Open Source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, is most definitively a legal thing.
a ban on redistribution of derivative works doesn't mean that it's useless. Knowing the source code of a piece of software is important if you want to use it for any security-sensitive work or if you want to implement some modifications of your own (which you don't intend to distribute). It's not unheard of even that a developer company only gives the source code to their paying costumers.
This is why the author says it's dangerous.
Unlicensed code ("All rights reserved") is not a ban on redistribution. It's a ban on any copying, including forking the code to your machine. You most definitively can't modify the code, even if you don't intend to distribute it.
That depends on the definition of "open source" you use. If it's the one by the Open Source Initiative, it certainly does mean you can use and distribute the code.
If some farmers move to the city, the others will raise their prices, and then the city people will have the choice of lowering their consumption or paying more, instead of being forced to pay for everyone in rural areas, regardless of whether they actually produce food or not.
People don't need to move, they just need to pay enough so that their carriers won't charge higher fees for incoming calls.
Saying "regulation can fix this scenario" without specifying how is senseless. The bottom-line is, any regulation you impose in this case just passes the extra costs from rural citizens to everyone else. Therefore, if you as a society think that cheaper phone service is indispensable, you just impose a tax on everyone's phone bill and use it to subsidize rural users.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with having people pay the extra cost of living in the rural areas. Not to mention that other stuff (e.g. land) is cheaper than in the cities.
I can also automate downloading all of my favorite shows as they air without having to manually do anything. Dexter, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and others automatically download on to my NAS without having to visit a single website. Just set it to get that show, and forget it.
Plenty of torrent clients (like uTorrent) support RSS just for that nowadays. You just go to a site like showRSS, pick the shows you want and copy-paste the RSS into your client.
Imaginative panoramas, gadgets, events, forces to the universe, and all that is the cluttered sci-fi visuals of his movies.
90% of SF works involve all of that, and there are plenty SF artists who can write good stories with those elements. Lucas' work is just not that great; it's just entertaining. Which isn't bad, mind you; it's just not great art.
And isn't that your gripe with proprietary software, that there is too much control.
No. His "gripe" is that proprietary software doesn't provide the Four Freedoms. GPLv3 does, so there's no inconsistency.
Yes, I understand the TiVO argument and consequences of GPL2 and GPL3 regarding it. So the end result is that we won't have TiVO using open source software, and becoming even MORE proprietary, and this has solved nothing, and has actually made things worse. How is this better?
That is a valid question. rms has in the past argued for free but non-copyleft licenses for pragmatic reasons; particularly, in the case of libogg, since a copyleft license would have invited people to stick with MP3, which would be worse overall.
So this is a departure from that position. My uneducated guess is that he'd tell you that there are free alternatives to TiVo, therefore there's no valid reason to compromise.
It doesn't always lead to jail-time. You can be kicked out of the country.
That doesn't change what I said, though.
Remember, the land you live on is ruled by the public. You still have to pay the public to live there - no freeloaders in this country.
Sure there are. Thousands of them. In fact, it's something that libertarians tend to criticize as well.
But in any case, nothing in the libertarian philosophy opposed paying for stuff. Hell, some people prefer to pay more, as long as it's voluntary and not as a tax:
Jan Martin: And a gentleman came up to me and actually thanked me for the adopt a street light program. He had just written a check to the city for $300 to turn all the street lights back on in his neighborhood. And I did remind him that for $200 if he had supported the tax initiative, we could have had not only streetlights, but parks and firemen and swimming pools and community centers. That by combining our resources, we as a community can actually accomplish more than we as individuals.
Robert Smith: And he said?
Jan Martin: He said he would never support a tax increase.
Not really. They mean the people that directly use the resource, instead of the whole population. It's a distinction between top-down, centralized law making and bottom-up, decentralized governance.
If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).
Sure he would. Retribution from the people. I mean, even governments - which, by your own argument, are more powerful than those pollutors - get often times deposed by the population.
Besides, there are other institutions that play part. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom was awared a Nobel prize in economics for her work in the analysis of economic governance, especially of the commons.
The Royal Swedisg Academy of Sciences, hardly a libertarian body, said hwe work shows "how common resources â" forests, fisheries, oil fields or grazing lands, can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies".
Additionally, libertarians just aren't very smart socially. This is actually their biggest flaw - their disbelief in social groups.
That's obviously not true, otherwise they wouldn't have political parties. A libertarian - which I'm not - would tell you they just don't believe you should be forced to be a member of such group; it should be voluntary.
You are therefore dependent on others (government) for your own basic survival.
Why exactly are "others == government"? Most of the people we're dependent on are not part of the government. It's a fallacy to say that because we're dependent on others, and "government are others", we're dependent on goverment. It's similar to the politician fallacy of "we must do something, this is something (anything), therefore we must do this".
And every psychological profile of a libertarian show them to be spoiled brats.
Nice ad hominem - spolied brats can make valid arguments. Also, [citation needed].
If you want to reduce the population, you just need to implement unreasonable austerity measures. Our birth rate here in Portugal dropped 10% just this year, to well below the replacement rate.
"If you pirate it, they have more ammunition to convince the governments to pass draconian laws which monitor online usage and bring heavy fines against people pirating their copyrighted material."
That's only true if their "piracy" numbers have any relationship with reality, which is less probable than the sighting of an alien by a drunken redneck being true. Remember, this is the industry than brought us "Hollywood accounting".
Yes, there is. The packages from that repository will be able to specify dependencies on standard packages (instead of bringing outdated copies of every library they use), their updates can be centraly managed and scheduled, installations are much easier to automate, etc.
Sure. Marx has written extensive works on the nature of man, his desires and their origins, and can't be fully explained in a few sentences, and certainly not by an ignorant like me.
Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson called them monopolies. I guess they can't be taken seriously.
Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions
The promise of capitalism is "being rich is the goal, because money can buy whatever you need, work hard and one day you have the chance to be rich too".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not from your country. But in any case, fine, I'll subsidize phones if they subsidize the much higher rent and land prices
Open Source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, is most definitively a legal thing.
a ban on redistribution of derivative works doesn't mean that it's useless. Knowing the source code of a piece of software is important if you want to use it for any security-sensitive work or if you want to implement some modifications of your own (which you don't intend to distribute). It's not unheard of even that a developer company only gives the source code to their paying costumers.
This is why the author says it's dangerous.
Unlicensed code ("All rights reserved") is not a ban on redistribution. It's a ban on any copying, including forking the code to your machine. You most definitively can't modify the code, even if you don't intend to distribute it.
That depends on the definition of "open source" you use. If it's the one by the Open Source Initiative, it certainly does mean you can use and distribute the code.
If some farmers move to the city, the others will raise their prices, and then the city people will have the choice of lowering their consumption or paying more, instead of being forced to pay for everyone in rural areas, regardless of whether they actually produce food or not.
Last time I checked, people in cities paid for all of that.
People don't need to move, they just need to pay enough so that their carriers won't charge higher fees for incoming calls.
Saying "regulation can fix this scenario" without specifying how is senseless. The bottom-line is, any regulation you impose in this case just passes the extra costs from rural citizens to everyone else. Therefore, if you as a society think that cheaper phone service is indispensable, you just impose a tax on everyone's phone bill and use it to subsidize rural users.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with having people pay the extra cost of living in the rural areas. Not to mention that other stuff (e.g. land) is cheaper than in the cities.
I can also automate downloading all of my favorite shows as they air without having to manually do anything. Dexter, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and others automatically download on to my NAS without having to visit a single website. Just set it to get that show, and forget it.
Plenty of torrent clients (like uTorrent) support RSS just for that nowadays. You just go to a site like showRSS, pick the shows you want and copy-paste the RSS into your client.
Imaginative panoramas, gadgets, events, forces to the universe, and all that is the cluttered sci-fi visuals of his movies.
90% of SF works involve all of that, and there are plenty SF artists who can write good stories with those elements. Lucas' work is just not that great; it's just entertaining. Which isn't bad, mind you; it's just not great art.
And isn't that your gripe with proprietary software, that there is too much control.
No. His "gripe" is that proprietary software doesn't provide the Four Freedoms. GPLv3 does, so there's no inconsistency.
Yes, I understand the TiVO argument and consequences of GPL2 and GPL3 regarding it. So the end result is that we won't have TiVO using open source software, and becoming even MORE proprietary, and this has solved nothing, and has actually made things worse. How is this better?
That is a valid question. rms has in the past argued for free but non-copyleft licenses for pragmatic reasons; particularly, in the case of libogg, since a copyleft license would have invited people to stick with MP3, which would be worse overall.
So this is a departure from that position. My uneducated guess is that he'd tell you that there are free alternatives to TiVo, therefore there's no valid reason to compromise.
Forgot the http. Link: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
Your confusion comes from the fact that what's fed to us (and not only in the US) is the Crony Capitalism kool-aid.
I advise people to read Against Intellectual Property, published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.
It doesn't always lead to jail-time. You can be kicked out of the country.
That doesn't change what I said, though.
Remember, the land you live on is ruled by the public. You still have to pay the public to live there - no freeloaders in this country.
Sure there are. Thousands of them. In fact, it's something that libertarians tend to criticize as well.
But in any case, nothing in the libertarian philosophy opposed paying for stuff. Hell, some people prefer to pay more, as long as it's voluntary and not as a tax:
Jan Martin: And a gentleman came up to me and actually thanked me for the adopt a street light program. He had just written a check to the city for $300 to turn all the street lights back on in his neighborhood. And I did remind him that for $200 if he had supported the tax initiative, we could have had not only streetlights, but parks and firemen and swimming pools and community centers. That by combining our resources, we as a community can actually accomplish more than we as individuals.
Robert Smith: And he said?
Jan Martin: He said he would never support a tax increase.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/459/what-kind-of-country
Not really. They mean the people that directly use the resource, instead of the whole population. It's a distinction between top-down, centralized law making and bottom-up, decentralized governance.
Is "give" a faithful explanation of a process which may involve jail time if one doesn't agree to forfeit the resources?
In any case, that's just one possible solution. Let's not commit the above mentioned politician's fallacy, please.
If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).
Sure he would. Retribution from the people. I mean, even governments - which, by your own argument, are more powerful than those pollutors - get often times deposed by the population.
Besides, there are other institutions that play part. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom was awared a Nobel prize in economics for her work in the analysis of economic governance, especially of the commons.
The Royal Swedisg Academy of Sciences, hardly a libertarian body, said hwe work shows "how common resources â" forests, fisheries, oil fields or grazing lands, can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies".
Additionally, libertarians just aren't very smart socially. This is actually their biggest flaw - their disbelief in social groups.
That's obviously not true, otherwise they wouldn't have political parties. A libertarian - which I'm not - would tell you they just don't believe you should be forced to be a member of such group; it should be voluntary.
You are therefore dependent on others (government) for your own basic survival.
Why exactly are "others == government"? Most of the people we're dependent on are not part of the government. It's a fallacy to say that because we're dependent on others, and "government are others", we're dependent on goverment. It's similar to the politician fallacy of "we must do something, this is something (anything), therefore we must do this".
And every psychological profile of a libertarian show them to be spoiled brats.
Nice ad hominem - spolied brats can make valid arguments. Also, [citation needed].
If you want to reduce the population, you just need to implement unreasonable austerity measures. Our birth rate here in Portugal dropped 10% just this year, to well below the replacement rate.
"If you pirate it, they have more ammunition to convince the governments to pass draconian laws which monitor online usage and bring heavy fines against people pirating their copyrighted material."
That's only true if their "piracy" numbers have any relationship with reality, which is less probable than the sighting of an alien by a drunken redneck being true. Remember, this is the industry than brought us "Hollywood accounting".
Yes, there is. The packages from that repository will be able to specify dependencies on standard packages (instead of bringing outdated copies of every library they use), their updates can be centraly managed and scheduled, installations are much easier to automate, etc.
Proxmox + OpenVZ?
Sure. Marx has written extensive works on the nature of man, his desires and their origins, and can't be fully explained in a few sentences, and certainly not by an ignorant like me.
Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson called them monopolies. I guess they can't be taken seriously.
Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions
And if we all bought from Pirate Bay, eventually there would no longer be any more quality ebooks.
No, that's if we only bought from The Pirate Bay.
No, he doesn't claim that communism changes people in such way.
I'm hardly well read in the works of Marx, so I would be doing him a disservice by pretending to explain his position. I advise you to read Human Requirements and Division of Labour Under the Rule of Private Property.
The promise of capitalism is "being rich is the goal, because money can buy whatever you need, work hard and one day you have the chance to be rich too".
When was this promised, and by whom?
Buddha said human needs are unlimited.
No, he didn't.