I'm curious. What have drug users ever done to you personally? Seriously - what? You seem happy to see them punished for something, I'm not quite clear for what.
How sad that you, and apparently other Nintendo fans, are so ready to call on the coercive power of the State; perhaps because this is the only occasion you will ever experience when that power is (apparently) at your service.
Those vast powers I referred to, having grown to frightful proportions over many years, but particulary since the events just over three years ago, might perhaps be justly be pitted against some unprovoked, malevolent force that threatened Civilization itself, if such a threat existed; but against the sale of machines that play video games?
The readiness of the State to use its violent power is all too troubling, but even more so is the readiness of the general public to accept such use.
Eric Raymond's essay asks an interesting question:
"if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses
illegal, would you do it?"
He considers the answers "no" and "yes" in turn, and in either
case does not draw a favorable conclusion about the FSF's position.
Many posts here appear to agree with him, that the FSF wants to impose
power of its own over other people.
But there is another way of considering the question which leads to
a different conclusion. I am not attempting to speak for the FSF,
though by and large I agree with them, and with michael's editorial
comment above.
In the case of the "no" answer, ESR's riposte is '...that will
mean they [the FSF] do recognize a right for developers to
choose licenses as they will without being killed, jailed, or
threatened for choosing the "wrong" one.' Yet the choice which ESR
and apparently many slashdot posters support is only meaningful in a
certain kind of context.
This is the context where, should the developer choose a
proprietary license, the power of the State is available against
transgressors of the license. The context where people are well aware
that they might, as ESR puts it, be "killed, jailed, or threatened"
for failing to abide by restrictions of their use of information.
This is of course the state of affairs we are in today; where for
example every person viewing a DVD (in the USA) is routinely
threatened with the FBI for copyright violation; where Dmitry Skylarov
is apparently being made an example of to make sure that everyone
understands the consequences of "bucking the system".
When you look at it this way, the question becomes rather strange.
It would be peculiar to ban proprietary licenses but leave intact the
machinery of coercion on which they depend. If the machinery were not
available, proprietary licenses would most likely wither, since
everyone would know that such licenses could be ignored with impunity.
(The same applies to the GPL, since it depends on enforcement of
copyright law.) One can therefore answer "no" to ESR's question
without supporting any restrictions on the use of information.
Is there any way to support the freedom of choosing proprietary
licenses without supporting the means by which people can be "killed,
jailed, or threatened" for breaking them?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah... good point.
I'm curious. What have drug users ever done to you personally? Seriously - what? You seem happy to see them punished for something, I'm not quite clear for what.
Should the company win such a lawsuit, how do you think the ruling will be enforced? By asking nicely?
Those vast powers I referred to, having grown to frightful proportions over many years, but particulary since the events just over three years ago, might perhaps be justly be pitted against some unprovoked, malevolent force that threatened Civilization itself, if such a threat existed; but against the sale of machines that play video games?
The readiness of the State to use its violent power is all too troubling, but even more so is the readiness of the general public to accept such use.
Eric Raymond's essay asks an interesting question:
"if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?"
He considers the answers "no" and "yes" in turn, and in either case does not draw a favorable conclusion about the FSF's position. Many posts here appear to agree with him, that the FSF wants to impose power of its own over other people.
But there is another way of considering the question which leads to a different conclusion. I am not attempting to speak for the FSF, though by and large I agree with them, and with michael's editorial comment above.
In the case of the "no" answer, ESR's riposte is '...that will mean they [the FSF] do recognize a right for developers to choose licenses as they will without being killed, jailed, or threatened for choosing the "wrong" one.' Yet the choice which ESR and apparently many slashdot posters support is only meaningful in a certain kind of context.
This is the context where, should the developer choose a proprietary license, the power of the State is available against transgressors of the license. The context where people are well aware that they might, as ESR puts it, be "killed, jailed, or threatened" for failing to abide by restrictions of their use of information.
This is of course the state of affairs we are in today; where for example every person viewing a DVD (in the USA) is routinely threatened with the FBI for copyright violation; where Dmitry Skylarov is apparently being made an example of to make sure that everyone understands the consequences of "bucking the system".
When you look at it this way, the question becomes rather strange. It would be peculiar to ban proprietary licenses but leave intact the machinery of coercion on which they depend. If the machinery were not available, proprietary licenses would most likely wither, since everyone would know that such licenses could be ignored with impunity. (The same applies to the GPL, since it depends on enforcement of copyright law.) One can therefore answer "no" to ESR's question without supporting any restrictions on the use of information.
Is there any way to support the freedom of choosing proprietary licenses without supporting the means by which people can be "killed, jailed, or threatened" for breaking them?