The big difference between the GPLv2 and v3 is just the anti-tivoization - closing a major loophole in the GPLv2 but hardly a difference in overall philosophy
The "anti-tivoization" introduce use-based restrictions on GPL software (which is a major change in philosophy from GPLv3), and only apply limits to software with certain intended uses (creating a difference between what is "free" -- from the FSF point of view -- for "consumer" markets and what is "free" for "business" markets), another major change in philosophy.
Because of the distinction in where the anti-tivoization limits apply, it also doesn't close any "loophole" that existed in GPLv2, it just prevents consumer devices incorporating GPLv3 software from providing certain features that are allowed in business devices incorporating GPLv3 software.
The distinction is that with GPL it's the code that's free, and with BSD it's the receiving developer. Both are legitimate models of freedom.
I disagree. Developers (as moral actors) can have freedom. Code (as an abstraction that is not a moral actor) cannot; attributing freedom to code is simply an error, and limiting freedom for the actual people receiving and creating derivative works from code in order to protect the "freedom" misattributed to the code is not providing freedom, its (just like a commercial software license), limiting the freedom of the licensee to compel the licensee to act within the interests of the licensor.
Because copyright attaches automatically at creation, and in many jurisdictions (including, as I understand it, the US) there is no specific effect to a public domain declaration other than working as a poorly-specified gratuitous license. Which makes a well-specificed but non-restrictive gratuitous license generally preferable.
Many people prefer the BSD or MIT licenses, until they get involved in a lawsuit. After that, they suddenly become suspiciously fanatically pro-GPL
This assertion could use some support. I've certainly noticed many large companies that use and release open source software continue to use permissive license on material that they release as open source that doesn't have to be GPL-licensed because it is built on GPL licensed components, even after being involved in lawsuits (Google, for instance.)
Why was their bank account closed? Did they break some law or did the bank just take offense to them?
It might be worth noting that this happened not long after the US government announced that people exchanging real currency for virtual currencies like bitcoins are within the scope of existing reporting and other regulations designed to prevent and identify money laundering, in many of the the same ways that other entities moving and exchanging real currency are.
It is not "a display device for an Android device" (with or without the "just"), it doesn't require an Android device. It has some features which can leverage a paired Android device, but mostly is a device that ties to web-based services (both Google and third-party via the Mirror API.)
Given that "Glass Apps" are web apps that send and/or receive information to the device via the Mirror API, I'm trying to imagine how that would even work.
First, I think you lost track of context, and are confused about "they" -- GP was about how Google would make revenue, and Google most certainly can sell apps through the Chrome Web Store and the Google Play store, and make money from them in exactly the way described.
Second, even if you were (as I suspect) mistaking GP for a post about Glass app developers, you'd still be wrong: they can also make money from apps by selling mobile or Chrome Web Store (or iOS App Store, or other) apps for services for which the Glass app that enhances the same service is a selling point. They can't charge for the Glass app itself or charge an additional fee for access to the Glass features in another service, but nothing stops them from selling a service (whether the other user interface is web, mobile, or both) which has Glass features as a selling point to drive sales, where the Glass app that connects to the service is free and no extra charge is levied for access to the Glass features.
The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM
Is there also a provision that Google may change the EULA at any time, without prior notice? eg. When sales have taken off and enough people have been suckered in by the promise of no ads.
I know its too much to expect slashdot posters to RTFA, but is it really unreasonable to expect reading the part of the post you are responding to that you cut-and-paste-and-blockquote in your response? The no ads thing isn't part of the EULA at all, so changing it wouldn't involve changing the EULA.
The big story has nothing to do with people "not supposed to" resell or lend, it's that Google will attack people who do it, and have put some kind of kill switch the in device.
Its dependent for on external resources. There doesn't need to be a kill switch on the device to disable it, all Google has to do is pull it from the authorized list on the servers it relies on.
They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store revenue, since Glass has functions that require pairing with an Android device, and Glass apps are basically (by device features) limited to being auxiliary interfaces to web services for which the primary interface will almost certainly be either a traditional web or mobile app.
I'm not sure why you are arguing their claim that you were wrong.
I'm not, as the post I made directly responding to them should make clear. I acknowledge that the effect they describe is real, valid, and relevant, but doesn't fundamentally change the point I made about bitcoin. I also think your counterargument is ludicrous, as well as being unnecessarily insulting, and ironically raising a straw man in the same breath in which you accused him of doing so.
Yes, he did: the whole asteroid scenario was the hypothetical he presented. I think you are having trouble tracking who posted what.
You gave a hypothetical to counter his statements.
No, actually I gave a historical example (the actual Spanish experience of its New World colonies) to provide a more concrete example of the same effect as his hypothetical.
I'm guessing that you are grasping at some definition somewhere instead of seeing a fallacy for what it is.
I'm guessing you have no idea what you are talking about.
(You quoted the paragraph where they discussed self regulation, and that is what you refuted with fallacy).
No, actually, I wrote the paragraph that discussed self-regulation. The thing you are calling a strawman (which wasn't) was a response to that paragraph. I don't think it actually refuted it, but it was a valid example of a real issue with gold that doesn't exist with bitcoin to lay on the other side of the scale.
Injecting facts into a debate is not a straw man.
Injecting irrelevant facts to rebut an argument no one made (to wit, the argument that price declines due to new gold discoveries are permanent), OTOH, is exactly a straw man. As the definition you just posted makes clear. Its kind of funny that the post in which you claimed a strawman was the same one that you made the straw man.
You can freely read the history of gold prices and see what I stated is factual.
And I can read the posts it was in response to, and see that it was a straw man, whether or not it was factual.
Short term increase in gold quantity does not crash the market, and never has crashed the market.
Yes, it can, and the fact that the decline is not permanent doesn't change that.
I believe your "tank overnight" comment speaks for itself.
It wasn't my comment, but sure, it does. But the stock market tanked overnight on Black Tuesday in 1929, even though the decline in stock prices was not permanent. That price declines due to an event aren't permanent is irrelevant to the argument that an event can cause a market to tank overnight.
If so, feel free to correct instead of demanding that your fallacy is correct and anyone refuting it is wrong.
Both what I said and what the poster said who wrote the "tank overnight" comment are correct. And your "refutation" on the irrelevant point that price declines aren't permanent remains a fallacy and irrelevancy.
My facts may not back your position based in fantasy land, but that does not turn a fact into fallacy
Well, again, it wasn't my position, but the fact that they refute an irrelevant argument and use that to claim that they refute the argument actually made does make presenting them a fallacy.
It means that your argument was poorly grounded.
No, you presenting facts that are irrelevant to the argument that was actually made doesn't make that argument ill-grounded.
Just because the user doesn't opt to use the true 2 factor for authentication doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't allow it.
Sure, but the fact that Microsoft calls it something confusingly similar and enables modes of operation for its "two step" system that aren't 2 factor auth, and doesn't do anything to draw attention to the security differences between the options that are two-factor auth and those that aren't, means that lots of people are going to be misled into bad choices.
Its good for those who already understand what two-factor auth requires and what the security benefits are, and it actively misleads everyone else by making them think that they are getting the same security benefits.
Come now, so by your reasoning it should be perfectly logical to debate our economy based on an killing Smog and imports from Narnia.
No, pointing out that terms have meaning and "straw man" doesn't mean "hypothetical" or even "unlikely hypothetical" or even anything similar to does not imply that "it should be perfectly logical to debate our economy based on an killing Smog and imports from Narnia."
In fact, you'll note that my direct response to the post that raised the asteroid hypothetical suggested an alternative example -- which, you'll also note, was a post using that as an argument against a point I had made in the post the hypothetical responded to -- drawn from history rather than speculation for the effect the asteroid hypothetical was presented to illustrate. If anyone would have a motive to call the asteroid hypothetical a "straw man argument", if it actually was one, it would be me, since I was author of the position it was offered against.
The whole golden asteroid argument is a complete fantasy!
It is a colorful, dramatic hypothetical illustrating a real class of events which create potential for volatility in the value of gold, a class of events for which there are numerous historical examples. It may not be the best example of that class of events, but neither is it (in the way it was offered, as an illustrative example rather than as a particularly likely specific event) a "complete fantasy".
Not only are we decades away from being able to mine an asteroid, we have no evidence that there are asteroids filled with gold!
I don't think you quite get how hypotheticals work to illustrate arguments.
I'm not sure Microsoft actually understands two factor authentication. The description (could be wrong, didn't read the article) doesn't sound like two factor authentication to me.
I suspect they understand what two-factor authentication is quite well, and that is the reason that their label for what they are doing is "two-step authentication", which is only confusingly similar to "two-factor authentication". They very carefully do not actually call it "two-factor authentication".
Virtually all two-factor authentication mechanisms work via two steps
Sure, two-factor necessarily is two-step (since providing each factor is a step), but not all things that use two steps are also two-factor (just as all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans.) And, while if you choose the authenticator option (and, with some substantial caveats, arguably also the SMS option), the Microsoft two-step process can be a two-factor system, it also includes one option (the email option) which is unmistakeably not a two-factor system (unless it happens to be for reasons unrelated to the Microsoft implementation, such as where your alternative email address is itself secured by two-factor authentication.)
The differences you're talking about are not even being pedantic, they're also irrelevant to the fact that its two factor/step.
The "something you know/something you know" email option is clearly "two-step", but its not at all "two-factor", which is probably why Microsoft doesn't call their system "two-factor authentication", just the accurate and similar-enough-to-benefit-from-confusion "two-step authentication".
According to the article the message is sent to your phone via Text Message, NOT email.
Both TFA [1] and, more importantly and more explicitly, the actual Microsoft announcement [2] linked in TFA on which TFA is based note that users have the option of using either a secondary email address (to which email is sent) instead of a mobile phone number (to which SMS is sent) for the "second step".
[1]: "Microsoft is using additional verification methods such as a short code sent to the user's mobile phone, which is then entered in addition to the password, or by asking the user to supply additional information, such as an alternative email address."
[2]: "This release enables optional two-step verification for your entire Microsoft account. Two-step verification is when we ask you for two pieces of information anytime you access your account — for example, your password plus a code sent to a phone or email on file as security info."
This means you have to physically have access to the phone to receive the message.
If SMS was the only second-step option (or even, the only option other than the dedicated authenticator app), and if SMS was a secure channel such that being able to capture the SMS required having physical access to the phone, this would be correct. Neither of these, however, is true.
If Microsoft at least disclosed to consumers that some of the options they provide were weaker-security options, this probably wouldn't be a big deal; as it is, Microsoft is adding something that seems attractive based on what people no doubt here about "two-factor authentication", with a deliberately similar name ("two-step authentication"), which includes multiple alternatives designed to make it more convenient, without disclosing that those alternatives undermine the security benefit of two-factor authentication.
AFAICT, Google hasn't laid a single foot of fiber themselves. They've just been buying up existing fiber that has already been laid by earlier projects and calling it Google fiber.
You know what, most airlines have never built an airplane themselves, either, they just buy up (actually, I think "lease" is the more common model now) existing airplanes and slap their names on them. So what?
Since when is it "not fair" to use your company's name on a service you sell, just because some key pieces of equipment used in providing that service were either purchased or leased from someone else? Is it unfair for the (very many) companies selling services built on top of, e.g., Amazon's cloud infrastructure (who haven't even bought the infrastructure from Amazon, but are renting it dynamically based on usage) to use their own name rather than Amazon's for their services?
I'm not sure why they are expanding when the original Kansas City install is not even 10% completed.
Because fiber deployment (both actual fiber laying and establishing service) in different cities is something that parallelizes quite well providing that you have sufficient capital, so there is no reason to hold off starting work in other cities just because you haven't finished in the first one you started in.
The straw man you gave is the hypothetical situation where we find a shitload of gold on an asteroid.
Except: 1) I (the author of GP to whom you are responding) didn't give that hypothetical,and 2) That's not a straw man. A straw man is an argument that the other side has not presented that you set up to debate against.
My argument was very valid, please look at the history of gold prices. If prices went down after finding a large deposit, the effect was temporary
Your argument -- unlike the one you keep referring to as a "straw man" -- is an actual straw man (or, rather, rebuts a straw man that you set up), because neither the post to which you responded with it nor any one else argued that the effect was permanent (and no one made an argument which relied on the effect being permanent.) The point you are arguing against is one you injected into the discussion in the first place, not one that is relevant to any point anyone else was making.
Slashdot Mirror
The "anti-tivoization" introduce use-based restrictions on GPL software (which is a major change in philosophy from GPLv3), and only apply limits to software with certain intended uses (creating a difference between what is "free" -- from the FSF point of view -- for "consumer" markets and what is "free" for "business" markets), another major change in philosophy.
Because of the distinction in where the anti-tivoization limits apply, it also doesn't close any "loophole" that existed in GPLv2, it just prevents consumer devices incorporating GPLv3 software from providing certain features that are allowed in business devices incorporating GPLv3 software.
I disagree. Developers (as moral actors) can have freedom. Code (as an abstraction that is not a moral actor) cannot; attributing freedom to code is simply an error, and limiting freedom for the actual people receiving and creating derivative works from code in order to protect the "freedom" misattributed to the code is not providing freedom, its (just like a commercial software license), limiting the freedom of the licensee to compel the licensee to act within the interests of the licensor.
Because copyright attaches automatically at creation, and in many jurisdictions (including, as I understand it, the US) there is no specific effect to a public domain declaration other than working as a poorly-specified gratuitous license. Which makes a well-specificed but non-restrictive gratuitous license generally preferable.
This assertion could use some support. I've certainly noticed many large companies that use and release open source software continue to use permissive license on material that they release as open source that doesn't have to be GPL-licensed because it is built on GPL licensed components, even after being involved in lawsuits (Google, for instance.)
Having a virtual currency isn't prohibited.
It might be worth noting that this happened not long after the US government announced that people exchanging real currency for virtual currencies like bitcoins are within the scope of existing reporting and other regulations designed to prevent and identify money laundering, in many of the the same ways that other entities moving and exchanging real currency are.
It is not "a display device for an Android device" (with or without the "just"), it doesn't require an Android device. It has some features which can leverage a paired Android device, but mostly is a device that ties to web-based services (both Google and third-party via the Mirror API.)
Given that "Glass Apps" are web apps that send and/or receive information to the device via the Mirror API, I'm trying to imagine how that would even work.
First, I think you lost track of context, and are confused about "they" -- GP was about how Google would make revenue, and Google most certainly can sell apps through the Chrome Web Store and the Google Play store, and make money from them in exactly the way described.
Second, even if you were (as I suspect) mistaking GP for a post about Glass app developers, you'd still be wrong: they can also make money from apps by selling mobile or Chrome Web Store (or iOS App Store, or other) apps for services for which the Glass app that enhances the same service is a selling point. They can't charge for the Glass app itself or charge an additional fee for access to the Glass features in another service, but nothing stops them from selling a service (whether the other user interface is web, mobile, or both) which has Glass features as a selling point to drive sales, where the Glass app that connects to the service is free and no extra charge is levied for access to the Glass features.
I know its too much to expect slashdot posters to RTFA, but is it really unreasonable to expect reading the part of the post you are responding to that you cut-and-paste-and-blockquote in your response? The no ads thing isn't part of the EULA at all, so changing it wouldn't involve changing the EULA.
No, but in my country the app developer isn't the "End User", and the terms and conditions of an API service agreement are not a "License Agreement".
The only part that the API agreement and an EULA have in common is that they are both "agreements".
Presumably, from your comments, you don't want it. That's fine, you aren't the whole market.
Its dependent for on external resources. There doesn't need to be a kill switch on the device to disable it, all Google has to do is pull it from the authorized list on the servers it relies on.
They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store revenue, since Glass has functions that require pairing with an Android device, and Glass apps are basically (by device features) limited to being auxiliary interfaces to web services for which the primary interface will almost certainly be either a traditional web or mobile app.
The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM
Badly. I didn't really need the help.
I'm not, as the post I made directly responding to them should make clear. I acknowledge that the effect they describe is real, valid, and relevant, but doesn't fundamentally change the point I made about bitcoin. I also think your counterargument is ludicrous, as well as being unnecessarily insulting, and ironically raising a straw man in the same breath in which you accused him of doing so.
Yes, he did: the whole asteroid scenario was the hypothetical he presented. I think you are having trouble tracking who posted what.
No, actually I gave a historical example (the actual Spanish experience of its New World colonies) to provide a more concrete example of the same effect as his hypothetical.
I'm guessing you have no idea what you are talking about.
No, actually, I wrote the paragraph that discussed self-regulation. The thing you are calling a strawman (which wasn't) was a response to that paragraph. I don't think it actually refuted it, but it was a valid example of a real issue with gold that doesn't exist with bitcoin to lay on the other side of the scale.
Injecting irrelevant facts to rebut an argument no one made (to wit, the argument that price declines due to new gold discoveries are permanent), OTOH, is exactly a straw man. As the definition you just posted makes clear. Its kind of funny that the post in which you claimed a strawman was the same one that you made the straw man.
And I can read the posts it was in response to, and see that it was a straw man, whether or not it was factual.
Yes, it can, and the fact that the decline is not permanent doesn't change that.
It wasn't my comment, but sure, it does. But the stock market tanked overnight on Black Tuesday in 1929, even though the decline in stock prices was not permanent. That price declines due to an event aren't permanent is irrelevant to the argument that an event can cause a market to tank overnight.
Both what I said and what the poster said who wrote the "tank overnight" comment are correct. And your "refutation" on the irrelevant point that price declines aren't permanent remains a fallacy and irrelevancy.
Well, again, it wasn't my position, but the fact that they refute an irrelevant argument and use that to claim that they refute the argument actually made does make presenting them a fallacy.
No, you presenting facts that are irrelevant to the argument that was actually made doesn't make that argument ill-grounded.
Sure, but the fact that Microsoft calls it something confusingly similar and enables modes of operation for its "two step" system that aren't 2 factor auth, and doesn't do anything to draw attention to the security differences between the options that are two-factor auth and those that aren't, means that lots of people are going to be misled into bad choices.
Its good for those who already understand what two-factor auth requires and what the security benefits are, and it actively misleads everyone else by making them think that they are getting the same security benefits.
No, pointing out that terms have meaning and "straw man" doesn't mean "hypothetical" or even "unlikely hypothetical" or even anything similar to does not imply that "it should be perfectly logical to debate our economy based on an killing Smog and imports from Narnia."
In fact, you'll note that my direct response to the post that raised the asteroid hypothetical suggested an alternative example -- which, you'll also note, was a post using that as an argument against a point I had made in the post the hypothetical responded to -- drawn from history rather than speculation for the effect the asteroid hypothetical was presented to illustrate. If anyone would have a motive to call the asteroid hypothetical a "straw man argument", if it actually was one, it would be me, since I was author of the position it was offered against.
It is a colorful, dramatic hypothetical illustrating a real class of events which create potential for volatility in the value of gold, a class of events for which there are numerous historical examples. It may not be the best example of that class of events, but neither is it (in the way it was offered, as an illustrative example rather than as a particularly likely specific event) a "complete fantasy".
I don't think you quite get how hypotheticals work to illustrate arguments.
I suspect they understand what two-factor authentication is quite well, and that is the reason that their label for what they are doing is "two-step authentication", which is only confusingly similar to "two-factor authentication". They very carefully do not actually call it "two-factor authentication".
Sure, two-factor necessarily is two-step (since providing each factor is a step), but not all things that use two steps are also two-factor (just as all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans.) And, while if you choose the authenticator option (and, with some substantial caveats, arguably also the SMS option), the Microsoft two-step process can be a two-factor system, it also includes one option (the email option) which is unmistakeably not a two-factor system (unless it happens to be for reasons unrelated to the Microsoft implementation, such as where your alternative email address is itself secured by two-factor authentication.)
The "something you know/something you know" email option is clearly "two-step", but its not at all "two-factor", which is probably why Microsoft doesn't call their system "two-factor authentication", just the accurate and similar-enough-to-benefit-from-confusion "two-step authentication".
Both TFA [1] and, more importantly and more explicitly, the actual Microsoft announcement [2] linked in TFA on which TFA is based note that users have the option of using either a secondary email address (to which email is sent) instead of a mobile phone number (to which SMS is sent) for the "second step".
[1]: "Microsoft is using additional verification methods such as a short code sent to the user's mobile phone, which is then entered in addition to the password, or by asking the user to supply additional information, such as an alternative email address."
[2]: "This release enables optional two-step verification for your entire Microsoft account. Two-step verification is when we ask you for two pieces of information anytime you access your account — for example, your password plus a code sent to a phone or email on file as security info."
If SMS was the only second-step option (or even, the only option other than the dedicated authenticator app), and if SMS was a secure channel such that being able to capture the SMS required having physical access to the phone, this would be correct. Neither of these, however, is true.
If Microsoft at least disclosed to consumers that some of the options they provide were weaker-security options, this probably wouldn't be a big deal; as it is, Microsoft is adding something that seems attractive based on what people no doubt here about "two-factor authentication", with a deliberately similar name ("two-step authentication"), which includes multiple alternatives designed to make it more convenient, without disclosing that those alternatives undermine the security benefit of two-factor authentication.
You know what, most airlines have never built an airplane themselves, either, they just buy up (actually, I think "lease" is the more common model now) existing airplanes and slap their names on them. So what?
Since when is it "not fair" to use your company's name on a service you sell, just because some key pieces of equipment used in providing that service were either purchased or leased from someone else? Is it unfair for the (very many) companies selling services built on top of, e.g., Amazon's cloud infrastructure (who haven't even bought the infrastructure from Amazon, but are renting it dynamically based on usage) to use their own name rather than Amazon's for their services?
Because fiber deployment (both actual fiber laying and establishing service) in different cities is something that parallelizes quite well providing that you have sufficient capital, so there is no reason to hold off starting work in other cities just because you haven't finished in the first one you started in.
Except:
1) I (the author of GP to whom you are responding) didn't give that hypothetical,and
2) That's not a straw man. A straw man is an argument that the other side has not presented that you set up to debate against.
Your argument -- unlike the one you keep referring to as a "straw man" -- is an actual straw man (or, rather, rebuts a straw man that you set up), because neither the post to which you responded with it nor any one else argued that the effect was permanent (and no one made an argument which relied on the effect being permanent.) The point you are arguing against is one you injected into the discussion in the first place, not one that is relevant to any point anyone else was making.