Since Burton and O'Reilly are apparently unable to criticize the four freedoms in a universal context, i.e., all possible users, they, for example, pick a special, tiny, subset, i.e., developers, as the recipients of their Freedom Zero. Recall that the FSF Freedom Zero applies to all users. So right away we see that their concern is indeed freedom for the few not the many. To accept their freedom as being morally equivalent to the FSF one requires us to assume the good of the few is equivalent to the good of the few. That clashes with the idea of freedom in a democracy---think about it.
Now, it has never been argued that developers should not be free to choose their licenses, but lacking any viable argument Burton goes ahead anyway and accuses Stallman of wanting that, a tiresome, knee-jerk reaction. Read it again for yourself---it's pathetic.
They are more sloppy than anything else. Need another example? How about at the end when Burton tries to imply that "right" and "wrong" must indicate religion. Either he has never heard of "ethics" or would rather avoid it! His cheerleading does O'Reilly no favors in my eyes.
I could one day see your POV, but cannot find it from the line of argument coming from Burton or O'Reilly. In any case, better arguments are likely to be found in longer works. Could you suggest higher quality arguments, such as at the level of these essays? I have some problems with a few of these essays and am always ready to ponder good arguments of any kind.
Thanks for the link---I will read it right now. However, you should not refer to me as an advocate of Richard Stallman. Let's just stick to the arguments and skip associations that can be abused.
In addition to the many short-term benefits you can demonstrate to the users, explain to them the benefits of freedom such as how free software can help protect their privacy, how exercising freedom is important in preserving it, how freedom has inspired cooperation and, in turn, such a great amount of progress in the quantity and quality of free software in such a short time and with few resources compared to the billions from the likes of Microsoft, etc.
Explain to them that there may be inconveniences from time to time just as you find with proprietary software, but that in the case of free software, inconvenience is a price of freedom, just as other freedoms have prices. We all need to be reminded of such prices so as not to take freedom for granted. If they understand these things, they will face unfamiliar situations with more patience and determination, and, in turn, become more self-sufficient.
Remember that helping them in this way is not a one-way street. You will improve your own skills and reputation, and their greater understanding will invigorate free software in the long run.
Since MSFT cannot show the first thing anyone would want to know about Vista, i.e., whether productivity improvements (if any) justify its adoption, they focus on the nebulous and easily fudged economic impact. By this criterion, we can say anything, e.g., with its hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact, the war in Iraq is a huge success.
This group of kernel developers is clearly advocating the "Open Source" (as opposed to "Free Software") position. Recall that Open Source seeks power and reliability of software by access to source code, whereas Free Software seeks to defend freedoms involving the use, modification, and redistribution of software. Note that in this opinion piece they do not mention "free software" or freedom, apart from just spelling out FSF. This is not only due to the amoral stance of Open Source advocates, but also because freedom is incompatible with the imposition of DRM by HW manufacturers. Naturally, these firms can choose whatever software they want, regardless of this debate. Why cry over the Tivo's of the world?
Throughout the GPLv3 debate Torvalds has played up an "optimistic" viewpoint, as opposed to the "pessimistic" FSF one. Another optimistic bet is the OSDL attempt against software patents. I am trying really hard to see the basis of such optimism, but how can the impressions of the governments and corporations of today do anything but kill it? In particular, think of how much harm the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have brought upon society through abominations such as the DMCA, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, etc. You can bet that our rights are obstacles from their POV, and that naturally they oppose the GPLv3, which seeks to preserve some of our "inconvenient" rights. Indeed, the GPLv3 is but one step in a very real fight for our rights, a fight which must involve analyzing the worst-case behavior out there.
To vastly understate it, what good is the easiest and most secure system, if you have to give up even a little freedom to use it? Surely you will want to set a good example for others; should that example not include an ethical component?
There are still many/.ers not opposed to DRM and yet who are unfairly flamed when in fact they need further education. In particular, learn more about ethics. Reflect on the long struggles to gain your freedoms and rights and how easily they are being snatched away from you (think of a boiling frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).
The astroturfing on blogs like/. is worse than ever. So many corporate shills appear that an "Astroturf" moderation category for/. is long overdue.
E, pt. 2 (the rest of your life): After a while on the gravy train, you look in the mirror, remember something called a conscience that you lost when trying to pass "Reality Master 101" by killing someone, and end your life with the remaining bullet. THE END.
Do you think RMS even cares enough about the question to even want to "dodge it"?
How does near indifference equate to opposition? If anything he has repeatedly addressed economic acceptance of FS. If you bothered doing the most basic of web searches on the matter, you would have found one of many instances where he discusses how to earn a living with free software, e.g., http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html.
Claim 1: Many people don't have to make money. Correct. Claim 2: Even if you have to make a living, not everything you do has to make money. Not true for everyone, but certainly for the average working human being.
He nowhere states that devs should not profit from programming. However, I agree that he feels that devs should freely contribute.
Anyway, your poorly supported conclusions show that you need to improve your logical reasoning.
Could it be that they did stuff that some people consider important, gained some respect, and now have influence?
In particular, RMS does not just believe in, but advocates, the philosophy of Free Software, which threatens powerful and influential interests. I believe that if you learned a little more about this philosophy, you would not think about Gods, the Church of Emacs notwithstanding *grin*.
You imply that RMS did not have to work very, very, very hard to achieve what he has. Clearly, graduating from Harvard in physics, working at the MIT AI Lab, and writing gcc, Emacs, etc., and devising the GPL, in the course of starting the GNU project is just a fraction of the kind of hard work you have done, huh?
RMS has good and bad qualities like anyone else, but you should get your head out of the sand and learn something about the subject to avoid coming off as an ignoramus again.
How can anyone expect the public to understand the evil of DRM, when people who supposedly have a clue misuse such basic words as "piracy"? Let's ask Webster's for a correction:
b3po@freed:~$ dict piracy 3 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Piracy \Pi"ra*cy\, n.; pl. {Piracies}. [Cf. LL. piratia, Gr. ?.
See {Pirate}.]
1. The act or crime of a pirate.
[1913 Webster]
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
property from others on the open sea by open violence;
without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
crime answering to robbery on land.
[1913 Webster]
[1913 Webster]
Note: By statute law several other offenses committed on the
seas (as trading with known pirates, or engaging in the
slave trade) have been made piracy.
[1913 Webster]
3. "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation
of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct
and preferable term." --Abbott.
[1913 Webster]
So those comments above really meant the word "infringers". If anyone still thinks copyright infringement involves the high seas or open violence, then they deserve their BSA, MPAA, and RIAA overlords.
A good filter could counteract politically-correct speak such as "piracy", and if slashdot does not do it, it would be a public service for a perl coder to whip up a filter to help rescue English from the juggernauts.
Let's not be down on Linus. He knew of the opposition to DRM and announced on the lkml (in 2003?) that Linux is OK with DRM, in order to warn those who cannot accept DRM.
Maybe the problem lies with depending too much on this kernel and for not only the sake of preserving freedom, but also the willingness to experiment with technical designs. Although the Hurd has not yet been realized, consider that
There are indeed Linux developers who oppose DRM.
The hurd-L4 mailing list has seen vigorous debate, including, FWIW, some OS researchers (e.g., professors).
In general there is no lack of researchers with alternative designs, including those who are willing to not rely so much on C.
Alternative kernels are more relevant than you might think. For example, we all know how Xen is catching on. It has roots in an exokernel, a type of kernel should get more attention. Another notable example is the Singularity project from Microsoft Research.
There is way too much apathy out there on DRM. Consider how abusive our own government has been. Regardless of Republican or Democrat, is it really such a stretch to imagine abuses via DRM? Another way to frame the debate is to learn a little more about "open source" versus "free software". Consider reading the bios on Linus or on RMS (e.g., _Free as in Freedom_). A way to explain RMS vs. Linus is pessimism vs. optimism. Consider how the world is going right now and which view is more responsible.
In other news, at a company conference in Boston, a Microsoft executive
referred to the low-cost, user-programmable robot business as 'our
house', and warned Linux to stay out. He went on to say "Those people
are not going to be allowed to take food off our plate, because that
is what they are intending to do... Humanoid bots is our business,
it's our house and Linux is not going to take that business."
I cannot disagree with you. OTOH, consider the connotation of computers being "just tools". A great many people go right along with this and think of the computer a combo faxphone/typewriter/calculator. Period.
I repeat that they are far more than that; they are more of a "meta-tool" or tool for building tools, and thank goodness at least some people have the imagination to go beyond the "appliance" view.
Computers should be used as tools nothing more, nothing less
Fortunately, most free software developers do not believe in that narrow-minded cliche: computers are certainly more than just tools -- they can change the world for the better in ways that supercede the notion of just "tools". Otherwise, we would have little to be happy about in the software world.
Of course it is good that a company in bed with Microsoft is beginning to offer free software solutions. But has Dell made any investments in free software the way Redhat, VA Linux, SuSE, IBM, or SGI have? I would like to be shown that I am wrong in thinking Dell has done nothing and is simply an opportunist. VA Linux and Penguin would be more responsible choices with whom to do business.
Microsoft, a corporation, has rights? I don't believe it. I also do not totally agree with the case, but on the whole I think DOJ is right, and that the case is important for a number of reasons, including hanging out some dirty laundry that needs to be seen by the public.
They are so blatantly guilty to just about anyone without a vested interest.
Maybe some of us are still unconvinced of their bad nature. I remember my turning point: several years ago Microsoft tried to buy out Quicken because Microsoft Money was not good enough. When asked by a reporter how badly this would damage competition, Bill Gates claimed, that on the contrary, it would improve competition. Up until that time I was a Microsoft customer, but I was shocked that such a powerful authority as Gates would tell such an arrogant lie and expect people to believe it. It was a frightening moment, because you know that most everyone would believe this, since they are computer illiterate.
From that point on, I vowed to boycott and oppose them. Certainly everything about them since that time has only confirmed my decision.
I hope that the DOJ extracts the maximum penalty from them.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read the link and am underwhelmed.
Since Burton and O'Reilly are apparently unable to criticize the four freedoms in a universal context, i.e., all possible users, they, for example, pick a special, tiny, subset, i.e., developers, as the recipients of their Freedom Zero. Recall that the FSF Freedom Zero applies to all users. So right away we see that their concern is indeed freedom for the few not the many. To accept their freedom as being morally equivalent to the FSF one requires us to assume the good of the few is equivalent to the good of the few. That clashes with the idea of freedom in a democracy---think about it.
Now, it has never been argued that developers should not be free to choose their licenses, but lacking any viable argument Burton goes ahead anyway and accuses Stallman of wanting that, a tiresome, knee-jerk reaction. Read it again for yourself---it's pathetic.
They are more sloppy than anything else. Need another example? How about at the end when Burton tries to imply that "right" and "wrong" must indicate religion. Either he has never heard of "ethics" or would rather avoid it! His cheerleading does O'Reilly no favors in my eyes.
I could one day see your POV, but cannot find it from the line of argument coming from Burton or O'Reilly. In any case, better arguments are likely to be found in longer works. Could you suggest higher quality arguments, such as at the level of these essays? I have some problems with a few of these essays and am always ready to ponder good arguments of any kind.
Thanks for the link---I will read it right now. However, you should not refer to me as an advocate of Richard Stallman. Let's just stick to the arguments and skip associations that can be abused.
In addition to the many short-term benefits you can demonstrate to the users, explain to them the benefits of freedom such as how free software can help protect their privacy, how exercising freedom is important in preserving it, how freedom has inspired cooperation and, in turn, such a great amount of progress in the quantity and quality of free software in such a short time and with few resources compared to the billions from the likes of Microsoft, etc.
Explain to them that there may be inconveniences from time to time just as you find with proprietary software, but that in the case of free software, inconvenience is a price of freedom, just as other freedoms have prices. We all need to be reminded of such prices so as not to take freedom for granted. If they understand these things, they will face unfamiliar situations with more patience and determination, and, in turn, become more self-sufficient.
Remember that helping them in this way is not a one-way street. You will improve your own skills and reputation, and their greater understanding will invigorate free software in the long run.
Since MSFT cannot show the first thing anyone would want to know about Vista, i.e., whether productivity improvements (if any) justify its adoption, they focus on the nebulous and easily fudged economic impact. By this criterion, we can say anything, e.g., with its hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact, the war in Iraq is a huge success.
This group of kernel developers is clearly advocating the "Open Source" (as opposed to "Free Software") position. Recall that Open Source seeks power and reliability of software by access to source code, whereas Free Software seeks to defend freedoms involving the use, modification, and redistribution of software. Note that in this opinion piece they do not mention "free software" or freedom, apart from just spelling out FSF. This is not only due to the amoral stance of Open Source advocates, but also because freedom is incompatible with the imposition of DRM by HW manufacturers. Naturally, these firms can choose whatever software they want, regardless of this debate. Why cry over the Tivo's of the world?
Throughout the GPLv3 debate Torvalds has played up an "optimistic" viewpoint, as opposed to the "pessimistic" FSF one. Another optimistic bet is the OSDL attempt against software patents. I am trying really hard to see the basis of such optimism, but how can the impressions of the governments and corporations of today do anything but kill it? In particular, think of how much harm the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have brought upon society through abominations such as the DMCA, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, etc. You can bet that our rights are obstacles from their POV, and that naturally they oppose the GPLv3, which seeks to preserve some of our "inconvenient" rights. Indeed, the GPLv3 is but one step in a very real fight for our rights, a fight which must involve analyzing the worst-case behavior out there.
To vastly understate it, what good is the easiest and most secure system, if you have to give up even a little freedom to use it? Surely you will want to set a good example for others; should that example not include an ethical component?
Can anyone explain how Vista will flop given such low computer literacy? To those not yet opposed to DRM consider the following quote:
Help oppose DRM by signing up at http://defectivebydesign.org/.
There are still many /.ers not opposed to DRM and yet who are unfairly flamed when in fact they need further education. In particular, learn more about ethics. Reflect on the long struggles to gain your freedoms and rights and how easily they are being snatched away from you (think of a boiling frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).
The astroturfing on blogs like /. is worse than ever. So many corporate shills appear that an "Astroturf" moderation category for /. is long overdue.
Excerpt from running "dict vista":
In the groves of their academy, at the end of every
vista, you see nothing but the gallows. --Burke.
[1913 Webster]
The shattered tower which now forms a vista from his
window. --Sir W. Scott.
[1913 Webster]
Rather fitting images for something screwing its users with WGA, DRM, etc.
E, pt. 2 (the rest of your life): After a while on the gravy train, you look in the mirror, remember something called a conscience that you lost when trying to pass "Reality Master 101" by killing someone, and end your life with the remaining bullet. THE END.
Do you think RMS even cares enough about the question to even want to "dodge it"?
How does near indifference equate to opposition? If anything he has repeatedly addressed economic acceptance of FS. If you bothered doing the most basic of web searches on the matter, you would have found one of many instances where he discusses how to earn a living with free software, e.g., http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html.
The comment does not distinguish commercial versus proprietary software business and so is completely pointless, i.e., mod to zero!
Consider those claims again:
Claim 1: Many people don't have to make money. Correct.
Claim 2: Even if you have to make a living, not everything you do has to make money. Not true for everyone, but certainly for the average working human being.
He nowhere states that devs should not profit from programming. However, I agree that he feels that devs should freely contribute.
Anyway, your poorly supported conclusions show that you need to improve your logical reasoning.
Could it be that they did stuff that some people consider important, gained some respect, and now have influence?
In particular, RMS does not just believe in, but advocates, the philosophy of Free Software, which threatens powerful and influential interests. I believe that if you learned a little more about this philosophy, you would not think about Gods, the Church of Emacs notwithstanding *grin*.
You imply that RMS did not have to work very, very, very hard to achieve what he has. Clearly, graduating from Harvard in physics, working at the MIT AI Lab, and writing gcc, Emacs, etc., and devising the GPL, in the course of starting the GNU project is just a fraction of the kind of hard work you have done, huh?
RMS has good and bad qualities like anyone else, but you should get your head out of the sand and learn something about the subject to avoid coming off as an ignoramus again.
How can anyone expect the public to understand the evil of DRM, when people who supposedly have a clue misuse such basic words as "piracy"? Let's ask Webster's for a correction:
b3po@freed:~$ dict piracy
3 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Piracy \Pi"ra*cy\, n.; pl. {Piracies}. [Cf. LL. piratia, Gr. ?.
See {Pirate}.]
1. The act or crime of a pirate.
[1913 Webster]
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
property from others on the open sea by open violence;
without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
crime answering to robbery on land.
[1913 Webster]
[1913 Webster]
Note: By statute law several other offenses committed on the
seas (as trading with known pirates, or engaging in the
slave trade) have been made piracy.
[1913 Webster]
3. "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation
of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct
and preferable term." --Abbott.
[1913 Webster]
So those comments above really meant the word "infringers". If anyone still thinks copyright infringement involves the high seas or open violence, then they deserve their BSA, MPAA, and RIAA overlords.
A good filter could counteract politically-correct speak such as "piracy", and if slashdot does not do it, it would be a public service for a perl coder to whip up a filter to help rescue English from the juggernauts.
Let's not be down on Linus. He knew of the opposition to DRM and announced on the lkml (in 2003?) that Linux is OK with DRM, in order to warn those who cannot accept DRM.
Maybe the problem lies with depending too much on this kernel and for not only the sake of preserving freedom, but also the willingness to experiment with technical designs. Although the Hurd has not yet been realized, consider that
There is way too much apathy out there on DRM. Consider how abusive our own government has been. Regardless of Republican or Democrat, is it really such a stretch to imagine abuses via DRM? Another way to frame the debate is to learn a little more about "open source" versus "free software". Consider reading the bios on Linus or on RMS (e.g., _Free as in Freedom_). A way to explain RMS vs. Linus is pessimism vs. optimism. Consider how the world is going right now and which view is more responsible.
The parent reminds us that press releases must always be evaluated in light of a track record, especially from such brilliant marketers as MS.
Microsoft already has its sights on the robot biz: see Microsoft's Robots Will Assimilate You .
In other news, at a company conference in Boston, a Microsoft executive referred to the low-cost, user-programmable robot business as 'our house', and warned Linux to stay out. He went on to say "Those people are not going to be allowed to take food off our plate, because that is what they are intending to do ... Humanoid bots is our business,
it's our house and Linux is not going to take that business."
Who says he is not buying senators? Why would you put it past him?
I cannot disagree with you. OTOH, consider the connotation of computers being "just tools". A great many people go right along with this and think of the computer a combo faxphone/typewriter/calculator. Period.
I repeat that they are far more than that; they are more of a "meta-tool" or tool for building tools, and thank goodness at least some people have the imagination to go beyond the "appliance" view.
Computers should be used as tools nothing more, nothing less
Fortunately, most free software developers do not believe in that narrow-minded cliche: computers are certainly more than just tools -- they can change the world for the better in ways that supercede the notion of just "tools". Otherwise, we would have little to be happy about in the software world.
Of course it is good that a company in bed with Microsoft is beginning to offer free software solutions. But has Dell made any investments in free software the way Redhat, VA Linux, SuSE, IBM, or SGI have? I would like to be shown that I am wrong in thinking Dell has done nothing and is simply an opportunist. VA Linux and Penguin would be more responsible choices with whom to do business.
Microsoft, a corporation, has rights? I don't believe it. I also do not totally agree with the case, but on the whole I think DOJ is right, and that the case is important for a number of reasons, including hanging out some dirty laundry that needs to be seen by the public.
The distraction idea is interesting, but let's be clear: Commerce saying "no" allowed the competition. Thus, it in spite of Gates.
They are so blatantly guilty to just about anyone without a vested interest.
Maybe some of us are still unconvinced of their bad nature. I remember my turning point: several years ago Microsoft tried to buy out Quicken because Microsoft Money was not good enough. When asked by a reporter how badly this would damage competition, Bill Gates claimed, that on the contrary, it would improve competition. Up until that time I was a Microsoft customer, but I was shocked that such a powerful authority as Gates would tell such an arrogant lie and expect people to believe it. It was a frightening moment, because you know that most everyone would believe this, since they are computer illiterate.
From that point on, I vowed to boycott and oppose them. Certainly everything about them since that time has only confirmed my decision.
I hope that the DOJ extracts the maximum penalty from them.