"I have a clue. If the GPL does not limit creativity and freedom, why is there more software based on BSD and X out there then GPL'd software?"
Why not just ask why there is more software released for Windows if Microsoft does not limit creativity and freedom? I don't see how these things have any relavence.
The GPL isn't all about "destruction". It's about giving people a choice. An alternative to all the commercial software. Why are their proponents for the GPL today? Because of companies like Microsoft, and other "industry leaders" who don't care about the customer, just the bottom line. We use the GPL to compete with such companies. It effectively shuts out their ability to buy us out, and they can't pin us down because it allows us to develop innovative software at an incredible rate.
I think that the XFree86 and BSD licenses are good ones. What the GPL restricts, however, is turning GPLed software into proprietary software. Thus, all that is leveraged against you is your ability to "make a buck" (sure, you could sell GPLed stuff, but it would quickly become a waste of time in most cases). At any rate, the GPL gives equal freedom to everyone, rather than pushing those freedoms into any one direction. What's wrong with that? If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it destroys your freedom.
Go to this page, skip down to non-commercial licensing and explain those next couple of paragraphs to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the JDK, among other things, what people use to compile those infernal Java programs? Of course, I could be digging in the wrong place (is there another release of the JDK besides the "full source"? no time for their applets and licensing stuff to be more thorough). I admit, as always, that I could be wrong. I'm not interested in Java. I stick with C/C++ and Perl. I don't know all the details. If that isn't enough of a disclaimer to stop flaming me, you should get out more.;)
Personally, I don't usually bother with grepping around for a current documented source in an initial post, instead choosing words such as "I believe" or "I think" or even "to the best of my knowledge".. However, if you want to be a troll and attempt to insult my intelligence, you might sound a/little/ less like a troll if you bother to provide a source that explains why I'm wrong.
So far you really haven't provided any hard evidence for why I'm wrong. Usually if I contradict someone I provide/some/ kind of evidence. As such, your comment is thus far around as valid as mine (or perhaps a little less, due to its rather inflammatory remarks). Who needs to get a clue, again?
For a rather verbose description of his thoughts on the matter, check out this piece on the GNU site. Ugh. That place is so hard to navigate.. I'm sick of having to find that link. The only remark I have to correct myself on is that the NPL is indeed a free software license. I wouldn't use it though. As far as DFSG goes, they also thought it was cool to use BIND and everything in it. See previous discussion for details.
Anyway, if you want to screw yourself over with weird licenses, go right on ahead. And, to be honest, I can say whatever I want, for whatever reason I want. Pretty weird. However, I like to stick to the facts, so yeah, I'm in sort of agreement. I'll be sticking with my guns and the GPL myself, though.
Last I checked the licensing: yes. I believe, if I recall correctly, you can either go for the "artistic license" sort of thing if you plan on using Java to just play around or, for those of us who feel like accomplishing something, doing neat new free software. However, to get a license that allows you to produce commercial software with it you have to pay Sun some bucks. This could have changed (not something I track, I hate Sun), but I sort of doubt it.
Speaking of screwy moderation..
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at Here's my human translation.. 7 points for being informative?? If I were a moderator, I would have dubbed every last one of the "translation" posts on that discussion as being redundant, especially the one just before this one which was just a rehash of the Babelfish translation (yet got like 5 points for being informative, despite the fact that Hemos provided the link to do it yourself.. the only moderation that made sense here was -1 point for overrated).
Of course, practically every comment I've ever seen with a rating over three has thrown me for a loop. Almost none of them were deserving of more than a single point or two. Is this just a case of favoritists giving lots of points to their buddies? Some other sick crusade? I don't get it. There should be a limit on how many points you can get for any one category. Like a hard limit of two points (who really has anything to say which is worth +3 or so points of "informative"? Something this redundant surely can't be worth +7!!)
I'm not sure that letting moderators rate a comment between 0-5 or whatever and having the end score being an average of these ratings would make all that much sense either. In fact, I disagree totally. I think having hard limits in place would be a good thing. And of course, anything with a score of over 3 should be considered "highly questionable" with regards to moderation, and perhaps Rob and the boys should ponder taking a little time install a system which allowed them to easily review comments with that high a score for verification or something along those lines.
As a side note, if people keep getting 7 or so points for redundant posts, giving more power to those with high Karma would be.. not the best of ideas. You see where I'm headed? I hope so.
By the way, shambler snack, I see nothing particularly "trollish" about your post.:)
I just wish that parents would take the responsibility upon themselves for once. It's not like the Internet is the only way to find porn. If some kid wants some porn, how likely do you think it is that he will be unable to acquire it, even without a computer? I don't think I've ever met a kid who over "severely deranged and warped" by being exposed to pornography, much less transformed into a "maniacal blood-thirsting psycho-killer". Most kids would rather watch violent horror movies, anyway (not that they don't include some porn a lot of the time). I've watched some of the sickest things imaginable, and the worst thing I've ever done is sit in front of my computer all day. I'm surely a "bad element". People should realize that things that supposedly "warp your fragile mind" only "warp" people who were f!cked up to begin with. They didn't need any inspiration, or even an excuse. It happens.
I think the world starting to turn to sh!t about the time people began asserting that sexuality was inherently evil. How can anyone think such repulsive thoughts of a clearly natural act? Just because it causes pleasure doesn't mean its wrong. Where are all of these Puritan parents and law-makers coming from?
Even though you are being extremely vague, I should probably assume that "we" means "we here in Germany".. which would make a few things I say in the next few paragraphs somewhat invalid, though not really (use common sense, please). But then, I was never one to assume.. I hate actually having to get out a dictionary to look up words like "vilification". But that was what led me to believe the conclusion I came to in my first sentence. Ugh.
Not being able to discriminate against people based on race and outlawing "hate speech" are two totally different things. Besides which, neither of those things would keep the KKK or anyone else from blowing up much of anything if they really want to. Such groups would simply remain anonymous rather than openly speaking out about their beliefs. Sort of like when people talk about gun control.. You only restrict the access of guns to honest law-abiding citizens, while criminals acquire their guns illegally anyway.. which means all you're doing is giving say, Bad Johnny the same access to guns he always did, while when he robs Law-Abiding Susie and Dan.. guess who is more likely to die in this "transaction"?
Discriminating against people based on the color of their skin (or anything else, really) in the U.S. is only in place to prevent the businesses and governmental institutions of the country from screwing them around, not to make it so people can't say whatever they feel like. In the U.S. it's illegal to not let people say what they want, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, whereas outlawing "hate speech" makes it illegal to let people say what they want. At what price do you give up freedoms such as this? Who decides what precisely "hate speech" is? Racist remarks? Anything controversial? Anything they simply don't like? How the dominoes do fall.. As I've mentioned several times in previous discussions, you give up one freedom, more are sure to follow soon thereafter.. Perhaps I'm not getting the entire point of the issue, however. It's not like I've studied German law (U.S. law is mind-numbing enough as it is.. speaking of which, before anyone takes this post to be an open invitation to flame me again for no reason whatsoever, I'm still not trying to assert that the U.S. is the best country in the world.. I just happen to live here, ok?).
Copyrights are indeed international, although they are not worldwide. As DHartung pointed out earlier, this is thanks to the Berne Convention. I believe that trademarks can be applied for on a number of levels.. I forget what all of them are, I know a couple are national and statewide. I remember seeing something about an international search on a few trademark sites, but to be honest, I've never been very interested because trademarking costs money (and a lot of headache if you want to keep said trademark).
Well, you've got to remember that you're talking about the same country that has outlawed "hate speech". I wouldn't expect all of their laws to make the most of sense.
Even long before this, I never liked Sun Microsystems very much. Aside from obvious exceptions such as Perl, I never cared much for programming languages that are constantly getting updated. That's what is supposed to happen to applications, not programming languages (of course, Perl is a C application.. ha!), for the most part. Sure, when C++ first emerged it wasn't finalized. But then again, you aren't going to see C++ 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, and 2.1 within the next year or so. It has a standard. Java just keeps growing.. and growing.. And why is it growing still? Because when it was first released it wasn't worth a whole lot. It was not a finely developed language. The most obvious point being its extremely poor performance issues (what, write once, -walk- anywhere?).
That was strike one. Strike two is probably even worse. A commercial programming language trying to define itself as a universal standard? Conceptually, Java really rocked.. But the finer details of reality stopped it almost dead cold (all hype aside). However, even if it had lived up to expectations, who would really want to have to pay licensing fees to Sun for making commercial applications with Java? I'd rather just stick to C/C++ and Perl and not worry so much about licenses.. If the only license I ever have to agree to is the GPL I'll die a happy man.
And then there's the most annoying thing about Sun, the very thing they are known for: Java. I could have just left them alone, never said a bad word about them.. just ignored them and went on my merry way.. but they have to prepend the word Java to, well, everything! Am I the only person who gets sick of JavaWhatever products being a quarter a dozen? This company is known for its crazed marketing and over-capitalization on key products more than for anything all that useful to the world at large, unless you actually like their horrible licensing agreements.
Of course, now that I think about it, the subject of this post makes me wonder what kind of half-assed programmers these "weird licensing people" really are. However, back to the point..
One of the few licenses most of us really trust is the GNU General Public License. Especially in light of things like the Netscape Public License. Most people use the term "open source software" in the way Richard Stallman talks about "free software", but they're not exactly the same thing. Just because it's "open source" doesn't mean the software is free (liberated, whatever.. I'm talking about freedom here, ok?), as licenses such as the NPL makes quite clear.
These companies aren't very likely to gain the trust of the free/open source community if they continue to develop spin-offs of the GPL that often end up trying to screw over contributors.
..of companies like Apple where a lot of people who are employed there would work for half-wages or even free over short periods of time just so their business could get back on the ball. Not that there are a lot of "big companies" that really care about their employees, anyway, even though every company I've ever worked for says that what makes their company different is "the people".
Sorry, I just get aggravated when people misinterpret what I say. It happens too often, for no particular reason. Heee..
As far as free porn sites not staying in "business" goes.. The entire reason why they exist is because they are sponsored by more costly commercial porn sites. The commercial big boys all contribute to keeping the little guys around because a) free sites are so damn popular, as you pointed out and b) a lot of people "wanting more" will visit the commercial links that are, well, all over the place. This is a perfectly fine set-up for me. If porn sites want to charge, good for them. If free sites want to have a couple dozen sponsors, yippee. If any of them want to have an "Adult Check ID", @#$! them!
I think everyone is missing the point: Instead of banning pornography on the Internet, we should ban Java/JavaScript on porn sites. All those popups and Applets really piss me off. Ha!
I find myself in total agreement with practically everything set forth. At the very least, I don't really see anything I'd care to speak out against. My only suggestion is that the only AC posts be by people who are logged in and posting anonymously. Not too hard to get around the not being able to moderate and post the same discussion thing by logging out to post. Might also detract from pointless posts. Whee..
Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that perhaps it would be nice to have a conference that traveled around the country (world? nah, be better to stick to the same nation for ease of communication purposes). Anyone remember those expos that slowly progressed around the U.S. during the course of two or three months or so? It sure would be nice to only have to travel to a place within the state you live in rather than clear across the country.
The reason for wanting a single expo that ran shows across the nation is two-fold.. the one I just stated and for the simple fact that it would be nice if we knew that we were all getting around the same content, rather than having a few dozen local shows organized by different people, each with a slightly different agenda.
Not only that, but how many of us are actually going to attend all the different expos all over the place at different times in the year, just to "see it all"? I myself can only set aside so much vacation time and I like to spend it visiting girlies I know to be receptive rather than hoping there might be some at the latest Linux expo.
While it would be nice to have several locations in each state, I would be happy with one centralized, hospitable location in each of teh fifty states. That would make it semi-easy on most, as opposed to easy for people who want booths only at a single show and hard for people who want to see them because it's in say, New York, while they live in Texas.
That aside, what I really want is for Dell to set up a booth to explain why their Linux systems cost more on average than their corresponding Windows systems (same hardware, different software), especially since they only use Winmodems (who needs a Linux "desktop" with no modem? if I have to put it in myself, what am I paying these guys for?). They could also explain why their Web site only lets you put MS "Intelli"mice on your Linux systems even though they say they have Logitech stuff available.
A presentation by Gillian Anderson wouldn't be so bad either. To think they originally wanted some dumb blonde with big tits for that role on the X-Files..
Really? I thought I saw something about some id guy saying that the games would never be open source because that's their bread and butter or whatever. I'm not about to fire up my Web browser to search it out, though.
If so, I'm aware of the relavent facts and have no need of an instructor. I, for one, am speaking of current events (or reasonable fascimiles thereof), not history. Free software has been around for a very long time. The entire reason why we have the FSF is because we used to have more of it, and for a while we didn't really have much of any.
"First of all, porn sites don't charge money because of "restrictions" -- they charge money a) because they can and they know people will pay, and b) because porn is very popular, and eats lots of bandwith."
Let's analyze the above statement from the post I am replying to, and the statement below, from the post it was replying to:
"It already costs like crazy to access most porn, either because the sites just charge a lot, or because they are free sites implementing a form of self-rating that involves you paying money to have an "Adult Check ID" or something equally ridiculous."
You notice that "or" statement? You must have a lot of trouble coding in, well, just about any language, or even using certain search engines (much less comprehending English) if you can't figure out what I meant. I said, quite explicity, that EITHER the sites already charge a lot a la "they know people will pay" OR that accessing the site costs you money because of something like "Adult Check ID".. the latter of which was the primary focus of that paragraph or so.
"ISPs could offer 'censored accounts' for people that wanted them. This way concerned parents could know it was much harder for their kids to access 'unwanted' information."
I don't really need my ISP to decide what is good for my kids or not.
"People that don't want this kind of restriction could access the net via 'open accounts.'"
These would probably cost more too. It already costs like crazy to access most porn, either because the sites just charge a lot, or because they are free sites implementing a form of self-rating that involves you paying money to have an "Adult Check ID" or something equally ridiculous. And personally, I'm not giving any of these people my credit card #, for any reason. And you know, I like porn. I like hentai, particularly. Just because somebody else doesn't shouldn't mean that I can't look at it. They can all play around on Disney.com if they really want to. I just don't feel like paying money to see something just because others think its wrong to view such material.
"Approval to get on the 'good list' of sites wouldn't be mandatory, but may be useful depending on what the site was being used for."
This all ties back into the problem of "centralized power". I make decisions for myself. Laws that protect you from yourself are stupid. Example: laws that impose regulations on car manufacturers (sp.?), forcing them to build cards with seatbelts.. good! Laws that impose penalties on those who refuse to fasten their own safety belts.. bad! If some idiot wants to kill myself by not buckling up, let them. They will probably go out drunk driving anyway and kill someone else, anyway. But that's a moral issue. The point is, laws are meant to protect you from others, not from yourself. Censorship does the precise opposite. Protects you from yourself, in a way.. but do you really want someone else deciding what's good for you? Are you still a toddler? If so, just let them change your diaper and shut up because if you go vote.. I'll save the inflammatory comment for later.
"It would still allow people to see some links to unwanted material. But it would also allow people the choice to censor themselves and/or their children or not. Wouldn't this be much better than mandatory censorship?"
Censorship is evil, mandatory or not. The idea that someone would censor themselves willingly is probably worse, simply for the fact that they are stupid enough to take away their own freedoms. If you are exposed to something you don't like, you figure it out pretty quick, and then you avoid it. Or if you're a member of the extreme right, you focus on it, document it, and spread the documentation around so everyone can read it, drive themselves in a fervor, and then try to suppress it so they won't be exposed to it anymore. Doesn't it seem simpler to just, say, change the channel? Certainly a more cost-effective solution, if you ask me. These people need to realize that it's everyone's job to make sure they are subjected to the things they want to be subjected to, not decide what's good for everyone to be subjected to. What's good for one person isn't good for another. Peddling to the lowest common denominator doesn't make anyone happy. So what are we to do? Protect our right to choose, of course! To choose for ourselves, not to choose for other people to choose for us.
On a related note, protect the children? Parents need to protect their own children, not sit on their lazy ass munching popcorn and watching their G-rated flicks because they empowered their government to do all the work for them. If you can't protect your children from those things which are likely to "hurt" them, you're probably a bad parent.. either because you don't care, you don't try, or you're a control freak.
"A friend and I were talking this past week about a "parallel net" whereby all the same protocols would be used, but this net would be private - ie, not connected to the "World Wide Web" as such."
Aren't these called Intranets? Laugh. I am funny.
One a dead serious note, it has been proven time and again that if you concede any freedom, more are sure to follow. Censorship, for instance, is highly scalable. Say a lot of people are bothered by you burning your national flag. Various groups who belong to the extreme right lobby for laws that forbid your burning the flag. However, flag burning is covered under the First Amendment. Part of your Freedom of "Speech" (or, more specifically, expression in general), as it were. Now.. unless the judicial branch declares this to be unconstitutional, you have set a legal precedent which renders the First Amendment meaningless. So then a few people decide that they're sick of seeing naked babies' asses on TV commercials (I damn sure know I am). So they ban that as child pornography. After that it's your hate speech, and other controversial forms of expression. Pretty soon, after every group has contributed to the big boiling pot of things that need to be censored because they offend someone, you probably can't talk anymore for fear of offending someone and thereby having charges pressed on you by said someone.. and off to jail you go. After all, if you consider what everyone combined deems to be "offensive", there isn't a whole lot left, is there? That's because we're all very diverse. "In for a penny, in for a pound". Personally, I'm not stupid enough to stick my foot into the pool. It looks like pirahna (sp.?) are in there.
Yeah.. Sure. Well, whatever. There has been free software for a while, yes, but up until now, who has paid attention to any of it? The public? Certainly not. Who's paying attention now, and why? Because of who? Most of us with any sense know the answers to those questions, whether we agree with them or not. It's really no surprise this was an AC post. I'm not sure I agree with the "necessary evil" thing anymore.
Anyone seen the title of the GNU Project's Web page lately? What do those first three words say? Let's not confuse the issue.. And as far as "childish whining" goes, I don't see why so many people are so eager to drag Stallman down and kick him a few dozen times or so. Do you honestly believe he hasn't contributed anything to our community?
Slashdot Mirror
"I have a clue. If the GPL does not limit creativity and freedom, why is there more software based on BSD and X out there then GPL'd software?"
Why not just ask why there is more software released for Windows if Microsoft does not limit creativity and freedom? I don't see how these things have any relavence.
The GPL isn't all about "destruction". It's about giving people a choice. An alternative to all the commercial software. Why are their proponents for the GPL today? Because of companies like Microsoft, and other "industry leaders" who don't care about the customer, just the bottom line. We use the GPL to compete with such companies. It effectively shuts out their ability to buy us out, and they can't pin us down because it allows us to develop innovative software at an incredible rate.
I think that the XFree86 and BSD licenses are good ones. What the GPL restricts, however, is turning GPLed software into proprietary software. Thus, all that is leveraged against you is your ability to "make a buck" (sure, you could sell GPLed stuff, but it would quickly become a waste of time in most cases). At any rate, the GPL gives equal freedom to everyone, rather than pushing those freedoms into any one direction. What's wrong with that? If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it destroys your freedom.
Go to this page, skip down to non-commercial licensing and explain those next couple of paragraphs to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the JDK, among other things, what people use to compile those infernal Java programs? Of course, I could be digging in the wrong place (is there another release of the JDK besides the "full source"? no time for their applets and licensing stuff to be more thorough). I admit, as always, that I could be wrong. I'm not interested in Java. I stick with C/C++ and Perl. I don't know all the details. If that isn't enough of a disclaimer to stop flaming me, you should get out more. ;)
Personally, I don't usually bother with grepping around for a current documented source in an initial post, instead choosing words such as "I believe" or "I think" or even "to the best of my knowledge".. However, if you want to be a troll and attempt to insult my intelligence, you might sound a /little/ less like a troll if you bother to provide a source that explains why I'm wrong.
So far you really haven't provided any hard evidence for why I'm wrong. Usually if I contradict someone I provide /some/ kind of evidence. As such, your comment is thus far around as valid as mine (or perhaps a little less, due to its rather inflammatory remarks). Who needs to get a clue, again?
For a rather verbose description of his thoughts on the matter, check out this piece on the GNU site. Ugh. That place is so hard to navigate.. I'm sick of having to find that link. The only remark I have to correct myself on is that the NPL is indeed a free software license. I wouldn't use it though. As far as DFSG goes, they also thought it was cool to use BIND and everything in it. See previous discussion for details.
Anyway, if you want to screw yourself over with weird licenses, go right on ahead. And, to be honest, I can say whatever I want, for whatever reason I want. Pretty weird. However, I like to stick to the facts, so yeah, I'm in sort of agreement. I'll be sticking with my guns and the GPL myself, though.
Last I checked the licensing: yes. I believe, if I recall correctly, you can either go for the "artistic license" sort of thing if you plan on using Java to just play around or, for those of us who feel like accomplishing something, doing neat new free software. However, to get a license that allows you to produce commercial software with it you have to pay Sun some bucks. This could have changed (not something I track, I hate Sun), but I sort of doubt it.
Take a look at Here's my human translation.. 7 points for being informative?? If I were a moderator, I would have dubbed every last one of the "translation" posts on that discussion as being redundant, especially the one just before this one which was just a rehash of the Babelfish translation (yet got like 5 points for being informative, despite the fact that Hemos provided the link to do it yourself.. the only moderation that made sense here was -1 point for overrated).
Of course, practically every comment I've ever seen with a rating over three has thrown me for a loop. Almost none of them were deserving of more than a single point or two. Is this just a case of favoritists giving lots of points to their buddies? Some other sick crusade? I don't get it. There should be a limit on how many points you can get for any one category. Like a hard limit of two points (who really has anything to say which is worth +3 or so points of "informative"? Something this redundant surely can't be worth +7!!)
I'm not sure that letting moderators rate a comment between 0-5 or whatever and having the end score being an average of these ratings would make all that much sense either. In fact, I disagree totally. I think having hard limits in place would be a good thing. And of course, anything with a score of over 3 should be considered "highly questionable" with regards to moderation, and perhaps Rob and the boys should ponder taking a little time install a system which allowed them to easily review comments with that high a score for verification or something along those lines.
As a side note, if people keep getting 7 or so points for redundant posts, giving more power to those with high Karma would be.. not the best of ideas. You see where I'm headed? I hope so.
By the way, shambler snack, I see nothing particularly "trollish" about your post. :)
I just wish that parents would take the responsibility upon themselves for once. It's not like the Internet is the only way to find porn. If some kid wants some porn, how likely do you think it is that he will be unable to acquire it, even without a computer? I don't think I've ever met a kid who over "severely deranged and warped" by being exposed to pornography, much less transformed into a "maniacal blood-thirsting psycho-killer". Most kids would rather watch violent horror movies, anyway (not that they don't include some porn a lot of the time). I've watched some of the sickest things imaginable, and the worst thing I've ever done is sit in front of my computer all day. I'm surely a "bad element". People should realize that things that supposedly "warp your fragile mind" only "warp" people who were f!cked up to begin with. They didn't need any inspiration, or even an excuse. It happens.
I think the world starting to turn to sh!t about the time people began asserting that sexuality was inherently evil. How can anyone think such repulsive thoughts of a clearly natural act? Just because it causes pleasure doesn't mean its wrong. Where are all of these Puritan parents and law-makers coming from?
Even though you are being extremely vague, I should probably assume that "we" means "we here in Germany".. which would make a few things I say in the next few paragraphs somewhat invalid, though not really (use common sense, please). But then, I was never one to assume.. I hate actually having to get out a dictionary to look up words like "vilification". But that was what led me to believe the conclusion I came to in my first sentence. Ugh.
Not being able to discriminate against people based on race and outlawing "hate speech" are two totally different things. Besides which, neither of those things would keep the KKK or anyone else from blowing up much of anything if they really want to. Such groups would simply remain anonymous rather than openly speaking out about their beliefs. Sort of like when people talk about gun control.. You only restrict the access of guns to honest law-abiding citizens, while criminals acquire their guns illegally anyway.. which means all you're doing is giving say, Bad Johnny the same access to guns he always did, while when he robs Law-Abiding Susie and Dan.. guess who is more likely to die in this "transaction"?
Discriminating against people based on the color of their skin (or anything else, really) in the U.S. is only in place to prevent the businesses and governmental institutions of the country from screwing them around, not to make it so people can't say whatever they feel like. In the U.S. it's illegal to not let people say what they want, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, whereas outlawing "hate speech" makes it illegal to let people say what they want. At what price do you give up freedoms such as this? Who decides what precisely "hate speech" is? Racist remarks? Anything controversial? Anything they simply don't like? How the dominoes do fall.. As I've mentioned several times in previous discussions, you give up one freedom, more are sure to follow soon thereafter.. Perhaps I'm not getting the entire point of the issue, however. It's not like I've studied German law (U.S. law is mind-numbing enough as it is.. speaking of which, before anyone takes this post to be an open invitation to flame me again for no reason whatsoever, I'm still not trying to assert that the U.S. is the best country in the world.. I just happen to live here, ok?).
Copyrights are indeed international, although they are not worldwide. As DHartung pointed out earlier, this is thanks to the Berne Convention. I believe that trademarks can be applied for on a number of levels.. I forget what all of them are, I know a couple are national and statewide. I remember seeing something about an international search on a few trademark sites, but to be honest, I've never been very interested because trademarking costs money (and a lot of headache if you want to keep said trademark).
Well, you've got to remember that you're talking about the same country that has outlawed "hate speech". I wouldn't expect all of their laws to make the most of sense.
I believe it said "Austrian".. Not exactly the same thing. Isn't that the link right there next to it, too?
Even long before this, I never liked Sun Microsystems very much. Aside from obvious exceptions such as Perl, I never cared much for programming languages that are constantly getting updated. That's what is supposed to happen to applications, not programming languages (of course, Perl is a C application.. ha!), for the most part. Sure, when C++ first emerged it wasn't finalized. But then again, you aren't going to see C++ 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, and 2.1 within the next year or so. It has a standard. Java just keeps growing.. and growing.. And why is it growing still? Because when it was first released it wasn't worth a whole lot. It was not a finely developed language. The most obvious point being its extremely poor performance issues (what, write once, -walk- anywhere?).
That was strike one. Strike two is probably even worse. A commercial programming language trying to define itself as a universal standard? Conceptually, Java really rocked.. But the finer details of reality stopped it almost dead cold (all hype aside). However, even if it had lived up to expectations, who would really want to have to pay licensing fees to Sun for making commercial applications with Java? I'd rather just stick to C/C++ and Perl and not worry so much about licenses.. If the only license I ever have to agree to is the GPL I'll die a happy man.
And then there's the most annoying thing about Sun, the very thing they are known for: Java. I could have just left them alone, never said a bad word about them.. just ignored them and went on my merry way.. but they have to prepend the word Java to, well, everything! Am I the only person who gets sick of JavaWhatever products being a quarter a dozen? This company is known for its crazed marketing and over-capitalization on key products more than for anything all that useful to the world at large, unless you actually like their horrible licensing agreements.
Of course, now that I think about it, the subject of this post makes me wonder what kind of half-assed programmers these "weird licensing people" really are. However, back to the point..
One of the few licenses most of us really trust is the GNU General Public License. Especially in light of things like the Netscape Public License. Most people use the term "open source software" in the way Richard Stallman talks about "free software", but they're not exactly the same thing. Just because it's "open source" doesn't mean the software is free (liberated, whatever.. I'm talking about freedom here, ok?), as licenses such as the NPL makes quite clear.
These companies aren't very likely to gain the trust of the free/open source community if they continue to develop spin-offs of the GPL that often end up trying to screw over contributors.
..of companies like Apple where a lot of people who are employed there would work for half-wages or even free over short periods of time just so their business could get back on the ball. Not that there are a lot of "big companies" that really care about their employees, anyway, even though every company I've ever worked for says that what makes their company different is "the people".
Sorry, I just get aggravated when people misinterpret what I say. It happens too often, for no particular reason. Heee..
As far as free porn sites not staying in "business" goes.. The entire reason why they exist is because they are sponsored by more costly commercial porn sites. The commercial big boys all contribute to keeping the little guys around because a) free sites are so damn popular, as you pointed out and b) a lot of people "wanting more" will visit the commercial links that are, well, all over the place. This is a perfectly fine set-up for me. If porn sites want to charge, good for them. If free sites want to have a couple dozen sponsors, yippee. If any of them want to have an "Adult Check ID", @#$! them!
I think everyone is missing the point: Instead of banning pornography on the Internet, we should ban Java/JavaScript on porn sites. All those popups and Applets really piss me off. Ha!
I find myself in total agreement with practically everything set forth. At the very least, I don't really see anything I'd care to speak out against. My only suggestion is that the only AC posts be by people who are logged in and posting anonymously. Not too hard to get around the not being able to moderate and post the same discussion thing by logging out to post. Might also detract from pointless posts. Whee..
Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that perhaps it would be nice to have a conference that traveled around the country (world? nah, be better to stick to the same nation for ease of communication purposes). Anyone remember those expos that slowly progressed around the U.S. during the course of two or three months or so? It sure would be nice to only have to travel to a place within the state you live in rather than clear across the country.
The reason for wanting a single expo that ran shows across the nation is two-fold.. the one I just stated and for the simple fact that it would be nice if we knew that we were all getting around the same content, rather than having a few dozen local shows organized by different people, each with a slightly different agenda.
Not only that, but how many of us are actually going to attend all the different expos all over the place at different times in the year, just to "see it all"? I myself can only set aside so much vacation time and I like to spend it visiting girlies I know to be receptive rather than hoping there might be some at the latest Linux expo.
While it would be nice to have several locations in each state, I would be happy with one centralized, hospitable location in each of teh fifty states. That would make it semi-easy on most, as opposed to easy for people who want booths only at a single show and hard for people who want to see them because it's in say, New York, while they live in Texas.
That aside, what I really want is for Dell to set up a booth to explain why their Linux systems cost more on average than their corresponding Windows systems (same hardware, different software), especially since they only use Winmodems (who needs a Linux "desktop" with no modem? if I have to put it in myself, what am I paying these guys for?). They could also explain why their Web site only lets you put MS "Intelli"mice on your Linux systems even though they say they have Logitech stuff available.
A presentation by Gillian Anderson wouldn't be so bad either. To think they originally wanted some dumb blonde with big tits for that role on the X-Files..
Really? I thought I saw something about some id guy saying that the games would never be open source because that's their bread and butter or whatever. I'm not about to fire up my Web browser to search it out, though.
If so, I'm aware of the relavent facts and have no need of an instructor. I, for one, am speaking of current events (or reasonable fascimiles thereof), not history. Free software has been around for a very long time. The entire reason why we have the FSF is because we used to have more of it, and for a while we didn't really have much of any.
"First of all, porn sites don't charge money because of "restrictions" -- they charge money a) because they can and they know people will pay, and b) because porn is very popular, and eats lots of bandwith."
Let's analyze the above statement from the post I am replying to, and the statement below, from the post it was replying to:
"It already costs like crazy to access most porn, either because the sites just charge a lot, or because they are free sites implementing a form of self-rating that involves you paying money to have an "Adult Check ID" or something equally ridiculous."
You notice that "or" statement? You must have a lot of trouble coding in, well, just about any language, or even using certain search engines (much less comprehending English) if you can't figure out what I meant. I said, quite explicity, that EITHER the sites already charge a lot a la "they know people will pay" OR that accessing the site costs you money because of something like "Adult Check ID".. the latter of which was the primary focus of that paragraph or so.
"ISPs could offer 'censored accounts' for people that wanted them. This way concerned parents could know it was much harder for their kids to access 'unwanted' information."
I don't really need my ISP to decide what is good for my kids or not.
"People that don't want this kind of restriction could access the net via 'open accounts.'"
These would probably cost more too. It already costs like crazy to access most porn, either because the sites just charge a lot, or because they are free sites implementing a form of self-rating that involves you paying money to have an "Adult Check ID" or something equally ridiculous. And personally, I'm not giving any of these people my credit card #, for any reason. And you know, I like porn. I like hentai, particularly. Just because somebody else doesn't shouldn't mean that I can't look at it. They can all play around on Disney.com if they really want to. I just don't feel like paying money to see something just because others think its wrong to view such material.
"Approval to get on the 'good list' of sites wouldn't be mandatory, but may be useful depending on what the site was being used for."
This all ties back into the problem of "centralized power". I make decisions for myself. Laws that protect you from yourself are stupid. Example: laws that impose regulations on car manufacturers (sp.?), forcing them to build cards with seatbelts.. good! Laws that impose penalties on those who refuse to fasten their own safety belts.. bad! If some idiot wants to kill myself by not buckling up, let them. They will probably go out drunk driving anyway and kill someone else, anyway. But that's a moral issue. The point is, laws are meant to protect you from others, not from yourself. Censorship does the precise opposite. Protects you from yourself, in a way.. but do you really want someone else deciding what's good for you? Are you still a toddler? If so, just let them change your diaper and shut up because if you go vote.. I'll save the inflammatory comment for later.
"It would still allow people to see some links to unwanted material. But it would also allow people the choice to censor themselves and/or their children or not. Wouldn't this be much better than mandatory censorship?"
Censorship is evil, mandatory or not. The idea that someone would censor themselves willingly is probably worse, simply for the fact that they are stupid enough to take away their own freedoms. If you are exposed to something you don't like, you figure it out pretty quick, and then you avoid it. Or if you're a member of the extreme right, you focus on it, document it, and spread the documentation around so everyone can read it, drive themselves in a fervor, and then try to suppress it so they won't be exposed to it anymore. Doesn't it seem simpler to just, say, change the channel? Certainly a more cost-effective solution, if you ask me. These people need to realize that it's everyone's job to make sure they are subjected to the things they want to be subjected to, not decide what's good for everyone to be subjected to. What's good for one person isn't good for another. Peddling to the lowest common denominator doesn't make anyone happy. So what are we to do? Protect our right to choose, of course! To choose for ourselves, not to choose for other people to choose for us.
On a related note, protect the children? Parents need to protect their own children, not sit on their lazy ass munching popcorn and watching their G-rated flicks because they empowered their government to do all the work for them. If you can't protect your children from those things which are likely to "hurt" them, you're probably a bad parent.. either because you don't care, you don't try, or you're a control freak.
"A friend and I were talking this past week about a "parallel net" whereby all the same protocols would be used, but this net would be private - ie, not connected to the "World Wide Web" as such."
Aren't these called Intranets? Laugh. I am funny.
One a dead serious note, it has been proven time and again that if you concede any freedom, more are sure to follow. Censorship, for instance, is highly scalable. Say a lot of people are bothered by you burning your national flag. Various groups who belong to the extreme right lobby for laws that forbid your burning the flag. However, flag burning is covered under the First Amendment. Part of your Freedom of "Speech" (or, more specifically, expression in general), as it were. Now.. unless the judicial branch declares this to be unconstitutional, you have set a legal precedent which renders the First Amendment meaningless. So then a few people decide that they're sick of seeing naked babies' asses on TV commercials (I damn sure know I am). So they ban that as child pornography. After that it's your hate speech, and other controversial forms of expression. Pretty soon, after every group has contributed to the big boiling pot of things that need to be censored because they offend someone, you probably can't talk anymore for fear of offending someone and thereby having charges pressed on you by said someone.. and off to jail you go. After all, if you consider what everyone combined deems to be "offensive", there isn't a whole lot left, is there? That's because we're all very diverse. "In for a penny, in for a pound". Personally, I'm not stupid enough to stick my foot into the pool. It looks like pirahna (sp.?) are in there.
Yeah.. Sure. Well, whatever. There has been free software for a while, yes, but up until now, who has paid attention to any of it? The public? Certainly not. Who's paying attention now, and why? Because of who? Most of us with any sense know the answers to those questions, whether we agree with them or not. It's really no surprise this was an AC post. I'm not sure I agree with the "necessary evil" thing anymore.
Now that's the first time in a while I've gotten a really good laugh.. All I can say is that I didn't mean -that- kind of sexy..! *grin*
Anyone seen the title of the GNU Project's Web page lately? What do those first three words say? Let's not confuse the issue.. And as far as "childish whining" goes, I don't see why so many people are so eager to drag Stallman down and kick him a few dozen times or so. Do you honestly believe he hasn't contributed anything to our community?