Actually I had the understanding that a lot of installer makers force you to have an EULA, so they just put the GPL in them trying to be cutesy. I have seen a few that just said "Click 'I agree' below". It's worth noting, here on Linux, the only EULA I ever seen was when I installed flash.
Theres a difference between change and integration. A plant may change your DNA (though these are not shown to), but it's DNA can't become a part of yours. Therefore, becoming sterile is not a concern in the least. Think of it as programming, your C program can edit your Python scripts, but they can't merge into one "Cython" binary...
You do realize that mutations naturally happen, right? Most of those have possible unforeseen consequences, too. I guess we should ban genetic mutation....
Part of living in a "free" society is understanding that there's a good and a bad side to that freedom, and you can't just pick and choose the good parts without accepting the less-than-ideal consequences.
So let me get this. You just defended patents, and now praise "'free' society" for being the ability to be as greedy as you want? Free society would be that "'information wants to be free' approach" you derided. Sounds like you are a little too current-day-centered on your view of freedom.
If I allow you to make a closed program using my code, and then restrict use of that new program, how am I helping give anyone freedom, other than you the right to restrict other's? Those are the users I am talking about. If I do that I am just providing you with free code so that you can turn around and go against the reason I made it (for it to be free for all to use). BSD works for header files and some libs, but I'd never put anything truly interesting under it. Look what happened with wine. We'd probably have a very capable windows emulator right now if people's attention had not been directed to the anything-but-free Cedega. Ever dollar they make is one that could have gone to making wine better.
The reason legit rules exist is so that people cannot restrict other's rights or infringe on their property (physical, tangible property, that is. It's not property if I can receive it and you can keep it). The GPL does the first.
The fact that Microsoft can't go into the Linux kernel, change some things and call it Windows 2.0 is not a bug, it's a feature. Without the restrictions GPL, open projects could NEVER become substantially better than their closed counterparts. Have a new interface that leaves Vista's in the dust? Microsoft can just copy it. BSD/MIT licenses are an unending and unbeatable game of catchup.
All this, mind you, would be unneeded if there was no ability to control code in the first place. Everyone would be on equal footing, even with closed code (decompiling and reverse engineering are much easier than you may think). Is that ever going to happen? Maybe. Any time soon? No. So, the GPL is the realist's way to "software utopia", the BSD/MIT the idealist's.
You seem to miss the point. The GPL is about freedom of the user, not everyone on earth. Developers and users, sadly, can have mutually exclusive ideas of freedom, at least with how things are today.
You seem to totally miss the simple fact that art has existed far longer than copyright. Care to explain that?
Sure we may not have 100 mil movies... but do we NEED 100 mil movies? Do we need all this FX-saturated tripe? Sure, sometimes something good comes around... but almost always in addition to, not because of, that 100 mil FX.
And as an "artist" (though this term I think is used far too liberally) I can say that nothing can be made without copying or at least seeming similar to something else. Copyright and patents in the end will stifle art and invention. What if the use of dwarves and elves similar to those in LOTR was strictly controlled? It would have been unlikely to promote any new creations, but it would have caused the stillbirth of whole genres of books, movies and games. What if the mouse was patented and they company refused to license it? This is where our idea-control focused society is quickly spiraling to.
Have you ever created anything? If you truly think what you say is true, I am guessing you haven't.
...More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB; it may make some feel somewhat better about it. If someone is going to spy on people, I don't want those spied on to be comforted in the fact it's "open source"; they should never be comforted by anything relating to Big Bother.
This X is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.X of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
So no, for those programs at least, the contract would not change at all.
The only thing that entitles you to control an idea is a law not all too old. You stated "entitled", you recently became "not entitled". Just because you work on something doesn't mean you get to control it - that idea is simply a creation of modern law.
Shoot themselves in the foot? No, not at all. What you described is what the recording industry always wanted. If only authorized people can play music, and they are the only people who can authorize, then they control the market completely.
Whatever the amount of unlikeliness, it's still unlikely enough. The chance the Borg exist is the chance god exists- the weapons are religion. The same reason you don't build weapons is the same reason religion is illogical. Theres also the fact the god you pray to is MOST LIKELY not the one that exists, same as the good chance the Borg will be unphased by our mass driver guns...
If we go too far down this road it will remove the incentive for innovation, even open source innovation.
Because we all know innovation didn't exist before 'IP'...
The REAL need for copyright for open source is that we need to actually be able to enforce the GPL license or whatever license a project is operating under. If there is no copyright then anyone can steal and use and close up anything they want.
And there is nothing stopping us from disassembling their closed up code or just using it as it stands. Also you do not "steal" code, not even when it's GPL.
I'd go so far as to say Atheism should be considered a religion in it's own right. Atheists believe there is no God despite the fact that there is no direct evidence to support this belief, just as Christians (and various other religions) believe there is a God even though there is no direct evidence to support the belief.
Umm, no. Lack of something is the default. If you cannot prove god, then it's most reasonable to say there is no god. No "believe in lack of god". If you don't apply this reasoning, things get really, really strange. Can you prove the Borg aren't out there getting ready to attack us? Then I guess we need to start building up weapons... see?
As a scientist, with no evidence either way I can accept that there may or may not be a God - I don't hold a strong belief one way or the other. Remember the basic scientific principles - a lack of evidence cannot disprove a theory.
Nether does it prove one, and the default state is "not true".
In any case, the problems caused by religion are usually not caused by the religion itself, but by the closed minds of the religion's followers. As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they want to believe so long as they don't feel the need to impose their beliefs on other people.
The problem is religion tends to bring in the weak-minded whom need it, and will then assume YOU need it as well, or that you are working with Satan.
I am against religion like I am against adults talking to imaginary friends; they are about the same thing, anyway.
This is kind of like saying that if you are against socialism you should be against unions, or if you are for the death penalties for murder you should be for it for assault as well.
Just because you support the GPL as a good fix in the current climate does not mean you approve of the current climate. BSD fails for many projects because a company will walk in, grab the code, edit it a little to add proprietary components, sell it and hurt the development of the free project. See wine.
While the GPL isn't ideal, it defeats the "I am going to take your code, make a small change and call it mine" that wouldn't exist if no copyright existed in the first place. If copyright didn't exist, decompiling and DRM cracks would quickly negate any attempts to restrict use of code/programs.
Take music for example. Some guy makes a background track under the GPL; people use it in their GPL songs or pay (for the development of more free background tracks) to use it in non-free songs. Then take one who puts it under something BSD-ish. The RIAA comes in, sticks Brittney Spears on top of it, makes millions of $$$ and goes around suing people that didn't pay them for what they only edited.
Not to say that's likely, but it's a good example. If all open projects used the BSD, it's more likely than not MS/Apple would have just taken the best, stuck it in a proprietary package and sold it, making it so open projects could never get ahead or even catch up. Hell Apple already did this, with BSD itself none the less. How many times do people on slashdot alone say that they used to use Linux/BSD until OS X came around that had all the best of open software, except the fact that it was truly open?
So far as I care, the only reason I use the GPL and not BSD is because I don't want someone else having a full copyright on something using what I created. That's not why I created it.
I thought the same thing about the interface, until I learned to use it.
One of blender's shortcomings is that there are a number of ways to model with it and the most efficient, I have found, is not the standard "extrude it from a box", and only a few tutorials cover the more different methods (like drawing outlines as a 2d plane and moving them into their 3d positions).
Judging by the fact you don't seem to know the interface, I can't help but think you are just parroting things you heard form annoyed people on other points. Maybe their code was rejected because it was bad, broke things higher up, didn't cover everything the current code does, etc. Maybe the scripts brake because they were badly programmed.
While I have never tried to reprogram it's core, I can say I have used scripts, not updated, across many versions.
Umm, they have us by the balls as much as we have them. Ever noticed that almost everything is made in China? Any idea the repercussions of "tightening the screws" could be? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they reversed it and cut the US off under THEY yelled.
I know, it's sad, but it's not like anyone didn't see it coming. Wikipedia sold out long ago, now the only thing they care about is easy funding (overall) and keeping themselves admins (just about every admin...). None of them are going to speak out because it hurts #1, and hurting #1 hurts #2. The emperor has no clothes, ad nauseum.
So what's the next wiki that's going to take over? Cowboynealpedia?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I had the understanding that a lot of installer makers force you to have an EULA, so they just put the GPL in them trying to be cutesy. I have seen a few that just said "Click 'I agree' below". It's worth noting, here on Linux, the only EULA I ever seen was when I installed flash.
Theres a difference between change and integration. A plant may change your DNA (though these are not shown to), but it's DNA can't become a part of yours. Therefore, becoming sterile is not a concern in the least. Think of it as programming, your C program can edit your Python scripts, but they can't merge into one "Cython" binary...
You do realize that mutations naturally happen, right? Most of those have possible unforeseen consequences, too. I guess we should ban genetic mutation....
Because Microsoft is so much better at it.
"The program detonate.exe is trying to access C://windows/system32/nukecontrol.
Allow | Deny"
At least he'll eat you first. As for being the biggest evil.... I can't say I am sure about that. This is US politics, after all.
If I allow you to make a closed program using my code, and then restrict use of that new program, how am I helping give anyone freedom, other than you the right to restrict other's? Those are the users I am talking about. If I do that I am just providing you with free code so that you can turn around and go against the reason I made it (for it to be free for all to use). BSD works for header files and some libs, but I'd never put anything truly interesting under it. Look what happened with wine. We'd probably have a very capable windows emulator right now if people's attention had not been directed to the anything-but-free Cedega. Ever dollar they make is one that could have gone to making wine better.
The reason legit rules exist is so that people cannot restrict other's rights or infringe on their property (physical, tangible property, that is. It's not property if I can receive it and you can keep it). The GPL does the first.
The fact that Microsoft can't go into the Linux kernel, change some things and call it Windows 2.0 is not a bug, it's a feature. Without the restrictions GPL, open projects could NEVER become substantially better than their closed counterparts. Have a new interface that leaves Vista's in the dust? Microsoft can just copy it. BSD/MIT licenses are an unending and unbeatable game of catchup.
All this, mind you, would be unneeded if there was no ability to control code in the first place. Everyone would be on equal footing, even with closed code (decompiling and reverse engineering are much easier than you may think). Is that ever going to happen? Maybe. Any time soon? No. So, the GPL is the realist's way to "software utopia", the BSD/MIT the idealist's.
You seem to miss the point. The GPL is about freedom of the user, not everyone on earth. Developers and users, sadly, can have mutually exclusive ideas of freedom, at least with how things are today.
You seem to totally miss the simple fact that art has existed far longer than copyright. Care to explain that?
Sure we may not have 100 mil movies... but do we NEED 100 mil movies? Do we need all this FX-saturated tripe? Sure, sometimes something good comes around... but almost always in addition to, not because of, that 100 mil FX.
And as an "artist" (though this term I think is used far too liberally) I can say that nothing can be made without copying or at least seeming similar to something else. Copyright and patents in the end will stifle art and invention. What if the use of dwarves and elves similar to those in LOTR was strictly controlled? It would have been unlikely to promote any new creations, but it would have caused the stillbirth of whole genres of books, movies and games. What if the mouse was patented and they company refused to license it? This is where our idea-control focused society is quickly spiraling to.
Have you ever created anything? If you truly think what you say is true, I am guessing you haven't.
...More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB; it may make some feel somewhat better about it. If someone is going to spy on people, I don't want those spied on to be comforted in the fact it's "open source"; they should never be comforted by anything relating to Big Bother.
The only thing that entitles you to control an idea is a law not all too old. You stated "entitled", you recently became "not entitled". Just because you work on something doesn't mean you get to control it - that idea is simply a creation of modern law.
Shoot themselves in the foot? No, not at all. What you described is what the recording industry always wanted. If only authorized people can play music, and they are the only people who can authorize, then they control the market completely.
Essssssssssssssssssssssssssssequemoooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooodeiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa!
Whatever the amount of unlikeliness, it's still unlikely enough. The chance the Borg exist is the chance god exists- the weapons are religion. The same reason you don't build weapons is the same reason religion is illogical. Theres also the fact the god you pray to is MOST LIKELY not the one that exists, same as the good chance the Borg will be unphased by our mass driver guns...
If that was true OSS wouldn't exist at all. I don't how Microsoft existing would change what they program for...
I am against religion like I am against adults talking to imaginary friends; they are about the same thing, anyway.
Lucky for us, that only works when you brake US laws... not so lucky for everyone else that it works at all.
You don't even have the CHOICE to go to court with BSD, so whatever.
This is kind of like saying that if you are against socialism you should be against unions, or if you are for the death penalties for murder you should be for it for assault as well.
Just because you support the GPL as a good fix in the current climate does not mean you approve of the current climate. BSD fails for many projects because a company will walk in, grab the code, edit it a little to add proprietary components, sell it and hurt the development of the free project. See wine.
While the GPL isn't ideal, it defeats the "I am going to take your code, make a small change and call it mine" that wouldn't exist if no copyright existed in the first place. If copyright didn't exist, decompiling and DRM cracks would quickly negate any attempts to restrict use of code/programs.
Take music for example. Some guy makes a background track under the GPL; people use it in their GPL songs or pay (for the development of more free background tracks) to use it in non-free songs. Then take one who puts it under something BSD-ish. The RIAA comes in, sticks Brittney Spears on top of it, makes millions of $$$ and goes around suing people that didn't pay them for what they only edited.
Not to say that's likely, but it's a good example. If all open projects used the BSD, it's more likely than not MS/Apple would have just taken the best, stuck it in a proprietary package and sold it, making it so open projects could never get ahead or even catch up. Hell Apple already did this, with BSD itself none the less. How many times do people on slashdot alone say that they used to use Linux/BSD until OS X came around that had all the best of open software, except the fact that it was truly open?
So far as I care, the only reason I use the GPL and not BSD is because I don't want someone else having a full copyright on something using what I created. That's not why I created it.
I thought the same thing about the interface, until I learned to use it.
One of blender's shortcomings is that there are a number of ways to model with it and the most efficient, I have found, is not the standard "extrude it from a box", and only a few tutorials cover the more different methods (like drawing outlines as a 2d plane and moving them into their 3d positions).
Judging by the fact you don't seem to know the interface, I can't help but think you are just parroting things you heard form annoyed people on other points. Maybe their code was rejected because it was bad, broke things higher up, didn't cover everything the current code does, etc. Maybe the scripts brake because they were badly programmed.
While I have never tried to reprogram it's core, I can say I have used scripts, not updated, across many versions.
Umm, they have us by the balls as much as we have them. Ever noticed that almost everything is made in China? Any idea the repercussions of "tightening the screws" could be? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they reversed it and cut the US off under THEY yelled.
Mutual dependency is a 2 way street....
I know, it's sad, but it's not like anyone didn't see it coming. Wikipedia sold out long ago, now the only thing they care about is easy funding (overall) and keeping themselves admins (just about every admin...). None of them are going to speak out because it hurts #1, and hurting #1 hurts #2. The emperor has no clothes, ad nauseum.
So what's the next wiki that's going to take over? Cowboynealpedia?
Actually, it would be 10 in base 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,639 .