There is no society, big or small, never has been, never will, in which you can do whatever you want.
No shit.
This is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of fact, thus purporting the term and concept of freedom as something absolute disregards all of probable and known human experience.
You specifically stated that it was freedom as stated by the GPL (which is pretty much the definition of a definition) that you were talking about.
I am not throwing definitions around
Yyyyyyes. You are.
I am just saying that the absolutist definition of freedom is misguided, mistaken and unusable on practical terms.
I didn't actually say that, but thanks for paying attention.
to pretend that Freedom is an absolute term is frankly ridiculous.
To pretend that your definition of freedom is the only one that should be considered is even more so.
Furthermore, when something actually meets your definition of freedom, it is unwise to try to claim it isn't free by creating arbitrary metrics that it must adhere to.
What I was trying to get across was that "x is not a valid choice" doesn't hold up very well when what x actually conforms to the 4 freedoms. He seems to be implying that the driver is only valid under those freedoms if something that uses the driver is also covered by those freedoms. So, we're in the position where he says the driver is invalid because it only has a non-free application, even though it is actually free - and I think semantics is a dangerous game to start playing here. It risks fracturing what tenuous alliance there is between Linus and RMS even further.
So yes, it was a bit of a snark, but it wasn't a full-blown troll - I wasn't looking for a negative reaction, just a discussion. I had a point in there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can explain it at 3am.
He did say exactly that. He said "We don't consider that free".
I know what the purpose of the code is - but I'm telling you that being allowed to run proprietary code is a freedom, which paxcoder clearly disagrees with, hence why I distinguished between his definition of freedom and what could be considered absolute freedom.
This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.
Because more choice is better than less. Isn't that the FOSS way?
All I can read is "If you won't hand me a Linux-based desktop on a plate, I can't get one."
If you were actually interested in supporting the availability of no-OS or Linux computers, you would try harder to get one and to support businesses that supply them.
Your attitude of 'known name or nothing' does zero to help.
If you can find it, go for it. Of course, you can't publish Microsoft's version of it, but you're welcome to get the source from the same place as they did.
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server â" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.
Should be:
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are not public domain in the UK to an American server from a UK-based organisation - unambiguously, in established UK law, a copyright violation.
The images were taken in the UK and stored on a UK server. He is most certainly bound by UK law.
Seriously, how important is it to have these images actually on Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be possible to just link to the relevant NPG page? Alternatively, is your 'INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE' standpoint more important than being a civil human being who recognises that the NPG is non-profit like Wikipedia and that one of their key aims is to maintain access to these paintings to everyone?
Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of ã5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this. It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless
The article says they are funding "fixed/wireless services", so that isn't what they're funding.
further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release
No, you (and far too many other people) have gotten it into your head that they think that, and you won't let it go. Note that the government quote actually says "piracy of intellectual property" and not file sharing in general.
I know it's hard, and nobody really expects you to, but you should try reading the articles.
No, I can corroborate that - subject headings still appear in black on dark green in Opera (which they don't in Firefox). Comment titles regularly go white on white, though that can be fixed by doing some random clicky jiggery-pokery.
On the plus side, the actual speed of the site is far better in Opera.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily there seem to be more talented security researchers and programmers who like the Mac than there are crackers who find it worth the effort.
*gasps* There's two of them now?!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
(Couldn't resist.)
There is no society, big or small, never has been, never will, in which you can do whatever you want.
No shit.
This is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of fact, thus purporting the term and concept of freedom as something absolute disregards all of probable and known human experience.
You specifically stated that it was freedom as stated by the GPL (which is pretty much the definition of a definition) that you were talking about.
I am not throwing definitions around
Yyyyyyes. You are.
I am just saying that the absolutist definition of freedom is misguided, mistaken and unusable on practical terms.
I didn't actually say that, but thanks for paying attention.
What does your link or any of your post have to do with security?
Your disease has made you delusional.
You say that, but the latest one actually gave you all of his breath weapons from the start.
Er, not that I play Spyro. At all. DON'T LOOK AT MEEEEE
to pretend that Freedom is an absolute term is frankly ridiculous.
To pretend that your definition of freedom is the only one that should be considered is even more so.
Furthermore, when something actually meets your definition of freedom, it is unwise to try to claim it isn't free by creating arbitrary metrics that it must adhere to.
What I was trying to get across was that "x is not a valid choice" doesn't hold up very well when what x actually conforms to the 4 freedoms. He seems to be implying that the driver is only valid under those freedoms if something that uses the driver is also covered by those freedoms. So, we're in the position where he says the driver is invalid because it only has a non-free application, even though it is actually free - and I think semantics is a dangerous game to start playing here. It risks fracturing what tenuous alliance there is between Linus and RMS even further.
So yes, it was a bit of a snark, but it wasn't a full-blown troll - I wasn't looking for a negative reaction, just a discussion. I had a point in there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can explain it at 3am.
He said no such thing.
He did say exactly that. He said "We don't consider that free".
I know what the purpose of the code is - but I'm telling you that being allowed to run proprietary code is a freedom, which paxcoder clearly disagrees with, hence why I distinguished between his definition of freedom and what could be considered absolute freedom.
Oh, okay. I didn't realise it was "Freedom, but only on our terms". I thought it was just "Freedom".
My mistake.
This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.
Because more choice is better than less. Isn't that the FOSS way?
All I can read is "If you won't hand me a Linux-based desktop on a plate, I can't get one."
If you were actually interested in supporting the availability of no-OS or Linux computers, you would try harder to get one and to support businesses that supply them.
Your attitude of 'known name or nothing' does zero to help.
The fact is, Microsoft had OEM's locked down for years
Absolutely, can't think of a single Microsoft OEM partner that sells non-Microsoft operating systems or computers without an OS at all.
*COUGHDELLCOUGH*
Nasty throat I have.
Why should I be forced to deal with a company that no one in my county has ever HEARD OF, to get what I want?
You're quite right. The quality of your computer is exactly proportional to how many people have heard of the manufacturer.
How interesting! Tell me more about the AI systems.
Yeah, it's just like waiting for a taxi.
I would agree with you, if in this analogy you weren't forced only to sell at Walmart to actually have a working product.
Yeah, that's right. It couldn't be that you're not funny - someone is being paid to not laugh at you.
Wow.
If you can find it, go for it. Of course, you can't publish Microsoft's version of it, but you're welcome to get the source from the same place as they did.
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server â" unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort.
Should be:
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are not public domain in the UK to an American server from a UK-based organisation - unambiguously, in established UK law, a copyright violation.
The images were taken in the UK and stored on a UK server. He is most certainly bound by UK law.
Seriously, how important is it to have these images actually on Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be possible to just link to the relevant NPG page? Alternatively, is your 'INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE' standpoint more important than being a civil human being who recognises that the NPG is non-profit like Wikipedia and that one of their key aims is to maintain access to these paintings to everyone?
You haven't been on the internet long enough, apparently.
Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of ã5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this. It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless
The article says they are funding "fixed/wireless services", so that isn't what they're funding.
further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release
No, you (and far too many other people) have gotten it into your head that they think that, and you won't let it go. Note that the government quote actually says "piracy of intellectual property" and not file sharing in general.
I know it's hard, and nobody really expects you to, but you should try reading the articles.
A sense of decency?
Cheers, but it's not really a fix - that's basically "Use Firefox or you get the shit version".
No, I can corroborate that - subject headings still appear in black on dark green in Opera (which they don't in Firefox). Comment titles regularly go white on white, though that can be fixed by doing some random clicky jiggery-pokery.
On the plus side, the actual speed of the site is far better in Opera.
Having support for it in some unreleased or nightly beta doesn't count.
You should probably tell the article submitter that.
Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard
*Must* they?