You seem to forget that hurd development would have proceeded differently if linux were not around, not to mention that if it was up to Linus alone we would still be waiting to run any processes with our newly booted machine. To me the action that speaks louder than words is the initial restrictive license of linux, not to mention the whole bitkeeper thing. Linux speaks for the practicality of the open model, he produced linux to have a working system, not to have an open system. Given that it's a startup, I don't think this is about using the way that is known to work. The companies who roll out hundreds of these after the success of the first few will be the linuses.
This is assuming you use Mz or FF for web on Windows like a sensible person.
Why on earth would you be doing that? If you just care about having a good browser, you'd be using Opera, and if you care about the whole freedom thing, you wouldn't be on Windows.
This is what gets me about people who say "well Java performs okay now, but it uses so much memory".
But python, for example, is in the situation. But, it doesn't use so much memory, because it does the right thing and wraps the system libs for such things, instead of reimplementing everything.
A typical C/C++ based app uses just as much memory, it's just shared between processes.
But processes from many languages use these same libraries.
Isn't it about time some effort was put into making Java or Mono part of the system, so it can be shared like C apps do?
It's Java/Mono that need to make such efforts - I believe Mono does so, by using thin wrappers around gtk+, libxml etc. rather than writing their own window toolkit, xml parser and so forth. The only reason Java doesn't do it is idiocy on the part of the Java people, it's not the system's fault.
Err, because it's completely different? Spam is used to refer to unsolicited bulk email. SEO is a completely different animal. Sure, it's also scumbaggery, but should we call RIAA lawsuits "spam" as well?
Or do you believe Google isn't stopping people who do inappropriate SEO techniques for drugs and porn?
Absolutely. I get far too many high results for such things when I'm not even searching for anything remotely similar. I agree BMW deserve this, but feel they were perhaps made an example of when other sites should have had a higher priority.
Surely that's just as much cheating as what BMW is doing here? And while we're at it, isn't NYT doing the same by showing google the stories you have to register for.
Then you would be right at home on a normal or non-role-playing server. The point of role-playing servers is to be able immerse yourself in a game, and real-world issues and topics just plain detract from it.
I don't think they do. You don't have to be fully immersed to enjoy it, and being able to talk about real-world stuff makes things more enjoyable.
Would you go to a traditional Shakespearean play and want to see Romeo and Juliet burst into a modern rap song in the middle of the balcony scene,
No, but for entertainment I'd go for the modernised film over a traditionalist performance of the play every time.
or have Hamlet replace his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquoy with a diatribe on the benefits of stem cell research?
Of course not, but there's no question of replacing anything here.
Call me a purist, but if you're role-playing in a fictional universe, your character should be acting and talking in a manner that is consistent with the setting.
Being too puristic sucks all the enjoyment out of it. I once played bridge with a group of people who followed strict "no talking at the card table". I stopped after a few weeks - it may have lead to a better bridge game, but it destroyed the social aspect. The game is only a means to an end.
In any case, we're again talking about the public channels. If you wanna discuss real-life issues with your friends on guild channels or private channels or over TeamSpeak, then you're entitled to do so, but for Pete's sake, don't ruin the role-playing experience for the rest of us!
The whole concept of such a channel makes no sense in the fictional universe anyway - I think you're being far too sensitive.
Without copyright laws, then only GPL and GPL-like OSI-licences would revert to a BSD-licence situation, all the proprietary, closed source software would still be closed source, binary only.
Yes, but it would still be redistributable, modifiable, and reverse-engineerable if it was worth the effort. Sure, it's a tradeoff, but I think on the whole we'd be better off.
I can guarantee that Mr. Stallman much prefers free (as in freedom) source code and copyright laws, than free (as in beer) binaries if copyright laws didn't exist. Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).
But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.
Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet
Sorry, what I mean is once the creation has happened, producing copies requires very little effort, unlike say a book which can be fully written but will still require a lot more funds (arrgh, my grammar good today) to publish.
No it is not; it is about freedom and control; freedom to have access to the source code, and controlling that that everybody have access to modifications to the source code.
It's also about the freedom to distribute your modified version or even plain copies of the original - something that copyright normally prevents. Sure, there are other aspects to it, but this is a large part of what the GPL is about.
Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too.
Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.
Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed.
I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them. Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do. I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing.
The concept of a "correct" way to do it is meaningless. Sure, it's roleplaying, but I see no problem with bringing in real-world stuff. It's something people enjoy, and I don't think it detracts from the game any - so why not?
If you're role-playing, your character shouldn't have any damn clue what programming or sports or gastronomes are, so why form a guild around it?
That would seem to be where we differ. The game's about enjoying yourself, not about representing life as accurately as possible, and people like to form guilds for people with their interests, I suppose because they feel they're more able to be friendly with such people, regardless of whether that interest maps to anything in-game.
GPL is implemented using copyright, yes, but that's irrelevant - it's a hack of the copyright system. GPL is a fight against current copyright laws, just as GPLv3 is a fight against current DRM laws.
Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about. Sure, it's problems with the specific laws rather than the whole concept - but the same is true of the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3.
TO HELL with people trying to insert sexuality (hetero, homo, or otherwise) into a situation that has no place for it. Can you give birth to little Taurens/Undeads/Orcs/Trolls/Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes/ Night Elves in WoW? No. Can you contract a sexually transmitted disease in WoW? No. Can you form any kind of meaningful, lasting bond with anyone that exists entirely within the game and doesn't require actual real-life interaction in order to keep it from getting stale because of limitations of software and hardware? No. It's a game and it's a computer - a data stream can't cuddle next to you in bed, a purely online buddy can't massage your shoulders, and an avatar can't make you breakfast the next morning. Get over it and keep what you do in the bedroom IN THE BEDROOM.
Are you similarly opposed to a guild of, say, extreme sports enthusiasts, or gastronomes, or programmers? Sure it's just a game, but people like to form groups with those with similar interests.
Version 2 of the GPL only forces people to not abuse your kindness.
V3 does exactly the same thing. It's just applying it to people who put your code in their hardware as well as people who put your code in their software.
They always have the choice of not using our code. If Torvalds feels it is unfair to force hardware manufacturers to open up, isn't it equally unfair to force people writing derivatives of Linux to open up, and it should be placed in the public domain?
If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?
Once you've sold someone the copy, it's on the whole none of your business what they do with it - it's theirs to do with as they like. Your rights under copyright are special exceptions, not the norm.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to forget that hurd development would have proceeded differently if linux were not around, not to mention that if it was up to Linus alone we would still be waiting to run any processes with our newly booted machine. To me the action that speaks louder than words is the initial restrictive license of linux, not to mention the whole bitkeeper thing. Linux speaks for the practicality of the open model, he produced linux to have a working system, not to have an open system. Given that it's a startup, I don't think this is about using the way that is known to work. The companies who roll out hundreds of these after the success of the first few will be the linuses.
Why on earth would you be doing that? If you just care about having a good browser, you'd be using Opera, and if you care about the whole freedom thing, you wouldn't be on Windows.
But python, for example, is in the situation. But, it doesn't use so much memory, because it does the right thing and wraps the system libs for such things, instead of reimplementing everything.
A typical C/C++ based app uses just as much memory, it's just shared between processes.
But processes from many languages use these same libraries.
Isn't it about time some effort was put into making Java or Mono part of the system, so it can be shared like C apps do?
It's Java/Mono that need to make such efforts - I believe Mono does so, by using thin wrappers around gtk+, libxml etc. rather than writing their own window toolkit, xml parser and so forth. The only reason Java doesn't do it is idiocy on the part of the Java people, it's not the system's fault.
Err, because it's completely different? Spam is used to refer to unsolicited bulk email. SEO is a completely different animal. Sure, it's also scumbaggery, but should we call RIAA lawsuits "spam" as well?
Absolutely. I get far too many high results for such things when I'm not even searching for anything remotely similar. I agree BMW deserve this, but feel they were perhaps made an example of when other sites should have had a higher priority.
Surely that's just as much cheating as what BMW is doing here? And while we're at it, isn't NYT doing the same by showing google the stories you have to register for.
You'd need to fill it less than half and keep the bottle on its side. But I feel it could work.
I don't think they do. You don't have to be fully immersed to enjoy it, and being able to talk about real-world stuff makes things more enjoyable.
Would you go to a traditional Shakespearean play and want to see Romeo and Juliet burst into a modern rap song in the middle of the balcony scene,
No, but for entertainment I'd go for the modernised film over a traditionalist performance of the play every time.
or have Hamlet replace his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquoy with a diatribe on the benefits of stem cell research?
Of course not, but there's no question of replacing anything here.
Call me a purist, but if you're role-playing in a fictional universe, your character should be acting and talking in a manner that is consistent with the setting.
Being too puristic sucks all the enjoyment out of it. I once played bridge with a group of people who followed strict "no talking at the card table". I stopped after a few weeks - it may have lead to a better bridge game, but it destroyed the social aspect. The game is only a means to an end.
In any case, we're again talking about the public channels. If you wanna discuss real-life issues with your friends on guild channels or private channels or over TeamSpeak, then you're entitled to do so, but for Pete's sake, don't ruin the role-playing experience for the rest of us!
The whole concept of such a channel makes no sense in the fictional universe anyway - I think you're being far too sensitive.
Yes, but it would still be redistributable, modifiable, and reverse-engineerable if it was worth the effort. Sure, it's a tradeoff, but I think on the whole we'd be better off.
Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).
But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.
Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet
Sorry, what I mean is once the creation has happened, producing copies requires very little effort, unlike say a book which can be fully written but will still require a lot more funds (arrgh, my grammar good today) to publish.
It's also about the freedom to distribute your modified version or even plain copies of the original - something that copyright normally prevents. Sure, there are other aspects to it, but this is a large part of what the GPL is about.
Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too.
Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.
Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed.
I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them. Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do. I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing.
The concept of a "correct" way to do it is meaningless. Sure, it's roleplaying, but I see no problem with bringing in real-world stuff. It's something people enjoy, and I don't think it detracts from the game any - so why not?
That would seem to be where we differ. The game's about enjoying yourself, not about representing life as accurately as possible, and people like to form guilds for people with their interests, I suppose because they feel they're more able to be friendly with such people, regardless of whether that interest maps to anything in-game.
The original can be retrieved relatively easy from said modified version, and then distributed freely.
Yes, for effective DRM you need an unencrypted original and then you generate keys tied to specific hardware whenever you sell copies.
GPL is implemented using copyright, yes, but that's irrelevant - it's a hack of the copyright system. GPL is a fight against current copyright laws, just as GPLv3 is a fight against current DRM laws.
Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about. Sure, it's problems with the specific laws rather than the whole concept - but the same is true of the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3.
Are you similarly opposed to a guild of, say, extreme sports enthusiasts, or gastronomes, or programmers? Sure it's just a game, but people like to form groups with those with similar interests.
Because building a machine that runs a program is creating something, but writing a GUI for the program isn't?
You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.
The same applies to the GPLv2. Commercial vendors will use it because they have to, because the code they want to use is under it.
V3 does exactly the same thing. It's just applying it to people who put your code in their hardware as well as people who put your code in their software.
My point is you can't claim to have lost said key if you're selling copies.
They always have the choice of not using our code. If Torvalds feels it is unfair to force hardware manufacturers to open up, isn't it equally unfair to force people writing derivatives of Linux to open up, and it should be placed in the public domain?
Once you've sold someone the copy, it's on the whole none of your business what they do with it - it's theirs to do with as they like. Your rights under copyright are special exceptions, not the norm.