Actually there is a staggering amount of evidence of what you ask for in the fossil record, but you won't accept that either.
Sounds like you are arguing against a straw man. Nobody in this thread has said they don't believe in the evidence for evolution. What they are saying is that, like the big bang, evolution hasn't been directly observed. Certainly there is plenty of evidence for it, and we've observed evolution on small scales, but nothing quite like the huge gap between a chimp and a man.
Evolution and the big bang are well-accepted. However, they are incomplete theories, and there are still many questions that need answers.
First off, I am not against change. I am against regulating change.
So, you would prefer if the US went back to the days before the environmental regulations went into place? Allow the industries to pollute all they want?
Government is the only body that can protect the environment. Industry doesn't care about it, unless mandated to. Expecting the free market to handle a long term impending crisis is insane.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that the bundled software is under Windows' license, just because MS says you can or can't pre-install competitor X's products.
The point is that Microsoft, as copyright holder, gets to say under what terms Windows may be redistributed. At one time Microsoft said that you can't bundle Netscape with Windows. The GPL says that you can't create derivative works with it's software, unless that software is also GPL.
It is "mere aggregation".
What is "mere aggregation" vs a derivative work is up to the copyright holders and courts to decide. I think my Red Hat "enterprise" example is a good one that goes beyond "mere aggregation".
Microsoft is famous for not allowing OEMs to bundle competing software. It was part of the basis for the Netscape/monopoly lawsuit. Legally, Microsoft can put whatever restrictions they want on the distribution of their software, though due to their monopoly position they've run into trouble doing that.
I don't see how GPL is any different. It depends if you think the bundled software is "mere agrregation" or if it is "part of a whole which is a work based on the Program". I'd argue, for example, that when Red Hat makes an "enterprise" version of Linux, they're selling the OS as a single work, derived from GPL software.
The finance industry, and other "service" industries, has figured out that retaining customers is far cheaper then aquireing new ones.
I'm not sure about that. Maybe a year or so ago I got a new credit card. Customer service was obviously through India, with hard to understand speakers. It's gotten to the point that I'm amazed when a professional, native English speaking person answers the phone.
The challenge is to find what I'd term an 'enlightened' leader. To define the term, it's a leader who him/herself is as ego-free as you can get it, sets achievable aims and who can balance out discussions in a fair but focused and constructive way. I certainly class Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth in that category, Linus by reputation and what he does, and Mark because I know him (and again, by what he has done and is doing).
Linus is "as ego-free as you can get"? He can "can balance out discussions in a fair but focused and constructive way"? Are you joking? He calls people he disagrees with idiots . He's very stubborn on some issues. And don't forget how he attacked Andrew Tridgel for having the audacity to let developers access their metadata in Bitkeeper.
BTW, 'enlightened' does not mean 'perfect' - we're all human:-).
Ha, I see you anticipated this response, but come on, Linus acts like a typical egotistical developer. He's technically competent and keeps the trains running on time, but I wouldn't call him "enlightened".
I can't repackage someone else's work and sell it under their brand.
There's no "repackaging" involved. It is a byte-for-byte copy of Red Hat's CD. The redistributor then advertises that he is selling a copy of that CD. It could be labeled as "Cheap Bytes reproduction of Red Hat version x.x". Thus there's no confusion. By allowing Red Hat to block copying via trademarks, one of the fundamental tenents of Free Software is gone.
They are 100% able to install any and all Free Software wherever they like. What they can't do is use any of that software with any Red Hat service.
What Red Hat did was to create an "enterprise" version of Linux. Corporations aren't buying a Red Hat service, they are buying an OS. Red Hat took Linux and bundled and wrapped it up with their own software. By placing non-GPL restrictions on what can be done with that OS, they effectively hijacked Linux, which is exactly what the GPL was supposed to prevent. My company had actually looked into using one of the "rebranded " OS's like CentOS, but ran into trouble. I don't remember the details, but they ended up buying Red Hat, and it wasn't for the service.
Anyway this conversaiton's run its course. It was fun though:)
Although I like the idea of having information free and able to update it instantaneously, however, the vast majority of people are not ready to truly treat wikipedia the way it should be treated.
I'd say it's the opposite. The vast majority do respect the site. If that weren't true, then the site would have been deluged by vandalism and made unusable a long time ago. Really, the number of people that vandalize is just a tiny percentage of the number of people that visit the site.
The first thing is that people can become confused about which releases are mine, and which are modifications. That's an important distrinction sometimes.
The GPL requires "modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
What Red Hat did was more than just protecting against modifications. It used to be that you could get a byte-for-byte exact copy of a Red Hat CD for a buck. Red Hat put a stop to that. They also put additional restrictions on their "Enterprise" Linux. Customers were no longer allowed to install it on as many machines as they wanted. They were not allowed to copy the CD freely.
To understand this, you want to go back to why the GPL exists. The GPL exists in order to help spread Free Software, which is a form of knowledge. The right to redistribute doesn't necessarily include the right to redistribute the trademark.
There's no trademark issue if all you want to do is make an exact copy of the software, because the product is not being misrepresented. If you prevent exact copies because of trademark, then that's a serious impediment to Free Software.
I believe that trademark issues are being dealt with as an optional restriction in the GPL3 drafts.
The allowed, additional restrictions are:
"modified versions of that material be marked in specific reasonable ways as different from the original version"
"terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark law"
What is "reasonable"? Entangling your trademark in a 100 different places which must be changed is a good way to discourage modifications. Not defining "reasonable" is just asking for trouble.
And I can't tell if that last restriction means that you can't advertise "Red Hat" CDs, which again, kills free copying.
If you write software for distribution, likely very little would change, since you could still charge for support, which is mainly what companies are interested in.
Selling support wasn't enough for Red Hat, so they basically ignored the GPL and created an "Enterprise" Linux that couldn't be freely copied because of trademark poisoning.
The company I used to work for switched from JBuilder to Eclipse, because Eclipse was free (price). They were also in the process of moving from Weblogic to JBoss. They would do the same for their database software, but the open source versions didn't match their needs. That'll probably change.
Viruses self-propagate. This is an important distinction.
"viral" means "like a virus", not exactly a virus.
To say that the GPL is viral is to imply that if you have a GPL program on your computer, and a non-GPL program on your computer, and you use them both, the non-GPL program will become a GPL program.
That's a naive interpretation, and one that I personally have not encountered. I think "viral" captures very well the mechanics and intent of the GPL. Ok, you don't like the word usage, and I understand your reasons. However, I, and many others, are perfectly happy with it.
And getting back to the original poster's point, the article definitely tried to deflect the real, virus-like qualities of the GPL. It's ok to mention how it isn't like a virus, but at the same time the author should mention how it is.
This new, radical concept of "viral" invented by Microsoft
When I first learned of the GPL in the early 90s, my first thought was "hey, that's like a virus". I'm sure other people had that thought too. The article claims Microsoft started this term back in a 2001 speech. However, you can see the term "viral" being applied to GPL much earlier, by looking at newsgroup archives.
The GPL is like a virus, but doesn't share all properties of a virus. When introduced, the GPL was indeed a radical, new concept, and yes, designed to be viral in nature in that it spreads by making more and more code GPL. The use of viral does not mean "bad" or "without choice", though many do find it's viral nature unacceptable. The term "viral marketing" conveys the same idea -- that of spreading like a virus.
As I've said before....all you have to do to avoid getting the Cookie Virus is not eat cookies.
And you can avoid the AIDS virus by not having sex or getting blood transfusions.
When people say the GPL is viral, they don't mean it "infects" you without your permission. They mean it takes over code that was previously not GPL, and spreads from code to code. Hence the name "viral", sharing properties of a virus, not exactly a virus. Do you object to the term "viral marketing" too?
I tried playing this onling game Arimaa with it, and while it would work for a while, it would always eventually crash. It was a well known problem with the Linux Flash 7 player.
I've also been to plenty of sites that just don't work right, for whatever reason. Flash 7 just isn't the same quality as the Windows version. They totally skipped version 8 for Linux. Any bets on the timeliness and quality of version 9 for Linux? Proprietary formats are bad. We need an open standard!
It's not a "personal attack", it's the impression that that posting gave me
You could keep that impression to yourself, then. Calling somebody's point of view reprehensible can only be construed as a personal attack. It's the same thing as calling somebody an idiot for holding a position you don't agree with. Best just to stick to the argument, without calling into question somebody's personal character.
Well, while we're on the subject, "owning up" to what exactly? These employees did not leak, they downloaded someone else's leaked software because they were enthusiasts and wanted to be better informed.
You don't know why they downloaded the software. You don't even know that they only downloaded the software. The article says "It's not known whether the employees collaborated on sharing copies of the unreleased operating system or if they acquired copies individually."
The simple answer is to not download copyrighted software without permission. The employees knew they were doing something they shouldn't have, but did it anyways: "All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy."
I find your cynical attitude and unthinking approach to ethics reprehensible.
I enjoyed your post until this last bit. There's no need for the personal attack. If you want people to listen to what you say and possibly change their minds, then just make your argument without the invective.
For some perspective, I was coming from the other side, against the employees. My thinking was that if the employees want to claim they had "character" for owning up to it, they should do so without expecting an incentive. Anyways, your post gave me another angle on it.
I will most likely buy a PS3, not because I'm some kind of "psycho Sony fanboy" or anything, but because the spec sheet pins it being a better overall system if/when(?) the games start rolling in for it.
The PS3's theoretical power is based on being able to maximize use of its parallel cores. In reality, nobody has shown how to come anywhere close to the PS3's theoretical power. Not a single game previewed looks even moderately superior to the 360's offerings. Unless somebody comes up with a killer game that can't be matched on the 360, the average consumer is going to balk at the $500/$600 asking price.
Personally, I own a 360 and I think the whole "next gen" thing is over-hyped and over-priced crap. The games aren't any more interesting. The graphics aren't *that* much better. The box is big, noisy, and has heat trouble. The high-resolution TV market is in a state of chaos.
The Wii, on the other hand, while not boasting cutting edge specs, is incredibly small, has an innovative controller, and a great price. I'm hoping Nintendo pulls the rug out from both Microsoft and Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
And here's a YouTube link:
Unreal Tournament Intro
Sounds like you are arguing against a straw man. Nobody in this thread has said they don't believe in the evidence for evolution. What they are saying is that, like the big bang, evolution hasn't been directly observed. Certainly there is plenty of evidence for it, and we've observed evolution on small scales, but nothing quite like the huge gap between a chimp and a man.
Evolution and the big bang are well-accepted. However, they are incomplete theories, and there are still many questions that need answers.
So, you would prefer if the US went back to the days before the environmental regulations went into place? Allow the industries to pollute all they want?
Government is the only body that can protect the environment. Industry doesn't care about it, unless mandated to. Expecting the free market to handle a long term impending crisis is insane.
The point is that Microsoft, as copyright holder, gets to say under what terms Windows may be redistributed. At one time Microsoft said that you can't bundle Netscape with Windows. The GPL says that you can't create derivative works with it's software, unless that software is also GPL.
What is "mere aggregation" vs a derivative work is up to the copyright holders and courts to decide. I think my Red Hat "enterprise" example is a good one that goes beyond "mere aggregation".
This is exactly the mentality terrorists adopt. Unethical extremes are not the solution.
Microsoft is famous for not allowing OEMs to bundle competing software. It was part of the basis for the Netscape/monopoly lawsuit. Legally, Microsoft can put whatever restrictions they want on the distribution of their software, though due to their monopoly position they've run into trouble doing that.
I don't see how GPL is any different. It depends if you think the bundled software is "mere agrregation" or if it is "part of a whole which is a work based on the Program". I'd argue, for example, that when Red Hat makes an "enterprise" version of Linux, they're selling the OS as a single work, derived from GPL software.
I'm not sure about that. Maybe a year or so ago I got a new credit card. Customer service was obviously through India, with hard to understand speakers. It's gotten to the point that I'm amazed when a professional, native English speaking person answers the phone.
Ah, so that explains why I couldn't become verified with Paypal via Netbank. Glad you posted.
So, what payment provider do you use that doesn't reserve the right to put a hold on your account due to fraud?
Linus is "as ego-free as you can get"? He can "can balance out discussions in a fair but focused and constructive way"? Are you joking? He calls people he disagrees with idiots . He's very stubborn on some issues. And don't forget how he attacked Andrew Tridgel for having the audacity to let developers access their metadata in Bitkeeper.
Ha, I see you anticipated this response, but come on, Linus acts like a typical egotistical developer. He's technically competent and keeps the trains running on time, but I wouldn't call him "enlightened".
Kinda like never say never? It seems your absolute statement is somewhat hypocritical.
There's no "repackaging" involved. It is a byte-for-byte copy of Red Hat's CD. The redistributor then advertises that he is selling a copy of that CD. It could be labeled as "Cheap Bytes reproduction of Red Hat version x.x". Thus there's no confusion. By allowing Red Hat to block copying via trademarks, one of the fundamental tenents of Free Software is gone.
What Red Hat did was to create an "enterprise" version of Linux. Corporations aren't buying a Red Hat service, they are buying an OS. Red Hat took Linux and bundled and wrapped it up with their own software. By placing non-GPL restrictions on what can be done with that OS, they effectively hijacked Linux, which is exactly what the GPL was supposed to prevent. My company had actually looked into using one of the "rebranded " OS's like CentOS, but ran into trouble. I don't remember the details, but they ended up buying Red Hat, and it wasn't for the service.
Thanks for giving me the last word :)
I'd say it's the opposite. The vast majority do respect the site. If that weren't true, then the site would have been deluged by vandalism and made unusable a long time ago. Really, the number of people that vandalize is just a tiny percentage of the number of people that visit the site.
The GPL requires "modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
What Red Hat did was more than just protecting against modifications. It used to be that you could get a byte-for-byte exact copy of a Red Hat CD for a buck. Red Hat put a stop to that. They also put additional restrictions on their "Enterprise" Linux. Customers were no longer allowed to install it on as many machines as they wanted. They were not allowed to copy the CD freely.
There's no trademark issue if all you want to do is make an exact copy of the software, because the product is not being misrepresented. If you prevent exact copies because of trademark, then that's a serious impediment to Free Software.
The allowed, additional restrictions are:
What is "reasonable"? Entangling your trademark in a 100 different places which must be changed is a good way to discourage modifications. Not defining "reasonable" is just asking for trouble.
And I can't tell if that last restriction means that you can't advertise "Red Hat" CDs, which again, kills free copying.
If the GPL prevents it then the copryright holders are not enforcing it.
Since when do you have to modify GPL software to remove trademarks to redistribute it?
Selling support wasn't enough for Red Hat, so they basically ignored the GPL and created an "Enterprise" Linux that couldn't be freely copied because of trademark poisoning.
The company I used to work for switched from JBuilder to Eclipse, because Eclipse was free (price). They were also in the process of moving from Weblogic to JBoss. They would do the same for their database software, but the open source versions didn't match their needs. That'll probably change.
"viral" means "like a virus", not exactly a virus.
That's a naive interpretation, and one that I personally have not encountered. I think "viral" captures very well the mechanics and intent of the GPL. Ok, you don't like the word usage, and I understand your reasons. However, I, and many others, are perfectly happy with it.
And getting back to the original poster's point, the article definitely tried to deflect the real, virus-like qualities of the GPL. It's ok to mention how it isn't like a virus, but at the same time the author should mention how it is.
When I first learned of the GPL in the early 90s, my first thought was "hey, that's like a virus". I'm sure other people had that thought too. The article claims Microsoft started this term back in a 2001 speech. However, you can see the term "viral" being applied to GPL much earlier, by looking at newsgroup archives.
Here's an article from 1993:
"I'm sure many companies would use GCC, etc. if the GPL wasn't so viral."
The GPL is like a virus, but doesn't share all properties of a virus. When introduced, the GPL was indeed a radical, new concept, and yes, designed to be viral in nature in that it spreads by making more and more code GPL. The use of viral does not mean "bad" or "without choice", though many do find it's viral nature unacceptable. The term "viral marketing" conveys the same idea -- that of spreading like a virus.
And you can avoid the AIDS virus by not having sex or getting blood transfusions.
When people say the GPL is viral, they don't mean it "infects" you without your permission. They mean it takes over code that was previously not GPL, and spreads from code to code. Hence the name "viral", sharing properties of a virus, not exactly a virus. Do you object to the term "viral marketing" too?
I tried playing this onling game Arimaa with it, and while it would work for a while, it would always eventually crash. It was a well known problem with the Linux Flash 7 player.
I've also been to plenty of sites that just don't work right, for whatever reason. Flash 7 just isn't the same quality as the Windows version. They totally skipped version 8 for Linux. Any bets on the timeliness and quality of version 9 for Linux? Proprietary formats are bad. We need an open standard!
You could keep that impression to yourself, then. Calling somebody's point of view reprehensible can only be construed as a personal attack. It's the same thing as calling somebody an idiot for holding a position you don't agree with. Best just to stick to the argument, without calling into question somebody's personal character.
You don't know why they downloaded the software. You don't even know that they only downloaded the software. The article says "It's not known whether the employees collaborated on sharing copies of the unreleased operating system or if they acquired copies individually."
The simple answer is to not download copyrighted software without permission. The employees knew they were doing something they shouldn't have, but did it anyways: "All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy."
I enjoyed your post until this last bit. There's no need for the personal attack. If you want people to listen to what you say and possibly change their minds, then just make your argument without the invective.
For some perspective, I was coming from the other side, against the employees. My thinking was that if the employees want to claim they had "character" for owning up to it, they should do so without expecting an incentive. Anyways, your post gave me another angle on it.
Apparently the Wii should have been named Nintendo Game Console v5.0
The PS3's theoretical power is based on being able to maximize use of its parallel cores. In reality, nobody has shown how to come anywhere close to the PS3's theoretical power. Not a single game previewed looks even moderately superior to the 360's offerings. Unless somebody comes up with a killer game that can't be matched on the 360, the average consumer is going to balk at the $500/$600 asking price.
Personally, I own a 360 and I think the whole "next gen" thing is over-hyped and over-priced crap. The games aren't any more interesting. The graphics aren't *that* much better. The box is big, noisy, and has heat trouble. The high-resolution TV market is in a state of chaos.
The Wii, on the other hand, while not boasting cutting edge specs, is incredibly small, has an innovative controller, and a great price. I'm hoping Nintendo pulls the rug out from both Microsoft and Sony.