I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I think Linus is mistaken on this point. Nowhere does the GPL v3 say anything about making private keys available. This was hashed over in the previous discussion. Now if he still doesn't like some of the terms of the GPL v3, then more power to him. Even then, as other posters have commented, it'd take a small miracle to find every last copyright holder and have them agree to the change in license.
Sure. I'm guilty of downloading or copying a movie or song that I never got around to watching or listening.
My girlfriend used to work at a movie rental store, which the management wanted employees to take all new releases home for a few days so they could reccomend good ones to customers. We made copies of just about every movie we got. This was over a year ago and there are some of them we haven't gotten around to watching even yet.
For most people who download stuff, no sense of "compensation" really comes into play, as their willingness to pay goes to zero.
I, freely admitting that I am a "pirate", would certainly be willing to pay what I feel a work is worth if I had the money. Some download just to do it, some do it because they want to listen before they buy, some do it because they can't pay for it. The funny thing is if I had not been able to gain access to different kinds of music through the Internet by way of reccomendations, I would have never bought my last 10 or so CDs (I usually buy a CD or 2 every year).
Other issues aside, I'd also be more likely to buy more music if I knew more than $.50 was getting to the actual creator of the song. In fact, unless the state of affairs gets better, I might completely stop buying music, but continue downloading it. If I like it, I'll mail the artist(s) a check for what I think I owe them.
Yes, all of what I'm advocating is illegal, but I don't think its unethical. I believe the law is wrong so I won't follow it. If I get caught, then the **AA and the government can have at me. I don't think any jury would find me liable to the tune of millions of dollars, and even if they did, there is no blood left in this turnip.
I would trump you and say most wouldn't have been paid for otherwise. I just said that it happens for that reason often. Not all the time, not even most of the time, but often.
You've touched on something important, which shows why we have so many people who hate college and the like.
A traditional, 4-year bachelor's degree is not and never was designed to get you a job. College was originally designed to increase one's knowledge in an area of interest. Trade and technical schools were designed to teach a trade and help with employment. The point is that to work at anywhere other than McDonalds, a 4-year degree is usually requisite. A bachelor's degree is equivalent to the high school diploma of yesteryear in terms of availability and importance to secure employment, but we haven't changed the basic structure of the learning environment.
As opposed to working for self-actualization. The way the system is set up to be a negative... work or die. I'd do much better work under a positive system. Wouldn't you do better work if you weren't one MBA's whim away from living on the street?
"Open source" only guarantees that you have access to the source, nothing more. Putting spyware in an open source app isn't the smartest idea since anyone could simply take it out and recompile the binary.
Free software will guarantee a bit more than open source. It guarantees several freedoms (of which I won't list here) and possibly in the future protection from DRM.
In short, spyware and open source are not mutually exclusive, but spyware and free software are.
Well, obviously it wouldn't be a large problem. One example I know of is that New Hampshire does not require any cars registered there to be insured. People residing in Vermont and Massachusetts often register their cars in NH so they don't have to pay insurance.
Also, recall that many of the kernel people are sympathetic to the FSF and they would licence their code as GPL2 or later version. Potentially, this could start a trend towards GPL3 [...]
That is an interesting point, which one would assume that if software X is under GPL v2 and new code is added as GPL v3, there could be some compatibility problems. At worst, any software that was under GPL v2 before v3 came along would likely be forked and kept under GPL v2 for the duration of the copyright.
License changes like this are why worried developers should never assign their copyrights to the FSF and should explicitly state a specific version of the license the software is available under (not "... or any later version"). If the developer didn't mind a later license revision, he could always add that all code is also available under the new revision.
The industries-hard and soft- have to constantly create mostly artifical reasons for people to "upgrade".
No shit. That is the sole goal of marketing -- to make you think you need something that you don't really need. How many people here buy replacement goods after their current ones are no longer useable rather than buying upgrades because they have a percieved need for new goods? The entire economies of just about every country in the world would collapse if people only bought replacements instead of "upgrades".
Think back to the purchases you've made and items you've recieved over the holidays. How many of these items were replacements for a non-functional item and how many were "gee wiz, this sure is cool"? Why do women have dozens of pairs of shoes in the closet? Artificial reasons created by some marketing department are to blame.
The hardware guys and software guys need each other to survive. Without feature-rich software (read: bloated code) there would be no reason to upgrade from that 100MHz P1 you have in the basement. No higher performance hardware implies no more trivial transitions (Windows 95 -> 98) would occur, which would put companies that rely on the upgrade cycle out for the count.
It is rare for AnarCaps and AnarchoSocis to agree, though. I seem to get beaten up the most by those who agree to decentralization.
Well, I'd think it'd be something along the lines of all the AnCaps living in an area like Rhode Island and the AnSocs being in Massachusetts (or something like that). To discourage people from taking advantage of proximity, there should be something in the contract that states adherence to terms for a few years or else disciplinary actions may be taken.
I, for one, would never want to take any advantage of anyone's "state". Using your example, I could take some communal property and sell it on the AnCap side. Doing so would imply that you would want a Kleptocracy, or better put, a state that would allow for stealing.
I view rights from a social contract aspect, based largely on Locke's manifestos. Man in nature has the right to literally anything. He can speak freely, pray to a higher power, steal, kill, etc. When man wants to join civilization for common defense and pooling of resources, he must give up some of those rights. He entrusts his government to protect certain rights he and others like him want preserved (free speech) but allows the government to abridge others (murder). A government could, in theory, protect the right to murder and steal, but abridge freedom of speech and religion if the contractors so wanted it.
The only problem is that when one makes a contract with others and forms a government, so long as a majority agrees to the contract, the rest are dragged along. Furthermore, the contract is carried to younger generations without their explicit consent. This is the reason why I'm for decentralization of power lower levels of government. This way the 'dada21's of the world can have their anarcho-capitalist social order, while I can have my anarcho-socialist one. This allows for maximum freedom among people, instead of faction 1 trying to control faction 2.
I'm reading a bit too much along the lines of "ZOMG no 1 will use teh softwares with GPL3" or "there's politics in my software!".
Here's the dish:
You don't like GPL v3? Don't use it. GPL v2 will still exist. In fact, I'm betting Linux (the kernel) won't ever be available under the GPL v3. I would be happy to use the new GPL since I enjoy such a license. If you don't like the new stuff added in, feel free to use GPL v2 software. More licenses == more choices. I don't see the problem here. BSD and GPL currently co-exist just fine. I'm sure BSD, GPL v2, and GPL v3 will do just the same.
It won't be much of a problem. Many people not happy with the GPL v3 will simply use the last GPL v2 sources for that program/library/etc. and end up forking it. (AFAIK, Linux is only under GPL v2, not under any later license. Linus, and possibly other kernel hackers, will have to grant GPL v3 status for his [their] code)
We don't see many GPL v1 licenses still around (in fact, I've never seen it), but I think if all this positioning against patents and DRM goes through, we'll see 3 competiting licenses: BSD, GPL v2, GPL v3
I think the unfortunate thing about CS and to a lesser extent, CEG, is that people don't know what it really is. I'm 4 years into the program and am changing my major next quarter (Math - Computing concentration).
Do recall that Fox argued in a court case that lying during a telecast is protected speech. The judge, finding no law that restricts lying by a news program, found in their favor. It makes you wonder why Fox would need to argue that lying is protected.
I can't believe there are people that take Hannity, Drudge, Limbaugh as gospel. On the same token, read Kos sometime and see how out of touch those people are.
Kinda a dangerous thing to take on faith, isn't it?
Not really. I'm statistically more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by terrorism. I do take care to make sure I'm not holding up any metal objects during a storm, but I don't sit inside all day fearing a storm may kill me.
Similarly, I will (and hope the government will) take basic precautions to protect myself from terrorism, but I won't change the way (and the government shouldn't change the way) I live because of it. There simply isn't enough risk to justify me (or the government) doing so. The government can protect me at a reasonable level w/o infringing on my rights.
I'm not a Green. I was not eligible to vote in 2000. I have never voted for a Green Party member. If you're going to play the spoiler card, I still maintain that Monica Moorehead of the WWP was more of a spoiler than Nader.
As far as what Gore would have done, no one knows. I don't find Roberts to be a bad jurist. Alito is yet to be seen. What we need is judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written, regardless of the consequences of such interpretations.
Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin. I could care less who you vote for if its a choice between them. There is no substantive difference between the two.
Yeah, that's the way the liberal court has seen it- the times of having free speech and rules of immenent domain are gone by the wayside: there's a blackout on political (as in "free") speech 60 days from the election, and people in the THOUSANDS are getting their homes yanked to give them to people who would pay more. The rights are dropping day by day, mostly by the judges pen. It's a trend that has to stop.
Agreed. Although your assement of the court being "liberal", I take issue with.
More to the point...didja forget this is a war?
It never was a war. We never declared war. I'm not afraid of anyone. I will not die in a terrorist attack. You won't either. Guaranteed.
We're not dealing with nation-states and the Geneva Convention anymore- this is a very different threat.
Repeat after me. There is no terrorist threat. Its all a smoke and mirrors campaign to keep you afraid and in line.
Before anyone jumps on me about 9/11, I feel nothing but sympathy for those who lost their lives then. Unfortunately, part of liberty and freedom is that some people die. We can't guard against every last attack on our soil without giving up liberties that people fought and died for. Sorry. Even then, the parts of the PATRIOT Act that curb liberties have nothing to do with 9/11. This wiretapping has nothing to do with 9/11 either. It has to do with the executive being lazy and not wanting to do actual detective work to find people who wish to do us harm.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I think Linus is mistaken on this point. Nowhere does the GPL v3 say anything about making private keys available. This was hashed over in the previous discussion. Now if he still doesn't like some of the terms of the GPL v3, then more power to him. Even then, as other posters have commented, it'd take a small miracle to find every last copyright holder and have them agree to the change in license.
Sure. I'm guilty of downloading or copying a movie or song that I never got around to watching or listening.
My girlfriend used to work at a movie rental store, which the management wanted employees to take all new releases home for a few days so they could reccomend good ones to customers. We made copies of just about every movie we got. This was over a year ago and there are some of them we haven't gotten around to watching even yet.
For most people who download stuff, no sense of "compensation" really comes into play, as their willingness to pay goes to zero.
I, freely admitting that I am a "pirate", would certainly be willing to pay what I feel a work is worth if I had the money. Some download just to do it, some do it because they want to listen before they buy, some do it because they can't pay for it. The funny thing is if I had not been able to gain access to different kinds of music through the Internet by way of reccomendations, I would have never bought my last 10 or so CDs (I usually buy a CD or 2 every year).
Other issues aside, I'd also be more likely to buy more music if I knew more than $.50 was getting to the actual creator of the song. In fact, unless the state of affairs gets better, I might completely stop buying music, but continue downloading it. If I like it, I'll mail the artist(s) a check for what I think I owe them.
Yes, all of what I'm advocating is illegal, but I don't think its unethical. I believe the law is wrong so I won't follow it. If I get caught, then the **AA and the government can have at me. I don't think any jury would find me liable to the tune of millions of dollars, and even if they did, there is no blood left in this turnip.
I would trump you and say most wouldn't have been paid for otherwise. I just said that it happens for that reason often. Not all the time, not even most of the time, but often.
More precisely, they are often copied not for financial gain but to curb financial loss.
They moved the script here.
Don't let them try and escape us!!!
You've touched on something important, which shows why we have so many people who hate college and the like.
A traditional, 4-year bachelor's degree is not and never was designed to get you a job. College was originally designed to increase one's knowledge in an area of interest. Trade and technical schools were designed to teach a trade and help with employment. The point is that to work at anywhere other than McDonalds, a 4-year degree is usually requisite. A bachelor's degree is equivalent to the high school diploma of yesteryear in terms of availability and importance to secure employment, but we haven't changed the basic structure of the learning environment.
As opposed to working for self-actualization. The way the system is set up to be a negative ... work or die. I'd do much better work under a positive system. Wouldn't you do better work if you weren't one MBA's whim away from living on the street?
Yes, this was an obvious troll, but bear with me.
"Open source" only guarantees that you have access to the source, nothing more. Putting spyware in an open source app isn't the smartest idea since anyone could simply take it out and recompile the binary.
Free software will guarantee a bit more than open source. It guarantees several freedoms (of which I won't list here) and possibly in the future protection from DRM.
In short, spyware and open source are not mutually exclusive, but spyware and free software are.
Well, obviously it wouldn't be a large problem. One example I know of is that New Hampshire does not require any cars registered there to be insured. People residing in Vermont and Massachusetts often register their cars in NH so they don't have to pay insurance.
Also, recall that many of the kernel people are sympathetic to the FSF and they would licence their code as GPL2 or later version. Potentially, this could start a trend towards GPL3 [...]
That is an interesting point, which one would assume that if software X is under GPL v2 and new code is added as GPL v3, there could be some compatibility problems. At worst, any software that was under GPL v2 before v3 came along would likely be forked and kept under GPL v2 for the duration of the copyright.
License changes like this are why worried developers should never assign their copyrights to the FSF and should explicitly state a specific version of the license the software is available under (not "... or any later version"). If the developer didn't mind a later license revision, he could always add that all code is also available under the new revision.
The industries-hard and soft- have to constantly create mostly artifical reasons for people to "upgrade".
No shit. That is the sole goal of marketing -- to make you think you need something that you don't really need. How many people here buy replacement goods after their current ones are no longer useable rather than buying upgrades because they have a percieved need for new goods? The entire economies of just about every country in the world would collapse if people only bought replacements instead of "upgrades".
Think back to the purchases you've made and items you've recieved over the holidays. How many of these items were replacements for a non-functional item and how many were "gee wiz, this sure is cool"? Why do women have dozens of pairs of shoes in the closet? Artificial reasons created by some marketing department are to blame.
The hardware guys and software guys need each other to survive. Without feature-rich software (read: bloated code) there would be no reason to upgrade from that 100MHz P1 you have in the basement. No higher performance hardware implies no more trivial transitions (Windows 95 -> 98) would occur, which would put companies that rely on the upgrade cycle out for the count.
It is rare for AnarCaps and AnarchoSocis to agree, though. I seem to get beaten up the most by those who agree to decentralization.
Well, I'd think it'd be something along the lines of all the AnCaps living in an area like Rhode Island and the AnSocs being in Massachusetts (or something like that). To discourage people from taking advantage of proximity, there should be something in the contract that states adherence to terms for a few years or else disciplinary actions may be taken.
I, for one, would never want to take any advantage of anyone's "state". Using your example, I could take some communal property and sell it on the AnCap side. Doing so would imply that you would want a Kleptocracy, or better put, a state that would allow for stealing.
I view rights from a social contract aspect, based largely on Locke's manifestos. Man in nature has the right to literally anything. He can speak freely, pray to a higher power, steal, kill, etc. When man wants to join civilization for common defense and pooling of resources, he must give up some of those rights. He entrusts his government to protect certain rights he and others like him want preserved (free speech) but allows the government to abridge others (murder). A government could, in theory, protect the right to murder and steal, but abridge freedom of speech and religion if the contractors so wanted it.
The only problem is that when one makes a contract with others and forms a government, so long as a majority agrees to the contract, the rest are dragged along. Furthermore, the contract is carried to younger generations without their explicit consent. This is the reason why I'm for decentralization of power lower levels of government. This way the 'dada21's of the world can have their anarcho-capitalist social order, while I can have my anarcho-socialist one. This allows for maximum freedom among people, instead of faction 1 trying to control faction 2.
I'm reading a bit too much along the lines of "ZOMG no 1 will use teh softwares with GPL3" or "there's politics in my software!".
Here's the dish:
You don't like GPL v3? Don't use it. GPL v2 will still exist. In fact, I'm betting Linux (the kernel) won't ever be available under the GPL v3. I would be happy to use the new GPL since I enjoy such a license. If you don't like the new stuff added in, feel free to use GPL v2 software. More licenses == more choices. I don't see the problem here. BSD and GPL currently co-exist just fine. I'm sure BSD, GPL v2, and GPL v3 will do just the same.
I would be happy to use the GPL v3. If you enjoy the GPL v2 more, then by all means use it. Freedom of choice is good.
It won't be much of a problem. Many people not happy with the GPL v3 will simply use the last GPL v2 sources for that program/library/etc. and end up forking it. (AFAIK, Linux is only under GPL v2, not under any later license. Linus, and possibly other kernel hackers, will have to grant GPL v3 status for his [their] code)
We don't see many GPL v1 licenses still around (in fact, I've never seen it), but I think if all this positioning against patents and DRM goes through, we'll see 3 competiting licenses: BSD, GPL v2, GPL v3
Hey, someone else from WSU reads the site!
I think the unfortunate thing about CS and to a lesser extent, CEG, is that people don't know what it really is. I'm 4 years into the program and am changing my major next quarter (Math - Computing concentration).
Well I, for one, was lost at:
... DO NOT modify your appliance ... try getting a program ...
Do recall that Fox argued in a court case that lying during a telecast is protected speech. The judge, finding no law that restricts lying by a news program, found in their favor. It makes you wonder why Fox would need to argue that lying is protected.
I can't believe there are people that take Hannity, Drudge, Limbaugh as gospel. On the same token, read Kos sometime and see how out of touch those people are.
Kinda a dangerous thing to take on faith, isn't it?
Not really. I'm statistically more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by terrorism. I do take care to make sure I'm not holding up any metal objects during a storm, but I don't sit inside all day fearing a storm may kill me.
Similarly, I will (and hope the government will) take basic precautions to protect myself from terrorism, but I won't change the way (and the government shouldn't change the way) I live because of it. There simply isn't enough risk to justify me (or the government) doing so. The government can protect me at a reasonable level w/o infringing on my rights.
I'm not a Green. I was not eligible to vote in 2000. I have never voted for a Green Party member. If you're going to play the spoiler card, I still maintain that Monica Moorehead of the WWP was more of a spoiler than Nader.
As far as what Gore would have done, no one knows. I don't find Roberts to be a bad jurist. Alito is yet to be seen. What we need is judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written, regardless of the consequences of such interpretations.
Yes. Let me repeat it again, bolded so you understand.
There is no terrorist threat.
By this I mean that the terrorist threat is such that little to no attention need be paid to it.
Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin. I could care less who you vote for if its a choice between them. There is no substantive difference between the two.
Yeah, that's the way the liberal court has seen it- the times of having free speech and rules of immenent domain are gone by the wayside: there's a blackout on political (as in "free") speech 60 days from the election, and people in the THOUSANDS are getting their homes yanked to give them to people who would pay more. The rights are dropping day by day, mostly by the judges pen. It's a trend that has to stop.
Agreed. Although your assement of the court being "liberal", I take issue with.
More to the point...didja forget this is a war?
It never was a war. We never declared war. I'm not afraid of anyone. I will not die in a terrorist attack. You won't either. Guaranteed.
We're not dealing with nation-states and the Geneva Convention anymore- this is a very different threat.
Repeat after me. There is no terrorist threat. Its all a smoke and mirrors campaign to keep you afraid and in line.
Before anyone jumps on me about 9/11, I feel nothing but sympathy for those who lost their lives then. Unfortunately, part of liberty and freedom is that some people die. We can't guard against every last attack on our soil without giving up liberties that people fought and died for. Sorry. Even then, the parts of the PATRIOT Act that curb liberties have nothing to do with 9/11. This wiretapping has nothing to do with 9/11 either. It has to do with the executive being lazy and not wanting to do actual detective work to find people who wish to do us harm.