Slashdot Mirror
Debian And WineX
fdsa writes "After a heated debate, and under some pressure by TransGaming, an 'intent to package' WineX from sourceforge CVS for (non-free) Debian has been withdrawn. The message provides a good summary of the recent Wine chaos, and notes how WineX is effectively under a different license than stated. Here's a mail from their CEO Gavriel State on the issue."
Amusingly, Gentoo Linux users can install WineX with a single command. It is packaged (I assume) from the Sourceforge CVS, and given that Gentoo compiles everything from scratch, conveniently sidesteps the whole distributing binaries thing.
By the way, for fellow Gentoo users, a 2002/05/11 ebuild is currently available by "# emerge winex". Check the package list for the most recent date.
This past year, I was accepted into Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science. It has been a remarkable experience that I would lik e to share with the Slashdot community. Here's an account of my experience.
Week 1, Sunday: I moved in today. My roommate, a sophomore CS student, had already moved in tw o days before me. The floor is already completely covered with garbage. He also smells. I think he might be gay too. He's already asked me if I like the color he painted his toenails. This should be interesting. I am almost completely settled in. Techno music is playing in every room in every floor of my dorm. There are computers and other types of trash out in the common areas. What a mess. Tom orrow, I am going to go sign up to get my network connection.
Week 1, Monday: I got hooked up to the CMU network today! I jacked into the network, only to f ind that the hostname and address assigned to me were colliding with another system. I'll just increm ent the network numbers a few times. I am really eager to get on.
Week 1, Tuesday: I am still looking for a free IP address. Can't anybody here properly configu re their systems?
Week 1, Friday: I finally found a free IP! It's mine! You sons of bitches can't have i t, I found it, I keep it, it's mine! To hell with all of you! Head hurts really bad. I've slowly be en developing a headache since I first arrived. Everywhere I look there are these Lucent Technologies wireless access points. I wonder if that's the problem.
Week 1, Saturday: I sat down at my computer today. My desktop wall paper is now the goatse.cx guy. Pleasant. Scattered over every directory on my C: drive are thousands, possibly millions, of fi les titled "J00AR30WN3DBITCH-phj33r-" and then some random hacker's name. Don't these people have liv es? Maybe they need laid or something. It'd take days to clean this out. I mentioned to my roommate that I needed to reinstall Windows, and immediately he jumped up and shouted: "NO! Do NOT use Window s!" Suddenly, two dozen other guys (all of them possibly homosexuals) appeared at the door, each tout ing an operating system called Linux. Half of them got into a fight over which was better, Debian, Re dHat, Slackware, and a bunch of others I couldn't recognize. Some kid who appeared to not have shower ed since he was born was touting "Linux From Scratch", saying that only losers used pre-made distros. A crowd of people in the back kept quiet about how I'd be sorry if I used Linux instead of BSD on the network. Who the fuck are these people? Classes start next week. Hope I have my computer working s o I can do my assignments.
Week 3, Friday: People are still trying to get Linux to work on my system. They keep telling m y that my hardware sucks. We go through about four or five distributions a day. Every now and then, I notice a little devil on my screen. Stickers for every of these distributions have been plastered o n my case. Suddenly, my room stinks a lot more with these people in here. I ask them why they never shower, and the usual response is something along the lines of "showering is like rebooting" and "I do n't want to lose my uptime."
Week 3, Saturday: There's a troop of men running naked in a circle around McGill Hall. I am no t even going to ask.
Week 4, Wednesday: Linux is FINALLY working on my computer! I have a pretty slick desktop too. I think I might like this. I can finally work in my room instead of the labs, although considering the every increasing layer of garbage on the floor...
Week 4, Thursday: My computer flashes messages about how I am "0WNX0RED" and how I should "PHJ3 3R" whoever and how "L4MEX0R" I am for having an insecure box. A kid suggests we reinstall Linux afte r discovering about 17 rootkits.
Week 5, Friday: Someone got BSD working on my computer. I wonder if this will last. The stres s has been building and I forgot to take a shower this morning.
Week 6, Tuesday: Seems I have been "0WNX0R3D" again. Took longer this time. Minutes later, so meone comes in with a "Bastile Linux" install CD. He gets started installing. I am feeling very susp icious of these guys.
Week 6, Thursday: Everyone seems to know more about my system than I do. It's a bit unnerving. I guess anyone could feel upset from this sort of treatment. They hack my box, trash it, then reins tall everything. I guess they think they're being funny. My dirty clothes are piling up and I am out of clean ones. I don't have time to do laundry, I'll have to wear something out of the pile.
Week 6, Friday: I got up this morning, sat at my machine, and stared at it blankly. An icon ap peared on my desktop for Quake III. I suppose it couldn't hurt to play some. I have been very stress ed lately.
Week 6, Sunday: I lost track of time! I started playing Quake III on the network with some oth er CMU students (who killed me hundreds of times in the course of 10 minutes) and completely lost myse lf. There's a bag of chips that has been sitting here for a few weeks. I think I'll finish those off for breakfast and then go to sleep.
Week 7, Wednesday: I masturbate every day now. Not a single girl comes near me. This is so de pressing. Do I really smell? Oh well, I have the task of learning how to secure my Linux box to keep me busy. Who has time for the opposite sex after all?
Week 8, Tuesday: I got into a fight with this little shit who kept telling me RedHat was great. What a fucking moron! Anybody who knows Linux knows that Debian kicks its sorry little ass. I'll b e getting my judiciary papers for the incident in the mail. Doesn't this school get it? I can't let someone go around converting people to RedHat! WtF!?
Week 8, Friday: My roommate squeezed my ass today! At first I was shocked and appauled, and I told him off for it. Thinking about it later though, there was just something that seemed too strong about my reaction. I'll talk to him later and appologize for getting so upset, it wasn't really so ba d.
If you read the entire Open Source initiative statement, you'll understand that Open Source is just a fancy name for proprietary licenses. Yea, there are some guidlines that must be met but they are a mile wide, so when someone says they are "Open Source", you really have to read their license, because it could be just about anything.
GPL all the way, baby. You know what you're getting every time.
#include <sig.h>
If you want it to be truely free, use the GPL license. If you don't care, then use the BSD, Artistic, X11 or what-have-you. This is a good example of what can happen.
This is why I bought a PlayStation 2 -- NOTHING is free, and I don't expect any of it to be, so I'm not disappointed. I can just sit down and PLAY GAMES without making moral decisions.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I think the CEO's email makes their concern quite clear. They acknowledge that the current license can't prevent anyone from making a debian package. I think he's presented quite a reasonable argument for third parties re-packaging their code. What it doesn't address is why they don't make debian packages themselves. (please forgive me if they do, I don't use any flavor of Wine, and the CEO's email seemes to imply they don't, and have canceled plans to do so.)
From the E-Mail "If Debian goes ahead and packages WineX despite our request, we will have to evaluate how
that is affecting our financial situation, and determine whether we should change our
license to restrict any future binary-packaged redistribution, regardless of commercial or
non-commercial intent. It would certainly be our preference not to have to do so."
You know, as I recall there once was a day when projects such as these were more concerned with producing great software rather than profit margins. Unfortunatly it does take money to run a business, and in order to keep it viable so that you can continue to create great software you have to be able to finance the development process. Still I almost feel sad for some reason.
It seems that most Gentoo users are ex-Debian and ex-Slackware users who got fed up with all the bureaucracy and stagnation of these distros. After using Debian for some 5 years I can say that my machine is really happy with Gentoo, while it was pretty scared with Debian.
I'm not saying that to flame any distro, I'd just like to point to Debian and Slackware users there is another decent way to follow.
Transgaming has also promised to give back the sourcecode to Wine. There are many obstacles, including licenced technology like SafeDisc and S3 Texture Compression (if they ever do it) but I'm sure they can overcome it.
I would guess there are now more working games for Linux than for Mac OS. That's impressive.
Ciryon
Does a proprietry WineX threaten Linux in any way? No not really. It is a system that allows proprietry windows software to run on open source/free Linux. It hardly matters quite where the free/prop. divide is drawn either above or below the middleware - the end result is that the user is running is a non-free application - although things might be a bit confused if they start sticking prop. kernel modules into Linux - but then again, there is the precedence of VMware et al for this.
So there is nothing legally wrong with what Transgaming are doing. I say let them carry on - but just clear up the confusion and plainly state that WineX is a proprietry system. If anyone's nose is out of joint then it was Wine's fault for ever being under the BSD liscense - which it isn't now.
Of course Transgamings Business Model is wrong. They should simply re-sell Windows games - either to Windows users or to Linux users bundling WineX and some installation glue a la codeweavers.
yeah, but most people don't want to spend an additional $250+ for a game system (including necessary attachments) when they have a $1000+ one sitting at home (plus most of these people pirate the damn games anyway ;)
I agree w/you wholeheartedly, but most will not.
Right now, I am a paid subscriber to Transgaming. If they don't get their act together - and I mean soon - they are going to have one less subscriber. I will not support a company that doesn't contribute to free software.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Funny enough even the .NET framework, in particular the subset of the CLR (Common Language Runtime), CLI (Common Language Infrastructure). Check out go-mono.com for more info on this, in addition to this microsoft and corel have announced plans some time ago to make and implementation of the C# (C sharp) and the CLI available for BSD. Microsoft and open source, who would have ever guessed?
If you want it to be truely free, use the GPL license. If you don't care, then use the BSD, Artistic, X11 or what-have- you. This is a good example of what can happen.
I think you don't understand.
To be 'truely' free you should use BSD license. It basically gives your code away.
Those of us who use GPL do it to get back some fruits of our hands. I WANT that any of my modified code will come back to me.
I think BSD people are very generous, but I personally don't think I could just give my work away the way they do.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Finally! Someone who understands this instead of complaining that "what users of BSDL don't understand is
Yes, I do write code under the BSDL, and yes, it is a gift to whomever wants it for whatever they wish, be it a cure for cancer of a baby-mulching machine.
This is why I bought a PlayStation 2 -- NOTHING is free, and I don't expect any of it to be, so I'm not disappointed. I can just sit down and PLAY GAMES without making moral decisions.
Of course, buying anything Sony is itself dubious when it comes to morality due to their monopolistic practices etc.
But hey, that's different, right? ...
There's no reason why they can't continue proprietary development against the LGPL tree. You have to wonder if their motives are really good for the Wine community if transgaming doesn't even want to commit to sharing their updates to the existing codebase.
If they don't plan on sharing their code, which their ***ACTIONS*** indicate, then all they are doing is discouraging development of free API implementations by fooling people into believing that it's already done.
Parasites with good marketing. Show me the code or STFU.
The only "truly free" license is no license; ie public domain. The GPL is great, it's clever, it works. But just like a Microsoft EULA, it imposes restrictions.
This just illustrates why its important to understand the license governing a project before contributing to it. It is also the reason why the OSI keeps a list of approved licenses.
If you didn't take time to understand the license before contributing to the project, you can't complain that you don't like the result.
-- Button up, your ignorance is showing
"This is why I bought a PlayStation 2 -- NOTHING is free, and I don't expect any of it to be, so I'm not disappointed. I can just sit down and PLAY GAMES without making moral decisions."
You also have a system which is very good at playing games. The controller feels better than a keyboard, crashes are incredibly rare, the games are running on known hardware so there are no surprises (speed/driver/whatever issues), and the boot/shutdown time is almost instant.
Most of the games I want to play (I'm into RPGs) are on consoles anyway. Although I refuse to buy an Xbox to play the current Oddworld installment (grr). Amusingly, the only games I play on my PC (besides xscorch) are with console emulators
That said, Windows emulation does have some uses other than gaming...but then, gaming is what most of WineX's changes benefit.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
http://www.linuxgames.com/news/index.php3/5653
But I'm sure you already Gnu that.
The ability to do -anything- with the code; whenever you want it; however you want it. Or in other words you and your actions are the thing that is free.
Or the ability of the code to distribute itself to wherever the code wants to go; and protection for the code to insure it does not get hidden away in obscure places.
BSD chooses the first as being important - at the expense of freedom of the code.
The GPL chooses the latter - at the expense of freedom for you.
And as with all things in live - reality is a compromize; one cannot have both. Companies and people who want their code to be used in the widest possible way generally pick the BSD code - and people who want their creations to have a robust live of their own - for eternity to come - and out of reach of commercialization - pick the GPL.
Dw.
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/
People like to bitch about transgaming, but they really have done nothing wrong. They grabbed wine, used it according to the license attached to it, offered to trade code to/from the main wine tree. There's nothing wrong with that, if the wine developers didn't want their code used in that manner they should have (L)GPLed it from the start.
Similarly, if the debian crew decides to ignore transgaming's request and package winex in the distribution anyway, transgaming has nothing to complain about, but they can decide to change their license if they think they need too.
I think everyone needs a nice fine glass of STFU.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What the parent was supposed to say was:
.NET framework, in particular the subset of the CLR (Common Language Runtime), CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) has become an open source project for unix, Check out go-mono.com [go-mono.com] for more info on this, in addition to this microsoft and corel have announced plans some time ago to make and implementation of the C# (C sharp) and the CLI available for BSD. Microsoft and open source, who would have ever guessed?
Funny enough even the
If you don't like it, then rescind your subscription. This will remind them why people don't develop commercial games for Linux, which made room for their project in the first place.
Of course they'll eventually find something else to do and/or starve to death.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
Granted, their method of releasing code isn't perfect, they also don't have the comercial customer support base that codeweavers has. And yes, they do support .deb, .rpm, & .tgz binary releases now (as of 2.01).
1. In both cases, open sores proponents/slashdot nerds are getting their panties in a bunch.
2. The terrorists use TransGaming to hide their money from the government.
3. TransGaming is injecting malicious code into all open sores projects to change licensing so they can take over the open sores market. This newly created company will then take over Microsoft, in turn taking over the world.
I would have written 499,999 words, but CmdrTaco is staring at my ass and winking at me from the server room - I MUST GO NOW.
Hypocrites. Just as always. Bait and switch continues.
For example, very emulator starts out with pleas for "Help me with my GPL or Open source emulator! I need docs, improvements, experts, etc."
Then when the program actually starts to work well, source releases become more and more scarce, with typical excuses "preventing people stealing my precious ideas with their own faster easier to use emulators".
Then eventually "I lost the source to the last free and open version, a months work or more, sorry, disk crash"
Then the familiar renaming of the program and closed source only distribution.
It happens so often with the "good" stuff its almost the norm. Check out many of the SNES, N64, PSX, emulator histories.
I knew WINE would do the same thing. That's why I snagged "Wine-20020122.tar.gz" and earlier when i could.
After that they slapped GPL on it, then slapped, other restrictions on it.
Luckily I can fork and branch and tweak the other forever. And the hypocritical pigs hate that!
That's why Trademarks, and Patents are being explored by greedy malicious pigs in 2002 with preventing people from forking earlier open source code releases.
You have seen those battles start to brew here on Slashdot in earlier months.
People are basically greedy, There is nothing wrong with that. Thats how things get created. The problem is when people receive recognition and praise and respect for their donations under false pretenses. That makes those liars into people to despise for tricking mankind with thier hypocrisy. That is unforgivable and despicable.
l
But I am not shocked. Look at the greedy guy who controls the Linux source for burning CDRs and imaging UDF-ISO9600, Jörg Schilling. He has for FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS refused to allow or accept code donations to his source tree to allow DVD-R burners. DVD-R media is now only $1.32 (princo general 4.7 GB ). and burners are under $320 dollars. Three different people made minor small diff hacks, but the guy controlling the popular "cdrecord cdrtools-1.11a23" wants people to buy his CLOSED SOURCE fork with the DVD-R tweaks called cdrecord-proDVD! Its no wonder that "cdrecord-proDVD" is closed source but worse, the author is angry that people are using the binaries without helping him develop his commercial product further! He requires a special key to operate it, and he decides who to give the software key to. This charade has been going on almost 4 years since he added DVD-R support. No one in Linux community cares because Jörg Schilling has not yet started to publicly charge money yet.
And he hopes the forks allowing DVD-R will disappear.
Its harder to forensically binary disassemble and compare once the product goes commercial as suspected with Stalker Software's various email products because once programmers can be hired to rearrange all the source lineage, no one has the time or energy to look for stolen GPL code. And nobody cares at all if it might have been ripped from BSD or themselves.
So the question is.... why does everyone act all shocked when a person "takes back" their source, or hampers the cvs deliberately while having a second private commercial private fork, or acts deceitful in general?
It happens every month. One slippery slope at a time.
If you want to count ALL games (and I'm assuming you were with the statement of more games for linux than mac os), then mac os I assure you far outweighs linux.
Mac has for the longest time had emulators (soft windows, softpc, virtual pc)
"Not fair?", well if wine counts, then those count.
Also, mac os now has a bsd core, allowing it to run all linux games.
Algebraically: (Linux games = L, Mac games = M, Total mac games = TM)
TM = L + M (+ windows emulated games)
unless there are negative mac games, you are mistaken
Maybe it's time Stallman gets involved!
You're kidding, right? WINE has already helped TransGaming, to the tune of a million lines of code.
I think that most people here are misunderstanding the issue, and as a long WineX subscriber, I feel that I need to clarify.
:).
WineX has _always_ been available in source form for free (meaning you can get it even if you aren't a subscriber) if you are willing and able to pull it from their CVS servers. What has never been free is their compiled code, in which they add such goodies such as safedisc and securerom support (which of course, can't be open sourced, because WineX licensed it from the companies that created the copy protection)
What Transgaming is asking is that distributions don't package the free version of their source as a package, so people don't get the impression that when they try to run new game x with copy protection that it doesn't work with the WineX period, and not actually go and check transgamings site and realize that they need to buy the commercial version. I would hope more from the average linux user, but I can see their point.
Besides, people have been tolerating this behaviour from the MPlayer project for a long time, so I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't agree with their reasons, then exercise your right to choose and don't use the product
Yeah, but the /. ones will be much stupider.
All is needed is a package of the recent source. The end user can build it! Also I wouldn't loose
sleep over this. WineX will certainly die and
Open Source will have control again. The only games that play flawlessly are the Quakes and modified Quakes (Star Wars, Arena). I tried
Homeworld, it dies, I tried Half Life, it died.
So why do we want to support WineX. I don't, and we can control the direction Wine will take. I bought crossover wine.. and they are contributing back to the wine project, so let's back codeweavers and the wine progect. Transgaming is out.
Also let's promote native games!
What gentoo gives you is the CVS of winex.
This doesn not include the SafeDisc stuff that transgaming packages up.
Most copy-protected CDROM games will not work with the CVS.
But since linux users never pay for anything anyway I guess you can just use hacked versions of games from p2p networks.
Can't we just just apt-get along? nyuk nyuk
In terms of the actual game performance (in my experience) WineX doesn't have real advantage over Wine for CounterStrike
Unfortunately, the cheat protection in the latest version of Half-Life broke both Wine and WineX. Apparently now WineX has a patch for this, but I downloaded the CVS version of WineX and it still didn't work. I surmise that it's one of these "protected" things that they only release in their binaries. Shame.
This means that since uk2.net stopped running any servers in '-insecure' mode I have not been able to play CounterStrike at all.
Still, it means my abysmal railing skills in Quake III have been getting better. At least Jon Carmack seems to like linux, so I've got a native version of some games to play.
The funniest thing about all of this is that no-one is pointing back at the Lindows people. Where are the contributions from them, or their promises to give anything back at all?
Transgaming at least did these things! Anyone else realize this, or am I the only one?
No, of course not it's all evil Transgaming. Why? Because people a) don't ralize that Lindows is undoubtedly based off the old wine tree in some way b) Transgaming is in the spotlight while Lindows isn't...
Odd how that works...
You have encapsulated the LGPL/X11 debate nicely.
Some people simply don't realize what happens, when the self-loving GPL umbrella is removed. What happens, is we find greed, mixed amongst other humanly sins.
If I were a Wine developer, I would quit. I can't believe anyone would make me license my patches X11 or else - what BS.
Unless, of course, my livelihood depended on Wine, then I would agree it all.
And suddenly I find, I am no better than anyone else here. Go figure...
At last, someone who puts it up sound and clear. To sum it up: BSD ensures freedom for the programmers. GPL ensures freedom for the software. Choose what you like the most and don't bitch about it afterwards.
If we want Linux to become "main stream" we need to allow companies who support us to earn a living doing so. If TransGaming wants to keep their source closed, they have the right to do so under the X11 license. Now that WINE is under the LGPL license, they cannot incorporate any contributions to the LGPL'd tree without following the LGPL license agreement, which, I believe, would force them to put their source tree under the LGPL also.
So, if they want to go it alone without the support of the open source community then God bless them but as Wine moves forward or in a different direction they will need to keep their source tree free of LGPL'd code.
The two branches will get farther and farther apart and eventually, I believe that the Open Source branch will be superior and TransGaming will be in danger of going the way of the dinosaur.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Its kinda difficult to unsubscribe when you don't remember your transaction ID for payment.
..
This is the info you need to unsubscribe:
# A FuturePay agreement ID
# A Transaction ID
# Your card number.
If you wish to provide your card number we would advise you to call us with this as it is not secure to disclose it in a n email. Our number is 0870 742 7002.
I haven't unsubscribed yet 'cause I'm lazy
BSDL
Baby Slaugher Device Liscense.
Suddenly, I'm proud to use BSD. Oh, wait, I was before. Nevermind.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Note that GPL'ing your code doesn't necessarily get your modified code back to you. For example, I can take it for my in house application and never give away the source code, because I am only required to do that to people I distribute the program to.
That message that the article linked to was completely incoherent.
I could only gather that the author was so confused that it's no wonder that he couldn't read the license. Or maybe he got drunk and confused after his decision and before he wrote his missive? Either way, judging him by his writing, he's clueless.
That does sound nice but a software project is a dynamic thing, evolving over time. Your scenerio is static, a happy snapshot where you're giving your code away and all is nice.
Lets look at the dynamic:
1.) Start project, license it as BSD
2.) Writing code, everything is nice.
3.) Code becomes popular, sizable group of developers gather.
4.) The vampires show up. Act just like regular users at first.
5.) Vampires start making making requests for you to change certain things, so their fork will work better. They promise to release patche sback to you.
6.) More vampires show up, make the same demands and promises as the proginal vampire.
7.) Your mailing list starts filling up with requests from developers who think it would be best for the project if you cooperated with vampire(x).
8.) None of the vampires have kept their promises. DEvelopers for you project are working on vampire forks.
9.) Your project is no longer popular because it has fewer features than the vampire forks. AFter all the vampire forks will always be their efforts+theirs. you can never keep up.
10.) People on your mailing list start to bitch and moan about not having feature X that they saw in vampire distro.
11.)Vampires continue to orbit. Plucking any new idea you have and not giving anything in return. Project dies a slow death and you get tired of working with it because it's not fun anymore.
If it was open source, it could go in debian/main (after all, the Open Source Definition is basically a clarified version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines). The e-mail stated that it was going to go in debian/non-free (the archive for Debianized proprietary software, including Aladdin Ghostscript, which is under the same license).
I agree that the GPL and LGPL have their advantages, because they're free and open enough to be Free and Open, and restrictive enough to force derived stuff to be equally open.
Things like the BSD/MIT/X11/Wine license (all similarly worded) and the Zlib license are free and open source, but anyone modifying them can make their modified version proprietary. For instance, the BSD TCP/IP stack is still free, but the modified copy of the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows isn't. Nothing Transgaming can do can stop the old X11-licensed versions of Wine being X11-licensed.
I've read the Open Source Definition and consider it to be pretty good at encapsulating what free and open software should be. It allows something as restrictive as the GPL, but doesn't require it. For some applications a less restrictive license is needed - even the Free Software Foundation license some software under the less restrictive LGPL, and put "special exception" clauses in other licenses.
One of the best examples is probably libpng - as the reference implementation of Portable Network Graphics, it's important that proprietary software vendors
I agree except for one thing. You said "boot/shutdown time is almost instant". This is not so with ps/2 I can get my pc up and going in about the time it takes the ps/2 to boot and load gta3
Actually, it does NOT impose restrictions. It takes away some restrictions (from standard copyright law) and leaves some in. Public domain removes all restrictions, GPL removes SOME restrictions, MS EULA adds MANY restrictions.
/usr/games/fortune
The GPL is a copyright license; unless you plan to modify and redistribute a GPLed work, you don't even have to worry about it. Its terms are intended to make sure that others maintain the same freedom to modify and redistribute that you received and were pleased to take advantage of.
Microsoft's EULA is a usage license, attempting to impose conditions ex post facto on your use of a product you paid for. You are not able to read the license until after the purchase has been made, and its terms are crafted for the benefit of Microsoft and Microsoft alone.
Thus the GPL and the EULA could scarcely be more different in the letter of their conditions, the spirit of their conditions, and the manner in which those conditions are applied.
AC.
It's unfortunate that transgaming can't see that open source works. I've heard their arguments about how the DMCA won't allow them to release their code, and IF that's true, they can just put their copyright protection code into a library.
Hopefully, this is just one more issue that will bring them a little closer to using a free open source license.
hyperpoem.net
Thank you for thinking. This is an excellent idea.
The funniest thing about all of this is that no-one is pointing back at the Lindows people
/must/ compare certain concepts to things in a discussion, regardless if it is contextually correct. In this case, you defend Transgaming's actions by saying Lindows behavior is worse. Perhaps it's a valid comparison on it's own but is irrelevant to the discusion.
Well, languages generally have something called "subject matter", or "topics". And in this case the subject being discussed is Transgaming. Certainly a side discussion could involve Lindows but Lindows is not a participant in the issue being debated here, namely "Transgaming relicensing".
The reason I took the time to point this out to you, is I see a familiar pattern in your statement. It's a pattern where people feel they
One place you see this pattern a lot is in political discussions. Regardless of what the debate is about, 99% of all political discussions follow the same path. They always end up advocating some position with only one argument. That argument goes something like this:
I advocate(or condemn) such and such, because so and so(member of opposite party) did such and such on $DATE. If you read the politics newsgroups, it's this same argument, over, and over and over AND OVER AGAIN. And the discussion rarely go any deeper than that.
Sorry if this feels like harassment, it's not intended to be. I think I've discovered a bug in the human brain. Some sort of loop that is created by overexposure to concepts, which causes the affliceted no longer able to express themselves logically about the subject.
I think that is unlikely, as he would probably disagree on moral grounds for having: (a) binary only software (such as is run by the winex system) being run on a computer at all. AFAIK, he only runs free software on his machines (ditto all FSF machines, I believe), and so therefore making winex un-needed. (b) running executables for a propriotry OS. I dont know though. Perhaps not. Ralph
MPlayer is now apperently legit, GPL compliant.
The way i see it Transgaming should simple use their copyright on the name WineX and insist that the CVS version be packaged as something else under a different name.
How about "VinegarX"
:P
1. What the fuck does this have to do with wine?
2. Mono is a project started by the GNOME guys. It has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft.
3. Microsoft released a version of CLI and C# compiler under a license which is "free for non-commercial use only". In other words, they released nothing at all.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I for one rarely if ever give a crap about playing Windows games under Linux, but this is a big deal to me because the CEO is making a [public, no less] threat to try and control what someone else (Debian) does. And what they legally have every right to do.
What inexcusable about this behavior is that it's a strongarm play. You don't have to use any flavor of WINE to see that, and you don't have to contribute any code for it to affect you.
Extortion is wrong, period, regardless of the context and regardless of one's Favorite Approved Licenses.
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
> ... be it a cure for cancer of a baby-mulching machine.
... be it a cure for the cancer of a baby-mulching machine.
ITYM,
The worst thing about baby-mulching machine cancer is the metastization. I'm not aware of any other cancer system with such prolific spreads. Any help in the curing of this particular cancer would definitely be usable in other approaches to curing cancer, say in humans. But I digress.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
BSD may be more free in the sense that companies can get the code for free, but it certainly isn't more free in the libre sense. How often does BSD code get incoporated into commercial projects that then close the source? The GPL ensures that code will stay free and not disappear.
I'm a former Mandrake user, (mandrake uses apt-get and urpmi, two tools which are nearly identical in functionality). Today I'm a Gentoo user.
Gentoo is by no means stable - you have to maintain the stability yourself. In fact, gentoo is more of a bleeding edge kind of system. They usually have the latest version of whatever someone has written a script for that can be automatically installed (including custom system options, most notablly the
-O3 and -fastmath optimizations on C and C++ code). New stuff is available every couple of hours to be recompiled for your system specifically.
The biggest problem with Gentoo right now is reverse dependancy checking - when you uninstall a package, the portage tool (similar to apt-get) doesn't check to see what packages will be broken by this change (forward dependency checking works great). And of course, not all of the code actually works right away. However, its been my experience that the user community is much, much better to work with than any other distro. In previous distributions, if something broke, I'd often have to scour the internet to learn how to fix it. With gentoo, problems are often solved with just a visit to their website.
One more thing - if you really like some package, you can just install it by hand. But its not much more work to make a package (unlike a rpm, for example). In fact, its not much work to edit packages if there are problems. Therefore, its quite possible for users to be developers in this distro. In fact, it seems to be the norm.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
That doesn't seem to be much of an argument for the GPL. I use the GPL myself and prefer it over the other licenses for a variety of reasons. Nothing you've said there really compels a developer to start out with the GPL instead of another license.
Now, if you mentioned that they started sending out BINARIES with the extra goodies and didn't share the source (due to some other license being used), then you might have gotten somewhere.
that's exactly what he implied, given that he referred to the 'vampires' not releasing their patches back up the tree.
Of course Transgamings Business Model is wrong. They should simply re-sell Windows games - either to Windows users or to Linux users bundling WineX and some installation glue a la codeweavers.
;-).
Eh? I've got some stuff to sell those people also
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
Oh what a load. Free is this. You may use as you please. No strings. Nothing. Keep it. Give it away. Discard it. Sell it. Do what you like to it. No warenties implied. But you can add one if you like.
now thats free.
Anyone else had nothing but trouble with WineX?
:P
Maybe I just don't have the mad skillz, but when I tried using it 4 or 5 months ago, NOTHING I had would run correctly after installing from the binaries...
Homeworld crashed, Starcraft had buggy screen positioning and sound, Diablo II and Freespace didn't even start up...Even ancient DOS/Win95 stuff like Lemmings, Tetrinet, The Incredible Machine, and frickin' Progress Quest crashed almost immediately
Forums weren't much help either- Seemed to be split between pretty techinical setting tweaks and discussions of minor problems with games already running.
Suffice to say I canceled my subscription in frustration....If anyone's had success running anything besides Quake clones when compiling from CVS, i'd love to hear some tips, though.
I'd like nothing better to eradicate Windows, but i'm sure as hell not going to pay Transgaming for the honor until the binaries work straight from install on non-QuakeClones.
You know, I was really hoping this was going to take off. The only reason why I still have Windows on my computer is for games. Everything else I can do under Linux or Wine.
It's true that Transgaming was making a huge contribution to Linux, in an area where Linux was very poor. They were not that expensive with what they asked for their efforts. (Subscription based; $5 per month, $50 for a year)
However, they stated on their website that after 20.000 people became a member they will GPL all their code. Now Wine is LGPL they complain that it is too restrictive, while LGPL is less restrictive then GPL.
Another thing, the place where they mentioned the 20.000 people limit (Business Model), has suddenly been changed in the past 2 days. I know because I was looking into subscribing to them. I was even planning on mailing them to ask them how many people they already had. So is it a lie? Were they ever going to GPL their code? We had only that statement that disappeared without a trace.
So presumably no. Why? Because in their CEO's rant about Wine's license change to GPL, he states that it is impossible due to DMCA issues with the copyright protection they implemented. Also, they would for some reason be 'locked' into supporting Wine even if their business model would not pay what they want it to pay.
I can agree a little with the copy protection bit. However their claim that it contains highly sensitive information is nonsense. Advanced copy protections like SafeDisc and Securom have been reversed completely. Look up any reverser's webboard and you'll be smacked around the ears with all the little tricks that they use. With that you could even easily emulate the protection (which is already done in programs like Daemon-Tools).
So that can't be it. Did I mention that programs like InstallShield and Wise have been completely reversed too? Again, with this info around that can be found on any reversers board, anyone could write his own InstallShield installer.
The DMCA threat is overrated, although the DMCA has been abused for more ridiculous things already.
Then secondly, being locked in for support. I write some crappy OpenSource tools. I do this under an Artistic License. But with this, or even the GPL, there is NO obligation mentioned anywhere that I have to give support on it. Better still, it is explicitly stated that NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY is given with this software.
So what do they complain about? Maybe they claim that they have to keep up to date with the Wine tree? Also not true. They can take any copy of Wine, and work on it, as long as they publish their changes. No other obligation then that.
So where does this leave us? Remember SSH? The original author (Klonen if I recall correctly) had SSH as a GPL package, but later on changed it to a pay-for-commercial license. A group of people took the last GPL'd version and coded on it until they got OpenSSH, which is a perfectly fine SSH client and 100% GPL. This is a GOOD thing.
Now Transgaming is pushing Rewind, which is pretty much the same coupe as OpenSSH, except they do it so that the X11 license can be kept. Now you can argue that Transgaming deserves money for the work they do. Well I agree with that, but how far should we support that? Is Transgaming just putting up a friendly OpenSource front so they can get people to work for them for free? Or is it to get people to like them?
In short, by pushing the Rewind branch, they take away time and resources from the main Wine tree. This hurts us normal users. They put up a false front to attract coders and clients. If they were honest about their work, and it would help the Linux community then I'd gladly pay them for their efforts, but now I'm pretty much disillusioned.
Quite correct although there seems to be some newbies (as in "never compiled a custom kernel"...not "what's a command line?") joining the fold. All seem welcome.
*bzzt*, wrong, but thank you for playing.
By first purchasing your chunk of proprietary hardware, second by using it and third by buying games for it you are effectively making the statement that it's OK to support proprietary-software companies, to use proprietary software and to encourage further development of nonfree software. This sounds like a big fucking "moral decision" to me, but since you're an american I suppose the decision was already made on your behalf several generations over and then beat into your skull repeatedly since your first day at kindergarten or whatever the hell you have in the Grand Holy Empire.
Just don't call supporting proprietary software "not making a moral decision", OK? Because that is just plain dishonest, and in the long run it's also bad for you (i.e. making it harder for you to maintain an elegant, self-consistent ethical system).
Finally, a GPLer who gets it! Thank you.
Those of us who use the BSD license do so simply because we wish to give/share our software. We don't want to compell anyone to return the favor. It's a no-strings-attached deal.
We realize that not everyone will agree with us, but that's not why we're doing it. People who do wish some sort of a guarantee that mods come back to them should not use the BSD license, because that's not what it's about.
p.s. BSD vs GPL is rather like an anarcho-capitalist arguing with an anarcho-socialist over the nature of liberty.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
To be 'truely' free you should use BSD license.
No. I think you are confused with the wording. If you want your code to be "free" in the sense that your code's distribution and development can never be restricted, then use the (L)GPL. If you want to give away your code for free (no strings attached), then use the BSDL.
Has Lindows even released a product yet? If so, I haven't heard of it. The last time I looked they were still in "closed beta testing". (Sounds like what Corel did.)
I find that I am thinking a lot less favorably of Lindows that I was a few months ago, though I can't point to precisely which news stories caused this. Still... the people that they are targeting are used to MS, and compared to MS Lindows is openness and freedom itself.
As to Transgaming... how much are they contributing to Rewind? I tend to think of this squabble as companies attempting to compete with each other while sharing development. I don't think the companies realize just how much they depend on community good will.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I wish Debian would package it, just to force Transgaming to change their license and make obvious their intentions.
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
And threatening to change the license to specifically prohibit them (Debian, in this case) from doing so if they try. So it's "we say you can redistribute, but if you do we'll tell you you can't."
so people don't get the impression that when they try to run new game x with copy protection that it doesn't work with the WineX period
As has been pointed out, a name change was offered. And i assume a warning would have been put in the package's description field. This didn't help, still the threat.
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
The crucial difference is that the BSD code can be made non-free, where as the GPL code must always be free[1]. Or, to put it another way, the GPL code is not free to lose its freedom, but the BSD code is. When people say "the GPL is more free", they mean it because GPL code cannot be non-free, where as BSD code can be made so. When people say "the BSD license is more free", they mean it because BSD code has the freedom to be made non-free, where as GPL code doesn't have this freedom. They're both right, it just depends on which definition of free you use.
An AC in this thread used an analogy with a man:
True, with that analogy Man #1 is freer. But how about this one? Which man would you consider freer now? Argument by analogy is always tricky, neither of these makes a proper case. "Man #1's decendants can be enslaved, Man #2's cannot. Which family is freer?" might be closer than either[2]. But it still has trouble with anthropomorphism, software can't choose to remain free or to give up its freedom[3].Arandir makes a semantic argument based slightly on French (personally, i've always thought of gratis and libre as Spanish (not that it matters)) and more on 'liberty'. But "absence of external restriction" can mean "external restriction cannot exist" as well as "external restriction does not exist". My dictionary uses "freedom from" instead of "absence of", which makes this distinction even less clear. If you choose 'cannot', then the minor extra restriction on the GPL code makes it more free than the ease of imposing major restriction on the BSD code. It comes back to enslaving children again, Man #1 is free to have slave children, but Man #2's children will always be as free as Man #2 himself.
Hopefully this will shed some light on the situation, or at least convince people to come up with better arguments...
[1] Ignoring the original developer's ability to license it differently, of course.
[2] So Man #2's children can't choose to be slaves either. Some people get off on that sort of thing.
[3] At least not until we get MUCH better at AI...
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
If only i would have seen this before my earlier reply in this thread! Very nice comparison.
Although i suspect "is" fits somewhat better than "is rather like", if you limit application of the labels to views on software alone instead of the nature of property in general... Too bad i haven't studied enough politics to determine which is which. I suppose proprietary software advocates are totalitarian? And MS seems to be fascist then, totalitarian with a side of nationalism and racism (against non-MS, of course). Hmmm... someone should write "If software licenses were governments" like "If operating systems were women/cars/guns/etc".
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
You could use GPLed code in a cure for cancer of a baby-mulching machine too, you'd just have to release your modifications to the code under the GPL ;)
Reasonable is not "If you do that, we'll change the license to specifically prohibit you. But not until then." That's not particularly nice, and it shows an intention to lie about the openness of your code (because openness of code and level of community support are directly proportional in this community).
Hmmm... reading it again, i get the impression the non-public letter to Marc et al was less diplomatically worded WRT the threatened license change.
Personally, i wish Debian would package it and force Transgaming to change the license for all to see.
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
There is no problem at all. When a project has been GPLed, the author loses a very important piece of control. If the author isn't willing to continue development of the open source version, someone else can continue with it. The same goes for reduced open source functionality with a second commercial licence with more functionality. There is nothing to stop the open source community from taking over and extending the software in the public domain.
If it's Open Source, you can modify and redistribute the code under the same license. That's a pretty big thing to have in common. If you want to be more specific, use a more specific adjective or description. "copyleft" is a good one, adds the requirement that redistributed versions must also be copyleft. "BSD-style" is less clear, but still descriptive in that it typically means you can redestribute under just about any terms, you just have to preserve copyright notices and you can't use the name of the author in promoting the software, and maybe a few similar restrictions (e.g. you have to rename your modified version).
First of all an observation, selling a product like WineX to the end user is a bit odd in my opinion.
Granted, these are the only people who right now can make use of the product, but they are still the wrong people to sell it to.
They should be selling this to the game companies, with either a per library install, or per linux install payment program.
This takes care of two birds at once. The game developer gets to expand his market, and under the presumption that the Wine installler works well nder Linux, the applications should generate a better review from the users. (increasing sales of the game, giving the company more money.
This also helps to resolve another end user issue that will continue to haunt the linux package/disribution systems. As more people move to Linux, or even start out using Linux, Just because one edition of WineX works well with QuakeII, does not provide any assurance that Diablo will run at all.
If WineX came with the game, you may find that you get an older version at times, but you will at least know that the game will work. Older versions should be handled better on Linux than on Windows, because the installers on Linux tend to check dependencies and conflicts a litle better.
Then again, that's just my opinion, You could be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
So, no, I don't think it is technically wrong - but I do think that it stinks.
I think they should stop fence sitting and say "WineX is closed source".
I would be surprised if you could build anything like the uptodate product from the source forge CVS anyway (all the code for copy protection schemes on games).
I think they should adapt the "street performer" concept somewhat and re-sell the windows games (at the same price as else where) + an "adapter" for that game to make it work on Linux. For customers who already have that game they should sell the "adapter" at around $5 (similar to the subscription cost) and make sure that the adapter works with that game only (i.e. it isn't a full blown wine implementation that will work with more than one game).
So if you buy the game from transgaming it will run on Linux and cost the same as the Windows version (they can take a hit on the reseller margins for the WineX development costs). Or you can buy a low cost adapter if you already have the game and want it to run on Linux.
But my Wine contributions will be under the LGPL...
Yes this is a joke!
I have been long thinking about if there was a good way of packaging ports inside RPM packages.
I'm pretty sure that would work with at least somewhat tuned (suitable set of instructions) RPM source packages. It would make it less painful to install packages such as WineX or maybe MPlayer and such that do not allow binaries to be distributed. Could make good for some other packages too that are pretty big. This would help solve this problem for RPM based distributions. Maybe something similar could be used with .deb too.
It looks like suchs packages aren't available now, but anybody else think it would make sense for RPM sites to host some such port packages too?
No, you'd probably keep the baby munching machine in-house, so no need to open up the code there. The cure for cancer would probably cost too much to be given away for free, so nobody would develop it.
0-2 for the GPL I'm afraid.
No. I think you are confused with the wording. If you want your code to be "free" in the sense that your code's distribution and development can never be restricted, then use the (L)GPL. If you want to give away your code for free (no strings attached), then use the BSDL.
BSD advocate's base their usage of free on these definitions (Webster):
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously
4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
5 a : having no obligations (as to work) or commitments b : not taken up with commitments or obligations
RMS bases his Free on:
3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome
Given the subjective usage of unpleasant/burdensome, I like the BSD advocate's usage better and believe that RMS should find a description that makes his intentions more clear. Perhaps something like Forever Free Software.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
> But my Wine contributions will be under the LGPL...
And of course, the obvious question has to be:
Ok, Jack Hughes, what contributions have you made to date? have you even sent an e-mail if you found a misspelled word?
- GPL/Linux: wider distributed, more developer, and, more important, wider range of supported hardware: various CPU/motherboard platforms, excellent USB support, growing support of firewire, scanners, multimedia, etc etc
- BSDL/BSD: smaller range of CPU/motherboard platforms, smaller range of supported hardware, no firewire, no scanners, bad USB.
The buttom line is: the OS licensed specially to attract commercial vendors (BSD) has very bad return back from those vendors. The reason? Because BSDL doesn't really protect the intellectual property.Why bother? It seems kind of odd to create another distribution whose purpose is to mimic the bsd's. Why not just use one?
hawk
"Those of us who use GPL do it to get back some fruits of our hands. I WANT that any of my modified code will come back to me."
That is not correct at all. People that use the GPL want modifications to come back to everybody!
Nothing is stopping you in the GPL to take some code, and develop it further on your own. Ofcourse your additional code has to be open to everybody to see. (the original author may even not use your code, but could, or somebody else could modify your code again for a new project and so on...)
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I am not a thief, plain and simple. However I crack the copy protection for a number of reasons starting with improved performance and ending with backup copies (on a very large compressed tape archive)
I really think my problems with it have to do with pilot error on the part of the package maintainers or creators. However, the problems that arose reminded me that the Debian package system is flawed simply because it does not have a rollback feature (within single installations or later for multiple sets). I am not referring to uninstalling, what I mean is that the dependancy problems get rather nightmarish sometimes, but even worse is that the 'wheels within wheels' system's inherant complexity and error prone nature are not provided with a safety net. LDCONFIG comes to mind of a file that often gets deleted or something, causing packages later to fail to be installed. It would be nice to have a backup system in the case of dependancy problems.
Other than that I like it (it is light years ahead of RPM's, at least since I gave up on them)
you are just aching to type 'WOOT' aren't you? come on, admit it!
unless you are one of these fools that thinks moderation is a form of 'agreement/disagreement' voting.
are you kidding? Katz would have gone into this long winded rant about how all the troubles are caused by Evil Corporations. (unless at the time he deemed it would gain him more favor by being a sycophant FOR corporations) The ending would follow up with some illogical crap using multisyllable words that to him probably means he isn't a fucking dumbass
the last fucker that played that shit to where I couldn't study in my hall, I beat his stupid ass he started listening to my country and metal cd's. Oh wait... that might be used to insult me :)
BSD would be the anarcho-capitalists, while GPL would be the anarcho-socialists.
Anarcho-capitalists claim that men must have the freedom to sell themselves into slavery if they wish (if you can't do anything you want it's not freedom!).
Anarcho-socialists say that any such agreement must not be binding, because it creates a limit on mankind's freedom by its very nature (can you sell your descendants into slavery as well? can you coerce somebody to become a slave?).
For arguments on the anarcho-capitalist side, check Ayn Rand and her fan club (the Ayn Rand Institute).
Here's a good argument on the anarcho-socialist side: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Nope, you got it wrong. There actually is no difference between the anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists. Since neither believes in government, neither has a way to prevent the formation of societies they disagree with. Nothing is going to stop a syndicalist commune from starting up in an anarcho-capitalist world, and nothing is going to stop a propertarian company town from starting up in an anarcho-capitalist world. As long as the participants involved are volunteers, you can't stop it.
p.s. The "sell youself into slavery" is a tired analogy. It's also silly. Find something new.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes there is! The difference lies in what they believe everyone should choose to do without the interference of government, even though neither proposes any way to enforce that choice.
Why must you conclude that one is better? Why not just accept the differences and move on? And, if you are going to state that one is better, could you at least justify it with a logical inference or something?
I already pointed out that Free is based on a subjective interpretation of the word free. It only works for a certain moral code which is clearly not shared by everyone. This creates confusion. That's why I'm not afraid to say that RMS choice of Free sucks. Language is about making things clear, not about overloading common words with new specific meanings.
No one can be confused that the BSD license is freer by definitions 2, 4 and 5 from my previous post. I happen to feel that BSD-licensed code is also more free in the sense that it lacks something unpleasant or burdensome. I can actually choose the license for my own code, even when it's linked to a BSD'd component. Others may disagree, but that disagreement is a good reason not to use the word free when we talk about this distinction between the two licenses. A term like Forever Free Software would be much clearer.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
mmmm, close - I'll give you 7 out of 10 :)
:)
In a true anarchy, it would work this way - the differences between the varieties of anarchy is that their ideologies make the formation of certain types of society easier or more difficult (just like any other set of rules, an ethical code makes certain things easier and others more difficult).
The main reason that anarcho-capitalists are *not* the same thing as anarcho-socialists is the same reason that capitalism is *not* socialism. (Remember your Rand - "A is A - A is never not A")
One views class differences as a good thing, the other views them as a bad thing.
In an anarcho-socialist society, the anarcho-capitalist would have a difficult time finding workers for his company (it couldn't be a corporation, since those are legally defined by the government) -- no anarcho-socialist would willingly place someone else into power over himself (thus casting himself as a lower class of citizen). The act of employment in itself creates a caste difference. Now you have two groups of citizens -- "workers" and "bosses". The workers work to make the bosses more money and the bosses reap the benefits of the workers' effort, meanwhile holding the threat of unemployment over the heads of their employees. Obviously, this situation would seem untenable to many anarcho-socialists, therefore there would not be many willing workers for the bosses to exploit.
Meanwhile, in an anarcho-capitalist society, the anarcho-socialist would face dificulties of a different nature. This would be like the current "GPL in a world of capitalists" era. The "bosses" in a capitalist society would obviously have no desire to work on an equal level with everyone else in a syndicate. The "workers" may initially flock over, but market conditions would be difficult for the less rapacious syndicate to sell its goods in. Firstly, the marketing of the products would not be as coercive as the marketing for the capitalist-produced products, capitalists having no problem with coercion as long as it is not carried out in the name of the state. Since the products will not sell as well, there will be a fewer number of workers supported than in an ideal situation (although more than an equivalently funded capitalist company, since there is no "boss" to soak up a huge salary at the expense of paychecks for workers).
Again, nobody will explicitly try to force anyone to stop on either side, but the conditions of the society's prevailing ethical structure definitely create a situation more conducive to one type of workplace than another.
"Selling yourself into slavery" is a commonly used analogy only because it's a very good one -- there's a reason that working for a capitalist boss is known as "wage slavery", after all.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Your arguments assume that the basic ethical foundations of all people will be changed. I can't make that assumption at all. In order for an anarcho-whatever society to arise, there must be a significant number of people who make that ethical change, but it doesn't have to be everyone. Even if 90% of the society are of the socialist bent, the remaining 10% have no restrictions on forming their own community.
Similar things have happened in history. The social-darwinist mindset of the late 19th centurty did not stop the Amana or Kaweah communities from forming. The industro-military mindset of the 60's did not stop hippy communes.
p.s. "Wage slavery" is another bad analogy despite its common usage. To extend the definition of "slavery" that far is to cheapen its meaning and insult all those who are or have been real slaves.
A slave who attempts to assert sovereignty over his or her own life is breaking the law and may be arrested, maimed or killed. An employee (in the typical capitalistic society) who decides to quit his or her job faces no such penalties. They will certainly face risks, some of which may be enormous, for their decision, but such risks face all important decisions in life.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You're absolutely right - except I still must disagree with you on the last bit.
:)
Anarcho-capitalists claim the contract between individuals to be sacred, no matter the terms and conditions. Thus, one really could "sell oneself into slavery". Technically, somebody who makes this decision (or is coerced into making this decision) and then attempts to assert sovereignty over his or her own life *is* breaking the terms of the contract.
A jury of peers (9 out of 10 on average being anarcho-capitalists) would if being ethically consistent (I realize that in reality some people would vote inconsistently on this case because of the nature of it, but this is just an example) return the slave to his or her owner.
The thing with "wage slavery" is, somebody who quits his job is usually still unable to make his own decisions regarding his life -- he still feels that he has to find a job *somewhere*, earning money for somebody else, getting little respect from his superior, and receiving meager pay (in comparison with the boss).
Even if it's not precisely true (you *could* go join a hippie commune or do math tutoring out of your home or sell homemade jewelry or something), the point being made is that the individual is a slave in his own mind -- he believes strongly that the only way to "make a living" is to feed the ambitions of somebody higher up on the social scale than himself.
As for the risks being faced in today's society, most people would consider being homeless and starving to death as penalties. Again, doesn't mean they're correct, just that they have been indoctrinated with that mindset practically since they were able to understand spoken language.
I agree there should be a better word for it, but it is difficult to replace one word with another in popular language (everybody knows what you mean when you say "wage slavery", nobody will understand the first time they hear "wage brainwashing" or whatever is decided on).
I haven't had a good debate in a long time - this is fun! Thank you very much for the opportunity!
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!