Before I would blame the ad companies I would blame the browser makers.
Sane browsers would have been inconvenient for ad companies but they could have certainly learned to work with them.
Instead they are accustomed to assuming the browser will run any arbitrary code thrown at it, which means that sane browsers appear to 'break' when thrown typical code.
It's this bullshit situation which sets the stage for a compromise on an ad network equating to a compromise of third party computers all across the world.
"First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify"
So wait a moment, the fact that people have a sense of morality and do not approve of theft even when they are guaranteed that they will not personally be victimized is a *problem* for you?
Classic. The whole problem with the world is that the oppressed are not wretched enough.
The answer is that it was transferred, and to go further, it was transferred, not at the time of the virtual destruction, but over the many months leading up to it.
This was just the fireworks show at the end of the season, roughly.
"A Titan costs $5,000? Who the hell has that type of money?"
20 people who have been playing this thing for 5 hours a day all year. And they do not have it in cash, but that is what it would cost if you tried to buy it with money instead of time.
That's my read at least, someone correct me if I am wrong.
They use a comma in the rest of the world too. They just put it in a different place. One hundred thousand and 90/100 is written 100.000,00. Just the opposite of what you are used to. Takes a fraction of a second to get used to.
I second the other poster, knock it off, you are just making Americans look like idiots and as one I am not amused.
There are actually a handful of tribes that had that custom, the Yahi in california come to mind immediately. Plucking is also useful. But as a couple of other posters pointed out, the point about no shaving was specious to begin with. A high quality flint scraper is actually sharper than the best metal razor and yes they work just fine for shaving, if you are inclined to that activity.
We really have zero evidence as to what the custom was in the time/space coordinates where the skeleton originates, so his personal grooming style and habits are entirely conjectural. Someone just thought he would look good as a hairy wildman so that is how he was painted.
Eh, as others have pointed out already, he didnt write DOS. Not at all. He bought it from Patterson who 'adapted' it from his copy of CP/M, so Gary Killdall would be the original author. I do not believe Gates has ever claimed authorship of DOS. He does claim partial authorship of the original MS Basic, which was ported to several microcomputers and very popular, but IIRC he isnt really the original author on that either, he just polished a printout he retrieved from a dumpster.
It wasnt just that he was at the right place at the right time, it was also that he combined a high IQ and geekishness with a profound enough lack of morality to succeed in business.
"Apple started on the Mac in 1980 from what I can tell."
Eh, the 128k came out in '84.
Some of the ideas that eventually got included might have been floating around in someone's head at Apple in 1980, but little if anything more than that.
"It may be pure FUD, but someone (I have long since forgotten whom, regrettably) who claimed to represent the FSF once told me that if I released code, and someon else then linked my code with GPL'd code, I was obliged to make my code available under the GPL. I don't think that's right, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a lot of money, or perhaps my entire company, on it being wrong..."
FFS man you are going to go around believing something that someone you dont even remember told you long ago, that's absurd on it's face, when you could take 5 minutes to find out the truth instead?
That is 100% pure nonsense. You can bet the farm on it if you want, it's completely safe. Copyright does not work like that.
It seems you are fixated on this idea that the GPL is somehow 'viral' and it can infect your code by osmosis or something. It's pure FUD.
"you are saying there are no GPL-related risks for these closed sourced providers who want to stay closed source providers in this scenario?"
There is absolutely no risk in using GPL software in such a situation, correct.
In order for the GPL to affect your code you would have to actually put that code into a 'mixed' product AND distribute that mixed product. Simply being in the same room with Free Software, using Free Software in the process of your work, or even consulting the source code of Free Software for educational purposes are fine. You can even copy large chunks of code and use them verbatim as long as you dont wind up distributing it as a mixed product.
"Which raises the second question: How should the developer of a video game with a free engine and all-rights-reserved artistic content deter unlawful copying of the all-rights-reserved artistic content?"
And that's an interesting question, but it's not as if it is the question is any different, or any easier, if the entire ball of wax is proprietary. You can search for unauthorised distribution on the web, bittorrent, etc. and issue take down notices and if you are smart about how you do it it might not eat more time and money than it's worth. You can provide updates and fixes only to people that are on record giving you money, and deny them to the pirates - this is probably more cost-effective from what I have seen.
But again, the situation is no different if your product is 100% proprietary or if the program itself is free and only the data is proprietary. Either way, if a webhost or a bittorrent swarm or whatever is distributing your proprietary data without authorization, you have exactly the same options available to discourage copyright infringement.
Ultimately the best thing you can probably do is just to treat your customers well. Some people will steal no matter what (and in some cases because of extreme poverty which is hard to blame them for) but most people will do right if you do right by them, and only decide to rob you blind after they notice that you intend to do the same to them. I have noticed the handful of companies that do a decent job at that dont seem to be the ones that are hurting so bad from piracy.
"People are focusing on BSD versus GPL, but really, the thing to see here is Stallman's definition of "community". If you would ever let your software be used by for-profit interests, you are not part of the community he is speaking of, and claims to speak for. It's just that simple, no flamage or politics implied by saying that."
Except that you are absolutely, utterly, completely wrong. A license based on your inaccurate view here would, in fact, not be a Free Software license. Stallman himself very deliberately formulated the Free Software definition to exclude any license that prohibits commercial or for-profit use. The freedom he is trying to protect includes commercial use. So your point is, rather badly, confused.
You missed (intentionally?) the key word here. He even _marked_ it for you like this!
*AS A USER* you can link to whatever you want. You have the code under copyright default without ever needing to accept the license.
You ONLY need to accept and abide by the license if you are NOT simply a user, but if you are rather a DISTRIBUTOR. Copyright default says you cannot distribute the work without permission. The license gives you permission under a few conditions.
Again, if you want to DISTRIBUTE proprietary software linked with Free, you have to free your own code to comply with the license. But if you are just USING the code, not distributing it, you can link it against anything you want, any time you want, without restrictions. You can, for example, link a mountain of GPL v3 code to a tiny little stub of your own proprietary creation, and use the resulting program any way you want. Just as long as you do not distribute it, you are fine.
"I work in a commercial software development company. We use OSS components, and we contribute back to the projects. They are all BSD/Apache variants. Our lawyers have forbidden us to touch anything GPL under any circumstances. It isn't as simple as many here claim that it is about whether we want to be contributors or freeloaders. We do contribute back in the OSS projects we use. But GPL is viral, and can very easily infect and "liberate" proprietary IP that is part of the solution."
You do not understand the GPL, and more disturbingly it appears that your company lawyers are just as ignorant as you are. If they were competent their advice would be nearly the opposite. Any contribution to a BSD codebase needs to be evaluated carefully because it means that the code is immediately licensed to your competitors without restriction and they can embrace-extend-extinguish you right out of your market if you are not very careful. GPL is much safer, in that case competitors can only use the code if they in turn publish and license back their own modifications, which rather dulls the point on that particular lance.
I would start looking for a new job, these idiots will probably run the company into the ground in short order.
"Apple used to support and use GCC, but couldn't upgrade because of the switch to GPLv3"
They DID NOT WANT to - they absolutely could have and should have.
"Apple's interest in LLVM isn't some malicious scheme to undermine GCC."
No, that's exactly what it is. If Apple cannot control it they do not want it to exist. GPL V3 is an obstacle to their plans and they are quite focused on destroying it.
You're kidding yourself and anyone that reads your comment, you cannot possibly be serious.
"A free game engine is useless without a "mission pack" of artistic content. For example, a Doom source port is useless without WADs."
*Useless* is pushing the matter, but yes, you need the artistic content to play. With the Doom engine alone, and no missions, you would have to build your own missions before you could play them - and that's fine, as long as there is no requirement to install DRM in order to create missions!
"If all mission packs for a given engine are non-free, the game will be excluded from repositories because it requires a non-free component in order to be useful"
Yes. And?
First off if you are really concerned about making it into the Free repository, all you need to do is release some basic content for free, still keeping the bulk of it back for pay.
But why do you care which repository you are in to begin with? People install stuff from non-free all the time. For that matter people install stuff without repositories every day! You can just host a tarball for download and ignore the repositories entirely. There are plenty of ways to distribute your stuff and I dont really care - until you try to sneak DRM onto my machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Before I would blame the ad companies I would blame the browser makers.
Sane browsers would have been inconvenient for ad companies but they could have certainly learned to work with them.
Instead they are accustomed to assuming the browser will run any arbitrary code thrown at it, which means that sane browsers appear to 'break' when thrown typical code.
It's this bullshit situation which sets the stage for a compromise on an ad network equating to a compromise of third party computers all across the world.
"First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify"
So wait a moment, the fact that people have a sense of morality and do not approve of theft even when they are guaranteed that they will not personally be victimized is a *problem* for you?
Classic. The whole problem with the world is that the oppressed are not wretched enough.
You correctly identify the question.
The answer is that it was transferred, and to go further, it was transferred, not at the time of the virtual destruction, but over the many months leading up to it.
This was just the fireworks show at the end of the season, roughly.
"A Titan costs $5,000? Who the hell has that type of money?"
20 people who have been playing this thing for 5 hours a day all year. And they do not have it in cash, but that is what it would cost if you tried to buy it with money instead of time.
That's my read at least, someone correct me if I am wrong.
Hahah good catch.
They use a comma in the rest of the world too. They just put it in a different place. One hundred thousand and 90/100 is written 100.000,00. Just the opposite of what you are used to. Takes a fraction of a second to get used to.
I second the other poster, knock it off, you are just making Americans look like idiots and as one I am not amused.
There are actually a handful of tribes that had that custom, the Yahi in california come to mind immediately. Plucking is also useful. But as a couple of other posters pointed out, the point about no shaving was specious to begin with. A high quality flint scraper is actually sharper than the best metal razor and yes they work just fine for shaving, if you are inclined to that activity.
We really have zero evidence as to what the custom was in the time/space coordinates where the skeleton originates, so his personal grooming style and habits are entirely conjectural. Someone just thought he would look good as a hairy wildman so that is how he was painted.
If this was in any way about crimes, he would have been offered immunity to testify at all those trials that are resulting from his disclosures.
Oh, wait, you say no one else has even been charged?
Hmmm.
"We have an upper class that is trying to turn our education system into a jobs training program for their exploitation. "
No, they accomplished that in the 19th century.
Google John Taylor Gatto and Horace Mann.
Eh, as others have pointed out already, he didnt write DOS. Not at all. He bought it from Patterson who 'adapted' it from his copy of CP/M, so Gary Killdall would be the original author. I do not believe Gates has ever claimed authorship of DOS. He does claim partial authorship of the original MS Basic, which was ported to several microcomputers and very popular, but IIRC he isnt really the original author on that either, he just polished a printout he retrieved from a dumpster.
It wasnt just that he was at the right place at the right time, it was also that he combined a high IQ and geekishness with a profound enough lack of morality to succeed in business.
"Apple started on the Mac in 1980 from what I can tell."
Eh, the 128k came out in '84.
Some of the ideas that eventually got included might have been floating around in someone's head at Apple in 1980, but little if anything more than that.
Oh please no, dont tell me that Packard Hell is still around.
It's been years since I saw one of them and the memories still bring on cold sweats.
"At no point is Valve in control of my computer, even if they delivered Wine to me."
Then how do you think they are able to enforce the restrictions?
"It may be pure FUD, but someone (I have long since forgotten whom, regrettably) who claimed to represent the FSF once told me that if I released code, and someon else then linked my code with GPL'd code, I was obliged to make my code available under the GPL. I don't think that's right, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a lot of money, or perhaps my entire company, on it being wrong..."
FFS man you are going to go around believing something that someone you dont even remember told you long ago, that's absurd on it's face, when you could take 5 minutes to find out the truth instead?
That is 100% pure nonsense. You can bet the farm on it if you want, it's completely safe. Copyright does not work like that.
"Not quite. If you use GPL code for anything you do, you have to redistribute the code."
That is simply and absolutely false.
"Of course, the massively vast majority of all software development happens by distributors"
BUZZZZ
Completely wrong. The vast majority of software development happens in-house and is not distributed at all.
It seems you are fixated on this idea that the GPL is somehow 'viral' and it can infect your code by osmosis or something. It's pure FUD.
"you are saying there are no GPL-related risks for these closed sourced providers who want to stay closed source providers in this scenario?"
There is absolutely no risk in using GPL software in such a situation, correct.
In order for the GPL to affect your code you would have to actually put that code into a 'mixed' product AND distribute that mixed product. Simply being in the same room with Free Software, using Free Software in the process of your work, or even consulting the source code of Free Software for educational purposes are fine. You can even copy large chunks of code and use them verbatim as long as you dont wind up distributing it as a mixed product.
"I actually think I do."
"GPL is not safer. "
Obviously you are mistaken.
"Every one of these contracts forbids us to have any GPL code anywhere close to theirs."
Who wants these contract provisions, and why?
Did your negotiators secure a very substantial increase over the initial bid when this absurd contract rider was first proposed? If not, why not?
"I would be careful with the simplistic assumption that is it just about the lawyers being idiots."
As you should, since, again, you clearly do not understand the GPL at all.
"Which raises the second question: How should the developer of a video game with a free engine and all-rights-reserved artistic content deter unlawful copying of the all-rights-reserved artistic content?"
And that's an interesting question, but it's not as if it is the question is any different, or any easier, if the entire ball of wax is proprietary. You can search for unauthorised distribution on the web, bittorrent, etc. and issue take down notices and if you are smart about how you do it it might not eat more time and money than it's worth. You can provide updates and fixes only to people that are on record giving you money, and deny them to the pirates - this is probably more cost-effective from what I have seen.
But again, the situation is no different if your product is 100% proprietary or if the program itself is free and only the data is proprietary. Either way, if a webhost or a bittorrent swarm or whatever is distributing your proprietary data without authorization, you have exactly the same options available to discourage copyright infringement.
Ultimately the best thing you can probably do is just to treat your customers well. Some people will steal no matter what (and in some cases because of extreme poverty which is hard to blame them for) but most people will do right if you do right by them, and only decide to rob you blind after they notice that you intend to do the same to them. I have noticed the handful of companies that do a decent job at that dont seem to be the ones that are hurting so bad from piracy.
"People are focusing on BSD versus GPL, but really, the thing to see here is Stallman's definition of "community". If you would ever let your software be used by for-profit interests, you are not part of the community he is speaking of, and claims to speak for. It's just that simple, no flamage or politics implied by saying that."
Except that you are absolutely, utterly, completely wrong. A license based on your inaccurate view here would, in fact, not be a Free Software license. Stallman himself very deliberately formulated the Free Software definition to exclude any license that prohibits commercial or for-profit use. The freedom he is trying to protect includes commercial use. So your point is, rather badly, confused.
You missed (intentionally?) the key word here. He even _marked_ it for you like this!
*AS A USER* you can link to whatever you want. You have the code under copyright default without ever needing to accept the license.
You ONLY need to accept and abide by the license if you are NOT simply a user, but if you are rather a DISTRIBUTOR. Copyright default says you cannot distribute the work without permission. The license gives you permission under a few conditions.
Again, if you want to DISTRIBUTE proprietary software linked with Free, you have to free your own code to comply with the license. But if you are just USING the code, not distributing it, you can link it against anything you want, any time you want, without restrictions. You can, for example, link a mountain of GPL v3 code to a tiny little stub of your own proprietary creation, and use the resulting program any way you want. Just as long as you do not distribute it, you are fine.
"I work in a commercial software development company. We use OSS components, and we contribute back to the projects. They are all BSD/Apache variants. Our lawyers have forbidden us to touch anything GPL under any circumstances. It isn't as simple as many here claim that it is about whether we want to be contributors or freeloaders. We do contribute back in the OSS projects we use. But GPL is viral, and can very easily infect and "liberate" proprietary IP that is part of the solution."
You do not understand the GPL, and more disturbingly it appears that your company lawyers are just as ignorant as you are. If they were competent their advice would be nearly the opposite. Any contribution to a BSD codebase needs to be evaluated carefully because it means that the code is immediately licensed to your competitors without restriction and they can embrace-extend-extinguish you right out of your market if you are not very careful. GPL is much safer, in that case competitors can only use the code if they in turn publish and license back their own modifications, which rather dulls the point on that particular lance.
I would start looking for a new job, these idiots will probably run the company into the ground in short order.
"Apple used to support and use GCC, but couldn't upgrade because of the switch to GPLv3"
They DID NOT WANT to - they absolutely could have and should have.
"Apple's interest in LLVM isn't some malicious scheme to undermine GCC."
No, that's exactly what it is. If Apple cannot control it they do not want it to exist. GPL V3 is an obstacle to their plans and they are quite focused on destroying it.
You're kidding yourself and anyone that reads your comment, you cannot possibly be serious.
"A free game engine is useless without a "mission pack" of artistic content. For example, a Doom source port is useless without WADs."
*Useless* is pushing the matter, but yes, you need the artistic content to play. With the Doom engine alone, and no missions, you would have to build your own missions before you could play them - and that's fine, as long as there is no requirement to install DRM in order to create missions!
"If all mission packs for a given engine are non-free, the game will be excluded from repositories because it requires a non-free component in order to be useful"
Yes. And?
First off if you are really concerned about making it into the Free repository, all you need to do is release some basic content for free, still keeping the bulk of it back for pay.
But why do you care which repository you are in to begin with? People install stuff from non-free all the time. For that matter people install stuff without repositories every day! You can just host a tarball for download and ignore the repositories entirely. There are plenty of ways to distribute your stuff and I dont really care - until you try to sneak DRM onto my machine.
"Because Debian is about the only Linux distro that doesn't suck giant sweaty gorilla balls."
Nonsense. Slackware is still going strong, and all other distributions are non-standard variants of it.