Whereas you seem to get off on belittling other people for daring to make a joke. Get over it, troll.
A joke? Seriously? If one can not fight back after an attempt was made to insult, then insults should be stopped. And you have the nerve to call me a troll.
True, I'm just speculating, but it's a lot better reasoned than what the other poster came up with. Since the problem doesn't occur when an AV isn't present, it likely isn't a "multi-threaded" issue. If that were the case it would appear with or without the AV.
I have not seen that it documented that does not happen without AV
And my "attack" is based solely on experience. There are far more coders out in the wild than developers. If you can't tell me the difference between testing and verification, you're not a developer.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. We have neither code nor internal documentation, without in-depth analysis of the problem with a good debugger and tracing the execution, everything else is speculation.
I have no issue with your description of "coder" vs "developer" per se' but I think you miss something bigger. "Coders" and "developers" are a method of pushing computer science into the realm of blue collar work. Perhaps in this day with most of the important work behind us, at least is seems that way, programming is nothing more than a trade, certainly the current state of the industry shows that, but there was a time when "programmers" understood things like hash tables, trees, recursion, clock cycles, CPU caching, instruction execution time, I/O, etc.
Now, guys with a couple years working in the field with almost no education (not necessarily school mind you, but education such as books and basic curiosity and research), feel completely comfortable impugning people in place of proper argument.
In my book, if you have to insult, then you've already lost the argument, you just want smear the person who beat you. Smarter people see through this tactic, stupid people buy into it.
You're conjecture, while interesting doesn't really work on systems with file system caching that can do "scatter gather" at the file system and kernel level. The optimization happens behind the scenes.
At least for the last couple decades, the disk will ALWAYS be slower than the CPU and RAM, so no matter what you do, it will spend time waiting, and it doesn't make sense to introduce more context switches for the multiple threads coping to the same I/O bottleneck.
As for seek times on hard disks, that is so unpredictable. Modern hard disks only present cylinders and heads to the controller, most of the time there is bad sector remapping, internal sector redundancy like RAID, and other things that make modern disks "storage subsystems" almost completely divorced from the physical characteristics of a hard disk.
Bingo. This is what separates the "coders" from the "developers." And for the record I've only been professionally writing software for about 6 years now. Though I started "coding" when I was a kid [e.g. 20 years prior].
The Ad hominem level here is ridiculous. I'm sure glad you feel comfortable impugning someone of whom you have no knowledge.
I like this the best:
Very likely it's just some extra data allocated per file when there is a hook [like AV] involved that isn't getting freed. As others pointed out copying files sans-antivirus seems to work just fine.
A guess about what it might be, then:
This is what debugging skills are about. Diagnose, differentiate, and reason. Don't just guess and then post flamebait on/. hehehe.
So you're saying you are too god damn stupid to consider multi-threading file copies? You may have been coding for 25 years but that doesn't imply that you are any good at it.
Let me think, ummm, the RAM and CPU are much faster than the disk. No matter what you do, the disk will be the bottleneck. So, Do I create threads and more OS context switches for something that isn't going to be any faster, and may, in fact, be slower and cause other programs to be slower? I don't think so.
That explanation is even less reasonable, if only because it should no more run out of memory reporting on your activities than performing the file copy itself.
So you would reuse a buffer for copy files, but not for phoning home, yet claim 25 years as a programmer?
There are plenty of reasons why you would use a single buffer for the copy, but a small buffer for each file. Once scenario could be that since a copy is going to be faster than internet, you would queue up file information packets structures to be sent out, the programmer probably just forgot to delete structs. If you wanted stealth, you would do this slowly or when the computer is not being used.
We know as a fact that (1) Windows machines phone home periodically. (2) That Vista performs "rights management" on files copied to and from the hard disk(s). Is my assertion so far off base?
They could just be retarded, did you think of that possibility? Occam's razor and all... They're not Evil. They're just incompetent.
I'm not ruling out the possibility that they might be Evil, mind you. There's ample evidence for that as well. It's just that I've seen their API designs and the product of their OS design and I'd have trouble believing that they could be checking what you're doing on your computer without being caught at it. Hell I'd have trouble believing they're capable of consistently putting their underwear on UNDER their pants! (Oh, I'm SO not going to get a job offer there NOW!)
I don't think it is a case of "either" "or," but is in fact both. Not only are they evil, they are also incompetent. We know that Vista does in fact do "rights management" during copies to and from hard disks. This is a fact that has been published and I consider that evil. They are also incompetent because they can't even do that right.
Likely, they're allocating memory to store file attributes or some such that are not being free'd when done with. Hence running out of memory. If you had coded a day in your life you'd see that.
I have *been* coding for well over 25 years and you don't allocate memory for each file in a copy process, you allocate a buffer ONCE and use it for each file. Then you make sure it is freed.
If you like calling people stupid, or criticizing people of whom you have no knowledge, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.
This sort of thing is insane. Why would you run out of memory copying files? Think about that for a minute. There is no reasonable explanation for it except that THEY are checking what YOU are doing with YOUR computer.
Just put the think in the box and return it to the store. EVERYONE. Don't patch, don't fix, nothing. The OEMs an Microsoft claim that Windows is a part of the computer, so be it. Everyone not happy with Vista, just return the computer and get your money back. We have consumer protection laws for this kind of crap.
A mass return of defective computers will signal a change in the way the OEMs and retail stores view Microsoft.
Windows update breaking healthy system? Virtually never, Linux on the other hand...
Oh no! Microsoft was impugned with no mention of Linux, so Microsoft has to have a shill to FUD linux anyway.
In case you haven't noticed this whole thing ISN'T ABOUT LINUX, so don't try to make it about Linux.
A clear and informational debate about Linux vs Windows is a valid topic, but not in the context of Microsoft sucking for and because of its own doing.
This is a problem that the western world has. I'm 45 these days and I believe society is changing, while I can't be 100% sure, as I am getting older and changing as well, but apathy and disregard for our rights and freedom is growing at such an alarming rate.
We have rights, we do, but we need to fight for them or people, politicians, and corporations will simply assume we will be lazy fucks and taunt "nah nah nah nah nah" and take them away.
We have the right to own our machine. We have the right to tell companies "I won't open a word document, send it to me in ISO ODF or PDF or text." We have the right to remove Windows from our system. We have the right to sell our OEM Windows licenses.
Without even getting into politics or the growing U.S. police state, corporate america needs a dope slap. We, ALL OF US! have to stand up to corporate shit. We do not stand against it in great numbers, then nothing will ever get done.
Call tech support when shit happens, keep them on the phone for a long time, it costs them money. Send products back, it costs them money. Tell people to avoid products that suck, it costs them money. When the shit that comes from China has lead in it, sue them, it costs them money. The government isn't going to do anything for you, the politicians represent the corporations. It is only when bad corporate policy costs them money, will they change and not one minute sooner.
Start RETURNING computers, WHOLE COMPUTERS, because vista sucks. If Windows is part (as OEM's claim) of the computer, the the WHOLE COMPUTER is defective. That will make the Dells and HPs start to offer new options. Seriously, if 10% of the slash dot readers went out and bought new computers at the big retails stores tomorrow and returned them the next day siting that Vista does not work and is not reliable. It would make a HUGE impact on the industry. No one could ignore it.
But, no, no one will do that because they ARE to fucking lazy.
So if I used a purchaded copy of Linspire and somehow used it to say reduce poverity then I am still being a bad guy because I don't care about Priority Formats vs Open Formats.
I doubt you can really reduce poverty with proprietary formats. Or there is also the bait and switch option... Have Linux distros that run Closed Formats. Linux Becaomes popular, knowing that enough people are using Linux they will switch to using the Open Formats Linux has available as well.
No logical connection between hypothesis and conclusion.
It is about chooseing the right fight at the right time. But what is happening is we are trying to cure all Ills at the same time. Work on getting Linux as well used Desktop system first then we can worry about switching content developers to Open Formats. Worry about getting good complience with the GPL 2 then work on GPL 3.
Conceptually correct but does not apply to this particular discussion.
Trying to get to Utopia in one step is impossible.
Impossible in general.
It will take decades perhaps generations for Linux and Open Source to have a solid foothold like Microsoft did.
Because people are apathetic.
Microsoft was able to get where they were because they didn't have to fight with Microsoft to get there.
Many of old timers remember that we PUSHED for Microsoft because we thought it was "freer" than the IT ministries of old. We dropped the ball, now we have to fight Microsoft. This time, we need to be more careful, and apathy is to way to maintain success.
Sadly for today's society this seems to be a majority opinion. Who cares what's best for people, industry, and the world? All *I* want is blah blah blah.
And that, my friends is how freedom, democracy, and societies die. Apathy is exactly what allows the corruption of government, industry, freedoms, and society.
WAKE UP, YOU HAVE A CHOICE AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT. IT IS IMPORTANT. YOU HAVE POWER...USE IT.
It may seem to be just software in this discussion, but it far more reaching. Software patents are bad. Free, as in freedom, software is the democratization of information and the conveyance of knowledge. Let people control it, and they control YOU.
There is no creative work involved in creating a compiled program from the source code, therefore it's not a separate work. Hell, even if there was, it would still be a derived work, like a cover of a song. You would have to throw out too much existing law and reverse too many precedents, as well as find a judge who is unaware of the effect that such a decision would make on the software industry, that such an argument can not possibly be carried through in anything like the current legal environment.
I beg to differ, there is some creative work involved when compiling, but I'll skip the details about that. Let address what a derived work is. You mention a "cover" of a song, well that clearly is infringing as the lyrics remain intact.
In software compilation almost none of the original work remains in the compiled code with the exception of program strings. Is it much different than google parsing documents to words for indexing? If I read a book on algorithms, and I implement an algorithm from the book, I am not infringing on copyright. If the algorithm is patented, I may be infringing on the patent. If the compilation process is seen as removing the idea from the expression, it may reasonably be "fair use" of the published work.
One should never start a discussion assuming someone is confused. While IANAL, I have taken a number of courses on law and have had my share of corporate intellectual property work over the years. I am not confused what so ever.
The "fair use" doctrine is not very well defined it is constantly being reevaluated by judges. My point was that as to what it "allows," no one can know on a very broad basis without a judicial decision or precedent.
As for derivative works, that is something interesting as well. Copyright only protects an expression of an idea, not the idea itself, that's why it is different from a patent. It can be argued that source code is the "expression" of the idea, and a compiled program is merely a synopsis or crux of the idea, a separate work.
The GPL may not be able to exceed the rights granted under copyright law.
It is clear that copyright is being misused. Too many people think that copyright law allows them to dictate every aspect of how a work can be used. This is a serious problem, unfortunately copyright law is sufficiently vague with regard to clear rights of both users and creators alike, causing most any serious dispute to be brought to a jury. (short of settlement, of course)
I have been starting to think of the various free software licenses and application to copyright law. The concepts around "fair use" is interesting. Copyright tries to define the rights of society in balance with the owner of the works. There is an "inherent" right to use a published work simply because it was published and it is acquired legally.
We can all agree, there are currently and should always be some limits to what, exactly, the control over published works a creator actually has in balance to society. Right? that's what "fair use" is all about. However: Think about a binary program, it is arguable that producing a binary program from a legally obtained copyrighted material does not violate copyright law regardless of the GPL because the copyrighted "expression" is never republished. Copyright only covers a particular expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Further more, modifying a source file, never publishing it, and *only* producing binary files with it may also fall under fair use.
If this is the case, portions of the GPL may be unenforceable. The provisions that changes *MUST* be republished relies on copyright law, but the portions about how you choose to use it may be moot because you can refuse to accept the GPL and rely merely on the fair use statute of copyright.
I don't like this notion at all, but it may be an arguable position that rips the teeth out of the GPL.
The fundamental question: Does program compilation produce a derivative work or does it produce an original work? None of the original expression like comments, variable names, and readability are compiled into the binary. If it can be argued successfully that a program binary is not a derivative work based on copyright law (NOT the GPL's definition), then GPL has no teeth.
(And no, I am not a Microsoft shill, I am a free software writer myself and I use the GPL when I publish free works.)
Hey, I'm all for capitalism and all, but the music "industry" must die as it isn't about music. If you are a musician you know that radio play is tightly controlled by the big corporations. You ain't getting radio play if you ain't dealing with the big corporations.
So, the HUGE majority of musicians and bands never get on the air, never get any play, and never will and are far better than what you hear on the radio.
The internet removed the industry from the mix, you can make money without them. This should make them afraid, and this should make you happy because you'll hear voices that aren't from pretty boys/girls who pose for teen beat.
If they really want to sell it....
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
They have to lower the price to 1/2 of the cost of an equivalent ipod. (Implicit Pile Of Dung)
I have written code for PHP, and they require it be owned by the PHP group for inclusion. This is no different. nt part of There are some facts, Sun is a business and as such they have to make sure their business is viable. The solver is an important part, and since sun does use OpenOffice.org as the basis of StarOffice, they will want to make sure they are in proper legal standing to do so. If they make mods to the module, then all their mods must be published and there may be instances where this is not something they may legally be able to do.
I'm a free software developer who uses my code base for private consulting purposes, when people contribute patches, I require the copyright be assigned to me because I can't jeopardize my ability to use the code for a private contract. I fully understand Sun's position.
I think the solution is to pay a one time fee to the author(s) for a license fork with a guarantee that the code will remain "open." That will save Sun the trouble of re-doing the work. That will save face with the community i.e. all your work really does have value.
When an old scientist says something is possible, he is probably right. When an old scientist says something is impossible he is probably wrong. (I'll let you ponder the seeming paradox, but you'd have to know some old scientists to really get it.)
We already have "dirty" nuclear materials in the hands of consumers: some types of smoke detectors, lead paint detectors, x-ray machines, and some other things.
If someone wanted to make a dirty bomb, a few thousand dollars worth of the right smoke detectors would do perfectly.
It's all very well being self righteous "Self Richeous" is merely a label people use to brand people who refuse to accept crap to which they acquiesced without a fight.
but it isn't practical for the vast majority of people.
Who ever said change is "practical" or even easy. Change is hard.
People are selfish and have their own agendas, and my buying or not buying Vista will not affect the world at large
I am reminded of a funny quote, "No snow flake takes responsibility for the avalanche." If you are not part of the solution you *ARE* part of the problem.
Open standards and getting rid of standard OEM installation are what will destroy the MS monopoly, not individuals who know about their choices choosing.
And those "standards" will never get used as long as people keep using Microsoft products.
Be a zealot all you like. Spend time telling people how stupid they are for using what they're used to. No skin off my nose, because I don't have an irrational emotional stake in using any software.
Maybe I'm a zealot, its hard to tell because everyone is crazy these days, but I remember a time when people boycotted products from manufacturers with which they had a problem. I remember a time when people got OUTRAGED when treated badly. We impeached presidents for spying. We broke up monopolies when they were abusive. I remember when the U.S.A. had citizens not mere consumers.
So, sure, call be a zealot, but to you I say you are perfect example of what is wrong with this country, an apathy and a complete refusal stand up for fucking anything. There are issues here, perhaps not right now, this minute, but in the future and a context far beyond your selfish bubble.
If you don't see the danger, you are not paying attention. A computer is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things more important than relaxing and playing video games that give EVEN MORE money to an organization that corrupts governments and standards bodies.
Being a zealot is a matter of perspective, to someone who stands for nothing, anyone who stands for anything is a zealot.
It's not about right and wrong, or good and evil. It's about tools, and giving people what they need to do their jobs. Don't cripple yourself by deciding that you're only going to deal with the tools you like.
As long as you continue to purchase and/or use Microsoft product, you are responsible for the Microsoft monopoly. If playing games is more important, then that's your choice.
"If more people wanted peace as much as a television, we'd have peace" John Lennon.
If all the people who complain about Microsoft stopped actually using Microsoft product, we wouldn't have the problem.
The 20 and 30 somethings know NOTHING about giving something up to get something better.
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas you seem to get off on belittling other people for daring to make a joke. Get over it, troll.
A joke? Seriously? If one can not fight back after an attempt was made to insult, then insults should be stopped. And you have the nerve to call me a troll.
Just put the think in the box and return it to the store.
I think you need to get your "think" back from the store and unpack it again.
Oh look! someone who thinks it is witty to pun a typo!! I bet you'll commemorate this day in finger paint.
Get a life.
True, I'm just speculating, but it's a lot better reasoned than what the other poster came up with. Since the problem doesn't occur when an AV isn't present, it likely isn't a "multi-threaded" issue. If that were the case it would appear with or without the AV.
I have not seen that it documented that does not happen without AV
And my "attack" is based solely on experience. There are far more coders out in the wild than developers. If you can't tell me the difference between testing and verification, you're not a developer.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. We have neither code nor internal documentation, without in-depth analysis of the problem with a good debugger and tracing the execution, everything else is speculation.
I have no issue with your description of "coder" vs "developer" per se' but I think you miss something bigger. "Coders" and "developers" are a method of pushing computer science into the realm of blue collar work. Perhaps in this day with most of the important work behind us, at least is seems that way, programming is nothing more than a trade, certainly the current state of the industry shows that, but there was a time when "programmers" understood things like hash tables, trees, recursion, clock cycles, CPU caching, instruction execution time, I/O, etc.
Now, guys with a couple years working in the field with almost no education (not necessarily school mind you, but education such as books and basic curiosity and research), feel completely comfortable impugning people in place of proper argument.
In my book, if you have to insult, then you've already lost the argument, you just want smear the person who beat you. Smarter people see through this tactic, stupid people buy into it.
You're conjecture, while interesting doesn't really work on systems with file system caching that can do "scatter gather" at the file system and kernel level. The optimization happens behind the scenes.
At least for the last couple decades, the disk will ALWAYS be slower than the CPU and RAM, so no matter what you do, it will spend time waiting, and it doesn't make sense to introduce more context switches for the multiple threads coping to the same I/O bottleneck.
As for seek times on hard disks, that is so unpredictable. Modern hard disks only present cylinders and heads to the controller, most of the time there is bad sector remapping, internal sector redundancy like RAID, and other things that make modern disks "storage subsystems" almost completely divorced from the physical characteristics of a hard disk.
Bingo. This is what separates the "coders" from the "developers." And for the record I've only been professionally writing software for about 6 years now. Though I started "coding" when I was a kid [e.g. 20 years prior].
/. hehehe.
The Ad hominem level here is ridiculous. I'm sure glad you feel comfortable impugning someone of whom you have no knowledge.
I like this the best:
Very likely it's just some extra data allocated per file when there is a hook [like AV] involved that isn't getting freed. As others pointed out copying files sans-antivirus seems to work just fine.
A guess about what it might be, then:
This is what debugging skills are about. Diagnose, differentiate, and reason. Don't just guess and then post flamebait on
And you see no irony?
So you're saying you are too god damn stupid to consider multi-threading file copies?
You may have been coding for 25 years but that doesn't imply that you are any good at it.
Let me think, ummm, the RAM and CPU are much faster than the disk. No matter what you do, the disk will be the bottleneck. So, Do I create threads and more OS context switches for something that isn't going to be any faster, and may, in fact, be slower and cause other programs to be slower? I don't think so.
That explanation is even less reasonable, if only because it should no more run out of memory reporting on your activities than performing the file copy itself.
So you would reuse a buffer for copy files, but not for phoning home, yet claim 25 years as a programmer?
There are plenty of reasons why you would use a single buffer for the copy, but a small buffer for each file. Once scenario could be that since a copy is going to be faster than internet, you would queue up file information packets structures to be sent out, the programmer probably just forgot to delete structs. If you wanted stealth, you would do this slowly or when the computer is not being used.
We know as a fact that (1) Windows machines phone home periodically. (2) That Vista performs "rights management" on files copied to and from the hard disk(s). Is my assertion so far off base?
They could just be retarded, did you think of that possibility? Occam's razor and all... They're not Evil. They're just incompetent.
I'm not ruling out the possibility that they might be Evil, mind you. There's ample evidence for that as well. It's just that I've seen their API designs and the product of their OS design and I'd have trouble believing that they could be checking what you're doing on your computer without being caught at it. Hell I'd have trouble believing they're capable of consistently putting their underwear on UNDER their pants! (Oh, I'm SO not going to get a job offer there NOW!)
I don't think it is a case of "either" "or," but is in fact both. Not only are they evil, they are also incompetent. We know that Vista does in fact do "rights management" during copies to and from hard disks. This is a fact that has been published and I consider that evil. They are also incompetent because they can't even do that right.
Likely, they're allocating memory to store file attributes or some such that are not being free'd when done with. Hence running out of memory. If you had coded a day in your life you'd see that.
I have *been* coding for well over 25 years and you don't allocate memory for each file in a copy process, you allocate a buffer ONCE and use it for each file. Then you make sure it is freed.
If you like calling people stupid, or criticizing people of whom you have no knowledge, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.
This sort of thing is insane. Why would you run out of memory copying files? Think about that for a minute. There is no reasonable explanation for it except that THEY are checking what YOU are doing with YOUR computer.
Just put the think in the box and return it to the store. EVERYONE. Don't patch, don't fix, nothing. The OEMs an Microsoft claim that Windows is a part of the computer, so be it. Everyone not happy with Vista, just return the computer and get your money back. We have consumer protection laws for this kind of crap.
A mass return of defective computers will signal a change in the way the OEMs and retail stores view Microsoft.
Windows update breaking healthy system? Virtually never, Linux on the other hand...
Oh no! Microsoft was impugned with no mention of Linux, so Microsoft has to have a shill to FUD linux anyway.
In case you haven't noticed this whole thing ISN'T ABOUT LINUX, so don't try to make it about Linux.
A clear and informational debate about Linux vs Windows is a valid topic, but not in the context of Microsoft sucking for and because of its own doing.
This is a problem that the western world has. I'm 45 these days and I believe society is changing, while I can't be 100% sure, as I am getting older and changing as well, but apathy and disregard for our rights and freedom is growing at such an alarming rate.
We have rights, we do, but we need to fight for them or people, politicians, and corporations will simply assume we will be lazy fucks and taunt "nah nah nah nah nah" and take them away.
We have the right to own our machine. We have the right to tell companies "I won't open a word document, send it to me in ISO ODF or PDF or text." We have the right to remove Windows from our system. We have the right to sell our OEM Windows licenses.
Without even getting into politics or the growing U.S. police state, corporate america needs a dope slap. We, ALL OF US! have to stand up to corporate shit. We do not stand against it in great numbers, then nothing will ever get done.
Call tech support when shit happens, keep them on the phone for a long time, it costs them money. Send products back, it costs them money. Tell people to avoid products that suck, it costs them money. When the shit that comes from China has lead in it, sue them, it costs them money. The government isn't going to do anything for you, the politicians represent the corporations. It is only when bad corporate policy costs them money, will they change and not one minute sooner.
Start RETURNING computers, WHOLE COMPUTERS, because vista sucks. If Windows is part (as OEM's claim) of the computer, the the WHOLE COMPUTER is defective. That will make the Dells and HPs start to offer new options. Seriously, if 10% of the slash dot readers went out and bought new computers at the big retails stores tomorrow and returned them the next day siting that Vista does not work and is not reliable. It would make a HUGE impact on the industry. No one could ignore it.
But, no, no one will do that because they ARE to fucking lazy.
So if I used a purchaded copy of Linspire and somehow used it to say reduce poverity then I am still being a bad guy because I don't care about Priority Formats vs Open Formats.
I doubt you can really reduce poverty with proprietary formats.
Or there is also the bait and switch option... Have Linux distros that run Closed Formats. Linux Becaomes popular, knowing that enough people are using Linux they will switch to using the Open Formats Linux has available as well.
No logical connection between hypothesis and conclusion.
It is about chooseing the right fight at the right time. But what is happening is we are trying to cure all Ills at the same time. Work on getting Linux as well used Desktop system first then we can worry about switching content developers to Open Formats. Worry about getting good complience with the GPL 2 then work on GPL 3.
Conceptually correct but does not apply to this particular discussion.
Trying to get to Utopia in one step is impossible.
Impossible in general.
It will take decades perhaps generations for Linux and Open Source to have a solid foothold like Microsoft did.
Because people are apathetic.
Microsoft was able to get where they were because they didn't have to fight with Microsoft to get there.
Many of old timers remember that we PUSHED for Microsoft because we thought it was "freer" than the IT ministries of old. We dropped the ball, now we have to fight Microsoft. This time, we need to be more careful, and apathy is to way to maintain success.
Sadly for today's society this seems to be a majority opinion. Who cares what's best for people, industry, and the world? All *I* want is blah blah blah.
And that, my friends is how freedom, democracy, and societies die. Apathy is exactly what allows the corruption of government, industry, freedoms, and society.
WAKE UP, YOU HAVE A CHOICE AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT. IT IS IMPORTANT. YOU HAVE POWER...USE IT.
It may seem to be just software in this discussion, but it far more reaching. Software patents are bad. Free, as in freedom, software is the democratization of information and the conveyance of knowledge. Let people control it, and they control YOU.
This is what standards are all about, [N] groups using 1 standard makes for *competition* may the best ideas win!!
There is no creative work involved in creating a compiled program from the source code, therefore it's not a separate work. Hell, even if there was, it would still be a derived work, like a cover of a song. You would have to throw out too much existing law and reverse too many precedents, as well as find a judge who is unaware of the effect that such a decision would make on the software industry, that such an argument can not possibly be carried through in anything like the current legal environment.
I beg to differ, there is some creative work involved when compiling, but I'll skip the details about that. Let address what a derived work is. You mention a "cover" of a song, well that clearly is infringing as the lyrics remain intact.
In software compilation almost none of the original work remains in the compiled code with the exception of program strings. Is it much different than google parsing documents to words for indexing? If I read a book on algorithms, and I implement an algorithm from the book, I am not infringing on copyright. If the algorithm is patented, I may be infringing on the patent. If the compilation process is seen as removing the idea from the expression, it may reasonably be "fair use" of the published work.
One should never start a discussion assuming someone is confused. While IANAL, I have taken a number of courses on law and have had my share of corporate intellectual property work over the years. I am not confused what so ever.
The "fair use" doctrine is not very well defined it is constantly being reevaluated by judges. My point was that as to what it "allows," no one can know on a very broad basis without a judicial decision or precedent.
As for derivative works, that is something interesting as well. Copyright only protects an expression of an idea, not the idea itself, that's why it is different from a patent. It can be argued that source code is the "expression" of the idea, and a compiled program is merely a synopsis or crux of the idea, a separate work.
The GPL may not be able to exceed the rights granted under copyright law.
It is clear that copyright is being misused. Too many people think that copyright law allows them to dictate every aspect of how a work can be used. This is a serious problem, unfortunately copyright law is sufficiently vague with regard to clear rights of both users and creators alike, causing most any serious dispute to be brought to a jury. (short of settlement, of course)
I have been starting to think of the various free software licenses and application to copyright law. The concepts around "fair use" is interesting. Copyright tries to define the rights of society in balance with the owner of the works. There is an "inherent" right to use a published work simply because it was published and it is acquired legally.
We can all agree, there are currently and should always be some limits to what, exactly, the control over published works a creator actually has in balance to society. Right? that's what "fair use" is all about. However: Think about a binary program, it is arguable that producing a binary program from a legally obtained copyrighted material does not violate copyright law regardless of the GPL because the copyrighted "expression" is never republished. Copyright only covers a particular expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Further more, modifying a source file, never publishing it, and *only* producing binary files with it may also fall under fair use.
If this is the case, portions of the GPL may be unenforceable. The provisions that changes *MUST* be republished relies on copyright law, but the portions about how you choose to use it may be moot because you can refuse to accept the GPL and rely merely on the fair use statute of copyright.
I don't like this notion at all, but it may be an arguable position that rips the teeth out of the GPL.
The fundamental question: Does program compilation produce a derivative work or does it produce an original work? None of the original expression like comments, variable names, and readability are compiled into the binary. If it can be argued successfully that a program binary is not a derivative work based on copyright law (NOT the GPL's definition), then GPL has no teeth.
(And no, I am not a Microsoft shill, I am a free software writer myself and I use the GPL when I publish free works.)
Hey, I'm all for capitalism and all, but the music "industry" must die as it isn't about music. If you are a musician you know that radio play is tightly controlled by the big corporations. You ain't getting radio play if you ain't dealing with the big corporations.
So, the HUGE majority of musicians and bands never get on the air, never get any play, and never will and are far better than what you hear on the radio.
The internet removed the industry from the mix, you can make money without them. This should make them afraid, and this should make you happy because you'll hear voices that aren't from pretty boys/girls who pose for teen beat.
They have to lower the price to 1/2 of the cost of an equivalent ipod. (Implicit Pile Of Dung)
I have written code for PHP, and they require it be owned by the PHP group for inclusion. This is no different.
nt part of
There are some facts, Sun is a business and as such they have to make sure their business is viable. The solver is an important part, and since sun does use OpenOffice.org as the basis of StarOffice, they will want to make sure they are in proper legal standing to do so. If they make mods to the module, then all their mods must be published and there may be instances where this is not something they may legally be able to do.
I'm a free software developer who uses my code base for private consulting purposes, when people contribute patches, I require the copyright be assigned to me because I can't jeopardize my ability to use the code for a private contract. I fully understand Sun's position.
I think the solution is to pay a one time fee to the author(s) for a license fork with a guarantee that the code will remain "open." That will save Sun the trouble of re-doing the work. That will save face with the community i.e. all your work really does have value.
When an old scientist says something is possible, he is probably right. When an old scientist says something is impossible he is probably wrong. (I'll let you ponder the seeming paradox, but you'd have to know some old scientists to really get it.)
We already have "dirty" nuclear materials in the hands of consumers: some types of smoke detectors, lead paint detectors, x-ray machines, and some other things.
If someone wanted to make a dirty bomb, a few thousand dollars worth of the right smoke detectors would do perfectly.
It's all very well being self righteous
"Self Richeous" is merely a label people use to brand people who refuse to accept crap to which they acquiesced without a fight.
but it isn't practical for the vast majority of people.
Who ever said change is "practical" or even easy. Change is hard.
People are selfish and have their own agendas, and my buying or not buying Vista will not affect the world at large
I am reminded of a funny quote, "No snow flake takes responsibility for the avalanche." If you are not part of the solution you *ARE* part of the problem.
Open standards and getting rid of standard OEM installation are what will destroy the MS monopoly, not individuals who know about their choices choosing.
And those "standards" will never get used as long as people keep using Microsoft products.
Be a zealot all you like. Spend time telling people how stupid they are for using what they're used to. No skin off my nose, because I don't have an irrational emotional stake in using any software.
Maybe I'm a zealot, its hard to tell because everyone is crazy these days, but I remember a time when people boycotted products from manufacturers with which they had a problem. I remember a time when people got OUTRAGED when treated badly. We impeached presidents for spying. We broke up monopolies when they were abusive. I remember when the U.S.A. had citizens not mere consumers.
So, sure, call be a zealot, but to you I say you are perfect example of what is wrong with this country, an apathy and a complete refusal stand up for fucking anything. There are issues here, perhaps not right now, this minute, but in the future and a context far beyond your selfish bubble.
If you don't see the danger, you are not paying attention. A computer is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things more important than relaxing and playing video games that give EVEN MORE money to an organization that corrupts governments and standards bodies.
Being a zealot is a matter of perspective, to someone who stands for nothing, anyone who stands for anything is a zealot.
It's not about right and wrong, or good and evil. It's about tools, and giving people what they need to do their jobs. Don't cripple yourself by deciding that you're only going to deal with the tools you like.
As long as you continue to purchase and/or use Microsoft product, you are responsible for the Microsoft monopoly. If playing games is more important, then that's your choice.
"If more people wanted peace as much as a television, we'd have peace" John Lennon.
If all the people who complain about Microsoft stopped actually using Microsoft product, we wouldn't have the problem.
The 20 and 30 somethings know NOTHING about giving something up to get something better.