More semantics? You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. ... You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ... Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;...
So you may charge for the source code only whatever it costs you to distribute it.
Stallman does not argue that "most software should be free of charge". The GPL, which he wrote, specifically says one is allowed to charge for GPLd software.
I think you're splitting hairs. GPL mandates that software source code be available free of charge (along with any necessary build tools). Sure you can charge for it, or for the binary version, but your customers also have to have a way of obtaining it free of charge. Charging for GPL sofware is more of a plea for donations. (There are of course other ways of making money - like charging for support or custom work)
No, a really strong economy is both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. In other words, in order to have a really strong economy, you must depend on neither exports nor imports.
This is absolutely wrong. You just made this up, didn't you.
I would say that the parents do bear some responsibility for their children ending up smokers.
Maybe, but the analogy doesn't apply to this case. On a tangent, I would consider it to be supreme arrogance, if a government official tried to peddle the notion that the government is our father and we are its children.
why don't you agree with that in the case of the environment including the actions of the government?
Your argument essentially looks as follows: "All our actions are affected by our environment. The government is part of our environment. Therefore the wiretapping at HP was inspired/affected by government's NSA wiretapping". You're either begging the question, committing a fallacy of division or just putting forth a meaningless argument.
I'm just drawing a parallel and asking you to examine the situation again before declaring such absolutes.
I don't know what absolutes you think I'm arguing. I simply don't want to speculate what percentage influence George Bush had on HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn's actions. Right now there is zero evidence to suggest any connection. To claim one is actually quite laughable and ammo to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing pundits.
I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush"
This is a stupid statement. The NSA wiretapping was wrong and Bush should probably be impeached for breaking the law, but this has NOTHING to do with the scandal at HP, no matter how many paragraphs you write to try to justify it.
Keeping Pluto listed as a planet just for historic reasons should be enough.
No. Science should not base its definitions or findings on historic reasons or the emotional state of the population at large. IAU is trying to come up with rigorous scientific definition for 'planet'. I don't know what they will eventually decide but anything will be better than having no definition and relying on intuitive judgement to label something a planet - thats how Pluto got in, in the first place you know. Besides, by your reasoning, Pluto, Neptune and Uranus should never have been planets because historically, only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were planets.
Which is exactly why you need to refer to your current installation as GNU/Linux... if your 2008 system will be running GNU/Mach, or Something/Linux, then you need to be clear that Ubuntu 6.06 (or whatever) is specifically GNU/Linux.
I agree. But since all major Linux distros run GNU utilities right now, why not drop the "GNU/" prefix until a time when it is actually necessary to differentiate between GNU and non-GNU flavours? =)
Then please don't call it "Windows", call it "kernel32.dll" (or whatever file contains the kernel).
Point is that there isn't any correlation between the name of an OS (or any app) and the parts it consists of. Yes GNU utilities comprise an important part of what everyone thinks of as the "Linux Operating System", does that mean it should be known as GNU/Linux? Maybe, but people seem to be happy with just calling it "Linux", so whats the problem? Frankly, I'd personally like to keep "GNU" and "Linux" seperate as maybe sometime in the future some popular versions of Linux will not make use of any GNU utilities... it could happen.
Besides, last I checked, GPL did not have a provision which required to append "GNU/" to any app which makes use of FF's code. RMS is being completely anal and annoying about the whole "GNU/Linux" thing.
everyone bagged on Apple for building "Fisher-Price" computers out of that thick ABS you used to only see on toys. Guess what? Those machines wore like iron. My iBook and my Blue-And-White were both purchased in 1999. Guess what? They are still 100% functional and run modern Mac OS X.
What does the casing have to do with component quality? People bagged on the "Fisher-Price" because they were ugly.
Besides, 7 years is not impressive. My P200 is still doing a good job as a web server. Furthermore, you can't possibly generalize your single experience across everyone else's.
YouTube gets a license to re-distribute your content (and its always yours) while you have it uploaded. If you don't like it, yank it off and magically, they no longer have any rights to your video. I think this is a very fair policy that works very well for youtube's distribution model.
Step 4: Game DOESN'T become obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting ANYWAY, because everyone would already own a copy, go to step 1
I don't think so, in fact, I think the opposite is the case. Old books and movies continue to be revenue generators for their respective publishers years after they have been released. Furthermore they don't seem to affect the sales of new books and movies. Considering that the primary cost of games (like other forms of IP), is in the creation, with the duplication practically free, I don't see why games shouldn't make the publishers money years after their release. And I don't see why publishers wouldn't want to continue selling something that makes them money and costs next to nothing to produce.
The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here
Ok. I'll argue that this isn't the case since he put it in a public venue (IM icon) and was seen by many of his peers.
If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime.
We live in a very litigious society. Businesses, and local governments have to deal with this fact. People have been awarded millions for injuries easily avoided if they exercised some judgement.
Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat
Thats not what I'm arguing. Its actually irrelevant whether the icon is or it isn't a genuine death threat. The school had to act once the complaint was in. The action they chose was suspension, which was perhaps a bit too harsh. But you're not really arguing the severity of the punishment but whether or not the school should have punished him at all.
Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform
I don't think I said that.. but OK. My school had a dress code (white shirt, black pants, tie) and you were liable for suspension if you consistently broke it...tough luck. If you're under 18, in school and living at home, your individuality is severely compromised. My sister got a second piercing in her ear at 14 (she's 30 now).. she managed to hide it from my parents for a month, and it just so happened that the day my dad saw it, was the last day she wore it. Tough luck. If you're a kid, you get no rights.
I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it.
That's the key. Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down. Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.
Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).
Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger..but anywho.. there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally. They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?".. all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.
I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.
This is exactly the kind of garbage that makes not only children, but parents hostile towards the schools.
Parents are already hostile towards schools when their little Johnny isn't handled like porcelain.
Just wait until the school decides that your child playing video games in your home is a disruption at school. What happens when they decide that your child reading certain books at home will create a disruption at home.
There are limits, and this situation is different. He made an explicit threat against a teacher. Now, its probably a stupid joke (not funny BTW), but the school has to act on it or a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done; b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this; c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher. Besides, once a student complained, they *HAD* to act.
Not just you. This ad sucks. It looks like it was photoshoped in 15 minutes by some Unix hacker. The total effect is cheese (and hey, it comes in yellow too).. I mean come on: "Free Software, for a Free People"!!!??!
I don't follow soccer outside of the major tournaments (EuroCup and World Cup), but if USA plays as it did against Italy often, then they certainly deserve the ranking. The USA-Italy game was a real nail-bitter and at any time could have gone either way, and Italy is a team full of superstars. I'm not quite certain that Spain or Germany would have an easier time with the Americans, or that they would come out ahead.
Any kind of rankings are far from perfect. The Edmonton Oilers are close to winning the Stanely Cup even though they barely qualified for the playoffs.
Slashdot Mirror
More semantics?
...
... ...
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
So you may charge for the source code only whatever it costs you to distribute it.
Stallman does not argue that "most software should be free of charge". The GPL, which he wrote, specifically says one is allowed to charge for GPLd software.
I think you're splitting hairs. GPL mandates that software source code be available free of charge (along with any necessary build tools). Sure you can charge for it, or for the binary version, but your customers also have to have a way of obtaining it free of charge. Charging for GPL sofware is more of a plea for donations. (There are of course other ways of making money - like charging for support or custom work)
Maybe, maybe not.
Currently Apple is doing well and is very profitable, why change when you don't have to?
In the way economists measure things, the Exxon-Valdez disaster was a huge economic success.
Pray tell, how do economists see losing 30 million gallons of oil, a "huge economic success"?
No, a really strong economy is both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. In other words, in order to have a really strong economy, you must depend on neither exports nor imports.
This is absolutely wrong. You just made this up, didn't you.
I would say that the parents do bear some responsibility for their children ending up smokers.
Maybe, but the analogy doesn't apply to this case. On a tangent, I would consider it to be supreme arrogance, if a government official tried to peddle the notion that the government is our father and we are its children.
why don't you agree with that in the case of the environment including the actions of the government?
Your argument essentially looks as follows: "All our actions are affected by our environment. The government is part of our environment. Therefore the wiretapping at HP was inspired/affected by government's NSA wiretapping". You're either begging the question, committing a fallacy of division or just putting forth a meaningless argument.
I'm just drawing a parallel and asking you to examine the situation again before declaring such absolutes.
I don't know what absolutes you think I'm arguing. I simply don't want to speculate what percentage influence George Bush had on HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn's actions. Right now there is zero evidence to suggest any connection. To claim one is actually quite laughable and ammo to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing pundits.
Presumably because you are a thinking, moral human being.
Or maybe not.
I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush"
This is a stupid statement. The NSA wiretapping was wrong and Bush should probably be impeached for breaking the law, but this has NOTHING to do with the scandal at HP, no matter how many paragraphs you write to try to justify it.
Keeping Pluto listed as a planet just for historic reasons should be enough.
No. Science should not base its definitions or findings on historic reasons or the emotional state of the population at large. IAU is trying to come up with rigorous scientific definition for 'planet'. I don't know what they will eventually decide but anything will be better than having no definition and relying on intuitive judgement to label something a planet - thats how Pluto got in, in the first place you know. Besides, by your reasoning, Pluto, Neptune and Uranus should never have been planets because historically, only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were planets.
maybe it annoys him just as much when people don't acknowledge that the system has GNU parts.
Then he should have made accreditation explicit in the GPL.
Which is exactly why you need to refer to your current installation as GNU/Linux ... if your 2008 system will be running GNU/Mach, or Something/Linux, then you need to be clear that Ubuntu 6.06 (or whatever) is specifically GNU/Linux.
I agree. But since all major Linux distros run GNU utilities right now, why not drop the "GNU/" prefix until a time when it is actually necessary to differentiate between GNU and non-GNU flavours? =)
Then please don't call it "Windows", call it "kernel32.dll" (or whatever file contains the kernel).
Point is that there isn't any correlation between the name of an OS (or any app) and the parts it consists of. Yes GNU utilities comprise an important part of what everyone thinks of as the "Linux Operating System", does that mean it should be known as GNU/Linux? Maybe, but people seem to be happy with just calling it "Linux", so whats the problem? Frankly, I'd personally like to keep "GNU" and "Linux" seperate as maybe sometime in the future some popular versions of Linux will not make use of any GNU utilities... it could happen.
Besides, last I checked, GPL did not have a provision which required to append "GNU/" to any app which makes use of FF's code. RMS is being completely anal and annoying about the whole "GNU/Linux" thing.
You do sound like an MBA student.
everyone bagged on Apple for building "Fisher-Price" computers out of that thick ABS you used to only see on toys. Guess what? Those machines wore like iron. My iBook and my Blue-And-White were both purchased in 1999. Guess what? They are still 100% functional and run modern Mac OS X.
What does the casing have to do with component quality? People bagged on the "Fisher-Price" because they were ugly.
Besides, 7 years is not impressive. My P200 is still doing a good job as a web server. Furthermore, you can't possibly generalize your single experience across everyone else's.
Open Source works within the realm of copyright law. It is not forced by government or regulation.
I doubt any libertarians have ideological problems with it.
That's good, because Apple stole Sidebar idea wholeheartedly from Konfabulator and other widget environments that predated Dashboard.
:)
Christ... remember, kids, ideology is not just a point of view, it's a mental illness. Just say no.
But they did. Dashboard is a total rip of Konfabulator.
Not that I personally have a problem with it. Everyone in the industry copies each other, whether it be Linux, Apple, or Microsoft.
The article wasn't that bad either.
Exactly. There is no controversy.
YouTube gets a license to re-distribute your content (and its always yours) while you have it uploaded. If you don't like it, yank it off and magically, they no longer have any rights to your video. I think this is a very fair policy that works very well for youtube's distribution model.
Only 5% of 'journalists' are journalists.
Step 4: Game DOESN'T become obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting ANYWAY, because everyone would already own a copy, go to step 1
I don't think so, in fact, I think the opposite is the case. Old books and movies continue to be revenue generators for their respective publishers years after they have been released. Furthermore they don't seem to affect the sales of new books and movies. Considering that the primary cost of games (like other forms of IP), is in the creation, with the duplication practically free, I don't see why games shouldn't make the publishers money years after their release. And I don't see why publishers wouldn't want to continue selling something that makes them money and costs next to nothing to produce.
Whats the advantage of EXT3 over NTFS (besides the fact the former is supported by linux)? Anything?
If anything I'd wish for Windows to run on ZFS or ReiserFS. Those actually give you some benefits over NTFS.
The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here
.. but OK. My school had a dress code (white shirt, black pants, tie) and you were liable for suspension if you consistently broke it...tough luck. If you're under 18, in school and living at home, your individuality is severely compromised. My sister got a second piercing in her ear at 14 (she's 30 now).. she managed to hide it from my parents for a month, and it just so happened that the day my dad saw it, was the last day she wore it. Tough luck. If you're a kid, you get no rights.
Ok. I'll argue that this isn't the case since he put it in a public venue (IM icon) and was seen by many of his peers.
If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime.
We live in a very litigious society. Businesses, and local governments have to deal with this fact. People have been awarded millions for injuries easily avoided if they exercised some judgement.
Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat
Thats not what I'm arguing. Its actually irrelevant whether the icon is or it isn't a genuine death threat. The school had to act once the complaint was in. The action they chose was suspension, which was perhaps a bit too harsh. But you're not really arguing the severity of the punishment but whether or not the school should have punished him at all.
Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform
I don't think I said that
I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it.
That's the key. Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down. Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.
Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).
Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger..but anywho.. there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally. They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?".. all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.
I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.
This is exactly the kind of garbage that makes not only children, but parents hostile towards the schools.
Parents are already hostile towards schools when their little Johnny isn't handled like porcelain.
Just wait until the school decides that your child playing video games in your home is a disruption at school. What happens when they decide that your child reading certain books at home will create a disruption at home.
There are limits, and this situation is different. He made an explicit threat against a teacher. Now, its probably a stupid joke (not funny BTW), but the school has to act on it or a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done; b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this; c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher. Besides, once a student complained, they *HAD* to act.
Not just you. This ad sucks. It looks like it was photoshoped in 15 minutes by some Unix hacker. The total effect is cheese (and hey, it comes in yellow too).. I mean come on: "Free Software, for a Free People"!!!??!
I don't follow soccer outside of the major tournaments (EuroCup and World Cup), but if USA plays as it did against Italy often, then they certainly deserve the ranking. The USA-Italy game was a real nail-bitter and at any time could have gone either way, and Italy is a team full of superstars. I'm not quite certain that Spain or Germany would have an easier time with the Americans, or that they would come out ahead.
Any kind of rankings are far from perfect. The Edmonton Oilers are close to winning the Stanely Cup even though they barely qualified for the playoffs.