Ok, if I want to make software and I don't want you to sell it in your hardware that breaks on puropose under certain documented circumstances, that is my right and it is your right not to use it.
I don't know about you, but if I purchase something and then I find out that I cannot use it the way I like, I will try to use it the way I like.
I'm quite sure you didn't ask them to produce a copy-protection scheme that wouldn't work on wine (I know I didn't). If they did include such copy-protection, that's their problem and I refuse to make it mine. You should too. It's principle.
Perhaps I can get away with it because Cuban law is pretty flexible (and never enforced) in this particular topic. But still, I would consider at least "missguided" to have ethical concerns about "legitimizing" a piece of software that would let me use a product I bought but is restricted on purpose, regardless of its other uses... I would even go as far as encouraging its other uses. It is a matter of principle.
HP advanced pressures to make the GPL3 more friendly towards their PATENTS! The world got upside down or what?
Did you pull that out of your rear? That certainly wasn't in the article....
Well, actually, it was in the article... followed by a statement about how the FSF is ignoring that request... so the GP isn't so much 'pulling that out of his rear' as he is 'ommitting important facts and throwing statements out of context'. Is he trolling, perhaps?
But, what if I don't feel that all software should be free, but rather, that I want to be free, and I'm willing to work harder for it?
And what if I feel that my country should be free, and I'm willing to work harder for it?
"The best tool for the job" is nice in concept, but when the best tool for the job attacks your freedom and your country's, perhaps one should think twice before appliying that label to the tool.
There may be more things in earth than are dreamt in any philosophy, but a government that is not willing to defend its citicen's freedom is no government, and such an aberration should not exist.
I just hope that in your quest for comfort you don't make me lose my freedom.
No flamebait indeed. That post made me remember the deep crisis we had in 1990 at Cuba... we almost ran out of cats. I naver ate one (as far as I know), but it is said they taste like chicken.
I think I agree with a lot of what you said. I say "think" because I don't use windows much, and almost nothing of RDP, but the features you mention are indeed useful. However, I wanted to point out a little disagreement:
as to fast user switching, i know very well you can open multiple desktops on multiple consoles. but a common requirement in places where multiple users actually share a machine is that when you want to switch to a new console, it asks for your password. It doesn't work that way in linux.
I'm on Debian Sid, with KDE3.4, and K->Switch User gives me two choices: "start new session" and "lock current and start new session". In fact, even when I lock my screen, I have the choice of starting a new session (and the old one remains locked). Perhaps this is new with kde3.4, but I swear I've seen this on Gnome.
One feature I'd like to see, and RDP/Windows has it, is the ability to connect to an existing desktop instead of starting a new one. Sometimes I want to reuse from a remote computer the apps that I have already opened (most of the time the behavior of starting a new desktop is what I'm looking for, sometimes it isn't). Neither of them seem to be able to do both: on X11, I cannot reuse a desktop, on RDP/Windows, I cannot start a new one.
But we have no right to tell authors how to release software that they spent months writing.
...unless those authors are releasing our work, in wich case, we still have no right to tell them how to release what they wrote, but we certainly have the right to impose conditions on how *our* work will be released. What's so hard to grasp about it?
Does Dell gives support for the custom software their clients install?
If so, they *still* need to give support for Linux et. al on the windows boxes they sell (because that would be custom software a customer might want to install), so giving support for a non-windows on a non-windows box shouldn't be an extra cost for them.
If not, then what extra cost is involved on wiping a hard disk (or not cloning it to begin with). I guess its minimal. In this case, they wouldn't neet do support *any* software on their computers, thus, no extra cost for them again. Does Dell charge for support?
If the answer is 'yes':
If the answer to the previous question is 'no', then this becomes relevant: there will be a batch of computers that they will *not* support - however, the windows PC with linux installed will be in this same situation, thus this reasoning doesn't justify a higher price for the first batch.
If the answer to the previous question is 'yes', then I fail to see how the support for blank-disk-PCs would be greater than the support for windows-PCs-with-wiped-disks.
(very similar reasoning if the answer is 'no', I will not bore myself or you with it because I find it quite unlikely)
I've never had any dealings with Dell (I've barely watched [ignored] their commercials, and maybe twice I've visited the website, one of them while reading this story), so I don't know the answers to my questions. I suspect they are "no" and "yes".
And, of course, if you are really feeling geeky, you can launch python and
import libgmail acc=libgmail.GmailAccount('username','pa ss') acc.login() msgs = acc.getMessagesByQuery('is:unread') foreach thread in msgs:
for msg in thread:
print msg.source
Joking aside, I've had to do that. Very useful (and annoying) when you need to check your email, have no browser around, and you remember that you forgot *again* to enable pop3 in your gmail account.
This is oftopic, but I've been looking for some time for a direcway customer (I'd like to know more about the service, geek-to-geek and not help desk drone-to -geek).
Do they still have a one-way service? If they do, is it cheaper? Where is the satellite? (to check if its visible from here, there is a big building in front of my house)
How exactly is stealing MS's product cheaper than OSS? OSS is open source by definition... if there's a program you want, you can compile it yourself.
Actually, I think I understand what the GP meant.
In my country we have a similar situation: the inmense majority of the software is either OSS or pirated. However, despite that both are free (beer), if you take into account that most of our infrastructure is based on Microsoft products, opensource (specially linux) has some aditional costs over propietary/pirated software: the cost of retraining, the cost of finding an "expert" when there is a problem, the cost of migrating, and the cost of interoperability. The last point is specially valid if the needed interoperability is with a microsoft product (tipically MS Word).
I am a member of the cuban free software movement, and I must be very clear that in my country I cannot "sell" free software with the argument that it is "cheaper". It is not. I'm also involved in the migration of Cuba to free/opensource software (the story was previously discussed here, though I can't find the link), and it is imperative that we do not forget about the cost.
Granted, stealing a MS product is free, but unless you also steal every bit of software (...) you've already paid more than you would have by strictly using OSS.
That is part of the reason why it is more expensive to change than to keep pirating. We DO steal every bit of software.
Well, I think I would try to implement this (Linux Halted Firewall) .
I've never used one, but it seems like a good
idea and I plan to build one of those as soon as I get a new hardrive for the Pentium 100mhz I have laying around
I must say that I'm actually happy about this. I look forward to it! I'm a bit scared, yes, but I kind of trust that common sense will prevail (I know that's kind of naive).
For what I understand of the problem, this will work only if enough [big] ISP use it. Luckily, some projects "inability" to deploy SenderID (Apache and Debian come to mind) makes me doubt it'll ever happen, thus I hope this sends the shadow of SenderID that's been lurking the internet for too long now back into oblivion. And, as a side a effect, I may be able to make my borther and uncle move away from hotmail.
Obviously I'm a bit biased... I don't like SenderID, from almost any point of view. It troubles me morally (by restricting what should be an open protocol), and "physically" (my faculty's exchange server is a pain to use for that reason).
That said... I really doubt it'll happen. Microsoft may be evil, but they are not stupid. The chances of this backfiring are too great.
Isilrion
--
P.S: Now, I know enough about the SPF and SenderID to not like them, but I haven't been able to find the relevant patents for the SenderID problem... Could anyone point them to me? Thanks!
Actually, by doing this, Apple are doing WAY more than is required by the licence. This makes them 'good guys' for me (on this particular matter), regardless of the use the KHTML guys can make of this. Of course, this could be just a PR move, but it is still more than what they had to do.
That said, I hope that the KHTML group can make a good use of this. Even with access to the cvs repositories, I don't expect that merging back the changes will be trivial, just easier. I hope this won't be used by the fans to bash the KHTML developers ('hey, they gave you the repositories, and you still don't merge the changes overnight! You *are* lazy').
Depends. Depending on the laws governing the export to your country, they may very well be violating them. OTOH, the issue may be the encryption software contained in the JVM, in which case Sun can give you OpenOffice, but not Java.
That could be it. Still, I'm not blaming Sun in any way... I'm just pointing out that sun's java is not free (for whatever reason), and that, despite what seems to be the common opinion on slashdot, some people dislike that for more than just 'ideology', and thus, efforts to make a free implementation and/or rid their projects of the 'java trap' are most welcomed. BTW, I'll assume that you are american and can investigate this a bit further, and a bit better than I could... Does that mean that there can never be a Free/Libre software with contributors in the US that deals with encription? If that is true... the free software movement has a great obstacle! (though I'm thinking apache-ssl and firefox, both containing encription, and both free)
Ah, and of course, when I said that no US law would be violated, I meant that... well, no US law would be violated unless some crazy local law increased the jurisdiction of a foreign law... I was talking about US, of course, there might be local export laws that might or might not be violated by such redistribution, and I could have changed my whole argument from 'non american people' to 'people from countries in wich there are no export laws as restrictive as the US', but that was way too wordy, and I belived the idea was clear anyway... My apologies for my imprecision.
And, as a conclusion, my whole argument applies to every licence that says 'You may not use/distribute/etc this software in a way that violates this particular law', because it will create an aditional restriction for those that are not affected by the law (though it would be redundant to those that are affected).
If that were true, Sun could redistribute it from their European divisions. Simply uploading OSS software to European servers so that embargoed nations can access the software can get an American in just as much trouble as if he had just exported it directly. The same thing can happen if a US citizen knowingly allows a foreigner to reexport to an embargoed country. (That's why Sun's license has a clause requiring that you not take the software to an embargoed country.)
No! Sun can't send it to me! As long as Sun is american, its bound to US laws. In fact, just to be on the safe side, I'd try to minimize my... dealings with anyone that could reexport it, if I were at Sun. I'm not saying, at all, that Sun should distribute it to me - that would be asking for trouble. I'm saying that Sun's licence restricts every non-american unrelated with Sun from reexporting. That makes it non-free. In fact, I'm not even saying that Sun should make free java (it's theirs, and they might do with it as they wish). The argument in question is 'it is free?', and the answer is 'no', at least not by the DFSG.
BTW, FSF is american... and my system is full of GNU tools - downloaded from Debian. Does that means that FSF is violating US laws, because a third party reexported their tools?. In fact, openoffice.org, sponsored [mainly] by Sun, is free. Are they also violating US laws because Debian reexports openoffice.org?
Finally, the question is not if you feel sorry or not. I'm glad that you simpathize (though I doubt it). You don't have to feel sorry: US laws are [obvioiusly] void in my country, thus we are... free to do whatever we please to get to sun's java, and in the end, such restriction only affects those of us who believe that copyright is a concept worth saving.
I don't think I'll reply again, as it seems you are willingly mixing up US export laws (not applicable worldwide) with copyright laws (more or less the same almost everywhere). Assuming that DFSG are is a good definition of free software, then java violates at least points 1 and 5, thus, it is not free, and the fact that it does affect people that would not be affected otherwise (i.e, the guy in Finland who can no longer sells his software to cuba without risking not the US wrath, but Sun Microsystems' wrath), makes those people to care about the problem.
2. Export controls apply to Open Source software as well. This isn't Sun's fault, it's the US government.
Yes they do (apply to FOSS). However, they apply to americans, wich means that someone else that is not bound by US laws is free to do as the licence and local laws allows them to (wich, in several countries, includes reexporting the software). In Sun's case, if you live on any third country and you reexport, you are not violating US law, but you are violating your licence agreement with Sun.
I case it wasn't clear enough... Sun's licence is more restrictive that US law (because its used to extend the law to countries where it would be void otherwise). With FOSS (see the DFSG, points 1 and 5), it might be illegal for you to share it with me, but I could, for instance, download from Europe, and no law (US or not) would be violated by any party.
That specific clause might not restrict american's freedom because the law is in place restricting it anyway, but it does restrict everyone else's freedom, wich FOSS licences do not.
Ok, please clarify... What does that has to do with what I said? I *can't* use sun's java. Not the virtual machine, not the compiler, and not the classes. The licencing forbids me to. The licencing forbids *you* to send it to me, even bundled with you own application, regardless of where you are. Yes, the licence allows you to bundle java with your own apps, but forbids from distributing it to *me*. From the same document you pointed,
D. 5. Export Control. As further described at http://www.sun.com/its, you agree to comply with the U.S. export controls and trade laws of other countries that apply to Technology and Modifications.
11. Export Regulations.
All Software, documents, technical data, and any other
materials delivered under this Agreement are subject
to U.S. export control laws and may be subject to
export or import regulations in other countries. You
agree to comply strictly with these laws and
regulations and acknowledge that you have the
responsibility to obtain any licenses to export,
re-export, or import as may be required after delivery
to you.
is restrictive enough to make it illegal for me to use it (or for anyone, regardless of his country, to distribute it to me in any way without violating Sun's agreement). If you belive that's free...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you spell "loophole"?
I guess you can, I'm quite certain your parent mentioned it in his post...
Please re-read it.
Ok, if I want to make software and I don't want you to sell it in your hardware that breaks on puropose under certain documented circumstances, that is my right and it is your right not to use it.
I don't know about you, but if I purchase something and then I find out that I cannot use it the way I like, I will try to use it the way I like.
I'm quite sure you didn't ask them to produce a copy-protection scheme that wouldn't work on wine (I know I didn't). If they did include such copy-protection, that's their problem and I refuse to make it mine. You should too. It's principle.
Perhaps I can get away with it because Cuban law is pretty flexible (and never enforced) in this particular topic. But still, I would consider at least "missguided" to have ethical concerns about "legitimizing" a piece of software that would let me use a product I bought but is restricted on purpose, regardless of its other uses... I would even go as far as encouraging its other uses. It is a matter of principle.
Well, actually, it was in the article... followed by a statement about how the FSF is ignoring that request... so the GP isn't so much 'pulling that out of his rear' as he is 'ommitting important facts and throwing statements out of context'. Is he trolling, perhaps?
But, what if I don't feel that all software should be free, but rather, that I want to be free, and I'm willing to work harder for it?
And what if I feel that my country should be free, and I'm willing to work harder for it?
"The best tool for the job" is nice in concept, but when the best tool for the job attacks your freedom and your country's, perhaps one should think twice before appliying that label to the tool.
There may be more things in earth than are dreamt in any philosophy, but a government that is not willing to defend its citicen's freedom is no government, and such an aberration should not exist.
I just hope that in your quest for comfort you don't make me lose my freedom.
That isn't flamebait
No flamebait indeed. That post made me remember the deep crisis we had in 1990 at Cuba... we almost ran out of cats. I naver ate one (as far as I know), but it is said they taste like chicken.I'm on Debian Sid, with KDE3.4, and K->Switch User gives me two choices: "start new session" and "lock current and start new session". In fact, even when I lock my screen, I have the choice of starting a new session (and the old one remains locked). Perhaps this is new with kde3.4, but I swear I've seen this on Gnome.
One feature I'd like to see, and RDP/Windows has it, is the ability to connect to an existing desktop instead of starting a new one. Sometimes I want to reuse from a remote computer the apps that I have already opened (most of the time the behavior of starting a new desktop is what I'm looking for, sometimes it isn't). Neither of them seem to be able to do both: on X11, I cannot reuse a desktop, on RDP/Windows, I cannot start a new one.
If so, they *still* need to give support for Linux et. al on the windows boxes they sell (because that would be custom software a customer might want to install), so giving support for a non-windows on a non-windows box shouldn't be an extra cost for them.
If not, then what extra cost is involved on wiping a hard disk (or not cloning it to begin with). I guess its minimal. In this case, they wouldn't neet do support *any* software on their computers, thus, no extra cost for them again.
Does Dell charge for support?
If the answer is 'yes':
(very similar reasoning if the answer is 'no', I will not bore myself or you with it because I find it quite unlikely)
I've never had any dealings with Dell (I've barely watched [ignored] their commercials, and maybe twice I've visited the website, one of them while reading this story), so I don't know the answers to my questions. I suspect they are "no" and "yes".
And there go my hopes of they never finding that out.
I don't think many hospitals will "fix you up" if your bungee jumping session goes wrong
Joking aside, I've had to do that. Very useful (and annoying) when you need to check your email, have no browser around, and you remember that you forgot *again* to enable pop3 in your gmail account.
Isilrion
P.S: Yes, that has happened!
This is oftopic, but I've been looking for some time for a direcway customer (I'd like to know more about the service, geek-to-geek and not help desk drone-to -geek).
Do they still have a one-way service? If they do, is it cheaper? Where is the satellite? (to check if its visible from here, there is a big building in front of my house)
Please, answer. Thanks!
Please forgive my mistake.
Actually, I think I understand what the GP meant. In my country we have a similar situation: the inmense majority of the software is either OSS or pirated. However, despite that both are free (beer), if you take into account that most of our infrastructure is based on Microsoft products, opensource (specially linux) has some aditional costs over propietary/pirated software: the cost of retraining, the cost of finding an "expert" when there is a problem, the cost of migrating, and the cost of interoperability. The last point is specially valid if the needed interoperability is with a microsoft product (tipically MS Word).
I am a member of the cuban free software movement, and I must be very clear that in my country I cannot "sell" free software with the argument that it is "cheaper". It is not. I'm also involved in the migration of Cuba to free/opensource software (the story was previously discussed here, though I can't find the link), and it is imperative that we do not forget about the cost.
That is part of the reason why it is more expensive to change than to keep pirating. We DO steal every bit of software.Isilrion.
Well, I think I would try to implement this (Linux Halted Firewall) . I've never used one, but it seems like a good idea and I plan to build one of those as soon as I get a new hardrive for the Pentium 100mhz I have laying around
Isilrion.
I hate replying to myself... but I can't read TFA. Could anyone post it or something? Thanks!
I must say that I'm actually happy about this. I look forward to it! I'm a bit scared, yes, but I kind of trust that common sense will prevail (I know that's kind of naive).
For what I understand of the problem, this will work only if enough [big] ISP use it. Luckily, some projects "inability" to deploy SenderID (Apache and Debian come to mind) makes me doubt it'll ever happen, thus I hope this sends the shadow of SenderID that's been lurking the internet for too long now back into oblivion. And, as a side a effect, I may be able to make my borther and uncle move away from hotmail.
Obviously I'm a bit biased... I don't like SenderID, from almost any point of view. It troubles me morally (by restricting what should be an open protocol), and "physically" (my faculty's exchange server is a pain to use for that reason).
That said... I really doubt it'll happen. Microsoft may be evil, but they are not stupid. The chances of this backfiring are too great.
Isilrion
-- P.S: Now, I know enough about the SPF and SenderID to not like them, but I haven't been able to find the relevant patents for the SenderID problem... Could anyone point them to me? Thanks!
That said, I hope that the KHTML group can make a good use of this. Even with access to the cvs repositories, I don't expect that merging back the changes will be trivial, just easier. I hope this won't be used by the fans to bash the KHTML developers ('hey, they gave you the repositories, and you still don't merge the changes overnight! You *are* lazy').
Overall, I believe this is a good thing.
Actually, this might help a bit . You may need to tweak it a bit, though.
Cheers
Isilrion
P.S: Don't worry, I know what you meant.
Depends. Depending on the laws governing the export to your country, they may very well be violating them. OTOH, the issue may be the encryption software contained in the JVM, in which case Sun can give you OpenOffice, but not Java.
That could be it. Still, I'm not blaming Sun in any way... I'm just pointing out that sun's java is not free (for whatever reason), and that, despite what seems to be the common opinion on slashdot, some people dislike that for more than just 'ideology', and thus, efforts to make a free implementation and/or rid their projects of the 'java trap' are most welcomed. BTW, I'll assume that you are american and can investigate this a bit further, and a bit better than I could... Does that mean that there can never be a Free/Libre software with contributors in the US that deals with encription? If that is true... the free software movement has a great obstacle! (though I'm thinking apache-ssl and firefox, both containing encription, and both free)
Ah, and of course, when I said that no US law would be violated, I meant that... well, no US law would be violated unless some crazy local law increased the jurisdiction of a foreign law... I was talking about US, of course, there might be local export laws that might or might not be violated by such redistribution, and I could have changed my whole argument from 'non american people' to 'people from countries in wich there are no export laws as restrictive as the US', but that was way too wordy, and I belived the idea was clear anyway... My apologies for my imprecision.
And, as a conclusion, my whole argument applies to every licence that says 'You may not use/distribute/etc this software in a way that violates this particular law', because it will create an aditional restriction for those that are not affected by the law (though it would be redundant to those that are affected).
If that were true, Sun could redistribute it from their European divisions. Simply uploading OSS software to European servers so that embargoed nations can access the software can get an American in just as much trouble as if he had just exported it directly. The same thing can happen if a US citizen knowingly allows a foreigner to reexport to an embargoed country. (That's why Sun's license has a clause requiring that you not take the software to an embargoed country.)
... free to do whatever we please to get to sun's java, and in the end, such restriction only affects those of us who believe that copyright is a concept worth saving.
No! Sun can't send it to me! As long as Sun is american, its bound to US laws. In fact, just to be on the safe side, I'd try to minimize my... dealings with anyone that could reexport it, if I were at Sun. I'm not saying, at all, that Sun should distribute it to me - that would be asking for trouble. I'm saying that Sun's licence restricts every non-american unrelated with Sun from reexporting. That makes it non-free. In fact, I'm not even saying that Sun should make free java (it's theirs, and they might do with it as they wish). The argument in question is 'it is free?', and the answer is 'no', at least not by the DFSG.
BTW, FSF is american... and my system is full of GNU tools - downloaded from Debian. Does that means that FSF is violating US laws, because a third party reexported their tools?. In fact, openoffice.org, sponsored [mainly] by Sun, is free. Are they also violating US laws because Debian reexports openoffice.org?
Finally, the question is not if you feel sorry or not. I'm glad that you simpathize (though I doubt it). You don't have to feel sorry: US laws are [obvioiusly] void in my country, thus we are
I don't think I'll reply again, as it seems you are willingly mixing up US export laws (not applicable worldwide) with copyright laws (more or less the same almost everywhere). Assuming that DFSG are is a good definition of free software, then java violates at least points 1 and 5, thus, it is not free, and the fact that it does affect people that would not be affected otherwise (i.e, the guy in Finland who can no longer sells his software to cuba without risking not the US wrath, but Sun Microsystems' wrath), makes those people to care about the problem.
1. Where do you live? Iraq?
No, Cuba, why?
2. Export controls apply to Open Source software as well. This isn't Sun's fault, it's the US government.
Yes they do (apply to FOSS). However, they apply to americans, wich means that someone else that is not bound by US laws is free to do as the licence and local laws allows them to (wich, in several countries, includes reexporting the software). In Sun's case, if you live on any third country and you reexport, you are not violating US law, but you are violating your licence agreement with Sun.
I case it wasn't clear enough... Sun's licence is more restrictive that US law (because its used to extend the law to countries where it would be void otherwise). With FOSS (see the DFSG, points 1 and 5), it might be illegal for you to share it with me, but I could, for instance, download from Europe, and no law (US or not) would be violated by any party.
That specific clause might not restrict american's freedom because the law is in place restricting it anyway, but it does restrict everyone else's freedom, wich FOSS licences do not.
Ok, please clarify... What does that has to do with what I said? I *can't* use sun's java. Not the virtual machine, not the compiler, and not the classes. The licencing forbids me to. The licencing forbids *you* to send it to me, even bundled with you own application, regardless of where you are. Yes, the licence allows you to bundle java with your own apps, but forbids from distributing it to *me*. From the same document you pointed,
D.
5. Export Control. As further described at
http://www.sun.com/its, you agree to comply with the
U.S. export controls and trade laws of other countries
that apply to Technology and Modifications.
Got it? It is not free.
is restrictive enough to make it illegal for me to use it (or for anyone, regardless of his country, to distribute it to me in any way without violating Sun's agreement). If you belive that's free...