Except you shouldn't be writing code in C++ either, you should be writing it in a higher-level language like Python. I really wish I could find something as polished as glade3 for KDE that I can use in Python.
Also, GTK+ is LGPL-licensed, but Qt is GPL2 licensed, so programming for GNOME doesn't tie you to whichever version of the GPL that TrollTech likes this week.
So I prefer developing against GNOME, but I prefer using KDE. Go figure.
But I agree that they can make us look bad if we won't come to the table with them. We just have to make sure they don't leave with the table.
Nor should the table budge an inch to suit their needs. Microsoft is not a leader in the open-source world, and until they get their act together, and have had their act together for some time (say, a decade), I really don't see why anyone should trust them. Give MS "observer status" at OSI if you want---perhaps they'll learn something---but to give them decision-making power on the board is irresponsible.
The journal is saying that, if you want them to publish your work (which no-one is forcing you to do) then you must assign them the copyright. If you don't like it, publish in a different journal.
Readers have to be free to download your papers and print them out. You will probably also want mirrors, i.e., copies of your papers available from other sites around the world.
Please don't sign any contracts that prevent you from authorizing these activities! In several cases I've said something like
This paper is entirely my own work.
I have put it into the public domain.
Luxury Press is therefore free to publish it. instead of signing a copyright transfer agreement. If you ever encounter a publisher that doesn't accept this, let me know, and I'll be happy to blacklist that publisher here. I'm now blacklisting IEEE.
it doesn't matter what the code does, unless it has a way out- and you can watch that way out, which is probably easier and provides a variety of security advantages.
I can assure you that looking at what a program does is orders of magnitude easier than trying to detect and eliminate covert channels while treating the program as a black box.
It's only 'easy' if your time has no value and you're competent to examine the source, which I would say the vast majority if not 99.9999% of people aren't.
So? Somebody you trust can do it for you. Or, you can trust that there are enough people looking at the code that they'll find any big problems, and that news of these problems will find its way to you. With non-free software, the number of people looking at the code is much smaller.
If the word god is flexible enough to refer to anything (note that I didn't say everything), then the word god is semantically superfluous. I do not believe that god and thing have the same meaning.
The fact that atheists don't believe in some things and do believe in others does indeed make them nothing much different from a Christian and the rest of them. However, the fact that atheists don't believe in a god makes them different from Christians and Muslims and Hindus and so on who do believe in at least one god. Trying to blur the meaning of god doesn't really change the distinction, it just makes it more difficult to say.
Just because astrology teaches it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Conducting a study because astrology says something is true is fine (though perhaps there are more promising things to spend money on), but believing something is true---without doing the study---just because astrology teaches it, is wrong and stupid.
You've referred to a definition of "god" that the parent isn't using, and that an average reader will understand that the parent isn't using, and then argued on the basis of that definition.
In any case, nothing much different from a Christian, who also denies other gods while keeping his own intact
Aristotle's "god", as you define it, is observable, so we can build a view of it that is consistent and accurate enough to be useful in daily life and under emergency circumstances. The Christian god is not. To you, that's "nothing much different"?
Aren't all scientific models / theories just (potentially) flawed mental shortcuts for understanding the world?
Aren't scissors and chainsaws just tools for cutting wood? Aren't lotteries and mutual funds just ways of (potentially) doubling one's money?
Some "flawed mental shortcuts" are more useful for understanding the world---and making decisions within it---than others. The difference is in a person's ability to distinguish which ones give useful answers a significant portion of the time, and which ones give useful answers no more often than answers chosen at random.
Can GPL-compatible software (or really any kind of open-source software) be written, given these restrictions?
Open AIM Additional Feature Requirements
Welcome to Open AIM! If you intend to develop and distribute an AIM Custom Client (including mobile versions) or Web AIM Developer Application, you must pick 2 of the 5 options listed below and incorporate them into your Developer Applications. These options include
Advertising
Buddy Info
Expressions and Buddy Icons
AIM Start Page
AIM Toolbar
Just to be clear, these requirements don't apply to Plugins, Bots or the use of the Presence Indicators. Please note that if your application exceeds 100,000 peak simultaneous users, you must implement Advertising as described below as one of your two options.
Not sure what will work best for your application? Don't worry. You can always change your selections to suit your needs as you grow.
This is starting to look as if now that everyone knows the OSCAR protocol anyway, AOL is trying to make a power grab under the guise of openness...
From the FAQ:
Are there any restrictions on what I can build?
We tried to make the Open AIM Program as restriction-free and flexible as possible. But in order to help protect our network and users, certain rules apply.
We ask that you incorporate two value-added features of the AIM service into your application. The full list that you can pick from is listed in our Additional Feature Requirements webpage.
Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details.
Correct, but the one common thread in all the abuse cases is that if it is committed by a member of an organization, the organization always protects itself first. The organization's punishments are usually given abusing members to appease public pressure and give the appearance of "doing something."
On the other hand, the papacy's entire purpose is to provide moral leadership for Catholics in the world. Why does it behave just like any other organization, then? On the flip side, if it's not going to provide moral leadership, why should the papacy continue to exist?
Regardless of my opinion of ndiswrapper (we would be better off without it), Linus certainly seems to have a really, um...unique view of how copyright law works. First with GPLv3 and now this. Shall we start a fund to hire a lawyer to keep Linus educated about the law?
The best drivers are people who like to drive. They're not easy to spot, but you can in fact recognize these people based on what car they're driving. A "driver's car" like a 3-series coupe, a Lancer Evo, a Z06, etc. You're safest when you're by these folks. (Note the converse/inverse are not true, obviously. You don't need a Z06 to be a good driver, but if you're driving one I feel OK giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
Do you actually have the insurance numbers to back that up, or are you just quoting yourself and your friends?
But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.
I wouldn't say you're completely safe. Sure, you're safe while you're driving, but when you hit your brakes (or when you collide with something) then E = 0.5 m v^2. In other words, when you are driving 100 mph, you have 2.04 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 70 mph, and 2.37 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 65 mph. All that kinetic energy needs to be dissipated by your tires/brakes if you want to come to a controlled stop, and all that kinetic energy will be dissipated if you crash into something. Four times the energy needs to be dissipated when you crash head-on into another vehicle going the same speed as you than if you crash into the side of a mountain.
I suspect that speed limits are set a little lower than some people want because the result is that people are comparatively much safer. (And won't you please think of the children?)
Physics is a bitch, eh?;)
Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?
Good question, and I'd say it's a trade-off. If you drive 100mph, your speed relative to the vehicles traveling the same direction as you is lower, but your speed relative to the road, fixed obstacles, and vehicles traveling in other directions is higher. I'd guess that in this case, at 100 mph, a collision with other vehicles is less likely, but if it happens (or some other emergency happens), you're more likely to be screwed.
Come to think of it, the only way to unconditionally make the situation safer is to lower the speed of everyone on the road. On the other hand, the safest speed is zero, so if we're going to have a useful highway system, safety needs to be balanced against other factors.
Be careful. Some ISPs (mainly telcos) want to control what content goes over your Internet connection, so they can bill you differently for it. That's what the "network neutrality" movement is fighting against.
And how generous of you to impose your will on people who DON'T monetize their work that way. Why should YOU get to decide how someone else's work should be paid for?
While abolishing copyright might be detrimental to society, your argument-from-entitlement can just as easily be applied in the reverse: "Why should YOU get to decide what someone else does with their money, equipment and media? If I buy a VCR, why should you be able to tell me what I can do with it? You did absolutely nothing to earn the money I used to buy it. You didn't even make the VCR!"
Constructive arguments for copyrights (or any intellectual property, really) are not based on a sense of entitlement, but on answers to the question, "How does copyright regime X benefit society, as a whole, compared to copyright regime Y?"
They believe it is the best the technology can provide at a given price. Why do people "put up" with cars that only give them X amount of protection in a car crash even though there is technology out there that would make them safer? Because they aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for the extra protection.
This reminds me of why Bruce Schneier's dream of legislating liability for software defects is misguided. Sure, statutory liability would make software more reliable, but it would mean that the many who don't need the additional reliability (and currently aren't willing to pay for it) would be forced to subsidize the handful who do. It would also likely claim volunteer-developed software as a casualty.
This confirms what I already suspected - it is brutally difficult to define a software patent.
Luckily, that's an implementation detail that can be sidestepped in a number of ways. For example, we could allow patenting things mostly as is done now, but make patents unenforceable against software by adopting the following rule: If something would not be infringing if its software were removed, then it is not infringing.
Since software is just "pushing buttons" to make new code, there is nothing new...
No, that's not the argument.
The argument used to justify any patents is that they promote progress. Our experience with patents in the specific case of software is that they actually hinder progress. Therefore, in order to promote progress, software patents should be abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you shouldn't be writing code in C++ either, you should be writing it in a higher-level language like Python. I really wish I could find something as polished as glade3 for KDE that I can use in Python.
Also, GTK+ is LGPL-licensed, but Qt is GPL2 licensed, so programming for GNOME doesn't tie you to whichever version of the GPL that TrollTech likes this week.
So I prefer developing against GNOME, but I prefer using KDE. Go figure.
Nor should the table budge an inch to suit their needs. Microsoft is not a leader in the open-source world, and until they get their act together, and have had their act together for some time (say, a decade), I really don't see why anyone should trust them. Give MS "observer status" at OSI if you want---perhaps they'll learn something---but to give them decision-making power on the board is irresponsible.
If that's true, then why are new programming languages ever invented? Are new programming languages created by people who aren't "worth their weight as programmers"?
I dare you to write some non-trivial security-critical code in PHP.
According to DJB, you don't even have to do that in a lot of cases:
Readers have to be free to download your papers and print them out. You will probably also want mirrors, i.e., copies of your papers available from other sites around the world.Please don't sign any contracts that prevent you from authorizing these activities! In several cases I've said something like
This paper is entirely my own work. I have put it into the public domain. Luxury Press is therefore free to publish it. instead of signing a copyright transfer agreement. If you ever encounter a publisher that doesn't accept this, let me know, and I'll be happy to blacklist that publisher here. I'm now blacklisting IEEE.I can assure you that looking at what a program does is orders of magnitude easier than trying to detect and eliminate covert channels while treating the program as a black box.
So? Somebody you trust can do it for you. Or, you can trust that there are enough people looking at the code that they'll find any big problems, and that news of these problems will find its way to you. With non-free software, the number of people looking at the code is much smaller.
The fact that atheists don't believe in some things and do believe in others does indeed make them nothing much different from a Christian and the rest of them. However, the fact that atheists don't believe in a god makes them different from Christians and Muslims and Hindus and so on who do believe in at least one god. Trying to blur the meaning of god doesn't really change the distinction, it just makes it more difficult to say.
Well said!
Conducting a study because astrology says something is true is fine (though perhaps there are more promising things to spend money on), but believing something is true---without doing the study---just because astrology teaches it, is wrong and stupid.
You've referred to a definition of "god" that the parent isn't using, and that an average reader will understand that the parent isn't using, and then argued on the basis of that definition.
In any case, nothing much different from a Christian, who also denies other gods while keeping his own intactAristotle's "god", as you define it, is observable, so we can build a view of it that is consistent and accurate enough to be useful in daily life and under emergency circumstances. The Christian god is not. To you, that's "nothing much different"?
Aren't scissors and chainsaws just tools for cutting wood? Aren't lotteries and mutual funds just ways of (potentially) doubling one's money?
Some "flawed mental shortcuts" are more useful for understanding the world---and making decisions within it---than others. The difference is in a person's ability to distinguish which ones give useful answers a significant portion of the time, and which ones give useful answers no more often than answers chosen at random.
Can GPL-compatible software (or really any kind of open-source software) be written, given these restrictions?
Open AIM Additional Feature RequirementsWelcome to Open AIM! If you intend to develop and distribute an AIM Custom Client (including mobile versions) or Web AIM Developer Application, you must pick 2 of the 5 options listed below and incorporate them into your Developer Applications. These options include
Just to be clear, these requirements don't apply to Plugins, Bots or the use of the Presence Indicators. Please note that if your application exceeds 100,000 peak simultaneous users, you must implement Advertising as described below as one of your two options.
Not sure what will work best for your application? Don't worry. You can always change your selections to suit your needs as you grow.
This is starting to look as if now that everyone knows the OSCAR protocol anyway, AOL is trying to make a power grab under the guise of openness...
We tried to make the Open AIM Program as restriction-free and flexible as possible. But in order to help protect our network and users, certain rules apply.
Sorry, I said the papacy, but what I meant was the Church itself.
On the other hand, the papacy's entire purpose is to provide moral leadership for Catholics in the world. Why does it behave just like any other organization, then? On the flip side, if it's not going to provide moral leadership, why should the papacy continue to exist?
Regardless of my opinion of ndiswrapper (we would be better off without it), Linus certainly seems to have a really, um...unique view of how copyright law works. First with GPLv3 and now this. Shall we start a fund to hire a lawyer to keep Linus educated about the law?
Ever notice how, using BitTorrent, you can download Knoppix and other Linux distros MUCH faster than pretty much any pirated media?
If some from my ISP warns me to stop using P2P, it'll be because of my Knoppix/Debian habit, and I'll be happy to ignore whatever he says.
Do you actually have the insurance numbers to back that up, or are you just quoting yourself and your friends?
I wouldn't say you're completely safe. Sure, you're safe while you're driving, but when you hit your brakes (or when you collide with something) then E = 0.5 m v^2. In other words, when you are driving 100 mph, you have 2.04 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 70 mph, and 2.37 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 65 mph. All that kinetic energy needs to be dissipated by your tires/brakes if you want to come to a controlled stop, and all that kinetic energy will be dissipated if you crash into something. Four times the energy needs to be dissipated when you crash head-on into another vehicle going the same speed as you than if you crash into the side of a mountain.
I suspect that speed limits are set a little lower than some people want because the result is that people are comparatively much safer. (And won't you please think of the children?)
Physics is a bitch, eh? ;)
Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?Good question, and I'd say it's a trade-off. If you drive 100mph, your speed relative to the vehicles traveling the same direction as you is lower, but your speed relative to the road, fixed obstacles, and vehicles traveling in other directions is higher. I'd guess that in this case, at 100 mph, a collision with other vehicles is less likely, but if it happens (or some other emergency happens), you're more likely to be screwed.
Come to think of it, the only way to unconditionally make the situation safer is to lower the speed of everyone on the road. On the other hand, the safest speed is zero, so if we're going to have a useful highway system, safety needs to be balanced against other factors.
Be careful. Some ISPs (mainly telcos) want to control what content goes over your Internet connection, so they can bill you differently for it. That's what the "network neutrality" movement is fighting against.
Especially considering copywriting is something else. (Hint for the lazy: It means writing copy---writing advertisements.)
While abolishing copyright might be detrimental to society, your argument-from-entitlement can just as easily be applied in the reverse: "Why should YOU get to decide what someone else does with their money, equipment and media? If I buy a VCR, why should you be able to tell me what I can do with it? You did absolutely nothing to earn the money I used to buy it. You didn't even make the VCR!"
Constructive arguments for copyrights (or any intellectual property, really) are not based on a sense of entitlement, but on answers to the question, "How does copyright regime X benefit society, as a whole, compared to copyright regime Y?"
This reminds me of why Bruce Schneier's dream of legislating liability for software defects is misguided. Sure, statutory liability would make software more reliable, but it would mean that the many who don't need the additional reliability (and currently aren't willing to pay for it) would be forced to subsidize the handful who do. It would also likely claim volunteer-developed software as a casualty.
And yet the evidence says otherwise...
Luckily, that's an implementation detail that can be sidestepped in a number of ways. For example, we could allow patenting things mostly as is done now, but make patents unenforceable against software by adopting the following rule: If something would not be infringing if its software were removed, then it is not infringing.
No, that's not the argument.
The argument used to justify any patents is that they promote progress. Our experience with patents in the specific case of software is that they actually hinder progress. Therefore, in order to promote progress, software patents should be abolished.