I'm not reading this
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jezuch Nov 21, 2009 8:47 AM EDT |
I won't give clicks to this obvious troll. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 21, 2009 10:10 AM EDT |
[serious] I, therefore, include you on my list as one of the Wise Ones. [/serious] Go forth and spread your beneficence upon the uneducated rabble that read such trash. Me, I understand shilling, being the resident shill for MS on LXer. I only run out those that tread upon my turf (including Astro), but other wise I am a live let live person. This Ken's* dubious ambitions are beyond his limited skill set. Better that all follow jezuch lead and let him become a trick question in a Jesuit quiz. YBT * NOT the other Ken, that speaks with his actions and definitely is NOT shill like that afore mentioned Ken. |
| caitlyn Nov 21, 2009 11:21 AM EDT |
The issues Ken Hess raises may be worthy of debate but he has hit a new all time low with that title. I've called Ken Hess an idiot before. I was being much too kind. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2009 1:17 PM EDT |
I propose that we now refuse to use Linux or anything that has Linux in it or that interacts with something running Linux or may have been developed on Linux. Cr@p. Where is that old PC-XT? |
| azerthoth Nov 21, 2009 2:54 PM EDT |
I think we may have to come up with a whole new label for this kind of writting or the person who writes it. Troggler comes quickly to mind (trolling blogger). I mistakenly read the article before the comments here, now I wish I had followed jezuchs wisdom. Luckily however I see from the comments there, that others are giving the troggler (windows troglodyte) a bit more of an education as well. |
| gus3 Nov 21, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
"let him become a trick question in a Jesuit quiz." LOL@MBT |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2009 3:27 PM EDT |
> I've called Ken Hess an idiot before. I was being much too kind. Yes, unfortunately you were. azerthoth: Ken Hess = Do not read. The same is true for Matt Hartley. |
| tracyanne Nov 21, 2009 10:10 PM EDT |
quote in response to one of the respondants:Freedom is to be able to do what you want. No Freedom is NOT about doing what you want. That definition of freedom implies anarchy, and I'm pretty sure that those who trot that definition of freedom out don't really want anarchy. Freedom is about not being restricted in ones ability to choose [wisely]. The GPL V2 implies that any user of software that is licensed under GPL V2 can use that software without restriction.. read the source, change the source, compile the changes and run them on the hardware that one owns. GPL V3 spells this out. Manufacturers who create "Tiviosed" devices are going against the spirit of GPL V2, which is why they won't use GPL V3, because if they did the things they do to restrict the user's ability to access the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL, they would not only be breaking the spirit of the GPL they wodld be breaking the licence. Manufacturers who want to "Tivioise" are still free to use a BSD licensed software, or any other proprietary software, so they are not restricted in their choices. It's simply bull5h1t to call GPL V3 a restrictive license. It doesn't stop the hardware manufacturers from making free choices. tracyanne |
| ComputerBob Nov 21, 2009 10:49 PM EDT |
So, in summary, KH is an obese, sweaty poopyhead? (where's tuxchick?) http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/30012/ |
| montezuma Nov 22, 2009 1:02 AM EDT |
If you say so Bob...... |
| caitlyn Nov 22, 2009 1:21 AM EDT |
I thought tuxchick was the expert on poopyheads. Bob may be right but we'll have to wait for tc to confirm it. |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2009 1:41 AM EDT |
I don't need to hog all the fun, you're all doing just fine :) |
| lcafiero Nov 22, 2009 1:20 PM EDT |
Makes you wonder . . . Ken Hess: The First Amendment's worst-case scenario. [Although to be fair, I don't think he's obese] |
| ComputerBob Nov 22, 2009 8:46 PM EDT |
Is it possible to be journalistically obese? |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2009 9:02 PM EDT |
ComputerBob, that would be Rob Enderle. So many words, all aggravating global warming. |
| caitlyn Nov 22, 2009 11:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is it possible to be journalistically obese? Obtuse may be a better word than obese. |
| ComputerBob Nov 23, 2009 12:18 AM EDT |
Or maybe "obtease" -- combining an obtuse writing style with a controversial title. |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2009 8:43 AM EDT |
All this yukking, and yet... I wonder how many people in this thread, though playing? dumb for the fun, agree with Tracyanne? More than are chiming in, I'm sure. Which would make a few of you folk hypocrites, because, in different and tone, TA is agreeing with Hess. |
| caitlyn Nov 23, 2009 9:21 AM EDT |
@dino: There is no hypocrisy that I can see. The objection to Mr. Hess' article, as I stated in my first post, was the headline he used which is absolutely, totally ridiculous and an attention getting stunt. Equating disagreeing with a specific license and its terms is not equivalent to ḧating freedom I did say right off that the issues he raises are worthy of debate. What I also said was this headline represents a new low for him. Some have equated it with trolling which is pretty much spot on. |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
Caitlyn - I'm sorry, but objecting to somebody who says bluntly what you say obliquely is not a principled difference. |
| gus3 Nov 23, 2009 1:01 PM EDT |
....huh? |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2009 1:21 PM EDT |
gus3 - Yes. |
| azerthoth Nov 23, 2009 1:48 PM EDT |
No hypocrisy on my end, I have called the GPL3 a bad idea from the start. Since it was brought up a second time, here is a simple test as to if a license is restrictive. If you can paraphrase 'If you do this, than you can not do that' it is a restrictive license. All forms of the GPL are restrictive and no amount of happy happy but its my favorite logic can change that, veiled profanity or not. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 23, 2009 1:51 PM EDT |
Step aside everyone!. I have the strongest position here of anyone: hypocrite* - never! Shill, certainly that's what I do. YBT * Let's us not revert to your days of pushing the BSD license as the freest of all. |
| jdixon Nov 23, 2009 1:52 PM EDT |
> All forms of the GPL are restrictive... Yes, they are. The appropriate questions are whether or not those restrictions accomplish the goals of the authors, and whether you agree with those goals or not. |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2009 2:06 PM EDT |
Well guys, I wouldn't argue with you. Well, I would -- but that would just be for fun. I know that nobody likes the screaming headline on the article, but... spoken in golf whispers, ie, tivoisation violates the spirit of the GPL, the GPL is what protects our freedoms, etc.... Let's see --- If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 24, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
> No Freedom is NOT about doing what you want. That definition of freedom implies anarchy, and I'm pretty sure that those who trot that definition of freedom out don't really want anarchy. I'm all for anarchy, because I recognize that an-archy (without rulers) is not chaos. Chaos is the lack of all control, both authority and self-control. What's interesting is just how much chaos occurs under the most authoritarian regimes, where there is limited liability and therefore a lack of incentive for self-control. > Freedom is about not being restricted in ones ability to choose [wisely]. Freedom implies everyone else's freedom. Therefore, I am free to act such that my actions do not prevent the same freedom to others. And they, to me. The freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, for example. Or my freedom to do as I wish with my own property stops where your property begins. Same thing, different words. > If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me. I, too, would come to that conclusion. |
| azerthoth Nov 24, 2009 1:13 PM EDT |
@mbt, sorry I have to step into your arena now. However I will forward what ever compensation I receive for it to you. (read the check is in the mail) And thus we have proof that the MS EULA (or any EULA for that matter) is not a restrictive license using nothing more than the eminently infallible test of 'if you dont like it don't use it'. Thanks for clearing up that point Bob. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 24, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
AZ,
Quoting: [...] I will forward what ever compensation I receive for it to you. (read the check is in the mail)Boy that hurts, now I cannot tell if you are one of my best buddies or another MS flak. YBT |
| tracyanne Nov 26, 2009 4:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:All forms of the GPL are restrictive and no amount of happy happy but its my favorite logic can change that, veiled profanity or not. First the profanity was not carefully veiled, it was carefully designed to be recognisable, while at the same time being opaque to the profanity filters. Second Az you really don't get the GPL, do you. The GPL isn't about personal Freedoms, it's about Software freedom. The framers don't give a a rats ar5e about your personal freedoms specifically, any more than Microsoft does with their EULA. You are however, personally, free to choose to use or publish software that is licensed under any type of license, as are the Hardware manufacturers. The GPL is designed to ensure the freedom of the Software, such that the recipients of that software are Free to do certain things with it, but obviously not others, and the freedom it takes away, by design, is the Freedom to restrict other people's ability to use that Software in the same way you can. As with Bob's Freedom to throw a punch ending at your nose, so too your Freedom to do anything you like with GPLed Software ends at the point where you attempt to restrict other's use of that Software. The way in which you talk about the GPL being restrictive leads me to the conclusion that you would like to be able to take GPLed code, and deny other people access to it. Sorry, you can't, your personal freedom is curtailed, so that the code can remain Free, deal with it, use code that is licensed under a different license and stop whining. |
| azerthoth Nov 26, 2009 7:24 PM EDT |
TA I think you are misunderstanding what a restrictive license is. You defined it yourself, it curtails one event to maintain another. In other words it restricts someone from doing actions which some other person does not wish them to perform with their code. The GPL is a restrictive license in that it prevents others from taking and blocking the use or knowledge of changes for all. The GPL itself restricts actions that can and can not be done with the code, therein is it defined a restrictive license. So please don't go accusing me of not understanding the GPLvX. I understand it quite well in it's full actions and limitations. |
| tracyanne Nov 26, 2009 8:12 PM EDT |
Glad to hear that Az, now stop whining about how restrictive it is. If you don't like it you are completely free to use another license, as are the hardware manufacturers like Tivo. |
| azerthoth Nov 26, 2009 8:39 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, where was I whining? |
| tracyanne Nov 26, 2009 8:45 PM EDT |
Pardon me, my mistake, I confused your constant harping on how the GPL is restrictive of your personal freedoms as whining. You are still free to use any other license. |
| azerthoth Nov 26, 2009 8:48 PM EDT |
And I said that where, c'mon TA stop reading words in. |
| tracyanne Nov 26, 2009 9:15 PM EDT |
You do it every time the GPL comes up, hence harping or whining. |
| azerthoth Nov 26, 2009 9:28 PM EDT |
*sigh* Were I you, I might go back and re read what I have said about the GPL, even in this thread. You can then stop being prissy because I had the audacity to correct your comment about it being a restrictive license. |
| caitlyn Nov 26, 2009 11:45 PM EDT |
It *is* a restrictive license. TA just thinks those restrictions are a good idea. Linus Torvalds doesn't like some of the restrictions in v.3 so he continues to use v.2 for the kernel. That's his choice, not anybody else's. TA, it's awfully hard to get into a discussion with you when you brow beat people, tell them to "get over it", call them whiners, etc... The positives and negatives of a given license are a legitimate subject of debate as are differing viewpoints. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 27, 2009 3:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:The positives and negatives of a given license are a legitimate subject of debate as are differing viewpoints. True, but hasn't it been discussed to death? In the end it boils down to GPL versus BSD/MIT which is nothing but personal taste. We all know how everybody feel about those and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this. It's like the editor wars but with less humor :-/ |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 27, 2009 10:56 AM EDT |
> and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this. I said that to someone who was trying to tell me I was wrong for homeschooling. I respect that person for being able to instantly drop it. That takes character. |
| dinotrac Nov 27, 2009 11:28 AM EDT |
You are wrong for homeschooling. No matter how much you love your home, it's really pretty dumb and will never be able to put that education to good use. |
| gus3 Nov 27, 2009 1:15 PM EDT |
@dino: *thwap* |
| tracyanne Nov 28, 2009 6:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:True, but hasn't it been discussed to death? In the end it boils down to GPL versus BSD/MIT which is nothing but personal taste. We all know how everybody feel about those and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this. What Sander wrote is pretty much what I'm saying, only he's nice and I'm not. I just get so tired of these endless arguments/discussions, that go nowhere. The licenses are what they are. Use them or not, depending on your needs or desires or prejudices. Use software that is licensed under one or another depending on your needs, desires or prejudices, but stop complaining about one being too restrictive while another isn't. If they were all the same there would be no point in having all of them. For myself I would treat software licensed under a BSD License the same as if it was licensed under a GPL license, and give back my code, even though I'm not required to, but that's me. Your mileage my differ. I do notice that those who want to maintain proprietary control over any arbitrary Free software tend to prefer a BSD license, or pay teams of lawyers to find loopholes in a GPL license. That more about corporate greed, than it does about the license, I think. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!