Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words
soloport writes "C|Net has published an article, written by RMS, in which Stallman points out that Gates is merely calling the kettle communist. Toward the end of the article, Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words. Back in 1991, Bill said, in an internal memo: 'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.' Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."
Or it could be said that Bill just took his own advice. Depends on what he was looking to accomplish.
Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words.
Once again, I imagine Nelson: Ha Ha!
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"Stop repeating everything I'm saying!"
"Stallman's a dork."
"Stallman's a... HEY!"
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
what the feck is THAT supposed to mean?
make sense, dammit.
I knew how to rule the world in 1991 but unfortunately it changed. For the better.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Idealism dies when you actually get put in the big chair.
How saddeningly true - the more patents there are, the less innovation, the less motivation for innovation. Ironically, I was going to use Microsoft as an example, before I realized it.
All your searching needs (and free money!) - 4Lancer.net
> "Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words"
"Don't worry, nobody will ever nee*gakfmfmmmmp6wtf40phrghhshs*hare the Software! You'll be Free, Hackers! You'll be Free!"
> "Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."
No thanks. I think I've already given up eating for today.
Gates is merely doing what's best for the stockholders. Oh wait. That's HIM.
If Apple (or Xerox) had patented the GUI, we would still be stuck with DOS!
So, if M$ patents everything it can get its hands on, what innovations would it stop?
Why doesnt this guy just retire? He clearly is living on planet "Whatever". See, and you thought you had to be smart to have lots of money?
Bill Hatfield and Richard MacCoy?
Serious question. Can anyone tell what this could possibly have to do with online rights?
I thought he was busy getting the hurd together?
...but first...
RTFA! I think he makes a valid, lucid point here and does a great job explained why software patents tend to be evil.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Hey, that hurts. . . no wonder no one came to my birthday party.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Now, will this story actually get read by Microsoft-hugging MIS types and pointy-haired bosses?
;) ) from a lentil bean.
The problem with Stallman is that, brilliant as he is, he only ever seems to garner attention from those who are already on his side. He preaches to the choir and only to the choir, which is kind of useless when 99% of the world wouldn't know a Linux (err, GNU/Linux
What would it take to get a story like this onto the desk of every Gates-worshipping, MSFT-stock-owning, spyware-infested-Windows-machine-running, Gartner-Group-report-reading, pointy-haired boss?
And... holy crap, Stallman trimmed his beard???
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
For those of us with a few years between school and the present, I'd ask you if you really wanted to be judged by what you think now, or what you thought then? Does it really matter that you're opinion of a decade ago doesn't gel with your opinion of today?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I thought the best line was: "Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense."
Of course, he's twisting the meaning of things as much as Gates has, but of course that's the point.
sigs are a waste of space
How many people think the exact same things they did 14 years ago? I know my views have changed a lot. Why can't Bill's?
Technically, Mr. Gates is right. The whole Open Source idea is a communist idea, not in terms of Soviet Russia (where software owns you) but in terms of a community of workers all banding together to produce their own labor, instead of selling themselves to the capitalists.
Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about.
What the Open Source community has is what all communist countries thus far have lacked, which is the admission of only like-minded people. For a commune to work, the citizens must all have similar ideas with respect to how to interact with the outside world. In a nation, where all citizens just become communists, this simply isn't possible.
fsh
Can you site an instance where M$FT ever sued someone on patent grounds? Remember, we're talking patents, not copyrights or software piracy.
As far as I know, companies like M$FT take out patents to defend themselves, not to launch offensives against their competition.
... do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist. +-+-+-+-+-+-+- what a creep. as if the almighty dollar were the only conceivable incentive for creative endeavor.
It's not uncommon to see young companies have the same type of attitude but along the way, as they become big, their strategies have to change based on the experience they have gained.
RMS is the driving idiological force behind GNU. People don't live forever. One day, someone else is going to take over and how do we know that the same ideals will be followed. More than that, how do we know that Stallman won't just decide one day that he's tired of living and dieing for free software and will shave his beard, take a shower and go on a date that doesn't charge by the hour?
Microsoft was the underdog for a long time. They came in cheaper and good enough. GNU/Linux right now is coming in as the cheaper/good enough solution. While there are some people that use free software on principle, the people paying for free software are doing it because it makes sense in their business... When something else makes sense, the money will follow.
One day, something else will take that spot and you're going to see a lot of whining and tantrums most likely followed by agressive tactics. To be perfectly honest, you see that now with competing open source technologies.
So, instead of seeing how Bill Gates has changed... consider this a warning as how F/OSS might possibly change in the future.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days
Every important element of the modern GUI (windows, icons, menus, pointing device) was demonstrated by Doug Engelbart in 1968. His system even had something that looked a lot like a blog. The patents all would have expired long ago.
In quoting Gates discussing patents, he is being deceptive in that Gates, in refering to communists, is principally discussing copyrights/piracy when he refers to IP. MS has not patented their .doc format in such a way to prevent other programs from interpreting it.
Many of the news /. posts, are based on the work of RMS.
Many don't agree with him, i respect that. But even when you don't agree with many things he says, most of you are using an operating system that exists because of Richard's Work. You are also using thousands of lines of code that he wrote by himself. He has proved in the past to have been right, and the fact that he continued with his fight, even against what most others told him, has benefited the whole community.
So, don't agree with him if you don't want to, but at least hear what he has to say, you will learn a lot, and it's the least we can do to thank him for everything he has given us.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
With such an underhanded move to crowd out free software, who can really trust these people when they claim to be acting in your best insterests?
I believe Gates and Company have taken the approach of patents to protect themselves from suits from others. Has Microsoft actually sued someone over copying their technologies?
I know they've harrassed people like Mike Row (MikeRowSoft.com) but don't recall them pulling any SCO moves.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The title assumes that Gates would in fact read what RMS wrote, which is very unlikely - any magazine that publishes Stallman's words is comparable to the Uptown gay magazine.
The hammer calling the sickle communist.
FTFA: "If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git." - Linus Torvalds More people really need to take his advice...
Bill is worth several Billion. RMS is worth what?
It must be a matter of taste, but I wouldn't pay several billions for either of them. Not even in Yen.
What would it take to get a story like this onto the desk of every Gates-worshipping, MSFT-stock-owning, spyware-infested-Windows-machine-running, Gartner-Group-report-reading, pointy-haired boss?
i'm sorry, but that's fucking brilliant.... can we mod up more please???!?!?!?
"Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Don't forget the increasing need for a Gates/Ballmer filter on Slashdot !
(and I think i saw more Windows news than Linux ones, lately on this site)
Richard Stallman is president of the Free Software Foundation as well as chief GNUisance of the GNU Project.
..Why is "everyone" (=lots of people) bashing RMS. I cannot see anything wrong in what he says or how he thinks, still everyone seemes upset about him, without giving an explanation. Could someone please explain?
pedagogue? I think you mean demagogue.
In a business sence, it makes complete sense - as businesses are entirely out there to make money. However, ethically, it does not really gel all that well.
-But, for the most part, if the world was a more ethical place, the standard of living would most likely be a lot better..
But, people are too lazy and non-cohesive - I see it all around me- people willing to take the easiest route even if it 'against good ethics'. They just ignore that fact -
For an example [and I know this is overused], people use cars a lot, causing a lot of problems (what to do with car when its end of life [landfill], what to do with pollution caused by cars [sick people], etc, etc) - however, I suspect if everyone was to migrate to electric buses, or trains, that these things could be reduced, and the (average) quality of life would get better. People usually don't, because cars are convenient, they are common, and people don't see them as being expensive when compared to buses (even though some of those views are incorrect).
So, people are unlikely to choose linux or mac over what their parents/friends have (windows) as they are lazy and see difference/change as a terribly difficult thing to cope with.
Therefore, we see people like Bill Gates floundering about trying to make as much money as possible from the lazy ignorant masses - and his current stance on patents is one way of making sure 'the rebel forces' cannot get a foot in.
I think its disgusting... and I don't like cars (I use the bus as much as possible) and I have a Mac laptop and 2 linux severs (along with a single windows box which needs to be reinstalled every other week).
just my $2.
That's a one track statement. You could also argue free/open source is the most competitive way to move foward, instead of having thugs^W government and lawyers shut down competition for you.
Thank goodness. I was afraid everyone had forgotten what he said almost 15 years ago.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
...in Soviet Russia, there were communists!
That's exactly why OpenSource should patent as much of it's innovation as possible - even with the help of investors.
It is also part of communism where the group tries to centralize all of the means of production. In other words, all productive activity is to be controlled and organized from one place, and production for individual benefit becomes illegal.
Now, does that sound more like what MS is trying to do, or what Open Source people are trying to do?
It sounds to me like that one place is Redmond, and that for free/open source software, there is no such place or controlling entity.
With free/open source, anyone who doesn't like a development group's decisions can fork the code and develop their own code base. So, your comparison is not a fair one.
Sorry that was before he became Billcutus of the BORG...
Resistance is futile, you will be patented...
Get a shave and a haircut, buddy. It 2005 already.
Wake up.
If only Bill had patented his idea that 640k should be enough for anybody and innovated on that...
Early history of CIFS
The relationship between Samba and Microsoft wasn't always so contentious. In 1996, when Microsoft was just introducing CIFS, it had to contend with competition such as the Sun-Novell alliance behind Sun's WebNFS software. Microsoft at that time pledged that it was "making sure that CIFS technology is open, published and widely available for all computer users," and it noted that Samba used CIFS.
Microsoft submitted the first version of CIFS to the Internet Engineering Task Force at the time, a first step in the standardization process. That process went nowhere, but a 1997 version of that submission is still available on the Internet. The submission made no mention of two related patents, which Microsoft received in 1993 and 1995. In addition, Microsoft shared information in a series of CIFS conferences that began in 1996.
The patents, however, rose to prominence this year.
In the technical document describing CIFS in Windows NT 4.0, Microsoft prohibits companies from using the information in software covered by the GPL, which includes Samba. Microsoft requires readers of the document who plan to implement its description to sign a license agreement that raises the specter of patent infringement.
Specifically, the agreement grants a company a royalty-free license to two Microsoft patents but prohibits the developer from using the CIFS information in software that would subject that company to "intellectual property rights-impairing licenses," including the GPL.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
oops. i just read "I think Bill could learn a lot from Slashdot ..." :) secret wish?
Although I don't know for sure, I believe that enough MSFT employees and contractors read Slashdot that the MS folks (in general) have a pretty good grasp on anything said here, and if there is something to learn from a post or topic, they learn it. If I worked for MS, and saw something here that could be used by the company, I would let my boss know, and hope the company took appropriate action.
Whether or not the new knowledge is implemented once learned is another question all together. It may be a good technical idea yet not fit their business model or vice versa.
I wish I could moderate a moderation as funny!
that was priceless.
It's pretty obvious that Gates' attitude to patents etc will hchange depending on whether he's on the giving or the receiving end.
Unlike for most of us, things haven't changed much for RMS in the last 14 years.... Hurd is still the best idea in town (ready RSN) and he's still living a Jesus sandals hippy lifestyle.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Absolute power doesn't corrupt. Absolute power enlightens. It's being within reach of absolute power that corrupts.
"The transfomers are WAAAY better than G.I. Joe" - me
"Seriously, I didn't sleep with that woman. " - Governor Clinton
"Remember what I said about taxes.. uhm, psyche!" - George Bush 1
"Don't make me tell daddy" - George Bush 2
"I bet I could make money on this internet thing" - Steve Case
Ahhh.. good ole '91
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
To be honest Stallman has done some great work, but he personally bugs me. He is super annoying, egotistical and arrogant.
But he has done some damn great things.
Doh
In lefty terms:
Capitalism=market based, means of production are owned by a few.
Mutualism=market based, means of production are owned by all.
Communism=non market based, means of production are owned by all.
Stalinism=non market based, means of production are owned by a few.
Obviously that's a very loose set of definitions, based around the Trot line, and changes depending on which lefty cult the person you're talking with belongs to.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Wasn't it the pothead (Bill Gates, 1983) calling the kettle (Stallman, 2025) black?
Gotta love that GNU/Linux (cough, Linus) side-swipe. Poor bitter man...that Stallman.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
I do not question any of what he has done, but there are times when you just don't want to hear about/from someone/something and it is nice to be able to block those things.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
And you would know because....?
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs visted the Palo Alto Research center in 1979 (or so). So, Xerox probably had the their GUI by 1978. Patents are for 17 years, so the patent would have expired in (1978+17=) 1995: ten years ago.
And we wouldn't be stuck with bash. We'd be stuck with csh.
There's an entire thread devoted to discussion of how much Stallman needs to "get a haircut," since of course how you wear your hair is an indicator of the worth of your ideas.
Imagine if Einstein hadn't worn a crewcut his entire life. Where would we be then?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...I'm not sure if this is good or bad or just an example of the capitalist world we live in...I think it's the latter.
I don't see where Stallman quotes Gates with any 'communist' statement. Please point out where I'm wrong (might've just missed it).
He does accuse, but doesn't offer the quote - in or out of context. A C-Net poster has offered a quote concerning music copyrights - but unless I've missed a few arguments, that's not the same as a software patent.
"Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about."
Of course it is. Marx and Engels talked about man tools, and how, a man , in orther to be truly free, should have access to the tools he needs. If the tools he needs to work, are owned by the rich, they become their masters, and can have him dominated.
It's the same argument that Stallmans points out, about software, and, IMHO, it's a fundamental issue.
There is a serious misguided idea that most USA citizens have, which is that communism = URSS, and that's an utter bullshit. The URSS was a corrupt dictatorship fighting for world domination (And we had 2 corrupt dictatorships fighting for world domination in that years, now there is only one left). Communism is an economic and social system, that (just like Capitalism) can work ok if implemented by honest people, or be a terrible weapon if implemented by a corrupt government. This is true for both systems. The issue is in the society, not on the system.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I think Stallman must be feeling lonely, and lashing out at Gates. Not only has Moglen started up his own organization, but I see the Kuhn has left the FSF to join him...m l
http://softwarefreedom.org/team.html
http://www.fsf.org/news/new-executive-director.ht
In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. If Microsoft sells Windows CDs for $100 and I can figure out how to copy my CD that I bought from them and sell copies for $1, nobody should interfere with me.
So now companies come to government and say other people should give them money for something created without their further labor. Even worth, they want to tax an inventor who came up with their idea independenly. Any why? Because they "worked hard and they are good for the society"? Well cry me a river!
That's social protection, and companies don't really need it. If not for patents and copyrights, businesses will form consortium to joinly invent something they can all then manufacture. And in particular software companies will sell personalized support for their software. Like a poolman, there will be a computerman that comes to my house and teaches me how to use software for reasonable rate. There will be some shake up and loss of efficiency, and maybe Microsoft will have 5 billion in the bank instead of 40 billion. But it will not be all bad, and much of the money will be in the pockets of Microsoft customers who are now overcharged for whatever wealth Microsoft actually created.
We need social protection. We work for the good of the society and already don't get royalties, don't get paid again and again for the work we only did once. It's only fair we get some type of royalties first - like job security and the company that outsourced jobs paying for retraining costs for layed off workers. Then, once we are well protected, we'll think about shelling out a few bucks for their CDs that we can easily make ourselves.
By the way, I am not arguing for unlimited social protection or that capitalism doesn't have benefits. But patents and copyrights are definitely NOT capitalism.
most of you are using an operating system that exists because of Richard's Work
Nope. I'm using Linux*
You are also using thousands of lines of code that he wrote by himself
Nope again. I use vi.
* An operating system that exists because of the work of too many to mention. Sure, Stallman had a brand new pair of roller skates, but it was Linus had the brand new key. In any case, it would all be useless pile-o-code w/o the unsung hordes who took the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities and pounded on both 'till they formed a usable system (dare we call it an "operating" system?)
Absolute power rocks
...of the bill gates quote
The solution is patenting as much as we can.
In the article, RS is implying that Bill Gates once agreed with him on patents, and the quote he gives would make it seem so....however, if you include the bit that he "conveniently" left out, it reads quite the opposite, gates stance on patents has always been the same, and against RSs stance. Nice to know that Microsoft isn't the only one capable of FUD...well done RS.
I don't like the idea of patents an all little things such as the European patent law would suggest! Where would we stand if a single OK button would be patented! It's just crazy! Gates should see that as well, he should think of where it all will go when everything will be patented! If that was the case they couldn't have made their new side monitor thingie for longhorn cause it was already there gkrellm!
Oh! Zing!
Try eMusic. DRM free, legal, MP3 downloads.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
...
I don't know about you, but by reading this, Bill's intentions become clear from the start. Isn't he instructing his staff to patent as much as they can? Funny how RMS would hide this essential piece of the quote in [...]
You're just going to have to trust me. And stop masturbating so much, it makes me sad.
I've tended to consider it ironic on the few occasions when Gates and RMS have indirectly traded barbs...Namely because the two men actually have far more in common IMHO than I suspect either of them would be comfortable to admit. I'm reminded here of a scene from Spiderman when the Green Goblin tells Spidey, "You and I are not so different."
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold obviously saw the intellectual property light: patent it no matter what and you'll own the toll-booth. Stallman's perspective is probably too little, too late and Gates' head has probably been here for years.
Myhrvold started a company five years ago (Intellectual Ventures) that is focused on a strategy to "create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products.">
How is he doing this? As it says in the article, "To generate patentable ideas, Intellectual Ventures hired a dozen top scientists as part-time consultants to participate in several all-day gabfests each month, which the company calls "invention sessions." Lawyers transcribe the discussions, which can range from biotech to nanotech to solid-state physics, and follow up on the most promising ideas with patent applications." He's obviously the most visible person involved in this activity. Pretty soon (if not already) *any* idea you have had better be fully patent-researched before you embark on a new adventure.
IMHO, this activity by people like Myhrvold (and the bleak state of the US Patent Office) is what is going to seriously hamper open source innovation and people taking risks to start up companies.
The Open Source community is diverse, that is part of it's strength.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Yes, but they are trying to patent (or have already patented?) their "new" MS Orifice format, based on XML. How you can patent a file format is beyond me, but then again we are talking about the same patent office that approved the setuid patent oh so many years ago.
I remember reading that the patent office used to require a working model of the invention. It might be time to bring that rule back.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
It's amazing that labelling someone a communist is still considered an effective strategy. Patents are scary not just because developers can be sued for writing software, but because distributors can be sued and so can end users. If software patent enforcement becomes common place the few developers who try to continue developing software will be forced underground. That is, they'll put their software in the public domain and disavow all responsibility for it. But that won't be enough because distributors will have to be underground too, else they can be sued, and end users will have to keep their illicit software quiet also. The end result will be so horrifying that perhaps even normal people will notice it. By then the software industry will be long dead though.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Stallman also wrote GCC and GDB, which, IMHO, are more important than Linux, since without them, we would be relying on propietary compilers to compile all the other software we use. All the software on the GNU system depends on GCC.
Also, without the work of RMS, Linux woudln't exist. The community that helped torvalds develope linux was created by RMS.
And, again, let me tell you that we had a fully operational set of utilities (besides linux) way before 1991, and also now, we have choices other than linux (BSDs, for example, and HURD, some day not so far away).
We don't ask too much, we don't want to take credit out of Torvalds, he did his part, just like everybody else. The point is, Linux is part of OSI, and OSI doesn't talk about Freedom, it's just a business model. But GNU, is about Freedom, it's a moral issue, not a technical one, and since most software in GNU is licensed under the GPL (and in the body of the license, it's clearly specified why it exists, and why the software licensed under it is created), and most developers that freed software under the GPL understand and agree with those ideas, so, calling the system GNU, makes that reference, while calling it "Linux" doesn't. I Think GNU/Linux is a fair alternative that talks about both worlds. We are small, we are less powerfull than them, so, we should stick together to be able to stand against the big guys.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
What you describe is the difference between communism-the-political-system (perhaps if the FSF *required* copyright assignment to them) and communALism. Communalism is the phenomenon of people contributing to a greater whole. It at least avoids all the baiting around "communism"; it's a ruined word.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Reading this article where RMS states the blindingly obvious, i.e. that Microsoft is trying to put a legal stranglehold on the net and all software development with their usual avaricious and rapacious greed in order to milk computer using human society of their every last penny, an idea occured to me that makes me wonder: Why have the MPAA and tthe RIAA, two organisations easily as evil and filled with shit filled scum like Microsoft's management is, not yet tried to patent songs and movies?
I'm pretty sure they must have thought of it, but then decided against it when they realised that easily 80% of todays crap pop and movie blandness are simply lifting ideas from other musicians and movies.
Wait, lemme get this straight.. When people are the underdog, they support measures to even the playing field, and when they're dominating, they support measures to keep themselves on top?
Holy sh*t, people are only out for themselves? When did that start?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
We'd be using Yellow Dog!
Or do people make it to the big chair because they recognize the limitations of idealism?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
When Microsoft was tiny, patents were bad for them; now they find them useful, simple as that.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Oh, so you are watching me huh? I can really get into this new kink.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents#Term_of_paten t
As TRIPS agreement declares, the maximum term of an issued patent is twenty years from earliest claimed filing date. In the United States, for applications filed prior to June 8, 1995, the patent term is seventeen years from the issue date. For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term is twenty years from the earliest claimed filing date. The rules for patents in force and pending at the transition date (June 8, 1995) are significantly more complicated but grant the patentee whichever term is longer.
Also, in several countries there are multiple types of patents, and the twenty year term frequently only applies to utility patents and not design, petit, or other kinds of less heavily examined patents. For example, the term of a U.S. design patent, which protects the ornamental shape of objects, lasts fourteen years from its issue date.
[edit]
If Xerox labs came up with all of these GUI ideas,
why don't they get money from Microsoft and Apple?
I think you lost all credibility at "anywayz"
What a shame, I was following along until that point.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Does anyone remember that old 'Bloom County' where Bill asks a girl out, she turns him down, and he offers her an island? Just to go out with him once.
/classic
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
that Bill Gates is destroying an industry that made him so successful.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
KENT
What?
MITCH (V.O.)
Nothing. I want you to think about what you've done and repent, and from now on, stop playing with yourself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Very few patent disputes with big companies ever become lawsuits, and it takes a while for lawsuits over patents to be filed (in fact, it can be in the interest of companies to wait a while). Microsoft has only started getting on the patent bandwagon fairly recently and they have already been throwing their weight around with patent-related threats.
Furthermore, the notion of "defensive patents" is nonsense. In order to defend an idea against a patent claim, all you need to do is publish it (you still need the lawyers to actually win in court, but you need those also if you have a patent).
The term "defensive patent" is really a euphemism for becoming a member of a patent cartel: the "giants" that Gates talks about, companies like IBM, Apple, Xerox, etc., have amassed huge patent portfolios that they are cross licensing. As a result, they can operate almost completely free of worries over patent infringement, while small companies that don't have cross licensing agreements are at constant risk of being put out of business by any member of that club. Well, Gates's solution to the problem has been to become a member of the cartel.
Unable to convince us about MS superiority on security, TCO, and interoperability Bill now gets emotional and starts calling us all communists.
I prefer the old, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." -- Sir Winston Churchill
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Stallman/Stalin?
I'll have to do this anonymously or be ostracized and beaten down and thrown out of the community. Not that it matters because this comment will probably be overlooked as much of anything I say does. But if I remember correctly Microsoft doesn't patent nearly enough compared to other industry leaders such as IBM, Cisco, and (insert XYZ company). The figures were something like 10,000 patents by IBM to 500 by Microsoft. I know that elsewhere I had read that Microsoft did want to up the anty and start applying for more patents, but talk is cheap.
I always liked: "A Conservative is a Liberal who got mugged."
Does Microsoft sell many products in China? Mightn't it hurt the business there to be using the term communism as a label of evil?
Esoteric reference.
I guess you won't understand what I mean if I tell you that (above a certain minimum level) money doesn't matter that much for everyone.
Linux is not Windows
There is nothing "fundamental" about selling softwares---bunches of codes that can be copied at a fraction of a cent. There might be question whether a completed software becomes public good or private property, but that's far from being settled...
Big shocker that this garbage is coming out of Berkeley. First of all, you equate the value of software to the cost of duplicating it. Pretty convenient that you can ignore the cost of creating it in the first place. And as for software being a public or private good, that's why we have licenses. If you create the software, you get to decide which license to use. What an amazing system!
Sure, you are limited to honest ways of making a living which naturally is a huge drawback. Playing fair is always a little harder.
Linux is not Windows
No, I think he was calling you a wanker.
> "Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -
George Soros doesn't look like he's changing his stripes anytime soon...
Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money
You don't need money before you become a Republican.
People are Republicans even when it's to their disadvantage, because everyone wants to believe that someday their boat will come in. We don't want to be too hard on those poor rich people, you see, because someday that will be me!
There's a word for it. Stupid.
Yes I am. So what?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
"There's a word for it. Stupid."
So, was it smart people or stupid people who thought democracy might be a good idea?
Caution, there may be a trap somewhere in that question.
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
And yes, since you asked, whenever I put my point of view on record, I think it only reasonable to expect it to be scrutinized for consistency with other expressions I may make at other times.
This attitude is called taking responsibility. I understand that not everyone has a firm grasp of the concept. But when someone with enormous wealth and influence shows a consisten neglect for responsibility, I see no merit in coming to their defense.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Good to see you have already signed your mind over to our new capitilist overlords, as you won't be needing it any more!
We need more de-brained individuals like you TO SAVE THE GODDAMN FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!
>> "Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -
>George Soros doesn't look like he's changing his stripes anytime soon...
This is supposed to be be news for nerds, use your brain. Or, to be more precise:
Let d(x) mean x is a democrat.
Let m(x) mean x has money.
The grandparent stated that !m(x) -> d(x)
To be really pedantic, the grandparent's statement was actully in temporal logic and somewhat more complex, but the simplified version will do for here.
You said d(George Soros), m(George Soros). So, substituting into the statement provided by the grandparent we have:
!m(George Soros) -> d(George Soros)
I.e. if George Soros didn't have money, he would be a democrat. Do you see a contradiction here? No? Neither do I. That makes George Soros a really lousy example of a contradiction. If you want to find a proper example of a contradiction, you'll need to find some poor but vocal republicans. I suggest you try small-town America.
in the first part of the quote bg is presenting the problem, in the second he's offering his solution. rms talks about the problem and how bg knows about it (i.e. software patents will slow down innovation).
rms is selecting the right part of the quote.
ac
ps: one could argue that ms is just getting patent to defend itself but in this case they should also lobby for the abolition of those (they're not doing that btw-> make your own conclusions).
Damn. I feel like an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I have to go find a good Einstein biography. Do you know any?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
(Wemembwer to wawtch owt for the spawces in the winks. uh-hah-hah-hah.)
0 65 .wav
1 04 .wav
1 14 .wav
2 64 .wav
3 73 .wav
RMS: (on the phone to Bill)
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_
Bill:
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Daffy_Duck/ltdd_
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Daffy_Duck/ltdd_
RMS:
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_
~hylas
What about in dongs?
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
was to turn gnu from a curiosity that couldn't be used without a unix license (or possiblly one of the very limited and still non-free clones like minix) into a system any geek with a 386 could boot and mess with.
stallmans a great acedemic but it seems his acedemic good design ideas hit a bit of a brick wall when it came to coding a kernel.
There's a huge gap between being honest and being idealistic. Idealism, at its root, is the idea that the world should be perfect and behaving as if it were. Idealists point us in the direction we should go, but realists make things happen.
Playing fair is always a little harder.
There's no such thing as playing fair. It's a kindergarten concept that just doesn't work in the real world. It's like the old saying.. Honesty is everything. When you can fake that, you've got it made.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
okay, so we're back where some celtic kingdoms were.. You crown the king, he runs the place for x years, and then he is ritually disembowelled to inaugurate the next guy.
That way, you've gotta really want the job, and there's no point in accumulating favours for after you retire.
In fact, sounds damn near perfect..
Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers ... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is...
I dont think bill needs to learn much from RMS.
By this yardstick, Bill has nothing to learn from Mahatma Ghandi either... not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.
"I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days."
So you think Apple suing MS over Windows should be the future of the desktop wars? Or do you think locking down your hardware so no one can make clones is a good answer? How about recent history, like refusing to license fairplay so other companies can sell DRMed music that works on an iPod. Apple is an obstructionist.
I hope no one takes what I said 14 years ago and uses it against me. I'm quite sure my opinions on many things have changed over time. RMS has fallen out of the news lately so he had to dig up something to get noticed. He's the North Korea of software. If he's not getting attention he has to make some noise, no matter how silly, so people will look his way.
In other words, nothing to see here, move along.
"Stalinism=non market based, means of production are owned by a few."
This has been the reality of all socialist govts to date. The unelected leaders say they know how to best run the economy, and take control of all the wealth of the country. It's worse than a dictatorship since they have even more power over your lives by not letting you own much of anything, and they make you feel guilty if you oppose them by pretending their working for your interests.
In true capitalism ... Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed.
Where in the capitalistic economy definition does it say that you have to be morally good?
True capitalism is every one for themself. Don't think for a moment that a true 100% capitalist wouldn't literally kill their mother if it benefitted them to do so.
I suggest he try the bible belt.
It's been over two decades since Regan did it, but I still can't understand why anti-government and pro-government-enforced-religion folks get along at all, much less how we now have a coalition government in all three branches.
Innovative firms naturally gain monopoly power for some period of time, and it is argued without the prospect of monopoly power in the form of "intellectual property" would have insufficient incentive to innovate. In fact intellectual monopoly is costly, dangerous, and neither needed for, nor a necessary consequence of, innovation.
"In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. "
If intellectual property is property, than stealing it is no different than shoplifting.
Your claim that companies will band together if no IP exists is ludicrous. Anyone not in the consortium will still steal the idea without paying the investment. Companies where IP is their product such as publishers and pharmaceutical companies, will die off, and progress will slow down.
Well, I guess this is a good reason to drive on the sidewalk.
Hmmm... all those Hollywood paupers. All those poor editors at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. All those penniless Ivy League tenured professors, union bosses, bureaucrats, lefty IT geeks and CEOs, casino operators, etc. Wonder how it is that the Limousine Liberals don't have a dime.
It does work, just not in the short term. That often confuses people. Playing fair and being honest does work. You just have to understand that you will lose a few battles, but win the war. It's a hard concept in today's world where everyone is focused on short-term gain. After decades of watching social battles, I can say, the scumbags always lose in the end. It's just a question of how many lives they fuck-up on the way out. Please, don't be one of those people.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Richard Stallman stunned a conference on Open Source Software and the FSF movement when he took the stage with what appeared to be a whole rotisserie chicken. As shocked attendees watched, he then proceeded to eat the entire chicken with his bare hands pausing only to wipe the grease on his shirt while mumbling "microsoft wants you to use a fork and napkin". Upon completion of his one-man chicken eating demonstration he demonstrated the features of EMACS to an audience that could only be described as disguested.
Microsoft has already patented some .Net implementation methods,
I would really like to know.
Of course not, he gets it both ways, look it up. His money is sheltered from the taxes that he wants to place on everyone else. Easy to vote democrat when your money isn't effected by what the democrats do. Its when you have money that is affected by taxes that you start to question if they are worth it.
If there were no software patents, the big companies would appropriate all the innovations and dominate through marketing instead of invention.
Wait a minute...
For great justice.
Help a poor old programmer who has probably been creating software longer than you've been alive:
iff(writing_software~=singing_the_blues) then
patent("singing about my girl left me")
endif
I'm being facetious, but do you see how ludicrous software patents are? I've looked at and written as much software as anybody, and I've never seen anything worth patenting in terms of code and implementation.
The stuff that maybe could have been patented *never was* things like virtual memory, protected memory, job schedulers, etc.
The really ironic thing is that in the past 10 years, there's been very little innovative software that should deserve a patent. Yet before that time (before there was software patents), the software world was far more innovative.
Now we patent "one-click" and think we've really got something. Its really a travesty.
It was in the '80s -- you must have missed it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sorry, could you clarify that please Carly?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Being a post that was already scored +4 Insightful, I read it, and was surprised to see NMR mentioned (somewhat) off-topic
e sonance - similar to NRM, but without the constant magnetic field.
I'm a research assistant doing work on NQR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Quadrupole_R
Anyhews... although the fundamentals of NQR have been published for years, there are really only a few groups worldwide that work on this. AFAIK, only two corporations and two Universities do NQR related stuff.
Guess who publishes findings in journals and who patents things. We've actually had our work stolen, via patent, because details were revealed during discussions with the USArmy. The same co. was then awarded $20M+ in research funding, while we had to beg for less than $200k. And that was supposed to fund my prof, the students (myself,) purchase equipment, etc. There's nothing like watching a bunch of frauds use your work, and squander millions, while you do fundamental reseach using items purchased at HomeDepot and Kitchen Ka'boodle.
We currently have a (minimal) amount of funding from a certain big corporation. Because of this, they want the rights to our work first, and who can blame them. I've personally made a rather simple observation that may apparently have use in many other fields. We're torn between publishing the work, or having my name on a patent app.
OK, I'm rambling. 12+ hours in the lab today isn't helping. My point being: Whoa! You mentioned NMR! and, Not all scientific discoveries/techniques are published in journals.
I once heard Mr.Gates talking about his vision on developing visually; programms are developed by stacking and connecting blocks (representing code).
In above context, does that mean he might be willing to patent certain drag-n-drop actions?
With apologies to the true fans out there, I'm reminded of this:
FROA #109. [Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity] and an empty sack is worth the sack.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
His weight in code.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
I say we let these two settle this thing in a duel. Hand grenades at 2 paces.
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
Open Source software exist because old software companies sold overpriced and under-performing software.
:)
A C compiler in the past could cost you thousands of dollars.
Open source is water.. Closed source is Pepsi, wine and booze
That quote always gets attributed to Churchill, but Churchill never said it. In fact, he went the other direction.
Yes, whatever the anecdotal evidence of corporate speak to the contrary, I suspect the Microsoft patent portfolio is at the ready to pave a path over smaller company's innovations.
Trusting people is one thing. You can form an opinion about their character and decide where or how far to trust them.
The character of publicly traded companies is that they are obligated to legally maximize profit. Since using patents in the USA to crush competition is legal, in a way they have an obligation to do that.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
What you left out is that they patented it and then turned around and offered a royalty free license to anyone that wants to use it. Meaning that your "yet" and all its implications is just FUD.
But a conservative is not a Republican (at least not the Engish kind). Stallman could actually be considered a traditional conservative in Burke's definition -- preserving the institutions of the country (i.e. freely available softwre -- the commons), while raising the condition of the people (users of the common software).
China has created brand-new form of capitalism: Bill Gates
It would seem that "communist" isn't as much of an insult coming from Bill these days....
Do you have ESP?
shortsightedness or overthinking of the situation I guess.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Your rationalization and subsequent dismissal of Bill's enormous philanthropic efforts goes here:
......
It's easier to hate an enemy that never does anything good.
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
"I don't belong to any organized political party: I am a Democrat." -- forget who said this, but too true (and once you start talking about liberals it gets even worse)
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
IBM, Novell and other large corporations that have thousands of patents, and that have opened up many of these patents, should form a consortium. Smaller software companies join this consortium and pay an annual due (couple thousand dollars, based on size of company). If any of these smaller companies get sued by a big company not part of the consortium, the big companies in the consortium do 2 things: they leverage their patent portfolio against the company pressing suit, and they provide legal support. I imagine the big companies in the consortium could even make a profit off this, as the yearly dues for all the companies will exceed the amount spent on legal fees. And in one fell swoop we can make the ruling decision of the gov't moot, and thumb our noses at anti-FOSS corps like Microsoft.
Then you value money more than principles.
A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.
A brief fit of maniacal giggling followed, after which Mr. Gates directed his servants to bring him another pina colada and the severed head of Arnold Palmer.
Yes, that's the solution to how to be competitive in the market, but not the solution to all of the problems mentioned by RMS that are caused after major competitors patent everything.
Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers ... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is..
really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.
not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed. I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
...other than How To Become Insanely Rich Through Dumpster Diving?
Maybe How To Justify Everything You Do, Hypocritical Or Not. Windows still occasionally bluescreens when you plug a new device in, years after this faux pas, in which Trey explains "that must be why it hasn't been released yet". Billions in cash, but still hasn't ironed out the bugs == "we don't really care about the bugs". Quality is not Job #1, getting the money is.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You need the name more than you need the damn patent. You are not the one getting rich with the patent.
And btw, you should sue USArmy and the company who stole from you.
No, I'm not who you're replying to... but I'll bite anyway.
really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?
RMS founded - and works for - a charity. What do you think their paychecks look like side-by-side? You have to take it in before you can donate it. Would you rather RMS rob Peter to pay Paul?
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed. I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
I haven't. And your argument , if you can call what you wrote an argument, that Gates is more intelligent that Stallman is probably the worst cliché I've ever witnessed. Troll.
What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing.
This is where I take you not seriously. If abusing Microsoft monopoly is not morally wrong, then what is? Of course, you could argue that Microsoft != Bill, but then again, Bill is such a control freak that Microsoft does what Bill wants.
A lifetime worth of effort to provide freedom (in the form of free software) to everyone? It is easy for Gates to spend maybe 10% of his money on charities, he can't tell the difference anyway. RMS doesn't have much money (AFAIK) but he gives what he has.
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
Gates' philanthropic efforts in Africa are only a partial repayment of the massive damage done there by his pet IP laws.
Software Patents? Who needs them?
Patents would/will (and maybe in some cases already do) only slow developement, software, hardware, doesn't matter.
Company A - Has an idea, patents it
then
Company B - Get's cought and forced to pay up.
or
Company B - Is forced to re-invent another way to do the some thing (re-inventing the wheel)
This is exacly what's holding us, the human species back. We could share ideas and/or methods and concentrate on support and improvement.
Company A - Invents, and releases to public
then
Company B - Takes the idea and improves on it,
releases to public
then
Company C - Takes the work of Company C and further improves on it. And releases it.
If the big companies didn't play this childish game (which they don't need to, they already have dominance/influence because they are big companies) we as species would be way ahead of where we are today.
Even if you didn't want someone to know how you did something. You could refuse to show your code. In this case companies would compete on better implementation of thesome idea.
Everone wants somethingm for nothing...but not at expense of keeping the little business out. IMHO...
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from ... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
I can't tell if you are serious here. GPL is a clever mechanism to protect our rights from those who would take them, using the villain's own legalese. If he would not use it as a weapon, the whole thing would be pointless.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
I happen to agree that GNU deserves very considerable credit for Linux, far more so then any other component provided by others. The GNU/Linux campaign is perheaps unwise from the PR point of view, but it has all the moral justification it needs.
free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.
Do you know the beauty of free software? You don't have to use it, you don't have to contribute under GPL, you can do what you want with your own projects. What you just said is "Meeee! I wanna to make others make software for Meeee under Myyyy terms!! Everyone, gimmeeee!". Somehow I suspect a conversation on this subject with you is waste of time.
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed.
You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.
I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.
Sure, I can believe you feel strongly enough to put your dislike of Microsoft ahead of monetary gain, but I don't think the majority of people would act that way.
Well, I'm bored, so I'll be a grammar nazi for a bit.
"Noone" should be two words: No one (unlike someone, which is usually one word.)
"an near" should use a not an: a near (use a before a consonant sound, an before a vowel sound. A bear, an owl. It's not the letter, but the sound, so: an hour, a unicorn. The British always treat h as silent for this rule, I think.)
Quickly then: no comma after While; very happy instead of much happy; Infact should be In fact.
You don't appear to be a native English speaker, so these minor errors are understandable. I've made a number of errors here myself, but fixing them is too much work.
A religion will contain a moral code, but that is not the only place where morals come from.
State Capital Labor. (Iroquois Natives).
You. A wooden soup-spoon.
He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world.
Gates has *always* been rich, his dad *owns* a bank ffs.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
And wasn't it the same Bill G. that said that OS/2 is the "platform for the 90s"?
wave
The same guy that did not notice the Internet... but then again he has billions worth of stock in that company. I would say anything to protect my wealth! Cheers
COMMUNIST! TERRORIST! LIBERAL!
There should be laws meaning we can lock people like you up without trial, indefinitely. Unfortunately, because of our commitment to FREEDOM in the United States^^^^^^ civilised world, that could never happen.
; )
The famous first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Konrad Adenauer once said:
"Why should I care for my yesterdays gossip"
my 0.02
>Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his
>ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which
>somehow inevietably result in government procurment
>deals for his products and tax breaks.
How much do YOU donate?
But, then it bcomes a power issue. Again Bill wins over RMS.
Dont get me wrong, Bill is evil. But in the long run, i dont think he really cares as he 'won'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You know, maybe you are right. If Linus hadn't started Linux, we would now be running GNU/Hurd instead of GNU/Linux. If RMS hadn't started GNU, we would be using BSD (and they would have needed to write a compiler).
So from this point of view, putting that /Linux behind the GNU is a compromise, a kind of recognition towards Linus for being a great guy and helping to popularise free software. One might argue (though I wouldn't agree, I'm fine with GNU/Linux) that RMS should strive to have the OS simply called GNU instead.
Personally, I prefer to look at distributions as OSes. So there is the Red Hat operating system, which include GNU and Linux and Apache and Mozilla and X.org and so on. Debian happens to be based on much of the same software, but I'd still consider it a different OS, with different tools and a different community. Perhaps the FSF should make a totally free distribution/OS of its own and call it GNU...
Besides, it's not like any of his public health donations address priority issues or even have a proactive lean to them. Nope, it's largely pushing corrective measures that rely on large purchases from his other investments.
C'mon you remember when his media circus when to India. Smoke from kitchen fires is a larger and more concrete problem than expensive AIDS treatments. However, AIDS is a high profile event in the US media plus he gets to push sales of expensive pharmaceuticals.
It's probably just funny money to him anyway. He gets MSFT stock for free and then "donates" enough to neutralize any taxes he might accidently still have.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
None of those people have anything to offer, espcially Ghandi. He was a towelhead loser..
.
RMS is a idealist, flawed by nature. "but he means well"
Morals are relative.
Self-respect? Depends on your morals ( see above ).
Integrity? Might have a point there, but when you can buy small countries out of pocket change the only person you have to be concerned about is yourself. So it tends to be relative as well at some point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Someone help me here. I don't understnad why those words from Gates are a bad thing? Isn't that the stance that we all want to see? Is it bad only because it comes from Bill Gates? Why such a derisive article when that IS what we want?
I can tell you've never studied the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
Fair play is the way to go, every time.Do you like Japanese imports?
"Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money."
... thankfully, as they are all that stand between us and the abyss.
Of course, that's demonstrably a crock of shit, in as much as Bill Gate's father (a multi-millinaire in his own right) has been very rich for a very long time, and is consistently a democrat. Other examples include Donald Trump (rags->riches->rags->riches, with a few more iterations ahead of him it seems), and of course the Kennedy's (except Schreiber, but every family has its black sheep).
Not everyone sells out their ideals when they achieve a little success. Many do, and we as a culture have deified such things, and the greed and avarice that causes such things, but there are many good people who choose not to succumb to greed, who do place the greater good above their own, and who think this toxic neo-libertarian self-centeredness is in fact the single greatest contributer to the decline of our civilization.
But of course, the apologists for such thinking will find someone richer than the examples I cited, and raise their definition of "a little money" to be greater than that of those I cited, thereby shuffling definitions until they think their hypothesis holds.
It still doesn't. There are a few good people in this world who do not sell out for a quick buck
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What we can all do that is more useful is to write to our US Congressmen and tell them that Intellectual Property protections must be changed. Do not threaten them whatever you do. That can ruin a day or so depending on what you say and it won't be fun. Be insightful, thoughtful and most of all respectful (even if your represenative is a dirt bag, scum ball or worse), even if you don't care for them they are the best bet you have.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any good proposals out there on how to fix things other than from the IEEE (mentioned on slashdot in the past). Take copyright for example, we could get that changed and override hollywood and Disney. Copyright should be for no more than 20 years. After that, it is public domain. We get images of Mickey Mouse, music of the Beatles and yes even the music of the 1970's Disco (ahhhhhh). I think 20 years is plenty for music today where music can go out of style in a month (10 seconds for Rap - crap).
Likewise Patents should be limited to where they are for physical things like intermentent wipers and that cool new toilet cleaning dodad. Lights that turn with the car wouldn't be because the Tucker car company had those in the 1940's. 5 years for software and it has to be unique, challenging a patent should be far easier. The challenging part should be easy for current patents. There should also be safeguards for frivilous claims. That is, don't waste their time.
The GIMP has a very very good interface.
Indeed: unzip and let the good times begin!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Bill possesses several billion.
This is not the same as being worth several billion.
If we use this method to determine what people are worth, it is ok to let people starve, because starving people are not worth anything.
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
95% is hardly a "negligeable fraction", and its (being 95% of the largest personal fortune in the world) hardly "a few silver coins" either.
You may say what you like about his business tactics, but of all rich enterpreneurs, Gates is one of the most devoted. Contrary to the charicature you present, he has done very serious research to identify where his money would do most good (and apparently reached the conclusion that it would be research for vaccines to diseases that primarily strikes third world countries). Many biomedical researchers (I can tell you're not one of them) think that the money that Gates pours into malaria research (more than the aggregate of all other funding for such research worldwide) may actually enable us to reach the stated goal of eradicating malaria by 2010. Same goes for AIDS research.
Now, try putting this into perspective with what Stallman has accomplished. Programmers in industrialed countries get to read the code of programs they use. That's great. Is it more important than eradicating diseases that kills millions of children every year? That can certainly be debated. You may argue that the code is for the poor to read too. Well, the problem is that most of them don't want to read code. They want to survive.
Gates charity gets relatively little press, and he doesn't actively seek it out, unlike Stallman. In the medical and biochemical research community, he is very well known, for he often speaks at summits and personally oversees every research program he has funded with more than $1 million. If you actually knew what he did, maybe you wouldn't be so hard on him. If you actually knew, maybe you'd be a little embarrassed by the way you come across in your post.
In a newspaper there was recently a column which compared Bill Gates to Robin Hood. I think the comparision is apt.
> I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed. I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
So, by your 'logic', reality teevee and the drivel from the flavor of the month band is vastly superior to any other form of entertainment? Thanks for clearing that up. Now, go back to your sterile surburban (or, desire of...) life, and take solice in knowing your dog is getting enough cheese.
Please enumerate your donationas and net worth. If they dont add up to a third of your need worth, then you are a hypocritical loser.
Let me guess, he defines himself as progressive or neo-socialist or some other euphemism. Just like "liberal" has been dropped due to negative association, so goes "communist".
This plays well with the phenomenon of communists resolutely denying that every implementation of communism in history ended in murderous disaster.
Your comments on class obviously mark you as a marxist/communist. So of course anything you have to say about capitalism is suspect--sort of like asking Gates about free software, or Stallman about the proprietary kind...
The number is actually around 4% (after tax breaks and what not) as far as I know. I am not sure where did you get 95%.
You may say what you like about his business tactics, but of all rich enterpreneurs, Gates is one of the most devoted.
No, he merely is starting to have a typical guilt sindrome of a rich brat who stole a lot of money. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft and thus Bill himself stole vast majority of their money from unwitting fools first and then, when they got powerful enough, went into an extortion racket. In a similiar vain, Al Capone was said to be a great filantropist.
Gates charity gets relatively little press, and he doesn't actively seek it out
See above.
It's not quite as dumb as it looks, it just came out of specific uses. The year is often implied. It also matches the way you say it, "February sixteenth, two thousand and five". (You don't say "two thousand and five february sixteenth", though you could I guess). Some examples:
What dates are those? Both the sixteenth of February, current year. They line up nicely. If you are more interested in month-related data, then it works well; you can make nice lists, where the constant year is not obscuring the data that is varying; compare (e.g., how many August dates are in this list? How many August 1 dates?):
So if I oppose DRM and software patents that makes me a communist? Funny, here I thought I was just a pro-environment paleocon who believes in minimal government, one that does not hand out monopolies like candy (as our current patent office does) and that does not infringe on peoples right to tinker with their computers, stereos, and other gadgets (as the DRM does).
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
violating the GPL is not wrong. When source code is released publicly, it cannot be un-released. Everyone still can get to that original source. if RMS was really spreading freedom, he wouldn't require (IE force) people using the source to also release their changes.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software. 95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
How does Bill Gates intend to enslave you? How, as a guy who deals mostly in computers, intend to enslave people without computers? How does RMS contribute to those who can't afford a computer? You don't seem to make this clear in your post.
As for your pet rock comment... he may not have been a genius, but he was a helluva salesman. They may or may or may not be intellectual equals, but Gates is clearly a better salesman.
How a -1 flamebait post got a 4 insightful is beyond me.
That formulation works alot better if you are a member of the English ruling class than if you are a factory worker. In any case, with all due respect to "Freaks and Geeks", Marx had a somewhat more general formulation:
"The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary, it is their social existence which determines consciousness."
The number is actually around 4% (after tax breaks and what not) as far as I know. I am not sure where did you get 95%.
95% is what he has stated that he will give away during his lifetime. As of today he has donated around 37%, so your 4% figure is a bit off...
No, he merely is starting to have a typical guilt sindrome of a rich brat who stole a lot of money. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft and thus Bill himself stole vast majority of their money from unwitting fools first and then, when they got powerful enough, went into an extortion racket. In a similiar vain, Al Capone was said to be a great filantropist.
Why this extreme anger? Even if he is giving away all this money because of some "rich brat syndrome" (which I strongly doubt), who cares? Why does his motivation matter if his actions are good? By the way, exactly how did he "steal" that money?
It's funny that you managed to conveniently ignore everything else in my post. Why don't you want to reply to the question of whether the ability to read the source code for rich people in industrialized nations is more important than the survival of disease stricken children in poor third world countries? Try to remove your head from the sand every once in a while. Everything that's of utmost importance to you, Random American Cubicle Dweller, (i.e. free software) may not be all that important to the rest of the world, some of which has trouble even surviving. To them it is good that people like you are in no position of power.
The length some people would go to to avoid cognitive dissonance is truly mind boggling.
See above.
Erhm, where? Or actually, don't answer that. This discussion is already over anyway. No use talking to someone who has already made up his mind.
Actually I think it's "The Society of Insanely Power Hungry Psychopaths" but other than that, bang on :)
;)
I personally think if Bill had been a paper pusher instead of a bit pusher he'd be making Bush look like a nice guy right now
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
I love gnu software, the quality and capeabilities are amazing, and if something is missing I can mod the code myself.
I hate microfost SOFTWARE it is low quality and I cannot make my own changes.
I do not hate microsoft, I just wish they made a better product and let me have some control over what I buy.
I do not hate bill gates, he worked to get where he is, he earned his own money, maybe through scheming, maybe through effort, maybe what someone sees as scheming to him appears as work. relativity folks.
Why is this relevant to this article? Well to denounce gates accusation of communism is fine, and to reverse the logic to show gates as a hipocrite is also fine. But stallman, the very intelligent absolutely brillian long time asshole went beyond that. As great as stallman is he is undisputedly arrogant.
The statements in here though making a valid point and reprisal are also very much a personal attack. It is like a media flame war between an arrogant asshole who has earned the right to be an arrogant asshole, and a man at the top of everything who has also earned his way there (though in my opinion it was with a crappy product). All this shows is that people at the top are no better and no worse than the flammers at the bottom. In the long run this article has accomplished little more than fortifying the positions everyone already had. In fact that is the only outcome of almost everything today. I ask has anyone here ever changed their opinion on an issue after holding it a long time based on something a popular/well known (ex stallman and gates) said tot he media? I f you have changed your long heald (5 years+) opinion based on this then please reply to this post and say so. But don't just say britney spears says war was bad so I am anti-war (yes I am going beyond patent law) and don't just say all my friends hate Bush so I decided I do too! State what opinion you changed, who said what sparked your change of opinion, and why you changed it. I do not care what the opinion is, or which side of the issue you are on.
Err, yes it is actually. It is copyright violation, and that is wrong.
if RMS was really spreading freedom...
That's the BSD argument, and I understand it to a point (it is naive, but ok). It has little to do with having moral clarity though. Moral clarity also doesn't mean working for free, or giving away everything you own/create for free.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software.
I don't. I know he had a lot of help. All those people joined together under the name "GNU", and now he wants that name to be used when that software is distributed. It isn't actually required by the GNU licenses, but his request is not unreasonable.
95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions.
It is, however, not quite right.
It *was* 95% GNU software and 5% kernel, but now it's more like 50% GNU software, 45% X/KDE/Mozilla, and 5% kernel. Why does RMS not insist that everybody call it "Mozilla/[KDE/]X.org/GNU/Linux"? If he were truly the man of integrity that many people think he is, he would cede credit to the other people who bring together a functional modern desktop OS.
Of course any realist would see that insisting it be called "Mozilla/[KDE/]X.org/GNU/Linux" would just drive everybody batty, and as more and more apps/layers are added, it would just become unweildy (if "Mozilla/[KDE/]X.org/GNU/Linux" isn't already.)
Seems to me RMS made a similar comment about the original BSD license, no?
Sources please.
Even if he is giving away all this money because of some "rich brat syndrome" (which I strongly doubt), who cares? Why does his motivation matter if his actions are good?
It matters since the whole point of the conversation was comparing RMS to Bill. Motivations is what this is all about.
By the way, exactly how did he "steal" that money?
By first expoiting general public's lack of understanding of software and operating systems and then by engaging in wide scale extortion.
Why don't you want to reply to the question of whether the ability to read the source code for rich people in industrialized nations is more important than the survival of disease stricken children in poor third world countries?
In order to answer that question, one would have to first answer another: how much of the poverty and desease of the poor third world countries is due to the actions of people like Bill who used them as slave labour and plundered their resources while ensuring that they have no education, democracy or other perks of civilization. Furthermore, one would have to examine the impact of "Intellectual Property" laws promoted by Bill and his buddies which result in things like drugs being far too expensive for vast majority of inhabitants of those countries. And so on. After an in-depth analysis you will quickly discover that men like Bill take far, far more then they give.
Everything that's of utmost importance to you, Random American Cubicle Dweller, (i.e. free software) may not be all that important to the rest of the world, some of which has trouble even surviving. To them it is good that people like you are in no position of power. The length some people would go to to avoid cognitive dissonance is truly mind boggling.
Free software etc has no bearing on the topic you brought up, which was the "charitable" activities of one Bill Gates.
I dont usually converse with ACs but today I seem to be in a charitable mood. The enslavement I speak of has many components, the two top ones being: establishment of a private taxation system on virtually the entire economy of most Western countries, the other is an attempt to establish "Intellectual Property" laws which seek to appropriate the intellectual heritage of humanity and turn it into rental property for the likes of Bill (which curiously results in drug prices being out of reach for the same very african victims of AIDS who Bill claims to be helping). Enslavement of others can be achieved by many ways, steel chains is only one of them.
They may or may or may not be intellectual equals, but Gates is clearly a better salesman
I never contested Bills salesmanship, merely his morals and his worth to the society.
I agree that GNU deserves credit, but I totally disagree with the whole GNU/Linux campaign. Every GNU utility in Linux made reference to it's origin. Linux never claimed ownership of the utilities in it's OS. How can one morally justify the requirement of a name change?
The thing is, RMS had no need to be jealous as anyone who used Linux KNEW that the utilities were GNU. Just like anyone who used AT&T UNIX knew the "useful" utilities were BSD. And the way it was presented and justified by RMS himself. I know RMS is in denial, but if Linux is just a teeny weeny kernel and a collection of a few drivers, then make your own OS and be done with it. Hurd....? I'm willing to bet that if hurd ever did take off, RMS would start a new campain about how people should dump Linux for Hurd. It would certainly fit RMS's style of self interest. RMS and GNU is not about spreading freedom to the world, it's about spreading HIS view of freedom to the world. And his approach has historically been very draconian. Just think of the XEmacs vs Emacs days.
My own thoughts are of how hypocritical RMS really is with GNU. Using his own presence to force change down someone's throat. When I think of RMS, I think of the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". RMS has power just like Bill, and just like Bill I feel he abuses that power to brow beat others into submission. As much as I agree with the need of free and public software, I totally disagree with the viral GPL and the GNU ways.
The argument behind the GPL, I feel, is just weak. The slogan, "use the GPL for fear that someone will steal your code and lock it up" Is just bunk! Say you wrote some free software and you released the code publically. Say a corporate entity snags that code, makes a minor change or bug fix and sells it for millions. Who cares? Other free minded individuals have the same option to grab your code, make changes and rerelease the code for free. Your initial code was never "hyjacked". It was never stolen or locked up. It's still free and from that perspective, there's no need for the viral GPL protection.
However, there is one thing that GPL maybe protects and that's the ability for another party to grab your code and patent or copywrite it. That would indeed "lock it up". So on those grounds, I absolutely agree with the GPL. I feel the GPL should do nothing more than state that the following code can't be claimed as ownership by any other party. And that's where the license should end. Not even the requirement of stating it's origin. It's always nice to give credit, but why make it a requirement? It's a common curtiousy and nothing more.
In regards to providing source code for derivatives works I think is rediculous, or even requiring derivative works to follow the same license I think is a restriction of freedom. Just so long as the initial algorythms are patent and copyright free is all that's necessary.
That to me is what donating code and freedom to use is all about. If you're donating out of goodness and not for fame, then you shouldn't be concerned about plagurism. If you truely believe in freedom as in freedom to make your own choice, then you shouldn't be concerned about how someone uses your code. You're only concern for freedom should be that what you release as free should always be free. That has nothing to do with derivative works and it's where I can't see the GPL gets off calling their philosophy based on freedom. The viral tatic of the GPL is just as draconian as a corporate license. Saying it stands for freedom really is a hypocritical statement in the face of true freedom.
I started exclusively writing dates that way after dealing with some Cuban refugees. Almost every country in the world but the US writes dates as day-month-year, often using only numbers! So now, it's 16 Feb. 2005 for me, NOT Feb. 16th 2005.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
I can't believe I'm actually replying to this, despite assurances to the contrary, but -- I got to hand it to you -- your craptacular reasoning and irrational hate really upsets me. I should know better.
Sources please.
I should not have to provide you with sources! You have repeatedly in this thread made claims about knowing exactly how much Bill Gates gives away and does not give away. You should do your own damn research!
The figure is from Forbes, which I can't find online right now. I can find a reference to it, however. Selected quote: "Of the 10 richest Americans, according to this year's Forbes magazine's list of the 400 wealthiest individuals, only Bill Gates is in any way notable for being generous. Forbes calculates that Gates has given 37 percent of his wealth -- more than $28 billion to charitable causes". Good enough for you?
Now stop talking about stuff you don't know anything about.
By first expoiting general public's lack of understanding of software and operating systems and then by engaging in wide scale extortion.
You know, the funny (or tragic, depending on viewpoint) thing about this is that while you can extend the definition of stealing so absurdly as to include "exploiting general public's lack of understanding of software" in order to maintain your idea of the world's richest man as a criminal, you are probably the first Slashdot parrot to enter the echo chamber with an "IP theft != stealing!" as soon as the first MPAA story runs.
In order to answer that question, one would have to first answer another: how much of the poverty and desease of the poor third world countries is due to the actions of people like Bill who used them as slave labour and plundered their resources while ensuring that they have no education, democracy or other perks of civilization.
This is like arguing to a born again Christian. How has Bill Gates "used them as slave labour" or "plundered their resources" or whatever? And don't come talking about "people like Bill" - if he hasn't been involved with it, how the hell is he to blame? Because some people are "like him"? I mean, jesus fucking christ...
I've seen some sucky arguments for Bill = Satan on my days on Slashdot, but this has to top them all.
Furthermore, one would have to examine the impact of "Intellectual Property" laws promoted by Bill and his buddies which result in things like drugs being far too expensive for vast majority of inhabitants of those countries.
Gates only lobbies for IP laws on software. That's hardly a matter of life and death for thirld world inhabitants. Gates has nothing to do with the drug business, or IP laws in general. He doesn't set them. Hate your president, or the courts, or someone who actually has anything to say about those issues. Or cares.
Lots of companies and people lobby for IP laws much more strongly than Bill does, ESPECIALLY in the drug industry. If all of them had done damage to humanity on the scale of $28 billion... well, let's just say it gets a little ridiculous after a while.
And so on.
What the fuck does this mean? You have provided two reasons so far, and both stink to high heaven. If "and so on" mean you have further reasons, reasons presumably with some basis in reality, I'd like to hear them.
After an in-depth analysis you will quickly discover that men like Bill take far, far more then they give.
You've done that in-depth analysis, haven't you? You have provided two stinky examples that, apart from being false, would even if true not by a million years make up for the good his donations have made.
Why can't you just admit to yourself that you don't know why you hate Bill Gates. Probably you just do it because everyone else does it, so you think you have to. Why can't you admit that you haven't actually thought this over?
You remind me of a User Friendly charicature. "Bill Gates, from my parents basement, I stab at thee!"
Now goodbye, forever and ever. God, I hate people like you.
> GPL is a clever mechanism to protect our rights from those who would take them, using the villain's own legalese.
Right! What the world need is more legalese...
> Do you know the beauty of free software? You don't have to use it, you don't have to contribute under GPL, you can do what you want with your own projects. What you just said is "Meeee! I wanna to make others make software for Meeee under Myyyy terms!! Everyone, gimmeeee!".
If you imply free software as Free software, then GPL software is only Open Source software. GPL software is not Free because its compatibility is only with itself, sort of like prime numbers. The only reason you're seeing BSD and GPL code mix is because the BSD license is Free. Additionally, this also applies to CDDL code because the CDDL and the GPL ultimately share the same attribute of self-only compatible, or "Meeee! I wanna to make others make software for Meeee under Myyyy terms!! Everyone, gimmeeee!"
Not to diminish your point of "not use nor contribute to GPL projects," BSDs are great because they don't mix GPL's code, not even a GPL patch.
As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from ... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.
you sound like a fucking nut.
enslave us all? then who would buy products from microsoft?
RMS doesn't deserve any credit for linux. IT would be like crediting original creator of the radio for every sound heard from the speakers.
How does his license offer any protection? I could easily release software under the public domain license.
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
self-serving? I hardly call opening up a foundation for fighting cancer self-serving.
Jealous is the word we use for people like you.
You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.
really? so there is no store you have gone to today that uses windows as its POS? you must not get out very much.
I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.
the inventor of the pet rock didn't change the way we use computers. Bill Gates did. He brought desktop computers to the masses (mainly because of its ease of use).
... suck:
Gill Bates
Ball Steamer
Dumbya
Chick Deney
Congoleezer Lice
anything Micro$oft sez or duz
anything the Repugnican party sez or duz
See this article, for example. There are many others that are somewhat critical of Gates's intents. First, think how much he got through tax evasion. It might have been more than $28 billion. Second, it's really easy to be generous with criminally gained money. Gates is a monopolist capitalist pig, so the fact that he gives away some of the money doesn't justify stealing all that in the first place.
I do commend Bill for sharing his wealth, though. But it doesn't mean he gets a cart blanche to do everything he wants and still be free of criticism.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
What? The most successful strategy was "Tit for Tat, with forgiveness." Aside from the fact that the whole issue is completely irrelevant to the real world -- it's a contrived situation -- Tit for Tat is not the same as fair. If someone kills your sister, it's fair to kill theirs? Maybe.. it depends on your definition of fair (same for honesty). Thus, there's no such thing as fair and honest. Until there are objective definitions of these words, there's no way to abide by them. But that can never happen.
So what is fair? If Country A has a better education program than Country B, should they give some of their own educational funding to Country B until both programs are roughly equivelant? That's fair, right? I think the educators of Country A would disagree -- they's now lost funding through no fault of their own. Is it a more successful long term strategy? Well, you now have a larger pool of educated people to work on various projects, so while you may have delayed the discovery of the cure for B.O. in Country A, you've enabled Country B to discover the cure for morning breath. So should the world be socialist? But pure socialism hasn't succeeded ever, anywhere. Not even in small hippy communes where everyone's baked during all waking, and most sleeping hours.
So long term success.. is it better to screw over your neighbor, or play fair? The important thing is variety. In the long run, it doesn't make sense to stick to any one single strategy. Sometimes it's more effective to screw somebody over, and sometimes it's better to work together. I'm not talking about one person -- although certainly there are occasions where one should question whether their moral interest or disinterest is helpful -- but if cancer researchers in one part of the world are playing cutthroat; industrial espionnage, spying, etc., and researchers in another part of the world are collaborating, then you've got the best situation possible -- whichever is more effective will win. Since there's no way to predict the outcome in advance (only the likely outcome), it makes the most sense to diversify.
Aside from that, life isn't fair, and there's no way to make it fair. Natural disasters kill millions.. people's own bodies betray them.. some people are smart, some are not so smart. Should I feel bad because I'm (arguably) smarter than my dog? Or my neighbor? Or should I leverage my advantage and do everything I can with it? I think that's being "fair," in the long run. Taking advantage of whatever it is we can. It's the will to power.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I'm sure you all never use any date notation other than the International Standard (ISO 8601, as recommended by the UN as well as the HIPAA committe and every single data processing standards body that currently exists).
However, I thought you might be amused to know that the United States is *not* the only nation that teaches children to use fundamentally stupid and broken date formats. Here are some of the moronic customs taught in other lands:
Russia, Germany, and Finland use dd.mm.yyyy, which is not entirely retarded since you can always sort it backwards.
Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil use dd/mm/yyyy, which would be fairly sensible if they didn't also use dd/mm and dd/mm/yy. My grandfather was born in '99 and so was my son!
Belgium, France, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, and the Netherlands use dd-mm-yyyy which again is not completely asinine because you can sort it backwards at only a small penalty in efficiency.
Switzerland and Norway use mm.dd.yyyy which causes great confusion for their more intelligent neighbor nations. And of course any format that doesn't proceed from the largest unit (year) to the smallest (day) probably costs eight times the CPU power to sort (more if you don't zero-pad).
Italians often use dd-mmmm-yy with roman numerals for months, because apparently they don't quite "get" the whole concept of "efficient sorting" at all. This is so clabber-brained that the US notation would actually be LESS imbecilic.
The Japanese often use y/mm/dd where y is the year of the emperor's reign (currently 16 Heisei Era) which makes a completely numeric representation impossible (since you have to specify the Imperial Era if you want your work to last more than one generation). To make matters worse the proclamations that announce era changes (for instance, from Meiji to Taishou) are so couched in archaic formula that it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which day is the changeover date, and the first year of any era is never referred to numerically (it is always denoted by the word "GANNEN" instead). Many Japanese government documents are required to use this inane notation, which in the age of computers is essentially a puerile affectation.
Latin America and the USA use mm/dd/yy and mm/dd (and occasionally mm/dd/yyyy) because we can't stand to do anything the way the British do it, even though our way is inutterably boneheaded and costs us billions of dollars every year.
French Canada, Hungary, Yugoslavia,Czechoslovakia, Sweden and Poland use yyyy-mm-dd which you will note is actually the ISO standard. I guess somebody was bound to get it right, but I would not have guessed that these particular regions would do so. The Quebecois are probably doing it just to spite us.
So, I know you're all wondering, how many ways can we interpret 02/02/02?
Well, there have been 125 Japanese Emperors, so that's 125 ways right off. Then there's the whole "how irresponsible can we be with the month field" issue, so that gets us mm/dd/yy and dd/mm/yy and yy/mm/dd and yy/dd/mm (there's probably some culture out there that uses mm/yy/dd or dd/yy/mm, which is sort of the pinacle of thickheadedness, but I haven't yet run across any poor souls that have been so miseducated) so that's 129. Then there's that two-digit year... hmmm, we'll throw out future dates and everything BC so the number doesn't go instantly to infinity... still, that's another 21.
So we've got about 150 ways to interpret 02/02/02 (or at least 25, anyway, after we throw out the Japanese imperial poppycock as arrant nonsense) without even really trying.
Thank you and goodnight.
--Charlie
You're on crack, my man!
If "linux were to be the dominant marker" then MS would have their 50,000 developers working on value-adds for MS-branded linux.
In case you haven't noticed, Ballmer is not a total idiot. The GPL can't prevent MS from becoming a free software provider any damn time they see a need to.
Not that I necessarily believe "50,000 developers" are currently employed by MS, but... get a grip, man.
Have you seen Bill's woman?
The discussion went from software patents and free software to the morality of donating money. It has been a long time since my Logic and Reasoning class I took in college, but I believe this is a something of a red-herring. By arguing charity, the original conversation has been lost, as was the intent of the AC pro-Gates. It is great (I guess) that Bill is giving away his money for the sake of third-world countries and puppy dogs. But this has nothing to do with to whom I would listen, or the truth of the matter. Personal morality and monopoly practices of a company are not within the same discussion. Screwing over an entire industry and its associated consumers (almost everyone) is another matter, the original matter.
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
Dude. It's a TV quote, not the Fundamental Theory of Physics.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
I can understand Software that is forked from something stallman created (such as emacs or gcc).
But what about things like the linux kernel? It was created under the gnu license, but has almost no actual code created by stallman.
He nor the FSF deserve any credit what so ever.
Fingerpointing..
Well Bill Gates exists because he can,
he does business the way he does because
it works.. That's why he is there..
And he thinks, I believe, if Ayn Rand is his
inspiration, that he, like some who believe Karma (I don't) that he exists to do what he does..
However, in each of us, there is good and evil, and its up to us to determine which will rule over us..
Bill's faith lies in his money and his work,
as long as he has that, he can be complacent.. What drives him, this is just one large game.. He doesn't see good and bad, he sees only what he wants to see.. But he's confused when the world doesn't believe what a great guy he is.. To him, this industry exists because he is.. He's so big, that when he becomes little, he loses his respect for himself.. This is why he acts the way he does.. His strength is all in what he owns and his power over the industry.. That is his respect for himself.. Some can be thankful for what they have.. But can
Bill be thankful for what he has..
It says in the bible.. HE who has will be given more.. And he who hasn't, even what he does have, will be taken from him.. This means, if you aren't thankful for what you have, be prepared to have it taken away.. And if someone is given more, don't be jealous, or in your distraction, what you have will be taken from you..
Just say no to license servers!!
He nor the FSF claim credit to it. The GNU/Linux thing was for distributions that include lots of GNU stuff and a Linux kernel, not for the kernel on its own.
Well, I would say it depends on whether you are talking about communism (as a behavior) or Communism (a state that claims a political monopoly so that it can enforce the behavior).
The behavior of communism can exist without the state but I think that the original theorists who coined the term were thinking of a new state. The reason I think so is because I don't see any other way for them to stamp out capitalism everywhere, which they saw as essential to guaranteeing equality. Every economic system tends to drift towards centralization, but it is far more crucial for Communism because the basic principle is that everyone should be equal economically and politically, and if one community is richer than another, then you really haven't solved anything. Therefore, some form of either political or economic centralization is required to ensure things are uniform and even between communities. While this is happening, people are trying to game the system to their own advantage, and without a structure to ensure fairness, once again the original goal of equality is not met. The typical solution is to create a bureaucracy to oversee it, and this can only be done fairly by centralizing it. Of course, then you run the risk of creating a permanent elite, but if you can implement communism in a large area without centralization, I'd sure like to know how.
The comparison of Free/Open Source Software with communism fails the analogy because there is no promise of an equal share of source code or any similar quantity of fairness as applied to each individual. I can make a million copies of Linux for my own use and no one will complain that I have taken their copy of it. I can give Linux away and not lose anything at all. Thus, there is no need for centralization to ensure or attempt to ensure the fair distribution of F/OSS. With few exceptions, there is no obligation to share anything. The main opponent to F/OSS is far more guilty of using centralization, coercion, oppression, surveillance, propaganda and, frankly, totalitarianism in order to achieve its goals.
My point is that whatever was wrong with communism, MS and its affiliates seem to exemplify it far more than F/OSS.