I think people should try it with homeworld. That's the only 3d interface I've used which actually works, and it works really well. If you buy the game (it's everywhere for a fiver) you can now get the source and start fiddling. A fluxbox mod that you could move around like that would be really good.
He's complaining about licenses which need complaining about. Look at any of those. There are real problems there, and someone needs to write about them. And many of the licenses have been fixed, partly in response to his articles. (the different license used for darwin, the revised bsd license).
Funny, but you're too right on most of those things. NFS is really horrible to use, just use samba, really. OOo and Gnome I'm almost convinced were done to keep the community divided, because the fact is KDE was much better and would be the best desktop anywhere if it had had the full weight of the community behind it for a few years. Java really is really evil. Keeping an entire language propriety, the audacity is staggering, and yet they've somehow managed to get away with it. Thing is they can pull the carpet at any time by stopping distributing java for non-solaris systems. Really.
Why not complain? If I buy a toaster and it doesn't have a high enough setting to do muffins, I'll ask the manufacturer about it. If they get enough letters, they'll make the change for the next version. If I want more support, I might try and start a petition or something. Why shouldn't I do the same when there's something I don't like about my software.
They're not a surprise to those who remember what you're saying. But too many people don't, and need to be reminded. I'm just emerging from the state schooling system. There is no way any kids of mine are going to school without major reform happening. (I know, typical slashdotter and all, the chance of this actually mattering is very small, but hey)
If you actually paid attention, you would know Saddam listened to the warnings. He let the weapons inspectors in. Hans Blix was there looking for the WMD the US claimed was there. Then the US told him to get out and invaded anyway.
The only difference, pretty much, is that the DSL removes the program-specific bits of the GPL, generalising "source code" and "object code" so that it makes sense for anything. I'd prefer to use it because that way I could distribute everything under DSL, rather than using one license for the program, another for the documentation, and a third for media like sounds. I can just use the GPL for everything with additional definitions so that source means my docbook files, the wav versions of sounds I distribute as oggs, etc. but that's basically what the DSL does, so it would be nicer to use the DSL and not worry about clarifying the definitions. Or I could just ignore it and say my program is GPL without mentioning the docs and media, which is what I usually do, but I feel DSL for everything would be a better way.
Because few people bother to use them properly. The Confederacy had access to ciphers (Vigere) which were practically unbreakable at the time, but they didn't use them, and so it was well worth the North having codebreakers as they got some pretty useful intel from them. Similarly, although J. Terrorist could use PGP and be safe, he could just as easily be using Vigere or something weaker, so codebreaking certainly has its place.
If you look at recent KDE apps they've really improved the context menus a lot. It does look like real thought has been going into making them contain only what's necessary, and I am finding them very useful.
Because the GPL is the only way to have true "copyleft", i.e. you can't put the code in a propriety program. Anything else really doesn't work. If you allow GPL code to be relicensed under BSD, MIT etc. then you lose the copyleft pretty quick. IIRC looking at allowing GPL code to be relicensed under other copyleft licenses was looked at but found to be a nightmare. Anyway, the original intention was that everything opensource would be GPL if you believed in copyleft, not some random copyleft license. Heck, when it was written, there were no other copyleft licenses. So the concern probably didn't arise. The GPL was originally incompatiable with everything else because there was nothing else like it.
What you judge by is whether it is a derivative work. Which is what the court says, ultimately, and I don't think there have been any test cases with plugins or even dlls. Personally I think if the plugins work with multiple apps then it's not derivative, but if the framework is quite tied to your program e.g. with firefox extensions, which couldn't really be used in any other browser without designing it like mozilla, then they are derivatives. But it's all speculation until it goes to court.
The GPL with a different name becomes GPL incompatible, which is annoying to say the least. I'd like to use the design science license - basically GPL clarified for non-programs - for everything I do, but I know I can't as that would make it GPL-incompatiable.
Who is Microsoft to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own intellectual rights? They're not prohibiting the transfer of Microsoft's rights, but the end user's.
You misunderstand. They aren't prohibiting it, they're just not licensing it. If your country's laws allow you to transfer patent rights without permission, then you can do that, but if not and the format has a valid patent on it you'll have to tell your users to get patent licenses from MS. Not wonderful, but MS isn't keen on letting their patent licenses be distributed wily-nily, and the patent stuff doesn't affect the copyright.
Or, put this way, the moment OpenOffice or StarOffice implements these schemas, Microsoft can plunder their source code, and the only way OO or Sun can fight it is to lose the compatibility that would make them competitive.
No, not true. One, it only applies to patents, not copyright. Second, notice this part: "over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas." So if OOo has a patent on a way to read or write these files, then they can't sue MS over that without giving up their compatiability. But that's all, and I can't imagine it being a problem, since if they have a patent on reading or writing this format then they won't need a license from MS for the format.
That's for the schemas though, they probably don't want hundreds of different copies of them. It's no worse than FDL, Debian won't include them but I can't see anyone else having a problem. Wtf would you want to modify the *specification* for?
Well, let's carry on taking it to absurdity. Suppose everything, not just digital stuff, were freely replicable. Food, drink, housing, anything you want, you can copy some with no effort at all. You think that in such a society, it would be wrong to do these things, you should instead buy these things from people, and starve if you can't afford to eat?
Having getting things as your incentive for doing things is a pretty poor way of living, imo. You seem to think that needing money is your only encouragement to try and make yourself a better person. I don't think forcing people to contribute to society against their will is the way to go. If people don't want to contribute but aren't consuming anything, I say let them keep going. If people are willing to contribute, they'll do so whether or not they need the money - and it's usually possible to make a greater contribution to society by doing things for charity etc. than you make by working for whoever will pay you the most. If people aren't going to contribute to society, I don't believe in forcing them to.
Define harm as loss of pleasure and then it becomes clearly utilitarian. How else would you define harm? And tell me how online "stealing" hurts anyone.
No. But having a useful invisible menu that can speed things up for power users who know how to get it is much better than none at all. Too many mac apps will, if they bother with a context menu at all, just throw the kitchen sink in there so you have to scroll right through to find what you want. A well designed context menu will have maybe five entries, few enough that you can get it into muscle memory, and they will be carefully selected to be the commands experienced users use most often. Such menus aren't exactly ubiquitous although KDE has been better and better exactly on them, but on macs I've never seen a true beauty of a context menu at all.
Another way to do it is not always a good thing if it takes up a space that can be used for something else. I like to overload everything I can with global shortcuts, if ctrl-click is context menu which is also rightclick, that's one less shortcut I can have.
And you can replace my ballmouse when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. I'd rather have a one-button ballmouse than try to use an optical mouse again.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people should try it with homeworld. That's the only 3d interface I've used which actually works, and it works really well. If you buy the game (it's everywhere for a fiver) you can now get the source and start fiddling. A fluxbox mod that you could move around like that would be really good.
He's complaining about licenses which need complaining about. Look at any of those. There are real problems there, and someone needs to write about them. And many of the licenses have been fixed, partly in response to his articles. (the different license used for darwin, the revised bsd license).
Funny, but you're too right on most of those things. NFS is really horrible to use, just use samba, really. OOo and Gnome I'm almost convinced were done to keep the community divided, because the fact is KDE was much better and would be the best desktop anywhere if it had had the full weight of the community behind it for a few years. Java really is really evil. Keeping an entire language propriety, the audacity is staggering, and yet they've somehow managed to get away with it. Thing is they can pull the carpet at any time by stopping distributing java for non-solaris systems. Really.
Why not complain? If I buy a toaster and it doesn't have a high enough setting to do muffins, I'll ask the manufacturer about it. If they get enough letters, they'll make the change for the next version. If I want more support, I might try and start a petition or something. Why shouldn't I do the same when there's something I don't like about my software.
They're not a surprise to those who remember what you're saying. But too many people don't, and need to be reminded. I'm just emerging from the state schooling system. There is no way any kids of mine are going to school without major reform happening. (I know, typical slashdotter and all, the chance of this actually mattering is very small, but hey)
If you actually paid attention, you would know Saddam listened to the warnings. He let the weapons inspectors in. Hans Blix was there looking for the WMD the US claimed was there. Then the US told him to get out and invaded anyway.
The only difference, pretty much, is that the DSL removes the program-specific bits of the GPL, generalising "source code" and "object code" so that it makes sense for anything. I'd prefer to use it because that way I could distribute everything under DSL, rather than using one license for the program, another for the documentation, and a third for media like sounds. I can just use the GPL for everything with additional definitions so that source means my docbook files, the wav versions of sounds I distribute as oggs, etc. but that's basically what the DSL does, so it would be nicer to use the DSL and not worry about clarifying the definitions. Or I could just ignore it and say my program is GPL without mentioning the docs and media, which is what I usually do, but I feel DSL for everything would be a better way.
Because few people bother to use them properly. The Confederacy had access to ciphers (Vigere) which were practically unbreakable at the time, but they didn't use them, and so it was well worth the North having codebreakers as they got some pretty useful intel from them. Similarly, although J. Terrorist could use PGP and be safe, he could just as easily be using Vigere or something weaker, so codebreaking certainly has its place.
Yes, but in that case I can't use anyone else's GPL code in my app, which I'm sure I'd want to do sooner or later.
If you look at recent KDE apps they've really improved the context menus a lot. It does look like real thought has been going into making them contain only what's necessary, and I am finding them very useful.
Because the GPL is the only way to have true "copyleft", i.e. you can't put the code in a propriety program. Anything else really doesn't work. If you allow GPL code to be relicensed under BSD, MIT etc. then you lose the copyleft pretty quick. IIRC looking at allowing GPL code to be relicensed under other copyleft licenses was looked at but found to be a nightmare. Anyway, the original intention was that everything opensource would be GPL if you believed in copyleft, not some random copyleft license. Heck, when it was written, there were no other copyleft licenses. So the concern probably didn't arise. The GPL was originally incompatiable with everything else because there was nothing else like it.
What you judge by is whether it is a derivative work. Which is what the court says, ultimately, and I don't think there have been any test cases with plugins or even dlls. Personally I think if the plugins work with multiple apps then it's not derivative, but if the framework is quite tied to your program e.g. with firefox extensions, which couldn't really be used in any other browser without designing it like mozilla, then they are derivatives. But it's all speculation until it goes to court.
The GPL with a different name becomes GPL incompatible, which is annoying to say the least. I'd like to use the design science license - basically GPL clarified for non-programs - for everything I do, but I know I can't as that would make it GPL-incompatiable.
It needs to clearly not be a derivative work. If the program only makes sense in the context of open office calling it, this is not permissible.
You misunderstand. They aren't prohibiting it, they're just not licensing it. If your country's laws allow you to transfer patent rights without permission, then you can do that, but if not and the format has a valid patent on it you'll have to tell your users to get patent licenses from MS. Not wonderful, but MS isn't keen on letting their patent licenses be distributed wily-nily, and the patent stuff doesn't affect the copyright.
No, not true. One, it only applies to patents, not copyright. Second, notice this part: "over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas." So if OOo has a patent on a way to read or write these files, then they can't sue MS over that without giving up their compatiability. But that's all, and I can't imagine it being a problem, since if they have a patent on reading or writing this format then they won't need a license from MS for the format.
That's for the schemas though, they probably don't want hundreds of different copies of them. It's no worse than FDL, Debian won't include them but I can't see anyone else having a problem. Wtf would you want to modify the *specification* for?
Have you looked at half of the things dolts try to use xml for? Paperclips are the least of it.
Having getting things as your incentive for doing things is a pretty poor way of living, imo. You seem to think that needing money is your only encouragement to try and make yourself a better person. I don't think forcing people to contribute to society against their will is the way to go. If people don't want to contribute but aren't consuming anything, I say let them keep going. If people are willing to contribute, they'll do so whether or not they need the money - and it's usually possible to make a greater contribution to society by doing things for charity etc. than you make by working for whoever will pay you the most. If people aren't going to contribute to society, I don't believe in forcing them to.
Define harm as loss of pleasure and then it becomes clearly utilitarian. How else would you define harm? And tell me how online "stealing" hurts anyone.
No. Context menus which have to be learned to use the app are bad design. Context menus that can speed up your usage if you use them are good design.
No. But having a useful invisible menu that can speed things up for power users who know how to get it is much better than none at all. Too many mac apps will, if they bother with a context menu at all, just throw the kitchen sink in there so you have to scroll right through to find what you want. A well designed context menu will have maybe five entries, few enough that you can get it into muscle memory, and they will be carefully selected to be the commands experienced users use most often. Such menus aren't exactly ubiquitous although KDE has been better and better exactly on them, but on macs I've never seen a true beauty of a context menu at all.
And you can replace my ballmouse when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. I'd rather have a one-button ballmouse than try to use an optical mouse again.
Feature. The BSD people want companies to be able to do that, otherwise they'd use GPL.
Dude, we've always been anti-sun for their obnoxious java license.