The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.
Wow. I thought your post would be redundant, but apparently it's the only one that makes this proposal so far. All of this crap about "sticking it to the man"... the problem is that there are a bunch of people who want to set up low-power FM radio stations that anybody with an FM radio in the area will be able to listen to. Give them a chunk of the spectrum, set some reasonable power limits (perhaps based on the population density of the area) and be done with it. Problem solved, as you say.
Keep in mind, WinXP Home & Media Center weren't written for just the IT Professional, System Administrator, Programmer, Power User, Computer Guru.
I'd say that WinXP Home and Media Center weren't written at all for those people. It doesn't even include a compiler, or dozens of other things that power users might want (like an easy-to-use programmatic interface, e.g. shell scripting).
... if her medical needs weren't "significant enough that being alone for even an hour could be fatal for her." An hour is just too small of a window to accomplish anything useful without having so many false alarms that your family won't take the alerts seriously anymore. You really need to re-evaluate your living conditions.
Ok, so, for example, if you have a ton of clients running MSIE, and you want to improve the webserver so that you can continue to compete with Microsoft's offerings, you can't, because the modified server isn't certified by Microsoft, and thus your webserver can't be compatible with MSIE. Brilliant.
In your scenario, the people running servers are denied Freedom 1, and you expect the FSF to cater to that?
Huzzah. We have quite enough versions alrady, each of them compatible enough to be given the same name, but incompatible enough to cause massive frustration. Stagnating (or, "Rotting in hell", if you will) is doing a great job of pushing people to other build systems:P
And as long as the other build systems are free software, I doubt the FSF would even care. Unlike Linus, for example, who seems to care deeply about this issue despite claiming to be apolitical.
Support for this clause will vary depending on how one falls on the practicality/idealism spectrum.
I agree with everything except this. Freedom is not an empty "idealism". It's about practicality. Hell, RMS started the GNU project because he couldn't get the information he needed to write a printer driver. The French people revolted because they wanted to end their own starvation at the hands of their rulers. The people of what is now the USA revolted because they didn't want to send a bunch of money to the Brits without getting anything in return.
I'd say it's more of a case of long-term versus short-term goal-seeking.
The system takes an energy input, and uses it to create motion and heat. It probably has something to do with that.
My guess is that this system requires one heck of an energy input, but it can be electrical energy, so you can get massively better efficiencies than you can get by burning liquid hydrogen.
If you want to stay relevant, you have to have advantages against your competitors. The FSF very much wants users to have real freedom. If nobody can run free software in the real world because it all sucks, then what good is that?
Everything you said is true in principle, but given the lack of a qualified lawyer's advice (well if we ignore Eben Moglen's take on it) I'd trust her opinion more than I trust some kernel hackers. Especially since her opinion is in line with my own reading of the license.
I'm saying that many parts of Linux (especially when you take into account older versions that never explicitly stated the default version of the GPL in use) are really quite GPLv3 compatible, plus there are almost certainly contributors---who hold the copyrights to some GPLv2-only code---who are willing to relicense it under GPLv3.
You have to open up your patents on GPL 3 code, give away your private keys, etc
ENOUGH with this FUD! Read the damn draft, and the rationale papers. Those two items are arguably already required by GPL 2. GPLv3 just explicitly clarifies them.
And Linux does not specify "any later version". In fact, it explicitly states that it is GPLv2 *only*.
Only recent versions do this, and several files override that with "version 2 or any later version". It would be a major project, but not the impossible task that so many people claim it would be.
It's not that bad. Many parts of the kernel will be GPLv3-compatible (either because they're GPLv2-or-later, or because they're licenced under the X11 or 1/2/3-clause BSD licenses). The copyrights to GPLv2-only parts that matter are held either by organizations or by individual developers who are still very much alive. What's left could be dropped or replaced without too much trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Analyst Evermore believes that selling 6 million PS3 consoles will make Sony a ripe target for takeover -- perhaps even by Microsoft.
Is it good or bad to consolidate evil in this way?
Translation: 700 Experts Not Very Creative, Rehash Old Sci-Fi
Erm, I meant to say 1.4 m, and you're not going to wear that jogging either.
A 2.75 m antenna isn't long to you?
Correct. Thank you.
Wow. I thought your post would be redundant, but apparently it's the only one that makes this proposal so far. All of this crap about "sticking it to the man"... the problem is that there are a bunch of people who want to set up low-power FM radio stations that anybody with an FM radio in the area will be able to listen to. Give them a chunk of the spectrum, set some reasonable power limits (perhaps based on the population density of the area) and be done with it. Problem solved, as you say.
... I want to see this functionality in Internet search engines!
Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure how one challenges facts.
I'd say that WinXP Home and Media Center weren't written at all for those people. It doesn't even include a compiler, or dozens of other things that power users might want (like an easy-to-use programmatic interface, e.g. shell scripting).
Or somebody was executing a man-in-the-middle attack.
... if her medical needs weren't "significant enough that being alone for even an hour could be fatal for her." An hour is just too small of a window to accomplish anything useful without having so many false alarms that your family won't take the alerts seriously anymore. You really need to re-evaluate your living conditions.
Ok, so, for example, if you have a ton of clients running MSIE, and you want to improve the webserver so that you can continue to compete with Microsoft's offerings, you can't, because the modified server isn't certified by Microsoft, and thus your webserver can't be compatible with MSIE. Brilliant.
In your scenario, the people running servers are denied Freedom 1, and you expect the FSF to cater to that?
I agree.
And as long as the other build systems are free software, I doubt the FSF would even care. Unlike Linus, for example, who seems to care deeply about this issue despite claiming to be apolitical.
Touché! This is completely right.
I agree with everything except this. Freedom is not an empty "idealism". It's about practicality. Hell, RMS started the GNU project because he couldn't get the information he needed to write a printer driver. The French people revolted because they wanted to end their own starvation at the hands of their rulers. The people of what is now the USA revolted because they didn't want to send a bunch of money to the Brits without getting anything in return.
I'd say it's more of a case of long-term versus short-term goal-seeking.
The system takes an energy input, and uses it to create motion and heat. It probably has something to do with that.
My guess is that this system requires one heck of an energy input, but it can be electrical energy, so you can get massively better efficiencies than you can get by burning liquid hydrogen.
I didn't conclude that; that's why I asked. Good.
If you want to stay relevant, you have to have advantages against your competitors. The FSF very much wants users to have real freedom. If nobody can run free software in the real world because it all sucks, then what good is that?
Not a bad idea, though (without looking at any of the BSD code) I'd probably fork OpenBSD if I was going to do it.
Everything you said is true in principle, but given the lack of a qualified lawyer's advice (well if we ignore Eben Moglen's take on it) I'd trust her opinion more than I trust some kernel hackers. Especially since her opinion is in line with my own reading of the license.
I'm saying that many parts of Linux (especially when you take into account older versions that never explicitly stated the default version of the GPL in use) are really quite GPLv3 compatible, plus there are almost certainly contributors---who hold the copyrights to some GPLv2-only code---who are willing to relicense it under GPLv3.
It's just not as hard as some people are saying.
ENOUGH with this FUD! Read the damn draft, and the rationale papers. Those two items are arguably already required by GPL 2. GPLv3 just explicitly clarifies them.
Only recent versions do this, and several files override that with "version 2 or any later version". It would be a major project, but not the impossible task that so many people claim it would be.
... and they have SECDED memory.
... and redundant power supplies.
It's not that bad. Many parts of the kernel will be GPLv3-compatible (either because they're GPLv2-or-later, or because they're licenced under the X11 or 1/2/3-clause BSD licenses). The copyrights to GPLv2-only parts that matter are held either by organizations or by individual developers who are still very much alive. What's left could be dropped or replaced without too much trouble.