I think the current wording of the GPL requires that you provide the source code to anyone that requests it. So in general it is far more convient to just bundle them together. Consider the case of someone who acquires the binaries but does not have internet access. To provide the source code you will need to physically send them a copy. If you distribute binaries, simply posting the source online is not necessary good enough (according to GPLv2).
This wording was created pre-internet boom, so it is not clear if that could be changed or not. From a purests point of view, why should someone unable to access the "public place" be denied access to the source code?
I think this occurs because people are suckers for anecdotal evidence. They are more likely to believe a story of some patent who was cured by drinking their own urine (or something like that) then a scientific study. Plus studies are hard to understand where as anecdotes are easy to understand.
There also seems to be alot of conspiricy theories surrounding Drug companies and the "treatment" industry vs a "cure" industry.
That link did not work for me. Here is what I found with a quick search.
Theft: is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent
Property:
Within the law, property is a general legal category for rights of ownership in land, money, tangible objects, intangible objects, etc.
Property is defined as the right to use, enjoy or possess a determinant thing, and the right to exclude others from doing the same
I think the important parts are that property can be intangible and that property rights allow the owners to exclude others from using the property. In this case the property is the intangible property of music, movies, etc, the "theft" occurs when someone violates the owners right to exclude those who have not paid for the right to use.
I recognize that I am really pushing the definitions here, but I think this is reasonable.
Canada has normal copyright laws. It lacks abnormal copyright laws like the DMCA.
For now at last.
Just say no to C-60
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
That's true, I should probably have said Free Software Fundamentalists. (Hmmm... a new meaning to FSF?) Of course "Free" always seems to be the source of confusion.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
You've got me wrong. OSS is a good thing. Sharing is good. But it is about choice. If people choose to share their code, that is great. But that does not mean it unethical or immoral to create closed source software. That is basically where RMS and I diverge.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
I like to think of RMS as an OSS Fundamentalist. With the same slightly negative connotations as a religious fundamentalist. He seems unable to see past his own beliefs. It especially bothers me when he starts talking about OSS as morality and ethics.
No, fair use allows for any use, so long as it is fair. There's some tests to check for fairness, but there is no kind of use that can never be fair (or that always is).
Fair Use is a legal term. It defines a small number of uses of a copyrighted work that are not considered infringing. Basically Fair Use defines situations where one can use a copyrighted work without requiring the permission of the copyright holder.
Any use that is not covered by the Fair Use provisions of the various copyright acts is infringing. The Fair Use exceptions are quite well defined, although the major copyright holders enjoy trying to shrink them down. I'm fairly certain that any commerical use is considered infringing.
As for the quality of camera phones, they are going to get better. As the do, more people will stop buying a dedicated cameras P&S cameras. I think that flashes will come eventually too.
The mistake most of the other responders are making is that they think that most people want the best mp3 player and the best cell phone. They don't. They want one that is good enough for casual use. Just like phone cameras are killing the point and click digital camera market, and the PDA phones are killing off the PDA market, so too will mp3 phones kill off mp3 players. There will always be niche products, but most people will be happy with a combo mp3/phone/camera/PDA for $400 instead of buying each (and having to carry them all around) for $200. Even if the stand alone devices are better.
The only issue is how long it will take the technology to develop to allow this. In particular batteries, but also a form factor that works for all four. I'm not sure if we are going to get PDA's in phones, or phones in PDAs. We'll probably end up having both. The cell phone looking devices for most people and PDA looking devices for those who need more computer like functionality.
You can present an evidence that supports a theory, or present evidence that contradicts a theory. However simply presenting evidence that condradicts one theory does not automatically support another, unless the two are mutually exlusive. Evolution and Intellegent Design (creationism) are not mutually exlusive. Evidence that contradicts evolution does not immediately support intellegent design. 99% percent of the evidence presented by intellegent designers attacks evolution. There is basically no scientific evidence that supports intellegent design. If there was real, good evidence that supported intellegent design then the intellegent designers might be able to get their theory discussed as real science.
The reg covered this bill quite well yesterday. Their analysis is that is law is for 3rd parties who sell the "skipping info" to concerned parents. It also includes harsher penalties for bootleggers.
BitTorrent use hashes to verify each small chunk of the file as they are downloaded. I can imagine that it is very hard to find a collision for the entire file, but given the relatively small size of each chunk, I think it would be pretty easy to generate a collision for the smaller blocks.
Once you can do that, messing with the p2p system is trivial, just make a client that takes a torrent, makes fake data to satisfy the chunk's hashes and then start serving them up. No one will know if their download is crap until the entire file is complete, and you won't be able to tell which chunk is bad. Not only that, the "bad chunks" will propagate around they system.
Of course, defeating such a system is equally easy, just increase the chunk size. Of course, this could degrade bittorrent's performance.
11. The ability to create unparalleled controversy by publishing a story that is intended to incite heated argument between two equally strong factions.
Given this was published in New Scientist (a magazine about, you know, science) this is probably not particularly contraversal. I suspect the vast majority of their readers have already accepted the theory of evolution.
You actually have to be very fundamentalist to deny evolution. How fundamentalist? Well, the last two Popes both supported the theory of evolution, as will, most likely, all future Popes.
This is not all that uncommon. I suspect they are trying to do something similar to mysql's commerical license. Entities can buy the commerial license which allows them create apps that interact with mysql without having to release their app's source.
Not to be a complete dick about this, but you are using the incorrect definition for gigabyte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
This one of those issues where what everybody uses all the time is incorrect.
I don't think it is ever going to change, but for accuary's sake, I though I'd point it out.
I think that the original poster's point is quite valid, but it was poorly explained.
Imagine the article was about drinking and driving and the conclusion of the study was "driving while intoxicated increases the risk of accident". Then then an equivalent title would be something about a specific accident being caused by driving drunk.
The point is, the article makes a general statement about increased risk, but the title implies that a specific incident was (necessarily) caused by the effect. The title is very misleading.
They [Video Game makers] simply market and re-market sequels and clones, sequels and clones.
Sounds a lot like Hollywood to me, except that Hollywood also takes ideas from movies made in other countries or longer than 20 year ago, burdens them with silly teenageers and first time directors, and thus turns great films to crappy remakes.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the current wording of the GPL requires that you provide the source code to anyone that requests it. So in general it is far more convient to just bundle them together. Consider the case of someone who acquires the binaries but does not have internet access. To provide the source code you will need to physically send them a copy. If you distribute binaries, simply posting the source online is not necessary good enough (according to GPLv2).
This wording was created pre-internet boom, so it is not clear if that could be changed or not. From a purests point of view, why should someone unable to access the "public place" be denied access to the source code?
I think this occurs because people are suckers for anecdotal evidence. They are more likely to believe a story of some patent who was cured by drinking their own urine (or something like that) then a scientific study. Plus studies are hard to understand where as anecdotes are easy to understand. There also seems to be alot of conspiricy theories surrounding Drug companies and the "treatment" industry vs a "cure" industry.
That link did not work for me. Here is what I found with a quick search.
Theft: is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent
Property: Within the law, property is a general legal category for rights of ownership in land, money, tangible objects, intangible objects, etc. Property is defined as the right to use, enjoy or possess a determinant thing, and the right to exclude others from doing the same
I think the important parts are that property can be intangible and that property rights allow the owners to exclude others from using the property. In this case the property is the intangible property of music, movies, etc, the "theft" occurs when someone violates the owners right to exclude those who have not paid for the right to use.
I recognize that I am really pushing the definitions here, but I think this is reasonable.
I see people using this definition of theft a lot on slashdot. Does anyone have any references to verify if it is correct?
Canada has normal copyright laws. It lacks abnormal copyright laws like the DMCA. For now at last. Just say no to C-60
That's true, I should probably have said Free Software Fundamentalists. (Hmmm... a new meaning to FSF?) Of course "Free" always seems to be the source of confusion.
You've got me wrong. OSS is a good thing. Sharing is good. But it is about choice. If people choose to share their code, that is great. But that does not mean it unethical or immoral to create closed source software. That is basically where RMS and I diverge.
I like to think of RMS as an OSS Fundamentalist. With the same slightly negative connotations as a religious fundamentalist. He seems unable to see past his own beliefs. It especially bothers me when he starts talking about OSS as morality and ethics.
You are correct. That was a parody which is an accepted form of fair use.
Fair Use is a legal term. It defines a small number of uses of a copyrighted work that are not considered infringing. Basically Fair Use defines situations where one can use a copyrighted work without requiring the permission of the copyright holder.
Any use that is not covered by the Fair Use provisions of the various copyright acts is infringing. The Fair Use exceptions are quite well defined, although the major copyright holders enjoy trying to shrink them down. I'm fairly certain that any commerical use is considered infringing.
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair useDigital camera market 'running out of steam'
As for the quality of camera phones, they are going to get better. As the do, more people will stop buying a dedicated cameras P&S cameras. I think that flashes will come eventually too.
I agree.
The mistake most of the other responders are making is that they think that most people want the best mp3 player and the best cell phone. They don't. They want one that is good enough for casual use. Just like phone cameras are killing the point and click digital camera market, and the PDA phones are killing off the PDA market, so too will mp3 phones kill off mp3 players. There will always be niche products, but most people will be happy with a combo mp3/phone/camera/PDA for $400 instead of buying each (and having to carry them all around) for $200. Even if the stand alone devices are better.
The only issue is how long it will take the technology to develop to allow this. In particular batteries, but also a form factor that works for all four. I'm not sure if we are going to get PDA's in phones, or phones in PDAs. We'll probably end up having both. The cell phone looking devices for most people and PDA looking devices for those who need more computer like functionality.
You can present an evidence that supports a theory, or present evidence that contradicts a theory. However simply presenting evidence that condradicts one theory does not automatically support another, unless the two are mutually exlusive. Evolution and Intellegent Design (creationism) are not mutually exlusive. Evidence that contradicts evolution does not immediately support intellegent design. 99% percent of the evidence presented by intellegent designers attacks evolution. There is basically no scientific evidence that supports intellegent design. If there was real, good evidence that supported intellegent design then the intellegent designers might be able to get their theory discussed as real science.
The reg covered this bill quite well yesterday. Their analysis is that is law is for 3rd parties who sell the "skipping info" to concerned parents. It also includes harsher penalties for bootleggers.
BitTorrent use hashes to verify each small chunk of the file as they are downloaded. I can imagine that it is very hard to find a collision for the entire file, but given the relatively small size of each chunk, I think it would be pretty easy to generate a collision for the smaller blocks.
Once you can do that, messing with the p2p system is trivial, just make a client that takes a torrent, makes fake data to satisfy the chunk's hashes and then start serving them up. No one will know if their download is crap until the entire file is complete, and you won't be able to tell which chunk is bad. Not only that, the "bad chunks" will propagate around they system.
Of course, defeating such a system is equally easy, just increase the chunk size. Of course, this could degrade bittorrent's performance.
Given this was published in New Scientist (a magazine about, you know, science) this is probably not particularly contraversal. I suspect the vast majority of their readers have already accepted the theory of evolution.
You actually have to be very fundamentalist to deny evolution. How fundamentalist? Well, the last two Popes both supported the theory of evolution, as will, most likely, all future Popes.
Do you have a reference to back up this statement? I'm actually quite interested to know if this is true.
Cool, thanks.
Is there a link to that somewhere? I did not notice one in obvious locations (download page or FAQ).
This is not all that uncommon. I suspect they are trying to do something similar to mysql's commerical license. Entities can buy the commerial license which allows them create apps that interact with mysql without having to release their app's source.
mysql commerical licenseThat being said, I don't think they should list open source as a feature until the source is available.
Not to be a complete dick about this, but you are using the incorrect definition for gigabyte. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte This one of those issues where what everybody uses all the time is incorrect. I don't think it is ever going to change, but for accuary's sake, I though I'd point it out.
I think that the original poster's point is quite valid, but it was poorly explained.
Imagine the article was about drinking and driving and the conclusion of the study was "driving while intoxicated increases the risk of accident". Then then an equivalent title would be something about a specific accident being caused by driving drunk.
The point is, the article makes a general statement about increased risk, but the title implies that a specific incident was (necessarily) caused by the effect. The title is very misleading.
They [Video Game makers] simply market and re-market sequels and clones, sequels and clones.
Sounds a lot like Hollywood to me, except that Hollywood also takes ideas from movies made in other countries or longer than 20 year ago, burdens them with silly teenageers and first time directors, and thus turns great films to crappy remakes.Its probably 1.6 terabytes which is approximately 1.2 Tebibytes
Of course, the conversions don't work out quite right, so I think there is probably some "rounding" going on