Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3 As Bonfire of the Vanities
morganew writes "Jonathan Zuck has written a CNET Op-ed stating that the GPL 3 is about returning the flock to the faith, and is reminiscent of Savonarola's 'Bonfire of the Vanities', urging true believers to burn things that took their eyes off God. From Article: 'The commercial humanists such as Lawrence Lessig with his Creative Commons initiative have turned away from the Old Testament, and the GPL 3.0 license is a call to the faithful to reject these vanities'. Given the reaction by Linus Torvalds and nearly all the OSS business community to the GPL 3, are we going to see a break in the church?"
When reading any socio-political article, be sure you know who the author works for.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
a break in the church?
I thought it was a Bazaar.
I like Microsoft so I must be going to hell in a handbasket.
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
GPL 3: "I've created OSS Lutherans!"
Why is it that with every new or good thing someone should come, make a "cause" out of it, preferably a religion or something equally mindless, based on faith and not reason, and then wave banners of the newfound dogma in our faces while stuffing his proverbial coffers with capital.
I say its technology, and any selfrighteous sermonizing jackass that wants to make religious wars based on it can go and do it with himself, for all I care.
GPL 3 As Bonfire of the Vampires?
That has got to be the most strangled and embarrasing analogy I have ever heard. It makes me feel all dirty - like I'm in some kind of cult. Lighten up!
I meta-moderate because I care.
Aren`t we, technology advocates, above this kind of faithfull belive, and use more rational tougths and critical tougths?
I sure know that, sometimes, only very few sometimes, almost never, we the "techs" tend to be fanatics...
But this is getting creepy, GPL3 is just a license, to protect information, over one simple filosophical belive: Free of information.
Hell, reading about flocks, faith, damn... what`s next? To adore the holy chip of Intel?
Â_Â
this is like 'da vinci code' in slashdot.
1. replace the whole holy blood line thing with open source.
2. keep the random medievel church connotations
3. keep the poor taste, bad language (okay this ones better than the book)
4. ???
5. Profit!!!
Reasoning from analogies is like tying your shoes with laces made of butter.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We believe that every user of software has four basic rights: the right to ENJOY the software, the right to STUDY how the software works, the right to SHARE the software with others and the right to ADAPT the software to their needs. We believe that these rights spring directly from the existence of software, are fundamental and can never be signed away.
THE RIGHT TO ENJOY
We believe that everyone has the right to use software that they have legitimately acquired, for any purpose: it is for the user to determine whether it is suitable for a particular application. If the supplier of a program were somehow unfairly to impose their will upon the user, perhaps by stipulating that the program should not be used for certain purposes, that would constitute an act of violence.
THE RIGHT TO STUDY
We believe that every user of a program has the right to study how that program works. If the user of a program wishes to replicate a particular piece of functionality from that program, they have the right to examine the program in order to determine how the functionality is performed. Nobody should be forced to re-invent the wheel. The supplier of a program does not have the right to keep secret from any rightful user how the program works: by allowing someone else to use the program, they have invited that person in on the secret.
If the creator of a process wishes to keep secret the details of a process, then that is their prerogative. Effectively, they are providing a service: a customer supplies the materials; the provider of the service takes them away, does something secret, and later returns a finished product to the customer. The customer has certain rights in respect of the transaction, including the right to decline the transaction altogether based upon the level of secrecy expected by the supplier. Where the right to study a program is denied, the user {customer} is expected to provide the supplier with not just the raw materials {input to the program}, but also the resources to carry out the process {computer time and disk space}. This diminishes the quid pro quo, and so is potentially an unfair transaction.
Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.
THE RIGHT TO SHARE
We believe that all the fruits of all human endeavour properly belong to all of humankind.
Software can be shared without being diminished by the act of sharing: if I give a copy of a program to my neighbour, I still have a copy. {Of course, I no longer have the exclusive use of that software. This exclusivity is a form of artificial scarcity.} Nobody has the right to impose their will on my neighbour and say that they should not use a particular program: to do so would be a form of violence.
THE RIGHT TO ADAPT
We believe that every user of a program has the right to adapt that program to their own needs. Nobody should be forced to adapt their method of working to suit the way that someone else believes that the job should be done that would constitute unfairly imposing one's will on another, which is a form of violence.
Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.
DELEGATION OF RIGHTS
We further believe that any user who is not skilled in the art of computer programming, or who simply desires to delegate the task to another, has the right to employ a competent programmer [2] of their choice and whom they trust, to assist them in the exercise of their rights to enjoy, study, share and adapt computer software; and that every competent programmer has the right to run a business based on providing such services in a free market. These services might include independent appraisal of the program to determine its suitability for a particular application {which is contingent upon the right to study}; modification to tailor the program to the customer's working
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I like the religious schism analogy whether or not it's accurate. Does that make Microsoft the Ottoman Empire? Apple?
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
"It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion"
m _circumstantial
Um, yes actually it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_homine
"Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy."
You know, the guys who write inflammatory articles that have little grounding in reality simply to boost traffic/clicks.
The article is clearly a troll. If the author had at least read the proposed draft of the GPLv3, he would have seen that in fact it brings more compatibility with the "pragmatism-driven" OSS world, as it will make possible to combine gplv3 works with software released under OSS licenses that are currently incompatible, like the Apache 2.0 and the Eclipse licence.
Enter Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest, who came to power in Florence in 1494. He viewed all of this "humanism" as vanity, turning people's heads away from the word of God and true religion. He took a very severe stand against the new scholarship, culminating in a series of bonfires in the town square, where many great works of art and science were lost. These fires have come to be known as the "Bonfire of the Vanities."
Like Savonarola, Richard Stallman takes a similarly religious stance on software development, rather than a practical one. For Stallman, the concept that software be "free, as in freedom" is the only concern in the creation of software.
At first, I was thinking that Stallman, was the opposite of someone like Savonarola, since he encourages 'freedom' in software creation and not adhering to strict rules or religion. And freedom should include the freedom to create any software you like, totally free or hybrid - though this is not exactly what Stallman envisioned. But of course, all this 'freedom' could lead to something altogether different - 'not free' code and this could not be named 'public.'
I do not see the point of this person's article, except to stir up bad feelings against Stallman. Maybe since the guy works for the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), he has an agenda to push - creating disdain for the concept of free software? ACT doesn't like OpenOffice, so they probably do not like Stallman either.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Many in the commercial software community call open vs. closed source a religious debate. They argue they're on the pragmatic side. The open source community often tries to portray their side as practical, not idealistic. Framing this in religious tones in not going to help. It only stokes the fires and brings this article's author more readers. I see this as just media sensationalism with some facts thrown in.
Developers: We can use your help.
I've read all sorts of contradictory stuff about GPL 3, and they can't possibly all be true. It'd be nice to read a calm, clear explanation of what it really does, and how it's different from earlier versions.
I suppose that such an explanation should go over all the various FUD stuff and explain why each specific claim is wrong (or partially right or whatever).
In any case, it seems that if I own the copyright on something, I should have the right to release it with extra permissions beyond the law's defaults. Much of the FUD seems to be based on the premise that there's something wrong with me giving away something that I own. What's so immoral, anti-social, or religious about giving someone a gift?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This calls his integrity into question because of his employment circumstances.
Then again, maybe we should concentrate more on getting back to the point of OSS.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
It's the crux of the problem: how do we keep software development free and open, yet allow people to create systems/software that they can market and more importantly, protect, to allow for continued commerce. The web gets more tangled with each iteration and type of licensing, not to mention the whole patentability issue. Eventually this whole idea of intellectual property in software is going to cave in to the reality that you can't wall off code or the algorithms behind code. In the end, everything will have to be open source to be accessible, but allowances will have to made for commercial use of code.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Is it just me, or is GPL v2 or GPL v3 just another license, and not something one could compare to a religion?
... will the corporate media pimp get their ho (Sen. Hatch) to make non-DRM supporting software illegal. It's not simply that content licensing should support non-DRM language, it's that programs need the same protection.
The issue really is one of freedom, and I think Stallman sees that clearly. So perhaps Linus doesn't want to sign onto GPL-v3 because he sees this possibility, and realizes that corporate installations will quickly go to zero. Does that make Linus pragmatic, or a sell-out to the cause? You decide.
In order to properly use this metaphore the following must be true:
1. A pre-reformer figured must be burned at the stake by Rome (John Huss):
2. A Luther figure must arise who, prior to converting to a 'reformed' faith beats himself with whips, sleeps on cold stone in discomfort and crawls over glass.
3. Post conversion, he nails a piece of paper to a castle-church door listing 99 problems he has with the establisment.
4. The peasants revolt in agreement with his claims, and he agrees to torture and kill them.
Oh, and finally, Chuck Norris causes the real break with a roundhouse kick....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion
Which is factually incorrect. That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.
You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct. The source of funding doesn't change this.
I realize yours is a widely held belief, but it's wrong.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
This is a real question to those who have spent more time thinking about this and have a better understanding. My impression was that RMS is trying to respond to the possibility, courtesy of DRM and 'Trusted Computing', that a company could take GPL software, make (and publish) modifications, then release a version that cannot be modified further and still run. This would transform GPL software to a 'Look But Don't Tinker' variety. After a while, for example, you wouldn't be able to meaningfully branch a project. Is this about right? If so, is the fight about this goal of GPL3 or the particular methods/language it uses?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
"...that would constitute an act of violence"
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
It seems the pundit would take joy in a "sectarian" fight between Free software and merely free software.
Such a battle would probably not result in two entrenched ememies battling to the death (and to the delight of Microsoft). No, at worst they'd simply agree to disagree.
Meanwhile, more and more code would be written under the GPL2, GPL3 and other such licenses. More people will ask, "What do you mean, it's 'free'?". They'll come to see that if they want that kind of thing to continue, all they have to do is what they can. The thing about giving is that it's contagious.
The block over which such pundits stumble is always grasping the fundamental difference between [Ff]ree software and the closed kind. FOSS doesn't depend on market share. It doesn't matter if no one else in the entire world uses a program to which you have the source code. It will always be viable, and if you want it to be better, you can make it better.
So who cares whether other people choose the GPL3 or not? Many undoubtedly will, and the world will be a better place for it.
sigs, as if you care.
It's sad and intellectually lazy.
but it should cast a certain amount of doubt as to whether he reached those opinions through research, or is just parroting his employers opinions.
This is where your argument fails miserably. You're implying that if the source were different, you'd not hold it up to the same level of scrutiny. Plus, even if he is only parroting his employers opinions, you are then making the assumption that his employers opinions are wrong, back to our friend ad hominem.
Who would you trust more : a NASA scientist who warned you about global warning, or an Exxon scientist who told you that global warming was a myth? Why?
Neither as they both could have agenda's. I'd take a look at what they said, evaluate it against the knowledge I currently have, and then decide if either is worth further investigation.
Tell me : if you were on trial, would you like the witnesses against you to have been paid by the prosecution?
Only if they got paid by the prosecution to lie. If they got paid by the prosecution and still told the truth (regardless of which side it may help), then that payment is irrelevant.
Richard Stallman correctly predicted many of the ways in which Big Corporations and Big Brother will use DRM (also known as Digital Restrictions Management, Treacherous Computing, or Handcuffware) to enslave people. Just read the essay he wrote, titled "Can you trust your computer?" and look at some of the recent Slashdot stories and you'll see that he's been all along.
I have nothing but respect for Stallman's courage to take on the powerful and wealthy interests that want to subjugate the populace. This is the time to show our gratitude for his uncompromising ideals by donating to the Free Software Foundation (which Richard Stallman founded and leads) and to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.
If the author had at least read the proposed draft of the GPLv3
How can you be so naive? He DID read it. He was just paid to attack Stallman, since the GPL doesn't benefit Microsoft at all. Please, portraying Stallman as some kind of fundamentalist warlock who loves to burn books of art and science? Sheesh, that's falling low.
At least CNET had the decency now to say who he works for at the bottom of the article.
You must judge the accuracy of the statements based on their accuracy alone. Whyhe holds those opinions is completely irrelevant to whether those opinions are accurate. You are considering something that has no bearing on the veracity of the author's statements.
Continuing to insist that you are correct does not make you so. But, just because you like wikipedia, here's your refutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I understand that you want it to matter. I understand that you feel strongly, but you're wrong.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I think you need to escape the exclamation point.
For a second there, I thought that Tom Wolfe was the latest convert to Open Source zealotry.
-h-
like Savonarola.
I'm not against free software; I use and enjoy an number of free and open source apps. Heck, I've even contributed to the documentation efforts of some projects of this type. I suppose I support, in a general way, the four freedoms in the parent article, though calling software restrictions "violence" is, IMO adolescent.
But I'm opposed on principle to any fanaticism, whether it be in favor of free software or Microsoft products. The type of rabid dogmatism propounded by Stallman is the enemy of rational thought and compromise. In my view, these (rationalism and compromise) are two requirements for the advancement of science/technology and continuance of civil society.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
As opposed to our esteemed Slashdot editors, who post ...
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Parent post is critical of Google and Apple!
This guy's the limit!
And besides, I didn't call his integrity into question. I merely provided additional information with which interested readers could make up their own minds. Additional information is never a bad thing.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Given the fact that DRM hasn't been widely implemented yet, it's premature to crown RMS as the oracle who got it right.
Actually, not a handbasket, but a Subaru Brat.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
It assumes that you know what his position will be because of his current employement.
Would it still be a fallacy if the statement was:
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Clearly GPL 1 is the "Old Testament": the original, not very popular. Settled down after an initial conversion onslaught into just a small community handing it down thru generations on conservative faith in the simplest expression of the "One License" inspiration.
GPL 2 is the "New Testament": hugely popular sequel, reforming the original and claiming its legacy. More complex, but more comprehensive to absorb adherents of other licenses. Taking over the world as the old "panoply of proprietary licenses" paradigm fades.
GPL 3 is the "Last Revelation": deriving from the first two licenses in succession, attempting to leverage the success of the second edition into total world domination among a much more diverse population. Impeded by continuing success of the second version.
This comparative license religion note brought to you by an atheist, into the public domain.
--
make install -not war
This Savonarola fellow's cause was objectively not good. He was trying to suppress science, creativity, and progress in general, in exchange for religious fundamentalism. Stallman on the other hand is trying to prevent a genuinely evil state of affairs (for that is what the information police state enabled by a ubiquitous DRM infrastructure would be) from obtaining. The ideals of the Free Software Movement are, objectively, good.
So the analogy fails on this cruicial point.
Spent my mod points, and I'm sad. Noone deserved them more than you.
My little site.
...there's something wrong with me giving away something that I own. What's so immoral, anti-social, or religious about giving someone a gift?
Ack, our whole capitalistic system would come crashing down if everyone started sharing with everyone else. It would mean the end of civilization as we know it, dogs and cats living together, panic in the streets.*
*Satire, for the humor impaired.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Jonathan Zuck is founder and president of the Association for Competitive Technology. ACT is regarded by many as a Microsoft mouthpiece.
Of course they'd love to drive a wedge between the Free Software and Open Source camps. It's no surpise that this piece insults RMS's Fee Software philosophy by dimissing it as religious, and claims that it has never produced anything (that's why RMS is insistant on the "GNU/Linux" label, to help prevent anti-Free Software FUD like this.)
It's a crock.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
GPL is for code, CC is for content. I don't see a schism there.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
I don't think this is an issue of slavery or religion. People need to realize that software isn't handed down from heaven and that RMS isn't some sort of divine prophet! What DRM will most likely do is remind people they can do without the cheesy movies and music they've been buying lately. It is unlikely that this will cause some new Dark Ages, because people will very quickly realize how confining DRM is in an "information society". It could even drive people, whether they realize it or not, to use sources like Wikipedia over DRM-o-pedia, and, when DRM starts making a real dent in their pocket books, people also may be driven more towards open source desktops. I suspect that older DVDs and audio/data CDs will have absolutely tremendous staying power, because HDTV/HDCP/blahblahblah is confusing the hell out of everyone.
"I haven't made any statements, pro or anti, about the opinions Mr Zuck expressed."
I neve claimed you did, and I know you didn't. That said, it still doesn't matter.
His statements are either accurate or they are not. ALL other considerations are irrelvant, because they do not change the accuracy. Even if he were the most biased individual on the planet, his statements are either accurate or they are not.
You seem to think that your endorsement/denunciation is what matters. It does not. By simply bringing up the idea that the authors bias may influence the accuracy of his statements, you are committing ad hominem.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Notice the posts from Zealots in any Apple or Google article. Open your fucking eyes jackass.
RMS has repeatedly stated that he considers all proprietary software evil. Eben Moglen views are similar (e.g., read "Freeing the Mind : Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture").
These are radical views, and out of sync with many supporters of open source software. Indeed many programmers wonder how they are supposed to make a living if all proprietary software is abolished. It seems a reasonable assertion that this will eventually cause a rift in the open source movement.
The article casts Stallman as impractical. However the freedoms in the GPL are of practical importance. One might for example be using GPL software in a large organistion to get away from per seat licencing, using the freedom to share the software with multiple employees. If some "pragmatism" finds a way round GPL 2 so that you have to pay per seat for the link to the website that enables the software, that is not very practical for the users.
If you are going to do what the article does and merely assert that freedom is in opposition to practicality, you are saying nothing at all.
Well said and I do agree! However you must understand the serious issue about having to lose certain rights by accepting certain agreements which are unavoidable with certain software. And my most serious example would be someone who couldn't understand or know any better and ends up using some windows software and in turn he or she loses his right to certain privacy, security or unfair regulations on what they can do with their own personal work or hardware. While you can argue no one is "forced" to use windows, in reality they are *still* more or less monopolistic AND without knowing any better people have no choice really.
So - what would happen if microsoft's EULA's were compared with religion???
Somewhere in M$ Headquarters:
BALLMER: The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Bill G: NOOOOO!!!!
BALLMER: (Throws chair)
Nor would a major kernel fork. Linus is a smart coder, but I don't trust him on the political and legal side of things. It's a low priority for him. He could lose those freedoms (or never had had them in the first place) that allow him to continue without "political types" coming up with such things as the original GPL. Ignore bogus laws, patents, DRM at your own peril. You can't just pick and choose which parts of the total world to live in. We are very close to patenting and DRM and the DMCA and such to effectively crippling free and open source. Just standing back like he wants to do and thinking that nothing is going to happen is *more* than a touch naieve and is falling into the wishful thinking camp. If we don't fight back in advance of more bogus behavior by the big corps and governments, we could find ourselves being on the wrong side of a lot more laws, many more than what we face now.
Get with the times or move on. You can either recognize the threat, or stick your head in the late night coding sand like an ostrich and not even see the dumptrucks full of heavy rocks sneaking up on you to bury anything you might do.
notext ASS
Don't you think an issue as important as desktop computers, MP3 Players and DVDs requires comparisons to things even more important than salvery and subjugation? Why not compare it to the holocaust as well?
When are we going to get people who can TRULY appreciate the mighty moral heros the FSF are! Without them risking life and limb for our freedoms everyday, we would simply NOT be able to pirate as much media as we currently can!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
How do you know you are not a brain in a vat?
...that the Universe wasn't created intact thirty seconds ago?
...that the laws of physics are the same as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow?
There's an answer, and it sure isn't 'reasoning'. Deductive logic can only carry you someplace after there are established axiomatic statements which, definitionally, must be taken on faith. In any reasonable conversation, particularly one in which one is not an expert on the subject at hand, a modicum of faith in the statement of facts is not only reasonable, but also practically necessary. How far that faith should extend is a function of trust in those sources, which I believe is what the GP argument is all about.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I've grown tired of this exchange, but I'll say this and then end it.
Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not.
Bringing up his motivation for making those statements is the ad hominem. Whether you beleive tham is not the consideration. I think that is where your confusion comes from. I'll say that again, it doesn't matter if you denounce/endorse the author's statements, because that is not the ad hominem, the act of bringing up the author's bias is the ad hominem.
I've said this as many ways, and as many times as I care to. Educate yourself or not, I'm finished with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Or refutes the facts I have posted. I appreciate your attempts to clarify the situation, but introducing more logical fallcies doesn't help.
Gowen committed ad hominem. Your post changes the subject, but not that original fact.
And now, because this has descended into uselessness, I'll go now.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
The agreements are always avoidable. Don't use the software. If people cannot be bothered to even inform themselves about what rights they are trading away by accepting those EULAs, then they have no right to complain.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
The article cannot be taken seriously. All it does is comparing Stallman to Savonarola, and quote Linus' comments on a mailing list. It gives the (false) impression that Linus is campaigning against the GPLv3. It does not actually discuss any flaw in the GPLv3 for a single line.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Oh geez. Now they have to throw in some religious bullshit. That pretty much shows you how little of a journalist he is.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
"I did not try to "slander" you -- I was correcting you."
But I wasn't wrong. I'm not wrong now either. You simply misunderstand the fallacy you claim to understand.
I encourage you to read the links I've provided. You'll see why you're off base here.
Please don't assume because you think you're right that you are. You've made a mistake, learn from it.
And you get the honor of being the very last resonse for me in this thread.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I find it facinating how many people will TRASH the GPLv3 based on other people's comments. PLUS...it's a draft! It has yet to be finalized. I think it rather short-sited of Linus to throw out the GPLv3 before it's been finished, finalized and released.
If you don't like what is currently in it, send in comments to the FSF! The license is being developed with input from everybody.
GPL crowd includes a lot of people that are vocal, pushy and recruitive. And ignorant and intolerant to the criticism at the same time.
These are THE properties of religious fanatics, so the analogy is pretty accurate.
According to Wikipedia, "Florence soon tired of Savonarola's hectoring," and so too are many turning their backs on Stallman...
/. puts banner links [now with DRIVEL TEXT (tm)] as articles...
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. Cnet is not a news outlet. I can't believe
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
No
Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church is often labeled today as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, look like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards... An Adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelties. Pope Benedict XVI
The same notion applies to GPL vs Open Source.
an ill wind that blows no good
Free enterprise requires free speech to exist for it to operate. Whenever there were guilds, state corporations, and/or industries controlled by a political regime, such nations were often inpoverished and lacking in all necessity and luxury. Particularly, free speech was non-existent in such societies as well because to be free to do business as you wish also follows that one must be free to speak their mind too since it in all industries it takes free speech to promote one's business or to promote a particular innovation to improve one's business.
In short, free enterprise and free speech are logical correlaries, both are necessary and both are consistent with each other.
Now, how does this apply to the issue at hand? It applies primarily in that the FSF's GPLv3 license is as stifling as the DRM proposal. It eliminates flexibility to do business without adding to the freedom to be flexible in one's own 'tinkering.' If that is so, as I suppose, then what use is the GPLv3 license? It has no use, it's an idealogical dead end. That is why individuals such as Lessig left GPL in the dust, it was self-limiting, it wasn't about freedom of speech it was about enslavement of the working programer, of the businessman, and of the free market.
If 'free' means the freedom to tinker, then GPLv3 doesn't add to it, GPLv2 was fine and CC is much better. In the end, GPLv3 is the product of the support for collectivization of programmers not individuation. Then again, what do I know?
-- Bridget
Well said, bud. Well said.
GPL 3.0 license is a call to the faithful
I thought that open source was supposed to be a bazaar rather than a cathedral
www.wavefront-av.com
In the essay, the Cathedral is the GNU Project, not commercial software development as many seem to "mis-remember".
If you're looking for *real fallacies, name-calling, and overall weak reasoning, try TFA.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"always avoidable" - debateable
... Could I avoid it? Possibly, by staying after school, spending my hours based on the school's hours, enduring extra transportation cost since the school bus has specific operating hours, and losing the other comforts and conveniences of my own study environment. - This tradeoff is both unreasonable and unfair, and to expect people to make such concessions is unrealistic especially in low-income or underpriveldged households. This "choice" isn't really a choice. -- Well that's my opinion.
Example: I am in a publicly funded education system. To perform certain science work assignments I have to use a windows-only software on my computer. Without it I cannot complete my assignment and pass the class.
Attacking some one's motive may be under handed, but may be the best way to understand that they may not have the desire to tell both sides of the story... or at least understand they want to convince you and may not show you all the facts needed for you to make a non-biased opinion.
For example, if I received an email with a 100 page PDF explaining how fossil fuel emissions aren't bad for environment and explains them in a reasonable and understandable and logical way I might sway my opinions that I could buy that SUV after all.
But then when I see the From header as "PR_dept@big_oil_company.com", then I realize this information, no matter how well worded, reasonable, scientific, and logical may not have all the facts because creator of the argument has some investment in said topic.
Anyone can make a reasonable and sound argument, but if you also know their motives, you understand what information they are leaving out (or skewing).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
"gowen has not made any comment doubting the validity of Zuck's deduction." But I feel like I have to point out, in addition, that Zuck actually doesn't make any deductions. The piece is all rhetoric meant (as usual) to make ppl associate Stallman with religious zealotry, and an impractical unwillingness to compromise. The only inter-subjectively verifiable/falsifiable sentences are of the form "Linus has been quoted as saying ______" or "Santayana said _______"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
gowen never said that belonging to a Microsoft-founded lobby group constitutes circumstances which make the article's author disposed to be critical of GPL 3. He had just pointed out that the author belongs to that group, which he does.
Your own examples show the difference to ad hominem circumstantial: Had gowen linked the author's opinion to his membership in the lobby group, it would have been that fallacy. But he didn't.
In fact, you are implicitly saying here that the author's belonging to the group constitutes circumstances which make him disposed of the opinion he holds. So actually you are commiting ad hominem.
The threat of DRM is real, you don't have to wait for it to cuff you before you see that. GPLv3 works to prevent the scenario where DRM is widely implemented. For info from the horse's mouth, see what he said about DRM in his FOSDEM 2006 presentation.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Let us consider some of Zucks proclamations:
Here Zucks is discrediting the "practicality" and "freedom" that the GPL provides by comparing it to his specific definition of practicality that is essentially the practicality for corporate exclusion and appropriation. As an independent programmer when an entity makes enhancements to your code base and then sells your application as a web service it may be more "practical" for your code license to include a network service clause allowing you to build on the enhancement made to your code base. Sure this limits the possibility for a company to invest in creation of the service given the uninsured rights of exclusive service, but the company can always chose not to appropriate your code or have a more liberal business model. The commons does not solely exist for appropriation and exclusion. The GPL is different from the "public domain" because it ensures derivative freedoms. Here again I believe Zuchks is making a very common rarely acknowledged assumption that the reduction of concentrated power in any way is the end all destruction of civilization as we know it... we are not so lucky it will take much more work to undo the exclusion and restrictions of freedom inherit in our current systems of control and governance.
DRM-only devices are definitely a step in the wrong direction. It gives concentrated power the ability to seriously restrict the freedoms of its "consumers". Or more essentially makes profoundly undemocratic assumptions about communication being a form of unidirectional consumption. We can already see the consequences of such cultural assumptions in the toxicity of our mental environment played out most distinctly in commercials, corporate branding and second order social consequences of depression and high usages of mood altering drugs. When people are told creativity is the exclusive right of the gifted, and the devices that mediate our world enforce this assumption we are quickly headed towards profoundly undemocratic systems of control what we could call "un-free".
If we dare use Zuchk metaphor, we can see the priests tried to hold onto their exclusive right of interpretation of the bible or the natural world and they were threatened by the de-exclusivisation on natural world interpretations. The text content they put out was now malleable and brought abut religious segmentations. If the priest could have DRM'ed their religious interpretations of the natural world it would have been a lot easier but instead all they could do is "burn" unauthorized interpretations ie trusted computing self destruct button if running non-DRM approved content. Our natural world for better or worse has become our media environment hence the strong oppostion to Trusted Computing systems.
And finally Zuchk offers us: Again I think Zuck may have a definition of freedom that includes maximizing potential for growth of capital irrespective of whether that growth is democratically accessible or via concentrated centers of power. He or anyone else is free to write their code under these conditions but (whenever possible) we chouse other conditions for our code well aware of the consequences of applicability to non-democratic commercial projects.
Of course there are different levels of law.
Some laws/infractions carry no jail time, no matter how many times you break them.
Some laws carry different levels of jail time.
And some laws can lead to death penalty.
But the level of "violence" should match the crime/harm committed.
Someone commits armed robbery and gets 5-10 years in prison, and gets a $5000 fine.
Someone provides a "music download" service to his friends, and possibly gets 5-10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Is this level of violence proprotional to the crime.
"To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted". This can be deduced from the premise "one should not abridge people's freedom". Maybe your own ethics don't include that premise. Or maybe none of your beliefs/premises are of the form "one should not _____", in which case you have no ethics.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Every time I hear someone complain that another person doesn't get to copy their work because it is "MY WORK", it is coming from someone who crated that work by extensively using "OTHER PEOPLES WORK" with no compensation, and without their permission. Here is a list of creations that you have "STOLEN".
"Here is where your argument breaks down. Neither you nor the original poster has a "freedom to copy", specifically because it is MY WORK. I have the right to say what is done with my work. You do not have a "freedom to copy" anything other than YOUR OWN WORK. His copying may very well directly effect my ability to make a living from my own work. That is directly affecting me. What you fail to see is that his freedom and yours ends where my freedom begins. The right of a person to swing his fist ends at the nose of another person. Your freedom to copy ends where my freedom, backed by legal right, to say how my work is used begins. And, as you don't seem to understand a good portion of my previous post, let me enlighten you on a particular fact. All rights and freedoms flow from society. If you don't believe that, go debate your "right to life" with a hungry lion."
That's right. Every one of those words was coined by someone else, long before you used them. They created the words, and defined their meaning. When you create something that is not derived from any other persons work, then you can consider it "YOURS". Until then, you are just a theif or a Hypocrate.
In the 60s and 70s, all software was free software. It was normal for people to pass on the source code with the binaries. In the 80s, some companies started a new proprietary approach, and they started using technical means (such as only distributing binaries) and legal means (applying copyright) to prevent people from helping themselves and each other.
I bet there was a army of people who posted to usenet with comments similar to your's. "Consumers will never accept that treatment" etc. etc. "there'll be a revolt, just you wait!"
Instead of waiting for everyone else to revolt, Stallman launched GNU - and the free software movement along with it. When freedom is at stake, sitting back and waiting for a revolt is never enough. This problem has to be tackled in every way we can. GPLv3 can't solve the DRM problem completely, but I'm glad that it will do all it can.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
burning all the sinful artworks, and Linus is the practical Bishop, then does that make Gates the anti-Christ?
Seriously, folks, it's just a proposal. Noone forced you to use it. You can keep using GPL 2 as long as you want.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Since when has one's labor become free? Programmers do their work for both the love of the trade and the profit it brings. Take away one of these elements and then the programmer becomes a slave. It's really no different than when it was a crime for non-appointed scribes to ply their trade in the Middle Ages. It took the 'Rebirth' of Europe to allow for free market capitalism of such scribes to work for anyone and for any price. Under GPL, especially v3, it makes it clear any profit is against the license. And I find that abhorent. It's really no different than DRM. But atleast, DRM isn't law and the same can be said for GPL. As long as neither become law, more power to them, but if they want to have a corporatist or communist revolution on my PC, they can think again.
I think it's high time programmers and businessmen take a stand against both initiatives, and bring back the freedom to where it belongs; software authors and individuals that fund them.
-- Bridget
Here is the problem with excluding DRM from GPL - DRM is not simply the Sony CD rootkit. DRM is not the tool solely of Big Media, Hollywood, and the Recording Industry. We need to get past that myth... the technology isn't evil, their application of it is.
DRM is also a tool for us. DRM is just as much about preserving your privacy and mine. It may be the only thing that keeps our private information out of the prying hands of the Bush Administration. Calling out DRM itself as evil is the same as calling the entire concept of encryption evil.
The existing DRM provision in GPL 3 is the epitome of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As a reasonable guy, I'm sure that you can see that.
The fundamental problem with Jonathan Zuck's argument is that he's mis-casted the characters in his play. While he's right that the open source movement could be well cast as some of the Renaissance, the Dominician priest who would view such as vanity is actually the proprietary movement. This is clear in his statement: For leading Linux users like TiVo and Adaptec, the ability to protect key intellectual property is essential. TiVo and Adaptec are stuck in the old ways and are more interested in reverting back to it because they view it as necessary, just as one's religion becomes the means to comfort oneself against the rapidly changing times.
The simple fact is, then, that RMS is closer to the Founding Fathers of the USA or those who fought against the Dominician priest. This is because RMS looked back into history to recognize the likely fate of a simply open-source movement, as previous similar movements were usurped; so, he attemped to create a mechanism to guard against those who would try to remove freedom in the name of the "necessary". One has to look no further than the fact that proprietarism comes from the state to recognize that it is a construct of man, not the natural state. This is true as well of state sponsored religion, and it seems hardly surprising then that many people would call for the state to support them as they believe their religion cannot stand alone (obviously not true for all people). I only wonder why he doesn't see the same pattern of history as well.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I am most definitely sympathetic to FOSS - I think the whole thing is a superb idea, with many great qualities and much to recommend it.
However.
Richard Stallman correctly predicted many of the ways in which Big Corporations and Big Brother will use DRM (also known as Digital Restrictions Management, Treacherous Computing, or Handcuffware) to enslave people.
You lost me right there. Please explain to me - in words of one syllable if necessary - how DRM will turn me into a slave. For reference, this is the definition of slave that I'm using.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Yes I was operating on the possibly incorrect assumption that DRM is not just plain vanilla encryption of personal data rather a specific set of technologies designed to encrypt media specifically do disallow the "consumer" of the media to copy the data in unapproved ways. In essence this restricts the right to manipulate media. I can think of no case where that's a good thing.
If I put out some statement I don't want the power to disallow others from altering or sampling my statement.. I can PNG sign the statement to maintain my authored identity as to not allow impersonations with altered text... but that is very different from encrypting the whole thing and disallowing others from accessing it ways that I do not approve of.
I don't think the GPL3 is forbidding encryption, perhaps they should clarify their definitions of DRM?
Many commenters are pushing Open Source discussions as completely reliant upon faith (here, here, here).
/.ers (myself definitely included) ought to consider before posting.
I think that's a strong mischaracterization of these discussions.
As much as you might disagree with them, closed source proponents, and differring open source proponents, believe what they do for reasons.
Sometimes the reasons seem ill-informed or heady, but it's a complex and nuanced discussion. Maybe they don't understand your position, or maybe you don't fully understand theirs. It's unlikely people have come to these positions as a matter of principle, in defiance of all reason to the contrary.
For more information, consider Davidson's Principle of Charity, something all
No politcs thank you
Just want to use free software with the most possible free license for everyone without hurting capitalism or making a socialist statement in the process
http://saveie6.com/
There is definitely a need to clarify the definitions of DRM, but I did mean more than PNG signing. It doesn't outlaw all encryption per se, but it would prevent its use to limit access to any type of document/media - which is really dangerous when you think about it.
What about your medical records? Do you not approve of "disallowing others" to access your medical history? Would you not approve of "disallowing others" to review your bank statements? What about "disallowing" the NSA from reviewing your emails with friends overseas? Under the current GPL 3 definition of DRM, all these applications would be forbidden for use by GPL'd code.
We need to stop railing against the technology and start focusing on the unacceptable behavior of the media companies like Sony. Banning the tools of access contro/DRM/whatever you want to call it will eventually hurt us more than it hurts big media.
In short, this guy opinion is: "GPL3 is bad for business use". No single fact is given to support this opinion. No legal analysis of the proposed license text, nothing.
Why we are even looking at this "opinion" I wonder....
Hello, Your headline was really interesing. However you could have also written that ACT's membership roster has some 3,000 companies including Microsoft, so that we wouldn't really bother to read the whole text.
Yes profit based on exclusion is limited. You can not be guaranteed future dependence by your clients when you sell them modifications on GPL code. They will always be free to change it themselves and likewise you were free to make modifications on a GPL code base and sell them to the client. (If your doing this labor for free you have a very bad business model)
;) I have worked on proprietary projects before they paid just like working on GPL projects pays as well except I can use the code I made in the gpl project for future projects allowing me to deliver more for less. But by all means use whatever software you like I will just continue my GPL coding and presenting arguments about why in the end it will work out better for everyone by reducing concentrated power ...
If you look at the sentence you quoted it says nothing about democratic software being created out of free labor, rather its an alternative model that allows you charge a client to build off what other have done (rather then start from scratch and cost more) with the condition that what you build on is also available for others to do the same. It is exclusion-free capitalism; in essence an idealistic implementation of free markets without the concentrated power of corporations or governments gaining the exclusive right to sell you a particular service. The GPL de-monopolizes the software environment.
In the GPL the freedom to take away someone else's freedom is severely limited, but your always free not to GPL your code. As you point out "DRM isn't law and the same can be said for GPL", the problem is that DRM or trusted computing is becoming law. And remember the caveat.. whoever possible use GPL but if it does not make sense for you business model then what do I care
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Where exactly does the draft forbid encryption of documents? Besides that DRM is not encryption. Encryption only governs access, not copying the information after the fact.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Obviously the documents you mentioned should be encrypted but why does a device need to be DRM enabled to not be able to read those documents? and how does a centralized key generator system give you greater security over your "documents"?
... just normal encryption and I am fine with that, we need to get the GPL people to more explicitly explain the difference...
You imply that encryption is currently broken but as far as I can tell the current systems work pretty darn well, and a DRM system actually introduces many more levels that make your data less secure... I could try and find some of the articles I read about this if you're interested...
The problem with DRM or Trusted Computing is that they de-democratize the encryption process. Instead of anyone encrypting anything to any bit-level we would have a set of central systems where key issuers give out keys to "allow" people to make applications or media. The best example of this is the game consoles where only approved media can run on those systems.
We already have very strong personal encryption systems why should we allow our devices to only be able to decrypt things that an external group approves.
Furthermore how do you know the central group does not have extra keys to your "DRM"ed content. And finally how do you or someone you trust audit their code if its not open source and locked away in closed hardware or some network server somewhere. And if it's just application level DRM then I would not really consider it DRM
but it's an interesting parallel between religious fanatics and other types of fanatics.
Whether GPL 3 will create the type of infighting the article seems to suggest is an open question. My suspicion is that those on the fringes (Stallman and Microsoft's lawyers, for instance) will have a lot less to say about whether this is widely adopted than people actually doing open source work--the hundreds of programmers working on small hobby projects for their own purposes. It's the acceptance of those folks, who will or will not adopt or reject GPL 3 for reasons other than politics or profit, that matters most.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I agree your statement makes zero sense. Nobody, not even the religousfanatic communistical free-lovin' America-hatin' FSF, thinks that software itself has rights.
PS: do whatever you want with your work. But you don't get to do whatever you want with *my computer.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
An honest author must avoid any appearance of putting words into people's mouth.
As for Stallman, Zuck is right to the degree that Stallman is indeed concerned only with making sure that software is free. But Zuck tries to portray Stallman as someone who will deliberately cause mayhem and destruction in order to further his cause and elevate himself, and that's wrong. Stallman may do things that are controversial and that are painful, but he does them because he believes them to be the right thing to do.
Others have pointed out that Zuck is president of ACT and what this means, so it's not surprising where these statements are coming from.
Last I checked, the DRM clause prevented one person from releasing software as "GPL" but prohibiting modifications under the DMCA.
> DRM is also a tool for us.
Naw, not really. This is like saying, "Huge strip-mining operations are also a tool for us." Yeah, if you can afford 6 backhoes and 20 dumptrucks, you can tell your neighbors the mountain is gone. DRM is immediately useful for large companies that have these huge assets. Using DRM on a personal level is petty, and it won't lead to wider promotion or acceptance of the few assets you're putting out there.
Normally, you'd be right, DRM is "just a tool." But some tools are specially crafted to cause chaos, and those tools cannot be used for good by anyone.
Are we? If you put it that way, we already have, years and years and years ago. Almost no one is really on Stallman's side when you get down to the details. Probably because his sense of what's really good for the world is just not quite compatible with reality.
Here's a little illustration:
* a) The sky is blue. (I was paid to say so.)
* b) The sky is blue. (I was not paid to say so.)
* c) The sky is green. (I was paid to say so.)
* d) The sky is green. (I was not paid to say so.)
Statements a) and b) are accurate. Statements c) and d) are inaccurate.
Technically, none of the above is true. The Sky (atmosphere) has no 'color' visible to the naked eye. It absorbs UV band. It can block spectrum via water vapor or particles. But for your statement to be correct, if I look down over green, brown or any color land, it would have to have a blue tint, one that becomes more blue as you viewed the dirt through more 'sky'.
The BSD license does not limit anyone's freedom to copy code. It allows the author of that code the freedom not to distribute any modifications he makes to it, or not to exempt his creation from restrictions imposed by copyright law. That it, it simply does not impose the obligation to distribute the code, either at all or under any particular license. Any code that is out there and distributed is still free to use, and using it in a closed project does not affect that. If I take a BSD-licensed project, modify the code, and distribute only binaries, I haven't *done* anything to the original code, locked it up, or prevented anybody from copying it.
The only restrictions being applied are to the *new* code I wrote, and those restrictions are allowable only because of existing copyright law. If you don't like those restrictions, what you need to argue against is copyright law in general, not the BSD license. While copyright laws exist, even public domain is no more "free" than the BSD license (cause I could take something in the public domain, use it in my commercial creation, and apply copying restrictions to that).
Consider an analogy of speech in the common sense. (All code is is written speech). A situation analogous to copyright would be to say that I may say something to you and require you not to repeat it, and if you do, you are guilty under the law. The opposite of this, such as the BSD license or a public domain license, would be simply to say something to you; what you do with that is entirely up to you, repeat it or not, I don't care.
GPL doesn't mesh extremely well with this analogy because there is no "speech source" vs "compiled speech", but something roughly analogous to the GPL would be *requiring* you, if you ever repeated what I said (even in modified form), to furnish the person you spoke to with a written copy of that statement. That's not freedom for anyone: that's a duty placed on you, which grants anyone you speak to (about this thing) the entitlement of a written copy of that.
In the speech case it plainly obvious what is the most free of these things: simply being able to say things to people, and they are not obligated to act or not act in any particular way about that. This is analogous to the public domain license, and a BSD type license would simply require that you attribute any repetition of that statement to me, a very slight loss of freedom. Standard copyright laws and "copyleft" laws like the GPL both impose restrictions on people and so are far less free. The only illusion of a lack of freedom in a BSD or public domain situation, with no copyleft requirements, arises because you still have copyright requirements being imposed by some people. The problem is not these middle licenses; the problem is copyright itself, the notion that you can at all "license" written speech and other creative works. The GPL is complicit in that kind of thinking, and the situation it drives toward is no more free than the one with traditional copyright.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
/. articles more and more - this thread so far is a prime example of why.
Our chief weapon is Fear - Fear and Uncertainty.
Our 2 weapons are Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
No, wait! Among our weapons are Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and now PEDANTRY. If we cannot subjegate our enemies with the first 3, we will now numb their minds with pompous trolls spouting come-ons about picayune, barely-related topics; drawing the discussion off to safer areas.
I'll come in again.
Seriously though, I've recently found myself losing interest in
No, I'm not new here. It was a lot funnier in my mind.
(and I voted 'Other' - 'Eric the Half a Bee' for me.)
--
Tin foil causes brain cancer
I thought it was rather amusing, personally. I also have to agree with the losing interest comment. When we have a perfectly valid vehicle for debate about a serious issue and the people "participating" in it decide to spend the entire thread bickering over points in each other's logic and terminology, I tend to get rather fed up.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Did you read the wikipedia article?
"Jonathan Zuck is president of the Association for Competitive Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group specializing in technology issues. ACT's membership roster has some 3,000 companies including Microsoft."
This isn't even close to:
ACT was founded in 1998 in response to the Microsoft antitrust case. Its chief goals are
1. to limit government involvement in technology (such as antitrust actions or free software / open source software requirements); and
2. to support strong intellectual property rights in software.
Currently, ACT is lobbying strongly against the Massachusetts endorsement of the OpenDocument standards.
The bio in the article doesn't make it all clear that the ACT is a biased lobbying group that is hired for propaganda purposes.
"trade group specializing in technology issues" my ass.
I'd say who funds a study IS a serious issue. Would you trust a study funded by Microsoft showing Windows to be a superior operating system?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Come on over to the BSD license! :)
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Jonathan Zuck works indirectly for Microsoft. What Microsoft thinks about the GPL is pretty much irrelevant since they don't license any of their software under any variant of the GPL. This article is 100% USDA FUD.
...and I'll say it again. Stallman has been given a length of rope, and is currently well into the process of hanging himself.
There doesn't need to be any rebuttal made to anything here either way. The "troll" and "flamebait" tags attached to this article entirely speak for themselves, and again illustrate the easily observable fact that Stallman's followers hold zero tolerance for any dissent with or criticism of their leader's perspectives.
Whenever I've been modded down as a troll to the point where nobody can read what I've written because I've dared to criticise Stallman in the past, that in itself has told me everything I need to know about the genuine moral fibre of the FSF's supporters, and what Stallman's version of freedom really means.
His followers are so totally secure in their own perspectives that they can't tolerate a single word of dissent being uttered. I can think of a couple of historical figures that such behaviour brings to mind...but none of them are individuals which I in any way would want to associate with.
Good job RMS has nothing to do with Open Source then isn't it?
Free Software ... Open Source ... not one in the same!
Two different beliefs/ideologies/points of view backed up via copyright with different licenses of varying liberties granted by law. Seperate
What does Marcellus Wallace...no wait, never mind. We are using different definitions of faith; I'm using the technical one "belief in the alethiological value of statements not in evidence" which is what an axiomatic, i.e. truth by definition, statement is: an ungrounded statement that sets up a framework for deductive analysis. My point was, admittedly, rather remote from the context of the conversation; I simply get annoyed when people flippantly say things like "depend on reason alone; eschew faith" or somesuch, because it is not a very good blanket rule, IMO, and does not apply to the vast majority of situations where one must rely upon information that is not substantiated or guaranteed in another method. At a certain point in any investigation, conversation, or what have you, there must be a point where the conversants agree upon the framework of the conversation (usually implicitly), otherwise conversation cannot occur.
On the other hand, this point bears weight on the subject of trusting people and statements made by those people; at a certain point, one must assume credibility (or not) after sufficient analysis of credentials and other factors, because ultimately you can track those factors back to an axiomatic statement which is unfounded except by itself and assumed to be true.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Your argument is based on the false premise that "sky" and "atmosphere" have exactly the same meaning in the english language, which is not true.
Dear The Pious:
I command you now to refer to GPL 2 as The Old License and GPL 3 as The New License. Thenceforth, your salvation.
Yours in Stallman,
extrasolar
"We" refers to the authors of GPL software, the users of GPL software, and also those that want to modify and/or reditribute it. Does not claim owneship of other peoples' work or money
"the buyer can look at it, figure out how it works, make an imitation"
This is the problem that our patent system was designed to fix
Outrageous. My taking inspiration from someone's work and using my own creativity to expand on it is a problem. For fun, say it's not a knife, but a movie. Or a haiku.
Well, regardless, this is not the problem the IP system is designed to fix. As stated, the problem is underprovision of things that are nontangible. Nontangible products can be duplicated freely and given to everyone without violating the creator's rights (whether they're natural or contractual) to live and do what heshe likes.
Because of this quality (non-rivalrousness) of ideas, it is difficult to make a profit from their development/production. Because it is difficult to make a profit, (this part is theory) the socially-optimum quantity of e.g. science and the useful arts will not be produced in a free market.
The IP system addresses this problem -- underprovision, by creating artificial scarcity in things that are not naturally scarce.
"This is why so few people ever sell anything but their labor."
What? Look around you. Everybody is selling everything.
I only meant this is why so few people develop a new product and go into business selling it.
"Tom did not come to a deal with me. Tom does not have any of the rights I extended to the buyer"
The question is about Tom's rights to duplicate, imitate, and share the idea he has found. It seems you must choose
1. Tom can do whatever he wants with the idea, just as though it popped into his head like other ideas sometimes do.
or
2. Tom cannot do anything with the idea. "Tom does not have any of the rights I extended to the buyer ". In fact, Tom must pretend he has not encountered it because he does not have the right (which you sold only to 1 person) to use the idea.
Also: Tom must guess what rights he has w/r/t the idea, since all he has is the paper with the idea on it.
Sounds difficult. It's much easier if you say Tom can do what he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else. This is what I think you mean when you say "Tom has the same rights to the idea that every other person does", although I don't think you realize it.
Pro: I get to eat.
Con: Other people don't get a free ride.
Wrong. When you disclose an idea, it's Pro: you get paid/eat. Con: you no longer control the idea, because it has taken up residence in someone else's head, and you do not control that person's head.
You might be able to persuade the government to let you partially control that person's head, and to punish that person if heshe uses his head in ways unapproved by you -- i.e. sharing the idea, performing the song, etc. Tell the govt. this would be an incentive for you to keep coming up with ideas. If they buy it, you will get some sort of IP system. But it's a tradeoff where the govt. is regulating someone's head in exchange for your promised ideas.
There is nothing wrong with giving stuff away. Its is a very noble thing. However, selling product, in and of itself, is not wrong.
Pure straw. Sell what you like.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Not according to the CC site. Also, one has the freedom to restrict others access. Unless, you support collectivism, I think you too would support this moral principle of exclusive association. It is that freedom that allows individuals to cooperate and live parallel lives without fear of reprisal. If someone wishes to retain control over their own projects and retain the right to access to the source, then it follows one wishes to retain the right of exclusive association. It seems odd that individuals some how feel this is a bad thing. I'll have to check with people eating their lunch if they can share theirs with me since it seems the idea of exclusive association is some how bad....
-
So one cannot exclude their work from others? What if I want to live alone? Do I not in either case have the moral right to do so? I know that seems naive, but consider the position for a moment. If one could not exclude others through control of one's associations then one could not in any case have trueist form of freedom. Why? Because as long as one assumes one has no right to exclude others from one's own association in any case, then one cannot be free to do as one wishes with one's self or one's work. It must be said, that this sounds like collectivism, not capitalism. And it seems to be a push toward a public society rather than a private society. Personally, I prefer the latter, and I love my freedom to exclude others from my work[so-called IP, I don't consider it real property] and my body, and my property.
At any rate, what do I know? I bet lots of folks think it's bad to be selfish. ;)
-- Bridget