording to gpl 2.0 *only*. I'm not sure yet, I need to do more research on the issue first
The reason that MMO's with a fantasy element are 'better' is principally down to Tolkein. He spent years of his life creating a beleivable fantasy world which people enjoy, and will do for many years to come.
From him we get the rich depth that so many MMO's rely on. I love his work, it populated my imagination when I was a child.
There has been no equivilent story world in the conventional or sci-fi world. The Dune universe, which I enjoy more than Tolkeins work, almost gets there, but it's never been tried as an MMO. Even Dune uses an analogue to magic (melange and it's associated effects), so probably doesn't count.
Star wars doesn't count as sci-fi different from fantasy, because it *is* fantasy of a sort, and has magic, albeit by a different name.
everyone uses the crutch of magic these days. It speaks not of originality, but of unwillingness to venture beyond what is known to sell.
Where, I ask, are the risk takers, prepared to move in a new direction with an MMO?
The problem is it would take years of work to create a new rich 'motherlode' story. The potential for such stories exist, but the games industry is scared to venture into any field that might reduce their precious profit margin.
"Um... is it legal for me to do this? How about this? Will I get sued if I do this?" That goes against the spirit of Free Software."
No sir, that is in fact *exactly* the point of open source/free software. It aloows freedom whilst restricting freeloaders from just taking whatever they want and pretending it's their own.
They could ask for take open source proprietary, copyright holders have the right to change licences at any point.