The problem is not the GPL. The problem is that your chosen operating system is so broken, so unfriendly to developers, so non-free, that it is fundamentally incompatible with any license that says "you need to give users the right to modify the code on their own device." The GPL is a developer-friendly license, in that it promotes maximum sharing of software. If you want to develop for iPhone, then you are in an environment specifically designed to prevent sharing, so of course the GPL will not be appropriate there.
What is the point of software being called open source when it is not usable by developers?
Firstly, it isn't called "open source", it's called "free software". If you read the writings of Richard Stallman, you will find he never uses the term "open source" to refer to GPL code. One of his big points is that that term is misleading, because it implies that the most important thing is the access to the source code. It isn't. When you use the GPL, what is important is that everyone share their code with one another, and nobody restricts access (access to the source code is a necessary precondition for this, but it isn't the point). Secondly, GPL code is perfectly usable by developers who are willing to share. If you aren't willing to share (or, again, you are on a platform that explicitly prevents you from sharing), then it isn't usable. That's the point -- if you are going to be selfish, then you can't use code designed for sharing.
It's hard to say whether it is a moral violation or not, but clearly, use of modified GPL software on the server is not a "loophole". If it were, they would have fixed it in GPLv3. It is a well-known and intended consequence of the GPL that it permits you to make local modifications and use them for any purpose. (The preamble of the AGPL, also by the FSF, states "The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public.") If you don't like this, release your code under the AGPL, which is designed to close this supposed "loophole". The GPL does not have anything to say about use -- only distribution. Google is not distributing their modifications, ergo, they are acting exactly as the software creators intended.
even though the results of the GPL software is what brings in the dough
Are you saying that it is morally wrong to use "the results of GPL software" to make money? So if I use GIMP to draw artwork and then sell that artwork, is it morally wrong? What if I modified the source code to the GIMP and then made artwork based on that? Am I morally obliged to release my modification to the community? Isn't it the whole point of free software that I be allowed to change it to suit my purposes? Wouldn't it be infringing upon my rights to do so if every time I made a private modification, I was required to release that modification? What Google is doing (running privately modified GPL software to produce server responses) is no different from what I described (running privately modified GPL software to produce artworks) -- the AGPL makes a special case for network servers but other than that, the two cases are the same.
The important point is that there is a big difference between private use of modifications, and distribution of modified versions without source, and that is the distinction made by the GPL. Let's compare Google's use of Linux in a) Android and b) their server farm. In Android, they are selling me a copy of Linux, and because that was licensed to them under the GPL, it would be morally wrong (and against the license) if they didn't let me modify it in turn. In their servers, I am not actually using Linux. It isn't running on my machine (I'm running a web browser), I couldn't run a modified version even if I had the source, and it is a private detail of how they do their business. So they shouldn't be required to disclose the source.
Lastly, you could argue that Google uses it for Evil by locking you in to their web software, but the GPL doesn't say it can't be used for evil. They could also be running Linux in a giant robot sent to destroy humanity, and that wouldn't be a violation of the GPL either.
I realise that Slashdotters love car analogies, but really, is there any point to having a car analogy that involves infinitely copyable cars? It seems more appropriate to use a software analogy.
Because if you truly want to promote freedom and free code, you also have to let people to profit from it.
Hang on, nobody said (under the GPL) you can't profit from it. It is explicit in the text of the GPL that people are allowed to profit from the work or use it commercially (to say otherwise would be restricting your freedoms). The GP said "profit from it, and give nothing back". The point of the GPL is the "give back" part.
The key is "you are free to do whatever you want, but you must grant others the same freedom." The GPL doesn't pick who does and who doesn't enjoy that freedom -- everybody is granted the same freedoms (another explicit clause in the GPL -- you may not discriminate). The rules are, grant your users the same freedom we granted you. What is unfair about that?
The easiest way to get people to accept a negative change to their standard of living is to compare it to somewhere that's worse off. There's always somewhere worse off than you, but that doesn't mean you can't be outraged when your rights are slowly degraded away.
If we use your logic, ("at least the U.S. is better than <insert dictatorship>") then the U.S. can easily slide down until it is just slightly better than the worst dictatorship on the planet, and people like you will go willingly.
Just like how there's no guarantee that they won't at some future time take everybody's games away or require a subscription to access them.
That is probably not an issue, as people have suggested. What is more worrying is that there's no guarentee that they won't at some future time take my games away for any reason whatsoever (didn't read the EULA? Sorry -- you agreed we are allowed to do that).
I try to avoid buying games on Steam if I can help it.
I specifically hate it when I make a trip all the way to the store to buy a game just so I can avoid having it on Steam, and then when I load it up the first thing it asks me to do is sign into Steam...
And what in the world is wrong with self-censorship?
If you tell me that I cannot say a particular thing, then I despise you, for you are limiting my basic human right to freedom of speech -- that is censorship. If I decide that it would be inappropriate for me to say a particular thing, then I am exercising my right to freedom of speech (which includes freedom to not say something) -- that is self-censorship.
There is nothing wrong with self-censorship. If I think that I can make more money by not saying a particular thing, then I am absolutely within my rights to not say it. Censorship is only bad when someone else is forcing it upon you. Who are you to tell Smith what he should and should not have included in his own book?
Re:Has anyone actually made any worthwhile with th
on
Doom 3 Source Released
·
· Score: 1
Well said. I am extremely wary of the "game mortality" that you speak about -- especially now with DRM systems requiring always-on internet, games will probably last even less time than they used to.
This is why I am such a huge fan of DOSBox which seems to have effectively preserved all games from ~1980 to ~1995 in perpetuity (and GOG.com, which is selling a lot of them to those of us who missed them the first time, or just lost access to a floppy drive). DOSBox is like your "embalmed beige corpse" except it is always able to run perfectly on modern hardware and operating systems.
a) What do you mean by "a limit to the number of fee-free transactions in a block"? I am aware that there is a limit on the number of blocks that will generate a minted coin (after which miners will have to rely on transaction fees). I am aware that there is a socially-imposed limit on the size of a transaction (in kb) before a transaction fee needs to be paid. I don't know what you mean by "number of fee-free transactions in a block". It's much simpler: once we start hitting a situation where miners make more from transaction fees than the mining bonus, it will make sense for miners to delay other people's transactions. But miners are a small percentage of the nodes on the network.
b) How would miners incentivise the majority of other nodes not to forward? I see someone mentioned a scenario in which a miner controls multiple nodes, and if any of their "selfish" nodes get a transaction they forward it only to the miner and nobody else. But still, this only creates a problem if someone sending a transaction happens to be connected only to nodes controlled by that miner, and nobody else. Unless one individual or cooperating cartel can control the overwhelming majority of the nodes on the network, this isn't a problem. And again: if one individual or cooperating cartel can control the majorty of nodes on the network, it's fucked anyway because they can rewrite the rules at that point.
I still don't see this being any more than an interesting theoretical (economic) argument which is difficult to see happening in practice.
"I suppose this argument would be equivalent to saying in BitTorrent, that there is "no incentive" for people to seed files, therefore, eventually nobody will seed files and that BitTorrent will soon fail."
As far as I can tell, the argument is this: 1. Miners win transaction fees when they a) receive a transaction, and b) solve a block with that transaction in it. 2. If other miners don't know about a transaction, they cannot win the transaction fee. 3. Miners are therefore incentivised to not tell other people about the transactions they hear about. 4. Therefore, the network will break as miners stop forwarding transactions.
This argument has some significant flaws: 1. It isn't just miners who forward transactions -- it's all nodes. As the quote above suggests, there is no incentive for non-miner nodes (which massively outnumber the miner nodes) to not forward a transaction, except bandwidth costs. And that doesn't seem to have stopped BitTorrent users. 2. For this scheme (not forwarding) to pay off, miners would have to somehow prevent all other nodes from receiving the transactions. Transactions are propagating around the network via all the nodes, so each transaction could find hundreds of paths to each node. A miner would have to block of all paths to all of the competing miners for this attack to be effective.
For this to be effective, it would need the majority of nodes on the network to be "selfish" (including non-miner nodes). Remember, the whole Bitcoin network already relies on the fact that the majority of nodes are "good" nodes (for verification purposes). So there is no point speculating about a possible future Bitcoin network in which an overwhelming majority of nodes collude together to prevent other nodes receiving transactions.
Not saying the other DRM services are right either... And yes, lots of other websites have your personal info, but they all need it. Clearly, if I buy a game in a box and I am forced to give my personal details out over the Internet just to play it, that is an unnecessary storage of my personal info. Ideally, you want to tell things like credit card numbers to as few people as possible.
They didn't support Paypal when I first started using Steam in 2004, so any sufficiently old user did have to store credit card details AFAIK. (I certainly have, and I don't think I would have if there was another alternative.)
IIRC copyright in Linux vests with the original author of any patch, so you'd have standing if any of your files were really involved.
So if we believe that the GP contributed a patch, then he does have standing. If we don't believe him, I'm sure we can find at least a handful of the many thousands of copyright holders who might have an interest in this.
My point isn't "Google violated copyrights" and I think this issue will be sorted out (with code) before the lawyers get involved. My point is that the whole point of the GPL is that everybody who contributes does so with the understanding that his or her code will not be combined with proprietary code. It isn't sufficient for the project leader to say "nah, it's okay, go ahead and do that." Once you have accepted third-party contributions under the GPL, you give up your ability to make licensing decisions about your project -- the text of the GPL decides what is acceptable, not the project leader. And the Kernel is most certainly in this boat -- so much so that Linus has stated that even if they wanted to, it would be impossible to switch to the GPLv3 because they couldn't get permission from all the copyright holders. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that they have permission from all the copyright holders to say "it's okay to combine proprietary code with the Kernel."
if you really had contributed significant patches to Linux, instead of trolling, you'd have a lower Slashdot ID.
OH BURN, dude with 5-digit Slashdot ID shows everybody else just how awesome he is. You truly deserve the utmost respect for signing up for a service long before others did, and clearly it's the only way to find good developers these days.
So what you're saying is, "if Google had put themselves in a position to be evil, they might be evil. But they haven't put themselves in that position, and therefore, they're being good."
I see it as a virtue that they didn't put themselves into that position in the first place -- this is a point of differentiation between Google and, say, Apple. You seem to be suggesting that Google is fundamentally no different to everybody else, because if they had put themselves in that position, they might abuse it. I think that the fact that they did not put themselves into that position is what makes them fundamentally different from the others.
I'm pretty sure -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you need to ask Apple for permission to run your app at all, right? Therefore, if your app declares that it needs a permission that Apple deems it doesn't need to have, they might reject your request, where they would otherwise have accepted it. Hence, you do need to get permission from Apple to ask permission from your users to use a particular feature.
In other words, the entire Apple model means you effectively need to ask Apple for everything, since they can reject your app for any reason.
Great! Got my Nike auto-lace-up shoes (that don't actually auto lace up) and my electric De Lorean car (that doesn't actually run on fusion from ordinary garbage). Now all I need is a Mattel hoverboard (that doesn't actually hover) and Pizza Hut expanding pizza (that doesn't actually expand when cooked).
In 1995, Texas entrepreneur Stephen Wynne started a separate company using the "DeLorean Motor Company" name and shortly thereafter acquired the remaining parts inventory and the stylized "DMC" logo trademark of DeLorean Motor Company. The current DeLorean Motor Company located near Houston is not, and has never been, associated with the original company but supports owners of DeLorean cars. DMC (Texas), as they are known, has an additional five authorized, franchised dealers in Bonita Springs, Florida; Crystal Lake, Illinois; Garden Grove, California; Bellevue, Washington and Hem, The Netherlands.
And where did Apple claim that in relief? This is what Apple wanted: Samsung to stop selling certain models namely the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Tab. They didn't want in relief for Samsung to stop selling all models. Or other manufacturers to stop selling any other models. Just particular models they felt copied them.
I'll quote Apple in court yesterday (this was a different case, in Australia, but it's still Apple v Samsung): "Samsung says Galaxy Tab 10.1, we say any tablet device... We know what may well come is another version of the tablet. It's up to our friends as to how they name it, whether they call it the Galaxy Tab 10.1 or 10.2 or 10.1s or whatever it happens to be." Apple doesn't want an injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They want an injunction against all Samsung Tablets. Sure, they haven't gone and gotten a court order against all competing tablet devices, they've just gone after the main competitor. But in principle, they are exercising their patents to prevent any competition in the tablet space.
Samsung, by my count, sells 127 different models of phones. Apple is complaining about 2 models.
I'm not talking about phones. I'm talking about tablets. Apple is complaining about Samsung's tablets. They are effectively claiming a patent monopoly on all tablet devices.
Apple selected a simple rectangular shape with curved corners; Apple could have chosen a much more complex shape. Apple is not claiming they came up with the idea of rectangular with curved corners alone but that it is a part of their design.
It makes no difference whether Apple were being original in selecting a basic 2D shape for their design. The idea is still an obvious one, and the patent system is supposed to prevent "obvious" inventions. The fact that the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey featured a very similar device (one which you also couldn't tell the difference between an iPad at a distance) is telling that this really is an obvious idea (or at the very least, the design has prior art). It is one thing to say "a curvy, bubbly 4 door sedan that... looked too much like a VW Beetle." It is completely different to say "a black rectangular screen with a computer inside." The former is an original design, and more importantly, it is not the only way to make a car. The latter is an obvious design for a hand-held computing device, and it is not clear what a non-rectangular hand-held computing device would look like. I suppose it didn't have to be black, but then Apple hardly has a design monopoly on the colour black.
Your comparison to Gucci / Rucci is fallacious: If I made a purse called "Rucci" then there would be a legitimate complaint: a trademark one. Trademark law protects against people trying to pass off their products as Gucci-branded ones. This is completely unrelated to the patent case, which is supposed to protect against people copying other peoples' inventions. Apple did not invent the hand-held computing device, they merely popularised the design. They were rewarded with a huge chunk of market share and millions upon millions of sales in the first year. They should not also be rewarded with a legal monopoly on the entire product category.
Hi, I don't have time to reply to all those points, but I read them all, and you're sounding much more reasonable now:)
The issue of Android is not about a "risk" as in a patent risk that should scare off hardware manufacturers. It is a warning to users: if you care about being able to run arbitrary code on your own device, this doesn't let you do that. Again, it is a fair and valid warning (for some Android devices, not others). Of course, Android is a lot better than iOS (and Stallman does acknowledge this). iOS doesn't let you run any unsigned code on your device. The basic Android is completely open; many Android devices restrict your ability to modify the firmware but it still lets you install your own apps on the base operating system.
As for toasters and cars, you receive an additional set of statutory use rights by consumer legislation. Otherwise, they would indeed be able to tell you what bread you're allowed to put in, what replacement parts you're allowed to use, and what roads you can drive on.
I think there should be statutory rights for software and hardware just as there is for toasters and cars. Why should Ford tell me where I can and can't drive? Well they can't because of these statutory rights you're telling me about. Why is there no statutory right that says "if you buy an operating system, the seller cannot restrict what software you are allowed to run on it," or "if you buy a computer, the seller cannot restrict what operating system you are allowed to run on it," or "if you buy a game, the seller cannot render your copy of the game unplayable at their discretion." Obviously it would have to tease out details like if the code is wired in hardware then it is unreasonable to make it user-modifiable, but the GPLv3 makes that distinction so I see no reason why the law couldn't.
In the case of the Apple App Store, they are exerting far fewer controls than brick-and-mortars do. Retail is vicious.
Oh absolutely. As a store, the App Store is great for developers, great for consumers. But it isn't just a store. It is a distribution platform and the only distribution platform for iOS. If I write software for, say, Windows, I have a couple of choices. I can try to sell it in a brick and mortar store, but as you say, that might have insane markups. But that's okay, because I have many other options. I can sell it on my website -- that requires me to set up e-commerce and market it myself, but if I want to, I can. Or I could go with a third party distributor like Steam (for games), and they'll market it for me, and take a cut. Or I could just release the damn thing for free on my website. The choices are limitless. There's perhaps nothing as powerful or with such generous conditions as the Apple App Store, but at least the choices are open.
On iOS, yes the App Store terms may be "more reasonable" for developers, but it is literally the only way to distribute software. I cannot sell it in a brick and mortar store. I cannot set up my own e-commerce site. I cannot use a third party to sell the software for me. And I cannot release it for free on my own website. In fact, I cannot release it at all without Apple's permission, and then I need to get their permission each time I want to release an update. This may seem good for developers, but it is a huge trap. Apple is in total control of the entire platform. So yes, I complain about Apple's terms -- not its store per se, but the fact that the iOS operating system doesn't allow any other form of distribution.
PS. G++ is a compiler. G+ is a social networking service.
First, it does not "happen all the time". And if it did, really, who cares.
I'm sorry? What I was referring to was people taking free software and wrapping it up with signed DRM to prevent the end user from modifying it. This happens all the time: TIVO was a very early example. Android phones that don't let you modify the firmware and install your own operating system. iOS apps build from GPL sources (VLC, Wesnoth, etc). It happens all the time. "Who cares?" Clearly not you. But you seem to have a very strange style of arguing which consists of "I don't care, therefore I expect nobody else does." Throughout this entire exchange, I have been quite reasonable I think, in saying "I understand that you don't agree with Stallman's position, and that is fine, but he is still entitled to have his position." I understand that you don't care. I am not trying to convince you to care. If you are happy with DRM, then I am happy for you to use DRM products. But you must understand that not everybody is happy with DRM as you are. If you don't understand that other people may have different opinions to you, then there is no point in you having any argument about anything. The statement "who cares" is a very stupid thing to say in any argument, because it shows a complete lack of respect for anyone else's point of view.
Stallman has already gone on record [fsfe.org] that it's okay to steal software and violate licenses because those developers are doing evil and deserve it.
Ok, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, I agree. (When you cite someone going on record, and give a link to an 11,000 word transcript, it doesn't hurt to include a quote, but I found it: "Once you are in that situation, you should choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program.") I agree -- this is going way too far. I don't agree with everything Stallman says. But then I don't agree with everything anyone says. This does not change the fact that I agree with his main message.
Second, let's take a little test.
Okay.
Do you believe that you should control your own data? Yes or no?
Absolutely. Control of one's data comes to two forms: a) do I have control of my own data as it is stored on my own private computing devices? and b) do I have control of my own data as it is stored on remote servers (e.g., Gmail, Facebook).
For (a), the answer is an absolute resounding "yes". What I do on my own computer is my own business and nobody should be spying on me or telling me what I can and cannot do with my own data. That is why Steve Jobs' iPhone is totally unacceptable to me, because he is telling me what I can do with my own data. For (b), it is a much trickier area. Does Google have a right to do anything with my data because I uploaded it to Gmail? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think I have some control over my own data even when it's stored remotely. But I think it is more a matter of market forces (if Google leaked my Gmail data, they would become unpopular) than DRM (I physically prevent Google from giving away my data).
However, I know where you're going with this, and let me just say that I am talking about my data in a private sense. My documents on my computer. My emails. My medical records, etc. Once I share data publicly, then it is no longer mine to control. Once I post a photo to Facebook, I understand that it can be shared, and it would be wrong for me to say to my friends "you can see this photo but you can't share it." (I could ask them not to share it, and trust them as friends, but I can't control their actions, nor would it be acceptable for me to do so, as that would imply installing severe locks into their operating systems to prevent them from screen capturing, etc.) Once I post this to Slashdot, it will be public forever, and I won't have the right to ask Slashdot to dele
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not the GPL. The problem is that your chosen operating system is so broken, so unfriendly to developers, so non-free, that it is fundamentally incompatible with any license that says "you need to give users the right to modify the code on their own device." The GPL is a developer-friendly license, in that it promotes maximum sharing of software. If you want to develop for iPhone, then you are in an environment specifically designed to prevent sharing, so of course the GPL will not be appropriate there.
Firstly, it isn't called "open source", it's called "free software". If you read the writings of Richard Stallman, you will find he never uses the term "open source" to refer to GPL code. One of his big points is that that term is misleading, because it implies that the most important thing is the access to the source code. It isn't. When you use the GPL, what is important is that everyone share their code with one another, and nobody restricts access (access to the source code is a necessary precondition for this, but it isn't the point). Secondly, GPL code is perfectly usable by developers who are willing to share. If you aren't willing to share (or, again, you are on a platform that explicitly prevents you from sharing), then it isn't usable. That's the point -- if you are going to be selfish, then you can't use code designed for sharing.
It's hard to say whether it is a moral violation or not, but clearly, use of modified GPL software on the server is not a "loophole". If it were, they would have fixed it in GPLv3. It is a well-known and intended consequence of the GPL that it permits you to make local modifications and use them for any purpose. (The preamble of the AGPL, also by the FSF, states "The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public.") If you don't like this, release your code under the AGPL, which is designed to close this supposed "loophole". The GPL does not have anything to say about use -- only distribution. Google is not distributing their modifications, ergo, they are acting exactly as the software creators intended.
Are you saying that it is morally wrong to use "the results of GPL software" to make money? So if I use GIMP to draw artwork and then sell that artwork, is it morally wrong? What if I modified the source code to the GIMP and then made artwork based on that? Am I morally obliged to release my modification to the community? Isn't it the whole point of free software that I be allowed to change it to suit my purposes? Wouldn't it be infringing upon my rights to do so if every time I made a private modification, I was required to release that modification? What Google is doing (running privately modified GPL software to produce server responses) is no different from what I described (running privately modified GPL software to produce artworks) -- the AGPL makes a special case for network servers but other than that, the two cases are the same.
The important point is that there is a big difference between private use of modifications, and distribution of modified versions without source, and that is the distinction made by the GPL. Let's compare Google's use of Linux in a) Android and b) their server farm. In Android, they are selling me a copy of Linux, and because that was licensed to them under the GPL, it would be morally wrong (and against the license) if they didn't let me modify it in turn. In their servers, I am not actually using Linux. It isn't running on my machine (I'm running a web browser), I couldn't run a modified version even if I had the source, and it is a private detail of how they do their business. So they shouldn't be required to disclose the source.
Lastly, you could argue that Google uses it for Evil by locking you in to their web software, but the GPL doesn't say it can't be used for evil. They could also be running Linux in a giant robot sent to destroy humanity, and that wouldn't be a violation of the GPL either.
I realise that Slashdotters love car analogies, but really, is there any point to having a car analogy that involves infinitely copyable cars? It seems more appropriate to use a software analogy.
Hang on, nobody said (under the GPL) you can't profit from it. It is explicit in the text of the GPL that people are allowed to profit from the work or use it commercially (to say otherwise would be restricting your freedoms). The GP said "profit from it, and give nothing back". The point of the GPL is the "give back" part.
The key is "you are free to do whatever you want, but you must grant others the same freedom." The GPL doesn't pick who does and who doesn't enjoy that freedom -- everybody is granted the same freedoms (another explicit clause in the GPL -- you may not discriminate). The rules are, grant your users the same freedom we granted you. What is unfair about that?
The easiest way to get people to accept a negative change to their standard of living is to compare it to somewhere that's worse off. There's always somewhere worse off than you, but that doesn't mean you can't be outraged when your rights are slowly degraded away.
If we use your logic, ("at least the U.S. is better than <insert dictatorship>") then the U.S. can easily slide down until it is just slightly better than the worst dictatorship on the planet, and people like you will go willingly.
Arj Barker: "If I'm more than three meters below the surface of the water, guess what I'm doing. I'm drowning to death!"
That is probably not an issue, as people have suggested. What is more worrying is that there's no guarentee that they won't at some future time take my games away for any reason whatsoever (didn't read the EULA? Sorry -- you agreed we are allowed to do that).
I try to avoid buying games on Steam if I can help it.
I specifically hate it when I make a trip all the way to the store to buy a game just so I can avoid having it on Steam, and then when I load it up the first thing it asks me to do is sign into Steam...
And what in the world is wrong with self-censorship?
If you tell me that I cannot say a particular thing, then I despise you, for you are limiting my basic human right to freedom of speech -- that is censorship.
If I decide that it would be inappropriate for me to say a particular thing, then I am exercising my right to freedom of speech (which includes freedom to not say something) -- that is self-censorship.
There is nothing wrong with self-censorship. If I think that I can make more money by not saying a particular thing, then I am absolutely within my rights to not say it. Censorship is only bad when someone else is forcing it upon you. Who are you to tell Smith what he should and should not have included in his own book?
Well said. I am extremely wary of the "game mortality" that you speak about -- especially now with DRM systems requiring always-on internet, games will probably last even less time than they used to.
This is why I am such a huge fan of DOSBox which seems to have effectively preserved all games from ~1980 to ~1995 in perpetuity (and GOG.com, which is selling a lot of them to those of us who missed them the first time, or just lost access to a floppy drive). DOSBox is like your "embalmed beige corpse" except it is always able to run perfectly on modern hardware and operating systems.
a) What do you mean by "a limit to the number of fee-free transactions in a block"? I am aware that there is a limit on the number of blocks that will generate a minted coin (after which miners will have to rely on transaction fees). I am aware that there is a socially-imposed limit on the size of a transaction (in kb) before a transaction fee needs to be paid. I don't know what you mean by "number of fee-free transactions in a block". It's much simpler: once we start hitting a situation where miners make more from transaction fees than the mining bonus, it will make sense for miners to delay other people's transactions. But miners are a small percentage of the nodes on the network.
b) How would miners incentivise the majority of other nodes not to forward? I see someone mentioned a scenario in which a miner controls multiple nodes, and if any of their "selfish" nodes get a transaction they forward it only to the miner and nobody else. But still, this only creates a problem if someone sending a transaction happens to be connected only to nodes controlled by that miner, and nobody else. Unless one individual or cooperating cartel can control the overwhelming majority of the nodes on the network, this isn't a problem. And again: if one individual or cooperating cartel can control the majorty of nodes on the network, it's fucked anyway because they can rewrite the rules at that point.
I still don't see this being any more than an interesting theoretical (economic) argument which is difficult to see happening in practice.
I think the best response on there is this:
"I suppose this argument would be equivalent to saying in BitTorrent, that there is "no incentive" for people to seed files, therefore, eventually nobody will seed files and that BitTorrent will soon fail."
As far as I can tell, the argument is this:
1. Miners win transaction fees when they a) receive a transaction, and b) solve a block with that transaction in it.
2. If other miners don't know about a transaction, they cannot win the transaction fee.
3. Miners are therefore incentivised to not tell other people about the transactions they hear about.
4. Therefore, the network will break as miners stop forwarding transactions.
This argument has some significant flaws:
1. It isn't just miners who forward transactions -- it's all nodes. As the quote above suggests, there is no incentive for non-miner nodes (which massively outnumber the miner nodes) to not forward a transaction, except bandwidth costs. And that doesn't seem to have stopped BitTorrent users.
2. For this scheme (not forwarding) to pay off, miners would have to somehow prevent all other nodes from receiving the transactions. Transactions are propagating around the network via all the nodes, so each transaction could find hundreds of paths to each node. A miner would have to block of all paths to all of the competing miners for this attack to be effective.
For this to be effective, it would need the majority of nodes on the network to be "selfish" (including non-miner nodes). Remember, the whole Bitcoin network already relies on the fact that the majority of nodes are "good" nodes (for verification purposes). So there is no point speculating about a possible future Bitcoin network in which an overwhelming majority of nodes collude together to prevent other nodes receiving transactions.
Ah OK, I didn't realise that. This makes sense then.
So how would things be different to what they are now?
Not saying the other DRM services are right either... And yes, lots of other websites have your personal info, but they all need it. Clearly, if I buy a game in a box and I am forced to give my personal details out over the Internet just to play it, that is an unnecessary storage of my personal info. Ideally, you want to tell things like credit card numbers to as few people as possible.
They didn't support Paypal when I first started using Steam in 2004, so any sufficiently old user did have to store credit card details AFAIK. (I certainly have, and I don't think I would have if there was another alternative.)
So if we believe that the GP contributed a patch, then he does have standing. If we don't believe him, I'm sure we can find at least a handful of the many thousands of copyright holders who might have an interest in this.
My point isn't "Google violated copyrights" and I think this issue will be sorted out (with code) before the lawyers get involved. My point is that the whole point of the GPL is that everybody who contributes does so with the understanding that his or her code will not be combined with proprietary code. It isn't sufficient for the project leader to say "nah, it's okay, go ahead and do that." Once you have accepted third-party contributions under the GPL, you give up your ability to make licensing decisions about your project -- the text of the GPL decides what is acceptable, not the project leader. And the Kernel is most certainly in this boat -- so much so that Linus has stated that even if they wanted to, it would be impossible to switch to the GPLv3 because they couldn't get permission from all the copyright holders. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that they have permission from all the copyright holders to say "it's okay to combine proprietary code with the Kernel."
OH BURN, dude with 5-digit Slashdot ID shows everybody else just how awesome he is. You truly deserve the utmost respect for signing up for a service long before others did, and clearly it's the only way to find good developers these days.
So what you're saying is, "if Google had put themselves in a position to be evil, they might be evil. But they haven't put themselves in that position, and therefore, they're being good."
I see it as a virtue that they didn't put themselves into that position in the first place -- this is a point of differentiation between Google and, say, Apple. You seem to be suggesting that Google is fundamentally no different to everybody else, because if they had put themselves in that position, they might abuse it. I think that the fact that they did not put themselves into that position is what makes them fundamentally different from the others.
I'm pretty sure -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you need to ask Apple for permission to run your app at all, right? Therefore, if your app declares that it needs a permission that Apple deems it doesn't need to have, they might reject your request, where they would otherwise have accepted it. Hence, you do need to get permission from Apple to ask permission from your users to use a particular feature.
In other words, the entire Apple model means you effectively need to ask Apple for everything, since they can reject your app for any reason.
Great! Got my Nike auto-lace-up shoes (that don't actually auto lace up) and my electric De Lorean car (that doesn't actually run on fusion from ordinary garbage). Now all I need is a Mattel hoverboard (that doesn't actually hover) and Pizza Hut expanding pizza (that doesn't actually expand when cooked).
From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
They are the only ones not getting screwed by their government (the emperor penguins, I suppose).
I'll quote Apple in court yesterday (this was a different case, in Australia, but it's still Apple v Samsung): "Samsung says Galaxy Tab 10.1, we say any tablet device ... We know what may well come is another version of the tablet. It's up to our friends as to how they name it, whether they call it the Galaxy Tab 10.1 or 10.2 or 10.1s or whatever it happens to be."
Apple doesn't want an injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They want an injunction against all Samsung Tablets. Sure, they haven't gone and gotten a court order against all competing tablet devices, they've just gone after the main competitor. But in principle, they are exercising their patents to prevent any competition in the tablet space.
I'm not talking about phones. I'm talking about tablets. Apple is complaining about Samsung's tablets. They are effectively claiming a patent monopoly on all tablet devices.
It makes no difference whether Apple were being original in selecting a basic 2D shape for their design. The idea is still an obvious one, and the patent system is supposed to prevent "obvious" inventions. The fact that the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey featured a very similar device (one which you also couldn't tell the difference between an iPad at a distance) is telling that this really is an obvious idea (or at the very least, the design has prior art). It is one thing to say "a curvy, bubbly 4 door sedan that ... looked too much like a VW Beetle." It is completely different to say "a black rectangular screen with a computer inside." The former is an original design, and more importantly, it is not the only way to make a car. The latter is an obvious design for a hand-held computing device, and it is not clear what a non-rectangular hand-held computing device would look like. I suppose it didn't have to be black, but then Apple hardly has a design monopoly on the colour black.
Your comparison to Gucci / Rucci is fallacious: If I made a purse called "Rucci" then there would be a legitimate complaint: a trademark one. Trademark law protects against people trying to pass off their products as Gucci-branded ones. This is completely unrelated to the patent case, which is supposed to protect against people copying other peoples' inventions. Apple did not invent the hand-held computing device, they merely popularised the design. They were rewarded with a huge chunk of market share and millions upon millions of sales in the first year. They should not also be rewarded with a legal monopoly on the entire product category.
Hi, I don't have time to reply to all those points, but I read them all, and you're sounding much more reasonable now :)
The issue of Android is not about a "risk" as in a patent risk that should scare off hardware manufacturers. It is a warning to users: if you care about being able to run arbitrary code on your own device, this doesn't let you do that. Again, it is a fair and valid warning (for some Android devices, not others). Of course, Android is a lot better than iOS (and Stallman does acknowledge this). iOS doesn't let you run any unsigned code on your device. The basic Android is completely open; many Android devices restrict your ability to modify the firmware but it still lets you install your own apps on the base operating system.
I think there should be statutory rights for software and hardware just as there is for toasters and cars. Why should Ford tell me where I can and can't drive? Well they can't because of these statutory rights you're telling me about. Why is there no statutory right that says "if you buy an operating system, the seller cannot restrict what software you are allowed to run on it," or "if you buy a computer, the seller cannot restrict what operating system you are allowed to run on it," or "if you buy a game, the seller cannot render your copy of the game unplayable at their discretion." Obviously it would have to tease out details like if the code is wired in hardware then it is unreasonable to make it user-modifiable, but
the GPLv3 makes that distinction so I see no reason why the law couldn't.
Oh absolutely. As a store, the App Store is great for developers, great for consumers. But it isn't just a store. It is a distribution platform and the only distribution platform for iOS. If I write software for, say, Windows, I have a couple of choices. I can try to sell it in a brick and mortar store, but as you say, that might have insane markups. But that's okay, because I have many other options. I can sell it on my website -- that requires me to set up e-commerce and market it myself, but if I want to, I can. Or I could go with a third party distributor like Steam (for games), and they'll market it for me, and take a cut. Or I could just release the damn thing for free on my website. The choices are limitless. There's perhaps nothing as powerful or with such generous conditions as the Apple App Store, but at least the choices are open.
On iOS, yes the App Store terms may be "more reasonable" for developers, but it is literally the only way to distribute software. I cannot sell it in a brick and mortar store. I cannot set up my own e-commerce site. I cannot use a third party to sell the software for me. And I cannot release it for free on my own website. In fact, I cannot release it at all without Apple's permission, and then I need to get their permission each time I want to release an update. This may seem good for developers, but it is a huge trap. Apple is in total control of the entire platform. So yes, I complain about Apple's terms -- not its store per se, but the fact that the iOS operating system doesn't allow any other form of distribution.
PS. G++ is a compiler. G+ is a social networking service.
I'm sorry? What I was referring to was people taking free software and wrapping it up with signed DRM to prevent the end user from modifying it. This happens all the time: TIVO was a very early example. Android phones that don't let you modify the firmware and install your own operating system. iOS apps build from GPL sources (VLC, Wesnoth, etc). It happens all the time. "Who cares?" Clearly not you. But you seem to have a very strange style of arguing which consists of "I don't care, therefore I expect nobody else does." Throughout this entire exchange, I have been quite reasonable I think, in saying "I understand that you don't agree with Stallman's position, and that is fine, but he is still entitled to have his position." I understand that you don't care. I am not trying to convince you to care. If you are happy with DRM, then I am happy for you to use DRM products. But you must understand that not everybody is happy with DRM as you are. If you don't understand that other people may have different opinions to you, then there is no point in you having any argument about anything. The statement "who cares" is a very stupid thing to say in any argument, because it shows a complete lack of respect for anyone else's point of view.
Ok, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, I agree. (When you cite someone going on record, and give a link to an 11,000 word transcript, it doesn't hurt to include a quote, but I found it: "Once you are in that situation, you should choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program.") I agree -- this is going way too far. I don't agree with everything Stallman says. But then I don't agree with everything anyone says. This does not change the fact that I agree with his main message.
Okay.
Absolutely. Control of one's data comes to two forms: a) do I have control of my own data as it is stored on my own private computing devices? and b) do I have control of my own data as it is stored on remote servers (e.g., Gmail, Facebook).
For (a), the answer is an absolute resounding "yes". What I do on my own computer is my own business and nobody should be spying on me or telling me what I can and cannot do with my own data. That is why Steve Jobs' iPhone is totally unacceptable to me, because he is telling me what I can do with my own data. For (b), it is a much trickier area. Does Google have a right to do anything with my data because I uploaded it to Gmail? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think I have some control over my own data even when it's stored remotely. But I think it is more a matter of market forces (if Google leaked my Gmail data, they would become unpopular) than DRM (I physically prevent Google from giving away my data).
However, I know where you're going with this, and let me just say that I am talking about my data in a private sense. My documents on my computer. My emails. My medical records, etc. Once I share data publicly, then it is no longer mine to control. Once I post a photo to Facebook, I understand that it can be shared, and it would be wrong for me to say to my friends "you can see this photo but you can't share it." (I could ask them not to share it, and trust them as friends, but I can't control their actions, nor would it be acceptable for me to do so, as that would imply installing severe locks into their operating systems to prevent them from screen capturing, etc.) Once I post this to Slashdot, it will be public forever, and I won't have the right to ask Slashdot to dele