No, the 'big' as in 'big bang' is not an adjective. 'Big Bang' is in it's entirety a noun. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to put a modifier in front of it to say mini big bang.
p.Whether that is what they did or not is another matter.
No, your logic is incorrect. You cannot take an aspect of a feature and say it still applies. For example "My car is not fast enough to break 300mph. My stereo is part of my car so my stereo is preventing me from breaking 300mph"
Yes region locking is part of DRM. But no it is not illegal to bypass region locking as long as you are not breaking DRM. So since I can bypass region locking, it doesn't apply. So my statement that the only thing DRM is doing is preventing you from breaking the law is correct. I don't see why this is a problem for you to understand except your own biases against DRM.
Free as in no change and no strings. If I gave you a 'free' car but then told you where and when you had to drive it, then it's not really that free is it?
GPL is not free. The software my be no charge, but it is copyrighted software - not free.
What you are saying is basically 'region lock is part of DRM and since breaking DRM is illegal then trying to play one regions DVD on another regions player is illgal but there is no law saying that is illegal therefore DRM is stupid."
DRM is much more than just region lock. Region locking is solely a marketing and distribution restriction. There's no law against that hence my pointing out you can buy regionless players and play anything you wnat without restriction. That doesn't mean you can legally break DRM and copy movies. These are two completely different aspects of DRM.
So yes, DRM is preventing you from illegal copying. Region codes can legally be bypassed by buying hardware that doesn't use it. There's no conflict.
Why on earth you will to claim copyrights for a software you doesn't even own?
What makes you think I would claim copyright? What I write is clearly mine, and the entire package is simply redistributed as binary. Nothing more. I'm not claiming any copyright except for my stuff.
People call GPL software free when it is not. It's copyrighted software just like proprietary software. No difference.
The posts all state that if I don't like the terms of the GPL licence then I dont have to use the software. Absolutely correct. And likewise if Apple doesn't like the GPL licence then they dont have to distribute the software. Shouldn't be a problem but the VNC author chose this stunt to try and push his own agenda. All this backlash just goes to prove my original point in that this is just soapbox nonsense.
I told you a legal way to play a russian DVD on an american player. Therefore it is not illegal and there is nothing preventing you from doing so except an arbitrary restriction on the DVD player you bought. So I countered your point successfully and my claim still stands.
As mentioned, the only 'right' BSD gives that GPL doesn't is the right to prevent end users from getting access to the source. That's not 'freedom' in any sense I can imagine.
The freedom comes in me as a publisher being allowed to publish any way I like. GPL restricts my personal freedom. BSD does not.
Ok, on topic. Apple did not wish to abide by the terms of the GPL license so it chose not to distribute the code. I don't really see a problem with what they did.
The only thing DRM is preventing you from is breaking the law. You could make the same argument about speed limits 'It's MY car, it SAYS I can go to 220 but the stupid speed limit says 60. Unfair!!'
Nobody is forcing you to use GPL. If you want to use their work however, you'll need to abide by the license.
Exactly my point - thank you. So the article author shouldn't be upset that Apple does not want to abide by GPL and therefore refuses to host/publish the GPL application. As I said, the author is just using this as a soapbox for his own views of GPL software.
Why would I bother developing something just to keep it to myself? I would only develop something to sell myself, or something my employer could use. GPL doesn't let me do either without giving away how I did it by releasing the source code.
What the hell are you talking about? Should I respond with the atrocities of slaughtering dolphins or finning sharks just so we can both be completely off topic?
So now we have a situation where I wrote something, its useful, and I'm forced to give up how I did it by republishing the source code onder the original GPL licence. As I said, GPL is NOT free. If it was under BSD, I would have the option of publishing source or publishing binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Every point I made is correct and verifiable. Clearly you don't watch the show much.
There was sex in Stargate?
yea, basically everyone was getting it on..
O'Neill and Sam were doing it since the first season
Sam was naked in several episodes
Rodney kept having sex fantasies about Sam
Daniel kept falling in love with bush babes on nearly every planet
Teal'c had a wife, left her then hooked up with Ishta
Vala was trying to hump anything that moved
On Atlantis Rodney was boinking Dr Keller
Teyla got knocked up out of wedlock
I think there was a lot of sex on Stargate...
So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?
No, the 'big' as in 'big bang' is not an adjective. 'Big Bang' is in it's entirety a noun. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to put a modifier in front of it to say mini big bang. p.Whether that is what they did or not is another matter.
No, your logic is incorrect. You cannot take an aspect of a feature and say it still applies. For example "My car is not fast enough to break 300mph. My stereo is part of my car so my stereo is preventing me from breaking 300mph"
Yes region locking is part of DRM. But no it is not illegal to bypass region locking as long as you are not breaking DRM. So since I can bypass region locking, it doesn't apply. So my statement that the only thing DRM is doing is preventing you from breaking the law is correct. I don't see why this is a problem for you to understand except your own biases against DRM.
Free as in no change and no strings. If I gave you a 'free' car but then told you where and when you had to drive it, then it's not really that free is it?
GPL is not free. The software my be no charge, but it is copyrighted software - not free.
What you are saying is basically 'region lock is part of DRM and since breaking DRM is illegal then trying to play one regions DVD on another regions player is illgal but there is no law saying that is illegal therefore DRM is stupid."
DRM is much more than just region lock. Region locking is solely a marketing and distribution restriction. There's no law against that hence my pointing out you can buy regionless players and play anything you wnat without restriction. That doesn't mean you can legally break DRM and copy movies. These are two completely different aspects of DRM.
So yes, DRM is preventing you from illegal copying. Region codes can legally be bypassed by buying hardware that doesn't use it. There's no conflict.
Why on earth you will to claim copyrights for a software you doesn't even own?
What makes you think I would claim copyright? What I write is clearly mine, and the entire package is simply redistributed as binary. Nothing more. I'm not claiming any copyright except for my stuff.
People call GPL software free when it is not. It's copyrighted software just like proprietary software. No difference.
The posts all state that if I don't like the terms of the GPL licence then I dont have to use the software. Absolutely correct. And likewise if Apple doesn't like the GPL licence then they dont have to distribute the software. Shouldn't be a problem but the VNC author chose this stunt to try and push his own agenda. All this backlash just goes to prove my original point in that this is just soapbox nonsense.
Then they should charge for it. If they give it away free then it should really be free, not come with strings attached. GPL software is not 'free'.
No, I just dont like the term 'free' applied to GPL software when it clearly isn't free. It's copyrighted software, plain and simple.
I believe a region free DVD player would be an illegal DRM circumvention tool.
Why is it illegal? I can buy a region free DVD player at Future Shop. If it was illegal I couldn't do that.
I told you a legal way to play a russian DVD on an american player. Therefore it is not illegal and there is nothing preventing you from doing so except an arbitrary restriction on the DVD player you bought. So I countered your point successfully and my claim still stands.
You have no idea what socialism and communism are do you?
If someone wants to give away their work for free, then great, let them. But I don't feel the need to do the same.
Is there something wrong with trying to make a profit? Shouldn't the free market decide if the value I add to a product is worth paying for?
So go buy a region-free player. It's not that big of a deal.
As mentioned, the only 'right' BSD gives that GPL doesn't is the right to prevent end users from getting access to the source. That's not 'freedom' in any sense I can imagine.
The freedom comes in me as a publisher being allowed to publish any way I like. GPL restricts my personal freedom. BSD does not.
Ok, on topic. Apple did not wish to abide by the terms of the GPL license so it chose not to distribute the code. I don't really see a problem with what they did.
So I'm writing code and forced to give it up for free for the good of the community. Good to see communism is alive and well in the software world.
The only thing DRM is preventing you from is breaking the law. You could make the same argument about speed limits 'It's MY car, it SAYS I can go to 220 but the stupid speed limit says 60. Unfair!!'
Nobody is forcing you to use GPL. If you want to use their work however, you'll need to abide by the license.
Exactly my point - thank you. So the article author shouldn't be upset that Apple does not want to abide by GPL and therefore refuses to host/publish the GPL application. As I said, the author is just using this as a soapbox for his own views of GPL software.
So? My problem is I'm being *forced* to publish my code. They are not being *forced* to buy my product.
Why would I bother developing something just to keep it to myself? I would only develop something to sell myself, or something my employer could use. GPL doesn't let me do either without giving away how I did it by releasing the source code.
With BSD I have the option of publishing source or only publishing binaries. GPL does not give me that option. It's a restrictive license.
What the hell are you talking about? Should I respond with the atrocities of slaughtering dolphins or finning sharks just so we can both be completely off topic?
So now we have a situation where I wrote something, its useful, and I'm forced to give up how I did it by republishing the source code onder the original GPL licence. As I said, GPL is NOT free. If it was under BSD, I would have the option of publishing source or publishing binaries.