Are you seriously going to praise this mini-movie while at the same time pissing on the 2nd and 3rd Matrix? While I have several gripes with the sequels to the original Matrix, they were still entertaining and had top-notch production values.
This movie was mildly entertaining, if only for the novelty of seeing Portal in a live-action setting. The portal sequences were well scripted. However, the pacing in the beginning was repetitive and boring, the actress was homely, and there really needs to be a cast of characters and a plot to make this film length.
Yes he did. He said if you don't choose GPLv3, which is a legally enforced regulation based on copyright, that you are against freedom. That's pure FSF-based propaganda.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you.
No, I said no such thing. I said I'm in favor of certain consumer protection laws, which have nothing to do with liberty. Rather, they take it away. A prime example is requiring a list of ingredients in food. I like the law, but it takes away liberty. Notice that the same law doesn't apply to restaurants, yet people still manage to eat out.
Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
It's the oft-quoted: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's used a lot on Slashdot to argue against regulations. Of course, what's "essential liberty" and what is meant by "temporary safety" is up for debate.
There are laws that directly protect freedom, such as being protected from violence against others, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
That's one interpretation, but not the definition. Freedom is a very general term, that needs context to be used unambiguously, which the FSF do very clearly. This argument is a straw man.
Free software appeals to liberty, not capability -- hence "libre" software. Notice how the other freedoms are actually freedoms in the most common usage, the liberty sense. Without copyright law, you would be able to do all the things GPL is granting except for one: Requiring source is the only "freedom" that contradicts the notion of freedom as-in-liberty appealed to in the others.
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state.
It was an analogy. FSF is using copyright to provide the same consumer protection, only they try to claim requiring source is "freedom" as-in-liberty.
The argument that you're making seems to hinge on the premise that all software producers are obliged to adopt the GPL, and all users obliged to accept it, of which obviously neither are the case.
The person I cited, who is just parroting the stance by Stallman. The GPL is enforced by law, and Stallman argues being given access to source code is a "fundamental freedom", which is complete nonsense. If I object to giving out source code it isn't because I am against a "fundamental freedom".
But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty
Of course it is. However, there's still a lot of regulation I approve of, especially with regards to food, medicine, and cars. I just don't approve of them in the name of freedom. Benjamin Franklin quotes be damned, I like them in the name of safety.
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist?
My objection is to propaganda that equates regulation with freedom. The propaganda isn't fantasy, it's real, and it was what I originally replied to: "The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms."
You must be a freedom-depriving person to not use GPLv3! Ridiculous.
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code.
That's true, and I never said otherwise. However, Stallman considers it a "fundamental freedom" and wants that requirement -- he's even gone so far as to advocate that it be enshrined into law if copyright ever went away. That's taking away freedom under the guise of freedom, and that's why I called it Orwellian.
But what I am postulating is that God is the prime cause, and not an effect at all-- that he is unchanging and eternal.
You've just wrapped up a bunch of incomprehensible quantities and called it "God" (itself an incredibly overloaded term) and then pretend this answer is more satisfactory than a universe that starts from a mathematical singularity. Your hypothesis provides no value, no predictions, no anything. It's strictly "God of the Gaps".
I'll fully admit that a universe without cause is incomprehensible to me, but then so is a universe of infinite causes, and even more so a supernatural God without a cause. However, at least science has pushed back the question to shortly after the big bang, which is much more than "God of the Gaps" religion has ever done.
I think the main point of it was suggesting that the bible was to be taken mostly metaphorically and we should just see the message underneath and live it. Which is pretty much what I think religion is meant to be.
That turns the Bible into philosophy, culture, and history, not divine revelation, which means you can just ditch the whole "religion" thing.
You're missing the argument. I never said anything about adding a little and taking over. I was refuting that requiring source code is a "fundamental freedom".
"Ginger Unicorn" replied to me in this thread and at least was replying to the argument, not some strawman. Since you brought that term in already, you'd think you'd be careful not to engage in strawman arguments.
You are confusing capability with freedom. Just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
If a person wrote a piece of software and gave it to another person in exchange for a sweater, that's a free trade. The author never was compelled to write the software in the first place, and the receiver was never compelled to give up a sweater for it. The receiver could demand the source to be included in exchange for the sweater. Freedom all around.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur if the software includes the source, then that is not freedom for either party.
What you are talking about is something akin to consumer protection laws, and these aren't done in the name of "freedom". Requiring source is comparable to requiring a list of ingredients in food. Whether such a consumer protection law is desirable or not is debatable, but the idea that it is "freedom" is intellectually dishonest propaganda.
The state of any previous license is irrelevant, since the person automatically receives the license anew.
Now we're just repeating ourselves. I'm not convinced that is so clear and cut that you are allowed to get a new license once the rights have been terminated, since it's a license for the same software.
This will never be "decided in court"
Of course it might. It was one of the arguments used against Best Buy, as described in the linked articles, before Best Buy settled. If they hadn't settled a judge would have ruled on it.
That's a possible reading, but then again it's also possible that terminated means indefinitely and it cannot simply be renewed by just getting a new copy. The rights to get a copy are granted via the license, and the license says that your rights have been terminated. The issue ultimately would have to be decided in court.
The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms.
Only in Stallman's Orwellian political world is it a "fundamental freedom" to require somebody to supply source code. As a user of software I have the freedom to use or not use software that doesn't come with source code.
Attempting to impose an additional condition such as "you lose your right to distribute permanently" is contrary to clause 6 of the same license, which says that you may not impose additional conditions outside the license on any recipient.
Good grief, the license cannot be in violation with itself. The bit about imposing additional terms is for 3rd parties redistributing the software. The only rights you have are from the copyright holder and the license, and if the license says your rights are terminated, then they are terminated.
It's just wishful fantasy to pretend that you can get them back by just copying it again, as your only right to copy in the first place was in the license you just violated, and that license says your rights are terminated as punishment.
I was surprised to see a story from theodp without a ton of links and screechy hyperbole, but then I looked at the original submission. Kudos to Soulskill for doing some editing.
They're actually supposed to do a fair sampling of all demographics, including single people.
They do. I was a single geek a little over ten years ago and was offered the chance to do it. I wasn't into Firefly, though, and didn't want to record my TV habits anyways.
I got do do the Nielsen thing once. All they did was send a little flimsy TV journal (with $5 cash nestled inside it for my time). All I had to do was write in each day what I watched in the appropriate time slots. [..] Easiest $5 I ever made.
A got that unsolicited packet in the mail a little over ten years ago, but I made my money even easier by pocketing the cash and throwing out the rest. I was actually surprised they sent cash like that in the mail.
You say they aren't licensing their engine, but then why are there games out there that have licensed their engine? There's no way they'd turn down the money if the demand was there. Weak excuse.
What I dont get is why Obama largely continued the program
Because Obama is an establishment politician. He's going to listen to the lobbyists and the people he put in charge, which came straight from the industry. He did what any other mainstream politician would have done, regardless of party.
Lots of people buy boxed CPUs and then use after market coolers (because the boxed HSF sucks).
Unless you're overclocking, I don't see the need for high-end, 3rd party coolers. Personally, when I bought and AMD CPU a couple of years ago, I was glad it came with a heatsink and fan. One less thing to buy and it served me just fine, even in a 90F degree room.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep on basking in Stallman's propaganda. Do you actually equate legally enforced restrictions as "freedom"?
I guess if you like slightly manly older girls with bad skin, then she isn't so bad.
Are you seriously going to praise this mini-movie while at the same time pissing on the 2nd and 3rd Matrix? While I have several gripes with the sequels to the original Matrix, they were still entertaining and had top-notch production values.
This movie was mildly entertaining, if only for the novelty of seeing Portal in a live-action setting. The portal sequences were well scripted. However, the pacing in the beginning was repetitive and boring, the actress was homely, and there really needs to be a cast of characters and a plot to make this film length.
Nice find. I checked archive.org, and the site goes back to at least 2004, so it's not like somebody made this up to foil Apple.
No, he didn't.
Yes he did. He said if you don't choose GPLv3, which is a legally enforced regulation based on copyright, that you are against freedom. That's pure FSF-based propaganda.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you.
No, I said no such thing. I said I'm in favor of certain consumer protection laws, which have nothing to do with liberty. Rather, they take it away. A prime example is requiring a list of ingredients in food. I like the law, but it takes away liberty. Notice that the same law doesn't apply to restaurants, yet people still manage to eat out.
Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
It's the oft-quoted: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's used a lot on Slashdot to argue against regulations. Of course, what's "essential liberty" and what is meant by "temporary safety" is up for debate.
There are laws that directly protect freedom, such as being protected from violence against others, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
That's one interpretation, but not the definition. Freedom is a very general term, that needs context to be used unambiguously, which the FSF do very clearly. This argument is a straw man.
Free software appeals to liberty, not capability -- hence "libre" software. Notice how the other freedoms are actually freedoms in the most common usage, the liberty sense. Without copyright law, you would be able to do all the things GPL is granting except for one: Requiring source is the only "freedom" that contradicts the notion of freedom as-in-liberty appealed to in the others.
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state.
It was an analogy. FSF is using copyright to provide the same consumer protection, only they try to claim requiring source is "freedom" as-in-liberty.
The argument that you're making seems to hinge on the premise that all software producers are obliged to adopt the GPL, and all users obliged to accept it, of which obviously neither are the case.
No, I'm only arguing against the propaganda.
Who equated regulation with freedom?
The person I cited, who is just parroting the stance by Stallman. The GPL is enforced by law, and Stallman argues being given access to source code is a "fundamental freedom", which is complete nonsense. If I object to giving out source code it isn't because I am against a "fundamental freedom".
But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty
Of course it is. However, there's still a lot of regulation I approve of, especially with regards to food, medicine, and cars. I just don't approve of them in the name of freedom. Benjamin Franklin quotes be damned, I like them in the name of safety.
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist?
My objection is to propaganda that equates regulation with freedom. The propaganda isn't fantasy, it's real, and it was what I originally replied to: "The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms."
You must be a freedom-depriving person to not use GPLv3! Ridiculous.
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code.
That's true, and I never said otherwise. However, Stallman considers it a "fundamental freedom" and wants that requirement -- he's even gone so far as to advocate that it be enshrined into law if copyright ever went away. That's taking away freedom under the guise of freedom, and that's why I called it Orwellian.
But what I am postulating is that God is the prime cause, and not an effect at all-- that he is unchanging and eternal.
You've just wrapped up a bunch of incomprehensible quantities and called it "God" (itself an incredibly overloaded term) and then pretend this answer is more satisfactory than a universe that starts from a mathematical singularity. Your hypothesis provides no value, no predictions, no anything. It's strictly "God of the Gaps".
I'll fully admit that a universe without cause is incomprehensible to me, but then so is a universe of infinite causes, and even more so a supernatural God without a cause. However, at least science has pushed back the question to shortly after the big bang, which is much more than "God of the Gaps" religion has ever done.
I think the main point of it was suggesting that the bible was to be taken mostly metaphorically and we should just see the message underneath and live it. Which is pretty much what I think religion is meant to be.
That turns the Bible into philosophy, culture, and history, not divine revelation, which means you can just ditch the whole "religion" thing.
You're missing the argument. I never said anything about adding a little and taking over. I was refuting that requiring source code is a "fundamental freedom".
"Ginger Unicorn" replied to me in this thread and at least was replying to the argument, not some strawman. Since you brought that term in already, you'd think you'd be careful not to engage in strawman arguments.
You are confusing capability with freedom. Just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
If a person wrote a piece of software and gave it to another person in exchange for a sweater, that's a free trade. The author never was compelled to write the software in the first place, and the receiver was never compelled to give up a sweater for it. The receiver could demand the source to be included in exchange for the sweater. Freedom all around.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur if the software includes the source, then that is not freedom for either party.
What you are talking about is something akin to consumer protection laws, and these aren't done in the name of "freedom". Requiring source is comparable to requiring a list of ingredients in food. Whether such a consumer protection law is desirable or not is debatable, but the idea that it is "freedom" is intellectually dishonest propaganda.
The state of any previous license is irrelevant, since the person automatically receives the license anew.
Now we're just repeating ourselves. I'm not convinced that is so clear and cut that you are allowed to get a new license once the rights have been terminated, since it's a license for the same software.
This will never be "decided in court"
Of course it might. It was one of the arguments used against Best Buy, as described in the linked articles, before Best Buy settled. If they hadn't settled a judge would have ruled on it.
Providing value in exchange for value is "Orwellian" in your world?
Dictating the terms of exchange and calling it "freedom" is Orwellian.
That's a possible reading, but then again it's also possible that terminated means indefinitely and it cannot simply be renewed by just getting a new copy. The rights to get a copy are granted via the license, and the license says that your rights have been terminated. The issue ultimately would have to be decided in court.
The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms.
Only in Stallman's Orwellian political world is it a "fundamental freedom" to require somebody to supply source code. As a user of software I have the freedom to use or not use software that doesn't come with source code.
Attempting to impose an additional condition such as "you lose your right to distribute permanently" is contrary to clause 6 of the same license, which says that you may not impose additional conditions outside the license on any recipient.
Good grief, the license cannot be in violation with itself. The bit about imposing additional terms is for 3rd parties redistributing the software. The only rights you have are from the copyright holder and the license, and if the license says your rights are terminated, then they are terminated.
It's just wishful fantasy to pretend that you can get them back by just copying it again, as your only right to copy in the first place was in the license you just violated, and that license says your rights are terminated as punishment.
I was surprised to see a story from theodp without a ton of links and screechy hyperbole, but then I looked at the original submission. Kudos to Soulskill for doing some editing.
They're actually supposed to do a fair sampling of all demographics, including single people.
They do. I was a single geek a little over ten years ago and was offered the chance to do it. I wasn't into Firefly, though, and didn't want to record my TV habits anyways.
I got do do the Nielsen thing once. All they did was send a little flimsy TV journal (with $5 cash nestled inside it for my time). All I had to do was write in each day what I watched in the appropriate time slots. [..] Easiest $5 I ever made.
A got that unsolicited packet in the mail a little over ten years ago, but I made my money even easier by pocketing the cash and throwing out the rest. I was actually surprised they sent cash like that in the mail.
You say they aren't licensing their engine, but then why are there games out there that have licensed their engine? There's no way they'd turn down the money if the demand was there. Weak excuse.
When I can get a cheap touchpad 30" monitor to replace the one I use on my desktop, maybe I'll be willing to consider a move in that direction.
You wouldn't want a touch interface for the desktop even then, unless you like the idea of either looking down at your monitor or having tired arms.
What I dont get is why Obama largely continued the program
Because Obama is an establishment politician. He's going to listen to the lobbyists and the people he put in charge, which came straight from the industry. He did what any other mainstream politician would have done, regardless of party.
Lots of people buy boxed CPUs and then use after market coolers (because the boxed HSF sucks).
Unless you're overclocking, I don't see the need for high-end, 3rd party coolers. Personally, when I bought and AMD CPU a couple of years ago, I was glad it came with a heatsink and fan. One less thing to buy and it served me just fine, even in a 90F degree room.