Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DragonMaci

  1. That is true for some of the people here, but not all (eg: myself, and Prometheus98876). I would agree with that if only it wasn't so buggy for me. And this includes new versions of Linux distributions, not just the old versions.
  2. Actually, it is not. It is a kernal. Linux based distributions like Kubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Fedore, etc are operating systems, but Linux is the kernal and nothing else. It would of been had you been correct, but you are not. We debated silly comments like the one's Kevin made. That is a topic by the way. We also mentioned contexts and general ideas relating to the topic of Linux and open source. As I just stated Linux and open source are topics. Now I am replying to your silly comments about this thread being bizzare. That is a topic. So your statement is totally false.
  3. Yeah, I was glad he made that call because I draw the line with GPLv3 as well. Not that I like v2 all that much anyway. Or the LGPL.
  4. Indeed. Even Microsoft has benefited from python via IronPython, which while started as a third party port to get Python to support .NET, Microsoft now includes official and direct support for IronPython in .NET. This means they can now tap into the python developers in addition to the C/C++, VB, and C# developers. This in quite beneficial to them. Yes, but she has no right to stop someone from reading a copy of the book they unwittingly bought to0 early. If they knowingly done so, well that is a different matter. But the former is innocent. Given that you totally miscontrued me without making any effort to understand me I am not going to dignify that with an answer.
  5. That isn't relevant to this debate. Even when you don't own the work you do in an open source project it isn't necessarily similar to that. If you work for Microsoft and write some code for Windows, Visual Studio, Office, or some other Microsoft product you don't own your work and have no right to it. You entered into a contract where Microsoft would own the code just as a McDonalds worker owns the burgers their workers make. With both the code and burgers the company owns the workers' work. Is that wrong? No because the worker agrees to it and is compensated wih payment. Now is what is different with contributing to an open source project? The lack of pay is the only important difference here. The fact that others can use your code isn't relevant; who gets to use the code and how many isn't the issue here; the issue is whether it can ever be moral for others to own your code and not you. SO the question is, is it ever moral to give ownership of your code to others without being paid for it? The answer is that it can be depending on the context. You might get a benefit from doing so even without pay. The most obvious benegit is a better program. But in short, if you agree to hand over ownership of your code to an open source project in a mutually beneficial contract then it is perfectly moral to do so. Also, as has already been stated, open source is in no way collectivist. Inidividual open source advocators and movements may be collectivists, but the projects themselves are not neccesarily so even if those that run it are collectivists. Finally, submitting code to an open source project does not automatically mean you don't own the code. It might just be that you are granting them permission to reuse code you own. It depends on the context of the situation. For example, if someone else used my open source code when I make it they would not have ownership of it, just the right to reuse it. I will see to that when I write my open source licence.
  6. That is why I don't like the GPL (especially version 3.0, which makes matters worse). I am going to write up my own very short and to the point licence for my own software. Others will be free to use my licence for there own software if they want, but the main point is to provide a licence that isn't long winded and doesn't have that sort of thing for use in my own software. Only the content. The indvidual copies are the property of those that buy them and as such the only valid restriction on the rights of those sellers comes from a contract entered into when buying it. The people that bought those copies from those bookstores didn't enter into such a contract.
  7. Well, you didn't boil it down to the essentials. That was the point of, "Some do one-man open source projects (like I will eventually)." Thatisn't "contributing". Since not all contribute therefore that is not the reason of all, making your statement untrue and thus not the essentials.
  8. That is over-simplifying matters. The reasons vary. Some want to contribute and improve the program, some want to help others, some do it for other reasons. Some do one-man open source projects (like I will eventually).
  9. I already saw no value in seeking their recognisation of my open source licence as such, but now I am more sure of that opinion. An inconsistently applied definition is one of no value to me, especially one as bad as they gave.
  10. Yes, it can be, but so can closed source software.
  11. Actually, that is not inherihently part of Open Source. It certainly isn't a part of the Open Source software I will make. The licence I will keep ownership of my work but grant others the right to use that work to help with their work. That is the case for most Open Source software. That also isn't inherihently part of Open Source. Many Open Source projects, including the ones I will make, don't include such principles.
  12. Well, I am not keen on using Linux. I prefer Windows (and yes I have used Linux). So, no. I am not going to try programming for an OS I prefer not to use.
  13. I think the proper term is the one Rand used, ie, student of Objectivism. Unless you mean a higherdegree of knowledge for your term than Rand did hers.
  14. I said packages only work for me if downloaded through my package manager. Besides, I don't need it anymore. I own a copy of Windows XP Professional x64 now and am using that.
  15. Well, actually that depends on one's context. For example, I plan to be a hobby developer and use .NET and Visual Studio Express Editions. Mono and Wine have come a long way since they began, but not enough to change the fact that Windows is the best platform to learn programming on when one has such plans.
  16. That is for a psychologist to determine not me. Also, that is beside my point. My point was that for a parent to cause such harm to a child is wrong and the government has just as much right to step in against as if when the parent causes physical harm.
  17. Clearly David knows that given he said:
  18. That doesn't meet David's requirements.
  19. 1. I said the potential results of the sex are the main cause of the harm. 2. They wouldn't of recorded such harm. 3. Very few records from those day still exist. A lot were destroyed via natural attrition. Books/stone tablets/scrolls/etc have a limited lifetime. Other records were destroyed in the Dark Ages when many records and much knowledge was burned or otherwise destroyed. To quote Daniel Jackson from Stargate SG-1, "We'd be exploring the galaxy now if it wasn't for the Dark Ages." Okay, we might not literally have technology that advanced, but Jackson was right that we'd have a lot more knowledge and thus our technology a lot more advanced if the Dark Ages had not of happened. In short, we know a lot less than we could of thanks to the Dark Ages resulting in a lot of that knowledge being destroyed and this has set us back in many ways, including knowledge of that time. Addition: We should go off what we know today, not what we assume about how things were thousands of years ago.
  20. Starling, you left out pyschological harm, which should also be forbidden. In other words a parent should not be allowed to do anything that will psychologically harm the child, such as allow it to do something it is not yet mentally equipped to handle (eg, sex). Even with a parents consent a child is not mentally equipped to deal with sex and its consequences, therefore the parent should not be permitted to allow it. I don't blame you. They disgusted me and I am not a parent. I am an uncle though, and let me tell you, I wouldn't want that done either of my darling neices.
  21. I wasn't talking about them being wonderful parents either. I was talking about their inability to understand parenthood.
  22. Aware, yes, but they cannot fully understand them, especially parenthood. No child can fully understamd parenthood. They don't have the metal capaicity or intellectual development for that. However, parenthood does NOT require education about parenthood. Many people can and do be good parents whithout being taught about parenthood. Finally, whether or not it is forbidden to teach them such things is beside the point. The point is that they cannot fully understand them, especially parenthood.
  23. Not really since they cannot understand the consequences of the action. It has its own consequences, such as possible STD infection, possible early parenthood which a child is NOT ready for, nor are they ready to understand parenthood. STDs and early parenthood are the negative consequences of sex, especially if parenthood is undesired by the child.
  24. Even if that is true it in no way fits my classification of funny and proper humour.
  • Create New...