Why do people keep equating corporatons with the opposite of government? Corporations can only be created through an act of government!
But we do have schools without government and taxation. In fact, government schools only came into being this century in the US. And the US citizens of the 18th and 19th centuries were by no means illiterate. When the typical private school charges much less per year for tuition than the government spends for educating the very same child, I'm not thinking of the government as very enlightened.
Couldn't we turn these institutions over to private interests instead of governments or corporations?
"Code has to be a form of personal expression and therefore should be protected by First Amendment."
Bingo. The creation of software, any software, is a form of free speech. It could even be political speech. Say for instance that someone has a political disagreement with the political positions of the FSF. Say that person deliberately wrote closed source software because of it.
So, you think it's okay for one special interest group (hackers) to acquire legal rights that the rest of the population does not have? That isn't justice, it's pandering to congress.
If you see a hundred people living in slavery, do advocate to free just two of them who happen to be your friends? No! You free them all! In the same way, you don't solve this legal situation by exempting free software while requiring the rest to continue in what you call an injustice. No, you work to exempt EVERYONE!
If it's moral for you to write a OSS DeCSS program, then it's moral for me to write a binary only DeCSS program.
Sheesh! Next thing you know someone will be advocating the imprisonment of shareware authors. All hail the revolution and pass me another noose.
You're partly right. It is true that congress is to blame. But granting a free software exception is the wrong solution.
You may think and believe that free software is superior to other software, but the truth is, it is legally (and metaphysically) no different from other software. By making an exception for free software, you have introduced yet another special dispensation into law so that you do not the follow the rules everyone else does.
"I don't want to go back to a world where computing isn't fun."
What isn't fun is a computing world where you think it's okay to impose your shoulds, woulds and oughttos and the rest of us.
"To be quite honest I would think a VAT or Open Source society tax should be started."
Aaaargh!! Stop that or I'm going to have to whap you upside the head! This is supposed to be FREE SOFTWARE. Don't you understand that?
Everywhere in the free software community, licensing fees are decried as "evil". Software that has available and modifiable source code, but still requires a licensing fee would never be considered Free or Open Source. Yet this is the exact thing you are advocating.
If you want to put such a clause in your own software, go ahead. At least it will still be voluntary. But don't expect anyone to use it. But should you ever get an actual tax levied on Open Source, you will have betrayed everything you say you are for in the foulest way.
Before you start calling for taxes to support Free Software, go pick up a dictionary and look up "free".
A libertarian with heart would never do such a heartless thing as use the government threat of deadly force to extort taxes from the unwilling to give to their favorite charity.
In case you've forgotten, a libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force for political means. To put it in playground terms, you can't throw the first punch. If it's wrong for an individual to take my money without my consent, then it's still wrong for a group to do the same. Even though it's legal, taxation is still extortion.
It's really hard for me to imagine someone so ignorant that they think AOL is their only option.
But imagine there is. No, imagine that there's someone so ignorant that they think they can only use MCI as a long distance carrier. Do we then punish MCI for limiting this guy's freedom? Do we force MCI to inform him about Sprint, AT&T and Excel? I don't think so.
"...stop corporations from becoming big and evil...These people are at the mercy of AOL Who will stand up for their rights?"
When the government wants to put a vchip in your television, what do you say? Simple. I can change the channel all by myself. So what do you say when AOL wants to be your only ISP? Simple. I can change the channel.
Stop patronizing these people as being too stupid to make a choice for themselves. I don't care how big T/W/A gets, they will never have enough power to deny me any choice whatsover. What could they possibly do? Pass a law mandating AOL? Send troops to my home and force me to install it? Don't be silly!
"It tries to say if you use this code, and if you make available binary code based on it, you must make available the source as well..."
But it says a lot more than that. It also says if you use this code, which is a library and intended to be used as such, with code I don't agree with, you may be sued. It says if you port my code to a completely free desktop like KDE, you may be sued. It says if you conduct a private beta test of Corel Linux, you may be sued.
"Yes, the GPL restricts your freedom to use GPLed code to write non-free code - just as most traffic laws restrict your freedom to drive at 300 km/h on a public highway."
That highway is not mine, despite the misnomer of "public" in its name. I have to follow the rules the highway's owner. This is not an abridgement of freedom. However, the GPL attempts to impose restrictions on stuff outside of itself. It says in effect, you have to drive 300kph on this highway, as well as all other highways attached to it.
"If you don't like the restrictions imposed by the GPL, don't use GPLed code - write your own replacement code."
Believe me, I don't. I have much more respect for my users than that.
No, RMS doesn't want to take over the world. But he does want to eradicate all closed source software, even if it means that programmers can't get paid for programming. And he's not talking about just Windows. He's talking about Navigator, SAP, Oracle, Photoshop, every piece of hobbyist shareware, and yes, even the BIOS in your computer. He was publicly stated that it is more moral to wait on tables than to write a closed source program.
Re:Moderate this trolling motherfucker down to -5!
on
BSD BOF at LinuxWorld
·
· Score: 2
Hmmm, this sort of verifies my statement that GNUzis are and always have been antagonistic towards the free speech of others.
"I don't understand why it always has to be BSD vs. Linux."
Actually, there have been two "battles", BSD versus Linux and GNU versus Linux. The BSD v Linux battle is over which has a better TCP/IP stack, can handle terabytes of data better, can process more http requests, etc. In short, the technical drivel that all OS advocates relish. I mean, you should have seen some of the NT threads versus OS/2 threads flamewars!
But the other battle, GNU versus BSD, is much bloodier. And the only reason the battle is against *BSD is because it isn't GNU, period. Every time a BSD related article gets posted to the main page of Slashdot, there will be a dozen posts talking about the shoddy licensing practice of BSD. Or the myth of how BSDI stole FreeBSD. Or any of several other silly things.
The trouble is, this battle is just as stupid as the other. I would ignore it myself, but I keep getting arrows lobbed at me. Every time I have announced a BSD licensed application on Freshmeat, I receive hatemail. Sometimes they take the form of pleading (please make it GPL so that I can use it too) or warning (don't you know that someone will steal your app?). But there's a significant contingent out there that just can't tolerate non-GNU or non-GPL stuff.
I haven't read the proposed legislation, so I don't know how much of this comment is relevant...
No one can copyright a fact, such an address, birthdate, etc. However, someone can collect all that information into a database, and then copyright that specific information. But this copyrighting in no ways puts a copyright on any of the facts contained within it. If this proposed legislation changes this, then it is a very, very Bad Thing.
Unlike a patent, similar copyrighted works have the possibility of being created independently. And the law currently recognizes this. As of today, it is possible for more than one person to compile the same database independent of each other, and copyright each one separately. Take a look at a map of San Fransisco. Everything on it is public information. But take a look at the lower left (or right) corner. You'll see a copyright notice. There are more than one mapmaker who publishes maps of San Fransisco. Now take a look at your phone book. It's also copyrighted. But there are competing copyrighted phone books containing identical information. A phone book *IS* a database containing public domain facts. Now look at a dictionary...
Before everyone gets lathered up over copyrighting databases, please be aware that this has been going on for at least a few centuries. Sure the USPS has a copyrighted database of everyone's address. But nothing is stopping you from creating your own.
I'm a one OS type of person. If there's a really cool game for Windows (Riven) or OS/2 (GalCiv), I'll slice out a little partition so I can run them. Otherwise I stick with just one OS. Even though I have two OS's installed, one will always get ignored.
Right now I have Slack and FreeBSD. I'm using mostly Slack right now, and fiddling with FreeBSD to learn it's quirks. Mostly they're identical in functionality. But one huge advantage FreeBSD has over Linux, is that it runs FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, SCO and SVR4 binaries, while Linux only runs Linux binaries (at least I haven't gotten anything else to work). It suddenly occured to me that I don't have any need for Linux anymore. I can run CivCTP and RTII from FreeBSD.
So I'm afraid that the near future will see me dumping the Linux partitions in favor of FreeBSD. I really don't want to, but I'm just a one OS type of guy. I'll probably keep a small partition around to check out the latest distros.
As a current QA professional, I can say that there is a lot of pressure for the QA lead to sign off, particularly when a product is overdue. It doesn't happen where I work, but I've heard horror stories from those that worked elsewhere.
"There are no longer any mustfix bugs. So sign."
"That's because you deferred all the bugs. So I won't."
But this problem faces EACH AND EVERY Open Source project! What makes this case so different from all the other ones? Did we just discover today that it's hard to tell what code a proprietary binary uses?
You're right, I didn't read it clearly. It's pretty obvious that something is missing in the story. Without knowing what it is, I am forced to use my own imagination as to where the problem lies.
"Oh and by the way, most extremly new users I worked with prefered keystrokes to mouse strokes"
I've found this to be true as well. Years ago I switched out a user's DOS menuing system for QuickMenu, which used icons. I thought it would be easier for him. But he quickly asked me to put back the old menu, since he found it easier looking over the old list of programs and typing in the number listed. Another person I knew used Wordperfect for years right up to WP 5.1. Then she got a new computer with the "new and improved" graphical version, and her productivity plummeted. She went back to WP5.1 and plain DOS on a 286. She still uses it and is one of the leading medical transcriptionists in the California.
Personally, I like GUIs. But I'm wondering if that's because no two programs have the same keystroke commands. I know that the bottom entry of the far left menu will close the application. But I never know if that command is E&xit, &Quit or &Close. And whenever I'm using emacs, I type 'i' to start typing.
"copying the code into another application would be sufficiently easier than..."
But that's not what he's worried about. The GPL already protects against that. He's worried (as far as I can tell) about someone using the interface to the source code.
"Personally, I wouldn't want people using my open code in closed source software."
If that's what you want, then come right out and say so! Don't stoop to using the GPL which is quite vague on the subject of linkage. If you don't want runtime linkage, then write your own license that specifically prohibits it.
That may be what most people think the GPL means, and it may be what RMS wants it to mean, however, the subject of dynamically linking to non-GPL libraries from GPL code is rather vague.
GPLv3, of course, will address this issue. It will clarify the point that dynamic or other runtime linking will not allowed with non-GPL code. This would normally not be a problem, and many library licenses have clauses pertaining to runtime linkage. However, couple this with the "viral" clauses of the GPL, and the situation becomes untenable. Hell, even viewing a javascript-laden webpage under Netscape could land you in jail! Talk about freedom!
you're concerned that someone might *USE* your code? That can only be what it is, otherwise just put it under the GPL and no one can take modifications private. Geez, you're using Bill's code but you don't want him using yours...you are such a model of even-handedness.
If your abstraction code is so abstract that it doesn't need modifications to be used elsewhere, yet so useful that you fear people might use it, then it must be pretty cool.
Just let people use it. Share your code with the world. Be magnanimous with your creations. Cast off your xenophobia and fear of outsiders, and let people outside of your tribe partake of your labors.
Sometimes insults, flames and having your head cut off are good learning experience.
You can have as many friendly, helpful and cheerful helpers as you want to carefully guide and correct the newbie, but there has to be at least one person doing the weaning. At some point the newbie has to learn that he can and should try to find out stuff himself.
Big letdown, I know. But it means the same thing as free in the same context. Which is why "Open Source" was chosen.
And, yes, I realize that "open" can be used in ways that cause confusion (OpenWindows, OpenLook, open the door) but the word "free" has exactly the same problems. Even translated into the "libre" sense only, you can confuse the notion of Free Software with "free speech", "free love", "free verse", "free electron", or even the ridiculous association with "live free or die". Petty revolutionaries use "free" to spur their disciples to murder the landowners so that they can become petty dictators. On the other hand, "open" implies that the source code is open for all to see, participation in the software is open to all, and "open" is opposite of secrecy. If proprietary standards are the opposite of open standards, then what is the opposite of proprietary software?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people keep equating corporatons with the opposite of government? Corporations can only be created through an act of government!
But we do have schools without government and taxation. In fact, government schools only came into being this century in the US. And the US citizens of the 18th and 19th centuries were by no means illiterate. When the typical private school charges much less per year for tuition than the government spends for educating the very same child, I'm not thinking of the government as very enlightened.
Couldn't we turn these institutions over to private interests instead of governments or corporations?
"Code has to be a form of personal expression and therefore should be protected by First Amendment."
Bingo. The creation of software, any software, is a form of free speech. It could even be political speech. Say for instance that someone has a political disagreement with the political positions of the FSF. Say that person deliberately wrote closed source software because of it.
Closed Source Software == Free Speech!
Let me explain this to you gently. If you "amend" the GPL to prevent certain people from using it, IT WONT BE FREE SOFTWARE!!!
So, you think it's okay for one special interest group (hackers) to acquire legal rights that the rest of the population does not have? That isn't justice, it's pandering to congress.
If you see a hundred people living in slavery, do advocate to free just two of them who happen to be your friends? No! You free them all! In the same way, you don't solve this legal situation by exempting free software while requiring the rest to continue in what you call an injustice. No, you work to exempt EVERYONE!
If it's moral for you to write a OSS DeCSS program, then it's moral for me to write a binary only DeCSS program.
Sheesh! Next thing you know someone will be advocating the imprisonment of shareware authors. All hail the revolution and pass me another noose.
You're partly right. It is true that congress is to blame. But granting a free software exception is the wrong solution.
You may think and believe that free software is superior to other software, but the truth is, it is legally (and metaphysically) no different from other software. By making an exception for free software, you have introduced yet another special dispensation into law so that you do not the follow the rules everyone else does.
"I don't want to go back to a world where computing isn't fun."
What isn't fun is a computing world where you think it's okay to impose your shoulds, woulds and oughttos and the rest of us.
"To be quite honest I would think a VAT or Open Source society tax should be started."
Aaaargh!! Stop that or I'm going to have to whap you upside the head! This is supposed to be FREE SOFTWARE. Don't you understand that?
Everywhere in the free software community, licensing fees are decried as "evil". Software that has available and modifiable source code, but still requires a licensing fee would never be considered Free or Open Source. Yet this is the exact thing you are advocating.
If you want to put such a clause in your own software, go ahead. At least it will still be voluntary. But don't expect anyone to use it. But should you ever get an actual tax levied on Open Source, you will have betrayed everything you say you are for in the foulest way.
Before you start calling for taxes to support Free Software, go pick up a dictionary and look up "free".
A libertarian with heart would never do such a heartless thing as use the government threat of deadly force to extort taxes from the unwilling to give to their favorite charity.
In case you've forgotten, a libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force for political means. To put it in playground terms, you can't throw the first punch. If it's wrong for an individual to take my money without my consent, then it's still wrong for a group to do the same. Even though it's legal, taxation is still extortion.
It's really hard for me to imagine someone so ignorant that they think AOL is their only option.
But imagine there is. No, imagine that there's someone so ignorant that they think they can only use MCI as a long distance carrier. Do we then punish MCI for limiting this guy's freedom? Do we force MCI to inform him about Sprint, AT&T and Excel? I don't think so.
"...stop corporations from becoming big and evil...These people are at the mercy of AOL Who will stand up for their rights?"
When the government wants to put a vchip in your television, what do you say? Simple. I can change the channel all by myself. So what do you say when AOL wants to be your only ISP? Simple. I can change the channel.
Stop patronizing these people as being too stupid to make a choice for themselves. I don't care how big T/W/A gets, they will never have enough power to deny me any choice whatsover. What could they possibly do? Pass a law mandating AOL? Send troops to my home and force me to install it? Don't be silly!
GPL Library: any code that links to this must be GPL
Proprietary Library: any code can link to this
"It tries to say if you use this code, and if you make available binary code based on it, you must make available the source as well..."
But it says a lot more than that. It also says if you use this code, which is a library and intended to be used as such, with code I don't agree with, you may be sued. It says if you port my code to a completely free desktop like KDE, you may be sued. It says if you conduct a private beta test of Corel Linux, you may be sued.
"Yes, the GPL restricts your freedom to use GPLed code to write non-free code - just as most traffic laws restrict your freedom to drive at 300 km/h on a public highway."
That highway is not mine, despite the misnomer of "public" in its name. I have to follow the rules the highway's owner. This is not an abridgement of freedom. However, the GPL attempts to impose restrictions on stuff outside of itself. It says in effect, you have to drive 300kph on this highway, as well as all other highways attached to it.
"If you don't like the restrictions imposed by the GPL, don't use GPLed code - write your own replacement code."
Believe me, I don't. I have much more respect for my users than that.
No, RMS doesn't want to take over the world. But he does want to eradicate all closed source software, even if it means that programmers can't get paid for programming. And he's not talking about just Windows. He's talking about Navigator, SAP, Oracle, Photoshop, every piece of hobbyist shareware, and yes, even the BIOS in your computer. He was publicly stated that it is more moral to wait on tables than to write a closed source program.
Hmmm, this sort of verifies my statement that GNUzis are and always have been antagonistic towards the free speech of others.
"I don't understand why it always has to be BSD vs. Linux."
Actually, there have been two "battles", BSD versus Linux and GNU versus Linux. The BSD v Linux battle is over which has a better TCP/IP stack, can handle terabytes of data better, can process more http requests, etc. In short, the technical drivel that all OS advocates relish. I mean, you should have seen some of the NT threads versus OS/2 threads flamewars!
But the other battle, GNU versus BSD, is much bloodier. And the only reason the battle is against *BSD is because it isn't GNU, period. Every time a BSD related article gets posted to the main page of Slashdot, there will be a dozen posts talking about the shoddy licensing practice of BSD. Or the myth of how BSDI stole FreeBSD. Or any of several other silly things.
The trouble is, this battle is just as stupid as the other. I would ignore it myself, but I keep getting arrows lobbed at me. Every time I have announced a BSD licensed application on Freshmeat, I receive hatemail. Sometimes they take the form of pleading (please make it GPL so that I can use it too) or warning (don't you know that someone will steal your app?). But there's a significant contingent out there that just can't tolerate non-GNU or non-GPL stuff.
I haven't read the proposed legislation, so I don't know how much of this comment is relevant...
No one can copyright a fact, such an address, birthdate, etc. However, someone can collect all that information into a database, and then copyright that specific information. But this copyrighting in no ways puts a copyright on any of the facts contained within it. If this proposed legislation changes this, then it is a very, very Bad Thing.
Unlike a patent, similar copyrighted works have the possibility of being created independently. And the law currently recognizes this. As of today, it is possible for more than one person to compile the same database independent of each other, and copyright each one separately. Take a look at a map of San Fransisco. Everything on it is public information. But take a look at the lower left (or right) corner. You'll see a copyright notice. There are more than one mapmaker who publishes maps of San Fransisco. Now take a look at your phone book. It's also copyrighted. But there are competing copyrighted phone books containing identical information. A phone book *IS* a database containing public domain facts. Now look at a dictionary...
Before everyone gets lathered up over copyrighting databases, please be aware that this has been going on for at least a few centuries. Sure the USPS has a copyrighted database of everyone's address. But nothing is stopping you from creating your own.
I'm a one OS type of person. If there's a really cool game for Windows (Riven) or OS/2 (GalCiv), I'll slice out a little partition so I can run them. Otherwise I stick with just one OS. Even though I have two OS's installed, one will always get ignored.
Right now I have Slack and FreeBSD. I'm using mostly Slack right now, and fiddling with FreeBSD to learn it's quirks. Mostly they're identical in functionality. But one huge advantage FreeBSD has over Linux, is that it runs FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, SCO and SVR4 binaries, while Linux only runs Linux binaries (at least I haven't gotten anything else to work). It suddenly occured to me that I don't have any need for Linux anymore. I can run CivCTP and RTII from FreeBSD.
So I'm afraid that the near future will see me dumping the Linux partitions in favor of FreeBSD. I really don't want to, but I'm just a one OS type of guy. I'll probably keep a small partition around to check out the latest distros.
As a current QA professional, I can say that there is a lot of pressure for the QA lead to sign off, particularly when a product is overdue. It doesn't happen where I work, but I've heard horror stories from those that worked elsewhere.
"There are no longer any mustfix bugs. So sign."
"That's because you deferred all the bugs. So I won't."
But this problem faces EACH AND EVERY Open Source project! What makes this case so different from all the other ones? Did we just discover today that it's hard to tell what code a proprietary binary uses?
You're right, I didn't read it clearly. It's pretty obvious that something is missing in the story. Without knowing what it is, I am forced to use my own imagination as to where the problem lies.
"Oh and by the way, most extremly new users I worked with prefered keystrokes to mouse strokes"
I've found this to be true as well. Years ago I switched out a user's DOS menuing system for QuickMenu, which used icons. I thought it would be easier for him. But he quickly asked me to put back the old menu, since he found it easier looking over the old list of programs and typing in the number listed. Another person I knew used Wordperfect for years right up to WP 5.1. Then she got a new computer with the "new and improved" graphical version, and her productivity plummeted. She went back to WP5.1 and plain DOS on a 286. She still uses it and is one of the leading medical transcriptionists in the California.
Personally, I like GUIs. But I'm wondering if that's because no two programs have the same keystroke commands. I know that the bottom entry of the far left menu will close the application. But I never know if that command is E&xit, &Quit or &Close. And whenever I'm using emacs, I type 'i' to start typing.
"copying the code into another application would be sufficiently easier than..."
But that's not what he's worried about. The GPL already protects against that. He's worried (as far as I can tell) about someone using the interface to the source code.
"Personally, I wouldn't want people using my open code in closed source software."
If that's what you want, then come right out and say so! Don't stoop to using the GPL which is quite vague on the subject of linkage. If you don't want runtime linkage, then write your own license that specifically prohibits it.
That may be what most people think the GPL means, and it may be what RMS wants it to mean, however, the subject of dynamically linking to non-GPL libraries from GPL code is rather vague.
GPLv3, of course, will address this issue. It will clarify the point that dynamic or other runtime linking will not allowed with non-GPL code. This would normally not be a problem, and many library licenses have clauses pertaining to runtime linkage. However, couple this with the "viral" clauses of the GPL, and the situation becomes untenable. Hell, even viewing a javascript-laden webpage under Netscape could land you in jail! Talk about freedom!
you're concerned that someone might *USE* your code? That can only be what it is, otherwise just put it under the GPL and no one can take modifications private. Geez, you're using Bill's code but you don't want him using yours...you are such a model of even-handedness.
If your abstraction code is so abstract that it doesn't need modifications to be used elsewhere, yet so useful that you fear people might use it, then it must be pretty cool.
Just let people use it. Share your code with the world. Be magnanimous with your creations. Cast off your xenophobia and fear of outsiders, and let people outside of your tribe partake of your labors.
Sometimes insults, flames and having your head cut off are good learning experience.
You can have as many friendly, helpful and cheerful helpers as you want to carefully guide and correct the newbie, but there has to be at least one person doing the weaning. At some point the newbie has to learn that he can and should try to find out stuff himself.
"Spare the flame and spoil the newbie"
The word is...open...
Big letdown, I know. But it means the same thing as free in the same context. Which is why "Open Source" was chosen.
And, yes, I realize that "open" can be used in ways that cause confusion (OpenWindows, OpenLook, open the door) but the word "free" has exactly the same problems. Even translated into the "libre" sense only, you can confuse the notion of Free Software with "free speech", "free love", "free verse", "free electron", or even the ridiculous association with "live free or die". Petty revolutionaries use "free" to spur their disciples to murder the landowners so that they can become petty dictators. On the other hand, "open" implies that the source code is open for all to see, participation in the software is open to all, and "open" is opposite of secrecy. If proprietary standards are the opposite of open standards, then what is the opposite of proprietary software?