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?"
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I haven't made any statements, pro or anti, about the opinions Mr Zuck expressed.
That's why its not ad hominem. For all you know, I may agree with him.
It would still be wise to consider the source: this is politics, not formal logic.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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)
The GPL does two things: first, it explicitly allows the user to do whatever he or she may want and is able to do such as copying, modifying, distributing, etc, and second it requires that source code be included. The first restriction only makes the GPL less free in the context of a society that is imposing these artificial freedom limiting restrictions already. In the context of a more free society, the GPL and BSD (and any license for that matter) would be equivalent on the first point. The second restriction may indeed make the GPL less "free", but I prefer to think of it as a choice. In the society in which the BSD license lives, the people have decided to limit their own freedom to do certain things to software such as copy and distribute. In the GPL society, the people have decided to limit their own freedom to withhold source code. The BSD allows the freedoms that society denies, but it makes an implicit choice to belong to that society that limits the freedom to copy etc. The GPL makes an explicit choice to belong to a different society, one that does not limit those freedoms but demands source code. In the end, it's not so much the license that's important, but the values and choices of a society. The GPL pushes the agenda of: we reject the limitations on freedom and demand source code. The BSD says: we reject the limitations on freedom, but also accept them.
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
"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.
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
Technically, I don't think any court exists outside Texas that would agree with your definition of "reasonable force". If you shoot a tresspasser, then claim to the court that, while merely brandishing the gun would have been enough to get the tresspasser to leave, you felt justified in increasing your attack to ensure that your victim could never threaten you again, you're going to lose the case.
Also, "Step onto my property, and just see what happens" is the height of Internet lameness. It lost it's novelty about five minutes after Usenet went up, and I'm sure you can do better than this.
Finally, the "you seek to take from others" argument can be easily turned back on you. If you write a song, let others listen to it, and then demand total control over the idea you've put into another person's head, that's every bit as selfish as you claim your opponent is being. You've benefitted in so many ways from the ideas society has put in your head (think how much less you'd be capable of if you'd been dropped on a desert island at the age of three), and yet when it comes to your idea, anyone who fails to provide you fair compensation for it is a greedy Stalinist.
Me, I think that some amount of copyright protection is fair and just. But not this much, fercryinoutloud.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!