Slashdot Mirror
GNU GPL law and "lagom" copyright
Johannes writes "Newsforge column on "lagom" copyright. I think we need to discuss these issues more. Maybe a GNU GPL law isn't so bad after all. As Pawlo states: "Would not a modern democratic society benefit from a plurality of irreconcilable and incompatible doctrines? We need the GNU GPL, but we also need proprietary software, Open Source software, BSD licenses, the Apache license and so forth. That would make the case for GNU GPL legislation void. However, as Lawrence Lessig taught us in his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, the code may in itself work against plurality.""
Smegma.
Swedes want everything to be 'lagom',
the call themselves the 'lagom-nation'..
Seriously though, the article does raise some important points. And I agree.
Another word that fits right in there between "bork" and "smorgasbord"
The same law governing software is no different than that governing books. Everyone is in agreement that the restrictions on books are acceptable terms, so the question should be,
"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"
If it was just a matter of lawyers saying 'Hey, we can put some more restrictions in place' them why did it not propogate back to books? Is it there because it's easier to get people to agree to? Perhaps software licenses are a matter of enforcibility.
My point? People are not asking the right questions. As the right questions and the answers are right around the corner.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
here in slovenija, "loagom" means "big fat hairy vagina"
i am being serious.
Lagom
m
Havamål is full of advises such as "be hospitable, but not too hospitable" (35), "be wise, but not too wise" (54-56), "be careful, but not too careful" (131), "enjoy beer, but don't drink too much" (11-19), enjoy food, but not too much" (20-21), "be careful not to boast over your sharp intellect" (6-7). These wisdoms of life is still a characteristic value in the Swedish mind, indeed, it is one of the most distinguished and revered virtues in the Swedish society. The word itself is untranslatable. It refers to an undefined state between extremes, "not too much, not too little". The dictionary suggest "just right, just enough, sufficiently, adequate, fitting, appropriate, moderate", which hardly captures the inner subjective logic of this genuinely Swedish value. The lagom value can be inferred from equality and the Jante Law and also with the Swedes envy and self-criticism as being different expressions of the same underlying paradoxical values of mutual appreciation/social control and individualism (loneliness)/collective support. The evenness of mind that the lagom is expressing may have been fostered in the evenness in the climate: it is not too hot in the summer, and not too cold in the winter. But several other factors must have contributed.
The lagom, even, mentality among the Swedes can be frustrating for many foreigners, as it is seen as either boring, conflict avoiding, emotionally cool, formal, uncommunicative, socially confined, or spiritually empty. Certainly these aspects can be true, but it can also bee seen as not boring, but expectant; not conflict avoiding, but diplomatic; not emotionally cool, but deep feelings directed inward; not formal, but polite; not uncommunicative, but reflective; not socially confined, but thoughtful; not spiritually empty, but willing to listen to others. The lagom mentality can also be seen as that trait which gives the Swedish society its characteristic stability, and yet openness to influences from outside. In Hofstede's study, Sweden scored low on the "uncertainty avoidance index", which can be exemplified by factors such as "the uncertainty inherent in life is more easily accepted and each day is taken as it comes; the ambiance is one of less nationalism; less showing of emotions is preferred; deviation is not considered threatening - great tolerance is shown"(26). As a matter of fact, the entire Edda mythology can be seen in a ambivalent manner - it is unclear who is in command among the gods (even though Oden probably was considered the highest); there are no absolutely "good guys" (with a possible exception of Balder, the god of beauty, wisdom, and gentleness) or "bad guys"; the gods themselves have flaws and suffer from many of our simple human faults; even the evil giants can be agreeable sometimes; and the seed of destruction (Ragnarök) was actually found among the gods themselves (the intriguing of the god Loke leading to the death of Balder). We can thus see the ability to cope with, even the encouragement of, the uncertainty of life reflected in the Edda, indicating that this trait has a long tradition.
But the lagom has, as indicated earlier, also a repressive effect: you're not supposed to be too good, or too rich. Thus, Sweden does not have an extreme income distribution, just a lagom spectra between the poorest and the richest. The lowest paid in Sweden earns fully 60% more than those with the lowest income in the USA. On the other hand, the 10 % best paid earns only twice as much as those with the lowest income. In the USA the relation is 6:1. The taxes are one of the highest in the world, which makes foreign observers puzzled why the Swede still work so hard?(27) I would suggest that it is a reflection of the equality-Jante Law-lagom triad of values reigning in Sweden: work hard (the Lutheran inheritance to the Vikings), but don't stand out. But all rules have an exception and so also in the case of wealth: Swedes do not revere those who make a fortune from hard work, but the heroes are found in those who win a fortune on lotto, bingo, pools win etc. The national consciousness is in this respect more fatalistic and faith encouraging than what actually Swedes officially claim: belief in the necessity of work, denying of the supernatural and immaterial. This is one of the most official pictures of the Swede, and it is said to origin from the struggle against the forces of nature in the agricultural Sweden, where one had to work hard to survive the long winter. This gave rise to lack of communicative abilities and the little interest for the immaterial side of the existence(28).
from
"The Human Values of Swedish Management"
http://www.fek.su.se/Home/gus/PAPERS\Swedval.ht
MOD THE PARENT UP! (Informative)
This sentiment, the GPL takes from companies and promotes freeloading, is expressed by my father, owner of an IVR Software development firm.
What benefit does the GPL serve to smaller firms who depend on their inovations and their ability to license those technologies to players such as ATT, Lucent, IBM, etc? In my fathers case, none.
Only the belief promotes the percieved difficulty.
moderate (mdr-t) adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. To restrain from excess of any kind; to reduce from a state of violence, intensity, or excess; to keep within bounds; to make temperate; to lessen; to allay; to repress; to temper; to qualify; as, to moderate rage, action, desires, etc.; to moderate heat or wind.
3. Kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous; limited; restrained; as: (a) Limited in quantity; sparing; temperate; frugal; as, moderate in eating or drinking; a moderate table. (b) Limited in degree of activity, energy, or excitement; reasonable; calm; slow; as, moderate language; moderate endeavors. (c) Not extreme in opinion, in partisanship, and the like; as, a moderate Calvinist.
4. To become less violent, severe, rigorous, or intense; as, the wind has moderated.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Mr Stallman completely missed the whole point of what ESR has said. What he's instead suggesting is just as bad and just as restrictive as any proprietary license.
If I write a piece of software, it is my effort and time that went in to creating that project and seeing it through. If I then decide I'd rather receive some form or remuneration (not just money), and release the package under a license that requires that the user pays me a fee and agrees to not distribute the package to others, then that is my choice.
If, by the same token, I feel that the package is something I'd like to share and get proactive feedback on, get others to help build and allow them to fit it into their environment exactly, then I'd be more likely to use a BSD-style license.
GPL destroys the rights of the individual developer or developer house to write software the way they want to right it and do with that software as they want to. Under the GPL, all software becomes the property of everyone and no one has a claim to that software.
The DMCA is one extreme, the GPL is the opposite extreme. Thats how I've grown to see it over the past 2 or 3 years that I've actually bothered taking notice of what I'm using.
I use GPL software because the license says I can. I write software under the BSD-style license because I'm able to keep the project as mine, and not give up all my rights to the over-reaching RMS.
RMS has gradually been over extending his reach into the Opensource and Free software worlds. He has been given honorary place amoung the community because for a long time, he did good. He was a great spokesman and that will never be forgotten. However, his actions lately have led me to ignore him and no longer respect him. He forces projects to follow his vision and threatens them. For that reason, I will never submit any of my works to the GNU projects, or donate towards the FSF.
A Google search for 'lagom' resulted in 54,300 hits. Is that really a lagom result?
I think the swedish word carries more of a value judgement than the word moderate. In swedsih lagom has also carried a positive tone, things not being lagom not being desirable.
A bit hard to put your finger on really.
He proposes that the source code be put in escrow or whatever similar. This creates a lot of administrative burden on the government body and will quickly become ineffective within the first year of operation. Second, this is unfair as long as a person from one nation (without this law) steals the source code and sells only the binary.
¦ ©® ±
I read through the article, well.. at least I tried to. Maybe it's just my fault, but they used the word 'code' in so many different places, and some that didn't make any sense. I assume a 'codified GNU GPL' means make the GNU GPL into a law, but it doesn't explain how that would work, and thus uses 'code' in the terms of 'law code'. Then later it says 'code is law.' I have no clue what the hell that could mean, it's not even english as far as I can tell. It's almost equivalent to saying book is pants. This isn't even apples and oranges here, as those are at least somewhat similar.
So, for someone who has no clue what the hell this article is talking about, even though I tried to read it, can someone please explain it? How would a 'GNU GPL law' (or 'codified GNU GPL I guess I should say?) work? Require all software to be GPL?
Linux does have support for Token Ring. I've used it for several years w/o a problem. Even with old (scary old) IBM model 30's and worse. :) But I guess it depends on how slow the HDs you have are.
As for the FS, it don't quite work the same as DOS. You really don't need to defrag them, it won't really gain you all that much. You can fsck them as much as you want though
GPL is the Gnu Public License. Alot of people share your view about it though. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it (below). Just commenting on it
I don't think this is true. You can use the tool w/o releasing the source for what you are doing. So long as that source is not derived from a GPL project. All the libraries that you'd need for system calls are LGPL'd for this reason. There are quite a few companies that sell products that are not GPL but are created using GPL or LGPL tools (trolltech to name one) You definently can't just change a part of the kernel and remove the GPL license, which is pretty reasonable, IMHO, for the same argument you made for not wanting to open your source. (Should the community do all that work for free just to give a company a competative edge?) But I don't know how the GPL works for kernel modules. It might be possible to write a loadable kernel module that is not GPL. I think some of the accelerated XFree86 video drivers that are released as binary only are loadable kernel modules
I'm just wondering what you were doing that required a kernel modification on linux (where kernel source is available) that was easier to do on windows 2000 (where kernel source is not available)? If you're rewritting it from scratch anyways was there something inherent you found about windows (other than the liscense interpretations) that made this easier to do on the windows platform? In my expirence, the lower level you go on Win32 the thinner the documentation can get. Sometimes just being about to look at what something is doing (via the source) is alot easier than trying to find a scrap of documentation about something on the web. Also, there is alot of code available to learn from available for linux and bsd (as far as low level kernel stuff goes) than there is for Win32.
-- Eric
That would be the most ethical solution. No-one would get ripped off by the greedy corporations who have created artificial scarcity by locking in their software and source code.
Subscribing to non-GPL licenses is like declaring "peace for our times" and waving the (license) agreement in the air.
I'm sorry, but the article referenced seems to imply that it would be legal and ethical to pass laws restricting or eliminating proprietary software licenses. This is totally and absolutely wrong. The copyright owner is the sole person able to determine the conditions of use of the work. To remove this principle eliminates the foundation for the free software movement.
I advocate whatever license you should choose. Personally, I like the BSD license, and dislike the GPL. But if you can only choose from a set of pre-determined licenses, do you really think the GPL is going to be a choice? There are too many vested commercial interests that want the GPL license to go away.
The swedish word means so much more than just being moderate.
That would be the most ethical solution
No it wouldn't. The most ethical solution would be for the government to pretty much stay out of the way, doing only what is necessary to protect the ability of creators to have some control over their creation for a reasonable amount of time.
Actually, I prefer a longer copyright term to help protect the families of artists. For example, in the comic book world it appears that dc has reformed a little since their treatment of the Siegel and Schuster, the creators of Superman. When Gil Kaine died, they apparently re-issued some of his work so that his family could get some royalty checks at a time of financial need. That's a good thing in my opinion.
If I write the great American Novel, or the great American Song, or the great American Software package, I should be able to say how my creation is distributed and used. And I would want my wife to be able to receive an income from my work after my death.
Please note that copyright is different from patents.
That would be the most ethical solution.
Yes of course. Free software is all about choice I heard... as long as you make the right choices, right?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
RMS genius was to use the very same weapon that the big copyright conglomerates in order to protect something fundamental, the people right to take advantage of the information age to share freely more and more knowledge in particular in the form of source code in the software field.
The big commercial-only entities want people right to create and share destroyed since they want to control completely all creation. They buy legislation, but they don't have enough power to break the fundamentals of copyright law, hence they can't break the GPL. The only thing they can do is to spread FUD or confuse the issue.
That is the point missed by the article, the GPL is our protection against this trend, and it is temporary in the sense that when the law will state clearly that people have the unlimited right to understand, create and share information on any medium and so the big conglomerates are defeated, then the GPL and most existing more or less defensive licensing scheme are all irrelevant.
But in the meantime we're better off with GPL wherever it makes sense, and all form of GPL-bashing or trying to put bad words in the mouth of the FSF people are to be looked at with a critical eye.
Never forget that the BSD and most other license are very weak at protecting our collective work in the current environment. Under BSD, any company could take our code, slightly change a protocol, patent it and sue the original authors, and even without patent it could sue for frivolous legal reasons or prevent any further work on the original source base.
--
Laurent <guerby@acm.org>
--- stolen from http://w1.318.telia.com/~u31808880/swede.htm ---
...."
Beliefs and values
Moderation
"When the Vikings took time off, they used to gather around the campfire to down a horn of mead. Though their thirst was great after their exertions, it became a matter of honour for each warrior to ration his intake so that the horn didn't run dry before everyone had had a swig. In other words, you had to drink team-wise, or "laget om", later shortened to "lagom".
In modern Swedish, the word lagom has taken the meaning of "just enough", or "with moderation" "Lagom permeates swedish life. It makes round pegs fit square holes.
Economically it has enabled the country to find the middle ground between Progress and Humanity, i.e. between Capitalism and Socialism. Socially lagom puts conformity before excellence, tempers extreme personal wealth and poverty, and leaves the Swedes irksomely at peace with themselves. In short lagom underpins the Swedish Model, not the curvaceous Playboy centrefold, but a countourless nirvana of uniform bliss.
"However, the word lagom expresses more than just a measure of moderation: it also serves to glorify through moderation. When something is said to be lagom good, it actually means that it is the best. The Swedes firmly believe that their country is lagom in a variety of skills from invention and training to quality, performance and safety. "this strong sense of national invincibility goes back to medieval times when dozens of imported bishops were comissioned to invent Swedish history.
They proved that Sweden was nothing less than the "Island of the Gods" -Atlantis risen again, with its rich culture suprisingly intact. Not Hebrew, but Swedish was the mother of Languages, and the runes constituted the earliest alphabet.
Between 1840 and 1920, things became so perfect in Sweden that most able-bodied people could stand it no longer and emigrated to America. Those left behind proceeded to build today's cradle-to-grave welfare paradise. No challenge is too great for the lagom perfect people.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Until such time as the GPL is actually enforced, this kind of talk is nothing but a pointless ego-wank for people trying to impress us with how liberal and/or hip to the community they are.
On a small scale, codifying the GPL just takes the decision on that enforcement out of the hands of the people who produced the code in the first place and give it to an overworked legal system that most of us wouldn't trust as far we can throw it anyway.
On a larger scale, if ALL end-user code has to be open you adversely impact all sorts of things that you never considered in your knee-jerk reaction. Okay, so you might want Word opened so that we can get of these BS proprietary formats; or Outlook opened so the damn thing doesn't propogate infections faster than an open wound in the Black Hole of Calcutta. That's great, and there are real benefits there. Meanwhile though, online gaming goes into the shitter as every client instantly becomes 100% untrustworthy.
And what would it really help, as far as the GNU "ethic" goes? The same people that steal GPL'd code today would continue to do so: whether it's one guy and his pet project with a very limited audience (e.g. MQW) or a megacorp that loves the GPL for helping them cut development cost/time but doesn't go for "that hippy ideology" of actually returning the favour.
Scum will be scum no matter what you do with the laws. "Breaking" the GPL is already illegal, and it's not stopping them so far.
Seems to me that the only reason the utter drivel of the original article even gets a mention (and thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life, BTW) is that those with an axe to grind about MS will get wood over the idea.
OK, you currently get life plus 70 years. That will allow your great-grandchildren to continue to profit from your work. Work which they had no part in, nor did their parents, nor their grandparents.
Can you explain why you don't think this is long enough?
If you really write the Great American Novel, but its genius is not recognized until 50 years after you're dead ... I say that should just be tough luck for your descendents.
I see no reason for any copyright to extend more than 30 years. If you are still relying financially on something you wrote 30 years ago ... get a day job already, you're a has-been, not a great artist.
As for your wife - if you were smart you saved and invested while you were making the big bucks for 30 years, so she should have plenty of inheritance anyway.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
It also defies the concept of natural copyright. I don't have to do anything to 'get' my copyright, I own it naturally. It is only if I want to register that copyright with the government that I have to actually do anything. Registering helps establish your claim of a copyright, but it is not what makes a copyright valid or invalid.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Oh you mean: "The most ethical solution would be for the government to pretty much stay out of the way, doing only what is necessary to protect the profits the well-off people are already getting."
The government is our only safeguard for the little people against the tyranny of the corporations and big money.
Leaving aside that fact that you are replying to an obvious, multi-posted troll that you couldn't have possibly read, I'll just ask say this: If these hypothetical "small companies" depend on their own "innovation", why would they be using someone elses GPL'd code in the first place?
What you seem to mean is "My father runs a business. He wants someone else to do the work, and then make money from it without having to pay the person who did the work". You can't blame the guy for that, I'm sure he's a good little capitalist.
Well, most of the democractic world doesn't let nazies to run for the government. Why? Because electing them would mean the end of democracy.
The best way to lose our political freedom is to make the political system completely free for all.
Oh for fucks sake. I'll forgive you one point for having such a stupidly high newbie UID, BUT THIS IS A GODDAMN TROLL. Its been posted in almost every Slashdot story since December 2001.
I suggest you go and find a "BSD is Dying" post and write some well thought out and technically acurate reply to post for that, too.
me to! emial me @ pointlessposter@aol.com adn wes can discys it! :)))))))))
jesus christ! why is it that every night /. turns into a hotbed of socialist nutcases spouting their nonsense??
Actually, I prefer a longer copyright term to help protect the families of artists.
...
If I write the great American Novel, or the great American Song, or the great American Software package,
The current long copyright period for literature and art seems fine to me, but software is fundamentally different. I really like the idea of a much shorter copyright period for software, 5 years extendable to 10. How many commercial software companies would suffer from having 10 years-old versions of their software put in the public domain? Would Microsoft go under if anybody could use the Windows 3.0 source?
The big difference between literature and software is that software is functional. If somebody refuses to issue new editions of a good book, that's a drag but not really harmful. If someone refuses to release a new version of software, its users may be financially harmed, and anything innovative in the code is lost: writers can learn from a book regardless, but software needs the source opened to foster new knowledge.
-- Sigs are for losers
I'm a Swede, and I can assure you we have no such word.
According to Lessig there is no reason to ban or punish proprietary providers. But this view is hardly consistent with Lessig's view on the future of software copyright law. In Lessig's future system, proprietary providers are severely punished. They lose about 100 years of protection, the current copyright protection of life of author plus 70 year,s compared to five plus five years and then full disclosure.
I think the author misunderstands this. Taking away most of the term of the software copyright is not "punishing" proprietary providers, it continues to reward them for publishing closed code by giving them exclusive rights for ten years. It does reduce their *reward* to a much more reasonable term, since most software is pretty much useless after 10 years. Don't forget that this copyright term is a gift from the government to the author, not a fundamental right.
Meanwhile, those who publish Free Software get no rewards in today's system, and Lessig suggests that they should get some when he says that the government should "encourage" open source. "Encourage" means "reward" desired behavior.
Copyright is an entirely artificial right, constructed for social purposes, not one of those "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independance. It is, in fact, more reminiscent of the medieval system of "rights" where the term really meant privileges granted by the feudal system. For example, in many places in Europe the lord had a "right" to sleep with any bride before the husband got a go at her. These kinds of rights can change as society sees fit, according to what is deemed most beneficial.
Perhaps it is best that we reward artists and programmers for their work to provide them an incentive, but this is not a matter of fundamental morality. If you don't want your work copied you can keep it secret, but if you share it with others I see no innate, compelling reason why you should have the power to control how each person uses it should it fall into their hands. In fact, I *do* find it immoral that some should try to restrict use of their work or discoveries in a way that unduly restricts the work's benefit to society in the name of profiteering.
Furthermore, it's unfortunate that this article does not address patents, because even if proprietary sources are divulged ten years from the release of the code, they will remain useless to others if they implement still-active patents held by the author.
The fundamental difference between code and text is this: a principal purpose for the code is the execution of the code. With programs, almost nobody cares about the code itself, but the experience of its execution.
On the other hand, while most of the value of the code lies in the execution, the Copyright Act doesn't actually --and cannot-- cover the functionality, per se. 17 USC s. 102(b). It is for these reasons that protection of copyright is a peculiar province. Copyright has been quite neutered for software in the past 15 years -- providing strong protections only for literal infringements. The licenses have been pumped up, in part, to counterbalance those properties.
As to the question, "why are software licenses more restrictive than books," it is clear: The market tolerates limitations of software licenses, but would not do so with books. if the market really gave the slightest d*#$ about software licenses, they wouldn't buy the software -- but as a whole, we don't, so they do.
I think I should explain where the word lagom comes from...
:)
The word lagom was invented at the bar tables of the vikings, around year 800.
The vikings were drinking meed, and sharing the mugs around the table.
They had a thumb rule which said that the meed should be passed "the team around" - "laget om" in swedish. So to have every viking to drink the right amount, so that everyone would have as much, they invented a word for this amount.
They made an abbrivation out of the expression "laget om", which now became "lagom".
has been used ever since
GNU and GPL is not about politics (law making) or economics (as in direct cash). It's about Getting Things DONE!
This is very important to understand the priority here. Taking care of "Getting Things DONE" means that the ripple effect (improving all other industries as a result of one industry - i.e. oil and how that effected all others - transportation..) actually CAN and then DOES happen in and from the computer industry.
Up untill GNU/Linux/GPL the industry was so damn duck butt tight on every thing it could find and put under constrained control, that this Ripple effect was prevented from happening. And even now it's only just beginning and will improve as the locks on software development methodologies are now becommng far more open to improvemnets, lock removal (programming is the act of automating complexity made up of simpler things, where even programming can be far better automated than what the proprietary gatekeepers [milk it, milk it, milk it] have been allowing).
It's all About Getting Things DONE. When you get things done the side effect is improved economy, and the constitution of the US already supports that, so the politics is already handled too.
Just Get things DONE! The symptoms indicated in economy and politics regarding the computer industry........
Well after all the milking that's gone on, ask yourself this question: GOT MILK? (ripple effect)
Then this question: How is GNU/Linux/GPL helping to generate and cause the long overdue ripple effect? (Got Chocolate Milk? Sweeeeeeet!)
If there is any laws to change, it the "cannot" based laws. They need to be changed to "can" based. As getting a patent or copyright does not somehow give the creator magical power to best make use of their creation. But being open for others to apply it, improve it, etc., certainly generates far more benefit for the population and society. As such it should also benefit the creator more too. Better to have a smaller piece of a huge pie than a large piece of a really small pie. Which one would you need more milk with?
Peter
Didn't Lessig talk of alternatives to copyright in his Slashdot interview? I think we need to consider the alternatives. Pawlo's article is a start, but with no alternatives present, copyright stays in its current make!
Hey, he is just trying to disprove this troll for people who actually read that post and without any thought actually belive it.
The goal of the GPL is software freedom. These freedoms are zero indexed, of course:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I think speaking of a "GNU GPL law" only serves to confound the issue. The issue is software freedom, whether this is something society should value, and what means work best to achieve that end.
The GPL is just a tool.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Ideally, software copyrights should be like patents, you get exclusive rights for use of your code (if you wish to have such protection), for a limited time (I would say 10 years), but you must release it to the public domain (disclosure) after a certain (shorter) time period. If your code is based on something that was already in the public domain, you only get protection for your additions.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
This is a pointlessly divisive debate. What difference does it make if RMS and Bradley Kuhn would support radical change in US copyright laws regarding software?
It's as silly as a heated debate over the future government of Mars.
Radical change in US copyright law regarding software has about as much chance of happening in the next 30 years as legalization of marijuana.
All we can do is fight for what few legal rights we do have (e.g. the right to reverse engineer), and work outside the political and legal system to create a world in which software copyrights don't matter, by writing and supporting Free Software.
Tim O'Reilly, ESR, RMS, and others: please stop the pointless squabbling.
HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
/forced/ to do anything. Lots of good things are ruined by having it be a requirement.
just wanted to let my opinions be known, despite having nothing to back them up.
I just think that no one should be
People should be nice to eachother, if they are forced to 'be nice' they arent being nice, and being nice becomes impossible.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Hey! You missed "moped", its a swedish word imported into english aswell!
I just checked it out on on the dictionary at www.m-w.com
In reality, and when the FSF got started, copyright remains a sound foundation for code. From Dickie's standpoint, the idea stems from the suggest of the code is as much a form as art as a novel, and anyone that ever read the copyright notice may remember the phrase "in whole or in part," and is also familiar with the precept that this excludes, "common use and quotations."
;-), sees your idea, steals your idea, then stashes your idea under his companies long list of patents. These people are rarely dumb enough to declare your breaking the law with your programme (unless said nut-job moves to another department or position and can't warn the bad folks of bob knows which company that suing you would be a really bad idea), but, let's say you mature the code (which is probably better than said nut-job's version) and want to start making money off of it...you apply for your patent, the company gets contacted that someone is applying for a similar patent, then, to save face, they sue you! What the F* are you going to do? You show the court your copyright, and abra cadabra, you counter sue for US$1,000,000 (one million/Dr. Evil Pinky Thing)!
Often, when software is patented, it's either about such a broad idea, like being able to import and export a wide variety of documents, as Corel did in the early nineties, a relatively common or simple idea, like Amazon.com's attempt on the "one-click shopping," or a less than concrete idea, like Apple's "look and feel" suit against Microsoft (ironic as MS probably has the most patents on look and feel today). Another point about patents, even software patents, is that you have 13 years to apply for one, which is good, because it's not abnormal to take nearly that long, sometimes longer, to be able to afford one (Mechanical patents are among the cheapest, costing US$5,000 LISP(five thousand) and take, in some cases, as long as 6mos to get through, as the patent office is almost entirely hard copy, so, you can imagine how long it takes to make sure you're not infringing). Compare that to a group of hackers, many going to college at the time, and you can understand the appeal of the US$20 (twenty) copyright.
Atleast having the copyright will allow you, if you wish to patent later on, to prove the length of time you may have had the idea. As a hypothetical, imagine you write a programme that can layer over any application to add extra capability (like GNOME on a smaller scale), and you copyright the programme. Now some nut-job working in a software company (let's pretend it may or may not be a monopoly
Only difference is, with the GNU GPL, you really don't have a date, just some ASCII you've been distributing with your software, but that doesn't mean you can't go out and get a real copyright as a just in case type of protection.
Oh, um, my idea of an application layer that adds additional features to other applications is GPL'd...most of you know where to get a copy of that;o)
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
One problem with that word (to Swedes) is that the Swedish conservative party is named the "Moderate Party". It's regarded by many as an extremist party, and not lagom at all.
To me moderate sounds like an OK translation, but it's before breakfast and my brain isn't really working. I may get back to you.
This caused some controversy about a year ago when one of the Linux kernel modules moved over to a BSD License. Everyone was wondering whether or not anyone could do such a thing, and whether or not it could remain in the Kernel.
Well, you can do such a thing, but it can't remain as part of the incorporated modules of the Linux Kernel (as the kernel is under the GPL, which conflicts with parts of the BSD License). When realizing his addition would nolonger be a part of the Kernel, it went back to the GPL, which is allowed by the BSD License. The cornerstone of any good license is the breathing room to allow someone to change...not applicable with driver's license, btw;0)
________
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Window has its roots in swedish as well. The swedish word was vindöga, meaning the hole in the roof for the smoke to escape from the fire in the center of the house.
It was exported to english when the vikings went to Scotland.
It's not like the programme won't still run under Linux on a 386 in that time...you're only issue will be finding a 386.
In 75 years, I predict that the Linux Kernel will be at 3.2.8-pre67, and will support recently de-copyrighted software in a subenvironment with in the kernel, which will take advantage of bio-processors!
Silliness post, feel free to be amused at the brilliance of the law.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
The reason peole refer to it as the GNU GPL and not just GPL, is because the name is GNU Gross (as in complete) Public License; as just GPL, it's Gross Public License, but only two groups have ever had a license called GPL, so no one questions that you mean GNU (as the other refers toaster overs, yes, toaster ovens; that license is about "if you use this toaster oven for anything other than toasting slices of bread, it's not our fault on whatever the repurcussions.")
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I keep hearing mention of the 'license' not allowin the author to change the license.
(going back to the GPL is allowed by the BSD license).
The author of the software is *NOT IN ANY WAY* bound by the license he chose to release the software under. He's not even bound to give you source under GPL if he distributes binaries. He holds the copyright; the code is not 'licensed' to him... it BELONGS to him.
Yes... if you receive code under the BSD license, you can re-release it yourself under GPL.. that may be true (I have no idea, sounds reasonable)
And Yes... if you receive code under the GPL, you cannot stard re-distributing it under BSD....
But again, the author of said code has no such restrictions.
You make several totally wrong statements in your post.
Firstly.. the GPL does not destroy the rights of the individual developer. He still holds the copyright on the code. He has not given that away.
And as the copyright holder, he can still do *whatever he wants* with his code. He is under no obligation to continue distributing it. He can release versions under whatever license he wants. He can sell the code to Microsoft. He can do anything he feels like with it.
In fact.. as the author, you are the ONLY person who can license that software to someone else under other terms. Everyone else is stuck with the GPL.
The only thing the author can't do is revoke the rights he granted others under GPL.
Could 'getting things Done' be rephrased: 'Making The Trains Run On Time'?
The Linux movement is about getting things DONE. GNU and in particular the GPL is about enforcing a political view.
Converting the world to the GPL is the goal of GNU -- not to provide the world with useful software.
The ripple effect could be a beautiful thing, but GNU has nothing to do with it -- take a look at the Linux movement instead.
Why shouldn't the copyright extend to perpetuity.
The work that is copyrighted, if it has value, should hold that value.
Otherwise, it's like you're saying that if I build a house, and my descendents inherit it, it becomes state property in 70 years.
That just doesn't make sense.
Oh, it does to some people, I understand. Luckily most of them don't have a hell of a lot of clout anymore.
Actually, I prefer a longer copyright term to help protect the families of artists.
Why shouldn't you do what the rest of us do, and invest some of your earnings? 10 years should be more than enough to accumulate a pretty nice nest egg.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
An accountant is called onto the carpet by the owner of a major league baseball team. He storms "I lost six million dollars last year!" The accountant is stunned. "But I just filed the statements, and you made five million dollars last year." "Yes," retorts the owner, "and the year before that I made eleven million dollars. I lost six million dollars last year!!!"
Indeed, losing an entitlement you never deserved in the first place is a big step backwards. That's hardly what Lessig means by punative.
Losing all 'rights' would mean he is not free to do anything with it whatsoever.
As I said:
He is free to sell his code to some company
He is free to issue it under whatever license he wants
He is free to not release it at all
The only thing he cannot do is negate the fact that he released it previously under GPL. That is a rather different story than 'doing whatever he wants with his code'.
Even though you seem to think most licenses allow you to revoke the license.. they are often not legal. Do you honestly think Microsft can say "Nobody is allowed to use Windows anymore, under penalty of law. We are revoking the license?" no. They can't. Because they already GRANTED that license to everyone.
He isn't handcuffed to the GPL version. He can ignore it, not support it, not use it, not distribute it.
You seem to have a narrow view of what kinds of things might be done with code.
Picture a library that does something specific.. say something like.. a new form of video compression.
You come out with a GPL version. Everyone loves it.
Then some company wants to use it in their proprietary product, and doesn't want to be bound by the gpl. You are free to license it to them under whatever terms you want.. you are not bound by the GPL... it's YOUR code.
He Can do whatever he wants with his code! It's HIS!
So he's trying to protect people dumber than himself? I'm not sure such specimens exist.
Because intellectual property isn't. You can't own something abstrat, only goods. Copyright is a bargain between the government and the people. On the people's side, the government grants a limited monopoly on a particular idea so that the inventors/artists/etc. have a chance to profit from it. This is to promote people to do such things in the first place. On the other hand, on the government's side, the monopoly expires so that all of humanity can eventually enjoy a work.
Intellectual property is not a natural right. It's an artificial one that merely provides incentive. Once a reasonable period of time has elapsed, it should belong to the people. Personally, I favor copyright terms of life or 20 years, whichever is shorter. The number of cases of an author producing (to use the above example) the great American novel and it not being recognized are far fewer than the number of cases where humanity would benefit from works being placed in the public domain.
The last free dictionary is from 1913! It's still pretty good, but the only reason we don't have a more modern one is due to copyright law. I don't think publishing companies would lose anything from 20 year old dictionaries being available freely from gutenberg, but the people would gain a great deal.
Until such time as the GPL is actually enforced[...]
Exactly what does the enforcement of the GPL under current law have to
do with proposals for making new law? If the GPL was made law
(something which would be ridiculous other reasons) then it would be
enforcible by definintion.
On a small scale, codifying the GPL just takes the decision on that
enforcement out of the hands of the people who produced the code in
the first place and give it to an overworked legal system that most of
us wouldn't trust as far we can throw it anyway.
Wrong. The courts are already the last resort of enforcement of the
GPL, or any other license agreement. Scrutinizing the details of
every harebrained contract out there is much more trouble for an
overworked court than enforcing a single universal law. (Again,
codifying the GPL into law is a bad idea, but not for this reason.)
On a larger scale, if ALL end-user code has to be open you adversely
impact all sorts of things that you never considered in your knee-jerk
reaction. [...]online gaming goes into the shitter as every
client instantly becomes 100% untrustworthy.
Newsflash! Any client is already 100% untrustworthy. There are many
ways to circumvent game logic that don't require access to the source
code and people already use them. Design games with this in mind.
Scum will be scum no matter what you do with the laws. "Breaking"
the GPL is already illegal, and it's not stopping them so far.
This is a good point, but often the consequences of violating a
contract are much less severe than running afoul of an established
law. Nevertheless, the GPL is a clever (and somewhat successful)
attempt to weaken copyright law using its own enforcement mechanisms.
If you are able to change the law itself, the thing to do -- and the
thing that the article actually advocates -- is to weaken copyright
law, not to codify a subversive hack.
Seems to me that the only reason the utter drivel of the original
article even gets a mention (and thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my
life, BTW) is that those with an axe to grind about MS will get wood
over the idea.
No, you have wasted five minutes of your life because
you decided to devote energy to this topic. Get over yourself
and start taking responsibility for your actions.
Originally, the view prevailed that binary code was not copyrightable because it was obviously (usually) not something created by humans that was readable by them. But by analogy with encrypted cable channels, and because of a general bias towards business interests, that view changed. Today, not only are binaries copyrighted, publishers are permitted to impose onerous contracts on purchasers, something that would be obviously ridiculous if it were done with printed books. In fact, software companies are permitted to get patents without providing a working implementation (often the hard part), they can get a copyright yet fail to comply with fair use doctrines, and they keep trade secrets on stuff that they also claim copyrights on.
What all that means is that we need to rethink what intellectual property should mean for computer programs.
Now, RMS's position, is one way in which one might think about changing copyright law. It's not about some communist utopia (no-cost software may or may not be the side-effect, but it's not the goal), it's about the ability to modify programs that you paid for and share the modifications with others, and for that you need source code. You might imagine an open source requirements in which everybody who sells software and claims copyright is required to ship sources with it, but you cannot redistribute sources or binaries you receive yourself, although you may redistribute patches and other users can buy the base software from the same vendor you did. You might imagine legislating that any software license must give you at least the rights of something like the QPL, protecting commercial interests but allowing free software and giving commercial users source access. You might also imagine a requirement to put works that are not available anymore into the public domain or into some clearinghouse (this is also an issue with out-of-print books).
While some form of proprietary software, as opposed to free software, may be beneficial, I think it is pretty clear that the current legal mechanisms by which proprietary software is protected are not working very well.
It appears that there are a number of confusions in Pawlo's article that I
would like to clear up, if possible.
It is ultimately biased to discuss whether or not "someone wants to make
proprietary software illegal". Proprietary software is, as Pawlo's
article notes, based on copyright law. Copyright law is a construct
created by various legal systems throughout the world, and it makes
proprietary software possible.
Laws exist in Free societies for the good of the public. The question
that we raise in the Free Software Movement is: "When copyright law is
applied to software, does it have a negative or positive effect on
society?" And, "If that effect is negative, what changes must be made so
that the public is best served in the realm of software?"
These are hard questions to consider, and are by and large ignored in
today's Free Software debates. I theorize that they are ignored for two
reasons: (a) none of us in the Free Software community have the means to
change existing copyright law anyway and (b) we already have legal tools
that allow us to work for software freedom within the existing copyright
system. In a sense, we have a working solution to the problem.
The GNU GPL is a legal tool that works within the copyright system to
build a world with software freedom for all. However, the GNU GPL never
tries to do an end-run around existing copyright law, nor could it; it is
a copyright license. The GNU GPL is the interim solution that is designed
to give and defend freedom in a world where proprietary software exists
and is the norm.
In the future, perhaps our congresses, houses of parliament, and political
leaders will be ready to have the debate about how copyright for software
could be changed to truly serve society. The Free Software Movement
should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins. However,
we at the FSF by and large don't actively propose ideas of how software
copyright law could be changed to serve society better. It just seems
silly to play "what-if"---focusing on a message that our politicians
aren't ready nor willing to hear. So, we focus on battles we can likely
win: opposition of extending copyright law any further, and a repeal of
the DMCA and DCMA-like laws worldwide.
The Free Software Movement is unique among social movements; we currently
have the means to create the commons we want (i.e., hacking talent) and
the legal tools to defend that commons (i.e., the GNU GPL). I suggest
that we focus on building a better commons and defending the commons we
have, rather than arguing about what we would do if we suddenly became
president or prime minister.
I agree that "what-if" and self-satire are fun games to play at a cocktail
party. However, we have a serious and hard road ahead of us to win
software freedom for computer users. I hope that we can close this debate
that has dragged on and on in our community. I suggest that we focus on
what we need to do in the coming year to defend the software freedom we
have, and to give software freedom to more people who don't have it yet.
Can you explain why you don't think this is long enough?
I suppose I should have phrased that as "I prefer the longer copyright term to the shorter patent term." I had put in some commments on patents then decided that they were a little OT and deleted them, and didn't clarify the previous statement which made more sense with the patent stuff left in. I think taking care of grandchildren is a good spot to end it.
It is more likely the case that the true classics of literature and art are not appreciated at the time.
How would you like it if you saw the work that your spouse or parent create bastardized? Don't you think it would upset you to see something your parents worked so hard to create (say a wonderful symphony) used to sell tampons during soap operas?
Lets put it this way: The only people who bash the GPL are those who do not believe that all software can and should be free. It's as simple as that. GPL is anti-proprietary, BSD is not. GPL is only "less free" if you're looking to profit from selling licenses of modified versions. Frankly, if I put a lot of time and effort into a piece of software for the love of programming and with the goal of helping people, I don't want somebody else taking my code, improving it a little, and then selling it as non-free software. If I license the software as GPL, I am guaranteed that the latest and greatest rendition will REMAIN free and that any contributions that others make will also be free.
Why do some people not believe that all software can and should be free? Because although they may share the "idealistic" vision of a free-information society, they are afraid that somehow, the elimination of proprietary software will put them out of a job. Wrong. There are plenty ways to make money producing software without charging for licenses. Just because VA and others lacked direction and failed miserably doesn't mean the model is some broken dot-Com dream. The reason that there are so few jobs in the production of GPL software is that most programmer geeks are lazy and afraid to take risks. The employers that exist today are the 'previous generation' types, who are trapped in the proprietary-thinking box and refuse to leave because it's working for them. It is the software manufacturing mindset, "build widgets and sell them." Nobody thus far has even made an attempt at truly treating software production as a service instead of a product. Customers don't care about licenses, they care about solutions. Provide a better solution and you will make money. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I never thought I'd see the day when Slashdot was one of the biggest FUD machines against free software.
Not at all. While I understand your reflection, being a native Swedish speaker that now speak English, I can say that the only thing the two words have in common is that they specify a quantity.
Moderate means "an amount, but not too high an amount -- don't stretch it", sort of.
The Swedish lagom, however, means "just the right amount for the occasion". I would disagree with Michael's definition of lagom being a wide space; rather, it is a rather precise term, one of careful judgment of what is precisely the correct amount. When I go on my motorcycle on the highways, for example, a lagom speed for me is 260-270 km/h; this could hardly be considered a moderate speed.
Hi i am from Sweden. DONT LISTEN TO THAT LAGOM GUY!
I know exactly what "lagom" means i Swedish. Because
i live in Sweden and they dont support the Open Source Movement at all! The collaborate with the
Microsoft Company and sell the whole nation to Microsoft. Sweden is a collectivistic cuntry in
the worst possible way. The Swedish ministers
met Bill Gates in Malmoe in a meeting called
"digital bridge". I live in Sweden and i am actually
frighten what is happening to our freedom of speech.
Dont...DONT EVER...do any "lagom" chnages to GNU
/GPL. Sweden has a problem dealing with it and
there is praktically no Linux companys at all.
Because...The have sold the whole nation...To Microsoft! And now they have a problem. Its
not the future....:)
This explanation of the word's origins, while popular, is an afterconstruction.
The word shares grammatical origins with stundom, i.e. timely. The word lagom would thus mean "lawly", "lawfully", or more relaxed, "according to convention".
I live in Sweden. That word "lagom" means that
someone must regualate everything in the nation
so it's actually becomes "lagom". But what is the
actuall case this time. The problem is that
the politicians that decides what is "lagom"
Now understands: that the company they sold the
"lagom" concept to. That company has not the solution for the future. And that company is...Microsoft!. Keep the GPL. And GPL is not
politics! But in this actuall case it is. Just
dont listen to the man...Dont listen to Swedish
politicians. They have just made a wrong decision:
..........Microsoft
Lost me, I was talking about the author choosing which license he releases under. If you get a programme or code under the BSD License, there are conditions before you can release code or a programme based on that code under the GPL (BSD allows the author to do multiple licenses, ie, BSD to the masses and GPL to someone doing some extended something or another, in which, said code is in use).
Though you can distribute a GPL programme in binary form, in order to be GPL, the code must be provided somewhere, and with the LGPL, you can limit that access (as Microsoft refers to it "shared source"), but the idea behind the GPL is that the software is free speech, and therefore, the code must be available somewhere.
I don't know where you here that this that or the other license prevents the author from changing licenses, but my experience is that this is often the result of a misunderstanding. In my example about module, it was several leftest dot-head gnuist-wannabe's that tried making people believe that switching from GPL to BSD was "not allowed." Such a thing would only help Microsoft's position.
There once was a time, however, that relicensing was challenged. It was back in the mid-nineties, some nowhere company, I believe, was licensing software to IBM, but they changed the license, but only after IBM had bought the related software. It was all very Microsoftian, the idea that "we changed our license policy, so, you must conform." IBM won, as licensing techniques weren't all that matured at the time, i.e. they hadn't learned the Microsoft technique of claiming something like, "Every year you use our software is a renewal of our licensing terms."
Only people like that ever try to make extend claims about what and where the license applies, i.e. Microsoft wannabes and gnuist wannabes. In reality, you could use GPL source in a project, and open source only the areas that piece of code relates; it does not span the whole work, and despite a misunderstanding created by Microsoft, it does not create a dominoe effect (like a world of open source would be a bad thing...).
If I have caused your misunderstanding by using the module example, I apologize; I hope this clears things up ^_^
________
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Hey troll.. the guy who wrote the article lives in sweden too, you know.
This is something I've brought up before, but it bears mentioning again. How could a GPL program's author ever detect a violation of the license in a closed-source program? That is, if a programmer whose code was not published decided to use the code from a GPL program in a non-GPL program, thus requiring him/her to publish their code, how could it ever be detected and remedied?
"The Free Software Movement should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins."
Wake up and smell the coffee - this is it!
I am very surprised to learn of your defensive attitude. You started the debate by releasing free software and the GNU GPL and now you dislike the current debate and wait for the "real" debate to begin? Meanwhile, new copyright legislation is adopted in the EU through the Infosoc directive and the anti-circumvention ideas of the DMCA enter Europe.
I am sorry, but this doesn't make much sense to me. Richard M Stallman has accomplished a lot by releasing the free software school of philosophy and the GNU GPL. It is the number one major, global, full-scale experiment concerning copyright and Stallman is basically a genius.
Therefore, it is very sad that the Free Software Foundation choose not to consider and discuss the alternatives to the current legislation. I think you could add a lot of experience and thoughts to such a discourse. I am not convinced that the GNU GPL is perfect in its current draft, but it's a good start for a discussion on todays legislation. So is the BSD license, the open source definition and also any proprietary license. They all develop and push the discussion of copyright further, whether you like it or not. So does the development of software patents and the opposition against them.
The politicians are listening, but in order for them to even consider a change in major international treaties and conventions like TRIPS, the Berne Convention and WIPO's Copyright Treaty, one needs to give them arguments for a change. Copyright of today is a global issue. Still - laws can be changed. I consider the US Constitution and the work of the framers an act of geniuses. Do you know why? They were simple farmers and they knew they weren't perfect. Hence, even the US Constitution can be changed. That's the beauty of it.
Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
Yes. And to software companys that support open :)
source...and survives...is less than zero.Becuse
the goverment and the industri have sold the whole
nation to Microsoft. Now they undertstand that it's
perhaps not the future. By the way: Open Source
made software from sweden. It fits on a floppy!
...Other political statesment this week: "Marry
homosexuals in the church of god before 2010"-
the goverment. "Kill the biological family" (as
a model for society)-the Communist party i Sweden.
The first case ok. It's perhaps a progress of
mankind. But the last statement (belive me they
mean it) ooooh aaaah....Please dont listening
to anything from Sweden. But use their Open
Source software....it fits on a floppy
Well, all forms of property are artificial notions that come from government. I wish people would get over the idea that it's an act of government benevolence that I'm allowed to have some control over the creative work that I produce.
I'm sorry that I don't see it as any form of a 'crisis' that the last free dictionary is from 1913. Why would 'the people' gain a great deal? Furthermore, why should it matter wether 'the people' benefit or not?
The leader of the Swedish Communist parti and also
collaborator of the swedish gowerment did a political statement earlier this week. "Kill the
family"...in Swedish: "Död åt familjen" The leader
wants to get rid of the biological family as a
model for the society.I want Slashdot and
Open Source to focus on software development
but i an seriosly scared what is happening in
our country. Mr Stallman wroted earlier this year
his name under a document for free speech in
Sweden. And its happening other strange things
too. And this article from the swedish guy is
just one of them. Whats happening in Sweden...
...I can tell you fo sure. Its not "Lagom"...
....uuuuh =(
"Paranoia is just reality at a higher resolution"
I know that...And i'm stable as a kernel-2.7-ac_12
:) When i tell you this...Dont listen to the guy!
Sometimes when we create software we can se the
current progress. And very often we can tell. In
about three years...our progress has come to this
and that level...In political society we can often
but not always calculate the progress on a 3-5
years base. And what i have to say now is: Linux
is not "Lagom". It can newer be "lagom". And a
"lagom" society has no future! Young people in
Sweden know that (but the writer of the article
seem to either be old or not representative for
young people in Sweden). So this has nothing
to do with software. It's about the "lagom"
country (which is our parents model). We have
serious problems in about 3-5 years. If nothing
happens to the "lagom" model we are.....psssst
..............(In war with our parents)....and
thats the most scary scenario in history. So
my recomends is: We need your help to explain
what freedom is to our parents! But if you are
skeptical to my theories. You should perhaps
dont listen to me. And you should perhaps not
listen to the "Lagom guy" either. But ten years
in Linux community have give me a very clear
thought about what freedom is and the country
of "Lagom" is sooner or later become the nightmare
country. You have my words for it. Thank you for
listening...(i apologize for my poor English
i'm not in "world mode" tonight...we have problems
of ourselves...in the "lagom" country)
One point that it seems many people miss is that at the hypothetical end of a copyright term, you don't lose the ability to profit from your work. You just lose the exclusive ability to profit. That recognizes the fact that intellectual property, such as music, ideas, stories, etc. becomes part of the fabric of society - you can't "un-influence" a work of art on you.
The Founding Fathers recognized this - that's why they wrote a limited copyright term into the Constitution. They realized that once an idea gets out into the public, you can't hope to stop its flow. A limited copyright term balances the rights of an author to have exclusive control over their work for a limited time, against the rights of the people to use that idea in an unfettered way. I'm shocked that the current copyright abuse hasn't been ruled unconstitutional - only the most tortured logic could reconcile "life of the author + 70 years" with the "for a limited time" clause in the Constitution. Under this system, the copyrights on things produced today may outlive my children or grandchildren (I'm 26), and I have no reason to believe that Congress won't try to up it to "life + 80" or "life +100" next time Mickey Mouse's copyright comes due.
Unfortunately, copyright has now become more of a tool of corporate profits than of public progress, thanks to desire for eternal control. The copyright system that you support will eventually lead us into a system where there is no work in the public domain, and every time you do something, you pass around payment to whichever corporate entity holds the long-dead author's copyright. Land of the free, indeed. Authors and musicians were able to make a living and create lasting works before the copyright system got bastardized.
As for losing control over how your work is used, boo hoo. By keeping that tampon company from using your symphony, you're also keeping another composer from weaving parts of it into an even better symphony. Them's the breaks for publishing something - neither the ad exec or the other composer can "forget" that the work exists, so why should they be constrained in perpetuity?
I swear, the greed gets worse and worse every year.
More precisely, they are notions that come from political philosophers like John Locke and are enforced by the government.
The concept of IP is much newer than that of property rights. (Well, I suppose the "trademark" was foreshadowed by wax seals many thousands of years ago, but those were used more as signatures, not as brand names.)
And I wish people would get over the idea that IP can be thought of exactly the same as real property.
Look - if you want to think of IP as "just like real property", consider what happens when you sell someone a bushel of oranges. You no longer have any control over what that person does with the oranges. He could plant them and grow his own trees, or eat them, or genetically alter their seeds as a research project. By selling the property, you cede absolute control over it to the buyer.
And yet, when you sell your IP, in the form of bound volumes, or CDs, or numbered lithographs, or software, somehow you expect to keep control over what the buyer does with it.
In summary, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want "property rights" for your IP, but you don't really want it to be treated like regular property.
...Or think of it this way. If you want control over the IP you produce - don't publish it! Keep it on your coffee table for visitors to marvel at, and don't let anyone borrow it.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Only on /. could a certified lunatic like Tim Rue spew his vague and insane ramblings and still earn karma.
Hey Tim, have you still not understood that "The Matrix" is a work of fiction made to entertain and earn money?
Slashdot Poll:
Daily pr0n?
* None
* kB
* MB
* GB
* TB
* http://cowboyneal.org/Pater.jpg
If you said you wanted all your bank account, and I said I wanted all of it. Would it really be a just compromize if we decided to each take half?
The fact is that copyrights are coercive, and when people impose them they are expecting rights that they don't have. The only real solution is the just solution: get rid of copyright monopolies all together. Then we won't need a GPL, or a codeified law.
GPL is the Gnu Public License. Alot of people share your view about it though. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it (below). Just commenting on it
Actually, GPL stands for General Public License.
This was happening, by the way, right around the time when the first usable free Unix-oid systems for 386's started circulating: Bill Jolitz's BSD-based system and one based on a new kernel written by some CS student in Finland who nobody had ever heard of. BSD was by far the more established system but the legal cloud created by the AT&T lawsuit was IMHO a large factor in why Linux overtook BSD in popularity and never looked back.
Why should the family of artists be granted extended rights to the artist's work (after they are dead)? They didn't do the work. It doesn't benefit society in any fashion. What you're really asking for is welfare for artist's families, and using an anecdote to "prove" the need.
If you write the Great American Novel or the Great American Software Package, then you should save enough money from the proceeds to provide for you & your family, even after you are gone. Your family shouldn't get a free ride at society's expense just because you were able to make some bucks off a "product" whose value was artificially created by society in the first place. If you weren't able to provide enough for them while you were around, then they'll have to either do something themselves to make money, or they'll have to ask other people for help.
> I'm sorry, but the article referenced seems to
.SE Copyright law effectively nullifies any terms relating to the users right to try, explore and test the ideas behind the program. (www.riksdagen.se, read SFS "1960:729")
> imply that it would be legal and ethical to
> pass laws restricting or eliminating
> proprietary software licenses.
We're already there;
First, DVD's are not "easy" to copy. It takes a lot of bandwidth to truly distribute a DVD (even in divx format) online. So, small simple things are easy to copy, larger more complex things aren't... much like it's always been in the real world.
Of course with paper books we have a barrier of entry for getting the paper format into ASCII format, but ASCII is *really* easy to copy. (Actually I could just scan a book and send it to a friend...)
The fact it's easier to copy now than it ever has been in the past just makes copyright all the harder to enforce. Which makes it all the more important to decide if the costs of copyright outweigh the benefits. And (more importantly) which costs we can afford and which benefits are worthwhile.
If you think warez sucks for the producer, just think how much 80 year copyright terms suck for the consumer.
All the consumers I know merely click "next" on the license agreement without reading it in the first place. They then proceed to break the agreement anytime it's convenient for them.
The first time a consumer goes to jail over breaking a software license, I think we'll see some d*#$ given to the idea. Consumers don't care what's in those agreements because they're not valid and never have been.