The point of free speech is more than just to allow anyone to say their bit. It includes the fact that reasoned and fair debate will do more to undermine any truly dangerous people than any system of censorship could.
There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.
Suppression of an ideology almost always does more to drive people towards it than free discussion.
Any given person/group/company can be a user of software and/or a developer of software. The GPL does not restrict them as a user, only as a developer. It basically says that if you want to develop the code, you have to share with other developers as the price.
See my reply to the comment above - I had meant users of the source code, not users of the software.
Microsoft's shared source license is more restricted than the GPL, certainly, but it does bring some benefits to users...
Quoting my original post, 'Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft.' I was not arguing that the licence as a whole doesn't benefit the developers, but that the restrictions to what those developers can do benefit only Microsoft.
the GPL does not restrict users in any way. It "restricts" (if that's the term) distributors and developers, in that it requires them to make the source code available to anyone they distribute to, upon request.
Fair point - I had meant 'users' as in the users of the source code, which includes both distributors and end users. And I believe 'restrict' is the correct term, in the same way that I am restricted by whatever law system I live under - without it life would be pretty miserable, but it still 'restricts' my immediate freedoms to do whatever the heck I like.
Software end users are of course not restricted by the source code licencing at the point of using the software. They may be restricted at the point of wishing to become developers or distributors.
Which do you think would be more useful to you if you were starting that task - the original GPL2 framework, or the MS Windows framework, under a Microsoft 'Shared Source' licence?
A rewrite due to incompatible open source licences is a waste of resources, certainly. Though I don't know about this case, my guess would be that there were other factors in the decision to; there normally are multiple factors in a complete codebase rewrite.
Open Source means nothing more that the source is "open", that you can see it.
The word you're looking for there is 'visible' or 'exposed.'
Open implies that it is, to some extent, available for use. Simply being able to look at it does not constitute use, especially since that is double protected by the terms of the licence and copyright (and perhaps also patent law in the USA).
As a post above says, 'auditable' would be a much more suitable name for this style of licence, as really that is all that is on offer.
...impose a bunch of draconian restrictions that didn't used to exist...
Rising to the bait, GPL's restrictions act to restrict the current user in order to the benefit the community. They arguably don't necessarily benefit the original code developer, although the developer is free to the same benefits as the community receives.
Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft. That is, the original developer. Not the community, not the current user. Nobody else.
<sarcasm class='troll-feed'>
It's terrible, isn't it, that all foreign people are starving to death in their billions.
Just as well there aren't any poor people in the USA - and hey, those little adventures in the Middle East have really paid off there, haven't they?
</sarcasm>
In seriousness, there are much better ways to phrase what is, essentially, a valid question.
I was going to say something smart about Microsoft, Mac etc, but then Google do have the advantage that they were founded on the internet, once the benefits but also the threats of networking computers had been fully understood.
I'd be surprised if any from-scratch operating system designed for internet-facing use today, didn't also have 'security as a culture'.
Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.
Cigarettes aren't really a valid comparison, as they only have one purpose - to smoke. And that gives you the nasties.
No, what we need is a good, solid car analogy.
It's more like every car seller being forced to monitor all future use of cars they sell in question to prevent a minor crime (like, say, dropping litter out of the window) which may be committed with that car.
Of course, once the CCTV, GPS and other instrumentation was in place, then it becomes a legal quagmire once the car is used for other crimes - couldn't the Litter Prevention Society see the bank being robbed? Is that your daughter? Does your wife know about the lifts you've been giving your secretary?
Within the US constitution, the right to bear arms is intended to defend against the government.
In the larger context, it has achieved one of the highest murder rates and the highest saturation of arms in any Western nation without providing any protection against the world's best equipped military. The American love of killing machines is now so far removed from protection against erosion of civil liberties as to be unrecognisable.
This is somewhere between ironic and sad - the original aim is not achieved (or any longer achievable), while the negative affect on society is enormous.
Alternatively, it means that the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" must be watered down while "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" must be broadened.
Eg "I have reason to believe (probable cause) that all communists/terrorists/Europeans (persons to be searched), wherever they may be hiding (place to be searched) hate our freedom.
Have you seen "V for Vendetta?" One of the most telling lines, read over the top of news footage of current and past US campaigns and riots, is "As America's wars expanded, the rest of the world got drawn in deeper and deeper"*
Not to call a Godwin on George Orwell, but it's a theme that's been around in literature since the second world war, and is now starting to be seen in the real world. In a time of war, unusual powers are granted to government.
To get those unusual powers in a time of peace, a war must be created. But since conventional wars may be won, you declare it on a concept, series of countries ("Axis of evil") or race/religion.
After convincing the voting public that this really is as dangerous a threat as a "real" war (after all, the "war on terror" has so far included at least two real wars in the Middle East), the extra-ordinary wartime powers may be granted.
The constitution is specifically designed to prevent this abuse, but has been so thoroughly swept away by successive governments since it was created that attacks like this are not met with the lynchings they are actually supposed to be met with - the "right" to bear arms (which I personally think is one of the biggest things wrong in the US) is specifically provided to allow protection of citizens from the military.
"At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog."
It could also mean there has been a rush to convert projects, or that there is an exponentially increasing number under the license.
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually very insightful.
The point of free speech is more than just to allow anyone to say their bit. It includes the fact that reasoned and fair debate will do more to undermine any truly dangerous people than any system of censorship could.
There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.
Suppression of an ideology almost always does more to drive people towards it than free discussion.
See my reply to the comment above - I had meant users of the source code, not users of the software.
Microsoft's shared source license is more restricted than the GPL, certainly, but it does bring some benefits to users...
Quoting my original post, 'Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft.' I was not arguing that the licence as a whole doesn't benefit the developers, but that the restrictions to what those developers can do benefit only Microsoft.
Methinks we're arguing the same side here?
Fair point - I had meant 'users' as in the users of the source code, which includes both distributors and end users. And I believe 'restrict' is the correct term, in the same way that I am restricted by whatever law system I live under - without it life would be pretty miserable, but it still 'restricts' my immediate freedoms to do whatever the heck I like.
Software end users are of course not restricted by the source code licencing at the point of using the software. They may be restricted at the point of wishing to become developers or distributors.
Which do you think would be more useful to you if you were starting that task - the original GPL2 framework, or the MS Windows framework, under a Microsoft 'Shared Source' licence?
A rewrite due to incompatible open source licences is a waste of resources, certainly. Though I don't know about this case, my guess would be that there were other factors in the decision to; there normally are multiple factors in a complete codebase rewrite.
The word you're looking for there is 'visible' or 'exposed.'
Open implies that it is, to some extent, available for use. Simply being able to look at it does not constitute use, especially since that is double protected by the terms of the licence and copyright (and perhaps also patent law in the USA).
As a post above says, 'auditable' would be a much more suitable name for this style of licence, as really that is all that is on offer.
Rising to the bait, GPL's restrictions act to restrict the current user in order to the benefit the community. They arguably don't necessarily benefit the original code developer, although the developer is free to the same benefits as the community receives.
Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft. That is, the original developer. Not the community, not the current user. Nobody else.
This seems like a pretty important distinction.
Are these the old Sony disks they're talking about?
Where do the frikin' sharks come in to it?
<sarcasm class='troll-feed'>
It's terrible, isn't it, that all foreign people are starving to death in their billions.
Just as well there aren't any poor people in the USA - and hey, those little adventures in the Middle East have really paid off there, haven't they?
</sarcasm>
In seriousness, there are much better ways to phrase what is, essentially, a valid question.
Suddenly, I'm worried I won't have to imagine a Beowolf cluster of satellites...
Sorry.
I was going to say something smart about Microsoft, Mac etc, but then Google do have the advantage that they were founded on the internet, once the benefits but also the threats of networking computers had been fully understood.
I'd be surprised if any from-scratch operating system designed for internet-facing use today, didn't also have 'security as a culture'.
But hey, there's always Vista ;)
That might be because it's, well, insightful? :)
So when the British government introduce their fantastic, shiney, new, biometric, uhackable ID card system, can we get them to buy our ID off us?
Cigarettes aren't really a valid comparison, as they only have one purpose - to smoke. And that gives you the nasties.
No, what we need is a good, solid car analogy.
It's more like every car seller being forced to monitor all future use of cars they sell in question to prevent a minor crime (like, say, dropping litter out of the window) which may be committed with that car.
Of course, once the CCTV, GPS and other instrumentation was in place, then it becomes a legal quagmire once the car is used for other crimes - couldn't the Litter Prevention Society see the bank being robbed? Is that your daughter? Does your wife know about the lifts you've been giving your secretary?
...quantum logic gates...logic gates...qubits...qutrirts...quantum states...quantum computer...quantum logic gates...gates...gates...photons...linear optical components...
For some reason, this reminds me of this post on about blogs on xkcd.
This is similar to the recent two-finger salute given to the BPI (British equiv. of RIAA) over their proposed "Three strikes and you're out" strategy.
By putting the customer's desire/need first, they gain the customer's trust.
This used to be called good business.
I hear Ubuntu allows the full installation on any machine too...
Yeah, ok, I'll accept my -1, Troll.
Within the US constitution, the right to bear arms is intended to defend against the government.
In the larger context, it has achieved one of the highest murder rates and the highest saturation of arms in any Western nation without providing any protection against the world's best equipped military. The American love of killing machines is now so far removed from protection against erosion of civil liberties as to be unrecognisable.
This is somewhere between ironic and sad - the original aim is not achieved (or any longer achievable), while the negative affect on society is enormous.
Shock site redirect.
Well, at least the offensive, racist troll has gone his way - this current plague is only offensive if you click the link.
Alternatively, it means that the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" must be watered down while "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" must be broadened.
Eg "I have reason to believe (probable cause) that all communists/terrorists/Europeans (persons to be searched), wherever they may be hiding (place to be searched) hate our freedom.
Have you seen "V for Vendetta?" One of the most telling lines, read over the top of news footage of current and past US campaigns and riots, is "As America's wars expanded, the rest of the world got drawn in deeper and deeper"*
Not to call a Godwin on George Orwell, but it's a theme that's been around in literature since the second world war, and is now starting to be seen in the real world. In a time of war, unusual powers are granted to government.
To get those unusual powers in a time of peace, a war must be created. But since conventional wars may be won, you declare it on a concept, series of countries ("Axis of evil") or race/religion.
After convincing the voting public that this really is as dangerous a threat as a "real" war (after all, the "war on terror" has so far included at least two real wars in the Middle East), the extra-ordinary wartime powers may be granted.
The constitution is specifically designed to prevent this abuse, but has been so thoroughly swept away by successive governments since it was created that attacks like this are not met with the lynchings they are actually supposed to be met with - the "right" to bear arms (which I personally think is one of the biggest things wrong in the US) is specifically provided to allow protection of citizens from the military.
*Or words to that affect
I thought the whole constitution had no application to the whole government?
After all, isn't it just a scrap of paper?
It could also mean there has been a rush to convert projects, or that there is an exponentially increasing number under the license.
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
But hey, this is slashdot! Read the article??!
When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.
Similarly here, these students seem to have a deparment which values them enough to give them something interesting AND useful to work on.
Good on them all.
But does it have Rick Astley? Or Goatse...?/p