 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Building Windows, not walls | |
|
||
| Time: 00:28 EST/05:28 GMT | News Source: | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Mary Jo Foley:"The Wall Street Journal is the second publication to report that Microsoft’s soon-to-be-launched coolness campaign will use the slogan “Windows Not Walls” as its rallying cry. (Here’s the first report in AdWeek citing that same slogan.) I don’t care who ad agency Crispin Porter puts in the starring role along with Chairman Bill Gates in its $300+ million campaign. Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Hillary, Michael Phelps. But I am intrigued about what kind of messaging Crispin and Microsoft think will reinvigorate |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 13 of 13 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, August 25, 2008 11:56:26 AM |
|
Windows, walls, gates & bars...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm |
| #2 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Monday, August 25, 2008 12:53:14 PM |
|
Stallman is a compulsive liar. He claims the GPL makes software free that is free to share and modify. Yet he never tells people about the horrendous restrictions placed on anyone who uses the GPL.
Thats why the Linux kernel won't be moving to GPL 3.0. "Torvalds specifically objected to one new provision in the GPL 3 draft that opposes digital rights management, which is technology that uses encryption to control the use of content and running of software. "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it," he said. " The GPL is insane. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, August 25, 2008 02:53:18 PM |
| #2: What's that you say? You can't answer anything in the article so instead you'll throw insults at the author because you have nothing else? That's what I thought. If, as you say, Stallman is a lair then it should be a simple matter to rebut his article. But then I've noticed that you habitually are unable to rebut anything intelligently and must instead rely on insults and other disparaging conjecture. |
| #4 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Monday, August 25, 2008 04:07:20 PM |
|
"we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify."
Thats a lie. The GPL imposes massive restictions on how software is shared. And I included an example and quote from Torvalds. All of Stallmans hate emanates from the big fat lie. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. Using the GPL rewards fanatics. |
| #5 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Monday, August 25, 2008 05:47:17 PM |
|
#4: The GPL imposes massive restictions on how software is shared.
You mean they impose restrictions to ensure that the code *is* shared. That keeps parasites from stealing code. Nothing forces you to use any particularly licensed code. If there is code you want that's under the GPL and you don't want to abide by the license terms, write it all yourself instead. No problems. Back to my original assertion; you haven't exactly rebutted anything (once again) by mischaracterizing what Stallman said as a 'big lie'. |
| #6 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Monday, August 25, 2008 06:11:03 PM |
|
#5 "If there is code you want that's under the GPL and you don't want to abide by the license terms"
Bingo. The code is not free. It is encumbered by onerous license terms. Free: "Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty." GPL code is enslaved by the license terms. Stallman is a liar. |
| #7 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Monday, August 25, 2008 06:15:36 PM |
|
"In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work.
In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. Bound: 1. Confined by bonds; tied: bound and gagged hostages. 2. Being under legal or moral obligation: bound by my promise. If your code is bound , it is not free. |
| #8 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Monday, August 25, 2008 07:57:07 PM |
|
#7: Thanks for your legal opinion, but you clearly don't understand what free software is. From wiki (which I know is authoritative for you as you quote it often):
"Free software or software libre is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with minimal restrictions only to ensure that further recipients can also do these things." The license enforces the freedom, which sounds strange if you don't understand it, which ensures that the code and derivatives also remain free to be used by others. Your claims that any license equals software bondage is untrue and irrelevant. What I don't understand is why a devoted disciple of the temple of Redmond is so concerned about software freedom. |
| #9 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Monday, August 25, 2008 08:14:19 PM |
|
I've read quite a bit of Stallman's "views" and I just don't understand the world that he lives in.
Overall his 'vision' is a good one - free software for everyone by everyone. It's a great concept and if he had started his crusade in the early 60's, we probably would have been there now. Trying to do it now, IMHO, is just impossible. Too many businesses write their software that they are use to being paid for. What about banking software? What about hospitals? What about ATM's? What about NASA? What about any firewall/antivirus/antispam/antismalware program? What about the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc etc etc? ALL software being freely available with the source code??!! |
| #10 By 92283 (24.64.223.204) at Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:30:05 AM |
|
#8 "The license enforces the freedom"
No. The license is the opposite of freedom. Restrictions do not equal freedom. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:57:33 AM |
| #12: The license grants you rights, and you might even know this if you had two clues to rub together. You really ought to actually read up on what you're talking about so that what you say makes sense. After all, there is a first time for everything. On second thought, technically, you might be right. The license *does* restrict you from restricting the rights of others. Only an asshat would argue that this is somehow bad. I know this confuses you as you're used to MS licenses that take rights away. |
| #12 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Tuesday, August 26, 2008 06:35:44 PM |
|
Latch, you have one twisted reality bouncing in that head of yours.
In your world, the law that forces me to obey stop lights... actually gives me the FREEDOM to stop when its red, and go when its green. You are smack me in the forehead ^*&@#ed up. |
| #13 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Wednesday, August 27, 2008 07:07:13 PM |
|
"The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded.
But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away." http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html Yes. the GPL forces you to cooperate. Only Public Domain is truly free. All CopyLeft licences are about forcing you to do something you may not want to do. |
