3 ms·

This is what RMS has been preaching all along. It finally makes sense now.

by kunai 14y ago

mh- 14y ago
except it's not. and nonsensical invocations, like yours, just make skeptics of his find him even more delusional. this is a restriction on tester hardware (so-called Explorer Edition devices), which were already only available to people who paid for the privilege of being able to buy them. and please save any slippery-slope reply for another thread.
- quadhome 14y ago
  ... paid for the privilege of being able to buy them. Did they buy them or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Edit: upon further reflection, first-sale doctrine is around intellectual properties like books and music. I presumed there was a legal right to sell goods you've bought... but maybe not?
  - taeric 14y ago
    First sale is only about intellectual properties because it is applied to copyright. That is, it is necessary to grant you the right to resell something that contains copyrighted property. For example, without first sale you couldn't sell a book you legally bought, because the author still has distribution rights over the story it contains. (That make sense?) For physical items, there is not a government granted monopoly to compare.
  - mh- 14y ago
    sorry, when I said 'paid for the privilege of being able to buy them', I meant that literally.. almost like a purchase option. people who attended Google I/O last year were given the opportunity to preorder an Explorer device.
NegativeK 14y ago
I'm pretty pro-GNU. I bristle when people mischaracterize the GPL. I try to avoid closed source software. I have to make quite a few exceptions, but I try to stick with open source even when it's less convenient/harder to use. I don't purchase copywritten stuff that uses DRM. I am unphased by this. This is a complete and utter non-issue until Google lays this down on the consumer, retail version of Glass. It would be malicious (not to mention completely idiotic -- I can't see why Google would ever want to kill the secondary market on a new platform they're pushing) of Google to do this for the final version, but they aren't doing that. And I think it strongly mischaracterizes RMS to say that this is what he has been preaching all along. Maybe a small subpart, but I think his message is broader and far more important.

This is what RMS has been preaching all along. It finally makes sense now.

by kunai 14y ago

This is what RMS has been preaching all along. It finally makes sense now.

mh- 14y ago

except it's not. and nonsensical invocations, like yours, just make skeptics of his find him even more delusional. this is a restriction on tester hardware (so-called Explorer Edition devices), which were already only available to people who paid for the privilege of being able to buy them. and please save any slippery-slope reply for another thread.

quadhome 14y ago
... paid for the privilege of being able to buy them. Did they buy them or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Edit: upon further reflection, first-sale doctrine is around intellectual properties like books and music. I presumed there was a legal right to sell goods you've bought... but maybe not?
- taeric 14y ago
  First sale is only about intellectual properties because it is applied to copyright. That is, it is necessary to grant you the right to resell something that contains copyrighted property. For example, without first sale you couldn't sell a book you legally bought, because the author still has distribution rights over the story it contains. (That make sense?) For physical items, there is not a government granted monopoly to compare.
- mh- 14y ago
  sorry, when I said 'paid for the privilege of being able to buy them', I meant that literally.. almost like a purchase option. people who attended Google I/O last year were given the opportunity to preorder an Explorer device.

NegativeK 14y ago

I'm pretty pro-GNU. I bristle when people mischaracterize the GPL. I try to avoid closed source software. I have to make quite a few exceptions, but I try to stick with open source even when it's less convenient/harder to use. I don't purchase copywritten stuff that uses DRM. I am unphased by this. This is a complete and utter non-issue until Google lays this down on the consumer, retail version of Glass. It would be malicious (not to mention completely idiotic -- I can't see why Google would ever want to kill the secondary market on a new platform they're pushing) of Google to do this for the final version, but they aren't doing that. And I think it strongly mischaracterizes RMS to say that this is what he has been preaching all along. Maybe a small subpart, but I think his message is broader and far more important.