I'll even start testing a buggy Hurd kernel if I have to.
Minix 3 is more promising. It's BSD-licenced, but we could always create a GPLv3 work if we wanted to. (And to those of you who would complain about that, how is it any worse than creating a proprietary fork?)
Actually, there's enough "GPL 2 or later" code in Linux that somebody could probably just start a GPLv3 fork of Linux. Heck, even lots of code Linus wrote (before he put his revisionist "clarification" into COPYING) is licensed under any version of the GPL as per section 9 of GPLv2.
In the FSF's ideal world, there is no proprietary software. In such a world, programmers wouldn't be able to make money
You are an idiot. Not merely because you believe the above, but because you *still* believe the above, even though it's been so widely debunked that you should really know better by now.
The vast majority of programmers make money writing custom software. Lots of it is free software. Lots of it isn't.
BSD licenses are not Free Software because they do not "preserve freedom" (sic) in the way GPL does.
Wrong. They're not "copyleft" licenses, but they are free software. RTFW.
the FSF has fought hard to promote a given definition of "Free Software", and as a trademark-like name, it's got different meaning from "free software", using the common english definitions of those words.
Wrong again. Go look at the FSF's website. None of their core philosophy documents capitalize "Free Software" the way you do, except when the it's followed by "Foundation".
besides, if you use the broader definition (which i'm certainly not going to try to talk you out of, since i think it's the better one), the point in the grandparent post is even less defensible. i was trying to be charitable.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
And just to play devil's advocate: why does everyone revolt so badly when our work is not being credited? We collectively abuse lot's of other licenses, whether music, software etc.
Everyone [sic] probably understands some of the differences between law and ethics better than you do.
For example, Penny Arcade had to remove a comic featuring Strawberry Shortcake because it infringed on American Greeting's copyright. Penny Arcade was using the character to parody American Mcgee's style of game development.
Just becuase the Penny Arcade guys decided that it wasn't worth fighting in court doesn't mean they would have lost. Could you cite some actual case law here, or is that too much to ask on Slashdot?
Don't confuse copyright infringement with trademark infringement . . . That's why you'll see issues come up like people claiming patents to LZW compression (in GIF images) and the mp3 format after they become popular.
It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely.
What course of action would you recommend, under the circumstances?
It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).
Or they had to go in to work over the weekend because the servers were broken and/or overloaded because some idiot decided to change the fundamental behaviour of the TLDs.
Thanks to SiteFinder, the fixes for this have already been developed. For example, BIND 9 allows the administrator to declare certain zones as being delegation only.
If the device is violating noise bylaws, the police have an obligation to do something about it. If the cops insist on doing nothing, it's out of pure laziness. Call Internal Affairs. If that doesn't work, get together with your other neighbours, hire a lawyer, and sue the neighbour and the police department.
Those people that claim 1-2 years, they are full of shit.
No, some dirt-cheap CD-Rs that I used to have had a shelf life of about 2 years. Now, it's not fair to generalize that to CD-R media in general, but *some* discs I had definitely didn't last 5 years in a drawer.
Having different "types" of patents is problematic in any case. For example, the same patent might cover algorithms in software used in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Would that be considered a "software patent" or a "drug patent"? What happens when the patent office (inevitably) miscategorizes a patent?
How about this: Make the patents themselves always last the same amount of time. In fact, get rid of the whole notion of patents "expiring". Instead, put different time limits on enforcement of the patent for different ways of practicing the patent. After 3 years, it no longer constitutes infringement when the patent is practiced solely in software. After 20 years (or whatever), the same goes for when the patent is practiced in a pharmaceutical product. Same patent, but different monopoly powers last for different amounts of time.
Does the CEO of a company (or any officer for that matter) have to be a director? I was under the impression that the directors of a company could appoint nearly anyone they want as CEO.
If you don't need a colour laser printer, don't get one. The black toner for colour laser printers (or at least for the ones I've seen) is terrible for text, because it's made to be just as glossy as the colour toners. The output is actually quite hard to read under ordinary lighting conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah. s/work/fork/
Minix 3 is more promising. It's BSD-licenced, but we could always create a GPLv3 work if we wanted to. (And to those of you who would complain about that, how is it any worse than creating a proprietary fork?)
Actually, there's enough "GPL 2 or later" code in Linux that somebody could probably just start a GPLv3 fork of Linux. Heck, even lots of code Linus wrote (before he put his revisionist "clarification" into COPYING) is licensed under any version of the GPL as per section 9 of GPLv2.
You are an idiot. Not merely because you believe the above, but because you *still* believe the above, even though it's been so widely debunked that you should really know better by now.
The vast majority of programmers make money writing custom software. Lots of it is free software. Lots of it isn't.
Wrong. They're not "copyleft" licenses, but they are free software. RTFW.
Wrong again. Go look at the FSF's website. None of their core philosophy documents capitalize "Free Software" the way you do, except when the it's followed by "Foundation".
Your opinion is overrated. Read the fscking document:/p>
It's not really that difficult to understand.
Linus likes to pretend that legal issues and malevolent entities don't exist. The FSF knows better.
Please. Ever heard of covert channels?
Everyone [sic] probably understands some of the differences between law and ethics better than you do.
Just becuase the Penny Arcade guys decided that it wasn't worth fighting in court doesn't mean they would have lost. Could you cite some actual case law here, or is that too much to ask on Slashdot?
Ahem!
What course of action would you recommend, under the circumstances?
Example?
Or they had to go in to work over the weekend because the servers were broken and/or overloaded because some idiot decided to change the fundamental behaviour of the TLDs.
Thanks to SiteFinder, the fixes for this have already been developed. For example, BIND 9 allows the administrator to declare certain zones as being delegation only.
If the device is violating noise bylaws, the police have an obligation to do something about it. If the cops insist on doing nothing, it's out of pure laziness. Call Internal Affairs. If that doesn't work, get together with your other neighbours, hire a lawyer, and sue the neighbour and the police department.
The problem is that the people there don't seem to want peace. They want power and grandstanding and "fighting back" and such.
It's pathetic, really.
You're thinking he wrote (16 cm)^3 = (1 in)^3, which would obviously be wrong.
Wasn't there a third name in there in Sliders?
No, some dirt-cheap CD-Rs that I used to have had a shelf life of about 2 years. Now, it's not fair to generalize that to CD-R media in general, but *some* discs I had definitely didn't last 5 years in a drawer.
Yeah, about as open as Debian is. Except Debian is more likely to release when they say they will than Microsoft is.
... which happens to be equivalent to 2000::/3, but yes, the "s" pretty much takes the cake.
Um... except it *is* happening. Have you seen the DMCA-like bills and/or laws in Canada and Australia, for example?
Having different "types" of patents is problematic in any case. For example, the same patent might cover algorithms in software used in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Would that be considered a "software patent" or a "drug patent"? What happens when the patent office (inevitably) miscategorizes a patent?
How about this: Make the patents themselves always last the same amount of time. In fact, get rid of the whole notion of patents "expiring". Instead, put different time limits on enforcement of the patent for different ways of practicing the patent. After 3 years, it no longer constitutes infringement when the patent is practiced solely in software. After 20 years (or whatever), the same goes for when the patent is practiced in a pharmaceutical product. Same patent, but different monopoly powers last for different amounts of time.
Does the CEO of a company (or any officer for that matter) have to be a director? I was under the impression that the directors of a company could appoint nearly anyone they want as CEO.
They did, it was called Futurama. And then they cancelled it.
If you don't need a colour laser printer, don't get one. The black toner for colour laser printers (or at least for the ones I've seen) is terrible for text, because it's made to be just as glossy as the colour toners. The output is actually quite hard to read under ordinary lighting conditions.