Unless you have any actual, hard evidence to back up your statement that they are going to impose a closed ecosystem on PCs, shut the fuck up about it. I'm tired of hearing this Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling!" bullshit with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Insisting on a 30% cut of whatever they do allow you to sell on their platform is quite bad.
Not when you realize that 30% takes care of CC processing, billing, hosting and distribution.
Seriously, if you think it's that bad, why don't you go look at what some of the agreements were BEFORE Apple got into the game. Look at what it costs to sell software at retail. Look at what a lot of the carrier's software stores had. With a lot of them, you were lucky if YOU were the one taking the 30%.
the rest of the world does not buy Apple and are also happy with that choice.
Given stuff like the OP, it seems this statement is not true. Either they aren't happy with their choice, or they aren't happy that others have the choice to use Apple.
but they did not invent anything themselves
So? Are you trying to say that the only source of innovation is by inventing the entire thing from scratch? I guess that means there's no more innovation in the tech sector anymore.
I don't care Apple users being spoiled digibete users. I do care them praising their product as if it was divine. It's just electronics, like any other. Software, like any other. And not even better software, just more limited software. Count the number of forum threads that are like 'how do i do this or that with my mac' where the answer simply is: you can't. No choice, no alternative, you wanted something and you can't. Yet those customers are most happy with their apple. It are also the people who think Apple computers are the most secure, invulnerable for viruses, etc.
I'm sorry, this is just complete and utter bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in this paragraph that is rooted in reality.
i have no illusion at all that Apple is any better _for me_ than any other OS like redmonds or a desktop linux.
Then take your own advice and shut the hell up about it.
Finally, most of the products of apple aren't innovation. They certainly didn't make the first cellular phone, nor the first mp3 player, or tablet. But they did it differently enough, with a touch, at the right time
Who are you to say there's no innovation in their products? No, they didn't make the first of any of those things. But they definitely iterated and innovated on the core concept of those devices and turned out something that was pretty damn good. To say there's no innovation involved is complete bullshit.
And no, they aren't just marketing. If they were only marketing, and their products were not extremely good as well, they would not have captured the MP3 player market like they did. They would not have a phone which is constantly one of the top sellers, if not the top seller, through each of it's 5 iterations.
For one thing, some fans on Slashdot have promoted the iPad as something to replace a laptop.
And how is that Apple's fault? You're seriously going to take the actions of a few people, for whom a tablet might actually replace a laptop, and so who's needs are different from your own, to be the actions of the company?
The government, in particular the current US idiocracy, is the main enemy of free markets
Because companies themselves would never seek to get rid of the "free market", right? They always welcome more competition. I mean, look at the ISP space. There are no ISPs looking to limit competition through whatever means necessary, right?
But will it stay sub $50, or will the price shoot up as they run out of stock and people start reselling them for a 300% premium or more on eBay, like a recently launched game console?
I'm sorry, but with this statement, you just lost any and all credibility your argument had.
And that's the fucking point. You are acting like the GPL is completely unique in this situation. It's not. Just about every other license has costs of compliance as well. Acting like the GPL is some burden because you have to comply with it is just asinine.
My point is not about whether or not you can recreate those lines, but the idea that your entire project is now tainted by coming into contact with those lines.
And this is different from any proprietary license how?
but the license is written such that the size does not matter
By and large, it shouldn't. Two lines could either be nothing, or they could be critical to your entire project.
Can't prove what? That infringement didn't happen, or that it wasn't willful? I would posit that evidence that infringement happened at all, whether it was willful or not should be enough to warrant corrective action (NOTE: This does not imply that the action should be anything close to what SOPA, PIPA, or even OPEN would prescribe as "corrective action").
But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.
Depends on how it's done. If I look at it, and then write something that does the same thing, then yes. However, if I look at it, and create a detailed spec that outlines the behavior of it, and give that spec to someone else, then it's not.
Remember, behavior of a system is not copyrightable, and cannot be used to judge a derivative work.
but consider it okay to download that same movie for media shifting for personal viewing.
If by "Media shifting", you mean "Getting the work for free without paying for it." I would imagine 99% of people here would be able to rip a DVD they purchased with fairly little effort. If you'd rather not put in the effort, and just download the end result, that's fine, provided you actually bought the original product to begin with. Otherwise, you're just an asshole who feels entitled to the product of someone else's labor for free.
It's not. However, many people are not solely motivated by money. And in lieu of money, they'd rather that, if you're going to use and distribute their code, you distribute back the changes.
Except you need to go further back. If I was a criminal, I wouldn't want crimes committed against me. Therefore, according to the golden rule, I shouldn't be a criminal.
Only if your stuff is actually a derivative work of the GPL stuff, and you are distributing it, does that come into play. If you don't want to abide by my terms, don't use my code. End of story.
No, it was your post that was FUD and drivel. You complain about the costs of having to comply with the (L)GPL, while acting like no other license, commercial or not, has compliance issues and costs.
as we saw with the X360 hack once the OS is pwned that's it, piracy WILL explode, so locking down the very first stage is critical if they want to have even a prayer of stopping it.
And yet, software for the Xbox 360 is still selling incredibly well. Hmmm, would seem to invalidate your point.
Quite frankly, your entire post is hypothetical and alarmist bullshit. And it all comes down to one simple thing: I don't give a shit if you want your stuff locked down or not. If you're going to use MY software, you're going to abide by MY terms. And if you don't like it, you can piss off and write it your own damn self, taking your time and money to do so. Which is what someone else (it's actually NOT Sony, just some guy who happens to work at Sony. Sony has not endorsed the project at all) is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you have any actual, hard evidence to back up your statement that they are going to impose a closed ecosystem on PCs, shut the fuck up about it. I'm tired of hearing this Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling!" bullshit with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Insisting on a 30% cut of whatever they do allow you to sell on their platform is quite bad.
Not when you realize that 30% takes care of CC processing, billing, hosting and distribution.
Seriously, if you think it's that bad, why don't you go look at what some of the agreements were BEFORE Apple got into the game. Look at what it costs to sell software at retail. Look at what a lot of the carrier's software stores had. With a lot of them, you were lucky if YOU were the one taking the 30%.
the rest of the world does not buy Apple and are also happy with that choice.
Given stuff like the OP, it seems this statement is not true. Either they aren't happy with their choice, or they aren't happy that others have the choice to use Apple.
but they did not invent anything themselves
So? Are you trying to say that the only source of innovation is by inventing the entire thing from scratch? I guess that means there's no more innovation in the tech sector anymore.
I don't care Apple users being spoiled digibete users. I do care them praising their product as if it was divine. It's just electronics, like any other. Software, like any other. And not even better software, just more limited software. Count the number of forum threads that are like 'how do i do this or that with my mac' where the answer simply is: you can't. No choice, no alternative, you wanted something and you can't. Yet those customers are most happy with their apple. It are also the people who think Apple computers are the most secure, invulnerable for viruses, etc.
I'm sorry, this is just complete and utter bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in this paragraph that is rooted in reality.
i have no illusion at all that Apple is any better _for me_ than any other OS like redmonds or a desktop linux.
Then take your own advice and shut the hell up about it.
Finally, most of the products of apple aren't innovation. They certainly didn't make the first cellular phone, nor the first mp3 player, or tablet. But they did it differently enough, with a touch, at the right time
Who are you to say there's no innovation in their products? No, they didn't make the first of any of those things. But they definitely iterated and innovated on the core concept of those devices and turned out something that was pretty damn good. To say there's no innovation involved is complete bullshit.
And no, they aren't just marketing. If they were only marketing, and their products were not extremely good as well, they would not have captured the MP3 player market like they did. They would not have a phone which is constantly one of the top sellers, if not the top seller, through each of it's 5 iterations.
For one thing, some fans on Slashdot have promoted the iPad as something to replace a laptop.
And how is that Apple's fault? You're seriously going to take the actions of a few people, for whom a tablet might actually replace a laptop, and so who's needs are different from your own, to be the actions of the company?
The government, in particular the current US idiocracy, is the main enemy of free markets
Because companies themselves would never seek to get rid of the "free market", right? They always welcome more competition. I mean, look at the ISP space. There are no ISPs looking to limit competition through whatever means necessary, right?
But will it stay sub $50, or will the price shoot up as they run out of stock and people start reselling them for a 300% premium or more on eBay, like a recently launched game console?
I'm sorry, but with this statement, you just lost any and all credibility your argument had.
And that's the fucking point. You are acting like the GPL is completely unique in this situation. It's not. Just about every other license has costs of compliance as well. Acting like the GPL is some burden because you have to comply with it is just asinine.
My point is not about whether or not you can recreate those lines, but the idea that your entire project is now tainted by coming into contact with those lines.
And this is different from any proprietary license how?
but the license is written such that the size does not matter
By and large, it shouldn't. Two lines could either be nothing, or they could be critical to your entire project.
Really? I can think of quite a few.
But then, that does go against the, "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is an asshole who doesn't count!" methodology.
No, in fact that hurts us, as it makes their case stronger.
Can't prove what? That infringement didn't happen, or that it wasn't willful? I would posit that evidence that infringement happened at all, whether it was willful or not should be enough to warrant corrective action (NOTE: This does not imply that the action should be anything close to what SOPA, PIPA, or even OPEN would prescribe as "corrective action").
But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.
Depends on how it's done. If I look at it, and then write something that does the same thing, then yes. However, if I look at it, and create a detailed spec that outlines the behavior of it, and give that spec to someone else, then it's not.
Remember, behavior of a system is not copyrightable, and cannot be used to judge a derivative work.
but consider it okay to download that same movie for media shifting for personal viewing.
If by "Media shifting", you mean "Getting the work for free without paying for it." I would imagine 99% of people here would be able to rip a DVD they purchased with fairly little effort. If you'd rather not put in the effort, and just download the end result, that's fine, provided you actually bought the original product to begin with. Otherwise, you're just an asshole who feels entitled to the product of someone else's labor for free.
You have no particular right to decide how much money is "too much."
I do if they are using my software to make that money, and disregarding the terms under which I made that software available.
So now you're telling others how to live, and what is "acceptable". Sorry, but that doesn't fly.
It's not. However, many people are not solely motivated by money. And in lieu of money, they'd rather that, if you're going to use and distribute their code, you distribute back the changes.
Except you need to go further back. If I was a criminal, I wouldn't want crimes committed against me. Therefore, according to the golden rule, I shouldn't be a criminal.
WRONG. Just plain fucking WRONG.
Only if your stuff is actually a derivative work of the GPL stuff, and you are distributing it, does that come into play. If you don't want to abide by my terms, don't use my code. End of story.
Turnabout is fair play. If they're willing to do it to us, perhaps they should be made to feel the same pain.
No, it was your post that was FUD and drivel. You complain about the costs of having to comply with the (L)GPL, while acting like no other license, commercial or not, has compliance issues and costs.
as we saw with the X360 hack once the OS is pwned that's it, piracy WILL explode, so locking down the very first stage is critical if they want to have even a prayer of stopping it.
And yet, software for the Xbox 360 is still selling incredibly well. Hmmm, would seem to invalidate your point.
Quite frankly, your entire post is hypothetical and alarmist bullshit. And it all comes down to one simple thing: I don't give a shit if you want your stuff locked down or not. If you're going to use MY software, you're going to abide by MY terms. And if you don't like it, you can piss off and write it your own damn self, taking your time and money to do so. Which is what someone else (it's actually NOT Sony, just some guy who happens to work at Sony. Sony has not endorsed the project at all) is doing.
The spec itself is not a derivative work. A spec merely documents how something works. How something works is not copyrightable.
That's how Compaq originally reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS.
The GPL does not require anybody to do anything
Obviously in this situation, someone distributing GPL code, it does. Otherwise your licence is revoked, and you are guilty of copyright infringement.
And I'm quite sure the GPL doesn't require them to tell anyone it's GPL licensed before they sell it.
Yes, it does. Any distribution of GPL software is required to come with a copy of the license.