Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software
bonch writes "Richard Stallman has written an article on the GNU Web site describing the effect the Swedish Pirate Party's platform would have on the free software movement. While he supports general changes to copyright law, he makes a point that many anti-copyright proponents don't realize — the GPL itself is a copyright license that relies on copyright law to protect access to source code. According to Stallman, the Pirate Party's proposal of a five-year limit on copyright would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products. Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power."
Its the eye-patch; it detracts from the visual purity of the cosmic goodness of the beard
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
We played Stallman Says at computer camp last summer. It's like Simon Says except the winner gets a fake beard to wear for the rest of the afternoon.
I... don't kiss many girls.
Richard Stallman is jealous that pirates have the better beards.
This is why Stallman waited until now to propose it.
per dolorem ad astra
This is worthy of a new acronym: DRMS.
Read the constitution! It says right there: Life, Liberty, and access to the source code of all software products so that you can modify them and create derivative works!
So close and yet so far. Perhaps you meant:
All yer source code arrrrr belong to us!
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
dumbass, that's not in the Constitution. It's in the Deceleration of Independence.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
He said his main concern is that they should change the name to the GNU/Pirate Party
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
Then the Stallman put on his Open Sauce cape, jumped out of an open window and flew to the moon. There he went into meditation for 25 years to discover the secrets of cheese. And upon his return he came back with superpowers and destroyed the company in question with his mighty beard, and the whole world rejoiced and then the Stallman created world peace with his open sauce.
There, if you have to make shit up, at least make it believable.
Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection.
I'm not a fan of popular what-passes-for-music either, but even I'm willing to give them more than two weeks of copyright protection.
That's the one. I can never keep the two kooks straight.