FSF Wants Your Vouchers

Poetic Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 01:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Turn justice into poetic justice =)

Re:Poetic Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 01:57 · Score: 1, Informative

1. poetic justice, just deserts -- (an outcome in which virtue triumphs over vice (often ironically))

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stag e=1&word=poetic+justice

All hail King Douche!
Re:Poetic Justice by stor · 2003-11-20 13:22 · Score: 1

Homer: Boy, talk about irony. The AMA tries to drive you guys out of business, now you're doing the same to me. Think about the irony.

Steve: [grabs Homer by the collar] You've been warned. Stop chiropracting.

Homer: Not unless you think about the irony.

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"

Ah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

... but will that hardware have free-software firmware in its ROM?

Re:Ah... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 02:47 · Score: 1

If it exists, then they'd be hypocritical not to. I remember reading somewhere that the FSF only uses free software unless a non-free alternative is not available. And RMS has specifically stated that firmware is software.
Re:Ah... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Heh, you're right. I meant that they only use non-free software when a free alternative is not available. Oops.
Re:Ah... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-11-20 06:20 · Score: 1

I can't believe you were called an idiot for making a typo... What's slashdot coming to? :(

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

hmm by loserone · 2003-11-20 01:14 · Score: 1, Offtopic

best of a bad situation? I can't see schools all jumping up at once to donate - so they'll be back on the micro$oft wagon...

Re:hmm by DrEldarion · 2003-11-20 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do you honestly expect schools to NOT have Microsoft software? Most likely, for nearly everyone in those schools, Windows is all they're going to use in their lives. Why would schools put forth all that time, money, and effort into switching over to Linux if all that will happen is the students would be less prepared for the real world?

Could you imagine if a certain grade school decided, "Hey. I have a good idea! Let's use Linux on all our computers here.". The children learn and get aquainted with Linux then get into Jr. High - Uh oh, now the students from that grade school are way behind. So the Jr. High has to make a choice - Stick with Windows and make the students learn it, switch over to Linux and spend lots of time and money, or do a hybrid of the two - have both and either make kids learn both (LOTS of time and effort) or keep the two groups of students on seperate machines which means seperate labs, seperate computers, etc. None of these choices are very favorable to the schools, hm?

I've seen this happen with grade schools using Macs and Jr. Highs and High Schools using PCs. Most of the kids had to relearn a lot of the things they were taught on the Macs, and that was time they SHOULD have been spending learning stuff for their classes.

Or go up higher - say a university only taught classes on Linux. All the spreadsheet and database classes, all the programming classes (well, this might not be a problem), everything. How likely do you think they are to get jobs when the graduates are asked if they know Excel, Access, or Powerpoint and they say no? The hiring companies aren't going to switch OSs just so they can hire new people - they're going to hire the people who already know the programs they use.

This is the problem when most of the world uses one OS - where do you start to make the change? Businesses don't want to because of the loss of productivity (while people relearn everything) involved combined with the lack of people in the workforce who know the programs they use. Schools don't want to because then their students won't be prepared for what they're going to be using in life. There's really not much that either can do about it without taking significant risks and costs.
Re:hmm by hazem · 2003-11-20 02:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Schools don't really care if their kids can get jobs. And they really don't care about what software they use. They're too buys "teaching to the test" with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind).

NCLB is a good idea, but too many teachers I know are being told by their bosses, "teach the test".

The same bosses probably prefer more expensive software because it means they get bigger budgets to spend as they wish. No administrator wants their budgets cut, so there is no real incentive for them to start using cheap/free software.
Re:hmm by pongo000 · 2003-11-20 02:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could you imagine if a certain grade school decided, "Hey. I have a good idea! Let's use Linux on all our computers here.". The children learn and get aquainted with Linux then get into Jr. High - Uh oh, now the students from that grade school are way behind.

The reason for this is because we really don't teach computing fundamentals. We teach computer technology through rote memory. Go ahead, pick up any Windows application textbook. You will find many enumerated lists on how to accomplish Task A, with lots of pretty graphics with pointing arrows. By the time the student is done with such a book, they know exactly how to perform Tasks A, X, Y, and Z--and nothing more.

We are building a society of automatons, with little in the way of reasoning ability. A big shame.
Re:hmm by loserone · 2003-11-20 02:32 · Score: 1

which is exactly where I was coming from. Watching people in their first year of a computer science degree is scary - If these are the kinds of people who want to do comp-sci, why didnt I just quit school at 16 and try and get a job programming. getting offtopic now, but it's amazing that people being taught routines, even now that they are having to use non-M$ OSes
Re:hmm by Bas_Wijnen · 2003-11-20 02:57 · Score: 1

RMS wrote an article about free software in schools just a few days ago. Of course it's only about doing the right thing, so basically it tells schools they should teach children to be good citizens, even if that means they will be less prepared for the "real world". And I think he's completely right.

What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs), and they're going to help make the world a better place to live.
Re:hmm by Afty0r · 2003-11-20 03:20 · Score: 1

The reason for this is because we really don't teach computing fundamentals. We teach computer technology through rote memory.

This is because 95% of jobs using a computer require the ability to carry out simple tasks learned through memory, and only very few require knowledge of computer fundamentals.

This is like complaining that we don't teach algebra and calculus to 7 year olds - it's quite simple they don't need it.
Re:hmm by gregeth · 2003-11-20 03:36 · Score: 1

Personally I think it is a good idea to have a diversity of programs/OS's that are available to students. As mentioned in another post, the main purpose is to teach them concepts, and not just specific tasks. I remember when I was in grade school, we had used mostly DOS, later added Macs, and somewhere along the way Windows 3.1 came along. There wasn't really ever just one setup available in the classrooms. The point of education is to teach about opposite sides to everything, and then hopefully kids will learn to make good, reasoned decisions from it. I know many grown adults who still haven't figured this out.
Re:hmm by smithy242 · 2003-11-20 04:26 · Score: 1

Do you honestly expect schools to NOT have Microsoft software? Most likely, for nearly everyone in those schools, Windows is all they're going to use in their lives. Why would schools put forth all that time, money, and effort into switching over to Linux if all that will happen is the students would be less prepared for the real world?

Really, how difficult can it be to switch from one software package or operating system to another, for end-user tasks? OpenOffice and Microsoft Office are so similar the differences aren't relevant, except for more advanced tasks.

The principles are the same, log in to the system, click on what application you want to run. . . Children are not dullards, they can read basic instructions on the screen, just as there are alternate problem solving methods listed in textbooks for everyday subjects. Any company I've been employed with is more interested in your ability to learn quickly, less than being hugely efficient in one specialized area. Sure, some spreadsheet formulas may be different, but this teaches them how to research fundamentals.

What is the most technically-adept group of society? Our children -- they are the ones IMing all of their friends, on-line game addicts, it wasn't this way 10 years ago.
Re:hmm by swillden · 2003-11-20 04:33 · Score: 1

This is like complaining that we don't teach algebra and calculus to 7 year olds - it's quite simple they don't need it.
Your point is good, but your analogy sucks.
The reason we don't teach algebra and calculus to 7 year-olds (2nd graders) is that they have to learn multiplication first. Then they have to learn division. Then they have to have some time to get comfortable with all of that, and then they're ready for algebra (though one of the basic ideas in algebra -- the use of symbols as stand-ins for unknown numbers -- is taught earlier). I think algebra and calculus could be taught earlier in the curriculum than they are, but not in 2nd grade. I'm teaching some algebra to my 3rd grade daughter, but she's well above average both in ability and in interest (my 4th grade son may or may not be above average in ability; he's clearly average or below in interest).
The other part of your analogy -- the purported reason why we don't teach it to them -- is also invalid. A second grader has no more and no less "need" for algebra and calculus than your typical 10th grader -- or many adults, for that matter -- yet we *do* expect the 10th grader to learn algebra, and we expect most college students to learn calculus. Some of them will need it, many won't. The reason they should learn it anyway is for the rigorous patterns of thought that can be learned through mathematics and to obtain the basic math skills needed to study basic physics, mechanics and electromagnetism, which are useful to everyone.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:hmm by Hatta · 2003-11-20 05:00 · Score: 1

The reason for this is because we really dont teach computing fundamentals. We teach computer technology through rote memory.

Yep. Same way we teach everything else. Get your kids out of school people, you'll be doing them a huge favor.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:hmm by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 05:03 · Score: 1

Cut the FUD, will you? If you know the basics of word processing, it makes little difference whether you are using MS Word, KWord, Abiword, Open Office Writer or Pico. The typing keys, which are what you are using most of the time, do not change places. The same applies to spreadsheets; Excel, Gnumeric, KSpread, Open Office Calc are all pretty similar. Formulas are entered in the same way they have been since Lotus 1-2-3. As for databases, Microsoft Access and MySQL are actually both forked from the same original source - but SQL is pretty much SQL wherever you go, and SELECT * means SELECT *. Of course there are dialects, but to expect otherwise would be like expecting the language of Mexico City to be the same as that of Madrid. And I'll pre-empt the inevitable responses now by saying MS and MY have a more limited vocabulary than PG or Oracle.

You say that schools are teaching Microsoft because industry uses Microsoft, but couldn't it equally be said that industry uses Microsoft because schools are teaching Microsoft? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it wasn't that long ago that Microsoft was not the de facto standard - there were several competing word processors. WordStar {those dot commands were nice - almost TeX-like}, WordPerfect, MS Word for DOS, Ami; then on the Mac there were MacWrite and MS Word for Mac, and on the Amiga there were Wordworth, Protext, Scribble and Kindwords. Plus a new PD or shareware word processor on a cover disc of one magazine every month. But maybe back then we were just better survivors than the current namby-pamby, hold-my-hand-mummy-i'm-scared, see-you-in-court generation of spoilt gutless milksops.

Another point is that schools are not Microsoft training centres, and neither should they be. If Microsoft want people taught to use their software then it should be at Microsoft's - not the taxpayer's - expense and outside of the comprehensive* school system.

* Comprehensive school - British name for a school paid for by the state, opp. public school - British name for a school paid for privately, and reckoned to give a more comprehensive education. US terminology would be public school, private school respectively.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:hmm by Cajun+Hell · 2003-11-20 05:08 · Score: 1

Windows is all they're going to use in their lives. Why would schools put forth all that time, money, and effort into switching over to Linux if all that will happen is the students would be less prepared for the real world?
Because the environment isn't just something imposed upon us: it's also sometihng we create and bend to our will.
If students grow up using Linux, then some of them will use Linux, in the real world -- as a result.
Businesses don't want to because of the loss of productivity (while people relearn everything) involved combined with the lack of people in the workforce who know the programs they use.
Businesses won't want to, but they don't have any choice. Even if they stick to Microsoft products exclusively, they lose a lot of productivity due to the upgrade cycle. Have you tried using Windows XP? Do you have any idea what Longhorn is going to be like? Try replacing a "dumb user"'s Win95 machine with a XP machine and watch the fireworks.
Every couple of years, the business is screwed. Learning Linux plus whatever desktop software the dist bundles with it, isn't any more expensive than what they're going to go through anyway.
Also, you seem to see the world as just a bunch of huge megacorps of offices full of hundreds of cubicles all with a Wintel box on one big network, where everyone is all sending Powerpoint files back and forth, in some parody of Dilbert. Get out of the concrete canyons and go see the real world, where there are small businesses. I know these people, because they're who I work with. They consist of an office with one PC, and only one lady uses it, and that's only part of her job. She uses it to get the customers billed, or something. I guarantee you that when she was hired, the boss (who isn't a computer guy) didn't ask her if she knew how to use Excel; he might not even know what Excel is. Whatever she knows how to do, is what she's going to do, in order to get the job done. If Linux and Gnumeric are her tools of choice, then there's a good chance that is what the company is going to use. (Of course, those aren't her tools of choice, because our schools didn't teach her right. ;-)

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:hmm by consumer · 2003-11-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Why would schools put forth all that time, money, and effort into switching over to Linux if all that will happen is the students would be less prepared for the real world?
Because they have no money, and Linux is free. If you look at some of the schools that have switched to Linux (yes, they exist) you'll find some evangelist who wanted to do it, and a bunch of happy people who are now saving lots of money.
Could you imagine if a certain grade school decided, "Hey. I have a good idea! Let's use Linux on all our computers here.". The children learn and get aquainted with Linux then get into Jr. High - Uh oh, now the students from that grade school are way behind.
Have you ever actually used a different OS? If you have, perhaps you've noticed that they are essentially all the same. That's right, all of the important stuff I learned on my Apple II+ still applies to modern Linux and Windows. It's not learning individual applications that matters -- there will always be new applications. What matters is getting enough practice with a computer to be able to figure out how to use a new one when presented with it.
I not the widespread use of Apple systems in our schools does not seem to have cripped students for life.
Re:hmm by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-11-20 06:37 · Score: 1

What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs)...

Actually it DOES impact jobs. There are a ton of jobs which ask for specific experience. I'm not saying it is right; just that, that's how it works. People don't ask if you have database experience; they ask if you have MS Access experience.

This applies to the comp sci/eng field too. Many jobs basically REQUIRE you to have experience with certain software. They don't want a programmer; they want a WINDOWS programmer. The fact that a programming is the same thing regardless of platform (using a graphics toolkit, some API, etc) doesn't matter. I'm talking about entry level jobs (which is where I am). High level jobs clearly require specialized knowledge. Similarly, employers don't ask whether you know versioning control systems. Instead, they ask for specific stuff. The fact that you know CVS doesn't matter; they only look to see if you have say Clearcase experience. We are not even talking about administering these things...just using them in your job. It probably takes 10 hours to learn a different system if you know one. Yet they don't care. Other examples include employers asking for Rational Rose, even though you may have done UML design on the side using other software (like free ones such as Poseidon or Umbrello).

If you don't have any of the specifics, you don't even get past the resume selection stage (step 1). Yes, it's that bad :( Take it from experience...

Perhaps what I am sayin is dependent on the economic cycle. Maybe, employers ask for specific stuff during "recessions" (like now) and don't really care during boom periods. I am not sure. I graduated at the wrong time and the only boom I know of is the sonic boom... :(

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:hmm by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-11-20 06:45 · Score: 1

We are building a society of automatons, with little in the way of reasoning ability. A big shame.

That serves the interests of the capitalists and the elites. A FREE thinking THOUGHTFUL person is a threat to the government and the corporations that rule.

The governments just want you to be a GOOD TAXPAYING citizen. They don't want you to speak against the government; they don't want you to protest; they don't want you to THINK.

A corporation is similar. They just need WORKERS. As long as a person does a job, that's all that's required. If you start thinking outside the box, you are a threat to them. Why do corporations enforce strict IP (intellectual property) laws on employees? Why do businesses not support or look down upon certain things that you do (like learning or studying "unrelated" stuff)?

You are nothing more than a WORKER-CONSUMER...and you need to remain that way! The rebels within us must be quashed!!!

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:hmm by pongo000 · 2003-11-20 06:48 · Score: 1

This is because 95% of jobs using a computer require the ability to carry out simple tasks learned through memory, and only very few require knowledge of computer fundamentals.

Just what we need: A nation of underachievers.

What happens when the narrow skillset of that 95% is suddenly outdated? Since they have no foundation to build new skills, they go back to school to be "retooled." This takes time and money, both of which are usually in short supply when your "simple tasks" are no longer in demand.

The problem with your analogy is that it is extremely short-sighted. Good for business, where people are thrown away like Kleenex, bad for the people being thrown out.
Re:hmm by cyril3 · 2003-11-20 11:34 · Score: 1

Err.. We are talking about how a Word doc is formatted not what goes into the document.
They don't want you to speak against the government; they don't want you to protest; they don't want you to THINK
You are right of course. I heard the Democrats saying just that the other day.
If you start thinking outside the box, you are a threat to them..
And if I disagree with you am I a threat to you.
Why do corporations enforce strict IP (intellectual property) laws on employees? Why do businesses not support or look down upon certain things that you do (like learning or studying "unrelated" stuff)?
I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me.
Re:hmm by cyril3 · 2003-11-20 12:07 · Score: 1

Teaching some fundamental facts or processes through rote has been out of favour for all of 15 years. So most of the stuff we are surrounded by today was invented by generations that did that. I see a generation that did not use this technique and it is a generation that cannot spell or do simple arithmetic (or understand that they can't do it)
Get your kids out of school people, you'll be doing them a huge favor.
Come on, tell us how you left at 6th grade and you succeeded in sales or avoided altogether the whole capitalist thing or some other similarly uplifting bullshit. If we all did that however I think we would be having this conversation around an open fire.
I spent the last weekend listening to a retired salesman telling me how school based education was a waste and only losers worked for someone else. He started tis 'conversation' as we drove in his car to lunch. I'm thinking "Listen asshole, salesman didn't design or build the f***ing car we are driving in and you're a sh**house cook which is why we are going to lunch out and be served by employees. As a matter of fact I'm an employee and I quite enjoy being an employee. I've been self employed and I worked out that most self employed people have fu**wits for bosses. AND they have employees/losers."
Re:hmm by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-11-21 17:27 · Score: 1

Err.. We are talking about how a Word doc is formatted not what goes into the document.

You must have the wrong message. I was talking about the educational and work environment...

You are right of course. I heard the Democrats saying just that the other day.

Wouldn't surprise me if they did... They are no different than the Republicans they claim to be against...

And if I disagree with you am I a threat to you.

Yes but the difference is that *I* wouldn't come around and FORCE you to do something. *I* wouldn't jail you or harm you or penalize you for your thoughts. That's what seperates me, or for that matter you, from the entities I mentioned...

I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me.

If you think someone won't believe you, you either aren't doing a good job, or isn't telling the truth... In any case, this doesn't matter--it not central to my point...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

lindows free pc by musikit · 2003-11-20 01:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

didn't lindows try this? granted lindows costs more money but it's still was built on OSS so why would i donate it to the FSF and possibly not get a freePC? other then the fact that all the free pcs are most likely given out but they haven't told you how many people used that option yet.....

Re:lindows free pc by lederhosen · 2003-11-20 01:50 · Score: 1

Why try to help someone at all.
Re:lindows free pc by mm0mm · 2003-11-20 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

lindows costs more money but it's still was built on OSS so why would i donate it to the FSF and possibly not get a freePC?

because Lindows Co. does have a revenue source, while FSF depends heavily on donations to keep their operations running. Lindows is selling commercial OS which *happen* to be based on OSS and/or free software. Also consider the fact that thanks to the billioneire-turned-entrepreneur, Lindows has enough budget to promote their products.

personally I have no craving for a half-ass freePC. Would Debian-based Lindows be successful (not commercially, but as an OS) as it is now without OSS/free software? I doubt it. donating MS settlement $$$ to keep OpenSource and free software movement alive is not a bad idea, imo.
Re:lindows free pc by One+Louder · 2003-11-20 04:10 · Score: 1

...billioneire-turned-entrepreneur...
If you're talking about Michael Robertson, he started MP3.com as an entrepreneur, sold it to Vivendi Universal and personally made around $100M, nowhere near a billion. It's doubtful that was in cash, so it's likely that it dropped in value as the market dropped.
Whatever else he might be, he was an entrepreneur then, and still is - no turning involved.

Not "Good Software" by SpringRevolt · 2003-11-20 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

The FSF primary goal is *not* to create good software. It is to create *moral* software - software for goodneighbourliness and sharing - the fact that it is good (high quality/few bugs) - is a welcome - but secondary effect.

FSF's beef with Microsoft is not that it produces poor software - but that it produces non-Free software.

Re:Not "Good Software" by radja · 2003-11-20 01:26 · Score: 1

ofcourse, just about the same argument can be made for good (as in good value for money vs. good guy) as for free (beer/speech).

(not much inspiration right now, so not a very coolsounding meme. but I think you get my drift..) //rdj

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:Not "Good Software" by woodhouse · 2003-11-20 01:36 · Score: 3, Funny

>The FSF primary goal is *not* to create good software

But I've been successfully doing this for years. Send your vouchers to me!
Re:Not "Good Software" by 56ker · 2003-11-20 01:36 · Score: 1

Err, doesn't it seem a little unfair that most Microsoft "customers" won't get these vouchers? As I'm not a California resident - I won't have a voucher to donate to the FSF.

--

Video Game cheats, hints a
Re:Not "Good Software" by herrvinny · 2003-11-20 01:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it's _slightly_ more complicated than that. If that was true, then the FSF would have beefs with Sun (the Java language does not have an independent steering committee, it's fully controlled by Sun, despite what Sun wants developers to think), IBM (makes lots and lots of proprietary software, pretty much any software firm in the world, including Red Hat (isn't the package manager or the install routine non free? I believe it's proprietary.)
Re:Not "Good Software" by dumeinst · 2003-11-20 01:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think you have it backwards. People aren't going to use software because it's 'moral'. What's moral software anyways?? It's just a tool. People are only going to use any tool if it works for them. The whole 'I use/write free software, so that makes me a good person' bit is high-minded masturbation
Re:Not "Good Software" by thoolihan · 2003-11-20 01:44 · Score: 3, Informative

This might be the dumbest post I've seen this year. The analogy is 'free as in freedom vs free as in beer'. It is meant to distinguish the two meanings of free. FSF cares about free as in freedom, they don't care about free as in beer. They want software with rights. They don't care if you do or don't pay cash for it. So they use the example of being given a free beer (say for instance, the simple example of a friend buying your drink, or a bartender saying this ones on the house). If you want to analyze this even further, your recipe statement is apt as well. Just because something cost $0, doesn't mean you have the right to the recipe. That's the FSF's point, M$ occasionally gives stuff away for $0, but it's not free as in your rights.

Read up before you post.

-t

--
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Re:Not "Good Software" by nfk · 2003-11-20 01:49 · Score: 1

There's a misunderstanding here. Free, as in beer, is what free software is not, as opposed to free speech. From the Free Software definition, at the GNU website:

"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
Re:Not "Good Software" by lederhosen · 2003-11-20 01:56 · Score: 1

... including Red Hat (isn't the package manager or the install routine non free? I believe it's proprietary.)
No it is GPL. FSF is critical to the way IBM and Sun makes software.
Re:Not "Good Software" by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2003-11-20 01:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

The FSF does have a beef with Sun, IBM and Red Hat. They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution. So, from the FSF's point of view, it is not any more complicated than that.

--
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Re:Not "Good Software" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 02:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

In what moral code have you ever seen this? How does my not giving you *anything* equate to my not being moral? What if my belief system is different from yours, who is moral then?

"Morals" are not absolutes. What may be moral in one belief system may not be in another belief system.

Where is it documented that people have the "right" to copy and distribute software and that they are being denied this "right"?

The big difference I see in software vs. material goods is that the material goods actually require work/money/time/materials to duplicate where software/electronic things do not. Anybody can copy a file. Not everybody can copy an automobile or airplane and have it work as good as the original, not would they because it requires more of them than being able to click a button and have it duplicated. Yet... I don't see people complaining about not being able to copy and distribute their own Ford Escorts. It is very easy and costs practically nothing to duplicate and redistribute software/electronic things.

The other thing is that so many people want everything for free. It seems some children were never taught how to "do without". When I grew up, if I didn't have the money to buy something I wanted, I simply did without until I either saved up the money to get it or decided it wasn't worth it. Even if something was affordable, we had to make decisions whether it was worth having or not. Something that was practically free may not have been worth the money spent on it so we didn't buy it. Many folks today have grown up having no such concepts and simply "want", many times, it doesn't even matter if they need the thing or will even use it. They just want it to have it.

I sometimes wonder what planet/reality some folks are from... /rolleyes
Re:Not "Good Software" by byolinux · 2003-11-20 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, but software that doesn't support users freedoms is a bad thing.

You can charge all you like for Free Software, you just need to understand that I can make changes to it and redistribute it with those changes.

The FSF charges for software. https://agia.fsf.org/

--
Join the Free Software Foundation
Re:Not "Good Software" by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2003-11-20 02:23 · Score: 1

It feels good to listen someone remember the principles of Free Software. It seems like everyone have just forgot about it, this redhatlinux efect, as i use to call it, is really destroying our comunity. Lots of people Are starting to use what they call "Linux" every day, and since no one take the time to correct them, to teach them that Free Software is more than just something that will be usefull to his company, in RMS words, to show them the diference beetwen "Free as in Free Beer" and "Free as in Free of Speech". It's good to see posts like yours, since it remember us that there are still GNU People out there.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Not "Good Software" by Bas_Wijnen · 2003-11-20 02:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Will you speak for yourself, please. Just because you consider software only a tool, doesn't mean everyone does.

There are people who use software because it's moral, and I'm one of them. Software is not a tool for me, it's knowledge. I am a scientist. If I discover something, I publish it. That way other people can learn from it. I guess you know how the thing works.

Of course I use software (as a tool) as well. Just as I use knowledge. I also don't use scientific discoveries if I am not allowed to find out how and why they work. I'm not saying I will open every device I use. But I definitely want to be allowed to.

Imagine a society where it would be acceptable that knowledge is "owned" and discoveries are secret. You think the microwave oven (using quantum mechanic theory) would have ever been developed? I think not.

Most people know how they can make or break the world. Most of the time it is only about little things, but for some people (CEO's of large companies) it can be about very big things.

I want a better world, and I'll do two things for that: I don't do things that harm my ideals (like using non free software), and I tell others they shouldn't either. I know it won't make much of a difference, but it will make a difference.

And besides, I wouldn't want to live in a world where my friends know, or even think, that I would put a little personal gain above my ideals.
Re:Not "Good Software" by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 02:38 · Score: 1

Then why does the FSF support the GFDL? That looks like a rather non-free license.

From: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86513&cid=7519 457

2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
Re:Not "Good Software" by GoofyBoy · 2003-11-20 02:40 · Score: 1

Once you recieve free beer/dinner/tickets the analogy is quite clear.

>It's just a drink, retards.

The point is that its free.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Not "Good Software" by dumeinst · 2003-11-20 02:56 · Score: 1

I don't feel there's anything inherently wrong with propietary software other than the fact that I believe it will ultimately fail.

It's easy to take the moral high ground and categorize a methodology as evil and immoral. The fact is that free software should be promoted because it works, because it's a better way of doing things, because it evolves with a community, and not at the whim of a corporate entity; Not because it's morally inferior
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 02:58 · Score: 1

What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software.

Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL? I don't see how that is any more moral. The only way to be moral about software is to allow people to copy and distribute it without restriction.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

How does my not giving you *anything* equate to my not being moral?

Enforcing copyright is not just the lack of giving something. It is taking something away, the ability to copy and distribute.

What if my belief system is different from yours, who is moral then?

Are you arguing that there is no such thing as morality? If so you might as well just quit there, 'cause that isn't going to lead to an interesting discussion about whether or not something is moral.

"Morals" are not absolutes. What may be moral in one belief system may not be in another belief system.

So murder is not necessarily immoral, then? It all depends on one's belief system?

Hey, it's a valid argument, but if you're going to use it then the rest of your argument is meaningless.
Re:Not "Good Software" by Planesdragon · 2003-11-20 03:50 · Score: 1

You think the microwave oven (using quantum mechanic theory) would have ever been developed?

I think I have to call you on this.

How the @#$ is a microwave oven--an application of WWII era radar electronics--a use of quantum mechanic theory? Sure, you can explain a microwave with QM, but you can also explain a rifle round, and no one claims that we wouldn't have bullets w/o QM.

As to the greater point... we have a society where knowledge and discoveres can be owned and kept secret. And we get innovations anyway, because we encourage people who use their "secret" knowledge and discoveries to make money, which they do.
Re:Not "Good Software" by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's up to the creator what they do with their source code
You are falling victim here to the exact same fallacy that lies behind "It's my knife, therefore it's up to me who I stab with it". Don't confuse freedom over your own destiny with power over other people's destinies. Your {real} right not to get stabbed overrules my {false} right to stab you. And your {real} right to use software overrules anyone else's {false} right to try to stop you from using it.

See also here

The benefits of all human endeavour belong to all of humankind. If we are to expect that our fellow human beings will help us to the furthest extent possible short of actually harming themselves, then it follows that we are all obliged to help our fellow human beings to the furthest extent possible short of actually harming ourselves. If we expect any less, then we may as well not have bothered with the whole evolution thing.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 03:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

The FSF doesn't deny anyone anything.

Every time they threaten someone with a lawsuit they deny them something.

This is important because without the GPL I could very well have my work stolen in the traditional sense. Example: I write a foo processor called FooFu-- and release it as public domain. Bar, Inc. takes my freely shared source and creates a competing software called Footsy, but refuses to release source code. Any attempt on my part, even though I am the original author, to use their derived work would violate federal copyright law. So what the GPL does is make it possible for me to share my work without my having to worry about it being taken this way.

Yes, the GPL does prevent that. But so does a completely proprietary license. And so does so does the Creative Commons Share Alike license. Between the three, I like the Share Alike license the best. Only the Share Alike license allows you to copy and distribute software without restriction.
Re:Not "Good Software" by jsmyth · 2003-11-20 04:02 · Score: 1

Err, doesn't it seem a little unfair that most Microsoft "customers" won't get these vouchers? As I'm not a California resident - I won't have a voucher to donate to the FSF.
Complain to your local representative if you haven't already done so. California had a critical mass of people do so, otherwise the Microsoft lobbyists would have squashed any rebellion. If the local politicians in a particular state (be it U.S. or sovereign) are aware on a political level that there are victims of a convicted monopolist in their constituencies, and understand that their votes may count, they will pay attention.

--
jer

We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
Re:Not "Good Software" by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?
No. The GNU General Public Licence uses the same copyright law that has traditionally been used to deny users of software their rights, to protect those same rights. The FSF does not insist that anyone use the GPL for software written from scratch. What the FSF does insist is that if you incorporate source code covered by the GPL into a project of your own, and that usage exceeds your statutory rights of fair dealing {which vary among jurisdictions, check with a local expert, but basically you are usually allowed to lift a small amount of someone else's material verbatim, whether they like it or not}, then you should either release your work under the GPL or seek special permission from the copyright holder. It's really not much different than, say, if you wanted to use code from Windows in something else -- you would have to seek special permission from Microsoft {and hell will thaw out* before they give you it, but that's beyond the point}.
The only way to be moral about software is to allow people to copy and distribute it without restriction.
Although the law says that you can't use more than a small percentage of someone's copyright material without permission, there is no law that stops you taking some public domain work, making a tiny change {leaving much more unaltered than the "fair dealing" limit on copyright material} and copyrighting it in your own name. That is why the GPL was created. As long as there is copyright on software, there is a need for the GPL.

If your enemy has a weapon, insists on using it against you and will only stop when either you or they are dead, then your only chance of survival is to arm yourself. Cf. the late buddhist monk who refused medicine because he believed that germs were living creatures and it was not morally acceptable to kill them.

* Northern European Pagans will understand this.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 04:25 · Score: 1

I don't feel there's anything inherently wrong with propietary software other than the fact that I believe it will ultimately fail.
Proprietary software will not fail. It is known that corporate funded proprietary software is almost always better than non corporate funded software. A good example would be games. Most programmers (including me) do not want to work for free. I want to be paid to program something because there is no way in hell that I'm going to be a cashier for a living.
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 04:30 · Score: 1

This may be true but I've come across way more bugs in free software (ever used X anyone?) than I have in software that I've paid for.
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 04:32 · Score: 1

You can charge all you like for Free Software, you just need to understand that I can make changes to it and redistribute it with those changes.
So your redistributing it would mean that I wouldn't get money for a program that I wrote. That doesn't sound very moral to me.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 04:35 · Score: 1

Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?

No.

OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?

As long as there is copyright on software, there is a need for the GPL.

No, as long as there is copyright, there is a need for copyleft. The GPL is a half-decent incarnation of copyleft, but it denies people the right to copy annd distribute software without copying and distributing source code unlike other copyleft licenses, such as the QingPL or ShareAlike 1.0.
Re:Not "Good Software" by jdifool · 2003-11-20 04:41 · Score: 1

Hi,

I agree with you on the primary goal of the FSF, ie create moral software. But you will have noticed that moral values backed up by the FSF often - I would be tempted to say always - produce great software. This is the main asset of sticking to moral values...

Come on, who's not using gcc here ?

Regards,
Jdif

--
Let's overcome our weakness.
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 04:43 · Score: 1

It is taking something away, the ability to copy and distribute.
In the real world, this is called stealing.
Re:Not "Good Software" by loucura! · 2003-11-20 04:44 · Score: 1

But you don't need quantum theory to use microwaves of the right frequency to excite the H-O bonds in water.

--
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Re:Not "Good Software" by micromoog · 2003-11-20 04:55 · Score: 1

People aren't going to use software because it's 'moral'. What's moral software anyways?? It's just a tool.
In Soviet Russia, Free Software thinks YOU are just a tool!
Re:Not "Good Software" by AJWM · 2003-11-20 05:21 · Score: 1

Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?

No.

OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?

Don't confuse what the law denies you with something the FSF does or doesn't do. It is against copyright law to copy and distribute software without explicit permission.

The GPL grants you that permission, with the proviso that you in turn do not withhold that permission from others.

(As for copying and distributing software without source code -- software without source code is relatively useless. Oh, it might be temporarily useful on some subset of architectures and OSs for a limited time, but it's like a disposable appliance whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair. The GPL ensures that the user always has that access to modify or repair.)

--
-- Alastair
Re:Not "Good Software" by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 05:23 · Score: 1

OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
NO, the source code is the original, pure form. You would of course be free to distribute the source code without including a binary, otherwise many software authors would be in trouble. But creating a binary from the source code is mutilating it. Such munging is necessary to the purpose of running the software; but as the process of turning source into binary is effectively irreversible, it is not enough to distribute binaries alone. The right to modify a program requires you to have the source code in order to exercise that right.

Is a bucket of chewed-up stomach contents equivalent to a three course meal? This is the form in which your body needs to have it to obtain the nutrients and energy, but it is not the form in which most people would like to see it, talk about it and generally appreciate it in other respects than the merely nutritional.

I agree with you that the GPL is not the only form of copyleft, but I don't believe for one instant that you can distribute binaries without source and not violate someone's rights. In fact, both the Qing and C.C. licences grant you permission to make derivative works, which sort of implies an obligation to distribute the source code; as not to do so would prevent someone from creating the very derivative work you just authorised.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not "Good Software" by dylan_- · 2003-11-20 05:31 · Score: 1

Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?

No.

OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
I think you misunderstood him. The FSF doesn't deny people the right to copy and distribute other people's software any more than it denies you the right to break into the developer's house and steal his computer. The law denies you these "rights".

The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute software as long as you abide by the license.

If you feel you should have the right to distribute others' software any way you like, you should take that up with whoever makes the laws in the country you live in.

--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Re:Not "Good Software" by hawkestein · 2003-11-20 05:32 · Score: 1

Sure, you can explain a microwave with QM, but you can also explain a rifle round, and no one claims that we wouldn't have bullets w/o QM.

An even better example would be glass. We couldn't properly explain why glass was transparent until quantum theory came around, but we had been making glass for a looooong time before that.

--
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
Re:Not "Good Software" by Sabu+mark · 2003-11-20 06:10 · Score: 1

Just because something cost $0, doesn't mean you have the right to the recipe.

Why would I care whether something cost ./my_slashdot_comment_reading_script.pl?

(worst joke ever. sorry.)

--

What Would Jesus Do
(for a Klondike bar)?
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 06:10 · Score: 1

Don't confuse what the law denies you with something the FSF does or doesn't do.

I'm not.

It is against copyright law to copy and distribute software without explicit permission.

And the FSF has not only chosen not to give explicit permission, but they have explicitly asserted their copyright and intention to enforce it.

The GPL grants you that permission, with the proviso that you in turn do not withhold that permission from others.

That is not the only proviso. There are others, one of which is to distribute source code.

As for copying and distributing software without source code -- software without source code is relatively useless.

Nonsense. I use software without source code all the time. It's only the rare program that I actually use the source for. And even then there are ways around it if I didn't have the source.

Oh, it might be temporarily useful on some subset of architectures and OSs for a limited time, but it's like a disposable appliance whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair.

Source code is not required to repair software. It's more like an appliance which doesn't come with detailed design instructions. More importantly, people should have the right to distribute disposable appliances whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair if they want to. The FSF shouldn't come in and use copyright law to try to stop them.

Sure, if I have a choice between software with source code and software without source code I'm going to take the source. But authors should be denied the right to distribute binaries without distributing that source.

The GPL ensures that the user always has that access to modify or repair.

Source code is hardly the panacea you make it out to be. I have the full source code to a lot of software which I have absolutely no clue how to repair.
Re:Not "Good Software" by FooBarWidget · 2003-11-20 06:12 · Score: 1

No it isn't. If you steal, the original owner loses the item. If you copy, the original owner doesn't lose anything.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 06:26 · Score: 1

OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?

NO, the source code is the original, pure form.

That's a good point, but then I go back to my original statement. The FSF denies people the right to copy and distribute binaries, unless they distribute the source. That's no different from someone whose license requires that you donate to charity in order to copy and distribute a binary, or that you kiss a puppy dog. But no, that's proprietary software, not free software?

The right to modify a program requires you to have the source code in order to exercise that right.

No it doesn't.

I agree with you that the GPL is not the only form of copyleft, but I don't believe for one instant that you can distribute binaries without source and not violate someone's rights.

Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?

In fact, both the Qing and C.C. licences grant you permission to make derivative works, which sort of implies an obligation to distribute the source code; as not to do so would prevent someone from creating the very derivative work you just authorised.

Absolutely not. The licenses give you permission to make derivative works. But that doesn't mean that anyone is forced to help you make any particular derivative work they want. Furthermore, lack of source code does not prevent you from making derivative works. It may be easier to create certain types of derivative works with source code, but nothing in the license agreement says anything about making things easy. The QingPL and ShareAlike 1.0 do not require you to release source code to derivative works.
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 06:31 · Score: 1

Ok, let's try a different perspective. If you copy the program then the author is going to make less money off of it. If you weren't going to buy it anyways then you should learn to live without the program. It is illegal to copy a program to somebody else's computer (I would agree to immediate family being exempt) without paying for it if it is a program that doesn't allow redistrobution.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 06:38 · Score: 1

The FSF doesn't deny people the right to copy and distribute other people's software any more than it denies you the right to break into the developer's house and steal his computer. The law denies you these "rights".

First of all, you don't have a right to break into someone's house and steal his computer. You also don't have the right to copy and distribute other people's software. You do, however, have the right to copy and distribute your software which happens to have been originally written by someone else.

The FSF has threatened to sue people for violating the copyright on their software. I think that counts as denying them rights. You can argue that it is the law which denies the rights, but the FSF is just as responsible for helping the law do its job.

If you feel you should have the right to distribute others' software any way you like, you should take that up with whoever makes the laws in the country you live in.

OK, let me call him up. Oh, wait a second. I can't do that, because there isn't a single person who makes the laws inthe country I live. It's a complicated process which all of society participates in. So that's who I'm taking it up with. Society. Let me distribute my software however I want, damnit.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Then why does the FSF support the GFDL? That looks like a rather non-free license.

But it's not for software. Free software is the primary goal of the FSF. The GFDL is supposed to assist in that goal. It certainly doesn't hinder it.
Re:Not "Good Software" by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Debian has trouble distributing GFDLed docs! Yes, it does cause trouble. And so does RMS when he uses petty politics to remove a project lead.

And that is what he has done, play petty politics.
Re:Not "Good Software" by Brandybuck · 2003-11-20 07:53 · Score: 1

They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution.

This is so petty it boggles the mind. In fact, it's so petty it makes me suspicious that RMS merely got pissed at a Debian developer instead.

It is entirely possible and quite simple to aquire, install and use Debian without once seeing non-free software anywhere near your system, with no loss of functionality. That there may be non-free software elsewhere on the ftp site is irrelevant.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Not "Good Software" by AJWM · 2003-11-20 08:15 · Score: 1

More importantly, people should have the right to distribute disposable appliances whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair if they want to. The FSF shouldn't come in and use copyright law to try to stop them.

Name one thing -- that FSF doesn't own rights to -- that it has tried to stop anyone from distributing.

FSF has never stopped anyone from distributing software without source, unless that software's copyrights were owned (at least in part) by FSF itself. He who writes the code picks the license. If you don't like the GPL terms, don't copy GPL code -- it's not yours. The FSF merely wants to ensure that if you do copy it and pass it on, you also pass on all the permissions that FSF granted to you.

I have the full source code to a lot of software which I have absolutely no clue how to repair.

So now it's all about you? Shall we amend the GPL to say "but you don't have to distribute sourcecode to Anthony Dipierro"? You are at least free to ask anyone to help you fix it or repair it for you. Try that if you don't have the source. I don't have all the tools to fix certain problems with my car, either, but I don't have to go to an authorized GM dealer to get them fixed.

--
-- Alastair
Re:Not "Good Software" by 56ker · 2003-11-20 08:32 · Score: 1

However many people in the UK complained about it to their local councillors (local government representatives), MPs (national government representatives) or MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) I doubt anything would be done as in the UK & EU we don't have the laws on the statute books under which California reached its settlement with Microsoft.

I am sure (at least some) of the representatives here are aware that their constituents are victims of a convicted monopolist - they just don't see it as anything they can change or do anything about. Microsoft software isn't an issue that people feel strongly enough about here to threaten to vote for someone else.

--

Video Game cheats, hints a
Re:Not "Good Software" by pierpa · 2003-11-20 08:34 · Score: 1

the english word "free" can be translated in my language (italian) in two ways: "gratis" (as free beer) and "libero" (as free speech).

so, fsf foundation states that in italian "free software" should be translated as "software libero" and not "software gratis".

anyway it is still difficult to explain that "open source" is not "public domain" to the end-user and windows-aware technicians, rarely good it techs.

greetings,

ppp
Re:Not "Good Software" by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 11:22 · Score: 1

I prefer quality rather than waste my time fixing somebody elses code when i could be working on something more usefull.
Re:Not "Good Software" by Bas_Wijnen · 2003-11-20 11:43 · Score: 1

I think proprietary software is a Bad Thing. It teaches people to keep things for yourself, even if sharing them is a trivial action which doesn't cost you any trouble. If people insist on making money at the cost of teaching people such things (and not allowing them to look under the cover of the product), then I think they are doing immoral things.

Of course it is only immoral if they know that they are doing this. Therefore we should tell them our analysis of the situation. If they insist on doing it, they are immoral. If not, then we can welcome a new friend :-)
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 17:11 · Score: 1

Name one thing -- that FSF doesn't own rights to -- that it has tried to stop anyone from distributing.

Huh? When did I say they didn't "own rights" to these things?

He who writes the code picks the license.

Apparently you missed the beginning of this thread. The person I was responding to was the one who made the claim that "What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software." Legally, he who writes the code picks the license, of course.

So now it's all about you?

No, it's not all about me. But I'm one of the people being harmed. If someone wants to make a binary only patch to a piece of GPLed software I use, it's illegal for that person to distribute it to me. I'm not the only example, but I'm one of them. If you happen to have the time and brainpower to understand every single line of every single piece of software that you run, then it doesn't apply to you, I guess.

Shall we amend the GPL to say "but you don't have to distribute sourcecode to Anthony Dipierro"?

No. The GPL should be amended to say that you don't have to distribute source to anyone. Or if the RMS is too greedy to allow that, then it could say that they have to distribute source if they distribute binaries to RMS. The key is that if you have a willing distributor and a willing recipient, the FSF shouldn't get in the way and try to sue people. If you don't want the binary-only modifications, don't take them, they're not yours. If you can't make do without source, contact the author and offer to buy the source. I'm sure the author would be willing to make a deal with you.

You are at least free to ask anyone to help you fix it or repair it for you. Try that if you don't have the source.

Yeah. It's a nice advantage, having the source. If I ever have a choice between source and no source, I'll take the source. But some authors don't want to give away their source. They'd rather give binaries away for free and sell the source. And while I'd prefer the source, a free binary is better than nothing at all, but the FSF wants to take that right away from me. I guess they think it's for my own good. Well I'd prefer to choose for myself.
Re:Not "Good Software" by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 20:09 · Score: 1

Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?
Well, technically, yes, but the practical matters depend on whether or not your uncle would have done anything with the source code. If your uncle was a hardcore programmer and wanted to actively make contributions to the Mozilla project then yes, you have violated his rights by not giving him the source {although your obligation probably would have been satisfied by telling him truthfully where he could have obtained it}. However, if your uncle simply wanted to use a standards-compliant web browser that did not suck and had no interest in programming, then he {for it is he who is the injured party} is likely to forgive you that minor infraction. That is the problem, not just in the Free Software community but in the world at large: where rights are little-used and easily violated, someone somewhere is trying to take them away.

The users of software have an absolute right to the source code by sole virtue of the software's existence. Just because most of them aren't going to make any use of it doesn't mean you can get away with not giving it to any of them!
[L]ack of source code does not prevent you from making derivative works. It may be easier to create certain types of derivative works with source code, but nothing in the license agreement says anything about making things easy.
Those are weasel words. Easier yes, but without the source code, it is frankly next to impossible to create a derivative work. Ask anyone who actually programs as opposed to pontificating. Without the source code, your only way to make a derivative work is first to disassemble the binary and then work out what the machine code does. If you want to just change a message or add a few extra lives to a game, that is trivial; but if you want to add extra functionality it can be a ball-ache. You probably -- and if you want to port to another architecture, make that certainly -- are going to end up having to rewrite the whole thing in a higher-level language. And the only consolation is that under fair dealing provisions, the end result most probably would be all your own work and you could release it under an open-source licence.
It may be easier to create certain types of derivative works with source code, but nothing in the license agreement says anything about making things easy.
More weasel words. Why should it say so in the licence? It is an implicit assumption. Every human being is obliged to help every other being to the fullest extent possible without actually harming themself. If I can give you my source code without hurting myself, and that would help you, then I must.

See also this essay - choice quote "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom."

The real question I find myself asking is why would you want to release something in binary form only? What is in your source code that you are so desperate for me not to see, and why? Are you ashamed of it? Scared it won't work? Do you think people will laugh at your commenting style or the way you use curly brackets?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 20:25 · Score: 1

Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?

Well, technically, yes

That's ludicrous. No. Technically, no. I didn't violate anyone's rights. Not technically, not morally, not at all. If you think I did, then you're a moron.

If your uncle was a hardcore programmer and wanted to actively make contributions to the Mozilla project then yes, you have violated his rights by not giving him the source {although your obligation probably would have been satisfied by telling him truthfully where he could have obtained it}.

His rights? His rights!?!? Absolutely not. You don't have a right to have me give you source code. That's not a right. It might be a nice thing for me to do. I might be a bastard for not doing it. But it's not a right.

The users of software have an absolute right to the source code by sole virtue of the software's existence.

I'm glad the martians came down and told you that. Here on planet earth we've never heard of such a thing.

Easier yes, but without the source code, it is frankly next to impossible to create a derivative work.

Actually it's really easy. Just go in and randomly change a few bits.

You want a useful derivative work? Well that all depends on the software. Lots of software will let you add binary modules. That also creates a derivative work.

More weasel words. Why should it say so in the licence?

Because that's what licenses are meant to do.

It is an implicit assumption.

Since I'm the author of one of those two licenses, I can tell you for a fact that it is absolutely not an implicit assumption with it.

Every human being is obliged to help every other being to the fullest extent possible without actually harming themself.

LOL. That's a good one. IHBT, I guess.

The real question I find myself asking is why would you want to release something in binary form only?

For profit, of course.

Do you think people will laugh at your commenting style or the way you use curly brackets?

I'd make sure to run it through indent before releasing it.
Re:Not "Good Software" by ajs318 · 2003-11-20 21:09 · Score: 1

You don't have a right to have me give you source code. That's not a right. It might be a nice thing for me to do. I might be a bastard for not doing it. But it's not a right.
Yes it is a right. That is my point. I already said it above. Ever since we first climbed down from the trees, used our opposable thumbs and made stone tools and fire, everything humankind has achieved has been a huge collarorative effort. All the fruits of all human endeavour rightfully belong to all of humankind. Hoarding your source code harms other people. Releasing your source code does not harm you, but it does help others - therefore you are obliged, as a human being, to do it.

When you write a programme, it rightfully belongs to all of humankind. You call it "yours" because you wrote it, but that is not to say you have any kind of absolute ownership over it, any more than you have absolute ownership over "your" uncle! The possessive pronoun is merely a linguistic convenience {and no doubt there is a language spoken somewhere that draws a distinction between absolute ownership and mere relationship}. All of humankind has a right to that programme, including the source code. If you don't like it, you don't have to write the programme in the first place. Or you can seek a special concession from everyone else in the whole world, which isn't that much harder than improving on a programme when somebody didn't give you the source code.

Saying that just because you wrote software it's yours and you can do what you like with it whether or not other people like it, is a lot like saying that your dick is yours and you can use it to have sex with anyone you like whether or not other people like it.
[W]hy would you want to release something in binary form only?
For profit, of course.
Ah. I rather think you are in danger of succumbing to the great Capitalist myth -- you see other people as being nothing more than a source of money for you.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not "Good Software" by jsmyth · 2003-11-21 00:21 · Score: 1

I doubt anything would be done as in the UK & EU we don't have the laws on the statute books under which California reached its settlement with Microsoft.
True, but it's going to court as we speak, and by all accounts it appears that Microsoft will not fare as well in the EU as they did in the post-Clinton aftermath of the trial.
Rest assured the European politicians will pay more attention when the target of your angst is a convicted monopolist in their jurisdiction.

--
jer

We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
Re:Not "Good Software" by Bas_Wijnen · 2003-11-21 05:48 · Score: 1

This is ridiculous. Does all of your hardware come with schematics? Of course not. Why should software be any different.

It used to, but nowadays not anymore, no. And I still think it should.

But that's not a good comparison. Software comes with a license which specifically forbids to even open the cover and go look for yourself. The fact that there are no schematics (documentation) is quite another thing.
Re:Not "Good Software" by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-21 05:55 · Score: 1

Whatever floats your boat. Just make sure that the software you distribute is indeed yours.

Let's see. It's on my hard drive, which is in my computer, which is in my apartment. Yep, I'd say it's mine. Notice we don't attribute ownership to the builder of the hard drive, or the computer, or the person who built the house.

If "your" software includes stuff that I have written and distributed under the GPL then you do not have the right to deny the source to the users.

Yep. I do.
Re:Not "Good Software" by byolinux · 2003-11-26 00:49 · Score: 1

But there's nothing to stop you or anyone from taking the changes I made, and giving them away for gratis, or for undercutting my prices.

Put's a real end to price fixing.

--
Join the Free Software Foundation
Re:Not "Good Software" by tre4lien · 2003-11-26 05:45 · Score: 1

That's a fine clarification of the parent, but I don't see where you disagree. Why so angry?

How about the EFF? by routerwhore · 2003-11-20 01:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Somehow in this day and age of big brother paranoia (and RMS lunacy), the EFF seems to be a more appropriate place to donate.

EFF
Attn: MS Voucher
454 Shotwell St.
San Francisco, CA 94110

Re:How about the EFF? by Ianoo · 2003-11-20 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am inclined to agree. I'm much more likely to donate any vouchers I receive to an open source rather than free software organisation. I'd much rather see the money support projects that really need it rather than those that fit with Stallmann's moral vision.

I bet the only software he'll be sending machines is that which is licensed under the GPL, not any kind of BSD-style license - and considering many of the important components I'm using on this desktop at the moment are indeed licensed under BSD-like licenses (XFree, GNOME [LGPL]) are also those most in need.
Re:How about the EFF? by Orien · 2003-11-20 01:52 · Score: 1

You can call me selfish if you want, but why should I be compeled to donate my voucher anywhere? If I had a voucher (I don't because I'm not in California) it would because MS had screwed me over. And the one time that they get taken to task over it, I'm supposed to give the benifit to someone else? This is just like when I got a $600 check from the government from GW Bush's tax cut, and the Democratic party said that the tax cut was immoral so they wanted me to donate the entire check to them. Excuse me? That wasn't a $600 gift any more the the voucher is a gift, it's giving back to me what was mine in the first place. I'll keep it, thank you very much. And don't think that I never donate money, code or stuff to OSS projects, because I do, just on my own terms.

--
SCO.com uses Linux
Re:How about the EFF? by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-11-20 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Stallmann's moral vision ... I bet the only software he'll be sending machines is that which is licensed under the GPL, not any kind of BSD-style license ... (XFree, GNOME [LGPL]) are also those most in need

yes, and since hiring dyslexic Bradley Kuhn, RMS has gone from Stallman to Stallmann. (see above comment.)

Do you not know that it was Stallman that started GNOME? and it was FSF that wrote the LGPL? and it's FSF that are hosting the Xouvert project to help XFree? and that it was Stallmans idea to change ogg vorbis from GPL to BSD license?

RMS was once asked, since there is a free software song, would there ever be a GNU song?
He said no, GNU is not the point, Free Software is the point.

People like misinterpretting him, or finding small flaws, but don't ignore that he's dedicated his life to giving freedom to computer users.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Re:How about the EFF? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 03:08 · Score: 1

What good has the EFF actually done? At least the FSF has created a lot of free software which I use every day. The EFF hasn't done shit for me.
Re:How about the EFF? by mbourgon · 2003-11-20 03:52 · Score: 1

As a friend of mine said: Stallman is like a lighthouse. You know you want to be in that general area, but you don't actually want to be there.

--
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Re:How about the EFF? by Zachary+Kessin · 2003-11-20 04:00 · Score: 1

What software has been written by the FSF of late? A lot of stuff is on their web page but with the exception of emacs much of it is being developed by other people. How many of the cool software titles that are in constant use in the free software community were actually written by GNU people? Not very many. Gcc is mostly done by Cygnus (redhat) and many other "GNU" products are just random bits of free software that RMS has decided to call part of his project. GNOME, KDE, GIMP, Apache, Perl, the Linux & BSD Kernels are all outside of the FSF's control as are most other products.

RMS just like to take credit for everything. And the HURD has been 6 months away from being ready for at least 12 years now.

--
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:How about the EFF? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 04:18 · Score: 1

What software has been written by the FSF of late?

I have no idea. But anything is better than what the EFF has done for me. I got turned off from them when they wasted their money trying to defend someone who wasn't even being sued. If I want to donate to someone who defends free speech online, I'll take the ACLU.

And the HURD has been 6 months away from being ready for at least 12 years now.

Talk about waste, huh? Yeah, you make a good point. But still, I can't think of anything the EFF has done for me. The FSF has done a lot. Whether or not they're still doing anything, I really don't know. What exactly do they spend money on, nowadays?

To be clear, I'm not advocating donating to the FSF. Personally I'd rather save up my money and use it directly to promote free software than to let the FSF use it. I'm not a big believer in donations. Most non-profits should find a way to fund themselves.
Re:How about the EFF? by silverbyte · 2003-11-20 05:36 · Score: 1

I agree. The ability to exercise a right of expression on cyberspace, regardless of whether that right was bought or simply given away,is more fundamental than creation of channels of expression.
Free software is important, very very important. However at this moment in history, we are dealing with corporate entities trying to stifle the right to innovate and crucify open expression(remember Prof. Felten??)
Hats off to EFF... and to FSF
Re:How about the EFF? by HuguesT · 2003-11-20 15:13 · Score: 1

Your post is not very correct. Most of the `cool utilities' under Linux are in fact GNU contributions. This starts with glibc, without which nothing would work, nearly all the traditional command line utilities such as the shell itself (bash) and stuff like ls, sed, awk, etc.

Of course then there is the basic development tools such as compilers, assemblers, linkers, etc. Good luck finding a BSD C++ compiler for example.

All of these are in constant developpment. Just to mention your remark on GCC, here is some information for you:

> Gcc is mostly done by Cygnus (redhat)

Incorrect.

The URL for GCC is still gcc.gnu.org. RedHat has little to do with GCC. They do contribute, of course, but that's all. You should remember that they released a famously broken version of GCC, gcc-2.96, for inclusion in their distribution, without approval or even prior consultation with the GCC people.

Everyone was very confused because the official GCC release at the time was 2.95 and so it looked like an upgrade, which it wasn't, let me tell you.

I'd say the relationship between GCC and Redhat became rather frosty as a result.

I think... by Evil+Adrian · 2003-11-20 01:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think that giving these vouchers to schools that don't have computer equipment (or that have older computer equipment) and helping those children learn to use computers is a much better use of the vouchers than donating them to the FSF.

--
evil adrian

Re:I think... by Ianoo · 2003-11-20 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

What, then have them buy Microsoft software to put on those computers? Donating money to a free or open source software organisation (FSF, EFF, etc) means that free software improves. It will receive more widespread adoption. Schools will feel more inclined and more justified using it over Microsoft's products. They can then spend the money they'd otherwise spend on Windows and Office on more PCs.

Giving the vouchers to the FSF (or EFF) is a long term plan rather than a direct feedback route to Redmond's bank account.
Re:I think... by Ianoo · 2003-11-20 01:43 · Score: 1

By EFF of course I mean OSI, I'm just going insane.
Re:I think... by cpghost · 2003-11-20 01:56 · Score: 1

People creating free software are doing a great, charitable work! Many schools, esp. in poor countries, switched to Linux because Microsoft products were too expensive. Donations to EFF or the FSF are certainly a good way to help millions of people worldwide.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:I think... by Ianoo · 2003-11-20 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The question to ask yourself is "has the usability of Linux on the Desktop improved in the last 5 years?". You're kidding yourself if you think the answer is no.

The next question to ask is "will this trend continue?". Considering that many free/open source software projects such as the GNOME project are now extremely focused on usability and both they and KDE have won awards for usability, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "yes".

Some time in the next five years, Linux will be ready for prime time desktop use in any environment. I can't say exactly when that will be due to the order-from-chaos development model of most projects (which is both a good and bad thing). But it will happen, and when it does, I'm pretty sure you'll be pleased you donated your vouchers to help.
Re:I think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 02:00 · Score: 1, Informative

Unfortunally while computers in schools have the potential of being very powerful resources I have yet to see more then a few situations were they have been used effectively. That is also directly tied to why a number of organizations make very poor use of computers.

I understand that this may be different for Universities which already have tremendous levels of funding; but, in public primary education environments, computers are treated as little more then glorified typewriters with the ability to surf the Internet. Since even most teachers do not have the proper skills to find good research on the Internet even these capabilties are essentially wasted.

Another falicy in the educational system is that administrators assume that they must have the newest and best equipment to be able to effectively teach. I have seen a number of school wharehouses stocked full of old equipment that nobody in the system any long feels is useful. This is very unfortunate. Using Linux many of these systems can be revitalized into productive machines. Even the oldest of these machines can be turned into X display terminals to make newer hardware purchases spread further. I have set up serveral library kiosk stations using old PS/2's as Xterms connected to a larger modern machine. I can buy an AMD Duron 1.1Ghz with 128MB RAM that will host several Netscape or OpenOffice sessions remotely for $200US.

Until the education system gets enough initiative to higher teachers that know what computers are cabable of doing and until they start making better use of the computing resources that they already have, I do not feel that donating more hardware to the education system is going to be productive in teaching students how to use computers.
Re:I think... by AbbyNormal · 2003-11-20 03:20 · Score: 1

By GOD man, Evil Adrian is right! Think about the children! You're not thinking about the children!

Now to go get me a brand new pair of Nikes.

--
Sig it.
Re:I think... by beeblebrox87 · 2003-11-20 07:10 · Score: 1

I fail to see how the interfaces are functionally different, even now. Children using computer as educational tools mostly involves word processing and web browsing, both of which are roughly the same on Windows and Linux. Whether the 'save' button is a few pixels away from where it used to be is irrelevant, in fact its important the children learn general concepts rather than exact interfaces.

Whenever I show windows-using friends my Linux (KDE) desktop, the first thing they common on is how it looks just like windows. OpenOffice and Mozilla (with some themes) both have essentially identical interfaces to Word and IE, respectively. The address bar is in the same place, the forward and back buttons are in the same place, the keyboard has the same layout, therefore students can do research exactly the same as they would on Windows.
Re:I think... by runderwo · 2003-11-20 10:59 · Score: 1

Well, the guy was talking about "Linux", I guess he means he is using just the kernel. So I would have to agree that the usability would be very poor from that standpoint. Maybe he should try installing a distribution and critiquing that instead.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web

Hardware? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 01:30 · Score: 1, Funny

So, instead of exchanging a $100 voucher for a CD that cost $0.20 to print, we can exchange it for equipment that loses its value at the rate of 50% a year.

Re:Try begging while i give it to the EFF by pete-classic · 2003-11-20 01:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Something tangible like 273 software packages? Little items like Glibc, GCC, Bash, and the GIMP.

Note that these are GNU packages, meaning that they are provided by the FSF. There are thousands more packages that are merely distributed under the terms of the GPL/LGPL.

-Peter

or both? (I go with FSF) by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-11-20 01:39 · Score: 3, Informative

yup, EFF are also great, but when I can spare cash, it goes to FSF.

They've been busting their asses to give us freedom for 19 years now, and with Bradley Kuhn as the Executive Director, they've gone from strength to strenght.

If fighting for freedom is lunacy, you can download thirteen 2hr lunacy recodings (sounds fun) on the GNU audio page. Well worth a listen, IMO

(and as a european, I'm very glad of all the work that Stallman has done, and the work of Hartmut Pilch of FFII who's work is funded by FSF)
and my .sig:

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Re:or both? (I go with FSF) by arvindn · 2003-11-20 01:49 · Score: 5, Funny

with Bradley Kuhn as the Executive Director, they've gone from strength to strenght.
So this Kuhn guy is dyslexic?
Re:or both? (I go with FSF) by Brandybuck · 2003-11-20 07:57 · Score: 1

and as a european, I'm very glad of all the work that Stallman has done

What does being European have to do with anything? Was there going to be some EU directive outlawing Free Software until RMS came along and stopped it?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

bleah =P by Bastian · 2003-11-20 01:43 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Arright let's get the obligatory sentiments that come out every time the FSF is mentioned out of the way for everybody.

RMS sucks, f0rK the FSF, what'd they ever do for me anyway, no more GNU software on my computer, I'm gonna go play with FreeBSD, now dammit where'd I put that compiler.

Ok, now that I've said it for all of you please feel free to talk about something that hasn't been said a million times before.

Re:bleah =P by Simon+Lyngshede · 2003-11-20 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ha, that compiler your looking for is GNU software. You're not geeting very far on FreeBSD with the GCC.

gcc.gnu.org
Re:bleah =P by cpghost · 2003-11-20 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

no more GNU software on my computer, I'm gonna go play with FreeBSD, now dammit where'd I put that compiler.

Beware: There's a lot more GNU software in FreeBSD, than gcc (and binutils, etc...) alone. And I don't mean third party ports that we all love and use, but also in the base system. There is a also a lot of non-GNU, but GPLed software in the base FreeBSD system as well. Just one example: cvs.

We owe a lot to the GNU project, and would never have gotten that far without their contributions.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:bleah =P by Richard_at_work · 2003-11-20 02:23 · Score: 1

www.tendra.org, dont worry, we are getting there.
Re:bleah =P by fsmunoz · 2003-11-20 03:28 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that people always complain about the FSF regidity regarding licenses and find the BSD-like licenses more "ease-going", as it were. The FSF has no problem accepting and BSD-like licensed programs, and on the other hand the BSD's are expending a good ammount of work just to get rid of their dependency on gcc *because of the license*. Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.

It reminds me of the other myth that goes "the BSD license is more friendly to big companies". So much friendlier that almost all the projects that were "freed" from IBM, SGI et al. are under the GPL.

I'm not bashing the BSD-license. It's a nice license - a free license - and that suffices for me. Just pointing out that many times "zealotry" is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

cheers,

fsmunoz
Re:bleah =P by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 04:54 · Score: 1

The reason that people prefer the BSD license is that people aren't going to have to fear using a library under the BSD license in their code. I've seen way to many people use GPL libraries and then having tons of people immediatly demand that the whole program be released under the GPL. As a programmer this disgusts me and will keep me from ever writing a real program for linux (with the exception of the ones for class).
Re:bleah =P by blackdragon7777 · 2003-11-20 05:00 · Score: 1

You can get the intel compiler as a replacement for gcc. It's a much better and faster compiler from what I hear anyways. Also I don't know what window managers/toolkits are non-gpl. If anybody knows please respond. The only programs that I can think of that you'll really miss is an aim client (not that gaim is that great anyways). I don't know of any bsd aim clients that are not GPL...maybe I should go back to working on that aim client I was writing.
Also I started using FreeBSD as my linux replacement and haven't really had any problems.
Re:bleah =P by Bananenrepublik · 2003-11-20 05:13 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining to the unenlightened. Don't you think that was a point the OP tried to make?
Re:bleah =P by fsmunoz · 2003-11-20 05:17 · Score: 1

The reason that people prefer the BSD license is that people aren't going to have to fear using a library under the BSD license in their code. I've seen way to many people use GPL libraries and then having tons of people immediatly demand that the whole program be released under the GPL.

The thing is, that's exactly what the GPL is meant to do. If people don't want that than they can abstain from using GPL'ed libs. Please note that the LGPL is not an issue, since it exists exactly to allow people to use it without needing to disclose their source. When a lib is put under the GPL and not the LGPL the aim is exactly to prevent people (you, in this case) from using it without sharing their code.

As an aside I found that in general "people" don't prefer the BSD license to the GPL. The ammount of programs released under the GPL proves that. But I have no problem in accepting that some people prefer the BSD one.

As a programmer this disgusts me and will keep me from ever writing a real program for linux (with the exception of the ones for class).

Why is that? The glibc doesn't force you to GPL your program. Most of the development libs are under the LGPL. Just abstain from using GPL libs. The same thing applies to gcc, and that's why I find this "GPL-free cc for BSD" thing rather amusing.

cheers,

fsmunoz
Re:bleah =P by Brandybuck · 2003-11-20 08:37 · Score: 1

Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.

If you read and understand the licenses, you'll find out that while the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, the GPL most certainly is NOT compatible with the BSD. One GPLd device driver for the kernel, and suddenly your whole base system isn't under the BSD license any more.

The various BSDs are glad to use GPL software. But they must take care that it doesn't infect other software.

I use GPLd software all the time. But when I write my own software, it's going to be as free of restrictions as I can possibly make it. This means the BSD and MIT licenses (since releasing software under the public domain is not feasible). Of course, you can pay me to put it under another license, even the GPL. Do I hear any offers?

"the BSD license is more friendly to big companies"

Is there any particular reason we should be unfriendly to them instead?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Just waiting.. by beef3k · 2003-11-20 01:47 · Score: 1, Funny

...for Darl McBride to come up with a reason why this is not legal after all, and sue the FSF for lost revenues.

"free beer" by RLiegh · 2003-11-20 01:48 · Score: 1

Anyone who's gone to frat parties or sci-fi parties (at least in the early 90's, maybe shit's changed) can talk about 'free beer'. Usually, raiding the frat's/yuppie's beer stash while drunkenly talking shit to them was the only reason to go to the afore-mentioned parties. ;-)

So, yes, normally you have to pay for beer, but given party crashing, it's not unheard of to get 'free beer'. Its' certainly common enough to justify the phrase.

Breaking News! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 01:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Today Darl McBride claimed that any and all vouchers belong to SCO, and that by the FSF taking the actions with vouchers that it has, the FSF has endangered SCO's position.

LinuxBIOS by yerricde · 2003-11-20 01:52 · Score: 1

Free firmware? Hey, it could happen.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

What is good software? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-11-20 01:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

it's satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change.

Just what is "good" software? Quality good? MS makes quality software. Is it guaranteed that all software produced/supported by the FSF will be of high quality?

Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral (think slave labor in diamond mines) or the use of the product is moral (think use of encryption by drug cartels) or even if it was moral to produce the product in the first place (think TEC-9) but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product.

Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean? If a company has done good and bad which actions determine the character of the company? The standardization of the desktop (Windows) and of basic productivity applications (Office) has certainly accelerated the acceptance of the personal computer, and that appears to be a good thing.

Of course, Microsoft's motive was profit. But is that immoral? Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices. Once upon a time, Wordstar was king, Visicalc was the sole player in the spreadsheet domain, and GEM was the GUI to use on a PC. Microsoft came to dominate those areas through quality software and marketing savvy.

Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good. Next time think before you throw out your knee-jerk rhetoric. Consider your position and choose your words to say what you mean.

Re:What is good software? by starseeker · 2003-11-20 03:22 · Score: 1

"Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral [snip] but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product."

The product and the producer are linked as long as you have to deal with the latter to use the former.

"Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean?"

It means they pursue their goals with no respect for the rights of others or an awareness of their impact outside themselves.

"Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices."

I don't know if you appreciate how this sounds. First off, dominating the market is simply a means to profit. Second, the domination is not good for the consumer, which is ultimately what the economic system is all about. If you think otherwise, I'll put it bluntly - I'm more worried about the future and well being of the individual citizens of this country than I am a corporation's ability to make outlandish profit, and when they come in to conflict I think the corporation should get smacked down.

"Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good."

Most every flaw our capitalistic system was just summed up there. What Microsoft is SUPPOSED to be doing is not abusing their position. Profit of Company != End all and be all of existance. It's sick to think it is. Did Enron do what it was supposed to do by making a lot of money for its top people? They were just in business to make money, right? By the measure of profit they were quite successful. You can't just trample everything near you to squeeze out $$$ and call it proper company behavior. A free society cannot survive in the long term with such attitudes and remain a compassionate one. That to me is a very scary thought.

--
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Re:What is good software? by pavon · 2003-11-20 05:27 · Score: 1

First, the FSF has never attacked Microsoft because they make money and are motivated by profit, or because they write poor quality software, and attempt to dominate their market. I will get back to this later, but right now let me address the issues you brought up.

Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral (think slave labor in diamond mines) or the use of the product is moral (think use of encryption by drug cartels) or even if it was moral to produce the product in the first place (think TEC-9) but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product.

This is just being anal. If I say that Nike tennis shoes are evil, no one thinks that I am implying that the cloth and rubber which physically make up the shoe are evil incarnate. The shoe has more properties than just it's physical makeup. If everyone charges a lot for a shoe then we say the shoe is expensive. If a lot of people like a shoe, then we say the shoe is popular. If the shoe threatens our competing line of business, we say the shoe is a threat. Now it would also be correct to say that company and retailers set an above average price for the shoe, that many people have favorable opinions of the shoe, and that the act of people buying the shoe instead of ours is a threat, but both methods - assigning the attribute to the shoe, and to the people - are perfectly valid.

Likewise the license on a piece of software is a property of the software, just like price is, and any implications of that license are also properties of the software. It is perfectly valid to say that MS Word creates corporate lock-in, and if I think that corporate lock-in is bad, then it is valid to say that MS Word is bad.

Of course, Microsoft's motive was profit. But is that immoral? Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. ... Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing.

Being successful at what you do is not the same thing as being moral. The reason that the FSF believes that proprietary software is immoral is because it thinks it is wrong to hoard something when it cost you nothing to give away. Yes there is an opportunity cost, as there is in every decision we make. There is also an opportunity cost in choosing to hoard the source. The Open Source people will argue that the opportunity cost of hoarding software is greater than the opportunity cost of sharing it. In this argument proprietary software is not immoral, just non-optimal. That is not the FSF's position. They say that it is immoral regardless of the opportunity cost, just like extortion is immoral regardless of the opportunity cost of deciding not to extort people.

Damn, I need to go, I will finish this post later.

A couple of asides:
Microsoft came to dominate [early software] areas through quality software and marketing savvy.
No, it came to dominate those areas by a partnership with IBM, barely adequate software and marketing savvy.
Microsoft clearly achieved [market dominance] and not through anti-competitive practices
The united states government and several states would disagree with you there.
Re:What is good software? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-11-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft clearly achieved [market dominance] and not through anti-competitive practices

The united states government and several states would disagree with you there.

The anti-competitive practice came after market dominance. You aren't be a monopoly until, well, you're a monopoly, i.e. you dominate the market. They did not acheive dominance through the anti-competitive practices because they weren't in a position to, umm, practice those practices until they were dominant.

I don't think I made a lick of sense there, but I'm hitting submit anyway!
Re:What is good software? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 07:30 · Score: 1

The reason that the FSF believes that proprietary software is immoral is because it thinks it is wrong to hoard something when it cost you nothing to give away. Yes there is an opportunity cost, as there is in every decision we make.

There are also a direct costs. Media fees, bandwidth charges, whatever costs are associated with your method of distribution. But the GPL does allow you to charge for these direct costs.
Re:What is good software? by natd · 2003-11-20 16:48 · Score: 1

The standardization of the desktop (Windows) and of basic productivity applications (Office) has certainly accelerated the acceptance of the personal computer, and that appears to be a good thing.
I don't agree that they accelerated anything, except the decline into mindless computer use. I can only cite my experience, but like most young boys and girls in the late 70's and early 80's I got a computer. We all learned about them including hardware and basic programming. Of those people that I still know, they all have a fundamental idea of how their current PCs despite being in completly non technical jobs. They all know the basic concepts of a computer program. They have also used about 5 completly different types of computer over the years and like most of us, can easily switch back and forwards from one type to the next.
This differentiates them from the people who stuggle with their PC in the office each day. In my (non technical) office we have a few staff who listen when I explain the 'how and why' of their PC and some who "don't have time to listen". With a few fundamentals (that word again) the ones who get a non platform specific handle can work out future problems themselves - I never hear from them.
With the dumbing down of computing, today any kid can leave school and have no idea what 'compile' means, or even understand what a Mb Vs a MB is because they don't know what a bit or byte is in the first place. (this is an example from yesterday, talking to a "tech savvy 20 year old" to whom I needed to explain what he was not going to get half a MB of data a second over a "512k" ADSL sevice....not his fault, it's the popular 'Windows' dumb-it-down culture that ensures noone learns these 'fundamentals' that are so useful.
(p.s. mine was a Vic-20 in 1981 BTW for my 7th birthday. I was very jealous of the BBC owners, but glad I didn't get a ZX-81 as was originally the plan)

--
Only big ligs use sigs.

Reminds me of NPR by jsav40 · 2003-11-20 01:54 · Score: 1

In that an awful lot of people listen to those stations without contributing. The same applies to many users of free software. I reckon I'll apply my voucher $ to the FSF.

Re:Reminds me of NPR by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 04:47 · Score: 1

Wrong.

All those listining that pay taxes are already contributing. NPR receives tax dollars, or did you forget?

The creator? by yerricde · 2003-11-20 02:01 · Score: 1

It's up to the creator

The creator wants us to love Him first and our neighbors second, and those who love their neighbors will share the software. This is true whether you belong to the Church of Christ or the Church of Emacs.

You meant "author."

It's up to the [author] what they do with their source code.

The rationale for the GNU project is that while it is up to the author to determine the distribution terms for a copyrighted program, some such determinations run against the common good.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Or RMS could rethink the GFDL by sphealey · 2003-11-20 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Context for the parent post is at LWN:

http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/

I don't agree with the "Offtopic" mods - this is an issue.

sPh

After all.. it's just a request by EqualSlash · 2003-11-20 02:02 · Score: 1

Why do you keep crying like they took away your candy ?

Donating to FSF will help FSF defend itself and us against SCO. Are you interested in paying the $699 tax ?

Re:After all.. it's just a request by kuzb · 2003-11-20 03:48 · Score: 1

I don't need to, i don't use linux. Thats your problem, not mine :)

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.

reasons non-free is immoral by twitter · 2003-11-20 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

What you say is true, but it's worth mentioning that there are real social harms tied to non-Free that Microsoft is a great example of. The first and most obvious social harm is the intentional waste that users are subject to. When a vendor decides to change file formats in order to drive sales of a new version, they force their users to convert their files mostly to own the same thing they thought they already owned. Less obvious intentional waste comes from the inability of users to fix their problems. RMS cites a closed printer driver and his inability to fix it as his first brush with non-Free pain. The least obvious but most harful effect of non-Free is it's bad attitude. Non Free software vendors promote knowledge hoarding. A society where everyone, doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it, acted like that would be highly inefficient and unpleasant to live in.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:reasons non-free is immoral by Bas_Wijnen · 2003-11-20 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

A society where everyone, doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it, acted like that would be highly inefficient and unpleasant to live in.

Don't forget the scientists. In a sociciety like that, ... Oh wait, perhaps there wouldn't actually be any scientists. All the wannabe scientists would be busy inventing the wheel.
Re:reasons non-free is immoral by GoofyBoy · 2003-11-20 02:58 · Score: 1

>Non Free software vendors promote knowledge hoarding. A society where everyone, doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it, acted like that would be highly inefficient and unpleasant to live in.

They do act like it right now.

Example: To become an official engineer, you have to be trained under and approved by another engineer.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:reasons non-free is immoral by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 04:12 · Score: 1

Then what do you suggest? Should we just let anyone say they are an engineer?
Re:reasons non-free is immoral by GoofyBoy · 2003-11-20 04:59 · Score: 1

I am not suggesting anything. I am pointing out situation where this occurs right now.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:reasons non-free is immoral by Hatta · 2003-11-20 05:39 · Score: 1

That's not knowledge hoarding, that's knowledge sharing. After all where are you going to get knowledge besides the knowledgable? You could create it de novo, but that's where the inefficiencys come in.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Is it Legal? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2003-11-20 02:10 · Score: 1

Mircrosoft responded to the freepc promotion giveaway that lindows has. I think they said that it wasn't legal because it requires a pen and ink signature on the voucher, and the vouchers may be non transferable. The first part wouldn't be a problem, but the second could be an obsticle. I was going to look at the letter they sent lindows, but it has been removed from the lindows website.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Is it Legal? by One+Louder · 2003-11-20 04:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The body of the letter from Microsoft can still be found on the Lindows site here.
Robertson's response can be found here.
Microsoft has filed legal papers on the matter, which can be found here.
Re:Is it Legal? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2003-11-20 04:12 · Score: 1

Ok. Thanks. The link from the micheal's minute pointed to the wrong spot.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Good software, bad docs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

it's satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change.

First of all the FSF doesn't produce any software, they let "their community" take care of that, so for development they don't need those machines.

Second, good software comes with good documentation, but the FSF blocks all efforts to produce good documentation with their insane GNU "Free" Documentation License, that is not free at all according to Debian, and even according to RMS himself.

Finally, the FSF is not the right organisation to donate anything to in the first place. RMS rules it like a dictator, there is no Freedom in the Free Software Foundation (cf. the HURD developer that got punted because of public criticism on the GFDL).

If you want to donate something, donate it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to Lawrence Lessig, or to Red Hat for their battle with SCO...

FBF Wants your Vouchers by HomerJayS · 2003-11-20 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

The FBF (Free Beer Foundation) also wants your vouchers. In turn the FBF will be able to convert your vouchers into beer. The FBF members will then utilize the beer to stimulate debate on many of today's most devisive issues.

As much as I like the FSF... by transiit · 2003-11-20 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm against this, as I'm against the vouchers. I got my claim form in the mail the other day, and the choices it gave were basically "Accept the settlement, write an objection to the court, attend a hearing to state your objection in person, or do nothing (and thus waive all further rights)".

As these vouchers represent accepting the settlement, donating them to a worthy cause doesn't satisfy my problems with the settlement, namely that they are to be redeemed for hardware (much of which comes bundled with more Microsoft products).

I can't say I agree with an antitrust remedy that increases the sales of the monopoly that is being punished.

-transiit

Re:As much as I like the FSF... by Verrou · 2003-11-20 05:55 · Score: 1

msfreepc.com - get hardware/software that fuels M$ competition!

--
If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image. -Aubrey de Grey

Morals by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-11-20 02:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, let's see. During the anti-trust trial in the U.S. one of Microsoft's executives testified under oath that Microsoft's code was so full of holes it would be a threat to national security to open it up. Then the company turns around and offers code to China. So was it treason or perjury? I don't see an in-between there. Neither strikes me as ethical or moral.

Ok how about just perjury alone. Forged video evidence was also presented in the anti-trust trial in the U.S.

Ok how about the court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the company used illegal methods to maintain a desktop monopoly?

There are also the false and misleading advertising, against palm, novell, and regarding MS-Passport. MS-Passport cannot be secure even in theory, so any claims were clearly known to be falsehoods. And since MS-Office 2003 is tied into that, expect more legal action.

Then there have been a series of fines regarding patent infringements. The most recent being from SPX.

Where I come from, all that's called lying or stealing.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Re:Morals by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-11-20 02:44 · Score: 1

How does this relate to "good" software?
Re:Morals by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-11-20 03:19 · Score: 1

Just what is "good" software? ...
...
Morally good?..
...
Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean?...
How does this relate to "good" software?
Dunno. Good troll.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Re:Morals by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-11-20 03:42 · Score: 1

Good troll.

Just because you don't agree with all the points doesn't mean it's a troll...
Re:Morals by Chicane-UK · 2003-11-20 04:57 · Score: 1

Just because you don't agree with all the points doesn't mean it's a troll...

Isn't this usually where someone says something like "You're new here, aren't you?" :)

--
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"

Why? FSF is being more petty than usual. by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

RMS 'fires' Lead Hurd Dev over license dispute.

http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discuss io ni/2003-November/008465.html

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800
From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: What's up with the GFDL?
To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:

Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation.
By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used
for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.

There are many negative consequences of this action:

1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.

2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.

3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.

4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.

I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best
thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to
express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU
project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when
he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly
solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the
speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has
gone very wrong.

I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that
while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will
die. I do not know what would prevent that.

Thomas

Technical Addendum
- ------------------

The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not
controversial. There are two central problems.

First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be
changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't
permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial
restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can
be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to
copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a
single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the
inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant
sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software
licenses.

Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be
distributed in,

Can they get a 100% discount? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 02:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's unclear to me exactly how these vouchers work. From the site, it claims that you must "exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003." Now if I buy a $1000 computer, I can clearly get my $26 back from the voucher, but if I buy a $1000 computer, can I trade in 38 vouchers and get $988 back? This isn't made clear, and if not it seems these vouchers are going to be somewhat useless to the FSF.

It's also not clear that the vouchers are transferrable. Can I sell them? On eBay? That's also going to hurt the FSF, cause I sure as hell am not giving them a $26 voucher if I can get $25 for it on eBay.

Re:Can they get a 100% discount? by Ellen+Spertus · 2003-11-20 03:31 · Score: 1

I sure as hell am not giving them a $26 voucher if I can get $25 for it on eBay.
Do you use GNU software? If so, and if you don't contribute (cash, code, documentation, etc.) and are unwilling to give them some found money, you're part of the problem.
Re:Can they get a 100% discount? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 03:45 · Score: 1

Do you use GNU software?

Hell yeah.

If so, and if you don't contribute (cash, code, documentation, etc.) and are unwilling to give them some found money, you're part of the problem.

What problem is that? The whole idea that I owe the FSF for merely using software they wrote is the problem. If that was the case, the FSF could just charge money.

I've sent a few bug fixes to a few different authors of GPLed software. But after 3 or 4 times of having my fix ignored I've become somewhat disillusioned with that. You need some help with coding something, let me know, and if I can help you I will. I'm not going out of my way to beg people to allow me to help them.
Re:Can they get a 100% discount? by belphegore · 2003-11-20 07:04 · Score: 1

I read through the section on transfers on the mailer I got the other day, and Microsoft appears in their settlement to have thought of exactly this scenario. Vouchers can be transfered once only, to a person or entity that will use the purchased items themselves, and the maximum that any individual or organization can redeem is $10,000. You may use multiple vouchers towards an individual purchase though. But this means that effectively the FSF can only get $10,000 of donated vouchers, anything more than that will be wasted. But, the settlement agreement is not yet final -- this seems like exactly the kind of detail that the judge would like to hear about before signing off on the final decision. It should be entirely legitimate for individuals to be able to contribute their vouchers to a not-for-profit; I can understand why they don't want to have people selling the vouchers, but donation ought to be legit. I would encourage any californians to write to the judge indicating that they feel this aspect of the settlement should be changed.

remember the msn rebate? by mattyp · 2003-11-20 02:40 · Score: 1

it's all the sweeter to think that some of these computers were puchased with that rebate of--$400 was it?--if you signed up for MSN, even though they forgot and you could cancel.

Stallman's a nut, but my hat's off to him by Ridgelift · 2003-11-20 02:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Californians, who like many others had little choice but to pay Microsoft's high prices for its monopolistic proprietary software, now have a unique opportunity to help the Free Software Movement

RMS's stance on non-free software is tiresome, borderline-communist, and impractical. I agree with others that his motives are not great software, but software li[b|v]re.

But OH-my-goodness...the contributions he's made! Take a couple of hours and read Richard's biography Free as in Freedom. It's a must-read, and as always Richard has ensured it will be a free one as well. You may love him or hate him, but more than that the man has earned the respect he deserves.

Support the FSF.

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast

Sigh. Just report the news. by Junks+Jerzey · 2003-11-20 03:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change

Classic (unnecessary!) Slashdot editorializing in a news report.

Hint: News has an impact of its own. Ending every story with an inflammatory spin, one that's often misinformed, is not needed.

About the second restriction by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally I wouldnt mind if the GPL stipulated that tools for compilation of the source code needed to be freely available at all ... in fact it seems a very reasonable requirement. That is one of the two things Id like to see changed about the GPL, that and the requirement to abide by the restrictions of the GPL even if you are a copyright holder (ie. as a patent holder you shouldnt be allowed to tack the GPL on code for which the patents arent freely licensed for GPL software, there are a few companies doing this ... and it could be easily prevented by adding some stuff to the license to the license.)

What is the point of having the right to modify a format without the means to do so?

BTW the invariant sections only concern the non technical parts of course, so it isnt all gloom and doom.

Re:About the second restriction by Sloppy · 2003-11-20 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Personally I wouldnt mind if the GPL stipulated that tools for compilation of the source code needed to be freely available at all ... in fact it seems a very reasonable requirement. That is one of the two things Id like to see changed about the GPL, that and the requirement to abide by the restrictions of the GPL even if you are a copyright holder
I understand why, but consider the consequences of this.
Suppose a proprietary software company decides that one of their old products no longer has significant sales, so they wish to release the code to the world under GPL.
Under today's version of GPL, they can release the code even if it only can be compiled with a proprietary tool (e.g. Microsoft's IDE). Then perhaps some hackers outside the company, can start cleaning up the code on their own initiative -- creating Makefiles, getting it to work with gcc, etc. Eventually, after some work is done, it becomes truly free software that you can compile and use on your Linux or Hurd box.
Under the future GPL that you propose, the software company would not be able to release the code under GPL, unless they took the expense to make it portable first. Unless they're bubbling over with excess resources and altruism, they won't do it, and I wouldn't blame them.
It is pointless and counter-productive to put things into GPL that impose a restriction upon the copyright holder. If the holder does not like the restriction, then they will simply opt to not use that license.
What I would suggest as a compromise, is this: if a work can be compiled with free tools, then other parties (other than the original copyright holder) should not be allowed to distribute derivative works that require proprietary tools for compilation.
Derivative works should be at least as free as the work they are derived from. But do not place too many restrictions on how free that original work may be, or you simply won't get the work released under such a license.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:About the second restriction by psgalbraith · 2003-11-20 07:11 · Score: 1

BTW the invariant sections only concern the non technical parts of course, so it isnt all gloom and doom.

As the post you replied to said, that makes it impossible to merge it into free software.
Re:About the second restriction by anthony_dipierro · 2003-11-20 07:38 · Score: 1

That would basically make it impossible to develop Free Software for certain platforms (AS/400, video game consoles, etc), as well as some very popular enviornments (Java, VB, etc)

So? If the compilation tools aren't freely available, why does it matter whether or not you have the source? BTW, isn't gcj freely available?
Re:About the second restriction by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2003-11-20 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I would suggest as a compromise, is this: if a work can be compiled with free tools, then other parties (other than the original copyright holder) should not be allowed to distribute derivative works that require proprietary tools for compilation.

That seems silly too. What if somebody ported my GPL'd Linux program to Windows, using the most common compiler on that platform, Microsoft's Visual C++, and in the process they added one new small feature. You're saying they wouldn't be allowed to release the modified code under the GPL because now it requires VC++? I would much rather that they release the code; I can always port it back to Linux later if I want.
Re:About the second restriction by Sloppy · 2003-11-20 11:22 · Score: 1

What if somebody ported my GPL'd Linux program to Windows, using the most common compiler on that platform, Microsoft's Visual C++, and in the process they added one new small feature. You're saying they wouldn't be allowed to release the modified code under the GPL because now it requires VC++?
Under a future GPL-like license that attempts to eliminate proprietary dependencies, yes, it would have that effect. (By dependencies, I mean anything that a user would need in order to maintain the software that he runs. So it would include tools (e.g. compilers) in addition to linked-in code.)
If you decided to release your application under such a license, then the guy who does the Windows port would be making a mistake at the point that he chose to use Microsoft Visual C++. The users to whom he distributes this Windows port, would not benefit from the usual advantages (independence!) of Free Software, because they cannot maintain the application unless they buy VC++.
Perhaps this is not a problem for you, and you don't mind that those users now need to have VC++ if they wish to maintain the application. But if that is so, then I wonder if it's also not a problem for you, if those users need to buy a proprietary link library. There's no effective difference.
The users are either locked into having to do business with a specific party, or they're not. They're either free, or they're not. I suspect that your choice to release software under GPL, is motivated by the fact that you care about that. Why else would you use the GPL?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:About the second restriction by Hobbex · 2003-11-20 11:31 · Score: 1

Under today's version of GPL, they can release the code even if it only can be compiled with a proprietary tool (e.g. Microsoft's IDE). Then perhaps some hackers outside the company, can start cleaning up the code on their own initiative -- creating Makefiles, getting it to work with gcc, etc. Eventually, after some work is done, it becomes truly free software that you can compile and use on your Linux or Hurd box.

Under the future GPL that you propose, the software company would not be able to release the code under GPL, unless they took the expense to make it portable first. Unless they're bubbling over with excess resources and altruism, they won't do it, and I wouldn't blame them.

No, you are forgetting about how copyright law works (and so is the the grandparent when he talks about restrictions on the original author).

If the company owns the copyright on the code they release they can put it under any license they want, so putting it under "New GPL, with the added permission that it need not compile with free tools" is no problem to them. Until this freedom/restriction was removed, the software would not be under the plain GPL, and could not be combined with other GPLed software, but that does not make the license wrong.

This is similiar to the case with libraries today. If you own the copyrights on the code, then you can GPL the code even if it binds with proprietary licenses: you release it under a license of "GPL, with the extra permission that it may be linked against the XXX library". This was the case the KDE software before Qt was GPLed: it was OK to make GPLed KDE software, it just had to have the added permission that it could link to Qt (RMS even went so far as to accept that this permission was implied without being stated). The licensing issues with KDE was that some KDE programs combined their own code (which was GPL + may be linked to Qt) with vanilla GPLed code copyright to somebody else - which was not OK without the copyright holders permission.

So, to reiterate: as long as you own copyright for the entire program, you can do whatever you want. However, if you release it under the GPL with added terms, then it is not "just GPL" and cannot be combined with normal GPLed software.
Re:About the second restriction by Sloppy · 2003-11-20 12:10 · Score: 1

That's what I meant when I said, "If the holder does not like the restriction, then they will simply opt to not use that license."

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Ok... by kuzb · 2003-11-20 03:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, instead of getting the money back for the software you didn't want (or ask for) in the first place, you turn around and give it to someone else? Right ... I think the FSF can find their own funding. If you really want to support someone, then donate your money to an OSS project that you actively use instead of the FSF. This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.

No - by kcm · 2003-11-20 03:43 · Score: 1

German!

I'm not in the U.S. by tmark · 2003-11-20 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live in Canada, but during the time period listed I bought a laptop while I was in grad school in California. As I read the settlement document, I'm eligible for a claim as long as I certainly purchased the computer "for use in California". So, am I reading this right ? Am I eligible for a claim even if I live outside California (and the U.S.) now ?

The reason I ask is that website allows you to have a claims package mailed, but you have to specify a state, which makes me wonder whether a) out-of-country-claimants are ineligible, or b) whether the form was just poorly designed.

Any thoughts ?

According to Microsoft, it isn't legal by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2003-11-20 04:16 · Score: 1

After reading MS responce to Lindows freepc campagn, I found this:

Claims submitted through the www.msfreepc.com website will be invalid because the Settlement Agreement does not permit retailers or other vendors of qualifying hardware and software to submit claims on behalf of claimants. In addition, to prevent the development of a "gray market" for settlement vouchers, the Agreement contains clear restrictions on the transferability of claims and vouchers. Claims cannot be transferred at all and a transferee of vouchers may not redeem more than $10,000 in transferred vouchers. See Settlement Agreement, sections IV.F and V.B.2.(1)

So it seems to me that FSF would be unable to redeem more than $10,000 worth of vouchers.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

As long as you agree with RMS 110%, that is. by DAldredge · 2003-11-20 04:18 · Score: 1

Just read the newest entry in my journal to see what happened when the lead Hurd developer disagreed with RMS on a doc license issue.

RMS removed/fired him.

That isn't freedom, that is the work of a dictator.

Re:As long as you agree with RMS 110%, that is. by jdifool · 2003-11-20 04:52 · Score: 1

Hi,

really I understand the bitter taste that Mr Stallman may feel every brand new day.

Just imagine, for one moment, a whole life dedicated to freedom. Just imagine how frustrating it is to see that, despite all your time involved in making an ideal (which is not that idealistic indeed) come true, people are still so unaware of the shifting you're trying to put into. Just imagine the genius of such a guy spent into software, interviews, sites, philosophy that is not rewarded by anything else that an elusive thank you...

Fuck Richard, among all other people following you, THANK YOU.

Regards,
Jdif

--
Let's overcome our weakness.
Re:As long as you agree with RMS 110%, that is. by Brandybuck · 2003-11-20 08:16 · Score: 1

You've got it backwards. Imagine, for one moment, your whole life has been dedicated to the ideology of perfection. Then you discover that one of your disciples is more perfect than you. This more perfect person has gone from being a follower to being a leader. He threatens your place at the front of the revolution. That is unacceptable.

Thomas Bushnell is more devoted to the ideals of GNU than Richard Stallman is. Richard cannot tolerate this, so he was removed from his position.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:Sigh. Just report the news. by kuzb · 2003-11-20 04:22 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more.

It's one of the many bitches I have with the slashdot process. That along with not properly verifying the stories they run on the front page, printing half-truths, and taking things out of context _really_ hurt this site, and take away from it's credability.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.

Re:Try begging while i give it to the EFF by pete-classic · 2003-11-20 04:34 · Score: 1

I might be able to do well without my parents, but I wouldn't have been created without them.

These are all GNU packages created by the FSF.

-Peter

Has anyone written to the judge overseeing the by Bob+Bitchen · 2003-11-20 04:40 · Score: 1

case? I intend to because I don't think this settlement is good enough. If I wanted to claim the money I would have to produce records of the software I got between those periods and that includes "Product ID"s, "Product Key"s, "CD Key"s. But I kept none of that information. Does anybody save that? And the amount refunded seems way too low. $16 Windows/MS-DOS, $29 Office, $26 Excel, $5 Word, Works Suite, Home Essentials 97 or 98. It's all falling short of true compensation for Microsoft's blatant abuses.

--
http://tinyurl.com/3t236

I feel cheated by irieiam · 2003-11-20 04:43 · Score: 1

So what about the 5 pc's I've purchased where XP never saw the light of day? Alabama is probably the last on that list too...

--
hmmmm

Billy Club 'Em! by lousyd · 2003-11-20 04:47 · Score: 1

Hell yeah. If you can't win in the marketplace, get the government to help you.

Disgusting.

--
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.

Reminds me of when Falwell sent me a check... by RevAaron · 2003-11-20 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny

People mention poetic justice...

When I was a frosh in the forms, my friends and I thirsted for mail. So we sent away for various free stuff- info from weird religions, product samples, software trials, etc etc.

While I never requested any information from Jerry Falwell Ministries I somehow ended up on their mailing list. At some point during the school year, I got a letter from them asking for donations- as well as a $1 check.

The letter purported that they had an anonymous shadow donor who was willing to match all donations. So if I cashed the $1 check they sent me and sent them that same $1 back, they would end up with $1 total profit, coming from the anonymous donor.

Probably a common scam- a lot of the folks they'd target would feel guilty about cashing the $1 and keeping it. And they'd figure, why not send them back their $1? But then they'd have the checkbook open, made out for everything but the amount. Then they think- why not make it $5? Or $10? Not that much money, but whatever they send in will be doubled by the donor lurking in the shadows, so why not?

That is what they were betting on with this donation drive. Except that they picked the wrong guy with me.

I went ahead and cashed the check. Before doing so, I made a photocopy of the check and letter. Then I wrote a new check, just like my pal Jerry said to do. After that I send a letter, a $1 check, and the photocopies of what Jerr sent me to a gay and lesbian rights group.

I can't remember the group though. I was a bit bummed that I never got a reply expressing the humor- or the extreme grattitude for donating a whole dollar!

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad

Re:Sigh. Just report the news. by PCM2 · 2003-11-20 05:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Man, some of you just don't get it. Slashdot is not a news reporting agency. Slashdot does not try to report the news. Slashdot editors are, by no stretch of the imagination, journalists. All Slashdot does is report the existence of news stories. You have to RTFA to see any actual reporting.

Those of you decrying Slashdot's lack of "credibility" are missing the point -- the only Slashdot posts that aren't "credible" are the ones that don't include a link to a news story.

Generally speaking, after a story is posted to Slashdot, people are expected to comment on it. That is the purpose served by editorializing. It serves to incite, inflame, or encourage commentary -- whether you agree with the editorializing or not. Example: If thousands of people agreed that it was not satisfying to see Microsoft vouchers going to the FSF, then they would post here and say so. Thus, the Slashdot model -- the real Slashdot model, and not the one you imagine -- would continue to be a success.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Sigh. Just report the news. by yoshi_mon · 2003-11-20 05:59 · Score: 1

While what the orignal poster said has merit, how is it any diffrent than the spin that you see in print or say FOX News?

All media puts spin on things. If you want to get the news "unfiltered" in this day and age you better consider becoming a reporter or...heck I don't even know what else to say.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!

The FSF actually helps Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-20 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would not donate my voucher to the FSF, because the GPL, which the FSF promotes, helps Microsoft. It does this by making it impossible for small companies to reuse code to build commerical products that compete with Microsoft's. It thus kills Microsoft's competition in the cradle.

Re:The FSF actually helps Microsoft by psgalbraith · 2003-11-20 07:21 · Score: 1

I would not donate my voucher to the FSF, because the GPL, which the FSF promotes, helps Microsoft. It does this by making it impossible for small companies to reuse code to build commerical products that compete with Microsoft's. It thus kills Microsoft's competition in the cradle.

Why would I, as a free software developer, be in the business of making you money. Do you think we are in this to kill Microsoft?

Re:Or RMS could rethink the GFDL by Blimey85 · 2003-11-20 06:13 · Score: 1

Blimey. Who could have thought that The HURD could actually get itself into even more of a mess?

I have no idea... and why are you asking me anyway? lol

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

RedHat is Free by FooBarWidget · 2003-11-20 06:20 · Score: 1

"including Red Hat (isn't the package manager or the install routine non free? I believe it's proprietary.)"

No. Why do people keep thinking that? In RedHat:
- The GUI config utilities are GPL'ed.
- The installer (Anaconda) is GPL'ed.
- RPM is GPL'ed.

The only non-free RedHat package is redhat-logos, which contains their trademark.

Re:Free what? by borgheron · 2003-11-20 06:22 · Score: 1

Hello Idiot,

You're missing the point. In the GNU manifesto it states *explicitly* that Free Software is about *FREEDOM*, not *PRICE*.

The FSF does make the source available on the ftp site which has a link from the FSF's website.

Also, when you download Linux as an ISO it is usually because the companies selling Linux *ALLOW* this.

AAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH - I can't believe how many people actually can't understand english or don't bother to read about thing *before* they make idiotic comments.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

why would anyone give out rights to their s/w? by provocative · 2003-11-20 07:12 · Score: 1

So when a bartender refuses to give you the recipe because that's his secret, or when Coca Cola refuses to reveal it's "mystery" ingredient, both of those are okay, but when Microsoft refuses to give out the code to their software, all of a sudden they are evil?? What logic is that??

Re:why would anyone give out rights to their s/w? by thoolihan · 2003-11-20 10:49 · Score: 1

where in the post did i use the word right or wrong? i just explained what was meant by 'free as in beer'

RTFP where p is for post

--
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Re:why would anyone give out rights to their s/w? by provocative · 2003-11-20 13:13 · Score: 1

When did I say you were wrong? I am questioning FSF's policy, and their inherent assumption that anything closed-source was evil by default.

Re:Free what? by psgalbraith · 2003-11-20 07:15 · Score: 1

If you get Linux legally on cd in a format that a normal person can install, it costs more than Windows.

Picking the first one on CheapBytes.com:

Fedora Linux 1 3 CD Installation Set $6.99

Do you think it's an illegal CD?

Re:Try begging while i give it to the EFF by psgalbraith · 2003-11-20 07:27 · Score: 1

These are all GNU packages created by the FSF.

Technically, no. Some major ones were created by the FSF (e.g. gcc). A lot were simply offered to them after being written. And pretty much all are written by the GNU community and not by the FSF.

The FSF may hold the copyright, but that doesn't mean they wrote the code.

Re:Sigh. Just report the news. by Ridgelift · 2003-11-20 08:47 · Score: 1

satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change

Classic (unnecessary!) Slashdot editorializing in a news report.

Being that *I* was the one who submitted the article and made that comment, I can offer you this insight. Slashdot, for all its size and impact, is still a private weblog of Rob Malda (CmdrTaco). It is not a news organization. It is by its very nature a place to link to news articles and offer comment.

If you don't like it, there's not a whole lot you can do about it, except maybe start your own weblog. Or you can just keep reading, as millions of other do every day.

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast

Re:Try begging while i give it to the EFF by pete-classic · 2003-11-20 08:48 · Score: 1

Of course you are correct. I over-stated my case.

The fact remains, however, that many of these packages, including core and key OS components, owe their existance to the FSF.

Thanks for keeping me honest ;-)

-Peter

Re:Sigh. Just report the news. by SeanAhern · 2003-11-20 09:35 · Score: 1

Um, FYI...

The comment about which you are complaining was made by Ridgelift, not by any of Slashdot's editors.

Maybe you'll say I'm trolling, but... by goldspider · 2003-11-20 10:34 · Score: 1

...am I the only one with a problem with the name "FREE Software Foundation"? The name makes a pretentious claim that they are somehow fighting for our freedom (of what, exactly, I don't know) while suggesting, to those unfamiliar with their efforts, that software shouldn't cost anything. Just look around here for THAT particular misconception!

Exactly what "freedom" is FSF fighting for? Is it illegal to use anything but closed-source commercial software all of a sudden?

Wouldn't a more accurate name be "Open Software Foundation"? They advocate the development and use of open source software. Nothing more, nothing less. So let's drop this freedom-fighter bullshit, shall we?

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:Maybe you'll say I'm trolling, but... by B747SP · 2003-11-20 22:07 · Score: 1

Wouldn't a more accurate name be "Open Software Foundation"?
'OSF' was already taken.

--
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Maybe you'll say I'm trolling, but... by SpaceJunkie · 2003-11-21 00:49 · Score: 1

Quote: "Free as In Speech" not "Free as In beer". Though with FSF the two tend to go together.

There is nothing pretentious about the claim that they are fighting for our freedom to use, extend, develop, improve, share, redistribute, modify software. This is what the GPL is all about.

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
Re:Maybe you'll say I'm trolling, but... by goldspider · 2003-11-21 01:39 · Score: 1

"There is nothing pretentious about the claim that they are fighting for our freedom to use, extend, develop, improve, share, redistribute, modify software."
Since when did we not have this freedom? Like I said in my original post, open source software is not illegal, nor is the GPL.
People who want to have their software poked, prodded, etc. have the freedom to release it under the GPL; those who don't can release it as closed source. It's up to the author of the code to decide which lisence to publish their code under, and they have the right to make that choice.
That being the case, I'm still confused what the actual purpose of the FSF is. Are they are simply an enforcement arm for the GPL, or trying to make ALL software open source (and thereby limiting the freedom of software developers who don't want their code open)? If either is the case, the name "Free Software Foundation" is misleading, just as I asserted in my original post.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:Free what? by denks · 2003-11-20 12:30 · Score: 1

Must.....Resist.....urge....
I cant help myself:(

Okay, if hunt around long enough, you will eventually be able to find the free downloadable distributions that these companies hide

Yes, it takes ages to hunt around the Debian site to find "Getting Debian" on the FRONT PAGE. Or "Get Gentoo" on the FRONT PAGE of those sites. How sneaky of them to hide these links so obscurely in the site.

If you get Linux legally on cd in a format that a normal person can install, it costs more than Windows

I bought my Gentoo CD's from the Gentoo store. I did not HAVE to buy the CD's, it would have been perfectly legal for me to download them for free, or get a copy of a friend. Cost: $15US.
Cost of WinXP Home: $199US.

But...I also have AbiWord. Cost: FREE. Gnumeric (which is generally touted as being better than Excel): FREE. MySQL database server: FREE. And you know what, it is all 100% legal!

--

I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!

I'll convert too!!! by t0ny · 2003-11-20 12:52 · Score: 1

How nice, a company is looking to turn other peoples windfall into their own benefit!

In the spirit of this generosity, I will be providing the same service for winning Lottery tickets. I will gladly turn your winning lottery tickets into computer/electronic hardware.

Specifically, I will be using it for a 60-inch plasma TV, a really nice PVR, a surround sound system, a huge flat-panel monitor, and a fully decked-out Shuttle XPC system!!

Its gonna be sweet! So, be sure to send me those tickets!

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

Re:I'll convert too!!! by SpaceJunkie · 2003-11-21 00:54 · Score: 1

The difference is that the FSF will use these to develop software going back INTO the community. Consider them a charity.

After all - someone has to maintain and develop the software. While I occasionally(and I mean very occasionally) find time to bugfix something- a dedicated team and dedicated hardware will mean much more open source is developed.

If I lived in the states and was going to get an MS voucher - I would be sending it to them.

Although - I have to admit- a fully decked out shuttle xpc, a flat panel screen and a projecter connected to a dual-head card would be cool(screw 60-inch tv).

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol

Re:Piss off by johnnorthwood · 2003-11-20 13:00 · Score: 1

8 hours...

Wait till bill finds out your only working 8 hours.

Please Mod Down by kuzb · 2003-11-20 13:46 · Score: 1

This is a discussion, not a spelling bee. Grow up.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.

Re:Please Mod Down by SeanAhern · 2003-11-20 18:30 · Score: 1

Uh, the discussion was what I was commenting on. He complained about "slashdot editorializing." I pointed out that his facts were incorrect. Your comment is so far off the mark from what I said, that I wonder if you hit "reply" on the wrong comment.

(And, by the way, you might further the "discussion" if you refrained from ad hominem attacks.)
Re:Please Mod Down by kuzb · 2003-11-20 19:07 · Score: 1

'It's "lose," not "loose." It's "a lot," not "alot." And it's "its," not "it's." Isn't it?' Case and point.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Re:Please Mod Down by SeanAhern · 2003-11-21 03:14 · Score: 1

Ah, a comment about my sig. Fascinating.

If you read my posting history, you'll find that my comments have very little to do with grammar or spelling.

However, just to be obtuse, I expect you'll get even more annoyed if I correct your latest addition. It's case in point.

My OS supports terrorism? by t0ny · 2003-11-20 16:14 · Score: 1

You guys crack me up. You all act like buying software from MS or anybody else is like killing kittens, raping children, selling crack, or strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up a humvee.

Get a grip, people, its just an instruction set written for a specific purpose. Its not a mission from God.

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

215 of 320 comments (clear)