Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score 1) 308

How trustworthy are those polls? Everything official in China is controlled by the government. If the polls are not right out falsified, then I certainly doubt the honesty of the respondees.
If your totalitarian government after brutally crushing opposition, with a smoking gun turns over to you and asks if you have a problem with them, what would you say?

Comment Re:Weve seen that argument before (Score 1) 1066

"1. Scofflaws will ignore the law and continue relatively unabated." "2. Law-abiders will suffer the inevitable unintended consequences and/or become scofflaws at the stroke of a legislators pen." There is no point guessing. Just look at the places with more sane gun laws and see if what you claim is true for there. Yet I will provide extra argumentation: 1. And yet it is in the US that firearm misuse is amongst the highest. 2. I don't think so. There is a difference in the degree of necessity here. I can live my whole life without owning or firing a gun. Not so much can be said about enjoying some/any form of art. Can you?

Comment Re:Weve seen that argument before (Score 1) 1066

If you mean to ban a whole technology, such as bit torrent: I dont give a damn what other people are using it for and how many they are. If I want to use it to get my (legit) software upgrades because its technologically superior over direct download, they you be damned trying to prohibit me from doing that! Even if where only 10 people in the whole world doing that.

Comment Re:Weve seen that argument before (Score 1) 1066

Capitalization is something typically american. I was never thought in school to use all caps as a tool in writing. I did learn about punctuation, paragraphing and even underlining. Capsing really makes thing less readable. I keep being astonished how eulas and manuals capitalize whole paragraphs of something "really important" in an attempt to make people read those parts - but because it makes it more difficult to read, the effect is of course the opposite. Having said that, I used to sometimes capitalize selected words in typing to add emphasis but later realized it was in most cases unnecessary (i.e. the emphasis). Besides, one could _underline_ if it was really needed.

Comment Re:Weve seen that argument before (Score 1) 1066

You say about somebody offering you a cultural experience in exchange for a price as if it was a piece of a chocolate where the market, supply and demand decide the price. Except that copyright deforms that market by creating an artificial (and nowadays virtually perpetual) monopoly. Its a chocolate only one company is allowed to produce. Ever. Monopolies are not good for free markets. (Most) people need culture just as they need air and water. Would you say the same if a big company had a monopoly in your area for delivering air and water for you to live in exchange for an agreed price? Just like u17 said, "we surrender our natural born right to copy bits as we please, for a limited time, (...) but they have abused our trust and taken it to the extreme": I do acknowledge the role copyright have in encouraging productivity, but it has been abused to the extreme. It is not there to make people produce culture anymore. Its solely there to allow the big content companies to "profit forever, without bound, from a limited amount of work". I say, limit the copyright to something like 20 years or at most a lifetime, so that most of us can live to the point when our culture is returned back to us. I say 'our culture' because art is useless without people who admire it. It is we who create the value of it and it becomes entangled in our lives. It is more than just a piece of merchandise we would get from a convenience store. 20 years of monopoly should be enough to compensate an artist for the work done and it would encourage him to produce more work after that period had passed.

Comment Re:Too bad Apple has so tightly controlled the app (Score 1) 423

You need to do manual and potentially textual work to do that in MacOSX? Gnome with NetworkManager does it automatically (tested with Android 2.2 thetering). It is clear from the look and style that gnome had macosx as a role-model for the UI. Would the student start to be exceeding the teacher?

Comment Re:SugarCRM could do it (Score 2, Informative) 357

What a bunch of total human crap (a worse kind of excrement than bull shit). Its _not_enough to see the code for it to be open source.

This is from MS-Public License:
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.

This is from SugarCRM public licence:
2. Source Code License.
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims: (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and

Finally, this is from Open Source Definition:
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Its clear all of those give the right to modify and/or redistribute the work as source or binary.

Comment Re:He's right (Score 1) 357

No. It used to be fairly common to sell software with source code, with explicit restriction that it may not be redistributed: source was only provided for in-house use. That is certainly not open source.

I remember those days, believe it or not. :) No, that really was (and still is) open source. What we have going on here, is a group (the OSI) attempting to re-define Open Source to be synonymous with Free Software. Perhaps one day they will succeed and we'll have to start referring to any open source software that isn't also licensed under something like the GPL as "shared source". One day, perhaps, but (best Aragorn voice) it is not this day!. Seriously, if you want to refer to software that is both open source and includes the right to distribute and modify, call it "Free Software"

Those old programs weren't open source just by the virtue of being accompanied by their source code that was open for view. Open Source in the meaning that become public in the 90's always included freedom to modify and/or distribute. If there were other meanings, they were local and are now superseded. The main difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Free Software requires you to use a free license on the derived work, and Open Source only gives you the right to do so. This difference in point of views is the reason for the creation of the term Open Source. That's also why Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.

Comment Re:He's right (Score 1) 357

There are no 'a' definitions of open source. There is only one. The one that grands the user full use, modification and redistribution rights. Regardless who has the trademarks or inventions. Thats the core. You cant go around changing meanings of words according to your personal view. If you want other meanings there are other words, such as 'shared source'. OSI is just an organization which the community trust to be able to recognize open source licenses. It doesn't matter how they define it. If they start using a different definition, they might lose the trust and thus their purpose.

Comment Re:GPL freaks (Score 1) 131

So they should give all their rights up in return for a promise? How about you sign a job contract binding you to work 80 hours a week for 5$ an hour in return for a promise of really big bonuses. Promises dont count. Contracts and licenses do. Besides, llfonic's representative clearly stated they had no plans to contribute anything back.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra