Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47571797) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath.

Which is false, by definition.

A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do.

Again, false. Prove to me how tivoization is a perversion of the contract terms. The "meeting of minds" in this case is the author of Linux and the user of Linux, that fact that you think the author of the GPL has anything to do with it demonstrates you have no idea about contracts whatsoever, so don't pretend to be able to discuss them.

To whom?

To whom what? Linus has made it clear to anybody who has bothered to ask or read his posts.

Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.

And that's why it's the GPLv3 and not v2, and you're free to use v3 if you want in your software, v2 is used for the kernel whether you like it or not.

Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded.

If it were v3 it would not have been "tit for tat" and by definition would not have fit Linus' principles.

You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up.

Now you've gone full retard, he made the change because he wanted to change, if he didn't want commercial use then he wouldn't have selected the GPLv2.

1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.

Which is obvious and irrelevant, it makes no difference to anything whatsoever.

2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.

Tivo didn't even exist then so you're just stating the obvious.

Ultimately you have no point, don't understand the GPL, don't understand what a contract is and instead of getting educated you decide to call me a sociopath as an excuse for your own mental limitations.

The GPLv2 exists to protect the 4 freedoms, that is its goal, if you think it is supposed to do more then you just fail to understand it.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47570843) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

What the authors of the GPL intended is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what they actually wrote.

Spoken like a true sociopath.

So now you're just resorting to ad hominem attacks because you don't like the facts. We know for a fact that what they intended doesn't matter because they didn't write that and if they did write that the license would have gone beyond simple "tit for tat" and would not have been chosen for the Linux kernel.

As for Linus' endorsement of tivoization; I've read the thread -- he's satisfied that Tivo followed the rules and contributed the code back.

Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.

In any case I remain unconvinced that Linus considered the Tivoization scenario when he selected the license, or that he really consciously desired specifically to enable it.

So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all. The license did explicitly what Linus wanted and nothing more, if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.

So what I'm trying to understand now is what your point is? We know "tivoization of code" is a misnomer and makes no sense because tivoization has nothing to do with the code, we know that Linus approves of Tivoization and we know that any project that doesn't can switch to GPLv3 to prevent it. So what is your point?

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47563585) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

GPLv2 is purely about code openness and code contribution but not about FSF ideals.

Not according to the people who actually WROTE the GPLv2. You made a good point about *some* of the people who chose to use it, but that is not what the GPLv2 was written FOR.

No I said that in this context the use of the GPLv2 is purely about code openness and code contribution but not about FSF ideals, obviously by "this context" I mean Tivo and who used Linux and thus the one using the GPLv2 is Linus. What the authors of the GPL intended is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what they actually wrote.

Moreover on your request for specific examples of Linus endorsing Tivoization:
"I think Tivoization is *good*."
"What Tivo did is *good* in my opinion!"

It doesn't get much more unequivocal than that, he does actively approve of Tivoization.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47563387) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

This is about the 99.99% of people who use Tivo code, use it on a Tivo, and as a result they are denied the particular freedoms the original authors of the code it is licensed under intended for them to have.

Wrong, you simply do not understand the license and are implying things that are not there. It has been made very clear multiple times, here is just one example, that the use of the GPLv2 is purely about code openness and code contribution but not about FSF ideals.

If you believe otherwise then demonstrate where the original Linux kernel author actively intended the recipients of the code to have the freedoms that are not granted by the GPLv2, but you won't because Linus never intended that, it's yet another false inference you are making.

Absolutlely not an outcome the authors of the license wanted.

The authors of code that use it.

i mean if you want that, then use the BSD or something.

So not only do you not understand the GPL license but you also don't understand the BSD license. The BSD license does not require code contributions back, it does not require you to release your modifications like the GPL does. That is why the GPL was chosen over the BSD for the Linux kernel.

What realistic scenario can you put forth where the developer actively wants to license their code under the GPL and simultaneously doesn't want people to be able to modify the code they received to run on on the equipment the code is installed on?

The Linux kernel! Explicitly does not care about FSF freedom ideals and only cares about the code, that's why they use the GPLv2 and why the GPLv3 is incompatible with the ideals of the kernel developers.

By "Linux" I assume you mean Linus? And while its clear he disagrees with the FSF on some key points, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that he actively approves of Tivoization.

Tivoization is fine according to Linus because it is about source code and not anything else:
I personally have always been very clear about this: Linux is "Open Source". It was never a FSF project, and it was always about giving source code back and keeping it open, not about anything else.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47562995) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

I'm really not sure Linus cares about that; if he doesn't care about Tivoization, what does he care if RMS and the FSF put together a pure gplv3 distro?

He does care about that because the whole reason he chose the GPLv2 was because it was about "tit for tat", offering up the source in exchange for any modifications to be contributed back. If somebody created a GPLv3-licensed derivative then changes to that could not be contributed back to the GPLv2 kernel. What he cares about is the code, he doesn't care about Tivoization because that has nothing to do with the code and whether or not their changes can be incorporated into the mainline and distributed if desired.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47562773) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

Read the preamble to the GPLv2 or the philosophy of the FSF. Tivoization is a legal end run around the philosophical purpose the license.

I have read it, I also understand it. It is nothing to do with the code. If you use the code Tivo provides but you don't own a Tivo then Tivoization has no impact on you because it is nothing to do with the code whatsoever.

Tivoization is a manifestation of "what good is your right to a phone call, if we take away your ability to speak".

Wrong, I don't need a Tivo to use their code.

It was a loophole that was implicitly intended by the GPLv2, but not made explicit. The GPLv3 attempts to close the loophole.

A loophole that clearly many authors wanted and have accepted as "by design". If the GPLv2 license didn't provide then some other license would and authors would be using that instead. Not everybody who uses the GPLv2 (or any FSF license) subscribes to the FSF ideology, in fact some of the most prominent ones (Linux for example) explicitly do not.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47561659) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

Selecting GPLv2 or later ALSO allows for downstream Tivoization of your code.

So don't buy a TiVo then. "Tivoization of your code" is nonsense because Tivoization doesn't have anything to do with the code, in fact you can get the code here licensed under GPLv2 and use it under those terms just as you would any GPLv2 project.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 80

by exomondo (#47561635) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

Party D uses Party A's code, but locks it up a la TiVo.

False, the code is not "locked up", in fact TiVo's modified code is available right here. If what you mean is that you cannot replace the code running on a TiVo device with your own modified code then say that, because what you said is completely untrue.

Comment: Re: heh, way to prove her point (Score 1) 962

by exomondo (#47526897) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

You choose to interpret it as all men.

Right, and in that context my post is correct. So either you knew that and the supposed "irony" is non-existent or you chose to project your interpretation on to me and falsely take my post as though it was in response to your interpretation.

My point is that you are interpreting her statement incorrectly.

In that case my post wouldn't be relevant to your interpretation, but you can't understand.

Anything that follows from that is useless, a straw man.

Wrong, only if you assume my interpretation is the same as yours, which I clearly stated it was not but you lack the brain capacity to comprehend that.

It's shocking to me that we STILL can't collectively as a society get past step one without people jumping in to defend men. as if we need to be defended!

Wrong again, nobody is defending "men" as a whole nor the men who exhibit the behavior that is derided here stop lying.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Interesting) 223

by exomondo (#47526661) Attached to: Chromebooks Are Outselling iPads In Schools

Content creation? You mean only English essays, right? Can the students even install and use a proper compiler or something like AutoCAD? Photoshop?

Well you can develop webapps, there's IDEs like Codenvy and there is a version of AutoCAD 360 for Chromebooks.

A heavily DRM'ed up "laptop" that no one can do anything except be forced to Google cloudservices to even login and a browser is a rational choice now?

It isn't particularly "DRMed", there's nothing to stop you dual booting a full Linux distro if you want. But really if you're talking AutoCAD and Photoshop then obviously you're suggesting Windows or OS X are the necessity.

Not to mention Google Apps and email which helpfully uploads everything to the Google Cloud.

Well that makes it accessible from anywhere and prevents data loss from hardware failure so i'd say that's pretty damn helpful in the education environment. Though having the option to upload to DropBox or OneDrive or some other alternative would be useful.

This proves that all the Slashdot talk about software freedom is thinly disguised Microsoft hate since everyone here seems to be pumping up heavily locked down iDevices and Chromebooks.

Or maybe they are finally realizing that not everybody needs/wants a fully open, infinitely configurable, high maintenance product all the time. Sometimes they just want it to do a limited subset and do it well with minimal requirement from the user. That isn't to say you couldn't dual boot and have full desktop Linux on there as well.

The whole free and open thing seems to be stagnating a bit, I mean Android is free and open but where is all the FOSS innovation? Sure there are some helpful utilities for devs and admins but that's about it. There's no reason a FOSS package or distro couldn't have been developed that provided all the innovative features that exist in Google Play Services but it didn't. It's nice for everything to be FOSS but from the consumer perspective it doesn't seem to have much advantage over proprietary.

Comment: Re: heh, way to prove her point (Score 1) 962

by exomondo (#47526489) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

no, you are interpreting it as you want to interpret it. the author did not write 'all men...' she simply wrote 'men...' which could be interpreted several ways. you choose to interpret it in a way that is ridiculous, and then go on to refute the ridiculous statement that you have put into her mouth. this is what we call a 'straw man'.

Bullshit, I interpreted it as written, you interpret it differently. And you know how I interpreted it and what my response was based on. It isn't a straw man at all, if you interpret the statement differently then my response is irrelevant anyway. So what is your argument, what are you trying to say? That my response is wrong in the context of my interpretation? Or that my response is wrong in terms of your interpretation?

You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding and articulating your own thoughts, so try again. What is your point here?

Comment: Re: heh, way to prove her point (Score 1) 962

by exomondo (#47520629) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
No I'm interpreting it exactly as written. I also directly clarified my interpretation in my response so as not to be misunderstood, yet continue to deliberately misinterpret it. However even if you interpret her statement some other way - for example that she meant "some men" - then clearly my post becomes redundant in terms of your interpretation anyway so why are you bothering to reply to it at all?

Comment: Re: heh, way to prove her point (Score 1) 962

by exomondo (#47520373) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

No, what I said is the statement is untrue. You wrongly interpret that as defending against criticism and thus make the statement inarguable by any man so you - as a man - then would be unable to disagree with her statement without proving it to be true do you not see how silly that is? Now even if you did accept that interpretation you further manage to somehow misinterpret my statement to mean I am "extremely sensitive", where again you fail. Do you believe her statement to be true?

It's not being "obtuse" it's your failed grasp of the English language and inferences of things that are not there.

Comment: Re: heh, way to prove her point (Score 1) 962

by exomondo (#47519883) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

You are making a post defending men against criticism

Wrong, you are really having a hard time with your english comprehension. So let's dissect it to help you understand, first show me where I defended men (I'm not sure whether you are suggesting all men or some subset so you need to clarify that as well) against criticism.

Overload -- core meltdown sequence initiated.

Working...