"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products."
I presume this means that derivative works created by SCO users who received SCO code under the GPL are still legitimate, and that this license to create derivative works has not been revoked, right?
So any SCO user has the right to grant a license to any non-SCO user to make derivative works.
Any SCO users out there want to pipe up and grant such a license to IBM, Redhat, etc?
"I'll copy it if I want, laws and copyright be damned!" But when the GPL is violated there is a virtual nerd riot here on Slashdot.
So you're surprised when people who like to share things are overprotective of the freedom to share things?
You make it sound like they're being hypocrites but they are not. In a world where idea ownership (i.e., intellectual property) didn't exist, the GPL would just be redundant.
Any other position would actually be *inconsistent* with the belief that monopolies over ideas are illegitimate.
The instant somebody starts telling you to use one word instead of another, you're no longer communicating. You're proselytizing.
Quick, what part of the world is "Palestine"? Is the inheritance tax really the "death tax" or the other way around? Homicide bombers or suicide bombers? Terrorists or freedom fighters? Burma or Myanmar?
You see, what words are appropriate depend very much on a point of view. Language is not static with respect to the world; the names we use for different things influence very much how we think about them.
Now, in this case I think Stallman is stubbornly fighting a losing battle, but to hear him tell it the savaging he gets on slashdot every time this topic comes up is less significant than the opportunities that the occasionaly use of the phrase gnu/linux creates for people to hear about the freedom part of free software.
Perhaps you could make a more constructive suggestion about how RMS & co. could get their point across in a less annoying abut equally or more effective fashion?
It's not huge news because the junket was paid for - It's huge news because Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the *House Judiciary Committee*, was actually *criticized* for it - and Rupert Murdoch's news empire took notice. It even ran on the front page of foxnews.com for a while.
Unfortunately, THAT is not at all routine, and should be front page news here.
The goal of the student loan system is to keep intellectuals who aren't already part of the upper classes from having too much free time and fomenting revolution. This might work even better!
Maybe they should just make it one big agency, the "Federal make everything worth living for way more expensive than it needs to be" department or something.
Those of us who think occasionally were horrified at the idea that software and movies could be licensed rather than sold. You purchase the product, and should be allowed to have your own quiet enjoyment of the product, but the law doesn't allow this.
Now that computers are about to be in EVERYTHING, expect EVERYTHING you buy to be licensed rather than sold. Expect to start paying a license to drive your car, to keep your tires inflated, etc. Not yet, but it won't be long, I assure you.
Even worse, expect the same monopoly conditions that prevail in the software industry to prevail everywhere else, too.
In practice, copyright protects 'sweat of the brow'
Not true, see the Supreme Court Feist decision.
what freedom means and it's different than yours
Well, your position has evolved throughout this discussion. First it was "no constraints", now it seems to be "optimized intellectual property system first, minimal constraints after".
The entire movement seems deadset on explaining that their notion of freedom is the right one
That's a hasty generalization. It's true that the GPL was carefully crafted to preserve freedoms in an optimal manner, but all of these people can see that public domain/bsd license is better than proprietary ownership. Even the Free Software Foundation recognizes the BSD license as a Free Software license, so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from here.
there can be no free software other than gnu-approved
Clearly not true. But the GPL best protects freedom compared to other Free Software licenses.
The GPL would be meaningless in a world where proprietary licensing was not recognized; at this point these licenses would be functionally the same.
in the absence of copyright law. My mere ownership of the physical object entitles me to a monopoly
True enough. You own the physical object. The physical object can't be copied for free. It is the scarcity of physical objects that give them value, therefore they don't need artificial government monopolies.
Will your next position be to start calling property "object monopolies", or are you smart enough to see that this abuses (again) the term monopoly.
The monopoly a person has over an owned object is natural because two people can not possess it at the same time. Ideas are different, you can "have your cake and give it away too".
So I guess I'm not smart enough to see things your way:)
In no case does copyright protection... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,...
So we are in agreement. Copyright whould not apply to software, since it certainly qualifies as procedure, process, system AND method of operation, and possibly as idea in many cases.
But I have a feeling you don't see it that way. If only the law actually meant something in our corporate republic.
Finally, even if I am wrongly interpreting the copyright code, patents are still an issue. We agree that they unfairly limit innovation. The GPL prohibits them, public domain/bsd does not. Can we at least agree that the GPL is a useful vaccine against patent encumbrance? I'd love to find some small point on which we can not be at odds.
This is an argument about innovation, not about freedom. We (until now) were not talking about a system to maximize innovation, but a system to maximize freedom. As you point out, there may be a conflict between these two aims.
The function of copyright is... to separate the notions of "sharing" ("showing") from "giving".
No, the function of copyright is to encourage innovation by giving (supposedly temporary) monopolies over ideas (RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM) in hopes that people will innovate more if they get to own their ideas for a while.
GPL doesn't incentivize anything With respect to everyone but the initial author, neither do proprietary licenses. And clearly public domain licenese don't either.
takes away all the rights of the author and gives them to people who've done nothing
My my, such angry words. Those "rights" of the author are a bargain made in hopes that they'll create *MORE* public domain material for those folks who, as you put it, have *DONE NOTHING*.
It just so happens that the bargain made sense 200 years ago but has been perverted and made irrelevant since.
The GPL gives rights to those who would like to DO SOMETHING with that work, but none to those who would like to keep others from *DOING ANYTHING* with it.
makers of content need to be rewarded, and GPL does not do that.
It is not the purpose of a software license to reward its author. The market is responsible for this. Legalized idea monopolies distort this market.
it implicitly asserts that content creators are interchangeable
Welcome to capitalism my friend. Like the view?
it explicitly says that it's ok not to reward content creators because they're compulsive
Erm, no. It says people will program without reward, not that you should not reward them. It does say you shouldn't be *FORCED* to reward them. But of course, any programmer may refuse to release her work until she has been compensated, so the license issues are really just a red herring here.
feeding people is not evil
But giving people idea monopolies is.
I want the world's authors to be able to make a living
Then why not have governments commision new works instead of giving out little idea fiefdoms?
No anarchy results from providing things into the public domain
Your point is correct but misplaced. I was saying your definition of freedom was bad here, not attacking the public domain. In fact I think public domain is better than proprietary.
I didn't say there was any problem with constraints on actions. I just don't like calling that 'freedom'.
The minimal constraints necessary to preserve freedom are not 'freedom' themselves, duh. It's a minimal set of regulations that bring about the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people possible.
"Annotated Shakespeare",
Software is different. Interfaces and networks create compatibility problems. There are other issues, but they're not germane here.
If Shakespeare were somehow GPL'd, writers and actors would have even less ability to make money than they already do
Why, because they couldn't put on a play if it was GPL'd? The GPL would be fine for live performers. Movies would have a harder time of it, since they want to profit forever off a single performance, but all the same- they can write their own damn play/movie/whatever if they want.
Again, software is different because of network effects etc, but what if Disney adapts Romeo and Juliet but they add a character. And this character becomes a part of the story in the public mind. Bang, what was once a totally public domain story has become incomplete without reference to proprietary information. This situation is thinkable, but obviously is a better fit for software since interfaces and formats depend so critically on network effects.
The availability of the public domain is sufficient to assure freedom.
Well, that's a bit vague. Freedom for who? What happens when people's freedoms collide? (I.e., your freedom to own ideas vs. my freedom to innovate?) If there was no such thing as proprietary ownership of ideas the public domain would be sufficient and the GPL would be redundant. But that's not the world we live in. The question is, should derivative works be ownable (a lot of rights for one person, none for everyone else), or not (the same rights for everyone except the right to constrain others not to copy your work?)
The GPL is certainly a legitimate vehicle for people to use; I just object to its coopting the term 'free'.
The problem you keep ignoring is that keeping the "freedom to make people less free through copyright restrictions" makes people as a whole less "free" overall. It is in principle exactly like the freedom to be a ruthless tyrant: it is an individual freedom that is incompatible with freedom for all actors in a society.
the GPL does not address patent issues
It most certainly does. But I think your proposal would be a dramatic improvement; glad we can agree on something.
Suppose I gave you the right to use a certain piece of software on Wednesday provided that you also require other users of your software to also use their software only on Wednesday... would that also be freedom?
No because the "Wednesday" constraint preserves nobody's freedom of action. Only constraints against restricting freedoms are legitimate.
Anyone can use things that are in the public domain, but the public domain is unchanged by their having done so.
No, software interacts with standards. Have you ever heard of the network effect? The ubiqity of an extension to a piece of software defines its value. If there is a ubiquitous proprietary extension to an otherwise free standard, it becomes the standard.
You've heard of this, it is more commonly called "embrace, extend, extinguish".
it doesn't force derived things, things to which an author is entitled to new copyright protection, to also be in the public domain. But that's what it means to really be free.
How does an author's entitlement to a legislated monopoly on an idea equate with freedom? A copyright is a legally enforced constraint on everyone but the author. I thought your idea of freedom rejected constraints?
"Freedom = Constraint" is the essence of Newspeak.
Oversimplified. Freedom dissolves into your paradox unless you have a rule like "my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose". Rules against constraining freedom create the largest possible amount of freedom, they are the minimal state. Your proscription is for Anarchy, which is interesting philosophically but in reality allows warlords and thugs to assert their will unchallenged. Given that there must be some constraints, minimal constraints provide the most freedom.
Again your theory of freedom leaves no room for copyright/patent/etc., since they represent constraints against actions. It's like the punchline to the old Churchill joke- "We've already established what you are, now we're just discussing the price."
You can, if you're not fully aware of what you're linking to.
Well if you plan to sell code for a living, you'd better be damned sure that you own what's in your product. And if you don't understand Polio, don't try to make your own home Polio vaccine either.
By the way, Salk never patented the Polio vaccine. He said it would be like "patenting the sun".
Dude, you need to work on your word economy. I believe you when you say you're a philosopher.
The sense of "free" meaning "lets you do what you want" is not true of GPL'd software
If "you" were the only person in the world, this would be an excellent point. But the GPL preserves freedom for "everyone" by protecting everyone else against "you". The only thing it constrains "you" from doing is telling other "you"'s that they aren't entitled to the same freedoms "you" were.
To ignore creation of commercialware as a possible thing a free person might want is to have a huge blindspot.
It's not a blindspot- it's the whole point. It is a way of preserving the commons for those who have an interest in monopolizing them.
Code in the public domain is arguably much more free in that it does not force a particular use.
Public domain code is like a common grazing ground- anyone can use it so no one individually has an incentive to preserve it. So people monopolize little bits of it until the gutted shell that used to be the burgeoning commons is worthless.
One of the curious paradoxes of freedom is that a free people can disable their own freedom. Only by restricting freedom could you prevent this, and then you don't have freedom in the first place.
This is not as profound as you think. Ironically, this is only a paradox for the sort of freedom you describe (the freedom to do anything, including kicking puppies and crowning tyrants). Those of us who live on planet earth understand that freedom is best maximized through sensible rules that minimally govern interaction between free agents.
Libertarians pay close attention: the copyright and patent systems are ways that people become regulators of their own little idea-fiefdoms. The GPL is a way of saying "no you may not expand your little fiefdom onto my idea, but you may certainly graze reasonably so long as you share." It is a system for guaranteeing that the minimal possible governmental regulation of ideas occurs.
reminiscent of 1984's newspeak.
You might as well say "that reminds me of something Hitler would say". Invoking 1984 does not strengthen your weak point. It's not a "terminology shift" as you put it; the idea of protecting freedom by returning power to the subjects of that power was the fundamental concept behind the American and French revolutions. George Orwell was well aware of those events. Under your theory, "freedom" means the freedom even to be a tyrant, which Orwell would probably have taken issue with.
The GPL has vaccine-like properties. Virii have the connotation of being malicious. The GPL ensures that software, once freed, stays free. And like a vaccine, you can't get it accidentally- you have to deliberately ingest it (i.e., link it into your own code). A virus is something you might get whether you like it or not.
Try linking to some Microsoft code and then check the licensing health of your application. What's that you say? You have to convince Microsoft to allow you this privelege, just like you would have to obtain permission from the author(s) of GPL'd software to make nonfree extensions?
The vaccine metaphor is more apt- the GPL allows healthy usage of code and prevents non-free cancers, parasites and virii from growing on otherwise free (healthy) software projects. Proprietary licenses can be viewed as more of a tourniquet, cutting off all unapproved growths, for better or for worse.
Yeah, 1.1 beta is really nice. But don't expect it to do any better than wordperfect did when it was popular. It'll get 90% of it right. Test it if you need it to look right.
If you're giving a ppt presentation, use OOo to do the presentation or at least export it to html or something; IE is far more predictable for this sort of thing.
If OOo had monopoly penetration like MS does, it would certainly be ready for primetime. As it stands, if you're careful to test when it's critical then it's fantastic.
Perhaps there needs to be a minimal OOo viewer program (or even self-executing presentations) so that this sort of thing can't happen?
I have started a PAC to lobby on your behalf. I've started accepting paypal donations and so far my brother sent me $10 so as you can see we're well on our way. I'm thinking about setting up a cafepress shop too so we should be rolling on a bed of very soft money very soon.
I know we don't have as much money as the big corporations, but, uh, we're really nice and uh, we're your constituents, and uh, yeah.
The problem was, even though RCA copied the "feature" of running everything as root by default, you couldn't even get to a console, let alone get X running. All in all, I was displeased with the computing experience on my RCA DVD player.
At least I didn't have to pay the windows tax on it though!
Here's the point as it appears in the article: XML Confers Longevity When I'm doing a standup speech, I often ask: "Everyone in the audience who thinks they're going to be using the same word processor in ten years, raise your hand." No hands go up. "Everyone who has data around that's going to have value in ten years?" After a minute's thought, every hand goes up. The lesson is clear: information outlives technology.
And yet, as of today, too much of our intellectual heritage is tied up in fragile, proprietary, binary word processor files. This sucks. XML is the solution.
There's an obvious problem with this though- you can use XML as a fig leaf wrapper around whatever binary format you like. It's the proprietariness and binariness (binality?) of the formats that sucks, not the fact that they're not XML.
In fact, XML is worse than nothing for two reasons.
First, we now have to parse the XML in addition to parsing the binary document itself.
Worse, Microsoft can wrap their crap in an XML wrapper and say "look, we have an open, human readable, XML file format!" which is almost true- true enough for the unintersted public anyway. Now it's going to be even harder to convince people not to use Word format documents since they have a facade of openness about them.
What makes us uncomfortable is that with Linux you get to look at the source, see that the problem is solved to your satisfaction, etc. With Flash, you can basically just do nothing and hope it's ok.
First they required implants until you turn 18, but I was of age so I was silent.
Then they required implants to get discounts at the grocery store. But I buy all my food at the froofy vegan store so I was silent.
Then they required implants to carry a gun, but didn't think I could successfully revolt against a tyrannous government so I was silent.
Then they required implants to drive a car, but even working the required 72 hours a week I couldn't afford my own vehicle so I was silent.
Then the government discovered an axis between civil rights groups, terrorists and liberals, and the only people left to speak up for me were 19 year old republican vegan pacifists with poor eyesight, and she was shot so I was fucked.
I think we're just waiting for MS to fulfill it's mission statement- a computer on every desk. Once there's a computer on pretty much every desk, they'll close up shop. Mission accomplished.
And how many of them have ACPI or FireWire? Not the majority, thats for certain.
Well, all the new Dell laptops seem to use ACPI, including the one I just bought. It's a substantial and growing minority that needs ACPI for proper mobile functionality- without ACPI I can't read my battery status or put my computer into sleep mode.
They are new-ish bells and whistles to be sure, but keeping up with them is critical to catching new users. I won't switch to windows because my redhat laptop needs a kernel recompile to work properly, but I'm sure most non-guru folks would.
What really needs to happen is that linux needs to achieve such critical mass on the desktop that driver manufacturers can no longer ignore them.
Slashdot Mirror
"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products."
:)
I presume this means that derivative works created by SCO users who received SCO code under the GPL are still legitimate, and that this license to create derivative works has not been revoked, right?
So any SCO user has the right to grant a license to any non-SCO user to make derivative works.
Any SCO users out there want to pipe up and grant such a license to IBM, Redhat, etc?
Actually, *are* there any SCO users out there?
The price? Approximately 55.000 Danish kroner (8.000 Euro) each."
Yes, but in Soviet Russia, how many rubles does that cost YOU?
"I'll copy it if I want, laws and copyright be damned!"
But when the GPL is violated there is a virtual nerd riot here on Slashdot.
So you're surprised when people who like to share things are overprotective of the freedom to share things?
You make it sound like they're being hypocrites but they are not. In a world where idea ownership (i.e., intellectual property) didn't exist, the GPL would just be redundant.
Any other position would actually be *inconsistent* with the belief that monopolies over ideas are illegitimate.
The instant somebody starts telling you to use one word instead of another, you're no longer communicating. You're proselytizing.
Quick, what part of the world is "Palestine"? Is the inheritance tax really the "death tax" or the other way around? Homicide bombers or suicide bombers? Terrorists or freedom fighters? Burma or Myanmar?
You see, what words are appropriate depend very much on a point of view. Language is not static with respect to the world; the names we use for different things influence very much how we think about them.
Now, in this case I think Stallman is stubbornly fighting a losing battle, but to hear him tell it the savaging he gets on slashdot every time this topic comes up is less significant than the opportunities that the occasionaly use of the phrase gnu/linux creates for people to hear about the freedom part of free software.
Perhaps you could make a more constructive suggestion about how RMS & co. could get their point across in a less annoying abut equally or more effective fashion?
It's not huge news because the junket was paid for - It's huge news because Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the *House Judiciary Committee*, was actually *criticized* for it - and Rupert Murdoch's news empire took notice. It even ran on the front page of foxnews.com for a while.
Unfortunately, THAT is not at all routine, and should be front page news here.
The goal of the student loan system is to keep intellectuals who aren't already part of the upper classes from having too much free time and fomenting revolution. This might work even better!
Maybe they should just make it one big agency, the "Federal make everything worth living for way more expensive than it needs to be" department or something.
Those of us who think occasionally were horrified at the idea that software and movies could be licensed rather than sold. You purchase the product, and should be allowed to have your own quiet enjoyment of the product, but the law doesn't allow this.
Now that computers are about to be in EVERYTHING, expect EVERYTHING you buy to be licensed rather than sold. Expect to start paying a license to drive your car, to keep your tires inflated, etc. Not yet, but it won't be long, I assure you.
Even worse, expect the same monopoly conditions that prevail in the software industry to prevail everywhere else, too.
In practice, copyright protects 'sweat of the brow'
:)
... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,...
Not true, see the Supreme Court Feist decision.
what freedom means and it's different than yours
Well, your position has evolved throughout this discussion. First it was "no constraints", now it seems to be "optimized intellectual property system first, minimal constraints after".
The entire movement seems deadset on explaining that their notion of freedom is the right one
That's a hasty generalization. It's true that the GPL was carefully crafted to preserve freedoms in an optimal manner, but all of these people can see that public domain/bsd license is better than proprietary ownership. Even the Free Software Foundation recognizes the BSD license as a Free Software license, so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from here.
there can be no free software other than gnu-approved
Clearly not true. But the GPL best protects freedom compared to other Free Software licenses.
The GPL would be meaningless in a world where proprietary licensing was not recognized; at this point these licenses would be functionally the same.
in the absence of copyright law. My mere ownership of the physical object entitles me to a monopoly
True enough. You own the physical object. The physical object can't be copied for free. It is the scarcity of physical objects that give them value, therefore they don't need artificial government monopolies.
Will your next position be to start calling property "object monopolies", or are you smart enough to see that this abuses (again) the term monopoly.
The monopoly a person has over an owned object is natural because two people can not possess it at the same time. Ideas are different, you can "have your cake and give it away too".
So I guess I'm not smart enough to see things your way
In no case does copyright protection
So we are in agreement. Copyright whould not apply to software, since it certainly qualifies as procedure, process, system AND method of operation, and possibly as idea in many cases.
But I have a feeling you don't see it that way. If only the law actually meant something in our corporate republic.
Finally, even if I am wrongly interpreting the copyright code, patents are still an issue. We agree that they unfairly limit innovation. The GPL prohibits them, public domain/bsd does not. Can we at least agree that the GPL is a useful vaccine against patent encumbrance? I'd love to find some small point on which we can not be at odds.
I must work. We will engage again another day.
people would create the same things
... to separate the notions of "sharing" ("showing") from "giving".
This is an argument about innovation, not about freedom. We (until now) were not talking about a system to maximize innovation, but a system to maximize freedom. As you point out, there may be a conflict between these two aims.
The function of copyright is
No, the function of copyright is to encourage innovation by giving (supposedly temporary) monopolies over ideas (RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM) in hopes that people will innovate more if they get to own their ideas for a while.
GPL doesn't incentivize anything
With respect to everyone but the initial author, neither do proprietary licenses. And clearly public domain licenese don't either.
takes away all the rights of the author and gives them to people who've done nothing
My my, such angry words. Those "rights" of the author are a bargain made in hopes that they'll create *MORE* public domain material for those folks who, as you put it, have *DONE NOTHING*.
It just so happens that the bargain made sense 200 years ago but has been perverted and made irrelevant since.
The GPL gives rights to those who would like to DO SOMETHING with that work, but none to those who would like to keep others from *DOING ANYTHING* with it.
makers of content need to be rewarded, and GPL does not do that.
It is not the purpose of a software license to reward its author. The market is responsible for this. Legalized idea monopolies distort this market.
it implicitly asserts that content creators are interchangeable
Welcome to capitalism my friend. Like the view?
it explicitly says that it's ok not to reward content creators because they're compulsive
Erm, no. It says people will program without reward, not that you should not reward them. It does say you shouldn't be *FORCED* to reward them. But of course, any programmer may refuse to release her work until she has been compensated, so the license issues are really just a red herring here.
feeding people is not evil
But giving people idea monopolies is.
I want the world's authors to be able to make a living
Then why not have governments commision new works instead of giving out little idea fiefdoms?
No anarchy results from providing things into the public domain
Your point is correct but misplaced. I was saying your definition of freedom was bad here, not attacking the public domain. In fact I think public domain is better than proprietary.
I didn't say there was any problem with constraints on actions. I just don't like calling that 'freedom'.
The minimal constraints necessary to preserve freedom are not 'freedom' themselves, duh. It's a minimal set of regulations that bring about the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people possible.
"Annotated Shakespeare",
Software is different. Interfaces and networks create compatibility problems. There are other issues, but they're not germane here.
If Shakespeare were somehow GPL'd, writers and actors would have even less ability to make money than they already do
Why, because they couldn't put on a play if it was GPL'd? The GPL would be fine for live performers. Movies would have a harder time of it, since they want to profit forever off a single performance, but all the same- they can write their own damn play/movie/whatever if they want.
Again, software is different because of network effects etc, but what if Disney adapts Romeo and Juliet but they add a character. And this character becomes a part of the story in the public mind. Bang, what was once a totally public domain story has become incomplete without reference to proprietary information. This situation is thinkable, but obviously is a better fit for software since interfaces and formats depend so critically on network effects.
The availability of the public domain is sufficient to assure freedom.
Well, that's a bit vague. Freedom for who? What happens when people's freedoms collide? (I.e., your freedom to own ideas vs. my freedom to innovate?) If there was no such thing as proprietary ownership of ideas the public domain would be sufficient and the GPL would be redundant. But that's not the world we live in. The question is, should derivative works be ownable (a lot of rights for one person, none for everyone else), or not (the same rights for everyone except the right to constrain others not to copy your work?)
The GPL is certainly a legitimate vehicle for people to use; I just object to its coopting the term 'free'.
The problem you keep ignoring is that keeping the "freedom to make people less free through copyright restrictions" makes people as a whole less "free" overall. It is in principle exactly like the freedom to be a ruthless tyrant: it is an individual freedom that is incompatible with freedom for all actors in a society.
the GPL does not address patent issues
It most certainly does. But I think your proposal would be a dramatic improvement; glad we can agree on something.
Suppose I gave you the right to use a certain piece of software on Wednesday provided that you also require other users of your software to also use their software only on Wednesday... would that also be freedom?
No because the "Wednesday" constraint preserves nobody's freedom of action. Only constraints against restricting freedoms are legitimate.
Anyone can use things that are in the public domain, but the public domain is unchanged by their having done so.
No, software interacts with standards. Have you ever heard of the network effect? The ubiqity of an extension to a piece of software defines its value. If there is a ubiquitous proprietary extension to an otherwise free standard, it becomes the standard.
You've heard of this, it is more commonly called "embrace, extend, extinguish".
it doesn't force derived things, things to which an author is entitled to new copyright protection, to also be in the public domain. But that's what it means to really be free.
How does an author's entitlement to a legislated monopoly on an idea equate with freedom? A copyright is a legally enforced constraint on everyone but the author. I thought your idea of freedom rejected constraints?
"Freedom = Constraint" is the essence of Newspeak.
Oversimplified. Freedom dissolves into your paradox unless you have a rule like "my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose". Rules against constraining freedom create the largest possible amount of freedom, they are the minimal state. Your proscription is for Anarchy, which is interesting philosophically but in reality allows warlords and thugs to assert their will unchallenged. Given that there must be some constraints, minimal constraints provide the most freedom.
Again your theory of freedom leaves no room for copyright/patent/etc., since they represent constraints against actions. It's like the punchline to the old Churchill joke- "We've already established what you are, now we're just discussing the price."
You can, if you're not fully aware of what you're linking to.
Well if you plan to sell code for a living, you'd better be damned sure that you own what's in your product. And if you don't understand Polio, don't try to make your own home Polio vaccine either.
By the way, Salk never patented the Polio vaccine. He said it would be like "patenting the sun".
Dude, you need to work on your word economy. I believe you when you say you're a philosopher.
The sense of "free" meaning "lets you do what you want" is not true of GPL'd software
If "you" were the only person in the world, this would be an excellent point. But the GPL preserves freedom for "everyone" by protecting everyone else against "you". The only thing it constrains "you" from doing is telling other "you"'s that they aren't entitled to the same freedoms "you" were.
To ignore creation of commercialware as a possible thing a free person might want is to have a huge blindspot.
It's not a blindspot- it's the whole point. It is a way of preserving the commons for those who have an interest in monopolizing them.
Code in the public domain is arguably much more free in that it does not force a particular use.
Public domain code is like a common grazing ground- anyone can use it so no one individually has an incentive to preserve it. So people monopolize little bits of it until the gutted shell that used to be the burgeoning commons is worthless.
One of the curious paradoxes of freedom is that a free people can disable their own freedom. Only by restricting freedom could you prevent this, and then you don't have freedom in the first place.
This is not as profound as you think. Ironically, this is only a paradox for the sort of freedom you describe (the freedom to do anything, including kicking puppies and crowning tyrants). Those of us who live on planet earth understand that freedom is best maximized through sensible rules that minimally govern interaction between free agents.
Libertarians pay close attention: the copyright and patent systems are ways that people become regulators of their own little idea-fiefdoms. The GPL is a way of saying "no you may not expand your little fiefdom onto my idea, but you may certainly graze reasonably so long as you share." It is a system for guaranteeing that the minimal possible governmental regulation of ideas occurs.
reminiscent of 1984's newspeak.
You might as well say "that reminds me of something Hitler would say". Invoking 1984 does not strengthen your weak point. It's not a "terminology shift" as you put it; the idea of protecting freedom by returning power to the subjects of that power was the fundamental concept behind the American and French revolutions. George Orwell was well aware of those events. Under your theory, "freedom" means the freedom even to be a tyrant, which Orwell would probably have taken issue with.
The GPL does have viral properties
The GPL has vaccine-like properties. Virii have the connotation of being malicious. The GPL ensures that software, once freed, stays free. And like a vaccine, you can't get it accidentally- you have to deliberately ingest it (i.e., link it into your own code). A virus is something you might get whether you like it or not.
Try linking to some Microsoft code and then check the licensing health of your application. What's that you say? You have to convince Microsoft to allow you this privelege, just like you would have to obtain permission from the author(s) of GPL'd software to make nonfree extensions?
The vaccine metaphor is more apt- the GPL allows healthy usage of code and prevents non-free cancers, parasites and virii from growing on otherwise free (healthy) software projects. Proprietary licenses can be viewed as more of a tourniquet, cutting off all unapproved growths, for better or for worse.
Yeah, 1.1 beta is really nice. But don't expect it to do any better than wordperfect did when it was popular. It'll get 90% of it right. Test it if you need it to look right.
If you're giving a ppt presentation, use OOo to do the presentation or at least export it to html or something; IE is far more predictable for this sort of thing.
If OOo had monopoly penetration like MS does, it would certainly be ready for primetime. As it stands, if you're careful to test when it's critical then it's fantastic.
Perhaps there needs to be a minimal OOo viewer program (or even self-executing presentations) so that this sort of thing can't happen?
Highlights...
Left mouse click...
Middle mouse click...
lpr...
Launches Gnutella...
What the %^&#, this requires WINDOWS?!
Launches Gnutella again...
Dear Congresscritter,
I have started a PAC to lobby on your behalf. I've started accepting paypal donations and so far my brother sent me $10 so as you can see we're well on our way. I'm thinking about setting up a cafepress shop too so we should be rolling on a bed of very soft money very soon.
I know we don't have as much money as the big corporations, but, uh, we're really nice and uh, we're your constituents, and uh, yeah.
The problem was, even though RCA copied the "feature" of running everything as root by default, you couldn't even get to a console, let alone get X running. All in all, I was displeased with the computing experience on my RCA DVD player.
At least I didn't have to pay the windows tax on it though!
Just because MS can abuse XML doesn't mean it's XML's fault.
Clearly not. I was only referring to the explicit claim that XML was the solution.
XML Confers Longevity When I'm doing a standup speech, I often ask: "Everyone in the audience who thinks they're going to be using the same word processor in ten years, raise your hand." No hands go up. "Everyone who has data around that's going to have value in ten years?" After a minute's thought, every hand goes up. The lesson is clear: information outlives technology.
And yet, as of today, too much of our intellectual heritage is tied up in fragile, proprietary, binary word processor files. This sucks. XML is the solution.
There's an obvious problem with this though- you can use XML as a fig leaf wrapper around whatever binary format you like. It's the proprietariness and binariness (binality?) of the formats that sucks, not the fact that they're not XML.
In fact, XML is worse than nothing for two reasons.
First, we now have to parse the XML in addition to parsing the binary document itself.
Worse, Microsoft can wrap their crap in an XML wrapper and say "look, we have an open, human readable, XML file format!" which is almost true- true enough for the unintersted public anyway. Now it's going to be even harder to convince people not to use Word format documents since they have a facade of openness about them.
Not an improvement in my opinion.
What makes us uncomfortable is that with Linux you get to look at the source, see that the problem is solved to your satisfaction, etc. With Flash, you can basically just do nothing and hope it's ok.
First they required implants until you turn 18, but I was of age so I was silent.
Then they required implants to get discounts at the grocery store. But I buy all my food at the froofy vegan store so I was silent.
Then they required implants to carry a gun, but didn't think I could successfully revolt against a tyrannous government so I was silent.
Then they required implants to drive a car, but even working the required 72 hours a week I couldn't afford my own vehicle so I was silent.
Then the government discovered an axis between civil rights groups, terrorists and liberals, and the only people left to speak up for me were 19 year old republican vegan pacifists with poor eyesight, and she was shot so I was fucked.
I think we're just waiting for MS to fulfill it's mission statement- a computer on every desk. Once there's a computer on pretty much every desk, they'll close up shop. Mission accomplished.
What's that?
Oh.
And how many of them have ACPI or FireWire? Not the majority, thats for certain.
Well, all the new Dell laptops seem to use ACPI, including the one I just bought. It's a substantial and growing minority that needs ACPI for proper mobile functionality- without ACPI I can't read my battery status or put my computer into sleep mode.
They are new-ish bells and whistles to be sure, but keeping up with them is critical to catching new users. I won't switch to windows because my redhat laptop needs a kernel recompile to work properly, but I'm sure most non-guru folks would.
What really needs to happen is that linux needs to achieve such critical mass on the desktop that driver manufacturers can no longer ignore them.