Slashdot Mirror


Stallman Goes to India

SureshD writes "The Hindu is reporting on a 40 minute long meeting between Richard Stallman and the Indian President - Dr APJ Abdul Kalam. After the interview, RMS said that the President was 'receptive' to his views that development of software should be seen as a political and social issue and not just from the technological point of view. Interestingly, the article mentions that the President had prepared for the meeting by downloading and reading Stallman's biography (Free as in Freedom) from the Internet."

586 comments

  1. what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..is when Stallman promised the president a totaly no-cost, no-strings-attached copy of GCC for every Indian citizen. Even Bill Gates couldn't match that incredibly generous offer!!

    1. Re:what sealed the deal.. by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bill Gates offered them a set of steak knives but for some reason they turned down the offer.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    2. Re:what sealed the deal.. by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hello Bill. Welcome to /.

      Don't hide behind the AC, we know it is you...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    3. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No-strings-attached? Bullshit! The GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses software is published under.
      Then don't use GPL'd software.
    4. Re:what sealed the deal.. by gid13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actual conversation between the lead singer of my band and his overly Christian aunt:

      "Holy cow!"
      "Cows aren't holy, Mike."
      "In India they are."
      "Well, they're wrong."

      What does this have to do with software, you ask? Uh... Well... Christians try to bind everyone to Christianity and Microsoft tries to bind everyone to Windows. Yeah. Think about it. :)

    5. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just what the american developer community needs, India running linux and an ever better proposition for outsourcing.

      Why does Stallman hate america?

    6. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, they're wrong."

      Did you then tell her to fuck off and die?

    7. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Would that be Big Indian or Little Indian ?

    8. Re:what sealed the deal.. by MountainMan101 · · Score: 1

      MountainMan thinks that perhaps Stallman offered tips on how to write you Biography in the 3rd person.

    9. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or perhaps it's because biographies are written in the third person because someone else (in this case, Sam Williams) writes them.

      Were you thinking of autobiographies?

    10. Re:what sealed the deal.. by MountainMan101 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You wouldn't believe how silly I felt when I realised that it wasn't an autobiography.

    11. Re:what sealed the deal.. by marcello_dl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Christians try to bind everyone to Christianity...

      Unfortunately they - we - use utterly wrong methods.

      Sorry for being slightly OT, but Jesus did never coerce anyone into belief. I think that Faith shouldn't be experience in a competitive fashion. A Christian should make his own choices according to his faith and set an Example for others to freely follow.

      A famous example: "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." (Luke 9:5 NIV)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    12. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's his AUNT a-hole! Jesus. You talk to your family like that? (If so you need to ____ ___ ___ ___. Thank you.

    13. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      BORING! Change it to the tech channel!

    14. Re:what sealed the deal.. by no+longer+myself · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why does Stallman hate america?

      I don't think he does. Corperatists have long enjoyed exploiting Americans since early on, but for good or ill, unions and labor laws have made it hard to compete in the current climate. Naturally, they outsource to nations that don't have these kinds of laws.

      On the one hand, the corperatist has his eye on cheap labor. It's one of the principle foundations of capitalism, and technically, there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, they lobby relentlessly with law makers to ensure that new-comers will be at a significant disadvantage by making the entry-level cost of competing too high for even the brightest would-be entreprenuer.

      Of course, what does this have to do with "free" software? Well, it's obvious that many corperations have a vested interest in keeping individuals from competing at their level, and the fact of the matter is, you can create very professional and profitable systems using the tools found under the GPL.

      Proprietary software is something that corperatists are comfortable with. They can control it through tiered licensing schemes, and even control how a person may use the software, and to what extent. This allows them to control the growth of any would-be competition, and even prune it if necessary. The average "Merkin" is none-the-wiser of their schemes, and it all gets wrapped up in nice, neat, legal redtape.

      Enter The "Free as in Freedom" software.
      Corperatists can't control it. Therefore it is difficult to impossible to control their competition. So they whine to the legislators they need more patent laws, copyright laws, and generally speaking- more of every law out there to keep those pesky would-be entreprenuers out of the "Free Market".

      So if you love freedom, and you want to be free to pursue your goals in life, what is the best way to stop them? Go outside the US. Make sure that the rest of the world has these tools and that they become standard issue before their governments become poluted with corperatistic protectionist laws. With other nations having such an advantage, the American people might just wake up and smell the bullshit that these exploitationists have been shoveling. Some of them might actually send off a letter to their congress saying, "If we live in such a FREE country, why can't we have these tools as well? Hell, even those damned commies have better software than we do!"

      And so the repeal of corperatist legislation may begin, and a FREE MARKET can take its place where people may buy and sell goods without the overbearing corperation run beauracracy that we have today.

      And don't you damned corperatists go calling me a libral. It's not communism or socialism. It's called a Free Market and Free (as in Freedom) software will give rise to newer and better Free Markets. Corperations controlling the legislative body of government better deserve the moniker of communism since currently they control production, labor, and distribution, and, largely, the social and cultural life and thought of the people. In spite of all their hand-waving about being American capitalists, they are the very essence of un-American communisism.

      If we are ever to truly be free, we must stand as individuals and stop licking the hand of our corperate puppetmasters.

      To control or be controlled. Which is it?

      OK, I had the guts to take this "Karma Swan-Dive". Let's hope it's not in vain.

    15. Re:what sealed the deal.. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Hear that noise shoot over your head? That was the joke. You missed it. ;)

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    16. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are being close minded cockmongers, I do.

      I expect my family to be somewhat educated. At least educated enough not to lambast someone else's deeply heald beliefs.

      Especially when there are a billion of them.

      Ignorance is an INVITE for criticism.

    17. Re:what sealed the deal.. by urbanRealist · · Score: 1

      I actually spoke to a software salesman from Microsoft. He refered to what he did as evangelism. No kidding.

      --
      I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
    18. Re:what sealed the deal.. by haystor · · Score: 1

      Threatening someone with eternal damnation hardly qualifies as a non-coercive method.

      --
      t
    19. Re:what sealed the deal.. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      You obviously lack the faith in my ability to understand what a +5 funny header means for the posts i reply to.

      So, I shake the dust off my feet of the whole matter.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    20. Re:what sealed the deal.. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Well, try this: go to India and whack a cow with a stick. See how tolerant they are.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    21. Re:what sealed the deal.. by redog · · Score: 1

      How is that threatening if you do not believe it.

      Can someone be forced to belief with threats?

      I tend to think that I can't. Maybe I haven't been threatened enough.

    22. Re:what sealed the deal.. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      It's Slashdot. Of course I do. ;)

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    23. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "I come not bearing peace, but a sword."
      -Jesus H Christ

      Lameness filter encountered.
      Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.


      Odd. Why was that comment aborted?

    24. Re:what sealed the deal.. by haystor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, con artists do it all the time.

      It is not the threat they believe so much as the confidence of the other person.

      Also, it is a threat whether a person believes it or not.

      --
      t
    25. Re:what sealed the deal.. by ThisIsAnExampleAccou · · Score: 2, Funny
      "At least educated enough not to lambast someone else's deeply heald beliefs. ... Ignorance is an INVITE for criticism."

      How very tempting.

    26. Re:what sealed the deal.. by MountainBoiler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      and pagans try to bind to paganism
      and Muslims try to bind to Islam
      and Buddists try to bind to Budha
      and atheists try to bind to atheism

      Notice a trend?

    27. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but Stallman does hate America because he is a Communist.

    28. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do that all the time in India. They don't want the cows to poop at their doorstep.

    29. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the difference between missionary and non missionary religions is rather stark. hinduism happens to be a non missionary religion. Despite all it drawbacks, that is one plus-point.

    30. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go again... tolerant and respectful of every belief execpt the one you've been taught to hate. Bravo!

    31. Re:what sealed the deal.. by teetam · · Score: 1

      Why India? Even in USA, say Texas, if I go and whack someone cow or dog, the owner will not be tolerant. In fact, if I hurt a dog, I could go to jail in America. Even if you yourself own the animal, you have no right to hurt it. From your ignorant statement, it is obvious that you know nothing about India. For your information, killing a cow is not illegal in India and there are many people who eat beef. Your cocky ignorance does not make you correct.

      --
      All your favorite sites in one place!
    32. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fyi ... there are regions in India where people have beef as staple food. they are not hindus though. also in many states muslims have beef for eid.

    33. Re:what sealed the deal.. by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you met a missionary pagan?
      They why do you assume they exist.

      (Well, they actually do exist. I attribute this to a christian upbringing which rather permanently warped them.)

      I've also met missionary Buddists. They, also, are rare. And tend to be of peculiar splinter sects.

      Muslims are required by their religion to convert you. For athiests it's an optional extra. There's nothing inherent in atheism that says you must go around converting people. But if you were raised christian or muslim, you're likely to feel the need to do it anyway.

      OTOH, not all christians are missionary. There are even rather large groups that don't feel the compulsion (as a group) to require everyone to believe the same way that they do. But it is implicit in the standard theology. (If you believe that you should "love" everyone [in some sense of the term], and you believe that everyone who doesn't believe as you believe will be tortured forever [by a god that loves them], then it is only natural to want to help both the god and the person to remove the cognitive dissonance by causing them to believe as you believe. So missionary activity is normal to normal christian theology.)

      But this same reasoning doesn't apply to the other religions. The Muslims must cause you to convert because the Koran tells them to. The Buddists have an implicit need to "save" you, but there are many turns of the wheel in which to accomplish the end. No need to hurry. (There's lots of disagreement about the details of this last bit, but that's the general flavor.)

      And Pagans? Well, the followers of the Sun god cults tend to believe that theirs is the only true way, but the other groups tend to consider them a bit strange. The animists don't even really have a concept that corresponds to "convert". There are, we could call them Momotheists who try to get everyone to accept The Goddess as a substitue for The Father, but that's probably due to a monotheistic upbringing. There's nothing obviously inherrent in the religion to demand universal belief. The polytheists are usually willing to consider that any new god might be one of the real ones. The pantheists already accept the new god, without quibble. Though neither group will necessarily accept the god on his own terms. Gods PR agents are no more reliable than any othe PR agents.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:what sealed the deal.. by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1
      Can someone be forced to belief with threats?

      Yup. Just ask all of the "heathens" the Christians "saved" in the 1300's - 1700's. Convert 'em or kill 'em, either way you save 'em!

    35. Re:what sealed the deal.. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they swiped that term from Apple.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    36. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and you believe that everyone who doesn't believe as you believe will be tortured forever...

      I cannot accept that any denomination of Christianity that actually believes this as truly Christian. The arrogance of such a belief is a sin in itself. Man doesn't judge man, God does.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    37. Re:what sealed the deal.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Notice a trend?

      Yes. One lie, two dubious possible lies, and finsihing up with one really big lie.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    38. Re:what sealed the deal.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      A "+5 funny" is not part of the post. It changes and so there is no reason for someone to assume it was there when you wrote your reply, and it might not even be there anymore by the time someone responds.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    39. Re:what sealed the deal.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Examine these two sentences:

      1. "Believe X exists or Y will punish you."
      2. "Believe X exists or X will punish you."

      #2 is what was being talked about. #1 is what you were talking about. They are signifigantly different. It should be obvious why.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    40. Re:what sealed the deal.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Why isn't there a moderation for "-1, unfunny pun"?

      (In this case, it was funny. But a lot of puns really aren't. I'm not sure what the dividing line is between them. Some puns sound really funny and others just sound like "someone, Please please please laugh at my joke, I begging you.")

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    41. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Jonner · · Score: 1
      In my view, Christianity is more similar to Free Software than proprietary. Jesus said:
      Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 NIV).
      The only way to be saved is through him, but in him is freedom.

      Similarly, to restrict oneself to Free Software is also a narrow road: it may be inconvenient and require more work than the popular sofware and one must believe that the effort is worth the reward of greater freedom in the future.

      However, I wouldn't try to take the analogy too far.
    42. Re:what sealed the deal.. by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Invite may be used as a noun, YOU FOOL!

      But yeah, he misspelled held, and that's funny. Although it's not ignorance. It's laziness, if anything.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    43. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Joey7F · · Score: 1


      So then why ask for the moderating addition?

      What I want to know is why isn't there a "I posted a complaint that is related parent, but I disclosed my compliant was not directed at the parent as that message actually affirms its given moderation but other attempts in a similar vain are not as successful and therefore should be modded down...oh shit, I mispelled complaint as compliant in the 2nd instance...nevermind, this is slashdot."

      I am guessing because that particular moderation would cause massive sidescrolling in the grey space...

      --Joey

    44. Re:what sealed the deal.. by madpierre · · Score: 1

      Indian PM to RMS.

      So GNUs they're a kinda cow right?

      --
      siggy played guitar
    45. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Muslims are required by their religion to convert you.

      Based on a little bit of research on wikipedia, google and other things, I feel I can confidently say that that statement is bullshit. Every source I've come across goes out of its way to state that there is nothing comparable to the evangelism order (in the new testament) in either the Quran or the associated works.

    46. Re:what sealed the deal.. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never seen the Southern Baptist on TV who claimed that Ghandi was definately going to hell.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    47. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God for Richard Stallman and for your response.
      Very 'well-spoken' and written. Thank you for this out spoken and perceptive analysis. Don't be afraid of swan dives. The time for speaking out what you believe is coming on us all very quickly!

    48. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think HiThere was referring to the concept of "eternal torment in the lake of fire" kinda torture... not man vs. man torture.

    49. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no equivalent to that. but there is somethin called 'destroying basis of others faiths'. visit any old city in india and you will see ruins of temples destroyed by islamist and you will see muslim population around that area very dense!

    50. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think HiThere was referring to the concept of "eternal torment in the lake of fire" kinda torture...

      So was I. No human being can know for sure what will happen to them, even those who subscribe to predestination theories. Any human being who claims to hold such knowledge is either a liar, simply naive, or a prophet, and I'd bet my life savings that 99.99999999% of the "Jesus Saves" zealots out there ain't prophets. Rather, they are parrots spouting whatever they were told without really thinking about the basis of their beliefs (i.e., I seriously doubt they even know what real Theology is).

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    51. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all I care the commie son of a bitch can stay there.

    52. Re:what sealed the deal.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It's also impossible to understand. It opens with "I posted a complaint that is related parent". That doesn't mean anything to me.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    53. Re:what sealed the deal.. by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1
      Hmm, going up the chain further than I had originally, I see that you're right. Makes me a bit off-topic, I guess :)

      Of course, there's the whole issue of how seriously different peoples take such metaphysical threats and how much of a coersion it is just to tell them they will be punished. Mental abuse is a reality, coersion through threat of bodily harm is a reality, and I believe that someone with great concern for the well being of their immortal soul could be coerced by threatening such.

    54. Re:what sealed the deal.. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's no reason to assume the post was already funny. I didn't mean to sound serious myself in the latest post. My first post was serious, instead, even if the parent was funny. If somebody made a joke about, let's say, overclocking, and says that chips are made out of plastic instead of silicon you would point out the mistake anyway, wouldn't you?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    55. Re:what sealed the deal.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Especially when there are a billion of them.
      Similar numbers of flies eat shit, does that make them right?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:what sealed the deal.. by sciper · · Score: 1

      Yes - such roles are important to biological cycling processes on Earth.

  2. Full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Kalam, Stallman discuss open source software

    By Sandeep Dikshit

    NEW DELHI, JAN. 31. The President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, last Thursday played host to two radically divergent poles of the global software industry.

    The first to meet the President was Richard Stallman, the leading light of the free and open source software (FOSS) movement.

    Ironically, the people waiting in the Presidential anteroom for the interaction to end were people from Microsoft.

    Dr. Stallman has devoted his life to countering Microsoft's policy of selling software that cannot be changed because its code is kept a secret. It also cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

    Talking to The Hindu, Dr. Stallman said the President was "receptive'' to his views that development of software should be seen as a political and social issue and not just from the technological point of view.

    At a meeting that lasted 40 minutes, they discussed the need to give people an alternative way to use computers by popularising open source software (OSS).

    "The President said this was a beautiful concept,'' said Dr. Stallman. Mr. Kalam had prepared for the meeting by downloading Dr. Stallman's biography from the Internet which in keeping with the FOSS movement guru's philosophy is available free of cost.

    The two also went over several common interests, including the use of software in space programming. For the first time, the Mars Rovers vehicle is using OSS and it is reported to be functioning well.

    They also reminisced on the development work on several software programmes in which both had taken interest.

    Besides explaining the political philosophy of FOSS movement, Dr. Stallman said he also spoke to the President about the real intention behind Microsoft's plan to spread the use of computers in schools which was "akin to the colonial system of recruiting the local elite to help keep others in line.''

    "I hope my discussion had some influence on the President and he will be able to resist being used that way.''

    Dr. Stallman gave up a cushy teaching job in a prestigious American university after he perceived that "computer colonisation'' was spreading rapidly.

    "There were only two options. Either I stopped using computers or I help everybody to escape. I chose the latter,'' he said.

    He explained the concept behind FOSS. The word "free'' did not mean giving the software gratis.

    Rather, it denoted the freedom to control the computer because the seller of FOSS also provided the source code or the manner in which a particular software was constructed.

    "This way you can see how it works, you can change it and also share the software.''

    By taking to FOSS, India would be able to cut down on the outflow of foreign exchange which was going to become very large in the near future.

    So far, Microsoft licences were not being forced on individuals, but in the coming days, proprietary software companies would make it impossible for individuals to make copies clandestinely.

    "The flood (outflow of foreign exchange) will then become a torrent,'' he said. Free software, in contrast, would encourage local information technology developers to innovate and adapt the software constantly. The result will be that money will circulate in the local economy, he said.

    Copyright 2000 - 2003 The Hindu

    1. Re:Full text by Elektroschock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I prefer "FLOSS" as a term.

      However a support of India for Free Softwareon the international level may be very helpful in the defense against Software patents. There is still no *real US-movement* (join this list:-)) but an Indian committment similar to Brazil could be beneficial on the internatioanl level.

      Also think of the fact that WSISII in Tunis will distribute UN money for IT- projects.

    2. Re:Full text by gasgesgos · · Score: 5, Funny

      The site's not even slashdotted, (I hope) most of us can actually click a link (or type in the link, for IE users) and read the original article ourselves, without possibility of alteration from the karma whores.


      Next the karma whores are going to start repeating the Slashdot headline and text "in case it ever gets slashdotted."


      FULL TEXT OF SLASHDOT POSTING:

      Stallman Goes to India

      Posted by michael on Monday February 02, @02:33AM
      from the exploring-outsourcing-next-version-of-gcc dept.
      SureshD writes "The Hindu is reporting on a 40 minute long meeting between Richard Stallman and the Indian President - Dr APJ Abdul Kalam. After the interview, RMS said that the President was 'receptive' to his views that development of software should be seen as a political and social issue and not just from the technological point of view. Interestingly, the article mentions that the President had prepared for the meeting by downloading and reading Stallman's biography (Free as in Freedom) from the Internet."

      ( Read More... | 62 of 75 comments )


      can I have my +5 informative now?

    3. Re:Full text by foidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know it shouldn't be funny, but who didn't give a little giggle when they read the name, "Sandeep Dikshit"?

    4. Re:Full text by gmania · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here, here !!

      I couldn't agree more, I like free as in freedom as much as the next guy, and like to see this freedom extended all the way down do respecting other peoples copyright:
      Copyright (C) 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu
      I allways wondered why slashdot allowed other peoples copyright to be so blatantly abused.
    5. Re:Full text by theparallax · · Score: 1

      No, but you pulled a +4 funny.

    6. Re:Full text by wwwrun · · Score: 1

      Posted as AC => Not Karma whoring.

      (copyright and pointlessness issues notwithstanding)

    7. Re:Full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sandeep Dikshit"

      What sort of a name is that?

    8. Re:Full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted as AC=>filtered for me. (As i post AC so i dont have to read my own rambling)

    9. Re:Full text by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's better than Dikdeep Sandshit.

    10. Re:Full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer "GLOSS" (Gratis, Libre...") as a term because "Libre" is redundant after "Free".

      A friend of mine prefers "FOS" because "Open-sourced" is a single concept and doesn't warrant two capitals there.

      My uncle prefers "fucking hippie software".

      To each their own. Don't come a-preachin' the "correct" form, buddy.

    11. Re:Full text by ktanmay · · Score: 1

      "Anonymous Coward"

      What sort of name is that?

    12. Re:Full text by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      Thanks! Slashdot was getting kind of slow when I went there. It's probably down by now.

      --
      True story.
  3. Wow... by mgebbers · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't know the Indian government was hiring

  4. This is pricing strategy. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In a May 2003 speech, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam noted that OSS offered India "a superior opportunity to modernize." This was followed just a short while later by India negotiaing a superiorly low-cost deal with microsoft for its services.

    I think one must look in terms of governmental actions on OSS in such a strategic light. Kalam, a figurehead king, may be a true believer, but insofar as his actions on software goes, he's being used as a pawn to gain better licensing terms from microsoft.

    1. Re:This is pricing strategy. by metlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true.

      A lot of govt. organizations in India today use OSS. For every area of the govt that uses Microsoft software, there is atleast one other counterpart which uses OSS.

      In fact, the last time I checked, a lot of states were having budget deficits. Guess what is it that they cut down on?

      I know for a fact that several nationalized banks as well as other govt agencies have switched to OSS.

      You think MS would get scared merely by the "threat" of OpenSource? The reason they are really scared is because there are parts of the nation that use OSS, and it works.

      Now THAT would explain why Microsoft is opening so many branches in India -- primarily because they would have the excuse of providing jobs, and to feed those jobs they would need the govts money for software.

      Do not think MS would be doing this unless there is a benefit for them.

    2. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Serious+Simon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but apparently even Microsoft recognizes that OSS is a feasible alternative for India. Otherwise they wouldn't have been forced to drastically lower the price of their offering.

    3. Re:This is pricing strategy. by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is simply not true. The President has in fact specifically mentioned the problems of choosing proprietary code, and unreliable vendors of said code. His vision is backed by political funding for universities, centers-of-excellence, and other initiatives for furthering open-source in India.

      To say that the President did this as a bargaining strategy with Microsoft is an insult. In fact, during a prior meeting with Mr.Gates, the press were full of pictures of Gates and Dr. Kalam strolling in the gardens. Dr. Kalam took special pains to mention that the discussions duringg that meeting 'turned difficult' since Mr.Gates wasn't seeing eye-to-eye with India's vision for computing.

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    4. Re:This is pricing strategy. by DF5JT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " Maybe, but apparently even Microsoft recognizes that OSS is a feasible alternative for India. Otherwise they wouldn't have been forced to drastically lower the price of their offering."

      The good thing about it is the fact that Microsoft will have to change its attitude in questions of interoperability and support of open standards. In that sense, the pressure of OSS software really will change the way proprietory software enterprises will address their customers' needs.

    5. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to contradict any of your points, but ultimately the Indian president isn't _that_ powerful. Kalam is very interesting as the first Muslim president of India, and a major player in the development of the bomb! Beyond that, he is interesting as a muslim, he is a golden boy of the BJP, and they are in fact responsible for his election. Kalam is in short the type of Muslim that the BJP likes--secular, known to have read the Ghitas, etc. An interesting character!

    6. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To say that the President did this as a bargaining strategy with Microsoft is an insult.

      You are attacking a straw-man argument. The person you are responding to didn't say that. He said that the president is probably a true believer, but the government as a whole are using that fact to drive down MS prices.

    7. Re:This is pricing strategy. by jkrise · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One other person says that Dr.Kalam is a Jesuit Alumni and now you say he's a Muslim - I say, what does it matter? Software has no religion, neither does democracy - so when the head of a democratic setup makes a decision on the type of software that would be most suited for his country, his religion should have zero-relevance.

      Secondly, he was not the first choice of the BJP, in fact the then vice-president was a hard-core BJP man, but was rejected by Mr.Chandrababu Naidu, who propped up Dr.Kalam's candidature. Incidentally, Mr.Naidu is Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, where Microsoft has it's biggest Indian-operations center - they wrote the SFU and the command shell with .Net elements over there.

      To sum up, the religious background or acadmeic record of most people in India has little relevance in a multi-culturous environment.

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    8. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One other person says that Dr.Kalam is a Jesuit Alumni and now you say he's a Muslim - I say, what does it matter? Software has no religion, neither does democracy - so when the head of a democratic setup makes a decision on the type of software that would be most suited for his country, his religion should have zero-relevance.



      Being educated at a Jesuit school (which he may or may not have--I don't know) doesn't necessarily make one a Jesuit, a Catholic, or even a Christian. Especially in India and Africa, the educated elite even today often come from religious schools set up by colonial European powers. IIRC, Abdul Kalam is from Tamil Nadu, and the Jesuits did have signifigant influence in the South. Incidentally, he's not the "Head of a democratic" setup--the Indian president is simply not that powerful--and that was my prime point--he's much more of a figurehead than anything else.

    9. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software has no religion,

      The only thing vi and emacs users agree on is that you're wrong, buddy.

    10. Re:This is pricing strategy. by BlackbyPubicDemand · · Score: 1

      Actually a number of state level governments are looking at Open Source alternatives. I recently met people from the IT Department of Government of Maharashtra and found they were seriously looking at Open Source Software for a variety of their in-house needs. While they inquired about open source applications for Application Servers, IDS, Firewalls, Anti-Virus Solutions, CRM etc. they were specifically interested in MRTG, various open source CMS solutions (Postnuke, Plone etc), and OpenNMS.

      While the Government does use these public announcements to obtain greater discounts, it is equally true that the IT Departments feel the FOSS is a better option in the long run.

      Regards,
      Sumit Dhar
      sumitdhar.blogspot.com

      --

      --
      All Rights Reserved. All Wrongs Avenged!
    11. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Newtron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is not the first muslim president of India. He is the second, I can't remember the name of the first one though.

    12. Re:This is pricing strategy. by florist · · Score: 1
      "Kalam is very interesting as the first Muslim president of India, ..."



      You are wrong. There were other Muslim presidents before him. Presidents of India

    13. Re:This is pricing strategy. by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      In fact he is the fourth. link1 and link2

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    14. Re:This is pricing strategy. by awol · · Score: 1

      All this use of Free Software by institutions, government or not, where ever they may be is just iteration 1 of this process. Here they use FS to wring the extraordinary profit out of Microsoft etc and then the next iteration, they wring the margin out and then the final iteration they wring all the profit out. And then Free Software wins. Along the way FS might even get a few actual wins.

      Do be mistaken, this process will take a number of years, maybe even a decade. But it will happen and I will run into the street and cheer when it does..

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    15. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      My mistake--I could have sworn I read otherwise. Thanks for the catch!

    16. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kalam is the third muslim Indian president, fyi.
      Dr Zakir Hussain (1967- 1969) was the first, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (1974-1977) was the second.
      What is interesting however, that Kalam is probably the first techie to be the president of India.

    17. Re:This is pricing strategy. by vu2lid · · Score: 1

      the first Muslim president of India

      At least on the above point you don't know what you are talking about. India had several other "Muslim Presidents" in the past - Dr. ZAKIR HUSSAIN (1967-1969), JUSTICE. M. HIDAYATULLAH (JULY -AUGUST, 1969 'acting'), FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED (1974-1977), Dr. AVUL PAKIR JAINULABHUDIN ABDUL KALAM (FROM JULY 25, 2002).

    18. Re:This is pricing strategy. by md358 · · Score: 1

      Being educated at a Jesuit school (which he may or may not have--I don't know) doesn't necessarily make one a Jesuit, a Catholic, or even a Christian. Especially in India and Africa

      I agree, I work with a guy who's hard-core Hindu but went to Catholic schools back in India's Gujarat state. He went there simply for the English language instruction which is apparently a very common motivation.

    19. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you and the others are right--a true error on my part. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

    20. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Sayan · · Score: 1

      Get your facts straight. he is not the first Muslim president. (Dr. Zakir Hussain and Fakiruddin Ali Ahmed came before him). He is respected because is a man of action and vision.
      BTW, he probably is most tech-savvy head of state in the world.

      --
      resurrect my .sig
    21. Re:This is pricing strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your facts right. Kalam is not the first Muslim president of India. India have had two other muslim presidents - Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Dr. Zakir Hussain - about 20 and 30 years back.

  5. Braindrain by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Possibly, with GPL, India may be turning the braindrain the other way round. You often need somewhat mature code to play with in the beginning of your career, and, after all, there are hundreds of sourceforge/freshmeat projects which need to be better maintained.

    1. Re:Braindrain by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They say a million monkeys could produce Shakespeare, just imagine what a billion Indians could do for Open Source projects...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:Braindrain by hdparm · · Score: 1
      Well, they don't have to wait to presidential decret to start participating.

      BTW, a billion?!? I didn't know all Indians are hackers.

    3. Re:Braindrain by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      A billion. It was an easy amount to get my point across. The monkeys & shakespeare saying wouldnt be the same if you used five hundred thousand, would it?

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    4. Re:Braindrain by fuzzybunny · · Score: 2, Funny

      The theory that "a million monkeys with typewriters will eventually produce something intelligent" is age-old. And, as we now know, wrong.

      The Internet has conclusively disproven it.

      And, this is not a troll but based on my experience, a billion Indians with telephones have yet to produce an intelligible tech support call.

      But then again, the same goes for Texans/Irish/Germans/...

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  6. Was Richard in need of a job? by ryen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hi, Thank you for calling Dell technical support. My name is Richard. How may I help you?

    1. Re:Was Richard in need of a job? by jkrise · · Score: 1



      Mr. Richard! You're the man I'm really after. Reading your brilliant articles on free and open-source software, I plopped this RedHot CD into my Dell Dimension and guess what? it wrote into the CD drive's firmware and the damn thing won't work again...

      Richard: Pssst... don't quote me, but I'll tell you what to do - just turn over that system back to Dell, get your money back, and call me on my home line... I'll get you a brand=new hand-configured Linux system right away...

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:Was Richard in need of a job? by papik · · Score: 1
      Richard: Pssst... don't quote me, but I'll tell you what to do - just turn over that system back to Dell, get your money back, and call me on my home line... I'll get you a brand=new hand-configured Linux system right away...

      You're not the true Richard: it's GNU/Linux.

    3. Re:Was Richard in need of a job? by Garabito · · Score: 1, Funny
      -Hi, Thank you for calling Dell technical support. My name is Richard. How may I help you?

      -Hello, I ordered a PowerEdge server with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on it...

      -Excuse me, I would appreciate that you call it GNU/Linux. By using that name, you acknowledge all the contribution of the GNU project in a GNU/Linux Operating system.

      -Well OK, I have Red Hat Enterprise GNU/Linux and I'm having this problem...

      -Of course you have a problem! You are running a GNU /Linux distribution with pieces of software that are non free. Non Free software is evil! By using it you are privating your neighboor to receive the benefits from it.

      -Is it that bad?

      -Yes. If you use a single piece of non free software, you can't be a saint in the church of Emacs.

      User hangs up the phone

      Supervisor (with indian accent): Mr Stallman. Can you please come to my office?

  7. They all do that. by Indio_do_Xingu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Interestingly, the article mentions that the President had prepared for the meeting by downloading and reading Stallman's biography (Free as in Freedom) from the Internet."

    HOw is that interesting? In case you don't know, every politician does that or is prepared by advisors before plunging into any meeting. Or is that interesting because he usually does not do that? Maybe he needs someone like Condoleezza Rice to chew and spit the stuff to him, so he can better use his time....

    1. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOw is that interesting?

      It's interesting and surprising because it means someone actually read to the end of something RMS wrote...

    2. Re:They all do that. by smoking2000 · · Score: 1

      HOw is that interesting?

      Its interesting because a non-geek actually _read_ it.

    3. Re:They all do that. by civad · · Score: 4, Insightful


      How is that interesting? In case you don't know, every politician does that or is prepared by advisors before plunging into any meeting. Or is that interesting because he usually does not do that? Maybe he needs someone like Condoleezza Rice to chew and spit the stuff to him, so he can better use his time....


      How many times has Mr. Stallman met Mr. Bush? How much time did the latter spend to prepare for the meeting? What is the outlook of the US Govt. towards Open Source movement?

      I am assuming you are in teh US, since you seem to be so ignorant about the importance of what the President of India did.

    4. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only preparation one needs is to bring a ton of Wunderbaums to kill the smell of Richard.

    5. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush meeting Stallman? Naiveness runs amock in Slashdot....

    6. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Richard has gotten better, he's learned to bathe more. I've known him for almost 20 years: yes, it's still a problem for him to bathe. (Yes, he is hydrophobic, and scared of plants as well). But he's gotten a lot better about it over 20 years.

      Oddly enough, Richard can also Balkan folkdance quite well, and has a habit of walking up to every woman at a party and offering her chocolate or groups. A bit odd, but quite harmless. A mail/female trans-sexual friend of mine considered it her coming of age when Richard did the chocolate thing to her at a convention.

      And *OF COURSE* seeing Richard is a price-gouging maneuver against Microsoft. But it's also a legitimate way to free up resources for Indian programmers to produce software and have tools rebuilt for their own needs, a way not under direct US corporate or federal control. This is incredibly appealing to the leader of a country with millions of highly educated citizens who have trouble finding work, and have too much time on their hands. Or for the leader of a country with many densely populated areas of great poverty: providing them computer access is a huge political and economic step, but it's a lot cheaper if you can save half the price of your systems by using freeware.

      This is a *BIG DEAL*. And since the Indian president is Jesuit-trained, he's used to people chopping logic at him to convince him of absolutely absurd things. (Discussiing Christianity with Jesuits is a hoot and a holler, but discussing *POLITICS* with them is an education in and of itself.) He'll come out of the discussion not necessarily convinced of his visitor's beliefs but thoroughly understanding the *implications* of it.

      India would love to outsource US software development. But studying the tools from the GNU/Linux world, such as Richard's GCC compiler and the Samba file-server for Windows, actually gives them a much deeper understanding of how things work than buying and using Windows or Windows development tools, which hide way too much inside the unpublished source code.

    7. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man ... before posting atleast read a small biography of President of India. A quick google will fetch you tons of information. Kalam is not a politician. He is a technocrat, a scientist, a gandhian by living and a bachelor. Go read wings of fire.

    8. Re:They all do that. by teh*fink · · Score: 1

      moreover, do you think bush has ever read anyone's biography at all, much less in preparation to meet them?

      --
      "I DARE you to make less sense!"
    9. Re:They all do that. by gorre · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is hydrophobic
      Stallman has rabies?

      --
      "Madness is something rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." -- Nietzsche
    10. Re:They all do that. by Mateito · · Score: 1

      > every politician does that or is prepared by > advisors before plunging into any meeting. Except for Bush of course. He has to have an advisor read it to him... and paraphrase all the big words.

    11. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually this case was special. Last October, I had an occasion to meet Dr. Kalam for a few minutes in Chennai, and having previously read his Biography 'Wings of Fire' and noticing certain themes in it that were similar to ideas espoused by RMS, I got the idea to take a copy of 'Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman' with me when I met him. I presented it to him on behalf of the Indian Linux Users' Group, Chennai (ILUGC) and made a brief mention of the thematic similarities.

      Dr. Kalam is very widely read, and he apparently took the time to read the book, and followed it up by reading the biography of RMS as well in preparation for this meeting.

      Incidentally, during my meeting in October, Dr. Kalam was fairly knowledgeable about open source efforts, and noted immediately that Linux was not the only open-source project, and that there were 'thousands' of projects. He was also pragmatic enough to note that the conversion to open-source would not happen overnight.

    12. Re:They all do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it's been modded as troll but if i had my mod points today, i would rate it as FUNNY!

  8. Outsourcing ? by Krapangor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is RMS opinion on outsourcing ?
    And what about the role of OSS in this setting ?

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:Outsourcing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proud owner of a Mensa membership card.

      Who did you take that Mensa card from?

    2. Re:Outsourcing ? by Namaseit · · Score: 1

      Why don't you ask him?

      --
      75% of all statistics are made up!
    3. Re:Outsourcing ? by baskk · · Score: 1

      At idlelo.uwc.ac.za last month RMS indicated that the developing world should not be blinded by outsourcing. Being paid less is not a long term benefit for the software developer community as a whole (The benefits will mainly go to big corporates anyway). Instead he said to focus on using FS to (re-)capture domestic markets. Localisation, and homegrown free software would be the way to go replacing/adapting inappropriate foreign closed software.

      --
      - bkk
    4. Re:Outsourcing ? by pherris · · Score: 1
      Proud owner of a Mensa membership card.

      Who's card is it?

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  9. President not head of government by JoshuaDFranklin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Before everyone gets confused, India has a parliamentary system of government so the President is not the head of the government. There are more details from the WikiPedia entry on India.

    That is not to say Kalam isn't important, just that he mostly just gives speeches, not makes decisions.

    1. Re:President not head of government by cujo_1111 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As opposed to the American presidential system where the president is an elected dictator?

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:President not head of government by jkrise · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although this is true, it is also to be remembered that the Preisdent of India is highly respected in technical and defence circles. As such, his views and leanings have a lot of bearing on the political decision-making process.

      While launching the IIIT in Pune, the President made a pointed reference to his meeting with Mr. Gates, and made some brilliant points in exhorting the local IT community to further the cause of Free and Open Source software.

      India is indeed fortunate to have such an eminently qualified person at the apex seat, since IT is synonymous with national security these days....

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    3. Re:President not head of government by richie2000 · · Score: 0

      Elected? More like selected by the Supreme Court.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    4. Re:President not head of government by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You shouldn't have called him flamebait -- he's essentially correct. In the US system, the President is a limited-term dictator, with immense powers (particularly when the two parlimentary systems under him, which were designed to act as checks and balances, are as ineffectual and supine as they have been in recent years).

      Given that benevolent dictatorship is one of the best ways to run a country in the short term (in the medium term it has a depressing tendancy to turn into either a non-benevolent dictatorship or military rule), the US system is both surprisingly effective and surprisingly stable.

    5. Re:President not head of government by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      India has a parliamentary system of government so the President is not the head of the government.

      I guess that kinda makes him like the Queen of England.

    6. Re:President not head of government by zungu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      President is the official, though ceremonial, head of the executive branch of the Government in India. It is more like the Queen in U.K., who is a formal head, but the real executive is the prime minister and his cabinet. I have a gold medal in Indian constitutional law.

    7. Re:President not head of government by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      In the US system, the President is a limited-term dictator, with immense powers

      Describe these "immense powers" that you speak of, if you don't mind.

      The President has the power of Veto, which means that he can just not sign a law and it doesn't go into existance.

      The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in the country, but he can't send them off to war without congress's help (an abused power in recent decades). If he does, he has to bring them back within a certain amount of time (thanks to laws passed as a result of Viet Nam, if I'm not mistaken)

      The President appoints Supreme Court justices, but they must be approved by the Sen-nate (sorry, Newt Gunray slipped in while I was writing that).

      And, that's it? He doesn't get to make laws, although he can suggest them. Extrapolating, we find that he can tell Congress "I won't sign this law that you want unless you pass that law that I want". So there's plenty of room for compromise on his part. Furthermore, he doesn't get to sign in any law that wasn't already voted for by both Houses.

      The President's power is severely limited for a reason, the framers of the Constitution didn't want any single man to be able to acquire these Dictator powers of which you speak. So put up and tell us what powers you speak of.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    8. Re:President not head of government by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      India has a "Preisdent" and a "President"? Who does what? I am so confused, India's policitcal system is very complex.

      --
      Sig it.
    9. Re:President not head of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about executive orders, which are one of the primary ways in which the president of the U.S. can be said to have "immense powers". It is a fact that when compared to other Western democarcies, the president of the U.S. has an exceptional amount of power, compounded by the fact that there is no separation between a figurehead symbolic head of state, and the executive leader with real powers, like you see in India and many other democracies.

    10. Re:President not head of government by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Oo, yeah, I forgot about Executive Orders that don't actually have to be obeyed. :) Sorry about that one.

      You're right that our President has too much power, but you're wrong about our US government being a democracy. It's a republic. Sorry. "I will not let this Republic which has stood for a thousand years..."

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    11. Re:President not head of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a republic is not incompatible with being a democracy. If you're not sure what the words mean, please consult a dictionary.

    12. Re:President not head of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      India is indeed fortunate to have such an eminently qualified person at the apex seat, since IT is synonymous with national security these days....
      nicely put. and subtle. :-)
    13. Re:President not head of government by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Republic is where the citizens vote on who will make laws. Democracy is where the citizens vote on the laws themselves. Most states, cities, and counties in the US are a hybrid of democracy and republic, but our Federal government is pure republic.

      It's really very simple. In a republic, the people vote on who will represent them in government, and theoretically those people who are elected are going to make laws in accordance with the will of the citizens. The citizens themselves don't get to pick and chose the laws or have any say in them, other than contacting their elected official. The citizens don't get to propose laws in a formal fashion, and they don't get to vote on the laws themselves. The relationship between the people and the elected officials is one of employer to employee. The elected officials are chosen as qualified in legal matters, versed in social issues, and so forth. The underlying assumptions are also very simple. The people, as an aggregate, do not have the time to deal with day-to-day management of the government. Neither do they have the education and expertise required to manage the government. So they chose people who will work full-time (or part-time, as is the case in most cities and counties) to manage the government and who have the education and expertise to do so.

      A democracy is quite different. In a democracy the people get to chose the laws, and there are no elected officials. The people have to spend their time managing day-to-day government affairs, and that's in addition to the time they spend just working and playing with their families. Democracy doesn't work on a large scale without the help of many of the traits of a Republic, which is why states have their own elected bodies, governors, and so forth. Democracy is what this country had when it was a bunch of english colonies. The townspeople would gather regularly (weekly was pretty common) and discuss the issues, vote on laws, and so forth.

      Communism is actually supposed to be democracy, except in Communism all citizens are equal. They get paid the same amount of money, so there's no aristocracy in any fashion. They also are supposed to chose the laws themselves. Communism in its purest form hasn't been implemented on a large scale, but frequently shows up in small scales, such as in the early days of Salt Lake City, and the early days of the original English colonies.

      Monarchy gives absolute power to a single individual, and religion is used to seal his power. Inheritance is what usually determines the next King or Queen (or Emperor, or Tsar). The "Divine Right of Kings" is what gives the king his power, and the ruling class (aka nobility) consists of the King's extended family and anybody he appoints to that class. Feudalism is the economic system of Monarchy, which is theoretically a combination of the free market and communism, but that's not really the best way to describe feudalism.

      Other forms of dictatorial style government exist. The Romans adapted their Republic to a dictatorial style of government when Caesar became the first emperor of Rome. Caesar was elected to be the emperor in a process that is very similar to what we see in the new Star Wars movies. A precedent was set that passes the Emperor from father to son, but there were other ways of choosing an emperor used in Rome. Justin, the Emperor that reconquered the Western half of the Roman Empire in the 500s AD, was elected. He was born a commoner and rose to power on the strengths of his own leadership.

      A dictionary isn't good enough to define these complex systems of government. History is better, where you'll learn that the ancient greek city-states experimented with every form of government currently known to man. I suggest you study your ancient greeks to learn more about this subject. The fact is, every form of government we know about right now can be combined with any/all of the other forms. Communism, as I indicated, isn't actually a complete form of government. It's an economic system. The way the Soviets implemented it it was totalitarian rule with communism as the economic system. We've seen plenty totalitarian rule with capitalism and feudalism as the economic systems, so this concept isn't really hard to grasp.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    14. Re:President not head of government by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0

      The USA should outsource the white house to India too =)

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    15. Re:President not head of government by jazuki · · Score: 1

      Technically, the distinction is between a head of state and head of government. In the United states, and in strong presidential systems, both offices are vested in the President. In parliamentary systems, the offices are generally separated, with the office of head of state vested in a President selected by the parliament as in India and Israel, or in a monarch as in Japan and England, and the head of government vested in the prime minister. Of course, there are also systems like the Russian and the Pakistani that are technically parliamentary but with strong presidents. But then, neither can be said to be truly democratic.

      A note on democracy. Various people have noted that in a democracy, citizens directly vote on laws and take responsibilities for taking care of communal and social needs. This is true in a direct or "pure" democracy, and is only completely practicable on a small scale in times of relative normalcy. Thus, I think it's a little silly to argue that representative forms of democracy are somehow less democratic. I'm not, for example, aware of any pure democratic systems that did not vest authority in an elected representative or tyrant at least during times of emergency.

    16. Re:President not head of government by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the imperium passed from J.C. to a triumvirate. It's true that Octavius (later called Agustus) Caesar was J.C.'s son (or relative, or adopted son, I'm not totally clear on this) and later killed off the others, but this wasn't the precedent. The precedent was the power passed to the next "most powerful person or small group". Emperors tried to arrange this so that their descendants would qualify, but it didn't usually happen that way. Much of the time the power was transferred via assassination. (The Eastern Roman Empire, after Constantine divided the monster, was more orderly. But not THAT much more orderly.)

      And that pretty much exhausts my knowledge. But it sure wasn't an inheritance system. It was a power politics system, with no holds barred. Poison, assassination, provincial revolts, etc. They even invented agent provocateurs (or possibly they imported that idea from elsewhere). Persia? China? Caravans did go back an forth, carrying spies as well as spices.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Re:Outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but don't you think India has enough stinky long haired 60s throwbacks, both local and from the West?

  11. Maybe.. by xzap · · Score: 4, Funny

    the President gave him some tips on what shampoo to use..after all both the President and Stallman a long long mane ;)

  12. Power Shift by cybermint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    India's tech is booming. Japan has all the cutting edge electronics and technologies. China is destined to be the next super power. Korea is trying to get nukes. The USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist. Times are changing. Maybe considering India as a future isn't such a bad idea.

    1. Re:Power Shift by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      Times are changing. Maybe considering India as a future isn't such a bad idea.

      I read an article the other day (can't find it with Google at the moment) about how high-tech immigration TO India has really been picking up lately.

      With all of the outsourcing, Indian IT companies are experiencing skills shortages in some specialised areas. Even though the salaries are not that high after the exchange rate, compared to the cost of living, foreign IT workers live high on the hog.

      Now let me see if I can find that article ....

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    2. Re:Power Shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya. India still has sudo-debt slavery, substance farming, overpopulation, desease, lack of female rights, and a mostly-still-there ruling land-owning caste system. Sounds like a wonderfull economic prospects.

    3. Re:Power Shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > sudo-debt slavery

      Is that where the sysadmin adds your account name to /etc/sudoers whether you want him to or not?

    4. Re:Power Shift by anandcp · · Score: 0, Troll

      US has AIDS, females who are penultimate of power, a Dubya for a Prez,huge land-owning Polluting Corporates and an Oil sector bent on destroying the environment. Ya, US is def. a wonderful place to live.

      --
      -------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
    5. Re:Power Shift by justin_speers · · Score: 4, Informative

      India's tech is booming

      The U.S. still imports way more jobs than it imports, and India's tech is booming based solely on the fact that it is low cost. Try reading some alternative viewpoints on the outsourcing subject.

      Japan has all the cutting edge electronics and techonologies
      And those Japanese companies also create a lot of jobs in the U.S., and the Japanese economy isn't doing so hot. Your point?

      China is destined to be the next super power
      With no economic freedom and the vast majority of it's citizens living in horrid poverty, I doubt it.

      Korea is trying to get nukes
      NORTH Korea already has them.

      The USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist.

      Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing... mad cow disease gets a big "so what" from me, it's more paranoia than reality, it does more damage to the beef industry than the general population. And a puppet for a President? Watch this "puppet" obliterate John Kerry in the next election.

      It's really lame his editorializing was so lacking in any substance, and yet modded up as insightful.

    6. Re:Power Shift by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      he USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist.

      Three observations:

      A) Run for office or get involved in politics. Do something about our government. In case you haven't noticed there's very little real choice coming in the presidential election. I'm going to have to vote holding my nose the same way I have the last three elections.

      B) The economy was slow. The issue now is the dollar is devalued and is causing problems in other economies (i.e. American products cost less than theirs) because their economies were slow at a time when arrogant monetary policy (the ____ is worth more than ever vs. the dollar) was driving the cost of their currency up.

      C) Iraq is a mess. Complaining about why we are there is a little late. The discussion now should be on how to get out and deliver on the promises we made to the Iraqi people, not on the cause of the war.

      As for mad cow disease, that's a minor issue compared to other concerns we fact. Before you run to India, you need to learn more about the socio-economic situation there...

      --
      -- $G
    7. Re:Power Shift by boomgopher · · Score: 1

      You sound exactly like my father, who died bitter and lonely. He could have contributed a lot to this world, had he not had such a nasty attitude. my 2 cents.

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    8. Re:Power Shift by dario_moreno · · Score: 1


      about the slow economy recovering...you should read this week "Economist", there is an interesting article about the recovery being fueled by so-called military keynesianism, financed by a low dollar. The US will payback the current growth with interests in a few years.

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    9. Re:Power Shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The U.S. still imports way more jobs than it imports,

      Hm. Are you sure you're qualified to post here?

    10. Re:Power Shift by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Funny how during the slow economic times, everyone talks about how it'll get better, then when it does get better, everyone talks about how it's going to get worse.

      All this talk about a "fake recovery" just seems to confirm it's a real recovery.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:Power Shift by melvin22 · · Score: 1

      This is my favorite quote from the article linked to above:

      "In Drucker's words, "Nobody seems to realize that we import twice or three times as many jobs as we export. I'm talking about the jobs created by foreign companies coming into the U.S.," such as Japanese automobile plants making Toyotas and Hondas on American soil.

      "Siemens alone has 60,000 employees in the United States," Drucker points out. "We are exporting low-skill, low-paying jobs but are importing high-skill, high-paying jobs."


      So programmers are low-skill, low-paying jobs?

    12. Re:Power Shift by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing...
      Growth? I think that you are suffering from carpal tunnel vision, sir. It is difficult to tell *what* the economy is doing because statistics that measure true economic performance aren't gathered; but various indicators seem to be pointing down. Average hourly wage is decreasing, or at best holding steady. Massive layoffs continue at a rather horrifying rate. Most telling though is the sheer number of people applying for low paying jobs. This statistic, applicants per job offered, is not tracked by any agency. However, I do know for a fact that at least 30 people applied for a receptionist job paying $7/hour (I know this because I know the woman who got the job and her first assignment was to call the people who didn't and tell them.) My local Waffle House got 15 applicants for a single waitress position. When that many people are applying for jobs that don't pay very well it tells us something.

      Economic news is always reported in the most cheerful and upbeat manner possible, and always has been. The day after the big stock market crash of 1929 (Black Tuesday) featured headlines reading "The Worst Is Over!", and "Stock Market Rallies!". Throughout the depression most major newspapers routinely printed articles about how great the economy was doing. Today we have an unemployment rate that is actually higher than it was during the so-called "Great Depression". More people are homeless per-capita today than in 1930. To me this does not indicate "growth" in the economy; it indicates that things are still very bad. Don't take my word for it, look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics I should mention that after a truly fascinating decision by President Bush, the BLS no longer collects information on mass layoffs. Its one way to deal with a problem I suppose...

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    13. Re:Power Shift by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about?

      Growth in money supply and corporate profits. Wages are dropping and unemployment is barely creeping down, most of it due to increased jobs in government, military, security, and health-care. White-collar jobs are SHRINKING. (Well, it is true that the stats are contradictory in some cases.)

    14. Re:Power Shift by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Try reading some alternative viewpoints on the outsourcing subject [townhall.com].

      "Siemens alone has 60,000 employees in the United States," Drucker points out. "We are exporting low-skill, low-paying jobs but are importing high-skill, high-paying jobs."

      This might be true of manufacturing, but not of all the tech jobs going. What "high wage" jobs are all the unemployed programmers going to "move up" to? Management? There is typically 1 manager for every 5 or so developers. Thus, even if all the managers died today, there are still not enough positions to go around.

      While American companies can hire computer programmers in India to replace higher paid American programmers, that is because of India's outstanding education in computer engineering.

      That is bullshit. Most employers don't care that much about where you got your IT education anyhow. Most of the stuff in a B.S. degree is marginally applicable to the real world, and India simply copied our research-oriented universities. Employers value diplomacy skills more than they do a graduate's ability to make a B-tree from scratch, for example.

      Facts are blithely ignored by those who simply assume that low-wage countries have an advantage in international trade.

      Programming jobs ARE disappearing and there is no magic prince on the visible horizon to save us so far. Thats a fact. Catchy Adam Smith theory won't magically create tech jobs. Perhaps Mr. Smith wants us all to be plumbers and Walmart clerks. Raw capitalism does not guarentee jobs, only rich capitalists.

    15. Re:Power Shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you compare a nation to a company. Let's do that ok? Even if it's not really that simple..

      How can the US Economy be improved by increasing the debt to yet undreamed of levels? If this were a company, then the US would be declared bankrupt.

      Now let's compare the US with an individual.

      On the other hand, it's quite clear economically, that by taking huge debt, you get alot of money between your hands. However, unless you can invest that money wisely, all you will end up with is big parties and a BIIIIIIIIIG hangover! Which is why you would never dare doing so in Real Life.

      Be warned. You just don't give a damn about other countries, start wars and generally alienate everybody with a heart that can see through BS. The hangover will be severe, especially for Bush, but also for you since karmically you should have stopped it before it escallated out of hand.

      Nobody knows how this will turn out however, and countries are definately not corporations. But, there is a Big But here, America got to wise up now before the next election.

      Because, either we're with Bush, or against him. And many many people in the world is definately not with him (although I refuse to be retorically tyranized and forced to be against him as a mortal enemy). Open up your eyes man!

    16. Re:Power Shift by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The real truth is "programming jobs are disappearing". This should not be a surprise. Once VisiCalc has been written, the increment in value of the next spreadsheet is much less. (The price may go up, but the increment in value to the end-user is less.)

      The real importance of the GPL is that it prevents the establishment of the next RIAA or MPAA. Once upon a time musicians were as free as programmers have been. Read the hand writing on the wall..
      These changes don't always happen overnight. It's been nearly 50 years since VisiCalc, and now only in the FOSS world is it practical for an independant programmer to create a spreadsheet. (Of course, partially this is due to OpenOffice.org...but MSExcel and Lotus are the main reasons. Especially the inclusion of MSExcel in MSOffice.)

      Programming is a lode of the noosphere that has now been mined for nearly 60 years. The easy stuff has been gotten. There may well be a few rich veins left, but they tend to be hidden in non-obvious places. Now people are starting to need to use power tools to dig out the new metal. And that costs more...and even so the results aren't as valuable as the early work.

      That said, there will probably always be the need for some programmers. Systems analysts even more so (but the job has already shifted well away from the programming that was involved in it during the early days).

      The disappearance of programming jobs is not a consequence of the economic system. It's a consequence of solved problems no longer needing a solution. (The economic system does, however, determine the method in which the disappearance of jobs is dealt with.)

      N.B.: FOSS is increasing the rate at which programming jobs are disappearing. It's solving new problems, and allows people to choose to refrain from creating new ones. But in doing so it does protect the freedom of programmers to program. Programming may eventually become mainly a hobby activity, with very few professionals, rather like sports have...only with more practical ends. And most programmers will need to find other jobs to earn their livlihood. But this cost would exist whether FOSS existed or not. The difference is, were corporate software to become the only software, it would probably become illegal to program outside of a corporate setting. The GPL preserves freedom, not economic security.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Power Shift by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually. Programming is really easy. Folliwing the logic and saying "Add the tax to the total" in english is actually the hard part. Converting to the equivilent in a programming langauge like "Total := Tax + SubTotal;" is the easy part. If you work in a really big company, the kind that outsources to India, you will understand.

      In reponse to the parent, yes, India is only in the running because they're cheap. Other countries are starting to undercut India. Look up "race to the bottom" for more information.

  13. Hope Stallman is not too late by romit_icarus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Gates has been marketing to India for years. His visits to India are very high profile.

    Gates' view towards india is simple: Get the 15% of developers to use MS, and that'll provide the basis for MS.

    Interestingly, unlike in the rest of asia, software piracy is never an issue with MS although software piracy is rampant...

    1. Re:Hope Stallman is not too late by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Get the 15% of developers to use MS, and that'll provide the basis for MS."

      Instead of giving India a basis for Indian software without strings attatched...

      --
      C|N>K
  14. Freedom? Beer? by miknight · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "which in keeping with the FOSS movement guru's philosophy is available free of cost."

    I wasn't aware that this was part of the philosophy.
    1. Re:Freedom? Beer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      I wasn't aware that this was part of the philosophy.
      Then you don't know RMS' philosophy. He believes that software should be free. As in speech. As in beer. As in absolutely, positively, free. As in only hardware should be sold for a price. Yes, he's a proponent of the GPL; and yes, that license lets you charge for software licensed under it, but that was more of a capitulation than the cause. If RMS had his way, all software, from Linux to Windows, from AbiWord to MS Office, would be free as in beer.
    2. Re:Freedom? Beer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then you don't know RMS' philosophy. He believes that software should be free. As in speech. As in beer. As in absolutely, positively, free. As in only hardware should be sold for a price.
      This is a complete lie. Provide references or shut up.
    3. Re:Freedom? Beer? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the source code is freely distributable than the software will become available for free sooner or. . . well, just sooner actually.

      The free trade in software is an innate consequence of the GPL and Stallman knows this damned well and the basic functionality that the GPL strives for is that people should be allowed to simply hand a copy of software to a friend freely and without fear of legal consequence.

      So yes, the free availability is perfectly in keeping with Stallman's philosophy.

      KFG

    4. Re:Freedom? Beer? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      http://www.gnu.org

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  15. Any music? by fastdecade · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the sake of open source diplomacy, I hope he didn't sing for the PM.

    In any event, great to see open source has reached this level. Won't be long before managers have to justify their platform decisions again.

  16. India used to do lots of Unix by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back in the early-mid 90s (when I was last paying attention to the issue), Indian universities used to use Unix a lot. Perhaps the PC has crowded out that tradition, but we were well-positioned there for a while. Perhaps we can get that back.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  17. Re:Outsource by GrumpySimon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm... I heard that bovine livestock was sacred in India... maybe this is why India respect him:
    The Artwork of Jin Wicked || A portrait of Richard Stallman

  18. heh by SinaSa · · Score: 1

    Isn't "receptive to views" a term that cult recruiters use? ;)

    --
    --
    The last digit of pi is four.
  19. Predident has a history of Linux support by leoaugust · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Indian President is tech-savvy and has on earlier occasions tried to promote Linux. He was really a rocket scientist before he was appointed the President.

    In May 2003, he gave a speech in which he said "said it is 'unfortunate' that proprietary software - such as Windows - is so popular and has called for broader adoption of open source products." More details here - ZDNet UK - News - Indian President adds salt to MS wounds

    From the article, notes on a conversation with Bill Gates:

    President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam recounted a conversation earlier this year with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. "We were discussing the future challenges in information technology, including the issues related to software security," Kalam said, according to a transcript of the speech. "I made a point that we look for open-source codes so that we can easily introduce the users built security algorithms. Our discussions became difficult, since our views were different."

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  20. He's gotten much better the last few years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Enough of his friends must have yelled at him about it, but over the last 5 years when I've seen RMS, he's almost always had clean hair (or been-on-airplanes-too-long hair), and clean clothes.

  21. POI's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dr.Kalam's website at http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ , runs on Linux and Apache . Undoubtedly one of the most qualified persons for the job, he headed India's defence research body, the DRDO and was one of the key members of the team planning and implementing India's second round of nuclear tests in 1998 (India tested its first nuclear device in 1974).
    Also a bachelor like India's executive head,the Prime Minister.

    1. Re:POI's website by zungu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, he is a qualified Aeronautical engineer. He is the key architect of India's rocket launching capabilities. Also, an erudite poet and musician. Keeps his hair long and wears informal blue shirts most of the time. Spends time talking to school kids on all his visits. Cool guy, in short.

    2. Re:POI's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not so cool, when it comes to his support for WMD. He is crazy in supporting neuclear weppons.
      How he became president is also not a good chapter in indian poltical history.

    3. Re:POI's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it amusing that India has such a qualified, and obviously intelligent President, while we have a moron like George Bush (and his equally moronic competitors, such as Leibermann and Dean).

    4. Re:POI's website by zungu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. APJ Kalam, the president did not decide whether to create the Indian Nuclear program or even support it. Most of his career he worked in launch vehicles for civilian satellite launching. Yes, he did work on missiles, but then they are not WMDs. And what is this WMD distate about? Western powers can have WMDs but not India? You cannot even say that India is an irresponsible rogue state and hence cannot have Nuclear weapons. India is 1/6th of humanity on earth, and a responsible democracy for last 50 years. When surrounded by China and Pakistan, there are few options for such countries. If you live in western country go ahead and tell your government to dump all its WMDs.

    5. Re:POI's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here in the US is that the smartest people in the country are too smart to get suckered into running for president.

  22. Interesting use of contextual example by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I found this section interesting:

    Besides explaining the political philosophy of FOSS movement, Dr. Stallman said he also spoke to the President about the real intention behind Microsoft's plan to spread the use of computers in schools which was "akin to the colonial system of recruiting the local elite to help keep others in line.''

    Nothing like digging up the ghosts of the past to help sell an idea! It seemed a smart analogy to me.

    Perhaps someone should speak to the congress about Free Software in these terms - "Free software is like allowing your colony/company the independence to rule as it likes, instead of all your money being shipped to an uncaring vendor/government far away from the day-to-day concerns of your operation yet supposedly providing you relevant services to the work at hand."

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Interesting use of contextual example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Perhaps someone should speak to the congress about Free Software in these terms

      Great, except that your American government is host to most of the proprietary software business. They're not shipping money out, other countries are sending it!

      Countering proprietary licensing is going much better outside of the USA, and it's likely to stay that way. America is the world's cheerleader of capitalist consumerism: it was the cradle of proprietary software, and it's locked-ins will be the last to go.

    2. Re:Interesting use of contextual example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Nothing like digging up the ghosts of the past to help sell an idea! It seemed a smart analogy to me."

      Fully. Americans have forgotten that there was once a time when life under their government was unsufferable and reached a point where bloodshed and absolute sacrifice was called for in order to gain freedom from the oppressive State. India, hopefully, has NOT forgotten.

  23. Excellent timing. by pjbass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to say that this is kinda interesting and rather comforting to hear the Indian government's interest in the idealogies of open source, ala RMS. I work for a rather large corporation in the US that makes lots of processors, and the going jokes always involve something with our jobs migrating to India. In any case, it'd be nice to see that open source is embraced there. They have some excellent programmers (who work something like 16-20 hours a day) who, if applied to open source, could really contribute to the movement. Aligned with the fact that Bangalore recently surpassed Silicon Valley with the greatest number of technology jobs, let's just hope those jobs are working on the things that will benefit the OSDN.

    1. Re:Excellent timing. by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      Working 16-20 hours a day doesn't make you an excellent programmer. It means that there's been a massive failure to plan properly somewhere along the line.

      No human being can keep up that rate for any sustained period of time and still perform at the same level.

    2. Re:Excellent timing. by gustgr · · Score: 1

      Just correcting, RMS does Free Software, not Open Source. There are some serious differences between these two movements.

    3. Re:Excellent timing. by pjbass · · Score: 1

      Very good point. That statement was meant to be disjoint from the former statement...some a good programmers, and some of them work idiodic hours. They don't go hand in hand in my book; just an observation.

  24. All I have to say is by kurosawdust · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this means the addition of a sitar track in "The Free Software Song", I'm all for it.

    1. Re:All I have to say is by mrjb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sitar tracking, across the universe...

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    2. Re:All I have to say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Indian President is from Tamil Nadu, so it should be a veena, not a sitar.

    3. Re:All I have to say is by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      On the starship Cowerprise, under captain...

      Kalam?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  25. Free as in Freedom, or free as in beer? by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Interesting


    There is free as in free to do things without interference, and free as in getting something for nothing.

    They're not the same thing.

    1. Re:Free as in Freedom, or free as in beer? by provocative · · Score: 0

      Thanks for enlightening us all!!

    2. Re:Free as in Freedom, or free as in beer? by provocative · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Never mind, i didn't realize it was a question.. my bad! Given that India is still very much a developing country where schools and colleges don't have all the money to spend on expensive hardware and software, they would definitely be more interested in 'free as in beer'. And that is one of the biggest reason why Linux has such a big hold in the Indian universities. Microsoft is making it's way in, but I think it's going to be a long time before it makes any serious inroads into the Indian education system.

  26. Synopsis by illuminata · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stallman basically told the the president of India that they could have and distribute programmers for free, rather than have to pay for some evil, greedy programmers who won't even show you their goods. Stallman's programmers come from all around the world and are completely open. His only requirement is that the terms of their release and distribution be kept in their chest pocket, and that the president give them credit if he modifies them in any way.

    --


    Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    1. Re:Synopsis by provocative · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stallman's programmers come from all around the world and are completely open Which could be a serious problem. Realize that the India tech sector is just about beginning to grow. At this point, although 'free as in beer' matters a lot, 'free as in freedom' is really not an issue. For a new and upcoming company, it's a decision between using stable and good (enough) software coming from a stable company who would be able to provide good and timely support, as opposed to some software created by a group of people all around the world, where the only way of getting any support is by posting on a newsgroup and hoping somebody replies. Money is definitely an issue, which is why a lot of small companies use OSS, however, for big companies, stability and accountability are far more important issues. And unless OSS can convince the companies that it has both of those attributes, I doubt it will be able to make serious inroads anywhere.

    2. Re:Synopsis by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Stallman basically told the the president of India that they could have and distribute programmers for free,

      Um--I think this poster might have substituted programmers for programs in a couple of places...or did we sign away more than we thought when we turned over copyrights to the FSF? :D

      Guys, the post is a joke--"terms of their release and distribution be kept in their chest pocket"--who modded it informative?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Synopsis by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 1
      For a new and upcoming company, it's a decision between using stable and good (enough) software coming from a stable company who would be able to provide good and timely support, as opposed to some software created by a group of people all around the world, where the only way of getting any support is by posting on a newsgroup and hoping somebody replies.

      Erm, no. It's free software, so you always have the support option of changing the code yourself (or paying a 'local' programmer or company). There are lots of highly trained computing professionals in India available to do this.

      Also, you seem to think you can get 'good and timely support' from companies like (say) Microsoft. This is a fantasy, even more so in developing countries.

      In short, you're a dumbass.

    4. Re:Synopsis by illuminata · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it was moderated that way. Although, it does make me wonder if Stallman would try and pull something like that off. I mean, this whole "put the community at work to make things better" attitude might just be a front for free labor. Yes, I do know that many get commissioned for their work, but they don't have to be in this situation.

      I bet Stallman is much more for anti-corporatism than FOSS alone. Just get a bunch of free software with the source code available, and who would refuse? Instant competition for companies with free to cheap labor behind it, all for the "good" of the community. If this wasn't an anti-corporate thing, why would he be pushing it as a movement anyways? It seems to me like he might just be pushing his view of what freedom is by propagating FOSS while hoping that the corporate software companies shrivel up and die, with good little workers moving things along. Whether or not people endorse him, it's implied by the use and development of FOSS. He's spearheading it, so he takes the credit for it. Right now, it seems as if Stallman's wanting to become a socialist icon in the technology realm by running his own little mini-utopia. I do use Linux (albeit I don't make my software usage a political thing), but I can't help but wonder.

      Anyways, as for the funny modifier is fucked up, so maybe modding it informative or insightful was meant as a loophole. I'm starting to think that, if the editors won't allow the funny modifier to be used the right way, maybe it shouldn't be used at all. Just toss out positive modifiers to funny comments with a wink and a nod.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
  27. Re:That explains it! by Jakosa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The sheer mentioning of India or China seems to make the average american slashdot tech rave like a white trash untermensh, that has resently been analprobed by the UFO.. What is it with you guys? Try to control your paranoia.

  28. Whew! Forty whole minutes, eh!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can you say or do in a forty minute long meeting? Why on earth would such a thing be news worthy, and get a reportage in any "Times", or on Slashdot? What astonishingly desperate personality culting is Slashdot pursuing today?

    Personality cults ARE NOT "news for nerds, stuff that matters." Normal couch potatoes care about personality cults; they are not an aspect of nerdness.

    Why don't you editors take a hard look at yourselves instead pandering to your heros, for once?

    1. Re:Whew! Forty whole minutes, eh!? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that is why nerds are viewed as out of touch with reality.

      You don't have to be obsessed with personalities, but being aware of what they are doing is essential to understanding what the hell is going on in the world.

    2. Re:Whew! Forty whole minutes, eh!? by deitel99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What can you say or do in a forty minute long meeting? Why on earth would such a thing be news worthy, and get a reportage in any "Times", or on Slashdot? What astonishingly desperate personality culting is Slashdot pursuing today?

      And how many minutes have you had with the Indian president? Considering how busy the man is (as any president will be) I think it is an important sign of how well OSS is doing now. This is important news for a site which claims "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters".

      The fact that he even downloaded Stallmans biography ("Free as in Freedom" - which sounds more like a political manifesto to me) means that he devoted even more time to his guest. This is a sign of how serious the Indian President takes OSS.

    3. Re:Whew! Forty whole minutes, eh!? by darnok · · Score: 1

      > What can you say or do in a forty minute long
      > meeting?

      Actually quite a lot. I'm assuming they didn't spend the first 20 minutes talking about the latest sporting results or TV programs.

      I imagine the Pres could well have heard about a bunch of FOSS stuff, and, rather than reading through various interpretations of the GPL, thought it might be worth having a chat to the guy that wrote it. If I understand it correctly, the role of the President in India is largely to "suggest directions" for the country to go in, and I could well see this meeting as being pivotal in any additional embracing of FOSS in India.

      I'd love to know the types of conversations Bill Gates has with world leaders, which seem to occur on a fairly regular basis. It's not as though MS actually employs loads of people worldwide, or directly contributes any sizeable chunk of loot to non-US economies, which is what's gonna be of interest to foreign heads of state. Sure MS supplies a lot of infrastructure stuff to governments, but you don't see e.g. the president of Ford Motor Co or Xerox getting meetings with world leaders on any regular basis. I just can't see that the conversation would be anything more involved than "buy my stuff" or "build this infrastructure so my stuff can do more things". Exactly why this type of conversation would merit the time of a world leader escapes me, yet it happens often enough.

  29. Pay the man by olman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure Indian programmers are just falling all over themselves to produce software for no pay. Ditto for Indian software companies. Now if you mean Free as in "Open", you might be talking business..

    1. Re:Pay the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, where is Microsoft located? In India? I suggest that the programmers in India are not getting paid to write Windows code, either. They are getting paid to write software that runs *on* an OS, that OS doesn't matter, just as long as their customers can use it.

    2. Re:Pay the man by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "He explained the concept behind FOSS. The word "free'' did not mean giving the software gratis.

      Rather, it denoted the freedom to control the computer because the seller of FOSS also provided the source code or the manner in which a particular software was constructed. "

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Pay the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I perfer talking freedom.

    4. Re:Pay the man by olman · · Score: 1

      "He explained the concept behind FOSS. The word "free'' did not mean giving the software gratis.
      Rather, it denoted the freedom to control the computer because the seller of FOSS also provided the source code or the manner in which a particular software was constructed. "


      Now there's an 180 if I've seen one. RMS saying it's OK to sell software? This is the guy who said programmers should work in mcdonalds so they can give away software for free?

      Did a realism-bug bite him or something?
    5. Re:Pay the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS has always stated that programmers are entitled to sell software and earn money just like everybody else.

      I can take your post as to things

      A) a troll
      B) a joke

      I prefer the latter, B. :-)

      However, if all your software is Free, how can you earn money on it? It's possible, but in bad times people will refuse to handout to you and you'll have to rely on services, which could also halt along with everything else.

      There's definately not as much money is Free software as in proprietary software. But not all benefits can be counted in gold..

  30. What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by LibrePensador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A very old proverb says that "it's hard to be a prophet in one's own land."

    For some reason, Richard Stallman is demonized in the US as some eccentric loony. Yet the rest of the world actually holds him in very high regard. I have had the fortune of listening to him speak on the issue of software patents and not only was he articulate but he was able to appeal to a large audience made up of people from all walks of life.

    Even if you disagree with specific positions that RMS might take, you have to give the guy credit for standing his ground. To me the GPL is one of the cornerstones of the free software movement and its cultural and social implications will reverberate for generations.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
    1. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it was RMS you saw? From your description it seems you're talking about your mother...

    2. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      For some reason, Richard Stallman is demonized in the US as some eccentric loony. Yet the rest of the world actually holds him in very high regard. I have had the fortune of listening to him speak on the issue of software patents and not only was he articulate but he was able to appeal to a large audience made up of people from all walks of life.

      He is fairly eccentric. I've met him twice and he's... uhh... he could do with a visit from the Queer Eye TV show.

      However I suspect the real reason that he's considered a "loony" in the USA is because he doesn't bow to the almighty dollar. I'm not trolling. Americans seem overly concerned about money. Notice that one of the first things an American asks after learning about free software is "how will programmers get paid?" No thoughts about how it can help less fortunate countries, or less fortunate districts within America. No thoughts about how sharing software would lead to advancements in software because programmers will be freed up to work on new and exciting things. No thoughts about advancing science or technology for the benefit of mankind. Not even thinking that maybe these hobbyists write free software because they want to! An American's primary cause for concern is "where's the personal financial gain?"

      I think this is because USA punishes people without money. If you don't make lots of money you live on the streets. There is no socialism. No "safety net" if you lose your job. It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich. Poor people are "losers". That makes it hard for an American to get past the "no cost" aspect of Free Software and start to understand the freedom aspects.

      I'm not saying money is unimportant. But RMS sees a balance between money and sharing. Between proprietary interests and the public interest. He tries to communicate that software is not just about technology and "innovation". It's also about political and social improvement. America rewards financial success, not social improvement, and I think that's really sad.

      NB: And I'm not saying that Americans only think about money, or that no other culture has similar disdain for slackabouts, or that no other culture pursues financial success as a means of evaluating worth. I'm just saying that it's more exaggerated in Americans. That's just my ignorant opinion (I've never lived in America) but I suspect my ignorant opinion is not unique and not far off the mark.

    3. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, "demonized" has radically lost some weight lately... Honestly, does nobody believe in the Devil and His demons anymore? I do, and I find the overuse of this word irritating.

    4. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by s20451 · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you why he annoys me. Three things:

      Firstly, the GPL is a remarkable idea and an excellent contribution. But I strongly reject the idea that the use of anything other than the GPL is immoral. I think free, Free, and proprietary software all have their role to play and can coexist. In fact the GPL depends completely on the same copyright law that protects proprietary software -- was the "morality" of the GPL invented to counteract this paradox?

      Secondly, his general obnoxiousness. Nearly every time RMS opens his mouth, it is to generate some controversy that ends up dividing the community (just look at his behaviour on lkml, or the whole GNU/Linux naming debacle). This has happened sufficiently often that I have started to think his statements demanding "freedom" are disingenuous, and that what he wants is not freedom, but his own brand of power.

      Thirdly, his followers. The GNU movement has the trappings of a religion. I'm not sure to what extent I blame him for the actions of his fanboys, but it's clear that they buy into the orthodoxy without questioning it, and they are just as obnoxious. I've seen at least one thread on Slashdot in which RMS was compared favorably to Lincoln, and when criticized, the comparison was quickly defended by several users. I don't much care for cults of personality.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    5. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Fairly insightful, and you're not too far off the mark, but...

      There are safety nets if you lose your job here. The system is called "unemployment" and while it's not perfect by any means, it's better than nothing. The trouble is, in America, if you apply yourself you don't have to be poor even without worshiping the almighty dollar. The end result is, at least among certain populations (white suburbs, for instance), if you're dirt poor, it's likely because you're not trying, you're a loser, or some else like that. (Please note all you crackhead mods and angry liberals, I'm not generalizing the whole population here. Obviously there are many poor living in inner cities who do not have accessible avenues to climb out)

      Also, please don't judge all Americans with the same brush. I mean, Stallman IS an American after all. :)

      And America does reward social improvement. The trouble is, I believe, simply the way RMS looks. Maybe that's sad, but personal appearance does have an affect on whether or not people will buy into what you're selling.

    6. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Jameth · · Score: 1

      "That's just my ignorant opinion (I've never lived in America) but I suspect my ignorant opinion is not unique and not far off the mark."

      You're quite right. American society has moved much in the direction of defining everything, and I do mean everything, in monetary terms. However, this has recently started to change. People still worry about as much about money, but there have been many reports lately about how people have been overrating money.

      Several studies involve why women haven't advanced more into the marketplace, and they seem to show that women in the US care more about families than jobs, and as such tend to suck at jobs a bit more. What is different from the past is that the press about this has been portraying this as a positive thing about women, when it was previously portrayed as a negative.

    7. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. Here we worship the $.

    8. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I think this is because USA punishes people without money. If you don't make lots of money you live on the streets. There is no socialism. No "safety net" if you lose your job. It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich. Poor people are "losers". That makes it hard for an American to get past the "no cost" aspect of Free Software and start to understand the freedom aspects.

      What are you talking about?

      Every state has a welfare agency. If you lose your job or otherwise have no money, you go there and sign up. You can get checks, food stamps, subsidized or free health care, all kinds of stuff. There is an astounding array of benefits available. Yes, there are some theoretical time limits and requirements, and if you try really hard you can at least temporarily disrupt the flow of benefits.

      I'm not surprised that not living in the US you believe what you do. Republicans claim (sometimes) to want to dismantle the welfare state, and Democrats accuse them of wanting to do so, or having done so, or something. TV shows love to show the inner city, which is basically the laboratory where people are payed to not work and not get married. Oddly enough this produces a twisted environment - who knew?

    9. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice that one of the first things an American asks after learning about free software is "how will programmers get paid?"

      Funny how people seem to care until THEY have to pay for it. No one thinks twice about it when the pirate software.

    10. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by caudron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich. Poor people are "losers".

      I get what you are saying, but as an American, I feel the need to clarify your point.

      Americans have a strong drive to succeed. We have a drive to compete with ourselves. It's the basis of what we call the "American Dream" (to become strong and independent). As a society, we embrace the ideal of constant self-improvement. We strive for one goal: Self-Sustenance.

      It's not that we look down on people who are poor. Almost every American you ask will agree that a person isn't less of a person for being poorer than another. No, our real issue is with people who cannot live in a reasonably (note I did not say fully) self-sustaining manner. We do look down on people who /need/ handouts and who otherwise appear capable. We, as a society, don't begrudge people who cannot be self-sustaining, like children, some elderly, or the sick, as evidenced by our social programs to help those people. But our other social programs, like unemployment checks, welfare, and the such are time-limited.

      We firmly stand by our conviction that if you can become more self-sustaining, then you should.

      So you see, it isn't money which drives us. Money is just one way of many to gain a measure of self-sustenance. It's the desire to minimize our external dependencies. You can be dirt-poor in America, but grow your own food and manage your own needs and we will only admire you. Likewise, you can be filthy-rich in America but constantly seek government grants and the such ans we will despise you. This has it's own ancillary set of problems, but they are different from those that we would have if money were our obsession.

      I'm not making a judgement here as to whether that's better or worse than what you claimed, but rather just clarifying for you the real pathos of the American Dream.

      --
      -Tom
    11. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by weileong · · Score: 1

      It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich

      It's not just America. It's pretty much the same here in Singapore.

    12. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by ajs · · Score: 1

      It is important to note that Stallman's contributions to Computer Science and to software distribution are very different from his politics on the topics.

      Emacs, GCC and the GPL are massive accomplishments, and I'm grateful for these. That doesn't mean I have to respect his rants about GNU/Linux vs. Linux; his repeated villification of anyone who tries to build a business around free software; or his us-vs-them approach to most corporations.

      Is he eccentric? I've watched the man pick his nose with his chopsticks over dim sum and dance the halls of MIT for no decernable reason. Yeah, he's eccentric, but that's not my concern, I just don't feel compelled to be divisive and intolerant of mainstream software just because I respect free software and appreciate Stallman's contributions. I think that there's room enough in the world for both, and to claim otherwise is most of the reason for the free software / communism analogies that are so popular.

      Also, the idea of a man who finds it difficult not to chew on his hair doesn't see, like the ideal ambasador of ideas to India, but perhaps I'm being pettty there....

    13. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by eric2hill · · Score: 1

      Sir, if I had a mod point, it would be yours.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
      LOADING...
      READY.
      RUN
    14. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depriving us of our freedom...
      Now if it so happens that most of those doing just that happen to be Americans, particularly Americans in the current American Administration... tough luck. I am not anti-American. I am anti-pig. If the cloven hoof does not fit, by all means, do not wear it.

      It is never political to be against injustice. Fleeing "the Fatherland in the late 1930's wasn't political. It was simple survival and courage.... Criticizing it was certain suicide. So people voted with their feet while there was still time.

      Silence, in the name of "not talking about politics" is a form of intellectual repression, especially in the US. Not criticizing the "powers that be" there has become a matter of survival also.

      So let's all be silent, let Americans take over the WWW and make a business of it, let the US promote MS for US business interests abroad, let one of the most chauvinistic administrations spread its sick propaganda around the world until right-winged, war-mongers for financial interests pollute our own countries even more than our own irresponsible pigs have. But especially, let us not talk about corrupt American chauvinistic politics that affect us all... Let's all become as unthinking, un-critical Americans, afraid to speak out as their country becomes a police state for fear of having a red-neck's finger pointing in their direction to accuse them of being "the enemy" or "a potential terrorist threat. Let's let the US control world communications and world snooping in their battle against the fictitious "evil ones". Let's let them pollute one of the last bastions of freedom we have left-- the internet, and in general, freedom of expression around the world.

      One now famous phrase with which I happen to agree is: "If you're not with us, you're against us."
      I can proudly say, I'm against you...... even though ....
      things go better with Coke, American oil, American sanctions, and the American Zeitgeist.., and let us not forget with that great disseminator of "the American Way", Microsoft, the jewel in the crown of American business hegemony.

      Bruce Perens feels the biggest challenge to open source going forward is software patents. In the US, 50% to 95% of software patents should not be granted, he said, because they are not inventions and are written extremely broadly. He expects that after SCO suit is over, we'll see a number of patent lawsuits brought against Linux. Since one American intellectual property organization he cited estimates that it costs $2.5m for each side to fight a patent lawsuit, any such legal action could be crippling. So then this means that American legal actions will be crippling not only to Americans, but to the entire world...... unless.......

      Well, that is another form of American pollution. That is to say, patenting everything and claiming ownership of other people's work... The fact is that America may end up going its lonely way all by itself, with almost every other country in the world laughing at American laws, while making it a duty to disobey them...... I know I do every day, simply by obeying Canadian laws, as do citizens of nearly every other country in the world by obeying their own laws.

    15. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by clintp · · Score: 1
      Thirdly, his followers. The GNU movement has the trappings of a religion. [...] I don't much care for cults of personality
      "When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows." -- Reverend Mother Ramallo
      --
      Get off my lawn.
    16. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between being self-sustaining and valuing paid work above all else, and the latter seems to be common among Americans. There are obviously exceptions, and there are Americans who do volunteer work (although the ones I know are mostly retired).

      Consider someone with a well-paid job, who would like to negotiate something like a full month of vacation per year and a four-day work week, because he can live with a decent quality of life on 70% (just estimating) of the full-time salary and would like to use his spare time to write free software.

      What chance would he have of doing that in the US? How many people would consider him insane?

      The way US corporate culture pushes people to work (hardly any vacation per year, unpaid overtime for salaried employees) does seem to me fairly extreme. Common attitudes in slashdot threads include "because you're being paid to do X, you have no right to complain", "refusing to work for some employer on ethical grounds is immature" and other similar styles of commentary, none of which I've ever heard from a European.

    17. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by digital_franciscan · · Score: 1

      Amen, Brother. You've pretty well nailed it. OTOH, I think folks from other countries underestimate the yearning among sizable numbers of Americans to create an alternative to the money-grubbing culture. Unfortunately -- and you are quite right in this -- the penalties for straying from the offical line are absolutley horrific relative to, say, western Europe. Here in our winner-take-all society, if you don't pay attention to monetary rewards, you risk ending up in life-destroying, soul-sucking poverty. Our rulers have some very serious sticks to beat us with.

    18. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I believe that many people in the US have a very strong habit of labling anything that doesn't obviously have a $PROFIT motivation as being socialistic, communistic, or anti-American. The propoganda spread by the religious zealots, the US government, and by US corporations has made many Americans scared of anything that has the appearance of being socialistic, communistic, or anti-American. Remember that the propogandists get to choose what is socialistic, communistic, or anti-American. The rest of the world does not seem to have had the same level of socialist and communist aversion training as American citizens have had.

    19. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      But our other social programs, like unemployment checks, welfare, and the such are time-limited.

      The programs that provide "unemployment checks" are paid for out of your paycheck and not taxpayer monies. The amount you can get depends on the amount you were making (ie contributing) and the length of time you were employed.

      Considering this, it seems wrong to call "unemployment checks" a social program, and to equate "employment checks" with "welfare" checks.

      Someone who takes an unemployment check has met with an unpleasant surprise (the loss of their job). They take only from the funds that they contributed to. Someone who honestly receives unemployment checks for a short time should not feel any shame.

    20. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by caudron · · Score: 1

      What chance would he have of doing that in the US? How many people would consider him insane?

      Not many. I know a /large/ number of people who make the money/free time trade off in their jobs. As long as they can sustain themselves, no one says a word. The minute those same people ask for help, people will complain.

      Common attitudes in slashdot threads include "because you're being paid to do X, you have no right to complain", "refusing to work for some employer on ethical grounds is immature" and other similar styles of commentary, none of which I've ever heard from a European.

      Slashdot threads aren't a fair representation of the American public. Not by a long shot. Likewise, the media does a poor job of conveying the American people to the people of other nations. I've never heard a reasonable adult say such things in the workplace. Both suggest an immaturity on the part of the quoted person. As for never hearing such things from a European, all I can say is that you aren't reading the same slashdot posts as me. Still, I don't think that slashdot posts properly conveys any real understanding of the typical European or American.

      --
      -Tom
    21. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by caudron · · Score: 1

      The programs that provide "unemployment checks" are paid for out of your paycheck and not taxpayer monies. [...] Considering this, it seems wrong to call "unemployment checks" a social program, and to equate "employment checks" with "welfare" checks.

      I won't disagree that unemployment checks are in some ways qualitatively different from other forms of social welfare (I think you make a valid distinction), but to be clear, unemployment is not paid for out of your paycheck. It's paid for out of unemployment insurance that each employer must, by law, carry.

      The employee is not getting the money he put into the system. He's getting the money his employer put into the system as forced on them by our government. As a governmentally-enforced program designed to help those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, it seems to meet the criteria for a social program, albeit not one financed from our taxes.

      Someone who honestly receives unemployment checks for a short time should not feel any shame.

      As someone who has taking an unemployment check in the past, I should hope you are right! I can't tell if you are just making this observation or suggesting that I said otherwise, but so as to keep us on the same page here, re-reading my original post, you will note that I never said unemployment checks and welfare ought to be shameful, but that they are time-limited. We help people in need, but we do so with the intent of getting them back to a position of self-sustenance. They needn't feel shamed in America for drawing unemployment or welfare unless they intend to find some way to do so as a career. That, in the American public's opinion, would be shameful.

      --
      -Tom
    22. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the entire poinit of the original post was that. Mother Theresa would have starved living in the streets if she tried to do what she did in America. She wasnt lazy but she lived in poverty her whole life.

    23. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      The employee is not getting the money he put into the system. He's getting the money his employer put into the system as forced on them by our government.

      Tom, I agree with almost all of what you wrote, but regarding the text above, I must ask a rhetorical question. If you worked in a state that didn't require unemployment insurance--all other things being equal--wouldn't you expect a higher salary?

      It is true that it doesn't show up as a deduction on your paycheck. But your paycheck would be bigger if your employer did not have to pay it. I believe it is even tied to the number of employees that an employer hires. That would make an even more direct relationship, but don't quote me on it.

    24. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by Nept · · Score: 1

      well said.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    25. Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy? by glitchvern · · Score: 1
      A very old proverb says that "it's hard to be a prophet in one's own land."


      "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
      --Matthew 13:56-58
      Which I think is sometimes translated as:
      "Only amongst his own people is a prophet without honor", which is my favorite version of the proverb.

      It can also be found in Mark 6:4.
  31. Re:Outsource by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

    Hail RMS. Damnit this paint is sold, i want to buy it but it is sold. Why hath i forseen this?!

  32. Stupid people say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid people say "if you're so smart how come you're not rich?"

    Smart people say "because that wealth which you in your ignorance imagine has value has no actual value."

  33. Re:That explains it! by C10H14N2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perhaps because we've seen over a million jobs lost just after granting a roughly equal number of H1-B visas in one industry followed by our trade deficit doubling in less than two years. Yeah, that might be it.

    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one is out to get you.

  34. Help me Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    (Slightly off topic, but related to the GPL).

    As a programmer, how can I make a living from open-source software? If I have an idea, some code - and put together a product - how do I keep a roof over my head? The problem is that seems to have become impossible to launch a new software product.

    * If you go commercial, nobody cares because a thousand open source alternatives will spring up.
    * If you go commercial open source, one person will buy it - and everybody else will get it for free from them.
    * If you go open source, nobody wants to pay for support.

    My assertions are:

    * Open source = good.
    * Programming full-time = good (I was laid off at the end of January).
    * Making a living from programming open source software full-time = ??? how ???

    Slashdotters, help me here - how could I launch a new software product - that I open the source to under the GPL - yet still make enough money to pay my rent?

    (Note that this product would be for end-users, corporations would not be interested - and charging for support and charging for special features would probably be impossible.)

    1. Re:Help me Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      * If you go commercial open source, one person will buy it - and everybody else will get it for free from them
      Ah, so that explains why RedHat only sold a single copy of RedHat Linux...
    2. Re:Help me Slashdot. by azzy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No one would want to use your software as it would be full of bugs from mistaken use of '=' when you meant to use '=='. So don't worry about it.

    3. Re:Help me Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flawed.

      It's simply because not everybody can afford to host/download 1 GB anytime he wants.

      Try the same thing with smaller programs (like less than 10 MB). Sure, you'll get donations and a some few sales. Now try to think an economy of many thousands of programmers living on that...

    4. Re:Help me Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be paid to produce software your company needs or modify other software to suit it. Depending on the product, being paid just once for making it could also be viable, but that would be pretty large scale projects, most likely.

      The first of these assumes that you are employed, and the last one will probably require more than one person.

      Depending on the government I guess it would be possible to be paid by it, based on the popularity of your program, like some poets and painters are paid some places. That would encourage people to make their software more available instead of trying to restrict the distribution as the current model based on selling licenses does.

  35. A few things about India by arvindn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    India is more left leaning on the "Free software" vs. "open source" question than the US. One reason is definitely the colonial past.

    Communism is not a bad word here. In fact there are a couple of states which have had communist governments for much of their existence. Naturally this contributes to linux's popularity. Now don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is that the idea of sharing appeals to communists.

    Our president is a cool guy. As someone already pointed out, the president is not a political figure in India. But Kalam is a respected person and gives a lot of speeches and many people listen to him etc.

    Linux usage in India is definitely rather high. The obvious reason is that there are more programmers ==> more nerds etc. But its far from the only reason. Even though unauthorized copying (I won't use the p-word) is very prevalent, those buying a branded PC will still have to pay for Windows. This is a big factor in the cost conscious Indian market. So in the last 8 months, the number of OEMs pre-loading linux has exploded. Today half the PC ads I see in the paper are MS-free! I can also feel the change at the grassroots level -- neighbors, tech support etc.

    The future looks bright.

    1. Re:A few things about India by provocative · · Score: 0
      The future looks bright

      For whom? yes, Linux is making huge inroads into India, but that is mainly because of the cost benefits, not because they like open source. Of course, there are a lot of people who do like contributing to open source projects, but most of the people and companies will install Linux because it's free (as in beer) and then make software that's not free (either as in beer or as in freedom).

      Indian tech industry is not terribly high paying, so why would a programmer miss out on the chance earning some buck from his product? and yes, he definitely has a better chance of making money by keeping his product closed source.

      So if everyone in India started using Linux, and then produced closed source software, would RMS and Linus call that a victory for OSS? OSS does not have a future in a developing market like India.

    2. Re:A few things about India by TwistedSquare · · Score: 2, Interesting
      OSS does not have a future in a developing market like India.

      It depends on the ethos there. Over in the UK and the US very few companies (as in software houses) create OSS. A lot of people do work on OSS in their spare time, and of course companies like RedHat use OSS but the vast majority of third-party software is closed-source. So if India is even slightly freer in their thinking than here then they will probably contribute more to OSS.

    3. Re:A few things about India by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I'm afraid that you are also being used by fat bloated corporations purely because you do not expect to earn as high a salary as people in Europe and the US do - no different to the concept of a "sweatshop" in that sense.

      In today's world of advanced communications and the Internet, it is irrelevant where in the world you are located, particularly if you're involved in software programming or support where files can be whisked to the other side of the world in milliseconds.

      In other words, you are paid less for doing as good or better a job than one of your European or American counterparts.

      In simplistic terms, that sounds to me like pay equality and racial harmony has just gone "out of the window" in favour of company profits and you're just being used so that a fat CEO somewhere can get his new company jet.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:A few things about India by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, you are paid less for doing as good or better a job than one of your European or American counterparts.

      Who is better off? The man who agrees to work for $5/hr, or the man who expects $20/hr and can't find a job?

    5. Re:A few things about India by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Who is better off? The man who agrees to work for $5/hr, or the man who expects $20/hr and can't find a job?

      The man that gets paid a fair wage for the job he does and earns enough to pay his mortgage and feed his family.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    6. Re:A few things about India by awol · · Score: 1

      But beyond even that, India's break from colonialism was driven by a movement to reject external products and focus on the "internal" resources of India. In particular, the cotton industry.

      The parallel with Free Software is powerful. I am not sure just how Ghandi's movement is viewed in today's India, but if is positive then this is an agenda that should be very successful at allowing India to once again internalise the proceeds of their economy, a very powerful tool in an economy such as theirs.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    7. Re:A few things about India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man that gets paid a fair wage for the job he does and earns enough to pay his mortgage and feed his family.

      In India the wage needed to pay your mortgage and feed your family is lower then the wage needed to do the same in the US. And if it's doing work I like for a wage I find agreeable then yes that's very fair.

    8. Re:A few things about India by aakash.rit · · Score: 1

      Everyone make software for selfuse!! (that was what the drive for cotton then :-) With India being part of globalization drive, even if they decide to do such a drive again its hard to survive due to presence of global companies. And again to convenience people for such a drive you need another "Gandhi" :-)

    9. Re:A few things about India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a software engineer in India, with a personal lifestyle equivalent or better than most american software engineers (low living costs, you see? for example, I rent a plush 3 bedroom apartment,fully furnished, and it costs me Rs 12000 a month. That is approximately $250 a month, and its in prime location), I certainly wouldn't call this a sweat shop. In american dollars, we might not be making much money, but we make a LOT of money in indian currency.

    10. Re:A few things about India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See if you go for a lunch today (in US/UK), u expect to pull out at least if not more $5 .. I spend 50 cents for my lunch in india. So I am pretty happy with my $5/hr.

    11. Re:A few things about India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure just how Ghandi's movement is viewed in today's India

      Do u know that India still has not invaded any country in this world, in god know how many years of its existence--this is gandhis teachings, Satyagraha.

  36. Surname by vpscolo · · Score: 2, Funny

    has no one else noticed the surname of the author?

    By Sandeep Dikshit

    I would almost say a this is a troll article if it wasn't so positive

    Rus

    1. Re:Surname by provocative · · Score: 2, Funny
      so by your logic, anything said by 'Dick Stallman' would be troll.. eh?

      Dikshit is a pretty common Indian surname.. Just for fun, try to find out what 'Rus' means in hindi.

    2. Re:Surname by WhoDaresWins · · Score: 2, Informative
      has no one else noticed the surname of the author?
      By Sandeep Dikshit
      I would almost say a this is a troll article if it wasn't so positive
      Well I can understand how a surname like Dikshit would sound strange to an American, but its a common surname in India and pronounced quite differently from what it might appear. Its not pronounced as Dick Shit but rather as Deekshit where the 'd' and 't' are soft (The 'd' is pronounced like the word "thee" as in the old English thou) so it would be like "thee kshith". Quite a few Indians prefer the alternative spelling Dixit. I suppose the ancestor of one of those Indians knew enough English and foresight to choose an alternative way of spelling it :)
    3. Re:Surname by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dikshit is a pretty common Indian surname.. Just for fun, try to find out what 'Rus' means in hindi.

      Who gives a dikshit?

    4. Re:Surname by jonasj · · Score: 1

      That's not all, have you noticed what happens if you remove the first three letters from the first name and the surname?

      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  37. India on the ball by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, India's president is an engineering PhD. We have George Bush, a C student who had his wealthy family get him his position.

    India puts a good deal of emphasis on producing engineers. Surprise -- India is improving its lot at a stunning rate.

    Plenty of things are wrong with India, but we could take a lesson from it as well.

    1. Re:India on the ball by crsgrg · · Score: 1


      India also has huge and institutionalized lower class that is largely illiterate, and a very corrupt (also institutionalized) government and business infrastructure. There have been improvments in both areas over the years, but there is a long long way to go before they catch up with "here".

      The engineers they produce enjoy life at the high end of the upper middle class. The "emphasis" you refer to is based on societal preference for an education that leads to a recognized profession (doctor, lawyer, teacher, engineer...) or a career that pays well (programming and systems design, which btw, are not engineering disciplines).

      What lesson do you suggest "we" take from them - making call centre and telemarketing operator a respected and highly rewarding career choice?

  38. PhD? by margal · · Score: 1

    Since when has Stallman been a PhD? If he is, I must have never noticed. I was under the impression he had a BA in Physics. Also, you'd think in an article about RMS, they'd get it right, and refer to Free Software, rather than open source.

    1. Re:PhD? by provocative · · Score: 2, Informative
      From www.stallman.org:

      In 2001 he received a second honorary doctorate, from the University of Glasgow

    2. Re:PhD? by provocative · · Score: 1

      in 1996 an honorary doctorate from the royal institute of Technology in Sweden

    3. Re:PhD? by margal · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks. It's a little vein to be referred to as Dr. with an honorary doctorate, don't you think? I guess that's why he doesn't. I wonder why the journalist chose too? DRMS... hmm.

    4. Re:PhD? by daveangel · · Score: 1

      maybe they looked it up in a dictonary? The online Merriam-Webster dictionary provides the following definitions for the word "doctor" when used as a noun: 1. a: an eminent theologian declared a sound expounder of doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church--called also doctor of the church b a learned or authoritative teacher c a person who has earned one of the highest academic degrees (as a Ph.D.) conferred by a university d a person awarded an honorary doctorate (as an LLD or Litt D) by a college or university

    5. Re:PhD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it seems a bit weird to me as well, but on the other hand, isn't the point of an honorary doctorate to reward worthy intellectual work performed outside the academic context? In any case it's not supposed to be a mere merit badge awarded at the whim of the university board, even though that's what is sometimes looks like.

  39. Jesuit Alumni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his views and leanings have a lot of bearing on the political decision-making process.

    Abdul Kalam being a Jesuit Alumni, I would say that its basically the Jesuits which influence his views and leanings. Jesuits have a long history of being at the front of many important matters and are often found at influential positions.

    Surely they (or someone in their hierarchies) recognize the significance of a certain philosophy, only they apply a worldview on a much larger picture than your average slashdotter does. It comes with their Cosmo-political thinking. It is funny to see what influence the Vatican can have over free source matters, at least in India.

    1. Re:Jesuit Alumni by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To say that Dr. Kalam's thinking is influenced by his college days is too simplistic. The Indian landscape is home to multiple religions, faiths and beliefs, much like the GNU/Linux world where several strnds and flavours exist.

      His belonging to one particular strand at one particular point in time does not have any bearing to his thought-process at all. Most Indian political leaders have often advocated tolerance and respect to diversity, and believe that true freedom implies shunning mono-cultures.

      In short, moving from a particular brand of proprietary code (Microsoft) to a particular model of Linux (say GNU) isn't good for any country let alone India. Dr.Kalam seems to have understood this fact more clearly than most other heads - be they political, religious or ideological.

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:Jesuit Alumni by janbjurstrom · · Score: 1

      I agree with the sentiment (diversity = a Good Thing), but equating Microsoft with GNU/Linux? That's wrong on soo many levels..

      --
      668.5
    3. Re:Jesuit Alumni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His belonging to one particular strand at one particular point in time does not have any bearing to his thought-process at all.

      The younger a man's mind, the more influence it will have later on in his life. That is not to say one might attempt to distance himself later on. It can however effect how a man gets at high places in the first place. Agreed, it *might* not have that much effect on his thoughts anymore.

      The Indian landscape is home to multiple religions, faiths and beliefs, much like the GNU/Linux world where several strnds and flavours exist.

      I disagree. with software its basically a practical problem, e.a. what software license best suits a certain piece of software? This is irrelevant to any faith or belief system (applied to Open Source licenses). If one based the decision of what license to apply on a faith or belief system, he/she is not being practical where practical thinking should be applied. Choosing a GPL license over a BSD license is most likely based on practical reasoning.

      Co-existence of different license strands are merely technical details "serving" the one "belief" in Open Source. If license strands collide, problems arise out of technical incompatibilities which are not conflicting belief systems.

      In short, moving from a particular brand of proprietary code (Microsoft) to a particular model of Linux (say GNU) isn't good for any country let alone India. Dr.Kalam seems to have understood this fact more clearly than most other heads - be they political, religious or ideological.

      So is he suggesting to stay with Microsoft as long as Linux is based on GNU? What choice does he really have? Create a new system and license? Perhaps he is taking an ideological approach where Stallman is already offering a practical solution - open to improvement.

    4. Re:Jesuit Alumni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Indian political leaders have often advocated tolerance and respect to diversity, and believe that true freedom implies shunning mono-cultures.

      What are you smoking? The only Indian political leaders that are getting any real media coverage at the moment are Hindu nationalists refusing to condemn anti-Muslim violence and supporting an aggressive policy on Kashmir.

    5. Re:Jesuit Alumni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only Indian political leaders that are getting any real media coverage at the moment are Hindu nationalists refusing to condemn anti-Muslim violence and supporting an aggressive policy on Kashmir." Whose problem is that? If US media choses to cover only such politicians, you will know of such politicians. BTW, the recent spurt of Tech growth, anti-terror support to US, peace initiatives are all done by the govt you are told are 'hindu nationalsits'. So I guess it is your ignorance and media hype that is the real problem.

    6. Re:Jesuit Alumni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have read any of his books on future vision on India you will he is heavily influenced by Hindu philosophy and quotes from relevant books a lot. Being Muslim he quotes from Quran too. In fact, he said, to highlight his education was in a Jesuit college, the only Ph D is guiding while in presidents office is of a Jesuist priest doing some work in Physics.

  40. Restrictive? by zCyl · · Score: 1

    The GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses software is published under.

    If you call "This is mine, but you can use it for free to do anything you want. If you agree to share, it can be yours too." a restrictive license.

    1. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.
      In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.
      The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.

    2. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suppose you are developping a big application and are using a single GPL'd function or a single line of GPL'd code....
      In that case you have the following possibilities:

      - You are just plain lazy. You have the resources to write or have written a large chunk of code and could have written that last line/function as well.
      Having to obey the license is just the price for your lazieness.

      - The GPL'd code is just brilliant and it would have cost you a lot to replicate it. In that case that line/function ceases to be just a line or just a function but becomes an important part of your program. Having to obey the license is the price for saving you a lot of work.

      There simply is no excuse for using someone elses work and not respecting the license they chose.
      If you don't like the license don't use the code.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure, I am just plain lazy. Thanks for the ad hominem. My reasons for wanting to use the GPL'd code are not relevant. Either it's free, or it's not. And it could be more than a single function, it was just an example. Maybe it's a library or something. A nice library that allows me to interoperate nicely with other software. Imagine that. Oh, so I should stop being lazy and reinvent the wheel? Nice new argument for that.
      I understand the GPL, thankyouverymuch. You don't actually address my point that although the GPL'd code may be valuable, it may not be as valuable as my entire source base. And I know the GPL allows the copyright owner to license the code to me under a parallel non-GPL agreement. But that seems a bit clunky to me. I'd be happy with a BSD style licence.
      I don't respect the GPL, because I have the aforementioned issues with it. You appear to have misunderstood me, however. I don't "steal" GPL'd code (whatever that would mean). So your "If you don't like the license don't use the code." is needless and patronising.

    4. Re:Restrictive? by Salsaman · · Score: 1
      Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base.

      This wrong in many ways. First, the GPL places no restrictions on the USE of code; only if you distribute that GPL code yourself are you required to make it and any derivative works available.

      Second, the GPL of course can only cover derivative works. If you use a GPL function in some code, and you distribute that code, then that code and that code only must be GPL'd. The rest of your programs can still be released under any license you want.

      And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !

    5. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, insightful? wake up modkids.

      Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.

      In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it. What are you, some kind of kooky communist? Don't use the GPL'd stuff if you don't want to pay for it, don't use Visual Studio if you don't want to pay for it.

      In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.

      If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else. That's the sense of "having it" that's important. Idea monopolies artificially raise the price of information.

      The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.

      You warty troll. The GPL has but one restriction- don't use GPL'd software in the creation of proprietary software. This restriction has special network effects: it reduces the freedom of any one party from reducing the freedom of everyone else. The GPL only restricts restrictions, that's a net gain for "unrestricted" software.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    6. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      "...only if you distribute..."
      I know that. Duh. But if I use it I might want to redistribute it. And I would be effectively restricted from doing so. So don't try to lecture me on the ins and outs of the GPL, because I'm not a noob.
      "...that code only must be GPL'd."
      Which could be a lot of code, which was my point. Yes, you could come up with scenarios in which it wasn't my entire code base, but you're nitpicking.
      "And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !"
      Uh, well, I do. But thanks for jumping on the patronising bandwagon.

    7. Re:Restrictive? by papik · · Score: 1
      Either it's free, or it's not.

      Ok, then GPL isn't free.

      You don't actually address my point that although the GPL'd code may be valuable, it may not be as valuable as my entire source base.

      Then pay form some other equivalent proprietary library/function that lets your source closed. I don't see any issue.

    8. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it.

      Precisely. Thanks for making my point. There are many scenarios in which it is clearly not worth it.

      Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.

      As I have already pointed out multiple times, I don't use GPL'd code so stop telling me not to use it.

      If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else.

      Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.

      You warty troll.

      I'm not trolling. I develop closed source software (games) and I have issues with the GPL such that I can't use GPL'd code. Simple as that. I'm just trying to put my opinion. Shame on you if you have to use such namecalling tactics rather than debate the issues in a civil manner.

      Freedom is all well and good, and as I said, I'm not against a bit of "share and share alike". It's the "alike" bit that the GPL doesn't address.

    9. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Ok, then GPL isn't free.

      Thanks, that was my original point ;-)

      Then pay form some other equivalent proprietary library/function that lets your source closed.

      If you read my post, you'll see that I did address that. It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing. I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.

    10. Re:Restrictive? by slash-tard · · Score: 1

      You GPL people miss the point. With the BSD license a company can take the open source product "X version 5" and make a commercial product from it. "X version 5" is still BSD and the open source coders lose nothing except what the commercial entity added. People are still free to continue to improve it and do whatever they want with it. With the GPL the commercial company would have to release everything.

      Like the other poster said, if you just want to use a small 1 function snippet or library you now have to release everything, even if you dont change the original.

      People always complain about MS "stealing" BSD networking code, well does the MS tcp/ip stack work better than BSD? No, it doesnt, it could be argued that we have better interoperability thanks to them using it as a foundation.

      The parent poster and I are NOT bashing the GPL, we are just pointing out that it is NOT free and without restriction.

    11. Re:Restrictive? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.

      Compared to what happens when you use a function from other companies' proprietry code?

      Anyway, you don't have to give away the whole codebase. Just re-write the function. If you've got gazillions of lines of secret code, why would you want to save 10 seconds by copying a GPL function?

    12. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts.

      Most software isn't free as in beer. You have a choice of how to pay for it. Will you pay in money or in source code? That's the proprietary / GPL difference.

      it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing.

      They aren't. They're paying in source code. You can pay in source code too, if you like. Or you can just not use the GPL library.

      I really don't understand your problem. You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it.

      Here's a clue: the GPL is not taking away your freedom to use that library - it is giving you the freedom to use that library, if you agree not to take that freedom away from anyone else.

      Maybe you should be thanking the authors for making it possible for those who can't afford huge license fees to write software, instead of cursing them for preventing you from charging huge license fees for their software.

    13. Re:Restrictive? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Thanks for making my point. There are many scenarios in which it is clearly not worth it.

      Well, it seems to be awfully popular, so I guess there are also many scenarios in which it IS worth it...


      Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.


      I never understood the whole "GPL is communist" thing. Communists did not invent the concept of "sharing", so why it is that everything that remotely seems about sharing and not greed is labeled "communist"?

      As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.

      That is a valid point, but it it is easy to counter with "if you don't like it, don't use GPL code". I release code as GPL, LGPL, and BSD depending on which I feel is most suitable for the particular project, so I would never tell anyone else what license they should use. Just respect whatever license was used and move on. If something you want is GPL'd and you can't use it, rewrite it from scratch under a BSD license :)

      Finkployd

    14. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not trolling.

      Yeah, right. You're just posting off-topic anti-GPL rants in a thread about RMS's visit to India. If that's not trolling I'd like to know what is.

      I'm not against a bit of "share and share alike". It's the "alike" bit that the GPL doesn't address.

      I'm sorry? It's precisely the "alike" bit the GPL addresses. They share with you, and in return you share back with them. If you used their source code in one of your proprietary games, you would NOT be giving anything back to them, and therefore you would not be sharing alike.

    15. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.

      This is a common misconception. Look, just because someone dresses like a hippy doesn't mean they're a communist. Stallman is the ultimate capitalist, he thinks the market should set the price of ideas without the government creating monopolies in that space. You tell me what part of Stallman's philosophy (rather than his appearance) is anything but capitalist and we'll have a discussion.

      Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code

      That's not what you originally said, you said if you steal the code, not if you make modifications to it.

      I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.

      I've lost the right to write the same code, especially if you've patented your enhancements. But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.

      Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements. If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms. I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.

      Imagine I bequeath a free library to the public with the condition that it can never sell books, only lend them. You build a bookstore annex on my public library and make deals with the book industry so that you'll get enough copies of all the new releases to sell, but the library can't buy enough to meet lending demand. You've done something very ugly. You've unfairly (although not illegally) capitalized on the goodwill that the bookstore created by making it harder for the free book community to thrive.

      You may not agree with me that this would be a bad thing. But if I build that library with my own labor you ought to respect my wishes if you expect me to respect yours.

      People who say the GPL is restrictive seem to imagine that there's only one person in the world, and it's always themselves. "The GPL unfairly restricts my ability to profit off of your work." Waaah.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    16. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      The parent poster and I are NOT bashing the GPL, we are just pointing out that it is NOT free and without restriction.

      Your point is misleading, because it's only true in a world with only one person. In any world with more than one person, the GPL creates at least as much freedom as it restricts - i.e., the proprietary developer loses the right to develop a particular extension, and everyone else gains that right.

      Put simply, the only "freedom" the GPL restricts is the restriction of freedom.

      BSD license allows you to extend a piece of code and patent or copyright or saturate the market with your proprietary enhancement in ways that make free competition difficult. Given the network effects involved in the use of software protocols, proprietary enhancements often become mandatory.

      Microsoft didn't extinguish the BSD tcp/ip stack because they continue to profit off of the free work that the BSD folks do, since the license allows them to pick whatever they want and not have to pay for any of the development. This is not the same as arguing that they couldn't or wouldn't if it suited their interest. If Microsoft ever really took a significant majority of the server market, I think all of the sudden you'd see some standards bodies approve Microsoft patented mandatory enhancements to the TCP/IP stack emerge, and the BSD folk would just stand there slack-jawed and wondering as their vaunted interoperability became a felony.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    17. Re:Restrictive? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      You know, you're getting all pissy at these people, but let's face it - you're really just whining that someone who took the time to write something isn't letting you do whatever you want with it, and that's why you got the responses you did.

      It really is as simple as "the author of the code can tell you how you can and can't use it so fooey on you if you don't like it". The GPL is NOT restrictive. You can use it for anything you damn well please as long as you don't redistribute it. But, if you're going to give away or sell YOUR code, you're also going to be giving away or selling SOMEONE ELSE'S code. How is saying "if you redistribute MY code, you have to share the whole system" any different than saying "if you give away MY code you have to pay me for it"? They're both just terms of use, and if it doesn't fit the situation, you don't use it. Use a hammer to pound nails and a screwdriver to turn screws, it's just a matter of picking the right tools for the job. But don't sit there and claim that because the GPL has restrictions on DISTRIBUTION while most proprietary systems have restrictions on USE AND DISTRIBUTION that the GPL is somehow MORE restrictive. If you don't like the terms of the GPL, fine - say so. But don't sit there claiming that it's somehow inferior because it places restricions on how other people's code can be used. That's the whole purpose of licensing, and the GPL is just different, not necessarily worse or better in any universal way.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    18. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy with a BSD style licence

      So provide some arguments to the guys (like me) writing gpl'd software why they should use the BSD license instead.
      Sofar 'I wan't to use it like all the other good kiddies but don't want to have to do anything for it' is not convincing me to use another license.
      In fact you have reasured me that choosing the GPL for my software was the right thing to do to keep obvious parasites like you away from it.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    19. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      They're paying in source code.

      That's fine, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of my entire "derivative work" being worth more than the small amount of code I borrowed. And it probably isn't a "derivative work" in any reasonable sense.

      I really don't understand your problem.

      Clearly.

      You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it.

      Are you a farmer? 'Cos I was wondering where you get all that straw. Not only did I not say that, I said "I don't steal GPL'd code". Because although I don't respect the GPL in the "respect has to be earned" sense, I do respect it in terms of "OK then, I'll continue to write my own code." I'm in favour of sharing, but I can't get involved with GPL'd stuff.

      Actually many great Open Source projects have IMHO better licences, so it's not all bad.

      I've already asked people to stop lecturing me on what the GPL says and what it doesn't. I don't need your "clues".

      I don't charge for other people's software, I charge for mine. If I used a bit of someone else's, aiight, but that's a separate issue to be worked out. I didn't curse anyone. Perhaps you're replying to that straw man over there -->

    20. Re:Restrictive? by PyromanFO · · Score: 1
      If you read my post, you'll see that I did address that. It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing. I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.

      Okay, so let me get this straight. You feel that explicit licensing is clunky and that people seem to charge ridiculous amounts. Yet you also are arguing this for including free code into your proprietary code? Are you serious? "Properietary licenses are clunky and ridiculously priced. I want to be able to take your code for free and then charge you a ridiculous price through a clunky proprietary license! GPL isn't free if it won't let me do that!"

      I can see arguments for the BSD license but it just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You're fighting for your right to release a proprietary product but when the GPL guys do it it's clunky and overpriced. Sure.
    21. Re:Restrictive? by Christopher+Whitt · · Score: 1

      You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.

      I don't know about everybody else, but at least this makes your complaint a little clearer to me. Here's how I understand your position:

      You would like to take GPL code to enhance your proprietary code, and redistribute the GPL code with your proprietary code without restriction. You are willing to share any enhancements you make to the GPL code, and you feel that this should be enough for the GPL code's authors. By preventing you from using GPL code in this scenario, the code's authors are unfair and restrictive.

      That's an interesting position, and one that I don't often hear, if I've understood you correctly (though perhaps it occurs more often and just isn't clearly articulated). Perhaps it's only interesting to me, maybe others have long ago thought about this scenario and dismissed it, but I'm willing to give it an honest discussion.

      My gut feeling, though, is that your scenario falls more on the side of unfairly using the GPL code for profit, and there's not enough in it for the original authors.

      Also, I always felt the GPL was at least partially to protect the freedom of the user to see the workings of software they use, and to freely modify, fix and improve software that they legally acquire. Your scenario precludes this freedom.

      There are also practical issues: without context, any patches you submit to the original authors are likely to be confusing, with no clear reason or benefit. Your system also depends on your honor to hold up your end of the bargain.

      Finally, as another poster mentions, it seems that this scenario would make it easier for potential malicious parties to prey on GPL authors by engineering suspicious circumstances and bringing superficially plausible but actually groundless lawsuits that GPL authors can't afford to defend.

      Am I missing anything?

    22. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      So provide some arguments to the guys (like me) writing gpl'd software why they should use the BSD license instead.

      Why should I? I'm not trying to stop you from using the GPL. It makes it extremely unlikely that people like me can use your work, but that's up to you. We will just continue to write our own code. It's unfortunate that we can't share our resources, but there you go.

      'I wan't to use it like all the other good kiddies but don't want to have to do anything for it'

      I do hope you're not suggesting I said that.

      In fact you have reasured me that choosing the GPL for my software was the right thing to do to keep obvious parasites like you away from it.

      Oh, so you are suggesting it. And up pops another ad hominem. Oh well, I have laid out my real position up there ^^^ in the rest of the thread. If you want to score points against the straw man, that's between you and him. Leave me out of it.

    23. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Why are you looking at me? The straw man is over there -->

      I don't want to take your code for free, just for a fair price. And I'm not "taking" it. You still have it. You're hardly going to buy it back from me, are you? Be serious yourself.

      The overpriced thing was just a feeling I got, I mean it's not the normal thing. Most people either go GPL properly, or write their own code. Then you get people who ignore the GPL and use it anyway (not me, in case you're as confused as others in this thread). And you have people who dual license on an individual basis. Because it's up to the copyright owner to set a price, and because they probably don't actually do it much, there are not too many data points around. I do remember Qt (which isn't GPL but had dual licensing) going for frankly absurd money. Basically, it's like "yes you can pay for it, snigger, but you're going to get punished for not following my ideology" followed by "think of a number", "double it if you're developing for Win32", and "quadruple it if you're Microsoft."

    24. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems to be awfully popular, so I guess there are also many scenarios in which it IS worth it...

      Sure, I guess. I'm not arguing against that.

      Heh, look, I wasn't the one to bring up "communist"...

      That is a valid point, but it it is easy to counter with "if you don't like it, don't use GPL code".

      And that is easy to counter with "I don't, as I have already said a quazillion times in this thread. However, as I have also said, I am not against sharing, in fact I wish I could share, but I cannot get involved with GPL'd code. For me, therefore, the GPL is restrictive."

    25. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      The GPL is off-topic in a thread about RMS?

      And I'm not being anti-GPL in the way you mean it. I responded to some guy saying it wasn't restrictive. I've given my opinion, which is that it is restrictive. That's not trolling, but you wouldn't be the first net.user to fail to grasp the meaning of the word.

      As for your last comments, you're just restricting the scope of the word "alike".

    26. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Oh well, I have laid out my real position up there ^^^ in the rest of the thread

      The only other thing I saw from you in this thread was a pissing contest about whose code was more valuable.... which brings us back to my first post, either the gpl'd part are less valuable or less original than yours and you are just lazy to use it instead of providing it yourself or it is more valuable in which case you are paing a price for not having to implement a major part of your program.

      I still get the impression from you you want substantial parts of code from others and you might just share a bit back if they ask nicely and you are in a good mood.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    27. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Compared to what happens when you use a function from other companies' proprietry code?

      We could do a deal. A fair deal.

      Just re-write the function.

      Well, that's what we do, of course. If it's just a function... Not a big deal. But somewhere the GPL has to draw a line, doesn't it?

    28. Re:Restrictive? by Karn · · Score: 1


      Yes, it is restrictive.


      More restrictive than not having the source code at all? If you consider all software, all licenses, GPL is most certainly on the free side of things. No, it's not the same as having total freedom, since it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications, but for most modifiers and 100% of GPL software users it is absolutely free.

      If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct. Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    29. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      I'm not getting pissy at all ;-) I give as good as I get, if that's what you mean.
      I'm not whining about anything! Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully.
      First, you need to realise that I'm not actually using any GPL'd code. Second, if I sold a product with GPL'd code in it, that part would be free. It would be available elsewhere for free, and of course I would fulfil my obligation to provide the source code yadda yadda.
      Hehe, the straw man agruments are out in full effect today. Nowhere, my friend, did I say that the GPL was inferior to any particular licence, and I said nothing about proprietary licences. I did say that the GPL is restrictive, because it clearly is, and that proprietary software can't easily mix with it, which makes it unfavourable to me and many others.

    30. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      The only other thing I saw from you in this thread was a pissing contest about whose code was more valuable....

      Sigh... It wasn't a "pissing contest". You are trying to make emotional arguments where there should be none. Did you see where I said "may not be as valuable"? That is because it would depend on the situation. I am talking about particular hypothetical situations. You are trying to extend that to all situations, and make it look like I'm saying "my code is, in general, better than yours". Well, I'm not saying anything like that. Please, if you want to argue with the straw man, go elsewhere.

      I still get the impression from you you want substantial parts of code from others

      Well, that's nice, but you didn't get it from me.

      you might just share a bit back if they ask nicely and you are in a good mood.

      No, I want a fair deal.

    31. Re:Restrictive? by MichaelIhde · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm confused. But isn't the LGPL license designed to allow proprietary code to link into a "single GPL'd function" without forcing the developer to give away all his proprietary code? Now...I understand that maybe the code you want is under the GPL, well then you are correct. Maybe you can convience the orignal developer to release it to you under LGPL for a small fee? Wha la. So they won't do that. Fine. If you are making money off your software you should have the resources to either buy code from someone else or make it yourself. But you are right in the end. The GPL is restrictive, in favor of the original developers. I'll take that any day before I allow someone to simply use my code without prejudice. I believe the GPL is briliant in one respect. If you want to use it in proprietary software, you can pay the original copyright holders to give you a different license, thereby giving commericalism!! (yes, yes, I know it may be hard to get all the copyright holders in certian projects to agree). However, if you would prefer to save your money all you have to do is contribute back by releasing your software under GPL, communism!! Of course, I may just be speaking out of the wrong hole. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not guaranting that I know the finer points of the GPL. Just MHO from the perspective of a user and developer. ~Michael

    32. Re:Restrictive? by immytay · · Score: 1

      One thing I have trouble understanding is how companies like Redhat and SUSE can sell a package that mainly consists of open source code. I don't really object because I like their products, but how is it different than selling a single proprietary program that has a GPL'd function. I don't see how selling a CD with one executable is that different from selling a CD with multiple executables.

    33. Re:Restrictive? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully.

      Eh - it would appear the battle branched off in more places, but I did since find your other posts.

      Here's where I'm picking up the suggestion about inferiority:

      I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.

      Are you telling me that saying the GPL doesn't work as a fair deal isn't suggesting inferiority? I'd say that if a license agreement doesn't provide a "fair deal" for the developer/end user then it is indeed inferior. Would you disagree?

      ...being worth more than the small amount of code I borrowed.

      Here's the crux of the problem, though it's already been addressed elsewhere by both you and another poster ([OTHER POSTER] if you're only using that little bit write your own [YOU] I do.)

      I just don't see how you feel it's restrictive unless you mean "restrictive in the same sense almost all other licenses are". It's not more restrictive than having to purchase a proprietary library. If you use one specialised function from a performance library of 150 functions, you still have to buy the whole library - your whole code becomes obligated to those terms. Ditto for the GPL - if you use one GPL'ed function, your whole code becomes obligated to the GPL. It's not especially restrictive, and since you can use it however you want as long as you don't redistribute, I'd say it's LESS restrictive than most prop library agreements where you have to pay whether you distribute or not.

      Again - different tools for different jobs. It's not more restrictive and I'll aruge that it's LESS restricitve - but it's DEFINITELY restrictive in a different way where it is restrictive. I would certainly take STRONG exception with the post way at the top of this thread that you appeared to initially be backing up where the poster said that it was "one of the most" restrictive licenses.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    34. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Well, you're basically describing the LGPL. That's OK, although RMS (hey look! on-topic!) isn't as mad keen for it. He prefers the GPL, and I understand why, but you can see that it's not for everyone, right? I didn't say the GPL would be unfair in that situation, but it certainly could be. It would depend on the circumstances.

      I'm staying away from all the GPL'd code so I'm not unfairly doing anything. I just think it's a shame we can't share. I also think it's no sin to profit off something, and if the original authors wanted to, they could have, and still can.

      Open Source is another issue. There are plenty of Open Source licences that are not the GPL. There are lots of interesting Open Source projects that us game programmers can use and be involved with. Python, zlib, all sorts. Great stuff. I also understand that you want to look at my "secret code", and that's understandable, I mean I'm a curious guy as well. I spent many of my earlier years disassembling games on my Commodore Plus/4 to find out how they worked.

      But at the end of the day, game development is a highly competitive business. It might be nice if we could all have open source, but it doesn't seem like an evolutionary stable strategy. There's always an advantage to keeping your stuff secret, as long as it delays your competitors. It's fine for J.Carmack to release his older stuff under GPL because it's no longer cutting edge (and, as a side effect, because his competitors still have to pay for it). But you won't see him opening his Doom 3 source any time soon. That would be crazy, and I seem to remember even ESR saying much the same thing - Open Source is not automatically the right thing.

      If I were contributing patches to a library, for example, one would hope it was modular enough that context wasn't so important. The GPL already depends on my honour. I'm not sure about your lawsuit stuff, it seems a bit vague.

    35. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Simple, they provide the source for the programs that contain gpl code.
      They simply follow the rules of the license.
      The applications they add that come without source don't use or link against gpl'd code.
      There is nothing in the gpl that says you can't sell the programs for profit.
      If you distribute one proprietary progam with gpl code you have done something the gpl doesn't allow you to do, namely linking it.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    36. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the license, and I'm not using the code. The BSD license is perfect.

    37. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to be clear, and by clear I mean define some of the boundaries. I can use GPL code beside proprietary code as long they are not linked together?

      Does this mean that I can call a GPL function as an executable and sell the result? For example, if I wrote a front-end for latex, but I never linked to the latex code?

    38. Re:Restrictive? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Heh, look, I wasn't the one to bring up "communist"...

      And that is easy to counter with "I don't, as I have already said a quazillion times in this thread. However, as I have also said, I am not against sharing, in fact I wish I could share, but I cannot get involved with GPL'd code. For me, therefore, the GPL is restrictive."

      Well, then you are being perfectly reasonable and I probably shouldn't have jumped into this discussion :)

      Finkployd

    39. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Heh, I wasn't the one who started chucking "communist" around.

      I was talking about "stealing" the code in a purely philosophical sense, as in "it's not stealing". I didn't say that I personally have a habit of "stealing" GPL'd code, although a number of people made the mistake of assuming that's what I meant.

      I've lost the right to write the same code

      Nope

      especially if you've patented your enhancements.

      Different matter. I hope you're not suggesting I support software patents.

      But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.

      Nope. My code is copyrighted, but that has absolutely no effect on yours, current or future. Perhaps you were thinking of patents, which I don't support.

      Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements.

      Funny, that doesn't seem to be affecting the authors of the Gimp, or Open Office, or Mono, or any number of, errm, tributes to closed source.

      If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms.

      Like with patents? Idea monopolies should be legitimate? No thanks. That doesn't mean I won't respect your terms, but they had better not be too onerous.

      I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.

      Nor do I. It comes down to what you define as "equally", though.

      Your analogy is lovely but it does rather require the supply of books to the free library to be restricted. If we translate that back to the GPL'd code, it would be some artificial scarcity, some strange inability to copy it. I can't see how that could happen. So I'm going to leave your analogy there.

      You were doing well until your closing argument... Come on, that's not even a charicature of my position.

    40. Re:Restrictive? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You're bitching about the restrictiveness of the GPL lisense, yet mnost likely we cannot use any of your code in any way at all. I guess thats why you like BSD lic so much, it makes it so very convinent to leach of the other peoples work, doesn't it?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    41. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      You said I was claiming it was "somehow inferior". So you tell me what you meant by that.

      Clearly it's inferior [to many other licences] to me because I can't use it. I also have some philosophical problems with it, which I've gone into elsewhere.

      Ah well now you're nitpicking about what I mean by restrictive. Well the very first post I replied to said it wasn't restrictive. So I said "au contraire" to that. But as for how restrictive it is compared to other software licences, that's another argument (which I'm not too inclined to go for right now as I've already spent ages on this).

      If we used a proprietary library (hmm, can't think of one we've used, except for console SDKs) we would shell out the money, use it as we want, and that's about it. Perhaps there would be some strange restrictions (can't think of any that would affect us). I don't have to give away my trade secrets, though. And if you accept a priori that I don't want to do that, then you accept that GPL'd stuff is not for me, right?

      The "most restrictive" thing was from the grandparent post. I was responding to the "restrictive" bit.

    42. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      If you call a function you have to link it in at runtime. With GPL'd libraries this is not allowed, but you can runtime link with LGPL libraries.
      If you write a program that just starts GPL binary, that is fine.
      As an easy example: you can write a shell script and publish it under a non-gpl license even though it at some time runs 'ls' which is part of the GNU utils.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    43. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications

      That also applies to the LGPL, which is an acceptable licence to me. I have no problem with giving back modifications.

      Suppose I want to use a particular library. I link it with my stuff, ooh that's cool, nice one. Now I find a bug in the library. It's Open Source, lovely, so I fix it and bung a patch to the maintainer. Everyone's happy.

      Scenario two. I want to use the library. I have to give large chunks of my source away. To my competitors. Well, at least they are happy.

      If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct.

      Yes, I would. But I didn't, and nor did I say that I refused to share my modifications. Unfortunately, the GPL thinks all of my existing source is a "modification" of whatever I link it with. Whereas I say that's unfair. I'm happy to contribute to the core library, just like many others. And no-one even has to contribute back their changes unless they distribute them.

      Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.

      You infer what you like, pal. I'm tired of defending straw men from flames.

    44. Re:Restrictive? by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      I just want it to be fair.

      Then offer to buy the code outright for a large amount of money. Then it would be just like buying another piece of software, which would make it fair.

    45. Re:Restrictive? by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      Often major pieces of GPL licensed software is offered under other licenses to suit various needs. If you have a need for that software talk to the developers about licensing it.

      Of course, they're probably going to charge for it, but that's what the commercial software business is about. Us poor programmers have to eat somehow.

    46. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is fair.

      Everyone else isn't getting it for free either.
      The price is licensing whatever project which uses the GPL code under the GPL as well. Those other people you mention are also morally obligated to pay that price.

      Want to use GPL code? Pay the price (GPLizing your code).

      GPL code isn't without cost, you just don't seem to want to pay it. It is using it without paying the price which is unfair. The fact that the price is not in money is irrelevent to what the morally right thing to do is.

    47. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      And that would be fair? Or solve any problems? Or be the only way of trading? Or overcome the multiple contributor copyright problem? If it's worth so much, why are you giving it away?
      I don't doubt that in specific cases, I could buy a licence to some bits of code. Maybe even for a fair price. Maybe if I just promised to contribute back any fixes or improvements. But I'd be worried that I was just getting a snapshot. If any future development were done on the GPL side, would I get it? Or would people object to contributing to something that someone else had already sold on the side?
      I don't see the point of dual licensing.

    48. Re:Restrictive? by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      As I have already pointed out multiple times, I don't use GPL'd code so stop telling me not to use it.

      Uhm... so... uhh... why are you arguing about it?

      My brain is about to explode.

    49. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      It is fair.

      I Disagree.

      Everyone else isn't getting it for free either.
      The price is licensing whatever project which uses the GPL code under the GPL as well. Those other people you mention are also morally obligated to pay that price.


      Thanks, I know how the GPL works.

      Want to use GPL code? Pay the price (GPLizing your code).

      Thanks, I know how the GPL works.

      GPL code isn't without cost, you just don't seem to want to pay it.

      Are you saying I'm tight? 'Cos it's not that. You realise that stuff is worth whatever people are willing to exchange for it, right? And if other people are getting it for the price of maybe (just maybe) contributing back fixes and improvements, then that sounds like a good deal. I'll take that deal. No? For me the deal is special? You want what? Hmm, I'll think about it.

      It is using it without paying the price which is unfair. The fact that the price is not in money is irrelevent to what the morally right thing to do is.

      To me, for it to be morally right, it needs to be fair, and not in the way you use that word.

    50. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it would help if you read the thread?

    51. Re:Restrictive? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive. Maybe it restricts YOUR plans, but that doesn't make the license itself restrictive, it just makes it inappropriate for you to use it within the framework of your development. Normally, I would dismiss a rebuttal like that (the one I just made) as mere semantics, but I think in this case it makes sense because the license can be restrictive to you but not "be restrictive" in general.

      I certainly understand where you're coming from about it not being something you'd want to use in your work and I'm not contesting that. I'm also not one of those people who thinks the GPL is some magical scroll that solves every problem. I just don't understand how that makes it a restrictive license. A license with restrictions? Absolutely. I still wouldn't call it a restrictive license though due to the fact that, when used appropriately, it's something that imposes FAR fewer restrictions on the target audience than most other licenses.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    52. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      Well if I haven't lost the right to the same code then we differ over the definition of "proprietary". You writing proprietary code gives me n-1 possible legal modifications to my software, where originally I had n possible legal modifications.

      Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats and the gimp was unaffected by .gif patents. Wake up dude.

      My statement about authorial control was conditional. If authors get control, then those who want to build a GPL'd software paradise should be able to use their control to build it. If authors don't get control, then the GPL is unnecessary (not to mention unenforceable) because proprietary software doesn't exist.

      There are at least three ways in which proprietary software can reduce your ability to produce free software.

      1. patents
      2. copyright threats (DMCA, etc.) even when the reverse engineering (or unrelated development) is legitimate
      3. network effects based on market dominance, i.e. MS Office formats may not be the best but they're on virtually every desktop. Ditto for the version of HTML that Internet Explorer "understands".

      I'm sure others can come up with more. If you don't like our happy little GPL software island, just pretend it doesn't exist, don't act like everything that's GPL'd should be LGPL'd or BSD'd so you can build your proprietary empire.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    53. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, that's what I said. I don't see the point of dual licensing, though.

    54. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its only one line, copying it is likely to be considered "fair use".

    55. Re:Restrictive? by Peaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people have replied with answers of the Open Source idealogy.

      Open Source is a coherent and constistent philosophy of software development. Open Source holds to the goal of creating good software, with code sharing being the best mean towards that goal.

      Since this article is about Richard Stallman, it is probably also appropriate to respond with the answer of the Free Software idealogy. Free Software is also a coherent and consistent philosophy - not of software development, but of freedom of information in general. Unlike Open Source, Free Software holds to the goal of individual/society Freedom, with good software resulting merely as a byproduct. In other words, Free Software means that even in case properiatly-licensed software offers a significant practical benefit to the alternate piece of Free Software, one should use the Free Software alternative - in order to not sign himself to secrecy against all of his peers.

      Under the philosophy of Free Software, its simply and utterly unacceptable for someone to sign an NDA, or to restrict the changing or sharing of software. Forcing people to keep secrets from others is considered a crime against everyone in society.

      It is therefore easy to envision how the GPL was created. The GPL is not about less restrictions, but about attempting to minimize the ability of others to restrict information sharing or impose secrecy.

    56. Re:Restrictive? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      Compared to what happens when you use a function from other companies' proprietry code?

      We could do a deal. A fair deal.


      You could do a deal with the GPL author too. They "own" the copyright, so you could negotiate to get a license for your own use. You don't have to accept the GPL, although it is offered to you, and many people would consider it a fair deal.

      You probably don't want to wait until afterwards to make the deal though... once you're distributing code illegally, then the GPL people will ask you to release the source-code, and the proprietry people will sue you for millions of pounds and try to send you to jail.

    57. Re:Restrictive? by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1
      so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary

      Exactly the same argument for "stealing" proprietary code, ignoring the license the author put on it (i.e. pay them money and get no source), and use it and re-distribute it however you want.
      Just sayin'...

    58. Re:Restrictive? by lysium · · Score: 1
      I never understood the whole "GPL is communist" thing. Communists did not invent the concept of "sharing", so why it is that everything that remotely seems about sharing and not greed is labeled "communist"?

      Jesus was a communist, too. Perhaps the very first one. Ironic, that.

      ===============

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    59. Re:Restrictive? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing.

      Awww. Life's a bitch :P

      It's not like GPL authors owe you any code, or that they're depriving you of something.

    60. Re:Restrictive? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      ...If you distribute one proprietary progam with gpl code you have done something the gpl doesn't allow you to do, namely linking it....

      That's overstating the case. It's true if by linking you mean a static link. It's more dubious if you mean a dynamic link. And it's false if you mean a run-time load. And I believe that the GPL itself specifically states that merely residing on the same CD doesn't create any interference.

      Now it's true that those who are particular tend to distribute proprietary programs on a different CD than the GPL programs, but this isn't a real requirement of the license. This is just an easy way of being absolutely certain that things are being done right (and even that doesn't actually work in all cases, but it's good enough if you don't design for it).

      Personally, I've never investigated just how close to the boundaries it's actually legal to go. If you want to try that, retain a good lawyer with the appropriate legal specialties. (And be prepared to be widely despised even if the court finds in your favor.)

      But GPL is in general less restrictive than ANY closed source license that I've ever encountered. Even than Borland's "Book" license, which everyone agreed was a quite reasonable license.

      In fact, for most of my purposes it's as free as BSD.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    61. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the same as having total freedom

      Then it should stop being supported by a group that touts itself as a proponent of software freedom.

    62. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for Photoship, the Gimp would not exist. If it weren't for MS Office, OpenOffice would not exist. Free software generally needs something to compete against.

    63. Re:Restrictive? by ultranova · · Score: 1
      Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.

      Actually, me giving my code to you and you giving your code to me seem quite alike in my eyes...

      In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.

      And if you give me your code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me insisting it to be made GPL'd.

      The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.

      The fact that GPL restricts people from using common goods (GPL'd code) without giving something back (any modifications and as well as all works using GPL'd code) is it's good point. Good for the people who wrote the code you want to use, because they now have a new piece of GPL'd software available, and good for the community for the excatly same reason.

      Any piece of software I'll ever write goes under GPL unless I have very good reasons not to GPL it, because, by GPL'ing code I encourage others to release more GPL'd code, which will benefit me whether I'm a user (peer revieve process, possibility of recompiling to solve library dependency problems and to optimize for my current hardware, possibility of making modifications, and guaranteed infinite update lifetime, by paying to a programmer of my choice if neccessary) or a programmer (possibility of someone paying to me to make modifications or bugfixes to a program, library of available code to both teach me new techniques and to avoid having to reinvent the wheel).

      Your complains can be summarized to "I want to make money by someone else's work, but the license won't let me". You're either a troll, a company mule, or a particularly bold (in the negative sense) capitalist.

      Oh well, at least this proves that not all restrictions are inherently evil. Besides, wouldn't a license with no restrictions be redundant, since you could simply release the work to public domain and get the same effect ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    64. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      I think you missunderstood me, binaries on the same cd are ok. Dynamic linking is not ok.
      If dynamic linking was ok there would be no need for the lgpl as you could link against gpl libraries which you can't.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    65. Re:Restrictive? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Software sales are largely under a free market, and if you are a capitalist you cannot claim something is overpriced. I mean, that's what the market asks for. Besides, what are you comparing it to? Proprietary libraries (specialized for certain tasks eg. search algorithms, networking, etc) are pretty expensive too.

      As far as GPL being restrictive, the context in which you are speaking (that of a developer) it's true. You are basically comparing GPL against public domain. Public domain would be the least restrictive in your view.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    66. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it.

      I think you'll find he has two gripes.

      The GPL is evangelised as "free as in freedom", when it isn't even close to that ideal.

      GPL code may make up a relatively insignificant part of some software project, but the developers are still required to make the entire thing GPL if they want to distribute. Such a situation is unfair.

      Here's a clue: the GPL is not taking away your freedom to use that library - it is giving you the freedom to use that library, if you agree not to take that freedom away from anyone else.

      Ah, no. The BSD licence does what you describe. The GPL goes further and requires you also give away all your work that utlises some GPL code if you wish to distribute it.

      No amount of usage "free" code can change the fact it is freely available, no matter what that usage may consist of. The GPL does *not* preserve the "freedom" of released code - it is preserved regardless - it requires anyone who builds on that code to release theirs as well (if they want to distribute).

      I'll reiterate, because so few people seem to grasp this concept. The GPL is *not* about "preserving the freedom" of free code at all, that is already covered more than adequately by things like the BSD licence or even the Public Domain, it's about increasing the amount of free code available.

    67. Re:Restrictive? by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Or, what if the single line is the only reasonable way to do something? Like a particular use of a system API? I once copied a line from a GPL program which emulated Ctrl-Alt-Delete with a Win32 API. AFAIK, there was no other way to do it. Personally, I don't lose any sleep over that.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    68. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      One thing I have trouble understanding is how companies like Redhat and SUSE can sell a package that mainly consists of open source code.

      Because they aren't selling software, they're selling services. At least, that's the main thrust of their business model.

      Trying to make money purely by selling GPLed software would be extremely difficult - indeed, I'd go so far as to say impossible - since your first customer can go on to redistribute your software to whomever he wants.

    69. Re:Restrictive? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Basically, the poster wants a BSD or LGPL type license. He wants to use some functions but not be forced to open-source his (supposedly proprietary) work. He is approaching this from a developer point of view (as opposed to the user point of view). His disagreement can be summed up as follows.

      Licensing minor functions/libraries/whatever is too expensive. He claims that the price being charged is too high because the original developer doesn't have enough sales. Furthermore, what he desires is something minor (say just a component or a few functions). So his own works is far more valuable (i.e. greater) than the GPL stuff that he wants.

      I don't know if the following is his view but this is how I interpret the situation. From his viewpoint, one can argue that GPLing software (especially things with low potential for revenue) is actually detrimental to the development community. Instead of everyone being allowed to use some component, it will not be used by many (unless they are ok with open-sourcing their stuff). If you check his "homepage" link you'll find a game company. I guess that's where he works (BTW, good luck with the game. It looks good). Now, say he wants to use something GPLed but is very minor--something that is nice to have but not a key element of the game. Under the present situation, he can't use it. Neither can you (assuming you are workign on a proprietary product). Let's say you start or join a software business. Even if you just want a minor GPLed component, you pretty much have to open-source your software. If you are at work and want to use some GPLed software, you can't (you either have to not use it, or open-source the whole thing). This doesn't help the present situation--from his view point.

      What he says is important if you look at the present state of the industry. The vast majority of software companies use a proprietary model to make their money. Open-source might seem like big on Slashdot but only a few companies in the world are into it. If you work for such a company and want to use something GPLed, you can't. In that sense, GPLing software actually makes it less popular and more restrictive. If software companies did NOT use proprietary software to make money, it wouldn't matter. But that's not how things are.

      Of course, the counterargument (and the reason for having the GPL the way it is) has to do with leeching. How do you prevent people from taking and not giving back (if you don't force others to open-source)?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    70. Re:Restrictive? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive.

      GPL is restrictive from a DEVELOPER point of view. It is more restrictive than BSD or LGPL or Apache style license from a DEVELOPER perspective. Of course, the ultimate free (as in freedom) licence (technically it's not a license) is public domain.

      A developer (the one using the GPL code; not the one that created the GPL code) wants as much control over their code as possible. A developer wants to prevent his code from being copied, open-sourced, etc. GPL actually takes away a developer's freedom and gives it to the user. In contrast, the BSD allows you to keep your source closed and link it to other people's open-sourced works. If you want your software to be proprietary and closed, GPL is more restrictive. In fact, GPL won't allow you to keep it closed. In contrast, BSD/Apache/whatever allows you to keep your source closed yet use the open-source component.

      All this makes more sense if you assume the software world is ruled by proprietary software. AND if you assume that the main way to make money is to keep it closed*.

      * There is no proof of this, either way (I have not seen any scientific studies on this--in any case, the open-source market is too young to be worth analyzing now). But in my opinion, it's very hard to argue against keeping closed source right now (at least from a developer's point of view). You WILL make more money with closed-source than open-source software**. Open-sourcing provides many benefits (I don't need to list them here; Slashdot knows them). BUT keeping the source closed provides ONE HUGE advantage. By keeping software closed, you can MONOPOLIZE the market. Let's face it: regardless of what the capitalists and their American Libertarian friends say, businesses are out there to create monopolies. What seperates the really wealthy companies from the average company is the ability to transform your market into a monopoly (or at worst, an oligopoly). That's how you make the big bucks. Keeping software closed allows you to create a monopoly. Proprietary software is almost like patents--and patents are an easy way to make money.

      ** This actually depends on the circumstance. If your software can be easily cloned and duplicated, close-sourcing it may not be that big of an advantage.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    71. Re:Restrictive? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Software can be designed such that the GPL'ed part is independant and very modularly separated from the rest of the system and thus the allegedly viral license doesn't affect the rest of the system. Basically, if it's packaged in such a way that the end user is unable to pick out the GPL parts from the rest of it, then you've got to GPL your part too. But if the GPL code is a seperately runnable executable you call from a script (for example), that doesn't infect the rest of the programs. And, in the cases where the GPL code was *meant* to be used as a generic set of callable libraries, it's typically packaged under LGPL rather than GPL and you can call the functions all day long to your heart's content (like with glibc).

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    72. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      You tell me what part of Stallman's philosophy (rather than his appearance) is anything but capitalist and we'll have a discussion.

      Uh, all of it ?

      Probably the bit most relevant to this discussion is the GPL, which is *specifically designed* to increase the amount of communal - or free, if you prefer - code available. Note that the GPL is carefully engineered to disallow "non-communal" limiting of the distribution and modification of code, insisting that once code is GPLed it can be redistributed and modified at will by anyone who has (legally) acquired it, but only if they also distribute all their own work under the same terms.

      This is pretty much counter to the principles of capitalism which rely completely on the ability to limit availability of goods. It's kind of hard to manipulate the the supply and demand equation when the supply side of it is infinite (and free). In Stallman's ideal world, you simply wouldn't be able to sell software at all.

      That's not what you originally said, you said if you steal the code, not if you make modifications to it.

      You can't "steal" freely available code. Added to that, his original post said nothing of the sort.

      I've lost the right to write the same code, especially if you've patented your enhancements.

      No, you haven't. You may, if the modifications have been patented, lost the "right" to write code that does the same thing (I'd argue there's no such "right" in the first place), but that's the completely separate issue of patents.

      But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.

      Only if said free software developer has copied his code. Such a thing should be trivial to (dis)prove in court just by looking at it.

      Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements.

      o_O

      You've got that completely bass-ackwards. It's the free enhancements reduce the incentive to create proprietry ones. If anything, proprietry projects *incite* free counterparts - just look at GNOME, or The Gimp, or Evolution, or any of hundreds of other free projects specifically started to offer an alternative to a proprietry or "non-free" piece of software. Heck, one of the biggest driving forces behind open source is to provide free alternatives to proprietry software.

      I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.

      Someone using 1% of GPL code in their software project having to GPL the other 99% is in no way "equal".

      Imagine I bequeath a free library to the public with the condition that it can never sell books, only lend them. [...]

      That's not even *close* to a reasonable analogy. Someone building off GPL code in no way reduces the availability or accessibility of that code.

      People who say the GPL is restrictive seem to imagine that there's only one person in the world, and it's always themselves. "The GPL unfairly restricts my ability to profit off of your work." Waaah.

      No, the GPL *can* (it's not a given) unfairly restrict someone's ability to profit off *their* work. The OP said *nothing* that implied he wants to "unfairly profit" off someone else's work.

    73. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one simple case where the license does matter.
      Sometime ago I have written a network USB driver for Solaris. The hardware specs and several code chunks were taken from the Linux equivalent (GPL'd) and moved to the new Solaris USB framework. Currently I have no way of releasing the driver (though I'd love to), because it links into a proprietory kernel. So there are 2 options: either change the original Linux driver's license to something else (say, BSD) or GPL Solaris kernel. Both of these seem far away...

    74. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Sivaram, Thankyou for your most insightful remarks. I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were. I am in a certain position, as are many people, and I must say most of my fellow game programmers. As can be seen from my fairly low /. userid I am not a newbie here. I have seen thousands of GPL related arguments come and go. As it happens I was working most of the night on the game so I was a bit wasted today, and I spent a lot of time arguing instead of working ;-)

      I sit on a massive code base. I happen to think our game is quite special, although it has been a long time in gestation. Thankyou for you kind remarks about our game, btw.

      Now, as a programmer I guess I have been a bit isolated. I mean, we have a few programmers here. But I think it would be cool to be part of a wider community, to have people suggest improvements, to respect my code (it is awesome ;-) and all that. (Note to the humour impaired: You are humour impaired.) A lot of my code (and a lot of the code of my collegues) is dirty and full of hacks and I'm sure people could have a lot of laughs at it. But other people might learn something.

      I do yearn somewhat to be a part of a wider coding community. And yet, there are barriers. First, there is inertia - we have never opened our source, we don't see many benefits (I'm probably the only guy on our team that sees any potential benefits)... Then, there's competition. If I release my source, someone else can use it to steal my thunder. There are many parts of our engine that are not cutting edge. And those parts would likely benefit from outside ideas. But, there are parts that have never been done before in the known universe. Bits that we are particularly proud of. And we are not about to hand that advantage out to any leechers.

      I have gone on record as saying that I do not agree with software patents. However, I'll be f##ked if I'm gonna respect the rights of parasites.

      Free Software is all about moral issues. I can certainly see many of the points made. RMS's stance is a bit strong for me, although I respect him highly. No-one likes a parasite, and if we're talking about software licences, the golden rule is who holds the gold, i.e. who commands respect for their contributions to the community. Linux could be forked tomorrow, but for the fact that the community (overwhelmingly) respects Mr. Torvalds' leadership.

      I first encountered Dr. Stallman's work when I was at university (UKC, UK). I was impressed. They used to force me to use vi. I downloaded and used emacs. They said it used too many system resources (they were probably right, in those days) so I used Jove (still one of my favourite editors ever).

      But those were the days, in academia, and then I moved on. Now I make a living from programming. It may be a dying profession, but it is still possible to charge people for writing code. I'm not sure how anybody really makes a living from writing Open Source stuff. I guess a few lucky people can. But most of us programmers rely on scarcity of domain specific knowledge. I don't suppose it will last forever, but you can't blame a guy for trying to make a $(currency_unit) where there's one to be made.

      I'd be a liar if I said that all of our stuff was innovative. Some of it is, but a lot of it is "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course it is. I try to contribute to technical mailing lists (although I have been somewhat busy recently :( ). I'd like to contribute back to the community. But I think we should be allowed to have a little profit from our endeavours.

      Anyway,

      Peace,

      Andrew.

    75. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your support in these difficult times ;-

    76. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      if you are a capitalist you cannot claim something is overpriced

      It seems to me that claiming such a thing is the very essence of capitalism!

      Yes, proprietary libraries can be expensive, but they never require you to reveal your trade secrets.

      Public domain is indeed free, Free, FREE. It doesn't work for everybody, though.

    77. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Innit just.

      Didn't say they did. End of argument.

    78. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      In that case you could have easily thought of it yourself and will most likely be a result of the language or API itself.
      When you have to print 'hello world' on the screen nobody will make a claim on your program if it contains 'printf("hello world\n");' eventhough that exact line might be present in a gpld program.
      Its just to obvious.
      Copyright expects something original.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    79. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      Tell me, in a capitalist utopia, can't you give stuff away? All the GPL is doing is dictating the terms by which one's own private property is given away. Charity perhaps, but not communism.

      Do we ban home made christmas presents because they're communist?

      Only if said free software developer has copied his code. Such a thing should be trivial to (dis)prove in court just by looking at it.

      Have a look here:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=sco

      The rest of your arguments are either answered in my original post or too feeble to bother with.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    80. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read all your posts, there is something you keep seeming to remain blind to.

      The point everyone else is missing is you never said you wanted the GPL to be changed. You just said its [more] restrictive. More restrictive than say the BSD or LGPL library. In that your original post is TRUE, and should be modded up.

      The point you continouly miss after that is that by using GPL code, (even in a 1% gpl, 99% your stuff) and not releasing your code under the GPL, you do devalue the orignal code. Before I could 'trade' the GPL code in return from more GPL code. e.g. what you are paying with is your hard work, (sometimes quite a lot of it). by not paying, you devalue my code, because now its not worth other GPL code, its only worth the actual work cycles it can do on my machine.

      e.g. before you 'steal' GPL,

      code_value = more code released under GPL + work it can do for me.

      after you 'steal' GPL

      code_value -= more code released under GPL

      We all get that you don't use it. Why don't you try to get that not everything of value is equated to U.S. Dollars.

      So you are right, it is a restrictive licesence, if you follow the definitions exactly. But please don't try to claim that by using GPL code in a proprietary project doesn't devalue the GPL code. Thats arrogant and anti-social.

    81. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      All right let's make it more clear.

      class YourStuff
      { ...
      };

      Fine.

      class MyStuff : public YourStuff
      {
      public:
      void MyExtraFunctionality() const;
      };

      Your starter for ten points: Does your code still compile?

      Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats

      Well it seems to me that OpenOffice can use whatever file format it likes. If it wants to read Microsoft files, the developers need to write to Microsoft and say, "Dear Sir/Madam, We want to rip off your file format. Please will you give it to us for free?" I do not know what Microsoft's answer would read, but I would be intrigued to know. The many users of the Gimp are probably wondering what this "gif" thing is that you are wondering about.

      You are talking about control. Control is one of the central issues. Full stop. ("Period" stateside.) I have said it before, I say it now, and I will continue to say it:-

      People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.

      You bring up three potential barriers to "freedom": patents, copyright, and "network effects". Let's deal with them one at a time.

      1) Patents. I don't like patents. We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants; great minds think alike; being first is no big deal. Have a medal. But don't think you're the only person/group alive who could achieve that goal.

      2) Copyright. This only affects a specific implementation of an idea. Reverse engineering is legitimate. DMCA is evil, US specific, and toothless in reality.

      3) Network effects. AKA "virality" but also AKA "democracy", "de facto", "do something better".

      It's sad, I mean I said to someone else I'm sort of holding out an olive branch here. I like the general idea of collaboration. I like the idea of bazaars and commons and freedom. But, at the same time, I'm dismayed by the hostility, zealotry, insensitivity and closed-mindedness of the GPL crowd.

      Many projects use more prorietrary-acceptable licences than the GPL. For that, I am happy. Peace,

      Andrew.

    82. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Tell me, in a capitalist utopia, can't you give stuff away?

      Of course you can. You should note, however, that releasing GPLed code is not "giving things away".

      All the GPL is doing is dictating the terms by which one's own private property is given away.

      Ah, no. It's dictating the terms under which one's "intellectual property" (assuming you believe in the concept) can be *used*. The "property" is *not* given away, as the author retains copyright.

      To "give away" "intellectual property" is to release it into the public domain.

      Charity perhaps, but not communism.

      It is not the means we are discussing, but the ends. Stallman's goal is to make all software "free" and, effectively, make it impossible to sell. I'd say the ability to "sell" is a reasonably important aspect of the capitalist system, wouldn't you ?

      Do we ban home made christmas presents because they're communist?

      This is as ridiculous an analogy as the library one. No-one is suggesting - let alone insisting - that the GPL be "banned" because it is somewhat reminiscent of communist ideals.

      The "communistic" parts of the GPL are the requirement that all derived code also be licenced under it and the way it is specifically designed to increase the pool of freely available software to society. These are *not* capitalistic goals in any way, shape, or form. They are clearly aimed at benefiting society as a whole, not individuals, as a capitalistic system is.

      Have a look here:

      And ? The case *will* be trivial to (dis)prove once SCO actually ponies up some evidence.

    83. Re:Restrictive? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I suppose so, but it's still not a matter of GPL being inherently restrictive, but rather, being an inappropriate tool for the job when you know you want to control the distribution of your end product. After all, you create a lot of proprietary software (from what I gather), but I create a lot of open source software. I create things specifically for my company, yes, and those I don't use an GPL code in (mainly because I think the Legal group is comprised of evil trolls from the 10th ring of Hell and I don't want to get in a fight with them).

      When I write the open source stuff, however, I intentionally choose GPL because I don't want to make it easier for somebody to create closed products using my hard work. Part of it's natural, built-in human assiness, yeah, but most of it is that I hate big corporations and I don't want them to migrate toward monopolization - especially not on my shoulders for free.

      Each license intentionally performs a different task. When I'm in different roles as a developer, I choose the appropriate license and that's it. It's not that the GPL is restrictive, it's that the developers who choose to use it are.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    84. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I read all your posts,

      Respect.

      there is something you keep seeming to remain blind to.

      Uh-oh ;-)

      The point everyone else is missing is you never said you wanted the GPL to be changed. You just said its [more] restrictive. More restrictive than say the BSD or LGPL library. In that your original post is TRUE, and should be modded up.

      Yeah... I feel good... But I know there's bad shit coming up ;-)

      The point you continouly miss

      Here it comes...

      what you are paying with is your hard work, (sometimes quite a lot of it).

      Yeah.. let's call my contribution X.

      by not paying,

      Hey! Not so fast!

      you devalue my code

      Which is worth, I dunno, Y,...

      because now its not worth other GPL code, its only worth the actual work cycles it can do on my machine.

      :-( :-( :-( Dude, you had the beginnings of an argument there. But what was that? Work cycles? I'm actually pretty good at optimising stuff. I eat cycles for breakfast.

      Now AC (can I call you AC?) if you had read this thread you would have learned that I explicitly (i.e. about a fhuewfheuwillion times) said that I don't "steal" (whatever that means) GPL'd code. I respect the GPL, and diss it at the same time. That's how hoopy I am. Actually, hmm, looking at what you say, you maybe realise this. OK. So. You would realise that I understand that there are potential benefits from using GPL'd code. But that doesn't mean that it's fair that I should suddenly give away my millions of lines of code, in return for a small amount of GPL'd code. That's a hypothetical situation;. There is no GPL'd code I have my eye on. But if there were, do you see how I might find it a trifle unfair? To all those people going "you're sharing, and we're sharing too", consider that (a) most of the people you "share" with are leeches, and (b) there is a difference between one library, and a whole cubic buttload of code.

    85. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Oops I didn't mean to submit. In my defence I had a bottle of wine and 1/4 bottle of some marzipan type shit (disaronnio?) and I'm on the only shit left in my flat, the Tia Lusso Cream Liqueur. Hope you can forgive me. Anyway, to finish off...

      We all get that you don't use it. Why don't you try to get that not everything of value is equated to U.S. Dollars.

      Totally with you there, my friend.

      So you are right, it is a restrictive licesence,

      Aiiii...

      if you follow the definitions exactly.

      Hey but I'm a totally honest guy! I wouldn't dream of nicking some stuff I'm not entitled to. As I'm sure you wouldn't...

      But please don't try to claim that by using GPL code in a proprietary project doesn't devalue the GPL code. Thats arrogant and anti-social.

      Well. Hardcore. In a pure sense, no it does not devalue the GPD'd code. The GPL'd code still exists, and perhaps gains some extra kudos from being used. I would personally never claim such software as my own, and I would condemn anyone who did so. However, I maintain that the GPL'd code still exists, is still as free Free FREE as it always was, and it may have extended its reach to people who may not have otherwise encountered it. Thus it is explicitly social. Not anti-social. I have to stress, if you misrepresent the origins of it, that is bad. No question.

      Andrew.

    86. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      +1 Friend ;-)

    87. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      Ah, no. It's dictating the terms under which one's "intellectual property" (assuming you believe in the concept) can be *used*. The "property" is *not* given away, as the author retains copyright.

      The property is given away in every sense that matters except that one can't take it for ones' self to the exclusion of others. It's a gift with conditions. If you don't agree to the conditions you need not accept it. Perhaps you're right, it's more like a product than a gift since you have to pay by meeting the conditions. Either way, it's a way of using the property system as individuals prefer- the very embodiment of capitalism.

      It is not the means we are discussing, but the ends

      Capitalism and communism are means, not ends. Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies, and to let the market decide their value instead. Capitalist-libertarian to the core. You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.

      The Christmas thing was a hyptothetical to prove the point that no matter what you do with your property, as long as you don't appropriate your neighbor's property it's capitalism, not communism. Granting monopolies to idea holders is just poorly implemented capitalism since it lends itself to corporate handouts when the system is abused as it is today.

      I am so dumbfounded by your assertion that freely available software is communist that I don't know where to begin. Is Internet Explorer the first step towards the workers revolution? It's freely avilable. You seem to really dislike the idea of benefitting society as a whole. I could make your argument for you, that free software limits the fulfillment of individual greed, and then answer it, but I've wasted enough time on this already.

      The SCO case, although I agree it *will* be disproved, has been expensive to disprove, if you'll recall that was my original point- even though SCO is wrong they can still make a software developer's life hell by abusing the copyright/patent/trademark/trade secret systems.

      It's become clear to me that you're just wasting my time, and I have less of it to spare these days. Good night.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    88. Re:Restrictive? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I believe that dynamic linking is a grey area, where people aren't exactly sure what the courts will decide when it finally happens. And I've seen arguments both ways. (And, of course, since it's not something that requires a decision on my part, I've tended to suspend judgement.)

      But it's certainly true that it exposes you to the threat of a nasty law suit containing a bunch of nasty publicity. And then some court would pronounce on how dynamic linking and the GPL interacted within it's jurisdiction. This is an area that seems (to me) to have the potential for a whole bunch of UGH!, so I've opted to just avoid it entirely. And you could be right, but to me it's unclear.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    89. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I want to create good software, too. You don't have a monopoly on that.

      It's the case, though, that in some fields, secrecy now means a living wage. I don't claim to be a guru, but I think my knowledge is worth something. I have no particular desire to go back to cutting curtain material, packing melons in boxes or any of that shit. I am valuable, and I provide my services to other people in exchange for money, which buys me food, clothing, housing, and the rest. Perhaps, just perhaps, I don't deserve any of that and my destiny is to starve while sleeping in a shop window. I understand that market forces may behave unpredictably, but while someone wants to pay me for something I am good at and enjoy, I will continue to milk it. I am not alone in this.

      Freedom is a laudable goal. Most people, it has to be said, when given freedom, squander it. You have yet to realise that my freedom is as important as yours, and that Dr. Stallman's idea of freedom comes with strings attached.

      I think that if all information secrecy were outlawed, well, only outlaws would have secrets... You fail to take account of human behaviour.

    90. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.

      Agreed. Now, let's compare bsd and gpl.

      In a U.S. with, let's say, 240 million people:

      gpl:
      240 million people may make n improvements in software to their hearts content, but may not make them proprietary.

      BSD: 240 million people may make n-# of proprietary improvements, but must compete against closed standards for extension protocols and may run afoul of software patents owned by the original licensees.

      You see, the fundamental flaw in your argument is that proprietary software IS control by its very nature. It's saying "you can't use this idea unless you pay." GPL is just saying "you can use this idea all you want, but you must preserve the same freedom for everyone else."

      Zealotry my left asshole. Let's return to your example.

      class YourStuff (GPL)
      { ...
      };

      Fine.

      class MyStuff : (WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING USING SOMEONE ELSE'S GPL CODE IN YOUR PROJECT? DO YOU DO THIS WITH COPIES OF VISUAL STUDIO YOU HAVEN'T OBTAINED A LICENSE FOR)

      Shit, if I'm a zealot then Bill Gates is Richard M. Stallman.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    91. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Oh, you know, I would never borrow a bit of code without recognising the original author. I spent a while fixing the credits in our game to respect the people we borrowed from. I somewhat lament the FSF-initiated demise of the BSD licensing clause. It's not onerous to acknowledge the people whose work you leveraged (although, yeah, sometimes it needs to be consolidated into this or that group, or it would go on forever.)

      And other than that issue, how can you claim that one is "taking" things for onesself? As has been made abudantly clear, code does not become unavailable to its author if it is used by others. This is a central tenet of Open Source. "Others", of course, includes everyone, proprietary coders included. A minority of self-confessed "open source" people actually contribute back to the author. Many "proprietary" coders would if they were not cursed.

      A gift with conditions. Hmm.. The word "potlatch" comes to mind.

      Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies

      I have no problem with that. As soon as I understand someone else's idea, it's obvious to me...

    92. Re:Restrictive? by Heretik · · Score: 1
      It's unfortunate that we can't share our resources, but there you go.


      It is indeed unfortunate that you refuse to share.
    93. Re:Restrictive? by madpierre · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that people who use the BSD license would consider their work to have been 'leached'. They are content that their efforts have been recognised and used by someone. All they ask is that they are given *credit* for use of their work in said users application.

      For some people, the recognition of their work is all the payment they want.

      --
      siggy played guitar
    94. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      ARSE! I did it again, I didn't finish before I pressed submit...

      and to let the market decide their value instead

      But wait, isn't that a big skinny zero?

      You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.

      Actually I would love to spend an evening with him. Really.

      Good night.

    95. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Thankyou for missing the point. That sound, whoosh, oh forget it. You're not worth it.

    96. Re:Restrictive? by Heretik · · Score: 1
      I just want it to be fair.


      You can use my code if I can use yours. Doesn't get much more fair than that.
    97. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK. Here's my code:-

      ++thingy;

      Now please provide me with a link to all of your code.

      Oh, and if it was already Open Source, it doesn't count.

    98. Re:Restrictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Just because a small percentage of leech's ability to leech is removed. No, I think it still fits the definition.

    99. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The property is given away in every sense that matters except that one can't take it for ones' self to the exclusion of others.

      Not even close. The BSD licence would stop it being taken "to the exclusion of others", as would the Public Domain. It's not a gift by any rational or common definition of the word.

      It seems to be a common myth that the GPL makes code licenced under it "more free" or that code released under other licences can somehow be "stolen" or "proprietrised". This is complete and utter rubbish and you are being either dishonestly or ignorantly deceptive to suggest it. The GPL is all about requiring anyone who uses or modifies GPLed code - and distributes it - to also GPL the new code they have written. It has *nothing to do* with "preserving the freedom" of released code, as that is already done more than adequately by copyright.

      It's a gift with conditions.

      A sale is a "gift with conditions". The main one being that you pay for it.

      Either way, it's a way of using the property system as individuals prefer- the very embodiment of capitalism.

      As I pointed out, it is not the process that is under discussion, it is the goal. The goal of the GPL is to require all software to be open source and "free". That it does this by sort-of leveraging the free market is ironic, but irrelevant. In Stallman's ideal world, you (practically speaking) won't be able to sell software at all - and that sure as hell isn't capitalistic.

      Either way, it's a way of using the property system as individuals prefer- the very embodiment of capitalism.

      Except that it's all or nothing. It's a bit like saying taxation is "the very embodiment of capitalism" because can pay tax, or you can go and live in another country.

      Capitalism and communism are means, not ends.

      That depends on your perspective.

      Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies, and to let the market decide their value instead.

      Indeed he is, and it's a noble goal. However, that's not relevant to this discussion. The GPL doesn't concern patents, it won't have any effect on "idea monopolies" (except, perhaps, from the perspective of an easily accessible source of prior art). The GPL is about making *source code* - specific implementations of ideas - freely available to all.

      You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.

      You have no way of knowing how I feel about Stallman as a person. Even if you did, it wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.

      The Christmas thing was a hyptothetical to prove the point that no matter what you do with your property, as long as you don't appropriate your neighbor's property it's capitalism, not communism.

      The whole *point* of the GPL is to "appropriate" other people's code. The only reason to release anything under the GPL is because you want to legally compel people using it to contribute the work they do back to the open source community (assuming they distribute it). If that is not your objective, you shouldn't be using the GPL, as you are needlessly restricting the usability of your code.

      I am so dumbfounded by your assertion that freely available software is communist that I don't know where to begin.

      That's not what I said. At all. These are not the straw men you're looking for.

      Is Internet Explorer the first step towards the workers revolution? It's freely avilable.

      I'm sure Microsoft will be astounded to know IE is GPLed.

      IE is only "freely available" in sense that its cost has been rolled into another product. Much like the "free aircon" in a new car is "freely available".

      You seem to really dislike the idea of benefitting society as a whole.

      On the contrary, I'm strongly in favour of it. I just think the GPL is too extreme in its goals and methodology to be a workable compromise. Much like current copyright laws (albeit in the opposite

    100. Re:Restrictive? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      isn't that a big skinny zero?

      Is there something wrong with that? If the market says it's free, it's free. Drinking water is essentially free (public fountains everywhere). Should we force people to pay for bottled water?

      Realistically though, software creation is hard work, but the monopoly system is stupid. People should sell their labor and reputation for creativity/effectiveness, not the ideas they "own".

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    101. Re:Restrictive? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that claiming such a thing is the very essence of capitalism!

      I'm not a capitalist so take my opinion for what it's worth :)

      In my opinion, there is no such thing as overpriced and underpriced under capitalism. Whatever the market bears is the true cost. If a loaf of bread costs $1,000 tomorrow, a capitalist cannot really argue that it is too high. Similarly, if it costs $0.0001, he/she cannot argue that it is underpriced. People who claim something is overpriced or underpriced are really being hypocritical. This is more obvious when you look at wages. Is a CEO being overpaid? Under capitalism NO. The CEO gets paid whatever the market is willing to pay.

      In my opinion, the only people who can argue something is overpriced/underpriced are non-capitalists. To do so, you need to use some sort of morality argument or consider the welfare of the people, or something. For instance, *I* can say an executive and an owner are overpaid because making 250x an average employee is too much in my system. But not under capitalism...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    102. Re:Restrictive? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Your website is... well... simple. I guess that's why it's called Simple Sam :)

      I'm unemployed and am very neutral. I support open-source but I am sympathetic to those that say it is restrictive from a development point of view.

      The problem right now is that there isn't really a solid business model which allows you to make money off open-sourced software. NEarly all companies (not just software companies) make money by attempting to monopolize their markets (at least that's my theory). This could range from having a patent (only they can produce), to exclusive marketing deals (only their product is on the shelf), to implementing proprietary protocols (only can talk to their devices), and so forth.

      Until a solid model for making money off open-source is developed, I understand the complaints of software developers. It's really tough to make money off open-source, when the present model is based on you having your code hidden from others. By open-sourcing the code, you lose the competitive advantage. In that sense, the evil trolls making up your legal group are correct. They are just after one thing: money. Closed source leads to money more easily than open-source.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    103. Re:Restrictive? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      You just have to charge the full amount to the first customer (or make sure you have enough customers for the first batch).
      The problem with your model (and it is used alot) is that you sell software like it is an actual good, i.e. you design it and then produce it.
      The actual production costs of software are so low (practically none) that you only have the design part left and that is what you should charge for, not some magic value you give to a box with a cd and some dead trees.

      BTW far more software is already written on demand then most people think, its just less visible

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    104. Re:Restrictive? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      You just have to charge the full amount to the first customer (or make sure you have enough customers for the first batch).

      Yeah, you'd be really successful trying to recover the costs of developing something like photoshop from a single sale :).

      The actual production costs of software are so low (practically none) [...]

      I think you mean "reproduction" here. The *production* costs of software are huge. The *reproduction* costs are very low. And, of course, it takes a [long] while before the reproduction costs are the only costs being incurred.

      [...] that you only have the design part left and that is what you should charge for, not some magic value you give to a box with a cd and some dead trees.

      The idea of charging for the CDs and manuals is (ostensibly) to recover the "design" costs. It's kind of hard to do it many other ways.

    105. Re:Restrictive? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Hi, I think we're seeing it from different sides. I mean, as a (capitalist) producer, no-one should be able to tell you that you have set your price too high or low. As a consumer, I can certainly say "that's too pricey for me, I decline your offer." If I thought you underpriced your stuff, I would probably keep my mouth shut and buy lots of it!

    106. Re:Restrictive? by Heretik · · Score: 1

      Doesn't count? Why? Because I ACTUALLY DID?

      Yeah, right. Nice one buddy.

      Oh, and for your link: www.freshmeat.net

      Enjoy. The linux-audio-dev list also contains links to things I've worked on, and info/screenies/discussion on my current as-yet-unreleased project. But since you obviously want to just steal my code and contribute nothing back, I don't think I even want you to see any of it.

      Not everyone in the world is greedy and selfish like you, you know.

    107. Re:Restrictive? by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Actually, I couldn't think of it myself. I tried very hard to do so. I searched all over the Web and Usenet and it was the only reference that turned up.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
  41. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    These hairy commie bastards are always up to something!

  42. RMS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Root Mean Squared? Do the Indians still believe that sqrt(10) == pi ?

  43. Sandeep Dikshit?? by R33MSpec · · Score: 1

    Is this a joke?

    1. Re:Sandeep Dikshit?? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Dikshit, or Dixit, is a popular surname up in the north. The surname particularly shot to prominence because of Madhuri Dixit, a popular Hindi film actress in the late 80's and 90's.

  44. Richard's big journey by IAEBG · · Score: 1

    I wish he would stay there ;-)

  45. Heriditary heads of government by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    USA isn't the only country with a tradition of a heriditery head of state who retains power. India had Nehru/Indira/Ranjiv/Sonja. Pakistan had the Bhuttos.

    Perhaps they should both go down the european route of letting the "first family" have a ceremonial role (the Bushes and the Kennedys could share the duties in the USA) and letting commoners be elected to the executive jobs.

    1. Re:Heriditary heads of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      USA isn't the only country with a tradition of a heriditery head of state who retains power. India had Nehru/Indira/Ranjiv/Sonja. Pakistan had the Bhuttos.

      Thanks for this useless bit of info. I will sleep better knowing that someone knows the names of some Indian leaders.

  46. Gates Bio Copyrighted by Linus+Sixpack · · Score: 1

    Well of course he had Stallman's Bio -- Bill's Bio is '(C)2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved'.

    ls

  47. stop calling them Indians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They are Native Americans!

    1. Re:stop calling them Indians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people say we should call the Indians, "Native Americans,"
      'Cause they were here in America before us,
      But before us,
      This land wasn't called "America."
      It was named "America" by a mapmaker who never even came here.
      He just lived in Europe
      And made maps and when he found out about this land,
      And put his name on it,
      'Cause he could.

      --From indians by John S. Hall

  48. Re:Outsource by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, but if the software is free you can't really save anything by outsourcing devlopment to India, can you?

    OTOH, you *can* sell your consulting services to foreign governments and build long term relationships with future economic powerhouses.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  49. Meeting of 2 guys with long hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
  50. This is insightful? Get real. by Duderstadt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It has been a very long while since the last time I visited Slashdot. Now I remember why.

    I'm not going to refute this post point by point, if only because anyone able to read a newspaper should be able to do so easily.

    I shall, however, make the following suggestions to anyone who actually believes a word of the parent post:

    1. Get the hell away from Slashdot and go get some news.

    2. After that, go study some economics. In particular, you may wish to bone up on the fall of the Japanese economy.

    3. Get updated on current political issues - and no, I'm not talking about what RMS is doing. You may well discover that outsourcing to India has become something of a political hot button, and that the US government at all levels is working on killing the practice.

    4. Refresh yourself on the history of communism (pay attention to how many regimes are intact vs. how many are no longer with us.)

    5. Discover China. They're not ascending, they're imploding.

    Basically, come out of whatever idiot stupor you currently find yourself in and come sample a tasty dish I like to call reality.

    1. Re:This is insightful? Get real. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty dreadful. It has gotten to the point where slamming Americans for being anti-India (which is really just anti-outsourcing, it wouldn't matter if it was Burkina Faso) gets modded up and posts that do nothing but quote and reference the economic statistics to back up the negative effects get modded "troll" or "flamebait."

      This all appears to be a recent backlash to the "hey, my job just went to India and now I'm losing my house" (I already lost mine, thanks) where now every justification for why outsourcing is great and dandy someone counter the factual economic effects that are documented every day. Do a quick check of the articles in the last few weeks. There's an odd increase in the number of pro-India fluff pieces. It's grass-roots public relations. Take it at face value.

    2. Re:This is insightful? Get real. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Duderstadt? From Liberty Hill?

      Anyway, while I agree with your post in spirit, there's one particular thing I wanted to comment on.

      5. Discover China. They're not ascending, they're imploding.

      I've been hearing this since the Tianamen Square massacre, and I just don't believe it. All my life I heard that the USSR was imploding as well, and I think most of it was propoganda. By the time the revolutions started happening in the USSR, our own government started scrambling like "wtf? You mean there's a revolution going on over there?". It was very satisfying to see it happening, but I wasn't born yesterday, and I'm not entirely convinced that all those years of hearing about how the USSR would fall any day now all over the press was anything but propoganda, and we're hearing it now about China.

      Sure, China's in a bit of a bind. China's totalitarian government isn't gonna last forever. But the USSR rose to a superpower under communism, and it's entirely possible that China will too. Of course, I don't think it'll actually happen, considering what happens in China whenever there's a regime change (hint: Mao rose to the top during a civil war, and left during a civil war).

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    3. Re:This is insightful? Get real. by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Sir. You've finally summarized what the vast majority of posts on Slashdot lack, and helped me realize that I have better things to do every day than read a bunch of idiots and fanboys quibbling over the latest tech gossip. My boss would love you. As a last sacrifice of whatever karma I have left, I'll post this last post and congratulate you so the slashbots can mod me into the non-existance that I deserve :P

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    4. Re:This is insightful? Get real. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      5. Discover China. They're not ascending, they're imploding.

      I agree with most of your post except for the above statement. China is, indeed, ascending by all measurements. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent, lengthy article last Friday which talked about this and compared today's China with the China of 25 years ago. The most shocking fact in the article: the U.S. is in debt to China for over 120 billion dollars. That's right, we actually OWE China.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    5. Re:This is insightful? Get real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      China is imploding? What planet are you living on?

      Certainly not the China on planet Earth I lived in for 6 months last year. They are progressing, on any measure.

      There are no hidden truths you wouldn't be able to see. USSR looked like a collapsing state in the end of 80's. Just alike, China looks like a stellar success today. I have visited both.

  51. Free Software Business Strategy by bizcoach · · Score: 1
    You're right, no matter how you go about it, it's not easy at all to start a profitable software-developing business.

    I've been thinking about the question you raise for quite some time. Check out the Free Software Business Strategy Guide and the paper Market Economics of Peer-to-Peer Networks and of the Software Industry.

    1. Re:Free Software Business Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're right, no matter how you go about it, it's not easy at all to start a profitable software-developing business. "

      It's a lot easier if you charge for your stuff than if you don't.

      "I've been thinking about the question you raise for quite some time. Check out the Free Software Business Strategy Guide and the paper Market Economics of Peer-to-Peer Networks and of the Software Industry."

      There are no working free software business models, period.

    2. Re:Free Software Business Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are no working free software business models, period.

      This is true. Red Hat, IBM and Cheap Bytes all appear to be making money off of free software in different ways but it's just an elaborate prank that a group of billionaires is playing on the world.

    3. Re:Free Software Business Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't make money on DOING free software, just selling other peoples software (free labour). I got the impression that making free software was what he wanted to do?

  52. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SOMEONE has to teach their president how to use Emacs Lisp!

  53. Just a short little question by justin_speers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it so interesting that so many /.'ers complain about outsourcing and the loss of American tech jobs (whether a legitimate complaint or not), yet...

    Everyone seems so willing to make the argument other countries should not rely so much on foreign (American) software.

    Wouldn't that mean the loss of more American tech jobs? Aren't those lines of thinking in conflict?

    Or is it okay to lose tech jobs, as long as those jobs are Microsoft's, and somehow that won't affect other tech jobs.???

    1. Re:Just a short little question by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Everyone seems so willing to make the argument other countries should not rely so much on foreign (American) software.

      If you believe this then you're missing the point entirely. The backlash is not against "American software", it's against being locked into proprietary code and proprietary protocols.
      The fact that MS believe only in the proprietary model means that they are the focus of the backlash a lot of the time - however, traditional Unix vendors like SCO and Sun are also targets of much criticism by the Open Source community.

      Wouldn't that mean the loss of more American tech jobs? Aren't those lines of thinking in conflict?

      Tech jobs will go to India purely because it's cheaper to hire a techie in India rather than the US or Europe. A company's decision to do that is based purely on profit and it's irrelevant whether the techies support Windows, Linux, etc.

      Or is it okay to lose tech jobs, as long as those jobs are Microsoft's, and somehow that won't affect other tech jobs.???

      No, it's not alright for just MS to lose jobs but please remember that it's the company's own decision to lay off its workforce, not some external factor.
      I'm a firm believer in goverment taxation of profits for companies that outsource jobs outside of countries where they do the most business.
      As far as I am concerned, if a company makes money in a particular country, then it has an obligation to not just take money out of that country but put something back into it like jobs and livelihoods - i.e. it should be made more expensive to outsource jobs to another country due to taxation of profits.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Just a short little question by archilocus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as I am concerned, if a company makes money in a particular country, then it has an obligation to not just take money out of that country but put something back into it like...

      Tax ???

      You can't force a company to 'create' jobs in a country where they trade, it's nonsense. At best you can bar them from entering the market through something like tariffs.

      I'm a firm believer in goverment taxation of profits for companies that outsource jobs outside of countries where they do the most business.

      The US is the largest consumer market in the world ($spent/capita) so everyone should put money back into the US economy ? Or how about if I mine iron ore and ship it to China do I have to pay more tax/create more jobs in China ?

      Protectionism doesn't make any sense whatsoever in a gloabl market - it only makes sense when you're protecting parochial interests in one country. Even then it doesn't make a lot of sense since if you have to protect the industry you've already lost the battle, it's just a matter of time.

      --

      Don't look back the lemmings are gaining on you

    3. Re:Just a short little question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you believe this then you're missing the point entirely. The backlash is not against "American software", it's against being locked into proprietary code and proprietary protocols.
      The fact that MS believe only in the proprietary model means that they are the focus of the backlash a lot of the time - however, traditional Unix vendors like SCO and Sun are also targets of much criticism by the Open Source community. "

      The free software foundation is a political movement ONLY; it doesn't have anything to do with technology itself.

      The free software foundations goal is socialism in the field of software (and other areas). It's the ownership of software that's the target, read the document "why software shouldn't have owners" on www.gnu.org.

      For the ones not familiar with socialism and capitalism.

      Socialism is defined as people's freedom from powers owners have over them, therefore, ownership must be stopped.

      Capitalism is defined as people's freedom to freely trade and value property and services.

      Both ideologies goal is freedom but what is perceived as freedom is completely different and one excludes the other.

      "Tech jobs will go to India purely because it's cheaper to hire a techie in India rather than the US or Europe."

      That's simply not true.

      Typically, a business can have a 30% profit-margin. If it rises above this number more competing companies will move in and the prices will drop.

      Therefore, for all businesses the total revenue is very important, not only profit. The reason is that 30% of 1 000 000 000 is a lot more that 30% of 1000.

      If the work is done by low-salary workers the total costs and also revenue will in the end go down, leaving you with 30% of a smaller number of revenue.

      Therefore, companies do not want an outsourcing trend in their industry no matter what industry that is, it always leads to lower total revenue (even of the profit-margins percentage is the same). However, if one company starts to outsource, everyone else must follow to be able to compete.

      The reason why outsourcing is happening is that both products and services are incredibly cheap and free.

      It's simply not possible to pay western level salaries for something that's almost given away. Therefore, companies are forced to outsource or die.

      The only thing that realistically can change the tide is that the value of products and services in this industry is raised so that it can sustain high salaries.

    4. Re:Just a short little question by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      The free software foundation is a political movement ONLY; it doesn't have anything to do with technology itself.

      Quite possibly but irrelevant. I mentioned The Open Source community and didn't mention The Free Software Foundation once. There is a distinct difference between the two...

      If the work is done by low-salary workers the total costs and also revenue will in the end go down, leaving you with 30% of a smaller number of revenue.

      Mathematically incorrect.
      If I pay 10 US programmers $50K a year for a year to write a piece of software, it costs me $500K to produce that software.
      If I pay 10 Indian programmers $10K a year (I have no idea of what true Indian salary comparisons are, this is just for illustration) for a year, it costs me $100K to produce that software.
      However, if the software is the same quality, I can sell it for the same price in the US in both cases - therefore, by employing Indian programmers, I make more profit. Revenue is unaffected.

      The reason why outsourcing is happening is that both products and services are incredibly cheap and free.

      You can't make a generic statement like that, especially when your previous argument is flawed. The cost of a product is determined by how many you manufacture and how much competition there is. The cost of a service is based on the size of your user base, how reliable your product is and how much you can feasibly get the customer to pay for your service.

      The only thing that realistically can change the tide is that the value of products and services in this industry is raised so that it can sustain high salaries.

      Wrong again. All that can change the tide is shareholders, CEO's and (to a degree) the workforce not being greedy. As long as profits matter, cutting workforce expense will be equally as important.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:Just a short little question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quite possibly but irrelevant. I mentioned The Open Source community and didn't mention The Free Software Foundation once. There is a distinct difference between the two... "

      True, sorry I didn't noted that :)

      "Mathematically incorrect. ...
      I make more profit. Revenue is unaffected. "

      No, that's not true since you will not be able to sell for the same price since competition will press down the prices to about 30% profit-margin. Only companies in a monopoly situation can avoid this, no one else.

      Only in a very short term can you get the same revenue and more profit. After a year or two there will be competition pressing down the prices (to the buyer).

      So, if there are outsourcing lowering the costs to $100k to make something there will always be companies (if nothing else domestic companies in those countries) willing to lower their prices so they get about 30% profit-margin but more customers.

      Take a look at all other industries that have gone through the outsourcing process, home electronics and textiles for example. They are all low-profit businesses today. Profit margin percentage is about the same but their total revenue is significantly lower.

      "You can't make a generic statement like that, especially when your previous argument is flawed."

      My previous argument is not flawed, check out the industry in ten years and you will see.

      If you look at software or services prices today and compare them with prices ten years ago you will see that they are just a fraction. It costs too much to pay someone in the US to write a fairly specific application that sells for $100 or so.

      Companies not outsourcing under these circumstances will go bankrupt.

      "Wrong again. All that can change the tide is shareholders, CEO's and (to a degree) the workforce not being greedy. As long as profits matter, cutting workforce expense will be equally as important. "

      No, not shareholders, the CEO or anyone else can go on selling cheap (or free) software or service and still pay western level salaries for it. It's simply impossible to have larger costs than income.

      The prices on the services and products must cover western level salaries; otherwise outsourcing is simply a must to survive.

      "As long as profits matter"

      Profit always matter. There is a significant risk in bringing capital into a company and you must have a profit-margin around 30 percent to justify the risk. otherwise you don't have companies and people have nowhere to work.

    6. Re:Just a short little question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, that's what the income tax was originally about. I guess now we're all foreign to whomever runs this country.

  54. His views, of course. by Duderstadt · · Score: 1
    For some reason, Richard Stallman is demonized in the US as some eccentric loony. Yet the rest of the world actually holds him in very high regard.

    Of course they do.

    And of course we don't.

    The why of it is pretty easy to understand, if a bit politically incorrect.

    In addition to holding the lion's share of the world wealth, we - surprise - own the vast majority of the global economy's intellectual property.

    So long as there the world abides by our IP laws. And naturally, we here in the US are persuing a variety of methods to ensure that they do.

    Why? Because IP is the foundation of the global economy. We have it, and they don't, and until that changes - never, for those of you who aren't paying attention - nations like France and India have to get down on thier knees and grovel.

    Enter RMS. Who advocates giving US IP to everyone who wants it. An event that would sink this country forever.

    Get it now?

    1. Re:His views, of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enter RMS. Who advocates giving US IP to everyone who wants it. An event that would sink this country forever.

      Sounds good to me - as one of the majority of people in this world who aren't American.

      For as long as Americans think only of the good of America, and are willing to condemn non-Americans to unspeakable squalor and suffering if that is what's required to sustain the God-Given American Way of Life, the world will hate America.

      "They hate our freedoms", said Bush of the terrorists. He was right. We hate your freedoms, but not because our own leaders refuse to let us enjoy them - no, it's because you refuse to let us enjoy them. That is why our hatred of your freedoms leads us to attack America rather than our own leaders; we know who it is who is oppressing us.

    2. Re:His views, of course. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

      Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Unlike brick of stone, it is not possible to own an information. The substance of information is TO BE PASSED AROUND.

      Of course, it is possible to keep owning it as existing in legal nonreality by law. That happened in U.S. with slavery too. But some americans were not impressed by slavery themselves. Would be the history repeating itself?

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    3. Re:His views, of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS doesn't advocate giving up the existing US IP, he advocates creating free alternatives to a very limited subset (software) of that pool of IP.

      I think you're overvaluing IP, in any case. It certainly isn't the foundation of the global economy - actual products are.

      Note that the big US IP organizations include the entertainment industry (which is probably bigger than the software industry), whose property RMS does not want to replace with free alternatives. AFAIK, he is only against DRM and similar schemes eliminating fair use.

      You're overestimating both the relative amount of US IP to other countries as well as the importance of IP alone to the economy. Of course you're probably correct in that the anti-RMS sentiments are likely caused by similar overestimations as yours.

      Additionally, demonizing RMS is a good demonstration of what a society values. Your points show that you value winning above other nations over the fact that Americans also benefit from free software. Perhaps that's because you only value economic benefit, but I certainly hope all of the US doesn't think like you do.

    4. Re:His views, of course. by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Intellectual property is an oxymoron.

      And yet, without IP protection, the GPL would be impossible. I think it's ironic that the GPL's greatest contribution is to show the power and versatility of copyright law.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    5. Re:His views, of course. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

      Intellectual property is an oxymoron.

      And yet, without IP protection, the GPL would be impossible. I think it's ironic that the GPL's greatest contribution is to show the power and versatility of copyright law.

      By quoting me, you have just used my written intellectual property in a derived work. Do you have a license? According the authorship law number 121/2000 Sb.(Autorsky zakon) of the Czech republic, which is valid at the place I am posting from, I have right for a fair revenue based on number of copies you provided, even if my work does not contain an explicit copyright. How many copies have your reply on Slashdot?

      No, GPL is just an exploration in logical flaw inherent in the U.S. IP legal system. Without IP protection, no one would need a GPL.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    6. Re:His views, of course. by s20451 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume I have your permission to quote.

      GPL is just an exploration in logical flaw inherent in the U.S. IP legal system. Without IP protection, no one would need a GPL.

      I've read that argument before, and I think it makes no sense. If the GPL makes IP protection unnecessary, then why is the GPL not equivalent to public domain? It's because without (mild) restrictions on what the end user can do, nobody would share source code.

      Suppose we lived in a world without IP protection. Certainly, I could freely copy and distribute any software in binary form. However, since the binary is now commercially worthless, the real value is in the ideas underlying the software, which are contained in the source code. Because these ideas -- once released -- could be stolen by others and incorporated in binary-only distributions, there is no incentive to release source code. I sure wouldn't release any of mine.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    7. Re:His views, of course. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but I must keep there is no "real value" in ideas. Such a value could be percieved in ideas only by those people, who are not sufficiently intelligent to create these ideas themselves.

      And more, your argument is valid only for a tiny closed fragment of the universe, only to be a commercial nonreality fragment of human interactions. Not every open source software has purpose of commerce. Building IP on legal nonreality just to keep commercial nonreality running looks a little bit psychotic.

      For me it's ultimate that sharing ideas will create a more effective social structures than no-sharing ideas. And more effective social structures will prevail. I see open source movement as an end of economics, as we know it. Open technology, open art and open science will follow soon. For me, Slashdot is just an example of open politics.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    8. Re:His views, of course. by s20451 · · Score: 1

      And more, your argument is valid only for a tiny closed fragment of the universe, only to be a commercial nonreality fragment of human interactions. Not every open source software has purpose of commerce. Building IP on legal nonreality just to keep commercial nonreality running looks a little bit psychotic.

      Psychotic, maybe, but much of any nation's legal system is to facilitate commerce and protect value. Going further, the entire notion of private property of any kind, not merely intellectual, is a legal fiction. If I park my car on a city street and leave it unprotected, why shouldn't anyone be able to drive it away if they want? However, these legal fictions are useful in a stable society.

      And more effective social structures will prevail. I see open source movement as an end of economics, as we know it. Open technology, open art and open science will follow soon.

      Many thinkers have proposed systems that would end economics, but they all run into the fact that people need food to eat, clothes to wear, and shelter to keep them warm. I don't think free software, or any other philosophy, will solve this problem, until a universal and non-economic means is found to motivate people to work.

      And you still haven't explained why I would want to share my source code with you, if you are not compelled to share back, as under the GPL.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    9. Re:His views, of course. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

      And you still haven't explained why I would want to share my source code with you, if you are not compelled to share back, as under the GPL.

      It is simple. Usually, you are most insightfull to your own code. If I made a partial improvement to it, I am motivated to share it back because you are most competent to review and make the best use of my changes. Similarly, you are motivated to share because sharing give you opportunity to recieve future improvements. This model benefits not only to both us and even all others, who can use our code but are unable to contribute to it for some reason. There is no one loosing anything in the information domain. Yes, in the domain of matter and energy, you say you lost some food and electricity to coding your ideas. So, we should think about open energy and food distribution model of the future. Perhaps many other people spare some electricity or food just by using your software. So they are motivated to share their products with you just for the same reason.

      Economics is just a virtual tool, developped in ancient historic epocha when information flow within society was very very slow. It will simply not work for free instant information exchange of the future. A little example: Why do you think stock quotes are 20 minutes delayed for nonprivileged non-market "normal" people? Because without it, whole market will collapse in minutes, just now. Let's demand a complete removal of privileges, nothing more.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    10. Re:His views, of course. by s20451 · · Score: 1

      I have to get to work ... so this is my last post in the thread. I'll give you the last word if you respond.

      So, we should think about open energy and food distribution model of the future. Perhaps many other people spare some electricity or food just by using your software. So they are motivated to share their products with you just for the same reason.

      I give you a program, you give me food and electricity. Basically, you want to set up a system that is indistinguishable from existing economics.

      A little example: Why do you think stock quotes are 20 minutes delayed for nonprivileged non-market "normal" people?

      I don't see that this is true at all. The "real-time" (non-delayed) quotes are available to anyone at a small cost; just go to any online brokerage.

      Let's demand a complete removal of privileges, nothing more.

      Agreed, but I think discarding IP protection would hurt that goal, not help.

      Nice talking to you.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    11. Re:His views, of course. by LibrePensador · · Score: 1

      What a strawman you have built! Yours is a classic example of a zero-sum game? For us to win, others must loose.

      Yet free and open source software proves precisely the opposite. We all win. We all have better infrastructures, access to the tools to educate ourselves, technology that we can scrutinize and use to empower ourselves, technology to allow ourselves to transcend the narrow-minded divisions of nation and state and to reach out to others. And in reaching out, we establish a dialog about how to solve the big problems, because no country can solve today's big problems alone.

      Have you noticed how pollution knows no boundaries? Have you noticed how natural disasters displace millions of people and countries must come together to find workable solutions? Have you noticed how the "Tequilazo" or the melting of the Asian-tiger economies was felt across the globe and a global answer was needed? Have you noticed how security problems are no more circumscribed by the interest of a single state and affect us all?

      Have you noticed the emergence of what academics long ago term "epistemological communities", i.e., communities of people interested in solving a problem by applying their joint efforts and knowledge? Oh, you haven't. Then you must not be looking because an open heart is all that it takes. The mind then follows.

      --
      Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  55. Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please let me know how ISV's is going to survive when the OSS movement has conquered the world ?

    Paypal "sponsor" button on everything?

    Distributing source code will spell the death of the small and medium sized ISV's. If the source code is free, no one will pay for a pre-built copy (build and install process can be handled by almost anyone) and someone else than the original software author will profit on the service to support the software.

    As I see it, this will only lead (in the long run) to a stagnation in software development.

    1. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Ummm, that is the goal of GNU doncha know.

      Some people seem to think that the goal of GNU is killing MS.

      The real goal is to take away high paying programming jobs.
      Why should a gas station clerk earn less than a programmer?

    2. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why should a gas station clerk earn less than a programmer?"

      Because we bother to invest time (and possible money) to learn a proffession ?

    3. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      As others have said, the FSF people would love that. While programmers would be selling cars or real estate to get by, Stallman would be able to look at source code in emacs to get his rocks off.

      I think that's one of the reasons why generic platforms like operating systems or web servers are big open-source success stories, while more specialized applications struggle for survival.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    4. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I know the answer is obvious.

      Just not according to RMS.
      What if the gov paid for your education?
      Then you could do a job you love and pay wouldn't be that important.

      Think socialism.

    5. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all works out in theory, but you and I know that it dont work in reality.

      Why is it so hard to see that Stallman's arguments dont add up ??

      If it is free to obtain, in any form, you can't sell the same thing to anyone. And therefore you can't fund more development.

    6. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      See Buggy Whips.

      Charging people because you keep important secrets from them is one business model I'd love to see go away. Let's focus on making a decent living extending, improving and supporting the existing intellectual property - spend your days getting paid to improve everyone's lives, not just those that pay you.

      The Microsoft-sponsored black period of software development is ending, along with the practice of inventing value by keeping people in the dark about their own tools. We all need to find new ways to survive in the light that is now shining into our business models - those who can provide real value will stay in this business, those who were surviving by preying on the uninformed will have to go somewhere else.

      The one thing that this does not point toward is software stagnation - developers can spend time enhancing a shared infrastructure instead of creating something new for every project, and massive amounts of lost resource will be reclaimed. It will most likely destroy the ISV that still wants to sell thier ability to keep secrets, though, unless you can find someone that wants to pay you to keep them. In that case, you won't have to change your business model at all.

    7. Re:Grim reaper of the ISV companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the whole system is sending the wrong signals. Free as in beer, is the signal, the users will soon discover that its free as in speach, wich they arent intressted in.

  56. Is this anything like... by finelinebob · · Score: 1


    Nixon going to China?

  57. GNU/India by freedom_leffo · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, the Indian president announced that they'll from now on will go by the name GNU/India.

    1. Re:GNU/India by sharkey · · Score: 1
      ... they'll from now on will go by the name GNU/India

      Only makes sense, they already let the Hurd wander the streets outside the palace.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  58. Re:Stallman's stance on Softlifting. by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
    Do you mean piracy? what is the difference between 'softlifting' and piracy, besides the rose colored glasses? I don't know much about Stallman, but my inner nerd tells me that MS wouldn't have one of thier fanboys spread such a ideology. So if he does preach such actions, he can't be towing the MS line too hard. (Not only that but it's legal to do that with a *nix install anyway? Irony?)

    Vox is still struggling with understanding Mr. Stallman.

  59. Re:That explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how do you like free trade and globalisation these days?

  60. Re:Stallman's stance on Softlifting. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    He doesn't support such acts, no. Stallman has always been very vocal in saying people should avoid having anything to do with software with proprietary licenses, not that they should break the law.

    Methinks you were trolled.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  61. Re:Stallman's stance on Softlifting. by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

    Thank you. If I were more informed I would have noticed I guess. :)

  62. What nonsense by (void*) · · Score: 1

    The USA does not have a "heriditary" head of state.
    The US president is elected through democratic elections, although there are some who argue that the process is too much vested in special interests, the rich, and is fraught with corruption.

    1. Re:What nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      YOU = FOOLING YOURSELF

    2. Re:What nonsense by happyfrogcow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USA does not have a "heriditary" head of state.
      The US president is elected through democratic elections, although there are some who argue that the process is too much vested in special interests, the rich, and is fraught with corruption.


      Oh come on now. Sure it's not *really* hereditary, but think about this. How many public offices were won by people with the last name of Kennedy who had no relation to JFK at all? I'd wager dozens. I believe this is even historically documented, but I forget the specific example. Hopefully I remember the important parts well enough... A black man with the last name of Kennedy, or maybe he even changed his name to Kennedy, ran for election (mayor of some city?) and won, without even making a public appearance, solely on his last name being Kennedy. This was some time ago, I think, maybe in the 70s. What shock the people had when they realized the elected a black man.

      If current GW Bush had any other name than George Bush, and any other parents, he would have had slim chances being where he is today.

  63. Re:That explains it! by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    Much like Western Civilization, it remains a good idea. It's the execution of the concept that sucks.

  64. That sounds a lot better the M$/US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And damn you for beating me to the GNU/India crack.

  65. Re:RMS leads india to freedom by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

    And a nation that ejected Britain, the most powerful empire in the world at the time from itself. I wouldn't sell them too short.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  66. Outsourced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    RMS outsourced to India? OMG, what times we have to live in...

  67. Next by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    Stallman goes to China? There will happen good amount of talk about politics and software between RMS and Chinese government officials... but can Stallman tolerate his definition of freedom is different from Chinese one?

  68. President moved from Windows to Linux by jayan · · Score: 4, Informative

    (Offtopic)
    According to netcraft (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.pre sidentofindia.nic.in) President's website was running MS windows sometime back. Now that runs on Linux.
    Good work.

  69. Fake Richard alert! by bzzzt · · Score: 1

    It's GNU/Linux dammit!

  70. Taxing profits by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Okay, tax all my profits. I'll just shift them somewhere else.

    I will pay the Indian contracting company $200k per programmer per year.
    I won't make any profit, and the Indian company can make the profit.
    Then the US gov can't tax any of my profit because I don't have any, and all the money goes offshore.

    1. Re:Taxing profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, tax all my profits. I'll just shift them somewhere else.

      Go ahead. But keep in mind that if you shift somewhere else, you also lose access to the market where you make those profits. I doubt you'll do so well just operating for the Indian market!

    2. Re:Taxing profits by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Okay, tax all my profits. I'll just shift them somewhere else. I will pay the Indian contracting company $200k per programmer per year. I won't make any profit, and the Indian company can make the profit. Then the US gov can't tax any of my profit because I don't have any, and all the money goes offshore.

      That's absolutely fine because that fits in perfectly with my model. If it costs you as much to make your software as it does to sell it in the US, you make 0 profit on which I cannot tax you.

      As a plus, you also start to drive up the salary expectations in India which means that ultimately we can all enjoy the same salaries and people will get offered jobs based on their abilities, rather than how cheaply they can be employed.

      Give yourself a gold star for being a socio-economic friendly employer! :-)

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Taxing profits by nuggz · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you misunderstand the strategy.

      I would own the consulting company in India.
      I personally would still get the same money, the Indian programmers would still get their low pay.

      The only loser would be the US gov and their flawed protectionist strategy.

    4. Re:Taxing profits by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Sorry, you misunderstand the strategy. I would own the consulting company in India. I personally would still get the same money, the Indian programmers would still get their low pay. The only loser would be the US gov and their flawed protectionist strategy.

      Okay, I see the difference but it still changes nothing. If your program is made entirely by Indian programmers but sold in the US, I can levy a sales/import/other duty on every program you sell in the US.
      Sorry, I'm not an economist or a US citizen but if I bring anything into the UK, I pay an import duty and Value Added Tax on it which , to me, is a similar type of taxation.
      However, in my scenario, I would levy a variable tax on your product based on the percentage of your workforce that you employed in the US.
      Incidentally, I'm talking about applying this principle globally so, equally, a Korean or Indian company would pay less tax on their profits the more of their own citizens they employ.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  71. Re:That explains it! by qtp · · Score: 1

    Perhaps because we've seen over a million jobs lost just after granting a roughly equal number of H1-B visas in one industry followed by our trade deficit doubling in less than two years. Yeah, that might be it.

    Perhaps you should blame the employers who lobby for an expanded H1-B program and the politicians who they support, rather than blaming the immigrants who are seeking employment and free software advocates who have little or no effect on the H1-B situation.

    --
    Read, L
  72. Re:RMS leads india to freedom by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

    Who said anything about selling India short? If any short selling was going on, it was RMS who was the recipient. India will do fine...with or without RMS.

  73. The President of India by lowmagnet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is not only a doctor, but he actually can read? That's a step up from President Bush.

    --
    Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    1. Re:The President of India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whohoo that's funny.

  74. and so do our jobs by denisdekat · · Score: 1

    Not that it is bad for jobs to be created in India ;) I just think that there won't be much of a middle class left to buy stuff here.

  75. Stallman goes to India... by redtail1 · · Score: 1

    Let's hope he stays there. Or bathes.

  76. RMS website down by oohp · · Score: 1

    I wonder why RMS's website is down.

  77. How can an AC be a karma whore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please to be explaining.

    1. Re:How can an AC be a karma whore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC's try to get people to waste their karma points by modding up/down AC posts. Kinda quasi-karma whores.

  78. Re:That explains it! by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    The question was posed "why are Americans so paranoid." That is the answer to the question--without making any value judgment on the fact, it remains a fact that our net jobs lost stand in striking parallel to our doubled trade deficit. Every billion in increased trade deficit represents roughly 30,000 jobs. Do the math. 6 million jobs lost. Trade deficit increases by $200B. Coincidence? Most of us don't seem to think so.

    From that point, yes, people are drawing the rather obvious conclusion that jobs have disappeared and reading the corporate press releases, we know where they are going. It may be a small piece of the economy, but for those who relied on it for their livings, it was a pretty damned important piece.

    Personall, I *have* sent my opinion on this to my house representative--who, incidentally, is strongly on the side of labor--and both of my Senators. The fact that anyone does that or not is not an excuse to stop the debate. People are rightfully pissed off. If you're not, fine, but when someone asks the question "why are all of you so pissed off and paranoid" don't expect people to roll over and play dead. That there does seem to be that expectation is rather telling.

  79. Please visit slashdot more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate reading Slashdot because of the preponderance of highly-modded "Funny" posts in every thread, and for the typically, grossly inaccurate "Insightful" mods. But seeing such posts get eviscerated and then stomped on sort of makes it all worthwhile. Please stay!

  80. CYBERMINT = ANTISEMITIC TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  81. RMS is very confused by gosand · · Score: 2, Funny

    RMS got a little mixed up about India. He thought the Gnu was holy instead of the cow.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:RMS is very confused by perdelucena · · Score: 1

      Oh my GOD, they outsorced RMS to India. You bastards mega-corporations!!!!

  82. No socialism? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    I live in New York under a 43% marginal tax rate. About 30% of that pays for Social Security pensions. About 15% for the army and the rest for the crappy schools in my area, healthcare for the sick, lazy and lame and whatever else the gov't is giving away.

    So don't tell me that there is no socialism in america.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  83. MOD PARENT UP by Christopher+Whitt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those who read at thresholds above 0 and missed the AC reply, here's an editorialized summary.

    quoeth the OP: "I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair" and "'Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base' is another matter."

    The AC in response hits the nail on the head: Here's a clue: the GPL is not taking away your freedom to use that library - it is giving you the freedom to use that library, if you agree not to take that freedom away from anyone else.

    The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted. It belongs to somebody else, until it passes into the public domain.

    Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it. So GPL software is rarely free as in beer. But that's not the point.

    Again the OP "In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I 'steal' some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary." ... but you can take the code, add some additional functionality that is highly desired, keep the new source code a secret and profit from it. Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors, whose hard work you relied upon to enable your profitable enterprise. Why is preventing that wrong?

    Again the parent AC's response is right on target: "You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it."

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted.

      Show me where I said it wasn't.

      Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it.

      Oh, if only that were the end of it. Go and read the GPL again, understand what it means by "derivative work", and note that I have absolutely no problem with sharing my changes to the code I used. But not necessarily to all code I linked with it. Maybe I'd share some of it, if someone asked. Maybe we could do a deal. But as it stands, the deal I'm forced to take can be extremely unfair.

      profit from it... Why is preventing that wrong?

      There's nothing to stop you from profiting from it yourself. You still have the code, remember? You haven't lost anything. I added value to it and I should be able to profit from that. In reality I might already have most of the value anyway.

      Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors

      It seems to me that the original authors were giving it away for free! How can they profit any less than that?

      hard work

      Nice try, buddy, but I worked hard on my stuff too.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Umm if the GPL was modified in the way you seem to want, you'd only have to release your changes to a function and that would be that. This would be great until you release a product, don't give the source other than one simple function call from with in their function that replaces a host of parts of it with your own proprietary code. In this case you'd still be doing a complete derivative work but you would be using the rules to say that it stands on its own and just uses the GPLed function as a helper (whereas your function is really the helper). The language of the GPL is necessary and while it would be better in theory to not worry about code that you link with, in practice it doesn't work. At all. You could get by with publishing hardly any modifications at all, the only source being release could be only calls to closed source modifications.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      I'm having difficulty tuning into your argument there. I'm not trying to modify the GPL, if I did that then it would be the LGPL. It would be utterly pointless providing a patch that did what I think you're suggesting. I'm not sure, because your signal to gibberish ratio is a bit low. Why would anyone maintaining a GPL'd function accept a patch that basically stopped it from working?

  84. Oh, MAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coffee -> Nose -> Monitor

    Now my pants are soaked.

    Thanks a lot.

  85. Jobs by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    Perhaps what is important is that rather than reading Sport Illustrated, the President of India actually has better things to read to remain an informed leader of his citizenry! As the president reads, so does the populace (SI vs stuff to think about). I remember being one of the few Americans in my more advanced chemistry classes, and some of the Chinese grad students actually asked me why I was so interested. If you want to know why the jobs are going overseas this would be a good place to start, since most of the growth will not be in the US.

  86. Tell him... by Kosgrove · · Score: 1

    ... to say hello to my job while he's over there.

    1. Re:Tell him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your job, huh? How interesting..

      Yeah, I can see it now - Angel #1 in heaven,
      circa 20th century, talking to Angel #2: "Hey,
      gotta help that Kosgrove mom to concieve,
      there's a job with his name on it waiting. Oh,
      and have we lined up the Peterson kid yet? I'll
      put his name down for that Boston slot
      otherwise..."

      Yeah. Right. Only you. And all those very special
      Americans with "their" jobs. A century of killing
      people for the sake of capitalism, and this is
      what emerges.

      Arrogance and entitlement.

  87. TCPA Pricing Goes Further by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Otherwise they wouldn't have been forced to drastically lower the price of their offering.

    That Microsoft is even able to change the price of their product so easily is a consequence of their monopoly control of the market.

    Recall Thailand's Linux laptop project motivated MS to cut prices there. Needless to say, those kinds of prices were not available to buyers of Windows and Office in North America, Europe and Japan.

    Probably one of the most overlooked aspects Microsoft's so-called Trusted Computing initiative (most people in this forum are afraid The Man will spy on them, erase their MP3's and make their old Word documents unreadable unless they keep current their Office subscription payments) is that by targeting contracts with defined individuals and machines, the commodity nature of its products is lessened (the software CD becomes non-transferrable)and it becomes even more feasible to discriminate in pricing than it is now.

    Expect this development.

    Having essentially conquered the market for desktop software Microsoft has to look at other alternatives for growth, which is what their shareholders demand.

    But it is hard for Microsoft to grow now! Entering new markets is difficult for them because their actions will be scrutinized for unfair leveraging of their monopoly position. The remaining alternative is to adjust pricing to maximize revenue; get from each user what they can.

    Thus, they might well charge a few rupees for their OS in India and hundreds of dollars for the same product in a large corporate environment in the United States.

    With TCPA Windows, there will be no danger of the Indian licensee re-selling their copy of Windows to someone in the United States. Not only will such resale be "illegal", but it will become technically much less feasible than it is now.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  88. O no! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1, Funny

    He is going to outsource the GNU Project to India!
    aaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  89. MS windows not a mono-culture? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    true freedom implies shunning mono-cultures
    MS Windows is a mono-culture, it's owned & controlled by one entity. GNU/Linux is national/global culture, anyone can use/modify/distribute

    particular model of Linux (say GNU)
    Surely you troll? GNU is an OS, Linux is a kernel, GNU+Linux is an OS, many models of GNU/Linux and GNU exist such as those distributed by Debian, RedHat, & Mandrake. (non-Linux GNU OS's exist such as GNU/Hurd and GNU/KFreeBSD)

  90. geez by msouth · · Score: 3, Funny

    first our jobs, now our free software guru...

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  91. Stallman: Shut up and finish the HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this why the HURD is still in development after 20 years?

    I thought it was because of the Advertising Clause in BSD Unix, now I find out it's because he's been traveling to India.

    Hey, Stallman, don't make any promises while you're over there...

  92. What's the deal? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    I'm getting into this thread late, but I have some advice for you: if you don't like the GPL license, *don't use it.* It's that simple. Rarely does *any* author give anything away completely PD. Original BSD is the closest, and Berkeley required credits in the program. If the GPL didn't exist, all these authors would NOT be giving away their work. Plain and simple.

    What you seem to want is the collected knowledge of the world, for FREE (as in beer), without giving back in return. That's fairyland. Not going to happen, so get over it.

    It seems to me that the original authors were giving it away for free! How can they profit any less than that?

    They only gave it away free of financial cost. But they gave it away knowing that anyone who contributed would contribute back.

    Again, I have no idea why you're so angry. Plain and simple, if you can't abide by the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. But if you have no money, and lack the talent or time to write your code yourself, don't expect someone to come along, do a lot of the work for you, then get absolutely nothing back.

    That's not how the world works.

    1. Re:What's the deal? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm getting into this thread late

      Clearly, as you then go on to say:-

      if you don't like the GPL license, *don't use it.*

      Which I have already covered. Thanks anyway.

      Newsflash, pal: There's nothing for me to get over, as I don't hold the position you think I do. And you think I'm in fairyland.

      I have nothing against contributing back - on fair terms.

      I'm not angry.

      Oh look, you said it again "don't use GPL'd code". Twice in the same post. After you have been told multiple times that I don't use it anyway. If you want to continue arguing with me, I'm going to require you to read the rest of the thread first, OK?

      Oh, I have no money or talent now. Hehehe! It gets better. "absolutely nothing back" - another misrepresentation of my position.

    2. Re:What's the deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what he wants is the LGPL, which is a very reasonable license. He wants to be able to link to a library without having his entire freaking program become a derivative work.

      IMHO too few people use the LGPL when they really should be using it.

  93. OSS in Mars Rover? by jrutley · · Score: 1

    News to me. Where do I download it?

  94. The other guy blinked... by autophile · · Score: 1
    The first to meet the President was Richard Stallman, the leading light of the free and open source software (FOSS) movement.

    Ironically, the people waiting in the Presidential anteroom for the interaction to end were people from Microsoft.

    It is reported that as Stallman passed the Microsoft representatives as he was leaving, he smirked in their direction.

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  95. It's a Western plot! by autophile · · Score: 2, Funny
    This fits in nicely with the Soviet pipeline story.

    1. Stallman convinces Indian government to use GPL. Specifically, gcc.

    2. Stallman smirks as he adds trojan horse to gcc. "Those Indians will never look at the code. Besides, my trojan horse is so obfuscated, they'll never find it!"

    3. Indians use gcc to develop code for outsourcing contracts. Software works fine for a while.

    4. In six months, software across America goes haywire. "Why oh why did we ever think outsourcing was so great?" sob the executives.

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  96. re:what sealed the deal... by ed.han · · Score: 1

    unfortunately, it's the christians who think they are doing his work by such activities that we non-christians dislike.

    btw: thanks for including the translation reference in your citation: i wish more people would.

    ed

  97. Kalam, Stallman discuss open source software by bfg9000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Kalam, Stallman discuss open source software"....

    I'm pretty sure Stallman was talking about Free Software rather than Open Source Software....

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  98. Protectionism by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Well this is protectionism.
    It seems like a good idea, but when you dig through it, it causes problems.
    Artificially raises the cost of living, lowers the global competativeness, and lowers the standard of living for the country. (Longer term effects, short term seems better)

    The other thing is such a variable tax rate would turn into a terrible paperwork mess. You would have legal fights from a long time, wouldn't end up working. And you'd still end up with all the downfalls of protectionism.

  99. Re:USA to India: by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1

    India to Stallman :- Thank you come again.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  100. Not *all* Americans by Imperator · · Score: 1

    As an American, I find your comment to be generally accurate. (There is something of a safety net, depending on where you live, but these days it's not much.) All I ask is that you remember that not all Americans share the values you describe. I know that our current administration and our corporate-driven culture don't do anything to dispel that view, but remember that many Americans dislike both of those things. Some of us do want to bring developed-world socialism to the US (though we can't call it that here), but it's a hard fight. So yes, many (even most) Americans do have an obsession with money as the ultimate source of value (for a country, or a person), but there are plenty of us who see beyond that.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  101. WTF by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    Oh, I have no money or talent now. Hehehe! It gets better. "absolutely nothing back" - another misrepresentation of my position.

    What the fuck is your position? So go take your medication and code your own goddamn programs.

  102. Slight correction regarding "Dr. Stallman" by RebusKneebus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article refers to "Dr. Stallman" and his leaving a "cushy teaching job". Stallman's own bio at stallman.org points out that he only has a BA in physics, and he was a staff programmer at MIT, not an professor.

    1. Re:Slight correction regarding "Dr. Stallman" by whatsatie · · Score: 1

      he droped out of a Masters program in Phisics. And what is this FOSS (i have heard of FSF and OSS) and last i heard RMS has little or nothing todo with OSS. Except complain that it sould be called Free Software, which it sould.

    2. Re:Slight correction regarding "Dr. Stallman" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has been awarded three honorary doctoral degrees. Does that count?

      and FOSS stand for Free Open Source Software, btw

  103. Oh, great... by 3Suns · · Score: 2, Funny

    So not only do we have to worry about getting our real jobs shipped overseas, but also our open source development as well! Won't there be anything left for an american techie?

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Oh, great... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      So not only do we have to worry about getting our real jobs shipped overseas, but also our open source development as well!

      Hey, now might be a good time to look into where linux started. You might be surprised to learn that it wasn't the US. ;-)

      It's also fun to point out that Linus now lives in the US.

      Chauvinism won't get you far in the Open Source crowd.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Oh, great... by 3Suns · · Score: 1

      TWAJS
      You should get your sarcasm detecter checked out, I think it's malfunctioning.

      --

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    3. Re:Oh, great... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... Let's see ... Let's test it on another quip I was thinking of tossing out ...

      I've heard that they're even outsourcing some Open Source development work to students in Finland.

      Well, I guess you're right. My sarcasm-o-meter[TM] didn't trip on that one. Guess I'll have to reboot it.

      (BTW, I wonder why there isn't a /. "sarcasm" rating. Maybe they couldn't figure out whether it should be -1 or +1. I've also thought there should be an "irony" rating, but that would have the same problem.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  104. what about the indians? by selenetic_age · · Score: 0

    (wont somebody please think of the indians?)

  105. dikshit ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was Randeep Igoturjob.

  106. Ad hominem by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Would you like a helping of straw man to go with that ad hominem? You chose the label lazy, not the poster you accuse. He stated that laziness might be one explanation for your complaints... read the post.

    But personally I think you are a whining dittohead.

    1. Re:Ad hominem by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Hmm, OK, thanks for contributing.

  107. Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And don't you damned corperatists go calling me a libral.

    How perfect. Every time a right-winger hurls the "Liberal!" epitaph at someone, they can respond with "Corporatist!"

  108. Dr. Stallman == Dr. Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing wrong with a honorary doctorate. Let's not have our slashdot religous/politcal beliefs cloud our judgement. Fair is fair.

  109. old chestnut by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
    We should rewrite that old Cold-War chestnut to reflect the current situation:
    Only Stallman could go to Redmond.
    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  110. Our OSS Guru? by Flicker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The president of India probably gets to meet a lot of nutty religious leaders.

    --
    this is not a sig
  111. Stallman does not promote freedom by geekee · · Score: 1

    Stallman believes in control, not freedom. The GPL is specifically designed to allow him to maintain control of any software he's written, while letting others work on it. Also it lets him have control of any software anyone else is written and has decided to place under his license. The fact that the GPL requires copyright in order to be legal says that what you're getting with GPL code has strings attached.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  112. Please, Tell Me He Didn't Play With His Hair by cmholm · · Score: 1
    If, in fact, Stallman is bathing more, thank goodness. When imagining his session with the President, I almost choked as I suddenly recalled Richard's visit to MHPCC on Maui (it's in the book).

    He gave the staff his standard stump speech on how he came to his current views, starting from incident with the printer driver NDA. Even if you've heard it before, and think you've read the GPL, it still helps focus understanding of his position.

    Before the speech, a few of us took him out to lunch. Leaving aside the fact that he's not the greatest conversationalist, and doesn't suffer fools lightly, what really struck us was that he was considerably more disheaveled than even our own Ph.Ds, and - I swear to God - he nibbled on loose strands of hair to the point he was nearly flossing.

    It's true, the President of India, as with any parlimentary democracy, serves a largely ceremonial position. However, he is very cultured and influential, and I can only hope that Dr. Stallman managed to comport himself appropriately.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Please, Tell Me He Didn't Play With His Hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to worry about - Dr.Kalam is a slightly disheveled geek himself, with a haircut style that dates back to 1975. He's usually very simply dressed, in a pair of nondescript gray trousers and a blue shirt. But he's otherwise neat, tidy and organized.

      They'd have got along just fine.

  113. Re:That explains it! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The sheer mentioning of India or China seems to make the average american slashdot tech rave like a white trash untermensh, that has resently been analprobed by the UFO.. What is it with you guys? Try to control your paranoia.

    Unemployment turned us into white trash.

  114. I've got ground for copyright infingement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.

    If a developer were to "steal" ,as you say, GPL'd code, the copyright holder of the GPL licensed code can sue them for copyright infringement. As well as conversion. At least in the U.S.

    Regardless you are correct the price of the GPL license is high, intentionally (Gnu Manifesto)

  115. Re:That explains it! by qtp · · Score: 1

    People are rightfully pissed off. If you're not, fine,

    What ever gave you the idea that I'm not pissed off, or that I feel that this is something not worth debating. It's just that I see people ignoring the fact that every one of these problems comes about do to the decisions made by people who will not suffer any negative consequences, while those most affected by these decisions are to a large extent powerless to affect change in the system as long as they are unwilling to criticise the employers, lawmakers, and vendors/manufacturers who are making these decisions. The guy in India is not much different from you in that he desperately needed a job, and one was offered to him. The state of the economy there that makes it possible for him to work for much less than you or I is not his fault, and you can't reasonably expect him to turn down the job.

    People who, like you and I, are pissed off need to stop blaming the folks who accept an A1-B, stop blaming the folk who get the job in India, and start blaming the *ssh*les who are making the decision to "increase investor value" by deciding that it's your turn to go hungry.

    Look at how the Republicans decide that the economy is "healthy": Stock Matrket, DOW Jones, etc. They don't give a rats ass if you or I are working, eating or have a ropof to call our own as long as thier portfolio is rising in value. They sell us out at every turn and send our kids over to Iraq tgo die so that the vice president's own business can get $375 BILLION in contracts? And still very few are willing to shout "FOUL!" They happily make it easier for our companies to outsource overseas (stock goes up), reduce the companies liability to pay unemployment after a layoff (stock goes up) and make it more difficult for the average Joe to file bankruptcy after he loses his job (stock goes up). Meanwhile everyone is blaming the immigrant and the foreigner. WTF? If pointing fingers is your game, then point them at the jerk who's screwing you over, not the next guy in line to get screwed.

    --
    Read, L
  116. long trip by whatsatie · · Score: 1

    That was a long way to go for a 40 min meeting.

  117. Hmm by Peaker · · Score: 1

    Isn't the Indian equivalent of the US president the Prime Minister?

  118. Richard Stallman is not an Opensource advocate by Peaker · · Score: 1

    He is a Free Software advocate.

    Everyone seems to be inaccurate about what exactly Stallman's visit came to advocate. Human lives are saved and lost on literal accuracy - please attempt to be accurate.

  119. lets see if we cant do this in a more civil manner by linuxghoul · · Score: 1

    Ok...Hi Andrew :)

    me from the other side of the world so i am joining this discussion really late...something to do with the sun not being around earlier...

    anyways...

    to not be accused of a "straw man defense" let me try and summarise what u r trying to say here:

    * GPL is more restrictive than other OPEN SOURCE licenses (u r obviously not comparing it to proprietary licenses and EULAs...err...i hope?)

    * The reason for ur thinking this is GPL makes it impossible, or atleast *clunky* to incorporate into a proprietory package. Clunky because a parallel licensing deal may need to be worked out with the author(S) and with the usual number of authors on most serious projects, this process could get complicated.

    * You also find the deal the GPL offers "unfair" because it either makes u GPL ur entire code (which may be quite valuable) even if all u want to do is use a small function/lib from a GPL project.

    * In the case where u try to work out alternative license arrangements u think/find (u give a specific example of QT somewhere up there) that the price asked for an alternative license is again "unfair" and inconsistent with market prices.

    * additionally u think this is bad cause it makes u re-invent the wheel when u could have just used some GPLed code (if it were under a license which worked for you)...thus making the GPL a cause of wasted effort.

    If this *isnt* what u have been saying, my apologies, and u can skip to the next comment now.

    If this *is* infact what u have been saying, here are my two cents:

    * well, yes, from a perspective the GPL *is* more restrictive. Its aim is to create an openly available suite of code and keep it open indefinately. Remember GPL roots are from a project which tried/tries to make a not-UNIX(TM) unix -- a monstrous reinvention of the wheel...the waste was already there because of the proprietory license. GPL/GNU tried to make it so that there wont be more such waste going forward. It also tries to appeal to a lot of peoples sense of "fairness" in which they dont want entities which dont share their views on "free as in speech" to benefit from the code. This also encourages these entities to go for the GPL if they think using GPL code provides them value enough to make it a fair deal to open their own code.

    In your case, u dont find it a fair deal to have to openup your whole code just because u used a few hundred lines of GPLed code. fair enough, as u said urself, thats why u dont use it. In my case i think it wont be a fair deal if u were able to use some code that i wrote, incorporate that in some proprietory package of yours, and gave nothing back. My reasons for GPLing my code are for it to aid in the snowballing effect of more GPL code out there. If u do contact me with a special case where u just cant open up your code for whatever reasons, but would still like to use my code in it, its only fair for me to ask any amount for it (my experience though, is that GPLed code is usually available for very reasonable terms under alternative licenses). After i name an amount, u are completely free to choose some other provider, if u think i am overcharging (maybe i am stupid to charge so much, and will thus never make a cent from my code, or maybe i really dont want my code in prop. software, and i did actually pull out a number from thin air).

    The only license i can think of which is less restrictive (from your perspective) is the BSD (and its bretheren). No prop. license even comes close, so again, i assume your comparision was only with the BSD licenses. The BSD license is usually applied to code which was developed using public money, and thus is only fair that individuals and corporations, FOSS ppl and prop. folks be able to use it equally freely (actually, using BSD with GPL is kind of "clunky" to use ur word). Most code that GPL is applied to was developed by private individuals in their spare time, or by ppl who were being paid to do so by companies which make mone

    --
    Sigura Non Grata
  120. It begins with being uninformed on what RMS says. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Lots of people on Slashdot who criticize RMS make the mistake of describing their critique such that it's clear they did not read or hear RMS' views. Then people who have read and heard him cite his words to correct the erroneous restatement. I play RMS' talks on the radio on my community radio station (Digital Citizen, alternate Wednesdays 8-10p WEFT 90.1 FM in Champaign, Illinois) and run-of-the-mill radio listeners do respond favorably to what he has to say. They call me on and off-air and tell me so (I just started taking on-air callers and will do more of this in the future). I'm hoping we'll get the equipment and mirroring to do webcasting soon because we have a number of programs of interest to a wide audience, not just my free software/copyright law/patent law public affairs show.

    One of the things people most often misstate is the difference between the open source and free software movements. The FSF essay on this issue is excellent and widely underread. I think RMS gets a profoundly unfair shake on this and other websites.

  121. The starving children in China, right? by lysium · · Score: 1
    China is destined to be the next super power With no economic freedom and the vast majority of it's citizens living in horrid poverty, I doubt it.

    You are basing this on what information? The fact that your mother admonished you to finish your plate "for the starving children in China?"

    An anthropologist I am familiar with recently returned to Northwest China (in the remote mountains) after 20+ years. He was absolutely shocked; instead of rutted dirt roads, he travelled out on a paved highway. The rural villages now have industry, power, telephones, cars, and the beginnings of a middle class consumer life. Their economic 'freedom' to consume will equal ours very shortly. Political freedom is another story, but you probably don't care about such paltry things as accuracy.

    He roughly equated the economy to the late 1940's early 1950's in America, where factory workers could buy a car on one month's salary. Is that true here today? Or does the abstract growth of the Dow Jones average somehow equate to that? I think not.

    ===================

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  122. To get beyond this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all going to have to realize that this is not an all or none situation. There is no "right" license for software. Neither proprietary nor free is always right.

    The core points to be taken are:
    1) We as software developers need to realize that neither a proprietary model nor a free model has an inherent moral advantage over the other. It is dependent on the requirements of the situation. The same will apply to open vs. closed-source. We must determine what customers want/need in a given situation (by listening to them).

    2) Consumers need to realize the advantages and disadvantages of various software licensing models and source availability, when making software decisions.

    Both MS and Stallman have a long way to go to admit these realities of the software business today.

    MS can be in the proprietary model if it wants, but it needs to make its pricing realistic and not gouge consumers. Flexibility in features, rather than massive bundling needs to happen.

    Stallman on the other hand, needs to realize that it's okay for software to be "proprietary" (i.e. licenses for $$) and that it's up to the vendor whether to release source or data formats. These latter are nice, but their necessity is dictated by customer requirements.

  123. RMS does india? by steadph · · Score: 1

    I thought that it was "RMS does India" ????
    like Debbie does dallas.

    just thinking about it.... like eyyywww..

  124. Free software movement as religion is naive. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    The GNU movement has the trappings of a religion.

    No, it doesn't, but it's obvious that many are uncomfortable with anyone talking about ethics, freedom, and community without needing religious reference to make their point; RMS routinely makes his points without religious reference, he grounds his arguments on how he was able to get along with his community of hackers in the 1970's and what values society ought to teach children (sharing published information is good and a time-honored activity, for example). I'm sure if you ask any free software advocate for something they disagree with RMS on, they'll be happy to share that with you. The free software community is not based on faith that something good will somehow work itself out, there is real political understanding and strategy involved. There is also a conflict between deeply examining critical political issues of the day and an audience that is largely unaware and uninvolved in national and international politics. Lots of computer geeks who show up to RMS' talks and frequent websites like Slashdot are not politically astute enough to differentiate between religious followers and those who agree with RMS on issues of software freedom. This can change, but it takes time to discuss issues and educate people about the value of software freedom. One must be willing to engage with arguments on their merits and an examination of history, not glibly dismiss uncomfortable talk as "religion".

  125. You misunderstand RMS' views and history. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Enter RMS. Who advocates giving US IP to everyone who wants it. An event that would sink this country forever.

    RMS has never "advocate[d] giving US IP to everyone who wants it". In fact he consistently explains why the term "intellectual property" (which is what you mean by "IP") hurts us and encourages muddled thinking. He has also said as much in his talks. If you have citations to the contrary, I'd like to read them or hear them.

    As for "sinking this country forever", it's ironic that initially this country began its copyright policy by not honoring foreign copyright (much to some British authors' dislike, like Dickens) and with a far shorter term of copyright than we have today (without which, it's reasonable to estimate, some authors, including Mark Twain, wouldn't have written as much as they did). But again, RMS gives us some valuable insight on copyright policy.

    It's also ironic that you get so much about RMS' views wrong and that he has already rebutted much of what you have to say.

  126. Rugged Individualism is unhealthy by lysium · · Score: 1
    We strive for one goal: Self-Sustenance.

    And a wise man once said: "No man is an island."

    Humans are social creatures. Believing that the goal of life is to stand proudly alone is psychotic and, quite literally, sociopathic. Humans would not exist if individual cells did not cooperate with each other, you know. Please (re)read Asimov's classic Foundation series again. The logical end result of your ideology is spelled out on the surface of the Moon in a later book. I urge you to check it out.

    =============

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  127. OSS for Mars Rover? by mech_knight · · Score: 1

    "For the first time, the Mars Rovers vehicle is using OSS and it is reported to be functioning well."
    I thought the Mars Rovers were using software from Wind River? Is their code using GPL then?

    --
    "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?" --Yoda {whips out green light saber}
  128. GOD WHAT A FUCKING WINDBAG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Stallman will be masturbating to this for years!

  129. Did anyone RTFA? by mikehunt · · Score: 1

    I know some of the jokes are funny, but did everyone miss this bit:

    "Ironically, the people waiting in the Presidential anteroom for the interaction to end were people from Microsoft. "

    So, who wins? Is it better to go first or last?

  130. That's why the economy in U.S. is getting worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, more and more developing countries are adopting Open Source thing. That's one of factors that less foreign people who would buy technological products from us (U.S.A.) because
    they can create their technological products using Open Source technology.
    You gotta know that Open Source is an ideal world, not a realistic world ...

  131. Another case of... by mummers · · Score: 0

    Mohammed going to the mountain. Or, considering we're talking about RMS travelling to India, perhaps it's the other way round.

    --
    --This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
  132. Kalam a scientist/technocrat (Missile/Nuclear) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APJ Kalam is a well respected figure in Indian polity and is a technocrat who headed the Indian missile program for a long time. Well known for his liberal views on social issues and optimistic plans for educating the future generations.
    Though the president is essentially a figure-head, (who does not control the "nucular" button), he can and is known to use the bully pulpit to lobby for important issues. Has written a few best-selling books (including the self-descriptive autobiography "Wings of Fire").

    1. Re:Kalam a scientist/technocrat (Missile/Nuclear) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction. India's President is not just Figure Head/Like Queen. All bills that get passed on need his approval. He can suggest changes. He can reject in in its form and request re-writing. Constitution has it that he can do that only twice and if the parliament approves it thrice, he then has to accept it. He is supreme cpmmander of defense. In case of national emergency, he is head of state with absoluet power. that has happened once in 70s for a year or so. emergency could be due to economic reason too.

  133. Very hard if you think about it. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    You could launch a distro but as has been shown only a few even manage to survive let alone turn a profit. How much change does a supplier of a single program have? A program wich you say is only of use to home users?

    If you look at commercial closed source products for the home then you got the same problem however. Doesn't really matter if it is source or binary if people want to steal it. Look at ACDsee, winrar, winzip, winamp 5 (well serves them right for going commercial) and so on.

    Only if for some reason your users are going to be moral people or they have an other reason to actually buy your software then I think making a living out of home users is extremly difficult.

    Given that if your binary program is popular people are going to crack any protection in a matter of days you might argue that simply not including the protection is actually saving you money and not pissing off paying customers. Then you have to figure out if you are prepared to put in the work and things like bandwidth for the % of thieves vs paying customers.

    I wouldn't at this time. But hey maybe IBM's patent for paying opensource developers is going to help out here. Or maybe you can get money from a distro if your app really fills a gap.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  134. Official website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting official website.

  135. Re:by the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..it is "corporate", not "corperate".

  136. must cause you to convert? by GCP · · Score: 1

    This "require everyone to believe" and "must cause everyone to convert" blather about missionaries is nonsense.

    Though I'm an atheist, I've met plenty of missionaries, and they were all, without exception, trying to share what they considered extremely helpful knowledge for the benefit of others. I acknowledge that there are inevitably exceptions, but that's all they are these days: exceptions.

    Many religious fundamentalist societies in the past have been coercive in the extreme, of course. The Muslims are the worst case of this today, with the Catholics (with their brutal concentration camps for "wayward" girls or orphans) a close second, but both groups tend to limit their coercion to those unfortunate enough to be born within their own group. Neither group is known, in current times, for proseletyzing missionaries actively seeking to convert nonmembers.

    If someone is trying to persuade me of something that he thinks will be a real blessing to me, I'm not offended, and that's all I've seen from current missionaries. (The coercive missionaries these days call themselves by a different name: "political activists".)

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:must cause you to convert? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      This is really a by-product of the de-religionizing of the West. Fewer and fewer people are *really* religious. Many people who claim to be religious treat it as one component of their life, rather than as the only component. Now, I think this is a good thing, but its pretty fundementally illogical. I mean, you have a God, who is perfect, infinite, and supremely powerful, yet He is only one component of your lifestyle?

      Consider, then, the sheer irony of the United States. Here you have a country that is predominantly Christian, yet has an absolute freedom of religion. Christianity (like Islam) is an evangelical religion. It is your duty as a Christian to persuade others to find Christ. At the same time, it is enshrined in law that people have the freedom to ignore Christ! You have two absolutes here that are fundementally irreconcilable. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people can live with this, its just really amusing that's all.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:must cause you to convert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is your duty as a Christian to persuade others to find Christ. At the same time, it is enshrined in law that people have the freedom to ignore Christ!

      That's where free will comes in. Hasn't anyone here seen Bruce Almighty?

  137. RACIST ANTI-SEMITE CYBERMINT STIRIKES AGAIN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:RACIST ANTI-SEMITE CYBERMINT STIRIKES AGAIN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhhh. I'm trying to karma whore here.

  138. Missionary Position? by ScottZ · · Score: 0

    So, to sum up, the Missionary position is open to all comers?

  139. Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

    Hi Mr. Ghoul! I saw your response a long time ago but I'm sorry, I was caught up in other replies. Actually I feel very bad because I should have replied to you first. I hope you are still awake. Anyway, thankyou very much for your thoughtful reply.

    I am very grateful that you didn't try the old straw man thing that everyone else tried. Your summary of my position was most accurate. I have only one point to make:-

    I don't claim that the GPL is more restrictive than any other Open Source licence. I'm not familiar with all Open Source licences. However, it's my intuition that the GPL probably is more restrictive than most if not all Open Source licences, because of RMS's strong ideology. He believes that restrictions are necessary to enforce freedom, as all ideologues are wont to do.

    OK I'll post this and then reply with thye rest.

  140. FIRST POST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi

  141. Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

    GPL/GNU tried to make it so that there wont be more such waste going forward.

    Well, that's a laudable goal, and I'm sure it has succeeded in certain circles. I personally prefer the Microsoft way of doing things, so the GNU stuff has little to offer me. I know I'm in a minority on this site to say that (although not a minority use Microsoft tools to say it) but I'm not scared of my karma or of a good argument.

    It also tries to appeal to a lot of peoples sense of "fairness" in which they dont want entities which dont share their views on "free as in speech" to benefit from the code.

    I don't think it's "fair" for entities who don't share my views on "free as in free to code as they like and not have to release it warts and all to the world" to rip off code either. But try telling to the various disassembler jockeys from the anti-MS community. I'm no stranger to disassemblers myself but please don't try to tell me that Wine "clean-roomed" Windows. YEAH, RIGHT.

    It's all very well only licensing your code to people who agree with you. Oh no, wait, no it isn't. That's the sort of thing people would denounce as a Microsoft tactic. No. If your software is good, then maybe people will try it. As a programmer, especially as someone who has been told a zillion times that Linux is the shiznitz, let me tell you - a little cynicism goes a long way.

    "gave nothing back"

    My friend, I can give back just as much as most of the leechers who download your stuff. In fact probably much more. But what is my incentive? To have the leechers laugh at me? "See that idiot? That guy paid for the stuff that I leeched!". Joy!

    You want a snowballing effect of more free software. That's fine to say for someone who still lives in his/her parents' basement. Most people need to make a living once they leave that stage. While there is no guarantee that any particular individual will make it that way, there remains a sizable population of people worldwide who command a salary because they help to create wealth. Free software people may help to create wealth, but they rarely collect on it.

    Aiight I am pretty tired now. But one more point for you. Most "Open Source" licenses are pretty close to BSD. Most useful Open Source stuff out there is under a pretty reasonable licence. And most people do not make use of the freedom that they have. I'm not altogether upset about the status quo. There's always room for doom and gloom. But at the same time, you should look at the real world around you. Is "the man" standing with his jackboot on your neck? Or is it possible to see a non-GPL-zealot as a reasonable, perhaps sociable person?

  142. Tell him... by Kosgrove · · Score: 1

    I wasn't serious, numbnuts. I was trying for a +5 Funny. But you've got me on that other count: I've been personally killing people for the sake of capitalism since 1904. I mean, really? Why mod that up? That's not insightful. That's the same crap that's posted to virtually every article that involves outsourcing. And by the way, read my previous postings and you'll notice that you've grossly mischaracterized me.

  143. Open-Source is risky right now by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were.

    Yeah... I noticed. You were getting dissed for holding the minority opinion (in this case, calling GPL more restrictive). People kept accusing you of things you never even said. Nothing like the masses on Slashdot turning against someone ;)

    I think gaming will be one area that will not be impacted as much when open-sourcing the software. Most of the game's value comes from content (graphics, story, innovativeness of the game, etc). I think you can still make money even if you give the source code away. You will NOT give the content away so one will still pay for the game.

    Having said that, it is very risky to open-source something right now--even gaming. As I say in another message (something you may not agree with), the ultimate goal of businesses is to monopolize their industry. That is what generates the high profits. If you want to monopolize the market, you want to keep the source code closed. For instance, if your game has really good AI then keeping it closed will ensure that only your (future) games will have that great AI. If you open-sourced it, competitors will incorporate your AI and you will lose your advantage. I just think the business model isn't there. I have my doubts that someone can make money by open-sourcing their software in the NEAR TERM.

    In the long term, I still think that open-source is the way to go. Instead of your company spending a lot of time coding basic AI, or implementing some sound system, or whatever, you can use open-sourced existing components. Use open-sourced stuff and tailor it for your needs. But the business isn't there. I haven't seen any company really make much money off open-source. The only ones that have been able to are very small companies (eg. people offering linux solutions and services), or distribution companies (eg. Red Hat, SuSE/Novell).

    I am a big supporter of open-source (at least from an ideological point of view). I really think it will help people, especially smaller countries, poorer people, etc. It is more efficient for a lot of small countries to pool together and contribute to one thing than to try doing it on their own. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the views of the software industry and those who say that making money off it is tough. The business model just isn't there yet.

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  144. Rugged Individualism is healthy by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    For a counterpoint, I would start by agreeing that no man is an island - but he should be able to swim if living near the ocean.

    You speak in terms of humans being social creatures, and that is quite correct - but part of being in a healthy society is that you must at least give back to the society more than you take from it, or you will eventually bring about the downfall. It's one thing to rely on some help from time to time in downswings, but quite another to live a life of moochery.

    That's why people taking unemployment have no stigma, but "harder" forms of support like welfare have quite a bit of stigma attached to them.

    In the end rugged individualism is healthier for a society as a whole, while being slightly less positive for the individuals themselves as in addition to working harder, they must also spend more effort at figuring out what a good balance is.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  145. It can happen by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing is that almost no-one cares enough to actually try and do what you suggest - though it sounds appealing to many, they are comfortable enough with where they are that they do not wish to push it.

    Now I have a friend who absolutely wanted to only ever work half time - and I think has been able to do so for about seven years now. And not just at small companies, the last place she worked at for a number of years was Rational (a pretty big corporation)!!

    And all that without even moving. If you really cared about such a situation I am sure you could find it in the US without much problem if you were willing to move.

    The fact of the matter is that most people in the US are actually content with the vacation situation as it is, which I know sounds unbelievable but there you go.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  146. Your mamma by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    No, I don't mean that as an insult. I mean literally have your mom download and build any given linux distribution. I'll wait...

    Didn't go so well did it? I'll bet you've never heard your mom say *those* words before!!

    Just because source is available does not mean people will not pay. There are plenty of examples where the act of pre-packaging for consumers can bring tremendous profits.

    Just because something is GPL does not mean you can't charge for it!! It just means that you need to consider the strategy of what to do when people copy and distribute it. You just need to be better than anyone else at distributing the code you build in a convenient manner to people who pay you for it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Your mamma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are plenty of examples where the act of pre-packaging"

      Can you please give an example of one ?

      Does this apply to vertical software, that focus on IT administration where the buyers are experianced system administrators or programmers also ?

      Not that this is not sarcasm, I want to know, because if it would be possible, it might be an option to concider.

  147. Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man by linuxghoul · · Score: 1

    hi again...

    ok, firstly, i really really wish you hadnt brought MS into the argument. This is slashdot, and involving MS in a thread not directly about MS i think should be cause enough for invoking godwins law. (ESR, maybe its time to update the entry for godwins law in the hackers dictionary :P)

    secondly, its you who now can be accused of a straw man defense by bringing in the issue of reverse engineering and dissassembly, none of which was being argued about. I hope if u do reply further you will refrain from such fascile arguments, cause i am starting to get an uncomfortable feeling that i have been trolled :P

    now to respond:

    I have absolutely no issues with you liking the 'MS-way' better. to each his own. It just doesnt square with what you have been saying in this thread. If u are talking about freedom to incorporate someones code into yours, the MS way is certainly NOT less restrictive than the GPL. (and no, COM linking is not the same as incorporating code. Such runtime component invocation is all pervasive in the GPL world as well, in other forms). Hell, the "MS-Way" doesnt even let you LOOK at the code!! So i do have to take issues with you if u are implying that MS EULAs are in *any* way less restrictive than GPL.

    About only licensing code to people who agree with you: Well, THAT is TRUE for EVERY LICENSE. A LICENSE is a statement of agreement of views on how to use the code. How can i/why should i license you ANYTHING if u dont agree with me on how its to be distributed? Again, MS even imposes restrictions on not only how u distribute code (compiled code, not even source code, which is unavailable) , but also how you USE it on your own!! No one that i have come across has issues with that. The problem is with keeping secret
    core interoperabilty data which strengthens MS (declared illegal) monopoly: File formats, protocols etc. And that problem arises from the fact that many people dont want a death grip on them where their whole business can be held to ransom because MS wants more money, and there are no options. AGAIN, this is an issue BECAUSE MS is a monopoly. There is no choice for most ppl but to use the .doc format. If a small company with no death grip on the market had a proprietory protocol, no one would care two hoots. That small company cant do much harm. (and if we continue this discussion, please keep MS out of it)

    Now about dissassmebly/reverse enginnering: Dissassmebly/reverse engineering is perfectly respectable and legal. Even under the infamous DMCA. And Disassembly is always done for interoperatability reasons. Another big thing which u forgot: dissassembly involves a LOT more effort than just developing an equivalent product yourself from scratch. AGAIN, The only reason ppl do it is for interoperatabilty, when there is NO other choice. Dissassemblers are NOT freeloaders. SAMBA/WINE have worked **much harder** than the original windows team to develop products talking the same protocols as MS products. You should know, given u are no stranger to dissassemblers yourself. The great thing with GPLed code is, one doesnt NEED to reverse engineer anything. Even if the GPL doesnt work for u, u can always go through the code, learn the techniques used, details of all protocols and file formats, and proceed to write a compatible piece of code from scratch. as long as u dont incorporate gpled code verbatim, u are all set!

    About leechers: I dont care about a person downloading my code and using it for his own purposes. Thats why i released my code under the GPL, not under a EULA. If that person(your leecher) is not a developer, i DONT *WANT* ANYTHING BACK from him anyways!!! But if he IS a developer, my cost to him is that he contributes
    back any modifications to my code (failling that, i want a good amount of money from him, maybe a share of the profits he will make from that prop. package of his). And this is true for you too! as a developer of a propreitory product, u benefit more fr

    --
    Sigura Non Grata
  148. Re:That explains it! by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    "Perhaps because we've seen over a million jobs lost just after granting a roughly equal number of H1-B visas in one industry followed by our trade deficit doubling in less than two years. Yeah, that might be it."

    That was my statement that has gotten you in all in a tussle. I'm not blaming immigrants in that statement. In case you haven't noticed, the H1-B issue was rushed through congress and DOUBLED for the sake of diluting our IT labor market on the fallacy that we had too many computer programmers. THAT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. That we have allowed our trade deficit to double IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. That we have six million people unemployed IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. That all of these are in a very tight causal relationship IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. Addressing those political issues does not mean someone hates foreigners.

    Look, My family runs primary schools in rural India. I've lived in fscking rural Africa where "public housing" means dropping off a pile of bricks. I've gone on humanitarian missions to the middle of Mexico where people live houses made of dirt and straw. I've clocked more miles of world travel than most presidents. I'm well aware of the plight of people a HELL of a lot worse off than software engineers in Bangalore and frankly it's almost sickening to hear people going on about the plight of the top 0.00001% of Indians who have standards of living higher than most Americans--often greater in certain terms than American software engineers (do you have full-time live-in servants?). This is misplaced pity. It's the other 99.9999% of the population in that country that people should be worried about.

    Christ, I GET IT, OKAY? DO YOU? You know the phrase "think globally, act locally?" Well, the people I see locally are one day away from homelessness and have advanced degrees. That I am concerned more about those people at the moment does not mean I don't give a shit, or worse that I hate, Indians or any other nationality of people. It just means that I don't like seeing my own people starve. What the hell is wrong with that?

    On the one hand, in a VERY abstract sense it is not the fault of someone in India who is offered a work visa. GREATLY on the other hand is that the government of India has lobbied our government to favor their country in terms of visas and has heavily promoted outsourcing with the express intention of taking existing jobs on a 1:1 ratio--not creating new jobs. They have literally said "we can replace that employee" not "we can produce that product better. They are taking even the most run-of-the-mill office jobs down to clerical work and answering the phone. There IS a human side in the United States that the Indian government is utterly conscious of--THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

    How is it that we should hold ourselves to ethical standards, but we must hold India ethically blind? That reduces every argument about India to nothing more than a juvenile tautology. The government of India, the business owners in India and the front companies in the United States that proxy for them are NOT without blame. They know EXACTLY what they are doing every bit as the Wal*Mart that comes to town with the express intention fo driving all of the local business owners into poverty.

  149. Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

    OK, sorry about bringing MS into the argument. I had been drinking and I think I was beginning to drift off-topic...

    I wasn't talking about MS EULAs. I was talking about the general way in which software is crafted. I prefer the Win32 environment to the Unix one. Then again, I have more experience with Win32. It doesn't matter, though, I'm free to make my choices.

    I can't see MS's code, true. I rarely need to, though, and whenever I have a problem, I can find someone to talk to about it.

    But if he IS a developer, my cost to him is that he contributes
    back any modifications to my code


    As I have said all along, I have no problem with this. What I object to is having to give you stuff that isn't a modification to your code, but has become part of this "derivative work".

    It wasn't my intention to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if my words had that effect.