Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
I agree that it's good work.
I'll grit my teeth over the claims at proving awareness, in order to get to the cool mechanics stuff.
I believe that understanding the universe is a good way to understand ourselves, even though it's not complete.
Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
If you believe that a cat is conscious, then yes your computer is also. It has a limited sort of intelligence and conscioussness...
This argument is called pan-psychism, and I am somewhat partial to it.
It's a good way to have an explanation of awareness that is entirely consistent with science, and yet also includes the concept of awareness, which is not measurable.
Yet, it is just a constructed argument. We can't scientificly prove that there is an awareness on the other end of our measuring devices.
As I said, I'm sympathetic to pan-psychism. I'm not a pan-psychist, but I can understand that it could be true. (Whereas, pure materialism as described by Dennet & Co. cannot be true.)
But it is not de-facto obvious. We can't say, "This is true. If you are reasonable, and follow this chain of arguments, then you will know it is true, without a doubt in your mind, and able to answer all counter-arguments."
I would encourage researching pan-psychism.
Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
I've read his books. While he has very elaborate and impressive explanations, I don't think they are good ones.
His explanations do not convince me because they do not answer my arguments.
Where my side's arguments make sense, I only see him waving his hands, and going for ad hominem attacks.
Specificly, I'm thinking of his "But could you really conceive of zombies?" paper, which does nothing to address the issue (the explanatory gap between non-zombie and zombie-worlds), instead, rather, points out the inconsistencies in some group of people's thinking.
At times like that, I wish I could grab him by the scruff of the neck, and shout, "YES! Right here! I can conceive of zombies! So, where's your answer now, punk?"
Sadly, the letters on the paper don't answer.
The real progress in this arena is being made by Chalmers and company, who are investigating the realm of explanation. It's the only place, I think, where we have any hope (really) of settling this.
Unless the pan-psychist hypothesis is true; I don't know, it seems rather strange to me. But if that were true, I think we might be able to get some experimental evidence or something. I don't know.
At the very least, we could construct an explanation that appeals to scientists, and yet doesn't contradict obvious arguments. (Obvious argument: Any universe could work just as well without awareness as with it, so why are we experiencing things. Filling the explanatory gap.)
If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Finally, our most unique and advanced feature -- consciousness -- is explained.
Oh, really.
Carter describes the "working memory" model developed by Alan Baddeley, where images and speech-based information is held for short time in a cache-like space, while the "central executive" part co-ordinates the information processing. She demonstrates how complex programs can be easily triggered in patients with lobotomy.
Is the ability to be programmed the same as being conscious? So my computer in front of me here is conscious, because I can program it?
Tell me, can she explain why it is that we aren't all just unconscious zombies, doing exactly what we do?
What difference can it possibly make that I experience anything? Don't talk to me about processing- that can all happen equally well if I'm not staring at it.
A movie playing in a theater plays just as well and just the same whether anybody's sitting in it or not.
So, why are we here? Why are we in the theater, watching the show, rather than there just being a theater playing the story of the universe, but nobody's watching it?
Can her explanation of the machinery of the mind- can it answer that one?
(More to my immediate position: Why the hell am I watching a movie about people who argue that nobody's watching the movie? I want my money back!)
Carter explains the illusion of the free will and its evolutionary origins.
So,... Since when is Consciousness the same thing as free will?
I don't care about free will, I care about Consciousness. Experiencing.
While I respect the good doctor's understanding of mechanics, i'm still not understanding how this explains why we're having an experience at all.
You can explain processing mechanisms until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to convince me that there needs to be any anything out there at all- it could all run, exactly as you say, just as well in a program in a supercomputer in a dark closet somewhere, that nobody every saw or heard of.
The eagerness to say "Consciousness is Explained" when it really isn't- that's got to tell you something.
I mean, sure- maybe you have an explanation. But not a convincing one. I could say that blue fairies make people conscious, and my explanation would be: "Blue fairies are why you're conscious." but that doesn't really convince anyone.
Sadly, everyone seems caught up in the Scientists' version of the God of the Gaps: "We just need more complexity. Make it complex enough, and consciousness will just emerge." Yeah. There's a scientific exlpanation for you: "Consciousness just emerges." Just replace the word "emerge" with the word "magicly appear."
Remember, we're not interested in the behavior of machinery. We're interested in why there is an experience, any experience, period. By experience, we're not talking about neural encodings and other Neural Correlates of Consciousness. We're talking about the actual experience, itself.
Why do I care? I'd like a model of the world that includes me in it. I find it inconvenient to keep justifying a world that can account for every single last thing, except the mechanism I use to actually experience it. It's like being able to use a microscope, but not being able to talk about the microscope itself.
You believe in "Know Thyself?" I posit that understanding the motions of the neurons in your brain is only a hair closer to understanding yourself, than understanding the operation of the digits of your fingers, or the brake in your car.
To really know yourself, you have to go all the way.
That is the worst thing that can happen: The FSF says "the GPL is basically PD."
It's a legitimate concern. But it's the opposite of what most people here are afraid of, though. They're afraid that RMS will say: "GPL v4: All Your Base Are Belong to Us."
Hello yintercept; I have just a few essential corrections to make here. I am not a lawyer, I'm just informed.
Right now you only have to make your source code available when you distribute via a CD.
That is incorrect. If you distribute over, say, by FTP, you still have to make source code available, under the terms of the GPL.
(Which version? The version of the GPL applied to the code, or a later version. It's your choice. We'll talk about "retroactive" in a moment.)
My take on the article is that it still leaves the loophole that people don't have to open source their code if they host the applications themselves.
If you distribute the code, you have to provide the source, as per the GPL.
But say it's GPL v2, and the code is a web service: It's something you run in Apache, and it provides functionality to clients.
Now you can take without returning: You can change the code, and ''because you are not distributing it,'' you don't have to provide the source of your change.
This is all okay by v2 of the GPL.
By v3 of the GPL, it will probably not apply.
Now, will v3 be able to apply ''retroactively'' on top of your v2 code? The article says "yes," but it is wrong.
If you don't believe me, you can e-mail rms@gnu.org yourself, and he'll respond. (I've emailed him twice in my life, and both times, he's responded. Who am I? I'm nobody. He's just very adament about responding to all e-mail. I swear to God, he's a machine. He must have come back from the future.)
Probably better yet: Read v2 of the GPL. You'll see that, if you want to, you can voluntarily bind yourself to v3. But you don't have to.
Personally, I will not be surprised if the GPL doesn't soon demand open sourcing all applications designed with GPL software.
Variants? "If I use Lilipond to write music, is the music GPLed?" "If I use gcc, is the output GPLed?" "If I use flex/bison, is the output GPLed?"
No, no, and, no. Nope. Not at all.
It'd be pretty rediculous if it were.
Who'd use a GPL'ed text editor, if everything you wrote with it had to be GPLed?
Nope.
I suspect that in the years to come there will need to be another retroactive change to the GPL to force the open sourcing of the code used to create web sites.
For that to be true, there would have to have been a first retroactive change to the GPL.
However, there is no such thing. It is a legal impossibility. The article that you are citing is just plain wrong.
Read GPL v2, write to rms, or talk with a developer who has studied these licensing issues.
Please understand: I'm not trying to beat you up about this. I'm just trying to keep the GPL's reputation fair.
People have legitimate grievances with the GPL: Some people don't like being teased with a large body of useful work, but feeling like they can't use it for their proprietary purposes. I can understand being ticked off about that. I can imagine being annoyed about that.
But this is a whole thing different. This is people thinking false things about the GPL: That it can be applied retroactively, and things like that.
Personally, I publish most everything I do at home straight into the Public Domain. I like it that way, and my code is of little consequence. That said, I can't bear to see the GPL slandered (libel, for the purists) like this. Especially here on Slashdot. It's very sad.
Every commercial software company pays "great" attention to licensing issues; That's not a change, that's a constant.
The GPL has always been about: "If you make use of our code, and you change it, then you have to share that with everybody." Perhaps you missed this subtle point.
Web-services have gotten around this: You can get code, without contributing anything back. GPL v3 is simply correcting for this.
If you don't like it, just don't use it. There's nothing really shocking there.
Really, I don't think this is a problem. Companies use Linux right now, and they distribute the source code upon request. It's kind of funny to think about, but I believe you can write to some cell phone companies, or whatever, and request that they send you the Linux source code that they use in the phone on a disk. Do the companies fret about this? They don't seem to.
v3 of the GPL will have no affect on them; they are already compliant.
The article is just plain wrong: Changes to the GPL do not apply retroactively. GPL versions are backwards compatible, but they don't apply retroactively.
If you are running Apache under v1 or v2 of the GPL, there is ''nothing'' that can force you to use vWhatever of the license.
I know the article implies the opposite. But, really, as usual, the source is the ultimate source: Read version 2 of the GPL, and you will see that nothing can retroactively force you to use it under any other version number.
If you have any questions, I recommend talking with a developer who knows the GPL license well.
Or, ask me here. I'm not an expert expert, but I know some stuff.
The key thing is who you got the code from. Let's play that Richard Stallman goes insane, and makes v5 of the GPL ''evil.'' If you got some GPL'ed code under the terms of the Evil version, then you are bound by the Evil GPL when you use ''that instance of the code.''
But if you go on the Internet, and find the code with no version number, then you can use ''that instance of the code'' under any GPL that you like. You could use it under v1, v2, v3, vWhatever.
It sounds silly, because it's the exact same code, just from a different person, right?
But, this is actually how it works.
Consider this: If Disney were to sell you a video under the terms that you could only use it in your own domicile, then that video they give you is indeed under those terms.
But then, perhaps for a higher price, they could sell you ''the exact same video,'' but perhaps with the license option that you are ''also'' allowed to watch it at your friends' domiciles.
You could, if you wanted to, buy both! They'd be two identical copies, in terms of what you are physically holding in your hand. But the legal permissions around them would be totally different.
(I believe. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of the situation.)
Same with the GPL. If you can find a v1 version of some code somewhere on the Internet, then you are welcome to use it under the terms you found it under.
The basic idea is that: Software developers are likely (in theory) to release their new software under the most recent version of the code. (Provided they don't think it's evil, and all.) They can take all their old GPL v2 code, and automatically upgrade it to v3, without conflict. Now they are release GPL v3 code.
Now, if on some FTP server somewhere, someone finds the v2 code, and wants to use it- that's their right. They can do that.
They can use that v2 code under the v2 terms. If v3 says that you have to either publish your changes or pay someone (or whatever,) they don't have to do that: Because the code they received was licensed v2.
If they want to play by v3 rules, they can. But, they don't have to.
(Again, I'm not a lawyer. But, I also think that this is true. This is my understanding.)
Whoever controls the FSF, controls the vast majority of GPLed software.
Why are you saying such horrible things?
Do you believe that if v4 said "you must send $1,000 the FSF for every execution of the program," that your v2 or v3 code would suddenly be v4? That your users would suddenly be required to send money to the FSF?
The idea is that by combining our understandings from our respective fields, we can attempt to better understand the possibilities open to us, and the timing and dependencies behind them.
Except that it doesn't actually happen that way. If a company wants to distribute something enough, they *will* ask.
Nonono-
You don't understand-
You're talking about taking photographs, and then putting them online. If some magazine wants to use them, they pay you. Fair enough: The CC license with non-commercial is okay.
But that's totally different than the icons scenario. Here's why.
Let's say you have some icons for some GNOME project. Now lets say this little project wants to be in the GNOME distribution. And the GNOME distribution, in turn, wants to be distributed with, say, Red Hat, and Debian, and all these other zillion projects.
The little project isn't going to take your icons, because it's totally unfeasible that Red Hat is going to be tracking down the rights for all the little projects that live within all of the major projects.
It gets even goofier when considering something like CheapBytes, which sells Linux distros at only a couple dollars more than the price of the CD printing. We're talking major mom & pop here.
It's absolutely rediculous to think that they're going to to be phoning up all the people of the gazillion projects within the hoards of Linux distros that they sell, maintaining contracts, hiring lawyers, yadda yadda yadda.
So:
If you sell photographs, and you also release them CC non-commercial, then-- that's great! That's really cool! I totally appreciate that.
But, if you're someone who's making icons for use in Free Software projects (or whatever,) and you're confused why nobody's making use of them-- it's because of the reason I just gave above.
(Or, why is it such a big deal if they have to contact me first?)
Because there's like 999,999,999,999,999 little packages in a big fat thing called a distro, made by untold countless people, all of who would be angry that they didn't get their 1 cent per 1000 CDs sold.
What you propose means that each company has to hold and maintain a contract for every single little micro-deal made. That means tons of lawyers, tons of phone calls, tons of paper (yes, paper,) tons of beaurocracy, tons of this, that, and the other thing. Just tracking you down can be hard.
Believe me, it's not worth it to them.
Since GNOME, KDE, small time app developers, whoever all want to be part of distros, or, hell, let's forget distros- let's just talk people who sell CD images for $3.00 each-
Since the devs want their work to have all their freedoms, they'll say, "Thank you for your lovely icons, we may make them available on our web site (where only a handful of people will see them,) but we can't include it in the core distro. Have a nice day."
The saddest thing is that the conversation doesn't even take place-- the whole point of this kind of licensing is so that there doesn't have to be a conversation. What actually happens is this: Someone's looking over icon collections. They see a cool one, "Oh, that's neat." "Oh, wait- non-commercial. Can't use it. Damn..."...and then they move on, and the artist never even knew.
What would be better:
Offer to sell your icon library to KDE (or whomever) for licensing however they like. Say, "For $300, I'll make you these cool icons, you can license them however you like after you buy them." Then KDE can give you $300.00, and make use of the icons.
We (royal) are okay with what you want, and what you are doing.
What is difficult is the situation where a person wants to contribute their work for general public use. This isn't like your (legitimate) case, this is a different (legitimate) case.
In they're head, they are thinking, "Hey! This is great! People who are doing non-commercial stuff can use. Like, if someone's making a Free Software video game, they can reuse it. So this helps all those net projects. And then the people who want to make money with it, they have to call me. This works great for everybody!"
But, the problem is, it's naive. And Creative Commons isn't helping people sort it out.
What actually happens is this:
Game group sees the artwork, and wants to use it. "Hm, says Non-Commercial. Can't use it."
Why did this happen? Is the game group commercial? No. But if they have anything non-commercial, it can't be used. Because the dream for the group is to be distributed in magazine CDs, or as part of a default distro. If they include "non-commercial only," they can't distribute their game with Fedora, they can't distribute it with just about anything. The game group (and any other net project) knows this, and have to reject the work.
Which is really sad, because the whole point was to allow people to network their content together. Everybody loses out.
None of this applies to your situation, where these restrictions are actually what we want.
This only applies in the situation where someone thinks "net projects can use this," when, in reality, they can't.
I have played almost virtually every single version of the Nintendo since the original unit was introduced in the mid-80's. Many, many fun-filled nights were had on that system (Baseball All-Stars, Super Mario, Zelda, Techmo Football), yet it seems lately that the leadership at Nintendo is just trying to re-hash old titles. Metroid was a great initial title and completely original. That was what made it great.
Not to be mean, but,... perhaps you are only buying the games that you are familiar with?
But since we'll all be cyborgs, we'll probably get some renumeration for the tiny amount of computer power we are able to contribute to the hive from our own e-brain and attention.
Then again, consider: Just how much does a 3'x3'x3' cube for housing your brain cost?
Nice to think we'll all be vegan, finally, consuming our diet of proteins. Somehow, I don't think the present day vegans will be happy with this arrangement, though.
I have tried to explain to myself Slashdot skepticism of Google. Here is what I have come up with.
Google has made a policy: "We're not evil. That's our corporate policy. We're not evil."
From what I can tell, people respond to this policy in one of two ways:
Sympathetic. "We're glad to hear it, Google. We're going to hold you to your claim, but, we're glad to hear it." We can call these people "Google Supporters."
Skeptical. "Hm. I've never seen a non-evil Company. Google, you're pretty powerful. We're going to tear you to shreds if you step even slightly out of line." We can call these people "Google Detractors."
Now, the popular sentiment seems to be sympathetic here.
However, it's not as sympathetic as it might be.
I believe the answer is in the psychology of the Google Detractors. My personal belief is that the detractors are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. This is the where you have two ideas in front of you, and they seem to be contradictory.
Some possible cognitive dissonances:
Everybody has at at least some Evil. This is someone who has a yin-yang holism approach to life. If someone puts on a white hat, they get upset. Think of the "True Neutral" druids. When they see someone, like Google, put on a white hat, they go: "Oh, look, a liar." Whenever Google does something, they will be looking for the negative aspects of it, in order to restore consistancy to their life.
The Anti-Corporatist. The anti-corporate culture views all corporations as necessarily evil. When a corporation says it does no evil, this is a direct challenge to the anti-corporatist, who must either (A) change their notion that all large corporations are necessarily evil, or (B) find fault with Google. These people will, for example, point out that Google censors itself for China, and then say that Google is hypocritical for doing this.
There are likely other cognitive dissonances that move people to detract from Google, despite it's stellar record.
Why are we talking about the motives of complaint here, rather than addressing the complaints themselves? Because, to a Google supporter (such as myself,) the complaints are trivially addressed. This is evidenced by the various "Move along, folks, nothing to see here." Since the complaints will not go away once answered, we are left with wondering what is causing the complaints in the first place.
This is like trying to kill the ghost-generator in Gauntlet, rather than just focusing on the ghosts themselves. You can lob an axe and kill a ghost with ease; It's just that there's so many of them.
I don't believe we can change the root causes of the cognitive dissonance: Anti-corporate culture, and True Neutrality, to name two.
Thus we find ourselves in a natural tension zone, of continual evaluation.
But there is room for strategy and motion within the tension. That is, forces on different sides can make plays that shift the substantially shift the weight of the tension play.
One thing we lost when we went from wired to unwired is security.
That is: A physical cable is a physical incarnation of authorization. Without that cable, we now have to put password mechanisms and other authorization stuff into previously simple connection.
This body network is another, easier, mechanism for authorization. If the two components are connected by your body, they are authorized to talk with one another.
Now we just have to worry about people running past to touch you, in order to steal the photographs off your camera, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's good work.
I'll grit my teeth over the claims at proving awareness, in order to get to the cool mechanics stuff.
I believe that understanding the universe is a good way to understand ourselves, even though it's not complete.
If you believe that a cat is conscious, then yes your computer is also. It has a limited sort of intelligence and conscioussness...
This argument is called pan-psychism, and I am somewhat partial to it.
It's a good way to have an explanation of awareness that is entirely consistent with science, and yet also includes the concept of awareness, which is not measurable.
Yet, it is just a constructed argument. We can't scientificly prove that there is an awareness on the other end of our measuring devices.
As I said, I'm sympathetic to pan-psychism. I'm not a pan-psychist, but I can understand that it could be true. (Whereas, pure materialism as described by Dennet & Co. cannot be true.)
But it is not de-facto obvious. We can't say, "This is true. If you are reasonable, and follow this chain of arguments, then you will know it is true, without a doubt in your mind, and able to answer all counter-arguments."
I would encourage researching pan-psychism.
I've read his books. While he has very elaborate and impressive explanations, I don't think they are good ones.
His explanations do not convince me because they do not answer my arguments.
Where my side's arguments make sense, I only see him waving his hands, and going for ad hominem attacks.
Specificly, I'm thinking of his "But could you really conceive of zombies?" paper, which does nothing to address the issue (the explanatory gap between non-zombie and zombie-worlds), instead, rather, points out the inconsistencies in some group of people's thinking.
At times like that, I wish I could grab him by the scruff of the neck, and shout, "YES! Right here! I can conceive of zombies! So, where's your answer now, punk?"
Sadly, the letters on the paper don't answer.
The real progress in this arena is being made by Chalmers and company, who are investigating the realm of explanation. It's the only place, I think, where we have any hope (really) of settling this.
Unless the pan-psychist hypothesis is true; I don't know, it seems rather strange to me. But if that were true, I think we might be able to get some experimental evidence or something. I don't know.
At the very least, we could construct an explanation that appeals to scientists, and yet doesn't contradict obvious arguments. (Obvious argument: Any universe could work just as well without awareness as with it, so why are we experiencing things. Filling the explanatory gap.)
Finally, our most unique and advanced feature -- consciousness -- is explained.
Oh, really.
Carter describes the "working memory" model developed by Alan Baddeley, where images and speech-based information is held for short time in a cache-like space, while the "central executive" part co-ordinates the information processing. She demonstrates how complex programs can be easily triggered in patients with lobotomy.
Is the ability to be programmed the same as being conscious? So my computer in front of me here is conscious, because I can program it?
Tell me, can she explain why it is that we aren't all just unconscious zombies, doing exactly what we do?
What difference can it possibly make that I experience anything? Don't talk to me about processing- that can all happen equally well if I'm not staring at it.
A movie playing in a theater plays just as well and just the same whether anybody's sitting in it or not.
So, why are we here? Why are we in the theater, watching the show, rather than there just being a theater playing the story of the universe, but nobody's watching it?
Can her explanation of the machinery of the mind- can it answer that one?
(More to my immediate position: Why the hell am I watching a movie about people who argue that nobody's watching the movie? I want my money back!)
Carter explains the illusion of the free will and its evolutionary origins.
So,... Since when is Consciousness the same thing as free will?
I don't care about free will, I care about Consciousness. Experiencing.
While I respect the good doctor's understanding of mechanics, i'm still not understanding how this explains why we're having an experience at all.
You can explain processing mechanisms until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to convince me that there needs to be any anything out there at all- it could all run, exactly as you say, just as well in a program in a supercomputer in a dark closet somewhere, that nobody every saw or heard of.
The eagerness to say "Consciousness is Explained" when it really isn't- that's got to tell you something.
I mean, sure- maybe you have an explanation. But not a convincing one. I could say that blue fairies make people conscious, and my explanation would be: "Blue fairies are why you're conscious." but that doesn't really convince anyone.
Sadly, everyone seems caught up in the Scientists' version of the God of the Gaps: "We just need more complexity. Make it complex enough, and consciousness will just emerge." Yeah. There's a scientific exlpanation for you: "Consciousness just emerges." Just replace the word "emerge" with the word "magicly appear."
Remember, we're not interested in the behavior of machinery. We're interested in why there is an experience, any experience, period. By experience, we're not talking about neural encodings and other Neural Correlates of Consciousness. We're talking about the actual experience, itself.
Why do I care? I'd like a model of the world that includes me in it. I find it inconvenient to keep justifying a world that can account for every single last thing, except the mechanism I use to actually experience it. It's like being able to use a microscope, but not being able to talk about the microscope itself.
You believe in "Know Thyself?" I posit that understanding the motions of the neurons in your brain is only a hair closer to understanding yourself, than understanding the operation of the digits of your fingers, or the brake in your car.
To really know yourself, you have to go all the way.
{;D}=
Yes.
That is the worst thing that can happen: The FSF says "the GPL is basically PD."
It's a legitimate concern. But it's the opposite of what most people here are afraid of, though. They're afraid that RMS will say: "GPL v4: All Your Base Are Belong to Us."
I'm sorry, I believe there's a misunderstanding here.
Do you believe that the FSF is saying that distribution = use?
(Can you explain to me why you believe this?)
Hello yintercept; I have just a few essential corrections to make here. I am not a lawyer, I'm just informed.
Right now you only have to make your source code available when you distribute via a CD.
That is incorrect. If you distribute over, say, by FTP, you still have to make source code available, under the terms of the GPL.
(Which version? The version of the GPL applied to the code, or a later version. It's your choice. We'll talk about "retroactive" in a moment.)
My take on the article is that it still leaves the loophole that people don't have to open source their code if they host the applications themselves.
If you distribute the code, you have to provide the source, as per the GPL.
But say it's GPL v2, and the code is a web service: It's something you run in Apache, and it provides functionality to clients.
Now you can take without returning: You can change the code, and ''because you are not distributing it,'' you don't have to provide the source of your change.
This is all okay by v2 of the GPL.
By v3 of the GPL, it will probably not apply.
Now, will v3 be able to apply ''retroactively'' on top of your v2 code? The article says "yes," but it is wrong.
If you don't believe me, you can e-mail rms@gnu.org yourself, and he'll respond. (I've emailed him twice in my life, and both times, he's responded. Who am I? I'm nobody. He's just very adament about responding to all e-mail. I swear to God, he's a machine. He must have come back from the future.)
Probably better yet: Read v2 of the GPL. You'll see that, if you want to, you can voluntarily bind yourself to v3. But you don't have to.
Personally, I will not be surprised if the GPL doesn't soon demand open sourcing all applications designed with GPL software.
The question has been raised before, in various incarnations. Please read the GNU.org FAQ entry on it.
Variants? "If I use Lilipond to write music, is the music GPLed?" "If I use gcc, is the output GPLed?" "If I use flex/bison, is the output GPLed?"
No, no, and, no. Nope. Not at all.
It'd be pretty rediculous if it were.
Who'd use a GPL'ed text editor, if everything you wrote with it had to be GPLed?
Nope.
I suspect that in the years to come there will need to be another retroactive change to the GPL to force the open sourcing of the code used to create web sites.
For that to be true, there would have to have been a first retroactive change to the GPL.
However, there is no such thing. It is a legal impossibility. The article that you are citing is just plain wrong.
Read GPL v2, write to rms, or talk with a developer who has studied these licensing issues.
Please understand: I'm not trying to beat you up about this. I'm just trying to keep the GPL's reputation fair.
People have legitimate grievances with the GPL: Some people don't like being teased with a large body of useful work, but feeling like they can't use it for their proprietary purposes. I can understand being ticked off about that. I can imagine being annoyed about that.
But this is a whole thing different. This is people thinking false things about the GPL: That it can be applied retroactively, and things like that.
Personally, I publish most everything I do at home straight into the Public Domain. I like it that way, and my code is of little consequence. That said, I can't bear to see the GPL slandered (libel, for the purists) like this. Especially here on Slashdot. It's very sad.
Every commercial software company pays "great" attention to licensing issues; That's not a change, that's a constant.
The GPL has always been about: "If you make use of our code, and you change it, then you have to share that with everybody." Perhaps you missed this subtle point.
Web-services have gotten around this: You can get code, without contributing anything back. GPL v3 is simply correcting for this.
If you don't like it, just don't use it. There's nothing really shocking there.
Really, I don't think this is a problem. Companies use Linux right now, and they distribute the source code upon request. It's kind of funny to think about, but I believe you can write to some cell phone companies, or whatever, and request that they send you the Linux source code that they use in the phone on a disk. Do the companies fret about this? They don't seem to.
v3 of the GPL will have no affect on them; they are already compliant.
That's true for any license.
Developers can always relicense their code however they like.
This is true of proprietary software, open source software, whatever.
(So, this is not damning to Free Software.)
Microsoft could offer Windows 2006 under the GPL for a year, and then go back to a proprietary license the next year. Nothing stopping them.
The article is just plain wrong: Changes to the GPL do not apply retroactively. GPL versions are backwards compatible, but they don't apply retroactively.
If you are running Apache under v1 or v2 of the GPL, there is ''nothing'' that can force you to use vWhatever of the license.
I know the article implies the opposite. But, really, as usual, the source is the ultimate source: Read version 2 of the GPL, and you will see that nothing can retroactively force you to use it under any other version number.
If you have any questions, I recommend talking with a developer who knows the GPL license well.
Or, ask me here. I'm not an expert expert, but I know some stuff.
The key thing is who you got the code from. Let's play that Richard Stallman goes insane, and makes v5 of the GPL ''evil.'' If you got some GPL'ed code under the terms of the Evil version, then you are bound by the Evil GPL when you use ''that instance of the code.''
But if you go on the Internet, and find the code with no version number, then you can use ''that instance of the code'' under any GPL that you like. You could use it under v1, v2, v3, vWhatever.
It sounds silly, because it's the exact same code, just from a different person, right?
But, this is actually how it works.
Consider this: If Disney were to sell you a video under the terms that you could only use it in your own domicile, then that video they give you is indeed under those terms.
But then, perhaps for a higher price, they could sell you ''the exact same video,'' but perhaps with the license option that you are ''also'' allowed to watch it at your friends' domiciles.
You could, if you wanted to, buy both! They'd be two identical copies, in terms of what you are physically holding in your hand. But the legal permissions around them would be totally different.
(I believe. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of the situation.)
Same with the GPL. If you can find a v1 version of some code somewhere on the Internet, then you are welcome to use it under the terms you found it under.
The basic idea is that: Software developers are likely (in theory) to release their new software under the most recent version of the code. (Provided they don't think it's evil, and all.) They can take all their old GPL v2 code, and automatically upgrade it to v3, without conflict. Now they are release GPL v3 code.
Now, if on some FTP server somewhere, someone finds the v2 code, and wants to use it- that's their right. They can do that.
They can use that v2 code under the v2 terms. If v3 says that you have to either publish your changes or pay someone (or whatever,) they don't have to do that: Because the code they received was licensed v2.
If they want to play by v3 rules, they can. But, they don't have to.
(Again, I'm not a lawyer. But, I also think that this is true. This is my understanding.)
Whoever controls the FSF, controls the vast majority of GPLed software.
Why are you saying such horrible things?
Do you believe that if v4 said "you must send $1,000 the FSF for every execution of the program," that your v2 or v3 code would suddenly be v4? That your users would suddenly be required to send money to the FSF?
Why do you believe this?
A "living document" philosophy does away with notions of eternal principles, and it does so at the risk of freedom.
A "living document" philosophy doesn't do away with the notion of eternal principles;
A "living document" philosophy says that the eternal principle is life itself.
You may all be interested in the TaoRiver Futures wiki.
There's also another one developing, the WikiCities Futures wiki.
The idea is that by combining our understandings from our respective fields, we can attempt to better understand the possibilities open to us, and the timing and dependencies behind them.
Many other related wiki are listed on the Futures wiki WikiNode.
Yeah.
I know that.
The problem is explaining that to people.
(Though, we're not talking about the software- we're talking about things like icon sets and other artwork, here.)
Except that it doesn't actually happen that way. If a company wants to distribute something enough, they *will* ask.
Nonono-
You don't understand-
You're talking about taking photographs, and then putting them online. If some magazine wants to use them, they pay you. Fair enough: The CC license with non-commercial is okay.
But that's totally different than the icons scenario. Here's why.
Let's say you have some icons for some GNOME project. Now lets say this little project wants to be in the GNOME distribution. And the GNOME distribution, in turn, wants to be distributed with, say, Red Hat, and Debian, and all these other zillion projects.
The little project isn't going to take your icons, because it's totally unfeasible that Red Hat is going to be tracking down the rights for all the little projects that live within all of the major projects.
It gets even goofier when considering something like CheapBytes, which sells Linux distros at only a couple dollars more than the price of the CD printing. We're talking major mom & pop here.
It's absolutely rediculous to think that they're going to to be phoning up all the people of the gazillion projects within the hoards of Linux distros that they sell, maintaining contracts, hiring lawyers, yadda yadda yadda.
So:
If you sell photographs, and you also release them CC non-commercial, then-- that's great! That's really cool! I totally appreciate that.
But, if you're someone who's making icons for use in Free Software projects (or whatever,) and you're confused why nobody's making use of them-- it's because of the reason I just gave above.
(Or, why is it such a big deal if they have to contact me first?)
...and then they move on, and the artist never even knew.
Because there's like 999,999,999,999,999 little packages in a big fat thing called a distro, made by untold countless people, all of who would be angry that they didn't get their 1 cent per 1000 CDs sold.
What you propose means that each company has to hold and maintain a contract for every single little micro-deal made. That means tons of lawyers, tons of phone calls, tons of paper (yes, paper,) tons of beaurocracy, tons of this, that, and the other thing. Just tracking you down can be hard.
Believe me, it's not worth it to them.
Since GNOME, KDE, small time app developers, whoever all want to be part of distros, or, hell, let's forget distros- let's just talk people who sell CD images for $3.00 each-
Since the devs want their work to have all their freedoms, they'll say, "Thank you for your lovely icons, we may make them available on our web site (where only a handful of people will see them,) but we can't include it in the core distro. Have a nice day."
The saddest thing is that the conversation doesn't even take place-- the whole point of this kind of licensing is so that there doesn't have to be a conversation. What actually happens is this: Someone's looking over icon collections. They see a cool one, "Oh, that's neat." "Oh, wait- non-commercial. Can't use it. Damn..."
What would be better:
Offer to sell your icon library to KDE (or whomever) for licensing however they like. Say, "For $300, I'll make you these cool icons, you can license them however you like after you buy them." Then KDE can give you $300.00, and make use of the icons.
I think there's a misunderstanding.
We (royal) are okay with what you want, and what you are doing.
What is difficult is the situation where a person wants to contribute their work for general public use. This isn't like your (legitimate) case, this is a different (legitimate) case.
In they're head, they are thinking, "Hey! This is great! People who are doing non-commercial stuff can use. Like, if someone's making a Free Software video game, they can reuse it. So this helps all those net projects. And then the people who want to make money with it, they have to call me. This works great for everybody!"
But, the problem is, it's naive. And Creative Commons isn't helping people sort it out.
What actually happens is this:
Game group sees the artwork, and wants to use it. "Hm, says Non-Commercial. Can't use it."
Why did this happen? Is the game group commercial? No. But if they have anything non-commercial, it can't be used. Because the dream for the group is to be distributed in magazine CDs, or as part of a default distro. If they include "non-commercial only," they can't distribute their game with Fedora, they can't distribute it with just about anything. The game group (and any other net project) knows this, and have to reject the work.
Which is really sad, because the whole point was to allow people to network their content together. Everybody loses out.
None of this applies to your situation, where these restrictions are actually what we want.
This only applies in the situation where someone thinks "net projects can use this," when, in reality, they can't.
I have played almost virtually every single version of the Nintendo since the original unit was introduced in the mid-80's. Many, many fun-filled nights were had on that system (Baseball All-Stars, Super Mario, Zelda, Techmo Football), yet it seems lately that the leadership at Nintendo is just trying to re-hash old titles. Metroid was a great initial title and completely original. That was what made it great.
Not to be mean, but,... perhaps you are only buying the games that you are familiar with?
Try this out:
Get $20.00. Go to the store, buy a copy of Animal Crossing.
Play around in it for a week or two, and see how you feel about it.
Wha-? You didn't know about the AI's?
We're not even going to be making minimum wage!
But since we'll all be cyborgs, we'll probably get some renumeration for the tiny amount of computer power we are able to contribute to the hive from our own e-brain and attention.
Then again, consider: Just how much does a 3'x3'x3' cube for housing your brain cost?
Nice to think we'll all be vegan, finally, consuming our diet of proteins. Somehow, I don't think the present day vegans will be happy with this arrangement, though.
Oh, yes. Quite right, quite right.
You do not have to write me out of your will, or kick me from your house.
Google has made a policy: "We're not evil. That's our corporate policy. We're not evil."
From what I can tell, people respond to this policy in one of two ways:
Now, the popular sentiment seems to be sympathetic here.
However, it's not as sympathetic as it might be.
I believe the answer is in the psychology of the Google Detractors. My personal belief is that the detractors are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. This is the where you have two ideas in front of you, and they seem to be contradictory.
Some possible cognitive dissonances:
There are likely other cognitive dissonances that move people to detract from Google, despite it's stellar record.
Why are we talking about the motives of complaint here, rather than addressing the complaints themselves? Because, to a Google supporter (such as myself,) the complaints are trivially addressed. This is evidenced by the various "Move along, folks, nothing to see here." Since the complaints will not go away once answered, we are left with wondering what is causing the complaints in the first place.
This is like trying to kill the ghost-generator in Gauntlet, rather than just focusing on the ghosts themselves. You can lob an axe and kill a ghost with ease; It's just that there's so many of them.
I don't believe we can change the root causes of the cognitive dissonance: Anti-corporate culture, and True Neutrality, to name two.
Thus we find ourselves in a natural tension zone, of continual evaluation.
But there is room for strategy and motion within the tension. That is, forces on different sides can make plays that shift the substantially shift the weight of the tension play.
Please excuse my thinking out loud.
Glom? Maybe you can do something with that?
Well, here's one thing: Security.
One thing we lost when we went from wired to unwired is security.
That is: A physical cable is a physical incarnation of authorization. Without that cable, we now have to put password mechanisms and other authorization stuff into previously simple connection.
This body network is another, easier, mechanism for authorization. If the two components are connected by your body, they are authorized to talk with one another.
Now we just have to worry about people running past to touch you, in order to steal the photographs off your camera, or whatever.