Comment Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (Score 1) 63
So we both agree that the GPL puts the software and developer second, and the user first.
Again, I'm not arguing if that's a good thing or a bad thing, my point was just that.
So we both agree that the GPL puts the software and developer second, and the user first.
Again, I'm not arguing if that's a good thing or a bad thing, my point was just that.
Most modern smartphoen cost about that, unless you sign some two year contract, where you end up paying it gradually over two years.
Why didn't you try with an image viewer instead of a browser? The results are usually WAY better.
So how do you email a contact that you have on your phone with your laptop? Do you turn to your iPhone and type the email there?
I'm pretty sure the TOS you agreed to pretty much covers that.
No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software.
In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.
Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.
"Weeks to buy a house"? Those contracts are usually 3 to 4 pages long, and might quote 2 laws which are less than a single page each. No more than 30 minutes.
Nowadays, I tend to grab my phone and record that. A video of a legal contract is quite hard to dispute. I'm not sure why that's not more common really.
Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.
For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she started the procedure, she said that after she removed the old amalgam filling and some decayed areas that there wasn't enough tooth surface support a filling, so she'd need to do a crown instead.
I've been under an extremely similar scenario. The dentist simply removed the tools from inside my mouth, asked me if it was ok, and I replied. Way easier than signing some obscure paper ahead of time.
You do, I do, and a great many more on slashdot do as well. But we're probably the 2% who can read, write and add. The other 98% signs the whole stack without thinking it.
Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.
Without software copyright, anybody can obtain a copy of a proprietary program and lawfully disassemble, document, and distribute it.
Exactly. With the GPL, the same does not apply. There are a lot of usage restrictions.
A single user's password is privacy.
Algorithmic comparison amongst 70M passwords is statistics. Quite a difference there.
The paper in question is available here in case anybody is interested why the NSA granted him the award.
It's been proven to last up to three shots in europe, and about twenty is asia.
So if I buy a crappy monitor, I need to assemble my own monitors en able to criticise? The same with a car, wine, etc?
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
