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?"
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.
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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion
Actually, thats exactly what it is.
Does it matter if he got paid for his opinion?
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.
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.
Yes, it does matter, because *I* want to know *WHO* is making the opinion, and what agenda might be satisfied by publishing the opinion. This way, I can decide which elements I can reasonably trust on faith, and which elements may have ulterior motives for pomulgating.
It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion (and I never said it did -- that would be argument ad hominem) 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.
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?
Tell me : if you were on trial, would you like the witnesses against you to have been paid by the prosecution?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion
Just so long as you're not going on to say that what that person's saying should be ignored because of it. He could still be right, even if he's saying something in his employer's best interest.
Besides, in this case, he appears to be arguing against something that would benefit Microsoft.
... 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.
It's sad and intellectually lazy.
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.
Are you so critical when you read an article that espouses the benefits of open source? Do you want to dig and find what agenda might be satisfied in that case? Or with blind faith trust that it has no ulterior motives?
In other words are you a hypocrite?
Are you any better than an American conservative who dismisses CNN and the New York Times and believes everything that is on Fox News?
Of course I'm wrong, there is no such thing as open source/linux zealotry.
What's so immoral, anti-social, or religious about giving someone a gift?
Nothing! There's nothing immoral in the BSD lic... oh wait...
Global warming is a cube.
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
If you want the straight dope, look at the draft GPL V3 language and accompanying commentary/elaborations.
I think the objection many GPL objectors have isn't that you're giving it away, but that you're demanding that they pay back in kind if they want to benefit in certain ways from what you gave away. They'd rather you gave them stuff without asking anything from them in return. They're certainly entitled to want stuff without any strings attached, but we aren't obligated to give it to them just because they want it.
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.
Of course it does. It doesn't invalidate his opinions (again, I never said it did), but it certainly has some bearing on why he might hold those opinions.
Huh? The reason someone holds an opinion and the accuracy of a statement are completely separate concepts; I fail to see how you think your statement refutes the point you are replying to. Here's a little illustration:
Statements a) and b) are accurate. Statements c) and d) are inaccurate. The paranthetical comments have, as has been previously said, absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the statements. Only if you had no way to determine the color of the sky for yourself would it be interesting to know whether my message was funded by Convince People the Sky is Green Coalition.
Bias can change motivation for saying something, but it cannot possibly change the fabric of reality to make something more or less true. The reason people use source criticism is because some statements are not independently verifiable or refutable (some historical documentation, for example) so understanding motivations for something having been written help people guess how accurate the statement might be. If you can verify the accuracy of a statement yourself, there's no need for source criticism and guessing.
The quotes in the article are easily verifiable (or refutable), which leaves only what is clearly opinion. So in this case, unless someone is a sheep who is totally unable to decide if they agree or disagree with an opion based on merit, and simply blindly adopt the opinions of other who come from a blessed source and discard all others, there's no need to consider the source while reading the piece.
You can't read the article and not wonder who paid for it, although it does say so at the bottom. It is propoganda intended to divide, not a reasoned argument on a controversial topic. His article compares all open source to some extremist cult, and holds Stallman out as the leader of the next inquisition against common sense, with even such revolutionaries as Torvald's saying "he's gone too far". There is no argument, very few facts, and a whole lot of bizarre analogy. Who he works for is perhaps more important than what he says. Clearly he's having a problem and wishes to divide and conquer. Knowing that, we can now realize that there is no war between the GPLv2 and GPLv3. I think Linus himself said while the GPLv3 isn't for him, and isn't for his kernel, it has value on other applications (he gave examples, I don't recall what). That's actually a rational position for anyone who wants to write software and keep it free. Licenses are tools, choose the best tool for your job.
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.
CNN and The New York Times aren't that different from fox news. In fact, I'd say they're a whole lot worse since often they put out the same kinds of messages (or even repeat the fox news message) but are somehow afforded a credibility that fox news isn't since fox has wide-spread acceptance that fox is a biased, lying right-wing mouth piece. Which isn't to say that fox news doesn't deserve every bit of the bad reputation that they've got, but these other mega "news" corporations aren't any better and are worse for the lie that they are.
The Farewell Tour II
Work is a human endeavour. The money you make is the fruit of your work, which is a human endeavour. I demand that you share your paycheck with me because it "properly belong(s) to all of humankind". When will you be sending me my money?
The truth of the matter is a person or group of people only have the rights that society as a whole give them. No one has given you any of those "rights" you mention.
You do not have a right to something just because you believe you have a right to it. Hitler thought he had a right to take over the world and kill off all the Jews. Communists thought that their political phillosophy gave them the right to subjugate other nations through force. The Klan believed it had a the right to kill black people. Neo-nazis think they have the right to oppress anyone who is not white. My neighbor thinks he has a right to play his stereo so loud I can't hear my TV. All these groups have one thing in common. They are or were wrong.
And, you are wrong as well.
Just as the exsistance of money does not bestow upon you the right to have some, the mere exsistance of software bestows no rights upon you. If I create a piece of software, I owe you nothing and you have no rights to the software I created except the rights I give you, because it is MY software, not yours.
You do not have the right to make copies of books or movies and give those copies away. If someone creates software doesn't give you the right to make copies of and give them away, you do not have that right.
Your hubris is galling to say the least. I reject your manifesto and summarily deny you any rights to anything I create.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
You and GuloGulo seem to have a very hard time with reading comprehension. Two quotes from gowen, emphasis added:
It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion (and I never said it did -- that would be argument ad hominem) 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.
It doesn't invalidate his opinions (again, I never said it did), but it certainly has some bearing on why he might hold those opinions.
He specifically said twice that the source of Johnathan Zuck's funding does not invalidate his opinion. What it does do it shed light on the how and why he came upon his opinion. (Just to be sure you're still with me: this does not invalidate his position). Now, if it's obvious that someone routinely takes money in exchange for spouting off someone else's opinion, I'm less likely to believe (or at least take at face value) that person's view in the future. The reason being that it indicates this person does not do their own research which will inevitably lead to an incident where their paymaster gives them a complete and utter lie to spread. That is how it is relevent. It does not necessarily invalidate the positions taken by this person but it does mean that I will not treat that person as an authoritative source.
I find your arguments distrubing. You say he does not have the "right" to ask for part of your paycheck. Nor does he have the "right" to copy "your" software. I say the former is very different from the latter. In the latter case, you are asking him to give up some of his freedom: the freedom to copy. His copying does not directly affect you in any way. In the former case, he is asking something of you that does directly affect you. You have no right to demand that others limit their freedom for the mere claim that you "own" the "right" to copy. Now, it so happens that we as a society have decided that allowing you to do so temporarily will be beneficial for the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. But there is nothing inherent that says you should be able to limit his freedom in this way as his actions do not affect you. So, please, throw out the "I own it so he can't copy it" argument. Instead, argue that society should agree to prevent him fom copying. And it better have a damn good reason to do so.
I'm not sure where that manifesto came from, but it's pretty radical, moreso than anything I've heard before. That manifesto is close to what RMS believes, but not quite. Even RMS recognizes copyright as valid. He believes in ownership of software.
He believes it's immoral to put artifical limitations on the users of software, but I've not heard him say anything like "No one should own anything".
It actually goes against the legal basis of the GPL. The GPL supports the idea that the owner of the software has exclusive rights to grant the end user permission to copy and modify the software. The GPL is a license the author can use to conditionally grant those rights to others if they comply with the requirements therein.
That manifesto almost looks like a straw man to me, I question the intent of the author.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
That's the underlying philosophy with free software though. The only justified reason to put artificial limitations on software is to preserve the freedom from other artificial limitations.
Sort of the way that we wouldn't be more free if murder was legal, even though it would mean less laws.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Does it matter if he got paid for his opinion?
Yes it does, because after reading the article, I was wondering who would have such an idiotic opinion. Now I know. I viewed his post as an informative post, not a rebuttal to an argument.
Seriously, the GPL v3 isn't a radical leap from v2. It is cleaner (although harder to read), and more compatible with other open source licences. The only thing remotely controversial is that if you release GPL'ed code for a certain platform, you have to make it possible for someone to modify your code and run it on that platform. Makes sense to me, and this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. "Bonfire of vanities" my foot.
Qxe4
"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
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.
Ah, if only every argument was a purely deductive proof that we could analyze as such. Then a person's bias would have little effect on the efficay of their arguments. However, there are 2 major problems. First, most arguments only contain bits of induction in a much larger argument that has deductive and inductive parts (usually some crap too). Instead of "proving" anything, they person making the argument will supply a bunch of evidence. Bias often causes people to highlight the "evidence" in their favor, and brush aside evidence not in their favor. So when you hear an argument from a person with a strong agenda, you really should stop to think about what counter evidence has been overlooked or brushed aside. The second problem affects even the purely deductive kind of argument that might bring Aristotle himself to orgasm. This is that we must still evaluate the premises of any argument, and decide if they are reasonable. Not knowing everything in the universe, people really on expert opinion in many cases to determine whether these premises are sound. So credability becomes very important. Thus, in addition to what is being said, who is saying it does matter. The court system certainly recognizes this with the use of "expert witnesses". You can never logically just brush something off as false because it was said by a certain person, just as being hypocritical doesn't make you wrong. But unless the argument made is a 100% deductive proof with very simple assumptions, then the "who" as well as the "what" is important in evaluating the argument.
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
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."
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.
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.
Ah, but it's not YOUR computer. It's not YOUR electrons which make up the bits and bytes. Starting out, your IP rights ends where MY property rights begin. That's where your IP fist ends at MY nose. You have NO rights to tell me what I can do with MY property, even if MY computer is running a series of bits and bytes you came up with. The default before I choose to give up any of MY rights is that you can fuck off.
Now, for various reasons we have as a society chosen to give you the time-limited privilidge of copyright - a limitation on everyone else's physical property which puts some limits on what we can do with our own property. But you should make no mistake which is the more fundamental right here - if you don't believe that, you can come uninvited to my property to check up on my "IP compliance" and discuss it with a shotgun (technically I don't own one, but you make me wish I did).
As far as your "right to say how your work is used" is concerned, the only way you've had any say in how it is used is through abominations like the DMCA and EUCD which is a blanket permit for use restrictions along with copyright protection. If you tell me you want to come into my livingroom and tell me how I can use the work that I've bought (or otherwise legally aquired), you can fuck off twice as fast. There's just no limit to how much you want to enroach on MY freedoms, is there?
You know, I actually have a lot of respect for people who really don't mind how their work is used, if I format shift it, time shift it, put it on a laptop or desktop or iPod or Myth box or send it to a family member or personal friend. They just want to prevent the mindless mass piracy which is really hurting their bottom line. But people like you... you make me want to abolish copyright. Ever apply for the position as record exec at the RIAA? You seem like the right type.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Am I the only one who sees that this whole string of arguments is about 2 different things? Well, it looks like a few people have tried to point it out.
It is absolutely 100% correct that the accuracy of a statement has nothing to do with whether someone was paid to say it or not. Attacking the messenger or their intentions is indeed ad hominem. But that's not what the other side of the argument is here.
If you only have the statement, you don't know it's accuracy. You have absolutely nothing to judge it on with respect to "truth data". The issue here isn't the accuracy of the statement because you can't check it. The issue here is the confidence in the accuracy of the statement with no available "truth data". If it is someone with a background in presenting objective information, there is more confidence that their statements are accurate than someone who clearly has a self-interest in being subjective.
Confidence and likelihood are statistical tools and are useful for a best guess. There is no such thing as an ad hominen attack on confidence. Likelihood and confidence a part of reasoning, but it is not closed form like pure deductive reasoning.