It's a valid opinion. All I'm saying is that the Founders disagreed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (...)"
the Founders were founding the Republic, not telling individuals what they must do to resolve problems with each other.
I disagree. The Founders created the government for the sole purpose of defending those inherit rights:
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson
Notice how he said no man has a right to infringe on other's rights, not no government. He is clearly saying what society must do to resolve such problems: create a government to define and enforce laws to protect the rights.
A criminal code is not the same thing as a set of rights that cannot be breached. A criminal code punishes certain acts, you may think that those acts have something to do with the self-evident rights, but the very concept of 'right' is not in any criminal code. Criminal code describes what behaviour can be punished and what the punishment is.
Sure. This doesn't actually contradict what I said, though.
The Constitution does not and cannot define such things as 'punishment' for transgressions against the 'self-evident' individual rights.
Of course not, that's not its purpose. So what?
Nobody can punish the government, an official can be punished if he violates the criminal code, but the government is not any specific person, it cannot be actually punished, it's the collective and it's a system.
You can't punish a system for misbehaving. You can change the system maybe, you can implement processes, but you can't punish the system, it's impossible.
I wonder why exactly did you brought the punishment of government. I never talked about punishment at all, much less against the government.
There is a huge difference between what a right is (power of individual to not be abused by government) and what criminal code does: defines punishment for behaviour that is considered criminal.
Sure there is, but as above, that does in no way contradict my point. As for your definition of Right, my point is that the US Founding Fathers and most other political thinkers disagree with it.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.
That's a possible view, but most thinkers - including the US Founding Fathers - consider that humans do have some rights that others must attend to, be they natural, god-given or just based on some implicit social contract. Rights like property, respect of agreements/contracts, etc.
Now, they're not in the US Constitution, because - as per the The Declaration of Independence - they're supposed to be self-evident.
Wi-fi on free distros also works in all the supported configurations. My point is that people claim that the OS must work fine in every possible machine to be successful, when Apple shows that's not true.
Ownership of goldfish didn't go from normally accepted to abhorrent, so no, I couldn't use it.
But the same argument applied to goldfish would in fact be as asinine as to software or humans. My goal is pointing out the flaw in the argument, not necessarily say that software can or cannot be owned.
It's all about priorities.
No. Nothing in the discussion about software ownership prevents a discussion on ownership of goldfish, so there's no point in prioritizing one over the other.
IMHO, the debate over ownership of software is way down below ownership of domesticated animals, and fish.
That's like saying we should only worry about a crime if there aren't any worse being committed. It's a red herring, nothing more.
When you grow up and realize what the real world is like, you'll quickly realize that slaves can in fact be owned, and that it's important for this to occur for numerous reasons which you apparently fail to grasp. No amount of pseudo-humantary-philosophy you choose to fill your head with will change how the world works, nor will it stop you from going to jail if you suddenly decide something belongs to you which doesn't.
Thinking you're more enlightened than the rest of society despite an overwhelming majority of them disagreeing with you is usually the first sign of a delusional mind. It's common in those who feel they should be able to have what other people possess, as a matter of fact.
The same argument could have been used by the average person not that much ago, yet it looks grotesque nowadays.
No, I'm not saying that "IP" is slavery. I'm saying that these arguments are nothing but a reflection of the prejudices of the time.
Ubuntu is the derivative. The original work - without which Ubuntu wouldn't exist - is still here after 20 years and has never used such underhanded tactics on its users, and it actually has and follow a Social Contract that ensures it.
No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community.
He's not part of the open-source community. In fact, "open source" was created specifically for their members to distance themselves from GNU/FSF and rms.
No. If the binary doesn't come with the source, he does have to give the source to anyone in the world who got a binary, even if it wasn't him who gave them the copy. From the GPLv2 FAQ:
What does this âoewritten offer valid for any third partyâ mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
No, comprehensive automation of existing kinds of jobs leads to new kinds of jobs. How many software developers could be sustained by the economy of the 1900s?
Now, we do have a problem with cronyism, which is rewarding the wrong behaviors and therefore destroying good incentives. That we need to fix.
It's a little early to be arguing anarcho-capitalism, and since the database is an important tool for crime and traffic violations prevention, and since it's not outrageous - for most people - to require some personal information before allowing one to drive around in public space in a machine that can apply millions of newtons to a third-party body or property, that line of reasoning is completely irrelevant and somewhat silly.
You are confused. Barring a couple of obscure exceptions, all licenses that are considered open source (by the OSI definition) are also considered Free Software; there's no such thing as open source licenses. In fact, rms' own license -the GPL- is also considered open source.
Now, I'm not saying he is a fan of the Open Source movement. But unlike what you said, he doesn't consider Open Source developers or non-copyleft licensing immoral; as he said, "We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software". What he believes is that the developers are doing a good thing but for misguided reasons (technical instead of ethical), and as such they'll switch to non-free software if it's technically superior.
As an analogy, it's like someone arguing for the end of child labor because it's less efficient. They're still arguing for a good thing, but they miss the point, and will argue for child labor if it becomes more efficient, which would be harmful if you think child labor is immoral.
I think natural rights are nonsense, but it should be pointed out that in the US, protection against wiretapping and similar invasions are not supposed to be privileges, but natural and/or god-given rights.
And your premise that the Internet is public, therefore it's a public place is nonsense as well. Just because it is a public medium, doesn't mean the communications over it are public. This is no different from letters, which are also sent across a public medium (even using public company), but can't simply be read by anyone who comes across them.
The idea that the computer itself becomes a "public location" is frankly preposterous. One's car depends on the public roads, is it therefore a public place?
Slashdot Mirror
What is completely false? How does the fact that the rights must be negative in any way disprove what I said?
No, there are no such rights
It's a valid opinion. All I'm saying is that the Founders disagreed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (...)"
the Founders were founding the Republic, not telling individuals what they must do to resolve problems with each other.
I disagree. The Founders created the government for the sole purpose of defending those inherit rights:
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson
Notice how he said no man has a right to infringe on other's rights, not no government. He is clearly saying what society must do to resolve such problems: create a government to define and enforce laws to protect the rights.
A criminal code is not the same thing as a set of rights that cannot be breached. A criminal code punishes certain acts, you may think that those acts have something to do with the self-evident rights, but the very concept of 'right' is not in any criminal code. Criminal code describes what behaviour can be punished and what the punishment is.
Sure. This doesn't actually contradict what I said, though.
The Constitution does not and cannot define such things as 'punishment' for transgressions against the 'self-evident' individual rights.
Of course not, that's not its purpose. So what?
Nobody can punish the government, an official can be punished if he violates the criminal code, but the government is not any specific person, it cannot be actually punished, it's the collective and it's a system.
You can't punish a system for misbehaving. You can change the system maybe, you can implement processes, but you can't punish the system, it's impossible.
I wonder why exactly did you brought the punishment of government. I never talked about punishment at all, much less against the government.
There is a huge difference between what a right is (power of individual to not be abused by government) and what criminal code does: defines punishment for behaviour that is considered criminal.
Sure there is, but as above, that does in no way contradict my point. As for your definition of Right, my point is that the US Founding Fathers and most other political thinkers disagree with it.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.
That's a possible view, but most thinkers - including the US Founding Fathers - consider that humans do have some rights that others must attend to, be they natural, god-given or just based on some implicit social contract. Rights like property, respect of agreements/contracts, etc.
Now, they're not in the US Constitution, because - as per the The Declaration of Independence - they're supposed to be self-evident.
No but you DO get what you pay for in life.
Ah, another proud owner of Monster cables!
Only if you bought them to make a great emulator like BSNES.
Wi-fi on free distros also works in all the supported configurations. My point is that people claim that the OS must work fine in every possible machine to be successful, when Apple shows that's not true.
It wasn't a dig at Apple, by the way.
Ownership of goldfish didn't go from normally accepted to abhorrent, so no, I couldn't use it.
But the same argument applied to goldfish would in fact be as asinine as to software or humans. My goal is pointing out the flaw in the argument, not necessarily say that software can or cannot be owned.
It's all about priorities.
No. Nothing in the discussion about software ownership prevents a discussion on ownership of goldfish, so there's no point in prioritizing one over the other.
IMHO, the debate over ownership of software is way down below ownership of domesticated animals, and fish.
That's like saying we should only worry about a crime if there aren't any worse being committed. It's a red herring, nothing more.
When you grow up and realize what the real world is like, you'll quickly realize that slaves can in fact be owned, and that it's important for this to occur for numerous reasons which you apparently fail to grasp. No amount of pseudo-humantary-philosophy you choose to fill your head with will change how the world works, nor will it stop you from going to jail if you suddenly decide something belongs to you which doesn't.
Thinking you're more enlightened than the rest of society despite an overwhelming majority of them disagreeing with you is usually the first sign of a delusional mind. It's common in those who feel they should be able to have what other people possess, as a matter of fact.
The same argument could have been used by the average person not that much ago, yet it looks grotesque nowadays.
No, I'm not saying that "IP" is slavery. I'm saying that these arguments are nothing but a reflection of the prejudices of the time.
Ubuntu is the derivative. The original work - without which Ubuntu wouldn't exist - is still here after 20 years and has never used such underhanded tactics on its users, and it actually has and follow a Social Contract that ensures it.
No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community.
He's not part of the open-source community. In fact, "open source" was created specifically for their members to distance themselves from GNU/FSF and rms.
On how many configurations is Mac OS X supported?
No. If the binary doesn't come with the source, he does have to give the source to anyone in the world who got a binary, even if it wasn't him who gave them the copy. From the GPLv2 FAQ:
What does this âoewritten offer valid for any third partyâ mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
Every day, but only at my workplace and we're still on 12.04.
Total Recall-like colony? NASA is already preparing the way ;)
No, comprehensive automation of existing kinds of jobs leads to new kinds of jobs. How many software developers could be sustained by the economy of the 1900s?
Now, we do have a problem with cronyism, which is rewarding the wrong behaviors and therefore destroying good incentives. That we need to fix.
IMAP search is a feature of the server, so if it's not working, it's your server's fault. Get yourself a decent IMAP daemon like Dovecot.
I never paid anything for the thousands of OSS projects I have available, yet they don't spy on me or serve me ads.
You know, Alpine was designed for IMAP, and still can't support Maildir natively.
Yes, Gmail's IMAP implementation isn't particularly reliable. A normal UNIX server (e.g. Dovecot) works much better.
It's a little early to be arguing anarcho-capitalism, and since the database is an important tool for crime and traffic violations prevention, and since it's not outrageous - for most people - to require some personal information before allowing one to drive around in public space in a machine that can apply millions of newtons to a third-party body or property, that line of reasoning is completely irrelevant and somewhat silly.
You are confused. Barring a couple of obscure exceptions, all licenses that are considered open source (by the OSI definition) are also considered Free Software; there's no such thing as open source licenses. In fact, rms' own license -the GPL- is also considered open source.
Now, I'm not saying he is a fan of the Open Source movement. But unlike what you said, he doesn't consider Open Source developers or non-copyleft licensing immoral; as he said, "We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software". What he believes is that the developers are doing a good thing but for misguided reasons (technical instead of ethical), and as such they'll switch to non-free software if it's technically superior.
As an analogy, it's like someone arguing for the end of child labor because it's less efficient. They're still arguing for a good thing, but they miss the point, and will argue for child labor if it becomes more efficient, which would be harmful if you think child labor is immoral.
Likewise, rms thinks Open Source misses the point.
programmers should not expect to be paid for their work
[citation needed]. If you're equating "only develop Free Software" with "not being paid", my salary disproves your argument.
he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral
That's completely false. RMS has endorsed the use of the BSD in the past, and he has always considered them Free.
he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
Either provide a link or stop defaming the man.
There are already two GNU recommended forks of Ubuntu, gNewSense and Trisquel.
The list of all the distros is in the GNU site: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
I think natural rights are nonsense, but it should be pointed out that in the US, protection against wiretapping and similar invasions are not supposed to be privileges, but natural and/or god-given rights.
And your premise that the Internet is public, therefore it's a public place is nonsense as well. Just because it is a public medium, doesn't mean the communications over it are public. This is no different from letters, which are also sent across a public medium (even using public company), but can't simply be read by anyone who comes across them.
The idea that the computer itself becomes a "public location" is frankly preposterous. One's car depends on the public roads, is it therefore a public place?