He seems to think that if you distribute software under the GPL, that it gives Stallman control of said software, or that it gives Stallman a right to sue people who (mis)use the software.
It might not be true in the case of the GPL as a whole, but it most certainly *is* legally true of anything that gets submitted to the GNU project.
Bottom line:- If you use Linux or anything licensed by the GPL, you're Stallman's bitch by default in his own mind. That may or may not be true in a legal sense...but he certainly thinks it is.
...I told you so?;-) Maybe I should leave that for when Stallman actually *does* become irrelevant, rather than for stories like this which merely speculate about it.
Yes, the man did do some good things...it isn't that I'm not acknowledging that. I can't prove or disprove that nobody else would have come up with the idea of a FOSS license without him.
The bottom line now however is that as this article says, Stallman's radicalism is now threatening to destroy all of the good that he has created in the past...People also say he never changes, but personally I believe he *has* changed. He's already sold out, but not in the way this article's author thinks.
He's sold out in the sense that it's purely about power for him now...it's about being a cult leader. It's about having followers who worship him and follow his every decree.
If I thought he was still doing things for the right reasons, I'd venerate him myself. I believe that there was a time when he genuinely did care about the wellbeing of people other than himself...but that that time has long since passed.
For the sake of FOSS in general, he now must, as the article says, be routed around.
It seems like there's a kind of competition going on between our two countries to strip their citizens of basic rights. For a long time I'd read Slashdot stories about England and think to myself how weird it was, then of course I compared notes.
Blair in England and to some extent Howard in Australia are both following Bush's lead. Bush is turning America into a dictatorship, so it's basically a case of monkey see, monkey do where the other two are concerned. Not entirely, of course...Howard and Grima (Blair) to some extent are both fascists after Bush's own heart, but what they tend to do in a lot of cases is watch Bush try and nudge the US a few more inches down the slippery slope first, and see if he gets away with it with his own population. If he does (which he pretty much always does, these days) they then feel more confident about being able to get away with it in their respective countries as well.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...America is domestically anyway headed for a complete repitition of Nazi Germany, and with the passing of the recent Military Commissions Act, it might be getting sufficiently close that not all of you are still going to insist on calling me a fringe, conspiracist nut case for saying it this time.
The US (specifically PNAC) is also the source of the problem. Yes, like I said, Blair and Howard certainly wouldn't mind becoming dictators, but at their core they are also primarily quislings and cowards who have taken their cue from Bush. I also happen to believe that more or less the entire recent terrorist phenomenon has been invented by the Bush administration and co-operating governments, including 9/11. 9/11 itself *was* Bush/PNAC's Reichstag fire...it has been his justification for everything that has happened since, and he has hardly stopped mentioning it, citing it, and invoking the memory of it to justify his actions.
Where the US really is going to be a testbed is that it will be the first country of these three to reach a state of truly undisguised dictatorship. When that happens, Bush and Blair will both watch to see whether or not the American public will tolerate it. If they do, political escalation in those two countries will continue, until a state of dictatorship in them is also reached. It's basically the domino theory all over again...Except this time, it's actually happening.
To those of you who think I'm a schizophrenic nutcase for thinking this, I also say what I've said before...Stay tuned. You'll see it come out in the open soon enough.
>Better get that bulk order for Guy Fawkes masks in before the rush. Amazon have them for >$5.99.
There's one difference between V for Vendetta and real life. I strongly suspect that Prime Minister Wormtongue would have no qualms whatsoever about ordering the lot of you to be shot where you stood if you showed up in front of the Houses of Parliament, irrespective of the size of the group that did so.
In the film, the public took a gamble, and the tyrant folded. In real life, (depending on the size of the crowd anywayz) Blair could shoot all of you and then quite easily claim that he had "secret evidence," (which nobody would ever know more than that about, natch) that the dreaded Al Qaeda had orchestrated the whole thing. He'd say afterwards that it was truly tragic that he had to order the deaths of all those people, and that it would haunt him for the rest of his life, but he *had* to protect the English people from the terrorists.
My own interpretation of "Web 2.0," (although I usually hate such buzzphrases) is that it describes a type of website which utilises what I could describe as "swarming collaboration." This is something very strikingly demonstrated by digg's Swarm visualisation.
To me this is the single main characteristic of sites described by that term, though...Sites that have completely peer to peer or submitted contact which is either exchanged or cross-pollinated between users at extremely high speeds. It's extremely group-oriented in nature...these sites are multi-user by definition; they can't exist with only one person using them at once, because they rely on users to provide the actual content.
Are they a good thing? For communication and collaborative problem solving, certainly...but there have been a number of times when browsing digg in particular, when I've developed a headache and have begun to feel severely overwhelmed...there is just *so much* data constantly flying around.
People have talked about digg being preferable to Slashdot, but I believe they both have their place. I can't cognitively tolerate digg for more than short periods; like I said, it's simply too much. Slashdot on the other hand allows me to pace the rate at which data comes to me; Articles are long enough that they can be read one at a time without there being more on the screen...and despite the idiotic "humour" which is present here at times, there is still a lot more substance and insight in the topics here than I've seen on digg so far.
>Any other raid instance takes 2 hours minimum, not including >finding people to play the game.
Granted, but that's why I anyway only do instancing on the weekend now, and also usually only do relatively low-level instances (the Wailing Caverns is great for slumming) where I know there's going to be a PUG (pickup group) wanting to go in pretty much straight away.
Blizz might have crowed from the rooftops about how the quest system is great for accomodating casual play, but what they didn't mention was that that only applies until around level 30. After that point, you've typically got to do that much looking around in order to find quests that I basically stopped bothering...especially considering that kill quests were the only ones that were ever worth the time, even at lower levels. It's a lot quicker and easier these days to find mobs that are 3+ levels above me, and grind.
Is the game a lot slower since I started playing exclusively solo? Sure...but it's also less stressful, and I don't have people constantly making demands...nor do I have to put up with some megalomaniacal second constantly in my ear about how people are saying that the GM is never online, and hoping he can use that as justification to take over the guild...or telling me about how the "leet, *successful*" guilds have instance raids running approximately every five minutes...while neglecting to mention that that is only because said people are completely devoid of anything remotely resembling lives.
There are an enormous amount of juvenile idiots also on Jubei'Thos. I'm told that this is something that is somewhat universal, and not purely limited to Jubei...but on the few occasions I have played on other servers, I've generally had a much more positive experience. If I didn't have so many characters on Jubei now (around half a dozen) I'd probably move to one of the non-Oceanics.
My earlier point still stands, though...if you're going to bother playing WoW at all, either play it solo or make sure the people you're with know that you're not a slave to the game, and that you couldn't give a shit about not having tier-3 gear and an epic mount if getting such means you can't do anything else. If the people you're playing with don't understand that, then they're idiots anywayz and are likely to only be a bad influence...they're also not real friends.
They still have their open source projects up
on
SGI Arises From the Ashes
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Go and have a look here if you haven't already. There's some great stuff.
XFS is an awesome filesystem, and has been ranked the overall best in at least two fs benchmarks:- here, and here. Given what I've read here, I'm possibly considering making it my own default fs...at least for some things.
There's also some OpenGL related projects, as well as some kernel work. What this could also mean for them is that even if they do have to sell SUSE clusters, they can still have some individuality in the offering. Sure, anyone can burn xfsprogs to a CD...but SGI can still market themselves as the people who invented the fs, and thus the people who are most intimate with the code, and thus who can possibly most quickly/easily extend it, or fix it if something breaks.
If my net connection goes for more than probably four hours, I psychologically cease to function more or less entirely. Although that said, it still didn't stop me getting into a long term relationship, and although my girlfriend is a heavy net user herself, we still eat and do various other things together.
There are reasons why my life is so net-centric, though:-
Before I first started using the net in around 1994, my life was pretty much completely devoid of purpose. I'd dropped out of school a year earlier with a ninth grade education, and at the time felt like a social outcast, though later realised that I hadn't been anywhere near as much as I'd thought. Once I got online, I started learning about Web development, Linux, and IRC scripting...Unlike at school, where I'd felt like a constant failure, (my marks were consistently terrible) I was finding things that I could actually feel that I was good at. The education system isn't designed to actually benefit people...it's primarily designed to psychospiritually break children so that as adults they become subservient to the society that exists at the time. Any genuine education that you might happen to get during that process is entirely incidental.
For reasons I don't understand, with the sole exception of my girlfriend, pretty much every offline friend I've had has at one point or another stabbed me in the back, and that's included genetic family members. My father booted me out of home completely without warning, and one of my cousins stole from me incessantly. Communicating with people online means that while I get some form of socialisation, people aren't able to get close enough to me to be able to harm me...which I've found that tragically, they inevitably do if they are allowed to get close enough.
Offline contemporary reality, to put it simply, just isn't very nice. Australia, England, and America currently all have fascist governments to varying degrees...liberalism and the health of democracy in these countries is at an all time low. Our leaders are absolute monsters, and it doesn't matter how much we complain or protest about the way they are treating us and other people...they don't care. The environment is in the toilet...A cousin of mine got back from visiting China not long ago and said she'd found out that there are no birds in Beijing because the air pollution is so bad...Makes me wonder what that's doing to the humans that are living there. We also can't travel anywhere unless we find the idea of being killed by some nutcase vainly trying to protest our governments appealing, who probably actually feels fairly similarly towards our governments to the way we ourselves do, truth be told.
I realise that in light of that, simply advocating moving online in a wholesale sense might sound like the proverbial ostrich maneuvre...but if I knew of something I actually *could* do to change the political situation, I'd possibly do it...there just doesn't seem to be anything that can be done. I actually feel as though the only thing I really can do about the offline situation is to keep my head down as much as possible...and the net means I can at least construct some semblance of a life for myself while I'm doing that.
I know it's been said before, but Gabriel and other artists who opt to do this are smarter than it might initially look.
As in the terminology of the open source software market, in this context Gabriel's music constitutes what they call a "loss leader."
He puts his entire discography online, free for the taking. He doesn't make a cracker from that, and presumably he wouldn't plan to. He also lets people do the mashy thing as Bowie did. This generates enormous positive PR for him that he supposedly "gets the open source revolution." Then after a while, he either decides he's got bored sitting at home, or he wants to make some additional revenue...so he decides he wants to do a comeback series of concerts. He'd use his site with the free music as a point of sale for the concert tickets. Let's also say hypothetically that in the meanwhile, a particular one of the mashies of his music has become unusually popular. So he arranges for the author of this particular mashy to play at the concerts with him as a supporting act...Mashy Kid either does his thing solo, or better yet, he and Gabriel do a duet of sorts. Gabriel could also do something like a "very limited" run of autographed photos or CDs to sell at the concerts...which given the infinitely replicable nature of the music files, would hold particular appeal as unique objects.
Mashy Kid gets professionally discovered, so he's very happy...Gabriel's positive public image would be through the roof by this point...and he could also more or less surf home after the concerts on the tidal wave of cash that would have been forthcoming. (Assuming he still has a large fanbase of course, which I'm assuming he does...not to mention the additional demand that would have been raised by the chance of seeing Mashy Kid play)
This of course is only one of an infinite number of possible scenarios by which he could make a fortune with this.
So...yep, it's a crazy move, all right. Crazy like a fox.;-)
It'd be very simple. All you'd need to do would be to go to EA's head office, wherever that is, and shoot everyone in the building.;-) Then lather, rinse, repeat for every other large "publishing" company (Vivendi, Activision, etc) in existence.
These companies are the game industry's sole problem, IMHO...and for as long as they exist, things are going to stay broken. Think about it...every single megahit game that's ever been released (with the possible exception of The Sims) has been released entirely without these middlemen being involved. They don't contribute anything of worth themselves, and they try and get in the way of people who actually *are* creative.
When things have worked, they've worked via a small company consisting purely of artists, who've developed and released a game primarily for creative reasons. Said artists have not had to worry about money at all...because when you create a game for the right reasons, it'd actually be more difficult to *avoid* being swamped by the massive tsunami of currency that will be forthcoming thereafter.;-)
...of the top useless inventions, the eBook needs to be on it...up there with such wonderful ideas as the computer controlled toilet and the Internet-enabled fridge.
Personally, I'm still waiting for the robotic vacuum cleaner that use internal pathfinding to flawlessly circumnavigate a house, unattended. For a totally pointless invention which I still think would be rather cool, I'd also like to see an IRC client written entirely in shellscript using only netcat, grep, and sed.
Come to think of it, on the same topic I've actually wished for a while that I had the money to travel to the US temporarily...because I really wanted to track down that guy who was shown in Trekkies who'd built himself a working version of a ride-on that was used by one of the characters in TOS...if I could give it the ability to carry shopping, I'd really want one of those things myself. Of course, I'd only use it after dark, and then only while wearing a balaclava...if I was positively identified while riding it, I would feel forced to commit suicide due to embarassment and/or shame.;-)
...is that if people want to add clickwraps, they're going to whether the GPL allows it or not.
I don't like clickwraps myself, but that's irrelevant. The point is that commercially minded types (and especially commercially minded types who've had development experience on Windows) often *are* inclined to use them. I also (unlike certain hard leftists we know about who will remain nameless, at least for the moment) do not fundamentally object to people making money from software. For those of you who are going to point me to this, it'd be great if it was still true...but from what I've read recently, Stallman's position on commercial software in any form seems to have changed to one of opposition.
If the GPL was really a license all developers wanted, we wouldn't be seeing (at least conscious) violations. This is yet another logical inconsistency inherent in referring to this license as free. (unless of course you subscribe to the Stallmanite definition of that word, which I do not)
A license which genuinely allowed people to do what they wanted would not have or need a website like gpl-violations.org associated with it. (Note to the usual Stallmanite zombies reading this; I am not interested in hearing a regurgitation of Stallman's "total freedom devolves into feudalism," line...primarily because said line is utter bullshit. This can be proven by the number of projects which have managed to survive and function well with non-copyleft licenses...or did until some of them caved to pressure from Stallman to "harmonise" their own licenses with the GPL)
The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire. It might be something which a certain number of people are willing to tolerate, and which a Marxist minority actively want, but it isn't something that the majority want. Of course, believe otherwise if you want...but you might notice contrary evidence continues piling up.
Ask yourself...and think long and hard about this. Do the FSF currently endorse that which you really want? It could be just me, but there honestly seems to have been a change in their behaviour in the last 2-3 years. The tone of the gnu.org site to me has become a lot more strident.
Not only is Linux becoming more popular anyway, but with the Vista release looming, and Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage and other DRM having been reported as being parts of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Stallman (at least secretly) could feel as though he potentially has almost the entire computer using population of the planet over a barrel right now. It would certainly explain a few things...the extra stuff in the GPL v3, and the change of the FSF's tone to one that is becoming far more aggressive and confrontational. The mask is coming off, because they're feeling large and in charge...and as though they've got nothing to lose.
Once again, I know I'm going to get the usual response from Stallman's supporters on here that I have no idea what I'm talking about...and for once I will concede, they could be right.
Most of the time, Stallman appears to be the kindly, altruistic, slightly eccentric genius that his followers think he is, and which they want the rest of us to see him as. Every so often though...and I've noticed it happens more regularly lately...the mask cracks ever so slightly.
What I (and some others, I know) see through those cracks truly is not pretty.
I'm curious...have you really *thought* about the opinions you hold that much, or just accepted them because that's what a lot of other people think? Reason why I ask is because they're verbatim identical to those of pretty much every other pro-FSF person I've seen on here.
That degree of uniformity really doesn't seem like genuine freedom of thought to me...and it sure as hell doesn't feel like anarchism, either. It feels like a cult.
...I still want to even know about the existence of Linux/OSS. I guess it's because I'm able to remember that in most cases, the software itself from a purely technical standpoint is awesome. It's only (admittedly some, not all of) the people involved with it that provide compelling arguments in favour of such things as abortion and involuntary euthanasia.
The good news is that there's only two directions to go in from here where Linux is concerned, from what I can see anywayz. Either Linux *does* go fully mainstream, which ends up forcing the expulsion of the FSF and the rest of the usual basement-dwelling freak show, including Debian and their various other sock puppets, or Linux is dragged back underground by the weight of the aforementioned groups' persistent maladaptive behaviour. Which one is it going to be? There's been progress made towards the first option, but with things like this, we also keep seeing progress being made towards the second.
Newsflash, fuckheads. Every time you take what you think is some kind of "stand," you're the only ones who care. Those of us who don't know anything else about Linux end up deciding that they don't want to have anything to do with it, (and who could blame them?) and the rest of us just continue fervently wishing and hoping that someday, you'll simply cease to exist.
99.9% of people don't care two shits about Debian's "social contract," or the FSF's repainted Stalinism. There are a couple of things you *are* accomplishing, though:-
1) You're working to prevent/hinder a scenario where the widespread use/adoption of software with genuine *technical* integrity becomes a reality.
2) You're gradually killing every other OSS license in existence, besides the GPL. Yes, I know most of the FSF cultists will actually be happy about that...but there are those of us who are not.
3) You're helping Microsoft survive, and working to deny a place software-wise for those computer laypeople/novices who genuinely want to leave Windows. These people want software that works...they don't want to be associated with a group of overzealous, juvenile freaks.
4) You're possibly helping to make the very scenario with DRM and other such things that you fear more likely...because if the mainstream population view you as threatening, they're going to be a lot less resistant to the idea of Microsoft/other vendors implementing DRM to lock Linux out than they otherwise would be.
So, congrats...by all means, continue on this insane, juvenile path. Just don't be surprised when people see you for who and what you are, and FOSS in general suffers as a result.
...the faster it actually causes itself to sink into the tarpit. Although it's seven years old and somewhat numerically inaccurate, this article is becoming increasingly more relevant as time goes on.
To use plain speech rather than metaphor...Microsoft are engaging in the WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) and DRM related activities in order to stave off its' inevitable demise. The irony is that the more it uses fascist tactics in order to try and keep itself alive, these will actually accelerate the company's downfall. Already I have read reports of a mass migration to Linux because of Microsoft's jackbooted behaviour associated with the Windows Genuine Advantage program.
The Microsoft ship struck ice in September 1997. As with a much earlier case, the impact was sufficiently quiet and low-key that I'm not sure too many other people felt it at the time...but I remember it. I believed that because of the corporation's massive cash reserves and size, its' demise would take a long time...but as I believed then, so I still say now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015. The company are coming up to a point that is analagous to when Nearer My God To Thee was being played during the Titanic film. They themselves just possibly aren't aware of it yet.
Re:MS redefines the meaning of Open Source
on
Ballmer Sounds Off
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB
First RFC April 1969 for the ARPANET. The Open Source Initiative originated in Feb 1998.
1969 is not "new." The OSI is also all about business. ESR and crew have cared more about corporate evangelism than anything else. (And yes, that is easy to verify)
"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB
Propoganda, sure.
"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe
Right...sure. Just like Stallman having warned people off the BSD license, telling people not to use the CC licenses, insisting that every other FOSS license on the planet be "harmonised" with the GPL, etc. The FSF complaining about *anyone* else using exclusionary licensing is about the degree of consistency I've come to expect from them...which is also why I no longer listen to a word they say. I wish I understood why I seem to be the only one who's seeing that Stallman wants his own monoculture just as badly as Gates/Ballmer want theirs...and neither are a good thing.
The rest is the usual propoganda and doublespeak BS, admittedly...but I actually did agree with him to a degree about the YouTube acquisition. Google have sunk a lot of money into buying an operation that is essentially a net-based hybrid of Funniest Home Videos and MTV, whose first profit was also actually the money Google paid for it...it's going to be interesting to see if they can create something profitable out of it.
Main Entry: contrary Pronunciation: 'kän-"trer-E, -"tre-rE, 4 often k&n-'trer-E Function: adjective 1 : being so different as to be at opposite extremes : OPPOSITE (come to the contrary conclusion) (went off in contrary directions); also : being opposite to or in conflict with each other (contrary viewpoints) 2 : being not in conformity with what is usual or expected (actions contrary to company policy) (contrary evidence) 3 : UNFAVORABLE -- used of wind or weather 4 : temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice - contrarily/-"trer-&-lE, -'trer-/ adverb - contrariness/-"trer-E-n&s, -'trer-/ noun
Without simply being derogatory, I've realised that when I think of Debian, the above word is what has customarily come to mind. It's nothing I can concretely put my finger on, but I've always felt that there was an aura of perversity about the project...a sense that the Debian developers change things from the upstream norm purely because they can, and not because they've necessarily put thought into whether or not it'd actually be a good idea. Not only that, I can also remember going into the Debian IRC channel on Freenode once. It reminded me very strongly of the account of the Mad Hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. They honestly came across as some of the weirdest and most unhinged individuals I've encountered. I've been using IRC for 12 years, and have known some very bizarre types online...so that is saying a lot.
I'm not claiming that that is definitely what is happening here...I don't know, and the referenced article is sufficiently vague that I feel as though I still haven't got a better idea after having read it. What I am definitely saying however is that from what I've seen, these kinds of issues coming up is entirely consistent with Debian culturally. It's also one of the reasons why I've stayed far away from the distribution; that, their degree of formality with "policy", (are they a FOSS project, or a sovereign government?!) and their degree of open sympathy with Stallman/the FSF. I think I also resent the fact that I've read about them being referred to as the only "successful" non-commercial distribution, when due in part to the reasons listed above, there are others that I feel are at least as worthy of that designation as Debian is, if not moreso. Debian might be bigger, sure...but size alone does not necessarily equal success in my own mind.
That's not to say that there haven't been good things to come from the project, at least in a secondary sense. (Knoppix and Ubuntu come to mind, which are both Debian spinoffs) The point is that it's a long way from perfect...and things like this debacle are evidence to support that assertion.
The freedom you're talking about is total freedom - which leads to fuedalism, which is not very free at all in practice.
This is total garbage, and can very easily be shown to be total garbage merely by pointing to those projects which *do* use MIT/BSD licenses and which work fine organisationally. Yes, forks happen, but forks happen with GPLed code too.
I've said this to a lot of the pro-FSF lemmings that I've seen on this site, and I'm going to say it to you too...Try using your own brain for a change, rather than constantly leaning on Stallman's. You might even find that you enjoy the experience.
>The GPLv3 will be happening, and I, and probably tens of thousands of others, will
>be using it. Get used to it!
Yes...because as we all know, more than anything else the definition of freedom is having other people decide what happens without being able to do a thing about it ourselves.
Another wonderful example of one of RMS's fans demonstrating to us just how glorious Stallman's vision of freedom truly could be. Still think it looks appealing?;-)
The bottom line is that the FSF honestly never should have been involved with Linux to begin with, IMHO. Stallman never would have become more than a historical footnote if it hadn't...He has been riding Linus's coat tails, and (which is even more galling) trying to claim that it is actually the other way around.
A lot of people have criticised Linus for the amount he has said about this...in my own mind, he hasn't gone nearly far enough. IMHO he needs to publically confront Stallman, and then move the kernel to an entirely new license that he himself is the author of.
The FSF and Stallman's radicalism are one of the main things that still alienate people from Linux. There very badly needs to be a parting of ways. Let the FSF and whoever else wants it continue developing the Hurd...The degree of rapidity with which Stallman would re-submerge back into total irrelevance after such an event would in itself be a powerful testament to his true level of significance.
To any of Stallman's supporters reading this who feel an urge to attempt to reprimand me as you have done in the past, let me simply say that I believe (and will continue to believe, your protests notwithstanding) that the only genuine reason why you are ideologically supportive of him is because you find it easier and more convenient to simply co-opt someone else's philosophy rather than using your own brains. Those of us who *aren't* afraid of engaging in genuine mental effort continue to see Stallman as we have always seen him...A fraud, and an individual far less enlightened than he has been able to lead more impressionable souls to believe.
Because of all of this, Linux does not need Stallman.
It does not need his false claims of credit for things that do not belong to him.
It does not need the division and conflict that he causes. (Which alienates newcomers primarily because the very issues Stallman creates conflict about are things about which they themselves do not care about at all)
It does not need the stigma of being associated with an uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist.
I have tried here over a period of years to continue to write what I believe to be the truth about this man, despite the best efforts of his followers to reprimand me, to shame me, and to do the same to others like me who have dared to express their opinions. You can lecture me, you can tell me how ignorant and foolish you think I am, but I know that I will continue to be vindicated. At nearly every speech and interview he gives, Stallman continues to dig his own grave...he continues to say things which portray him ever more as a radical, and ever more as someone who is genuinely deserving of the marginalisation that must inevitably come to him.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological "protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use of the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users.
By stipulating this, Stallman is implicitly calling for civil disobedience, at least where US law is concerned. Whether you consider that *morally* appropriate in itself is another issue...but what he is effectively saying is that the legal requirements of the GPL v3 are in direct conflict with American law. I am assuming there that the law is one prohibiting reverse engineering of software.
Again, I'm not arguing this from a *moral* standpoint...but if he attempts to lock horns with the legal system of *any* country, he should expect it to discourage people from using the license.
This type of thing is the reason why I strongly believe that Stallman's mind has begun to deteriorate over the last few years...if nothing else, he has seriously lost focus.
He should step down at this point, I believe...because as time goes on, this sort of behaviour serves more and more to overshadow the genuinely positive work that he did when he was younger.
Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion
Raise the quality of discussion? I'm curious...is your definition of a quality discussion in this context one which is supportive of RMS' position by default?
Slashdot Mirror
Calling Forbes names is a wonderfully convenient way of sidestepping this issue, isn't it?
Another alternative is to display some basic maturity and a spine, and to refute the article on its' points if you think they are invalid.
I have to ask...Do you actually consider yourself an adult?
He seems to think that if you distribute software under the GPL, that it gives Stallman control of said software, or that it gives Stallman a right to sue people who (mis)use the software.
It might not be true in the case of the GPL as a whole, but it most certainly *is* legally true of anything that gets submitted to the GNU project.
Bottom line:- If you use Linux or anything licensed by the GPL, you're Stallman's bitch by default in his own mind. That may or may not be true in a legal sense...but he certainly thinks it is.
...I told you so? ;-) Maybe I should leave that for when Stallman actually *does* become irrelevant, rather than for stories like this which merely speculate about it.
Yes, the man did do some good things...it isn't that I'm not acknowledging that. I can't prove or disprove that nobody else would have come up with the idea of a FOSS license without him.
The bottom line now however is that as this article says, Stallman's radicalism is now threatening to destroy all of the good that he has created in the past...People also say he never changes, but personally I believe he *has* changed. He's already sold out, but not in the way this article's author thinks.
He's sold out in the sense that it's purely about power for him now...it's about being a cult leader. It's about having followers who worship him and follow his every decree.
If I thought he was still doing things for the right reasons, I'd venerate him myself. I believe that there was a time when he genuinely did care about the wellbeing of people other than himself...but that that time has long since passed.
For the sake of FOSS in general, he now must, as the article says, be routed around.
It seems like there's a kind of competition going on between our two countries to strip their citizens of basic rights. For a long time I'd read Slashdot stories about England and think to myself how weird it was, then of course I compared notes.
Blair in England and to some extent Howard in Australia are both following Bush's lead. Bush is turning America into a dictatorship, so it's basically a case of monkey see, monkey do where the other two are concerned. Not entirely, of course...Howard and Grima (Blair) to some extent are both fascists after Bush's own heart, but what they tend to do in a lot of cases is watch Bush try and nudge the US a few more inches down the slippery slope first, and see if he gets away with it with his own population. If he does (which he pretty much always does, these days) they then feel more confident about being able to get away with it in their respective countries as well.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...America is domestically anyway headed for a complete repitition of Nazi Germany, and with the passing of the recent Military Commissions Act, it might be getting sufficiently close that not all of you are still going to insist on calling me a fringe, conspiracist nut case for saying it this time.
The US (specifically PNAC) is also the source of the problem. Yes, like I said, Blair and Howard certainly wouldn't mind becoming dictators, but at their core they are also primarily quislings and cowards who have taken their cue from Bush. I also happen to believe that more or less the entire recent terrorist phenomenon has been invented by the Bush administration and co-operating governments, including 9/11. 9/11 itself *was* Bush/PNAC's Reichstag fire...it has been his justification for everything that has happened since, and he has hardly stopped mentioning it, citing it, and invoking the memory of it to justify his actions.
Where the US really is going to be a testbed is that it will be the first country of these three to reach a state of truly undisguised dictatorship. When that happens, Bush and Blair will both watch to see whether or not the American public will tolerate it. If they do, political escalation in those two countries will continue, until a state of dictatorship in them is also reached. It's basically the domino theory all over again...Except this time, it's actually happening.
To those of you who think I'm a schizophrenic nutcase for thinking this, I also say what I've said before...Stay tuned. You'll see it come out in the open soon enough.
>Better get that bulk order for Guy Fawkes masks in before the rush. Amazon have them for >$5.99.
There's one difference between V for Vendetta and real life. I strongly suspect that Prime Minister Wormtongue would have no qualms whatsoever about ordering the lot of you to be shot where you stood if you showed up in front of the Houses of Parliament, irrespective of the size of the group that did so.
In the film, the public took a gamble, and the tyrant folded. In real life, (depending on the size of the crowd anywayz) Blair could shoot all of you and then quite easily claim that he had "secret evidence," (which nobody would ever know more than that about, natch) that the dreaded Al Qaeda had orchestrated the whole thing. He'd say afterwards that it was truly tragic that he had to order the deaths of all those people, and that it would haunt him for the rest of his life, but he *had* to protect the English people from the terrorists.
My own interpretation of "Web 2.0," (although I usually hate such buzzphrases) is that it describes a type of website which utilises what I could describe as "swarming collaboration." This is something very strikingly demonstrated by digg's Swarm visualisation.
To me this is the single main characteristic of sites described by that term, though...Sites that have completely peer to peer or submitted contact which is either exchanged or cross-pollinated between users at extremely high speeds. It's extremely group-oriented in nature...these sites are multi-user by definition; they can't exist with only one person using them at once, because they rely on users to provide the actual content.
Are they a good thing? For communication and collaborative problem solving, certainly...but there have been a number of times when browsing digg in particular, when I've developed a headache and have begun to feel severely overwhelmed...there is just *so much* data constantly flying around.
People have talked about digg being preferable to Slashdot, but I believe they both have their place. I can't cognitively tolerate digg for more than short periods; like I said, it's simply too much. Slashdot on the other hand allows me to pace the rate at which data comes to me; Articles are long enough that they can be read one at a time without there being more on the screen...and despite the idiotic "humour" which is present here at times, there is still a lot more substance and insight in the topics here than I've seen on digg so far.
>Any other raid instance takes 2 hours minimum, not including
>finding people to play the game.
Granted, but that's why I anyway only do instancing on the weekend now, and also usually only do relatively low-level instances (the Wailing Caverns is great for slumming) where I know there's going to be a PUG (pickup group) wanting to go in pretty much straight away.
Blizz might have crowed from the rooftops about how the quest system is great for accomodating casual play, but what they didn't mention was that that only applies until around level 30. After that point, you've typically got to do that much looking around in order to find quests that I basically stopped bothering...especially considering that kill quests were the only ones that were ever worth the time, even at lower levels. It's a lot quicker and easier these days to find mobs that are 3+ levels above me, and grind.
Is the game a lot slower since I started playing exclusively solo? Sure...but it's also less stressful, and I don't have people constantly making demands...nor do I have to put up with some megalomaniacal second constantly in my ear about how people are saying that the GM is never online, and hoping he can use that as justification to take over the guild...or telling me about how the "leet, *successful*" guilds have instance raids running approximately every five minutes...while neglecting to mention that that is only because said people are completely devoid of anything remotely resembling lives.
There are an enormous amount of juvenile idiots also on Jubei'Thos. I'm told that this is something that is somewhat universal, and not purely limited to Jubei...but on the few occasions I have played on other servers, I've generally had a much more positive experience. If I didn't have so many characters on Jubei now (around half a dozen) I'd probably move to one of the non-Oceanics.
My earlier point still stands, though...if you're going to bother playing WoW at all, either play it solo or make sure the people you're with know that you're not a slave to the game, and that you couldn't give a shit about not having tier-3 gear and an epic mount if getting such means you can't do anything else. If the people you're playing with don't understand that, then they're idiots anywayz and are likely to only be a bad influence...they're also not real friends.
Go and have a look here if you haven't already. There's some great stuff.
XFS is an awesome filesystem, and has been ranked the overall best in at least two fs benchmarks:- here, and here. Given what I've read here, I'm possibly considering making it my own default fs...at least for some things.
There's also some OpenGL related projects, as well as some kernel work. What this could also mean for them is that even if they do have to sell SUSE clusters, they can still have some individuality in the offering. Sure, anyone can burn xfsprogs to a CD...but SGI can still market themselves as the people who invented the fs, and thus the people who are most intimate with the code, and thus who can possibly most quickly/easily extend it, or fix it if something breaks.
There are reasons why my life is so net-centric, though:-
I realise that in light of that, simply advocating moving online in a wholesale sense might sound like the proverbial ostrich maneuvre...but if I knew of something I actually *could* do to change the political situation, I'd possibly do it...there just doesn't seem to be anything that can be done. I actually feel as though the only thing I really can do about the offline situation is to keep my head down as much as possible...and the net means I can at least construct some semblance of a life for myself while I'm doing that.
I know it's been said before, but Gabriel and other artists who opt to do this are smarter than it might initially look.
;-)
As in the terminology of the open source software market, in this context Gabriel's music constitutes what they call a "loss leader."
He puts his entire discography online, free for the taking. He doesn't make a cracker from that, and presumably he wouldn't plan to. He also lets people do the mashy thing as Bowie did. This generates enormous positive PR for him that he supposedly "gets the open source revolution." Then after a while, he either decides he's got bored sitting at home, or he wants to make some additional revenue...so he decides he wants to do a comeback series of concerts. He'd use his site with the free music as a point of sale for the concert tickets. Let's also say hypothetically that in the meanwhile, a particular one of the mashies of his music has become unusually popular. So he arranges for the author of this particular mashy to play at the concerts with him as a supporting act...Mashy Kid either does his thing solo, or better yet, he and Gabriel do a duet of sorts. Gabriel could also do something like a "very limited" run of autographed photos or CDs to sell at the concerts...which given the infinitely replicable nature of the music files, would hold particular appeal as unique objects.
Mashy Kid gets professionally discovered, so he's very happy...Gabriel's positive public image would be through the roof by this point...and he could also more or less surf home after the concerts on the tidal wave of cash that would have been forthcoming. (Assuming he still has a large fanbase of course, which I'm assuming he does...not to mention the additional demand that would have been raised by the chance of seeing Mashy Kid play)
This of course is only one of an infinite number of possible scenarios by which he could make a fortune with this.
So...yep, it's a crazy move, all right. Crazy like a fox.
I've posted a reply to this in my journal, if any are interested. Link is in the sig. ;)
It'd be very simple. All you'd need to do would be to go to EA's head office, wherever that is, and shoot everyone in the building. ;-) Then lather, rinse, repeat for every other large "publishing" company (Vivendi, Activision, etc) in existence.
;-)
These companies are the game industry's sole problem, IMHO...and for as long as they exist, things are going to stay broken. Think about it...every single megahit game that's ever been released (with the possible exception of The Sims) has been released entirely without these middlemen being involved. They don't contribute anything of worth themselves, and they try and get in the way of people who actually *are* creative.
When things have worked, they've worked via a small company consisting purely of artists, who've developed and released a game primarily for creative reasons. Said artists have not had to worry about money at all...because when you create a game for the right reasons, it'd actually be more difficult to *avoid* being swamped by the massive tsunami of currency that will be forthcoming thereafter.
...of the top useless inventions, the eBook needs to be on it...up there with such wonderful ideas as the computer controlled toilet and the Internet-enabled fridge.
;-)
Personally, I'm still waiting for the robotic vacuum cleaner that use internal pathfinding to flawlessly circumnavigate a house, unattended. For a totally pointless invention which I still think would be rather cool, I'd also like to see an IRC client written entirely in shellscript using only netcat, grep, and sed.
Come to think of it, on the same topic I've actually wished for a while that I had the money to travel to the US temporarily...because I really wanted to track down that guy who was shown in Trekkies who'd built himself a working version of a ride-on that was used by one of the characters in TOS...if I could give it the ability to carry shopping, I'd really want one of those things myself. Of course, I'd only use it after dark, and then only while wearing a balaclava...if I was positively identified while riding it, I would feel forced to commit suicide due to embarassment and/or shame.
...is that if people want to add clickwraps, they're going to whether the GPL allows it or not.
I don't like clickwraps myself, but that's irrelevant. The point is that commercially minded types (and especially commercially minded types who've had development experience on Windows) often *are* inclined to use them. I also (unlike certain hard leftists we know about who will remain nameless, at least for the moment) do not fundamentally object to people making money from software. For those of you who are going to point me to this, it'd be great if it was still true...but from what I've read recently, Stallman's position on commercial software in any form seems to have changed to one of opposition.
If the GPL was really a license all developers wanted, we wouldn't be seeing (at least conscious) violations. This is yet another logical inconsistency inherent in referring to this license as free. (unless of course you subscribe to the Stallmanite definition of that word, which I do not)
A license which genuinely allowed people to do what they wanted would not have or need a website like gpl-violations.org associated with it. (Note to the usual Stallmanite zombies reading this; I am not interested in hearing a regurgitation of Stallman's "total freedom devolves into feudalism," line...primarily because said line is utter bullshit. This can be proven by the number of projects which have managed to survive and function well with non-copyleft licenses...or did until some of them caved to pressure from Stallman to "harmonise" their own licenses with the GPL)
The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire. It might be something which a certain number of people are willing to tolerate, and which a Marxist minority actively want, but it isn't something that the majority want. Of course, believe otherwise if you want...but you might notice contrary evidence continues piling up.
Ask yourself...and think long and hard about this. Do the FSF currently endorse that which you really want? It could be just me, but there honestly seems to have been a change in their behaviour in the last 2-3 years. The tone of the gnu.org site to me has become a lot more strident.
Not only is Linux becoming more popular anyway, but with the Vista release looming, and Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage and other DRM having been reported as being parts of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Stallman (at least secretly) could feel as though he potentially has almost the entire computer using population of the planet over a barrel right now. It would certainly explain a few things...the extra stuff in the GPL v3, and the change of the FSF's tone to one that is becoming far more aggressive and confrontational. The mask is coming off, because they're feeling large and in charge...and as though they've got nothing to lose.
Once again, I know I'm going to get the usual response from Stallman's supporters on here that I have no idea what I'm talking about...and for once I will concede, they could be right.
Most of the time, Stallman appears to be the kindly, altruistic, slightly eccentric genius that his followers think he is, and which they want the rest of us to see him as. Every so often though...and I've noticed it happens more regularly lately...the mask cracks ever so slightly.
What I (and some others, I know) see through those cracks truly is not pretty.
He meant *monetarily* free.
I'm curious...have you really *thought* about the opinions you hold that much, or just accepted them because that's what a lot of other people think? Reason why I ask is because they're verbatim identical to those of pretty much every other pro-FSF person I've seen on here.
That degree of uniformity really doesn't seem like genuine freedom of thought to me...and it sure as hell doesn't feel like anarchism, either. It feels like a cult.
I can just see the Iceweasel slogan:-
;-)
"Firefox was igniting the Web. We're humping its' leg."
...I still want to even know about the existence of Linux/OSS. I guess it's because I'm able to remember that in most cases, the software itself from a purely technical standpoint is awesome. It's only (admittedly some, not all of) the people involved with it that provide compelling arguments in favour of such things as abortion and involuntary euthanasia.
The good news is that there's only two directions to go in from here where Linux is concerned, from what I can see anywayz. Either Linux *does* go fully mainstream, which ends up forcing the expulsion of the FSF and the rest of the usual basement-dwelling freak show, including Debian and their various other sock puppets, or Linux is dragged back underground by the weight of the aforementioned groups' persistent maladaptive behaviour. Which one is it going to be? There's been progress made towards the first option, but with things like this, we also keep seeing progress being made towards the second.
Newsflash, fuckheads. Every time you take what you think is some kind of "stand," you're the only ones who care. Those of us who don't know anything else about Linux end up deciding that they don't want to have anything to do with it, (and who could blame them?) and the rest of us just continue fervently wishing and hoping that someday, you'll simply cease to exist.
99.9% of people don't care two shits about Debian's "social contract," or the FSF's repainted Stalinism. There are a couple of things you *are* accomplishing, though:-
1) You're working to prevent/hinder a scenario where the widespread use/adoption of software with genuine *technical* integrity becomes a reality.
2) You're gradually killing every other OSS license in existence, besides the GPL. Yes, I know most of the FSF cultists will actually be happy about that...but there are those of us who are not.
3) You're helping Microsoft survive, and working to deny a place software-wise for those computer laypeople/novices who genuinely want to leave Windows. These people want software that works...they don't want to be associated with a group of overzealous, juvenile freaks.
4) You're possibly helping to make the very scenario with DRM and other such things that you fear more likely...because if the mainstream population view you as threatening, they're going to be a lot less resistant to the idea of Microsoft/other vendors implementing DRM to lock Linux out than they otherwise would be.
So, congrats...by all means, continue on this insane, juvenile path. Just don't be surprised when people see you for who and what you are, and FOSS in general suffers as a result.
...the faster it actually causes itself to sink into the tarpit. Although it's seven years old and somewhat numerically inaccurate, this article is becoming increasingly more relevant as time goes on.
To use plain speech rather than metaphor...Microsoft are engaging in the WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) and DRM related activities in order to stave off its' inevitable demise. The irony is that the more it uses fascist tactics in order to try and keep itself alive, these will actually accelerate the company's downfall. Already I have read reports of a mass migration to Linux because of Microsoft's jackbooted behaviour associated with the Windows Genuine Advantage program.
The Microsoft ship struck ice in September 1997. As with a much earlier case, the impact was sufficiently quiet and low-key that I'm not sure too many other people felt it at the time...but I remember it. I believed that because of the corporation's massive cash reserves and size, its' demise would take a long time...but as I believed then, so I still say now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015. The company are coming up to a point that is analagous to when Nearer My God To Thee was being played during the Titanic film. They themselves just possibly aren't aware of it yet.
"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB
First RFC April 1969 for the ARPANET. The Open Source Initiative originated in Feb 1998.
1969 is not "new." The OSI is also all about business. ESR and crew have cared more about corporate evangelism than anything else. (And yes, that is easy to verify)
"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB
Propoganda, sure.
"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe
Right...sure. Just like Stallman having warned people off the BSD license, telling people not to use the CC licenses, insisting that every other FOSS license on the planet be "harmonised" with the GPL, etc. The FSF complaining about *anyone* else using exclusionary licensing is about the degree of consistency I've come to expect from them...which is also why I no longer listen to a word they say. I wish I understood why I seem to be the only one who's seeing that Stallman wants his own monoculture just as badly as Gates/Ballmer want theirs...and neither are a good thing.
The rest is the usual propoganda and doublespeak BS, admittedly...but I actually did agree with him to a degree about the YouTube acquisition. Google have sunk a lot of money into buying an operation that is essentially a net-based hybrid of Funniest Home Videos and MTV, whose first profit was also actually the money Google paid for it...it's going to be interesting to see if they can create something profitable out of it.
From Merriam-Webster:-
/-"trer-&-lE, -'trer-/ adverb /-"trer-E-n&s, -'trer-/ noun
Main Entry: contrary
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trer-E, -"tre-rE, 4 often k&n-'trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : being so different as to be at opposite extremes : OPPOSITE (come to the contrary conclusion) (went off in contrary directions); also : being opposite to or in conflict with each other (contrary viewpoints)
2 : being not in conformity with what is usual or expected (actions contrary to company policy) (contrary evidence)
3 : UNFAVORABLE -- used of wind or weather
4 : temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice
- contrarily
- contrariness
Without simply being derogatory, I've realised that when I think of Debian, the above word is what has customarily come to mind. It's nothing I can concretely put my finger on, but I've always felt that there was an aura of perversity about the project...a sense that the Debian developers change things from the upstream norm purely because they can, and not because they've necessarily put thought into whether or not it'd actually be a good idea. Not only that, I can also remember going into the Debian IRC channel on Freenode once. It reminded me very strongly of the account of the Mad Hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. They honestly came across as some of the weirdest and most unhinged individuals I've encountered. I've been using IRC for 12 years, and have known some very bizarre types online...so that is saying a lot.
I'm not claiming that that is definitely what is happening here...I don't know, and the referenced article is sufficiently vague that I feel as though I still haven't got a better idea after having read it. What I am definitely saying however is that from what I've seen, these kinds of issues coming up is entirely consistent with Debian culturally. It's also one of the reasons why I've stayed far away from the distribution; that, their degree of formality with "policy", (are they a FOSS project, or a sovereign government?!) and their degree of open sympathy with Stallman/the FSF. I think I also resent the fact that I've read about them being referred to as the only "successful" non-commercial distribution, when due in part to the reasons listed above, there are others that I feel are at least as worthy of that designation as Debian is, if not moreso. Debian might be bigger, sure...but size alone does not necessarily equal success in my own mind.
That's not to say that there haven't been good things to come from the project, at least in a secondary sense. (Knoppix and Ubuntu come to mind, which are both Debian spinoffs) The point is that it's a long way from perfect...and things like this debacle are evidence to support that assertion.
The freedom you're talking about is total freedom - which leads to fuedalism, which is not very free at all in practice.
This is total garbage, and can very easily be shown to be total garbage merely by pointing to those projects which *do* use MIT/BSD licenses and which work fine organisationally. Yes, forks happen, but forks happen with GPLed code too.
I've said this to a lot of the pro-FSF lemmings that I've seen on this site, and I'm going to say it to you too...Try using your own brain for a change, rather than constantly leaning on Stallman's. You might even find that you enjoy the experience.
>The GPLv3 will be happening, and I, and probably tens of thousands of others, will
;-)
>be using it. Get used to it!
Yes...because as we all know, more than anything else the definition of freedom is having other people decide what happens without being able to do a thing about it ourselves.
Another wonderful example of one of RMS's fans demonstrating to us just how glorious Stallman's vision of freedom truly could be. Still think it looks appealing?
The bottom line is that the FSF honestly never should have been involved with Linux to begin with, IMHO. Stallman never would have become more than a historical footnote if it hadn't...He has been riding Linus's coat tails, and (which is even more galling) trying to claim that it is actually the other way around.
A lot of people have criticised Linus for the amount he has said about this...in my own mind, he hasn't gone nearly far enough. IMHO he needs to publically confront Stallman, and then move the kernel to an entirely new license that he himself is the author of.
The FSF and Stallman's radicalism are one of the main things that still alienate people from Linux. There very badly needs to be a parting of ways. Let the FSF and whoever else wants it continue developing the Hurd...The degree of rapidity with which Stallman would re-submerge back into total irrelevance after such an event would in itself be a powerful testament to his true level of significance.
To any of Stallman's supporters reading this who feel an urge to attempt to reprimand me as you have done in the past, let me simply say that I believe (and will continue to believe, your protests notwithstanding) that the only genuine reason why you are ideologically supportive of him is because you find it easier and more convenient to simply co-opt someone else's philosophy rather than using your own brains. Those of us who *aren't* afraid of engaging in genuine mental effort continue to see Stallman as we have always seen him...A fraud, and an individual far less enlightened than he has been able to lead more impressionable souls to believe.
Because of all of this, Linux does not need Stallman.
It does not need his false claims of credit for things that do not belong to him.
It does not need the division and conflict that he causes. (Which alienates newcomers primarily because the very issues Stallman creates conflict about are things about which they themselves do not care about at all)
It does not need the stigma of being associated with an uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist.
I have tried here over a period of years to continue to write what I believe to be the truth about this man, despite the best efforts of his followers to reprimand me, to shame me, and to do the same to others like me who have dared to express their opinions. You can lecture me, you can tell me how ignorant and foolish you think I am, but I know that I will continue to be vindicated. At nearly every speech and interview he gives, Stallman continues to dig his own grave...he continues to say things which portray him ever more as a radical, and ever more as someone who is genuinely deserving of the marginalisation that must inevitably come to him.
It is time for Richard Stallman to go.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological "protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use of the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users.
By stipulating this, Stallman is implicitly calling for civil disobedience, at least where US law is concerned. Whether you consider that *morally* appropriate in itself is another issue...but what he is effectively saying is that the legal requirements of the GPL v3 are in direct conflict with American law. I am assuming there that the law is one prohibiting reverse engineering of software.
Again, I'm not arguing this from a *moral* standpoint...but if he attempts to lock horns with the legal system of *any* country, he should expect it to discourage people from using the license.
This type of thing is the reason why I strongly believe that Stallman's mind has begun to deteriorate over the last few years...if nothing else, he has seriously lost focus.
He should step down at this point, I believe...because as time goes on, this sort of behaviour serves more and more to overshadow the genuinely positive work that he did when he was younger.
Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion
Raise the quality of discussion? I'm curious...is your definition of a quality discussion in this context one which is supportive of RMS' position by default?