I, for one, never had a problem with people holding copyrights. The real problem here is that mass of "business men" who seem to somehow wind up with those rights themselves.
I wish I could remember the details, but there used to be a pop writer who did a song called "Sea Cruise." When his widow went to the record company to claim her royalties, they refused to give her any money. When she took them to court, they brought in THREE WOMEN to claim they were his widow.
I'm sorry, friend, but you have no idea what a *nightmare* the "corporate world" has made of the notion of "intellectual property" and "copyright."
I once worked for a company that wanted the right to own IP on any even slightly job-related project I did myself. The reasoning was that they were *so responsible* for my intellectual nurturing bla bla bla. The problem was that they had to have "a name" to apply to "a patent" or "a copyright" because that was what "the Government" wanted them to do. Seems to me that they should have only had the right to what I did on company property, on company time. That wasn't enough.
Oh yeah, and how about the way big companies like Microsoft hijack our free access rights to public domain works of art by claiming they're part of "packages" they own?
I'll say it again, like I've said it before: the way "intellectula property rights" have been abused by the rich, and *especially* the "music industry," those involved can all go to Hell for all the suffering and loss they have caused the actual producers of the works involved.
When they have atoned for their sins, and the real meaning of "intellectual property" is restored, then, and only then, will I change my view. When that happens, and only then, will I stop being concerned about this sort of thing. Since atonement is not likely to happen soon, I guess that means I'll continue to view the situation just as you have described it. Because "those others" probably don't really have any right to that "intellectual property" in the first place, most of the time.
Fine--that way, they can alienate their former friends even more. There's not just Linux. there's FreeBSD. If there are no free operating systems left because Microsoft killed them all, there's music, family, gardening, and lots of other things that Microsoft will *never* have anything to do with, and frankly, are far more interesting than computers.
If Microsoft takes away my access to free software to suit their arrogant nature, it won't do them any good because I just won't mess with computers anymore except at work. I don't plan on buying Windows 98, nor Windows 2K for hobbying at home. And if they continue to act like arrogant bastards the way they are now, it'll never happen later on, either. I have better things to do than consort with boors. My piano-playing has suffered a lot these past few years from neglect...
On the other hand, they might realize that there are lots and lots of people around who would view them with newfound respect, and support the use of their products, if they would start acting mature. I used to think they might learn to understand Linux, and write a few things for us. I can always hope.
This is what Microsoft will find out when they "get inside our heads." They'll find out that they've been behaving like little bullies that want the whole block, and that when they get it, there will be no one around to play with anymore. And no one to help them when they get in trouble. And lots of other big bullies to take them out.
And lots of technical experts that will do *anything* to *not* have to work in a Microsoft shop.
*That* is when their problems will *really* start.
One final point: The Roman Empire once viewed the Christians as a "cult." Where is the seat of Christianity these days?
Man--Music Industry executives and Microsoft in the same room! COOL!
Maybe they can all go to Hell together! They'll certainly be as far from Janice and the Jim's as they can...
You know when I'll realize all this is over? When I can turn on the radio and hear some real *art* for a change.
I especially like the part about buying the same music all over again--has a real ring to it, you know?
Oh--and they most *ceartainly* will be as far from W.A. Mozart as possible. Now *there's* an example of how pigs are so good at throwing flowers in the mud...
Right. It's always easier to pick the fruit than to plant and nurture the tree.
What really gets me is that the proliferation of these ideas (like Jesus's Mustart Seed parable) seems to have engendered so much distaste for their origins. I guess that if you run a business, and you can get an OS for $0, but sell your own "open source" output for $0+X, you suddenly get really interested in picking apart those origins.
Without purists like Stallman, we won't have free operating systems for long. Instead, we'll have *pieces* of *formerly* free operating systems that have *somehow* managed to wind up in Corporation X's copyright or patent portfolio.
Agreed. It's really hard to think of Stallman and the other FSF people without practically making a religious sign. I think what we're really taling about here is social graces. Richard must know in his heart of hearts that people aren't forgetting about GNU. How could we? Every time there's a new Slackware or Red Hat or SUSE or even Debein release, it's going to be backleveled on some GNU software or another. Those of us who want to be "cutting edge" will go to the GNU site or a mirror or a new (GNU?) CD and pull the latest grep or awk or GCC or libgr or Midnight Commander or Emacs or on and on and on.
To those in the "business world" who are looking for free software, I say that if Stallman feels forgotten, there's probably a good reason. You can't have free software without due respect."
To Richard Stallman, I say "You were doing a press release of GNOME. GNOME could get your FSF more in the public eye than any of your past great accomplishments. If you want that, and you don't want to be forgotten, remember that the people you are talking to have feelings just like you do, and that there's a time and place to fight over names. That wasn't it.
Again, who does the RIAA (or any number of other big business ventures) speak for? Ceartainly not the people who actually *make* the music, otherwise the *art* of music, especially in this country, wouldn't be the sleazebag joke it has been for Heaven knows how many years? How do people like the RIAA view musicians' unions, for instance?
I remember back in the early '70s, you could practically walk into a studio with an instrument and play, and you'd get recorded. Now, you're lucky if these jokers will even let you in the front door.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as many times as I have to to get my point across. They've made their own bed. Now, they are going to sleep in it.
I will know that the music "business" has reformed itself when I turn on my radio and want to leave it on because I'm not stone *bored* with the same *old music* over and over again, from such as Jim Morrison (oh yeah--he's dead) and John Lennon (oh--he's dead, probably killed by Nixon's friends--another big business...
I could go on for years. Basically, they *have* to change if they *ever* want my respect. If the "record industry" can't deal with declining sales because of their *arrogance* then tough crap for them. That's all I have to say. And I'm a musician most of my life. I just don't happen to be Jimi Hendrix (oh--he's dead) or Janice Joplin (oh--she's dead) or any of probably *thousands* of people they've *milked for everything they could f**king get.
Yeah---and I remember it was quite a cat-fight, too. Atari wanted Microsoft with them, Microsoft Windows wasn't ready, they went with DR, then Microsoft essentially said "OK screw you!" Then Apple threatened to sue DR, which put a real kink into the Atari marketing pipe...
1. It's only a rumor. 2. If they want on Linux, where's IE for Linux? 3. Why would they release a major cash cow on UNIX after all the anti-UNIX rhetoric they've engaged in? 4. What about all the other versions of UNIX? I'd think they'd all line up like a bunch of cats looking for milk.
To be honest, I'll believe this when I see the announcement from Microsoft.
'scuse me, but what about the point Bruce made regarding Apple's use of their "APSL" on code that was originally licensed under the Berkley license by other writers?
This whole license thing is turning into a maze, and I expected it to happen as soon as Raymond et. al. came up with the Netscape "public" license. Let's see how "public" *that* stays now that AOL has put all its money and clout behind Netscape.
Oh, and BTW, why are we ingrates? Which company was it that made things impossible for cloners of Apple products for so long. If I have anyone to thank for anything, it's Xerox. And God knows what Xerox would have done had they realized what their engineers were trying to show them...
No, the point is clear. These people are (just like several other "open source proponents," doing what every competitive (or sometimes greedy) living thing does when it comes time to compete--they're creating lots and lots of eye-catchers. These things are intended to look "just like" the GPL "except for..." and usually, the exeception has something to do with watering down the GPL's intent. Why not be straight with people? This is not copyleft. If you want to license your software with something other than the GPL, do so, but don't pretend you're using the GPL.
A good example is GhostScript. They license under a different license, then eventually re-license under the GPL. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't pretend to have a "public license" when they really don't have one.
No doubt about it, every author has the right to license her own work any way she sees fit, but this pretentiousness about "public licenses" has got to stop.
I'll never forget a certain (nameless) "open source" guru who once wrote me: "We can't let Richard Stallman hold us back any more." Well, nameless one, this crap is the result.
Want my advice? I believe the moral thing to do is license your software as you see fit, and it you want to then switch it to free software, use a free-software license later. Don't pretend.
I'm practically blind. I can't stand using a mouse for anything but what is absolutely required to get things done. Any release of any Linux distribution won't be on my systems if X is required for anything rudimentary. This includes package management.
Also, the only Linux distro that has ever been clear-cut with regard to PPP for me is Slackware. I have a dynamic-IP connection to Concentric.net, and several local machines on a "domainless" network that uses the 172.17.X.X range for local addresses only. When I try to configure Red Hat for this environment, I always seem to have problems.
When I find solutions for those two issues, I might switch from Slackware to something. At this point, it would probably be S.u.s.e because of YAST.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, never had a problem with people holding copyrights. The real problem here is that mass of "business men" who seem to somehow wind up with those rights themselves.
I wish I could remember the details, but there used to be a pop writer who did a song called "Sea Cruise." When his widow went to the record company to claim her royalties, they refused to give her any money. When she took them to court, they brought in THREE WOMEN to claim they were his widow.
I'm sorry, friend, but you have no idea what a *nightmare* the "corporate world" has made of the notion of "intellectual property" and "copyright."
I once worked for a company that wanted the right to own IP on any even slightly job-related project I did myself. The reasoning was that they were *so responsible* for my intellectual nurturing bla bla bla. The problem was that they had to have "a name" to apply to "a patent" or "a copyright" because that was what "the Government" wanted them to do. Seems to me that they should have only had the right to what I did on company property, on company time. That wasn't enough.
Oh yeah, and how about the way big companies like Microsoft hijack our free access rights to public domain works of art by claiming they're part of "packages" they own?
I'll say it again, like I've said it before: the way "intellectula property rights" have been abused by the rich, and *especially* the "music industry," those involved can all go to Hell for all the suffering and loss they have caused the actual producers of the works involved.
When they have atoned for their sins, and the real meaning of "intellectual property" is restored, then, and only then, will I change my view. When that happens, and only then, will I stop being concerned about this sort of thing. Since atonement is not likely to happen soon, I guess that means I'll continue to view the situation just as you have described it. Because "those others" probably don't really have any right to that "intellectual property" in the first place, most of the time.
Fine--that way, they can alienate their former friends even more. There's not just Linux. there's FreeBSD. If there are no free operating systems left because Microsoft killed them all, there's music, family, gardening, and lots of other things that Microsoft will *never* have anything to do with, and frankly, are far more interesting than computers.
If Microsoft takes away my access to free software to suit their arrogant nature, it won't do them any good because I just won't mess with computers anymore except at work. I don't plan on buying Windows 98, nor Windows 2K for hobbying at home. And if they continue to act like arrogant bastards the way they are now, it'll never happen later on, either. I have better things to do than consort with boors. My piano-playing has suffered a lot these past few years from neglect...
On the other hand, they might realize that there are lots and lots of people around who would view them with newfound respect, and support the use of their products, if they would start acting mature. I used to think they might learn to understand Linux, and write a few things for us. I can always hope.
This is what Microsoft will find out when they "get inside our heads." They'll find out that they've been behaving like little bullies that want the whole block, and that when they get it, there will be no one around to play with anymore. And no one to help them when they get in trouble. And lots of other big bullies to take them out.
And lots of technical experts that will do *anything* to *not* have to work in a Microsoft shop.
*That* is when their problems will *really* start.
One final point: The Roman Empire once viewed the Christians as a "cult." Where is the seat of Christianity these days?
Man--Music Industry executives and Microsoft in the same room! COOL!
Maybe they can all go to Hell together! They'll certainly be as far from Janice and the Jim's as they can...
You know when I'll realize all this is over? When I can turn on the radio and hear some real *art* for a change.
I especially like the part about buying the same music all over again--has a real ring to it, you know?
Oh--and they most *ceartainly* will be as far from W.A. Mozart as possible. Now *there's* an example of how pigs are so good at throwing flowers in the mud...
Right. It's always easier to pick the fruit than to plant and nurture the tree.
What really gets me is that the proliferation of these ideas (like Jesus's Mustart Seed parable) seems to have engendered so much distaste for their origins. I guess that if you run a business, and you can get an OS for $0, but sell your own "open source" output for $0+X, you suddenly get really interested in picking apart those origins.
Without purists like Stallman, we won't have free operating systems for long. Instead, we'll have *pieces* of *formerly* free operating systems that have *somehow* managed to wind up in Corporation X's copyright or patent portfolio.
Agreed. It's really hard to think of Stallman and the other FSF people without practically making a religious sign. I think what we're really taling about here is social graces. Richard must know in his heart of hearts that people aren't forgetting about GNU. How could we? Every time there's a new Slackware or Red Hat or SUSE or even Debein release, it's going to be backleveled on some GNU software or another. Those of us who want to be "cutting edge" will go to the GNU site or a mirror or a new (GNU?) CD and pull the latest grep or awk or GCC or libgr or Midnight Commander or Emacs or on and on and on.
To those in the "business world" who are looking for free software, I say that if Stallman feels forgotten, there's probably a good reason. You can't have free software without due respect."
To Richard Stallman, I say "You were doing a press release of GNOME. GNOME could get your FSF more in the public eye than any of your past great accomplishments. If you want that, and you don't want to be forgotten, remember that the people you are talking to have feelings just like you do, and that there's a time and place to fight over names. That wasn't it.
Again, who does the RIAA (or any number of other big business ventures) speak for? Ceartainly not the people who actually *make* the music, otherwise the *art* of music, especially in this country, wouldn't be the sleazebag joke it has been for Heaven knows how many years? How do people like the RIAA view musicians' unions, for instance?
I remember back in the early '70s, you could practically walk into a studio with an instrument and play, and you'd get recorded. Now, you're lucky if these jokers will even let you in the front door.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as many times as I have to to get my point across. They've made their own bed. Now, they are going to sleep in it.
I will know that the music "business" has reformed itself when I turn on my radio and want to leave it on because I'm not stone *bored* with the same *old music* over and over again, from such as Jim Morrison (oh yeah--he's dead) and John Lennon (oh--he's dead, probably killed by Nixon's friends--another big business...
I could go on for years. Basically, they *have* to change if they *ever* want my respect. If the "record industry" can't deal with declining sales because of their *arrogance* then tough crap for them. That's all I have to say. And I'm a musician most of my life. I just don't happen to be Jimi Hendrix (oh--he's dead) or Janice Joplin (oh--she's dead) or any of probably *thousands* of people they've *milked for everything they could f**king get.
Yeah---and I remember it was quite a cat-fight, too. Atari wanted Microsoft with them, Microsoft Windows wasn't ready, they went with DR, then Microsoft essentially said "OK screw you!" Then Apple threatened to sue DR, which put a real kink into the Atari marketing pipe...
Heh...
Hah....
Hmmmph...
1. It's only a rumor.
2. If they want on Linux, where's IE for Linux?
3. Why would they release a major cash cow on UNIX after all the anti-UNIX rhetoric they've engaged in?
4. What about all the other versions of UNIX? I'd think they'd all line up like a bunch of cats looking for milk.
To be honest, I'll believe this when I see the announcement from Microsoft.
'scuse me, but what about the point Bruce made regarding Apple's use of their "APSL" on code that was originally licensed under the Berkley license by other writers?
This whole license thing is turning into a maze, and I expected it to happen as soon as Raymond et. al. came up with the Netscape "public" license. Let's see how "public" *that* stays now that AOL has put all its money and clout behind Netscape.
Oh, and BTW, why are we ingrates? Which company was it that made things impossible for cloners of Apple products for so long. If I have anyone to thank for anything, it's Xerox. And God knows what Xerox would have done had they realized what their engineers were trying to show them...
No, the point is clear. These people are (just like several other "open source proponents," doing what every competitive (or sometimes greedy) living thing does when it comes time to compete--they're creating lots and lots of eye-catchers. These things are intended to look "just like" the GPL "except for..." and usually, the exeception has something to do with watering down the GPL's intent. Why not be straight with people? This is not copyleft. If you want to license your software with something other than the GPL, do so, but don't pretend you're using the GPL.
A good example is GhostScript. They license under a different license, then eventually re-license under the GPL. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't pretend to have a "public license" when they really don't have one.
No doubt about it, every author has the right to license her own work any way she sees fit, but this pretentiousness about "public licenses" has got to stop.
I'll never forget a certain (nameless) "open source" guru who once wrote me: "We can't let Richard Stallman hold us back any more." Well, nameless one, this crap is the result.
Want my advice? I believe the moral thing to do is license your software as you see fit, and it you want to then switch it to free software, use a free-software license later. Don't pretend.
I'm practically blind. I can't stand using a mouse for anything but what is absolutely required to get things done. Any release of any Linux distribution won't be on my systems if X is required for anything rudimentary. This includes package management.
Also, the only Linux distro that has ever been clear-cut with regard to PPP for me is Slackware. I have a dynamic-IP connection to Concentric.net, and several local machines on a "domainless" network that uses the 172.17.X.X range for local addresses only. When I try to configure Red Hat for this environment, I always seem to have problems.
When I find solutions for those two issues, I might switch from Slackware to something. At this point, it would probably be S.u.s.e because of YAST.