Its not just the US constitution, its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that he is disrespecting.
"Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
And there is a file called syscall.h that i believe defines "normal system calls". If thats the only link between the kernel and another program then its all good.
Since pretty much the beginning, the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules. Standard legal analysis means that this trumps the boilerplate of the license/contract.
I am NOT a lawyer, and i know better than to make very stupid statements like that;
- Non GPL modules where not tolerated in the beginning, the issue didnt come up until 10 years after the project started. (Linux wasnt created the moment corporations notices) - Can you cite an example where there has been any sort of consensus of developers have encouraged non-GPL or binary modules ? - Tolerating copyright violators does not invalidate copyright law in any way, it might justify lower penalties. - In what jurisdiction do you claims apply ?
The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs
Wrong, Copyright has always been about corporations.
Your living in a fantasy land.... how much do heirs of artists benefit financially from copyright, and how does that compare to the benefits that go to corporation ?
The difference is most people dont go around shoplifting, murdering and defrauding. Pretty much everyone who uses the internet violates copyright every day.
Google "http", 15.2 Billion hits; Google "all rights reserved", 4.8 Billion hits.
So almost one third of web content is illegal to browse.
They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems
Agreed, i think they need a "free system" licence that articulates their "respects your freedom" hardware certification. Bring out a licence that allows developers to exclusively work for those who care about freedom. We need to accept that 'mere aggregation' is damaging to the future of free _sytems_, and can only ever lead to free isolated software components that form part of a system, with the choke points controlled by our adversaries. (but yea, watch all the hate from the 'i just want free beer' crowd)
BSD is about maximising individuals freedom at the expense of others, copyleft is about maximising collective freedom. There is an obvious analogy to slavery.
The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary.
No its not, the original binary with full source code could be modified if it has the full source code available, the secretly modified distributed version does not.
closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative
By the same arguments; Slavery does NOT limit other peoples freedom - slaves might eventually become free man and become slave owners themselves.
so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source
If two people are living in a cage, one knows how to escape the other doest, do they have the same freedoms ?
BSD does nothing of the sort. It allows the user to do whatever they like w/ packages... It doesn't make me a slavery enabling agent.
No it doesnt automatically make you a slavery enabling agent, but it does permit you to be slavery enabling agent. You said it yourself, BSD allows users to do whatever they like.
If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original. Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original. They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.
And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?
Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.
Perhaps they are trying to be too nice, perhaps they shouldnâ(TM)t be trying to make friends of the corporations that choose to violate the communities principles.
Seems like they are going to make a choice between enforcing the GPL in a friendly way or not at all.
I respect their efforts very much, but i would rather see them become more militant, take as much money as they can get from the wilfully ignorant, and not be afraid of making enemies.
The right for somebody to create closed-source derivatives is something that should be protected. Not protecting it is merely the act of taking away freedom.
Your saying your not free unless you have the right to deprive others of freedom...
Communicating plans to commit evil deeds isnt the problem, its actually carrying them out that is the problem. In fact the more people these extremists communicate with about there plans the more likely someone will be able to talk them out of it.
But i guess the politicians will bring in more extreme laws in an effort to make people free of extremists....
Victims can use defamation law to (try to) prosecute a publisher.
Ofc the point behind anonymous is that arent accountable if they arent identifiable. Which itself is needed because whatever "controls" you can think of that are intended to protect people can also be abused and used to persecute people.
Maybe people shouldnâ(TM)t be judged based on which lists they are on, and we should only judge people we know.
In our case, the leader of the obstructionists (Tony Abbott) won the election, but struggled to move to a more constructive mode when in power and became deeply unpopular. The center left party didnt want to be associated with tactics that failed once in power.
Tony Abbott recently got dumped by his own party and was one of the shortest serving prime ministers in recent times.
Ironically, he was replaced by a moderate within the right wing party, one of the few people who spoke out against data retention, was involved with an ISP some time ago, and has talked up apps the bypass data retention.
It remains to be seen if our new prime minister personal values will be reflected in policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not just the US constitution, its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that he is disrespecting.
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Exactly...
And there is a file called syscall.h that i believe defines "normal system calls". If thats the only link between the kernel and another program then its all good.
The difference is using internal API vs external API.
If its using an internal API its part of the kernel.
Since pretty much the beginning, the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules. Standard legal analysis means that this trumps the boilerplate of the license/contract.
I am NOT a lawyer, and i know better than to make very stupid statements like that;
- Non GPL modules where not tolerated in the beginning, the issue didnt come up until 10 years after the project started. (Linux wasnt created the moment corporations notices)
- Can you cite an example where there has been any sort of consensus of developers have encouraged non-GPL or binary modules ?
- Tolerating copyright violators does not invalidate copyright law in any way, it might justify lower penalties.
- In what jurisdiction do you claims apply ?
It was just a matter of time until they found them... er, i mean, lost them.
I'm sure that if Anne Frank knew...
Read it again;
If it was sarcasm, they wouldn't have used the "if".
The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs
Wrong, Copyright has always been about corporations.
Your living in a fantasy land.... how much do heirs of artists benefit financially from copyright, and how does that compare to the benefits that go to corporation ?
With four 33GB.
They where originally 32GB, but the manufacturer was having a sale and was giving an extra GB free !
(orsomethinglikethat)
The difference is most people dont go around shoplifting, murdering and defrauding. Pretty much everyone who uses the internet violates copyright every day.
Google "http", 15.2 Billion hits;
Google "all rights reserved", 4.8 Billion hits.
So almost one third of web content is illegal to browse.
FBI Took Over World's Biggest Child Porn Website
So they have them all indexed and ranked, but they just decided to go after the biggest one ?
Seems like they are more interested in going after the viewers than the producers.
They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems
Agreed, i think they need a "free system" licence that articulates their "respects your freedom" hardware certification.
Bring out a licence that allows developers to exclusively work for those who care about freedom.
We need to accept that 'mere aggregation' is damaging to the future of free _sytems_, and can only ever lead to free isolated software components that form part of a system, with the choke points controlled by our adversaries.
(but yea, watch all the hate from the 'i just want free beer' crowd)
And if your giving up "other peoples" essential liberty for your own safety...
A story a few days ago said some groups who support eavesdropping are outraged when it happens to them.
It happened about 2 weeks ago for me.
It is not a troll.
BSD is about maximising individuals freedom at the expense of others, copyleft is about maximising collective freedom. There is an obvious analogy to slavery.
If you cant see it, dont blame me.
The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary.
No its not, the original binary with full source code could be modified if it has the full source code available, the secretly modified distributed version does not.
closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative
By the same arguments;
Slavery does NOT limit other peoples freedom - slaves might eventually become free man and become slave owners themselves.
so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source
If two people are living in a cage, one knows how to escape the other doest, do they have the same freedoms ?
BSD does nothing of the sort. It allows the user to do whatever they like w/ packages ... It doesn't make me a slavery enabling agent.
No it doesnt automatically make you a slavery enabling agent, but it does permit you to be slavery enabling agent.
You said it yourself, BSD allows users to do whatever they like.
If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original.
Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original.
They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.
And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?
Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.
"Get educated so you can have some respect" - Anonymous Coward
To comprehend what i said you need understand the difference between "permit" and "force".
Freedom is about having control of your own actions, Power is about having control of others.
Permissive licences like BSD permit you to deny freedom to other other people, to have power over them.
Copyleft are called restrictive because it forbids you from having power over other people, it requires you to pass on the freedoms you where granted.
BSD doesnt force you to take power from other people, just like slavery didnt force people to buy slaves. But it happened.
Perhaps they are trying to be too nice, perhaps they shouldnâ(TM)t be trying to make friends of the corporations that choose to violate the communities principles.
Seems like they are going to make a choice between enforcing the GPL in a friendly way or not at all.
I respect their efforts very much, but i would rather see them become more militant, take as much money as they can get from the wilfully ignorant, and not be afraid of making enemies.
The right for somebody to create closed-source derivatives is something that should be protected. Not protecting it is merely the act of taking away freedom.
Your saying your not free unless you have the right to deprive others of freedom...
The same arguments where used to justify slavery.
You would think someone who climbed so high would be better at using his words. He must be an embarrassment to so many.
Communicating plans to commit evil deeds isnt the problem, its actually carrying them out that is the problem. In fact the more people these extremists communicate with about there plans the more likely someone will be able to talk them out of it.
But i guess the politicians will bring in more extreme laws in an effort to make people free of extremists....
Victims can use defamation law to (try to) prosecute a publisher.
Ofc the point behind anonymous is that arent accountable if they arent identifiable. Which itself is needed because whatever "controls" you can think of that are intended to protect people can also be abused and used to persecute people.
Maybe people shouldnâ(TM)t be judged based on which lists they are on, and we should only judge people we know.
In our case, the leader of the obstructionists (Tony Abbott) won the election, but struggled to move to a more constructive mode when in power and became deeply unpopular. The center left party didnt want to be associated with tactics that failed once in power.
Tony Abbott recently got dumped by his own party and was one of the shortest serving prime ministers in recent times.
Ironically, he was replaced by a moderate within the right wing party, one of the few people who spoke out against data retention, was involved with an ISP some time ago, and has talked up apps the bypass data retention.
It remains to be seen if our new prime minister personal values will be reflected in policy.
Politics is crazy down here.