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.
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.
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
This is worthy of a new acronym: DRMS.
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition?
You are probably thinking of discredited neocon kook Eric S Raymond.
Stallman says you should use "free software" for ideological reasons even if it is inferior.
> Isn't Stallman the one who insists that open source software is inevitably better,
No, you have Stallman confused with open source evangelists. Stallman has always maintained that whether or not free software is "better" is irrelevant; that its being freer is which matters.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
There's actually 3 uses of "free"
1. 0 cost
2. No control exerted - use the code for whatever you want, just don't claim you own it
3. Open source enforced - you MUST make everything that uses the code open source as well
#2 and #3 are both "free as in freedom" and are both open source, but only #3 is "RMS free."
What RMS hates about the Pirate Party's proposal is that expired GPLed code would become #2 instead of #3.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That's the one. I can never keep the two kooks straight.
Not commercial, but TeX has been used almost unmodified since 1986.
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.