Well, let me explain my reply since I believe now that I misread your post... It sounded to me like it was one of those "if you don't like it shut up" type of statements, meant to stifle conversation. I believe after your reply that it was not meant that way, so I apologize for reading it wrong.
I should probably add, I wouldn't have said a word had you not made the implications that we were the originators of this behavior, or that we are the only ones who do it now. Hell, I agree with you that what we are doing is wrong, but you are very very very wrong to say that we invented that behavior. Not morally, just factually. That allegation betrays an ignorance of history and a very anti-US prejudice. And you're entitled to both your ignorance and your prejudice, just don't mistake them for anything else.
This is a really good example that despite the fact that I am strongly against the direction my country has taken, I also recognize elements of what's wrong here in the anti-US crowd. You guys are not making reasoned statements based on documented history when you say things like this. You sure as hell aren't leading by example. Why should a republican care about learning from history and being accurate in his allegations about other nations, if the people criticizing them don't? And sure, why should you care when they don't? Hey, let's all not care and find out if Ghandi was right about eye for an eye. Sounds like a plan to me.
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
Yeah, out of all the world's nations, how many do you think this isn't true of?
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military.
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants.
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
But seriously, I am surprised more governments don't move to Linux as a terminal/front end solution anyway. With more services being handled on central computers far away from the actual customer access points, it doesn't really make sense to have full-featured OSes put in place only to hobble them with security software. It is better to create simple remote terminals which can run programs remotely over the network, saving hardware costs and reducing IT headaches.
I honestly think it has something to do with them having been convinced once already to move away from that type of architecture(their old mainframe systems) towards PCs, and in the process, getting reamed nicely for the effort. At least the government agencies I'm aware of here in the states. IMO, the best line of attack for opensource adoption is through the apps, and not through the OS. It's a lot easier to teach people new apps, than it is to teach them new operating systems. It's also a lot easier to teach them new operating systems, if their apps will be the same on the new OS. My 2 cents.
..."King George" instead of "Emperor Bush". The last jackass who thought he was king here was named George too, so it has a more signifigant ring to it.
Nice spin doctoring. Here are the facts:
You don't take someone to court for refusing a license, you take them to court for violating a license.
GPL-Violations.org is not called GPL-Refusers.org.
They violated the GPL and as such, they are restricted by the GPL from distribution.
You partisans on this subject would serve your cause better, by avoiding such cheap spin doctoring tactics as this. It may be popular among the choir, but it keeps people not a member of your choir from taking you seriously. That should be important to you if you really want to advance the GPL.
GPL says: The idea of copyright is to increase the number of available works by giving the creators some incentives to actually create. Normal copyright solves this by giving the creators a limited control for some tome. GPL solves it by exchanging the control with the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work.
I agree with your general point, but I would rephrase that last sentence as "GPL solves it by excercising the control in such a way as to gain the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work." I know that sounds semantic, but it is truly more in line with my personal point of view(which you are free to disagree with of course), that the GPL does not lose control for creators, it just exercises their control in a way more in line with different ideals and/or goals.
I don't really understand some of the issues that you mention ('memes and cult like group think', 'some partisan friend of mine emailed me to sign a petition.') - these aren't ways that I see people operating in In the UK, and EU)
Do you understand what a meme or a cult is? The definition of meme is debateable, so I'll focus on cults as that's the more serious of my accusations anyway.
A cult can grow around many different things. A charismatic leader, an appealing idea, etc... For the sake of clear explanation, let's call this the "nucleus".
In a cult, the individual members are so devoted to the nucleus that they obtain their ideas and opinions from the nucleus. This is not a black and white statement here, but it is one of degrees. Not only that, but they also become extremely defensive of those ideas and opinions, and when they meet ideas and opinions that go contrary to that which was fostered by the nucleus, they become extremely defensive. The defensiveness does not come from conviction that the ideas and opinions are true, so much as it comes from the conviction that the nucleus is the best possible source of ideas and opinions.
This is a very short description and is somewhat incomplete, but it will do for now. In US politics, this plays out very clearly. You challenge a typical democrat or republican on their ideas, their replies 90 percent of the time will not only be the predictable dogma of their political parties(nucleus), but when they reach the end of their script their partisan programming sources have given them, they will close with accusations of you being loyal to another nucleus and they and their fellow partisans will treat that accusation as proof that you are wrong and not to be considered, no matter what you've said. WTF good does that do anyone? How does that help a democratic republic at all? That type of thing is what a non-partisan forum should be against.
Now, compare that to a free thinking individual(which do exist in both aforementioned parties, just they are the exception and not the rule in my experience), their replies will acknowledge any points you made that they feel are reasonable(if any), and will counter the points you made they feel are bad. That is called DISCUSSION. That is how deeper understanding of your fellow countrymen and issues in general, grow to new and useful depths. That is how progress is made towards concorde. That is what a non-partisan forum would foster.
I have to say, you asking me these questions has really helped me get a clearer grasp of what I was trying to feel out before regarding the goals for my forum. I thank you for that and if that was your goal, then kudos to you.
I still don't get where people who 'refuse to dirty themselves through alignment with a political party') actually *do* anything about things they disagree with.
Let me ask you this, how do people who align themselves with a political party actually *DO* anything about things they disagree with? More importantly, the question seems to hint at a belief that being aligned with a political party is mutually inclusive with doing something about things you disagree with. Although you might have another purpose by taking this angle?
How do you/ they attempt to change society/ the world/ their neighbourhood?
How do you? I support (finacially) independent candidates who I believe best represent me and I don't cast my votes based on who I think is going to do less damage to my society. I do this for the same reason that I don't buy food based on what I think is going to poison me less, but rather, I choose foods based on what I think is going to aid my health the most.(most of the time anyway, I'm no saint)
Beyond the vote, because society's health is determined by more than a vote, I strive to follow the golden rule. This is very important to me, as doing to others as you want done to you in society, has a domino effect throughout society. Showing mercy,
Which are your ideals regarding software. I want to be clear on this and make sure you see them as your ideals or do you see them as something else?
Well, the GPL isn't a contract, because it's unilateral, and it's not necessary to agree to it in order to use GPL software,
Well, I don't know what the technical legal terminology would be, but defacto it acts as a contract that you do indeed have to agree to to use GPL software. This conversation would not exist if Dlink could use GPL software without having to agree to the GPL.
The obvious reason to use the GPL over the BSD license is that you know your work can't easily be rolled into proprietary code, for someone else to profit from, without ever giving back anything to you or the community
Right, in other words, the creator retains more control over his creation. That control comes directly from placing limits on the consumer of that creation.
The point of registration is to ensure that only what has potential commercial value is copyrighted. For example, not every email or other document would automatically be copyright, allowing "copyright infringement" to be used against whistleblowers, and work created without the thought of commercial profit could immediately enter the public domain, instead of requiring the creators to explicitly disclaim automatic copyright.
I would think a better answer would be to waive copyright obligations in the case of whistleblowers. Creating a regristration process which I'm assuming would have to go to through yet another government agency, will favor those with money. No matter how cheap you make it at first, no matter how accessible you make it at first, it will still favor those with money over those without. Worse, if history is any teacher, it will become more and more convoluted over time, and more and more expensive over time, and will eventually reach the sorry shape of our patent system over time.
Unless you can convince me it won't, I will never agree with registration.
As far as permitting non-commercial copying, on any scale, the theory there is that it makes it very easy to justify pursuing commercial infringement vigorously. Under those circumstances, then, I'd suggest that every non-commercial copy made actually increases the commercial value of the work, by acting as free advertising.
It's a nice theory. There's been a lot of nice theories that haven't worked in practice. Is this one of them? No one can be sure until it's tried, but in my opinion, it won't work that way in practice. In my opinion, once you take away the social perception that copying music is an illegitimate way of obtaining it, very few will see a reason to purchase it, save for live performances.
Unreleased content which is stolen and released without permission I would regard almost as a kind of "trade secret", and given that I'm proposing generous liberalisation of non-commercial copying of released content, then I find it easy to propose also that distributing unreleased content acquired illegitimately should be a criminal offence vigorously prosecuted (with a suitable exception/defense for whistleblowers acting in the public interest, of course).
what I see you suggesting is a generous liberalisation with other peoples work that they financed, they poured their time and energy to produce, and yet, the consumers and not the creators, get to do with it whatever they want. It does not matter whether or not you don't see it that way, many creators do see it that way. Where do their rights come in all this? I reject fully and completely any assertion that someone is somehow less free because they can't freely copy other people's creation. I suppose, though, that they are less free, in much the same way that people are less free because they can't tell me how to run my business, tell me how to share my ideas, or tell me what to do with my work. Not
If you think that DLink should be freely able to copy, modify, and distribute code released under the General Public License, then I have no issue with that.
Well I don't think that at all, I was very glad to see the GPL win here. Very very pleased, like that warm fuzzy feeling pleased.
My point is, the GPL is a contract that enforces the rights of creators over what they create. It is not meant to give license to everyone to freely do with the creation whatever they want, which is a view held by many people here. That view is wrong. You seem to recognize that in what you say here: Again, I would have no problem with that, which incidentally would also (by and large) render the GPL unnecessary for software anyway, since in effect the four freedoms would be available without the legal contortions of the GPL required to achieve it in a world of software licenses.
You're absolutely right. Let me ask you(and anyone else) this... Why do people use the GPL over the BSD license? Why do they use a license at all?
Personally, I would suggest that some more moderate reform of existing copyright might be less disruptive, such as reducing the duration to a more reasonable span (say 7 or 5 years), requiring registration to assert copyright at all (with the deposition of a copy in escrow, in the case of software including full source code), declaring ALL non-commercial copying and redistribution to be fair use, and maybe one or two other minor details.
I agree with the duration of copyright, but I would not back registration as such things, as we have witnessed in patent law, tend to favor those with money over those without. I'm a little concerned about the "ALL" non-commercial copying. For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to distribute a thousand copies of an album someone paid money to develop, even if they're not profiting off of it.
Another thing that concerns me: Take what happened recently with Weird Al's video. I'm sure it will turn out fine for him, I'm heading to the music store on Tuesday myself, but, that was not right. The guy had a business deal lined up and someone who thought it should be their right to freely share for non-commercial purposes his video on the net, basically screwed his business deal. What gave them the right? Did they pour their time, energy, and money into production?
I'm curious - how do you/these people act on their political views
I don't know how the forum will turn out. It has not been launched yet. I have secured a server for it and am in the process of configuring the software and choosing a layout. My plan is to attempt to draw independent minded people to the forum and then see where the chips fall.
but, I can tell you how I handle this so far... Direct action, single issue stuff (pro/anti GM, etc), industrial action (strikes/ direct confrontation, etc. All of these, none, some I haven't mentioned?
If my own reasoning tells me that I should take part in a boycott, then I will take part in a boycott. If my reasoning tells me to take part in a strike, then I will take part in a strike. My reasons will be my own.
My personal issue with partisans is not that they work together towards common goals, doing such is the backbone of a healthy democratic republic, a form of government which you could say I am a true believer in. It's what has become of the political debate as a result of the partisans spreading the message on "issues" with memes and cult like group think.
For example, I don't ever take part in a group movement because some partisan friend of mine emailed me to sign a petition. How many people do you know who are like that? Be honest. They get a petition from someone they know who shares their partisan views, then out of reflex, without any type of real thought, reason, or seriously considering the other sides views, they sign the petition and become diehard supporters of it. Those are exactly the type of people I'm not interested in talking to because they have nothing of value whatsoever to say. If you want to hear the opinions of people like that, simply read what their partisan group has to say or tune into their favorite pundit. In my experience, such people make up the majority of partisans who argue politics online. That's why the majority of political forums are usually nothing more than echo boxes, or echo wars.
I direct you to this from the slashdot post: D-Link had claimed that the GPL was not 'legally binding' but have now agreed to cease and desist, and refrain from distributing the infringing product,
The very existance of the GPL is a recognition that creators have a right to attach conditions as to how people can use, modify, and distribute what they create.
Speaking as someone over the years who has been derided on political forums as both a far right rightwing extremist and a left wing nut job, when it comes to politics, trolling is often in the eyes of the beholder. What would be considered trolling in a left wing forum would be seen as a valid opinion in a right wing forum and vice versa. This is due to the different "hot buttons" partisans of different parties are programmed to have.
I'm currently struggling with just this thing myself. I'm in the process of setting up a blogsite/message board for people who refuse to dirty themselves through alignment with a political party. You are right that freedom of speech must be maximal for proper discourse in one sense, but in another, unrestricted political discourse goes like this once partisans of any major group join in: partisan: "This issue that my political party told me is important is important so I'm arguing it."
partisanx: "Really, well why do you personally care about it?" partisan: "for the reasons outlined by my political party."
partisanx: "yeah, I've heard of all that before, do you have any opinions of your own? partisan: "these are my opinions, I just happen to agree 100 percent with my political party.
partisanx: "yeah, sure you do. When I want to hear your political opinion, I'll go read your parties talking points. Thanks for playing." partisan: "This issue that my political..."
ad nauseum.
...that your perceptions are maybe the result of different groups of people comprising the slashdot community? I've found that my own opinions on certain subjects are in a minority, while on other subjects they seem to be in the majority. I've even witnessed that on certain topics, moderation of certain viewpoints that you think would be related, turn out differently depending on the topic. I suspect this is due to many people, like myself for example, who just don't read certain topics, while reading other topics faithfully.
I myself have a very low opinion of those who think they have a right to copy whatever they want because "information wants to be free". I see such people as manufacturing reasons to justify their own shoddy behavior. OTOH, I have a very high opinion of the GPL(and other open source licenses) and those who defend them.
If you think it is possible for anyone to "unknowingly lie" then we are speaking different languages. To me, lying is a serious thing that indicates dishonesty. When you accuse someone of lying, you're not saying anything about their character at all.
I'm speaking english and in english, one valid definition of a lie is: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
But fine, I'll play the semantic game. I will rephrase it:
This administration has failed to tell the truth, either knowingly or unknowingly...
Is that better? My point still stands and I have avoided alienating you by using the word "lie" in a manner in which you disagreed.
Did I mention anything about Nigerian Uranium? Let me re-read, no, I did not. Did I mention anything else? Yes I did. Are you interested in any real conversation given that you ignored what I actually said and then whipped some irrelevant factoid that I made no reference to out of your arse? No, you are not.
"Axis of evil" is rhetoric, just as much now as it was then. Accurate? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's just political rhetoric, not a conspiracy theory.
Axis of evil is an implication of a conspiracy on the part of the members of said group. It is very much a conspiracy theory in that it implies they are conspiring to do us wrong. Is it rhetoric? Sure, but it is also meant to get people thinking in terms of the axis plotting evil against them.
The often repeated claim, which you could call rhetoric, but which is also clearly a conspiracy theory, is that "liberals want to destroy the country". The people who espouse this will offer "evidence" to their audience to support it. They, in essence, offer factoids about "liberals" and then fill in the gaps as to their meaning.
But perhaps I'm wrong in my semantic use, but please, humor me, and explain to me what is the difference between a group of partisans advancing ideas that another group of partisans are out to destroy america, that a group of nations are out to do evil to us, etc... how are these really different in the effects they have on those that believe it, than the conspiracy theories are?
As for the rest of your stuff, it's all irrelevant to the point of my post.
You are asking for the villification of Bush to stop and you are saying that you view those who believe in "conspiracy theories" as a bigger threat to our system than government. On the former, I disagree, he has reaped what he's sown, on the later, I somewhat agree. Our system is not in a good place when over 1/3rd of the people believe not only that the government could take part(either actively or passively) in a terrible thing like 9/11, but actually did... that is not a good place for our system to be.
But, when you constantly lie, and lie, and lie, what is the logical result of that? People don't trust your word. People don't trust your character. People don't trust you.
This administration has lied, either knowingly or unknowingly on the WMD issue, the secret prisons, the wiretapping, etc... and your post about what you think Iraq was about, if it is indeed true, is a very good example of the people being told lies to hide true intentions(conspiracy theory?). If that's what it was about, then the president should have been forthcoming with our true goals there from day one. To suggest otherwise, is to compromise the integrity of our democratic republic, an integrity that is built on the trust the people have of the government. If the government can't trust the people with the truth, then the people can't trust the government to do their will, and then the conspiracy theories start to take hold. It's cause and effect.
Right or wrong, whether you believe it or not, Clinton lost a lot of clout and respect for himself and the office with the great many Americans when he did what he did
And it's amazing to me that you are sitting here telling me how Clinton lost clout for his lies, while seemingly unwilling to see that Bush has lost clout for his lies too. It really doesn't matter whether you think he deserves to lose clout for his lies, the fact is, he has lost clout and his lies are the reason(whether you think they are "good" lies or not). For the record, I supported Clinton's impeachment at the time, and I would again under the same circumstances. That was all irrelevant to my point.
And on that John Kerry bit...
Don't bother quoting John Kerry to me. I hold both parties in equal contempt. Quoting one liar to justify another means very little to me. I will say this, I don't subscribe to most of the conspiracy theories. In fact, I share a good deal of your concern, but rather than trying to VILLANIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who believe them(which you are clearly trying to do), I see cause and effect at work. A deceptive government does not deserve to be believed. Whether they intentionally decieved or no
To me, the growing ranks of people who believe that with all their heart - growing mostly because of the internet, and sources of information that reinforce what they want to believe - are actually more of a threat to our system of government than anything else.
The question you have to ask is WHY? Why are people now so inclined to believe in
"conspiracy theories" and distrust the government on this level now? Is it really just because of the internet? Could it have anything to do with the fact that this administration and its partisan drones have actively used conspiracy theories in pursuit of their political agenda? "Axis of Evil" conspiracy theory anyone? "Iraq has WMD and is going to use them against Americans" conspiracy theory anyone? "Liberals want to bring down america" conspiracy theory anyone?
When an administration rejects hard facts and logic and reason in its decisicion making process, that has an impact on the psyche of the nation. When an administration continues to lie and justify it's lies, why would any rational citizen in their right mind believe anything they say? They lied to us about wiretapping, secret prisons, and WMDs in Iraq. Why would I or anyone else logically trust what they say?
Indeed, their consistant violation of the trust of the American people is why these things persist. It isn't because of the internet boogeyman or those "whackey" conspiracy theorists. They have created an environment where secret plots and corruption on the level that is being alleged is not only not unthinkable, but seems plausible given their seeming dependency on deception.
Have politicians always lied? Damn straight. I wasn't born yesterday. But the severity of the lies have gotten worse in recent years. And the republicans planted a seed in the minds of the public that honesty and truthfulness was paramount, so much so that it was worth putting the country through an impeachment process because a man purjured himself trying to hide his humanity. Then the republicans get in office and tell lie after lie, which seems sinister in scale compared to what they impeached the previous president over.
First, can you site some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I want to see whether you're basing this off of assumptions or things you've actually read about it. Plus it would be interesting to know, if you are basing this off actual events, what the circumstances were and how many votes were tainted.
Next, it doesn't matter what system you use, there will always be a potential for fraud on some level. The biggest problem with your system is it reintroduces the fear of retribution for voting "wrong" into the minds of people. That's not acceptable.
You can verify that the number of votes matches the number of people who voted in several different ways without taking away anonymity. The method used in my hometown was that before you could enter the polling booth, you had to sign by your name and address in the presence of two poll operators(who were always when I asked them, members of two different parties, and they were always residents of my precinct), a ledger that listed all those who had registered for the vote and qualified to vote in your precinct. As you signed in, they would add to a running tally of the people who had signed in.
When the polls closed, the operators would tally the votes, and compare that to the tally of the people who had come in to vote. If there was a discrepancy, that would force a recount(including a manual recount of signatures in the books) and if there was still a problem, then an election official would be called in to investigate.
Sure, what I just described isn't perfect, there is room for error, but the likelihood of having thousands of extra votes is extremely low, given that the poll operators were always made up of people from different political parties and they were local people who lived in the precincts for which they operated the elections. I trust people from my community more than I trust any electronic voting systems vendor who views the election process as a cash cow.
... paper and pen are cheaper, simpler, and time tested and proven. Plus, a substantial segment of our society still views computer systems with distrust. The goal should be that NO Americans feel there is something shady in the voting process, not just those who are tech savvy enough to understand the issues.
I say this realizing that there will always be people with suspicions, so we have to aim to make that the lowest number possible, which IMO, rules out computerized voting at this time.
Golly, do you people lack reading comprehension or just critical thinking skills?
Funny, I didn't get the feeling the poster mentioned closed source so much to advocate open source software, as to draw the clear paralell between that and a secret ballot counting method implementation. Let me re-read... Yep, he didn't mention using Open Source at all, he mentioned closed source and then followed it with the very valid, extremely painfully obvious paralell between that and a secret ballot counting procedure.
Do you see that now or is there a problem with YOUR reading comprehension or critical thinking skills?
Nobody in their right mind who cares about the stability of our democratic republic could condone a continuation of these scandals. If we can't trust the vote, then we can't trust anything about the government, and when enough people feel that way in a democratic republic, bad things happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let me explain my reply since I believe now that I misread your post... It sounded to me like it was one of those "if you don't like it shut up" type of statements, meant to stifle conversation. I believe after your reply that it was not meant that way, so I apologize for reading it wrong.
I should probably add, I wouldn't have said a word had you not made the implications that we were the originators of this behavior, or that we are the only ones who do it now. Hell, I agree with you that what we are doing is wrong, but you are very very very wrong to say that we invented that behavior. Not morally, just factually. That allegation betrays an ignorance of history and a very anti-US prejudice. And you're entitled to both your ignorance and your prejudice, just don't mistake them for anything else.
This is a really good example that despite the fact that I am strongly against the direction my country has taken, I also recognize elements of what's wrong here in the anti-US crowd. You guys are not making reasoned statements based on documented history when you say things like this. You sure as hell aren't leading by example. Why should a republican care about learning from history and being accurate in his allegations about other nations, if the people criticizing them don't? And sure, why should you care when they don't? Hey, let's all not care and find out if Ghandi was right about eye for an eye. Sounds like a plan to me.
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
Yeah, out of all the world's nations, how many do you think this isn't true of?
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military.
Really? Then this should be enlightening for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants.
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
If you don't like it, shut up and leave!!!
Yeah, great attitude. Great example for the kids. Very democratic and all that.
But seriously, I am surprised more governments don't move to Linux as a terminal/front end solution anyway. With more services being handled on central computers far away from the actual customer access points, it doesn't really make sense to have full-featured OSes put in place only to hobble them with security software. It is better to create simple remote terminals which can run programs remotely over the network, saving hardware costs and reducing IT headaches.
I honestly think it has something to do with them having been convinced once already to move away from that type of architecture(their old mainframe systems) towards PCs, and in the process, getting reamed nicely for the effort. At least the government agencies I'm aware of here in the states. IMO, the best line of attack for opensource adoption is through the apps, and not through the OS. It's a lot easier to teach people new apps, than it is to teach them new operating systems. It's also a lot easier to teach them new operating systems, if their apps will be the same on the new OS. My 2 cents.
..."King George" instead of "Emperor Bush". The last jackass who thought he was king here was named George too, so it has a more signifigant ring to it.
Nice spin doctoring. Here are the facts:
You don't take someone to court for refusing a license, you take them to court for violating a license.
GPL-Violations.org is not called GPL-Refusers.org.
They violated the GPL and as such, they are restricted by the GPL from distribution.
You partisans on this subject would serve your cause better, by avoiding such cheap spin doctoring tactics as this. It may be popular among the choir, but it keeps people not a member of your choir from taking you seriously. That should be important to you if you really want to advance the GPL.
GPL says: The idea of copyright is to increase the number of available works by giving the creators some incentives to actually create. Normal copyright solves this by giving the creators a limited control for some tome. GPL solves it by exchanging the control with the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work.
I agree with your general point, but I would rephrase that last sentence as "GPL solves it by excercising the control in such a way as to gain the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work." I know that sounds semantic, but it is truly more in line with my personal point of view(which you are free to disagree with of course), that the GPL does not lose control for creators, it just exercises their control in a way more in line with different ideals and/or goals.
I don't really understand some of the issues that you mention ('memes and cult like group think', 'some partisan friend of mine emailed me to sign a petition.') - these aren't ways that I see people operating in In the UK, and EU)
Do you understand what a meme or a cult is? The definition of meme is debateable, so I'll focus on cults as that's the more serious of my accusations anyway.
A cult can grow around many different things. A charismatic leader, an appealing idea, etc... For the sake of clear explanation, let's call this the "nucleus".
In a cult, the individual members are so devoted to the nucleus that they obtain their ideas and opinions from the nucleus. This is not a black and white statement here, but it is one of degrees. Not only that, but they also become extremely defensive of those ideas and opinions, and when they meet ideas and opinions that go contrary to that which was fostered by the nucleus, they become extremely defensive. The defensiveness does not come from conviction that the ideas and opinions are true, so much as it comes from the conviction that the nucleus is the best possible source of ideas and opinions.
This is a very short description and is somewhat incomplete, but it will do for now. In US politics, this plays out very clearly. You challenge a typical democrat or republican on their ideas, their replies 90 percent of the time will not only be the predictable dogma of their political parties(nucleus), but when they reach the end of their script their partisan programming sources have given them, they will close with accusations of you being loyal to another nucleus and they and their fellow partisans will treat that accusation as proof that you are wrong and not to be considered, no matter what you've said. WTF good does that do anyone? How does that help a democratic republic at all? That type of thing is what a non-partisan forum should be against.
Now, compare that to a free thinking individual(which do exist in both aforementioned parties, just they are the exception and not the rule in my experience), their replies will acknowledge any points you made that they feel are reasonable(if any), and will counter the points you made they feel are bad. That is called DISCUSSION. That is how deeper understanding of your fellow countrymen and issues in general, grow to new and useful depths. That is how progress is made towards concorde. That is what a non-partisan forum would foster.
I have to say, you asking me these questions has really helped me get a clearer grasp of what I was trying to feel out before regarding the goals for my forum. I thank you for that and if that was your goal, then kudos to you.
I still don't get where people who 'refuse to dirty themselves through alignment with a political party') actually *do* anything about things they disagree with.
Let me ask you this, how do people who align themselves with a political party actually *DO* anything about things they disagree with? More importantly, the question seems to hint at a belief that being aligned with a political party is mutually inclusive with doing something about things you disagree with. Although you might have another purpose by taking this angle?
How do you/ they attempt to change society/ the world/ their neighbourhood?
How do you? I support (finacially) independent candidates who I believe best represent me and I don't cast my votes based on who I think is going to do less damage to my society. I do this for the same reason that I don't buy food based on what I think is going to poison me less, but rather, I choose foods based on what I think is going to aid my health the most.(most of the time anyway, I'm no saint)
Beyond the vote, because society's health is determined by more than a vote, I strive to follow the golden rule. This is very important to me, as doing to others as you want done to you in society, has a domino effect throughout society. Showing mercy,
to achieve the four freedoms for software
Which are your ideals regarding software. I want to be clear on this and make sure you see them as your ideals or do you see them as something else?
Well, the GPL isn't a contract, because it's unilateral, and it's not necessary to agree to it in order to use GPL software,
Well, I don't know what the technical legal terminology would be, but defacto it acts as a contract that you do indeed have to agree to to use GPL software. This conversation would not exist if Dlink could use GPL software without having to agree to the GPL.
The obvious reason to use the GPL over the BSD license is that you know your work can't easily be rolled into proprietary code, for someone else to profit from, without ever giving back anything to you or the community
Right, in other words, the creator retains more control over his creation. That control comes directly from placing limits on the consumer of that creation.
The point of registration is to ensure that only what has potential commercial value is copyrighted. For example, not every email or other document would automatically be copyright, allowing "copyright infringement" to be used against whistleblowers, and work created without the thought of commercial profit could immediately enter the public domain, instead of requiring the creators to explicitly disclaim automatic copyright.
I would think a better answer would be to waive copyright obligations in the case of whistleblowers. Creating a regristration process which I'm assuming would have to go to through yet another government agency, will favor those with money. No matter how cheap you make it at first, no matter how accessible you make it at first, it will still favor those with money over those without. Worse, if history is any teacher, it will become more and more convoluted over time, and more and more expensive over time, and will eventually reach the sorry shape of our patent system over time.
Unless you can convince me it won't, I will never agree with registration.
As far as permitting non-commercial copying, on any scale, the theory there is that it makes it very easy to justify pursuing commercial infringement vigorously. Under those circumstances, then, I'd suggest that every non-commercial copy made actually increases the commercial value of the work, by acting as free advertising.
It's a nice theory. There's been a lot of nice theories that haven't worked in practice. Is this one of them? No one can be sure until it's tried, but in my opinion, it won't work that way in practice. In my opinion, once you take away the social perception that copying music is an illegitimate way of obtaining it, very few will see a reason to purchase it, save for live performances.
Unreleased content which is stolen and released without permission I would regard almost as a kind of "trade secret", and given that I'm proposing generous liberalisation of non-commercial copying of released content, then I find it easy to propose also that distributing unreleased content acquired illegitimately should be a criminal offence vigorously prosecuted (with a suitable exception/defense for whistleblowers acting in the public interest, of course).
what I see you suggesting is a generous liberalisation with other peoples work that they financed, they poured their time and energy to produce, and yet, the consumers and not the creators, get to do with it whatever they want. It does not matter whether or not you don't see it that way, many creators do see it that way. Where do their rights come in all this? I reject fully and completely any assertion that someone is somehow less free because they can't freely copy other people's creation. I suppose, though, that they are less free, in much the same way that people are less free because they can't tell me how to run my business, tell me how to share my ideas, or tell me what to do with my work. Not
If you think that DLink should be freely able to copy, modify, and distribute code released under the General Public License, then I have no issue with that.
Well I don't think that at all, I was very glad to see the GPL win here. Very very pleased, like that warm fuzzy feeling pleased.
My point is, the GPL is a contract that enforces the rights of creators over what they create. It is not meant to give license to everyone to freely do with the creation whatever they want, which is a view held by many people here. That view is wrong. You seem to recognize that in what you say here:
Again, I would have no problem with that, which incidentally would also (by and large) render the GPL unnecessary for software anyway, since in effect the four freedoms would be available without the legal contortions of the GPL required to achieve it in a world of software licenses.
You're absolutely right. Let me ask you(and anyone else) this... Why do people use the GPL over the BSD license? Why do they use a license at all?
Personally, I would suggest that some more moderate reform of existing copyright might be less disruptive, such as reducing the duration to a more reasonable span (say 7 or 5 years), requiring registration to assert copyright at all (with the deposition of a copy in escrow, in the case of software including full source code), declaring ALL non-commercial copying and redistribution to be fair use, and maybe one or two other minor details.
I agree with the duration of copyright, but I would not back registration as such things, as we have witnessed in patent law, tend to favor those with money over those without. I'm a little concerned about the "ALL" non-commercial copying. For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to distribute a thousand copies of an album someone paid money to develop, even if they're not profiting off of it.
Another thing that concerns me: Take what happened recently with Weird Al's video. I'm sure it will turn out fine for him, I'm heading to the music store on Tuesday myself, but, that was not right. The guy had a business deal lined up and someone who thought it should be their right to freely share for non-commercial purposes his video on the net, basically screwed his business deal. What gave them the right? Did they pour their time, energy, and money into production?
I'm curious - how do you/these people act on their political views
I don't know how the forum will turn out. It has not been launched yet. I have secured a server for it and am in the process of configuring the software and choosing a layout. My plan is to attempt to draw independent minded people to the forum and then see where the chips fall.
but, I can tell you how I handle this so far...
Direct action, single issue stuff (pro/anti GM, etc), industrial action (strikes/ direct confrontation, etc. All of these, none, some I haven't mentioned?
If my own reasoning tells me that I should take part in a boycott, then I will take part in a boycott. If my reasoning tells me to take part in a strike, then I will take part in a strike. My reasons will be my own.
My personal issue with partisans is not that they work together towards common goals, doing such is the backbone of a healthy democratic republic, a form of government which you could say I am a true believer in. It's what has become of the political debate as a result of the partisans spreading the message on "issues" with memes and cult like group think.
For example, I don't ever take part in a group movement because some partisan friend of mine emailed me to sign a petition. How many people do you know who are like that? Be honest. They get a petition from someone they know who shares their partisan views, then out of reflex, without any type of real thought, reason, or seriously considering the other sides views, they sign the petition and become diehard supporters of it. Those are exactly the type of people I'm not interested in talking to because they have nothing of value whatsoever to say. If you want to hear the opinions of people like that, simply read what their partisan group has to say or tune into their favorite pundit. In my experience, such people make up the majority of partisans who argue politics online. That's why the majority of political forums are usually nothing more than echo boxes, or echo wars.
I direct you to this from the slashdot post:
D-Link had claimed that the GPL was not 'legally binding' but have now agreed to cease and desist, and refrain from distributing the infringing product,
The very existance of the GPL is a recognition that creators have a right to attach conditions as to how people can use, modify, and distribute what they create.
If it's an obvious troll, delete it.
Speaking as someone over the years who has been derided on political forums as both a far right rightwing extremist and a left wing nut job, when it comes to politics, trolling is often in the eyes of the beholder. What would be considered trolling in a left wing forum would be seen as a valid opinion in a right wing forum and vice versa. This is due to the different "hot buttons" partisans of different parties are programmed to have.
I'm currently struggling with just this thing myself. I'm in the process of setting up a blogsite/message board for people who refuse to dirty themselves through alignment with a political party. You are right that freedom of speech must be maximal for proper discourse in one sense, but in another, unrestricted political discourse goes like this once partisans of any major group join in:
partisan: "This issue that my political party told me is important is important so I'm arguing it."
partisanx: "Really, well why do you personally care about it?"
partisan: "for the reasons outlined by my political party."
partisanx: "yeah, I've heard of all that before, do you have any opinions of your own?
partisan: "these are my opinions, I just happen to agree 100 percent with my political party.
partisanx: "yeah, sure you do. When I want to hear your political opinion, I'll go read your parties talking points. Thanks for playing."
partisan: "This issue that my political..."
ad nauseum.
GPL is defending the right to copy, modify and distribute
Yet the story is about the GPL preventing DLink from doing those very things.
...that your perceptions are maybe the result of different groups of people comprising the slashdot community? I've found that my own opinions on certain subjects are in a minority, while on other subjects they seem to be in the majority. I've even witnessed that on certain topics, moderation of certain viewpoints that you think would be related, turn out differently depending on the topic. I suspect this is due to many people, like myself for example, who just don't read certain topics, while reading other topics faithfully.
I myself have a very low opinion of those who think they have a right to copy whatever they want because "information wants to be free". I see such people as manufacturing reasons to justify their own shoddy behavior. OTOH, I have a very high opinion of the GPL(and other open source licenses) and those who defend them.
Just keep that in mind.
If you think it is possible for anyone to "unknowingly lie" then we are speaking different languages. To me, lying is a serious thing that indicates dishonesty. When you accuse someone of lying, you're not saying anything about their character at all.
I'm speaking english and in english, one valid definition of a lie is:
a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
But fine, I'll play the semantic game. I will rephrase it:
This administration has failed to tell the truth, either knowingly or unknowingly...
Is that better? My point still stands and I have avoided alienating you by using the word "lie" in a manner in which you disagreed.
Did I mention anything about Nigerian Uranium? Let me re-read, no, I did not. Did I mention anything else? Yes I did. Are you interested in any real conversation given that you ignored what I actually said and then whipped some irrelevant factoid that I made no reference to out of your arse? No, you are not.
Well, those aren't conspiracy theories.
Hogwash.
"Axis of evil" is rhetoric, just as much now as it was then. Accurate? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's just political rhetoric, not a conspiracy theory.
Axis of evil is an implication of a conspiracy on the part of the members of said group. It is very much a conspiracy theory in that it implies they are conspiring to do us wrong. Is it rhetoric? Sure, but it is also meant to get people thinking in terms of the axis plotting evil against them.
The often repeated claim, which you could call rhetoric, but which is also clearly a conspiracy theory, is that "liberals want to destroy the country". The people who espouse this will offer "evidence" to their audience to support it. They, in essence, offer factoids about "liberals" and then fill in the gaps as to their meaning.
But perhaps I'm wrong in my semantic use, but please, humor me, and explain to me what is the difference between a group of partisans advancing ideas that another group of partisans are out to destroy america, that a group of nations are out to do evil to us, etc... how are these really different in the effects they have on those that believe it, than the conspiracy theories are?
As for the rest of your stuff, it's all irrelevant to the point of my post.
You are asking for the villification of Bush to stop and you are saying that you view those who believe in "conspiracy theories" as a bigger threat to our system than government. On the former, I disagree, he has reaped what he's sown, on the later, I somewhat agree. Our system is not in a good place when over 1/3rd of the people believe not only that the government could take part(either actively or passively) in a terrible thing like 9/11, but actually did... that is not a good place for our system to be.
But, when you constantly lie, and lie, and lie, what is the logical result of that? People don't trust your word. People don't trust your character. People don't trust you.
This administration has lied, either knowingly or unknowingly on the WMD issue, the secret prisons, the wiretapping, etc... and your post about what you think Iraq was about, if it is indeed true, is a very good example of the people being told lies to hide true intentions(conspiracy theory?). If that's what it was about, then the president should have been forthcoming with our true goals there from day one. To suggest otherwise, is to compromise the integrity of our democratic republic, an integrity that is built on the trust the people have of the government. If the government can't trust the people with the truth, then the people can't trust the government to do their will, and then the conspiracy theories start to take hold. It's cause and effect.
Right or wrong, whether you believe it or not, Clinton lost a lot of clout and respect for himself and the office with the great many Americans when he did what he did
And it's amazing to me that you are sitting here telling me how Clinton lost clout for his lies, while seemingly unwilling to see that Bush has lost clout for his lies too. It really doesn't matter whether you think he deserves to lose clout for his lies, the fact is, he has lost clout and his lies are the reason(whether you think they are "good" lies or not). For the record, I supported Clinton's impeachment at the time, and I would again under the same circumstances. That was all irrelevant to my point.
And on that John Kerry bit...
Don't bother quoting John Kerry to me. I hold both parties in equal contempt. Quoting one liar to justify another means very little to me. I will say this, I don't subscribe to most of the conspiracy theories. In fact, I share a good deal of your concern, but rather than trying to VILLANIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who believe them(which you are clearly trying to do), I see cause and effect at work. A deceptive government does not deserve to be believed. Whether they intentionally decieved or no
To me, the growing ranks of people who believe that with all their heart - growing mostly because of the internet, and sources of information that reinforce what they want to believe - are actually more of a threat to our system of government than anything else.
The question you have to ask is WHY? Why are people now so inclined to believe in "conspiracy theories" and distrust the government on this level now? Is it really just because of the internet? Could it have anything to do with the fact that this administration and its partisan drones have actively used conspiracy theories in pursuit of their political agenda? "Axis of Evil" conspiracy theory anyone? "Iraq has WMD and is going to use them against Americans" conspiracy theory anyone? "Liberals want to bring down america" conspiracy theory anyone?
When an administration rejects hard facts and logic and reason in its decisicion making process, that has an impact on the psyche of the nation. When an administration continues to lie and justify it's lies, why would any rational citizen in their right mind believe anything they say? They lied to us about wiretapping, secret prisons, and WMDs in Iraq. Why would I or anyone else logically trust what they say?
Indeed, their consistant violation of the trust of the American people is why these things persist. It isn't because of the internet boogeyman or those "whackey" conspiracy theorists. They have created an environment where secret plots and corruption on the level that is being alleged is not only not unthinkable, but seems plausible given their seeming dependency on deception.
Have politicians always lied? Damn straight. I wasn't born yesterday. But the severity of the lies have gotten worse in recent years. And the republicans planted a seed in the minds of the public that honesty and truthfulness was paramount, so much so that it was worth putting the country through an impeachment process because a man purjured himself trying to hide his humanity. Then the republicans get in office and tell lie after lie, which seems sinister in scale compared to what they impeached the previous president over.
And fraud regularly happens with pen and paper
First, can you site some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I want to see whether you're basing this off of assumptions or things you've actually read about it. Plus it would be interesting to know, if you are basing this off actual events, what the circumstances were and how many votes were tainted.
Next, it doesn't matter what system you use, there will always be a potential for fraud on some level. The biggest problem with your system is it reintroduces the fear of retribution for voting "wrong" into the minds of people. That's not acceptable.
You can verify that the number of votes matches the number of people who voted in several different ways without taking away anonymity. The method used in my hometown was that before you could enter the polling booth, you had to sign by your name and address in the presence of two poll operators(who were always when I asked them, members of two different parties, and they were always residents of my precinct), a ledger that listed all those who had registered for the vote and qualified to vote in your precinct. As you signed in, they would add to a running tally of the people who had signed in.
When the polls closed, the operators would tally the votes, and compare that to the tally of the people who had come in to vote. If there was a discrepancy, that would force a recount(including a manual recount of signatures in the books) and if there was still a problem, then an election official would be called in to investigate.
Sure, what I just described isn't perfect, there is room for error, but the likelihood of having thousands of extra votes is extremely low, given that the poll operators were always made up of people from different political parties and they were local people who lived in the precincts for which they operated the elections. I trust people from my community more than I trust any electronic voting systems vendor who views the election process as a cash cow.
... paper and pen are cheaper, simpler, and time tested and proven. Plus, a substantial segment of our society still views computer systems with distrust. The goal should be that NO Americans feel there is something shady in the voting process, not just those who are tech savvy enough to understand the issues.
I say this realizing that there will always be people with suspicions, so we have to aim to make that the lowest number possible, which IMO, rules out computerized voting at this time.
Golly, do you people lack reading comprehension or just critical thinking skills?
Funny, I didn't get the feeling the poster mentioned closed source so much to advocate open source software, as to draw the clear paralell between that and a secret ballot counting method implementation. Let me re-read... Yep, he didn't mention using Open Source at all, he mentioned closed source and then followed it with the very valid, extremely painfully obvious paralell between that and a secret ballot counting procedure.
Do you see that now or is there a problem with YOUR reading comprehension or critical thinking skills?
Nobody in their right mind who cares about the stability of our democratic republic could condone a continuation of these scandals. If we can't trust the vote, then we can't trust anything about the government, and when enough people feel that way in a democratic republic, bad things happen.