Slashdot Mirror


You Can Oppose Copyright and Support Open Source

kfogel writes "I'm submitting 'Supporting Open Source While Opposing Copyright' as a response to Greg Bulmash's piece from yesterday. I think there were a number of flaws and mistaken assumptions in Bulmash's reasoning, and I've tried to address them in this rebuttal, which has undergone review from some colleagues in the copyright-reform community."

4 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Ein Tag im Leben von Michael Sims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
  2. I'm glad someone else reacted to this. by tinkertim · · Score: -1, Troll

    I wanted so badly to let Greg Bulmash have it on the first thread, but figured my mod points could do more good. :) I blogged a reaction to it also which seems to be getting a few views.

    Its amazing what some people will concoct just to syndicate Google ads. Bulmash, your way off base and you knew it. Hope your happy with the reaction you're getting. Did you get plenty of ad clicks?

    Bozo.

  3. My thoughts on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    fuck you, fuck the anti-copyright bitches too. i'm sick of all this petty bickering about open source bullshit. you open source fags are so fucking dull and full of yourselves. most of the arguments that i see here pretty much say the same shit we've heard for years.
     
    now stfu and get a life. stop sucking on them dicks too.

  4. obviously wrong. by twitter · · Score: 1, Troll

    Without specific protection for the software component, companies would have tied software to the hardware. ... You can copy the Microsoft Office ROMS all you want, but it uses the registers and I/O devices only present on the patented Microsoft Office machine. No *general purpose* computers... Copyright is what made the general purpose computer sociologically possible. That world, by the way, would suck.

    That's so backward - general purpose computers are more valuable without copy restrictions than they are with them. There are plenty of patents on them but no computer maker would ever limit the use of their hardware with those patents. Copy restrictions are responsible for the dominance of Intel i386 and all companies have twisted their hardware to work with M$ junk and is close to the M$ Office machine you mention. Useful hardware like PowerPC and other general purpose hardware is not available for home normal use. In a world without copyright, one where Bill Gates was stoned to death at an early hacker meeting, M$ would never have existed much less made hardware even suckier than it is today.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.