Only because he overlooked it in previous versions of the GPL.
Well, he not so much overlooked it as it just wasn't a worry because it didn't exist.
OAs content owners would say "You're free to watch your own stuff". Both RMS and MPAA are using the same leverage to accomplish the same goals. "Do as I say or don't use my stuff"
Your original claim was "he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware." Now you say he wants control over his own stuff. These are different things. Not that it matters too much because in reality he wants to give developers control over whether _they want to allow their free software to be locked up by DRM or not, by offering the GPLv3 to choose.
Content providers are attempting to influence the computing platform for their own interests. RMS is attempting to influence the computing platform for his own interests
Free software offers work in the form of code to the genereral public for free. GPLv3 gives them the option to opt out from DRM. The influence would be: if you use my code you can't take away the freedom of its users by locking it up by DRM. That is, it does not at all influence the platform, just possibly the software that is run. If the manufacturers value DRM higher than GPLv3 code, they are free to choose DRM.
In contrast, "content providers" (your term for the media conglomerates) take away their users' rights and money. If I have bought a movie on HDDVD/Blueray and own a 32 bit PC I can't watch it for arbitrary reasons. They force MS to do this under threat of withdrawing and thus are actually influencing the platform.
Can't you see the difference?
Stallman recruits developers and projects to GNU and then dictates development and licensing terms.
This is an example for how he "actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view"? Tell me, please, how he "recruits". Does he have an army that will drag developers out of their homes? You must be delirious.
He runs an entire organization for that purpose after all.
He runs an org to _develop software and licensing terms. The individual projects outside of GNU then choose if they like those terms too or prefer one of the other free software licenses.
Stallman evangelizes the GPL and periodically updates it to reflect his beliefs.
So?
He encourages developers to license code under the current GPL with a clause that allows transfer to a newer version so that he's free to modify licensing of existing code authored by other programmers.
That's a lie or ignorance of the GPL. Go read the license and the "v2 or later" clause. It gives the _recipient of the software the right to choose. If you write software and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and I receive the software from somewhere, then _I can choose if I want to license it under v2 or v3, whatever I prefer.
He co-opts existing language (open source, freedom) to imply meaning that otherwise doesn't exist.
RMS talks frequently about open source, usually when he is erroneously addressed as a proponent of such. I don't know what different meaning you mean. As far as freedom goes, there are more interpretations of what it means than of most other notions.
He strongarms people into recognizing that he has naming rights to projects for which he doesn't contribute (gnu/linux).
You know, this is getting tedious.
He _says that he'd like it for specific reasons (look it up at gnu.org). You have a really low threshold for feeling strongarmed, how do you cope socially?
He has contributed by tiny things like giving birth to the idea of a completely free reimplementation of Unix (while BSD was tangled in lawsuits), the GNU system, which was more or less complete (for the time) except a kernel. Calling it Linux is catchy but kinda stupid. Nevertheless the name will stay. However calling it GNU/Linux sometimes is necessary so that trolls like you can't spread the lie that GNU did "not contribute" to the development of the body of free software as it stands today.
This is +4 interesting? Heck, the story is about this software being GPL'ed and thus the possibility of adding missing features. Yeah, we'll wake you up when all the coders have delivered the work to your doorstep for free.
This is not about look, but about "feel". Sure a Wii game can look good, the question however is will it behave realistically
Sorry, I realize that I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was the realism of animations and such. I'm not interested so much in simulation, I want games. I work between 40 and 80 hours a week at my job, I don't need another 20 as a spy or managing a theme park. Not everything has to be life-like.
ie. will there be physic simulation to handle your Wiimote sword swings and such? (...)
That's a good point though, regardless of what I have said above. Still, they haven't released specs. At this point I trust Nintendo that they are not stupid - if one company knows about gameplay, it's Nintendo. Also, IIRC their statement that they haven't revealed all features yet still stands (the Leipzig press conference, despite all the hype, was a bore). There were once rumours about a physics chip too and, again IIRC, some Nintendo person when asked didn't categorically deny it.
Then again, your suspicion might be correct.
Its true that Nintendo hasn't released any final specs, however so far there is nothing even hinting that it will come anywhere near XBox360 or PS3, neither in GPU or CPU power.
Of course. Nothing else was ever said. There are several things that have to be taken into account though (e.g., HD, insane complexity of PS3).
And the demonstrated Wii games so far arn't exactly impressive either Mario, Zelda and Metroid look a bit better then on the Cube, but not really that much better, so Wii speed will be better then Gamecube, but not that much better, especially since Wii games already should be a lot more optimized then XBox360 or PS3 games due to the familiar single-processor architecture of the Wii vs the multi core architecture of the others.
I guess we'll have to wait until TGS:) I would rate the improvements I've seen a bit higher than you, but can't completely disagree. Then again, I was at Leipzig Game Convention today and while there was no Wii I got to see many games and trailers (a new MGS4 among other PS3 stuff). I thought the PS3 stuff looked very uneven, some was amazing, some was a let-down, and this even within the same game. 360 looked very good if done well, if a little glossy. But the important thing: an hour into the event I didn't care anymore.
However, that replacement disc will cost $opticalDiscPrice to recoup the added cost of manufacture, distribution, and support.
How can it be argued that a replacement disc costs the same as the initial copy? Obviously "manufacture, distribution, and support" are exactly the same as for the initial one.
Stallman does not produce the hardware that FSF software runs on, yet he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware.
Not true. Only if they run GPLv3-licensed code on the hardware. They are free to write their own stuff, then they don't have to deal with GPLv3.
I see that as *exactly* the same thing.
I don't believe that.
In Stallman's case, he actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view as well.
I know, that's what I meant. 2-3 pounds is not usually called "many"*, and the others really are outliers. And from my experience in Ocarina or Time (rather short fights) and Tai Chi sword (IRL) I can't imagine that it would be a problem to swing the wiimote for a few minutes. Heck, many not too fit people easily can play tennis for an hour.
I think it is often overlooked that in the age of Google a good product name produces practically no hits prior to your first press release. I don't think using a commonly-known word or combination thereof is a good strategy at all. As an example for a much-derided name lately, take "Wii". the day after the news were released you could type "Wii" into google and everything that came up was about the Nintendo Wii. Now try the same with "Revolution."
I can see where you come from, but Tufte's gripe with PPT is that it makes the wrong things easy - and he's dead-on with it.
A tool that is aimed at the masses and provides drawing tools (ever seen the default formatting after inserting a new chart?), slide layouts (bulleted list anyone?), and design templates ("Balance"? "Clouds"? wtf?) that when used lead to hideous presentations has failed.
They should instead aim for tools and a UI that when used mindlessly at least leads to presentations that don't make one vomit.
Why doesn't anyone get this!? The person who uses the software under GPL (to change and/or redistribute) gets to choose the license (v2 or later). If the user prefers v2 he uses that, if he prefers v3 he uses that. Nobody is SOL, there is no automatic license update. Read the fucking license.
What is "it"? The Linux kernel alone? If so fine, then your argument (he who wrote it gets to choose the name) makes sense. If you mean an actual Linux distribution then I don't even need to agree or disagree with the "Linux" name, your argument falls apart on its own.
First, it was not my logic, it was the logic of the GP who had said, he who writes it gets no name it. Since Linus wrote only a tiny bit of the code in a typical distribution, he does not get to name it by that logic. This is hardly my fault.
Second, regarding your laughable "Nullsoft/Apple/..." crap: again, note that this was the GP's reasoning. Furthermore, it would be a good idea to actually read up on RMS's reasoning. After you know what he's saying you can still disagree, but at least you wouldn't look ignorant.
Whether Linux is sufficient as a name: might be so right now, but could change. Note that there is a Debian GNU/NetBSD, which makes it a requirement to name the usual one Debian GNU/Linux to distinguish them.
Slashdot Mirror
Only because he overlooked it in previous versions of the GPL.
Well, he not so much overlooked it as it just wasn't a worry because it didn't exist.
OAs content owners would say "You're free to watch your own stuff". Both RMS and MPAA are using the same leverage to accomplish the same goals. "Do as I say or don't use my stuff"
Your original claim was "he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware." Now you say he wants control over his own stuff. These are different things. Not that it matters too much because in reality he wants to give developers control over whether _they want to allow their free software to be locked up by DRM or not, by offering the GPLv3 to choose.
Content providers are attempting to influence the computing platform for their own interests. RMS is attempting to influence the computing platform for his own interests
Free software offers work in the form of code to the genereral public for free. GPLv3 gives them the option to opt out from DRM. The influence would be: if you use my code you can't take away the freedom of its users by locking it up by DRM. That is, it does not at all influence the platform, just possibly the software that is run. If the manufacturers value DRM higher than GPLv3 code, they are free to choose DRM.
In contrast, "content providers" (your term for the media conglomerates) take away their users' rights and money. If I have bought a movie on HDDVD/Blueray and own a 32 bit PC I can't watch it for arbitrary reasons. They force MS to do this under threat of withdrawing and thus are actually influencing the platform.
Can't you see the difference?
Stallman recruits developers and projects to GNU and then dictates development and licensing terms.
This is an example for how he "actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view"? Tell me, please, how he "recruits". Does he have an army that will drag developers out of their homes? You must be delirious.
He runs an entire organization for that purpose after all.
He runs an org to _develop software and licensing terms. The individual projects outside of GNU then choose if they like those terms too or prefer one of the other free software licenses.
Stallman evangelizes the GPL and periodically updates it to reflect his beliefs.
So?
He encourages developers to license code under the current GPL with a clause that allows transfer to a newer version so that he's free to modify licensing of existing code authored by other programmers.
That's a lie or ignorance of the GPL. Go read the license and the "v2 or later" clause. It gives the _recipient of the software the right to choose. If you write software and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and I receive the software from somewhere, then _I can choose if I want to license it under v2 or v3, whatever I prefer.
He co-opts existing language (open source, freedom) to imply meaning that otherwise doesn't exist.
RMS talks frequently about open source, usually when he is erroneously addressed as a proponent of such. I don't know what different meaning you mean. As far as freedom goes, there are more interpretations of what it means than of most other notions.
He strongarms people into recognizing that he has naming rights to projects for which he doesn't contribute (gnu/linux).
You know, this is getting tedious.
He _says that he'd like it for specific reasons (look it up at gnu.org). You have a really low threshold for feeling strongarmed, how do you cope socially?
He has contributed by tiny things like giving birth to the idea of a completely free reimplementation of Unix (while BSD was tangled in lawsuits), the GNU system, which was more or less complete (for the time) except a kernel. Calling it Linux is catchy but kinda stupid. Nevertheless the name will stay. However calling it GNU/Linux sometimes is necessary so that trolls like you can't spread the lie that GNU did "not contribute" to the development of the body of free software as it stands today.
I know, I wasn't clear.
This is +4 interesting? Heck, the story is about this software being GPL'ed and thus the possibility of adding missing features. Yeah, we'll wake you up when all the coders have delivered the work to your doorstep for free.
This is not about look, but about "feel". Sure a Wii game can look good, the question however is will it behave realistically
:) I would rate the improvements I've seen a bit higher than you, but can't completely disagree. Then again, I was at Leipzig Game Convention today and while there was no Wii I got to see many games and trailers (a new MGS4 among other PS3 stuff). I thought the PS3 stuff looked very uneven, some was amazing, some was a let-down, and this even within the same game. 360 looked very good if done well, if a little glossy. But the important thing: an hour into the event I didn't care anymore.
Sorry, I realize that I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was the realism of animations and such. I'm not interested so much in simulation, I want games. I work between 40 and 80 hours a week at my job, I don't need another 20 as a spy or managing a theme park. Not everything has to be life-like.
ie. will there be physic simulation to handle your Wiimote sword swings and such? (...)
That's a good point though, regardless of what I have said above. Still, they haven't released specs. At this point I trust Nintendo that they are not stupid - if one company knows about gameplay, it's Nintendo. Also, IIRC their statement that they haven't revealed all features yet still stands (the Leipzig press conference, despite all the hype, was a bore). There were once rumours about a physics chip too and, again IIRC, some Nintendo person when asked didn't categorically deny it.
Then again, your suspicion might be correct.
Its true that Nintendo hasn't released any final specs, however so far there is nothing even hinting that it will come anywhere near XBox360 or PS3, neither in GPU or CPU power.
Of course. Nothing else was ever said. There are several things that have to be taken into account though (e.g., HD, insane complexity of PS3).
And the demonstrated Wii games so far arn't exactly impressive either Mario, Zelda and Metroid look a bit better then on the Cube, but not really that much better, so Wii speed will be better then Gamecube, but not that much better, especially since Wii games already should be a lot more optimized then XBox360 or PS3 games due to the familiar single-processor architecture of the Wii vs the multi core architecture of the others.
I guess we'll have to wait until TGS
Yeah. Sorry :)
One core problem I see with the Wii is its lack of CPU power. Now you might say that CPU power isn't that important for a fun game
Well, I would say that
1 - Nintendo has not released hardware specs yet
2 - We've seen in-game videos and they certainly look good enough for me
Who would have thought that DRM would fly either?
Does it? Everyone I know (and yeah, I know "normal" people) circumvents it as much as possible.
The Roman Catholic church accepts evolution.
;)
Yeah that's what I said. You should have saved your rant for a creationis
Stallman does not produce the hardware that FSF software runs on, yet he wants to strongarm hardware manufacturers into removing all DRM from their hardware.
Not true. Only if they run GPLv3-licensed code on the hardware. They are free to write their own stuff, then they don't have to deal with GPLv3.
I see that as *exactly* the same thing.
I don't believe that.
In Stallman's case, he actively strongarms other developers into his licensing view as well.
Examples please?
YEah, and I'm not sure that the Bible says much against that point of view.
The roman catholic church at least doesn't think so. It is their official doctrine, and they still are the biggest denomination.
No, what they need is the moon!
But what the heck, if it's only 1.3 billion right now you gotta strike.
I know, that's what I meant. 2-3 pounds is not usually called "many"*, and the others really are outliers. And from my experience in Ocarina or Time (rather short fights) and Tai Chi sword (IRL) I can't imagine that it would be a problem to swing the wiimote for a few minutes. Heck, many not too fit people easily can play tennis for an hour.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you say (well, except with swords weighing "many pounds"), but what does it have to do with my question?
Touché
I'm not sure about the Xbox. I don't really follow it.
:)
I read recently on slashdot that they lost 4 billion, but you'll have to verify it yourself
That's all true, but I don't see why the same reasons wouldn't hold for the wiimote.
Well, not in this talk, it was simply all made up by the anonymous submitter.
I think it is often overlooked that in the age of Google a good product name produces practically no hits prior to your first press release. I don't think using a commonly-known word or combination thereof is a good strategy at all. As an example for a much-derided name lately, take "Wii". the day after the news were released you could type "Wii" into google and everything that came up was about the Nintendo Wii. Now try the same with "Revolution."
I can see where you come from, but Tufte's gripe with PPT is that it makes the wrong things easy - and he's dead-on with it.
A tool that is aimed at the masses and provides drawing tools (ever seen the default formatting after inserting a new chart?), slide layouts (bulleted list anyone?), and design templates ("Balance"? "Clouds"? wtf?) that when used lead to hideous presentations has failed.
They should instead aim for tools and a UI that when used mindlessly at least leads to presentations that don't make one vomit.
Why doesn't anyone get this!? The person who uses the software under GPL (to change and/or redistribute) gets to choose the license (v2 or later). If the user prefers v2 he uses that, if he prefers v3 he uses that. Nobody is SOL, there is no automatic license update. Read the fucking license.
We use it
What is "it"? The Linux kernel alone? If so fine, then your argument (he who wrote it gets to choose the name) makes sense. If you mean an actual Linux distribution then I don't even need to agree or disagree with the "Linux" name, your argument falls apart on its own.
First, it was not my logic, it was the logic of the GP who had said, he who writes it gets no name it. Since Linus wrote only a tiny bit of the code in a typical distribution, he does not get to name it by that logic. This is hardly my fault.
Second, regarding your laughable "Nullsoft/Apple/..." crap: again, note that this was the GP's reasoning. Furthermore, it would be a good idea to actually read up on RMS's reasoning. After you know what he's saying you can still disagree, but at least you wouldn't look ignorant.
Whether Linux is sufficient as a name: might be so right now, but could change. Note that there is a Debian GNU/NetBSD, which makes it a requirement to name the usual one Debian GNU/Linux to distinguish them.
If Linus wrote it and he calls it Linux
So you 911 only runs a kernel? By your logic, since the largest chunk of a distribution is GNU code RMS gets to call it GNU/Linux.