It isn't true. Ever heard of microsoft? The fact that they keep part of their OS code secret is a serious issue for lots of companies. Stallman apparently thinks the industry would be served if the ONLY way to protect software was to keep it secret. He is incorrect.
From Stallman's words and actions that is not what he believes. He is the one pushing for the GPL, the license which does everything but keep software a secret. Your argument is irrevelant or poorly defined and incorrect. You didn't even discuss the issue that "Before software patents, most developers published new ideas they thought they would get credit for." Saying Ever heard of microsoft? does not dispute what I said as you have described it.
Would you care to explain that difference, and exactly why it matters? Explain why innovation in software deserves no protection, but innovation in other areas does? Are the economic incentives different? Nope. The idea that a free rider can more cheaply exploit an idea than someone who is already behind research and development cost? Nope, that applies to software just like it does other areas.
Would you care to read the article? Stallman defines the difference a software patent and patents on physical objects. If we are to have a critical argument, you are going to have to do a bit of research otherwise you will make incorrect statements and not completely understand what is being said.
As for as quick overview of the difference, I make a chair. It's a good chair. I want other people to have this chair because they're that good. I will have to set up a means of manufacturing and deliverer to get people these good chairs. To do this on my own will require a lot of capital, or I could try to convince someone to invest in my damn good chairs. The end result after all this is for others to get a copy of my chairs.
Or I could write a good piece of software and "copy" it to someone.
That is one difference.
Ripped straight from the article: People say, if patents are allowed in other fields, why should software be exempt? This question contains a presumption that we should all suffer together, but there lies behind it a less biased question, which is: is software really so different from other fields? And, should patents work differently in different fields?
Well yes, patents do work differently in other fields. In biotech for instance, one product might be affected by a patent. If a new product is developed, that is protected separately. There is a naive idea that there is one patent per product, that it covers the idea of that product.
Software is at the opposite extreme, because software packages are very big, and because they use different ideas in different ways. You have to implement these ideas in this combination -- you cannot just say their names and expect them to work. So when you write a program you are using lots of ideas, some of which might patented, but they are working together in ways that might be patented, so where there could be thousands of ideas that might conflict with existing patents.
This is why patents obstruct development of products.
There is economic research showing how imposing the patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. Advocates say: "yes, there might be problems, but the patent system promotes innovation so the problems don't matter."
In fact, there is no reason to believe the patent system does promote progress.
I grabbed this from www.m-w.com: news - a report of recent events, previously unknown information. Let see, Stallman went to the UK and gave a speech. Yup, it seems to fit the criteria for news, for certainly many other people as well as myself didn't know he was going to the UK to give a speech. Regardless, of what he spoke about.
The issue now shifts to the importance of such an event. Not defying the laws of physics isn't important news, nor is it previously unknown. However his trip is something out of the ordinary, as he doesn't travel to Europe at the same time at the same place to talk about the exact same thing.
Some people do find Stallman an interesting speaker and would like to read what he had to say. Others would have like to heard him speak while others would have rather never heard of him. My guess is the posting of the article was not geared for the latter, unless the policy at Slashdot is to piss off people.
Taking from the first page of the article On Monday afternoon Richard Stallman was invited by the Foundation for Information Policy Research to speak at the Cambridge University Computer Lab on the issue of software patents. It's not every day he gets invited to the Foundation for Information Policy Reasearch to speak at Cambridge University. And if he does it is everyday, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CRAP DOING ON SLASHDOT? NEWS MY ASS!!
True, you can patent other things that are not physical objects, I was overly simplifying he statement. Regardless, patents do not necessarily promote a developing market. Like many other things, patents have their advantages and disadvantages. His focus is on software patents and their usefulness.
And if stallman did say that he's full of it. Read the article; he explains his point of view much better than I can explain his.
Why woudln't it be news? Software patents and intellictual property are near to the heart of a nerd, whether you believe they are good or bad. Just because Stallman is old news and annoying to you, doesn't mean this is not interesting to others.
One man's news, is another man's trash. Or something like that.
Yeah, if you wrote a little routine, package it in software, sold it and the owner of the patent - the person who "thought of it first" - found out, you could be sue. Or worse! Forced to go to ever single show of.
Reading the transcript from Stallman's speech, I was reminded of a story my friend from high school read where a musician created a musical piece completely on his own, want to patent it and was told, someone had already thought of that idea years ago. Sorry for the vagueness, but that is all I remember from my friend's description. Does anyone know what that book is called?
Patents promote a developing market. It encourages you to get your ideas out in the open.
As Stallman said, "Before software patents, most developers published new ideas they thought they would get credit for." So patents do not necessarily promote a developing market, assuming Stallman's statement is true. And remember, we are talking about software patents, not patents on physical objects. There is a difference.
Do you like eating sound with your bare hands? I mean spoons could be weapons and abused!
How about, do you like eating with those stubs where your hands used to be, because I mean, hands could be used as a weapon and abused! You've got fingers to pull triggers, and let's not talk about the potential abuse of those karate chops. What about our elbows? In my Jiu-Jistu class, we were using them as weapons, so I guess they'll have to go. So when does this analogy start becoming absurd? Oh, when you mentioned spoons.
Of course, we are assuming the meat vat weighs less than carrying the soy and what not, even over extended trips.
I am all for choosing the most effecient way for space travel. I am curious as to what weighs less, bring enough nutrients to grow meat or bring enough seeds and water to grow plants.
The plants can keep on generating new plants but they take up a lot of space. The vat of meat could take up less space but seems to be limited to the amount of nutrients on board. And it might not be as expensive as creating an ecosystem in space.
Why not just pack a lot of "liquid" nutrients and "eat" that? I can't stay it sounds appetizing but were looking for functional. *laugh* And we are neglicting the long terms effects of anti-gravity on the body (and plants and meat vats for that matter.;).
Either way, I see each one as having some advantages and disadvantages.
I also hope in 20 years they can figure out a cheaper way to get a payload up in orbit. We should be putting our more money in that.
I would guess growing soybeans would require less exotic compounds then vats of fish muscle. With soy you need dirt, water and fertilizer. The astronauts can produce plenty of the latter without a problem. Or we can just start shipping cows into space. Even pigs.;)
I would like to clarify by saying his vision is geared towards software, not all aspects of American life. I don't doubt that he has a socialist vision towards software, but a socialist that does not make him. I see a distinction between software and material objects in much of what I have read on the FSF.
My description of the FSF is valid; it might not be their only goal - which was a mistake to imply - but it is one that I see behind all the banter.
And since when did RMS or anyone have to respect other people's views? Bush certainly doesn't respect everyone's views, he has his own agenda he follows while trying to make the American public happy. I do not wish to harp on this issue other then saying there are environmentalist that he doesn't respect their views based on his actions. RMS and Bush are both trying to push their agenda. One needs the support of the American people and the other is just following his beliefs and sticking to his guns. Not to mention pushing a software model which contradicts how we do things presently. (But then again, software is its own beast.)
He wants to stop private ownership of software, that is a good assetment of his goal. And I do not see that happening anytime soon.
From the previos articles I have seen on Slashdot, many of the developers that contribute to the GPL or any other free software movement, are employeed by corporations or what not.
I am not saying the GPL is the solution to everything. It is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it is a compliment to the system that is currently in practice. I don't think the GPL and the closed source model can exist without each other. It seems to me, after all, the GPL was created because the other model lacked something. Without one, the other wouldn't exist. Ok, maybe it isn't perfectly balanced. The creation of the GPL seems to be strongly influenced by the closed source model. If everyone dropped the GPL today, I doubt the whole industry would fall apart.
Of course, I am unable to picture a place without paying for programmers, but if you read some of the examples used on the FSF website, some of the artists and writers of the past did so because they enjoyed their trade, despite the pittance they received for their work. I picture those who contribute to the GPL, BSD, whatever enjoy what they do and want to do something to help others and give back.
And my inability to imagine what it would be like withouth the pay for code model is only because I am part of that model and it is hard to see outside of it.
Anyway, people do what they like. Whether they GPL their code, BSD it or keep it to themselves, its their choice. It's not like the walls will crumble and developers will be starving on the streets overnight. If any change were to occur, it would be slow. But like I said, both models address the others weakness and I think the GPL is tied very closed with the closed source model.
As for RMS, I can't speak on his behalf or fathom what he could say in the future. But as for the present, I don't see him preaching socialized health care or any of that other stuff. Remember, we are talking about a software revolution/challenge, not a complete social change. I don't know about doctors and nurses working for free, but I do remember a movie called Patch Adams. What the truth behind it is and what is happening today is beyond the scope of this post, cause I don't know.
Let me rephrase: Stallman's main goal is to challenge software companies by forcing software to become freely available to the masses, thereby destablizing or destroying the current captialistic model in place around software. I think this statement is a little less ambigious, as he doesn't want to hurt companies that make chairs or other such objects. And I have added what I believe to be his main objective.
Stallman's beliefs are in contrast to how many software companies operate. In fact, I believe the GPL to be the most polar opposite license to the closed source model being used by Microsoft and other companies. And these companies have been doing well as it is a solid business model. So they must be doing something right.
Stallman's take on software is as equally valid. It just so happens that in his belief he wants software to be open and made available to the public. Which is the opposite of let's see Microsoft's model. And that is fine and dandy. A little competition is not bad.
Competition can be viewed as one company trying to hurting another company. But that's how things are done. A person comes up with a good idea and tries to market it and make money from it. Then another person tries to tap into that market share by making an improvement, offering a better service and/or a lower price. In this case, the other person is Stallman and the software is being giving away. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But it's competition. This is capitalism. It will be determined by competition on the free market. Stallman is hurting companies as much as openning up an Olive Garden near a TGI Fridays hurts the other.
From reading some of the material from the FSF, there are a couple of examples of how the current system about software is has socialist tendencies. While I do understand your argument that he is trying to advance the cause of socialism, I would like to clarify from what I have read, he is trying to advance the cause of socialism in software. But because he has these beliefs does not mean he is advancing the cause of socialism in general. I don't see him preaching about socialized health care or anything else. His arguments are mostly restricted to software.
*laugh* I don't think so. I think see spent a lot of time helping the poor anyway she could. Despite popular belief, those belonging to a faith don't try to convert you at every instance.
I spent a lot of my time during college hanging out with the Catholic priest on campus and never once did he try to get me to jump ship. Despite knowing I was an atheist who slowly evolved into a Buddhist.
I realized there is a difference between those of truly believe in their faith and those who go around quoting scripture trying to convince others everything in the Bible is true and you should believe it.
Maybe RMS is doing the latter, but I prefer to see the truth in the message and not necessarily believe the messenger. I can't say I have read much of RMS so I don't know how I feel about what he "preaches" but I like the GPL model. It has its pluses and minuses and the challenge is to realize them and determine what works best for you.
However, it seems to me that RMS knows the sky is all sorts of colors, but he sees the benefits of the sky being blue (clear blue skies, sunny days) and wants to tell others.
I consider him the ying, while other companies (Microsoft, etc.) are they yang. Balance needs to be maintained, so both must exist.
The GPL license is the model which best compliments the closed source model many companies use. The BSD license is somewhere inbetween as it can go both ways, in can be either ying or yang, but the GPL is one side and the closed source model is on the other.
This is how I view the GPL. I like the balance is adds to the mix of licenses and his dedication to his beliefs, despite what others think. He is sticking to his guns. When all is said and done, it comes down to belief. Use what you think is best.
No that is not what the FSF is really about. From what I have seen, heard and read, the FSF is about creating a set of terms for software that maintain its openness. Much like Microsoft (and many other companies) which has a set of terms for software that maintains its closeness. Both models have their advantages and disadvantages.
You can't steal Microsoft's code because they'd sue you and have every right to do that. They want there code keep secret. They don't want others taking their code and making derivate work from it. The FSF wants software free/libre and wants to maintain that same model on all derived code. And they are trying to push that model because to them it makes the most sense.
Just like other companies keep their code to themselves, because it makes the most sense (at least financially) to do so.
One of the big differences that seems to anger some people - or at least they don't understand and this cause frustration - is that because they can see the GPL'ed code, they want to use it anyway they seem fit, despite the licensing. Regardless of the fact that they could immerse themselves in code that is completely free to use however they seem fit. In their own commerical product or as toilet paper.
But, I have seen relatively few objective takes on this. The views mostly seem to either slander the GPL or herald as the best thing since Christ. However, it is merely another model for code. If you like it, use it and tell others. If you don't, fine, pick something else and tell others of your choice. Just stay objective, otherwise you start becoming the type of people you are complaining against.
Stallman just likes his code and wants to see all work derivate from GPL'ed code to remain in the public domain.
And in typical Slashdot style: they try to get people to buy their products (that is what the companies are REALLY about, after all) just because they require that everyone should think that consumerism is the only way of life.
Notepad? Yeah the last time I had to do some hardcore text manipulation, I turned to notepad. It got the job done. And that Find/Replace was a life saver! Oh wait...
Hey jackass, its called context. When was the last time Stallman went around killing people? Fucking asshole. I find those kind of closeminded statements drive me against wall.
Listen, there are two sides to the statement. You can dedicate yourself to an ideal, like Mother Teresa, giving yourself to service for humanity, or you can twist a religion until you believe the only option is to take drastic actions and harm others. Both work ceaslessly in the pursuit of their goals, but I consider one admirable and the other one psychotic.
I consider Mother Teresa's quest admirable, in case you were wondering.
The GPL is a software answer to intellictual property. GPL'ed source code can be freely distributed and others can use it, but they are restricted on what they can and cannot do with it. Instead of paying a fee to the intellictual property holder, your fee for using this code is to keep it freely available to all. It's non-profit IP.
The GPL does what it sets out to do. The same goes for a virus, I suppose. However, a virus does not have a detailed description of what its purpose and intent are. It doesn't ask for permission before infecting you. There is no conscious decision. If the GPL is a virus, it is the nicest fucking virus I have ever meet. It explains what it is about before "infecting" you. When was the last time the flu did that?
I think some people are just pissed because they cannot use GPL'ed source in their code without the "freedom" to do whatever they want with it. Well, tough shit. That's the GPL.
The best course of action is to know the differences between the licenses and use the one that more accurately reflects your own personal philosophy and goals. Christ, it's not like there is a shortage of choices out there. There are other licenses to use if GPL is not right for you.
protecting the original work because there is nothing anybody can do to degrade the original work. Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well. The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
Just to reiterate, yes, this is the point of the GPL. Can you hack Microsoft's code, create your own derived work from it and release it for a fee? No, you can't. It's their property. They did the work, they put in the time, they want to reap the benefits.
The GPL is just like it in this regard: it says, here is my code which you can look at and read; but if you want to use my code, your code must become freely available as well, with the same restrictions. You can't steal from Mircosoft and you can't steal from the GPL. It's nearly the same fucking reasoning, expect one you are free to look at the source.
I said it before, but if you don't want your work illegally trade, don't put it online. In fact, don't even think about putting it online. You will never be able to stop everyone.
Microsoft and other software companies can make deals with movie companies to reduce or even stop the copying of movies, music, etc. but that won't stop everyone. People will still break the encryption, circumvent the protection and unfortunately that has become illegal. (Knowledge is power/Knowledge is illegal) And I can see how effective copy protection been at stopping copying.
As one of my favorite comics said about the war on drugs
"Right! God, if only the War On Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some fucking marijuana right now!"
Why is it that some people think formal methods yields the best results? Formalities have their benefits but so does spontaneity.
From what I have read and inferred, they wanted to get together in an awesome atmosphere, hack, brainstorm and have fun. To see what they can accomplish.
Formal methods are great, but it needs to be understood why they are being used. With large amounts of people, it starts getting harder to do things without formal methods. Anarchy does not work well on a large scale.
And maybe as their projects start getting more defined, formal methods are going to be applied to help create a better product, which I think makes sense. But they just want something to play with now. And have some fun in the process.
Some people consider working to exhaustion with a group of friends towards a common goal fun. I consider it more fun than sitting in a cube coding from 8 to 5. But that's me. =)
I agree the software might be better if a more sane design and schedule were used and I believe that will come eventually.
But why not let them have a little fun in the process?
Sure. But you see, the whole David Cross thing was a joke! As in funny. Violence happened long before video games and he was poking fun that violent video games is the cause of violence.
And there was no video games during that time frame either, due to the fact that the TV was still considered "a new fangled device".
However, I did not know the Nazi's banned any form of expression which did not fit into their view of the world. Thanks for the tidbit. But I doesn't helps illustrate my point better. My point was humor.
This reminds me of the time my friend Juana gave me the finger to which I proudly countered with "Is that how many friends you had before your dog died?" And which she honestly replied, "I never had a dog." *sigh*
This is from David Cross's HBO Special. I felt it was rather relevant.
"I don't like the leaping logic that it's violence in the media. They act like violence didn't exist before TV shows and Natural Born Killers. Like, you know, the guy that climbed the bell tower in the 60's, in Austin Texas, what was the violent movie that he watched? I can't remember what it was.
"And i'm sorry, what were the video games that Hilter used to play, you know? You know, before he went out and... what were the video games he gave to the entire German republic?
"It's ridiculus. Here is the thing. Like, look, if you just program Touched by An Angel, and Providence, and Family Practice and that bull shit, I'll fucking kill somebody."
Anyway, violence existed way before video games. I figured most of us would be repeating the same theme, but I thought I would add a little humor in the mix.
My thought, however, is until we start teaching nonviolence and self control through our actions at home, schools or even in our government, how do we expect keeping violent videos games from minors to be the way to start?
The mass of the hammer has much to do with how equivalent it is. It would be equivalent if the momentum, the mass and velocity, of the hammer is equivalent to that of a person stepping on it. If that is the case, they are going to need a lot of those $75k robots to take care of the 50 to 100 million land mines. (read: All the robots are going to blow up). On the low end, it would roughly cost $3.75 trillion and in that case, I'm inventing in that company!
But you take the mass of a truck (for example purposes only) and slam it into a land mine at 3 meters per second, the impact is going to do a lot of damage. Whether it will stop the land mine from exploding I cannot answer that. Common sense would seems to tell me that it would explode. However, common sense sans quantum mechanics also tells me rolling a bowling ball through a wall is impossible. But after understanding quantum mechanics - even as little as I do - rolling a bowling bowl through a wall becomes possible, however improbable.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't true. Ever heard of microsoft? The fact that they keep part of their OS code secret is a serious issue for lots of companies. Stallman apparently thinks the industry would be served if the ONLY way to protect software was to keep it secret. He is incorrect.
From Stallman's words and actions that is not what he believes. He is the one pushing for the GPL, the license which does everything but keep software a secret. Your argument is irrevelant or poorly defined and incorrect. You didn't even discuss the issue that "Before software patents, most developers published new ideas they thought they would get credit for." Saying Ever heard of microsoft? does not dispute what I said as you have described it.
Would you care to explain that difference, and exactly why it matters? Explain why innovation in software deserves no protection, but innovation in other areas does? Are the economic incentives different? Nope. The idea that a free rider can more cheaply exploit an idea than someone who is already behind research and development cost? Nope, that applies to software just like it does other areas.
Would you care to read the article? Stallman defines the difference a software patent and patents on physical objects. If we are to have a critical argument, you are going to have to do a bit of research otherwise you will make incorrect statements and not completely understand what is being said.
As for as quick overview of the difference, I make a chair. It's a good chair. I want other people to have this chair because they're that good. I will have to set up a means of manufacturing and deliverer to get people these good chairs. To do this on my own will require a lot of capital, or I could try to convince someone to invest in my damn good chairs. The end result after all this is for others to get a copy of my chairs.
Or I could write a good piece of software and "copy" it to someone.
That is one difference.
Ripped straight from the article:
People say, if patents are allowed in other fields, why should software be exempt? This question contains a presumption that we should all suffer together, but there lies behind it a less biased question, which is: is software really so different from other fields? And, should patents work differently in different fields?
Well yes, patents do work differently in other fields. In biotech for instance, one product might be affected by a patent. If a new product is developed, that is protected separately. There is a naive idea that there is one patent per product, that it covers the idea of that product.
Software is at the opposite extreme, because software packages are very big, and because they use different ideas in different ways. You have to implement these ideas in this combination -- you cannot just say their names and expect them to work. So when you write a program you are using lots of ideas, some of which might patented, but they are working together in ways that might be patented, so where there could be thousands of ideas that might conflict with existing patents.
This is why patents obstruct development of products.
There is economic research showing how imposing the patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. Advocates say: "yes, there might be problems, but the patent system promotes innovation so the problems don't matter."
In fact, there is no reason to believe the patent system does promote progress.
I grabbed this from www.m-w.com: news - a report of recent events, previously unknown information. Let see, Stallman went to the UK and gave a speech. Yup, it seems to fit the criteria for news, for certainly many other people as well as myself didn't know he was going to the UK to give a speech. Regardless, of what he spoke about.
The issue now shifts to the importance of such an event. Not defying the laws of physics isn't important news, nor is it previously unknown. However his trip is something out of the ordinary, as he doesn't travel to Europe at the same time at the same place to talk about the exact same thing.
Some people do find Stallman an interesting speaker and would like to read what he had to say. Others would have like to heard him speak while others would have rather never heard of him. My guess is the posting of the article was not geared for the latter, unless the policy at Slashdot is to piss off people.
Taking from the first page of the article On Monday afternoon Richard Stallman was invited by the Foundation for Information Policy Research to speak at the Cambridge University Computer Lab on the issue of software patents. It's not every day he gets invited to the Foundation for Information Policy Reasearch to speak at Cambridge University. And if he does it is everyday, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CRAP DOING ON SLASHDOT? NEWS MY ASS!!
True, you can patent other things that are not physical objects, I was overly simplifying he statement. Regardless, patents do not necessarily promote a developing market. Like many other things, patents have their advantages and disadvantages. His focus is on software patents and their usefulness.
And if stallman did say that he's full of it. Read the article; he explains his point of view much better than I can explain his.
Why woudln't it be news? Software patents and intellictual property are near to the heart of a nerd, whether you believe they are good or bad. Just because Stallman is old news and annoying to you, doesn't mean this is not interesting to others.
One man's news, is another man's trash. Or something like that.
Yeah, if you wrote a little routine, package it in software, sold it and the owner of the patent - the person who "thought of it first" - found out, you could be sue. Or worse! Forced to go to ever single show of .
Reading the transcript from Stallman's speech, I was reminded of a story my friend from high school read where a musician created a musical piece completely on his own, want to patent it and was told, someone had already thought of that idea years ago. Sorry for the vagueness, but that is all I remember from my friend's description. Does anyone know what that book is called?
Patents promote a developing market. It encourages you to get your ideas out in the open.
As Stallman said, "Before software patents, most developers published new ideas they thought they would get credit for." So patents do not necessarily promote a developing market, assuming Stallman's statement is true. And remember, we are talking about software patents, not patents on physical objects. There is a difference.
Do you like eating sound with your bare hands? I mean spoons could be weapons and abused!
How about, do you like eating with those stubs where your hands used to be, because I mean, hands could be used as a weapon and abused! You've got fingers to pull triggers, and let's not talk about the potential abuse of those karate chops. What about our elbows? In my Jiu-Jistu class, we were using them as weapons, so I guess they'll have to go. So when does this analogy start becoming absurd? Oh, when you mentioned spoons.
Of course, we are assuming the meat vat weighs less than carrying the soy and what not, even over extended trips.
;).
I am all for choosing the most effecient way for space travel. I am curious as to what weighs less, bring enough nutrients to grow meat or bring enough seeds and water to grow plants.
The plants can keep on generating new plants but they take up a lot of space. The vat of meat could take up less space but seems to be limited to the amount of nutrients on board. And it might not be as expensive as creating an ecosystem in space.
Why not just pack a lot of "liquid" nutrients and "eat" that? I can't stay it sounds appetizing but were looking for functional. *laugh* And we are neglicting the long terms effects of anti-gravity on the body (and plants and meat vats for that matter.
Either way, I see each one as having some advantages and disadvantages.
I also hope in 20 years they can figure out a cheaper way to get a payload up in orbit. We should be putting our more money in that.
I would guess growing soybeans would require less exotic compounds then vats of fish muscle. With soy you need dirt, water and fertilizer. The astronauts can produce plenty of the latter without a problem. Or we can just start shipping cows into space. Even pigs. ;)
I would like to clarify by saying his vision is geared towards software, not all aspects of American life. I don't doubt that he has a socialist vision towards software, but a socialist that does not make him. I see a distinction between software and material objects in much of what I have read on the FSF.
My description of the FSF is valid; it might not be their only goal - which was a mistake to imply - but it is one that I see behind all the banter.
And since when did RMS or anyone have to respect other people's views? Bush certainly doesn't respect everyone's views, he has his own agenda he follows while trying to make the American public happy. I do not wish to harp on this issue other then saying there are environmentalist that he doesn't respect their views based on his actions. RMS and Bush are both trying to push their agenda. One needs the support of the American people and the other is just following his beliefs and sticking to his guns. Not to mention pushing a software model which contradicts how we do things presently. (But then again, software is its own beast.)
He wants to stop private ownership of software, that is a good assetment of his goal. And I do not see that happening anytime soon.
From the previos articles I have seen on Slashdot, many of the developers that contribute to the GPL or any other free software movement, are employeed by corporations or what not.
I am not saying the GPL is the solution to everything. It is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it is a compliment to the system that is currently in practice. I don't think the GPL and the closed source model can exist without each other. It seems to me, after all, the GPL was created because the other model lacked something. Without one, the other wouldn't exist. Ok, maybe it isn't perfectly balanced. The creation of the GPL seems to be strongly influenced by the closed source model. If everyone dropped the GPL today, I doubt the whole industry would fall apart.
Of course, I am unable to picture a place without paying for programmers, but if you read some of the examples used on the FSF website, some of the artists and writers of the past did so because they enjoyed their trade, despite the pittance they received for their work. I picture those who contribute to the GPL, BSD, whatever enjoy what they do and want to do something to help others and give back.
And my inability to imagine what it would be like withouth the pay for code model is only because I am part of that model and it is hard to see outside of it.
Anyway, people do what they like. Whether they GPL their code, BSD it or keep it to themselves, its their choice. It's not like the walls will crumble and developers will be starving on the streets overnight. If any change were to occur, it would be slow. But like I said, both models address the others weakness and I think the GPL is tied very closed with the closed source model.
As for RMS, I can't speak on his behalf or fathom what he could say in the future. But as for the present, I don't see him preaching socialized health care or any of that other stuff. Remember, we are talking about a software revolution/challenge, not a complete social change. I don't know about doctors and nurses working for free, but I do remember a movie called Patch Adams. What the truth behind it is and what is happening today is beyond the scope of this post, cause I don't know.
Let me rephrase: Stallman's main goal is to challenge software companies by forcing software to become freely available to the masses, thereby destablizing or destroying the current captialistic model in place around software. I think this statement is a little less ambigious, as he doesn't want to hurt companies that make chairs or other such objects. And I have added what I believe to be his main objective.
Stallman's beliefs are in contrast to how many software companies operate. In fact, I believe the GPL to be the most polar opposite license to the closed source model being used by Microsoft and other companies. And these companies have been doing well as it is a solid business model. So they must be doing something right.
Stallman's take on software is as equally valid. It just so happens that in his belief he wants software to be open and made available to the public. Which is the opposite of let's see Microsoft's model. And that is fine and dandy. A little competition is not bad.
Competition can be viewed as one company trying to hurting another company. But that's how things are done. A person comes up with a good idea and tries to market it and make money from it. Then another person tries to tap into that market share by making an improvement, offering a better service and/or a lower price. In this case, the other person is Stallman and the software is being giving away. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But it's competition. This is capitalism. It will be determined by competition on the free market. Stallman is hurting companies as much as openning up an Olive Garden near a TGI Fridays hurts the other.
From reading some of the material from the FSF, there are a couple of examples of how the current system about software is has socialist tendencies. While I do understand your argument that he is trying to advance the cause of socialism, I would like to clarify from what I have read, he is trying to advance the cause of socialism in software. But because he has these beliefs does not mean he is advancing the cause of socialism in general. I don't see him preaching about socialized health care or anything else. His arguments are mostly restricted to software.
Thank you for that. I enjoyed your thoughts on this matter.
Well then, I would have to disagree that everything non GPL is evil. My mom isn't GPL'ed and she's not evil...is she?
My favorite Voltaire quote is:
"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire
Crazy bastard!
*laugh* I don't think so. I think see spent a lot of time helping the poor anyway she could. Despite popular belief, those belonging to a faith don't try to convert you at every instance.
I spent a lot of my time during college hanging out with the Catholic priest on campus and never once did he try to get me to jump ship. Despite knowing I was an atheist who slowly evolved into a Buddhist.
I realized there is a difference between those of truly believe in their faith and those who go around quoting scripture trying to convince others everything in the Bible is true and you should believe it.
Maybe RMS is doing the latter, but I prefer to see the truth in the message and not necessarily believe the messenger. I can't say I have read much of RMS so I don't know how I feel about what he "preaches" but I like the GPL model. It has its pluses and minuses and the challenge is to realize them and determine what works best for you.
However, it seems to me that RMS knows the sky is all sorts of colors, but he sees the benefits of the sky being blue (clear blue skies, sunny days) and wants to tell others.
I consider him the ying, while other companies (Microsoft, etc.) are they yang. Balance needs to be maintained, so both must exist.
The GPL license is the model which best compliments the closed source model many companies use. The BSD license is somewhere inbetween as it can go both ways, in can be either ying or yang, but the GPL is one side and the closed source model is on the other.
This is how I view the GPL. I like the balance is adds to the mix of licenses and his dedication to his beliefs, despite what others think. He is sticking to his guns. When all is said and done, it comes down to belief. Use what you think is best.
No that is not what the FSF is really about. From what I have seen, heard and read, the FSF is about creating a set of terms for software that maintain its openness. Much like Microsoft (and many other companies) which has a set of terms for software that maintains its closeness. Both models have their advantages and disadvantages.
You can't steal Microsoft's code because they'd sue you and have every right to do that. They want there code keep secret. They don't want others taking their code and making derivate work from it. The FSF wants software free/libre and wants to maintain that same model on all derived code. And they are trying to push that model because to them it makes the most sense.
Just like other companies keep their code to themselves, because it makes the most sense (at least financially) to do so.
One of the big differences that seems to anger some people - or at least they don't understand and this cause frustration - is that because they can see the GPL'ed code, they want to use it anyway they seem fit, despite the licensing. Regardless of the fact that they could immerse themselves in code that is completely free to use however they seem fit. In their own commerical product or as toilet paper.
But, I have seen relatively few objective takes on this. The views mostly seem to either slander the GPL or herald as the best thing since Christ. However, it is merely another model for code. If you like it, use it and tell others. If you don't, fine, pick something else and tell others of your choice. Just stay objective, otherwise you start becoming the type of people you are complaining against.
Stallman just likes his code and wants to see all work derivate from GPL'ed code to remain in the public domain.
And in typical Slashdot style:
they try to get people to buy their products (that is what the companies are REALLY about, after all) just because they require that everyone should think that consumerism is the only way of life.
Notepad? Yeah the last time I had to do some hardcore text manipulation, I turned to notepad. It got the job done. And that Find/Replace was a life saver! Oh wait...
Hey jackass, its called context. When was the last time Stallman went around killing people? Fucking asshole. I find those kind of closeminded statements drive me against wall.
Listen, there are two sides to the statement. You can dedicate yourself to an ideal, like Mother Teresa, giving yourself to service for humanity, or you can twist a religion until you believe the only option is to take drastic actions and harm others. Both work ceaslessly in the pursuit of their goals, but I consider one admirable and the other one psychotic.
I consider Mother Teresa's quest admirable, in case you were wondering.
The GPL is a software answer to intellictual property. GPL'ed source code can be freely distributed and others can use it, but they are restricted on what they can and cannot do with it. Instead of paying a fee to the intellictual property holder, your fee for using this code is to keep it freely available to all. It's non-profit IP.
The GPL does what it sets out to do. The same goes for a virus, I suppose. However, a virus does not have a detailed description of what its purpose and intent are. It doesn't ask for permission before infecting you. There is no conscious decision. If the GPL is a virus, it is the nicest fucking virus I have ever meet. It explains what it is about before "infecting" you. When was the last time the flu did that?
I think some people are just pissed because they cannot use GPL'ed source in their code without the "freedom" to do whatever they want with it. Well, tough shit. That's the GPL.
The best course of action is to know the differences between the licenses and use the one that more accurately reflects your own personal philosophy and goals. Christ, it's not like there is a shortage of choices out there. There are other licenses to use if GPL is not right for you.
protecting the original work because there is nothing anybody can do to degrade the original work. Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well. The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
Just to reiterate, yes, this is the point of the GPL. Can you hack Microsoft's code, create your own derived work from it and release it for a fee? No, you can't. It's their property. They did the work, they put in the time, they want to reap the benefits.
The GPL is just like it in this regard: it says, here is my code which you can look at and read; but if you want to use my code, your code must become freely available as well, with the same restrictions. You can't steal from Mircosoft and you can't steal from the GPL. It's nearly the same fucking reasoning, expect one you are free to look at the source.
Microsoft and other software companies can make deals with movie companies to reduce or even stop the copying of movies, music, etc. but that won't stop everyone. People will still break the encryption, circumvent the protection and unfortunately that has become illegal. (Knowledge is power/Knowledge is illegal) And I can see how effective copy protection been at stopping copying.
As one of my favorite comics said about the war on drugs
"Right! God, if only the War On Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some fucking marijuana right now!"
Why is it that some people think formal methods yields the best results? Formalities have their benefits but so does spontaneity.
From what I have read and inferred, they wanted to get together in an awesome atmosphere, hack, brainstorm and have fun. To see what they can accomplish.
Formal methods are great, but it needs to be understood why they are being used. With large amounts of people, it starts getting harder to do things without formal methods. Anarchy does not work well on a large scale.
And maybe as their projects start getting more defined, formal methods are going to be applied to help create a better product, which I think makes sense. But they just want something to play with now. And have some fun in the process.
Some people consider working to exhaustion with a group of friends towards a common goal fun. I consider it more fun than sitting in a cube coding from 8 to 5. But that's me. =)
I agree the software might be better if a more sane design and schedule were used and I believe that will come eventually.
But why not let them have a little fun in the process?
Just because we can't do something, doesn't mean we won't.
Every clown has a silver lining.
Sure. But you see, the whole David Cross thing was a joke! As in funny. Violence happened long before video games and he was poking fun that violent video games is the cause of violence.
And there was no video games during that time frame either, due to the fact that the TV was still considered "a new fangled device".
However, I did not know the Nazi's banned any form of expression which did not fit into their view of the world. Thanks for the tidbit. But I doesn't helps illustrate my point better. My point was humor.
This reminds me of the time my friend Juana gave me the finger to which I proudly countered with "Is that how many friends you had before your dog died?" And which she honestly replied, "I never had a dog." *sigh*
This is from David Cross's HBO Special. I felt it was rather relevant.
... what were the video games he gave to the entire German republic?
"I don't like the leaping logic that it's violence in the media. They act like violence didn't exist before TV shows and Natural Born Killers. Like, you know, the guy that climbed the bell tower in the 60's, in Austin Texas, what was the violent movie that he watched? I can't remember what it was.
"And i'm sorry, what were the video games that Hilter used to play, you know? You know, before he went out and
"It's ridiculus. Here is the thing. Like, look, if you just program Touched by An Angel, and Providence, and Family Practice and that bull shit, I'll fucking kill somebody."
Anyway, violence existed way before video games. I figured most of us would be repeating the same theme, but I thought I would add a little humor in the mix.
My thought, however, is until we start teaching nonviolence and self control through our actions at home, schools or even in our government, how do we expect keeping violent videos games from minors to be the way to start?
The mass of the hammer has much to do with how equivalent it is. It would be equivalent if the momentum, the mass and velocity, of the hammer is equivalent to that of a person stepping on it. If that is the case, they are going to need a lot of those $75k robots to take care of the 50 to 100 million land mines. (read: All the robots are going to blow up). On the low end, it would roughly cost $3.75 trillion and in that case, I'm inventing in that company!
But you take the mass of a truck (for example purposes only) and slam it into a land mine at 3 meters per second, the impact is going to do a lot of damage. Whether it will stop the land mine from exploding I cannot answer that. Common sense would seems to tell me that it would explode. However, common sense sans quantum mechanics also tells me rolling a bowling ball through a wall is impossible. But after understanding quantum mechanics - even as little as I do - rolling a bowling bowl through a wall becomes possible, however improbable.