That confirms what I was thinking when I read the two documents side by side. Interestingly, though discrimination isn't outlawed by the US Constitution, it is addressed by other, specific US laws.
As a US citizen I am appalled at how out of hand copyright power has become, in particular with the DMCA. I think much of current copyright law and enforcement of those laws is not consistent with the US Constitution. However, I don't think the basic idea of copyright is the problem.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is worded differently from the US Bill of Rights. Specifically, while the former says:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
, the latter says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
While they sound quite similar, the first ammendment to the US consititution says "Congress shall make no law...", while Canada's equivalent the more nebulous "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms." It seems to me that Canada's has more room for interpretation. It might mean that the Canadian government can't take away those freedoms, much like the US first ammendment. However, it might mean that the government is supposed to make sure everyone has those freedoms. I like how the US first ammendment is specific in limiting the power of the Federal government to deny freedoms. There are many cases when individuals, corporations, or state governments deny those freedoms. There are additional US laws to address some of those situations, such as the Civil Rights Act.
15kW doesn't need a nuclear power plant anyway. When I was growing up, we had a 7kW diesel generator in our garage because the city power was unreliable. We started it with a hand crank. It was pretty cool. Though the engine was much too hard to turn over normally, due to the high diesel compression ratio, it was easy with the compression release valve open. When the engine was spinning fast enough, one just closed the valve and it started right up.
As well your ignorance of English spelling, you seem to be ignorant (or willfully misrepresentative) of the nature of Linux and Linux-based operating systems. As you mention in passing, Linux is a kernel. It is not an operating system, so it doesn't make sense to compare it directly to NetBSD, which is.
You seem to be trying to say that NetBSD's kernel and Linux each run on a similar number of architectures, but that NetBSD runs on many more architectures than Linux-based operating systems do. What use would Linux be without an entire operating system? Which architectures have a Linux port, but no Linux-based OS?
Perhaps you meant to say that NetBSD runs on many more architectures than any particular Linux-based OS, which is most likely true.
As for freedom, I ask whether you, as the owner of a PSP, have the right to see the NetBSD code that you use? As you point out, you wouldn't even know that Sony had used NetBSD code unless you read the manual.
I, on the other hand, specifically chose to buy a Linksys WRT54G wireless router because I knew that owning one gave me the right to see and modify the code that runs it because it was released under the GPL. This gave me freedom as an end user because I can choose several different software distributions that add functionality to my embedded system. I don't even need to look at the source myself to gain freedom from the GPL, but the source is always there if I want it.
I suggest that one possible reason that you don't hear that much about NetBSD bringing a lot to the community is because many are taking it and not making their modifications and enhancements public.
Copyleft licenses (such as the GPL) and non-copyleft licenses (such as the BSD license) each have their uses. The BSD license puts fewer restrictions on the original author, while the GPL guarantees greater freedom for users and other developers, thereby benefiting the community at large. The question of which is more free depends on the context. If you only consider the original author, the BSD license is more free, but if you consider every potential user and developer, the GPL is more free.
Maybe it's a pain in your ass, but not mine. Also, someone has already mentioned that Debian has split packages. Are Debian users a pain in your ass too?
I agree that it's unfair to complain of "bloat" if one chooses to install everything, but it seems that the KDE practice of distributing many apps together in a large tarball promotes bloat, since a build with default configuration doesn't give one much granularity. Since most people install KDE using a package manager, they have to do it how the packager wanted to do it. If there are only binary packages of kdemultimedia, kdegames, and kde*, the user will probably have to install much more than he needs. That's why I'm glad that I'm using a package manager that does allow me to install the individual apps.
Of course, there are tradeoffs between distributing monolithic tarballs like KDE and individual ones a-la GNOME. The monolithic ones are probably somewhat easier to maintain and test, at least in a default configuration, while separate packages allow more flexibility among developers and for the user.
It shouldn't be hard to maintain with proper automation. Indeed, glancing at a couple of KDE ebuilds (scripts which build packages in Gentoo's portage package manager), they are very short; barely more than stubs. Much seems to be factored out and inherited by all of the ebuilds.
Gentoo's FAQ says that the maintainers are committed to doing it this way, though there have been some complaints about the large number of packages.
One thing I haven't liked about KDE is that there are many small apps lumped together into the huge packages like kdemultimedia and kdegames, so you often get everything if you just want one of them. However, that problem is gone with KDE 3.4 and Gentoo, since the individual apps can be built and installed automatically. Though they still come from the same ponderous source tarballs and take a while in the "configure" stage, one doesn't have to install unwanted apps. One can still install the big packages if so desired.
This is a good example of the philosophy of flexibility so pervasive in Gentoo's portage, but splitting up the big packages would probably be a good idea for binary packagers too. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has made RPMs or DEBs of individual apps.
That's a good analogy about a breaker box or water heater, but I still don't think it makes sense to compare DRM to a home owner's door lock. When someone puts a lock on the door of his house, it's to keep other people off his property while allowing him on.
DRM is used on copyrighted data or media, which isn't really owned by anyone. It is controlled in a limited way by the copyright holder and in an even more limited way by the person who paid to view, listen to, or use it.
I also don't agree that DRM is only a deterrent to "casual thieves." It may deter "casual copyright infringers," but it also usually makes it difficult or impossible for users to exercise their fair use rights, such as making copies for personal use or shifting the material to a different location, device, or time.
In some cases, an implementation of DRM may be an acceptible compromise for both copyright holder and user, but I have yet to see an example of it being completely non-intrusive.
I agree, but I am willing to purchase content legally. So long as the DRM that is in place is transparent and gives me the control and rights I want, I don't mind. People should stop fighting against DRMs and start fighting to SHAPE DRMs. DRMs are the future, like it or not, and working arround them will continue to become more and more of a pain. Why not save that suffering and shape DRMs into an acceptable solution?
I partly agree. For instance, I am sometimes willing to pay for (purchase isn't quite the right term, since I'm not buying a piece of property) songs through iTunes, but only because I know how to work around the DRM, which isn't transparent and otherwise wouldn't allow me the control I want.
Just because you shell out some money for something, doesn't necessarily mean you own that something to the extent that you can "do whatever you want" with it.
You're right about that. The flip side is also true: just because you obtained a copyright or patent on something doesn't mean you can prevent everyone else from doing every little thing you don't like with it. The law does grant certain exclusive, but limited rights.
In most cases, the use of something you purchase is governed by something called common sense. However, in the cases where something is created for a particular purpose, but its parts inherently enable it to be used as a 'general purpose' device (ie. most electronics) it is often the case that licenses are created to describe the intent and approved use of said creation. When you buy this item, you're also buying the agreement to stay within bounds of the license whether you signed anything or not... the monetary transaction counts in most cases whether you knew about the technology or not (those who want to know, generally can find out).
Where do you live? I've never heard of any laws (or common sense) in the US that establish the idea that purchasing any kind of property implies being bound by some kind of contract or license agreement. Perhaps it is normal where you live, but it's new to me.
DRM is not about a manufacturer, developer, distributor trying to prevent anything. DRM is simply a mechanism that attempts to enforce the rules bound to whatever you bought.
So, DRM is not designed to prevent customers from making unauthorized copies of data? Does it enable the customer to do something she otherwise wouldn't be able to do? I'm confused.
Cars are physical objects that can't be easily or inexpensively copied, so the analogy doesn't work very well.
Then one person can but a 500 million dollar torus, and everyone else can copy it.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the torus is a geometric shape that was more discovered than invented. (MMM, torus) Thankfully, the USPTO hasn't allowed it to be patented, so no one's about to shell out 500 smackers to "but" one.
Also, the discussion was about monitor and video card output, not music recordings. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to let M$ or anyone else decide that my output devices are too sharp for their comfort.
Well, the analogy always breaks down at some point. The main point is that DRM is about a manufacturer, developer, or distributor trying to prevent customers from doing things they want to do with a product or service, usually one that's paid for.
No, DRM is more like a padlock on a homeowner's breaker box or water heater, requiring the average, unskilled person to pay an employee of the manufacturer of the device to enable him to get electricity or hot water from his own property.
Now, why are all the scientists you run into such wimps, when Gordon clearly isn't? Apparently he's the only person with an MIT education who can also hold a weapon.
I understand that Sun, Apple, and Microsoft have released specs and reference implementations, which is certainly very useful to any implementor, for Free or proprietary. However, I don't think it's relevant to the question of whether it's a good idea for Free software to be ported to non-Free platforms.
For one thing, unlike proprietary software, anyone may port a piece of Free software to any platform they choose without help from the orignal author. When the author of a proprietary package says, "we will not port it to Free platform X," they generally also mean that no one else can do it either. However, when the author of something Free says, "I will not port this to non-Free platform X," he's not stopping someone else from doing it.
Also, any implementor of something originally implemented in Free Software (whether they're writing Free or proprietary code) can always look at the orignal source to discover the protocol or method it uses. This may not be as useful as a well-written spec, but it's far better than trying to reverse-engineer a proprietary, closed package.
I strongly agree that it's short-sighted to think that one OS or one language is the right tool for every job. However, I do believe that a Linux-based OS is a good choice in more circumstances than any other particular OS (however, that doesn't mean it's a good choice in most situations).
I don't think that it is a bad idea for Free Software developers to support non-Free platforms, but I do understand an idealogical postion that would. In some cases, Free Software on non-Free platforms might reduce the need for people to switch to the Free platform, which might hurt the Free platform, so I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to avoid non-Free platforms entirely.
Also, I don't think your mention of NFS, Rendezvous (which is an implementation of zeroconf, AFAIK) and Mono makes sense. There are Free implementations of NFS (such as in Linux) and zeroconf. Mono is a Free implementation of DotNet stuff. Are you saying that Sun implemented the Free Linux NFS or that Apple and Microsoft implemented Free versions of Rendezvous and DotNet? Was Sun's, Apple's or Microsoft's porting efforts useful to any of the Free implementations?
Although I agree with you that one platform is not ideal (there should always be diversity and choice), your argument against Linux being the one isn't very strong, since it is actually used for all the purposes you mention.
I would leave out "safe." The government only has a limited responsibility to provide safety, such as from invading forces. They do have some responsibility to keep things fair, such as by controlling monopolies.
I saw a PBS documentary on the restoration of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. One major point of the documentary is that the Declaration has taken on much greater importance to US citizens since the Civil War. It may have been largely the result of Abe Lincoln's quoting of it in the Gettysburg Address.
Slashdot Mirror
That confirms what I was thinking when I read the two documents side by side. Interestingly, though discrimination isn't outlawed by the US Constitution, it is addressed by other, specific US laws.
As a US citizen I am appalled at how out of hand copyright power has become, in particular with the DMCA. I think much of current copyright law and enforcement of those laws is not consistent with the US Constitution. However, I don't think the basic idea of copyright is the problem.
, the latter says:
While they sound quite similar, the first ammendment to the US consititution says "Congress shall make no law...", while Canada's equivalent the more nebulous "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms." It seems to me that Canada's has more room for interpretation. It might mean that the Canadian government can't take away those freedoms, much like the US first ammendment. However, it might mean that the government is supposed to make sure everyone has those freedoms. I like how the US first ammendment is specific in limiting the power of the Federal government to deny freedoms. There are many cases when individuals, corporations, or state governments deny those freedoms. There are additional US laws to address some of those situations, such as the Civil Rights Act.
Apparently, Google is not your friends: JavaOS.
If no one was ever loyal without reciprocation, there'd be no loyalty at all. Someone has to be loyal first.
I'm sure you could do just about anything with BASIC, by why would you want to?
15kW doesn't need a nuclear power plant anyway. When I was growing up, we had a 7kW diesel generator in our garage because the city power was unreliable. We started it with a hand crank. It was pretty cool. Though the engine was much too hard to turn over normally, due to the high diesel compression ratio, it was easy with the compression release valve open. When the engine was spinning fast enough, one just closed the valve and it started right up.
As well your ignorance of English spelling, you seem to be ignorant (or willfully misrepresentative) of the nature of Linux and Linux-based operating systems. As you mention in passing, Linux is a kernel. It is not an operating system, so it doesn't make sense to compare it directly to NetBSD, which is.
You seem to be trying to say that NetBSD's kernel and Linux each run on a similar number of architectures, but that NetBSD runs on many more architectures than Linux-based operating systems do. What use would Linux be without an entire operating system? Which architectures have a Linux port, but no Linux-based OS?
Perhaps you meant to say that NetBSD runs on many more architectures than any particular Linux-based OS, which is most likely true.
As for freedom, I ask whether you, as the owner of a PSP, have the right to see the NetBSD code that you use? As you point out, you wouldn't even know that Sony had used NetBSD code unless you read the manual.
I, on the other hand, specifically chose to buy a Linksys WRT54G wireless router because I knew that owning one gave me the right to see and modify the code that runs it because it was released under the GPL. This gave me freedom as an end user because I can choose several different software distributions that add functionality to my embedded system. I don't even need to look at the source myself to gain freedom from the GPL, but the source is always there if I want it.
I suggest that one possible reason that you don't hear that much about NetBSD bringing a lot to the community is because many are taking it and not making their modifications and enhancements public.
Copyleft licenses (such as the GPL) and non-copyleft licenses (such as the BSD license) each have their uses. The BSD license puts fewer restrictions on the original author, while the GPL guarantees greater freedom for users and other developers, thereby benefiting the community at large. The question of which is more free depends on the context. If you only consider the original author, the BSD license is more free, but if you consider every potential user and developer, the GPL is more free.
Maybe it's a pain in your ass, but not mine. Also, someone has already mentioned that Debian has split packages. Are Debian users a pain in your ass too?
I agree that it's unfair to complain of "bloat" if one chooses to install everything, but it seems that the KDE practice of distributing many apps together in a large tarball promotes bloat, since a build with default configuration doesn't give one much granularity. Since most people install KDE using a package manager, they have to do it how the packager wanted to do it. If there are only binary packages of kdemultimedia, kdegames, and kde*, the user will probably have to install much more than he needs. That's why I'm glad that I'm using a package manager that does allow me to install the individual apps.
Of course, there are tradeoffs between distributing monolithic tarballs like KDE and individual ones a-la GNOME. The monolithic ones are probably somewhat easier to maintain and test, at least in a default configuration, while separate packages allow more flexibility among developers and for the user.
It shouldn't be hard to maintain with proper automation. Indeed, glancing at a couple of KDE ebuilds (scripts which build packages in Gentoo's portage package manager), they are very short; barely more than stubs. Much seems to be factored out and inherited by all of the ebuilds.
Gentoo's FAQ says that the maintainers are committed to doing it this way, though there have been some complaints about the large number of packages.
One thing I haven't liked about KDE is that there are many small apps lumped together into the huge packages like kdemultimedia and kdegames, so you often get everything if you just want one of them. However, that problem is gone with KDE 3.4 and Gentoo, since the individual apps can be built and installed automatically. Though they still come from the same ponderous source tarballs and take a while in the "configure" stage, one doesn't have to install unwanted apps. One can still install the big packages if so desired.
This is a good example of the philosophy of flexibility so pervasive in Gentoo's portage, but splitting up the big packages would probably be a good idea for binary packagers too. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has made RPMs or DEBs of individual apps.
That's a good analogy about a breaker box or water heater, but I still don't think it makes sense to compare DRM to a home owner's door lock. When someone puts a lock on the door of his house, it's to keep other people off his property while allowing him on.
DRM is used on copyrighted data or media, which isn't really owned by anyone. It is controlled in a limited way by the copyright holder and in an even more limited way by the person who paid to view, listen to, or use it.
I also don't agree that DRM is only a deterrent to "casual thieves." It may deter "casual copyright infringers," but it also usually makes it difficult or impossible for users to exercise their fair use rights, such as making copies for personal use or shifting the material to a different location, device, or time.
In some cases, an implementation of DRM may be an acceptible compromise for both copyright holder and user, but I have yet to see an example of it being completely non-intrusive.
I partly agree. For instance, I am sometimes willing to pay for (purchase isn't quite the right term, since I'm not buying a piece of property) songs through iTunes, but only because I know how to work around the DRM, which isn't transparent and otherwise wouldn't allow me the control I want.
You're right about that. The flip side is also true: just because you obtained a copyright or patent on something doesn't mean you can prevent everyone else from doing every little thing you don't like with it. The law does grant certain exclusive, but limited rights.
Where do you live? I've never heard of any laws (or common sense) in the US that establish the idea that purchasing any kind of property implies being bound by some kind of contract or license agreement. Perhaps it is normal where you live, but it's new to me.
So, DRM is not designed to prevent customers from making unauthorized copies of data? Does it enable the customer to do something she otherwise wouldn't be able to do? I'm confused.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the torus is a geometric shape that was more discovered than invented. (MMM, torus) Thankfully, the USPTO hasn't allowed it to be patented, so no one's about to shell out 500 smackers to "but" one.
Also, the discussion was about monitor and video card output, not music recordings. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to let M$ or anyone else decide that my output devices are too sharp for their comfort.
Well, the analogy always breaks down at some point. The main point is that DRM is about a manufacturer, developer, or distributor trying to prevent customers from doing things they want to do with a product or service, usually one that's paid for.
No, DRM is more like a padlock on a homeowner's breaker box or water heater, requiring the average, unskilled person to pay an employee of the manufacturer of the device to enable him to get electricity or hot water from his own property.
Now, why are all the scientists you run into such wimps, when Gordon clearly isn't? Apparently he's the only person with an MIT education who can also hold a weapon.
Ah, but would that be mallards, or wigeons?
No, it's not a myth or urban legend, since it's discussed on Dupont's website.
I understand that Sun, Apple, and Microsoft have released specs and reference implementations, which is certainly very useful to any implementor, for Free or proprietary. However, I don't think it's relevant to the question of whether it's a good idea for Free software to be ported to non-Free platforms.
For one thing, unlike proprietary software, anyone may port a piece of Free software to any platform they choose without help from the orignal author. When the author of a proprietary package says, "we will not port it to Free platform X," they generally also mean that no one else can do it either. However, when the author of something Free says, "I will not port this to non-Free platform X," he's not stopping someone else from doing it.
Also, any implementor of something originally implemented in Free Software (whether they're writing Free or proprietary code) can always look at the orignal source to discover the protocol or method it uses. This may not be as useful as a well-written spec, but it's far better than trying to reverse-engineer a proprietary, closed package.
I strongly agree that it's short-sighted to think that one OS or one language is the right tool for every job. However, I do believe that a Linux-based OS is a good choice in more circumstances than any other particular OS (however, that doesn't mean it's a good choice in most situations).
I don't think that it is a bad idea for Free Software developers to support non-Free platforms, but I do understand an idealogical postion that would. In some cases, Free Software on non-Free platforms might reduce the need for people to switch to the Free platform, which might hurt the Free platform, so I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to avoid non-Free platforms entirely.
Also, I don't think your mention of NFS, Rendezvous (which is an implementation of zeroconf, AFAIK) and Mono makes sense. There are Free implementations of NFS (such as in Linux) and zeroconf. Mono is a Free implementation of DotNet stuff. Are you saying that Sun implemented the Free Linux NFS or that Apple and Microsoft implemented Free versions of Rendezvous and DotNet? Was Sun's, Apple's or Microsoft's porting efforts useful to any of the Free implementations?
Although I agree with you that one platform is not ideal (there should always be diversity and choice), your argument against Linux being the one isn't very strong, since it is actually used for all the purposes you mention.
I would leave out "safe." The government only has a limited responsibility to provide safety, such as from invading forces. They do have some responsibility to keep things fair, such as by controlling monopolies.
I saw a PBS documentary on the restoration of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. One major point of the documentary is that the Declaration has taken on much greater importance to US citizens since the Civil War. It may have been largely the result of Abe Lincoln's quoting of it in the Gettysburg Address.