Anyone, yes, but only for the first generation. They can modify it and release it closed-source... so the second generation doesn't get to use the modified code.
The GPL is designed specifically to mandate that it is not only available to the first generation, but that it is also available to the second generation, and to the third generation, and continues ever on. The only restriction is on those who want to stop this continuation, i.e. restrict it from future generations. It might be said that the GPL's restrictions are "meta-restrictions".
So, the BSD license is "fairer" for first-generation modifications only; future generations are subject to the whims of those who perform modifications. The GPL's restrictions on a given generation are from those who would restrict it from the next.
"I wonder if the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc has people who help program OSS so that they can incorporate little hooks into things?" -- see, that's the thing about OSS: it's open source. if they leave a backdoor, someone's bound to notice sooner or later. the more popular it is, the more eyes are looking at the source, hence the sooner it'll be found (c.f. Linus's Law)
small states (population-wise) still have fewer electoral votes. if most of the big states (california, texas, new york) weren't virtually guaranteed for one candidate or the other, you'd bet your ass the candidates would focus on that state. however, I do see your point... instead of focusing only on major population centers, they do have to at least make a cursory attempt to court voters across bunches of rural states like in the southeast and the rockies.
however...instead of focusing on the little people, they focus on swing states: the electoral college tends to make them take for granted any state that they are sure to win (or lose) and focus on swing states. in a popular-vote system, candidates would focus on areas like Los Angeles and New York City. instead, they're all focusing on Florida, Ohio, and a handful of other "swing" states. small states which are already in the bag (like most of the rockies) are practically ignored anyway, and small swing states (like New Hampshire) are glossed over. only big swing states, like Florida and Ohio, get much attention.
also, the electoral college's winner-take-all system encourages the candidates to ignore states that they are sure to win/lose... for example, Texas, which is guaranteed for Bush. in a popular-vote system, Bush could still campaign there and milk some more votes from his supporters, and Kerry could try to siphon some votes for himself too. as it is, it's going to go to Bush either way, so there's no need for Bush to re-enforce his hold on it, or for Kerry to put any real effort into taking the state when he can put that effort towards states he's more likely to win, like FL and OH. furthermore, conservative voters in a liberal state are disenfranchised (and vice-versa) since, unless their state is a swing state, their vote won't be registered except in the popular vote totals which currently mean nothing (as far as determining the president goes) except state-by-state.
Approval voting is better and simpler: it's just like plurality voting (which is what we use) except you can vote for multiple candidates. the one with the most votes wins.
http://www.electionmethods.org/approved.htm
I agree; IRV is a bit complicated, and it's only good for (1) expressing support for 3rd parties, and (2) only as long as those 3rd parties remain marginal. after that it becomes complicated and strategic rather than sincere voting rules the day.
(Care to take a true democratic vote on civil rights in 1860 America?)
If an actual such vote was taken in 1860, the response would be overwhelmingly racist.
Of course, only white males would have been allowed to vote then.
A "true democratic" vote would allow women (who often sympathize with the black-rights movement) and blacks to vote. Then the outcome would be different.
to say it's just mindless flaming is, itself, mindless flaming. I find this section quite interesting, and have read thought-provoking discussions that make me re-evaluate what I believe (not necessarily change what I believe, but to re-evaluate them). if it were just mindless mud-flinging and flaming, I wouldn't read it.
yes,/. is focused on technology and science, although I've found anything relating to a strength or weakness of Windows or GNU/Linux to be more flame-prone (story about some bad aspect of MS or Windows = "OMG USE LINXU CUZ M$ WIDNOZE SUXCS!!1!one"... but even then there are often interesting discussions and counter-points raised).
I agree, flames=bad, thoughtful discussion=good. but both are present... to say that because there are flames, there are nothing but flames, is itself, a flame.
like saying you want a prison run by a convict because they have "prison experience".
I say it's time to let taxpayers and citizens run the country rather than the elite and the good bullshitters.
that second sentence advocates having the country run by people (as opposed to professional politicians) because they have "country experience". compare that to the first quote.
personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a former convict running a prison (if indeed they have been reformed). who better to know what prison policies work and don't work?
MS should have been broken up. It would have been the healthiest thing for both the stock holders and the software market. The new companies created out of the old Microsoft would eventually be worth far more than the current company is and we'd all see better software being developed as competition heated up again.
As though the new companies, having been part of the single monolithic Microsoft company, wouldn't work together under the table.
And I don't know about you, but I for one wouldn't want several Microsoft companies the size of the current one.
he didn't say that what he's doing is fair use. what he means is this is his way of protesting the way the record companies are trying to prevent fair use (such as with this DRM thing). basically, "allow fair use or we won't pay money for your music".
how well that'll work is anyone's guess. that's just my view on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone, yes, but only for the first generation. They can modify it and release it closed-source... so the second generation doesn't get to use the modified code.
The GPL is designed specifically to mandate that it is not only available to the first generation, but that it is also available to the second generation, and to the third generation, and continues ever on. The only restriction is on those who want to stop this continuation, i.e. restrict it from future generations. It might be said that the GPL's restrictions are "meta-restrictions".
So, the BSD license is "fairer" for first-generation modifications only; future generations are subject to the whims of those who perform modifications. The GPL's restrictions on a given generation are from those who would restrict it from the next.
No, and that's precisely the point! :)
The source claims to be a non-extended form of XHTML, i.e. regular XHTML 1.0 Strict.
" That's why Version 2 says you can distribute under any later version of the GPL."
No, it doesn't. To make that provision is optional, and is independent of GPL2 itself.
Redmond, WA
"I wonder if the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc has people who help program OSS so that they can incorporate little hooks into things?" -- see, that's the thing about OSS: it's open source. if they leave a backdoor, someone's bound to notice sooner or later. the more popular it is, the more eyes are looking at the source, hence the sooner it'll be found (c.f. Linus's Law)
small states (population-wise) still have fewer electoral votes. if most of the big states (california, texas, new york) weren't virtually guaranteed for one candidate or the other, you'd bet your ass the candidates would focus on that state.
however, I do see your point... instead of focusing only on major population centers, they do have to at least make a cursory attempt to court voters across bunches of rural states like in the southeast and the rockies.
however...instead of focusing on the little people, they focus on swing states: the electoral college tends to make them take for granted any state that they are sure to win (or lose) and focus on swing states. in a popular-vote system, candidates would focus on areas like Los Angeles and New York City. instead, they're all focusing on Florida, Ohio, and a handful of other "swing" states. small states which are already in the bag (like most of the rockies) are practically ignored anyway, and small swing states (like New Hampshire) are glossed over. only big swing states, like Florida and Ohio, get much attention.
also, the electoral college's winner-take-all system encourages the candidates to ignore states that they are sure to win/lose... for example, Texas, which is guaranteed for Bush. in a popular-vote system, Bush could still campaign there and milk some more votes from his supporters, and Kerry could try to siphon some votes for himself too. as it is, it's going to go to Bush either way, so there's no need for Bush to re-enforce his hold on it, or for Kerry to put any real effort into taking the state when he can put that effort towards states he's more likely to win, like FL and OH. furthermore, conservative voters in a liberal state are disenfranchised (and vice-versa) since, unless their state is a swing state, their vote won't be registered except in the popular vote totals which currently mean nothing (as far as determining the president goes) except state-by-state.
or something. *stops rambling*
Approval voting is better and simpler: it's just like plurality voting (which is what we use) except you can vote for multiple candidates. the one with the most votes wins.
http://www.electionmethods.org/approved.htm
I agree; IRV is a bit complicated, and it's only good for (1) expressing support for 3rd parties, and (2) only as long as those 3rd parties remain marginal. after that it becomes complicated and strategic rather than sincere voting rules the day.
If an actual such vote was taken in 1860, the response would be overwhelmingly racist.
Of course, only white males would have been allowed to vote then.
A "true democratic" vote would allow women (who often sympathize with the black-rights movement) and blacks to vote. Then the outcome would be different.
to say it's just mindless flaming is, itself, mindless flaming. I find this section quite interesting, and have read thought-provoking discussions that make me re-evaluate what I believe (not necessarily change what I believe, but to re-evaluate them). if it were just mindless mud-flinging and flaming, I wouldn't read it.
yes, /. is focused on technology and science, although I've found anything relating to a strength or weakness of Windows or GNU/Linux to be more flame-prone (story about some bad aspect of MS or Windows = "OMG USE LINXU CUZ M$ WIDNOZE SUXCS!!1!one"... but even then there are often interesting discussions and counter-points raised).
I agree, flames=bad, thoughtful discussion=good. but both are present... to say that because there are flames, there are nothing but flames, is itself, a flame.
$0.02
like saying you want a prison run by a convict because they have "prison experience".
I say it's time to let taxpayers and citizens run the country rather than the elite and the good bullshitters.
that second sentence advocates having the country run by people (as opposed to professional politicians) because they have "country experience". compare that to the first quote.
personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a former convict running a prison (if indeed they have been reformed). who better to know what prison policies work and don't work?
he didn't say that what he's doing is fair use. what he means is this is his way of protesting the way the record companies are trying to prevent fair use (such as with this DRM thing).
basically, "allow fair use or we won't pay money for your music".
how well that'll work is anyone's guess. that's just my view on it.