Reading the PICS article with its comments, as well as similar articles and their comments here on slashdot and elsewhere, I see a new emerging political philosophy that I'm sure will dominate YRO.
The computing populace at large, and hackers in specific, have been classified as neo-libertarian in beliefs. Although there are many exceptions, there does seem to be a libertarian-like streak in slashdot. However, this is as related to libertarianism as fishes are to whales.
Libertarians believe, in a nutshell, that governements should be limited in size, scope and power. This new Katzianism, as I'll call it, goes far beyond this. It's an "us versus them" philosophy. Corporations, proprietary developers, movies theaters, or anyone else that doesn't fit into "us", must be limited as well. Microsoft must be limited in size, scope and power otherwise personal liberty will be in danger.
For example: It's evil if the US Senate mandates music ratings, it's also evil if AOL includes a ratings system with its software, it's also evil if a Mom-and-Pop music store took these ratings into account. In a similar vein, Slashdot posting policies are decried as "censorship".
This Katzian attitude is guaranteed to raise its ugly head repeatedly in YRO. Be prepared for it. Be aware that many calls for freedom are in fact calling for the opposite.
Yes and no. No they don't directly censor anything. However, in the future they can make censorship so much easier.
Governments censor, non-government entities can only recommend or dissuade. If a voluntary rating system emerges on the internet then it won't be censorship. There is a real need for a rating system of some kind. If you don't believe this is needed, you will after an explicit porn page or banner pops up on your screen while you're showing your dear mother how to look up websites on about rose bushes.
If governments institute a ratings system, we are stuck with it and all it's implications. But if the private sector sets up rating systems, even if they're big hitters like MS or IBM, then we are all free to ignore them. We've ignored official non-government standards before.
The BSD will keep the code Open Source, it just doesn't guarantee that any code forks will be Open as well.
There has yet to be an example of a Free BSD program superseded by a nonfree derivitive. BSDI may be out there, but so are FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
However, the author may have wished for something other than what he stated, namely that his code would stay out of proprietary hands entirely. This is a completely different kettle of fish. In this case Artistic, QPL or MPL may be a better choice.
But since he is using a proprietary library, it seems to me that common courtesy would allow the proprietary library's developer access to his code as well. It would be quite rude to say "I'm using your code but you can't use mine."
If you are dynamically linking to the library, then the GPL can still be used if you define its terms narrowly. The LGPL is not appropriate since it is for writing libraries, not linking to them, though it could still work.
Otherwise, ANY OTHER Free Software license will work, because it is only the GPL has has restrictions on distributing mixed code. BSD, Artistic, MPL, QPL will all do fine.
The QPL is probably closest to what you want, but modification to the code need to be separate from the code. This won't affect you, but will severely limit the ability of people to fork your code. As with the GPL, you can always include an "exception" to allow distribution of modifications as a full package to facilitate forking.
The Artistic license is also a good choice. It's almost like a cross between the GPL and the BSD. The project can fork, but the forks must use a different name to avoid user confusion.
The reason StarOffice is not being released as Free Software is that Sun still wants some semblance of control over it (they did spend millions on it after all).
But by releasing it as GPL or BSD, they could potentially lose all control of it (at least in their minds if not in reality). But if they release it under the MPL, QPL or Artistic licenses, StarOffice would be Free and Open Source, and they would still have some measure of control over the project.
So what would the world be like if everything was freeware instead of Free Software?
First of all, the users wouldn't care too much, since they've never cared much about the source code anyway. There are some exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. The majority of Linux users who are not developers are using it because it's free beer and robust, not because it's GPL'd or Open Source or hackable or anything like that.
Developers on the other hand, still want the source code and they still want the freedom to fix bugs and add features, and distribute those modification. Exactly the same impetus exists that started Richard on his path to GNU and Linux on his path to Linux. When you know how to code, you won't put up with an official fixpack that won't be released for six months.
Developers will still start Free Software projects to replace freeware, they just won't have the widespread support of the masses behind them.
BSD, GPL, QPl, et al = 98% to 100% Free SD's StarOffice = 50% Free Sun's StarOffice = 75% Free MSOffice = 0% Free
Overall, I think that the world has gained a little bit. No it's not perfect, but do you really expect the world to be perfect?
Former dictatorship Badinovia announced that they will now have free elections. However, they still have not released 59 political prisoners. We then congratulate them on their improving human rights records will continuing to urge further reforms.
Likewise, Sun should be congratulated for issuing Free Beer and the releasing the source code. We should continue urging them to take further steps towards a true Open Source release.
The last person I want to vote is someone who's so lazy that they won't register to vote unless someone shoves a registration form in their hand at the welfare office. During election season I can't walk fifty feet without passing a registration booth, yet some people still can't get registered without "motor-voter" laws.
Now here we go catering to the lazy voter again. "We're so sorry that it's inconvenient for you to take one half-hour out of every year to go and vote, so we'll make it easy for you. Just vote on the internet."
The purpose of the electoral college is to "filter" the vote. Without filtering of some kind, you get direct democracy, and outcomes that can change from day to day. The typical voter (at least in the US where voting is taken for granted) will not inform himself on the issue at hand, and rely on the presence of media and advertisements to tell him how to vote.
An example of the failure of direct democracy can be seen in the California initiative process. A few years ago, there were five different insurance reform inititives on the same ballot, each of which was incompatible with the other, and most of them won. Therefore, the majority of the voters were so stupid that they voted for incompatible measures.
"Until we as a society learn that we don't really want the government/media to protect us from ourselves, we're doomed as a nation to greater losses of freedoms. By/. advocating censorship, that's just one more nail in the freedom coffin."
Censorship in and of itself is not a bad thing. We all do it. How many of us use an answering machine to filter out the calls we don't want, or immediately trash any junk and mass-market snail mail? We all filter information. Even the most open-minded of the media do it, otherwise our morning papers would be three feet thick!
Censorship by a government is a bad thing. These are people who can't even run their own lives but try to run ours, and with our tax money to boot. It's an instance of our "rulers" determining what we see.
However, if slashdot deletes posts, that is a completely different thing. Slashdot is not the government. Unlike a government, when it deletes a post it is not eliminated from all other internet and real world outlets.
I don't own slashdot. You don't own slashdot. Only slashdot has any rights whatsoever in determining what gets posted and what doesn't. This affects nobody's freedoms. You have no rights to slashdot, just as nobody but you have rights to your website.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Freedom of the press includes the freedom not to publish.
If copyrights were eliminated then I could still "freely" close my source code. The purpose of the GPL is to keep the source code out in the open where people can use it. Without the copyright on the GPL then anyone can make it "nonfree".
In a world without copyrights I can take your source code, modify it, distribute it binary-only (with heavy copy protection), sell it, etc. Bill Gates can take GNU software and incorporate it into Windows (with heavy copy protection).
The only way around it would be to make the GPL and other former Free Software licenses into actual contracts. And forcing someone to sign a contract before they can use software is hardly up the FSF's alley.
"No company or person has any right whatsoever to use copyright to place restrictions on information"
What the fsck do think the GPL is!? Hamster soup! It's a frigging copyright!!! Have you ever read the GPL? I didn't think so...
If no one has the right to place restrictions on information, then I guess the FSF has no right to restrict my proprietary use of gcc now do they? Only the copyright prevents me from withholding the the source code. Hell, Microsoft could replace the VC++ backend with g++ and nothing would stop them!
Next time please engage the brain before trying to think...
Now here's some food for thought...in the same way, dynamically linking to a library is also considered "fair use" by many people, and if such a case ever makes it to a court, there is a good possibility that it will be determined legal to link to a GPL library! It can be justified as "fair use" since linking to a library is the whole purpose of the library, and in many cases, you aren't even including code at all, only a "#include ".
The same thing also goes for any proprietary dll's you happen to have laying around. You may not have any rights to distribute the proprietary library, but you can still dynamically link to it and distribute your own stuff.
Some/.'s believe in IP and some don't. Some don't even realize that copyrights are IP. Eliminating intellectual property altogether would invalidate the GPL, a nice little paradox:-)
However, the post assumes that the author is keenly interested in his IP rights. Otherwise he would not have been concerned with someone else using his work "unfairly". After all, if it's not property, it can't be stolen. If you feel it's been stolen, then you must agree that it's property!
A post can be put under the public domain and then no one would ever be able to own it for themselves. However, they could change the wording a bit and then claim it. If you don't believe that information should be owned, then put your stuff in the public domain, otherwise you are inconsistant. But if you don't believe in IP, but continue to use the GPL, understand that many people will see you as inconsistant and maybe even hypocritical.
The GPL or a GPL-like license is probably not appropriate for articles. The GPL is designed for software and particularly the modification of source code. Most articles, books, etc., are not intended to be further modified without the author's direct approval.
However, you can still make the article "Free". The BSD license would work well if you weren't concerned that some publisher could add further material to it and sell it. Giving it a tagline that prohibits the selling of your work would make it non-free unless you were very, very careful in your wording.
IMHO, just have the tagline announce the copyright and state that it can be freely copied and distributed as long as the notice is kept intact. See the bottom of this reply for an example:-)
Arandir ----------- This post Copyright 1999 by David Johnson. Permission to freely copy and distribute this post is granted provided that this notice is retained.
"...adding esoteric stuff or eye-candy that a power user would find useful."
This is not the definition of a power user. Instead, they are interested in tools, lots of tools, at both low and medium levels. They are also interested in fiddling with settings.
"Ask a gnome fan why he prefers gnome to kde and you would hear stuff about enlightenment themes."
Enlightenment is not a part of Gnome. This is like saying you prefer the L.A. freeways over the Bay Area freeways because you drive a Ferrari. A non sequitur.
KDE is not for newbies and Gnome is not for power users. Both are great for either group. Currently, Gnome is "prettier" but this will change with KDE2.0. At the user level, there's just not much difference. Underneath they have differing architectures which will appeal to different developers. Someone from the KDE group (can't remember who) said that the real power of Gnome and KDE is NOT their interface, but that they are development platforms in disguise. ps. Not all Gnome libs are LGPL. There are a couple that are plain GPL.
Apparently, my post got put up out of context. This caused some confusion. I'll rephrase my thoughts.
Now that BSD development is fully open for GPL/GNU participation, I see that no one is advocating this. No one. Instead I see lots of posts advocating the opposite, the taking of BSD code for GPL/GNU purposes. The whole idea of Free Software is to keep it in the community, and now I see people wanting to expatriate code. I see posts on the order of "now we can take it and make it ours." All of you would be pissing nails if someone suggested BSDing GPL/GNU code. But in advocating GPLing BSD code, you are among the worst of hypocrits.
No one in the BSD camp worries if you take some code here or there for your own use. In fact, it's encouraged. Take several application if you want and come back for more. But the BSD offer of free love was interpreted by you as rape. And just like a despicable rapist, your reply when caught is "but she really wanted it, look at how she's dressed."
I'm not against people using the BSD, or even incorporating it into GPL or proprietary code. What I am railing against is the utter hypocracy that many AC's have posted here.
Imagine that I have a swimming pool. I allow everyone in the nieghborhood to use my pool at any time. I even keep my back gate unlocked so they can. You, on the other hand, continually berate and chastise me for my free-thinking ways. You warn me that some bum will spread disease in my pool, that kids will urinate in it, and the city council will fine me for not having a lock on the gate. Everytime I see you, you are wagging your finger at me calling me stupid and ignorant. What else am I supposed to think but "hypocrite" when you come use my pool?
The key phrase in the previous post was "morally bereft". The BSD allows so much freedom that it even allows people the freedom to be stupid, ignorant and morally wrong. Just as in the real world, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.
After years of proclaiming the inherent righteousness of the GPL since it won't allow licensing changes, the stallmanistas now want to do unto others what they don't want others to do unto them. Utter hypocracy.
Why in the world would you want to GPL someone's BSD code? You may not agree with the original author's choice for using BSD, but it's still his choice. To even suggest adding to or changing the license is an incredible feat of disrespect to the authors.
What if someone found a hidden but valid loophole in the GPL that allowed them release all of Debian under BSD?. You would be angry, livid, beside yourself, foaming at the mouth, losing bladder control, and in general having violent conniption fits. To paraphrase Tolkien, "Those having respect for living authors will use their license and no other."
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the PICS article with its comments, as well as similar articles and their comments here on slashdot and elsewhere, I see a new emerging political philosophy that I'm sure will dominate YRO.
The computing populace at large, and hackers in specific, have been classified as neo-libertarian in beliefs. Although there are many exceptions, there does seem to be a libertarian-like streak in slashdot. However, this is as related to libertarianism as fishes are to whales.
Libertarians believe, in a nutshell, that governements should be limited in size, scope and power. This new Katzianism, as I'll call it, goes far beyond this. It's an "us versus them" philosophy. Corporations, proprietary developers, movies theaters, or anyone else that doesn't fit into "us", must be limited as well. Microsoft must be limited in size, scope and power otherwise personal liberty will be in danger.
For example: It's evil if the US Senate mandates music ratings, it's also evil if AOL includes a ratings system with its software, it's also evil if a Mom-and-Pop music store took these ratings into account. In a similar vein, Slashdot posting policies are decried as "censorship".
This Katzian attitude is guaranteed to raise its ugly head repeatedly in YRO. Be prepared for it. Be aware that many calls for freedom are in fact calling for the opposite.
"Ratings don't censor anything."
Yes and no. No they don't directly censor anything. However, in the future they can make censorship so much easier.
Governments censor, non-government entities can only recommend or dissuade. If a voluntary rating system emerges on the internet then it won't be censorship. There is a real need for a rating system of some kind. If you don't believe this is needed, you will after an explicit porn page or banner pops up on your screen while you're showing your dear mother how to look up websites on about rose bushes.
If governments institute a ratings system, we are stuck with it and all it's implications. But if the private sector sets up rating systems, even if they're big hitters like MS or IBM, then we are all free to ignore them. We've ignored official non-government standards before.
The BSD will keep the code Open Source, it just doesn't guarantee that any code forks will be Open as well.
There has yet to be an example of a Free BSD program superseded by a nonfree derivitive. BSDI may be out there, but so are FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
However, the author may have wished for something other than what he stated, namely that his code would stay out of proprietary hands entirely. This is a completely different kettle of fish. In this case Artistic, QPL or MPL may be a better choice.
But since he is using a proprietary library, it seems to me that common courtesy would allow the proprietary library's developer access to his code as well. It would be quite rude to say "I'm using your code but you can't use mine."
If you are dynamically linking to the library, then the GPL can still be used if you define its terms narrowly. The LGPL is not appropriate since it is for writing libraries, not linking to them, though it could still work.
Otherwise, ANY OTHER Free Software license will work, because it is only the GPL has has restrictions on distributing mixed code. BSD, Artistic, MPL, QPL will all do fine.
The QPL is probably closest to what you want, but modification to the code need to be separate from the code. This won't affect you, but will severely limit the ability of people to fork your code. As with the GPL, you can always include an "exception" to allow distribution of modifications as a full package to facilitate forking.
The Artistic license is also a good choice. It's almost like a cross between the GPL and the BSD. The project can fork, but the forks must use a different name to avoid user confusion.
The reason StarOffice is not being released as Free Software is that Sun still wants some semblance of control over it (they did spend millions on it after all).
But by releasing it as GPL or BSD, they could potentially lose all control of it (at least in their minds if not in reality). But if they release it under the MPL, QPL or Artistic licenses, StarOffice would be Free and Open Source, and they would still have some measure of control over the project.
So what would the world be like if everything was freeware instead of Free Software?
First of all, the users wouldn't care too much, since they've never cared much about the source code anyway. There are some exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. The majority of Linux users who are not developers are using it because it's free beer and robust, not because it's GPL'd or Open Source or hackable or anything like that.
Developers on the other hand, still want the source code and they still want the freedom to fix bugs and add features, and distribute those modification. Exactly the same impetus exists that started Richard on his path to GNU and Linux on his path to Linux. When you know how to code, you won't put up with an official fixpack that won't be released for six months.
Developers will still start Free Software projects to replace freeware, they just won't have the widespread support of the masses behind them.
BSD, GPL, QPl, et al = 98% to 100% Free
SD's StarOffice = 50% Free
Sun's StarOffice = 75% Free
MSOffice = 0% Free
Overall, I think that the world has gained a little bit. No it's not perfect, but do you really expect the world to be perfect?
Former dictatorship Badinovia announced that they will now have free elections. However, they still have not released 59 political prisoners. We then congratulate them on their improving human rights records will continuing to urge further reforms.
Likewise, Sun should be congratulated for issuing Free Beer and the releasing the source code. We should continue urging them to take further steps towards a true Open Source release.
The last person I want to vote is someone who's so lazy that they won't register to vote unless someone shoves a registration form in their hand at the welfare office. During election season I can't walk fifty feet without passing a registration booth, yet some people still can't get registered without "motor-voter" laws.
Now here we go catering to the lazy voter again. "We're so sorry that it's inconvenient for you to take one half-hour out of every year to go and vote, so we'll make it easy for you. Just vote on the internet."
The purpose of the electoral college is to "filter" the vote. Without filtering of some kind, you get direct democracy, and outcomes that can change from day to day. The typical voter (at least in the US where voting is taken for granted) will not inform himself on the issue at hand, and rely on the presence of media and advertisements to tell him how to vote.
An example of the failure of direct democracy can be seen in the California initiative process. A few years ago, there were five different insurance reform inititives on the same ballot, each of which was incompatible with the other, and most of them won. Therefore, the majority of the voters were so stupid that they voted for incompatible measures.
"Until we as a society learn that we don't really want the government/media to protect us from ourselves, we're doomed as a nation to greater losses of freedoms. By /. advocating censorship, that's just one more nail in the freedom coffin."
Censorship in and of itself is not a bad thing. We all do it. How many of us use an answering machine to filter out the calls we don't want, or immediately trash any junk and mass-market snail mail? We all filter information. Even the most open-minded of the media do it, otherwise our morning papers would be three feet thick!
Censorship by a government is a bad thing. These are people who can't even run their own lives but try to run ours, and with our tax money to boot. It's an instance of our "rulers" determining what we see.
However, if slashdot deletes posts, that is a completely different thing. Slashdot is not the government. Unlike a government, when it deletes a post it is not eliminated from all other internet and real world outlets.
I don't own slashdot. You don't own slashdot. Only slashdot has any rights whatsoever in determining what gets posted and what doesn't. This affects nobody's freedoms. You have no rights to slashdot, just as nobody but you have rights to your website.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Freedom of the press includes the freedom not to publish.
"the only restriction it places is that nobody is allowed to place additional restrictions on the work, it's copies, and any derivative works."
There a lot more restrictions than that! Go read it.
If copyrights were eliminated then I could still "freely" close my source code. The purpose of the GPL is to keep the source code out in the open where people can use it. Without the copyright on the GPL then anyone can make it "nonfree".
In a world without copyrights I can take your source code, modify it, distribute it binary-only (with heavy copy protection), sell it, etc. Bill Gates can take GNU software and incorporate it into Windows (with heavy copy protection).
The only way around it would be to make the GPL and other former Free Software licenses into actual contracts. And forcing someone to sign a contract before they can use software is hardly up the FSF's alley.
Oh my god! That church uses the RSV! Don't they know that the only true Bible is the KJV! They will surely burn in hell...
"No company or person has any right whatsoever to use copyright to place restrictions on information"
What the fsck do think the GPL is!? Hamster soup! It's a frigging copyright!!! Have you ever read the GPL? I didn't think so...
If no one has the right to place restrictions on information, then I guess the FSF has no right to restrict my proprietary use of gcc now do they? Only the copyright prevents me from withholding the the source code. Hell, Microsoft could replace the VC++ backend with g++ and nothing would stop them!
Next time please engage the brain before trying to think...
Quoting or referencing an article is "fair use".
Now here's some food for thought...in the same way, dynamically linking to a library is also considered "fair use" by many people, and if such a case ever makes it to a court, there is a good possibility that it will be determined legal to link to a GPL library! It can be justified as "fair use" since linking to a library is the whole purpose of the library, and in many cases, you aren't even including code at all, only a "#include ".
The same thing also goes for any proprietary dll's you happen to have laying around. You may not have any rights to distribute the proprietary library, but you can still dynamically link to it and distribute your own stuff.
Some /.'s believe in IP and some don't. Some don't even realize that copyrights are IP. Eliminating intellectual property altogether would invalidate the GPL, a nice little paradox :-)
However, the post assumes that the author is keenly interested in his IP rights. Otherwise he would not have been concerned with someone else using his work "unfairly". After all, if it's not property, it can't be stolen. If you feel it's been stolen, then you must agree that it's property!
A post can be put under the public domain and then no one would ever be able to own it for themselves. However, they could change the wording a bit and then claim it. If you don't believe that information should be owned, then put your stuff in the public domain, otherwise you are inconsistant. But if you don't believe in IP, but continue to use the GPL, understand that many people will see you as inconsistant and maybe even hypocritical.
The GPL or a GPL-like license is probably not appropriate for articles. The GPL is designed for software and particularly the modification of source code. Most articles, books, etc., are not intended to be further modified without the author's direct approval.
:-)
However, you can still make the article "Free". The BSD license would work well if you weren't concerned that some publisher could add further material to it and sell it. Giving it a tagline that prohibits the selling of your work would make it non-free unless you were very, very careful in your wording.
IMHO, just have the tagline announce the copyright and state that it can be freely copied and distributed as long as the notice is kept intact. See the bottom of this reply for an example
Arandir
-----------
This post Copyright 1999 by David Johnson. Permission to freely copy and distribute this post is granted provided that this notice is retained.
"...adding esoteric stuff or eye-candy that a power user would find useful."
This is not the definition of a power user. Instead, they are interested in tools, lots of tools, at both low and medium levels. They are also interested in fiddling with settings.
"Ask a gnome fan why he prefers gnome to kde and you would hear stuff about enlightenment themes."
Enlightenment is not a part of Gnome. This is like saying you prefer the L.A. freeways over the Bay Area freeways because you drive a Ferrari. A non sequitur.
The default window manager is kwm. To use another window manager, you will need to do a tiny bit of work on your .xinitrc.
Take a look at the KDE manuals as well as the specific window manager's manuals. These should give you the clues you need.
KDE is not for newbies and Gnome is not for power users. Both are great for either group. Currently, Gnome is "prettier" but this will change with KDE2.0. At the user level, there's just not much difference. Underneath they have differing architectures which will appeal to different developers. Someone from the KDE group (can't remember who) said that the real power of Gnome and KDE is NOT their interface, but that they are development platforms in disguise. ps. Not all Gnome libs are LGPL. There are a couple that are plain GPL.
Apparently, my post got put up out of context. This caused some confusion. I'll rephrase my thoughts.
Now that BSD development is fully open for GPL/GNU participation, I see that no one is advocating this. No one. Instead I see lots of posts advocating the opposite, the taking of BSD code for GPL/GNU purposes. The whole idea of Free Software is to keep it in the community, and now I see people wanting to expatriate code. I see posts on the order of "now we can take it and make it ours." All of you would be pissing nails if someone suggested BSDing GPL/GNU code. But in advocating GPLing BSD code, you are among the worst of hypocrits.
No one in the BSD camp worries if you take some code here or there for your own use. In fact, it's encouraged. Take several application if you want and come back for more. But the BSD offer of free love was interpreted by you as rape. And just like a despicable rapist, your reply when caught is "but she really wanted it, look at how she's dressed."
I'm not against people using the BSD, or even incorporating it into GPL or proprietary code. What I am railing against is the utter hypocracy that many AC's have posted here.
Imagine that I have a swimming pool. I allow everyone in the nieghborhood to use my pool at any time. I even keep my back gate unlocked so they can. You, on the other hand, continually berate and chastise me for my free-thinking ways. You warn me that some bum will spread disease in my pool, that kids will urinate in it, and the city council will fine me for not having a lock on the gate. Everytime I see you, you are wagging your finger at me calling me stupid and ignorant. What else am I supposed to think but "hypocrite" when you come use my pool?
The key phrase in the previous post was "morally bereft". The BSD allows so much freedom that it even allows people the freedom to be stupid, ignorant and morally wrong. Just as in the real world, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.
After years of proclaiming the inherent righteousness of the GPL since it won't allow licensing changes, the stallmanistas now want to do unto others what they don't want others to do unto them. Utter hypocracy.
Why in the world would you want to GPL someone's BSD code? You may not agree with the original author's choice for using BSD, but it's still his choice. To even suggest adding to or changing the license is an incredible feat of disrespect to the authors.
What if someone found a hidden but valid loophole in the GPL that allowed them release all of Debian under BSD?. You would be angry, livid, beside yourself, foaming at the mouth, losing bladder control, and in general having violent conniption fits. To paraphrase Tolkien, "Those having respect for living authors will use their license and no other."
Read the subject