wow, seem to paraphrase my argument while substantially changing it. By any chance are you a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
My argument was that he doesn't respect the right of others to do what they will with what he has supposedly freely given them. And that more then an expressed opinion he uses the power of his influence and his freedom of association to try to force others to act in accordance with that opinion.
So the not dealing with people who disagree with an opinion was not part of why I thought that freedom didn't matter. The opinon in question is why, the not associating is how much.
You're free to call it BonerOS if you want, but he doesn't have to come speak at your BonerOS User Group if he doesn't want to. He wants credit for developing most of the GNU operating system. Wait the kernel was coded to the apps. I thought the apps were ported to support the kernel. And who did that porting, was it people hoping to use the kernel, or was it the GNU team trying to just be very thorough. And you hit the nail on the coffin RMS wants credit for all the work that has been donated to the gnu project. The devlopers should get the credit and their causes should get the credit. Did they do it for him, did they do it for the FSF, they did it for themselves. They enriched GNU to enrich Linux because they thought it was being freely offered.
And again the point was that he is challenging the right for someone to name the composite they put together. I was using the fact that he uses the power of his notierity (much of it earned as the result of the work of others) to intimidate people to do as he wishes, to indicate that it was more then a passing fancy. Not that it's not something he couldn't do. But since it's a big issue, I will say this, if he wants to claim to be the leader of the movement then he has a responsibility to all in the movement, which means dealing with people working on GNU forks and who name things in ways that further his self promotion , and people who have different ideas from him. Or he can be like Bush and not read news papers and surround him with people who will just tell him what he wants to hear.
He won't give interviews to people who use the term "intellectual property" because it has little meaning, and the meaning it seems to have is deceptive. Information is not property because your possession of information does not diminish my possession, and the categories of copyright, patents, trademarks, geographical indicators, and industrial designs have very little in common, except restricting the expression of certain pieces of information artificially. How do you restricting the expression of pieces of information naturally?
The only thing wring with the term intelectual property is the term intelectual. there are many non-physical things that people have rights to. Because those rights are transferable they (the rights are property). The problems with them all stem from their common nature, they all involve the rights to re-produce something. And they should be talked about together take make sure that the appropriate rights are given to the appropriate thing. Patents, copyrights and Trade marks all have different durations, for different reasons. When everything was done in hardware no one claimed that the chips blueprints, and therefor the chip were copywriten, they pateneted the chips. Now in the age of general purpose computing, we right code to get a machine to do a specific taks instead of making hardware. And then we use copyright on the code.
So we've switched from patents to copyrights, and because our designs are now code what does get patented is overly broad and problematic and has little to do with how it is implimented. So we deo need to talk about it as a whole because we need the laws for each to make sense and with technology we need the borders to be clear.
Kids remember to look for the Free brand label. Free brand software it's the selfrighteousiest!
There is no free but Free.
Oh wait, that's right a lot of the open source GPL using world won't be going to GPLv3, because a lot of those projects don't require divestiture of copyright. And probably even some of the projects managed by FSF won't be able to go to it, because they maintain a lot of projects that were started by other people and don't neccesarily have copyright providence over all the code they inherited. Oops.
Does it surprise you that freedom doesn't matter to RMS? Look at the whole thing with linux where he insists on calling it GNU linux, and won't interact with you unless you do to. The real thing that is sad is that so many good people have gotten sucked in and waste their time promoting the cult of RMS, when they could be working to for what he only pretends to represent.
Um, I think you misunderstand the patent system. Patents don't trump each other. If you come up with something that is based on one or more previous patents, while you could previously patent that new combination, you were not free from the patents on what you were improving upon.
So all that happens is that those combinations are no longer patentable. But that's not to stop inovation. Most consumer product makers like Nintendo and Apple have some amount of Patents that they license in order to make their products. Both of those companies as the seller of products constantly refine and improve upon them. This just means that if there is an obvious way for nintendo to improve the DS and come
out with the next form factor, they won't have tlo pay someone cause they patented that combination.
It might hurt some companies that ride the bleeding edge without making any attempt to compete on quality or price. But the real peopel this will hurt are the patent equivelent of domain name squatters. People who have no intention of ever releasing a product, and will never produce a prototype that's even remotely market ready, but will just wiat for some one to try the combination and then sue them to get bought out or get a fat settlement.
And what, pray tell, is Time Warner getting patent infringement suits over? Or patenting themselves for that matter? Have you already forgotten that Time Warner is AOL?
Slashdot Mirror
wow, seem to paraphrase my argument while substantially changing it. By any chance are you a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
My argument was that he doesn't respect the right of others to do what they will with what he has supposedly freely given them. And that more then an expressed opinion he uses the power of his influence and his freedom of association to try to force others to act in accordance with that opinion.
So the not dealing with people who disagree with an opinion was not part of why I thought that freedom didn't matter. The opinon in question is why, the not associating is how much.
And again the point was that he is challenging the right for someone to name the composite they put together. I was using the fact that he uses the power of his notierity (much of it earned as the result of the work of others) to intimidate people to do as he wishes, to indicate that it was more then a passing fancy. Not that it's not something he couldn't do. But since it's a big issue, I will say this, if he wants to claim to be the leader of the movement then he has a responsibility to all in the movement, which means dealing with people working on GNU forks and who name things in ways that further his self promotion , and people who have different ideas from him. Or he can be like Bush and not read news papers and surround him with people who will just tell him what he wants to hear. He won't give interviews to people who use the term "intellectual property" because it has little meaning, and the meaning it seems to have is deceptive. Information is not property because your possession of information does not diminish my possession, and the categories of copyright, patents, trademarks, geographical indicators, and industrial designs have very little in common, except restricting the expression of certain pieces of information artificially. How do you restricting the expression of pieces of information naturally?
The only thing wring with the term intelectual property is the term intelectual. there are many non-physical things that people have rights to. Because those rights are transferable they (the rights are property). The problems with them all stem from their common nature, they all involve the rights to re-produce something. And they should be talked about together take make sure that the appropriate rights are given to the appropriate thing. Patents, copyrights and Trade marks all have different durations, for different reasons. When everything was done in hardware no one claimed that the chips blueprints, and therefor the chip were copywriten, they pateneted the chips. Now in the age of general purpose computing, we right code to get a machine to do a specific taks instead of making hardware. And then we use copyright on the code. So we've switched from patents to copyrights, and because our designs are now code what does get patented is overly broad and problematic and has little to do with how it is implimented. So we deo need to talk about it as a whole because we need the laws for each to make sense and with technology we need the borders to be clear.
Way to pull out the logical fallicy. What's next emacs is the best cause the Pope says so.
And to save you the response, I am not challenging your freedom of speach, I'm just challenging the merit of what you spoke freely.
Kids remember to look for the Free brand label. Free brand software it's the selfrighteousiest! There is no free but Free. Oh wait, that's right a lot of the open source GPL using world won't be going to GPLv3, because a lot of those projects don't require divestiture of copyright. And probably even some of the projects managed by FSF won't be able to go to it, because they maintain a lot of projects that were started by other people and don't neccesarily have copyright providence over all the code they inherited. Oops.
Does it surprise you that freedom doesn't matter to RMS? Look at the whole thing with linux where he insists on calling it GNU linux, and won't interact with you unless you do to. The real thing that is sad is that so many good people have gotten sucked in and waste their time promoting the cult of RMS, when they could be working to for what he only pretends to represent.
Um, I think you misunderstand the patent system. Patents don't trump each other. If you come up with something that is based on one or more previous patents, while you could previously patent that new combination, you were not free from the patents on what you were improving upon.
So all that happens is that those combinations are no longer patentable. But that's not to stop inovation. Most consumer product makers like Nintendo and Apple have some amount of Patents that they license in order to make their products. Both of those companies as the seller of products constantly refine and improve upon them. This just means that if there is an obvious way for nintendo to improve the DS and come out with the next form factor, they won't have tlo pay someone cause they patented that combination.
It might hurt some companies that ride the bleeding edge without making any attempt to compete on quality or price. But the real peopel this will hurt are the patent equivelent of domain name squatters. People who have no intention of ever releasing a product, and will never produce a prototype that's even remotely market ready, but will just wiat for some one to try the combination and then sue them to get bought out or get a fat settlement.
Is her next paper going to be on how earnings from the game monopoly are taxable?