With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve your code can be incorporated into your own project or into others. This doesn't happen with a BSD license.
Too bad there's not a license for: "Here's the code. Do what you want to. Any problems that crop up are yours and yours alone to deal with. Now, go away and don't bother me. Ever. No. Really. I mean it. You are on your own."
The BSD license comes the closest to that, which is why I prefer it.
1. How do you stop leaks from occurring? 2. What's acceptable practice to do so?
Obviously, HP went too far in their actions. Investigating within the corporation is one thing, but going outside the corporation, in the manner they did, is beyond the pale. This is a matter easily dealt with by law, without requiring a huge amount of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The first question is more troubling, though. Apple leaks information like a sieve, information that they don't want out there until they do. So do most other tech companies in the manufactured products game, and it's obvious that current sanctions don't work. So how do you kill the leak at the source?
I don't think that I stated anywhere that offensive speech only involves cursing or sex
That was for the benefit of people outside this discussion, just in case they weren't getting it, and to be honest, to make sure you understood the point I was arguing from. At any rate, there are certain things I challenge in your argument.
I can't vote a corporation out
You don't vote an elected official out - you either re-elect or replace them when their term ends. While you can't vote a corporation "in" or "out", you can affect their operation and corporate philosophy in a number of ways that actually affect them more than the same actions would have against a governmental body. By their very nature, corporations are vulnerable to public perception, which drives purchasing and profits. A downturn in perception has very real effects on the bottom line for most industries (the PR industry pretty obviously gets excited about this sort of thing).
But if corporate TOS essentially replace government laws for services that by now are considered essential for the functioning of society (I would not be able to do my job using just intranets and regular mail),
You have made two assumptions here (in reverse order): a) that you are entitled to a job, which leads to b) TOS replacing the law.
Assumption a) implies that there is some sort of "right to a job" which, to my knowledge, does not exist in any body of law or even under the concept natural rights (which is a lot of B.S. in my opinion). Speaking from an American standpoint (I live there), no court case or other judicial pronouncement, or even elected body action, has said that you, or anyone, are entitled to a job of any sort. You are only entitled to those Freedoms guaranteed by law (Association, Religion, Speech, etc.). Not one mentions employment of any kind.
Assumption b) follows on that because it falls under contract law. Laws, conditions, or agreements created by lesser bodies cannot override the laws, etc. created by higher bodies that govern those areas (that could be phrased better). Again, you willingly (but maybe with reservations) entered into a contract. Contracts only have to be fair for a given value of "fair" and they can be challenged, but to do so requires a choice on your part. Do you accept the easy road and sign the contract or do you take the hard road and find another way? The onerous TOS is merely another unpleasant hazard of your work. It is a compromise you willingly make in order to complete your job. And I do mean willingly - you signed it, checked it, or whatever to access the service. Had it been the opposite, you would obviously not have, for example, the internet to send out your email.
As with freedom, absolutely nothing guarantees you an easy way to do any other thing you might wish to do. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to any of this (other than that guaranteed by law)?
However, do you really want to live in a place where Freedom of Speech is merely a hypothetical idea rather than a practical truth?
It is a hard fact here in the U.S. No, wait... read on.
Is the US really a better place than China, Russia or any other country when freedom of speech only exists when it doesn't offend anyone?
No. But offensive ideas come in all shapes and sizes and do not just contain curse words, racial epithets, and naked people doing wacky stuff, etc. I think you're not expanding your thinking wide enough.
Do you have freedom of speech if anyone can shut down your speech?
Yes, so long as you live in a place where it is guaranteed by law. No one outside of the elected ruling body or other guarantor has to make it easy to exercise, though.
"The problem is that increasingly, people and corporations seem to be actively impeding, not just "not helping".
Only the Government (specifically, the US Government) guarantees you the right to Freedom of Speech and it is only they (and elected officials, etc.) who have to respect it. Individuals and corporations are not The Government and as such they don't have to do a damn thing to help you. In fact, barring illegal means, they can do all kinds of things to make it very difficult or near impossible, or actually impossible to speak your mind (note: Government can do this, too, by establishing all kinds of arcane rules - but they do have to let you eventually).
But so long as these persons or corporations are within the law, you're stuck.
Is it Right? I'll say yes. Is it Fair? Again, yes. It is what it is - the system we have until someone comes along and changes it. Personally, I don't mind so much. If it's a Really Big Truth, which is going to discombobulate society to a great degree, then perhaps getting that Really Big Truth out should be difficult so that people are better able to understand and respect it when it comes along. Which is not to say that they will, but at least it's there so they can if they choose to. The opposite is a system where anyone can claim to have a Really Big Truth to dispense and can easily put it out there and then all of sudden, the value of Truth is a big Who Cares?
NOTE: I'm using a lot of caps here for a reason. I'm speaking of general concepts rather than one in particular. Like "The Law" vs. the law kind of thing.
Technically speaking, using the rules of English, that's Mr. Device. Be that as it may...
what good is a phone call... if you are unable to speak?
Let's see here. There's pen and paper (could get your hands lopped off or perhaps your eyes gouged out) or ultimately, you can still walk out the door and communicate directly with your supplicants.
I get the general gist of your argument - really, I do. But you need to understand that no one person, corporation, business, or other entity is required to help you with whatever your mission is. Count yourself lucky that for the most part, these businesses aren't too worried about it - it's a side effect of the communications business that you have the ability to spread your screed over a wide area.
But it doesn't have to be that way and you should not count on it if what you have to say is particularly disturbing to the rest of society (or even some small part of it - as long as it's influential). Ultimately, you are only guaranteed the Freedom, not the means to utilize it in a convenient manner.
We need free speech zones on the internet that do not depend on corporations or Government.
It's called your computer. Specifically, for you, the one you own.
You have the Freedom of Speech. Nowhere is it written that you have Freedom of Easy-to-Access Speech or the Freedom of Everyone-has-to-help-you-so-ISP's-gimme-a-cable-li ne Speech.
DHS Recommends Security Patch to Protect Against a Vulnerability Found In Windows Operating Systems
[snip]
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is recommending that Windows Operating Systems users apply Microsoft security patch MS06-040 as quickly as possible.
[snip]
Windows Operating Systems users are encouraged to avoid delay in applying this security patch.
[snip]
DHS recommends that computer users and administrators implement the following preparedness measures to protect themselves against this vulnerability
[snip]
Nowhere in there is the word "command", or the words "you will" or any other sort of wording that requires you to install any sort of patch immediately and forthwith.
You're free to run your unpatched system at your and everyone else's peril as long as you want. On the other hand, if you haven't been patching your system, and you're a System Administrator, you're an idiot and should be fired as soon as possible. If this is your home machine, you're just an idiot.
And they know who you are, travoltus, and you, dotslashdot.
DSD will be sent to Guantanamo for being an enemy noncombatant, having uttered demoralizing words against the corpocracy. Travoltus, will be sent to Guantanamo for being suspiciously patriotic.
I will, of course, be sent there for having revealed the truth about you two being sent there.
Anyone reading this comment will be sent there for reading classified information which, when you read it was declassified, however since new rules apply, well...
Tough titties, I say. They can change their own society (seeing as how we're having all this remarkable success) if they want. However, given recent trends in that part of the world, best of luck and all, but I'm not holding my breath.
You think that Linux - a single operating system kernel - is going to have more lasting influence than the whole free software movement, of which the Linux kernel is just a part of ?
When people speak of Linux, do they say GNU/Linux or just Linux?
Yeah, I know - it's not really a competition... except when it is. The FSF needs to work on gaining the mindshare that Linux has gotten. It's easy for Linux, people actually get something tangible - the FSF, not so much. The GPL presents a set of concepts, but I think we're moving to an age of goal-oriented people who are less concerned about the whys and wherefores.
I will admit that I am fully disgusted with your response.
1) I read. I read what I can, when I can to try and fully understand the policy and impact of our policitician's actions. Then I vote accordingly.
2) The Freedom of Speech by definition includes the Freedom to Remain Silent, for whatever reason, without explanation. Perhaps not the best choice, but a valid choice, nonetheless.
You really should tie your high horse up somewhere else.
Where? If the card manufacturers were in cahoots with the OS manufacturer to restrict availability of their product line to that OS alone, then you might have a case. But reality doesn't bear that out since most of the cards have been available for multiple OSes for some time (albeit with some restrictions, apparently due to technical constraints vs. cost of development).
I think you would find it next to impossible to build a legal case for your argument, although that hasn't stopped some companies (SCO, anyone?)
The fact is that some cards have been available for the major consumer OSes from the major manufacturers for some time now, usually matched to the operating system requirements and hardware limitations. That these same manufacturers choose not to release drivers for Linux is more a reflection on their belief that doing so would not be profitable and that the insistence from the end-users on open-sourcing the drivers would not benefit the manufacturer in any way, shape, or form.
You want them to release, you have to make it profitable for them.
At the risk of godwinning myself, what's that famous quote about the holocause that goes along the line of "there will always be number-crunchers behind the scenes eager to see if they can make the count even higher next time?"
What's the point of playing if you don't keep score?
Hell, I'd sell out to Microsoft in a heartbeat - work there for a couple of years and retire comfortably to work on whatever I wanted to work on. Charity is nice, but you have to be practical and I, for one, would take whatever money they offered if I felt they were at least paying enough for the product.
I may never be rich, but I'm also not going to turn it down as long as the work I'm doing is legal and I can square it with my own ethics, rather than the ethics someone tells me I should have.
Slashdot Mirror
With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve your code can be incorporated into your own project or into others. This doesn't happen with a BSD license.
Too bad there's not a license for: "Here's the code. Do what you want to. Any problems that crop up are yours and yours alone to deal with. Now, go away and don't bother me. Ever. No. Really. I mean it. You are on your own."
The BSD license comes the closest to that, which is why I prefer it.
If you didn't know, Belgium is THE economic hub for Europe.
And apparently, it's THE stupidity hub as well.
The (smarter) Flemish part of Belgium including Brussels has the higher penetration of internet, businesses and people.
It's all looks like Belgium from the outside, bub.
This whole debacle does raise the questions of:
1. How do you stop leaks from occurring?
2. What's acceptable practice to do so?
Obviously, HP went too far in their actions. Investigating within the corporation is one thing, but going outside the corporation, in the manner they did, is beyond the pale. This is a matter easily dealt with by law, without requiring a huge amount of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The first question is more troubling, though. Apple leaks information like a sieve, information that they don't want out there until they do. So do most other tech companies in the manufactured products game, and it's obvious that current sanctions don't work. So how do you kill the leak at the source?
I don't think that I stated anywhere that offensive speech only involves cursing or sex
That was for the benefit of people outside this discussion, just in case they weren't getting it, and to be honest, to make sure you understood the point I was arguing from. At any rate, there are certain things I challenge in your argument.
I can't vote a corporation out
You don't vote an elected official out - you either re-elect or replace them when their term ends. While you can't vote a corporation "in" or "out", you can affect their operation and corporate philosophy in a number of ways that actually affect them more than the same actions would have against a governmental body. By their very nature, corporations are vulnerable to public perception, which drives purchasing and profits. A downturn in perception has very real effects on the bottom line for most industries (the PR industry pretty obviously gets excited about this sort of thing).
But if corporate TOS essentially replace government laws for services that by now are considered essential for the functioning of society (I would not be able to do my job using just intranets and regular mail),
You have made two assumptions here (in reverse order): a) that you are entitled to a job, which leads to b) TOS replacing the law.
Assumption a) implies that there is some sort of "right to a job" which, to my knowledge, does not exist in any body of law or even under the concept natural rights (which is a lot of B.S. in my opinion). Speaking from an American standpoint (I live there), no court case or other judicial pronouncement, or even elected body action, has said that you, or anyone, are entitled to a job of any sort. You are only entitled to those Freedoms guaranteed by law (Association, Religion, Speech, etc.). Not one mentions employment of any kind.
Assumption b) follows on that because it falls under contract law. Laws, conditions, or agreements created by lesser bodies cannot override the laws, etc. created by higher bodies that govern those areas (that could be phrased better). Again, you willingly (but maybe with reservations) entered into a contract. Contracts only have to be fair for a given value of "fair" and they can be challenged, but to do so requires a choice on your part. Do you accept the easy road and sign the contract or do you take the hard road and find another way? The onerous TOS is merely another unpleasant hazard of your work. It is a compromise you willingly make in order to complete your job. And I do mean willingly - you signed it, checked it, or whatever to access the service. Had it been the opposite, you would obviously not have, for example, the internet to send out your email.
As with freedom, absolutely nothing guarantees you an easy way to do any other thing you might wish to do. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to any of this (other than that guaranteed by law)?
However, do you really want to live in a place where Freedom of Speech is merely a hypothetical idea rather than a practical truth?
... read on.
It is a hard fact here in the U.S. No, wait
Is the US really a better place than China, Russia or any other country when freedom of speech only exists when it doesn't offend anyone?
No. But offensive ideas come in all shapes and sizes and do not just contain curse words, racial epithets, and naked people doing wacky stuff, etc. I think you're not expanding your thinking wide enough.
Do you have freedom of speech if anyone can shut down your speech?
Yes, so long as you live in a place where it is guaranteed by law. No one outside of the elected ruling body or other guarantor has to make it easy to exercise, though.
"The problem is that increasingly, people and corporations seem to be actively impeding, not just "not helping".
Only the Government (specifically, the US Government) guarantees you the right to Freedom of Speech and it is only they (and elected officials, etc.) who have to respect it. Individuals and corporations are not The Government and as such they don't have to do a damn thing to help you. In fact, barring illegal means, they can do all kinds of things to make it very difficult or near impossible, or actually impossible to speak your mind (note: Government can do this, too, by establishing all kinds of arcane rules - but they do have to let you eventually).
But so long as these persons or corporations are within the law, you're stuck.
Is it Right? I'll say yes. Is it Fair? Again, yes. It is what it is - the system we have until someone comes along and changes it. Personally, I don't mind so much. If it's a Really Big Truth, which is going to discombobulate society to a great degree, then perhaps getting that Really Big Truth out should be difficult so that people are better able to understand and respect it when it comes along. Which is not to say that they will, but at least it's there so they can if they choose to. The opposite is a system where anyone can claim to have a Really Big Truth to dispense and can easily put it out there and then all of sudden, the value of Truth is a big Who Cares?
NOTE: I'm using a lot of caps here for a reason. I'm speaking of general concepts rather than one in particular. Like "The Law" vs. the law kind of thing.
Tell me, Mr. Infernal,
...
Technically speaking, using the rules of English, that's Mr. Device. Be that as it may
what good is a phone call... if you are unable to speak?
Let's see here. There's pen and paper (could get your hands lopped off or perhaps your eyes gouged out) or ultimately, you can still walk out the door and communicate directly with your supplicants.
I get the general gist of your argument - really, I do. But you need to understand that no one person, corporation, business, or other entity is required to help you with whatever your mission is. Count yourself lucky that for the most part, these businesses aren't too worried about it - it's a side effect of the communications business that you have the ability to spread your screed over a wide area.
But it doesn't have to be that way and you should not count on it if what you have to say is particularly disturbing to the rest of society (or even some small part of it - as long as it's influential). Ultimately, you are only guaranteed the Freedom, not the means to utilize it in a convenient manner.
We need free speech zones on the internet that do not depend on corporations or Government.
i ne Speech.
It's called your computer. Specifically, for you, the one you own.
You have the Freedom of Speech. Nowhere is it written that you have Freedom of Easy-to-Access Speech or the Freedom of Everyone-has-to-help-you-so-ISP's-gimme-a-cable-l
Norway borders on Sweden, that it has a "very elongated shape" or that it is "generally perceived as clean and modern".
I have heard rumors that Norway does not, in fact, wash behind it's ears.
Bar none, that's the funniest thing I've ever read on Slashdot.
Nowhere in there is the word "command", or the words "you will" or any other sort of wording that requires you to install any sort of patch immediately and forthwith.
You're free to run your unpatched system at your and everyone else's peril as long as you want. On the other hand, if you haven't been patching your system, and you're a System Administrator, you're an idiot and should be fired as soon as possible. If this is your home machine, you're just an idiot.
And they know who you are, travoltus, and you, dotslashdot.
...
DSD will be sent to Guantanamo for being an enemy noncombatant, having uttered demoralizing words against the corpocracy. Travoltus, will be sent to Guantanamo for being suspiciously patriotic.
I will, of course, be sent there for having revealed the truth about you two being sent there.
Anyone reading this comment will be sent there for reading classified information which, when you read it was declassified, however since new rules apply, well
Oh, man, I just depressed myself.
How much are you getting paid to post this?
Tough titties, I say. They can change their own society (seeing as how we're having all this remarkable success) if they want. However, given recent trends in that part of the world, best of luck and all, but I'm not holding my breath.
Meh, their loss.
Seriously, why is this a problem for anyone outside of Bahrain? If they want to remain stupid and ignorant, I say let them.
You think that Linux - a single operating system kernel - is going to have more lasting influence than the whole free software movement, of which the Linux kernel is just a part of ?
... except when it is. The FSF needs to work on gaining the mindshare that Linux has gotten. It's easy for Linux, people actually get something tangible - the FSF, not so much. The GPL presents a set of concepts, but I think we're moving to an age of goal-oriented people who are less concerned about the whys and wherefores.
When people speak of Linux, do they say GNU/Linux or just Linux?
Yeah, I know - it's not really a competition
I will admit that I am fully disgusted with your response.
1) I read. I read what I can, when I can to try and fully understand the policy and impact of our policitician's actions. Then I vote accordingly.
2) The Freedom of Speech by definition includes the Freedom to Remain Silent, for whatever reason, without explanation. Perhaps not the best choice, but a valid choice, nonetheless.
You really should tie your high horse up somewhere else.
Well, maybe you kids oughtta stay off his damn lawn ...
I got no problem with Microsoft taking him out.
Permanently.
Too bad you can't trace the hackers back to the source and order a hit squad on them ... well, maybe in Russia.
There has to be a case there.
Where? If the card manufacturers were in cahoots with the OS manufacturer to restrict availability of their product line to that OS alone, then you might have a case. But reality doesn't bear that out since most of the cards have been available for multiple OSes for some time (albeit with some restrictions, apparently due to technical constraints vs. cost of development).
I think you would find it next to impossible to build a legal case for your argument, although that hasn't stopped some companies (SCO, anyone?)
The fact is that some cards have been available for the major consumer OSes from the major manufacturers for some time now, usually matched to the operating system requirements and hardware limitations. That these same manufacturers choose not to release drivers for Linux is more a reflection on their belief that doing so would not be profitable and that the insistence from the end-users on open-sourcing the drivers would not benefit the manufacturer in any way, shape, or form.
You want them to release, you have to make it profitable for them.
At the risk of godwinning myself, what's that famous quote about the holocause that goes along the line of "there will always be number-crunchers behind the scenes eager to see if they can make the count even higher next time?"
What's the point of playing if you don't keep score?
Oh, just get over it, will you?
Hell, I'd sell out to Microsoft in a heartbeat - work there for a couple of years and retire comfortably to work on whatever I wanted to work on. Charity is nice, but you have to be practical and I, for one, would take whatever money they offered if I felt they were at least paying enough for the product.
I may never be rich, but I'm also not going to turn it down as long as the work I'm doing is legal and I can square it with my own ethics, rather than the ethics someone tells me I should have.
That's a pretty strong accusation. Where's your proof?
Yahoo, Microsoft, and Amazon have every right to do whatever they want with their product.
Well, except sell commercial software, according to the FSF.