Strange though that none of the egyptians and romans or incas or whatever mentioned them.
I think there are dragon/giant serpent legends in many cultures. Probably one of the most interesting is the Chinese years. Rat, Ox, Tiger, Hare, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, Pig. Why 11 real animals and 1 mythical?
Mythology is not science, of course, but the dragons etc from most cultures mythology could well be dinosaurs, possibly they even found dinosaur fossils and made up stories around them.
Think about it carefully, and you'll start to see it doesn't make much sense to have any legal force behind marriage at all. Why make it difficult for two people that no longer care about each other to go their seperate ways?
Recently I was talking to my wifes grandfather. He was telling me about what he was going though looking after his ill wife and how hard it is. Then he smiled and said "But I don't mind. 60 years ago I said I'd look after her." That's the type of person I want to be, and it's the type of person I want to have as freinds, business associates, neighbours etc.
I want to be the type of person who, if I make a committment, the other party doesn't have to wonder if I'll find it inconvenient and decide to not follow though, they'll be able to make plans based on me having given my word.
In WWII, the Japanese had captured some Australian soldiers, and were ordered to get the Aussies to give their word they wouldn't escape. The response from the Australians was that it was their duty to escape so they could not give their word on it. As the Japanese officer was required to commit suicide if he didn't carry out his order, the Australians were told they would all be killed if they didn't give their word. The arrangement they came to was that they would give their word, as long as the Japanese understood that because it was under duress it wasn't binding and they would still try to escape.
I would like to be the type of person whose word is trusted, even by my enemies. Personally, I think the "War on Terror" would be a very different thing if we (the west) were known to have such integrity. I note that the soldiers in this story considered duty and a commitment to their word as extremely important, but convenience didn't seem to be an item on the agenda for consideration.
I didn't say we should put legal force behind it. We shouldn't need to. You can have excuses or you can have integrity, but not both.
...still indicitive of how much our word means to us, collectively, as a society.
agreed:(
Whether Policeman Bob bangs 16 women in one year, while he's married, is moot. We still expect him to do his duty when he's in uniform.
I understand what you're saying here, I just don't think that integrity is something that can be practised part time. It's a pipe dream to think that men who are dishonest in their personal affairs will perform public duties honourably. That's why things like that are considered scandalous. The fact that it is so common to mankind is why we have always accepted a level of coverup, or face saving.
I think it's rather unfair that Clinton was effectively turned into a Pariah when so many others in our society, who are in positions of power and trust, go completely unmolested for the exact same reasons.
Fair enough.
Ah well. A man can dream.:)
I know a man with an agricultural machinery business. He says (about 20-30 years ago) that he used to have 90% of customers pay on time, and have to chase up about 10%. Now, 10% pay on time, he has to chase up 90%. My points being 1) your dream is not impossible 2) the lack of integrity we see in public officials is, I believe, very representative of the population. Yes, there are some offenses worse than others, but many who haven't taken the $90,000 in bribes are still crooks, just not as good at it/had less opportunity. We need to place importance on integrity itself.
The oath I'm more concerned about is Bush's sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution.
As I said, I don't judge integrity by party politics. Even if Bill and Hillary had an agreement that allowed adultery, he still lied under oath. I don't really understand why anyone would trust him, but I guess I could see that people might say that they trust someone else less, and consider him the best of a bad bunch. Not much of a political situation if the best you have lies under oath.
You really have no idea what sort of relationship they had, or whether or not they had any 'oaths' between them.
They are married. So they have wedding vows which are a type of oath.
In any case, many people seem to be of the view that lack of integrity is ok, as long as you're on my side. Personally, I'd prefer someone who disagreed with me but was honest.
Piffle. I would hazard a guess to say that a fair share of the populace forsakes their marriage vows at one point or another.
The fact that many people break their vows (their word) does not make someone who does so any more honourable or trustworthy. He swore an oath to his wife, he broke it. When elected President, he... *drum roll* swore an oath... see the trustworthiness connection yet? Mind you, I was intending to give my own view of the situation, not analyse republicans or anyone elses motives for publishing/impeaching etc, etc, which could, for all I know be exactly as you state.
Well, I'm not an American, nor do I follow US politics closely, but to me, the real issues in the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing was trust/character. ie: if a man will breach his marriage vows, hopefully one of the most important committments made it his life, what will be the strength of his committment to keep his word to me?
So I do regard a man's faithfullness to his wife to be important when deciding how to vote/who to do business with etc etc. I have yet to see the man who acts without integrity in his personal life, but with integrity in business, or vice versa.
This is not a party political view. There are people on both sides of politics who I regard as having a high level of integrity, and I don't base trust on political views.
But of course I am and have been aware that "software" does enjoy copyright protections.
Oh, so you know that software has IP protection from copyrights even if it's not patented...
Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place.
...but you still claimed that having no software patents would remove any rights of software developers to IP protection. You made this deliberately false assertion (in your original post)...
...I was trying to goad the "dude" into explaining to me why a copyright is inherently better for the software industry than a patent.
... in order to antagonise someone (who had not yet even posted in the discussion). But now you'd like to have a sensible discussion of the issue. Very well then:
the fact is you need both copyright and patent protections.
Actually, this is disputed by many people, and many of those are software developers. There have been many good reasons put forward in support of the view that software patents stifle innovation. Good enough for the EU, for example, to reject the software patent directive. Since you are not a software developer but a lawyer, and not a patent lawyer, it's really up to you to provide some reason why copyright is inadequate. You could start by:
1 - Addressing what patents and copyrights are for (refer to the US constitution) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and showing how (if) software patents produce a net increase of innovation in software compared to not having software patents.
2 - Explaining why some-one like Bill Gates, who surely understands the issue of IP protection for software, made this statement in 1991 "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." if software patents help innovation.
3 - Read and refute this anti-software patent statement released by Oracle, one of the largest idependent software producers.
Really, it's fairly obvious: we have copyrights and patents to provide protection for different things. I am not aware of anything in the history of copyright and patent law that has been protected by patents and copyrights other than software. I have seen no convincing arguement that providing both copyright and patent protection to software increases the progress of "science and the arts". Indeed, everything I have heard in favour of patents focuses primarily on the developers rights, yet the rights granted to temporary monopoly through patents are a means to an end, not the end itself. Patent law/practice that give temporary monopoly to the detriment of the progess of science and the arts is unconstitutional. As you said, idealism is not a legal argument. Legal arguments can be made very effectively from the constitution though. That's what it's for.
The patent protects the functionality of the software, among other things.
This is a significant problem. It is that ideas are being patented, rather than inventions. Functionality rather than invention. Imagine if during the development of carburettors a patent had been issued for a "device that increases fuel efficiency of engines" rather than the actual improvement. The fuel injector would have been illegal! You referred to Edison patenting the light bulb - light bulbs were an invention, not an idea. He did not patent "method of producing light". If someone had come up with a different way to produce light that was equal
I think trying to use the software license to control what a hardware manufacturer does is inappropriate and overstepping.
He isn't. Hardware manufacturers can still do all that they were doing before, just not with GPLv3'ed code. It is restricting a use of the software, not the hardware. You can use the exact same DRM hardware with GPLv3'ed code and any other code, you just have to release any signing keys necessary to run the code if you use code licenced under the GPLv3. It is not required to modify hardware to be GPLv3 compliant.
You've got to do better than that. I'm aware of copyrights. But this conversation, the article posting, and--fuck--pretty much everything everyone has been talking about has related to software patents.
Better than that? You don't seem to be really aware of copyrights as IP protection for software, so let's revisit the topic being addressed again then:
You wrote"Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place."
presumably referring to this comment by RMS in the article:
"Finally, he wrote, a "laborious half measure" such as the Open Source as Prior Art project could divert attention from the real problem: that software is patentable in the first place."
So RMS says he's against software patents, and you claim he's against IP protection for software. See the difference? You should, because it was pointed out by "Elwood P Dowd" in this reply to your previous post. However, instead of (or in spite of) understanding the point that copyright is IP protection for software (which all software not placed in the public domain is protected by), you claim that to not have patents for software is to have no IP protection in this reply to Elwood P Dowd's comment in which you state:
So according to you, RMS believes that a software inventor has intellectual property, but should have no right to legally protect it?
It's difficult to understand how you could make such a statement, since it is totally unsupported by either the article or the comments by Elwood P Dowd, unless you are making this mistake deliberately. This is probably why Elwood referred to you as a troll. I, however, will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you again: not having software patents does not mean there is no IP protection for software as software is covered by copyright. Copyright is a form of IP protection. This is not "something that has nothing to do with anything", it directly answers your assertion that by wanting to remove software patents RMS wants to remove all IP protection from software.
However, your statement "We're not talking about copyrighted source code, jackass." perhaps reveals the point you have misunderstood, that is, binary releases of software are covered by copyright also, not just source code. If this were not the case, I could see that copyright would be inadequate IP protection. If you're not sure about this, perhaps you could ask Microsoft. Binary programs are definitely covered by copyright.
As for this comment: "Trademarks constitute intellectual property, too. Let's talk about that for a while." I mentioned that in my previous post so you would understand the point being made that "software IP protection" is not equal to "software patents".
Software does not need patents as well as copyrights. What other work covered by copyright is also covered by patents? What patented invention is covered by copyright? They are different types of IP rights designed to cover different things. The fact that software is subject to copyright should be evidence enough for anyone that it is a substantially different thing to inventions that can be patented. Having no software patents isn't removing IP protection, it is ensuring that the appropriate type of IP protection is used for the appropriate type of produced work.
So according to you, RMS believes that a software inventor has intellectual property, but should have no right to legally protect it?
Ever heard of copyright? It's part of what's called 'intellectual property' as are trademarks. Being anti-software patents is not saying programmers can't protect their IP, many people believe that copyright does this adequately and patents are inappropriate for software IP protection. Just like saying that books shouldn't be patented is not an attack on authors IP rights.
For many people, your comments are quite accurate. I wasn't meaning to refer to all people that breach copyright, just that I know some people who would not consider stealing but who do things like let freinds load software on their computers. Mom and Pop types who simply don't consider breaching copyright to be stealing. Personally, I don't think breaching copyright is right, but it's not stealing.
Most peoples arguements that copyright infringement is stealing revolve around: it is wrong, people deserve to be paid for their work, it causes financial loss, copyright holders have the right to control distribution, etc, etc. but all these things are totally separate issues to the question of whether it is stealing or not. Arson for example, causes financial loss, is wrong, removes peoples property, violates rights, but is not stealing. Copyright infringement is not regarded as the same as stealing by most people. You would have an easier time convincing them it is wrong than trying to convince them it's stealing, because most people know it's not.
Well, I wouldn't always be so strong on the point that open source developers are "good" and closed source developers are "bad", but here goes:
I will start with two presumptions I make.
1 - Regarding wealth, abundance is good, lack is bad. Note I am not saying that people who lack are bad, but that lack itself is bad. This is the reason that it is generally considered good to help the poor (out of lack bad into abundance good).
2 - The rule of law is good and necessary. Note I am not saying that all laws are good, or that law isn't abused.
Software is, by its nature, effectively unlimited in quantity. It is also very often the technology of production. To limit the distribution of software is to limit available wealth, and is therefore bad. As I understand it, even the UN has said that FOSS is important for developing nations to prosper (http://www.iosn.net/). Proprietry software is the artificial limiting of wealth (for many) through copyrights (for the few). I think a telling sign is that many otherwise law abiding citizens feel no guilt about sharing software with friends. People who wouldn't steal because they believe it to be wrong (rather than because they think they might get caught) will breach copyright without a second thought. This could be (and has been) responded to by simply breaching copyright by most people. Personally though, I prefer not to do that. Open source allows me to use available computer technology to produce and distribute wealth without breaking the law.
This is not a comprehensive philosophy, or my religion. In this short statement, I have not taken into account that some software (wealth) may not ever be produced without a proprietry business model. For this, and other reasons, I don't take a dogmatic view that open source is "good" and closed source is "bad", but I lean towards that thinking.
Another comment on wealth: I am not a socialist. Personal wealth, though, is limited by available wealth. In real terms, a middle class person in the west today has more wealth than most of the rich thoughout history. The conveniences that most of us take for granted would have required a large staff of servants/slaves in other times. To artificially limit resourses for your own gain is shortsighted. There are many benefits to living in a wealthy society rather than a being rich man in a poor society.
On a personal note, my first use of FOSS was the gimp. I had already stopped using software illegally and was looking for replacements. A friend gave me a copy of the gimp for windows. I read the licence as I had got in the habit of doing, to make sure my software was legal. After reading the GPL, I got bought a book on linux with some installation cd's, within a year I was changed over. I am not a developer, I just like to be able to share the software I use. The fact that most people don't want me to now isn't an issue for me.
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
not that I can find.
I saw it on/.
;)
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ctrl-L is what you are looking for. Full path, tab completion, no problem. Save as -> Ctrl-L
I wasn't justifying the treatment of people at Gitmo, or claiming that no laws have been broken, just that it's not a new interpretation of the Geneva convention.
So basically what you're telling me is that the US steamrolled two governments, and they had not a single uniformed soldier captured alive between them?...(etc, etc)
No. I wasn't justifying any particular behaviour by anyone. I was only trying to answer the point:
Many countries sign all kinds of treaties and later have no qualms about voting exceptions and creative reinterpretations of all sorts. For instance, there used to be soldiers and civilians. Now, there's also "ennemy combatants" - whatever that means. There, USA created an exception to circumvent international laws of warfare.
... by pointing out that by defining legal soldiers and civilians, the Geneva convention effectively defined the "enemy combatants" refered to by Quietti, and offers them no protection. That's not to say other laws haven't been violated, just that it's not a new interpretation of the Geneva convention.
I'm willing to bet that forcing a guy to strip out of his uniform at gunpoint so you can strap electrodes to his balls and force him to have sex with other prisoners does not legally change their uniformed soldier status.
You are quite correct. It's if he was captured in uniform that counts.
I think you would find that the Geneva Convention defines legal combantants/soldiers and civilians for the purpose of outlining the legal protections for them. People engaging in combat without uniform etc, and spies do not have legal protection under the geneva convention. This is not a loophole or a new interpretation. It is one of the intentions of the Geneva convention to make civilians (non-combatants) more safe from war by encouraging combatants to make themselves clearly identifiable, eg by wearing uniforms.
In every war since the Geneva convention, un-uniformed combatants have not enjoyed Geneva convention protection. People who deliberately appear as civilians in order to use innocents as human shields while engaging in military acts were never intended to be protected.
So there used to be legal soldiers, illegal soldiers/spies and civilians. This is still the case.
How is it that music and theatre happened before recordings were possible? They either had benefactors (paying for it to be created as the GP suggested) or they charged for live performance. Since this model has worked in the past and works now, I fail to see why it would not work in the future.
And it is (crippled), there's no denying it.... DRMed WMV9...etc,etc
I deny it. DRMed systems/formats are crippled, not software that doesn't use them.
I don't use prosthetic limbs because I'm not crippled. If a company selling prosthetic limbs called people crippled who didn't use them, you would never accept it, neither would you cut off your leg so a prothetic leg would fit properly.
To say that systems that don't operate with DRM are crippled simply shows that you have been successfully impacted (through widespread use of the DRM) or indoctrinated by the companies selling it. The fact that "it just works" on a system that has been intentionally crippled in no way induces me to give up my freedoms in exchange for the crippled system.
If parts of it (rather than all of it) is useful, then one has to figure out which parts are useful, and why.
To give an answer according to the bible:
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
So, it's all useful, but Jesus answer to the religious of the day in Matthew 9:14-17 explains that Christianity is not a patched version of Judaism, it's a new deal. So old testament law is still useful for learning, but not directly applicable. That's why most people who oppose homosexuality, for example, are not advocating that homosexuals should be stoned to death.
...summarizes the conservative position by saying that the plain text of the Bible is true for all people and all times - their claim to rightness comes from their "lack" of interpretation.
which answer is consistent with what I have said so far, it is true for all people and all times, even if not directly applicable. That's why they've separated themselves, not stoned anyone.
Why don't Christians (in general) follow Leviticus?
Not to answer your whole post, but this point is easy. Leviticus is the law given to Israel, for Israel. There can still be much to learn from Leviticus, but I don't think there is an instruction to have this law implemented outside Israel.
Something like: has a knowable standard of behavior and lives by it.
It's about predictability. I have friends with a different standard of ethics than I do, but that's ok, if I know what it is, I can know what to trust them with.
Not a conclusive definition, but that's a fair part of how I assess ethics.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange though that none of the egyptians and romans or incas or whatever mentioned them.
I think there are dragon/giant serpent legends in many cultures. Probably one of the most interesting is the Chinese years. Rat, Ox, Tiger, Hare, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, Pig. Why 11 real animals and 1 mythical?
Mythology is not science, of course, but the dragons etc from most cultures mythology could well be dinosaurs, possibly they even found dinosaur fossils and made up stories around them.
get Ultimate boot CD. It has AVG, f-prot, McAfee and Avast, as well as a heap of other useful tools.
Think about it carefully, and you'll start to see it doesn't make much sense to have any legal force behind marriage at all. Why make it difficult for two people that no longer care about each other to go their seperate ways?
Recently I was talking to my wifes grandfather. He was telling me about what he was going though looking after his ill wife and how hard it is. Then he smiled and said "But I don't mind. 60 years ago I said I'd look after her." That's the type of person I want to be, and it's the type of person I want to have as freinds, business associates, neighbours etc.
I want to be the type of person who, if I make a committment, the other party doesn't have to wonder if I'll find it inconvenient and decide to not follow though, they'll be able to make plans based on me having given my word.
In WWII, the Japanese had captured some Australian soldiers, and were ordered to get the Aussies to give their word they wouldn't escape. The response from the Australians was that it was their duty to escape so they could not give their word on it. As the Japanese officer was required to commit suicide if he didn't carry out his order, the Australians were told they would all be killed if they didn't give their word. The arrangement they came to was that they would give their word, as long as the Japanese understood that because it was under duress it wasn't binding and they would still try to escape.
I would like to be the type of person whose word is trusted, even by my enemies. Personally, I think the "War on Terror" would be a very different thing if we (the west) were known to have such integrity. I note that the soldiers in this story considered duty and a commitment to their word as extremely important, but convenience didn't seem to be an item on the agenda for consideration.
I didn't say we should put legal force behind it. We shouldn't need to. You can have excuses or you can have integrity, but not both.
...still indicitive of how much our word means to us, collectively, as a society.
:(
:)
agreed
Whether Policeman Bob bangs 16 women in one year, while he's married, is moot. We still expect him to do his duty when he's in uniform.
I understand what you're saying here, I just don't think that integrity is something that can be practised part time. It's a pipe dream to think that men who are dishonest in their personal affairs will perform public duties honourably. That's why things like that are considered scandalous. The fact that it is so common to mankind is why we have always accepted a level of coverup, or face saving.
I think it's rather unfair that Clinton was effectively turned into a Pariah when so many others in our society, who are in positions of power and trust, go completely unmolested for the exact same reasons.
Fair enough.
Ah well. A man can dream.
I know a man with an agricultural machinery business. He says (about 20-30 years ago) that he used to have 90% of customers pay on time, and have to chase up about 10%. Now, 10% pay on time, he has to chase up 90%. My points being 1) your dream is not impossible 2) the lack of integrity we see in public officials is, I believe, very representative of the population. Yes, there are some offenses worse than others, but many who haven't taken the $90,000 in bribes are still crooks, just not as good at it/had less opportunity. We need to place importance on integrity itself.
The oath I'm more concerned about is Bush's sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution.
As I said, I don't judge integrity by party politics. Even if Bill and Hillary had an agreement that allowed adultery, he still lied under oath. I don't really understand why anyone would trust him, but I guess I could see that people might say that they trust someone else less, and consider him the best of a bad bunch. Not much of a political situation if the best you have lies under oath.
You really have no idea what sort of relationship they had, or whether or not they had any 'oaths' between them.
They are married. So they have wedding vows which are a type of oath.
In any case, many people seem to be of the view that lack of integrity is ok, as long as you're on my side. Personally, I'd prefer someone who disagreed with me but was honest.
Piffle. I would hazard a guess to say that a fair share of the populace forsakes their marriage vows at one point or another.
... *drum roll* swore an oath ... see the trustworthiness connection yet? Mind you, I was intending to give my own view of the situation, not analyse republicans or anyone elses motives for publishing/impeaching etc, etc, which could, for all I know be exactly as you state.
The fact that many people break their vows (their word) does not make someone who does so any more honourable or trustworthy. He swore an oath to his wife, he broke it. When elected President, he
but hey, they'd care after that.
Why, wont they can just search google.com instead of google.be?
Well, I'm not an American, nor do I follow US politics closely, but to me, the real issues in the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing was trust/character. ie: if a man will breach his marriage vows, hopefully one of the most important committments made it his life, what will be the strength of his committment to keep his word to me?
So I do regard a man's faithfullness to his wife to be important when deciding how to vote/who to do business with etc etc. I have yet to see the man who acts without integrity in his personal life, but with integrity in business, or vice versa.
This is not a party political view. There are people on both sides of politics who I regard as having a high level of integrity, and I don't base trust on political views.
But of course I am and have been aware that "software" does enjoy copyright protections.
...but you still claimed that having no software patents would remove any rights of software developers to IP protection. You made this deliberately false assertion (in your original post)...
...I was trying to goad the "dude" into explaining to me why a copyright is inherently better for the software industry than a patent.
... in order to antagonise someone (who had not yet even posted in the discussion). But now you'd like to have a sensible discussion of the issue. Very well then:
Oh, so you know that software has IP protection from copyrights even if it's not patented...
Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place.
the fact is you need both copyright and patent protections.
Actually, this is disputed by many people, and many of those are software developers. There have been many good reasons put forward in support of the view that software patents stifle innovation. Good enough for the EU, for example, to reject the software patent directive. Since you are not a software developer but a lawyer, and not a patent lawyer, it's really up to you to provide some reason why copyright is inadequate. You could start by:
1 - Addressing what patents and copyrights are for (refer to the US constitution) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and showing how (if) software patents produce a net increase of innovation in software compared to not having software patents.
2 - Explaining why some-one like Bill Gates, who surely understands the issue of IP protection for software, made this statement in 1991 "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." if software patents help innovation.
3 - Read and refute this anti-software patent statement released by Oracle, one of the largest idependent software producers.
Really, it's fairly obvious: we have copyrights and patents to provide protection for different things. I am not aware of anything in the history of copyright and patent law that has been protected by patents and copyrights other than software. I have seen no convincing arguement that providing both copyright and patent protection to software increases the progress of "science and the arts". Indeed, everything I have heard in favour of patents focuses primarily on the developers rights, yet the rights granted to temporary monopoly through patents are a means to an end, not the end itself. Patent law/practice that give temporary monopoly to the detriment of the progess of science and the arts is unconstitutional. As you said, idealism is not a legal argument. Legal arguments can be made very effectively from the constitution though. That's what it's for.
The patent protects the functionality of the software, among other things.
This is a significant problem. It is that ideas are being patented, rather than inventions. Functionality rather than invention. Imagine if during the development of carburettors a patent had been issued for a "device that increases fuel efficiency of engines" rather than the actual improvement. The fuel injector would have been illegal! You referred to Edison patenting the light bulb - light bulbs were an invention, not an idea. He did not patent "method of producing light". If someone had come up with a different way to produce light that was equal
I think trying to use the software license to control what a hardware manufacturer does is inappropriate and overstepping.
He isn't. Hardware manufacturers can still do all that they were doing before, just not with GPLv3'ed code. It is restricting a use of the software, not the hardware. You can use the exact same DRM hardware with GPLv3'ed code and any other code, you just have to release any signing keys necessary to run the code if you use code licenced under the GPLv3. It is not required to modify hardware to be GPLv3 compliant.
You've got to do better than that. I'm aware of copyrights. But this conversation, the article posting, and--fuck--pretty much everything everyone has been talking about has related to software patents.
Better than that? You don't seem to be really aware of copyrights as IP protection for software, so let's revisit the topic being addressed again then:
You wrote "Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place."
presumably referring to this comment by RMS in the article:
"Finally, he wrote, a "laborious half measure" such as the Open Source as Prior Art project could divert attention from the real problem: that software is patentable in the first place."
So RMS says he's against software patents, and you claim he's against IP protection for software. See the difference? You should, because it was pointed out by "Elwood P Dowd" in this reply to your previous post. However, instead of (or in spite of) understanding the point that copyright is IP protection for software (which all software not placed in the public domain is protected by), you claim that to not have patents for software is to have no IP protection in this reply to Elwood P Dowd's comment in which you state:
So according to you, RMS believes that a software inventor has intellectual property, but should have no right to legally protect it?
It's difficult to understand how you could make such a statement, since it is totally unsupported by either the article or the comments by Elwood P Dowd, unless you are making this mistake deliberately. This is probably why Elwood referred to you as a troll. I, however, will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you again: not having software patents does not mean there is no IP protection for software as software is covered by copyright. Copyright is a form of IP protection. This is not "something that has nothing to do with anything", it directly answers your assertion that by wanting to remove software patents RMS wants to remove all IP protection from software.
However, your statement "We're not talking about copyrighted source code, jackass." perhaps reveals the point you have misunderstood, that is, binary releases of software are covered by copyright also, not just source code. If this were not the case, I could see that copyright would be inadequate IP protection. If you're not sure about this, perhaps you could ask Microsoft. Binary programs are definitely covered by copyright.
As for this comment: "Trademarks constitute intellectual property, too. Let's talk about that for a while." I mentioned that in my previous post so you would understand the point being made that "software IP protection" is not equal to "software patents".
Software does not need patents as well as copyrights. What other work covered by copyright is also covered by patents? What patented invention is covered by copyright? They are different types of IP rights designed to cover different things. The fact that software is subject to copyright should be evidence enough for anyone that it is a substantially different thing to inventions that can be patented. Having no software patents isn't removing IP protection, it is ensuring that the appropriate type of IP protection is used for the appropriate type of produced work.
So according to you, RMS believes that a software inventor has intellectual property, but should have no right to legally protect it?
Ever heard of copyright? It's part of what's called 'intellectual property' as are trademarks. Being anti-software patents is not saying programmers can't protect their IP, many people believe that copyright does this adequately and patents are inappropriate for software IP protection. Just like saying that books shouldn't be patented is not an attack on authors IP rights.
For many people, your comments are quite accurate. I wasn't meaning to refer to all people that breach copyright, just that I know some people who would not consider stealing but who do things like let freinds load software on their computers. Mom and Pop types who simply don't consider breaching copyright to be stealing. Personally, I don't think breaching copyright is right, but it's not stealing.
Most peoples arguements that copyright infringement is stealing revolve around: it is wrong, people deserve to be paid for their work, it causes financial loss, copyright holders have the right to control distribution, etc, etc. but all these things are totally separate issues to the question of whether it is stealing or not. Arson for example, causes financial loss, is wrong, removes peoples property, violates rights, but is not stealing. Copyright infringement is not regarded as the same as stealing by most people. You would have an easier time convincing them it is wrong than trying to convince them it's stealing, because most people know it's not.
Well, I wouldn't always be so strong on the point that open source developers are "good" and closed source developers are "bad", but here goes:
I will start with two presumptions I make.
1 - Regarding wealth, abundance is good, lack is bad. Note I am not saying that people who lack are bad, but that lack itself is bad. This is the reason that it is generally considered good to help the poor (out of lack bad into abundance good).
2 - The rule of law is good and necessary. Note I am not saying that all laws are good, or that law isn't abused.
Software is, by its nature, effectively unlimited in quantity. It is also very often the technology of production. To limit the distribution of software is to limit available wealth, and is therefore bad. As I understand it, even the UN has said that FOSS is important for developing nations to prosper (http://www.iosn.net/). Proprietry software is the artificial limiting of wealth (for many) through copyrights (for the few). I think a telling sign is that many otherwise law abiding citizens feel no guilt about sharing software with friends. People who wouldn't steal because they believe it to be wrong (rather than because they think they might get caught) will breach copyright without a second thought. This could be (and has been) responded to by simply breaching copyright by most people. Personally though, I prefer not to do that. Open source allows me to use available computer technology to produce and distribute wealth without breaking the law.
This is not a comprehensive philosophy, or my religion. In this short statement, I have not taken into account that some software (wealth) may not ever be produced without a proprietry business model. For this, and other reasons, I don't take a dogmatic view that open source is "good" and closed source is "bad", but I lean towards that thinking.
Another comment on wealth: I am not a socialist. Personal wealth, though, is limited by available wealth. In real terms, a middle class person in the west today has more wealth than most of the rich thoughout history. The conveniences that most of us take for granted would have required a large staff of servants/slaves in other times. To artificially limit resourses for your own gain is shortsighted. There are many benefits to living in a wealthy society rather than a being rich man in a poor society.
On a personal note, my first use of FOSS was the gimp. I had already stopped using software illegally and was looking for replacements. A friend gave me a copy of the gimp for windows. I read the licence as I had got in the habit of doing, to make sure my software was legal. After reading the GPL, I got bought a book on linux with some installation cd's, within a year I was changed over. I am not a developer, I just like to be able to share the software I use. The fact that most people don't want me to now isn't an issue for me.
not that I can find.
/.
;)
I saw it on
Ctrl-L is what you are looking for. Full path, tab completion, no problem. Save as -> Ctrl-L
I wasn't justifying the treatment of people at Gitmo, or claiming that no laws have been broken, just that it's not a new interpretation of the Geneva convention.
No. I wasn't justifying any particular behaviour by anyone. I was only trying to answer the point:
I'm willing to bet that forcing a guy to strip out of his uniform at gunpoint so you can strap electrodes to his balls and force him to have sex with other prisoners does not legally change their uniformed soldier status.
You are quite correct. It's if he was captured in uniform that counts.
I think you would find that the Geneva Convention defines legal combantants/soldiers and civilians for the purpose of outlining the legal protections for them. People engaging in combat without uniform etc, and spies do not have legal protection under the geneva convention. This is not a loophole or a new interpretation. It is one of the intentions of the Geneva convention to make civilians (non-combatants) more safe from war by encouraging combatants to make themselves clearly identifiable, eg by wearing uniforms.
In every war since the Geneva convention, un-uniformed combatants have not enjoyed Geneva convention protection. People who deliberately appear as civilians in order to use innocents as human shields while engaging in military acts were never intended to be protected.
So there used to be legal soldiers, illegal soldiers/spies and civilians. This is still the case.
How is it that music and theatre happened before recordings were possible? They either had benefactors (paying for it to be created as the GP suggested) or they charged for live performance. Since this model has worked in the past and works now, I fail to see why it would not work in the future.
And it is (crippled), there's no denying it. ... DRMed WMV9 ...etc,etc
I deny it. DRMed systems/formats are crippled, not software that doesn't use them.
I don't use prosthetic limbs because I'm not crippled. If a company selling prosthetic limbs called people crippled who didn't use them, you would never accept it, neither would you cut off your leg so a prothetic leg would fit properly.
To say that systems that don't operate with DRM are crippled simply shows that you have been successfully impacted (through widespread use of the DRM) or indoctrinated by the companies selling it. The fact that "it just works" on a system that has been intentionally crippled in no way induces me to give up my freedoms in exchange for the crippled system.
We have a name for people like you: Windows users!
It's F/OSS users that demand the change. Don't let it bother you.
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
So, it's all useful, but Jesus answer to the religious of the day in Matthew 9:14-17 explains that Christianity is not a patched version of Judaism, it's a new deal. So old testament law is still useful for learning, but not directly applicable. That's why most people who oppose homosexuality, for example, are not advocating that homosexuals should be stoned to death.
which answer is consistent with what I have said so far, it is true for all people and all times, even if not directly applicable. That's why they've separated themselves, not stoned anyone.
Why don't Christians (in general) follow Leviticus?
Not to answer your whole post, but this point is easy. Leviticus is the law given to Israel, for Israel. There can still be much to learn from Leviticus, but I don't think there is an instruction to have this law implemented outside Israel.
Something like: has a knowable standard of behavior and lives by it.
It's about predictability. I have friends with a different standard of ethics than I do, but that's ok, if I know what it is, I can know what to trust them with.
Not a conclusive definition, but that's a fair part of how I assess ethics.