Actually states' rights is the belief of the minority party in the legislature.
Everyone falls back on "leave it to the states" when they have no power to affect the change at the national level. Once they get in power, sticking up for states' rights falls by the wayside.
We can see this in action with respect to the Republican party. They were for states' rights for most of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. That was because they were the minority party during those years in the House. They gained control in '95 and made the transformation to "big government conservatism" right around 2000 (if not before).
Indeed it was. That doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional.
The problem when you ignore the constitution for "good" programs, you must also ignore the constitution for "bad" programs. Either the feds have the power or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose when they do based on which party is in control of the legislature.
I agree with respect to Ron Paul. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist until I saw how bad government can get when your guys aren't running the place. Maturity and George W. Bush have taught me that less is more.
I'm still quite the socialist*, but my view of the constitution is originalist. Many federal programs that I think are just fine are, unfortunately, not constitutional. The states should be running these programs as they see fit, not the feds. Realistically, conservatives want Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee having as little say in their lives as possible. Similarly, I want Orrin Hatch and James Inhofe having very little say in my life. The best way to do this is to return power to the states where it rightly belongs.
*I actually identify as a "states' rights liberal" if there is such a thing.
He himself won't, no...he just uses his cult members to do it for him.
Well count me among those not in the cult. I don't care what license you use for your code. I'd prefer it be GPLv3, but you aren't going to hurt my feelings or lose sleep if you don't do as I wish. I didn't right it, so I don't have much right to say what license you release it under.
rote sloganeering in this manner does not work to promote the impression of you as being someone who is capable of independent thought.
Well, it just so happens to be true.
Some developers don't like the GPLv3. That is fine. But for those people among us who do, we shouldn't be forced to abandon our principles in order to compromise with people who don't have the same goals. The GPLv3 is just another license in the "free market" of licenses. Choose one at your leisure.
You are correct. So long as the option is there it may be exercised. Linux, for instance, does not have the "or later" statement in some (most?) of it's code, which is why it probably won't relicensed under GPLv3.
If developers don't like the licensing changes in the GPLv3, they are always free to use GPLv2, BSD, or any other OSI-approved license. Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
What you are describing is an imminent danger situation. Obviously that is a different story. I don't believe you can sue someone for battery if they stop you from walking in front of a car. Similarly, if someone is giving you CPR or in any way trying to help you if you are injured, you can't sue them for battery.
After writing my comment I read up on the laws regarding corporal punishment around the world. The UK law is reasonable and I could probably agree to that. From wikipedia:
An amendment to the Children Act 2004 to ban smacking by parents was defeated by 424 votes to 75 in the House of Commons; however, an amendment to ban parents from smacking their children hard enough to leave a mark was accepted by 284 votes to 208, and came into force in January 2005.
Just because Linus is the Benevolent Dictator, that doesn't mean he is allowed to say what license contributors code will have. Linux contributors retain their copyright when their code is merged into the kernel. If you want your submissions put into GNU projects, you must assign your copyright to the FSF. In fact, the situtation we are discussing is the exact reason why copyright assignment is required. The FSF wants to be able to change the license when they see fit, not have to contact copyright holders every time there is a license change.
Now, if Linus does want to change the license, and he does get all dissenters to allow the license change, he can release Linux under GPLv3. Otherwise, he'd have to rewrite the code that is GPLv2 only.
With respect to "last time", I believe you are talking about this:
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February.
Back then the amount of contributors was minimal compared to today. Even then, he didn't have the right to change the license. He's just lucky no one burned him on it.
On my prepaid Cingular phone there is no way to stop an incoming message. You have to pay for it ($.05) whether you want it or not. For instance, I often send text messages to phones via pidgin-im. If anyone were to send messages to my phone in that manner, they could run my balance to zero in short order.
If Solaris is licensed under GPLv3, I'll be making the move to Nexenta as soon as it is stable enough to run on my system. Better yet would be if Debian co-opted it and created a GNU/OpenSolaris distro, much like their GNU/kFreeBSD variant.
FTA it seems that MSFT doesn't believe that their coupons make them a distributor of any of Novell's software. I'm not too clear on what the coupons are, so I'm not so sure that MSFT can be taken to task in this manner.
By no means is the Canadian system perfect. I just think it's better.
And by your comment you seem to imply that there is no parallel private system. I would certainly not put private practice out of business. Those who want better care or to bypass the waiting lines can use their money to do so. I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is people who get sick and have to declare bankruptcy.
Similarly, people who can't afford to see a doctor, so they wait until their condition is an emergency and then are forced to go to the emergency room. Obviously they can't pay so those people who do have insurance (and can pay) bear the costs.
If we're going to require hospitals to treat people without regard to their ability to pay, the cost is going to be socialized in one way or another. I happen to be of the opinion that we should use preventative care to lower the total cost of health care. A government sponsored system is the best way to do that.
Linux will never be GPLv3 because quite a bit of code in it is GPLv2 only (rather than GPLv2 or later). In order to release the entire kernel under GPLv3, all contributors would have to be contacted and asked if the code can be licensed as such. Anyone who can't be reached or does not agree to the license change could derail the entire thing. If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.
If Novell so chooses to only distribute software under GPLv2, they are certainly welcome to do so. The downside is that they will be stuck maintaining the GPLv2 versions of GCC, GDB, binutils, etc. All GNU software will be GPLv3 as soon as the license is finalized. In effect, Novell would have to fork all of the GNU tools or find a suitable replacement for them under a more permissive license. They'll need to reinvent the wheel each time an advance is made in the GPLv3 line for their old toolchain.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually states' rights is the belief of the minority party in the legislature.
Everyone falls back on "leave it to the states" when they have no power to affect the change at the national level. Once they get in power, sticking up for states' rights falls by the wayside.
We can see this in action with respect to the Republican party. They were for states' rights for most of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. That was because they were the minority party during those years in the House. They gained control in '95 and made the transformation to "big government conservatism" right around 2000 (if not before).
Indeed it was. That doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional.
The problem when you ignore the constitution for "good" programs, you must also ignore the constitution for "bad" programs. Either the feds have the power or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose when they do based on which party is in control of the legislature.
You're right as far as Guiliani. This guy hates individual rights with a passion.
If you think Bush was bad as far as increasing the power of the executive, wait until you see Guiliani.
I agree with respect to Ron Paul. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist until I saw how bad government can get when your guys aren't running the place. Maturity and George W. Bush have taught me that less is more.
I'm still quite the socialist*, but my view of the constitution is originalist. Many federal programs that I think are just fine are, unfortunately, not constitutional. The states should be running these programs as they see fit, not the feds. Realistically, conservatives want Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee having as little say in their lives as possible. Similarly, I want Orrin Hatch and James Inhofe having very little say in my life. The best way to do this is to return power to the states where it rightly belongs.
*I actually identify as a "states' rights liberal" if there is such a thing.
And the ability to use spell checkers...
And it's late and my grammar sucks...
Some developers don't like the GPLv3. That is fine. But for those people among us who do, we shouldn't be forced to abandon our principles in order to compromise with people who don't have the same goals. The GPLv3 is just another license in the "free market" of licenses. Choose one at your leisure.
I tried, but couldn't think of anything witty.
You are correct. So long as the option is there it may be exercised. Linux, for instance, does not have the "or later" statement in some (most?) of it's code, which is why it probably won't relicensed under GPLv3.
If your predictions are indeed correct, Canada had better beef up it's military pretty soon or else it won't be "Canada" for much longer.
If developers don't like the licensing changes in the GPLv3, they are always free to use GPLv2, BSD, or any other OSI-approved license. Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
Not particularly dangerous. It depends on how deep your pockets are.
My net worth is very negative and I'm unemployed (but a full time student) at the moment. Have fun getting your judgement which I'll never pay.
And then the oral sex...
What you are describing is an imminent danger situation. Obviously that is a different story. I don't believe you can sue someone for battery if they stop you from walking in front of a car. Similarly, if someone is giving you CPR or in any way trying to help you if you are injured, you can't sue them for battery.
After writing my comment I read up on the laws regarding corporal punishment around the world. The UK law is reasonable and I could probably agree to that. From wikipedia:
An amendment to the Children Act 2004 to ban smacking by parents was defeated by 424 votes to 75 in the House of Commons; however, an amendment to ban parents from smacking their children hard enough to leave a mark was accepted by 284 votes to 208, and came into force in January 2005.
I was speaking to my beliefs, not the law (yes, I was being serious).
I believe in Sweden it is illegal to use corporal punishment on children, but that may be an urban myth. IMHO, it should be the same here.
How else would I get my futurama fix?:
X-Fry: But this is HDTV. It's got better resolution than the real world.
X-Bender: Yes! I got the most! I win X-Mas!
Just because Linus is the Benevolent Dictator, that doesn't mean he is allowed to say what license contributors code will have. Linux contributors retain their copyright when their code is merged into the kernel. If you want your submissions put into GNU projects, you must assign your copyright to the FSF. In fact, the situtation we are discussing is the exact reason why copyright assignment is required. The FSF wants to be able to change the license when they see fit, not have to contact copyright holders every time there is a license change.
Now, if Linus does want to change the license, and he does get all dissenters to allow the license change, he can release Linux under GPLv3. Otherwise, he'd have to rewrite the code that is GPLv2 only.
With respect to "last time", I believe you are talking about this:
Back then the amount of contributors was minimal compared to today. Even then, he didn't have the right to change the license. He's just lucky no one burned him on it.
867-5309
On my prepaid Cingular phone there is no way to stop an incoming message. You have to pay for it ($.05) whether you want it or not. For instance, I often send text messages to phones via pidgin-im. If anyone were to send messages to my phone in that manner, they could run my balance to zero in short order.
Indeed.
If Solaris is licensed under GPLv3, I'll be making the move to Nexenta as soon as it is stable enough to run on my system. Better yet would be if Debian co-opted it and created a GNU/OpenSolaris distro, much like their GNU/kFreeBSD variant.
FTA it seems that MSFT doesn't believe that their coupons make them a distributor of any of Novell's software. I'm not too clear on what the coupons are, so I'm not so sure that MSFT can be taken to task in this manner.
Thoughts?
By no means is the Canadian system perfect. I just think it's better.
And by your comment you seem to imply that there is no parallel private system. I would certainly not put private practice out of business. Those who want better care or to bypass the waiting lines can use their money to do so. I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is people who get sick and have to declare bankruptcy.
Similarly, people who can't afford to see a doctor, so they wait until their condition is an emergency and then are forced to go to the emergency room. Obviously they can't pay so those people who do have insurance (and can pay) bear the costs.
If we're going to require hospitals to treat people without regard to their ability to pay, the cost is going to be socialized in one way or another. I happen to be of the opinion that we should use preventative care to lower the total cost of health care. A government sponsored system is the best way to do that.
Linux will never be GPLv3 because quite a bit of code in it is GPLv2 only (rather than GPLv2 or later). In order to release the entire kernel under GPLv3, all contributors would have to be contacted and asked if the code can be licensed as such. Anyone who can't be reached or does not agree to the license change could derail the entire thing. If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.
If Novell so chooses to only distribute software under GPLv2, they are certainly welcome to do so. The downside is that they will be stuck maintaining the GPLv2 versions of GCC, GDB, binutils, etc. All GNU software will be GPLv3 as soon as the license is finalized. In effect, Novell would have to fork all of the GNU tools or find a suitable replacement for them under a more permissive license. They'll need to reinvent the wheel each time an advance is made in the GPLv3 line for their old toolchain.