Your particular situation - giving out a complete game, giving out code fragments for viewing only - fits with your parable. Your parable fails utterly, when compared to the topic at hand - sharing code for others to use and implement. This is where you need a license. Noone said you need a license for your completely irrelevant activity - just like noone said you needed a license to read a book or bake a cookie.
Licenses are needed for sharing code for others to copy and use in their own projects.
Disliking licenses on the basis that they are bad at doing something else than they were made for, is unconvincing as an argument against licenses. The GPL is horrible a baking cookies with, but that is completel beside the point too...
They have permission to do those things. They just don't have a license to do them.
And without that permission being written down, in say... a license, your code is useless for anything but looking at.
If that was it's purpose, fine. But that is not the purpose of code. Code is meant to be run, improved, copied and used. And since our laws are ridiculous, we need licenses for that - otherwise we could not doing without opening ourselves to endless litigation. Your personal niche of "I'd just like for people to look at this" is comparable to your story about tales. It is not comparable to 99%+ of all sharing of code.
The man replies, "No, it is not. You may have it now, if you would enjoy it. But should you choose to eat it, in the future I may come calling and demand you pay any price I like."
Unfortunately your parable doesn't reflect real life. The man has no such hold over someone who accepts a cookie. Nor do I over anyone who accepts my gift.
That is exactly how real life works, when it comes to copyright (not cookies). You do not need a license to eat a cookie, nor to look at code - but you do need a license to use code. The parable is much more illustrative than yours, even though we have to accept that in the world of the story, they have laws regarding foodstuff, that are as insane as our lawws regarding code.
Your parable is useless with regards to this conversation, as the enjoyment of a tale does not hinge on the ability to copy and paste it. Code fragments, which is what we were actually talking about, are useless without a license to copy them. Also, you story assumes a daily, informal interaction and mutual respect and love between the actors. With code fragments, we need something a bit more practiacal than having to ask for each time you use or change a variable.
So yeah, cute story, but I would rather have one that actually has some bearing on the topic at hand.
It seems the "I don't want a license" camp is misunderstanding the ramifications of said choice.
Not using a license is, effectively, saying "I made this, you could use it, but you will never know the amount of legal problems it will bring and using it for any project that are of financial or personal importance to you would be borderline retarded, as it opens you to litigation from an unknown source and/or whoever that person sells their rights to tomorrow".
Using a Free Software license is saying "Here, I made this. Would you like some? It's free. Free as in freedom". Or, the non-Moglen-fanboy-version: "Here, you can use this without risks".
You are not wrong for excersising that choice - though society is wrong to allow the first choice, especially for knowledge such as math, common DNA markers and software. But you are wrong if you believe chosing no license does not destroy the usability of your code utterly, for any serious projects.
Fraud is not a way of stealing. It is fraud. Just like copying is not stealing. It is copying.
Sometimes, it is illegal to copy something (rather more often than makes sense, but that is what you get when a dying industry writes the law). You whistling a tune is not stealing, it is copying a pattern. Just like you learning to write english was not theft either.
I am sorry, though incomprehensive, if you find my attitude petulant. But saying that copying is not arson is no more or less obvious than saying it is not theft.
You are the one with claim that flies in the face of all definitions of the involved words. I suggest you stop it.
Counterfeiting is not theft. It is counterfeiting. A sort of fraud.
While you are right that "taking something that is not yours... etc." is right, you can never really "take" data. You copy it, and that is something entirely different (deleting it something else, and not on the table of discussion).
You may feel that copying data without permission is wrong. I would even agree with you in certain specific instances. It is not, however, theft. It is not a bridge, a banana or train derailment either. You views about how wrong it is does not make it magically arson now theft. Sorry.
Gosh, that's something no one here ever thought of before. End of thread right now.
Thanks for the sarcasm. Also very refreshing.
The poster to which I replied had apparently not thought of it. So while I am saddened that this will not, in fact, end discussion on the topic, I must admit I still believe my comment to topical. Do you feel differently, or were you just pointing out that you were better informed?
"your" bits will be transmitted across a global network whether you want them to be or not.
And your ass (note, no scare quotes) will be transmitted into prison afterwards, whether you want it or not. See, this game can be played both ways.
It probably will not. And the first will happen as long as people are free to express themselves, the latter only if we have a surveillance state with cash to blow on small-time crime fighting.
No, but I do have the right to work for 10 years and then determine how I will charge other for the end result of that work.
Hehe. Yeah. But you do not have the right to get payed what you want.
Or for your local government to enforce idiotic laws which enable you to get paid more or less exactly what you want, whilst choking creativity and free expression.
Just throwing that out there... Basic scenario; brilliant biochemist does exactly this to wreck revenge on Ireland and England for the conflict that took his family. Mild flu in males, deadly to females. Some of his best work outside Dune, btw...
Android is in trouble right now, not Apple. That is why the Android partners are switching to building their own hardware (like Apple) and Apple is not switching to OS licensing (like Android.)
The former is kind off the whole idea behind an open system architecture, you know...
No, those were the facts. Obvious patents should never be awarded, not ever. That is aginst the idea of a patent system. What we will see during the trial is whether the legal system can make some small headway in turning the bloated, insane patent regime somewhat towards a sane harbour.
Claiming some sort of "ownership" making a touchscreen and its border rectangular is insane. I wanted to own the word "icecream" when I was in kindgarten, so people would pay me money to use it. Society did not take note and create a legal system where this was possible. Someone buying enough lawmakers to make this dreama reality for software and design patents is not a good thing, any more than handing out our language to the highest bidder is.
Yes. They are real. And they don't affect you. So any consumer decision based on companies suing each other is an emotional decision.
No.
There are other types of decisions beyond pure, shortsighted selfinterest, and emotion. Such as who and what you wish to support with money, user numbers, loyalty (or, in other realms, votes or silence).
It's like every media outlet has declared war on Apple - it's now Apple vs. EVERYONE ELSE.
Apple made it Apple vs everyone else. With lawsuits. The media outlets reporting said lawsuits are not to blame for the war, anymore than a war reporter taking a photo is.
...if Samsung is found guilty and isn't allowed to copy Apple then the consumer wins!
Haha. If Samsung if forced to make a phone without a black background, a non-rectangular form, uneven corners, and other stupid aversions of obvious design choices, the consumer wins...? Apples is trying to threaten its way to own "rectangular" and "use two fingers". We are talking "car with four wheels"-level innovation, here.
I cannot sell my product, unless you cannot control your own device. (This must be why, it cannot have anything to do with my attitude, business sense or my product). Please Google, stop making software that allows users to control their own device.
This is just about exactly how the mind works - it will integrate the tool into your "body image". Which is the reason you did not think of your shoes, but was able to keep your balance all day.
But brain is not a factory where the released capacity will be put to some other use
The brain is not like a factory, no. But it very specifically does use any "released capacity". What we do not use, we lose. What we do use, we gain more of. If you assume that we spend the time previously used looking at maps staring blankly into space, then yeah - net loss. If we instead assume - and I do not think I am being overly optimistic here - that we are going to do other stuff then we have no loss. Oh, except that if we do new, more interesting stuff, such as more interesting stuff that the computers cannot do yet, we will have a net gain.
The ability to read an analogue clock is a complete waste brain-space, in a world with digital clocks. There is no now-unused bit-that-only-reads-analogue-clocks-part of our brain, which is tragically atrophying. It is being put to better use, don't worry.
I know all the CEOs of the world bow to your expertise and slavishly follow your every tidbit of advice, but for the few unfortunates who do not have a direct connection to, and trust in, your infinity wisdom, having a study prove these things may be a step in the right direction in implementing this particular nugget in the workplaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Your particular situation - giving out a complete game, giving out code fragments for viewing only - fits with your parable.
Your parable fails utterly, when compared to the topic at hand - sharing code for others to use and implement. This is where you need a license. Noone said you need a license for your completely irrelevant activity - just like noone said you needed a license to read a book or bake a cookie.
Licenses are needed for sharing code for others to copy and use in their own projects.
Disliking licenses on the basis that they are bad at doing something else than they were made for, is unconvincing as an argument against licenses. The GPL is horrible a baking cookies with, but that is completel beside the point too...
They have permission to do those things. They just don't have a license to do them.
And without that permission being written down, in say... a license, your code is useless for anything but looking at.
If that was it's purpose, fine. But that is not the purpose of code. Code is meant to be run, improved, copied and used. And since our laws are ridiculous, we need licenses for that - otherwise we could not doing without opening ourselves to endless litigation.
Your personal niche of "I'd just like for people to look at this" is comparable to your story about tales. It is not comparable to 99%+ of all sharing of code.
The man replies, "No, it is not. You may have it now, if you would enjoy it. But should you choose to eat it, in the future I may come calling and demand you pay any price I like."
Unfortunately your parable doesn't reflect real life. The man has no such hold over someone who accepts a cookie. Nor do I over anyone who accepts my gift.
That is exactly how real life works, when it comes to copyright (not cookies). You do not need a license to eat a cookie, nor to look at code - but you do need a license to use code. The parable is much more illustrative than yours, even though we have to accept that in the world of the story, they have laws regarding foodstuff, that are as insane as our lawws regarding code.
Your parable is useless with regards to this conversation, as the enjoyment of a tale does not hinge on the ability to copy and paste it. Code fragments, which is what we were actually talking about, are useless without a license to copy them.
Also, you story assumes a daily, informal interaction and mutual respect and love between the actors. With code fragments, we need something a bit more practiacal than having to ask for each time you use or change a variable.
So yeah, cute story, but I would rather have one that actually has some bearing on the topic at hand.
Fox version!
I bet it'll be a Bill O'Reilly animation shouting...
It seems the "I don't want a license" camp is misunderstanding the ramifications of said choice.
Not using a license is, effectively, saying "I made this, you could use it, but you will never know the amount of legal problems it will bring and using it for any project that are of financial or personal importance to you would be borderline retarded, as it opens you to litigation from an unknown source and/or whoever that person sells their rights to tomorrow".
Using a Free Software license is saying "Here, I made this. Would you like some? It's free. Free as in freedom". Or, the non-Moglen-fanboy-version: "Here, you can use this without risks".
You are not wrong for excersising that choice - though society is wrong to allow the first choice, especially for knowledge such as math, common DNA markers and software. But you are wrong if you believe chosing no license does not destroy the usability of your code utterly, for any serious projects.
Fraud is not a way of stealing. It is fraud. Just like copying is not stealing. It is copying.
Sometimes, it is illegal to copy something (rather more often than makes sense, but that is what you get when a dying industry writes the law). You whistling a tune is not stealing, it is copying a pattern. Just like you learning to write english was not theft either.
I am sorry, though incomprehensive, if you find my attitude petulant. But saying that copying is not arson is no more or less obvious than saying it is not theft.
You are the one with claim that flies in the face of all definitions of the involved words. I suggest you stop it.
Counterfeiting is not theft. It is counterfeiting. A sort of fraud.
While you are right that "taking something that is not yours... etc." is right, you can never really "take" data. You copy it, and that is something entirely different (deleting it something else, and not on the table of discussion).
You may feel that copying data without permission is wrong. I would even agree with you in certain specific instances. It is not, however, theft. It is not a bridge, a banana or train derailment either. You views about how wrong it is does not make it magically arson now theft. Sorry.
Sorry, but thieves steal things.
Copying is not, nor can it ever be, stealing.
Gosh, that's something no one here ever thought of before. End of thread right now.
Thanks for the sarcasm. Also very refreshing.
The poster to which I replied had apparently not thought of it. So while I am saddened that this will not, in fact, end discussion on the topic, I must admit I still believe my comment to topical. Do you feel differently, or were you just pointing out that you were better informed?
"your" bits will be transmitted across a global network whether you want them to be or not.
And your ass (note, no scare quotes) will be transmitted into prison afterwards, whether you want it or not. See, this game can be played both ways.
It probably will not. And the first will happen as long as people are free to express themselves, the latter only if we have a surveillance state with cash to blow on small-time crime fighting.
Sorry, but thieves steal things.
Copying is not, nor can it ever be, stealing.
No, but I do have the right to work for 10 years and then determine how I will charge other for the end result of that work.
Hehe. Yeah. But you do not have the right to get payed what you want.
Or for your local government to enforce idiotic laws which enable you to get paid more or less exactly what you want, whilst choking creativity and free expression.
Just throwing that out there... Basic scenario; brilliant biochemist does exactly this to wreck revenge on Ireland and England for the conflict that took his family. Mild flu in males, deadly to females. Some of his best work outside Dune, btw...
Android is in trouble right now, not Apple. That is why the Android partners are switching to building their own hardware (like Apple) and Apple is not switching to OS licensing (like Android.)
The former is kind off the whole idea behind an open system architecture, you know...
That's what the court case will clarify.
No, those were the facts. Obvious patents should never be awarded, not ever. That is aginst the idea of a patent system. What we will see during the trial is whether the legal system can make some small headway in turning the bloated, insane patent regime somewhat towards a sane harbour.
Claiming some sort of "ownership" making a touchscreen and its border rectangular is insane. I wanted to own the word "icecream" when I was in kindgarten, so people would pay me money to use it. Society did not take note and create a legal system where this was possible. Someone buying enough lawmakers to make this dreama reality for software and design patents is not a good thing, any more than handing out our language to the highest bidder is.
Ah, the new /. Where calling a company 'assholes' goes +5 Insightful.
No reason to make things more complicated than they are. But, yeah, "moneygrubbing bastards" would be more succint.
Maybe they genuinely believe people shouldn't duplicate their functionality, and that they should try to innovate on their own?
Haha. Duplicating what functionality? The handheld part? The rectangular stroke-of-genius? The inspired you-can-two-fingers?
Yes. They are real. And they don't affect you. So any consumer decision based on companies suing each other is an emotional decision.
No.
There are other types of decisions beyond pure, shortsighted selfinterest, and emotion. Such as who and what you wish to support with money, user numbers, loyalty (or, in other realms, votes or silence).
It's like every media outlet has declared war on Apple - it's now Apple vs. EVERYONE ELSE.
Apple made it Apple vs everyone else. With lawsuits. The media outlets reporting said lawsuits are not to blame for the war, anymore than a war reporter taking a photo is.
...if Samsung is found guilty and isn't allowed to copy Apple then the consumer wins!
Haha. If Samsung if forced to make a phone without a black background, a non-rectangular form, uneven corners, and other stupid aversions of obvious design choices, the consumer wins...?
Apples is trying to threaten its way to own "rectangular" and "use two fingers". We are talking "car with four wheels"-level innovation, here.
The other Steve is apparently about as relevant as Eben Moglen, minus a couple of years.
Of course the cloud is about controlling the data. How else is anyone going to make money off what is freely available?
I cannot sell my product, unless you cannot control your own device. (This must be why, it cannot have anything to do with my attitude, business sense or my product). Please Google, stop making software that allows users to control their own device.
This is just about exactly how the mind works - it will integrate the tool into your "body image". Which is the reason you did not think of your shoes, but was able to keep your balance all day.
But brain is not a factory where the released capacity will be put to some other use
The brain is not like a factory, no. But it very specifically does use any "released capacity". What we do not use, we lose. What we do use, we gain more of. If you assume that we spend the time previously used looking at maps staring blankly into space, then yeah - net loss. If we instead assume - and I do not think I am being overly optimistic here - that we are going to do other stuff then we have no loss. Oh, except that if we do new, more interesting stuff, such as more interesting stuff that the computers cannot do yet, we will have a net gain.
The ability to read an analogue clock is a complete waste brain-space, in a world with digital clocks. There is no now-unused bit-that-only-reads-analogue-clocks-part of our brain, which is tragically atrophying. It is being put to better use, don't worry.
I know all the CEOs of the world bow to your expertise and slavishly follow your every tidbit of advice, but for the few unfortunates who do not have a direct connection to, and trust in, your infinity wisdom, having a study prove these things may be a step in the right direction in implementing this particular nugget in the workplaces.
Windoze users still fall for the jessicaalbanudes.jpg.exe trick. They don't call it point-and-drool for nothing!
Your hyperlink is not working, please repost!
Religion is the anthropomorphization of reality, that behind it all there's an invisible man pulling invisible strings..
Corollary: Conspiracy theories are the anthropomorphisation of history...