AMD Linux
I think you're mixing topics here. I am not a big personal fan of software patents except as a purely defensive tool, and I agree that there are some things happening in that area which we should try as a society to minimize or eliminate.
Proprietary licenses are a different story. I still believe they are a necessary evil. I'm a big fan of advocating for more open and more community development, but if you want public companies to invest in those projects there has to be a business benefit for them as well.
The point of a proprietary license is not that the evil developers are preventing you from exercising "your" rights, it's that you never had those rights in the first place. The software is *not* yours and never will be - it belongs to the developers, just as it would if the software were GPL.
The difference is that the developers of a GPL, BSD or PD program have said "we're OK with you copying it" while the developers of a proprietary program have not. You don't own the software, which is why it's not "yours" to install on other people's PCs. You don't own GPL software either, only the copyright holders own it -- the software just happens to come with a license that explicitly allows copying and sale.
Your slavery analogy sounds good at first glance, but what you are implying is that people and companies should not have rights to the results of their own hard work. I think most of us would agree that as a world we haven't found the right balance between common and private ownership, but what you are suggesting with MS Office has more in common with nationalizing a company without compensation than it does with the elimination of slavery.
Forcing a company to turn over its assets to the public "for the common good" is fine, but you can only do it once. You can't expect ongoing investment in software development after you take away their ability to make money on the resulting software. If you're saying "MS Office in its current form is so wonderful that nothing better will ever be required", then sure go ahead and demand that Microsoft be nationalized and all their products turned over to the public domain. Just don't expect them (or other major software companies) to keep paying programmers after you do that, and make sure you know where the programming jobs *will* come from.
Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009 at 10:21 PM.
Senior Member
So if you wrote some code, you wouldn't be upset if Apple just came along and took it? Or are you the only one who gets to decide to help someone by using someone else's code?Originally Posted by Apopas
I think copyright laws are absolutely a good thing, the only problem is the way they keep expanding. It's no coincidence that Congress keeps extending them every time Disney's are about to expire...
Now, EULA's and software patents are another matter entirely. Those are just inexcusable IMO.
Senior Member
Since the conditions they give their software restrict me from beneficial use, then we should think twice if indeed their ways are legal and fair. For example Toyota sells me a car which I can share with anyone without restrictions. Ofcourse I am not able to copy it and thus Toyota don't lose money. On the other hand software companies lose money because digital copy is easy so they had to invent ways to prevent that. Keep in mind the word "invent". While that's beneficial for their financial terms doesn't mean that their inventions are good in general. Hell whatever brings money doesn't mean it's good for the people. Imagine one day someone to create a machine that can copy meat. Then the cow breaders will say, that if you buy that piece of meat you agree to not copy and give it to the hungry one because I want to sell to him as well. While this sounds economically correct, the result is people to stay hungry.
Senior Member
Ofcourse I will be upset if Apple just take it and for that I don't agree with BSD licenses and I supporrt GPL which will let Apple use my code for their own benefit, but I will be able as well to use their code after that for my own benefit. Fair is fair, everyone wins, but more important, equally.
Last edited by Apopas; 08-29-2009 at 10:21 PM.
AMD Linux
A better analogy would be that you are allowed to copy "normal beef" but you can't copy the special brand of extra-tender extra-juicy Kobe beef I spent 20 years and $100M developing. Nobody goes hungry, but you pay extra for the premium stuff.
Just curious, why not download and install OpenOffice on your friends PCs instead ?
Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009 at 10:47 PM.
Senior Member
So what you're saying is that it's fine to copy others work as long as they follow the conditions you've set up, but not if they try to set conditions of their own. Frankly, that sounds a little hypocritical to me.
As for your meat example, I would argue that there's a pretty big difference between someone starving to death and someone being forced to visit the library or a friends house in order to view a document. If you really want to help them out that much, why don't you buy another copy of the software for them? Instead, it seems like you put the onus on the company that developed the code rather than taking responsibility yourself for helping your friend.
Banned
your side is for 10.5 not for 10.6
"OpenGL
The AGL framework in Mac OS X v10.5 adds support for the following features:
*
Support for multiple OpenGL threads, which increases performance by offloading CPU-based processing onto separate threads where they can be processed by available processor cores.
*
Attaching an AGL context to WindowRef and HIView objects, thus eliminating the need to use a QuickDraw port
*
Pixel buffer objects
*
Color managed texture images in the sRGB color space
*
Improvements in the shader programming API
*
Support for 64-bit addressing
In addition to the improvements to the OpenGL support itself, Mac OS X v10.5 includes updates to the OpenGL profiling tools to help you analyze your OpenGL programs and gather performance statistics.
For information about the AGL support, see AGL Reference. "
Banned
You are sooo Right!
"Come on... That was some terrible marketing crap.
OS10.5 looses - look at that that is amazing...
OS10.6 looses - yeah but they'll fix that..."
macos10.6 wins in pointless benchmarks and if there comes a benchmark a game needs the speed 10.6 is broken in fakt you can't play nexuiz on 10.6.
you can't play any modern style games. WINE will be Broken to wine use the same OpenGL extansions if you want play Oblivion you need to install windows or Linux...
Banned
its not the orginal mean of freedome in ultimate since but its the maximum you can get witout starting a world war 3.Unfortunately isn't very popular
overall maximum freedome isn't save mean save the world again the next war.
in my point of view freedome is not so importand Peace is more much more.
i think apple and macos is a part of the Peace in the softwareworld Linux benefit from macos becourse linux use OpenGL to if MACOS dies _DirektX wins the battle and linux will lose to becourse linux and macos share some technical.
in my point of view apple brings peace to linux users becourse they do not use apple only technics like microsofts direktX.
Last edited by Qaridarium; 08-30-2009 at 01:01 AM.
Banned
No GPLv2 in the past only was a great license and time chances and the law chances and the patent system chance to!
GPLv2 hurts linux-DEVs and Linux users! only because Microsoft can sue all of them only because of the Patent system.
Realy GPLv2 was great in the past, today GPLv2 was a disaster!
GPLv2 today works exactly against the orginal since of the mind of GPL.
GPLv2 works perfekt for microsoft in fakt microsoft can do all there software on GPLv2 and sue all of the users and devs only because the patent system! GPLv2 is an microsoft supported license to fight again opensource and Freesoftware.
Only GPLv3 can save us... Bad world! Bad World!
Last edited by Qaridarium; 08-30-2009 at 01:03 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote