Yeah I don't think companies would have incentives to make free software. That would change. But people would still make free software...just voluntarily, or as a hobby.
I'd like to think people have a breaking point. A point where they say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". I'd like to imagine if software were that intrusive, people would turn to piracy or free alternatives. One incident in reality supports my belief: the widespread piracy of Spore.
Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle.
That's the point of these, to make others aware of all the "features" of it, so that they can make an informed choice. Or are you against people making others aware, and complaining about NOT BEING TOLD of these limitations when they made the purchase?
That would be a good reason to publish only binaries and fill them up with all sorts of hard-to-defeat DRM-like piracy countermeasures and arcane tactics like remote identifying and banning computers from running the SW.
We live in a world with copyright, and that already happens! The only difference in a world free of copyright is, without the threat of legal retribution, piracy would become much more widespread. DRM would be defeated very quickly (like today, where you can find zero-day warez) and all of those upgrades and addons could be pirated too.
Another possibility I didn't consider. But what would keeping the GPL around in a world without copyright do to prevent companies from clamping down on source? Would anything stop companies from clamping down on source in this scenario?
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start.
They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone. Having a personal benefit from hidden software might give your business a slight edge, but not strong enough to be profitable. And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf? Like suppose I write a web browser, and I hide it from everyone, but I offer to print out webpages for a dollar? I doubt people would tolerate that.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service).
No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
That is a legitimate concern that I did not consider. That *would* be a way for people to profit off software in a copyright free environment, and I feel dumb for not thinking of it. So I was wrong on that point. However, I don't see how having the GPL would prevent this either. I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service. But perhaps I hope too much.
The difference is, arms are useful.To the copyright abolitionist, copyright stopped being useful when computers empowered individuals to copy and distribute information as many times as they wanted at no cost.
Nobody wants to lose their arms. Copyright abolitionists want to lose copyright. Thats the point.
Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle. Boycotts are the only way these companies are gonna learn that customers won't tolerate DRM.
So you think whoever made Flashgot is fuming right now, saying "HOW DARE THEY TAKE CODE OF MINE WITHOUT GIVING ME PROPER CREDIT FOR CREATING IT?" Honestly, I'm sure they care more about their code being closed than whether or not they got credit.
It's different in the academic world, where your job depends on your reputation. If people discover that you plagiarized a journal article, they won't be able to trust anything you write. How can you be sure a source is credible if the author can't even be bothered to do their own research? On the other hand, reputation plays little role in firefox extensions. I don't care who programmed it. I only want it to work.
Mod parent up. You're absolutely right. No code was "stolen". Code can't be stolen. This is just a small license violation. Not a big deal. The perpetrators are at best ignorant, and at worst, selfish, yet the summary paints them out to be the scum of the earth.
I wonder what the copyright abolitionist would say when copyright is abolished and the GPL stops to be enforceable... Oh well.
If copyright were abolished, we would be free to copy and modify software without legal repercussions, so we wouldn't need to rely so much on the GPL. Of course, no modifying could be done unless programmers voluntarily published their source code. But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free. It would be advantageous to publish the source code, to ensure quality and make bugs and security holes visible.
In short, if copyright were abolished, we would have no use for the GPL.
This is why most good programmers will stop contributing to the global community because there are those who will steal their work, pass it off as their own, never acknowledge or give credit, and then shamefully stick their head in the sand and ignore the consequences.
This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's a good thing that code can be borrowed from one program and used in another. Why re-invent the wheel after all? I thought that's why we wrote open source software - not to receive credit, but because we want to share our work with the world.
The crime here is not that one programmer "stole" the work of another. The crime is that one programmer took advantage of an open resource, but kept their modifications closed.
The internet does "local" really, really badly -- currently, at least.
I disagree. The internet, by nature, reaches an international audience, but local communities can still connect to eachother online. Take a look at craigslist.
Here in New Jersey, we have nj.com which does local news well (though the site itself is unorganized). A lot of the newspapers contribute stories to the site. If newspapers put more energy into sites like these, they might survive. They would not make near the amount of money they used to make, but they'd stay in buisness. Use the craigslist model, and create community portals of classifieds, announcements, and things for sale. Then add some news.
So just because the kindle does a shitty job of delivering news, everyone assumes newspapers still have life in them? Who cares. Most people already get their news online, with or without the kindle. The newspaper business will stick around, for sure, but the age of big newspaper profits are slowly dying. Just a matter of time.
It was my post, and even I'm surprise it was modded high. I just wanted to add more to what the other poster was saying... sort of agree with them and expand upon what they were saying. It shouldn't have been modded up at all.
Alright alright, I get it. It's not easy to read things on a computer screen. Have any of you heard of an e-book? Yeah, I realize few people have them (I don't even have one), and they aren't cheap enough or useful enough. But remember, Ray Bradbury didn't say "I hate the internet, until technology makes it easier to read digital books". He said "It's not real, It's Meaningless" as if there were no value on the internet.
As for the comment "I enjoy the way a book smells. I enjoy being able to jot a note in the margin, or stick a receipt in to mark my place.", that's just being sentimental. The way a book smells is something you've associated with books. If we all had ebooks, we'd all form the same sentimental attachments to the way they are. We'll be saying "Oh, I liked the little click sound the ebook made whenever I pressed the page-down button".
I'm totally with you on the price though. I'll buy an ebook when the price drops to 50 bucks.
âoeItâ(TM)s distracting,â he continued. âoeItâ(TM)s meaningless; itâ(TM)s not real. Itâ(TM)s in the air somewhere.â
Many critics of digital media complain that the information is not tangible, like a book or a record is. That you can't hold it in your hands. But last time I checked, how a book physically felt in your hands wasn't important to enjoying and understanding a book. You read with your eyes, not with your fingers (braille notwithstanding).
So really Mr. Bradbury, what's your obsession with being able to hold things? Sounds more like materialism and hoarding instincts or misguided nostalgia than a genuine concern for the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I don't think companies would have incentives to make free software. That would change. But people would still make free software...just voluntarily, or as a hobby.
I hear that 4chan is a great place to hook up with a 12 year old
fixed it for ya
hey i dont believe in god or nutin. i just show up here to pick up chicks n get laid, brah.
Going to slashdot for advice on making friends and meeting girls? You must be new here.
I'd like to think people have a breaking point. A point where they say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". I'd like to imagine if software were that intrusive, people would turn to piracy or free alternatives. One incident in reality supports my belief: the widespread piracy of Spore.
That's the point of these, to make others aware of all the "features" of it, so that they can make an informed choice. Or are you against people making others aware, and complaining about NOT BEING TOLD of these limitations when they made the purchase?
No.
So anything that's free, is automatically public domain?
No.
But they chose GPL and other people can choose to either not use the code, or use the code under the GPL license terms.
Well....
The crime is that one programmer took advantage of an open resource, but kept their modifications closed.
Mmm Hmm. That's thats what I was saying.
I see your point. Your arguments make a lot of sense. I would hope somebody with points would mod you up.
That would be a good reason to publish only binaries and fill them up with all sorts of hard-to-defeat DRM-like piracy countermeasures and arcane tactics like remote identifying and banning computers from running the SW.
We live in a world with copyright, and that already happens! The only difference in a world free of copyright is, without the threat of legal retribution, piracy would become much more widespread. DRM would be defeated very quickly (like today, where you can find zero-day warez) and all of those upgrades and addons could be pirated too.
Another possibility I didn't consider. But what would keeping the GPL around in a world without copyright do to prevent companies from clamping down on source? Would anything stop companies from clamping down on source in this scenario?
I apologize for misunderstanding. What point are you trying to make? I have trouble understanding your simile.
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start. They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone. Having a personal benefit from hidden software might give your business a slight edge, but not strong enough to be profitable. And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf? Like suppose I write a web browser, and I hide it from everyone, but I offer to print out webpages for a dollar? I doubt people would tolerate that.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service). No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
That is a legitimate concern that I did not consider. That *would* be a way for people to profit off software in a copyright free environment, and I feel dumb for not thinking of it. So I was wrong on that point. However, I don't see how having the GPL would prevent this either. I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service. But perhaps I hope too much.
The difference is, arms are useful.To the copyright abolitionist, copyright stopped being useful when computers empowered individuals to copy and distribute information as many times as they wanted at no cost.
Nobody wants to lose their arms. Copyright abolitionists want to lose copyright. Thats the point.
Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle. Boycotts are the only way these companies are gonna learn that customers won't tolerate DRM.
So you think whoever made Flashgot is fuming right now, saying "HOW DARE THEY TAKE CODE OF MINE WITHOUT GIVING ME PROPER CREDIT FOR CREATING IT?" Honestly, I'm sure they care more about their code being closed than whether or not they got credit.
It's different in the academic world, where your job depends on your reputation. If people discover that you plagiarized a journal article, they won't be able to trust anything you write. How can you be sure a source is credible if the author can't even be bothered to do their own research? On the other hand, reputation plays little role in firefox extensions. I don't care who programmed it. I only want it to work.
Mod parent up. You're absolutely right. No code was "stolen". Code can't be stolen. This is just a small license violation. Not a big deal. The perpetrators are at best ignorant, and at worst, selfish, yet the summary paints them out to be the scum of the earth.
I wonder what the copyright abolitionist would say when copyright is abolished and the GPL stops to be enforceable... Oh well.
If copyright were abolished, we would be free to copy and modify software without legal repercussions, so we wouldn't need to rely so much on the GPL. Of course, no modifying could be done unless programmers voluntarily published their source code. But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free. It would be advantageous to publish the source code, to ensure quality and make bugs and security holes visible.
In short, if copyright were abolished, we would have no use for the GPL.
This is why most good programmers will stop contributing to the global community because there are those who will steal their work, pass it off as their own, never acknowledge or give credit, and then shamefully stick their head in the sand and ignore the consequences.
This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's a good thing that code can be borrowed from one program and used in another. Why re-invent the wheel after all? I thought that's why we wrote open source software - not to receive credit, but because we want to share our work with the world.
The crime here is not that one programmer "stole" the work of another. The crime is that one programmer took advantage of an open resource, but kept their modifications closed.
You think that's bad? Just wait till they make the Kindle 3. It'll have cameras in it, so they can watch you piss.
If enough people dislike the selections, they will simply migrate to the internet
Fixed that for you.
The internet does "local" really, really badly -- currently, at least.
I disagree. The internet, by nature, reaches an international audience, but local communities can still connect to eachother online. Take a look at craigslist.
Here in New Jersey, we have nj.com which does local news well (though the site itself is unorganized). A lot of the newspapers contribute stories to the site. If newspapers put more energy into sites like these, they might survive. They would not make near the amount of money they used to make, but they'd stay in buisness. Use the craigslist model, and create community portals of classifieds, announcements, and things for sale. Then add some news.
So just because the kindle does a shitty job of delivering news, everyone assumes newspapers still have life in them? Who cares. Most people already get their news online, with or without the kindle. The newspaper business will stick around, for sure, but the age of big newspaper profits are slowly dying. Just a matter of time.
It was my post, and even I'm surprise it was modded high. I just wanted to add more to what the other poster was saying... sort of agree with them and expand upon what they were saying. It shouldn't have been modded up at all.
Alright alright, I get it. It's not easy to read things on a computer screen. Have any of you heard of an e-book? Yeah, I realize few people have them (I don't even have one), and they aren't cheap enough or useful enough. But remember, Ray Bradbury didn't say "I hate the internet, until technology makes it easier to read digital books". He said "It's not real, It's Meaningless" as if there were no value on the internet.
As for the comment "I enjoy the way a book smells. I enjoy being able to jot a note in the margin, or stick a receipt in to mark my place.", that's just being sentimental. The way a book smells is something you've associated with books. If we all had ebooks, we'd all form the same sentimental attachments to the way they are. We'll be saying "Oh, I liked the little click sound the ebook made whenever I pressed the page-down button".
I'm totally with you on the price though. I'll buy an ebook when the price drops to 50 bucks.
âoeItâ(TM)s distracting,â he continued. âoeItâ(TM)s meaningless; itâ(TM)s not real. Itâ(TM)s in the air somewhere.â
Many critics of digital media complain that the information is not tangible, like a book or a record is. That you can't hold it in your hands. But last time I checked, how a book physically felt in your hands wasn't important to enjoying and understanding a book. You read with your eyes, not with your fingers (braille notwithstanding).
So really Mr. Bradbury, what's your obsession with being able to hold things? Sounds more like materialism and hoarding instincts or misguided nostalgia than a genuine concern for the Internet.