Ubuntu 11.04 Is Prepping For Mesa 7.10, X Server 1.10

[blackiwid]

So everybody that doesn't agree with your views is a "bad guy"?

Where did I say that? I said everybody who does things that I think is very bad, are in my opinion bad guys. Thats just logical. If I am wrong and my opinion is wrong then my thinking of them as bad guys is also wrong, so I am consistent.

But this is exactly what a restrictive license does, it limits the freedom of others.

So you defend closed source even they have much more restrictions, they dont allow to use their code in any other programm without permission of the Copyright holder and they dont even allow to look on it etc, and copy it etc.

So decide what you want when you say gpl is to less free don?t come with closed source stuff, if you think its tooo free, forget about bsd.

Here is some news for ya. Vehicles already have "tell-tale" boxes in them. They have for years. What do we have to show for it? Greener, safer, more fuel efficient vehicles who's reliability has dramatically increased over the last 30 years.

They have not complete hardware-locked boxes, the software is locked the hardware if you are have the knowledge (even if less people have that) can be looked and modified. The point is here again the software, so here on the software side this boxes are also bad, but nobody comes to the idea (also because there are no undestructable boxes (god blessing for this), to build such boxes, they go as far as possible and this sucks.

It already is tolerated and accepted practice. This is why when you want warrantied work it has to be done at an authorized service provider.

Warranty is not the point, first in Software such stuff nearly not exists, and second I don?t want warranty when I change the software from a company, or if I share the software or... I just dont want to get suid or get stopped doing this, and nearly forced to use this shit (earning money you cant freely decide in which company you want to work)

See your going after unrealistic extremes here with the heroin. Same could be done with a restrictive license the difference being is that you now have given someone else the authority to tell you that you have to sell heroin.

Hmm I got this often if I take a exteme example to explain a prinzip, they stop talking, is this really such a unfair or uncommon procedure or is it the intellect of the talk partners, why can?t you or other different between the prinziple and the example. I don?t say selling closed source is the same level of harm as selling closed software, but I said that it?s not ok to sell all because the buyers are not forced to buy it.

It?s more like a proffessional talking-skill I guess to distract or only pick the points who you can attack and don?t talk about the points where you have no good argument against I guess.

I don?t mean that now espacialy with you, others are here worse but I just thought about this if this is some kind of sillyness (from my viewpoint) or if this is jsut "good" argumenting skills.

It?s interesting to learn such tricks, because politicans and lobbyist use that taktics too, and maybe even more skilled and with intention (maybe thats really no attention from you and others )

[blackiwid]

Ok the last point from you I did not get enough and my point about tactics to distract and so was not really adequate for you, but its here 6:22 at the morning and I was not in the bed so I hope you forgive me

But like I said I dont critisize bsd lisense software, I think that closed source should be denied in the law, inklusive tivoisation. Then we could all change to bsd lisense. But as long as this is not so its a good right to seperate at least a bit the free world from the unfree world. (in the software sektor).

Also because we don?t get something back only unusable maybe adware contaminated software. They could use all the free stuff, make a small mini feature to it, make I nice Icon and make much advertisement and include 1000 backdoors and drm and other shit and get rich with that stuff. We would not get one line of code back for it, so we would get nothing back.

So they go their way I respect the law(mostly) even If I am sure that this is wrong but to help them in doing their evil stuff (moral is not always law-according) I am not willing.

[deanjo]

@deanjo if you don't like GPL software just don't use it.

Don't worry, when it inhibits my needs, I don't.

[deanjo]

Also because we don?t get something back only unusable maybe adware contaminated software. They could use all the free stuff, make a small mini feature to it, make I nice Icon and make much advertisement and include 1000 backdoors and drm and other shit and get rich with that stuff. We would not get one line of code back for it, so we would get nothing back.

Well sorry to disappoint you but like some closed software there are also opensource software that comes with adware. PDFCreator being an example and that isn't even a violation of the GPL (which it uses).

[blackiwid]

yes but the point is in opensource you can know that, if a software has adware, btw. I did not mean some undangerous stuff that you even see that it is installed. I mean stuff like backdors etc. ok they technicaly are called trojans or backdors and rootkits and drm and...

yes opensource can come with such stuff too but its very soon clear that such stuff is in it and then you can boykott it or better fork a version without that stuff, thats the difference. And if you use a good distribution of your trust, they will not take that stuff in their pool or make a clean version for you. Windows xp had a backdoor for the fbi or cia, so how long did it get selled. Ok it did came out on this point, but nobody can tell if there are other backdoors or stuff only the guys who can look other the source code.

And even if it?s clean the auto-updater that you cannot deactivate for good. Can still update more stuff, btw this "feature" that you can deaktivate it and then it does update anyway is clearly a maleceas feature.

[deanjo]

yes but the point is in opensource you can know that, if a software has adware, btw. I did not mean some undangerous stuff that you even see that it is installed. I mean stuff like backdors etc. ok they technicaly are called trojans or backdors and rootkits and drm and...

yes opensource can come with such stuff too but its very soon clear that such stuff is in it and then you can boykott it or better fork a version without that stuff, thats the difference. And if you use a good distribution of your trust, they will not take that stuff in their pool or make a clean version for you. Windows xp had a backdoor for the fbi or cia, so how long did it get selled. Ok it did came out on this point, but nobody can tell if there are other backdoors or stuff only the guys who can look other the source code.

And even if it?s clean the auto-updater that you cannot deactivate for good. Can still update more stuff, btw this "feature" that you can deaktivate it and then it does update anyway is clearly a maleceas feature.

Ya you could "boycott" such software, you can also do that with any software regardless of the license. Sure you are free to fork the application if you want as well but that simply doesn't happen for the most part on situations like this. Again look at PDFcreator for example. I'm glad you brought up trust however. As this is the case with everything. There are untrustworthy people with every license.

Since your new here, you are probably under the impression that I advocate closed licenses. This is not the case, quite the opposite, I do not like ANY license (PD is the only true form of freedom in software). I do, however, understand their need and place in the software. What really pisses me off however is people claiming a license is "Free as in speech" when it clearly is not. Freedom of speech also allows for speech to be kept private or resticted audience. In the case of the GPL this is not the case as everything is forced to be public. The license is more like a forced "Freedom of information" act then anything else.

[deanjo]

so why you trolling again and again against the GPL???

I'm not, I'm disputing the idiotic notion that just because something is closed it is bad and that licenses are "free as in speech"

its pointless GPL is not microsoft no one force you to use GPL software.

Oh really? If I go to work for someone that uses only GPL software I very much doubt that I would be allowed to install non-GPL software.

in germany you are forced to use microsoft produkts by LAW Elster for exampel the TAX software is windows only and at scool they force you to be an windows only expert because they only check window knowelege at scool

I would love to see this law you speak of. Please show me this law.

[madjr]

I think you are missing the point that software has nothing to do with the concept of freedom. The concept of freedom involves greater things, such as not being in slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

If you didn't notice the traditional form of slavery has been solved.

we don't live in that age anymore, we live in the 21st century and new forms of slavery are starting to appear, including (or specially) in the form of software.

Software governs the world "indirectly" now, but soon it will govern it directly in the form of AI.

everything will have AI and humans will be less and less necessary. This is where the world is heading and i dont think we want 1 or 2 corporations to have more power than the governments themselves..

[miles]

This is the reason I sold my PoS ATI and got an nVidia.
I don't have to wait until a kernel is 120 days old to be supported.
Thanks, but no thanks ATI. I'll never buy your hardware ever again.

I use Arch Linux, and get new kernels very soon after official release. And guess what, they're ALWAYS supported by nVidia, while ATI users suffer.

This.

I don't want to go in the whole debate that some people started after your post, but that's the exact reason I didn't get an ATI card last time I had to buy one, and why I won't consider a laptop that has ATI graphics.

I want to support ATI, I'm ready to cope with any deficiencies that might be in the proprietary or open source drivers, and would be happy to be able to test the latter and report bugs (that was the main reason I considered getting an ATI card, being able to help testing the OSS drivers). However, at the moment that means giving up on devel distributions testing, drivers testing (unless tracking and buying an outdated model) and Xorg testing, so I won't. It's mind blowing that the OSS-friendly company can't understand that not being able to run the latest code from a project is a showstopper in the OSS world.

[bridgman]

Miles, I didn't quite understand your post. The proprietary drivers don't necessarily support new X and kernel versions as soon as they come out, but the open source drivers should always work with the new X & kernel versions and (if I read correctly) you talked about testing the open source drivers.

If you're saying "your proprietary drivers don't always support bleeding edge kernel/X and so I'm not using your open source drivers either" then I don't have an answer for that.