No, the only reason busnesses will start using OSS is becuase someone will be persistant enough. They will sell the managment on cost, that is true, but OSS inofitself, isn't free, if not for the amount of time it takes to set it do exactly what you want. Cost alone isn't going to sell if no one even knows what is OSS, knowledgable people are a must as they will be the actual source of the demand from within the company.
that is the cost of labor. The cost I am talking about is the actual software, which is nothing.
when bringing up OSS, I think that fact that it is free as in cost is the first thing that is brought up as a reason to use it. Why else would a company even consider switching to it? (unless the performance was there, but that remains to be seen).
I would not, however, release my own products as open source. The reason is simple: it outsources the support of my product to the lowest bidder, making profitibility even more difficult than it already is. I don't expect to make as much money as Microsoft, just enough to survive, which is nearly impossible with OSS.
Open source advocates are only thinking about working for somebody else. With this mentality, there will always be profit in software (open or closed). However, what about the people that want to work for themselves? Profit is nowhere to be found.
Companies like redhat and mandrake are profitable, but they are profiting off of developers from the OSS community, who are receiving no profit.
Briefly, good, solid applications are rare, whether they are based on free software or non-free software. The assumption that non-free software is by definition high quality is sadly misinformed.
I never said non-free software was high-quality, I just said open source software is in constant beta. Mostly because when there is no deadline, things get done when a person feels like getting it done (which in many cases, is never).
Good, solid, non-free applications are also few and far between. Furthermore, the "never-ending beta" is the often due to the fact that the free software developers are often committed to producing a quality product before they call a product "version 1".
I haven't found this to be true at all. Many free software developers will release a version one with almost no functionality at all (or very buggy and almost not worth using). Freshmeat and Sourceforge are good examples of this.
the assumption that free software is better simply because it's free is by definition sadly misinformed, but stallman believes it.
As I pointed out in another thread, open source paves the way for smaller companies and individuals to gain the ability to sell enhancements, features and support - ergo, it is good for the economy, the playing field is open and anyone can play... software development will continue as ever, only there'll potentially be more employers. Anyone can build products and sell them - anyone can modify those products in anyway they see fit... It's better from an educational point of view - the availibility of the source means that people entering the profession can do so with every resource at their finger tips - no secrets, no hidden api's that invite unfair competition, no monopolies, though still an unlimited potential to grow...
unless there is a law against it, there will always be closed source applications and software. Most people simply don't give a shit. They just want a product that works (open or closed source).
Countries that are embracing linux and other open source software packages are only doing so because they don't have to pay licensing fees to microsoft, not because they believe in the freedom of sourcecode.
You say it's an "un-fair competitive advantage".
Panasonic and Sony don't release schematics with all of their electronic equipment nor does apple release the sourcecode to its Ipod firmware.
Banks also don't release the sourcecode that runs all of their important transaction servers.
saying that it's an un-fair advantage is pure selfishness. It's an "I want what you have but can't" philosophy. This can also be seen in the fact that many open source applications aren't anything innovative..simply copies of closed-sourced equivalents (and half-assed attempts at that). Good, solid, open-sourced applications are few and far between. The fact that anyone can work on it is nice, but it seems like that just means that the application will be a never-ending beta..that takes 5 years to develop rather than 6 months.
Free, in Free Software DOES NOT REFER TO COST. It is merely a side effect that most of it is flowing freely (without restriction) over the internet. Once you get your mind bent around that concept, it will start making sense
you may think it doesn't, but that is the only reason businesses are going to start using it (no cost).
I could be wrong but doesn't most of the new technology come from OSS? no. Usually it's first created by a proprietary company and then an OSS developer emulates it.
The only way you'll make money is in touring. Even then, the venue eats alot of the profits. Either they take half of ticket sales, or they get all the merchandising.
then the only way an independent artist is going to make money is through CD sales (or merchandise). How is an independent artists supposed to get large venues that pay well, without the support of a large recording company?
Most musicians should count themselves very lucky if they can ever clear 6 figures per year. Hell, if I had no college (or even high school in a lot of cases) degree and spent years playing my guitar in my mom's garage, I'd thank god just to be able to make 30k a year. It pains me the way that drummers and guitar players think they deserve to make as much as the CEO of a small, but highly successful company. If uneducated musicians consistently made good money, then everyone would be a musician. Even doped-up, STD-riddled, ugly-ass musicians get laid. They should be paid well too?!?
I don't believe my lazy ass manager deserves to get paid more than I do (after all, I do more work)..but he does anyway.
look at actors..they make large amounts of money..and may of them are un-educated.
a friend of mine is an independent artist. He used to offer mp3s on his website for free. (and also his CD for around $8). Almost immediately, his mp3s became part of the p2p collective and no-one bought his CD.
99% of people that have a choice between free and $8 will pick free.
Are these stats really true? Despite being a firebird user myself, I'd always assumed postgresql was a much bigger, more widely used product.
Take a look at your local borders or barnes and noble. I can bet you will not find very many books on postgres (if any). You will, however, find many books on mysql.
I find this very frustrating that colleges are justifying bandwidth censorships by deeming protocols and online actions unrelated to academia, and therefore unacceptable on-campus. That's crap! If that reasoning was true, they'd cancel all student activates, sporting events and anything else not explicitly related to the 3 academic pillars, and the TV's in dorms would only receive the Discovery and History channels.
I find it very frustrating too. I wish they would leave everything un-restricted. I hope when the Internet is completly unusable, you don't plan on complaining.
Once he is gone who is to say corporate interests won't take over and made a version 4 license that allows unlimited modification and distribution without making any source public.
you mean make the license free?
if this happened, someone would just create a new license, which duplicated the original GNU exactly, and programmers would start releasing software under the new license rather than the new "corporate" license.
They are simply "enforcing" a standing policy, not "forcing" DRM. And it is a policy that their customers have already agreed to. Plain and simple, if you don't want DRM, don't use their service.
This is why I don't agree with the people saying: "it's taking away our rights". Before purchasing a song on itunes, you are already aware that it is encoded using DRM technology. If you don't like it, then don't use it. This can also be applied to proprietary software.
If you want someone to blame for non-open music, blame p2p. The recording industry now knows that if they try to sell digital open music, it will be shared for free by the masses, and they will no longer make money. What business in their right mind wants this?
if the RIAA was smart, they would have bought napster in its prime and made themselves the standard for music online.
Re:free pc system for the masses
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 1
I've always thought it would be cool to invent a super tough computer system, sort of a tablet PC, and drop them from an airplane by the hundreds. They'd be solar powered, water and dirt proof, crush proof, have a satellite/modem/vhf/uwb/whatever-the-hell-works link for Internet access (it's only purpose).
Make it as basic as possible so anyone could use it and be able to communicate and not be shut off from the world. People could email each other, IM, view uncensored news...be free.
I think rather than doing that, you should send food or other items that are required for living.
A personal attack, nice. I think that's a fairly clear sign that civilized discussion has come to an end. It's also starting to give me a better idea of why the US UDV and Daime branches never bother with this kind of thing.
I was just trying to point out that the U.S is not like what you said (obviously because you have never been here).
Also, im one person in a population of millions. You shouldn't generalize.
Quite convenient. To me that sounds a bit like "We're allowed to say anything we want. As long as it's not against party lines". Or, perhaps, "You're free to be a Christian, so long as you do not use the New Testament". Until recently the US always made a distinction between recreational drug use and drug use in a religious setting, within a historic framework, that obviously held no danger to the participants or the community at large. Two examples being Christianity and communion wine during the prohibition, and the Native American Churchs use of peyote.
You can practice and worship any religion that you would like in the United States.
I think the reason the US does not allow drug usage in a religious setting is because of it's immediate wide spread abuse. People would start religions just so they could smoke pot or smoke crack.
If you would like to use drugs without being bothered, why don't you go to a country that allows that? It's not like the government here has a gun to your head, forcing you to stay (unlike some countries).
Many, if not most, serious Ayahuasca users in the US have been reduced to speaking in cyphers and metaphors in public.
I think you are blowing this way out of proportion..or maybe you are just a little bit too paranoid (I think it's the "tea"). Unless you are within earshot of a police officer or maybe a federal agent, I think it's safe to say you can talk about ayahuasca in public without getting in trouble (the general public wouldn't even know what the hell that was).
illegal drug users have been known for years to talk in metaphors.
When a country is trying to lock people up for decades because they gather in a church, drink tea to increase levels of certain neurotransmitters produced naturally in the human bain, and sing hyms to commune with their God in hopes of improving their lives - I say things aren't quite as great as they might appear on the surface
im not saying I totally agree with the drug policy of the United States. You are allowed to prctice any religion you would like, you just can't injest an illegal drug.
Some people believe that LSD (which sounds like your tea) changes their lives for the better, when in actuality, it's destroying brain cells.
I don't see a lot of difference between how they work and the methods used to silence people in China
the difference is that in China, you wouldn't be posting this right now.
I also remember talking to a co-worker from china one time. I had dinner with her family one time and I asked her about the government in china. She started getting really scared and told me to be quiet (as if somehow, the government was listening to our conversation).
it makes you appreciate the freedoms that we have in the United States.
Re:Avoidance and respect as alternatives to coerci
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 1
The pool is still there, but the market has changed and the company that forked and closed the code may have a competitive advantage over the people using the community owned code - because it can use the modifications contributed from the pool, but people using the pool can't use the modifications done by the company. This advantage would be considered unfair by many, and the GPL is designed to prevent it.
unfair advantages? it's called business. You can always create your own advantages rather that forcing others to give you theirs.
Re:Avoidance and respect as alternatives to coerci
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's BSD-derived code is locked in a vault in Redmond. Their GPL-derived code is on an FTP server for everyone to share and enjoy. They didn't do that because they believed someone's hand-waving argument about "benefits open sharing of their code contributions would give them" - that would have just made them laugh, because it isn't true. As platform owner it's in their interests to keep that code locked away like the BSD stuff. They released it because the GNU GPL obliges them to do so.
Microsoft runs a business for profit. If I were them, I wouldn't want to release my sourcecode either. Currently, most flavors of linux that have a gui (KDE or Gnome) copy parts of the microsoft windows gui. If they released the sourcecode to windows, many parts of it would be used within linux (or any other competing operating system), which is something they don't want.
it reminds me of the old saying: imitation is the biggest form of flattery.
If Microsoft sucks so much, why are there so many imitations of their products in the open source community?
and if you think Microsoft doesn't innovate, show me a remote tool for linux (server) that is as fast as windows RDP. I have tried as many as I could find, and none can even compare.
I think in many cases, innovation is driven by profit. When something is not profitable, a person is less likely able to work on it full-time, because they have bills to pay. They are also less motivated when it comes to some of the small, boring tasks that are required in a polished application. This seems to slow development time down from a couple of months to a couple of years. Im using sourceforge and freshmeat as examples of OSS projects that I have examined.
So, you keep telling the slave owners how rotten their luck is, with the cheap labour and absolute right to do as they please, and I'll keep freeing slaves. We'll see who ends slavery first.
slaves and software are two different things. Slaves are people, with rights that do not deserve to be kept against their will.
Software is something that a programmer creates. The programmer has the right to do whatever they wish with their sourcecode. If you do not like this, you can always write something equivalent or better (you have the freedom to do so).
I would feel like a slave if I was forced to release all my sourcecode under the GPL. Just because you want something I have created doesn't make me a slave owner. It makes you envious.
Re:Avoidance and respect as alternatives to coerci
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 1
Then you haven't though what happens when a big player takes your work and don't want to contribute back. A really big company won't care at all if you whine and moan about them not playing credit to you, and you soon will end with a scenario like that of the Unix wars (which lead Stallman to develope the GPL in the first place).
The coertion in the GPL is only to be used against the sharks who don't adhere to the rules and would damage the open, common pool.
and the copyright law is used against the sharks that don't adhere to the rules (pay for an artist's work).
if a company uses code, why do they need to contribute back to the community? How does it damage the common pool? the original code is still there, open and free. The pool is not damaged.
it seems you like to get the last word in, even though you are wrong (and thank you for telling me this is your last post)
do you lose all your arguments this way?
taken from another post of sum.zero:
from this point forward you will be arguing with yourself.
you again ignore the substance of my comments to argue points that i don't make and that are not on-topic. if you think people didn't share things before the internet, you are either young or delusional.
I've had access to the internet a lot longer than it seems you have. Copyright infringement has even been going on since before the internet (I can remember finding free software on my local neighborhood BBS).
if you would have paid any attention to my post instead of immediatly arguing with me, I said sharing was still around before 1997, it just wasn't available to the masses.
and again, filesharing is 100% legal in certain places
and which places are those? most countries have started to crack down on filesharing.
it all comes down to selfishness, on your part. You do not want to have to pay for music, so you share it. Then you claim it's somehow your right to do so.
there is an established history of people sharing the music that they love
In the 1800s, there was an established history of physicians prescribing cocaine to heal most ailments. This is no longer legal. Laws change.
non-monetary infringement wasn't even prosecutable until the net act in 1997
Before 1997, most people barely knew what the Internet was, let alone how to obtain "free" music or software. Also, high-speed bandwidth was pretty much non-existant. I think the main reason people weren't prosecuted was because it happened at such a small scale, most artists/companies didn't even notice their work being shared.
what about taking GPLd code and putting it in software that I don't make money on (it's used in-house by my company) but not re-releasing the source-code...is this any more or less wrong than if I were to make money on it?
an IP license should be followed whether it's the GPL or something the RIAA has created.
if you don't want to follow someone else's license, either:
1) don't bitch when your license doesn't get followed or 2) don't use the program or song under a license you do not agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the only reason busnesses will start using OSS is becuase someone will be persistant enough. They will sell the managment on cost, that is true, but OSS inofitself, isn't free, if not for the amount of time it takes to set it do exactly what you want. Cost alone isn't going to sell if no one even knows what is OSS, knowledgable people are a must as they will be the actual source of the demand from within the company.
that is the cost of labor. The cost I am talking about is the actual software, which is nothing.
when bringing up OSS, I think that fact that it is free as in cost is the first thing that is brought up as a reason to use it. Why else would a company even consider switching to it? (unless the performance was there, but that remains to be seen).
I would not, however, release my own products as open source. The reason is simple: it outsources the support of my product to the lowest bidder, making profitibility even more difficult than it already is. I don't expect to make as much money as Microsoft, just enough to survive, which is nearly impossible with OSS.
Open source advocates are only thinking about working for somebody else. With this mentality, there will always be profit in software (open or closed). However, what about the people that want to work for themselves? Profit is nowhere to be found.
Companies like redhat and mandrake are profitable, but they are profiting off of developers from the OSS community, who are receiving no profit.
That's a low blow. Stallman believes that?
I read it in the last interview that was posted on slashdot (from another tech site).
Briefly, good, solid applications are rare, whether they are based on free software or non-free software. The assumption that non-free software is by definition high quality is sadly misinformed.
I never said non-free software was high-quality, I just said open source software is in constant beta. Mostly because when there is no deadline, things get done when a person feels like getting it done (which in many cases, is never).
Good, solid, non-free applications are also few and far between. Furthermore, the "never-ending beta" is the often due to the fact that the free software developers are often committed to producing a quality product before they call a product "version 1".
I haven't found this to be true at all. Many free software developers will release a version one with almost no functionality at all (or very buggy and almost not worth using). Freshmeat and Sourceforge are good examples of this.
the assumption that free software is better simply because it's free is by definition sadly misinformed, but stallman believes it.
As I pointed out in another thread, open source paves the way for smaller companies and individuals to gain the ability to sell enhancements, features and support - ergo, it is good for the economy, the playing field is open and anyone can play... software development will continue as ever, only there'll potentially be more employers. Anyone can build products and sell them - anyone can modify those products in anyway they see fit... It's better from an educational point of view - the availibility of the source means that people entering the profession can do so with every resource at their finger tips - no secrets, no hidden api's that invite unfair competition, no monopolies, though still an unlimited potential to grow...
unless there is a law against it, there will always be closed source applications and software. Most people simply don't give a shit. They just want a product that works (open or closed source).
Countries that are embracing linux and other open source software packages are only doing so because they don't have to pay licensing fees to microsoft, not because they believe in the freedom of sourcecode.
You say it's an "un-fair competitive advantage".
Panasonic and Sony don't release schematics with all of their electronic equipment nor does apple release the sourcecode to its Ipod firmware.
Banks also don't release the sourcecode that runs all of their important transaction servers.
saying that it's an un-fair advantage is pure selfishness. It's an "I want what you have but can't" philosophy. This can also be seen in the fact that many open source applications aren't anything innovative..simply copies of closed-sourced equivalents (and half-assed attempts at that). Good, solid, open-sourced applications are few and far between. The fact that anyone can work on it is nice, but it seems like that just means that the application will be a never-ending beta..that takes 5 years to develop rather than 6 months.
Free, in Free Software DOES NOT REFER TO COST. It is merely a side effect that most of it is flowing freely (without restriction) over the internet. Once you get your mind bent around that concept, it will start making sense
you may think it doesn't, but that is the only reason businesses are going to start using it (no cost).
Not always. I mean, a lot of games are open-source... and WHY is there something called iCopulate in my ad... I'm SCARED!
such as? quake, doom (both proprietary first)
freeciv (based on a proprietary game).
tux racer?
I could be wrong but doesn't most of the new technology come from OSS?
no. Usually it's first created by a proprietary company and then an OSS developer emulates it.
The only way you'll make money is in touring. Even then, the venue eats alot of the profits. Either they take half of ticket sales, or they get all the merchandising.
then the only way an independent artist is going to make money is through CD sales (or merchandise). How is an independent artists supposed to get large venues that pay well, without the support of a large recording company?
Most musicians should count themselves very lucky if they can ever clear 6 figures per year. Hell, if I had no college (or even high school in a lot of cases) degree and spent years playing my guitar in my mom's garage, I'd thank god just to be able to make 30k a year. It pains me the way that drummers and guitar players think they deserve to make as much as the CEO of a small, but highly successful company. If uneducated musicians consistently made good money, then everyone would be a musician. Even doped-up, STD-riddled, ugly-ass musicians get laid. They should be paid well too?!?
I don't believe my lazy ass manager deserves to get paid more than I do (after all, I do more work)..but he does anyway.
look at actors..they make large amounts of money..and may of them are un-educated.
a friend of mine is an independent artist. He used to offer mp3s on his website for free. (and also his CD for around $8). Almost immediately, his mp3s became part of the p2p collective and no-one bought his CD.
99% of people that have a choice between free and $8 will pick free.
And Congress seemed to care more that Clinton got head from a fat girl than they care about Bush starting a war on deceit (WMD's anyone?)
well, if he wasn't so busy getting head from a fat girl, maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11.
Are these stats really true? Despite being a firebird user myself, I'd always assumed postgresql was a much bigger, more widely used product.
Take a look at your local borders or barnes and noble. I can bet you will not find very many books on postgres (if any). You will, however, find many books on mysql.
This is mostly due to popularity...
I find this very frustrating that colleges are justifying bandwidth censorships by deeming protocols and online actions unrelated to academia, and therefore unacceptable on-campus. That's crap! If that reasoning was true, they'd cancel all student activates, sporting events and anything else not explicitly related to the 3 academic pillars, and the TV's in dorms would only receive the Discovery and History channels.
I find it very frustrating too. I wish they would leave everything un-restricted. I hope when the Internet is completly unusable, you don't plan on complaining.
Once he is gone who is to say corporate interests won't take over and made a version 4 license that allows unlimited modification and distribution without making any source public.
you mean make the license free?
if this happened, someone would just create a new license, which duplicated the original GNU exactly, and programmers would start releasing software under the new license rather than the new "corporate" license.
They are simply "enforcing" a standing policy, not "forcing" DRM. And it is a policy that their customers have already agreed to. Plain and simple, if you don't want DRM, don't use their service.
This is why I don't agree with the people saying: "it's taking away our rights". Before purchasing a song on itunes, you are already aware that it is encoded using DRM technology. If you don't like it, then don't use it. This can also be applied to proprietary software.
If you want someone to blame for non-open music, blame p2p. The recording industry now knows that if they try to sell digital open music, it will be shared for free by the masses, and they will no longer make money. What business in their right mind wants this?
if the RIAA was smart, they would have bought napster in its prime and made themselves the standard for music online.
I've always thought it would be cool to invent a super tough computer system, sort of a tablet PC, and drop them from an airplane by the hundreds. They'd be solar powered, water and dirt proof, crush proof, have a satellite/modem/vhf/uwb/whatever-the-hell-works link for Internet access (it's only purpose).
Make it as basic as possible so anyone could use it and be able to communicate and not be shut off from the world. People could email each other, IM, view uncensored news...be free.
I think rather than doing that, you should send food or other items that are required for living.
A personal attack, nice. I think that's a fairly clear sign that civilized discussion has come to an end. It's also starting to give me a better idea of why the US UDV and Daime branches never bother with this kind of thing.
I was just trying to point out that the U.S is not like what you said (obviously because you have never been here).
Also, im one person in a population of millions. You shouldn't generalize.
I thought I was fairly clear from the beginning that I'm not from the US.
okay, then why the complaining?
Quite convenient. To me that sounds a bit like "We're allowed to say anything we want. As long as it's not against party lines". Or, perhaps, "You're free to be a Christian, so long as you do not use the New Testament". Until recently the US always made a distinction between recreational drug use and drug use in a religious setting, within a historic framework, that obviously held no danger to the participants or the community at large. Two examples being Christianity and communion wine during the prohibition, and the Native American Churchs use of peyote.
You can practice and worship any religion that you would like in the United States.
I think the reason the US does not allow drug usage in a religious setting is because of it's immediate wide spread abuse. People would start religions just so they could smoke pot or smoke crack.
If you would like to use drugs without being bothered, why don't you go to a country that allows that? It's not like the government here has a gun to your head, forcing you to stay (unlike some countries).
Many, if not most, serious Ayahuasca users in the US have been reduced to speaking in cyphers and metaphors in public.
I think you are blowing this way out of proportion..or maybe you are just a little bit too paranoid (I think it's the "tea"). Unless you are within earshot of a police officer or maybe a federal agent, I think it's safe to say you can talk about ayahuasca in public without getting in trouble (the general public wouldn't even know what the hell that was).
illegal drug users have been known for years to talk in metaphors.
When a country is trying to lock people up for decades because they gather in a church, drink tea to increase levels of certain neurotransmitters produced naturally in the human bain, and sing hyms to commune with their God in hopes of improving their lives - I say things aren't quite as great as they might appear on the surface
im not saying I totally agree with the drug policy of the United States. You are allowed to prctice any religion you would like, you just can't injest an illegal drug.
Some people believe that LSD (which sounds like your tea) changes their lives for the better, when in actuality, it's destroying brain cells.
I don't see a lot of difference between how they work and the methods used to silence people in China
the difference is that in China, you wouldn't be posting this right now.
I also remember talking to a co-worker from china one time. I had dinner with her family one time and I asked her about the government in china. She started getting really scared and told me to be quiet (as if somehow, the government was listening to our conversation).
it makes you appreciate the freedoms that we have in the United States.
The pool is still there, but the market has changed and the company that forked and closed the code may have a competitive advantage over the people using the community owned code - because it can use the modifications contributed from the pool, but people using the pool can't use the modifications done by the company. This advantage would be considered unfair by many, and the GPL is designed to prevent it.
unfair advantages? it's called business. You can always create your own advantages rather that forcing others to give you theirs.
Microsoft's BSD-derived code is locked in a vault in Redmond. Their GPL-derived code is on an FTP server for everyone to share and enjoy. They didn't do that because they believed someone's hand-waving argument about "benefits open sharing of their code contributions would give them" - that would have just made them laugh, because it isn't true. As platform owner it's in their interests to keep that code locked away like the BSD stuff. They released it because the GNU GPL obliges them to do so.
Microsoft runs a business for profit. If I were them, I wouldn't want to release my sourcecode either. Currently, most flavors of linux that have a gui (KDE or Gnome) copy parts of the microsoft windows gui. If they released the sourcecode to windows, many parts of it would be used within linux (or any other competing operating system), which is something they don't want.
it reminds me of the old saying: imitation is the biggest form of flattery.
If Microsoft sucks so much, why are there so many imitations of their products in the open source community?
and if you think Microsoft doesn't innovate, show me a remote tool for linux (server) that is as fast as windows RDP. I have tried as many as I could find, and none can even compare.
I think in many cases, innovation is driven by profit. When something is not profitable, a person is less likely able to work on it full-time, because they have bills to pay. They are also less motivated when it comes to some of the small, boring tasks that are required in a polished application. This seems to slow development time down from a couple of months to a couple of years. Im using sourceforge and freshmeat as examples of OSS projects that I have examined.
So, you keep telling the slave owners how rotten their luck is, with the cheap labour and absolute right to do as they please, and I'll keep freeing slaves. We'll see who ends slavery first.
slaves and software are two different things. Slaves are people, with rights that do not deserve to be kept against their will.
Software is something that a programmer creates. The programmer has the right to do whatever they wish with their sourcecode. If you do not like this, you can always write something equivalent or better (you have the freedom to do so).
I would feel like a slave if I was forced to release all my sourcecode under the GPL. Just because you want something I have created doesn't make me a slave owner. It makes you envious.
Then you haven't though what happens when a big player takes your work and don't want to contribute back. A really big company won't care at all if you whine and moan about them not playing credit to you, and you soon will end with a scenario like that of the Unix wars (which lead Stallman to develope the GPL in the first place).
The coertion in the GPL is only to be used against the sharks who don't adhere to the rules and would damage the open, common pool.
and the copyright law is used against the sharks that don't adhere to the rules (pay for an artist's work).
if a company uses code, why do they need to contribute back to the community? How does it damage the common pool? the original code is still there, open and free. The pool is not damaged.
this will be my last post
it seems you like to get the last word in, even though you are wrong (and thank you for telling me this is your last post)
do you lose all your arguments this way?
taken from another post of sum.zero:
from this point forward you will be arguing with yourself.
you again ignore the substance of my comments to argue points that i don't make and that are not on-topic. if you think people didn't share things before the internet, you are either young or delusional.
I've had access to the internet a lot longer than it seems you have. Copyright infringement has even been going on since before the internet (I can remember finding free software on my local neighborhood BBS).
if you would have paid any attention to my post instead of immediatly arguing with me, I said sharing was still around before 1997, it just wasn't available to the masses.
and again, filesharing is 100% legal in certain places
and which places are those? most countries have started to crack down on filesharing.
it all comes down to selfishness, on your part. You do not want to have to pay for music, so you share it. Then you claim it's somehow your right to do so.
there is an established history of people sharing the music that they love
In the 1800s, there was an established history of physicians prescribing cocaine to heal most ailments. This is no longer legal. Laws change.
non-monetary infringement wasn't even prosecutable until the net act in 1997
Before 1997, most people barely knew what the Internet was, let alone how to obtain "free" music or software. Also, high-speed bandwidth was pretty much non-existant. I think the main reason people weren't prosecuted was because it happened at such a small scale, most artists/companies didn't even notice their work being shared.
what about taking GPLd code and putting it in software that I don't make money on (it's used in-house by my company) but not re-releasing the source-code...is this any more or less wrong than if I were to make money on it?
an IP license should be followed whether it's the GPL or something the RIAA has created.
if you don't want to follow someone else's license, either:
1) don't bitch when your license doesn't get followed or
2) don't use the program or song under a license you do not agree with.
the law treats the situations differently BECAUSE they are different. just because YOU want to believe they are the same does not make it so.
they are not the same, but equally as wrong.
on the one side you have a company generating revenue through a combination of copyright infringement and fraud
so making money is the only thing that validates one but not the other?
money should have nothing to do with it. The only truly free code has no restrictions on it.