The FSF wouldn't sue, it's not their copyright. The copyright holder could sue.
Ok.
How they could sue someone who abided by their license is beyond me. I don't follow your reasoning.
What I'm saying is that according to the line of reasoning given, the copyright holder could potentially sue. The user is not protected by a contract between the copyright holder and the user; he is merely reliant on the grace of the copyright holder, a very unsatisfactory situation.
If someone violates the GPL, they cannot be held liable for violating the GPL, because they did not sign it.
I think what you're saying is this: an agreement to a license (e.g. by clicking on a box 'I agree') like the GPL or a typical shrink wrap license isn't really a binding agreement; it isn't really a contract between the provider of the software and the user.
So if the user has agreed to the GPL, but then proceeds to violate the GPL, then you say that you may sue him for copyright violations, but not for violation of the GPL, because the user has not signed a contract, and there is no agreement between the user and the software provider.
Now suppose he agrees to the GPL, and distributes the software in compliance with the GPL. Can the FSF then sue the user for copyright violations? It seems that your line of reasoning will imply that the FSF can, because there has been no binding agreement between the provider of the software and the user. So the user has no real legal protection but distributes the software merely at the grace of the FSF. So it seems that your interpretation of this is unworkable.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic.
2. Then suppose I try to download a piece of software from Microsoft. Before I download the software, the eula appears, and I have to agree to the eula before I'm allowed to download the software. So I agree. (Note that this is actually a step beyond what most gpled software does - many free software downloads don't make you agree to the gpl before you download the software; and some gpled software are also sold in shrink wrapped form, so what is the validity of the GPL in this case?).
Given that I have agreed in both cases, why would you say that the license is enforceable in the first case, but unenforceable in the second case?
Now you say that this is because gpl adds rights, while the shrink wrap license takes away rights.
Suppose the software is free (as in free beer, think IE). So if you don't agree to MS's eula, you are left with where you started - you have no rights to the software at all, MS does not wish to let you use the software (keep in mind that you haven't paid MS anything in this case). But if you agree to MS eula's, you have an additional right - the right to use the software, provided that you adhere to MS's terms and conditions. Wow, just like the GPL. But MS eula is invalid but the GPL is valid, simply becuase you don't like MS's eula.
You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights
In the case of the GPL, you're not just giving me additional rights. You're giving me additional rights on condition. You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it.
That's not true, well not always anyway. e.g. when you're downloading software from MS (through windows update), you're asked to read and agree to the EULA before you're allowed to download the software. I downloaded WP8 for Linux from Corel just now, and they made me read and say 'I agree' to their EULA before downloading.
Suppose John Carmack went to court with this Slade sleazeball and won, thereby setting a precedent. Fast forward to the future: a commercial shrink wrap license is challenged in court, perhaps by a group of open source software developers who desire to reverse engineer the product. As part of their defense, the open source developers claim that shrink wrap licenses are not enforceable. The company will then point to JC vs Slade and say "Look, here is a precedent".
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
I guess you do have to use windows 9x to play games, but trying to use 9x to do much else is asking for pain. Things may be better with windows 2k (play games and have NT like stability), who knows.
I've been royally pissed at Netscape ever since they added the stupid "Shop" button in 4.6. "Shop" differs from "Stop" by one letter - and they put it right next to the "Stop" button. At 1600x1200 with text-only toolbars, I can never tell the difference between the two.
Every time I try to kill a loading page, I find myself whisked away to some "Netscape Store". Sheesh.
That's sort of like the whole idea.
P.S Another Netscape grouse: why can't NS copy and paste the text without breaking the lines at the wrong places?
You're probably visiting the 'wrong' sites. Mozilla doesn't crash if you stick to nice sites like www.mozilla.org, but if you try visiting fancier sites, it does crash,usually quite predictably.
The nyt article mentions the computer industry only once. The rest of the article makes it sound as though Taiwan itself had by government directive unanimously decided to adopt Transmeta chips. The NYTs article sounds more like a Transmeta press release than a serious piece of journalism.
What does it mean to say that "Taiwan... had rushed to adopt the company's low-power Crusoe chips using the Mobile Linux operating system."??
Taiwan is a free capitalist country. "Taiwan" doesn't decide to do anything - individual companies do. Replace "Taiwan" with "US" and you'll see how ridiculous the quote is.
And it seems like a gross exaggeration to say that "The entire island of Taiwan is standardising on these mobile devices using Mobile Linux and Crusoe"? I doubt the "entire island of Taiwan" is standardizing on anything.
I know we need any excuse we can get to bash Microsoft, but if you read the article, you'll see that GrokSoup has taken the quotes grossly out of context.
I agree whole heartedly with Jon Katz that the net is a powerful tool for communication. Like Jeff in the story, I email my gf who's in another state everyday over the net. I've also been working with a friend on a software project over the net - we're in different states, so this wouldn't be possible otherwise.
However, there's still something to be said for face to face, human to human contact that the net doesn't replace - people are pulpy, embodied creatures, not just disembodied voices. The danger here really is that the internet makes it easier to go on with life without knowing people in person, and we try less hard as a result.
And there are many tasks where a CLI / text environment is easier *and* more efficient.I can select a portion of a document and stick it into another application with everything preserved with my favorite text editor. Or I can just use text files and filters. Nothing could be simpler.
I was refering to working with more than just text. Copying and pasting formatted text and images to another application for example(please don't say that no one should ever work with more than just plaintext).
CLIs are suitable for automating any repetitive task, *especially* interactive tasks.Nothing could possibly be more repetitive than a GUI, and there are powerful tools that can optimize interactive tasks
This isn't what I meant by "interactive tasks". By interactive, I refer to tasks where the human interacts in real time with the computer, and which are not repetitive in nature. Visualization and an intuitive interface exploits our powerful innate visual processing capabilities, and makes it easier for the human to explore the problem space. e.g. Visualization of complex data sets.
And I'd kill for a GUI environment that made "difficult things possible".
Agreed, a GUI isn't best suited for everything.
Ah yes, those were the days...
Those were the bad old days I'll say. A windowing system makes a multitasking system much more comprehensible.
Command line interfaces do add more power. But there should be a learning curve, not a learning cliff.
And there are many tasks where a visual paradigm is easier and more efficient. e.g. Being able to highlight a portion of document, and copy paste it into another application, with graphics, formatting and all preserved is goodness. CLIs are more suitable for automating repetitive tasks, but less so for interactive tasks.
To steal a quote, in GUIs as in programming languages, "simple things should be simple, and difficult things possible".
Most serious Linux users don't give a rats arse whether Linux competes with Windoze on the desktop.
Where serious users are defined as those who don't give a rat's arse whether Linux competes with Windows on the desktop?
When you like something, there's a natural and virtous desire to see it grow and improve. You want to correct its deficiencies (usability), and you want to share it with others. This is what Linux for the masses is all about. Not to mention that making Linux easy to use makes things easier for everyone -- better installers hurt no one, 'serious Linux users' included.
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF wouldn't sue, it's not their copyright. The copyright holder could sue.
Ok.
How they could sue someone who abided by their license is beyond me. I don't follow your reasoning.
What I'm saying is that according to the line of reasoning given, the copyright holder could potentially sue. The user is not protected by a contract between the copyright holder and the user; he is merely reliant on the grace of the copyright holder, a very unsatisfactory situation.
I think what you're saying is this: an agreement to a license (e.g. by clicking on a box 'I agree') like the GPL or a typical shrink wrap license isn't really a binding agreement; it isn't really a contract between the provider of the software and the user.
So if the user has agreed to the GPL, but then proceeds to violate the GPL, then you say that you may sue him for copyright violations, but not for violation of the GPL, because the user has not signed a contract, and there is no agreement between the user and the software provider.
Now suppose he agrees to the GPL, and distributes the software in compliance with the GPL. Can the FSF then sue the user for copyright violations? It seems that your line of reasoning will imply that the FSF can, because there has been no binding agreement between the provider of the software and the user. So the user has no real legal protection but distributes the software merely at the grace of the FSF. So it seems that your interpretation of this is unworkable.
1. Suppose I agree to the GPL.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic.
2. Then suppose I try to download a piece of software from Microsoft. Before I download the software, the eula appears, and I have to agree to the eula before I'm allowed to download the software. So I agree. (Note that this is actually a step beyond what most gpled software does - many free software downloads don't make you agree to the gpl before you download the software; and some gpled software are also sold in shrink wrapped form, so what is the validity of the GPL in this case?).
Given that I have agreed in both cases, why would you say that the license is enforceable in the first case, but unenforceable in the second case?
Now you say that this is because gpl adds rights, while the shrink wrap license takes away rights.
Suppose the software is free (as in free beer, think IE). So if you don't agree to MS's eula, you are left with where you started - you have no rights to the software at all, MS does not wish to let you use the software (keep in mind that you haven't paid MS anything in this case). But if you agree to MS eula's, you have an additional right - the right to use the software, provided that you adhere to MS's terms and conditions. Wow, just like the GPL. But MS eula is invalid but the GPL is valid, simply becuase you don't like MS's eula.
You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights
In the case of the GPL, you're not just giving me additional rights. You're giving me additional rights on condition. You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it.
That's not true, well not always anyway. e.g. when you're downloading software from MS (through windows update), you're asked to read and agree to the EULA before you're allowed to download the software. I downloaded WP8 for Linux from Corel just now, and they made me read and say 'I agree' to their EULA before downloading.
Put it another way:
Suppose John Carmack went to court with this Slade sleazeball and won, thereby setting a precedent. Fast forward to the future: a commercial shrink wrap license is challenged in court, perhaps by a group of open source software developers who desire to reverse engineer the product. As part of their defense, the open source developers claim that shrink wrap licenses are not enforceable. The company will then point to JC vs Slade and say "Look, here is a precedent".
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
And thereby affirming the validity of shrink wrap licenses.
I guess you do have to use windows 9x to play games, but trying to use 9x to do much else is asking for pain. Things may be better with windows 2k (play games and have NT like stability), who knows.
So is this Dr. Kathyrn Wright male or female?
That's rubbish. An IE crash doesn't flinch NT. Unless you're using Windows 9X, in which case, I pity you.
I've been royally pissed at Netscape ever since they added the stupid "Shop" button in 4.6. "Shop" differs from "Stop" by one letter - and they put it right next to the "Stop" button. At 1600x1200 with text-only toolbars, I can never tell the difference between the two.
Every time I try to kill a loading page, I find myself whisked away to some "Netscape Store". Sheesh.
That's sort of like the whole idea.
P.S Another Netscape grouse: why can't NS copy and paste the text without breaking the lines at the wrong places?
You're probably visiting the 'wrong' sites. Mozilla doesn't crash if you stick to nice sites like www.mozilla.org, but if you try visiting fancier sites, it does crash,usually quite predictably.
The nyt article mentions the computer industry only once. The rest of the article makes it sound as though Taiwan itself had by government directive unanimously decided to adopt Transmeta chips. The NYTs article sounds more like a Transmeta press release than a serious piece of journalism.
What does it mean to say that "Taiwan ... had rushed to adopt the company's low-power Crusoe chips using the Mobile Linux operating system."??
Taiwan is a free capitalist country. "Taiwan" doesn't decide to do anything - individual companies do. Replace "Taiwan" with "US" and you'll see how ridiculous the quote is.
And it seems like a gross exaggeration to say that "The entire island of Taiwan is standardising on these mobile devices using Mobile Linux and Crusoe"? I doubt the "entire island of Taiwan" is standardizing on anything.
I know we need any excuse we can get to bash Microsoft, but if you read the article, you'll see that GrokSoup has taken the quotes grossly out of context.
Find someone you can share your life with. In this case, 2 is infinitely better than one.
I agree whole heartedly with Jon Katz that the net is a powerful tool for communication. Like Jeff in the story, I email my gf who's in another state everyday over the net. I've also been working with a friend on a software project over the net - we're in different states, so this wouldn't be possible otherwise.
However, there's still something to be said for face to face, human to human contact that the net doesn't replace - people are pulpy, embodied creatures, not just disembodied voices. The danger here really is that the internet makes it easier to go on with life without knowing people in person, and we try less hard as a result.
Everytime I see Atipa, I think Aptiva.. it's an unnerving negative association.
Nah, he should have posted it as a comment to this article. Then we could have had fun moderating him down as -1 Offtopic.
"Why do all these Homosexuals..." and the "Valentine's Day Kids Page" were inspired humor
Unfortunately these 2 articles were reruns.
And there are many tasks where a CLI / text environment is easier *and* more efficient.I can select a portion of a document and stick it into another application with everything preserved with my favorite text editor. Or I can just use text files and filters. Nothing could be simpler.
I was refering to working with more than just text. Copying and pasting formatted text and images to another application for example(please don't say that no one should ever work with more than just plaintext).
CLIs are suitable for automating any repetitive task, *especially* interactive tasks.Nothing could possibly be more repetitive than a GUI, and there are powerful tools that can optimize interactive tasks
This isn't what I meant by "interactive tasks". By interactive, I refer to tasks where the human interacts in real time with the computer, and which are not repetitive in nature. Visualization and an intuitive interface exploits our powerful innate visual processing capabilities, and makes it easier for the human to explore the problem space. e.g. Visualization of complex data sets.
And I'd kill for a GUI environment that made "difficult things possible".
Agreed, a GUI isn't best suited for everything.
Ah yes, those were the days...
Those were the bad old days I'll say. A windowing system makes a multitasking system much more comprehensible.
Command line interfaces do add more power. But there should be a learning curve, not a learning cliff.
And there are many tasks where a visual paradigm is easier and more efficient. e.g. Being able to highlight a portion of document, and copy paste it into another application, with graphics, formatting and all preserved is goodness. CLIs are more suitable for automating repetitive tasks, but less so for interactive tasks.
To steal a quote, in GUIs as in programming languages, "simple things should be simple, and difficult things possible".
Fine. I guess Linus Torvalds isn't one of your "we" then.
some things are worth the time!
True. Unfortunately, banging your head on the wall learning unnecessarily arcane, arbitrary computer commands isn't one of them.
"We" as developers... people who code the kernel.
And who do you code the kernel for. Do you code the kernel for its own sake? duh.
Most serious Linux users don't give a rats arse whether Linux competes with Windoze on the
desktop.
Where serious users are defined as those who don't give a rat's arse whether Linux competes with Windows on the desktop?
When you like something, there's a natural and virtous desire to see it grow and improve. You want to correct its deficiencies (usability), and you want to share it with others. This is what Linux for the masses is all about. Not to mention that making Linux easy to use makes things easier for everyone -- better installers hurt no one, 'serious Linux users' included.