we have even executed people without ever granting them this right, which is supposedly guaranteed by the Geneva Convention
Can you cite any non-wartime examples? I can't think of a one. The US has done some pretty dumb things in the past but I can't recall anything like this.
You misunderstood. Yes, I can download the GNU tools for Solaris. But I can also download the GNU tools for Windows. But if I want to run Solaris there is only one place to get it: Sun. (and I wasn't referring to Corel Linux, but to WordPerfect, CorelDraw, etc).
Microsoft does not hold a monopoly on operating systems, web browsers or office suites. They only hold a monopoly of their own software. If you only want an OS to run your server, you have a dozen viable choices. But if you want Windows2K, there is only one place to get it. The only reason it makes any difference is because people *want* Windows.
I can even restrict the sale of my software by others.
Wrong. Anyone who has your source code can redistribute it and any derivations for no monetary costs. This is Mundie's point. You customers will be your competition. This is partly outweighed by your having equall access to all of their improvements to it, but it is still a serious blow to profitability.
Basically, the business model of selling software gets shot to hell when you use the GPL. You have to make up for it with non-GPL addons, support fees, versions with alternate licenses, etc. The software itself has become free beer.
I agree. This was the reason why the State of California released the CSRG code under a (then) new type of license, the BSD license. UCB, CSRG and DARPA are publicly funded institutions. Both individuals and corporations paid for the code, so both should have equal access to it.
You are confusing "Open Source" with "Hobbyist Programming". Take a good hard look at the Apache Project. They have stable and readable source code. For their later projects, like Xerces, they designed and evaluated the whole project before writing the first line of code. An it's Open Source.
And let's look at all of the closed source crap. My current boss used to work for SGI. They had an internal motto of "we have the world's biggest QA department...our users". I've seen requirement documents written *after* customer ship. And I've seen the opposite as well: thousands of UML diagrams and no code.
Generalities are generally [sic] wrong. The "generalized" Open Source project is a hobbyist's project. But not all of Open Source is hobbyist. A lot of it is front line code written by professional software engineers.
No, I still don't think they can set the price of WXP to $1000 for OEM's. They might try. And the OEM's might go along with it for a week or two. But the minute the consumers walk into Best Buy and see that last weeks $799 model now costs $1999 (the OEM has a margin, you know), they'll have coniption fits and won't buy it.
For that price, the Macintosh will look very enticing. For that price, they'll seriously question whether they really need that new computer anyway.
If Microsoft has to lower its price as a result, then they never really had a true monopoly to begin with. In my opinion, the only monopoly they have is a monopoly on Microsoft software.
The wierd thing is that although there is no great groundswell of support for repealing the Sherman act, yet many people want to let Microsoft off the hook as some kind of "benevolent" monopoly. The problem is that you can't (or at least shouldn't) apply the law selectively.
I say repeal the Sherman act! But only one day two of my new regime. On day one I would repeal all of the myriad laws that limit competition and hinder voluntary economic transactions. Then on day two we wouldn't need the Sherman act...
If Microsoft is in trouble because they had too big of a market share while doing what is otherwise legal for every other business, then I want to know how much marketshare is too much? 50%? 60%? 90%? 99%? They say the sign of a real monopoly is the ability to set any price. But Microsoft can't do that. It can't price WinXP to the OEM's at $1000 (which, by the way, is still cheaper than most commercial Unices).
Privacy and anonymity are scarce outside of the internet as well. I'll go out on a limb here to say that they aren't really rights. You certainly have the right to pursue privacy and anonymity, but you don't necessarily have the right to have them given to you.
If you want privacy in the real world, you buy window shades. If you don't have window shades and your house faces a busy thoroughfare, you have only yourself to blame for your lack of privacy. In the real world it is up to you to ensure your own privacy. You have the right to buy and install window shades, but you don't have the right to have window shades provided for you.
Anonymity works the same way. If you want to be anonymous, it is up to you to make the effort. If you want to be anonymous, don't give out any information on yourself. Use cash for all transactions. Use a mail drop. Wear a disguise. Scurry through the shadows. Don't enter the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.
Privacy and anonymity are indeed scarce goods on the internet, just as they are in the brick-and-mortar world. It looks like a good business opportunity to me! If the public doesn't see them as valuable commodities, then obviously these services need better marketing.
Got to agree. Too many businesses don't want to compete on a level playing field. They find it more profitable to hire a DC lobbyist than to hire a competent engineer or marketeer. From what I have seen of the world, these types are everywhere, from the big multi-nationals to the small mom-and-pops.
When I say "business friendly", I mean an atmosphere that lets a business survive or fail on its own merits, on a playing field where the rules are known all and apply to all equally.
Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserve neither.
There is not "right to profit", but there is a right to attempt to earn a profit. Big difference. In todays mis-educated environment, too many people think "right"=="guarantee". This is bogus. There is no guarantee of profit. But there is a right to pursue happiness so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.
You have the right to pursue profits, to set your prices as high as you want, or as low as you want, to keep any profits that your earn, yada, yada, yada. But you do not have a guarantee to profits. You do not have a guarantee that people will buy your products if you set the price too high. You do not have a guarantee that you will be financially solvent if you set your prices too low.
I hate to be the one bearing the bad news. But the internet's core infrastructure is already owned by commercial interests. It has been for twenty years. The vast majority those cables, switches, routers and servers are not owned by any government or public agency. They are owned by private commercial interests.
The internet is chock full of scarcity. Landlines are scarce. Switches are scarce. Servers are scarce. IP addresses are scarce. Domain names are scarce. Bandwidth is scarce. Technical expertise is scarce. Reliability is scarce.
And yes, information is scarce. Scarcity goes beyond the cost of reproducing information. It also applies to the creation of information. There's a shitload of information out there. But 99.997% of it is worthless to me. The information I need right now is very scarce. It might not have been created. And if it has, I might not be able to find it. And if I do find it, I might very well discover that it is useless to me without the application of some other equally scarce tidbits of information.
Privatized regulatory system? Isn't that an oxymoron?
But that's beside the point. There was zero privatization of the energy market. All that happened was a de-monopolization of the energy production industry. Each of those newcomers on the production side was still regulated by the state. The distribution side remained a monopoly and was still regulated by the state. This created an imbalance and it almost destroyed itself. PG&E and SCE were/are monopoly purchasers of energy, and monopoly distributors of energy. By law. Purchase direct from an energy producer without Gray's permission and go to jail. Sell your excess energy without Gray's permission and go to jail.
The basic laws of economics still rule. If we have indeed entered a post-capitalism phase, then it won't matter if people listen to you are not. It will still happen. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Yup! That's what we are! I've heard "hippie anarchist" used over the decades as a cheap euphemism for "libertarian". So I'll examine the internet in terms of a laissez fair, anarcho-capitalist, free market.
(Of course, the internet ain't 100% free market. The following musings are mere generalization. Since utopia is not an option, there are exceptions to everything.)
The internet works according to the principles of volunteerism and property rights. The internet is private property. Pure an simple. We just don't see it as such since we think of it as a whole. In reality it's millions of tiny homesteaded properties all connected together. Companies and individuals own the backbones, servers, domains and software. We have organized ourselves into a working system without having to resort to government fiat and decree.
The internet runs by way of voluntary cooperation. We don't have any law backed by the use of force. We don't have policemen running around with guns. We only have mutual agreed upon rules of conduct. When these rules are broken, we do not throw the perpetrators in jail, but utilize non-violent solutions. If a section of the backbone decides to charge an onerous price, we route around them. When a server becomes a haven for spam, we boycott them through established protocols. And when a member abuses their free speech, we excercise ours through flamage and email bombing.
Where needed services were missing, some entepreneurial sorts stepped in and offered them. Domain names are one example. I own my NIC and it's MAC address. But basing a global network of addresses based on device addresses is highly inefficient. So I rent a static IP address from my ISP. This works quite well and is extremely efficient. IPv4 addresses are getting filled up, but even as we speak we are self-organizing around a new IPv6 standard of addressing. No need for Congress or Parliament to get involved. But though static IP addresses are great for computers, they are lousy for humans, so along comes another party offering domain name services. Thus I rent my domain name as well. A good analogy would be "I own my home and it's physical location, but pay rent to have it listed with the post office."
If folks don't like this free nation we have built, they can always construct their own. Simply and easily. Intranets. VPN's. If they wish to recruit others and put out the capitalization, they can even create their own parallel but separate backbone.
But this LA Times article is bizarre. The internet is business friendly. All anarcho-capitalist societies are. Did a lot of businesses get hosed in the dotcoms of last year? Of course! But this is nothing new. Market booms based on stupid speculations have always occured. Read up on the history of tulips for a surprising parallel.
If he wants corporations to be in control of the backbone, he needn't worry. They already are. It just isn't owned by those he considers "worthy". Tough beans! This is the free market. If you don't like we won't stop you from creating an alternative, or block you from trying to convince the backbone owners from selling to you.
Who you going to call when the internet sputters, grinds or even breaks? I don't know. But that's his problem. Why doesn't he get off his butt and create connection insurance? There are no laws here to prevent him.
In the meantime the internet is working quite well. If there is a problem, it is because people see the net as a "whole" when it is not. It is a collection of individuals and companies working together voluntarily to synergize a new nation open for homesteading by all.
Re:Linus calls Linux "idiotic", "broken" and "unst
on
BSDCon Europe 2001
·
· Score: 2
Hmmm, have you checked to see what Linux distro he uses at home? It ain't the idiotic, broken and unstable distro.
That a certain idiotic, broken and unstable distro can become the number one distro only proves that the average user Linux user isn't any more intelligent than the average Windows user.
I am not denying that a few corporations do these things. But the original post was directing his list of abuses against all corporations, that all corporations had the goal of undermining democracy and employing slave labor.
A few individual people commit murder, rape, arson and theft. But that doesn't make the goal of people to murder, rape, burn and steal. Individuals can commit criminal acts, and so can corporations. To accuse all corporations of employing slave labor just because Nike does is as ridiculous as accusing all human beings of being cannibals just because Daumer was a cannibal. Get real!
From where I sit, I see only two ways to generate revenue from Open Source software.
1) Sell a feature-added proprietary version of the software. Aladdin and Trolltech do this and are quite successful.
2) Sell proprietary addons to the software. The Kompany is doing this.
Conspicuously absent from this list are service/support, consulting, and reselling.
I haven't seen any profitability for service/support yet. It might be possible, but I just haven't seen it. Besides which, it's a lousy incentive for quality.
Consulting can be very profitable, and in fact, is where Cygnus made a heck of a lot of money. But consulting isn't generating revenue from the software. It's generating revenue from the consulting! The software merely acts as a glorified resume.
And of course, resellers aren't writing the software anyway.
I wish there was a way to make money directly off of Open Source without resorting to proprietary versions, extensions or addons. But I just don't see it yet. Bonds and other investments don't count, because they are not revenue. Likewise, I don't count donations to the "cause".
Instead of trying to find ways to make Open Source profitable, perhaps we should be trying to find ways to make closed source less onerous. Very few people are against paying for quality software. What they do object to are closed standards, upgrade cycles, and restrictions on personal and internal use.
Brrzzzt! Wrong! Qt is dual-licensed under BOTH the GPL and QPL. This allows any Open Source software to link to the library. Not just GPLd software. Huge difference.
Your arguments make a very good reason not to use the GPL.
Bits are inherantly copyable, 1's and 0's are just 1's and 0's. Patterns. Copyable by nature of being digital. You can't stop this happening, so you have the tax payers fork over the fee to remove their right to do so.
You can copy, modify, copy, redistribute, and copy yet again, infinitely, yet the original will never be damaged, sullied or diluted. By its own special nature, software does not need the protection of copyrights, copylefts or any other form of restriction. If you shouldn't "tax" folks with a copyright, then you shouldn't "tax" them with a copyleft.
If the use of copyrights as a "stick" to beat users of the head with is wrong, then the "stick" of copyleft to beat developers over the head with is also wrong.
I don't believe that software should not be owned. But let's say for a moment that I did. Let's say I read the collected works of RMS and came to the conclusion that owning software is wrong. Fine. Don't own the software. Release it to the public domain. Do not assert any ownership rights over it whatsoever. Anything else is hypocrisy.
And if you do not own the software that you have created, then you own derivations of that software even less!
Develop non-GPL Open Source software and pay money for Kylix.
Develop non-commerical closed source software and pay money for Kylix.
If the goal of this release was to allow Open Source developers to use the CLX library for free, while forcing closed source developers to pay for it, then there are better licensing options. Trolltech has already demonstrated one viable and very profitable alternative: dual licensed GPL and QPL.
You might argue that this exludes other "free" licenses, but IMHO the GPL is the only way this could have been done.
Why not go the Qt route (which Kylix is based on)? Dual GPL/QPL. It still forbids proprietary development, but allows *all* open source developers to use the library.
the goal of a corporation is to dissolve a market status, exploit the environment, tax the free and undermine democratic choices, and employ slave labour.
Wow! What country do you live in that your corporations do that to you! It can't be Canada, as your email implies. It sounds more like Somalia or Indonesia!
In my country (mostly south of Canada), the goal of corporations are to make a profit for their shareholders. They do not have the legal authority to tax. And we abolished slavery 150 years ago.
There's a hell of a lot wrong with the concept of "corporation" but your list of abuses are not among them.
The goals of the constituents of the market are then not the same as the goals of a free people.
Producers are people. Consumers are people. When these people are free, the market is free.
Slashdot Mirror
we have even executed people without ever granting them this right, which is supposedly guaranteed by the Geneva Convention
Can you cite any non-wartime examples? I can't think of a one. The US has done some pretty dumb things in the past but I can't recall anything like this.
You misunderstood. Yes, I can download the GNU tools for Solaris. But I can also download the GNU tools for Windows. But if I want to run Solaris there is only one place to get it: Sun. (and I wasn't referring to Corel Linux, but to WordPerfect, CorelDraw, etc).
Microsoft does not hold a monopoly on operating systems, web browsers or office suites. They only hold a monopoly of their own software. If you only want an OS to run your server, you have a dozen viable choices. But if you want Windows2K, there is only one place to get it. The only reason it makes any difference is because people *want* Windows.
I can even restrict the sale of my software by others.
Wrong. Anyone who has your source code can redistribute it and any derivations for no monetary costs. This is Mundie's point. You customers will be your competition. This is partly outweighed by your having equall access to all of their improvements to it, but it is still a serious blow to profitability.
Basically, the business model of selling software gets shot to hell when you use the GPL. You have to make up for it with non-GPL addons, support fees, versions with alternate licenses, etc. The software itself has become free beer.
I agree. This was the reason why the State of California released the CSRG code under a (then) new type of license, the BSD license. UCB, CSRG and DARPA are publicly funded institutions. Both individuals and corporations paid for the code, so both should have equal access to it.
Sun has a monopoly on Sun software. Does that make them a monopoly? Corel has a monopoly on Corel software. Does that make them a monopoly?
You are confusing "Open Source" with "Hobbyist Programming". Take a good hard look at the Apache Project. They have stable and readable source code. For their later projects, like Xerces, they designed and evaluated the whole project before writing the first line of code. An it's Open Source.
And let's look at all of the closed source crap. My current boss used to work for SGI. They had an internal motto of "we have the world's biggest QA department...our users". I've seen requirement documents written *after* customer ship. And I've seen the opposite as well: thousands of UML diagrams and no code.
Generalities are generally [sic] wrong. The "generalized" Open Source project is a hobbyist's project. But not all of Open Source is hobbyist. A lot of it is front line code written by professional software engineers.
No, I still don't think they can set the price of WXP to $1000 for OEM's. They might try. And the OEM's might go along with it for a week or two. But the minute the consumers walk into Best Buy and see that last weeks $799 model now costs $1999 (the OEM has a margin, you know), they'll have coniption fits and won't buy it.
For that price, the Macintosh will look very enticing. For that price, they'll seriously question whether they really need that new computer anyway.
If Microsoft has to lower its price as a result, then they never really had a true monopoly to begin with. In my opinion, the only monopoly they have is a monopoly on Microsoft software.
The wierd thing is that although there is no great groundswell of support for repealing the Sherman act, yet many people want to let Microsoft off the hook as some kind of "benevolent" monopoly. The problem is that you can't (or at least shouldn't) apply the law selectively.
I say repeal the Sherman act! But only one day two of my new regime. On day one I would repeal all of the myriad laws that limit competition and hinder voluntary economic transactions. Then on day two we wouldn't need the Sherman act...
If Microsoft is in trouble because they had too big of a market share while doing what is otherwise legal for every other business, then I want to know how much marketshare is too much? 50%? 60%? 90%? 99%? They say the sign of a real monopoly is the ability to set any price. But Microsoft can't do that. It can't price WinXP to the OEM's at $1000 (which, by the way, is still cheaper than most commercial Unices).
Privacy and anonymity are scarce outside of the internet as well. I'll go out on a limb here to say that they aren't really rights. You certainly have the right to pursue privacy and anonymity, but you don't necessarily have the right to have them given to you.
If you want privacy in the real world, you buy window shades. If you don't have window shades and your house faces a busy thoroughfare, you have only yourself to blame for your lack of privacy. In the real world it is up to you to ensure your own privacy. You have the right to buy and install window shades, but you don't have the right to have window shades provided for you.
Anonymity works the same way. If you want to be anonymous, it is up to you to make the effort. If you want to be anonymous, don't give out any information on yourself. Use cash for all transactions. Use a mail drop. Wear a disguise. Scurry through the shadows. Don't enter the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.
Privacy and anonymity are indeed scarce goods on the internet, just as they are in the brick-and-mortar world. It looks like a good business opportunity to me! If the public doesn't see them as valuable commodities, then obviously these services need better marketing.
Got to agree. Too many businesses don't want to compete on a level playing field. They find it more profitable to hire a DC lobbyist than to hire a competent engineer or marketeer. From what I have seen of the world, these types are everywhere, from the big multi-nationals to the small mom-and-pops.
When I say "business friendly", I mean an atmosphere that lets a business survive or fail on its own merits, on a playing field where the rules are known all and apply to all equally.
Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserve neither.
Almost, but not quite.
There is not "right to profit", but there is a right to attempt to earn a profit. Big difference. In todays mis-educated environment, too many people think "right"=="guarantee". This is bogus. There is no guarantee of profit. But there is a right to pursue happiness so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.
You have the right to pursue profits, to set your prices as high as you want, or as low as you want, to keep any profits that your earn, yada, yada, yada. But you do not have a guarantee to profits. You do not have a guarantee that people will buy your products if you set the price too high. You do not have a guarantee that you will be financially solvent if you set your prices too low.
I hate to be the one bearing the bad news. But the internet's core infrastructure is already owned by commercial interests. It has been for twenty years. The vast majority those cables, switches, routers and servers are not owned by any government or public agency. They are owned by private commercial interests.
The internet is chock full of scarcity. Landlines are scarce. Switches are scarce. Servers are scarce. IP addresses are scarce. Domain names are scarce. Bandwidth is scarce. Technical expertise is scarce. Reliability is scarce.
And yes, information is scarce. Scarcity goes beyond the cost of reproducing information. It also applies to the creation of information. There's a shitload of information out there. But 99.997% of it is worthless to me. The information I need right now is very scarce. It might not have been created. And if it has, I might not be able to find it. And if I do find it, I might very well discover that it is useless to me without the application of some other equally scarce tidbits of information.
Privatized regulatory system? Isn't that an oxymoron?
But that's beside the point. There was zero privatization of the energy market. All that happened was a de-monopolization of the energy production industry. Each of those newcomers on the production side was still regulated by the state. The distribution side remained a monopoly and was still regulated by the state. This created an imbalance and it almost destroyed itself. PG&E and SCE were/are monopoly purchasers of energy, and monopoly distributors of energy. By law. Purchase direct from an energy producer without Gray's permission and go to jail. Sell your excess energy without Gray's permission and go to jail.
The basic laws of economics still rule. If we have indeed entered a post-capitalism phase, then it won't matter if people listen to you are not. It will still happen. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Shit Happens when you introduce disruptive technologies into a marketplace.
Amen! There are relatively few laws of economics, but they are real and you can't violate them without getting bit in the ass.
Yup! That's what we are! I've heard "hippie anarchist" used over the decades as a cheap euphemism for "libertarian". So I'll examine the internet in terms of a laissez fair, anarcho-capitalist, free market.
(Of course, the internet ain't 100% free market. The following musings are mere generalization. Since utopia is not an option, there are exceptions to everything.)
The internet works according to the principles of volunteerism and property rights. The internet is private property. Pure an simple. We just don't see it as such since we think of it as a whole. In reality it's millions of tiny homesteaded properties all connected together. Companies and individuals own the backbones, servers, domains and software. We have organized ourselves into a working system without having to resort to government fiat and decree.
The internet runs by way of voluntary cooperation. We don't have any law backed by the use of force. We don't have policemen running around with guns. We only have mutual agreed upon rules of conduct. When these rules are broken, we do not throw the perpetrators in jail, but utilize non-violent solutions. If a section of the backbone decides to charge an onerous price, we route around them. When a server becomes a haven for spam, we boycott them through established protocols. And when a member abuses their free speech, we excercise ours through flamage and email bombing.
Where needed services were missing, some entepreneurial sorts stepped in and offered them. Domain names are one example. I own my NIC and it's MAC address. But basing a global network of addresses based on device addresses is highly inefficient. So I rent a static IP address from my ISP. This works quite well and is extremely efficient. IPv4 addresses are getting filled up, but even as we speak we are self-organizing around a new IPv6 standard of addressing. No need for Congress or Parliament to get involved. But though static IP addresses are great for computers, they are lousy for humans, so along comes another party offering domain name services. Thus I rent my domain name as well. A good analogy would be "I own my home and it's physical location, but pay rent to have it listed with the post office."
If folks don't like this free nation we have built, they can always construct their own. Simply and easily. Intranets. VPN's. If they wish to recruit others and put out the capitalization, they can even create their own parallel but separate backbone.
But this LA Times article is bizarre. The internet is business friendly. All anarcho-capitalist societies are. Did a lot of businesses get hosed in the dotcoms of last year? Of course! But this is nothing new. Market booms based on stupid speculations have always occured. Read up on the history of tulips for a surprising parallel.
If he wants corporations to be in control of the backbone, he needn't worry. They already are. It just isn't owned by those he considers "worthy". Tough beans! This is the free market. If you don't like we won't stop you from creating an alternative, or block you from trying to convince the backbone owners from selling to you.
Who you going to call when the internet sputters, grinds or even breaks? I don't know. But that's his problem. Why doesn't he get off his butt and create connection insurance? There are no laws here to prevent him.
In the meantime the internet is working quite well. If there is a problem, it is because people see the net as a "whole" when it is not. It is a collection of individuals and companies working together voluntarily to synergize a new nation open for homesteading by all.
Hmmm, have you checked to see what Linux distro he uses at home? It ain't the idiotic, broken and unstable distro.
That a certain idiotic, broken and unstable distro can become the number one distro only proves that the average user Linux user isn't any more intelligent than the average Windows user.
I am not denying that a few corporations do these things. But the original post was directing his list of abuses against all corporations, that all corporations had the goal of undermining democracy and employing slave labor.
A few individual people commit murder, rape, arson and theft. But that doesn't make the goal of people to murder, rape, burn and steal. Individuals can commit criminal acts, and so can corporations. To accuse all corporations of employing slave labor just because Nike does is as ridiculous as accusing all human beings of being cannibals just because Daumer was a cannibal. Get real!
From where I sit, I see only two ways to generate revenue from Open Source software.
1) Sell a feature-added proprietary version of the software. Aladdin and Trolltech do this and are quite successful.
2) Sell proprietary addons to the software. The Kompany is doing this.
Conspicuously absent from this list are service/support, consulting, and reselling.
I haven't seen any profitability for service/support yet. It might be possible, but I just haven't seen it. Besides which, it's a lousy incentive for quality.
Consulting can be very profitable, and in fact, is where Cygnus made a heck of a lot of money. But consulting isn't generating revenue from the software. It's generating revenue from the consulting! The software merely acts as a glorified resume.
And of course, resellers aren't writing the software anyway.
I wish there was a way to make money directly off of Open Source without resorting to proprietary versions, extensions or addons. But I just don't see it yet. Bonds and other investments don't count, because they are not revenue. Likewise, I don't count donations to the "cause".
Instead of trying to find ways to make Open Source profitable, perhaps we should be trying to find ways to make closed source less onerous. Very few people are against paying for quality software. What they do object to are closed standards, upgrade cycles, and restrictions on personal and internal use.
Just like QT is licenced.
Brrzzzt! Wrong! Qt is dual-licensed under BOTH the GPL and QPL. This allows any Open Source software to link to the library. Not just GPLd software. Huge difference.
Your arguments make a very good reason not to use the GPL.
Bits are inherantly copyable, 1's and 0's are just 1's and 0's. Patterns. Copyable by nature of being digital. You can't stop this happening, so you have the tax payers fork over the fee to remove their right to do so.
You can copy, modify, copy, redistribute, and copy yet again, infinitely, yet the original will never be damaged, sullied or diluted. By its own special nature, software does not need the protection of copyrights, copylefts or any other form of restriction. If you shouldn't "tax" folks with a copyright, then you shouldn't "tax" them with a copyleft.
If the use of copyrights as a "stick" to beat users of the head with is wrong, then the "stick" of copyleft to beat developers over the head with is also wrong.
I don't believe that software should not be owned. But let's say for a moment that I did. Let's say I read the collected works of RMS and came to the conclusion that owning software is wrong. Fine. Don't own the software. Release it to the public domain. Do not assert any ownership rights over it whatsoever. Anything else is hypocrisy.
And if you do not own the software that you have created, then you own derivations of that software even less!
You forgot two options:
If the goal of this release was to allow Open Source developers to use the CLX library for free, while forcing closed source developers to pay for it, then there are better licensing options. Trolltech has already demonstrated one viable and very profitable alternative: dual licensed GPL and QPL.
You might argue that this exludes other "free" licenses, but IMHO the GPL is the only way this could have been done.
Why not go the Qt route (which Kylix is based on)? Dual GPL/QPL. It still forbids proprietary development, but allows *all* open source developers to use the library.
the goal of a corporation is to dissolve a market status, exploit the environment, tax the free and undermine democratic choices, and employ slave labour.
Wow! What country do you live in that your corporations do that to you! It can't be Canada, as your email implies. It sounds more like Somalia or Indonesia!
In my country (mostly south of Canada), the goal of corporations are to make a profit for their shareholders. They do not have the legal authority to tax. And we abolished slavery 150 years ago.
There's a hell of a lot wrong with the concept of "corporation" but your list of abuses are not among them.
The goals of the constituents of the market are then not the same as the goals of a free people.
Producers are people. Consumers are people. When these people are free, the market is free.