We liberals said the Earth was round. You didn't believe us.
Check your facts. You are repeating an urban legend. (created by Washington Irving in The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus)
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If you want to release your code into the public domain, then guess what? You can do that too!
Not true for all, since there are jurisdictions that don't allow a copyright holder to put his work in the Public Domain. (It could maybe be done by a license that give the same rights, but there can even be restrictions on what one are allowed to license away)
*pedant hat on* In fact, no Fundamentalist Christian (as far as I know) would believe that the Earth is 4000 years old. 4000 years ago would be the time of Abraham, at least according to the Bible + the secular sources used to calculate the time where there are no biblical sources.
Try to think about laws as forced contracts. You can copy all parts of such a contract into a real one, except that you can not force people to sign it. Then the issue becomes what contracts should the state force on us all. That you (as an individual) should not be allowed to murder another human except in self defense I think we can all can agree on should be forced on everybody. But should copyright?
Yes, people would have to sign a contract in order to get the software, but it would not be worse than todays situation where we are all forced to "sign" copyright. You could even create two contracts: one to emulate copyright law, and then a GPL license (using the copyright emulator contract instead of copyright law).
You still would have bargaining power before you distributed. You could simply have the receiving party sign a contract like the GPL + Copyright in order to get the code. It would of course also require that if the code is redistributed, the contract would have to be signed by the next receiver. Then all that is needed is to add a clause about linking, and it would be strong copyleft. The rest of the GPL could also be reimplemented like that.
I hope this new project begins full steam, but a big part of me is sad that between projects like Kopete, Gaim, Trillian, Miranda, etc. that we're dividing efforts instead of having one truly incredible messenger that works across all networks, supports all the features of each network (including full voice and video).
To support all the networks well all that is needed to cooperate on is the connectors to the different networks. At the same time it should be possible for different connectors to exist for the same network in case developers disagree on how it should be made. And the connectors should be isolated to different processes so a crash in a connector don't take down the others. Luckily this already exist in the telepathy framework.
If you do not like the extra restrictions that GPLv3 adds section 7 may be of interest to you:
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
If you do not want a restriction to apply to software that you write yourself you can create an exception to the GPL3 for what you write. FSF have done this for a long time, see for example the GNU Classpath exception
It actually threatens moral relativism rather than religions, many of whom are likely to see this as scientific evidence for their contention that Man has an absolute moral framework which was "programmed" by a divine creator, who also gave us the capability of consciously deciding whether to follow it or not.
Romans 2, 14-15 (KJV):
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
Almost true. There are lines of separation, but those lines are cross denominational. Some denominations are entirely in one camp, others have members in different camps. The biggest camps today is fundamentalists: those that believe in the five fundamentals (but may not like the name), liberals: those who adapt to whatever is popular, and those who follow a tradition and/or a currently living leader.
Nowdays, QT is licensed under the GPL. Plain old GPL. Commercial use is allowed. However, all software that links to GPL code (QT) must itself be GPL like for all other GPL licensed software. If you do not wish to release your own software under the GPL and still link to QT, you can buy QT under the other license. So the other license adds an option for you. It does not remove one.
I thought WineX/CedegaCVS was under the Aladin License, thus not FOSS?
At least last time I checked, it did not allow anyone to profit from redistribution of software released under it, so it is not a Free (as inn Free market) software license.
The problem is of course that we cannot place the burden of personal responsibility on the individual.
We can. Even in the most extreme case (if all we do is predetermined) it does not remove the responsibility for our actions from us. You may not have predetermined yourself to do it, but still you did it. ("Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Romans 9, 20b)
Since we no longer have a place to assign personal responsibility, how can we do anything else but what Christians supposedly advocate - forgive?
I believe you have misunderstood us here. As individuals we should not avenge ourself but forgive*. The government on the other hand exist for the purpose of revenge**.
* "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV://Romans 12, 19)
** "For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (KVJ://Romans 13, 4)
For me, personally, all that apparently remains are ATI drivers and Flash Player.
There are efforts to have free software versions of those too. Gnash is a (incomplete) implementation of Flash, and there is also an effort under way to reverse engineer ATI cards. (It has working drivers, but they are not as fast as ATI's unfree drivers.
Java will have the same the same exception to GPL for its classlib as GNU Classpath, so the GPL will not have any effect on code running in the JVM. (It has even fewer restrictions than the LGPL that forces derived works to allow reverse engineering)
There ARE definite milestones of freedom. Sheria seems free to whoever lives in it, without knowing any other form of existence, but it is not something that is free once one gets to know what else is out there. apparently you do not know much people who ran away from sheria.
First: Shaira is not free to live in. I never claimed that. I used the "" around free to indicate that is was ironic. The reason I used Sharia as an example is because most people agree that it is horrible. If you misunderstood, blame it on my English.
Secound: Yes, I agree. Freedom has it's definite milestones. When it comes to speach they are to promotes illegal violence or threaten to use illegal violence*.
EVEN if people are let to preach such horror without usage of guns or violence, if, out of gullibility, or some other unforeseen circumstance people believe in them and they manage to install their repression, there is NO turning back.
To install the repression they will need a revolution (or an election). If they run a revolution, we should fight them. If they win an election, it probably is a good idea to get out of there anyway since most people voted for the repression. Would you like to live under Hamas and the people that supported them? (to take a recent example)
It is not fallacious. Free speach: You are allowed to preach whatever you want, except threats of illegal violence and promotion of illegal violence*. "Whatever you want" includes preaching "End free speach!". And yes, by this standard most of Europe (including the country where I type this) don't have free speach any more than Saudi Arabia. (We are closer to free speach than Saudi Arabia, but don't have it, and are moving away form it)
And NEVER ever one should fail to see that, repressive, supressive, rights-ignoring ideas and trends NEVER exist without violence and use of force.
Then use violence when they use violence, and to supress that violence. If not, you may have useed violence against peacefull people that you were biased against.
It is not concept of free speech, but idiocy to give the repressive sources enough freedom to gain power to impede free speech.
And who gets to decide who are repressive and should be repressed?
Let him out, as we should not have imprisoned him for his views in the first place. If we want a free society it must include the freedom to belive and preach what he preaches. If not, our society is not free, but only "free" for those that hold the goverments opinion on one or more issue(s), in your case freedom. The same way that Shaira is "free" for those that obey Shaira anyway. If that person on the other hand are using illegal violence, promotes illegal violence or threaten to use illegal violence, he should be arrested, but even here the goverment should step carefull. (To say "One day the revolution is coming, and it is a good thing" should be OK in my opinion. To say "Let us shoot the entire parliment, the revolution has begun!" on the other hand should be illegal)
Just wondering: Do you belive that putting people in the guiliotine for belonging to the "wrong" family or having "wrong" political ideas (or beeing accused of it) is a just thing?
Well, no matter what Sun will do, we are wery close to a freesoftwareJavaimplementation anyway. There are freeJVMs and compilers. All that is missing is the class libary, but the gerics branch of GNU Classpath are at 95.13% on JAPI tests. After all Sun did keep their word about opening Solaris and they are talking to the developers behind the free Java implementations, so I think we can trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your facts. You are repeating an urban legend. (created by Washington Irving in The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus)
Not true for all, since there are jurisdictions that don't allow a copyright holder to put his work in the Public Domain. (It could maybe be done by a license that give the same rights, but there can even be restrictions on what one are allowed to license away)
*pedant hat on* In fact, no Fundamentalist Christian (as far as I know) would believe that the Earth is 4000 years old. 4000 years ago would be the time of Abraham, at least according to the Bible + the secular sources used to calculate the time where there are no biblical sources.
Not to mention JavaFX. It is even to convert Flash files to it.
Try to think about laws as forced contracts. You can copy all parts of such a contract into a real one, except that you can not force people to sign it. Then the issue becomes what contracts should the state force on us all. That you (as an individual) should not be allowed to murder another human except in self defense I think we can all can agree on should be forced on everybody. But should copyright?
Yes, people would have to sign a contract in order to get the software, but it would not be worse than todays situation where we are all forced to "sign" copyright. You could even create two contracts: one to emulate copyright law, and then a GPL license (using the copyright emulator contract instead of copyright law).
You still would have bargaining power before you distributed. You could simply have the receiving party sign a contract like the GPL + Copyright in order to get the code. It would of course also require that if the code is redistributed, the contract would have to be signed by the next receiver. Then all that is needed is to add a clause about linking, and it would be strong copyleft. The rest of the GPL could also be reimplemented like that.
While you are at it, can I pleace have 13256278887989457651018865901401704640?
They could make linuxBios chainload ADLO. It is not complete, but implements enough BIOS calls to boot Win2k.
Try Google talk. (They use a custom extension that is not standardized jet, so I don't think it will work when transferring to other clients)
Almost true. There are lines of separation, but those lines are cross denominational. Some denominations are entirely in one camp, others have members in different camps. The biggest camps today is fundamentalists: those that believe in the five fundamentals (but may not like the name), liberals: those who adapt to whatever is popular, and those who follow a tradition and/or a currently living leader.
Nowdays, QT is licensed under the GPL. Plain old GPL. Commercial use is allowed. However, all software that links to GPL code (QT) must itself be GPL like for all other GPL licensed software. If you do not wish to release your own software under the GPL and still link to QT, you can buy QT under the other license. So the other license adds an option for you. It does not remove one.
They have given something back. For example the first Free software RTP/RTSP streaming server was released by Apple.
* "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV://Romans 12, 19)
** "For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (KVJ://Romans 13, 4)
Java will have the same the same exception to GPL for its classlib as GNU Classpath, so the GPL will not have any effect on code running in the JVM. (It has even fewer restrictions than the LGPL that forces derived works to allow reverse engineering)
You mean like this?
Secound: Yes, I agree. Freedom has it's definite milestones. When it comes to speach they are to promotes illegal violence or threaten to use illegal violence*. To install the repression they will need a revolution (or an election). If they run a revolution, we should fight them. If they win an election, it probably is a good idea to get out of there anyway since most people voted for the repression. Would you like to live under Hamas and the people that supported them? (to take a recent example)
Let him out, as we should not have imprisoned him for his views in the first place. If we want a free society it must include the freedom to belive and preach what he preaches. If not, our society is not free, but only "free" for those that hold the goverments opinion on one or more issue(s), in your case freedom. The same way that Shaira is "free" for those that obey Shaira anyway. If that person on the other hand are using illegal violence, promotes illegal violence or threaten to use illegal violence, he should be arrested, but even here the goverment should step carefull. (To say "One day the revolution is coming, and it is a good thing" should be OK in my opinion. To say "Let us shoot the entire parliment, the revolution has begun!" on the other hand should be illegal)
Just wondering: Do you belive that putting people in the guiliotine for belonging to the "wrong" family or having "wrong" political ideas (or beeing accused of it) is a just thing?
Well, no matter what Sun will do, we are wery close to a free software Java implementation anyway. There are free JVMs and compilers. All that is missing is the class libary, but the gerics branch of GNU Classpath are at 95.13% on JAPI tests. After all Sun did keep their word about opening Solaris and they are talking to the developers behind the free Java implementations, so I think we can trust them.