If you're good, send your resume to Red Hat. If you aren't, try one of the other distributors...;))
That's easy for you to say. There's not enough opening at all the Open Source companies combined to hire all the Open Source developers. You're just side stepping the issue. Your employer is currently making (losing) its money through support and proprietary addons. Some of us would like to make money off of Open Source Software development.
I've seen the CATO institute and Reason bitching about the WTO protests.
I haven't read every CATO and Reason article out there on the subject, but the ones I have read bitched about the "protest" and did not argue in favor of the WTO itself. A lot of those protestors wanted to replace the oppressive WTO with schemes even more oppressive.
Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with privatize public education.
Some libertarians support school vouchers. A lot support tuition credits instead. Unfortunately, with vouchers you get the benefit of Republicans as allies and a lot of press coverage. With credits you're on your own.
Simillarly, I have also seen many libertarians supporting stronger copyright protection (like the DCMA).
I've found libertarians to be split on the issue of information as property. Some are completely against it (see the GNU pages for an example) while others take the opposite extreme that all information must be protected with the utmost of vigilance. Most will take the middle ground the ones own works are ones own property, but also that holders of copies of those works have property rights as well.
It doesn't matter how much the lobbyists whine and complain, they do not have the power to pass legislation. The fault lies squarely upon the politicians for putting that concept into law.
But you are right that the politicians did not invent that concept. They only implemented it. I stand humbled.
Patents are already granted only to persons. Unfortunately, corporations have been declared legal persons. Therein lies the source of 90% of corporate evil. Abolish the concept of corporations as persons and you eliminate corporate patent holding, corporate campaign contributions, corporate lobbying, etc.
Gee, if you think libertarians are going to flame you for your "truth", then you don't understand libertarians. I'll go one better, I'll flame you for your inane assumptions about libertarians:
they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws.
Libertarians are against regulations and laws that infringe upon life, liberty and property. We will agree with you on this one.
They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen.
Libertarians are against the regulation of the net. The only laws applying to it should be for the express purpose of guaranteeing peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Including the property rights of Free Software.
Taxes are also inevitable.
Libertarians are against taxes. Some are against them completely. Others will relent to basic and necessary taxation. But you do make a statement that libertarians will take issue with: hey should be really low for small business and startups...but not for big companies. Actually, beyond the mischaracterization of libertarians, this is one of the few things in your post I disagree with. Everyone must be treated equally.
such as requiring open access to broadband pipes.
If the broadband pipe was funded through taxes, then libertarians will agree with you. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broadband pipes" though. If you mean access to a companies privately constructed backbone, I'll have to disagree.
Overall, you don't have any disagreements with libertarians. It's a shame that you think them hostile to freedom.
Yes, you are playing devil's advocate here. First of all, the copy is not perfect. Those signals transmitting the digital ones and zeros don't have the exact same amplitude as the original. So what? Consider a book. It is composed of equally discrete numbers and letters. I can make a perfect copy of a book's information with a scanner and OCR. But where's the hue and cry over OCR software?
Another "so what?" arises over the fact that copyright law (not the hideous DMCA) does not distinguish between perfect and imperfect copies. That concept wasn't introduced into law AFAIK until DMCA. The politicians have pulled this notion of perfect copies out of legal thin air.
RIAA is messing up big time by treating one medium different than another. On one hand, a radio station takes a song and beams it out to 50,000 listeners, and on the other hand takes the very same song and streams it out to 50,000 listeners. There's no fundamental difference.
Because the internet is new, and software still relatively new, people want to treat them differently from the old media. But their purposes are the same. Internet broadcasts must operate under the same rules as EM broadcasts. Software should have the same copyright laws as books. Websites the same as newspapers.
Because good old-fashioned classic copyright is sufficient for software, the DMCA just creates injustice. On the music side, treating internet and EM differently only creates a loss for RIAA. By doing what their doing, even if they win the case, they end up forcing station to one format or another, ultimately limiting the song's audience. Either charge no royalties or charge for all broadcasts, internet or EM.
If you base law on fundamental principles then its application can be applied to everywhere, and understood by everyone.
You get absolutely no protection if you assign you copyright to the FSF. The reason is that it's no longer your code. You no longer need the protection. This is like saying you can protect yourself from deadbeat tenants by giving the deeds to your property to someone else.
Mattel could change the code slightly and release it closed-source.
So what?
Who gives a dingos' dong if tomorrow's copy ain't free? Yesterday's version is. So go grab it while you can, and redistribute it to your hearts content.
Is this the famous superior morality and social consciousness of the the Open Source community? Gee, I used to execute the rich and send the poor to concentration camps in the name of Freedom all the time, but the UN kicked me out of Latin America. Glad to see this kind of thinking back.
With the GPL there would have been ACs all over them from day one to release their unworkable alpha code (cf Corel). Anything they derived from Darwin (the rest of Mac) would need to be sourced as well, but I suspect they have NDAs with other companies that prohibit this.
I could go on an on, but I'll stop. In short, a BSD or MIT license allows a company to go Open Source without inadvertantly running afoul of someone else's copyright.
If people starting calling it "GNU/Linux", it would not be Open Source getting publicity, it would be only GNU and GNU alone getting the extra attention.
Today, companies can pay their employees through revenues A, B and C. But your proposal says that companies can only pay their employees from revenue streams B and C. An elementary analysis says that the average wages of developers must either decrease. I have no problems with Free Software. I have a major problem when Free Software is mandated.
Speaking of the support option, I wonder how long it will be until there is a hue and cry for Free Support Software? As a user, it is just as onerous to pay $100 for Software and $50 for support, as it is to pay $0 for Software and $150 for support. More onerous, actually, since I might require more support incidents.
How long do we have to keep acknowledging him? Every Linux manual credits FSF, GNU and RMS on the first or second page. LWCE made him man or the year. One distro even calls itself GNU/Linux. What more does he want?
What will it take for him to stop screaming at reporters who inadvertantly mutter "Linux" in his presence? (you would think that reporters attempting to interview him would be acknowledgment enough).
Programmers want to earn a living programming. They don't want to earn a living waiting on tables (Mr. Stallman's proposal) then program in the evenings. In order to earn a living through programming, one must be paid by an employer or client. In order for that money to pay you to exist in the first place, there have to be profits somewhere. I've worked for companies that didn't make profits. It's not a joyful feeling to wonder whether you'll get paid this week or not.
Yeah, you're making sense, it's just that no one wants to hear you. Nobody buys Linux. Nobody. Even that measly $2 going to CheapBytes is just a copying fee. Put Linux in a box but don't offer any support, then price it at $80 and see who buys it.
As a die hard property-rights libertarian I'll let you know that if the notion of property disappears through voluntary means, I will have no quarrel with it. However, I have yet to see any mechanism that can do this that doesn't involve involuntary means.
"GNU" means "GNU's Not Unix". GNU is a project started by RMS and the FSF to create a 100% free operating system. The GPL was just one of the licenses they used for GNU software.
Placing software under the GPL license does not make the software GNU! Aaaargh!
Slashdot Mirror
If you're good, send your resume to Red Hat. ;))
If you aren't, try one of the other distributors...
That's easy for you to say. There's not enough opening at all the Open Source companies combined to hire all the Open Source developers. You're just side stepping the issue. Your employer is currently making (losing) its money through support and proprietary addons. Some of us would like to make money off of Open Source Software development.
Mandrake is not Redhat. At one time it was, but not anymore. Not even close.
Sure, go ahead and copy Mandrake. But don't expect a dollar of investments to come your way until you do more than merely change its name.
If it weren't for the governments power of eminent domain under the constitution (brits - compulsory purchase)there would be no network.
Ah, so they were indeed funded by the tax coffers. They weren't privately created. My point still stands...
I've seen the CATO institute and Reason bitching about the WTO protests.
I haven't read every CATO and Reason article out there on the subject, but the ones I have read bitched about the "protest" and did not argue in favor of the WTO itself. A lot of those protestors wanted to replace the oppressive WTO with schemes even more oppressive.
Libertarians also support school vouchers because they beleive that school vouchers with privatize public education.
Some libertarians support school vouchers. A lot support tuition credits instead. Unfortunately, with vouchers you get the benefit of Republicans as allies and a lot of press coverage. With credits you're on your own.
Simillarly, I have also seen many libertarians supporting stronger copyright protection (like the DCMA).
I've found libertarians to be split on the issue of information as property. Some are completely against it (see the GNU pages for an example) while others take the opposite extreme that all information must be protected with the utmost of vigilance. Most will take the middle ground the ones own works are ones own property, but also that holders of copies of those works have property rights as well.
It doesn't matter how much the lobbyists whine and complain, they do not have the power to pass legislation. The fault lies squarely upon the politicians for putting that concept into law.
But you are right that the politicians did not invent that concept. They only implemented it. I stand humbled.
Patents are already granted only to persons. Unfortunately, corporations have been declared legal persons. Therein lies the source of 90% of corporate evil. Abolish the concept of corporations as persons and you eliminate corporate patent holding, corporate campaign contributions, corporate lobbying, etc.
Gee, if you think libertarians are going to flame you for your "truth", then you don't understand libertarians. I'll go one better, I'll flame you for your inane assumptions about libertarians:
they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws.
Libertarians are against regulations and laws that infringe upon life, liberty and property. We will agree with you on this one.
They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen.
Libertarians are against the regulation of the net. The only laws applying to it should be for the express purpose of guaranteeing peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Including the property rights of Free Software.
Taxes are also inevitable.
Libertarians are against taxes. Some are against them completely. Others will relent to basic and necessary taxation. But you do make a statement that libertarians will take issue with: hey should be really low for small business and startups...but not for big companies. Actually, beyond the mischaracterization of libertarians, this is one of the few things in your post I disagree with. Everyone must be treated equally.
such as requiring open access to broadband pipes.
If the broadband pipe was funded through taxes, then libertarians will agree with you. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broadband pipes" though. If you mean access to a companies privately constructed backbone, I'll have to disagree.
Overall, you don't have any disagreements with libertarians. It's a shame that you think them hostile to freedom.
broadcast stream leads to perfect copies.
Yes, you are playing devil's advocate here. First of all, the copy is not perfect. Those signals transmitting the digital ones and zeros don't have the exact same amplitude as the original. So what? Consider a book. It is composed of equally discrete numbers and letters. I can make a perfect copy of a book's information with a scanner and OCR. But where's the hue and cry over OCR software?
Another "so what?" arises over the fact that copyright law (not the hideous DMCA) does not distinguish between perfect and imperfect copies. That concept wasn't introduced into law AFAIK until DMCA. The politicians have pulled this notion of perfect copies out of legal thin air.
RIAA is messing up big time by treating one medium different than another. On one hand, a radio station takes a song and beams it out to 50,000 listeners, and on the other hand takes the very same song and streams it out to 50,000 listeners. There's no fundamental difference.
Because the internet is new, and software still relatively new, people want to treat them differently from the old media. But their purposes are the same. Internet broadcasts must operate under the same rules as EM broadcasts. Software should have the same copyright laws as books. Websites the same as newspapers.
Because good old-fashioned classic copyright is sufficient for software, the DMCA just creates injustice. On the music side, treating internet and EM differently only creates a loss for RIAA. By doing what their doing, even if they win the case, they end up forcing station to one format or another, ultimately limiting the song's audience. Either charge no royalties or charge for all broadcasts, internet or EM.
If you base law on fundamental principles then its application can be applied to everywhere, and understood by everyone.
I hardly consider dropping people into woodchippers to be humorous. Those that do have a serious mental imbalance.
This is the USA. You have no rights here unless large companies and rich people decide otherwise.
What a sad, sad world you must live in, always afraid of those with one more dollar than you.
Only recently moving into the middle income bracket, I wonder if my former poor peers are now afraid of the immense power I wield over them.
If money can manipulate the system, then fix the system. Bitching about the money does nothing but exercise your whine muscles.
Rich people are powerful 'cause they're somewhat rare.
Then I guess that makes one legged tapdancers kings!
You get absolutely no protection if you assign you copyright to the FSF. The reason is that it's no longer your code. You no longer need the protection. This is like saying you can protect yourself from deadbeat tenants by giving the deeds to your property to someone else.
Mattel could change the code slightly and release it closed-source.
So what?
Who gives a dingos' dong if tomorrow's copy ain't free? Yesterday's version is. So go grab it while you can, and redistribute it to your hearts content.
Pro business ain't necessarily pro Microsoft, and if Dubya has two brain cells to put together, he knows this. Just ask Sun, Caldera, Apple, IBM...
Is this the famous superior morality and social consciousness of the the Open Source community? Gee, I used to execute the rich and send the poor to concentration camps in the name of Freedom all the time, but the UN kicked me out of Latin America. Glad to see this kind of thinking back.
With the GPL there would have been ACs all over them from day one to release their unworkable alpha code (cf Corel). Anything they derived from Darwin (the rest of Mac) would need to be sourced as well, but I suspect they have NDAs with other companies that prohibit this.
I could go on an on, but I'll stop. In short, a BSD or MIT license allows a company to go Open Source without inadvertantly running afoul of someone else's copyright.
If people starting calling it "GNU/Linux", it would not be Open Source getting publicity, it would be only GNU and GNU alone getting the extra attention.
Today, companies can pay their employees through revenues A, B and C. But your proposal says that companies can only pay their employees from revenue streams B and C. An elementary analysis says that the average wages of developers must either decrease. I have no problems with Free Software. I have a major problem when Free Software is mandated.
Speaking of the support option, I wonder how long it will be until there is a hue and cry for Free Support Software? As a user, it is just as onerous to pay $100 for Software and $50 for support, as it is to pay $0 for Software and $150 for support. More onerous, actually, since I might require more support incidents.
How long do we have to keep acknowledging him? Every Linux manual credits FSF, GNU and RMS on the first or second page. LWCE made him man or the year. One distro even calls itself GNU/Linux. What more does he want?
What will it take for him to stop screaming at reporters who inadvertantly mutter "Linux" in his presence? (you would think that reporters attempting to interview him would be acknowledgment enough).
Programmers want to earn a living programming. They don't want to earn a living waiting on tables (Mr. Stallman's proposal) then program in the evenings. In order to earn a living through programming, one must be paid by an employer or client. In order for that money to pay you to exist in the first place, there have to be profits somewhere. I've worked for companies that didn't make profits. It's not a joyful feeling to wonder whether you'll get paid this week or not.
Yeah, you're making sense, it's just that no one wants to hear you. Nobody buys Linux. Nobody. Even that measly $2 going to CheapBytes is just a copying fee. Put Linux in a box but don't offer any support, then price it at $80 and see who buys it.
As a die hard property-rights libertarian I'll let you know that if the notion of property disappears through voluntary means, I will have no quarrel with it. However, I have yet to see any mechanism that can do this that doesn't involve involuntary means.
"GNU" means "GNU's Not Unix". GNU is a project started by RMS and the FSF to create a 100% free operating system. The GPL was just one of the licenses they used for GNU software.
Placing software under the GPL license does not make the software GNU! Aaaargh!
Gee... What knucklehead moderated this down as a "troll"? Please read the moderator guidelines before you click on that magic button.