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."
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software
FTFY
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
If access to source code is truly a right, shouldn't that right be enshrined in law from day one?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm pretty sure Lessig already proposed this 5 years ago. Both ideas of short copyright and a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.
Badass Resumes
Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.
Honestly, merely reducing copyright to 40 years from creation would be a MASSIVE step in the right direction.
Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power.
Why not require the source code to be submitted with the copyright registration?
How so?
He wants it one way, GPL software should be protected. That is it, he seems fine with copyright for that purpose. He does support reducing the term of copyrights, but fears that this will lead to the inclusion of GPL software in products were the user has less rights.
Personally copyright should last a little longer than 5 years but not life+70 or whatever steamboat willy is up to these days. Any sold software should have to come with source, because without it the product has very little value as time goes on.
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.
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition? If so, why is he trying to mandate protection for it in the law? Sure, mandate that states can't ignore open source just because it doesn't include junkets and dinners with executives, but forcing people to open their own software just to "level the playing field"?
That sounds like an idea from someone who's afraid that maybe his side won't measure up. "Yes, we're better! All of our software is inherently better, and anyone who tries it will clearly see that! Now, let's force the other side to ruin their business plan and do things our way, because otherwise they have an unfair advantage!"
I rarely agree with RMS these days (as I discuss in a post below) but I don't agree with typical piracy either. I've done it, but as I get older, I want to pay for products.
I see the game companies I loved as a kid all go out of business, each citing piracy as a primary reason their PC game sales dropped. Other companies just shifted to console development, where piracy is more difficult. If you don't pay to support a product, don't expect that product to exist forever. I also believe a creator deserves the right to be financially rewarded for their creations. Being able to just take that creation for free isn't a right.
I still download a few albums illegally, but if I like them, I usually buy them afterward. Certain artists, I just buy the albums directly.
The only "piracy" I outright support is on two issues.
1 - Preservation of abandonware. If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation. You can not charge to distribute another person's product. If the creator re-releases the product, you can no longer distribute it again for 5 years.
2 - The DCMA says I can't legally circumvent copyright protection, but sadly copyright protection often interferes with software working correctly. I use no-cd/no-dvd patches on every game I own, and try to strip DRM from all software that I can, because I want the software to work correctly.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
A patent-like right for software that lasts for a much shorter time than an ordinary patent that has as its requirement that the source code for the software be released. Basically reward companies for releasing source code by granting a short term exclusive right of some kind for doing it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Richard Stallman is jealous that pirates have the better beards.
DRM is a way for companies to control the behavior of users after they've bought the product. It's a way to lease things to people rather than sell them. It's a crime that companies are allowed to 'sell' you DRM things. It's a lease. You don't own it.
Stallman is completely correct in calling DRM evil. Witness Amazon forcing people to return their books when the fact that they 'own' them is inconvenient for Amazon.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderful.
Software copyright is the only form where the material has no automatic way to enter the public domain when it should. Some kind of escrow as a requirement for protection would do the trick.
This is worthy of a new acronym: DRMS.
Stallman makes a good point. One problem with copyright at present and the distribution models is that it actually inhibits the development of knowledge and civilisation by making information more difficult to maintain. I would like to see copyright terms rolled back to what it was originally before it was extended so many times, and also for copyright to expire immediately when the work is no longer being published or being made accessible at the similar cost it was originally offered at. The copyright could be reinstated if the work is offered again by its author for a similar price as it was originally offered. I would like to see an ability to pay scheme introduced that would allow poor/low income persons to access knowledge at a lower cost, and for access to software at reduced cost for hobbyist use. one of the problems with commercial software is it is so often so expensive, the price can sometimes be the same for a revenue producing busienss as a non commercial hobbyist. The development model and source is also closed which retards the improvement of the software, and takes away control of users from being able to understand what the software they paid for and they run on their computer is doing, or offer their own improvements to the software. I would like to see more of a model adopted by companies of an ability to pay price structure, and where they provide source code to those who use the sotware, even if under a proprietary source licence.
After the Ninja's appointed him as their leader with the katana, it appears that this is just another battle in the seemingly endless war between Ninjas and pirates.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Eh, having worked in the game industry.... I've found that 'piracy killed our product' is really a cover for 'we don't understand the market well enough, so we will blame something concrete'.
Thus I tend to take management saying that as they are so out of touch with the actual marketplace that they lead the company into it's own black hole but do not want any blame associated with them and thus hurt their chances of moving on to other companies to ruin.
> Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth... Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits.
And what an original, devastating insight.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Expensive Operating System and Brand Name Software Companies
Corrected it for you.
While Stallman is a zealot, I think you need to re-read his statement, because it's an entirely reasonable explanation of how free/open source software would be affected by a short copyright term. Essentially open source code would be forced into the public domain, while closed source software would not.
Plus, if you follow his argument, reducing the copyright term would actually increase the use of DRM in closed source software.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I think that the optimal number of years is closer to 15, it should be treated like "classic cars" are in Pennsylvania. This is enough years that publishers have had sufficient time to make profit, that the work has had sufficient opportunity to make and exploit its cultural impact, and is not so many years that the work is lost from lack of preservation.
In terms of software, 15 years is quite a bit of time, enough that software is unlikely to be of significant commercial use, so that copyright-lapsed software shouldn't too seriously affect the sales of modern solutions. Open sourced material lapsed into the public domain wouldn't be as much of a concern as it would be within a 5 year period.
If this was in force today, old versions of the GNU toolkits, the X11 system, and even Linux itself would be in the public domain. That might seem scary, but we're talking really old versions. If someone in 2009 wants to include Linux 0.99 into their embedded product without contributing their changes back, I'm not sure thats really a bad thing.
Stallman was at my university for a lecture a few months ago. Halfway through he starts lambasting our IT department, most of whom are in the audience, for requiring users to authenticate before gaining network access. The school has a policy specifically *banning* tracking usage or anything invasive. They only require that users provide a username/password before getting network access, and he tears them a new one.
The IT department, BTW, is moving *away* from proprietary (specifically Microsoft) products. Right as the IT department is moving *to* open source, one of FOSS's biggest names decides to publicly hate on them.
So companies like Looking Glass Studios and Origin didn't understand their market well enough?
Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it. The game was deemed a commercial failure, and I'm not sure we'll ever see another game like it, despite the fact that Penny Arcade called it simply the greatest PC game of all time, and most RPG lovers call it their favorite.
It might be an excuse used by management to cover a bad product in some cases, but piracy does affect game sales to an extent.
And when you don't pay to support products, you can't bitch when those products disappear.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
He has an operating system?
I was commenting on Stallman in general. Above, I remark how I agree with him about the Pirate Party on this particular issue.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Maybe you should read what he actually wrote. His argument is very tempered and coherent. I believe the heart of it comes down to this sentence
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users. As soon as a song falls into the public domain (whether 5 years or 100 years) the actual work is out there for others to use, copy, modify, whatever. But with proprietary software, the copyrighted material is kept closed and secret. The thing the users have is a compiled version that can't easily (or sometimes at all) be used in another project or modified or learned from, even once it's in the public domain.
With insanely long copyright terms, proprietary software is protected by the fact that you don't have access to their source code and the law; whereas free software is only protected by the law. Once you take away the force of law after 5 years, proprietary software is still protected by the secrecy, and free software is completely unprotected.
Now if you want to get into a holy war over the GPL vs. BSD, fine, but that's a separate argument. If you care at all about the GPL, then RMSs point about the Pirate Party's goal makes a whole lot of sense.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
If the purpose of copyright is to give exclusive rights to a work of intellectual property for a given period to promote the creation of those works before they are added to the wealth of the public domain then what does that mean for copyrighted closed-source software? It seems like the public would be entitled to the source of any software when the copyright for that software expires because people don't tend to just copyright binaries.
This leads to some awkward problems with closed source projects that we don't tend to find with other copyrighted works because it raises the risks that a copyright owner would be protected without any guarantee that they'd be able to supply the public with their copyrighted work when their protection elapsed. But there is also the issue that they never really released the source either. It could be argued that they released a derivative work of their own source when they sold copies of the binaries so compelling them to release the source might not be wrong as well as impractical.
Given the long copyright terms we have now and the pace of technology I don't expect this to be that serious of an issue but we really don't seem prepared to handle this.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Revitalizing copyright formalities would help to satisfy both parties. One of the traditional formalities that an applicant for a copyright registration in the US had to fulfill was depositing 'best copies' of his work with the Library of Congress. This not only served as a way for the Library to enlarge its collection inexpensively, but also aided the public by preserving copies of the work, which the public could use.
In the case of computer software, I propose that all people seeking a US copyright for works which include a software portion provide copies of the software in such forms, and with such supplemental material as the Library determines are best in order to preserve the work for posterity, and make the knowledge in the work accessible to at least other persons having a reasonable skill in the art, and which pose no, or the least barrier for people to make any and all lawful uses of that software at any time (such as making adaptations or backups pursuant to 17 USC 117 during the copyright term, or anything at all after the copyright term). This would not make software any more free than it currently is, but would make software less opaque. The non-copyrightable ideas and algorithms and learning that compromise a given program would be more accessible even during the term, furthering the goal of promoting the progress of science, just as pioneering literary techniques may be learned by reading a book, and used freely.
Developers who wished to keep their secrets would, of course, be free to not meet the requirements for copyrightable software. Their public domain works would continue to have secret source code.
I am aware, btw, that this would require that the US withdraw from most of the various copyright treaties. Since no meaningful reform is possible with those treaties in place (such as realistic term lengths), I'm in favor of withdrawal anyway.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I believe you are exactly backwards. DRM is about limiting the user. The GPL is about freedom for the _user_. As is pointed out ad nauseum every time a GPL story shows up on slashdot, the restrictions only apply on distribution of binaries.
... what was it, scp and grep? to make the flag for directory recursion lowercase r, because I couldn't be bothered to keep track of what used -R instead. Now, say Apple doesn't release the source for Darwin. It's BSD licensed, of course, so they don't have to. Then, to keep everyone tied into the Apple experience, they implement some kind of hash check before anything gets executed (sounds like DRM), so even if I reverse-engineer and compile my own binaries, I can't run them.
Simple example: Once upon a time, in my linux n00b days, thanks to the GPL, I used to change the source of
One way, I, the user, can do what I want. The other way, I can't do anything I want, despite that they are both open source. It's not that hard.
That said, I generally agree with you about RMS. I believe his difficulty is that he has valid practical considerations that, when stated in legalese or abstract ethical notions, sound crazy. Then, his unflinching, uncompromising nature drives him into the fringe.
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
It is always useful to remind everyone that the same "evil" intellectual property laws that are used to prosecute pirates also ensure that Linux and GNU software remain free. If you are a free software advocate and you "don't believe in imaginary property", then yuo = rtard.
Stallman didn't say this, but it is also important to point out that piracy actually hurts free software, by making all software effectively free to those willing to steal it. Linux may cost $0, but if Windows also costs $0, then (to some) it's a better deal. If you are a pirate and you regard yourself as a daring Robin Hood-style freedom fighter, then the bad news is that you're actually fighting against freedom, not for it.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
I'd say Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary people to publish copyright software or having special copyrights for special authors is pretty much bogus. He is locked into this world where he thinks that the existence of proprietary software undermines free software and he tries to lock people into it. Let's just say that I decided to go and grab the Linux Kernel, forget that, the whole everything of Linux and have it on a specially locked down PC called "Todd" and I sold those at Walmart. How do you think that would halt the movement of open source Linux in any way? It wouldn't.
Unfortunately for Stallman, the FOSS world seems to have left him behind. The GPL has evolved in use to become a way for developers to promote themselves and is hardly the user centered world that Stallman speaks of. The whole point of having the GPL to stop proprietarinism isn't some act of goodness, but it does support. It's so that GPL authors have a vehicle for cashing in by doling out non-GPL licenses. The public gets the GPL work, but if I wrote some widget that MS wanted to slip into Windows... well, I'd certainly take the check!
This is my sig.
There are two camps using copyright law as protection:
1. Copyright law keeps source code non-proprietary (e.g. GPL)
2. Copyright law keeps source code proprietary, so you have to pay to use the product (e.g. most commercial software)
Now apply a 5 year expiration of copyright:
Result to 1:
The source code is already visible, and nothing protects the code anymore from someone stealing it and making it proprietary, despite the intention of the authors for it to remain non-proprietary.
Result to 2:
The source code is NOT already visible. Lack of copyright protection makes the product free-as-in-beer, but mere expiration of copyright does not force the authors to release the source code. So the result is that no one else can steal the source code like they could for expired FLOSS copyright.
So yes, there IS an imbalance of power. In no way does this help authors preserve the freedom to keep software non-proprietary.
And no, it's NOT just a simple case of each side has a right to keep their code open or closed as they see fit. It favors proprietary software to remain proprietary, but removes protections for software to remain non-proprietary. Stallman is right: the only way to keep it fair is if both sides must make the source code available.
THINK PEOPLE.
Far from it. RMS is the modern John the Baptist. He is an important part of the overall discussion, even if you don't agree with him.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderf
I would shoot everyone that publicly supported it if passed, just because it is an advocacy of compulsory, and therefor, non-free speech. The buck of FOSS stops at the 1st amendment.
This is my sig.
I predict we would actually see far more software emerge as people revisited old software which was no longer supported and made their own, better versions. I'd love to see new takes on software like Hypercard or even OSes like Windows 2000. Since neither are supported anymore, who does it hurt to open them up?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
But that is what the GPL does. Stallman believes that there are certain freedoms that should be protected. Those freedoms are protected through a series of restrictions.
Most social contracts work on similar scenarios. We benefit in theory by joining in a society and having a government. That government creates laws and takes away rights. Those restrictions protect us in a sense. But no one can claim they have found the perfect balance of restrictions.
Which is not to say I hate the GPL. I support the GPLv2. Overall, I think it is a very good license. But there is inherent hypocrisy in blasting others for using restrictions to protect content from being copied, when he does the same thing. He lets users copy and distribute code, but developers can't simply take the code without contributing back. You may agree with that decision, but it is a restriction nonetheless. DRM is designed to protect the rights of the creator. The GPL is designed to protect the rights of the creator.
The GPLv3/TiVo fiasco is a fine example here. TiVo used OSS code. They released their modifications to the source code. They complied with the license. Hackers were modifying their boxes so they didn't have to pay for TiVo service. TiVo feels like you should pay for their service and tries to stop people from pirating the service for free.
Stallman claims that TiVo is in the wrong here, and claims this is a very simple black/white issue. So now, the GPLv3 has more restrictions than the GPLv2.
When trying to convince suits to implement OSS in the enterprise, they are terrified by what they read. They are worried that they don't understand the GPL, and that even by using the product for commercial use, they will violate the license. Or that their data itself also must be opened up.
As I try to assuage their fears and convince them that the GPL isn't evil, tech news sites are filled with a crazy looking Stallman blasting companies. It doesn't help the image of FOSS.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Didn't Looking Glass die because of EIDOS, and Origin die because of EA? Black Isle was like part of Interplay or something? So I think it is fair to say that at least the people holding the purse strings didn't understand the market in those three examples.
I was discussing Stallman in general here. On this particular issue, he is correct.
And for the record, I don't think GPL is always correct, nor is BSD always correct. I think each developer has to decide how to protect their work with that they feel is right, or open it as much as they feel is right. As the copyright owner, they are entitled to that right.
What I take offense with is Stallman claiming that only the GPL is correct, and that a differing set of restrictions is not "free".
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I bought Torment and played it once and never again. Thought about playing it again a few times but always had other places to spend the time. Recommended it to a few people but also told others not to bother as I could be sure they would not like it for various reasons.
Looking glass also produced Thief. The first one I played many times, the second once and the 3rd I was not able to get though at all... I bought all of them and the only one that I felt was truly worth it and recommended was the first.
So yes I felt they did not understand the market well enough... at least the Thief market as many of the people I talked with about the games had the same experience.
It would be nice if non-free/open source software was forced to become open source when the proposed 5 year term expired, but even without that:
What harm is there to a project that is GPL?
Consider the following example using mysql. Under the idea of a 5 year copyright, the code that makes up the version released today expires 5 years from now. However, each patch continues to be in copyright from the date it was written. If, in 5 years, someone builds a closed source that includes mysql's now public domain code the product can not include any new features or bug fixes without doing a clean-room reimplementation. This severely limits the over all code's usefulness.
In short, wouldn't it be easier to comply with the License then try to reimplement it all? And if they would rather add things on a 5 year lag, they are going to be behind and probably not be adding much the community would see as being of value.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
1 - Preservation of abandonware. If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation. You can not charge to distribute another person's product. If the creator re-releases the product, you can no longer distribute it again for 5 years.
Along with the requirements though that it must be A) sold in your country B) sold to the general public C) must be the original work otherwise the previous work is still fair game (for example, if Nintendo decided not to release Super Mario Bros. 3 for 5 years in the USA but then decided to make Super Mario Bros. 3 16-bit edition, they couldn't stop me from using the NES ROMs. However I couldn't use the SNES ROMs. Similarly, if they decided to make a PC version available but discontinued the NES version, I could still download the NES version but not the PC version. Also, for such a plan to work there must be -mandatory- registration.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It seems to me that a lot of Stallman's perceived zealotry comes from the way people see him. He seems like a zealot because...well, he's seen as a zealot.
From TFA:
I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software.
He's saying, "Hey, look, guys, less copyright is great, but if you think about it, GNU is copyright! And, closed developers wouldn't have to release their source, so we lose both ways! We ought to think about that."
And he's right. Good point, Stallman. I don't think that's crazy at all; that effect of a 5-year limit did not occur to me until now.
He has been a bit crazy at times, and you're right in saying he does kinda claim his list of restrictions is the Only True list. Still, that's a nice counterbalance to the corporate worldview; they also claim that their list of restrictions is the only acceptable one. Anyway, if you RTFA, he says he'd be happy with GPL software going into the public domain after five years...if closed software did the same, source-code and all.
I'm not sure that's a great idea, and anyway it'll never happen, but still...thought-provoking, and not at all nuts. I get a little sick of the off-the-cuff freakouts whenever Stallman's name is mentioned. If he's wrong, either ignore him or argue the points, and avoid the ad hominem attacks.
Almost everybody I know that has played Planescape: Torment only ever managed to play it after Black Isle was shut down, having never heard about it before. Personally, I played it when it came out, but I remember friends who had a hard time finding copies to purchase when it was being made, let alone afterward. Strike it up to bad luck if you'd like, but, in my own experience, the game was neither marketed well nor distributed effectively to its target market, and that's why it didn't do better.
Also, it was NOT a commercial failure. The game managed to turn a profit, which is something most games never do. (Admittedly, the link is talking about significant profits, not whether they make a profit at all, but I'm willing to bet that, looking at the situation realistically, less than 50% of games actually manage to break even)
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
Thank you for recognizing this.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits. He goes after Linus, Mozilla and Google, never realizing who his friends are in the FOSS world. He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free.
I disagree with the first sentence, while the rest is certainly true. Stallman only has cookies (the GNU toolchain, the GPL), he does not have a beating stick. He is not forcing anyone to do anything. He is not forcing anyone to even listen to him. You can write software and license it under whatever the hell you want, Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful. You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team. Stallman is not it.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions.
You have to listen to the arguments before you rebut them. Free software owes its freedom solely to copying restrictions enforced via copyright law. The sense in which Stallman uses the word "free" has been the same for more than 20 years.
In reality, he wants to remove rights,
No, the copyright law does that. It removes all rights and GPL gives most of them back to the user. Few licenses out there are less restrictive than GPL.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
I don't think you understand the purpose of DRM. Put simply, it is similar to that of a gigantic black dildo with sharp metal spikes. Very different from GPL, which is more like a cute pink bunny that burps gold and shits rainbows.
In conclusion, Stallman is right again and we are all very lucky to have him around.
Yes. GNU/Hurd. As I understand it, the current status is that it doesn't boot.
Because his "no-compromise" attitude has been proven right for many years. I envy him for being consistent thru all these years. Unfortunately, it is more confortable to live in a grey area, because it gives more benefits in the short term. Even if you think he is wrong, he has been holding his opinion for many years. That fact by itself deserves recognition and respect...
He is the Path, the Truth and the Life
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
\u262D = \u5350
In the case of Looking Glass and Origin, they got bought out because they were on the brink of financial ruin. And in both cases, the studios put out fantastic games that fans love, were critically acclaimed, but for some reason didn't sell. Yet everyone seems to have played their games.
Black Isle was poorly managed by Interplay.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
As I recall, you can't actually purchase Planescape: Torment all that easily anymore, and haven't been able to for years. No new copies are being made because the company's license for the Planescape setting expired. The only way to get it is to pay out as much or more as it sold for when it was first out - and this is with internet piracy limiting the demand. If there was no piracy, it would probably cost even more.
I think those are fair addendums.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
Yep, especially on Slashdot. Criticizing RMS on slashdot is not exactly an example of pioneering courage.
I agree completely except for "If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation.".
There is a reason why many software products stop being offered for sale: the company that owns the copyright wants you to buy their latest product, not a 5 year old one.
To take games as an example, say the game is sold for 2 years and then it's off the market for 5. Some people might actually prefer a 7 year old game for free to a brand new one for $60. So, you'll end up with game companies still "selling" their old games for more than the latest ones, or other such tricks to work around the issue. I think if the game is truly abandoned because the copyright owner for whatever reason really doesn't care about it, and nobody else has the right to distribute it, there is a case for it to be "saved" somehow but I think it's too simplistic to just say that after 5 years it's a fair game for anybody to distribute.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth.
If you have to preface your comment with sideways plea to the moderators to mod you up, then you are already on shaky ground. Next time out, just say what you mean - consequences be damned.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits.
okay ... you've lost the point somewhere ... the idea of free software is not to appease to the suits. The idea of free software is not to have a nice looking image. The idea of free software is to be independent of outside interests. period. Stallman views DRM as an enemy since it removes his independence. that's all. there's no good versus evil struggle going on here. It's pure pragmatism with a big scooping of zealotry.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
You're thinking like a developer. Not an end user. The gpl is nothing like DRM. The GPL is a contract with the end user whereas DRM is an implementation to prevent unauthorized copying. I can download a gpl program and run it on as many computer as i want. I can sell it. I can modify it. I can give it away to all my friends. With DRM, I might be lucky to install the program on two computers.
True freedom is public domain. Public domain certainly doesn't protect your code from being copied or stolen.
Code can't be stolen. It can only be copied which is the whole point of this article.
This is just wrong, quite frankly.
Christian EngstrÃm (the pirate party's EU representative) is a free software contributor (using LGPL for his work). Also, the pirate party has mentioned running in the municipal elections, with the main intent to work for the use of free software within governmental adminsitrations.
Also, the tone in the pirate party's platform is quite clear. They are focusing on restrictions caused by copyright, not on copyright as such.
Here it is, translated, for anyone who might be interested:
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.piratpartiet.se%2Fpolitik%2Fupphovsratt&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=
I think Stallman just can't see the forest for all the trees. The pirate party is a huge asset for the progress of free software.
Important stuff
That may be, but on this score, he's right. I think five years is way too short. I feel 25 years is better, but that 50 years would be acceptable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it.
"Piracy hurts sales" can only be justified or refuted by statistics. You offer us an anecdote.
For the record, I did pay for PT, even though it is not exactly my way. Let's be fair: PT had writing and art to die for, but it was also one of the buggiest games of the year. For a game that moves around a handful of 2d sprites it was unbearably slow and crashed all the time. Could that be one of the reasons that it didn't sell very well?
It's a list of permissions, that, by default, are not permissable under ordinary copyright law. For any given copyrighted work, you have no right to copy, distribute, modify, reverse engineer, any of it.The GPL only grants permissions that would otherwise be denied.
The GPL is saying you can distribute, you can copy, you can modify, but, in order to be granted these rights, you must also confer them on everyone else, including any derivative works you make.
IOW, GPL is more restrictive than BSD/X11/MIT/PSF (but only in that these licenses more or less waive all the rights while requiring only attribution usually), but less restrictive than copyright by itself..
My blog
Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful.
So when he attacks Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions, and he berates them repeatedly, saying they should remove choice from users, who exactly here is he respecting?
He is saying Mozilla shouldn't have the right to allow third party extensions that aren't GPL, and I shouldn't have that right as a user to make the decision on which software to run.
Repeatedly over the years he has said you run 100% "free" software, or you aren't free. That sure sounds like zealotry that removes choice from the user.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I see a lot of comments here saying that Stallman is a zealot, and both he and the GPL are harming software freedoms. Stallman IS a zealot. When something is important, you need somebody who will not back down or negotiate. The GPL is NOT friendly. It is a weapon against those who would steal our freedom, steal our code. Arguments claiming the GPL is bad for freedom sound a lot like arguments saying a standing military is bad for peace. Freedom and peace are both worth fighting for, even if the goal is to end the fighting. I can dream of a day when the GPL could be retired. When public domain works will not be stolen from the public. When proprietary software companies will no longer use their own EULA and patent weapons to devastate the freedoms of competitors, developers, and end-users. Whether such a day will ever come, I don't know. Today though, right now, if you value your freedom to write and use software as you choose, you cannot condemn those who fight for your freedom, nor the weapons they use to ensure it.
A lot of people criticize RMS for scrutinizing every movement related to free software and only free software, but I have to say that other fields could use spokesmen like him. He hasn't tried to "branch out" and talk about other causes he doesn't know much about He sticks to his area of expertise and, as a result, you get nuanced criticisms of positions that might otherwise have unintended consequences.
You don't have to agree with him, of course. That comes down to whether you think copyright should "promote the arts and sciences" as it is written in the constitution and whether the rights of the author/artist/developer to protect their works outweigh the rights of the users.
If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.
I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.
He said his main concern is that they should change the name to the GNU/Pirate Party
How can you force a company to release their source code, sue them? Every single company, no matter how small it is? If you force large companies to release their code, the small ones can get that code and release their own forked versions (change some logos etc.) and sell them 10 times cheaper.
If a company releases a lot of versions of product "foo", this means after five years version 1 was released, they'll have to open up the code. What if they don't have any kind of version control? Or if they delete stuff that's older than two years? Should they give the latest sourcecode for free?
What if the company goes bankrupt, should it release the source after it's gone? After all, you can't force or sue a company that no longer exists to release the code.
Finally, how do you know if the released code is real, or if it's some old buggy obfuscated copy that was used for testing some feature that was abandoned because it never worked?
If you have to preface your comment with sideways plea to the moderators to mod you up, then you are already on shaky ground. Next time out, just say what you mean - consequences be damned.
My intention was to state, I don't care how you mod this, I'm going to say it anyway. But your concern is noted.
... the idea of free software is not to appease to the suits.
That's not what I'm saying. But the adoption of software in the enterprise is crucial. At the end of the day, people who build their own PCs rarely purchase Windows licenses. People who buy a computer from Dell and then later install Linux don't affect Microsoft that much in the end.
Microsoft certainly focuses primarily on the enterprise environment. If FOSS is going to change the world, it needs to make more inroads in enterprise environments.
You're thinking like a developer. Not an end user.
I hate to repeat my same response to everyone, but Stallman has called to remove rights from users as well. He blasts distros that include, or even allow users to install "non-free" software. He blasts Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions. He said multiple times that users must use 100% "free" software, or they are not free at all.
The GPL doesn't demand this, or I wouldn't use any GPL software. But he has spoken like a zealot who wants to remove my freedoms as a user.
So even from a user's perspective, Stallman again wants to remove my rights to further his. Again, this can be compared to DRM.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Wharr be this 'Pirate Party', me mateys?
Stallman like any other producers of copyrighted work is using copyrights to control the distribution (copying) of his work. I think free software is good as long as the code is voluntarily given to the free software pool. After all it is his code that he put his work into, so he has the right to dictate that any copies also come with the option of obtaining the source code. However, those who choose not to participate in this scheme should not be forced to release their software in this way.
It would depend on how the legislation would be implemented. Suppose that a copyright expires after five years in such a way that certain copyright concepts still apply to the work, such as the concept of derived work. Suppose you take a FOSS program whose copyright has expired, and make modifications to it. If this modified program is regarded as derived work of this program, then it inherits the non-copyright status; the modified program is also not copyrighted. Furthermore, any executable code is also a derived work. In this situation, with these rules, the incentive for cannibalizing the free program is greatly reduced, because the executable code cannot be put under a proprietary license which prohibits reverse engineering, modification and copying. This deflates much of the proprietary software model.
I could make the argument that under these rules it's okay to withhold the source code for a modified version (derived work) of a program whose copyright has expired. Everyone has access to the original source code. So what I'm withholding is basically the access to the patches that I developed and applied, except that I'm allowing people to run the compiled program. Those patches are my work, so I have a right to keep them secret. If someone doesn't like that, they are welcome not to use the modified versions of my program and just use the original, to which everyone has the source. I'm not imposing any restrictions on reverse engineering, modifying and re-distribution of my binaries (because, under these rules, I cannot do that). Anyone who wants to make an open source version of program which has exactly the same features as my no-source version can do so, and in so doing may even reverse-engineer my program. This still leaves me with some incentive to make such a program, but that incentive is small and improportion to the engineering effort I have put into it. Anyone willing to put in approximately the same effort can duplicate and compete with what I have done.
Planescape Torment is an amazing game if you take the time to immerse yourself in it and think about the messages it portrays. That should tell you enough to know that it was destined never to become a best seller. Personally I did actually buy it, but I doubt that piracy had anything to do with its lack of commercial success.
No, RMS and DRM are opposites. RMS wants to make sure the code is always available. DRM wants to make sure the code is never available. How the developers use those two idioms has nothing to do with what they are, and neither care one bit for the developers they are purely for the work in question.
If you are a developer and you want your code to always be available you follow RMS.
If you are a developer and you want your code to only be in your hands you use DRM.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Most people who aren't really involved in the issue at all don't understand the difference between RMS free, and "download a copy of MS Office from some website" free. Having them both lumped under "free" does hurt his side of it, due to being associated with people who really only want the ability to download whatever programs they want without paying for them.
Maybe he should rename it to "freedom software" or something, so there's a difference in the names. The alternative is to stop calling the other stuff "free", but that doesn't seem too likely so long as most people don't give a damn about copyright.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Aside from anecdotal stories, how do you know piracy was what caused the lack of sales of the game? Why did other, worse games, sell better than this one?
It's quite possible lack of good marketing made the game a commercial failure, and only afterward it gained a cult following, and now everyone's played it, but couldn't buy it easily ?
I could also easily point to several movies that were commercial failures, but 'everyone' has seen and are considered to be some of the greatest movies (Wizard of Oz, off the top of my head.) I doubt piracy was the cause of those movies failures.
BSD is not an open license as it is too many dead ends. Yes there are tons of commercial applications out there but they are not open as 'under the hood open', its like buying a shiny new car and never being able to work on it. When it stops working you throw it away. Which is why I do not support BSD-style licensing, it is wasteful.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
It's clear from these paragraphs that you have no idea what the GPL actually does or what RMS's goal is. A much better comparison between DRM and the GPL is that they are total opposites. As you say, DRM restricts users to protect the artist from having their property stolen. The GPL empowers users to change software any way they would like. If it restricts anyone, the GPL restricts developers since they can no longer control their code back once they release it.
I'd love to see it proved that Santa Clause doesn't exist.
I'd love to see it proved that the cake is a lie.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I own it, so now you know 1 person :) I wouldn't call it the greatest PC game of all time. It was more like reading a novel. But it was worthy of a purchase.
I don't know what their claimed piracy figures were on that game. However, I do know that PC games ALSO suffer from poor price controls and shelf life, compared with console games. Not to mention back when that game was released, there weren't CD keys, online registration and whatnot in place, which essentially block first sale privileges. That made it easy for people to return the game to the store and/or resell it when they found out it wasn't what they expected. And frankly, I don't think it had mass market appeal.
That sure sounds like zealotry that removes choice from the user.
Stop with the nonsense. Explain to us how does Stallman saying anything takes choice away from the user. Are you, personally, experiencing a lack of choice due to his actions? Does Mozilla? Can Mozilla still use GPLed code? Yes. Do they have to listen to Stallman? No. Can they put up a gigantic free poster of Stallman in their office and hurl a dart at it every time someone says "GNU/Linux"? Yes. I do not understand your beef with the guy.
Forcing release of source would destroy the entire PC gaming market in one fell swoop. It would be like forcing the inclusion of the blueline document with all published books.
Stallman is supposed to endorse freedom, software freedom particularly. Under this criteria, isn't public domain the most freedom one could hope for?
Freedom goes in both ways. And it includes freedom to release free software or privative software. I don't believe the obbligation to release the code to be so, but only a consecuence of ethical beliefs (or some other reasons.)
I understand his point of view: every software must be free. But what freedom are we talking about? Why would I want to give everyone access to the source code that costed me millions to develop? What would I be forced to do so?
I consider that copyright should last ~20 years. That granted, freedom arrives alone. No one can restrict what I can do with that work. That is what I .
Only when you've found the correct idea you'll speak a lot about nothing and you'd be perfect.
Forcing copyright holders to release source code when the copyright expires doesn't really matter. If there was a really desirable piece of software whose copyright expired, it'd take a day or two for it to be promptly decompiled and thoroughly reverse engineered. Heck, it's not even always necessary for the copyright to have expired for people to do the work.
When your copyright expires, the work enters public domain, but the record that it was previously copyrighted doesn't disappear. This means NO ONE can claim to own the material, and EVERYONE can use it in whatever manner they choose.
There is zero risk of a company trying to take ownership of the code, because a work with an expired copyright, is by definition, owned by all.
This is different from someone releasing a piece of code, never claiming copyright on it, and then some random company stealing it and declaring it proprietary, leaving the actual creator unable to use his own code. THIS is the scenario that the GPL was written to prevent.
The only difference between currently GPLed code and formerly GPLed code with an expired copyright is that once it expires, you now CAN choose to use the code in proprietary software as well. It has zero effect on existing (or new) open source projects already using the code. Yes, it stops the "free" label from being virally attached to the code, and Stallman of course hates that, but that doesn't harm open source, only the Stallman ideology of everything MUST be free, including all variants.
Stallman gives everyone perspective.
He's the the guy you point to and say, "See that guy over there? That guy's the alternative." Makes anything you say seem moderate and rational in comparison.
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users.
That isn't correct. Other stuff has "source" in one form or another too. Books have their TeX/Quark/Framemarker/PDF/... source, music has unmixed tracks, images exist in some uncompressed and unresized RAW version somewhere or Photoshop files, movies have tons of material that never made it into the final result. And all of those would be extremely valuable for making derived works. There really isn't a clear cut between software and other stuff, especially when considering that a binary isn't all that uneditable either, as can be seen in numerous cracks, hacks and mods out there, it sure would be easier with real source code, but assembler is quite modifiable as well, just harder.
I think a law that requires source code would be awful, it might look nice from far away, but it would add a ton of bureaucracy and cost to anything that is created. It would also be very hard to specify source code in a way that is completly unambiguous. Should people get sued because they have compressed Javascript in their webpage and lost the source code of that specific version? I don't think so.
The real answer to this mess should simply be to purge EULAs from the face of the earth.
what Stallman fails to notice is that if there were no copyright law there would be no need to the gpl
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Can you count all the spin doctors using this to smear RMS as pushing "His (as in only his) Twisted (yes, ppl are using this word) Version of Free".
Essentially what RMS want us to avoid is a world where computers don't obey their owners.
Imagine a world where everybody can install a 5 years old version of Windows 7 that none the less, refuses to install VLC, puts secret IDs in your MSOffice documents, callbacks the RIAA to request permission every time you launch your Windows Media Player. etc.
And he has no legislative power, he doesn't act thought coercion but rather leads by example. His vocal because people need to be educated about software freedom, just like feminists need to educate people about gender inequality, just like ambientalists needed to educate the public about contamination before people started to demand changes.
But... the future refused to change.
50 years? While I can possibly see argument (agreement aside) for a 50 year window on copyrighted creative works like Mickey Mouse, I definitely cannot see 50 years as an acceptable window for copyright protection of code. That would mean it would only now allow us to open and use code written in 1949. 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. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Maybe they shouldn't have made "The greatest RPG ever", which probably will be played by players smart enough to know how to download it and with a lot of free time to play it (and take the time to find it/download/crack it). Instead, they could have just made just another Diablo clone with flashy CGI and then market it to a broader audience.
I know, making "The greatest RPG ever" sounds like fun and like a cool thing to do... But, as you mentioned, it doesn't seem to work.
25 years is way too long for software copyrights. Here's a challenge: name one piece of commercially distributed software that still works *without modification* on modern hardware after 25 years and is still useful in some way.... Bear in mind that 25 years ago, the state of the art included the Apple IIc, the 128k Mac, the IBM PC AT, etc. This was several years before the first personal computer with a paged memory management unit. I've seen modern wristwatches with more powerful CPUs. Apart from arcade game nostalgia and a few legacy financial systems, I think it's safe to say that there is basically nothing of value in code from that far back. Everything of value had to be updated, massively reworked, or rewritten hundreds of times since then to remain useful.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works and to expire after a period of time to enrich the public domain. Copyright durations of 25+ years on software do neither. They don't contribute to the public domain because the software is useless by the time the end of the copyright period is reached, and they don't encourage creation of new software because companies are allowed to rest on their laurels, not creating anything until their copyright runs out or until changes to the underlying OS/hardware force them to update their software to keep selling it.
Remember that, at least in the U.S., derivative works are also protected by copyright, so the version 2.0 can still be protected by copyright after the copyright on version 1.0 expires. There's no benefit to having copyright on older versions of software unless the new versions don't offer enough advantage to be worth buying, in which case they don't deserve protection anyway. I strongly feel the policy should be, "Innovate or die." If you aren't improving the state of technology---if you're just making money off something you created decades ago---then you are no longer contributing to society and don't deserve to be rewarded for your lack of contribution.
Five years after first release is long enough. Ten years is barely acceptable. Twenty-five years is obscene. The current 120 years is outright grand larceny from the public domain.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So true. A few years ago on FOSDEM I saw a speech he gave. I almost wanted to run to the store and buy an full version Windows just to piss him off. (Buy, not install) I found him so arrogant and annoying that everything he said became irrelevant.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Your right, long copyright terms on software are ridiculous because of how quickly it becomes obsolete...
What would make more sense, is a rolling term with requirements... Once you make software available the clock starts, and you must continue making it available on a non discriminate basis under the same or more lenient terms, with the same or greater level of support and for the same price or less (allowing for the official government rate of inflation).
If you stop making something available, then you should be required to release it to the public domain including source code.
I whole heartedly agree with your "innovate or die" approach, not just for technology but for any copyrighted work... Noone should sit on their lazy ass collecting royalties for work they did years ago... How many fucked up musicians do we have who haven't produced any new music in years, but are spending their days fucked out of their minds on drugs paid for by ongoing royalties.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Since source code changes rapidly, new version may be eligible to new copyright status. Let's assume you adopted a 5 year copyright plan. What you are basically saying is that what I have created today will be public domain in 5 years, but the thing that I created based on the same code in 3 years from now will not be public domain for 8 years hence. This "rolling copyright" is exactly what's needed. It gives time for people to enjoy their advantage of creation while allowing the public the rights it should never have lost in the first place.
It's a lead balloon because no one who could enact it will touch it, but it does make sense.
You offer me the choice of either hoarding my creations or allowing others to steal them. I choose neither. And it is precisely because of this that I do agree that there needs to be a rejection of all forms of private software that inhibit the freedom of the user.
You've got it backwards. GPL is different from DRM because DRM exists to limit the ways in which a user can use property, whereas GPL exists to limit the ways a developer can use property.
You are making the argument that RMS's version of free software limits the way a piece of property can be used because it limits what property one should use. And you are correct -- which is why I disagree with your conclusion. Your point is valid insofar as not all software is GPL. That is why RMS wants everyone to use free software exclusively -- and why the basis of your argument (that restricting the use of non-free software is a restriction of user's freedoms) lays the foundation for and proves the effectiveness of RMS's vision. Any use of a non-free abstraction (software, protocols, etc.) necessarily precludes the effectiveness of all other software. We can either accept this (as you propose) and go on with a continuous cycle of hoarding and stealing (MSFT et. al. will simply find new ways to prevent replication of software, means that will undoubtedly be everything but friendly to innovation and user freedoms) or we can accept RMS's argument that as long as non-free software is used, no software is free.
Tragedy of the commons example: A village is supplied by one well. All the villagers like to use lots of water, and the well slowly gets depleted. No one worries because what's the harm in using just one more gallon of water? Over time, instead of conservation preserving the well water, the well runs dry and the village becomes deserted.
/. pirates understand basic economics so I'm not trying to insult you.
Modern copyright is like letting one man own the well, and he becomes exceedingly rich because of it. He makes sure the well doesn't dry up since he wants to keep the money coming in, but he benefits nobody. Many people who pirate are like the villagers from the above story, and create an unstable system*. The ideal system is one where everyone regulates themselves and only uses as much water as he needs. We know, by human nature, that ideal will never happen.
What we need to do is depose the rich well owner without letting the well run dry. Maybe it can be done in a world free of copyright, but in searching for the optimal balance, it is easier to slowly make things more free than less free. I would like to see zero copyright, but I also would like to play it paranoid and reduce copyright as slow as needed to be certain we aren't breaking the system.
*I realize making a copy of software doesn't deplete the supply the way taking water depletes a well- I couldn't come up with a perfect analogy so bear with me. Also, I say many pirates, as I am assuming most people downloading media do nothing to help preserve the industries and will complain when said industries stop producing content. Many
My webcomic
Dear Richard,
Thank you for all your good work on free software.
Now please, for the love of God, shut the fuck up!
Signed, a Linux user.
PS: No, I will not call it "GNULinux"!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
At the bottom of the
Life, liberty, and $something_else
dumbass, that's not in the Constitution. It's in the [Declaration] of Independence.
It's also in amendments V and XIV: "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Nah - it makes him Pontius Pilate. Or Satan. Satan's in the New Testament, right? Also, does this make Linus a modern-day Paul, or is he PenguinJesus?
First off, the copyright of software under the GPL would be new every time something is changed in the code, so the "expiration date" would be perpetually extended.
Secondly, wouldn't a Creative Commons license negate a "5 year expiration" under the same perpetual extension of the "expiration date"?
Therefore, Stallman's remarks are irrelevant (IMHO, as usual).
Just my 2 cents.
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. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.
Seriously, are you insane? You're totally ignoring the fact that software is generally created and then incrementally improved through successive release cycles. So, for examle, the linux kernel was initially released in 1991, and so, for argument's sake, let's say development began in 1990. Since then, it's been under continual development, and would now be in its 19th year. So by your logic, the current version would have a 38 year copyright protection. Next year, it would be up to 40. You see where I'm going with this? By 2040, the then current version would have 100 years of copyright protection.
Not only would that make the system seriously overly complex, making it virtually impossible to know when anything enters the public domain, it would end up being worse than the current system!
In reality, the ideal copyright system would have a fixed term from the date of publication, unlike the current system of life + 50 or 70 years (depending on country), so that calculating when a work enters the public domain is easy if you know the date of publication, without having to know when the author has or will die.
5 years is way too short. It shifts the balance too far in the wrong direction. It's even shorter than the original term of 14 (or 28) years. There are a significant number of works that are still worthy of protection after that short period. between 25 and 50 years is more reasonable. Beyond that, the law of diminishing returns really kicks in and the public loses out in favour of the extremely small minority, only serving to fill the pockets of the big media industry, just like in the current system.
Eric Flint argued for a 40 to 42 year term, and I think that's just about right.
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos3
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
And yet any time I have done it, I have been modded down.
Frankly, I don't care. I'm willing to burn the karma to express my opinion. I don't let moderation color my opinions.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
My beef is simple. He makes statements that hurt the image of the FOSS community.
When he tries to convince Mozilla to restrict users' rights, whether or not he succeeds, it is still his goal to restrict users' rights.
You're honestly saying you don't understand why I would have a beef with that?
I'm not sure how I can be more clear.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Telling me I'm not allowed to use software that is legal because he doesn't agree with the idealogy of closed-source software is a restriction that I can not accept.
And yet he says that if I don't close myself of to choice, then I'm not "free".
Removing freedom does not make me "free". I really don't think he understands what that word means, despite being a stickler for semantics.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
So, you're saying you're too lazy to learn machine language. You could have done your -R vs. -r fix with a hex editor.
I was expecting negative moderation for saying in general I disagree with Stallman's statements. People don't understand that moderation does not have a "-1 I Disagree With You" option.
Saying I agree with him on this particular issue apparently warrants a "-1 Troll". That is fantastic!
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
To be fair, he's offering his opinion here. It's not like he's trying to abuse legislation to coerce uninvolved third parties.
I don't agree with everything Stallman says, but he's not exactly trampling anyone's choices into the dirt here.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The question is: did those RPG enthusiasts even have the *opportunity* to purchase the game?
Half the games in my PS2 collection is "pirated". Half the games in my PS2 collection have never been sold in my country. Coincidence? not at all.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Ok, so the Public Domain isn't FREE Stallman? Clearly you're a total nut job Stallman!
Yes, you'd lose your base for enforcing the GPL with a five year copyright limit. Then the software would be free from your onerous restrictions that you've imposed upon it.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
It's interesting that truly free licenses based upon Copyright such as the BSD variants of licenses (BSD, ISC, MIT, Apache, ...) wouldn't really be affected as they pretty much rely upon the good nature of the vast majority of people to share rather than forcing rules upon all just because a few might not want to share.
Public Domain is MORE FREE in every way than the GPL!
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.
There is a whole lot of philosophical circle-jerkery going on here to rationalize a very simple position -- Stallman doesn't like the Pirate Party because piracy makes F/OSS software comparatively less attractive than commercial software. That is to say, the major competition among the tech-savvy is not $200 Windows vs. $0 Linux it's between $0 Windows vs. $0 Linux.
Stallman would like nothing more than for Windows (& all other commercial software) to have a 100% foolproof antipiracy scheme out of nothing more than simple free-market economics.
We discussed this to death: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1933254
Does GNU/Hurd have a microkernel? Damn that Torvalds for releasing something that was actually implementable!
Piracy is the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. If you circumvent the copy protection but do not distribute the resulting product, you have effectively broken the DMCA but that is not piracy*.
Cheers!
* Please don't start with the high seas crap.
With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users.
That's not really true. If I buy a CD, I don't magically have a copy of the unmixed master tapes when the copyright expires.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The entire foundation of the pirate party is about removal of restrictions, not imposition of them.
This particular issue is simply not something they were focused on, and thus had not provided a public position.
The suggestion provided sounds like something they would gladly adopt into any reforms they push to assure "public domain" remains public.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I was responding to a parent post that says it has been repeatedly proven that Stallman is always right.
I was calling to see that proof.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You're posting AC and calling me out on trolling?
A troll wouldn't praise Stallman for positive contributions. A troll wouldn't say that Stallman is correct in this specific instance (which he is).
I've made level-headed logical statements. I haven't made personal attacks at any posters here. And I haven't responded to bait to incite arguments.
Where is there any indication here that I'm trolling?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Or setup a bash alias in a matter of seconds.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You must be new here.
You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team.
I dislike Apple's locked-down nature. I dislike how they've taken a lot of open source and not contributed the changes back. But I don't know that I've heard anti-FOSS rhetoric from Apple, nor can someone without a monopoly use monopolistic practices--at least not successfully.
Not to mention that Apple has actually contributed back to the open source world with Webkit. That's actually a significant contribution, not just a driver released to meet licensing restrictions or a bit of code to make an open source project work with a proprietary service, which is the sum of Microsoft's "contributions."
Both Microsoft and Apple have despicable practices, but painting Apple as especially anti-open-source is dishonest. They aren't even in the same league as Microsoft.
I'm not claiming that he is forcing people. I'm saying his statements are zealotry, and that I don't agree with them.
I've never claimed anything otherwise that these are merely statements Stallman is making. I am however allowed to disagree with his statements.
And the only reason I even care about his opinions is that he is very visible. His statements make a splash and gather attention. He has gone out of his way to try and use his stature to sway people like Mozilla. Thankfully, they haven't listened. But the fact remains that he wants to take away my rights, and is willing to try and do so.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't be concerned that someone is trying to take away your rights until they are successful in doing so?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Software's lifespan is amazingly short from one version to the next, and each version is in and of itself separately copyrighted.
even 5 years is too long given this.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Try reading the article next time, particularly the part about how you can't modify proprietary software binaries, thus proprietors benefit by continued secrecy where those who have always published complete corresponding source code get to watch their work become contributions to proprietors. This, in turn, pushes more hackers to wonder why they should contribute to proprietors as if they were charities and decide to publish only proprietary programs.
We need a copyright policy that divulges the complete corresponding source code of proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. Stallman has proposed a way to do that.
Digital Citizen
If Copyright Law protects the GPL then wouldn't after X amount of years GPL code become public domain?
Just hypothetically, if they called DRM software "sales" a lease with a one-time upfront payment, would it satisfy you and make that instance of DRM non-evil?
For those interested, the very astute original writeup of the referenced slashodt article was taken down, but is still available here on wayback
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I stand corrected.
Yeah, I'll concede the suggestion was ill-conceived and spur-of-the-moment. I was actually mainly intending to voice that 50 years, or even 25, is a ridiculous amount of time to protect software code.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
This is my view too.
Having said that, I still broadly support the Pirate Party's aims, and am glad of their existence. The point is, there's never going to be 5 year copyright terms; too many people oppose it, and it's unlikely that the Party will become Government. But it's good to have someone lobbying for short terms, to counteract the excessive ever-increasing terms lobbyed for by the corporations.
It's the same old political tactic - always lobby for more than what you want, so that there is more chance of getting something you actually want.
(Personally I think that the whole "compromise" argument is very bad, for all sorts of reasons, including that it encourages and rewards people for taking extremist positions, but given that this is how things work, you might as well play the system. Because that's what people on the opposing side are doing.)
I think a large amount of people are against perpetual copyright, not copyright itself. Of course you should be able to monetize your creative work for a while. No Worries there.
But culture shouldn't be locked away forever. Life of the Author + 75 years (~100-150ish) is about SIX GENERATIONS. Think about that.
You're a federal criminal whenever you sing Happy Birthday without paying up until the year 2030. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
That's Nuts. Lets keep it to one generation, oh, say.... 28 years or so?
-Tony
I remain unconvinced that non-free software should be eligible for copyright without registering complete corresponding source code with the government upon publication of the proprietary binary. Thus said source code can be released when the program enters the public domain upon copyright expiration. If it turns out that the escrowed source code can't be compiled to produce the released binary that's fraud and the former copyright holder is liable to lose in court in multiple ways: one for the fraudulent escrowed source code and with each litigation from defendants suing to get back their money from suffering the effect of unjustifiably losing copyright infringement cases (the proprietor never had a legitimate copyright, so the defendant should not have lost).
The key to Stallman's essay (which builds on his discussion of this topic dating back to at least 2007 where he gave a talk in Sweden and raised this problem) isn't really about the term of copyright, a subject which seems to be occupying much of the remarkably narrow /. discussion. And talking about "really old versions" doesn't address the inequity Stallman raises, so you're not quite getting the point either. The key to Stallman's essay here is about treating former copyright holders fairly under the new copyright regime by recognizing that proprietors need to contribute to society too. If proprietors benefit from continuing to hoard what they should have published (proprietary software) while others contribute far more to society by publishing something people can build upon (free software) the new copyright regime is biased toward proprietors and should be fixed.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy. I watched a Google talk where he responded to someone who asked about this inequity but his response (about 50 minutes into the recording) did not actually address the problem and the questioner didn't seem to see how Falkvinge dodged the question:
So, response #1 is essentially that increasing the PD means more than treating those who benefit society fairly. This is ridiculous and unconscionable but (as Stallman points out) fixable. Response #2 is that he believes state purchasing decisions will counteract the fact that proprietors will be able to incorporate copylefted free software into their programs while contributing nothing, not even their own software's source code. If proprietors "aren't doing society any favors at all" then they should not benefit as Falkvinge acknowledges they would. I fail to see how Falkvinge's response here is in any way
Digital Citizen
I had the same feeling after seeing him at FOSDEM. He is kinda obnoxious, and yes, arrogant. But on the other hand, the more I think about his ideas the more I like them (the ideas). It's just that I find him a little too aggressive. But of course that's why I am not a top FSF activist. The same way, I like and agree with most of Dawkins ideas. In some situations I found him a little too agressive.
But that is quite easy to solve. You want copyright protection? Then you send your complete source code upon release to publicdomainescrow.org or we will refuse to recognize your copyrights and anybody can do anything they want with it. Copyrights are a contract, nothing more. We can simply change them so that source code that must be compilable to the software you are selling is put into escrow or you simply are in breach of contract and have no copyrights.
This way when the time limit is up the code could be released to publicdomainsoftware.org and be easily copied and distributed no different than GPl'd software. But copyrights in their current incarnation simply have to go. At this rate how long until DOS games are public domain? What, 70 years from now or so? Not to mention the minefield of abandonware where some company has long since bit the dust or changed hands so many times that nobody knows who owns what. Just look at how many times Atari has changed hands over the years. Could anybody say with 100% certainty who owns their 80s code? It is just a mess and one way or another it has to be made sane, whether RMS likes it or not.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It would make it less evil, but not non-evil. In order for it to be non-evil there would have to also be a 'buy' option, even if it was astronomically expensive, so people had a choice.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think he is a little extreme. One of my huge complaints about my G1 is that I can't tell what license the software I get is under. If I want to prefer Open Source, I can't.
I think that websites or other directories that distribute or redirect you to downloads of software should make the nature of the license of the software you're about to download clear.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Linus is John the Evangelist, hacking away on Patmos.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Arguably, software companies would argue that is what they do now. They are licensing a copy to you. They don't want to suggest you own anything.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Webkit can be seen as a mark against them and FOSS actually.
They took a good, existing GPL engine, forked it without any discussion with the existing active developers, held off on releasing their source as long as they could, and then resisted any cooperation in trying to merge Webkit and KHTML back into each other.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Fortunately, I've only gotten the Funny mods I was going for. You do have a good point about copyright for software, though. Technology changes quite rapidly, whereas art and music frequently remains popular and important for decades, or in rare cases even centuries. I'm not sure if there would ever be separate copyright terms for different types of work, but I think a "readily available" rule would be a great help. If you can't walk into a local store and buy a new CD, or even download a song from the publisher or some other online service, the copyright holder obviously isn't making money from the work anymore, and it should immediately pass into the public domain. Software may be a bit trickier, since you could have new versions of a program still using code from a 20-year-old version, or maybe a new version that doesn't use any of the code from the previous version, but a similar "readily available" rule could still be created for software.
The games developer next door to me tells me about 10% of games turn a profit, and the rest make a loss. Publishers don't know which ones are the 10%, of course.
I think there might be a better way to "have it both ways".
One of the major points of the GPL is that it treats software as a grouping of binary and source code. That unit is what everyone has a Right to, not only a part of it. What if copyright began to protect the Public Domain? Software vendors could be required to release all of their source code when a program became Public Domain. If a company in question denied a user request for this source or provided incomplete or crippled source, they could, as a penalty, lose their rights to enforce copyrights at all for a year or indefinitely.
Once the software and source code were Public Domain, there would also be a great incentive for employees to release it against the interests or demands of the company. If some business was going to pay you a consulting fee to patch some software in the Public Domain, would you have any reservations about doing so and taking the money?
The escrow thing is still probably a better idea, but that would be impossible without formalities. This is just another reason why the copyright lobby is ripping off the The People (you know, the ones mentioned in the Constitution of the US).
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
. . . sooo, what exactly is your job at Microsoft?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
why not just put a longer term limit on commercial uses?
For instance, 5 (or whatever) years before unrestricted access for personal/public uses, and 15 (or whatever) years before unrestricted commercial use?
Not commercial, but TeX has been used almost unmodified since 1986.
Stallman's stick is the threat of legal action for violations of the GPL. It's not a very well funded stick, so it's more like a soggy carrot that's been in the refrigerator too long, with a bit of masking tape down one side, and the word "stick" written thereupon with a sharpie. Be that as it may, it's still a theoretical stick. A serious GPL violation might inspire some well funded GPL fans to wrest the soggy carrot from Stallman's hands (both being firmly upon it at all times), bronze it, and hand it back, in more robust stick-like form.
Stallman's carrots, include the contribution of an open source (not free) compiler to the world -- a truly wonderful thing in many ways. The intellectual contribution of the viral/sticky (no pun intended) GPL approach to free software code licensing and sharing is even greater. I admire both contributions, and both contributions were noble, and selfless.
However, the flip side of this coin is that the Stallman GPL approach denies the value (and attempts to undermine with virility and stickiness) a model which has proven to be valuable to many people and organizations -- the truly free and entirely unencumbered BSD style software licensing model. The GNU toolchain, largely because it wasn't really free (as in speech, love, and BSD) and because people didn't really quite understand that, sucked all the air out of the room, essentially killed the compiler industry, and stifled compiler innovation, for roughly twenty years. This, too, is a valid perspective. Both can be (and happen to be) true at the same time, about the same thing.
Your criticism of Apple is odd. Apple contributes in dramatic and substantial ways to free software. WebKit is rescuing the standards-based internet from almost certain doom. Please don't try to claim that Mozilla saved it, you'll be laughed out of the room. If it wasn't for the sudden competitive pressure from WebKit, Firefox still wouldn't pass the Acid 2 test suite.
Ever hear of LLVM? Got any idea how many full time Apple developers contribute to LLVM related projects? (Oodles.) It's going to liberate the BSD team from the tyranny of GCC. You'll thank 'em, later.
Oh, I suppose you probably know this stuff already, since this claim that Apple exploits free software unfairly has been debunked at Slashdot probably hundreds of times in the past few years by people with direct knowledge of Apple's contributions to open source teams. I saw one recent post which listed over a dozen significant projects to which Apple has made major contributions, many of which directly benefited the BSD team.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Forcing release of source would destroy the entire PC gaming market in one fell swoop.
How so?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
Seriously... what the hell?!?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I believe he's entitled to do that. The reason he has such stature is that he has worked hard and accomplished much.
The only right he's ever been interested in restricting is the right to freeload on other people's hard work. And that remains purely on a voluntary basis by the people doing the work. Even the would be freeloader still gets more rights than they would if the software was released commercially.
If by "taking away your rights" you mean passing laws, seizing property, having people imprisoned and/or tortured, then yes, we should be concerned,
If by "taking away your rights" you mean talking to mozilla and trying to persuade to them make their software a little less business-friendly, then no, I don't think we need be especially concerned.
I can appreciate that you don't agree with everything Stallman says - I don't either. And you're certainly entitled to argue the opposing case should you wish. But trying to frame the argument in terms of Evil Richard Stealing All Our Rights smacks a bit of the Straw Man. It seems to me that the only "rights" he wants to remove are ones you never had in the first place.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
as I get older, I want to pay for products
Many people claim to support free speech, but somehow have a very different view when it comes to speech that they strongly disapprove of.
Similarly, it's all very well respecting copyright when you can afford to buy the licences, but I think the better test is what you did when you couldn't.
Why not just use EULA's instead of copyright to enforce GPL?
"Technically, it enforces a different set of freedoms. Whether or not this trade-off is OK with you is the decision you need to take when you choose a license for the code you've written."
I keep it straight this way.
The BSD is about the freedom of ideas embodied in code.
The GPL is about the freedom of code embodied in a license.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
When you torrent any copyright, it is most definitely for your profit. Of all the movies, software and music you have obtained, can you honestly say that you would never had rented or purchased even one? Then you have profited by your act. That $1, $5 or $100 is still available for your personal use elsewhere, use you would not have had if you had paid for that item. Simple accounting 101 - Profit = Income - Expenditure. Lower expenditure = greater profit.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
... or he reveals just how irrational your views truly are.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I've long been a proponent of "no copyright without source code."
Copyright exists with the idea that eventually, everything will be public. If you never intend to make the source code public, you should get no copyright protection.
Ideally, this would follow every step of the chain- and if poor record-keeping is your folly, there's no reason for society to reward you with extra rights for it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If they don't provide the source code, then they don't get copyright protection. You don't need to sue them, they just can't sue anybody else for distributing their software. ("This guy's been selling bootleg copies of my program!" "I was selling copies of his program on June 10th. At that time, there was no source code available." -- either the company releases source code or they can't sue the guy. Yes, the company could claim source code was available, but that's just ordinary lying in court and can't be held against a law)
this is pretty much the same way the GPL works, but in reverse.
The GPL says "if you violate the GPL, go right ahead, but if you do, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software, so you'd be violating copyright."
Copyright law COULD say "If you don't want to distribute the source code, go right ahead, but nothing else gives you the right to deny others the right to distribute the software, so you wouldn't get any protection from copyright"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If source released in 5 years, we (and the win die hards) would have access to Windows XP source code now and thousands of "XP" versions would exist. In fact, they could easily fix quirks which MS would never fix and make Windows 7 something nobody would care about.
5 years is way too early. I mean I wish it was but the reality is really different.
Being paranoid doesn't mean... Hell man, MS-DOS was based on Quick and Dirty OS which itself is a horrible thievery of CP/M. Some guy basically sits down, reads all the specs of CP/M and implements them in his own way, one by one.
It started World's largest software company which also happens to be a monopoly. Perhaps, that single thievery has set back IT industry 10-15 years based on their first, real OS namely OS/2 and Windows NT.
Windows GUI is also some kind of Mac OS clone but anyway, it is a matter of past now. They actually have agreement not to bring up that issue anymore you know.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
In a country without laws, everybody would be free to do as they like. Until the slave traders with bigger guns come along. Complete absence of restrictions is not necessarily desirable or what we mean by "freedom". The best kind of freedom IMHO is "do as you like but don't take anyone else's freedom away". This is what the GPL tries to achieve: a minimal set of restrictions designed to keep you from restricting how others use the code. This maximizes overall freedom. The public domain provides no such protection.
Change abolishment of copyright to abolishment of copyright for personal use and you're there.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
You can already get, free of charge, the SDKs of some of the most popular PC game engines (Unreal Engine, Source, etc). Engine developers restrict access to their source code unless you're prepared to stump up for the licensing costs but, compared to writing something like that yourself, those costs are usually very reasonable.
The cost associated with making an AAA video game comes from all the original work the developer has to do: Prototyping mechanics, writing, project planning, marketing, asset creation, etc. Having a free game engine of the standard of Source or UE3 would therefore clearly be a benefit as it would allow easier porting of those assets between projects and also allow indie developers to use the most powerful tools without having to worry about the associated licensing costs.
In fact game engines, as "middleware", could quite clearly be given away and have development be funded by selling services to professional developers. For that to happen, however, one of the current free software engines would have to reach comparable quality of UE3 / Source / etc and also there would have to be an ecosystem of engine developers, big commercial game developers and indies working together and contributing code and / or money. That's a chicken and egg problem!
Nick
I'd be lying if I said I didn't pirate a lot of software in my youth, and I'm not a liar.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
BSD gives unto the world its gift to improve the world and that improved world is its reward.
GPL shares with the world but in turn asks the world shares with them, that together we improve the world.
The GPL is like the marshall plan. In return for billions in aid from the US, EU nations could rebuild their economy in exchange for trade and within a decade the economies recovered and all prospored.
BSD is the billions pumped into africa where millions are still starving and the same wars are still being fought.
GPL is about working together, BSD is about charity. If all people where nice, BSD would be great but in the real world, GPL is the more succesfull licensing deal. Just take a long hard look at OSX. How much of a full loaded OSX server or desktop is closed source/BSD/GPL?
So, yes, you are right, some people release under BSD because that allows them to reach more people. But if you want to get somewhere, GPL is the way to go.
Proof me wrong, show me a BSD browser or other practical tool. Show me the countless people keeping the various BSD release up to spec for drivers.
BSD -> Core techs that drive the underlying OS
GPL -> Tools and drivers where someone doesn't want someone else to take their hard work and just use it without return the favor.
BSD is for finished things, GPL is for stuff that still grow.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So because he has made positive contributions, he is entitled to take away my freedom of choice?
And we shouldn't be concerned?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't pirate a lot of software in my youth, and I'm not a liar.
Reminds me of the 'Irish Ballad' by Tom Lehrer, about a girl who kills her father, mother, sister and two brothers, but admits everything to the police because "lying she knew was a sin". :-)
(Yes I know that copyright infringement isn't comparable to murder, but the question is, does the RIAA know that?)
Removing freedom does not make me "free".
I agree. So don't use non-GPL software. "free" doesn't mean something universally. The question that should always proceed the statement that something is free is, of course, what is this free from?
You would like to be free from others telling you what software you can use. Which is why I point out the contradiction between your goal and your choices. Because universal adherence to the GPL is the only thing that can truly free you from others telling you what software you can use.
The difference between Stallman telling you not to use a piece of software and Apple telling you not to use a piece of software is in the purpose for that restriction. And that is why Stallman does understand -- and at a much more fundamental level than the one at which you are basing your conclusions -- what free means.
Yeah, I also agree that five years is way too short. However, with a shorter copyright protection, (say 12 - 20 years) I'd say GPL lose some of its meaning, as works *would* enter the public domain after that period and hopefully not be outdated. With the current status quo of 70 years after the author's death, it is not the case. Sure, works in the public domain is not the same freedom as Stallman advocates, and I guess that's exactly what he is concerned about.
Since proprietary software makers rarely release the source code, one could claim that copyright as it works today treats GPL unfairly compared to proprietary code. There is no enforcement to release software when the copyright expires. It's simply available or "lost".
How about you quote me the bit where I said that? Or even anything like it?
I'll consider being concerned if you can explain with clarity what choices you feel he is taking away from you.
Has it ever occurred to you that you're acting every bit as much the zealot in your advocacy of the public domain as the people you decry for unthinking adherence to the GPL? Could it be you've spent too long gazing into the abyss?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I never once advocated public domain.
I have stated with clarity repeatedly that he has railed against distros which include "non-free" software, and Mozilla for allowing "non-free" extensions. He has called for them to eliminate this choice. He has said any user that doesn't run 100% GPL software isn't free.
God forbid anyone listen to him, or take him seriously. What is Ubuntu listened to him and blocked all "non-free" software? For a while, they certainly made it harder to install what you want.
The one time I tried Kubuntu on my wife's laptop, we need madwifi, which wasn't included because it was non-free. It wasn't in a repository to install automatically. I wanted to compile my own kernel, but then it wouldn't load synaptics, mad-wifi or the ATI driver without a restricted-drivers-module package. Ubuntu didn't provide a source package for me to make my own, nor did they obviously provide one for the kernel I made on my own. So I couldn't load my proprietary packages. When I asked on the Ubuntu forums, I was flamed for even considering to run non-free drivers. I said this is my wife's laptop. It had the hardware it has, and I need it to work. There was no working OSS solution for accelerated graphics, nor wifi. A moderator on the Ubuntu forums literally told me I should divorce my wife for having hardware without OSS drivers. That my friend, is zealotry.
I advocated allowing each developer the freedom to choose the license that suits them, and allowing each user the freedom to decide what software they want to install. That is precisely the exact opposite of zealotry. I don't want to advocate my opinions onto others. Let them make their own decisions.
When Stallman decries other OSS licenses as not being free, because they provide fewer restrictions and more choice, it is abundantly clear that he does not understand the definition of the word free.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Which is why I point out the contradiction between your goal and your choices. Because universal adherence to the GPL is the only thing that can truly free you from others telling you what software you can use.
Do you understand what the word contradiction means? What about free?
If I limit myself, remove choice from myself, and bind myself, then I'm free?
That my friend is a contradiction.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Note, I'm not saying piracy should be advocated. My parent post in this thread was saying that I no longer support piracy. I believe in paying to support creators.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy.
It is RMS that wants GPL to be get special treatment, not the other way around. If you want to release source code, it should fall under the same copyright laws as everything else.
If the copyright laws gets weaker, this directly hurts GPL, because GPL heavily relies on the current strict copyright laws to maintain its full power. If you want a strong GPL, you should be a copyright proponent. It is that simple. Copyright and GPL go hand in hand.
The pirate party doesn't believe in forcing anyone to make stuff public. But once something is public, the party believes that the public should have certain rights to it. Independent of the type of copyrighted material, be it source code or binary code.
Without copyright, you can modify proprietary software binaries. There's nothing stopping you from doing it. Sure it's not as easy as modifying source, but it can be done. Or you can use the binary to reverse engineer an algorithm or data format and write an open source version of the software. RMS' focus on EULA's is confusing the issues at hand. Any consistent anti-copyright, pro-free-software position does not recognize "EULAs" (which, despite the name, are not agreements but one-sided proclamations) as valid. No free court system in a society without copyrights would respect one-sided "EULAs". Stallman's proposal is not "freedom". He uses the term "free", but as he admits he relies on using un-free restrictions to promote a certain degree of freedom. This is very clever and copyleft is very important in a society in which copyright exists. The value in copyleft is that it is a protection from copyright. Thus without copyright there is no need for copyleft. Supporting copyright because without it copyleft cannot exist is hypocritical and reveals that one really has no interest in freedom at all.
Well, it certainly sounded as though you were advocating it. From that post:
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but it certainly sounded like you intended that to mean "the only free software is public domain".
Yes you have stated that repeatedly. The area where clarity is lacking is in how this takes away any choice from you personally. To say nothing of why you think you have a right to that choice. But first things first, we still haven't established that you're losing any choices as a result of Stallman's talking to people.
Putting you to inconvenience is not the same thing as removing your choices. And, frankly, I'm a little at a loss for what you'd propose here. Would you remove the Ubuntu distro's right to listen to Richard and to take his advice if they feel it to be the right thing to do? Or would you remove Richard's right to free speech lest he cause you some inconvenience? I don't think you're seriously advocating either, but I can't see possible remedy that doesn't boil down to one of those two.
Yes it is. And in case my position is unclear, I am not suggesting that zealotry is a good thing, and I agree that free software zealots do a lot of harm to the movement.
But none of that restricted your choices, or removed your rights.
All of which they already have, and none of which Richard is proposing be removed. Do you begin to see why I think clarity may be lacking in some areas?
And yet, that's exactly what you're doing here. You're saying "this is what I think is right and this is what I think is wrong, and this is what I think people should do". Which is all that Stallman is doing, and yet you criticise him in the strongest terms ... for criticising others for doing
things of which he doesn't approve.
There is no essential difference between what you are doing here on this board, and what you find so reprehensible in Stallman. Do you not see that?
Look: I've read enough of your posts on Slashdot. You've never struck me as a troll or a hypocrite, and you've never given me reason to think you unintelligent. But in this case, I can't help but think that you haven't thought this through properly.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but it certainly sounded like you intended that to mean "the only free software is public domain".
True freedom is a lack of restrictions. Immediately after that I said, however, there is a trade-off. You don't get protection for your work. I advocate that each creator make a decision that they are happy with, trading off restrictions that they feel are necessary to protect their work.
My point is that RMS speaks out against restrictions. He calls them inherently evil, and yet he employs them. He calls one specific set of restrictions freedom. This is an inherent contradiction. For a man who is adamant about semantics, he sure doesn't understand the definition of freedom.
I don't claim to know what the perfect license is, nor do I advocate one license exclusively. What little coding I've done on game projects, I've released under a CC license.
However, I take offense at RMS claiming his license is perfect and all others aren't truly free. I take offense at RMS blasting Mozilla, Google, Ubuntu, etc. for not being free by his definition. Mozilla, Google and Ubuntu are greatly furthering the causes of free software, and he treats them like villains.
The area where clarity is lacking is in how this takes away any choice from you personally.
I've never said he succeeded in removing choice from me. I said he is attempting to remove choice from me. That is enough to warrant my concern. If I hear Congress is going to throw the Constitution out the window (not that this would be any different from any other day) should I be concerned when they make the attempt, or should I wait until they succeed?
Honestly, how can you defend his statements that users should be deprived of choice simply by saying that he hasn't succeeded? What I'm objecting to are his statements.
...and none of which Richard is proposing be removed.
There are several posts on his site where he proposes exactly that. He asks distros to remove choice from the user, and he asks Mozilla to remove choice from the user.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
No. The changes made in the past year would get a year's protection. The changes made in 1990 would have been protected from 1990 to, say, 1991. Lines of code are separable.
You don't think Adobe Photoshop 1.0 gets its copyright protection reset to "begin countdown" every time a new CS version comes out, do you?
I structured that last sentence incorrectly. It should have been
Copyright- indeed, all "intellectual property", a oxymoron at best - is bad. Period.
No surprise Stallman supports copyright. He'd lop off your left nut for violating HIS "morality", like any other fanatic.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Most of what you said is non-sequitur but here you touch on a cogent response. Falkvinge's proposal adversely affects all copyleft licenses when compared to any proprietary license. RMS talks about the inequity in terms of how it affects the GPL but he's not requesting any special treatment for the GPL. His favored proposal (escrowing source code) would apply to any program under copyright. I don't know what part of "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code." you missed, but that seems quite clear to me. If RMS is asking for anything special it's for all free software, not GPL'd software.
Digital Citizen
Modifying binaries is so difficult that virtually nobody does it. You're arguing a corner case at best. And one cannot have freedoms without restrictions because some freedoms conflict. Copyleft is a mechanism that protects for derivative works the freedoms one gets with the copyrighted work, the very freedoms you're eschewing.
Digital Citizen
BSD licensed code directly benefits directly from a 5 year copyright as it would get access to GPL:ed code after 5 years, while losing little to nothing. GPL code loses its source code protection after 5 years, with little to no gain. Closed software loses its binary protection after five years, with little to no gain. (and thanks to RMS there will most likely be an anti time bomb clause in the next party program version)
The RMS suggestion would effectivly aim to remove any disadvantage that GPL:ed code suffers by basically forcing GPL into law. And further punish closed software by having them reveal source code in addition to the binary code becoming free.
While it is definitly possible, I am not sure I like the consequences of forcing someone to reveal source code. It has too many bad implications with it.
You see, that seems to me to be fair enough. I'm not sure I share your outrage particularly, but at least you have a clear complaint that can be argued on its merits. Stick with that, and I don't have a problem.
*sigh* Then perhaps you'd indulge me a little further and explain with clarity some of the specific choices that will be denied to you should Richard succeed at his undoubtedly dastardly scheme. I'm interested in the nature of the deprivation here, rather than the timing.
Whoa. Slow down cowboy.
As regards the third item, that's the second time you've misrepresented my point of view in this way. Last time I asked you to quote the passage that lead you to draw that inference. So far you have not, so I'll ask you again: what did I write that sounded to you like "I know Richard is stealing our rights, but that's OK because he hasn't done it yet?" Or indeed "... that's OK because "
Citation needed, I think. RMS' writes a lot of stuff on a lot of sites. I'm not going to spend my time trying to guess which passages you find offensive purely to support your point.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Many people modify binaries. There is a whole community of people who modify binaries to remove restrictions placed on the binaries and allow those binaries to be more widely used. There are also communities of people who modify binary console games to create their own games from them, or to change various features of the game. That "virtually nobody" modifies binaries is false. Maybe you do not have the knowledge to do so yourself, but there are many people with both the knowledge and the inclination. To these people, modifying binaries can fun, enlightening, and fulfilling.
Second, you think "freedoms conflict"? You're going to have to give at least one example of conflicting freedoms if you want to be believed. And no, copyleft does not provide such an example. Copyleft is the use of force to prevent someone from modifying code or using code in certain ways and then distributing only a binary derived from that code without the modified source.
There are circumstances in which copyleft, or something like it, can be seen as valid. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft uses GPL code in certain of their software products. Microsoft also releases a lot of software with restrictive copyrights. Because of this fact, an author of free software is justified in enforcing restrictions against Microsoft, in forbidding Microsoft certain uses of his free software code, etc. Copyleft is in this sense self-defense and defense of other; in this case the use of copyleft against Microsoft is justice. This is much the same as when one catches a thief stealing from one's house, one has the right to take what the thief stole, and even more than what the thief stole (whether it be in the form of making the thief pay 2x or 3x or making the thief serve jail time or some other form of punishment).
The point is that it is consistent with freedom to impose restrictions on aggressors, but it is not consistent with freedom to use force to control the behavior of those who have not aggressed against you. Copyleft, at least in its most common forms (e.g. GPL) imposes restrictions on everyone, and in this way it is not just and is actually anti-freedom.
You might say that it only really imposes a restriction on those who would modify the code and distribute a binary derivation under a restrictive license. But it is possible for one to distribute binaries without copyrighting them and without trying to enforce any restrictions with regard to how people use those binaries. The degree of practical difficulty of doing so is irrelevant to the question of freedom. Everyone has the right not to publish the products of his own mind; but when they are published, he has no right to control how others use his ideas.
Freedoms do not conflict.
Is it really the fault of pirates for the lack of success of PS:T? Or maybe since it was such a non-comprising game, it attracted few people outside of the hardcore RPG crowd that you mention? I don't know either way, but I would like to see some data on this.
And that is the point. He seems so eager to criticize everyone else but his OS doesn't even work. Don't get me wrong I respect all that he has done and what he is trying to do for the most part. But going round declaring this and that as evil is hardly news when your own OS doesn't work. I feel he forgets that people who program for money are not evil, they are ordinary programmers who love what hey do. Not Satan.
While I wouldn't frame that as "closed" as I'm not an advocate of the open source movement, I don't understand how any proprietor stands to gain little or nothing from having unhindered access to the wealth of free and open source software out there. Nor do I understand what the parenthetical remark means; clauses in any copyright license would be unenforcible via copyright law when that program goes into the public domain. We can already see proprietary programs with time bombs; programs that are written to behave radically differently depending on when the program is run. Some very expensive commercial proprietary programs rely on such schemes to compel their users to pay for a later version of the same proprietary program (SPSS, for instance; fortunately in this case hackers are working on a free replacement called PSPP).
Digital Citizen
--Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.--
Yes, they do, if they want to sell it to the public, and if they don't, we'll just ask some of the execs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
Now, the auto makers might not have to release every thing, but I believe drug companies do. Still the oversight is there. Software companies do what they want like stealing gpl. How would you know? The gpl people probably don't have as many people checking for piracy as Microsoft alone does.