If Microsoft's claims of copyright, trade secrecy, and violation of NDA are invalid, then Microsoft has no leverage with which to force Slashdot to remove the posts.
Linux's announcement count benefits from 2, at least as much as 1. I'd say "same with Windows", but nobody has access to the code, to see if its kernel is written anything like a sensible kernel would be.
Corporations don't have rights. Their very existence is a privilege, contingent upon good behavior and revokable at any time by the people. Unfortunately, the mechanism for this is badly broken at the moment.
You've done a very good job of dehumanizing your opponent. Allow me to remind you that corporations are only *legal* entities to themselves; their actions are the actions of people, and their defenses in court are directed and chosen by people. When you attack corporations, you are attacking the people who run them, and benefit from them.
When you support an active national government attacking the interests of these people, you set a precedent. Now, you may like the idea of government just replacing corporations as active players in the lives of people, but I'd rather hold off both. I'm reminded of Aesop's fable, The Horse and the Stag.
Congress should use its interstate commerce powers to force corporations to be chartered in the state where they are really headquartered. No more of this Deleware corporation crap, which steps on the rights of the real home state.
Interesting idea, but difficult in practice. "Headquartered" is a very vague notion, to define legally. All you'd end up doing is boosting the real estate market in delaware, as corporations would set up just enough of an office there, to meet whatever legal definition was made. The centers of power would remain where they are now; there would just be an "official" office in some Delaware backwater.
Congress should use that same power to simply ban misbehaving corporations from engaging in interstate trade.
Congress has the power to *regulate* interstate trade; to say that Congress could *forbid* it would be a questionable extension of power. Let me guess; you're a big fan of Franklin Roosevelt's legacy?
This would return power to the states, away from the federal government, and so should be appealing to conservatives, even if it does help liberal ends.
While I'm a big fan of federalism, I don't support state power for its own sake. And the way you talk about forbidding interstate commerce in some instances is not a reduction in national power; it's an increase.
The courts should make it clear that corporations are not citizens or natural persons, that the mid-1800's Supreme Court decision that said so was as bogus as Dred Scott - that the state cannot create, via charter, new legal persons. The courts should also make it clear that Congress's copyright and patent powers extend only to the original authors or creators - real natural people - of a work. (Yes, that might mean a collaborative copyright held by dozens of individuals. We can deal with that.) No 100-year copyrights held by corporations. Both of these are reductions, not increases, in state power.
Now, you're talking! This is what I meant in my earlier reply: focus on the corporations themselves, instead of the consequences of corporations. Their original existance was to support the privatization of public works, for the public good. They've now been perverted into some people's definition of capitalism.
However, the "invisible hand" can't guide you, if you aren't responsible for your own actions. Corporate law provides so much of a buffer, that people act with impunity. If more people understood that, then maybe it'd become politically feasible to revamp the corporate system. Right now, any attack on corporations will be assumed as some "wild-eyed, discredited Communist plot.":-)
I agree that corporations, as they exist today, are a horrid perversion of the "free market."
However, I think that the double standard of supporting government action in one instance, but disapproving of action in another, deserves careful scrutiny.
If the real issue is the existence of corporations themselves, then stick to that issue. Don't go loading power up into a government, to fight the corporations, then complain when the corporations use the government to fight back.
But slashdot readers *like* it when prosecutors have all sorts of flexibility, in going after the "bad guys."
Look at how slashdot readers cheer on Janet Reno, Joel I. Klein, and their superhero trust-busting squad, as they take on Steve Ballmer, Bill H. Gates, and their diabolic trust-building legion of terror!
Oh, wait. Am I confused? Do slashdot readers like it when "rights" are protected (rights of the consumer vs. a "monopoly"), or are they opposed to the protection of "rights" (rights of the corporation/copyright holder vs. a consumer)?
Probably the easiest way to learn about the licenses is to read them!
Start with the X and BSD licenses. They're very short, and simple.
Then read the GPL. It's quite a bit longer, but that's partially because of the preamble. Skip it; it's not *that* important. If you want an understanding of why the GPL exists, you'd probably be better served to read in depth at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Find the X license at http://www.x.org/xlicense.htm
Find the BSD license at http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html
Note that the advertising clause (requiring that any advertising credit the UC Regents) has been removed by the UC Regents.
Find the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Sharing isn't an act of the recipient; it's an act of the giver.
When I release software with an LGPL license, I'm not just freely sharing with everyone. I'm making it available under a specific set of circumstances.
I am making an active effort *not* to share with everybody! If my AIM client were in the public domain, AOL could very well snatch it, and sell it!
You say that the FreeBSD people can ask the driver maintainers to share. That implies that the drivers aren't currently being shared! QED.:-)
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws, there are, by default, restrictions on use of the software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the laws defaults.
Well, not quite. Current law does provide for works to be placed in the public domain. Certainly works in the public domain are the most free, as there are no restrictions on them at all!
So what if somebody can make a closed version based on it? The benefits to open software, maintained by a community, are greater than any one company can provide. It's not like the release of a closed deriviative of open software removes the open software from the market! Is Mac OS X really any danger to FreeBSD?
Like many things designed to provide strong protection of anything, it is a pain in the ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in strong passphrases.
Do you realize the irony in that statement? You claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you compare it with cryptographic systems designed to limit access!
Right. GPL and it's cousins (including the LGPL, which I personally use) use "intellectual property" laws to place restrictions on the use of the software.
Richard Stallman attempts to claim the side of "freedom" against "slavery", but to me, the minute he began using the laws he compares with slavery, he lost any "moral" high ground.
I have no quarrel with the GPL and its cousins - as I said, I use the LGPL for my works. I just hate it when people act like the GPL is the epitome of sharing, when it's the GPL that usually ends up being very hard to be compatible with.
Fine. Then quit using Apache, and quit visiting sites that use apache. Commercial exploitation of Apache helps fund it's development.
Same with perl.
Same with sendmail.
Same with Linux, or did you forget that Red Hat pays Alan Cox for his Linux kernel work.
Me, I'm going to continue to enjoy the benefits of shared software funded by commercial exploitation. I'll also be looking forward to the day games like Freeciv see commercial sales, as well.
Who'd pay $30 for the GIMP, when you can get it free, pre-installed with your OS?
That's why what you suggest doesn't happen yet... Linux distributors, *BSD projects, and such are already doing just that: putting free software on a CD, and charging for it. Red Hat, Caldera, and SUSE make it their mission to target the end-user.
Now, I could see useful a $15-$25 Gimp package for Windows, with a CD and a manual, as it's only they that don't get Gimp on their OS CD. I don't care how many people whine that Gimp doesn't have Pantone or CMYK or something, 90% of Photoshop users are average people who grabbed acopy from someone else. If they could get Gimp legally, and cheaply, it could become successful.
Half-measures are sometimes no better than nothing at all.
If code is released, in a way that makes it infeasible for a fork to be maintained, then it's no better than no source at all.
That's what makes SCSL (Sun's parody of open source) worthless, and that's what makes non-commerical restrictions dodgy.
Commercial exploitation is sometimes a fantastic way to fund development. Take Freeciv. Wouldn't it be great, if someone could package Freeciv and make money off of it, and use that money to fund further Freeciv improvements? If this Black and White code has a non-commercial restriction, then a project using the code could never, ever take advantage of such an opportunity.
Think Apache's corporation. Sendmail's. Think of the fact that Linux originally had a non-commercial restriction, and how much would have been lost if Linus Torvalds hadn't been talked into switching to GPL.
Actually, the QPL has been dubbed a "Free Software" license by Richard Stallman himself. You know he wouldn't say that unless the QPL were VERY much open.
The problem that gets all the zealots huffy, is that QPL and GPL have restrictions that make them incompatible.
The old Qt licence, the Qt Free license, was more restrictive, though. That went out when Qt 2 was released, though.
If you think real hard now, you can see that the posts that Microsoft are asking to be removed do not infringe on Microsofts copyright. The other posts are in fact covered by the freedom of speech and freedom of expresion. Microsoft have no right to challenge the legality of these posts.
When you said "The posts", I parsed it as "all the posts", for some reason.
Anyway, ss for the ZIP posts, DMCA may in fact prohibit such things, as they can be considered hacking a copy-protection technology, for purposes other than interoperability, thus violating Microsoft's rights.
Debian wants to support GNOME, because it's GNU and uses GNU licenses. Debian also doesn't like KDE, because KDE uses Qt, and Qt..
1) has a closed, Win32 version 2) isn't GPL or LGPL 3) only recently became "Free Software"
Any computer-literate contract lawyer could tell you that the license to use and distribute KDE implies the right to use it with Qt, and thus would be perfectly legal.
I probably shouldn't have thrown in that aside, though. It was really off topic, and not nicely stated.:-) I just get really annoyed when I think about the way people act, sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that Microsoft will write X apps for Mac OS X.
:-)
They'll use Apple's GUI system.
And, the likelihood of Apple making their GUI available, is the same as the likelihood of MS Office for KDE.
But they are relevant.
If Microsoft's claims of copyright, trade secrecy, and violation of NDA are invalid, then Microsoft has no leverage with which to force Slashdot to remove the posts.
security is a function of...
1) how well designed certain OS features are
2) how much time people are WILLING to poke at it
Linux's announcement count benefits from 2, at least as much as 1. I'd say "same with Windows", but nobody has access to the code, to see if its kernel is written anything like a sensible kernel would be.
I like that distinction.
It never occurs to most people, since most people like the idea of government making efforts in *all* directions.
But yes, I suppose that's a good way to distinguish some positions. Government is to have a limited role, which should be its top priority?
I feel that without property rights, all other rights lose their leverage. The power to tax, is the power to destroy.
Good distinction... rarely has a slashdot argument left me so satisfied.
No, there's no obligation, but it's pretty retarded to put roadblocks up, when you're hoping to gain support for a cause.
"If you can get past that"... that's just stupid.
Corporations don't have rights. Their very existence is a privilege, contingent upon good behavior and revokable at any time by the people. Unfortunately, the mechanism for this is badly broken at the moment.
You've done a very good job of dehumanizing your opponent. Allow me to remind you that corporations are only *legal* entities to themselves; their actions are the actions of people, and their defenses in court are directed and chosen by people. When you attack corporations, you are attacking the people who run them, and benefit from them.
When you support an active national government attacking the interests of these people, you set a precedent. Now, you may like the idea of government just replacing corporations as active players in the lives of people, but I'd rather hold off both. I'm reminded of Aesop's fable, The Horse and the Stag.
Congress should use its interstate commerce powers to force corporations to be chartered in the state where they are really headquartered. No more of this Deleware corporation crap, which steps on the rights of the real home state.
Interesting idea, but difficult in practice. "Headquartered" is a very vague notion, to define legally. All you'd end up doing is boosting the real estate market in delaware, as corporations would set up just enough of an office there, to meet whatever legal definition was made. The centers of power would remain where they are now; there would just be an "official" office in some Delaware backwater.
Congress should use that same power to simply ban misbehaving corporations from engaging in interstate trade.
Congress has the power to *regulate* interstate trade; to say that Congress could *forbid* it would be a questionable extension of power. Let me guess; you're a big fan of Franklin Roosevelt's legacy?
This would return power to the states, away from the federal government, and so should be appealing to conservatives, even if it does help liberal ends.
While I'm a big fan of federalism, I don't support state power for its own sake. And the way you talk about forbidding interstate commerce in some instances is not a reduction in national power; it's an increase.
The courts should make it clear that corporations are not citizens or natural persons, that the mid-1800's Supreme Court decision that said so was as bogus as Dred Scott - that the state cannot create, via charter, new legal persons. The courts should also make it clear that Congress's copyright and patent powers extend only to the original authors or creators - real natural people - of a work. (Yes, that might mean a collaborative copyright held by dozens of individuals. We can deal with that.) No 100-year copyrights held by corporations. Both of these are reductions, not increases, in state power.
Now, you're talking! This is what I meant in my earlier reply: focus on the corporations themselves, instead of the consequences of corporations. Their original existance was to support the privatization of public works, for the public good. They've now been perverted into some people's definition of capitalism.
However, the "invisible hand" can't guide you, if you aren't responsible for your own actions. Corporate law provides so much of a buffer, that people act with impunity. If more people understood that, then maybe it'd become politically feasible to revamp the corporate system. Right now, any attack on corporations will be assumed as some "wild-eyed, discredited Communist plot." :-)
I agree that corporations, as they exist today, are a horrid perversion of the "free market."
However, I think that the double standard of supporting government action in one instance, but disapproving of action in another, deserves careful scrutiny.
If the real issue is the existence of corporations themselves, then stick to that issue. Don't go loading power up into a government, to fight the corporations, then complain when the corporations use the government to fight back.
But slashdot readers *like* it when prosecutors have all sorts of flexibility, in going after the "bad guys."
Look at how slashdot readers cheer on Janet Reno, Joel I. Klein, and their superhero trust-busting squad, as they take on Steve Ballmer, Bill H. Gates, and their diabolic trust-building legion of terror!
Oh, wait. Am I confused? Do slashdot readers like it when "rights" are protected (rights of the consumer vs. a "monopoly"), or are they opposed to the protection of "rights" (rights of the corporation/copyright holder vs. a consumer)?
Forget about the Tang.. I want to know where they sent away to get they use to knock people out, while kidnapping potential astronauts.
My understanding was that one of the inspirations for KOffice design was OpenDoc.
Probably the easiest way to learn about the licenses is to read them!
Start with the X and BSD licenses. They're very short, and simple.
Then read the GPL. It's quite a bit longer, but that's partially because of the preamble. Skip it; it's not *that* important. If you want an understanding of why the GPL exists, you'd probably be better served to read in depth at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Find the X license at http://www.x.org/xlicense.htm
Find the BSD license at http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html
Note that the advertising clause (requiring that any advertising credit the UC Regents) has been removed by the UC Regents.
Find the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I feel like I'm not communicating.. but I'll give it one last try in this thread.
Yes, the PERSON is making a decision not to share with everyone. The GPL is the TOOL that PERSON uses not to share with everyone.
Nope.
The person applying the GPL to a piece of code, is making the deliberate choice not to share with all parts of the free software community.
I see no reason to amend that statement.
Sharing isn't an act of the recipient; it's an act of the giver.
:-)
When I release software with an LGPL license, I'm not just freely sharing with everyone. I'm making it available under a specific set of circumstances.
I am making an active effort *not* to share with everybody! If my AIM client were in the public domain, AOL could very well snatch it, and sell it!
You say that the FreeBSD people can ask the driver maintainers to share. That implies that the drivers aren't currently being shared! QED.
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws, there are, by default, restrictions on use of the software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the laws defaults.
Well, not quite. Current law does provide for works to be placed in the public domain. Certainly works in the public domain are the most free, as there are no restrictions on them at all!
So what if somebody can make a closed version based on it? The benefits to open software, maintained by a community, are greater than any one company can provide. It's not like the release of a closed deriviative of open software removes the open software from the market! Is Mac OS X really any danger to FreeBSD?
Like many things designed to provide strong protection of anything, it is a pain in the ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in strong passphrases.
Do you realize the irony in that statement? You claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you compare it with cryptographic systems designed to limit access!
Right. GPL and it's cousins (including the LGPL, which I personally use) use "intellectual property" laws to place restrictions on the use of the software.
Richard Stallman attempts to claim the side of
"freedom" against "slavery", but to me, the minute he began using the laws he compares with slavery, he lost any "moral" high ground.
I have no quarrel with the GPL and its cousins - as I said, I use the LGPL for my works. I just hate it when people act like the GPL is the epitome of sharing, when it's the GPL that usually ends up being very hard to be compatible with.
Tell that to the FreeBSD people, when they wish they could use Linux drivers.
If one really wanted to be fully open, one would not claim copyright at all, or would use a BSD-like license.
GPL has motivations other than sharing, though. The GPL was written to share with like-minded individuals, and to keep others from using it.
The GPL is one facet of a war against closed software, not merely a tool to allow sharing.
Not at all!
This is only useful to the GPL loving community.
This is just another example of people using "intellectual property" laws to restrict sharing, just as the GPL restricts sharing.
Fine. Then quit using Apache, and quit visiting sites that use apache. Commercial exploitation of Apache helps fund it's development.
Same with perl.
Same with sendmail.
Same with Linux, or did you forget that Red Hat pays Alan Cox for his Linux kernel work.
Me, I'm going to continue to enjoy the benefits of shared software funded by commercial exploitation. I'll also be looking forward to the day games like Freeciv see commercial sales, as well.
Well.. then why is all the venom directed to the QPL? The GPL's restrictions are just as much a hindrance to code sharing, as the QPL is.
Who'd pay $30 for the GIMP, when you can get it free, pre-installed with your OS?
That's why what you suggest doesn't happen yet... Linux distributors, *BSD projects, and such are already doing just that: putting free software on a CD, and charging for it. Red Hat, Caldera, and SUSE make it their mission to target the end-user.
Now, I could see useful a $15-$25 Gimp package for Windows, with a CD and a manual, as it's only they that don't get Gimp on their OS CD. I don't care how many people whine that Gimp doesn't have Pantone or CMYK or something, 90% of Photoshop users are average people who grabbed acopy from someone else. If they could get Gimp legally, and cheaply, it could become successful.
Half-measures are sometimes no better than nothing at all.
If code is released, in a way that makes it infeasible for a fork to be maintained, then it's no better than no source at all.
That's what makes SCSL (Sun's parody of open source) worthless, and that's what makes non-commerical restrictions dodgy.
Commercial exploitation is sometimes a fantastic way to fund development. Take Freeciv. Wouldn't it be great, if someone could package Freeciv and make money off of it, and use that money to fund further Freeciv improvements? If this Black and White code has a non-commercial restriction, then a project using the code could never, ever take advantage of such an opportunity.
Think Apache's corporation. Sendmail's. Think of the fact that Linux originally had a non-commercial restriction, and how much would have been lost if Linus Torvalds hadn't been talked into switching to GPL.
Actually, the QPL has been dubbed a "Free Software" license by Richard Stallman himself. You know he wouldn't say that unless the QPL were VERY much open.
The problem that gets all the zealots huffy, is that QPL and GPL have restrictions that make them incompatible.
The old Qt licence, the Qt Free license, was more restrictive, though. That went out when Qt 2 was released, though.
Here's what I was replying to:
If you think real hard now, you can see that the posts that Microsoft are asking to be removed do not infringe on Microsofts copyright. The other posts are in fact covered by the freedom of speech and freedom of expresion. Microsoft have no right to challenge the legality of these posts.
When you said "The posts", I parsed it as "all the posts", for some reason.
Anyway, ss for the ZIP posts, DMCA may in fact prohibit such things, as they can be considered hacking a copy-protection technology, for purposes other than interoperability, thus violating Microsoft's rights.
Ah, we both know the real reason now, don't we?
:-) I just get really annoyed when I think about the way people act, sometimes.
Debian wants to support GNOME, because it's GNU and uses GNU licenses. Debian also doesn't like KDE, because KDE uses Qt, and Qt..
1) has a closed, Win32 version
2) isn't GPL or LGPL
3) only recently became "Free Software"
Any computer-literate contract lawyer could tell you that the license to use and distribute KDE implies the right to use it with Qt, and thus would be perfectly legal.
I probably shouldn't have thrown in that aside, though. It was really off topic, and not nicely stated.