"What RMS is really talking about is mandatory disclosure and a fixed $0.00 price tag on software."
I don't see where you get this from Stallman, and I don't think he'd agree with it. Mandatory disclosure, possibly. The right to reverse engineer and share, certainly. But a fixed $0.00 price tag has never been part of his philosophy, as far as I can tell.
..SNIP..
And the price bit is a red herring--the GPL doesn't require 'gratis' software.
Ohh, come now, be realistic. If you release your software under the GPL, you effectively give up your right to collect royalties, thereby, in real life, reducing your price tag to $0.00. I get tired of the crap about, "GPL doesn't mean Gratis, it means Libre." The right to control copying (the definition of copyright) is the only practical enforceable way to guarantee (sort-of) that you get paid the amount you set your price tag to. I mean, sure you could charge to give people copies of it, and some people would buy it from you, but many more would just get copies "from their neighbors" and you couldn't effectively charge for the software.
Don't get me wrong. I like the GPL, I like the freedom it gives (at the discretion of the author -- there's the most important thing if you truly believe in Freedom like you claim) to those who use my code. I'm working on contributing code to a GPL project, and in the future I plan to GPL any projects I might start. But that's because I _choose_ to, because I think it's a great thing. However, I think Stallman is way, way, way off base to call anyone who wouldn't GPL their software "evil". His argument is that I'd be trying to restrict some innate right that people have to share with their neighbors. Unfortunately, I just can't agree with Stallman's base assumption (which is what it is, he _never_ defends it, just assumes it) that people have the innate right to share other people's creative works. Look at it this way, if I share apples with you from an apple tree I have in my backyard, that's a great thing for me to do, because I was the person who did the work of planting the tree and pruning and taking care of the tree (or purchased it from whoever did), and thus, because those apples represent _my_ work, I can choose to share that work out of goodwill. Likewise, if I write software, and choose to share it with my neighbors, that's great, because I am the one who did the work for that software (or have been given permission by the one who did). In the world of software, of course, the cost of duplication is very close to $0.00, and thus some people have the idea that since the software "doesn't really cost anything" that they should be able to share it without the author's permission *. But let's face it, anyone who has ever written software knows that there is a cost in time of creating that software.
Thus, it seems to me, only the one who went to the expense of developing the software has the right to share that software. If they choose to license it under the GPL, great, kudos to them, they've made a wonderful contribution to humanity.
I know personally, I'd like a sort of middle-ground license. Something that is similar to the GPL in that it guarantees that people who get the software also get the source code, and the right to modify the source code and distribute their work (after all, what they do should be their's to share) under the same terms. But, my hypothetical license would still allow me the opportunity collect royalties if I should so choose. If people don't want to pay royalties, they are free to make a work-alike, pro bono. I suppose in this hypothetical license, I would be more than willing to include a clause that allowed for gratis use by people from developing nations, educational institutions, non-profits, and students. (That is one of the things that most endeared me to the GPL early on, the fact that I could use GNU/Linux, GCC, et. al, as a broke student who wouldn't have been otherwise able to afford access to it, gratis.) But those who could reasonably afford to pay me, should.
*And by that, I mean, that when RMS pronounces someone as "Evil" because they don't release software as Free Software, he is effectively trying to say that they should be forced to (even though he would say he isn't interested in forcing people through regulation to do so). Whether you force through regulation, or force through social-stigma, anytime someone released software under the terms of the GPL because of such coercion, it would fundamentally be without their permission if they had no choice. I say this, because I can picture a neo-puritanical world headed up by the Most Rev. Richard Stallman where anyone who didn't release software under the GPL would be villified by Stallman and Co. and so stigmatized that nobody could, in practical terms, release software under any other terms.
I have been using free software since about 1995. I am learning to program, and plan on releasing as much free software as I reasonably can. I say this so that you will know that I am not a troll, or one who is trying to start a war, but rather one with a genuine philosophical question. I view releasing software as free software as a _great_ thing to do, a wonderful thing to do, but I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that those who would choose not to release their program as free software are inherently evil.
Typically, what I have heard from you is something along the lines of "anyone who would tell me I can't share with my neighbor is evil for telling me not to share." But I have a fundamental philosophical problem with that statement, as you are saying you inherently have a right to share something that is not yours (or is it yours, in your view?)? What I guess I am asking is, upon what philosophical basis do you claim to have a right to share other people's creative works? If they choose to license it with the GPL, great I say, but as it _is_ their work, shouldn't they have the right to share it, or not, upon their own terms w/o being called evil?
To put it another way, by your philophy, regardless of what you say about "Free" being freedom, it is impossible to have a profitable company whose sole business is to create software and profit from that work. The companies that come the closest are those create free software, and then do customization-for-hire, and/or support contracts, or some other ancillary business. Shouldn't the very act of writing useful software be something a company can take a profit from? What about the model taken by Alladin, GPL'ing software after selling it for a year or two? I seem to recall you making a comment at the Bazaar last December that you thought that was an okay model?
I'm not arguing with your, or the original poster's, point that the parents are _the_ most significant factor. The first question that popped into my head when I heard about columbine had nothing to do with quake or movies, it, instead, was "Where the hell were the parents during all this? I could have _never_ have gotten to the point of going to school with submachine guns w/o my parents noticing and doing something about it. Where were their parents?"
But, that leaves the question of, if the parents are failing their responsibility, how can we as a society detect that and get help for the kids? We can't monitor people's homes. That would clearly be a violation of the basic right of privacy, especially in your own home. So the only thing we can really look for is 1)signs of domestic violence (if that is a problem in that kid's home, which it isn't always), or 2)Psychological disorders in the children.
If Pinkerton would develop some strong policy on how they will deal with abuse of the hotline/website so that people wouldn't be harassed I could maybe support WAVE. Additionally, there needs to be some legal precedent (read, unfortunately, that school districts probably won't set up appropriate policies for how _they_ handle info given to them by Pinkerton until someone sues a school board and establishes court precedent for what is appropriate) to protect students from harrasment. And when I say "protect students" from harrasment, I mean both those that are wrongly accused, and those that really do need help. The information that Pinkerton collects needs to be handled confidentially, students who there are questions about need to be quietly, non-embaressingly(sp?) contacted by professionals who can adequately evaluate them; and if (mentalhealth == "normal"){quietly send them on there way and make sure there is no record that could give them problems later} else {get them set up to get counseling and/or therapy}.
I agree that school violence is 1)very rare, and 2)caused by troubled homes. But even if you want to say that it isn't the kid's "fault", Dillan was the one who took guns and bombs into school, not his parents. So it logically follows that if you can somehow (Note: I'm not advocating wave, because I think they just don't have the safe-guards and protections in place to prevent abuse) identify those kids (extremely small number that they are) before they start shooting people up, and get _help_ for them, that would be a Good Thing(tm).
OK, Now that I've got your attention with a nice controversial subject line. ..Although I do agree with some of Jon's comments about Geek Profiling, I would like to point out that everybody is making lot's of statements about how damaging these phone calls can be. Depending on what Pinkerton does with the information, I suppose it really could be damaging. But if I was Pinkerton, I would use this phone line not to put people in some huge database that brands them for life as a psycho because some kid called in. Rather I would use it as a vehicle for communication with school authorities and psychologists.
I agree with Jon that the psycho's out there are few and far between, and that school violence (well, beyond school-yard fights) is rather rare. But the fact remains that there isn't an adequate system in place to catch the few kids who really _do_ need help. Who really _are_ suffering from clinical mental health problems. The task of a phone line such as pinkertons should be to try to communicate with the school. It is impingent on the school then, to try to contact those students in a non-obvious, non-embarrasing way that doesn't draw attention to them. Because the fact is that such a phone line _will_ have a high noise-to-signal ratio.
That said, I really believe that it would be possible to create a system where peoples' rights and liberties aren't violated, but that gives the kids a chance to be able to talk to someone about a student that they are worried about (perhaps a friend, who they don't want to hurt in a vengeful way, but just try to get someone to talk to them who _is_ qualified to decide if they need help). The problem with talking to school officials is that it _isn't_ anonymous, and so might scare off people who might otherwise report what they think might be someone in need of help.
It has been repeatedly stated that school kids aren't able to determine whether someone needs help. I absolutely agree. However, kids might be able to detect early signs, and start a process that could truly, accurately, determine whether someone needs help before that person slips through the cracks.
I would truly like to see people respond to this, if you have reasonable objections and/or things that I haven't thought of. I am perfectly interested in hearing other opinions. Just, pls, keep it civil and on-topic.;-)
Lastly, before anyone starts blathering at the mouth about how "He must be on the take from Pinkerton" or "H3's ju5t 4 P1nk3rt0n WH0r3" I'd like to disclaim any and all association with Pinkerton. Before Jon's articles, I'd never heard of them before, I've never worked for them, I don't get any money or have any association with them. I'm just a person who likes to think, and doesn't always agree with the rabid/. majority.
To begin with, we need to get this idea out of our heads that a kid who accidentally looks at a nude human being will be emotionally or socially injured in some way.
The only reason this is such a big deal is because of the long tradition of Puritanical/conservative/whatever values in this country that associate sinfulness/evil with the nude human form. This is completely artificial, and the sooner that sentiment is gone, the better.
To begin with, most of the stuff on pr0n sites doesn't seem to be just pictures of naked people. I am not a regular consumer of pr0n, but the few times I have accidently found my way to some of those sites (ok, I admit it, I was following 'warez links at the time) the stuff there rather turned my stomach. Why? Because it depicted much more than just naked people. Some of it was violent, some of it just plain disgusting (e.g. the bestiality-fetish crowd).
I agree that the best solution is for parents to supervise their children's use of the computer (especially young children), but I would like to point out that the concern people have isn't just some Puritanical anal-retentivity. There's no way any child should see hard-core pr0n. If I want to educate my children (I don't have any, BTW, but perhaps someday. ..) about the naked human form, I will try to find some art gallery or book on human anatomy or something that has much more taste-ful depictions of the human form, thank you.
Which is as it should be. The government shouldn't be spending the people's money on anything that doesn't have very strong upside potential. "That government governs best, which governs least" and all that. If only we could get the good people of Holland to export this attitude to the rest of the country...
Oops that shouldn't have been said. Take a look at what people have done throughout history with various shall we say "unpopular" things. I guess freeing of the slaves and helping the poor were bad things too. However the slaves were still freed and the poor were helped all in the century from 1800-1899. Sometimes unpopular things are sometimes necessary because some people can't see past the ends of their noses.
Ahh, but, my friend, Slavery was abolished, and the poor were helped, because they became popular issues because good people who knew what needed to be done were willing to go out and talk to everyone they met, to make moral stands in public, et. al. until the Electorate changed its mind. One might like to say that "Might doesn't make Right" and you'd be correct; however, Might makes Law. In the United States, and eventually much of the world now, we came to the conclusion that if might makes law, let the might be in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of those who stand to get rich off of bad laws (like the censorware law in question). What the Patriot's firmly believed when they advocated democracy and framed the constitution is that the people _will_ eventually see what is right and wrong, and while they might for a while support and vote for bad laws, that ultimately bad laws are not good for the majority and the majority would shed them like a stinky shirt. Viva La Democracy!!!! Jeff Schmidt
I'll start off this reply by trying to be generous to JWZ and say that, maybe, AOL was creeping up his butt and that is the real reason he became so frustrated with Mozilla. That said, if you take his original rant about jumping ship on Mozilla, one gets the impression that Jamie has become much more of a suit than he probably realized.
He wanted to get the technology out the door _NOW_ before it was finished. He wanted to make a marketing "splash" NOW, just like all the marketing guys who want to get software out the door by the 1st of September so that they can market it for Christmas, and won't listen to the engineers when they say it ain't ready. He wanted to do this so he could vindicate his push to get mozilla freed.
While I greatly admire his (among others) courage in standing up and advocating releasing the source for Netscape, I think he didn't really understand what he was starting. It takes awhile for developers to get comfortable with a new source code base. And some developers want to wait for a "stable" code base before starting to send patches. And their are a million more reasons why it took a long time to get Mozilla out the door. But the point is, it is about to be released, and I'm sure that it will make a splash with its appearance. JWZ just gave up to soon. But in any case, I think he will be vindicated, even if he's gone.
To some extent, I think I agree with you. Many in the "Christian Culture" put undue fences between men and women. As a Christian myself, I have been thinking for awhile that there is one particularly "wrong" thing about typical "Evangelical/Fundamentalist" thoughts on human relations: while the Bible gives us rules and commands about sexuality, from the standpoint of not hurting your neighbor (which, ultimately, is what promiscousness does), these, for the most part, well-meaning christians extend what the bible says by many degrees and put a wall between men and women. Men and women aren't "supposed" to interact outside of strictly defined circumstances and norms. I believe that this view hinders many friendships that could be very appropriate and healthy, as long as the individuals didn't have affairs.
As far as filtering software: I think that a _Lot_ of research needs to go into such software and be "proven" to avoid the pitfalls of current generation filtering software before I would even consider advocating it. Some people might say, "any filtering at all is an attack on my right to free speech." Well, I do somewhat agree with that standpoint, but I do very much agree that children shouldn't be allowed access (at least from terminals that have been paid for with public funds) to porn. You might like to say that it won't damage them psychologically, and maybe SOME of it wouldn't (pictures of the naked human form by itself could, perhaps, be considered art and anatomical education) but some porn is extremely violent and demeaning and there's no reason children should ever see that. There is also the age issue; what might be appropriate for a twelve year old might not be appropriate for a six year old.
Ultimately, though, I agree with the original poster that children shouldn't be exploring the web without adult guidance. Censorware really can't replace that, and so I won't be advocating censorware any time soon. Cheers.
Yes, this sort of thing is what the Internet Printing Protocol (as partly implemented in CUPS) promises. In practice,however, no one in their right mind is going to open up printers to print jobs submitted from random people on the network. Network print server vendors are also unlikely to support cryptographic authentication, or even simple access control lists in the forseable future.
Well, yes, you need some sort of authentication for printing across the internet, but IPP (at least the standard) does support this (though, as you say, getting vendors to fully implement standards can sometimes kill things). I suppose though, a more immediate example would be in a corporation where you would likely have multiple offices connected via some sort of wan. In such a scenario, you don't really need to worry all that much about spam/hate mail/etc (which is the main reason you wouldn't open up your printers to the outside world, no?) Yes, one could send a pdf (or Word, or Excel, or WordPerfect, or . ..), but that assumes the person on the other hand has the software on their end to read it. Having worked as a computer tech in several medium sized corporations, there were times when it would have been easiest to just have a user be able to print a project they were working on right to a VP's printer in their office than to go through making sure everybody could read everybody else's documents all the time. This becomes more of an issue when someone is working on a special project, where they have to send copies of their work to ppl other than their immediate supervisor or their own department's VP, ppl which they wouldn't normally be giving stuff to as part of their everyday activities (which scenario isn't entirely uncommon).
As far as rlpr goes, all I can say is "yech". I mean, do you really expect novice users to be able to figure out how to tell eg Wordperfect or Star Office how to run rlpr?
Sheesh, I guess there really are a lot of ppl working on printing under *nix (I guess that just shows that it is not currently as good as it should be;-). Anyhow, as regards your statements above. . . I believe that PostScript includes options for media size, print-quality and other printer-specific extentions, doesn't it? It would seem that it would be possible for the server/spooler to send that information back to the client and let the client render than info into the PostScript file it sends to the spooler. (I believe CUPS does this, no? I just took a few minutes to look at the CUPS site, and I must say that if they can get people to adopt, CUPS looks like it maybe has more to offer than any other system I've seen to date [though I have not checked many out; I'll have to go check out PDQ]).
My whole point is that, the way windows does it, where you have to install a printer as a seperate step just seems dumb. If you print a document to a given printer only once (say you want to send a sales flyer to the printer of a potential client who asked for it), you don't want to have to mess around with "installing" it, right? You should be able to say, give an option to a print dialog box that says the destination printer is "bob_lj4@bobs.com" or some such and have it get the options that printer supports, give you a second "options" dialog which you manipulate, and click "print" and bob gets your sales flier. (Not that I am either a salesman, or particularly fond of sales fliers, but that seemed like a good example of printing to a given printer only once).
I'd personally rather that if they are designing/engineering a whole new printing subsystem for *nux, that they try to think PAST windows. For example, in windows, every workstation has to have the driver to render from windows gdi/abstract format to printer native format on the local workstation. That's absurd. translation to printer specific format should be done on the print spooler/server!!
See, users shouldn't have to "install" a printer on their workstation to use it(unless the printer is attached to their workstation, perhaps, or it is a stand-alone box), just select it from a list of printers that they have rights to. In the specific case of what corel is working on, it would seem to me that the simplest, most logical solution would be to ship the document over the network as PostScript, write a bunch of drivers for ghost-script (that seems to be the most major problem of all for linux printing, lack of drivers for ghost-script, secondly is front-ending the printer setup to be simpler than lpr/lpd), and then have their printing sub-system call gs to convert it.
Anyhow, that's just one example of how they should design beyond windows' implementation of printing. I'm sure there are many other stupid things about windows printing I could come up with, but that is the most anoying to me, as a tech.
Does anyone know if Corel has a webpage/site up about this printing API that anyone could go and look at and make suggestions?
I'd love to hear any thoughts anyone else has on the subject of how *nix printing could be made a superior printing solution. Email me: jschmid|-AT-|uakron.eduNospam.
But I already have too many AOL coasters;-) Heck, sometimes I even make my own coasters (when I screw up burning a CD-R). BTW, I discovered a new use for AOL CDs -- they make _great_ christmas tree decorations.:-)
If Neoplanet can incorperate mozilla's rendering engine without breaching the MPL - or releaseing the neoplanet browser under the MPL then there should really be no problem doing it with a GPL program as well.
The only problem with this reasoning is that you haven't a proper understanding of the GPL. Now, admittedly, I am no expert on licsences, esp not the MPL, and also not a lawyer.;-) That said, my understanding is that Neoplanet could do what they could because they weren't using the GPL, but a licsence of their own making. I believe the MPL is fairly compatible with most licsences, except the GPL, and that is because the GPL is pretty much crafted to only be compatible with itself and the LGPL.
Now if I remember right, Cygnus had a contract with Sony that they were providing something (I think developer workstation software?) for the PlayStation II, so, through inheritance, we can now, in part, thank Red Hat when we play cool games, eh?;-)
For example, I think the copyright system works pretty well, and (today's) patent system is a horrible botch.
You know, I agree with this sentiment. One of the thoughts I keep returning to as I continue to ponder Free Software is that the GPL really enables the "freeing" of IP. Not just in the licsence itself, but in the incredible balance I think it brings to the system, sort of the completion of a circle. Like this, if we were to take RMS's philosophy to what he states is the logical conclusion and abolish copyrights, well then, no software could be said to be Free as the author would have no choice in the matter. But with the current system + GPL we have a way for something to be truly free. If I as a coder _decide_ to give away my software, then it is Free to everybody, including myself. Because I was free to choose that. But if I don't have the right to choose to not make my creation free, than I can gain no real philanthropic/ethical satisfaction from the fact that it _is_ free, and for _me_ my freedom has been somewhat reduced.
Gee, as long as everyone is sharing their "my first Linux experience" stories I may as well throw in my two cents.
I started my computing life on a 386 with dos, so the switch to Linux wasn't quite so hard for me (though it was still a fairly brain-stretching experience). In 1995 I discovered Linux. . . to make a long story short, I was starting to learn about the Internet and kept coming across references to UNIX, and, simultaneously, I kept bumping into references to Linux and Linux Users in my area. Finally, I decided to ask a member of a local Amateur Radio Club I was attending about Linux. He let me telnet into his Linux box to play with it for awhile. Then he gave me a pile of SlackWare floppies. I struggled through it (I think it took me 2 or 3 tries to get hard-drive partitioning just right;-)
After I got it installed, I mostly learned how to use it by reading some Unix books from O'Reilly, chiefly, and some others. One of the most helpful things for me at the beginning was one book (I don't remember which) that had a chapter called "Dos-to-Unix Rosetta Stone." Also, I spent alot of time reading stuff on the Web (esp. the LDP).
The reason I posted all of this is to ask one question: what is it that seperates those who learn by trying and reading from others who just need some hand-holding, so to speak? Katz obviously read alot of stuff, but it just didn't "click" with him. Alot of/.ers probably have stories more similar to mine. Why does Linux "click" fairly easily with some, but not with others?
I don't know about Motorola's Fab caps, but I would think they are pretty state-of-the-art too. . . I don't know why, but for some reason Motorola just seems like it'd be a good fit in my mind. . .:-)
to be unique. After all, many Ethernet adapters will allow you to go in and change the MAC address if you like. Not that I like any system that uses security based on the machine and not the user. Honestly, everytime I hear about some sort of hardware id system I just shake my head. . . what if I want to make a purchase from a friend's computer, what about people using Library/public computers? And as a previous writer pointed out, what's to stop a cracker from changing the browser/whatever software that sends the id so that it doesn't send his actual id. Stupid is all I can say from a pragmatic stand-point, big-brother aspects aside. (Not that the privacy issues aren't important; but others have written about that issue much better than I am able to)
Well, you seem to be killing the chicken before it's conceived because it might get infected with salmonella;-) I've personally thought for almost a year now (when I first discovered XML) that it would be perfect for configuration. Think about it, as long as it is straight ASCII XML it is perfectly feasable to read it with just text editor and manipulate it any way you like; or, just as easily use GUI config applets/property sheets to manage your system, which is what a lot of people would like.
To say that this should be avoided because 'somebody might try, 5 years down the line, to create a distro where all the apps are modified to use a binary database instead of straight XML' is kind of ridiculous. By then, presumably, if the distros standardized on this (which if it was implemented The Right Way(tm) they'd be crazy not to) then it would be futile for somebody to try to do what you are suggesting (not to mention a not-trivial amount of work). The biggest place where this kind of system would have problems would be with all the legacy code out there. . . as someone pointed out, this system would only reach its full potential after (Apache, Sendmail, whateverftpd, inetd, smbd, whateverapp) were modified to use this config system.
Well, while I sort of agree with this comment, on the face of it, I also don't see a "thin client" future. When you can produce "smart" clients (PC's running linux + XFree86) almost as cheaply as you can build thin clients/java clients, why use a thin client? I mean, I see some real good potetial markets for thin clients, don't get me wrong; a couple that come to mind is any type of situation where a PC is used primarily for one app that gets all of its data off a server anyway, like company accounting departments or hospital patient information systems.
However, when it comes to home usage, I'd like my apps and my data on MY PC thank you very much. I don't want to get on my computer one night to find that I can't type up a paper, letter, report, whatever because whoever I'm getting my apps from has had a server crash. Now granted, my computer could crash just as easily -- but then only I'm affected, not thousands of users.
OH, and I agree with the ZDNET author -- from what I can tell Scott McNealy is just as much a control freak as BillG. Does anyone know if Sun can arbitrarily terminate the "free" licences, even if you got the software from pre-sun Star-Division under a different licence? Eventually I plan to switch to one of the truly free Office Suites, once they're developed sufficiently, but until then I'd like to know that Sun can't just decide one day that I can't use StarOffice anymore.
Well, uh, I don't think that ever happens because. . . in every sting operation I've ever heard of involving kiddie molesters you have one primary criteri0n: The "predator" _HAS_ to initiate contact on the discussion forum/channel/board/etc. Law enforcement in not allowed to initiate conversations (that _would_ be entrapment). So if you have two parties (the two agents) that are "passive", contact will never be made between them.
This is not entirely true, There are some factions of Theists that are like this, closing their eyes, closing their minds. . . others of us are not that way. I went to a Christian high school where they encouraged us to think for ourselves, to believe because we feel it is _true_ based on evidence we have.
But let's turn it around, let us question and doubt these statements and theses. Many of us look at findings like these, and don't deny the actual findings. . . that'd be pretty foolish (well, unless there is scientific evidence to show the experiments were/might be botched up) . . . but the conjectures others then make based upon those findings. For example, just because a scientist might be able to create a bacteria in a laboratory, with extremely controlled conditions, doesn't logically "prove" that these conditions could, or more to the point, did, occur to start life. Further, a bacterium is a much more complex form of life than I've heard most evolutionists referring to as the hypothetical "first spark" of life. Unless theories have changed since I was in school, no one has speculated that bam! a bacterium suddenly appeared in the primordial soup. . . I'd be much more impressed if a scientist could create, in the laboratory, a life form simple enough to have happened by instantaneous chance, and that doesn't require other life forms to survive (e.g. a virus is so simple it needs a "host"), and that can survive and reproduce. A bacterium survives because of its complexity. Please, someone, show me. . .
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see where you get this from Stallman, and I don't think he'd agree with it. Mandatory disclosure, possibly. The right to reverse engineer and share, certainly. But a fixed $0.00 price tag has never been part of his philosophy, as far as I can tell.
And the price bit is a red herring--the GPL doesn't require 'gratis' software.
Ohh, come now, be realistic. If you release your software under the GPL, you effectively give up your right to collect royalties, thereby, in real life, reducing your price tag to $0.00. I get tired of the crap about, "GPL doesn't mean Gratis, it means Libre." The right to control copying (the definition of copyright) is the only practical enforceable way to guarantee (sort-of) that you get paid the amount you set your price tag to. I mean, sure you could charge to give people copies of it, and some people would buy it from you, but many more would just get copies "from their neighbors" and you couldn't effectively charge for the software.
Don't get me wrong. I like the GPL, I like the freedom it gives (at the discretion of the author -- there's the most important thing if you truly believe in Freedom like you claim) to those who use my code. I'm working on contributing code to a GPL project, and in the future I plan to GPL any projects I might start. But that's because I _choose_ to, because I think it's a great thing. However, I think Stallman is way, way, way off base to call anyone who wouldn't GPL their software "evil". His argument is that I'd be trying to restrict some innate right that people have to share with their neighbors. Unfortunately, I just can't agree with Stallman's base assumption (which is what it is, he _never_ defends it, just assumes it) that people have the innate right to share other people's creative works. Look at it this way, if I share apples with you from an apple tree I have in my backyard, that's a great thing for me to do, because I was the person who did the work of planting the tree and pruning and taking care of the tree (or purchased it from whoever did), and thus, because those apples represent _my_ work, I can choose to share that work out of goodwill. Likewise, if I write software, and choose to share it with my neighbors, that's great, because I am the one who did the work for that software (or have been given permission by the one who did). In the world of software, of course, the cost of duplication is very close to $0.00, and thus some people have the idea that since the software "doesn't really cost anything" that they should be able to share it without the author's permission *. But let's face it, anyone who has ever written software knows that there is a cost in time of creating that software.
Thus, it seems to me, only the one who went to the expense of developing the software has the right to share that software. If they choose to license it under the GPL, great, kudos to them, they've made a wonderful contribution to humanity.
I know personally, I'd like a sort of middle-ground license. Something that is similar to the GPL in that it guarantees that people who get the software also get the source code, and the right to modify the source code and distribute their work (after all, what they do should be their's to share) under the same terms. But, my hypothetical license would still allow me the opportunity collect royalties if I should so choose. If people don't want to pay royalties, they are free to make a work-alike, pro bono. I suppose in this hypothetical license, I would be more than willing to include a clause that allowed for gratis use by people from developing nations, educational institutions, non-profits, and students. (That is one of the things that most endeared me to the GPL early on, the fact that I could use GNU/Linux, GCC, et. al, as a broke student who wouldn't have been otherwise able to afford access to it, gratis.) But those who could reasonably afford to pay me, should.
*And by that, I mean, that when RMS pronounces someone as "Evil" because they don't release software as Free Software, he is effectively trying to say that they should be forced to (even though he would say he isn't interested in forcing people through regulation to do so). Whether you force through regulation, or force through social-stigma, anytime someone released software under the terms of the GPL because of such coercion, it would fundamentally be without their permission if they had no choice. I say this, because I can picture a neo-puritanical world headed up by the Most Rev. Richard Stallman where anyone who didn't release software under the GPL would be villified by Stallman and Co. and so stigmatized that nobody could, in practical terms, release software under any other terms.
I have been using free software since about 1995. I am learning to program, and plan on releasing as much free software as I reasonably can. I say this so that you will know that I am not a troll, or one who is trying to start a war, but rather one with a genuine philosophical question. I view releasing software as free software as a _great_ thing to do, a wonderful thing to do, but I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that those who would choose not to release their program as free software are inherently evil.
Typically, what I have heard from you is something along the lines of "anyone who would tell me I can't share with my neighbor is evil for telling me not to share." But I have a fundamental philosophical problem with that statement, as you are saying you inherently have a right to share something that is not yours (or is it yours, in your view?)? What I guess I am asking is, upon what philosophical basis do you claim to have a right to share other people's creative works? If they choose to license it with the GPL, great I say, but as it _is_ their work, shouldn't they have the right to share it, or not, upon their own terms w/o being called evil?
To put it another way, by your philophy, regardless of what you say about "Free" being freedom, it is impossible to have a profitable company whose sole business is to create software and profit from that work. The companies that come the closest are those create free software, and then do customization-for-hire, and/or support contracts, or some other ancillary business. Shouldn't the very act of writing useful software be something a company can take a profit from? What about the model taken by Alladin, GPL'ing software after selling it for a year or two? I seem to recall you making a comment at the Bazaar last December that you thought that was an okay model?
But, that leaves the question of, if the parents are failing their responsibility, how can we as a society detect that and get help for the kids? We can't monitor people's homes. That would clearly be a violation of the basic right of privacy, especially in your own home. So the only thing we can really look for is 1)signs of domestic violence (if that is a problem in that kid's home, which it isn't always), or 2)Psychological disorders in the children.
If Pinkerton would develop some strong policy on how they will deal with abuse of the hotline/website so that people wouldn't be harassed I could maybe support WAVE. Additionally, there needs to be some legal precedent (read, unfortunately, that school districts probably won't set up appropriate policies for how _they_ handle info given to them by Pinkerton until someone sues a school board and establishes court precedent for what is appropriate) to protect students from harrasment. And when I say "protect students" from harrasment, I mean both those that are wrongly accused, and those that really do need help. The information that Pinkerton collects needs to be handled confidentially, students who there are questions about need to be quietly, non-embaressingly(sp?) contacted by professionals who can adequately evaluate them; and
if (mentalhealth == "normal"){quietly send them on there way and make sure there is no record that could give them problems later}
else {get them set up to get counseling and/or therapy}.
My two cents. Jeff
I agree that school violence is 1)very rare, and 2)caused by troubled homes. But even if you want to say that it isn't the kid's "fault", Dillan was the one who took guns and bombs into school, not his parents. So it logically follows that if you can somehow (Note: I'm not advocating wave, because I think they just don't have the safe-guards and protections in place to prevent abuse) identify those kids (extremely small number that they are) before they start shooting people up, and get _help_ for them, that would be a Good Thing(tm).
Now that I've got your attention with a nice controversial subject line. .
I agree with Jon that the psycho's out there are few and far between, and that school violence (well, beyond school-yard fights) is rather rare. But the fact remains that there isn't an adequate system in place to catch the few kids who really _do_ need help. Who really _are_ suffering from clinical mental health problems. The task of a phone line such as pinkertons should be to try to communicate with the school. It is impingent on the school then, to try to contact those students in a non-obvious, non-embarrasing way that doesn't draw attention to them. Because the fact is that such a phone line _will_ have a high noise-to-signal ratio.
That said, I really believe that it would be possible to create a system where peoples' rights and liberties aren't violated, but that gives the kids a chance to be able to talk to someone about a student that they are worried about (perhaps a friend, who they don't want to hurt in a vengeful way, but just try to get someone to talk to them who _is_ qualified to decide if they need help). The problem with talking to school officials is that it _isn't_ anonymous, and so might scare off people who might otherwise report what they think might be someone in need of help.
It has been repeatedly stated that school kids aren't able to determine whether someone needs help. I absolutely agree. However, kids might be able to detect early signs, and start a process that could truly, accurately, determine whether someone needs help before that person slips through the cracks.
I would truly like to see people respond to this, if you have reasonable objections and/or things that I haven't thought of. I am perfectly interested in hearing other opinions. Just, pls, keep it civil and on-topic. ;-)
Lastly, before anyone starts blathering at the mouth about how "He must be on the take from Pinkerton" or "H3's ju5t 4 P1nk3rt0n WH0r3" I'd like to disclaim any and all association with Pinkerton. Before Jon's articles, I'd never heard of them before, I've never worked for them, I don't get any money or have any association with them. I'm just a person who likes to think, and doesn't always agree with the rabid /. majority.
To begin with, most of the stuff on pr0n sites doesn't seem to be just pictures of naked people. I am not a regular consumer of pr0n, but the few times I have accidently found my way to some of those sites (ok, I admit it, I was following 'warez links at the time) the stuff there rather turned my stomach. Why? Because it depicted much more than just naked people. Some of it was violent, some of it just plain disgusting (e.g. the bestiality-fetish crowd).
I agree that the best solution is for parents to supervise their children's use of the computer (especially young children), but I would like to point out that the concern people have isn't just some Puritanical anal-retentivity. There's no way any child should see hard-core pr0n. If I want to educate my children (I don't have any, BTW, but perhaps someday. . .) about the naked human form, I will try to find some art gallery or book on human anatomy or something that has much more taste-ful depictions of the human form, thank you.
He wanted to get the technology out the door _NOW_ before it was finished. He wanted to make a marketing "splash" NOW, just like all the marketing guys who want to get software out the door by the 1st of September so that they can market it for Christmas, and won't listen to the engineers when they say it ain't ready. He wanted to do this so he could vindicate his push to get mozilla freed.
While I greatly admire his (among others) courage in standing up and advocating releasing the source for Netscape, I think he didn't really understand what he was starting. It takes awhile for developers to get comfortable with a new source code base. And some developers want to wait for a "stable" code base before starting to send patches. And their are a million more reasons why it took a long time to get Mozilla out the door. But the point is, it is about to be released, and I'm sure that it will make a splash with its appearance. JWZ just gave up to soon. But in any case, I think he will be vindicated, even if he's gone.
Jeff
As far as filtering software: I think that a _Lot_ of research needs to go into such software and be "proven" to avoid the pitfalls of current generation filtering software before I would even consider advocating it. Some people might say, "any filtering at all is an attack on my right to free speech." Well, I do somewhat agree with that standpoint, but I do very much agree that children shouldn't be allowed access (at least from terminals that have been paid for with public funds) to porn. You might like to say that it won't damage them psychologically, and maybe SOME of it wouldn't (pictures of the naked human form by itself could, perhaps, be considered art and anatomical education) but some porn is extremely violent and demeaning and there's no reason children should ever see that. There is also the age issue; what might be appropriate for a twelve year old might not be appropriate for a six year old.
Ultimately, though, I agree with the original poster that children shouldn't be exploring the web without adult guidance. Censorware really can't replace that, and so I won't be advocating censorware any time soon. Cheers.
Well, yes, you need some sort of authentication for printing across the internet, but IPP (at least the standard) does support this (though, as you say, getting vendors to fully implement standards can sometimes kill things). I suppose though, a more immediate example would be in a corporation where you would likely have multiple offices connected via some sort of wan. In such a scenario, you don't really need to worry all that much about spam/hate mail/etc (which is the main reason you wouldn't open up your printers to the outside world, no?) Yes, one could send a pdf (or Word, or Excel, or WordPerfect, or . . .), but that assumes the person on the other hand has the software on their end to read it. Having worked as a computer tech in several medium sized corporations, there were times when it would have been easiest to just have a user be able to print a project they were working on right to a VP's printer in their office than to go through making sure everybody could read everybody else's documents all the time. This becomes more of an issue when someone is working on a special project, where they have to send copies of their work to ppl other than their immediate supervisor or their own department's VP, ppl which they wouldn't normally be giving stuff to as part of their everyday activities (which scenario isn't entirely uncommon).
As far as rlpr goes, all I can say is "yech". I mean, do you really expect novice users to be able to figure out how to tell eg Wordperfect or Star Office how to run rlpr?
My whole point is that, the way windows does it, where you have to install a printer as a seperate step just seems dumb. If you print a document to a given printer only once (say you want to send a sales flyer to the printer of a potential client who asked for it), you don't want to have to mess around with "installing" it, right? You should be able to say, give an option to a print dialog box that says the destination printer is "bob_lj4@bobs.com" or some such and have it get the options that printer supports, give you a second "options" dialog which you manipulate, and click "print" and bob gets your sales flier. (Not that I am either a salesman, or particularly fond of sales fliers, but that seemed like a good example of printing to a given printer only once).
I'd personally rather that if they are designing/engineering a whole new printing subsystem for *nux, that they try to think PAST windows. For example, in windows, every workstation has to have the driver to render from windows gdi/abstract format to printer native format on the local workstation. That's absurd. translation to printer specific format should be done on the print spooler/server!!
See, users shouldn't have to "install" a printer on their workstation to use it(unless the printer is attached to their workstation, perhaps, or it is a stand-alone box), just select it from a list of printers that they have rights to. In the specific case of what corel is working on, it would seem to me that the simplest, most logical solution would be to ship the document over the network as PostScript, write a bunch of drivers for ghost-script (that seems to be the most major problem of all for linux printing, lack of drivers for ghost-script, secondly is front-ending the printer setup to be simpler than lpr/lpd), and then have their printing sub-system call gs to convert it.
Anyhow, that's just one example of how they should design beyond windows' implementation of printing. I'm sure there are many other stupid things about windows printing I could come up with, but that is the most anoying to me, as a tech.
Does anyone know if Corel has a webpage/site up about this printing API that anyone could go and look at and make suggestions?
I'd love to hear any thoughts anyone else has on the subject of how *nix printing could be made a superior printing solution. Email me: jschmid|-AT-|uakron.eduNospam.
But I already have too many AOL coasters ;-) Heck, sometimes I even make my own coasters (when I screw up burning a CD-R). BTW, I discovered a new use for AOL CDs -- they make _great_ christmas tree decorations. :-)
Then you'd actually look forward to getting free aol mailings ;-)
The only problem with this reasoning is that you haven't a proper understanding of the GPL. Now, admittedly, I am no expert on licsences, esp not the MPL, and also not a lawyer. ;-) That said, my understanding is that Neoplanet could do what they could because they weren't using the GPL, but a licsence of their own making. I believe the MPL is fairly compatible with most licsences, except the GPL, and that is because the GPL is pretty much crafted to only be compatible with itself and the LGPL.
Now if I remember right, Cygnus had a contract with Sony that they were providing something (I think developer workstation software?) for the PlayStation II, so, through inheritance, we can now, in part, thank Red Hat when we play cool games, eh? ;-)
You know, I agree with this sentiment. One of the thoughts I keep returning to as I continue to ponder Free Software is that the GPL really enables the "freeing" of IP. Not just in the licsence itself, but in the incredible balance I think it brings to the system, sort of the completion of a circle. Like this, if we were to take RMS's philosophy to what he states is the logical conclusion and abolish copyrights, well then, no software could be said to be Free as the author would have no choice in the matter. But with the current system + GPL we have a way for something to be truly free. If I as a coder _decide_ to give away my software, then it is Free to everybody, including myself. Because I was free to choose that. But if I don't have the right to choose to not make my creation free, than I can gain no real philanthropic/ethical satisfaction from the fact that it _is_ free, and for _me_ my freedom has been somewhat reduced.
And yeah, Patent law is messed up royally ;-)
Gee, as long as everyone is sharing their "my first Linux experience" stories I may as well throw in my two cents.
I started my computing life on a 386 with dos, so the switch to Linux wasn't quite so hard for me (though it was still a fairly brain-stretching experience). In 1995 I discovered Linux. . . to make a long story short, I was starting to learn about the Internet and kept coming across references to UNIX, and, simultaneously, I kept bumping into references to Linux and Linux Users in my area. Finally, I decided to ask a member of a local Amateur Radio Club I was attending about Linux. He let me telnet into his Linux box to play with it for awhile. Then he gave me a pile of SlackWare floppies. I struggled through it (I think it took me 2 or 3 tries to get hard-drive partitioning just right ;-)
After I got it installed, I mostly learned how to use it by reading some Unix books from O'Reilly, chiefly, and some others. One of the most helpful things for me at the beginning was one book (I don't remember which) that had a chapter called "Dos-to-Unix Rosetta Stone." Also, I spent alot of time reading stuff on the Web (esp. the LDP).
The reason I posted all of this is to ask one question: what is it that seperates those who learn by trying and reading from others who just need some hand-holding, so to speak? Katz obviously read alot of stuff, but it just didn't "click" with him. Alot of /.ers probably have stories more similar to mine. Why does Linux "click" fairly easily with some, but not with others?
I don't know about Motorola's Fab caps, but I would think they are pretty state-of-the-art too. . . I don't know why, but for some reason Motorola just seems like it'd be a good fit in my mind. . . :-)
to be unique. After all, many Ethernet adapters will allow you to go in and change the MAC address if you like. Not that I like any system that uses security based on the machine and not the user. Honestly, everytime I hear about some sort of hardware id system I just shake my head. . . what if I want to make a purchase from a friend's computer, what about people using Library/public computers? And as a previous writer pointed out, what's to stop a cracker from changing the browser/whatever software that sends the id so that it doesn't send his actual id. Stupid is all I can say from a pragmatic stand-point, big-brother aspects aside. (Not that the privacy issues aren't important; but others have written about that issue much better than I am able to)
Well, you seem to be killing the chicken before it's conceived because it might get infected with salmonella ;-) I've personally thought for almost a year now (when I first discovered XML) that it would be perfect for configuration. Think about it, as long as it is straight ASCII XML it is perfectly feasable to read it with just text editor and manipulate it any way you like; or, just as easily use GUI config applets/property sheets to manage your system, which is what a lot of people would like.
To say that this should be avoided because 'somebody might try, 5 years down the line, to create a distro where all the apps are modified to use a binary database instead of straight XML' is kind of ridiculous. By then, presumably, if the distros standardized on this (which if it was implemented The Right Way(tm) they'd be crazy not to) then it would be futile for somebody to try to do what you are suggesting (not to mention a not-trivial amount of work). The biggest place where this kind of system would have problems would be with all the legacy code out there. . . as someone pointed out, this system would only reach its full potential after (Apache, Sendmail, whateverftpd, inetd, smbd, whateverapp) were modified to use this config system.
Well, while I sort of agree with this comment, on the face of it, I also don't see a "thin client" future. When you can produce "smart" clients (PC's running linux + XFree86) almost as cheaply as you can build thin clients/java clients, why use a thin client? I mean, I see some real good potetial markets for thin clients, don't get me wrong; a couple that come to mind is any type of situation where a PC is used primarily for one app that gets all of its data off a server anyway, like company accounting departments or hospital patient information systems.
However, when it comes to home usage, I'd like my apps and my data on MY PC thank you very much. I don't want to get on my computer one night to find that I can't type up a paper, letter, report, whatever because whoever I'm getting my apps from has had a server crash. Now granted, my computer could crash just as easily -- but then only I'm affected, not thousands of users.
OH, and I agree with the ZDNET author -- from what I can tell Scott McNealy is just as much a control freak as BillG. Does anyone know if Sun can arbitrarily terminate the "free" licences, even if you got the software from pre-sun Star-Division under a different licence? Eventually I plan to switch to one of the truly free Office Suites, once they're developed sufficiently, but until then I'd like to know that Sun can't just decide one day that I can't use StarOffice anymore.
Well, uh, I don't think that ever happens because. . . in every sting operation I've ever heard of involving kiddie molesters you have one primary criteri0n: The "predator" _HAS_ to initiate contact on the discussion forum/channel/board/etc. Law enforcement in not allowed to initiate conversations (that _would_ be entrapment). So if you have two parties (the two agents) that are "passive", contact will never be made between them.
But let's turn it around, let us question and doubt these statements and theses. Many of us look at findings like these, and don't deny the actual findings. . . that'd be pretty foolish (well, unless there is scientific evidence to show the experiments were/might be botched up) . . . but the conjectures others then make based upon those findings. For example, just because a scientist might be able to create a bacteria in a laboratory, with extremely controlled conditions, doesn't logically "prove" that these conditions could, or more to the point, did, occur to start life. Further, a bacterium is a much more complex form of life than I've heard most evolutionists referring to as the hypothetical "first spark" of life. Unless theories have changed since I was in school, no one has speculated that bam! a bacterium suddenly appeared in the primordial soup. . . I'd be much more impressed if a scientist could create, in the laboratory, a life form simple enough to have happened by instantaneous chance, and that doesn't require other life forms to survive (e.g. a virus is so simple it needs a "host"), and that can survive and reproduce. A bacterium survives because of its complexity. Please, someone, show me. . .
see subject :-)