No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants - elements that should not be present. CO2 is a natural and normal component of the atmosphere. This is just bad pseudo-science in the service of a political agenda. Get back to me when you have numbers on actual pollutants.
If YOU were affected how would YOU feel? Would you want to government to take action, not at the level of a stolen wallet but direct greater effort to seek out and seize those responsible (as the effort make for terrorism investigations) ?
No, I would want them to do their job properly, the last thing I would want them to do is go full-retard in my name and go down this 'war on everything' route.
The sale in this case is not an actual thing that can be stolen, it is an abstract and entirely hypothetical (i.e. it is a potential not a thing.) The copyright system itself is a violation of property rights and of the fundamental principles of justice, although you are correct it does attempt to guarantee sales that doesnt mean there is any moral or ethical argument for coÃperating with that end. In the case at hand, the card numbers themselves have no intrinsic value anyway - they are only being sought for their practical function (to facilitate theft) and copyright isnt involved anyhow.
No, if you are packaging it for linux windows or osx you would just package it for an emulator. Then it would multitask nicely with the rest of your existing system.
Plus if you *are* actually running it on bare os, that doesnt mean no multitasking. People forget but DOS multitasked just fine, 'services' when necessary were implemented as TSRs and we had a very nice task-and-window manager called Desqview/X, which included a usable X-server for running remote *nix apps. So it's far from impossible to do that.
If you come up with something useful on freedos you can distribute it not only across freedos systems, which will run useful programs with more modest system specs, but you can also distribute it across any more 'modern' platform that has v86 emulator support. So that's pretty much everywhere.
Heh, that reminds me, I actually wrote a bulletproof AV for dos back in the day. Windows broke it so it couldnt be fixed. Havent thought about that in years. Maybe freedos will catch on to the point it would be worth reviving it. Probably not though.
Desqview/X is now the product that needs a free clone.
With that, and some porting work on application libraries, this could really be a powerful alternative free platform. It used to be that linux-based systems filled that role but the requirements on those have bloated tremendously. It would have the advantages of a horde of abandonware that works fine and a very low overhead environment ideal to run stuff like qt-framebuffer as well as playing very nicely in emulation - or running on the most minimal of bare hardware.
You could return a secondary shell to the startup menu but it was blasted tough to get a primary shell on ME. This was the single biggest annoyance about it, but far from the only one.
ME sucked unimaginably, I ran 98SE trimmed with 98lite on the home/gaming machine as long as that was feasible instead, and when that finally broke too much to be born winXP was out. And I held onto XP through the era of Vista. Win7 is tolerable again. I see a pattern here, and I dislike these efforts to charge me good money (and more importantly freedom) for a beta OS every few years.
I'm not sure how long ago google quit respecting booleans but it's been a long time now, and it sucks. You cant even get it to sort by date without first limiting the date range, and the mangling of characters is nasty. Maybe they need a competitor?
And the lesson that so many seem to continue resisting is that you have to have a real plan for what happens after those 200 hours. Something realistic. We didnt have that, we had nothing but dreams of cakewalks and flower-throwing, and that has been par for the course repeatedly over our history when we get involved where we shouldnt.
The Fed doesnt create money. It creates currency. Please meditate on the difference between the two until it becomes blindingly clear, and then act accordingly.
While I certainly see the charm in your call to democratise larceny and let the benefits currently enjoyed by only the largest and most successful criminal enterprises to date, I fear your plan would ultimately be just as unsustainable and just as harmful to the general welfare.
As the other reply hinted at, you appear to be confusing proprietary and commercial. Two very different words with two very different meanings. The GPL guarantees the right to sell the software and aims to create a free market for software, which is the most pro-commerce stance possible. Proprietary software seeks to use lawfare to produce monopoly positions and extract monopoly rents - it's quite the opposite of pro-commerce.
You can just send them a link to the original author's site.
No, this does not fulfil your obligations under the license.
That was quite intentional. What if you direct too much traffic for the original authors hosting? What if he takes the site down for this or any other reason?
If you distribute GPL software in binary form without including the source code then YOU must personally ensure that YOU are also making that source available.
Uh no, copyright and other monopoly grants are not common law concepts. You may be thinking of Constitutional copyright, but the truth of it was just the opposite of what you wrote so I dont think so. What you must be thinking of is under the Berne convention which is about as far from common law as you could possibly get.
You seem to have learned all you know about the GPL from listening to its enemies. Try reading it sometime. It's not anti-commercial, it's quite explicitly the opposite in fact. It considers the right to sell the software to be one of the package of user rights that the license is here to protect.
Your post is mostly correct, but I spotted one huge glaring error.
False. The source must be distributed if it is changed. Otherwise, it is not your responsibility. He was right, you are not.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have two options to distribute software under the GPL. You can either: ship the full code with every binary or you can ship the binary alone but commit to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. Whether you are distributing the code unmodified, or have extensively modified it, doesnt matter in the least.
It's actually an either/or and you got the ship later option wrong. Ship a copy of the source with every executable, or ship source to anyone that requests it later.
No, it's not. Most people didnt understand what the Fed is and what it does. Until they do we wont get rid of it. This - letting people see what it is they do - helps. The fact that you are one of the small minority that already knows what they do is great - it's also not the point.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants - elements that should not be present. CO2 is a natural and normal component of the atmosphere. This is just bad pseudo-science in the service of a political agenda. Get back to me when you have numbers on actual pollutants.
No, I would want them to do their job properly, the last thing I would want them to do is go full-retard in my name and go down this 'war on everything' route.
The sale in this case is not an actual thing that can be stolen, it is an abstract and entirely hypothetical (i.e. it is a potential not a thing.) The copyright system itself is a violation of property rights and of the fundamental principles of justice, although you are correct it does attempt to guarantee sales that doesnt mean there is any moral or ethical argument for coÃperating with that end. In the case at hand, the card numbers themselves have no intrinsic value anyway - they are only being sought for their practical function (to facilitate theft) and copyright isnt involved anyhow.
No, if you are packaging it for linux windows or osx you would just package it for an emulator. Then it would multitask nicely with the rest of your existing system.
Plus if you *are* actually running it on bare os, that doesnt mean no multitasking. People forget but DOS multitasked just fine, 'services' when necessary were implemented as TSRs and we had a very nice task-and-window manager called Desqview/X, which included a usable X-server for running remote *nix apps. So it's far from impossible to do that.
If you come up with something useful on freedos you can distribute it not only across freedos systems, which will run useful programs with more modest system specs, but you can also distribute it across any more 'modern' platform that has v86 emulator support. So that's pretty much everywhere.
Heh, that reminds me, I actually wrote a bulletproof AV for dos back in the day. Windows broke it so it couldnt be fixed. Havent thought about that in years. Maybe freedos will catch on to the point it would be worth reviving it. Probably not though.
Desqview/X is now the product that needs a free clone.
With that, and some porting work on application libraries, this could really be a powerful alternative free platform. It used to be that linux-based systems filled that role but the requirements on those have bloated tremendously. It would have the advantages of a horde of abandonware that works fine and a very low overhead environment ideal to run stuff like qt-framebuffer as well as playing very nicely in emulation - or running on the most minimal of bare hardware.
You could return a secondary shell to the startup menu but it was blasted tough to get a primary shell on ME. This was the single biggest annoyance about it, but far from the only one.
ME sucked unimaginably, I ran 98SE trimmed with 98lite on the home/gaming machine as long as that was feasible instead, and when that finally broke too much to be born winXP was out. And I held onto XP through the era of Vista. Win7 is tolerable again. I see a pattern here, and I dislike these efforts to charge me good money (and more importantly freedom) for a beta OS every few years.
Yeah, I am going to have to say that would work fine for me. Hollywood blockbusters are not entertaining to me, but the unknown $2 movie might be.
I'm not sure how long ago google quit respecting booleans but it's been a long time now, and it sucks. You cant even get it to sort by date without first limiting the date range, and the mangling of characters is nasty. Maybe they need a competitor?
And the lesson that so many seem to continue resisting is that you have to have a real plan for what happens after those 200 hours. Something realistic. We didnt have that, we had nothing but dreams of cakewalks and flower-throwing, and that has been par for the course repeatedly over our history when we get involved where we shouldnt.
The Fed doesnt create money. It creates currency. Please meditate on the difference between the two until it becomes blindingly clear, and then act accordingly.
While I certainly see the charm in your call to democratise larceny and let the benefits currently enjoyed by only the largest and most successful criminal enterprises to date, I fear your plan would ultimately be just as unsustainable and just as harmful to the general welfare.
You cant see the connection between the little control-freak in the office and the big ones in DC?
As the other reply hinted at, you appear to be confusing proprietary and commercial. Two very different words with two very different meanings. The GPL guarantees the right to sell the software and aims to create a free market for software, which is the most pro-commerce stance possible. Proprietary software seeks to use lawfare to produce monopoly positions and extract monopoly rents - it's quite the opposite of pro-commerce.
Score 5 informative and 100% completely and verifiably incorrect. Moderation has well and truly failed today.
JohnWs points are correct, but there is an even simpler and more direct one he missed. Even the FAQ page that you linked disagrees with you.
"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it."
RTFL. You are wrong.
No, this does not fulfil your obligations under the license.
That was quite intentional. What if you direct too much traffic for the original authors hosting? What if he takes the site down for this or any other reason?
If you distribute GPL software in binary form without including the source code then YOU must personally ensure that YOU are also making that source available.
Uh no, copyright and other monopoly grants are not common law concepts. You may be thinking of Constitutional copyright, but the truth of it was just the opposite of what you wrote so I dont think so. What you must be thinking of is under the Berne convention which is about as far from common law as you could possibly get.
You seem to have learned all you know about the GPL from listening to its enemies. Try reading it sometime. It's not anti-commercial, it's quite explicitly the opposite in fact. It considers the right to sell the software to be one of the package of user rights that the license is here to protect.
Your post is mostly correct, but I spotted one huge glaring error.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have two options to distribute software under the GPL. You can either: ship the full code with every binary or you can ship the binary alone but commit to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. Whether you are distributing the code unmodified, or have extensively modified it, doesnt matter in the least.
It's actually an either/or and you got the ship later option wrong. Ship a copy of the source with every executable, or ship source to anyone that requests it later.
No, it's not. Most people didnt understand what the Fed is and what it does. Until they do we wont get rid of it. This - letting people see what it is they do - helps. The fact that you are one of the small minority that already knows what they do is great - it's also not the point.
Which is a problem because we are talking about "currency" - something with no value at all outside of that artificial scarcity.