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.
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
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
Wrong. Although copyrights on books and software both found in title 17, there are lots of restrictions of copyright law that specifically state that they only apply to software. Just look at the federal supremacy provision for just one example.
Not everyone agrees that the restrictions on books are acceptable terms. There is lots of controversy about the ever-shrinking definition of fair use in books. For a good history of these restrictions from the origin of copyright as a way of controlling publication of the Christian bible in England, you might want to read The Nature of Copyright: A Law of User's Rights, by L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, with a forward by Robert W. Kastenmeier, who chaired the House subcomittee that created the 1976 Copyright Act.
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
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!
Mikael
Pawlo.com
I will try to clarify my point in some short parapgraphs.
The issue that I am trying to address and discuss is: if we should and were able to change current copyright law and the way we look at software protection into something else - what would it be?
I can't see a perfect alternative among the present ideas of copyright protection. However, I think some people tend to rule out for example - replacing the copyright statues with GNU GPL - just because they don't like the GNU GPL. My point is that we could instead think of a world where there was something else instead of copyright for computer programs.
Thinking like an economist, I am sure that we need proper incentives for programmers. Therefore I am not convinced that the Free Software Foundation license could replace copyright law all the way. However, thinking like a citizen, I think we need more transparency in the software, thus following Lessig's ideas expressed in Code and other laws of Cyberspace. Somewhere between the GNU GPL and the current copyright protection I think we can find a new balanced solution to protection of computer programs with good incentives for programmers but a greater deal of transparency than what we have today.
Therefore I introduced the Swedish word "lagom" into the debate. I know that my article lacks a definition of "lagom" copyright, but please just consider this the start. I think we have very different views of what "lagom" copyright for computer programs is.
TRIPS, the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty plus the amount of works currently protected by life + seventy copyright statues make me very pessimistic about the possibility to change copyright law. However, we need to start finding good alternatives to todays software protection. Over time, the protection for new computer programs might change. If we do nothing, our children and their children will have to deal with these issues when we are long gone. Well, actually they will deal with these issues no matter what - currently copyrighted will be protected for another 150 years...
Best regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
first of all, the GPLed code is NOT YOURS to begin with. It is owned by the author. If the author releases his/her code under the GPL it is their choice, and YOU, who dont even own the code, _should not_ even think of tampering with it unless you agree to be bound by the GPL.
Stop whining and write _YOUR OWN CODE_ if you dont like the GPL. Its simple.