Actually, free trade, or in general, the lowering of trade barriers & tariffs, has a lot to do with why we're seeing a lot less global conflict than in years past...
The Generally Accepted Tariff Treaties (GATT) from WW2 and onwards have had a profound effect on our world's interdependence. That's a good, socially responsible action of the economy... a first start down a long road.
There always HAS been different levels of lifestyle. What is important is that those living in poverty in the developed world are STILL better off than those living in poverty during the dark ages.
Same thing applies to the number of people that HAVE to live in poverty. Right now, there are a lot less than there were several centuries ago. Our work to improve quality of life for all is not done, but there has been an observable improvement in lifestyle as our economic systems have evolved.
Note that the GPL is at best RMS' temporary measure to promote freedom. The end result, for him, is a change in the copyright LAWS that embody the spirit of the GPL.
Myself, I like the GPL and free software, but am not quite sure I agree with the end situation, unless of course we can find a way to pay these creators $$$ while we do our copying.
Copyright always has been about trading personal freedom for increased access to creative works (ensuring copy protection is an artist's or publisher's primary economic incentive to do what they do).... RMS belives that freedom takes precedence overall... but if economic incentive is removed from the creators of copyrighted works, then I fear there will be dire concequences in our economy and standard of living, unless an alternative incentive is created.
After reading RMS' essays on copyright, it seems that he would prefer if copyright law were to make the GPL irrelevant - i.e. the spirit of the GPL: enabling free redistribution - is embodied in copyright law.
In other words, the creators can not restrict copying under law.
Copyright is an economic incentive FOR those authors and artists to create the works that we enjoy. As RMS points out in his essay on copyright, it is a "bargain" with society: trade in the right to copy for increased access to these works.
Of course, NOW that its much easier to copy material, RMS says the law is a "bad deal". Well, I'm a little skeptical about that. My view is that the problem with copyright is the changed INTENT of the law; instead of preventing competition, which was the original intent, copyright now is used to ensure due compensation to the artists/authors/publishers.
Free copying cannot work under our economic system unless we have a compensation system in place that enables both free copying and compensation for every one of those copies.
Our modern economy is largely based upon the "illogical" property scheme that forces the public to pay for copyrighted works. This economy has allowed the developed world to reach to the highest standards of living in history. Yes, it has a long way to go, as much of the world (and the developed world) is still in poverty. But please, don't detract from its success unless you can offer an alternative.
If people are allowed to freely copy paintings, music, software, etc. this has the potential to erode the economic incentive of artists to produce the works in the first place. This means fewer works, and this means a less successful economy, which is bad for society.
If you can work out an alternative system to free enterprise capitalism that works AS WELL, please state it. Otherwise, understand that "freeing" one's property, under THIS economic system MUST BE A CHOICE, not a law.
(unless there is in an infrastructure IN PLACE to ensure the compensation of creators WHILE allowing freedom to copy)
As for software, I hate to be premature, but I think it's already won. We're into the glorious drudgery of finishing up now.
There are many, many, bright and even ethical people out there that would disagree with that vehemenantly, and not just out of ignorance. Some sincerely prefer to live in a property-driven society, where property includes "intellectual" property. (By intellectual I mean copyright-like property, not the ideas behind it).
While I think that open source is gaining, there really is a long road to go. Witness the trends of zealous copyright enforcement, the digital millenium copyright act, the surge in patent claims. While the message is getting out there, it isn't reaching many of the people who are working with our society's laws and organizations.
In the short run, global free trade and the free flow of capital mean the social-democratic model can no longer compete with the ruthlessness of the free market. In the long run, I dearly hope something more socially responsible can.
Indeed, the current system is not socially responsible. However, it is quite probable that future "socially responsible" structures are built on top of our current system, which has worked well in many cases (improving the standard of living, for instance).
For a good historical account of how different nations of the world have evolved into the economic beings they are today, and a very good account of how "property-driven" society has proven to be very successful, read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond.
In my own opinion, property over intellectual works, i.e. the words, source code, etc. is logical. The ideas behind them are another matter, and it is difficult to justify "ownership" over ideas.
I don't believe there is a difference (in terms of protection) between tangible and intellectual property.
Specifically, I believe that copyright (that is, protecting the *content* of your intellectual property, not necessarily the ideas behind it) has evolved to a point that it *is* a right for the creator.
I read RMS' essay on copyright law, and enjoyed it tremendously, BUT I think the copying policy should be a choice of the creator - not a law. The unfortunate trend towards criminalization of copyright infringment is dangerous.
First off, I don't equate "free" with "zero cost". I understand RMS' philosophy quite well. Furthermore, I agree that RMS is not "forcing" people to do open their source right now.
It is, however, his philosophical intention. He believes the copyright law SHOULD be modified such that software does not have owners and everyone is free to copy it. (This is in his essay "Re-evaluating copyright" and also "Why software should not have owners".)
So no, RMS isn't forcing people right now. Given the opporunity though, his writings indicate he is striving to create a world where free software is not a choice.
I was refering to enslavement in the "developed world", not the third world, where it most certainly, and unfortunately, goes on.
Free software is largely an ethical issue and will always be. At the end of the day, one can argue that protecting information (i.e. source code) is not as important as protecting knowledge & people - such is the argument of OSI and ESR.
But, what *really* is the reason behind free software other than to advance the freedom to improve and share technology? It comes full circle back to the ethical argument.
As I've stated in other messages, I follow RMS' view closely, and the only thing I'm still at odds with is his view that everything "MUST" be free.
People should have the right to choose, without discrimination over a subjective definition of "morality".
While I agree with the content of that post (everyone is NOT crazy), just two points:
- Tim *is* a voice of reason. His argument was well spoken, and easy to understand. The major disappointment was his lack of perspecitve on the role of ethics & morality in software development. Other than that, he has a point: Should it be "free software because we HAVE to" or "free software because we WANT to" ?
- The interesting observation of the post above yours was the varied reaction in the audience: it really seems to be hard to get people to agree on things in this community.
Well Tim tried to be somewhat diplomatic in his treatment of RMS' views, but his ignorance of RMS' ideological position really detracts from his view .
Adam Smith's invisible hand is nothing more than a reflection of what "we're doing" in terms of economics & trade... It isn't an end in itself - something too many businesspeople forget.
looking at copyright law, (RMS has a great essay about this on his website), there's a distinct difference of perception in the business world between cloning "ideas" vs. "words".
In software, that means cloning the code is copyright infringement, and cloning the ideas is "creative imitation", and acceptable.. This largely is because copyright was designed to protect the written word from competition.
NOW, copyright is being used to force the public to pay for information they can easily copy. It leads to an interesting conflict: The public doesn't want to give up this right (though they did over two centuries ago, primarily because you wouldn't have a printing press in your backyard so it didn't matter).. BUT companys need economic performance to stay alive.
Overall, in free software, I think the greatest lesson for the business community will be that protecting information is not as useful as protecting "knowledge" - which only exists in your employee's heads.
People are the only truly important resource that need to be protected.
well yeah, there is a poor tendancy to worship the "marketplace". It is, after all, a reflection of what we do with our time and money, so people rightly should analyze it.
The problem has been to over-analyze it. Customer opinions sway - and often they don't know what they want. So innovation is the only way to counter that. Of course, traditional innovation was based on market research, leading to Microsoft-style "creative imitation"...
In future, I think we're going to see more "visionary" innovations, because frankly, in a world with little brand loyalty and changing perceptions, that's the only way TO compete. Make the future the way you want it to be, not the way the market wants it "at this second"...
I *do* like Stallman's views, and I do know that money is not related to happiness.
I *am* saying that if there are any failings of the "marketplace", the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the greed-mongers of our time. In otherwords, the system is an objective thing - it's humans that mess it up. Such will be the case with any system you come up with.. so why don't we stick with what we've got and just try to improve it - it's worked modestly well for two centuries or so, and improved the quality of life for developed countries dramatically in that time.
The market is not an invisible hand - though that is how Adam Smith described it in the 18th century.
With today's modern complexity theory, it is very clear that the market embodies OUR actions. We make the market the way it is... We run the eocnomy... and the central bankers of the world adjust things when they get out of hand.
Your slave analogy is both silly and ignorant. What the hell does this have to do with a modern marketplace? Did you just throw this in to support your view of the "evil market" because you have no real knowledge of how the market works?
The marketplace embodies *trade* of goods, servics, but above all, VALUE from human achievement.
The economy *is* a measure of human achievement. It DOES embody everything we do.
Of course, with money being numbers and all, it is an objective system and doesn't keep track of "how" you got the numbers, which does lead to a lot of the corruption and general greed/silliness in the world of business. A system created by impefect humans FOR imperfect humans.
The free market *is* the embodiment of human achievement. The developed world is centered around the notion of this system. All innovative work in the past two centuries has been embodied by organizations involved in this market: the invention of electricity (Tom Edison's General Electric), the invention of the transistor (Bell Labs), the invention of the computer, microprocessor, etc. The innovation of the *personal computer* (IBM, Xerox and Apple). etc.
No, the free market system is not perfect, but please don't let your ignorance detract from the achievements that have taken place under that system.
some moderators for some reason seem to think that "conflicting with their opinions" constitutes a right to reduce a post's score.
;sigh;
What is the practical effect?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
We already have plenty of 100% pure free software operating systems. Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD.
The name of the game is *increasing personal freedom* to develop software. Assuming the APSL is changed in our favour, it matters not that the MacOS GUI is proprietary - it matters that Apple users have the freedom to extend, modify and support their core-OS in whatever way they please.
Does it really make logical sense to release the Mac OS GUI right now? They're overhauling Mac OS X for a client release by year end. Coordinating an open source effort would push the product release back by at least 6 months (as has happened with Mozilla). Open source has its advantages, but time-to-market of "production quality" products isn't one of them yet. (time-to-market of patches is unparalleled though, of course)
Sure, opening the GUI would be nice for us, but it would be tantamount to business suicide to open up the Mac OS GUI code *at this moment*.
Apple is flying high on the sales of its machines and its superior interface. Let them ride out the momentum & give them time... and *eventually*, there probably will be an open source release of the GUI, once there is real incentive to do so for both developers AND Apple.
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Businesses aren't always about lip-service.
In cases like Apple, where they have a very bright board of directors & top managment team, there usually is a method to their madness.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, free trade, or in general, the lowering of
trade barriers & tariffs, has a lot to do with why we're seeing
a lot less global conflict than in years past...
The Generally Accepted Tariff Treaties (GATT) from WW2 and onwards
have had a profound effect on our world's interdependence. That's
a good, socially responsible action of the economy... a first start
down a long road.
There always HAS been different levels of lifestyle. What is important is that those living in poverty in the developed world are STILL better off than those living in poverty during the dark ages.
Same thing applies to the number of people that HAVE to live in poverty. Right now, there are a lot less than there were several centuries ago.
Our work to improve quality of life for all is not done, but there has been an observable improvement in lifestyle as our economic systems have evolved.
Well said. I agree with you.
Note that the GPL is at best RMS' temporary measure to promote freedom. The end result, for him, is a change in the copyright LAWS that embody the spirit of the GPL.
Myself, I like the GPL and free software, but am not quite sure I agree with the end situation, unless of course we can find a way to pay these creators $$$ while we do our copying.
Copyright always has been about trading personal freedom for increased access to creative works (ensuring copy protection is an artist's or publisher's primary economic incentive to do what they do).... RMS belives that freedom takes precedence overall... but if economic incentive is removed from the creators of copyrighted works, then I fear there will be dire concequences in our economy and standard of living, unless an alternative incentive is created.
After reading RMS' essays on copyright, it seems that he would prefer if copyright law were to make the GPL irrelevant - i.e. the spirit of the GPL: enabling free redistribution - is embodied in copyright law.
In other words, the creators can not restrict copying under law.
Is this a good thing? It's questionable.
Copyright is an economic incentive FOR those authors and artists to create the works that we enjoy. As RMS points out in his essay on copyright, it is a "bargain" with society: trade in the right to copy for increased access to these works.
Of course, NOW that its much easier to copy material, RMS says the law is a "bad deal". Well, I'm a little skeptical about that. My view is that the problem with copyright is the changed INTENT of the law; instead of preventing competition, which was the original intent, copyright now is used to ensure due compensation to the artists/authors/publishers.
Free copying cannot work under our economic system unless we have a compensation system in place that enables both free copying and compensation for every one of those copies.
Our modern economy is largely based upon the "illogical" property scheme that forces the public to pay for copyrighted works. This economy has allowed the developed world to reach to the highest standards of living in history. Yes, it has a long way to go, as much of the world (and the developed world) is still in poverty. But please, don't detract from its success unless you can offer an alternative.
If people are allowed to freely copy paintings, music, software, etc. this has the potential to erode the economic incentive of artists to produce the works in the first place. This means fewer works, and this means a less successful economy, which is bad for society.
If you can work out an alternative system to free enterprise capitalism that works AS WELL, please state it. Otherwise, understand that "freeing" one's property, under THIS economic system MUST BE A CHOICE, not a law.
(unless there is in an infrastructure IN PLACE to ensure the compensation of creators WHILE allowing freedom to copy)
Actually, that's the biggest reason why copyright/IP protection exists: to ensure compensation.
If an infrastructure was created to enable free copying BUT also compensation for the creators, I think things could work.
As for software, I hate to be premature, but I think it's already won. We're
into the glorious drudgery of finishing up now.
There are many, many, bright and even ethical people out there that would disagree with that vehemenantly, and not just out of ignorance. Some sincerely prefer to live in a property-driven society, where property includes "intellectual" property. (By intellectual I mean copyright-like property, not the ideas behind it).
While I think that open source is gaining, there really is a long road to go. Witness the trends of zealous copyright enforcement, the digital millenium copyright act, the surge in patent claims. While the message is getting out there, it isn't reaching many of the people who are working with our society's laws and organizations.
In the short run, global free trade and the free flow of capital mean the social-democratic model can no longer compete with the ruthlessness of the free market. In the long run, I dearly hope something more socially responsible can.
Indeed, the current system is not socially responsible. However, it is quite probable that future "socially responsible" structures are built on top of our current system, which has worked well in many cases (improving the standard of living, for instance).
For a good historical account of how different nations of the world have evolved into the economic beings they are today, and a very good account of how "property-driven" society has proven to be very successful, read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond.
In my own opinion, property over intellectual works, i.e. the words, source code, etc. is logical. The ideas behind them are another matter, and it is difficult to justify "ownership" over ideas.
I don't believe there is a difference (in terms of protection) between tangible and intellectual property.
Specifically, I believe that copyright (that is, protecting the *content* of your intellectual property, not necessarily the ideas behind it) has evolved to a point that it *is* a right for the creator.
I read RMS' essay on copyright law, and enjoyed it tremendously, BUT I think the copying policy should be a choice of the creator - not a law. The unfortunate trend towards criminalization of copyright infringment is dangerous.
First off, I don't equate "free" with "zero cost". I understand RMS' philosophy quite well. Furthermore, I agree that RMS is not "forcing" people to do open their source right now.
It is, however, his philosophical intention. He believes the copyright law SHOULD be modified such that software does not have owners and everyone is free to copy it. (This is in his essay "Re-evaluating copyright" and also "Why software should not have owners".)
So no, RMS isn't forcing people right now. Given the opporunity though, his writings indicate he is striving to create a world where free software is not a choice.
I should have clarified that.
I was refering to enslavement in the "developed world", not the third world, where it most certainly, and unfortunately, goes on.
Free software is largely an ethical issue and will always be. At the end of the day, one can argue that protecting information (i.e. source code) is not as important as protecting knowledge & people - such is the argument of OSI and ESR.
But, what *really* is the reason behind free software other than to advance the freedom to improve and share technology? It comes full circle back to the ethical argument.
As I've stated in other messages, I follow RMS' view closely, and the only thing I'm still at odds with is his view that everything "MUST" be free.
People should have the right to choose, without discrimination over a subjective definition of "morality".
While I think Tim's ignorance of the moral/ethical side of free software is disappointing, he has a point:
Should it be "free software because we WANT to" or "free software because we HAVE to".
I want to create MORE free software.
I want to see MORE progress in technology and community sharing because of this movement.
BUT
I do NOT want to *FORCE* people to create free software.
RMS believes everything "MUST BE FREE". I agree with a lot of his philosophy, but that is one point where I must draw the line.
If we can find a way of NOT being a property-driven society, then I will by all means accept the view that "everything must be free".
While I agree with the content of that post (everyone is NOT crazy), just two points:
- Tim *is* a voice of reason. His argument was well spoken, and easy to understand. The major disappointment was his lack of perspecitve on the role of ethics & morality in software development.
Other than that, he has a point: Should it be "free software because we HAVE to" or "free software because we WANT to" ?
- The interesting observation of the post above yours was the varied reaction in the audience: it really seems to be hard to get people to agree on things in this community.
Seeing the morality of "increased freedom" is obvious.
Seeing the morality of "everything must be free", as Tim says, is a little harder to see.
Should a creator have a right to keep his source closed? RMS says no.
Well Tim tried to be somewhat diplomatic in his treatment of RMS' views, but his ignorance of RMS' ideological position really detracts from his view .
Adam Smith's invisible hand is nothing more than a reflection of what "we're doing" in terms of economics & trade... It isn't an end in itself - something too many businesspeople forget.
looking at copyright law, (RMS has a great essay about this on his website), there's a distinct difference of perception in the business world between cloning "ideas" vs. "words".
In software, that means cloning the code is copyright infringement, and cloning the ideas is "creative imitation", and acceptable.. This largely is because copyright was designed to protect the written word from competition.
NOW, copyright is being used to force the public to pay for information they can easily copy. It leads to an interesting conflict: The public doesn't want to give up this right (though they did over two centuries ago, primarily because you wouldn't have a printing press in your backyard so it didn't matter).. BUT companys need economic performance to stay alive.
Overall, in free software, I think the greatest lesson for the business community will be that protecting information is not as useful as protecting "knowledge" - which only exists in your employee's heads.
People are the only truly important resource that need to be protected.
well yeah, there is a poor tendancy to worship the "marketplace". It is, after all, a reflection of what we do with our time and money, so people rightly should analyze it.
The problem has been to over-analyze it. Customer opinions sway - and often they don't know what they want. So innovation is the only way to counter that. Of course, traditional innovation was based on market research, leading to Microsoft-style "creative imitation"...
In future, I think we're going to see more "visionary" innovations, because frankly, in a world with little brand loyalty and changing perceptions, that's the only way TO compete. Make the future the way you want it to be, not the way the market wants it "at this second"...
I *do* like Stallman's views, and I do know that money is not related to happiness.
I *am* saying that if there are any failings of the "marketplace", the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the greed-mongers of our time. In otherwords, the system is an objective thing - it's humans that mess it up. Such will be the case with any system you come up with.. so why don't we stick with what we've got and just try to improve it - it's worked modestly well for two centuries or so, and improved the quality of life for developed countries dramatically in that time.
The market is not an invisible hand - though that is how Adam Smith described it in the 18th century.
With today's modern complexity theory, it is very clear that the market embodies OUR actions. We make the market the way it is... We run the eocnomy... and the central bankers of the world adjust things when they get out of hand.
Your slave analogy is both silly and ignorant. What the hell does this have to do with a modern marketplace? Did you just throw this in to support your view of the "evil market" because you have no real knowledge of how the market works?
The marketplace embodies *trade* of goods, servics, but above all, VALUE from human achievement.
The economy *is* a measure of human achievement. It DOES embody everything we do.
Of course, with money being numbers and all, it is an objective system and doesn't keep track of "how" you got the numbers, which does lead to a lot of the corruption and general greed/silliness in the world of business. A system created by impefect humans FOR imperfect humans.
The free market *is* the embodiment of human achievement. The developed world is centered around the notion of this system. All innovative work in the past two centuries has been embodied by organizations involved in this market: the invention of electricity (Tom Edison's General Electric), the invention of the transistor (Bell Labs), the invention of the computer, microprocessor, etc. The innovation of the *personal computer* (IBM, Xerox and Apple). etc.
No, the free market system is not perfect, but please don't let your ignorance detract from the achievements that have taken place under that system.
some moderators for some reason seem to think that "conflicting with their opinions" constitutes a right to reduce a post's score.
;sigh;
We already have plenty of 100% pure free software operating systems. Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD.
The name of the game is *increasing personal freedom* to develop software. Assuming the APSL is changed in our favour, it matters not that the MacOS GUI is proprietary - it matters that Apple users have the freedom to extend, modify and support their core-OS in whatever way they please.
Does it really make logical sense to release the Mac OS GUI right now? They're overhauling Mac OS X for a client release by year end. Coordinating an open source effort would push the product release back by at least 6 months (as has happened with Mozilla). Open source has its advantages, but time-to-market of "production quality" products isn't one of them yet. (time-to-market of patches is unparalleled though, of course)
Sure, opening the GUI would be nice for us, but it would be tantamount to business suicide to open up the Mac OS GUI code *at this moment*.
Apple is flying high on the sales of its machines and its superior interface. Let them ride out the momentum & give them time... and *eventually*, there probably will be an open source release of the GUI, once there is real incentive to do so for both developers AND Apple.
Businesses aren't always about lip-service.
In cases like Apple, where they have a very bright board of directors & top managment team, there usually is a method to their madness.