The "system" isn't all that bad. Systems aren't evil... people are.
And, while some systems are more susceptible to corruption than others, it is ultimately people that have to be held accountable for what they do... ALL people.
Also, please do not cheer me, for my efforts are nothing without others doing as I do.
I, for one think that judges should be personally liable when they err, particularly when it causes suffering to parties wrongly convicted and those that depend on them (for income, etc.). Just what the punishment for judicial error should be is a matter for debate, of course, and honest mistakes should not be treated as harshly as gross negligence, but the idea that judges are somehow not answerable to the law, or not answerable enough bothers me.
Whether that's the case here is, of course, another story, but I've become increasingly distrustful of government and law "enforcement".
I am a vocal critic of abuses of state power, engage in minor civil disobedience myself (I used a deCSS-derived program to watch DVDs that I bought on a GNU/Linux computer because I neither want to spend the money on Windows® nor trust it to be spyware-free), and fully expect to wind up in prison someday for my thoughts, when I see crap like this. I can not just shut up and live a lie.
If anything should have the t's crossed and the i's dotted, it's the criminal justice process, from investigation, arrest, prosecution, to conviction. The defendants apparent folly in angering the judge does not change this.
I see some of the more insightful posters' comments were excerpted for the article. Fair enough. It does bother me though, that they lacked attribution.
Yes, Slashdot is a public forum, but posters still retain copyright on their comments, and if they're excerpted and posted in another public publication, attribution, or at least a hyperlink to the original comment in context strikes me as the proper (and legal) thing to do.
Perhaps it was felt that a single link to the thread holding all the comments was sufficient, but I tend to disagree.
In Canada, at least (and IANAL), it depends on the "thing" bought. Food, clothing, or tools of a trade (a bicycle to deliver papers), can'tnot be sold to a minor just because he or she is a minor.
Having dealt with RMS with regard to the use of GPL software in a commercial environment, I don't find his "policing" of the GPL unreasonable.
There are a few sticky issues (like pre-release distribution of binaries only to outside contractors because you don't yet have a clean source release mechanism), but with proper planning, even these can be overcome.
As for selling GPL source, this is permitted, though I thought that there was some cap on price, based on reasonable distribution expenses (media, shipping, overhead, etc.)
This approach seeks to match a mean programmer productivity estimate against a mean program size estimate to obtain an expected completion date. the idea is that individual variances will cancel eachother out (you actually want programmers with different skill levels).
One problem with this is that it requires an estimate of program size up front. This usually involves a rapid design phase to produce a set of classes, who's size is estimated, which, in turn, translates to lines of code per class. Unfortunately, this changes the goal of the design phase from a sound, robust design, to "hurry up and finish so we know how bit it is".
Furthermore, while designs shouldn't churn too much, proper designs allow some latitude for change up front. This approach precludes that because it changes the project size estimates.
I think that RMS would take exception to the statement that Linus Torvalds wrote an "operating system". He wrote a kernel. See
this for more information.
I know, it's just a joke, but spreading a distortion of the truth, even in humour, is potentially harmful.
As one of the many NALs here, I just wanted to offer thanks for the legal opinion (and, no, I would not construe it as advice, etc., since, among other things, individual circumstances vary).
IANAL, but a contract (enforcable at law) requires several things:
1. The parties must be capable of entering into a contract. This generally means being of legal age and not judged incompetent (i.e. being found incompetent by the court), but not necessarily: in Canada (at least) minors can enter into contracts that are legally binding on the other party, but not on the minor. There are also certain situations where one can not refuse to enter into a contract with a minor (generally for "necessaries" or tools of a trade) if one is generally in business.
2. Legal Consideration. There must be something of value exchanged between the parties. However, certain considerations are not legal: for example promising to not marry in exchange for payment. Generally things not viewed in the public interest (like this) can not be the consideration of legally binding contracts. They may still be contracts, just not enforcable by the courts.
3. A meeting of minds. The parties must have actually agreed to the terms. Contracts need not be in writing: verbal contracts and even handshakes are perfectly valid, but generally frowned upon because the terms may be difficult for a court to determine, and whether both parties agreed to the same terms (i.e. the "meeting of minds"). A series of email exchanges, therefore, can serve as strong evidence that a meeting of minds occured.
Now, you're all probably arguing that email can be faked, and this is true. However, in civil cases, the burden of proof is not on the plaintif: only a preponderance of evidence to back the plaintif's claims is necessary. Generally, in this case, if there were any non-email contact between the parties to suggest that some of the email was genuine, that would be pretty damning evidence: i.e., "oh yeah, they were talking about the house sale, and exchanged emails about it" sworn under oath, would be pretty strong evidence.
I second this. However it flies in the face of "load balancing".
You know, 12 UI changes to be made divided by 6 developers = 2 UI changes per developer. Nice "perfect" load balancing. Never mind that 5 of those 6 now have to learn the structure of the UI system developed by the 6th and not yet documented for public consumption and that the 6th could have implemented all 12 changes himself in the same time as the entire team.
Oh yes... such "load balancing" does expose merge "hot spots" pretty quick.
I've seen two conflicting approaches: check in to a common branch and trust the source code control system to keep things sane (Clearcase can do this, CVS sticky tags can as well). The trouble here is that people wait for exclusive checkouts, or run the risks associated with non-exclusive checkouts. The other approach is to maintain a branch for every developer and merge. This resolves the exclusive checkout problem, but requires discipline and avoidance of hot spots and architecturally-based task assignment.
I worked in a shop that started with the branch per developer approach (not a problem with Clearcase, but from what little I know about CVS, this may not be practical), and quickly abandoned it because too many people played with the same code causing merge nightmares (exacerbated by management's load balancing based on estimate lines of code added/changed without regard to architecture or skill).
I now work in a shop that sticks to CVS, and people generally know who's playing where. Sticky tag confligs occur rarely.
Personally, I like the idea of modular isolation, because it lets you use the one branch per developer approach (well, with Clearcase, at least) if you want, letting people test changes to code their not supposed to be "officially" changing (it sometimes that you find a bug in code you shouldn't "officially" change).
By not letting the citizens create the laws they may desperately need
Uh huh. So, when the KKK "desperately needs" to put "niggers" in "their" place, it should be easy to create a law that permits this?
Application of the notwithstanding clause has reduced Canada, and particularly Quebec, to the land of mob rule.
Far better to have a set of "inalianable" rights, that while not really absolute, are damn hard to officially take away. The public's apathy or inability to assert those right, is, of course, another problem.
If I where [sic] his laywer I would be suing for more than the cost of the equipment.
I was under the impression that one can't collect punitive damages in civil suits in Canada. I distinctly remember a case where a woman who suffered severe emotional trauma was awarded the cost of her psychiatric visits, and no more.
Besides, there are no rights in Canada... there is something called the "Notwithstanding Clause" in the 1982 patriated constitution. It basically says "these are your rights unless the government decides otherwise". The twisted reasoning was that, in a democracy, the (appointed) judiciary should not interpret the law, only the elected representatives should (ultimately). So, when the Supreme Court of Canada declared a law mandating unilingual French commercial signs in Quebec illegal, the government immediatly passed a law overulling that decision.
Neither can a lawyer take a case on a contingency basis, so,,, no $$$, no justice. The reasoning is that this eliminates "ambulance chasers".
Having lived in the U.S. (legally) since 1997, this Canadian still prefers the way the U.S. does (or at least is supposed to do) things, warts, DMCA, Patriot Act, and all (though I do think civil liberties are going to hell here).
If, by "lighter", you mean a flame thrower, yeah, I guess so.
The point was that while you can say what you want, doing so when it will likely cause a panic that can be expected to cause more harm than not saying anything, is considered subject toreasonable restraint on free speech -- it isn't what you say that is harmful, it is the consequences of saying it.
Laws aganst incitement to riot are similar (though, when the Meech Lake accord died due to a sunset clause, Quebeckers were told that flying a Canadian flag on the aniversery of Canadian independence from Britian would be considered incitement to riot) but, like "reasonable restraint of speech" laws, can be used to oppress perfecly reasonable speech.
Actually, you can shout "fire" in a crowded room (theatre, to be exact) IF there is a fire present.
The prohibition exists only because people can't rationaly evaluate the merit of those words in a potential emergency, and the resulting panic if there is no emergency is harmful.
If Napster and its P2P clones ever get loose, nobody in the music business will make any money ever again. And if 802.11b ever works, nobody will sell Internet access and AOL will go broke. And if Linux had a decent graphic user interface, Bill Gates would have no business model. Bill would have to spend all this menace. [emphais mine]
This menace? This menace!? Since when is being able to share a menace? Certainly, one might share things that one oughtn't, and sheesh, there are lots of sharp or poisonous things around with which I can kill people that didn't exist 1000 years ago, but should we make them go away, so laws aren't broken? Is the convenience not worth the new risks? Should we ban cars so buggy-whip manufacturers don't disappear? Is the potential to break the law in new ways or make one's business obsolete what this "menace" is?
I guess so.
I can see the legal issues, but only barely. Ideas and things don't break the law, people's actions do. Still, if I could have a "safer" firearm that was less likely to go off accidentally, but just as effective as a defensive weapon, that would be desirable. I'd likely support home owners' association covenents requireing any firearms on one's property to be of the "safe" variety, though I probably wouldn't want that mandated by law (not being able to shoot an intruder because you could not afford the safer gun, would be a bad thing -- the price difference would be about as much of an issue for a home owner in an upscale neighborhood as the need to keep their yard tidy).
But the "menace" here is not the bad side of the good/bad dichotomy that technology brings. It is simply the threat that an existing business model is no longer viable. Guess what? Welcome to old-fashioned free market competition. Innovation. Americans call it "know how" and, gosh darn, it feels about as good as Mom's apple pie: you get to try to sell me something and I get to try to find a way to not need it. That strikes me as rather fair.
I am a software engineer. My current skills go the way of the buggy-whip about every 3-5 years. Yet, I adapt, I keep up, I learn new skills. I also learn how to effectively apply new skills fast. I deal with progress and it's threat to me. Heck, I'm one of the ones making it happen. What the hell makes anyone think that they should be immune to progress, and gives them the right to keep us in relative misery compared to a prospective brighter and easier future? Profit?
There is no right to profit. I suppose if there were, I'd go around shoving buggy whips and horse dung catchers in people's faces, extorting the profit to which I have a right, having auto manufacturers thrown in jail for violating my rights, while little Johnny and Janie die because they can't be brought to urgent medical attention soon enough.
Those people who restrain progress by appealing to a supposed right to profit might not be accessories to murder in such a context, but they damned sure have a depraved indifference to human life.
Repeat after me, "When software is free, the world is a better place."
Yep, definitely zealotry. We are told not to think just do.
Do you deny that the world is a better place when software is freely available to anyone who wants it?
Zealotry would be a denouncement of anything other than free software. RMS may be guilty of this, OTOH he may just want the amount of software freely available to increase as fast as possible, because of the benefits this brings.
So, you don't need economic arguments to defend the GPL.
Then what was that whole economic argument you just made all about?
It was not an economic argument: economics is about the use and development of the most efficient way to deliver goods from producers to consumers. Economic value is related to relative scarcity. Free software addresses scarcity as a root problem rather than trying instead to efficiently distribute scarce goods (which sometimes results in the means to do so becoming less scarce).
Software is like air: worthless unless you don't have any.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I do think it's imperative that the public at large eventually realize what social benefits arise through the free sharing of code, because if not, those benefits will instead accrue to those who own said code.
It seems to work better to win the Open Source arguments first...
There are two problems with this approach:
First, it appeals only to those who have an economic interest in open source, generally businesses reducing their operating or production costs, and is lost on the average person.
Second, it suggests that the moral arguments for software freedom are somewhat secondary, and worse, obscures that debate from view. While those with a pure profit motive wouldn't care for these arguments, they are far more important to the vast majority of people, ultimately. If the matter of software freedom is to be decided by legislation, we need the voter on our side, rather than be at the mercy of which industry can buy the most favorable law for themselves. Right now, the voter does not care.
I remember a bit of advice I once heard given to an aspiring politician (well, libertarian candidate in an election: the 'politician' moniker seemed ill-fitting): "know your audience." The open source arguments are fitting for a tech-savvy business audience, certainly. But this ignores the most important audience of all: the average joe and jane. I think you'd find them far more accepting of the morals behind software freedom than pragmatic arguments. It's bad enough they think all hackers are terrorists. It's high time they realize the truth that we are, in fact, ultimately devoting our efforts to make the world a better place, whether intentionally or not.
Free software for the masses, open source to deflect negative business FUD.
These people do not care to hear moral justifications
No, but Mundie argues that free software is wrong on it's face, obviously wanting it outlawed. While business can buy ^H^H^H^H*cough* lobby *cough* for legislation that benefits them, ultimately the voter will decide what laws are acceptable, and as long as the issue appears to be a pragmatic one for business, the voter won't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when the law permits the kind of lattitude that raises the possibility of dissenting opinions. Reasonable people can disagree, of course.
The things that burn me up are clear displays of judicial bias (i.e. calling Shawn Fawning a "monster" because of the code he wrote).
And, while some systems are more susceptible to corruption than others, it is ultimately people that have to be held accountable for what they do... ALL people.
Also, please do not cheer me, for my efforts are nothing without others doing as I do.
Whether that's the case here is, of course, another story, but I've become increasingly distrustful of government and law "enforcement".
I am a vocal critic of abuses of state power, engage in minor civil disobedience myself (I used a deCSS-derived program to watch DVDs that I bought on a GNU/Linux computer because I neither want to spend the money on Windows® nor trust it to be spyware-free), and fully expect to wind up in prison someday for my thoughts, when I see crap like this. I can not just shut up and live a lie.
If anything should have the t's crossed and the i's dotted, it's the criminal justice process, from investigation, arrest, prosecution, to conviction. The defendants apparent folly in angering the judge does not change this.
Yes, Slashdot is a public forum, but posters still retain copyright on their comments, and if they're excerpted and posted in another public publication, attribution, or at least a hyperlink to the original comment in context strikes me as the proper (and legal) thing to do.
Perhaps it was felt that a single link to the thread holding all the comments was sufficient, but I tend to disagree.
The GPL is the only thing that gives you the right to have and use the software (if your're not the copyright holder).
If the GPL is not enforcable, you have NO right to the software at all.
In Canada, at least (and IANAL), it depends on the "thing" bought. Food, clothing, or tools of a trade (a bicycle to deliver papers), can'tnot be sold to a minor just because he or she is a minor.
There are a few sticky issues (like pre-release distribution of binaries only to outside contractors because you don't yet have a clean source release mechanism), but with proper planning, even these can be overcome.
As for selling GPL source, this is permitted, though I thought that there was some cap on price, based on reasonable distribution expenses (media, shipping, overhead, etc.)
One problem with this is that it requires an estimate of program size up front. This usually involves a rapid design phase to produce a set of classes, who's size is estimated, which, in turn, translates to lines of code per class. Unfortunately, this changes the goal of the design phase from a sound, robust design, to "hurry up and finish so we know how bit it is".
Furthermore, while designs shouldn't churn too much, proper designs allow some latitude for change up front. This approach precludes that because it changes the project size estimates.
I know, it's just a joke, but spreading a distortion of the truth, even in humour, is potentially harmful.
I agree with Linus' viewpoint re. religion (I am agnostic myself): more people have probably died in the name of god than for any other reason.
Er, RMS is an atheist, so the joke falls a bit flat, but still funny.
As one of the many NALs here, I just wanted to offer thanks for the legal opinion (and, no, I would not construe it as advice, etc., since, among other things, individual circumstances vary).
1. The parties must be capable of entering into a contract. This generally means being of legal age and not judged incompetent (i.e. being found incompetent by the court), but not necessarily: in Canada (at least) minors can enter into contracts that are legally binding on the other party, but not on the minor. There are also certain situations where one can not refuse to enter into a contract with a minor (generally for "necessaries" or tools of a trade) if one is generally in business.
2. Legal Consideration. There must be something of value exchanged between the parties. However, certain considerations are not legal: for example promising to not marry in exchange for payment. Generally things not viewed in the public interest (like this) can not be the consideration of legally binding contracts. They may still be contracts, just not enforcable by the courts.
3. A meeting of minds. The parties must have actually agreed to the terms. Contracts need not be in writing: verbal contracts and even handshakes are perfectly valid, but generally frowned upon because the terms may be difficult for a court to determine, and whether both parties agreed to the same terms (i.e. the "meeting of minds"). A series of email exchanges, therefore, can serve as strong evidence that a meeting of minds occured.
Now, you're all probably arguing that email can be faked, and this is true. However, in civil cases, the burden of proof is not on the plaintif: only a preponderance of evidence to back the plaintif's claims is necessary. Generally, in this case, if there were any non-email contact between the parties to suggest that some of the email was genuine, that would be pretty damning evidence: i.e., "oh yeah, they were talking about the house sale, and exchanged emails about it" sworn under oath, would be pretty strong evidence.
No, this shouldn't happen with disciplined developers.
Yes, it happens: not all developers are disciplined.
You know, 12 UI changes to be made divided by 6 developers = 2 UI changes per developer. Nice "perfect" load balancing. Never mind that 5 of those 6 now have to learn the structure of the UI system developed by the 6th and not yet documented for public consumption and that the 6th could have implemented all 12 changes himself in the same time as the entire team.
Oh yes... such "load balancing" does expose merge "hot spots" pretty quick.
I've seen two conflicting approaches: check in to a common branch and trust the source code control system to keep things sane (Clearcase can do this, CVS sticky tags can as well). The trouble here is that people wait for exclusive checkouts, or run the risks associated with non-exclusive checkouts. The other approach is to maintain a branch for every developer and merge. This resolves the exclusive checkout problem, but requires discipline and avoidance of hot spots and architecturally-based task assignment.
I worked in a shop that started with the branch per developer approach (not a problem with Clearcase, but from what little I know about CVS, this may not be practical), and quickly abandoned it because too many people played with the same code causing merge nightmares (exacerbated by management's load balancing based on estimate lines of code added/changed without regard to architecture or skill).
I now work in a shop that sticks to CVS, and people generally know who's playing where. Sticky tag confligs occur rarely.
Personally, I like the idea of modular isolation, because it lets you use the one branch per developer approach (well, with Clearcase, at least) if you want, letting people test changes to code their not supposed to be "officially" changing (it sometimes that you find a bug in code you shouldn't "officially" change).
Uh huh. So, when the KKK "desperately needs" to put "niggers" in "their" place, it should be easy to create a law that permits this?
Application of the notwithstanding clause has reduced Canada, and particularly Quebec, to the land of mob rule.
Far better to have a set of "inalianable" rights, that while not really absolute, are damn hard to officially take away. The public's apathy or inability to assert those right, is, of course, another problem.
I was under the impression that one can't collect punitive damages in civil suits in Canada. I distinctly remember a case where a woman who suffered severe emotional trauma was awarded the cost of her psychiatric visits, and no more.
Besides, there are no rights in Canada... there is something called the "Notwithstanding Clause" in the 1982 patriated constitution. It basically says "these are your rights unless the government decides otherwise". The twisted reasoning was that, in a democracy, the (appointed) judiciary should not interpret the law, only the elected representatives should (ultimately). So, when the Supreme Court of Canada declared a law mandating unilingual French commercial signs in Quebec illegal, the government immediatly passed a law overulling that decision.
Neither can a lawyer take a case on a contingency basis, so,,, no $$$, no justice. The reasoning is that this eliminates "ambulance chasers".
Having lived in the U.S. (legally) since 1997, this Canadian still prefers the way the U.S. does (or at least is supposed to do) things, warts, DMCA, Patriot Act, and all (though I do think civil liberties are going to hell here).
The point was that while you can say what you want, doing so when it will likely cause a panic that can be expected to cause more harm than not saying anything, is considered subject toreasonable restraint on free speech -- it isn't what you say that is harmful, it is the consequences of saying it.
Laws aganst incitement to riot are similar (though, when the Meech Lake accord died due to a sunset clause, Quebeckers were told that flying a Canadian flag on the aniversery of Canadian independence from Britian would be considered incitement to riot) but, like "reasonable restraint of speech" laws, can be used to oppress perfecly reasonable speech.
The prohibition exists only because people can't rationaly evaluate the merit of those words in a potential emergency, and the resulting panic if there is no emergency is harmful.
This menace? This menace!? Since when is being able to share a menace? Certainly, one might share things that one oughtn't, and sheesh, there are lots of sharp or poisonous things around with which I can kill people that didn't exist 1000 years ago, but should we make them go away, so laws aren't broken? Is the convenience not worth the new risks? Should we ban cars so buggy-whip manufacturers don't disappear? Is the potential to break the law in new ways or make one's business obsolete what this "menace" is?
I guess so.
I can see the legal issues, but only barely. Ideas and things don't break the law, people's actions do. Still, if I could have a "safer" firearm that was less likely to go off accidentally, but just as effective as a defensive weapon, that would be desirable. I'd likely support home owners' association covenents requireing any firearms on one's property to be of the "safe" variety, though I probably wouldn't want that mandated by law (not being able to shoot an intruder because you could not afford the safer gun, would be a bad thing -- the price difference would be about as much of an issue for a home owner in an upscale neighborhood as the need to keep their yard tidy).
But the "menace" here is not the bad side of the good/bad dichotomy that technology brings. It is simply the threat that an existing business model is no longer viable. Guess what? Welcome to old-fashioned free market competition. Innovation. Americans call it "know how" and, gosh darn, it feels about as good as Mom's apple pie: you get to try to sell me something and I get to try to find a way to not need it. That strikes me as rather fair.
I am a software engineer. My current skills go the way of the buggy-whip about every 3-5 years. Yet, I adapt, I keep up, I learn new skills. I also learn how to effectively apply new skills fast. I deal with progress and it's threat to me. Heck, I'm one of the ones making it happen. What the hell makes anyone think that they should be immune to progress, and gives them the right to keep us in relative misery compared to a prospective brighter and easier future? Profit?
There is no right to profit. I suppose if there were, I'd go around shoving buggy whips and horse dung catchers in people's faces, extorting the profit to which I have a right, having auto manufacturers thrown in jail for violating my rights, while little Johnny and Janie die because they can't be brought to urgent medical attention soon enough.
Those people who restrain progress by appealing to a supposed right to profit might not be accessories to murder in such a context, but they damned sure have a depraved indifference to human life.
Er, staging a sit-in in Utah qualifies one as a terrorist, according to laws recently passed there.
Yep, definitely zealotry. We are told not to think just do.
Do you deny that the world is a better place when software is freely available to anyone who wants it?
Zealotry would be a denouncement of anything other than free software. RMS may be guilty of this, OTOH he may just want the amount of software freely available to increase as fast as possible, because of the benefits this brings.
So, you don't need economic arguments to defend the GPL.
Then what was that whole economic argument you just made all about?
It was not an economic argument: economics is about the use and development of the most efficient way to deliver goods from producers to consumers. Economic value is related to relative scarcity. Free software addresses scarcity as a root problem rather than trying instead to efficiently distribute scarce goods (which sometimes results in the means to do so becoming less scarce).
Software is like air: worthless unless you don't have any.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I do think it's imperative that the public at large eventually realize what social benefits arise through the free sharing of code, because if not, those benefits will instead accrue to those who own said code.
There are two problems with this approach:
First, it appeals only to those who have an economic interest in open source, generally businesses reducing their operating or production costs, and is lost on the average person.
Second, it suggests that the moral arguments for software freedom are somewhat secondary, and worse, obscures that debate from view. While those with a pure profit motive wouldn't care for these arguments, they are far more important to the vast majority of people, ultimately. If the matter of software freedom is to be decided by legislation, we need the voter on our side, rather than be at the mercy of which industry can buy the most favorable law for themselves. Right now, the voter does not care.
I remember a bit of advice I once heard given to an aspiring politician (well, libertarian candidate in an election: the 'politician' moniker seemed ill-fitting): "know your audience." The open source arguments are fitting for a tech-savvy business audience, certainly. But this ignores the most important audience of all: the average joe and jane. I think you'd find them far more accepting of the morals behind software freedom than pragmatic arguments. It's bad enough they think all hackers are terrorists. It's high time they realize the truth that we are, in fact, ultimately devoting our efforts to make the world a better place, whether intentionally or not.
Free software for the masses, open source to deflect negative business FUD.
No, but Mundie argues that free software is wrong on it's face, obviously wanting it outlawed. While business can buy ^H^H^H^H*cough* lobby *cough* for legislation that benefits them, ultimately the voter will decide what laws are acceptable, and as long as the issue appears to be a pragmatic one for business, the voter won't care.