If someone had a patent for bubble sort, would she have infringed it? Is there a difference between an algorithm running on a computer and an algorithm running in a brain?
Thank you. I had not thought about this scenario. However, if my memory serves me right, a lot of the companies that has been caught using modified GPLed software without honouring the license has been hardware companies, that use linux in order to get a free ride, but add support for their proprietary hardware. These would still have a lot of resources because they don't base their business on copyright.
The EeePC was promised to be around $200.00 and it currently sells for $299.00
This is mostly because of the US economy grinding to a halt. I'm pretty sure that it still costs the same in euros/yuan/whatever other currency was initially projected.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the pixels magically bleed on a laptop screen so the increased resolution go to waste? Or do you mean that you would rather lug your 42" plasma to the hotel room when you want to watch a movie on the go, instead of watching it on the subpar laptop screen?
I don't understand what you mean by this. If I was a normal troll I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. Personally I don't like copyrights, but I do like the GPL. This is, however, illogical.
Richard Stallman wants everyone to be able to get the source to every computer program they run. He thinks this is very important, because without the source, you cannot modify the program, you can't learn from it, and you can't see what the program actually does. If you don't agree on this, then you won't agree with my next paragraph.
The only thing that stops $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY to take any GPLed open source project, add random proprietary changes to it, and release it without the new source code, is because if they do, they will break the GPL, and the GPL is only enforcible because of the copyright laws. Without the GPL, and in extension: the copyright law, they wouldn't have any obligation to release the source except for goodwill, and of course the other good things that comes with open source and free software. Some companies or individuals doesn't want or need those good things, and thus they oppose open source.
Of course, I'm not Stallman, and I know he doesn't like the current copyright system either, but completely removing copyrights without putting something else in as a replacement would be bad for free-as-in-libre software.
Abolishing copyright won't happen any time soon. *Maybe* if Stallman becomes the president.
Stallman does not want to abolish copyright, the whole GPL relies on it to keep the source free. If he wanted "the other kind of free", he could already have chosen to use or change to a "BSD-style" license, or release everything to the public domain.
Still, here I am, in Sweden, with the exact same system that I was talking about, on my quite cheap 24/8 mbit cable network, unthrottled, no limit on amount of data transferred, all ports open.
You can change this, you know. Since the free market is apparently failing, you (the people, in the end: the government) can force the last-mile companies to split up, and force them to rent their last-mile connections to anyone for the same price. It's just a question of politics, as usual.
Here is the source: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#history. If that source is invalid, or if you have sources that claim something else, please do us the favour of correcting the wikipedia article, so people like me won't be misled.
If, however, you have absolutely no clue, then I suggest a big dose of STFU and lay off the FUD.
Obviously digging a hole in the middle of a public field for no reason has no value.
Ok, analogy time!
Let's say it starts to rain a lot, for a long time, and the hole becomes a pond. Now, people starts to bathe in it. Shouldn't you then be able to charge money for using the pond, since you dug it from the beginning, even if no one asked you to and no one wanted it to start with?
The music industry analogy here would be some artist making an album that's not very good, doesn't sell, but due to a shift in music taste, it becomes a cult and 10 years later people starts to share it with each other.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was normal for computer users to have the freedoms provided by free software. Software was commonly shared by individuals who used computers and by hardware manufacturers who were glad that people were making software that made their hardware useful. In the 70s and early 80s, the software industry began to apply copyright law, and began using technical measures such as only distributing binary copies, to prevent computer users from being able to study and modify the software.
I noticed the exact same thing when I tried to discuss computer security for kids recently here on slashdot. Seems like even geek-parents like the slashdot crowd gets so completely irrational so they actually believe there's a high chance for their children to get raped if they use the internet.
So fix it. You're obviously a geek since you read slashdot. You obviously have a lot of spare time, since you read slashdot. You also know about the errors and how it's supposed to be. Give an hour of your time to the project. The more complete it is, the more people will fix the details.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone had a patent for bubble sort, would she have infringed it? Is there a difference between an algorithm running on a computer and an algorithm running in a brain?
Oh noes, you got me there :/
Thank you. I had not thought about this scenario. However, if my memory serves me right, a lot of the companies that has been caught using modified GPLed software without honouring the license has been hardware companies, that use linux in order to get a free ride, but add support for their proprietary hardware. These would still have a lot of resources because they don't base their business on copyright.
This is mostly because of the US economy grinding to a halt. I'm pretty sure that it still costs the same in euros/yuan/whatever other currency was initially projected.
The way oil is treated now, it does more harm than good.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the pixels magically bleed on a laptop screen so the increased resolution go to waste? Or do you mean that you would rather lug your 42" plasma to the hotel room when you want to watch a movie on the go, instead of watching it on the subpar laptop screen?
Why the hell do you need to watch a movie in HD on your 42" screen? Your laptop probably has a higher resolution, and you can still see the pixels.
Woh the hlel use the pereviwe button/?
I don't understand what you mean by this. If I was a normal troll I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. Personally I don't like copyrights, but I do like the GPL. This is, however, illogical.
Richard Stallman wants everyone to be able to get the source to every computer program they run. He thinks this is very important, because without the source, you cannot modify the program, you can't learn from it, and you can't see what the program actually does. If you don't agree on this, then you won't agree with my next paragraph.
The only thing that stops $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY to take any GPLed open source project, add random proprietary changes to it, and release it without the new source code, is because if they do, they will break the GPL, and the GPL is only enforcible because of the copyright laws. Without the GPL, and in extension: the copyright law, they wouldn't have any obligation to release the source except for goodwill, and of course the other good things that comes with open source and free software. Some companies or individuals doesn't want or need those good things, and thus they oppose open source.
Of course, I'm not Stallman, and I know he doesn't like the current copyright system either, but completely removing copyrights without putting something else in as a replacement would be bad for free-as-in-libre software.
They are not being sued for using their own patents, their own patents are still good for them.
Stallman does not want to abolish copyright, the whole GPL relies on it to keep the source free. If he wanted "the other kind of free", he could already have chosen to use or change to a "BSD-style" license, or release everything to the public domain.
One might argue that the patent holder gains by vendor lock-in and monopoly.
Yes there is, it's called copyright, and if you read GPL you can see how it works.
Yes.
Still, here I am, in Sweden, with the exact same system that I was talking about, on my quite cheap 24/8 mbit cable network, unthrottled, no limit on amount of data transferred, all ports open.
What would you do with batteries? I'd like to see the battery that would last for a year while drilling through stone.
You can change this, you know. Since the free market is apparently failing, you (the people, in the end: the government) can force the last-mile companies to split up, and force them to rent their last-mile connections to anyone for the same price. It's just a question of politics, as usual.
You already can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ
The ISP is owned by The Pirate Bay guys.
Here is the source: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#history. If that source is invalid, or if you have sources that claim something else, please do us the favour of correcting the wikipedia article, so people like me won't be misled.
If, however, you have absolutely no clue, then I suggest a big dose of STFU and lay off the FUD.
Ok, analogy time!
Let's say it starts to rain a lot, for a long time, and the hole becomes a pond. Now, people starts to bathe in it. Shouldn't you then be able to charge money for using the pond, since you dug it from the beginning, even if no one asked you to and no one wanted it to start with?
The music industry analogy here would be some artist making an album that's not very good, doesn't sell, but due to a shift in music taste, it becomes a cult and 10 years later people starts to share it with each other.
Now let's see:
5% of 100 billion = 20 million
I'm not quite sure about that...
And then you are the owner of property worth ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS, and have to pay your property tax accordingly.
From Wikipedia, without checking the references:
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was normal for computer users to have the freedoms provided by free software. Software was commonly shared by individuals who used computers and by hardware manufacturers who were glad that people were making software that made their hardware useful. In the 70s and early 80s, the software industry began to apply copyright law, and began using technical measures such as only distributing binary copies, to prevent computer users from being able to study and modify the software.I noticed the exact same thing when I tried to discuss computer security for kids recently here on slashdot. Seems like even geek-parents like the slashdot crowd gets so completely irrational so they actually believe there's a high chance for their children to get raped if they use the internet.
So fix it. You're obviously a geek since you read slashdot. You obviously have a lot of spare time, since you read slashdot. You also know about the errors and how it's supposed to be. Give an hour of your time to the project. The more complete it is, the more people will fix the details.