Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, thinking that because they changed a few lines of code, they can claim to own the license to the software now. I'd say that is probably much more prevalent since there's a general assumption by many that the license most Android based software uses, Apache 2.0 means "do whatever you want".
Even worse is the fact that many users in the community are also quick to defend them blindly because they know little of development and why following licenses matter (even after all the facts are laid out and explained).
Imagine if Linux distros started getting treated like Android does? Android got those legions of "regular" users and participants that everybody seems to want and it is not a pretty scene because of it.
Part of it definitely has to do with the end users getting too close to those doing the development and the result is chaos. It ends with users totally disrespecting real developers--stirring up unnecessary drama and fanboyism. Then there's users that compiled Android (or worse, added a few apps into a ROM by opening it in 7zip) and are suddenly an Android development expert (and users that believe it by defending them and donating money).
I'm just glad that most other development communities on the web are much more civil (though I'm sure there's outliers). Even with Ubuntu's rise in popularity, it comes nowhere close to matching the appalling behavior I've witnessed with Android. I've seen people belittled by users for simply trying to post an honest bug report to a developer in their forum thread. Though with the way users spam up those threads with offtopic discussion, one is just as likely to have their bug report missed/ignored.
I don't understand what you mean. Shouldn't a close relationship between developers and users be a key goal in development?
Hmmm...
https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... :
> And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl.
Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.
[1] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-s...
But like like guy, dude because gender neutral in common speech.
Even if we were talking about 'he', your link would be out of place. Calling out the use of a gendered default as bad is not in fact another point of view on whether it is the default.
For example, "Oh, I know a guy that knows X," "I know a guy that is a fan of X" or in a less positive manner "That guy just cut me off [on the freeway]!" (since you rarely see who it might be and their gender doesn't matter)
I could say "dude" as well, but sometimes dude might be too informal. I could reword it with a number of other pronouns, but it depends on context and whom one is talking to.
Nah, pretty sure the "I'm a big girl" is just fratboy posturing.
Otherwise I agree with the commenter next to me: Breathtaking inanity is the interesting aspect here, not gender.
I believe the key part of this is the "I'm a big X" pattern (i.e. "I'm an adult"), not that the person is female.
If you talk to people who aren't licensing and legal enthusiasts, most don't have an interest in those topics.
> We live in the real world, not "The Matrix". So why does it feel like it's the other way around? Why does it feel like we are living in a world pull over by our eyes by lawers that restricts sharing our creativity?
Actually, it would still be here: Van Gogh artwork is unique, and this can be expanded virtually to anything, including the shirt you are wearing, since you're the only one to wear it. You might see where this leads to. Scarcity can always be created artificially.
Anyway, you wouldn't want people to take your shirts away from you, and copyright holders may feel the same towards their work.
The second issue is fairness: if someone has to pay a certain amount to access copyrighted work, why others would not have to, under the same circumstances? Fairness is the motivating principle supporting the existence of the Law.
Openness gave us modern world. Copyright gave us Hollywood and Sony Music.
Property is inherent thing. Not only human. Monkeys also want to own things and they don't like thieves. But extending physical property qualities to creations of human mind is just something some rich people did to get richer.
As I said, it all comes from scarcity. Things that are abundant are monetary worthless, and if everything is free, then people don't need to make money, ergo no copyright anymore (there's a slight simplification here actually, because copyrights also grant control, which is actively thought). That said, while the system is mostly used by the richest, poor people can profit from it as well, if they manage to produce valuable IP.
The problem that we really have here imho is that code is just logic written in an often clever way, like a math theorem. Do we want to have these things protected by copyrights or patents? Does it make sense? That's the real question behind the issue at hand I believe.
Same way I could create scarcity on your oxygen supply and use artificially elevated oxygen price to finance myself and my efforts to create and uphold this scarcity and also finance cute puppies to mask what horrible thing I am actually doing.
Patenting and copyright clearly doesn't make any sense. It's just a tool for creating revenue stream by holding information and commercial freedom hostage. There are much less harmful ways to create revenue streams.
Wasting man years is precisely the problem. Our collective knowledge is boundless, but time is finite. See the problem here? Why would we want to waste the effort of future generations with the problems of yesterday?
So that an individual can live more comfortably with exclusive privileges to something that benefits all of mankind? We shouldn't be working towards selfishness and arbitrary contractual law.
Deleted comment
Copyright places a restriction on what I can do with information I legally have in my possession. It is a restriction on my freedom of expression. You might argue that the restriction is worth it in order to encourage artists, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.
Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible.
There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life continues to be nasty, brutish, and short but you have maximal FREEDOM!
As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...
Also while applications of copyright impact freedom of expression (i.e. The Wind Done Gone, there are plenty that don't. There's nothing expressive about pirating software, and very little expressive in redistributing unmodified or barely modified proprietary software.
Any restriction on sharing information is a restriction on freedom of expression. After all, stopping people from repeating other people's speech is precisely the kind of censorship freedom of speech laws are intended to fight. Censorship is almost never used to suppress the original statement, only its repetition...
You were never going to express yourself in exactly that manner, so from a practical standpoint copyright isn't preventing you from doing anything at all. It's a good compromise; how else do we prevent publishers and software companies from grabbing up indie work and selling it without compensating the creator? I don't understand being totally against copyright.
The area where it's going wrong is that Disney and the labels have big interests in extending copyright to ridiculous lengths and strengthening it to the extent that it's an anchor dragging behind any startup that wants to compete in that industry. We should be able to share movies and books with our friends and families. In their perfect world, every viewer would pay a fee for every viewing.
An analogy is not an equivalence. Please learn the difference.
From a practical viewpoint, copyright constrains what I can do with information, and you even admit it's a compromise yourself! I don't accept it's a good compromise. I'd prefer to do without than accept it. I acknowledge that most people (such as yourself) feel differently.
It's an appeal to emotion by comparing it with something so different it barely makes sense, if you prefer to argue from emotion instead of reason, then by all means. Preventing you from emailing a .pdf or .mp3 is nothing like taking away all your basic human rights, treating you like you are subhuman, and forcing you to labor in the fields.
What rights should an author have with their work, then? When have you wanted to, but were unable to, share information that wasn't just "I want it for free"?
EDIT: Reflecting on it, this sounds confrontational, but I genuinely wish to know how copyright is impacting you. I hate all the patent trolls, I hate the patent system, I hate copyright trolls, so maybe I hate the copyright system as well, and just don't know yet.