GPL is complex? "Patenting ideas" stuff was silly!
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
Okay, first of all... To quote Microsoft, "There is no question that the GPL is a complicated liscense that has led to a great deal of confusion." My first reaction was, "well, Uncertainty and Doubt do tend to lead to confusion". Then I went and read a copy of the GPL for memory refresher. It's not that confusing, as we all know, of course. The terms are basically distribute, modify, use freely with a few conditions that are also simple to understand. The liscense isn't the easiest reading, but that's just because it's (necessarily) in legalese. I find Microsoft's EULAs to be much worse reading. So, this part of the "Shared Source FAQ" is either terribly misinformed, lazy, or simply FUD. Take your pick, none of them are good.
Oh yeah, it comes right out and says that "Linux is one of our many competitors". Nice:)
This is kind of reiterating ESR's comments on the Halloween documents... but it's kind of scary to see that Microsoft realizes the stakes are much larger than itself. The talk about not being able to patent the ideas underlying implementations seems silly. Sure, you may not be able to patent the theory of time travel, but if you're the only one that's made a time machine and it's patented, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from blocking the flow of information about time travel.
Also, they seem to be taking this tack that "Oh, we have a SHARED model, not a closed one, so we're not evil, don't hate us!" They mention their research source liscensing, but also say in big letters at the bottom of that page that "Microsoft retains the right to refuse requests for any reason". Again, nice. ("Hey, no way I'm giving YOU a liscense, you black-haired freak!") Their use of sample code as an example of Shared Source is just a joke, and as for the.NET standards, I hope anybody creating a new service or protocol would release it. The fact that Microsoft follows basically standard (right? I hope so... ) practice says absolutely nothing about them.
No comment on the Mundie speeches, this has done enough by pesons that could probably do it better than me, but anyone interested in totally ripping apart that "Linux in Retail and Hospitality" paper? ^^
Please realize from the outset that I am NOT bashing Christianity. I may not agree with all the things that have been done in its name over the years, but I'm mature enough (at least, most of the time, and certainly in philosophical discussion) to stop myself from denigrating things needlessly. I'm only using Christianity and Christian societies because 1) it's what was mentioned in the original post (that is, the one about Calculating God) and 2) it's what, having been brought up in Christian America, it's what I'm most familiar with.
I'm also not saying that Christianity has no moral basis, contributes nothing to morals, or is a negative effect on morality. I am, however, saying that in no way can Christianity or religion be proven to be the pillar that supports morality. In fact, in light of some of the atrocious things done in the name of Yahweh, I sometimes wonder why this view is almost universal in Western society. However, I do not let this prejudice my beliefs; I do not think poorly of the local parish just because some Europeans decided to kill some Arabs in the 13th century. On the contrary, I praise their concern for others. However, I don't see religion as a panacea for what very well may be rightly seen as the declining morality of society. I am not writing this with the intent to inflame or provoke, so anyone who replies to this, please keep a level head about it. I don't mind conflicting opinions of others at all, as long as they're not personally abusive ^_^;
This view should be seriously considered from another aspect as well. If you discount God, and religion, know that society will discount morality.
Under what grounds? You speak as if 'God' is the only thing that gives humanity its morality, which is (at least to me) a fallacy. Perhaps the greatest person I know, who is cycnical, but caring, intelligent, creative, and -yes- even moral, is an avowed atheist, and has lived most of her life having people trying to force views she disagrees with upon her. Some of these people are avowed Christians and act as if they hold no regard to what her views may be, regardless of how she acts towards others.
Oh, yes, and let's not forget that Christianity is not the only religion that believes in moral action. So does, for instance, Islam, though it be much stricter than Christianity. So does the eclectic mix of Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism experienced in Japan. The nice thing about this last, though, is that there is no passage stating that it is the only possible way to interpret the world, and if you don't see it like this, you're wrong and are eternally damned. It's said a lot these days that one should "doubt any worldview that sees itself as the only possible way to absolute truth"; I agree with this as far as the fact that this extreme self-confidence tends to spark conflict.
Already we progress as a world towards the acclimation of society above the individual.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure that this is true. Let's use the United States as an example (not to say that we're indicative of world trends or anything like that o_O but simply an example). We still have many people that focus on the individual far above the society - in fact, perhaps too much. Modern Republicans - rich and less so alike - generally (mind you, generally) do not favor "welfare" packages that take from the individual for the better good of the 'poor' - who may be seen as a society of themselves by some. (Though, Republicans, take heart - I know this isn't a universal belieft, but that is a 'stereotypical' Republican, and a general trend followed by Republican-introduced laws.) Heck, lots of people complain about paying taxes.
What needs to be done is this: find a moderate point between the needs of society and the individual. Realize that while people are really cool, self-absorption isn't. After all, other people are cool, too. However, we need to not forget that society is really just a bunch of other people.
I would give my life to save two. Most of you reading this would as well. There is a HUGE difference between a person giving their life and society deciding to take it. Point being: the evolution of society is far more important to our immediate concerns than the evolution of species.
Well, yes; at least, to the extent that humanity has established itself fairly well on this planet, and isn't in immediate danger of extinction. Unless it does it itself... which wouldn't be too surprising. Some see society, laws, etc. as a safeguard against this. To some extent, this is true: one of the functions of society is to keep people from tearing each other apart. However, the flip side to this is the nationalism that swept 19th century Europe; by this I mean the 'our society is better than yours' flavor of nationalism. So, the same tool that is supposed to check strife is creating it... small divergence there.
Who cares where we came from when where we are going is of far more concern to those living now and our children.
There are still people that realize that people don't always think up completely unique ideas, but follow patterns that were established in the past. As such, it is my personal belief (and hope) that there will always be some who realize the significance of pursuits other than obvious or immediate gratification.
The natural progression of humanitarianism (the term I loosely use to sum societal belief that there is no God and only humanity and evolution matter) is Borg, or at least the ideology portrayed by Paramount.
Nani~?? o_o Ara... again, what's your basis for this belief? If humanity is all that matters, what about the components that comprise humanity? Even if you have all the right parts, you can't make a car that runs well if they don't function sufficiently well. To extend the analogy, humanity cannot exist as a stable entity unless individual humans are well off, too. As such, it will always be within humanity's best interests to worry about individual welfare as well as societal welfare.
As morality fails (and let's face it: morality is maintained by spirituality)
STOP. Morality is not maintained by spirituality (I'm assuming you mean this in a religious sense), else I would have gone to the dogs some time ago. True morality is not doing something 'because God/Allah/Yahweh/(insert deity name here) says it is bad'... that's just 'fear of God'. (In fact, "Because God wills it!" was the war cry of the same crusaders that sacked a Christian city to continue their war: during the Fourth(?) Crusade, the Crusaders tried to get transportation from teh Venetians; the Venetians agreed, on the condition that the Crusaders go destroy a rival Italian - and Christian - trading city - which they promptly did.) I believe that true morality is doing something because you know in the essence of your being that it is wrong because it needlessly causes suffering. For example, not killing someone because it destroys life and causes pain to those associated to that life. Not ostracizing people different from you because it causes them harm. Not because someone tells you to. If this is the basis of one's morality, then it's quite pliable; whatever authority one's beliefs are based on may 'change its mind' (okay, this isn't going to happen with Christianity or probably any other religion, unless a LOT of people have the whole concept of 'God' wrong, but bear with me). In this case, what was previously wrong may become right and good. The example of a society with its laws are better than a religion, I suppose. However, most people experience pain under the same or similar conditions: loss, neglect, injury... Without religion, morality will at least be sustained by the compassionate and the empathic.
so does our society's resolve to protect that morality.
Not unless the society believes in and embraces morality sine deo; see above.
Individual human rights are an aspect of morality. Look at the Roman civilization before the coming of Christ (son of god or not, it's fact that he was alive and that he did teach). Euthanasia, post-birth abortion (baby killing) and using minor criminals as live bate for wild animals in the coliseum were all socially accepted. A rich man could buy a poor mans life from his debtors (slavery).
Um... that form of slavery would be considered tame compared to some that took root in the post-Iesu world... Let's not forget African slavery after the 1600s. Let's also not forget that many of the people whoe perpetuated this slavery and other forms of racism were brought up strictly 'by the Good Book'. Antebellum Southern US was still a quite Christian region; now it's called the "Bible Belt". Slavery was so socially acceptable there that the pre-Confederate South considered it a right to own slaves and treat them as they wished. (Though, to their credit, not all slaveowners were brutal slavedrivers, either.) Some believed they were doing their slaves a favor by educating them and such, and that this justified their activities; in essence, twisting the essentially good core of their religion into something less wholesome. Then, of course, there's the worldwide White Man's Burden. Africa was completely partitioned and subjected to colonial rule (remember South Africa and apartheid?), India was kept as a colonial possession because the British felt that their Christian morals were intrinsically better than anything 'those pagans' could come up with... mind you, this is just recent history, all things considered. I'm not saying that, say, colonialism didn't come out with some good things. However, it just shows how even religions such as Christianity can be twisted to worse things if its followers believe its morality is the best and only morality and don't forget to stop every once and a while to make sure they're not doing more harm than good.
These things would never have been weeded from society without the morality imposed by Christianity.
Imposed morality is no better than loyalty achieved by force. Morality really does no good unless it's truly felt by those who profess to be moral, not just forced upon them from outside. We are destroying that morality in America and across the globe. Partial-birth abortions are accepted. Are we so blind as to think that that will not go one step further to include full-birth terminations? A gasp of air in a baby's lungs is our only current distinction. What about unplugging someone on life support? Already we have included starving the brain-dead to death. This is only a tiny step away in practice from terminating the life of the insane, or God forbid: the disabled. Do we really think that our petty Bill-of-Rights will defend these people from a democratic society forced to pay for their upkeep?
Remember: society has no morality. Society follows only law. And we all know the golden rule makes the law.
That's right! Society has no intrinsic morality. But people do. People, in their natural state (that is, the state they are in as children before other people's beliefs and actions change their views), do not like to see anyone suffer. People see other people suffering, and it makes them feel bad, too, if that feeling hasn't been trained out of them. Even an innocent child who has no concept of God, Christ, Christianity, or any other religion will still feel bad if they see someone undergoing hardships - at least, if they haven't been taught not to care, or taught that their own good is more important than anything else.
Remove religion from this equation and you damn humanity to another Third Reich. Only this time, it might be the only faction...
Again, I disagree. Compassionate people have usually been there to step in and "stop the insanity"; these compassionate people have not always been Christian, or even religious. Hitler, himself, was a Jew. The point of this is that even those who should be moral because of some religious or societal construct are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, first of all ... To quote Microsoft, "There is no question that the GPL is a complicated liscense that has led to a great deal of confusion." My first reaction was, "well, Uncertainty and Doubt do tend to lead to confusion". Then I went and read a copy of the GPL for memory refresher. It's not that confusing, as we all know, of course. The terms are basically distribute, modify, use freely with a few conditions that are also simple to understand. The liscense isn't the easiest reading, but that's just because it's (necessarily) in legalese. I find Microsoft's EULAs to be much worse reading. So, this part of the "Shared Source FAQ" is either terribly misinformed, lazy, or simply FUD. Take your pick, none of them are good.
Oh yeah, it comes right out and says that "Linux is one of our many competitors". Nice :)
This is kind of reiterating ESR's comments on the Halloween documents ... but it's kind of scary to see that Microsoft realizes the stakes are much larger than itself. The talk about not being able to patent the ideas underlying implementations seems silly. Sure, you may not be able to patent the theory of time travel, but if you're the only one that's made a time machine and it's patented, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from blocking the flow of information about time travel.
Also, they seem to be taking this tack that "Oh, we have a SHARED model, not a closed one, so we're not evil, don't hate us!" They mention their research source liscensing, but also say in big letters at the bottom of that page that "Microsoft retains the right to refuse requests for any reason ". Again, nice. ("Hey, no way I'm giving YOU a liscense, you black-haired freak!") Their use of sample code as an example of Shared Source is just a joke, and as for the .NET standards, I hope anybody creating a new service or protocol would release it. The fact that Microsoft follows basically standard (right? I hope so ... ) practice says absolutely nothing about them.
No comment on the Mundie speeches, this has done enough by pesons that could probably do it better than me, but anyone interested in totally ripping apart that "Linux in Retail and Hospitality" paper? ^^
It's one more thing to do to kernel32.dll ^_^
Please realize from the outset that I am NOT bashing Christianity. I may not agree with all the things that have been done in its name over the years, but I'm mature enough (at least, most of the time, and certainly in philosophical discussion) to stop myself from denigrating things needlessly. I'm only using Christianity and Christian societies because 1) it's what was mentioned in the original post (that is, the one about Calculating God) and 2) it's what, having been brought up in Christian America, it's what I'm most familiar with.
I'm also not saying that Christianity has no moral basis, contributes nothing to morals, or is a negative effect on morality. I am, however, saying that in no way can Christianity or religion be proven to be the pillar that supports morality. In fact, in light of some of the atrocious things done in the name of Yahweh, I sometimes wonder why this view is almost universal in Western society. However, I do not let this prejudice my beliefs; I do not think poorly of the local parish just because some Europeans decided to kill some Arabs in the 13th century. On the contrary, I praise their concern for others. However, I don't see religion as a panacea for what very well may be rightly seen as the declining morality of society. I am not writing this with the intent to inflame or provoke, so anyone who replies to this, please keep a level head about it. I don't mind conflicting opinions of others at all, as long as they're not personally abusive ^_^;
This view should be seriously considered from another aspect as well. If you discount God, and religion, know that society will discount morality.
Under what grounds? You speak as if 'God' is the only thing that gives humanity its morality, which is (at least to me) a fallacy. Perhaps the greatest person I know, who is cycnical, but caring, intelligent, creative, and -yes- even moral, is an avowed atheist, and has lived most of her life having people trying to force views she disagrees with upon her. Some of these people are avowed Christians and act as if they hold no regard to what her views may be, regardless of how she acts towards others.
Oh, yes, and let's not forget that Christianity is not the only religion that believes in moral action. So does, for instance, Islam, though it be much stricter than Christianity. So does the eclectic mix of Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism experienced in Japan. The nice thing about this last, though, is that there is no passage stating that it is the only possible way to interpret the world, and if you don't see it like this, you're wrong and are eternally damned. It's said a lot these days that one should "doubt any worldview that sees itself as the only possible way to absolute truth"; I agree with this as far as the fact that this extreme self-confidence tends to spark conflict.
Already we progress as a world towards the acclimation of society above the individual.
Hmmm ... I'm not so sure that this is true. Let's use the United States as an example (not to say that we're indicative of world trends or anything like that o_O but simply an example). We still have many people that focus on the individual far above the society - in fact, perhaps too much. Modern Republicans - rich and less so alike - generally (mind you, generally) do not favor "welfare" packages that take from the individual for the better good of the 'poor' - who may be seen as a society of themselves by some. (Though, Republicans, take heart - I know this isn't a universal belieft, but that is a 'stereotypical' Republican, and a general trend followed by Republican-introduced laws.) Heck, lots of people complain about paying taxes.
What needs to be done is this: find a moderate point between the needs of society and the individual. Realize that while people are really cool, self-absorption isn't. After all, other people are cool, too. However, we need to not forget that society is really just a bunch of other people.
I would give my life to save two. Most of you reading this would as well. There is a HUGE difference between a person giving their life and society deciding to take it. Point being: the evolution of society is far more important to our immediate concerns than the evolution of species.
Well, yes; at least, to the extent that humanity has established itself fairly well on this planet, and isn't in immediate danger of extinction. Unless it does it itself ... which wouldn't be too surprising. Some see society, laws, etc. as a safeguard against this. To some extent, this is true: one of the functions of society is to keep people from tearing each other apart. However, the flip side to this is the nationalism that swept 19th century Europe; by this I mean the 'our society is better than yours' flavor of nationalism. So, the same tool that is supposed to check strife is creating it ... small divergence there.
Who cares where we came from when where we are going is of far more concern to those living now and our children.
There are still people that realize that people don't always think up completely unique ideas, but follow patterns that were established in the past. As such, it is my personal belief (and hope) that there will always be some who realize the significance of pursuits other than obvious or immediate gratification.
The natural progression of humanitarianism (the term I loosely use to sum societal belief that there is no God and only humanity and evolution matter) is Borg, or at least the ideology portrayed by Paramount.
Nani~?? o_o Ara ... again, what's your basis for this belief? If humanity is all that matters, what about the components that comprise humanity? Even if you have all the right parts, you can't make a car that runs well if they don't function sufficiently well. To extend the analogy, humanity cannot exist as a stable entity unless individual humans are well off, too. As such, it will always be within humanity's best interests to worry about individual welfare as well as societal welfare.
As morality fails (and let's face it: morality is maintained by spirituality)
STOP. Morality is not maintained by spirituality (I'm assuming you mean this in a religious sense), else I would have gone to the dogs some time ago. True morality is not doing something 'because God/Allah/Yahweh/(insert deity name here) says it is bad' ... that's just 'fear of God'. (In fact, "Because God wills it!" was the war cry of the same crusaders that sacked a Christian city to continue their war: during the Fourth(?) Crusade, the Crusaders tried to get transportation from teh Venetians; the Venetians agreed, on the condition that the Crusaders go destroy a rival Italian - and Christian - trading city - which they promptly did.) I believe that true morality is doing something because you know in the essence of your being that it is wrong because it needlessly causes suffering. For example, not killing someone because it destroys life and causes pain to those associated to that life. Not ostracizing people different from you because it causes them harm. Not because someone tells you to. If this is the basis of one's morality, then it's quite pliable; whatever authority one's beliefs are based on may 'change its mind' (okay, this isn't going to happen with Christianity or probably any other religion, unless a LOT of people have the whole concept of 'God' wrong, but bear with me). In this case, what was previously wrong may become right and good. The example of a society with its laws are better than a religion, I suppose. However, most people experience pain under the same or similar conditions: loss, neglect, injury ... Without religion, morality will at least be sustained by the compassionate and the empathic.
so does our society's resolve to protect that morality.
Not unless the society believes in and embraces morality sine deo; see above.
Individual human rights are an aspect of morality. Look at the Roman civilization before the coming of Christ (son of god or not, it's fact that he was alive and that he did teach). Euthanasia, post-birth abortion (baby killing) and using minor criminals as live bate for wild animals in the coliseum were all socially accepted. A rich man could buy a poor mans life from his debtors (slavery).
Um ... that form of slavery would be considered tame compared to some that took root in the post-Iesu world ... Let's not forget African slavery after the 1600s. Let's also not forget that many of the people whoe perpetuated this slavery and other forms of racism were brought up strictly 'by the Good Book'. Antebellum Southern US was still a quite Christian region; now it's called the "Bible Belt". Slavery was so socially acceptable there that the pre-Confederate South considered it a right to own slaves and treat them as they wished. (Though, to their credit, not all slaveowners were brutal slavedrivers, either.) Some believed they were doing their slaves a favor by educating them and such, and that this justified their activities; in essence, twisting the essentially good core of their religion into something less wholesome. Then, of course, there's the worldwide White Man's Burden. Africa was completely partitioned and subjected to colonial rule (remember South Africa and apartheid?), India was kept as a colonial possession because the British felt that their Christian morals were intrinsically better than anything 'those pagans' could come up with ... mind you, this is just recent history, all things considered. I'm not saying that, say, colonialism didn't come out with some good things. However, it just shows how even religions such as Christianity can be twisted to worse things if its followers believe its morality is the best and only morality and don't forget to stop every once and a while to make sure they're not doing more harm than good.
These things would never have been weeded from society without the morality imposed by Christianity.
Imposed morality is no better than loyalty achieved by force. Morality really does no good unless it's truly felt by those who profess to be moral, not just forced upon them from outside. We are destroying that morality in America and across the globe. Partial-birth abortions are accepted. Are we so blind as to think that that will not go one step further to include full-birth terminations? A gasp of air in a baby's lungs is our only current distinction. What about unplugging someone on life support? Already we have included starving the brain-dead to death. This is only a tiny step away in practice from terminating the life of the insane, or God forbid: the disabled. Do we really think that our petty Bill-of-Rights will defend these people from a democratic society forced to pay for their upkeep?
Remember: society has no morality. Society follows only law. And we all know the golden rule makes the law.
That's right! Society has no intrinsic morality. But people do. People, in their natural state (that is, the state they are in as children before other people's beliefs and actions change their views), do not like to see anyone suffer. People see other people suffering, and it makes them feel bad, too, if that feeling hasn't been trained out of them. Even an innocent child who has no concept of God, Christ, Christianity, or any other religion will still feel bad if they see someone undergoing hardships - at least, if they haven't been taught not to care, or taught that their own good is more important than anything else.
Remove religion from this equation and you damn humanity to another Third Reich. Only this time, it might be the only faction...
Again, I disagree. Compassionate people have usually been there to step in and "stop the insanity"; these compassionate people have not always been Christian, or even religious. Hitler, himself, was a Jew. The point of this is that even those who should be moral because of some religious or societal construct are not.
Kourino