Sorry, Steve, but the real innovation comes from the trenches, from the people who write open source code without the expectation of making any money off of it at all
I tend to disagree. Many of the projects that are created without the expectation of making money often times are left for dead after a interest is lost (and many that I have seen on sourceforge or freshmeat are just copies of closed source applications).
If a programmer is relying on something they are releasing to make them money, they are more inclined to make it innovative to compete with other software companies.
napster and gnutella were innovative (or even freenet). Bittorrent is just a copy (it's decentralized to a point, but it still needs torrent servers, which isn't really devcentralized).
. You can't buy out open source software. You can buy out a start up company or an individual (like the creator of Gentoo), but that doesn't stop the competition from using and improving the software nevertheless
Microsoft can't buy out open software, but they could buy out all of the lead developers (since open source usually doesn't bring in any revenue, many developers would gladly work at microsoft for a reasonable amount of money..especially if microsoft tempts them with the ability to help better the open source community).
But..isn't that exactly true? Have you ever tried buying a PC without Windows?
yes, they sell them now with this operating system called linux. Perhaps you have heard of it. The fact that people aren't buying them is another issue.
Except that to date Richard Stallman is responsible for FAR MORE NET WEALTH than Marc Fleury. If it weren't for RMS, Linux wouldn't exist, GCC wouldn't exist, emacs wouldn't exist. Arguably without any of those contributions, much of the infrastructure that runs the internet today would cost a hell of a lot more and the internet would be a significantly different place
if the gnu didn't exist, linus would have just released his software under the bsd license or public domain. Stallman also did not invent the compiler. Another compiler would just be in its place.
If the OSS movement wants to survive, it needs MORE Richard Stallmans and less Marc Fleury's
Stallman scares the average person into not using OSS. We don't need more people like stallman to represent the OSS community (but we also don't need people like marc fleury).
How about, instead of blaming a dumb teenager for acting like a dumb teenager - taking the vendor to task who is responsible for this OS deployed so far and wide across the world and so insecure that a dumb teenager can cause such disruption with just some copying&pasting!
I find it strange that no one asks "How come a kid was able to do this?".
you are quick to blame companies such as Microsoft for a worm that a kid created, but what happens when linux systems get hacked into? do we blame the programmers? or the hacker?
I think it's ridiculous to blame the victim. Sure, the systems need to get patched (or a patch needs to be created), but the blame should be 100% on the person that created the worm and decided to spread it around.
.. has come to be like running water or electricity: a basic need. College campuses must understand that and act accordingly. You wouldn't cut everyones electricity just because there's someone with a stereo real loud, or you wouldn't cut the whole block's running water just because there are stupid kids throwing water balloons at cars in the street.
Those are bad examples. A loud stereo can be ignored and kids throwing water balloons can be avoided (and it doesn't prevent someone from driving through). A better example might be limiting air conditioning or water usage in a specific area because it's high usage is causing outages (which happens in the summer).
Companies charge on a per-amount usage for water and electricity. Universities could start charging students for bandwidth usage (they get X amount per semester, but if they go over, they or their parents get a bill). This would solve the problem pretty quickly.
When many people are downloading/sharing songs at the same time, it makes the Internet almost impossible to use. My University Internet Connection (before they started blocking ports and limiting access) was so slow, that there was no point in even using it anymore.
Would you rather have: 1) limited Internet, but at a higher speed or 2) non-limited internet that is basically non-functioning.
Yes, but shouldn't Bill Gates go to jail for negligence, too?
are you fucking serious?
what about linux or freebsd? If Bill Gates went to jail, so would many others..including Linus.
This guy intentionally released a worm that caused damage. It's different than releasing software that has security holes. It's really about who you want to blame: the gun maker or the person that bought and shot the gun.
Say company A and company B both produce competing products. Company A produces their product for $50. Company B, however, sets up a sweat shop full of children working night and day. They can sell their product for only $35
what if the kids in the sweatshop are so poor that they either 1) get a job at this company or 2) starve. Sometimes situations are not that simple.
You might be protesting sweatshops, but that might be taking away a job from someone that needs to feed their family for your ideals.
copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes
since whatever being copyrighted is owned by the copyright holder to begin with..nothing was stolen. Now you are being rediculous.
The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons
if the original artist doesn't want this, I don't see it as a problem.
Again, not true. Nothing exists in a vaccuum. The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons. Another way to say it, copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes. It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government.
The kids of today need to learn...when protesting against something such as music (or the way the artists are treated..or even copyright), you shouldn't turn around and share/copy the music..it only makes you look foolish (and is most likely why people don't give a shit or take it seriously).
copyright has been around for many years. If society had a problem with it, it would have been abolished by now.
It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government
The biggest problem for resorting to civil disobedience against the current "intellectual property" regime is that the general public may not even understand the importance of the protest (you have to gain some amount of public support or sympathy to achieve any meaningful goals).
I think it's mostly because it's not that important. In the 60's, it was about people dying over in vietnam, copyright infringement laws only effect the people that are infringing on someone else's copyright.
Sharing copyrighted material on the Internet doesn't show anyone that the copyright laws are too harsh. It would be similar to boycotting the sale of nikes (because of sweatshops), but having all of the people involved wear them to the demonstration, it's hypocritical, and in many ways..doesn't make sense (from a boycotting point of view).
It really seems to me like an excuse for getting music, movies, and software...for free. If you don't want to abide by a license that a movie or song is released under, don't download it.
It's the same with the GPL. If a company doesn't wish to abide by this license, they shouldn't use it in their commerical application.
when are people going to realize that This is just as wrong as this
Re:Already tried & failed
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
Prove it
DVDS. Is that proof enough?
Well good. Here I was thinking it was a complex issue, with several reasons it didn't work out, and you come along and just throw ever other consideration away, and say this is the only reason
no I didn't. I was just giving you a reason why I think it failed. It might be right..it might not be.
Well, thanks for reminding me why you're on my foe list anyhow
you can't ignore the truth forever.
Re:Already tried & failed
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
It's also a bullshit example because he didn't release it in a useful form. People are very rarely willing to purchase an item encrypted and restricted, which was the only way he made it available
Most people don't give a shit. Do you think the average person knows or cares that a DVD is encrypted? If it's convenient to use but still encrypted, people will still buy it.
He made it restricted because he didn't want people making copies and distributing them across the Internet (which happened anyway). It failed mostly because e-books just aren't that popular. I think most people would still rather buy a regular book.
Blah blah blah. The reason people don't see it as equal to theft is because it isn't. It's copyright violation. Arguably the masses choice to disobey this law could be construed as a protest. An extremely LARGE protest.
what's happening to software, music, and movies is exactly what I have been saying all along: copyright infringement devalues them over time. (people eventually think that it is worth nothing)
The question is, how will it fall out? I think the current model is done. We need a better model to take its place
The current model? you mean someone getting paid for their hard work? Eventually, copyright infringement is going to drive companies out of the software business as we know it. There will be service only applications that are only accessible from the Internet. Turbo tax already does something like this (in addition to their boxed-software). This will get rid of copyright infringement, the need for a software license (since multiple copies aren't being released, GNU software might be able to be used without having to release the source), and probably be more profitable. Im surprised more companies aren't doing this now.
Even if the copyright was abolished, the same problems would still exist. Software would still be able to be released as binary only. It just wouldn't be profitable.
Goto any pre-civlization hunter-gatherer group and ask the men there what age they prefer in a mate. They'll say "Between Puberty and First Child." That's rather young, you know.
That may be the case, but during those times, people only lived until they were about 30. This puts things into perspective.
There were many things accepted during the pre-civilization days that is considered wrong today. It's called evolution. Our civlization has learned over time what is right and what is wrong.
Possible definitions of an illegal war: a) a war based on untrue premises (long standing claims of the existence of WMD's, which turned out to be untrue)
Bush was given information that WMDs existed. If you want to blame somebody, blame the messenger.
b) a war not based on the defense of our nation from an imminent threat
If Bush wanted to do something illegal and or profitability, he sure as hell wouldn't start a war that many americans were against. He would play into the hands of the liberals and make it look like he was doing something good (IE something they agree with) for the nation while making his profits in the background.
If you're going to take the society approach and argue about the effects on society then wouldn't alcohol be a bigger target than cannabis?
And even assuming the law is genuinely enacted and enforced for the benefit of society, where do we draw the line on the best interests of society taking priority over the individual? When I grew up, communism was demonized for putting the community above the individual and democracy was praised for individual freedoms
open up a history book and show me one communist nation that has ever worked successfully.
I am all for allowing society to do whatever they want with drugs as long as addiction is not considered a disease (and healthcare/insurance doesn't cover you if they find out you are a regular drug user).
No, it's the builders fault if the construction of the door was faulty to begin with. If a burglar can walk up to your front door, pound on the hinge side slightly and cause the entire door to fall in THEN THE BUILDER IS INFACT RESPONSIBLE
if the burgler wasn't there to pound the hinge slightly, it would have never falled, so the burlgler is responsible.
so if I shoot you, and your bullet-proof vest fails, is it the vest maker's fault?
Just because Christians in ancient Rome wanted to worship Jesus didn't mean that it wasn't illegal.
Just because black people in 1860 wanted to be free didn't mean that helping escaped slaves wasn't illegal.
Just because women before the 1960s wanted to control their own bodies didn't mean that contraception and abortion weren't illegal.
Anyone who attempts to live by any reasonable code of ethics is going to find themselves quite often rooting for, actively assisting, or even becoming, "criminals
I hardly consider getting high even comparable to the things that you listed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, Steve, but the real innovation comes from the trenches, from the people who write open source code without the expectation of making any money off of it at all
I tend to disagree. Many of the projects that are created without the expectation of making money often times are left for dead after a interest is lost (and many that I have seen on sourceforge or freshmeat are just copies of closed source applications).
If a programmer is relying on something they are releasing to make them money, they are more inclined to make it innovative to compete with other software companies.
Decentralized peer-to-peer services (bittorrent)
napster and gnutella were innovative (or even freenet). Bittorrent is just a copy (it's decentralized to a point, but it still needs torrent servers, which isn't really devcentralized).
. You can't buy out open source software. You
can buy out a start up company or an individual
(like the creator of Gentoo), but that doesn't
stop the competition from using and improving
the software nevertheless
Microsoft can't buy out open software, but they could buy out all of the lead developers (since open source usually doesn't bring in any revenue, many developers would gladly work at microsoft for a reasonable amount of money..especially if microsoft tempts them with the ability to help better the open source community).
But..isn't that exactly true? Have you ever tried buying a PC without Windows?
yes, they sell them now with this operating system called linux. Perhaps you have heard of it. The fact that people aren't buying them is another issue.
RMS doesn't feel that he represents the OSS (open source software) community. He represents the free software movement
okay, then replace my statemennt where it says OSS with free software.
Except that to date Richard Stallman is responsible for FAR MORE NET WEALTH than Marc Fleury. If it weren't for RMS, Linux wouldn't exist, GCC wouldn't exist, emacs wouldn't exist. Arguably without any of those contributions, much of the infrastructure that runs the internet today would cost a hell of a lot more and the internet would be a significantly different place
if the gnu didn't exist, linus would have just released his software under the bsd license or public domain. Stallman also did not invent the compiler. Another compiler would just be in its place.
If the OSS movement wants to survive, it needs MORE Richard Stallmans and less Marc Fleury's
Stallman scares the average person into not using OSS. We don't need more people like stallman to represent the OSS community (but we also don't need people like marc fleury).
How about, instead of blaming a dumb teenager for acting like a dumb teenager - taking the vendor to task who is responsible for this OS deployed so far and wide across the world and so insecure that a dumb teenager can cause such disruption with just some copying&pasting!
I find it strange that no one asks "How come a kid was able to do this?".
you are quick to blame companies such as Microsoft for a worm that a kid created, but what happens when linux systems get hacked into? do we blame the programmers? or the hacker?
I think it's ridiculous to blame the victim. Sure, the systems need to get patched (or a patch needs to be created), but the blame should be 100% on the person that created the worm and decided to spread it around.
Using the tragedy of 9/11 to spread your gospel......
see the gospel of Michael Moore, then come back and tell me that republicans are the ones using a tragedy to spread lies.
.. has come to be like running water or electricity: a basic need. College campuses must understand that and act accordingly. You wouldn't cut everyones electricity just because there's someone with a stereo real loud, or you wouldn't cut the whole block's running water just because there are stupid kids throwing water balloons at cars in the street.
Those are bad examples. A loud stereo can be ignored and kids throwing water balloons can be avoided (and it doesn't prevent someone from driving through). A better example might be limiting air conditioning or water usage in a specific area because it's high usage is causing outages (which happens in the summer).
Companies charge on a per-amount usage for water and electricity. Universities could start charging students for bandwidth usage (they get X amount per semester, but if they go over, they or their parents get a bill). This would solve the problem pretty quickly.
When many people are downloading/sharing songs at the same time, it makes the Internet almost impossible to use. My University Internet Connection (before they started blocking ports and limiting access) was so slow, that there was no point in even using it anymore.
Would you rather have: 1) limited Internet, but at a higher speed or 2) non-limited internet that is basically non-functioning.
Yes, but shouldn't Bill Gates go to jail for negligence, too?
are you fucking serious?
what about linux or freebsd? If Bill Gates went to jail, so would many others..including Linus.
This guy intentionally released a worm that caused damage. It's different than releasing software that has security holes. It's really about who you want to blame: the gun maker or the person that bought and shot the gun.
Say company A and company B both produce competing products. Company A produces their product for $50. Company B, however, sets up a sweat shop full of children working night and day. They can sell their product for only $35
what if the kids in the sweatshop are so poor that they either 1) get a job at this company or 2) starve. Sometimes situations are not that simple.
You might be protesting sweatshops, but that might be taking away a job from someone that needs to feed their family for your ideals.
copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes
since whatever being copyrighted is owned by the copyright holder to begin with..nothing was stolen. Now you are being rediculous.
The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons
if the original artist doesn't want this, I don't see it as a problem.
Again, not true. Nothing exists in a vaccuum. The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons. Another way to say it, copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes. It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government.
The kids of today need to learn...when protesting against something such as music (or the way the artists are treated..or even copyright), you shouldn't turn around and share/copy the music..it only makes you look foolish (and is most likely why people don't give a shit or take it seriously).
copyright has been around for many years. If society had a problem with it, it would have been abolished by now.
It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government
haha, do you hasve any more jokes to tell?
License?
yes, a license.
The biggest problem for resorting to civil disobedience against the current "intellectual property" regime is that the general public may not even understand the importance of the protest (you have to gain some amount of public support or sympathy to achieve any meaningful goals).
I think it's mostly because it's not that important. In the 60's, it was about people dying over in vietnam, copyright infringement laws only effect the people that are infringing on someone else's copyright.
Sharing copyrighted material on the Internet doesn't show anyone that the copyright laws are too harsh. It would be similar to boycotting the sale of nikes (because of sweatshops), but having all of the people involved wear them to the demonstration, it's hypocritical, and in many ways..doesn't make sense (from a boycotting point of view).
It really seems to me like an excuse for getting music, movies, and software...for free. If you don't want to abide by a license that a movie or song is released under, don't download it.
It's the same with the GPL. If a company doesn't wish to abide by this license, they shouldn't use it in their commerical application.
when are people going to realize that This is just as wrong as this
Prove it
DVDS. Is that proof enough?
Well good. Here I was thinking it was a complex issue, with several reasons it didn't work out, and you come along and just throw ever other consideration away, and say this is the only reason
no I didn't. I was just giving you a reason why I think it failed. It might be right..it might not be.
Well, thanks for reminding me why you're on my foe list anyhow
you can't ignore the truth forever.
It's also a bullshit example because he didn't release it in a useful form. People are very rarely willing to purchase an item encrypted and restricted, which was the only way he made it available
Most people don't give a shit. Do you think the average person knows or cares that a DVD is encrypted? If it's convenient to use but still encrypted, people will still buy it.
He made it restricted because he didn't want people making copies and distributing them across the Internet (which happened anyway). It failed mostly because e-books just aren't that popular. I think most people would still rather buy a regular book.
There is no proof whatsoever for your claims that it is wrong based on our lifespan
fact: people did not live as long as they do now, thousands of years ago.
Therefore, women had kids at a younger age. (read some history on ancient civilizations).
I never said it was wrong based on our lifespans, I was giving a reason why it was right based on their lifespans.
No, it's only wrong in your opinion.
and 99.9% of society. Why don't you give a reason why it's okay?
Oh, and asswipe, read the sig, and UNDERSTAND IT. I put it there for morons like you.
read my post, it holds ore water than your dumb fuck sig
Blah blah blah. The reason people don't see it as equal to theft is because it isn't. It's copyright violation. Arguably the masses choice to disobey this law could be construed as a protest. An extremely LARGE protest.
what's happening to software, music, and movies is exactly what I have been saying all along: copyright infringement devalues them over time. (people eventually think that it is worth nothing)
The question is, how will it fall out? I think the current model is done. We need a better model to take its place
The current model? you mean someone getting paid for their hard work? Eventually, copyright infringement is going to drive companies out of the software business as we know it. There will be service only applications that are only accessible from the Internet. Turbo tax already does something like this (in addition to their boxed-software). This will get rid of copyright infringement, the need for a software license (since multiple copies aren't being released, GNU software might be able to be used without having to release the source), and probably be more profitable. Im surprised more companies aren't doing this now.
Even if the copyright was abolished, the same problems would still exist. Software would still be able to be released as binary only. It just wouldn't be profitable.
Goto any pre-civlization hunter-gatherer group and ask the men there what age they prefer in a mate. They'll say "Between Puberty and First Child." That's rather young, you know.
That may be the case, but during those times, people only lived until they were about 30. This puts things into perspective.
There were many things accepted during the pre-civilization days that is considered wrong today. It's called evolution. Our civlization has learned over time what is right and what is wrong.
Possible definitions of an illegal war:
a q [wikipedia.org]) and which may even be in violation of the UN charter
a) a war based on untrue premises (long standing claims of the existence of WMD's, which turned out to be untrue)
Bush was given information that WMDs existed. If you want to blame somebody, blame the messenger.
b) a war not based on the defense of our nation from an imminent threat
If Bush wanted to do something illegal and or profitability, he sure as hell wouldn't start a war that many americans were against. He would play into the hands of the liberals and make it look like he was doing something good (IE something they agree with) for the nation while making his profits in the background.
c) a war that is not approved by the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Ir
illegal? The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world (see: oil-for-food)
How about the controlling one's own body?
If you're going to take the society approach and argue about the effects on society then wouldn't alcohol be a bigger target than cannabis?
And even assuming the law is genuinely enacted and enforced for the benefit of society, where do we draw the line on the best interests of society taking priority over the individual? When I grew up, communism was demonized for putting the community above the individual and democracy was praised for individual freedoms
open up a history book and show me one communist nation that has ever worked successfully.
I am all for allowing society to do whatever they want with drugs as long as addiction is not considered a disease (and healthcare/insurance doesn't cover you if they find out you are a regular drug user).
No, it's the builders fault if the construction of the door was faulty to begin with. If a burglar can walk up to your front door, pound on the hinge side slightly and cause the entire door to fall in THEN THE BUILDER IS INFACT RESPONSIBLE
if the burgler wasn't there to pound the hinge slightly, it would have never falled, so the burlgler is responsible.
so if I shoot you, and your bullet-proof vest fails, is it the vest maker's fault?
Just because Christians in ancient Rome wanted to worship Jesus didn't mean that it wasn't illegal.
Just because black people in 1860 wanted to be free didn't mean that helping escaped slaves wasn't illegal.
Just because women before the 1960s wanted to control their own bodies didn't mean that contraception and abortion weren't illegal.
Anyone who attempts to live by any reasonable code of ethics is going to find themselves quite often rooting for, actively assisting, or even becoming, "criminals
I hardly consider getting high even comparable to the things that you listed.
Good. Affiliate programs are the most annoying form of guerilla marketing and a major cause of spam
I know, subscription based websites are better (a monthly fee).