-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dangit, Warp, why do you have to be so good at arguing. :-)

Warp wrote:
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> It's my own damn
>> computer, and I'm going to use it whatever way I want, thank you very much.
> 
>   You can't. Laws prohibit you from doing certain things, even if it's
> just your "own computer". Distributing illegal material is one example.

Fair enough.

>> Microsoft tells people how they can use their software
> 
>   It's their right, both ethical and legal. You don't have to use their
> software if you don't agree with their terms.

And I don't.

>> Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware.
> 
>   Not true.

I challenge you to install OS X on an arbitrary PC.

There's no easy, legal way to do it, because OS X is tied to Apple's
firmware.

>> Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want.
> 
>   Not true. Linux is bound to the GPL license, which limits what you can
> do with it. For example, you can't take the linux kernel and build a
> closed-source commercial product with it. You certainly can not do whatever
> you want with it.

I can can personally use it however I see fit.

As soon I as start redistributing it, that's a *whole* different can of
worms.

>   So it's just a question of principle, not of logical reasoning?
> You protest the fact that you can't "do whatever you want" with the
> betas?

As long as I'm not hurting someone else, then yes, I should be able to
do whatever I want. Does it hurt anyone else if I continue to run a beta
on my own machine after the expiration date?

Posting retarded bug reports and just running the software are two very
different things. If you want to sign people up to watch for bug reports
filed against old betas, and laugh and call those submitters names, I
will cheerfully volunteer.

>> While I'm ranting, why the hell does the POV team sit on the source code
>> for each new revision until the "final release"?
> 
>   Odd question coming from a person who just a few paragraphs earlier
> defended his own right to do whatever he wants with what he owns.

Alright, you've got me there. Yes, it is well within their right to do
so. It just always struck me as a strange attitude to keep the
development sources secret, when you're going to publish the finished
version, anyway.

I actually would to the opposite of what the POV team does with its
betas: Distribute sources, and not binaries. Having to compile your own
software would filter out the people who aren't going to submit helpful
bug reports, and would make it possible for people to submit patches as
they find bugs.

But, yes, I concede that is the POV team's decision, and not mine.

I don't know why I'm ranting now--if all the promises about POV 4 come
true, then my complaints will be completely moot.

- --
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you've seriously thought
about investing in a true 3D scanner.
    -- Quietly Watching
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHC+phcCmTzQ++ZncRAscdAJ9YPmHnYMzFyD854wv+lrjuWse4iACfTjG2
PHhVOr0EG0oLdEfxN3NPC+8=
=Xegg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message