just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
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.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur...is something akin to consumer protection laws
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state. The FSF doesn't mandate use of the GPL. The copyright holder voluntarily agrees with the user to supply the source by choosing the adopt the GPL. There is no outside party demanding anything - it's entirely between the user and the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then reneges on the agreement, the user can of course enlist legal aid from an outside party to assist in enforcing the licence that the copyright holder freely and legally agreed to, but that is a separate matter, and is definitely freedom for one party - the user.
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.
In every situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, one party is going to have more freedom than the other(s).
The GPL is designed to (attempt to) maximise the freedom of the user, not both parties.
The BSD license maximises developer freedom. Also, as a developer, you are free to choose whichever licence you prefer.
Having the developer adhere to restrictions in order to maximise user freedom only sounds like doublespeak if you neglect to qualify who is being restricted, and who is being guaranteed freedom.
It would be logically impossible to maximise user freedom and developer freedom at the same time, so the FSF can't be criticised as being orwellian simply because they can't do the impossible. And they don't sinsterly cloak the fact they they are concerned purely on user freedom.
I can't remember the last time I used one of these sites - why don't people simply download the software from the developer's website? To me it seems like the most obviously trustworthy source. Are there a lot of bits of software that are solely hosted on download sites?
How about the big Nashville riots? No? Probably because they didn't happen. And Nashville happens to be a place where guns are moderately common.
would you like to buy a rock i found on the ground? I'm convinced it has magical tiger-repellant properties, because I've never seen a tiger go near it.
i wondered what that meant - i was trying to figure out which swear word he was censoring that could make sense in that context. fuck'd was the best i could come up with, and that still makes no sense.
It never ceases to amaze me how often people successfully identify a troll, then proceed to give the troll exactly what he wants, allowing their behaviour to be controlled even while they are concious that it's happening, making it even more gratifying to the troll.
Ignorant of what? And no, economics was not taught at my high school, I know practically nothing about it other than the random incoherent soundbites that I pick up at places like this. Apparently the free market isn't preoccupied by next quarter's returns, as evidenced by the histrionic overreactions provoked by me asserting that it was.
That isn't the aspect of public reaction that he's lamenting. It's the undeserved damage to the credibility of the scientists involved, caused by Nature putting words in their mouths. The skepticism should be directed at the journalistic integrity of Nature magazine, who are manufacturing claims out of whole cloth.
And what's wrong with letting the free market do the R&D?
The free market is preoccupied with next quarter's returns. There is no next quarter return with basic scientific research. Or next year. Or next 5 years.
I never said I was mad at them, as I made clear, I'm glad it has happened, despite the trouble it has caused Sony's customers. I was pointing out that their motivations weren't altruistic as the person I was responding to seemed to imply.
It's good that sony had to fix their security because of this, and i'm glad to see powerful and corrupt people get the comeuppance they need (and the issue of data security made starkly clear to people that are otherwise blissfully ignorant), but the very name "LulzSec" indicates that their motivation was amusing themselves through the misfortune of other people, not these collateral benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
All I said was "that piece of halibut was good enough for jehovah"
The person I was responding too didn't say "to pirate bay". They claimed the owner "never uploaded it", which obviously can't be true.
WHOOSH!
those assholes
Wow, a xenophobic generalisation. That's the exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from an American.
At some point they would have to have been seeding the data as well, or it wouldn't be there for anyone to download.
just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
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.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur...is something akin to consumer protection laws
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state. The FSF doesn't mandate use of the GPL. The copyright holder voluntarily agrees with the user to supply the source by choosing the adopt the GPL. There is no outside party demanding anything - it's entirely between the user and the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then reneges on the agreement, the user can of course enlist legal aid from an outside party to assist in enforcing the licence that the copyright holder freely and legally agreed to, but that is a separate matter, and is definitely freedom for one party - the user.
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.
In every situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, one party is going to have more freedom than the other(s).
The GPL is designed to (attempt to) maximise the freedom of the user, not both parties.
The BSD license maximises developer freedom. Also, as a developer, you are free to choose whichever licence you prefer.
Having the developer adhere to restrictions in order to maximise user freedom only sounds like doublespeak if you neglect to qualify who is being restricted, and who is being guaranteed freedom.
It would be logically impossible to maximise user freedom and developer freedom at the same time, so the FSF can't be criticised as being orwellian simply because they can't do the impossible. And they don't sinsterly cloak the fact they they are concerned purely on user freedom.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom(3rd paragraph)
I can't remember the last time I used one of these sites - why don't people simply download the software from the developer's website? To me it seems like the most obviously trustworthy source. Are there a lot of bits of software that are solely hosted on download sites?
It might be a good combo with this gizmo. Wonder if any blind people have tried the compass out?
How about the big Nashville riots? No? Probably because they didn't happen. And Nashville happens to be a place where guns are moderately common.
would you like to buy a rock i found on the ground? I'm convinced it has magical tiger-repellant properties, because I've never seen a tiger go near it.
i wondered what that meant - i was trying to figure out which swear word he was censoring that could make sense in that context. fuck'd was the best i could come up with, and that still makes no sense.
haha, you sound like rik mayall
It never ceases to amaze me how often people successfully identify a troll, then proceed to give the troll exactly what he wants, allowing their behaviour to be controlled even while they are concious that it's happening, making it even more gratifying to the troll.
freedom freedom freedom, oy!
The markets must be forward looking, or 30 year bonds would not sell.
That's a far more civil conversation.
Thankyou for pointing out an obvious hole in my understanding. I'm glad to have learned some basic economics.
I'm not an idiot, and I'm sure in real life you aren't so aggressive and rude.
Ignorant of what? And no, economics was not taught at my high school, I know practically nothing about it other than the random incoherent soundbites that I pick up at places like this. Apparently the free market isn't preoccupied by next quarter's returns, as evidenced by the histrionic overreactions provoked by me asserting that it was.
That isn't the aspect of public reaction that he's lamenting. It's the undeserved damage to the credibility of the scientists involved, caused by Nature putting words in their mouths. The skepticism should be directed at the journalistic integrity of Nature magazine, who are manufacturing claims out of whole cloth.
'There will be nothing to gain from a musical point of view
Motorhead would disagree with that sentiment
And what's wrong with letting the free market do the R&D?
The free market is preoccupied with next quarter's returns. There is no next quarter return with basic scientific research. Or next year. Or next 5 years.
are you going to be mad at the kids
I never said I was mad at them, as I made clear, I'm glad it has happened, despite the trouble it has caused Sony's customers. I was pointing out that their motivations weren't altruistic as the person I was responding to seemed to imply.
It's good that sony had to fix their security because of this, and i'm glad to see powerful and corrupt people get the comeuppance they need (and the issue of data security made starkly clear to people that are otherwise blissfully ignorant), but the very name "LulzSec" indicates that their motivation was amusing themselves through the misfortune of other people, not these collateral benefits.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm...
I can't tell if this is sarcasm...
at the time he was probably right.
Careful, you may invoke APK
April 15th was the hillsborough disaster. He (intentionally?) got the date wrong.