I do remember that a lot of my complaints were in regard to the legal analysis done on OOXML (yes, not related to SCO). They were presenting (IMO poorly thought out) opinions as facts. Many of these opinions have been reiterated by countless others on Digg, Slashdot, and pretty much any other forum they can find that makes reference to the format. I won't go into them here because they're off topic, as pretty much this sub-thread is.
Actually, let me rephrase my argument. I can't really recall any issues i've had with them over SCO in particular, but i've had numerous issues in the past with other areas they deign to proclaim themselves experts on.
I commented a number of times in groklaw threads with links and evidence that contradicted PJ (and Marbux and others) claims, however I never bothered to register for an account and they were posted anonymously, making it very difficult for me to go back and find them. This was evidence from credible sources. I asked PJ to make corrections to (otherwise) largely correct articles. She never did, and never even commented on it.
I no longer remember any of the details, but i'll do some digging and see if I can find a few cases. There are, literally, thousands of articles and hundrds of thousands of comments, so finding them isn't quite a simple as you suggest.
Hmm... This is a basically just a huge case of "I told you so".
For what it's worth, I look at this like the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Talk to virtually anyone, and they would tell you "Oh yeah, OJ's guilty as sin" despite the fact that almost none of them had seen even an iota of evidence. Perhaps they intrinsicly knew he was guilty, based on his actions. But I also think most people just wanted him to be guilty regardless of the facts.
The same was true of SCO. The Linux crowd wanted SCO to be wrong. They wanted it bad. The very idea that it was even possible for SCO to be right was so horrific to them, they just knew it couldn't be true, evidence or not.
In both cases, those people just happened to be right. But in both cases, they certainly *COULD* have been wrong. They were making judgements based on emotions, not facts.
As for Groklaw, I think it's pushing it to say they "sought the truth". In Groklaws case, they sought validation of their emotional beliefs. They refused to acknowledge the existence of anything that might question that opinion. There was frequently false, and outright dishonest information on Groklaw presented as fact, with hundreds, if not thousands of cheerleaders making snide comments.
Again, it just so happesn that the facts eventually vindicated them. But that doesn't change the fact that they were closed minded and sought only to validate their preconceptions.
I think a truly objective reporter WOULD have given SCO the benefit of the doubt. Not saying they were right, of course, cause that's just as bad. But at least continuing to use the words "alledgedly" or "claims".
In fact, I think the whole mess has been a HUGE black mark on the Linux communities image. Yes, SCO was wrong, they were right, but it left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. The ends did not justify the means.
The part you're confused about is that it's not an either-or situation. If the code was originally released under the BSDL, you can add the GPL to it. Adding the GPL is the optional part. Removing the BSDL part is not.
Saying you may optionally distribute it under the GPL doesn't mean you may optionally distribute it ONLY under the GPL. The code is BSDL'd, period. Whether or not you distribute under the GPL as well is up to you.
That doesn't make the BSDL viral. When you combine the licenses, the GPL overrules any freedoms that BSDL offers, making it effectively GPL'd, but doing so does not allow you to remove the BSDL's restrictions.. which are basically "don't sue us, and don't remove the license and attributions". I think you are confused about what the term "viral" means in regard to licenses.
For instance, let's say you create a new source file called "mygplcode.c" and you link it together with "yourbsdcode.c". Under the GPL, you are required to also make "yourbsdcode.c" have the GPL license. The BSD license does not require "mygplcode.c" to have the BSD license. That's what makes the GPL viral, but the BSD not.
No. While Theo may feel there is an ethical dilemma about not sharing code back with BSD developers, that's merely his opinion. He has a right to that opinion.
And no, it's not "an innocent slip" on anyones part. This was a deliberate action set out by the GPL developers. They talked about it. They, without legal counsel, decided that only one license could be valid, so they quite deliberately removed the BSD bits. The argument continues, because those on that side still believe they can remove the BSD license. Nothing has been "fixed".
That's the problem, attitudes and opinions on both sides prevail.
I think you're confusing two things. First, there is what the license says. Second is what the authors would like.
BSDers understand that people will take their code and use it in commercial products, and not contribute anything back. They're ok with that, for the most part, because they're happy that their work is being used, rather than forcing commercial developers to reimplement (probably poorly) the same function.
The problem comes in when GPL talk loudly about Freedom and Free Software, but then some of them feel that the GPL is the one true Free license (despite the fact that the FSF recognizes many licenses, including BSD, as Free). They feel it's their job to engineer situations that force everyone to use the GPL. BSDers, rightly I might add, rebel against that idea.
Further, many BSDers think that BSD and GPL are trying to achieve the same basic goals (minus Stallman's political agenda), with different means. Therefore, they feel the GPL is sort of a 'brother' license, and they get upset when they feel the brother is stabbing them in the back by not contributing their GPL'd changes back under a BSD license as well. They feel that it's only fair that if the GPL author makes use of their code, and then crow about how "Free" it is, they should give something back to the shoulders they stood on to achieve that.
Basically, they hold GPL authors to a different standard than commercial authors because GPL authors are making a big deal about software Freedom.
Now you're getting into the thorny issue of co-mingling code under different licenses. In effect, mingling the GPL and BSDL means the code is entirely under the GPL (the reverse is not true because there are no clauses in the BSDL that are viral). However, all the terms of the BSDL are also terms of the GPL (don't sue us, you must leave the license terms in place, and atributions). That's why the BSDL is compatible with the GPL which expressly restricts the adding of additional restrictions.
Since both licenses are applciable, both sets of restrictions come into play. And in both cases, the licenses say you can do anything that isn't expressly restricted.
Having written several large pieces of OSS code myself I know very well that 99.9% of the people who use and talk about open source products are not in any position to take advantage of the open nature of the source code and even very good software can rot in place once the original developers stop working on it.
Yeah, like this compiler I once used called... hmm.. what was it called again? Oh yeah... DICE.;)
The BSD License has only only two real restrictions. 1) Don't sue us and 2) Don't remove our license or attributions. That means a commercial entity can come along, recompile the code, and so long as the source files retain the license (and alternatively, in older versions of the BSD License require publishing notice of the licese in the documentation and application) then they can do whatever they want, including slapping a EULA on it.
This is different from what the GPL developers are trying to do, which is license the code ONLY under the GPL, removing all traces of the BSD License from the source code, along with attributions of the authors.
And no, you are completely wrong. The BSDL is not viral, unlike the GPL. The term "viral" refers to the way the GPL requires any code that comes in contact with it to also be licensed under the GPL. This has lead to the FSF's category of "GPL-compatible". Code can be Free Software (according to the FSF) but not compatible with the GPL. The BSDL does not do this, ever. It puts no restrictions, whatsoever, on any code that comes in contact with it. It can be licensed under any license, including the GPL. You simply cannot remove the BSDL.
I would suggest that you understand the argument before making such comments.
They're not demanding tha GPL authors re-release their code under the BSD (though that would be nice, and the fair thing to do), rather they don't want the GPL authors stripping the code of the BSDL, removing their names and copyrights, attributions, etc... required by the BSDL.
Your argument makes no sense. First, you complain that because regular advertising wasn't effective, they've taken to even more intrusive means that cannot be easily couteracted, making it even MORE annoying to watch the programs. Then you claim that advertisers will somehow do the opposite for the web. That's highly unlikely. Blocking adverts will simply make them become more agressive and intrusive, not to mention more annoying.
I also don't understand your argument about pages that are not worthwhile. If you don't want to go to a page, why do you care if there is advertising on it or not? Logically, only pages you WANT to see would you care about, and those are the pages you most want to stick around.
No, the point is that what you do on your computer only extends so far as the network within your home. Once you go out onto the internet, what you do on your computer now affects others, since you are costing them money by visiting their site.
Actually, that's not true either. Advertisers pay more money for placement on high traffic sites. They determine traffic numbers by the number of impressions,that is, how many times the ads get loaded. That means by blocking ads, you reduce the price per click a web site receieves. That means that, yes, blocking ads does make a difference in the amount of advertising revenue they generate.
If you really think the advertising industry will figure out that people want less intrusive ads, you're not from this planet. What they'll do is find even more intrusive ways to integrate ads. It'll be an escalating war.
No, but YOU don't have the opportunity to see them.
Yes, you're correct that it's your computer. But then, just because you're in your card doesn't mean you can morally rip up the neighbors lawn. After all, there's no fence, so you should be able to do whatever you like in your car.
Or maybe, i'm in my house, so I should be able to shoot the windows out of the house across the street with a pellet gun. I'm in my house, after all, i can do what I want.
Let's face it, you're justifying behavior that is against the wishes of the website owner.
It has nothing to do with any kind of agreement that you'll click on ads. That's a red herring. TV advertisers don't require TV stations guarantee that viewers buy products either (though obviously, if they don't, advertisers won't advertise for long).
It's all about advertising *OPPORTUNITY*. Advertisers want you to have the opportunity to click on an ad, even if you never will. They want you to have the opportunity to watch an ad, even if you never do. All these arguments about being 'forced' to watch or click are just hyperbole to support invalid arguments.
Then, of course, there's the "why ruin it for everyone?" argument. Let's say someone owns a piece of property, and they don't mind if it's used for parties, or camping, or whatever... Then a bunch of people come along and litter, cut down all the trees, etc.. Then the owner says "no more" and puts up no trespassing signs, hires a guard to make sure nobody goes on the property. You just ruined it for everyone by taking advantage of the situation so now nobody can use it.
That's what the web will become if a majority of people start blocking ads.
Maybe someone forgot to tell you that the internet IS NOT free (as in cost) and in many cases is not free (as in speech) either. It costs money to run the internet. A lot of it. Everyone pays for it, somehow, either through you tuition at school, or your taxes at the library, etc..
It's easy. If you take something that costs someone money, and you do so against their wishes, regardless of whether they left the door unlocked, it's not moral.
Actually, yes. Bandwidth in a metered site means that if you use any given bandwidth, that particular bandwidth is unavailable for anyone else to use. This is easily shown by what happens when a site runs out of bandwidth. The site gets shut off. You, as the last user to view a page before that site was shut off just used the last of the bandwidth, and now nobody else can use either. Bandwidth is not infinite. It *IS* a finite commodity, no different than say, water or electricity.
Further, the paperbox doesn't say "Don't take all the papers", in fact it doesn't even say ".25 each" it just says ".25". There's nothing explicit said about not taking all the papers, but doing so would be a morally wrong thing to do. Even if you don't take all of them, only take half of them, it's still immoral.
The thing is, there's an *IMPLIED* statement of use. It's *IMPLIED* that you shouldnt' take all the newspapers, just like it's *IMPLIED* that you shouldn't block the ads wholesale, by virtue of there being ads to block in the first place.
Whether or not you're likely to click on the ads, or even look at them is irrelelvant to whether or not the advertiser has the opportunity to show those ads to you (whether or not you take advantage of that). Adblockers remove that opportunity without giving you the choice to decide to view the ad or not.
I mean, let's face it, NOBODY likes ads, but occasionally we see ads we like, and are surprised by them. The advertiser went to a lot of work to create an ad that got your attention, and it succeeded.
No, because that's a conscious decision on your part. The channel doesn't automatically change everytime a commercial comes on. If you do nothing, the commercial plays. Whether you look at it or not, is up to you.
That's already changing. I have half a dozen apps right now that use ribbons. For instance, the latest O&O Defrag now uses a ribon interface, and plenty of third party control providers now offer ribbon controls.
Much like what happened all along the line, Office sets the standard for the next several years of user interfaces, even in third party applications.
I notice you are conveniently ignoring the part of my argument in which I illustrate how a similar circumstance is obviously not moral.
Do you think it's moral to take the entire stack of newspapers from a newsbox simply because the newsvendor doesn't enforce that you pay for each one? If that is not moral, why is taking bandwidth that web site owner implicitly provides in exchange for the opportunity to view ads moral?
It's simple. Don't want to watch the ads, don't go to the web site. Just because it's publicly accessible doesn't give you a moral right to take whatever bandwidth you can without honoring the website owners wishes.
There is no legal agreement between you and the newspaper company either, but it's expected that when you plop a quarter into a paperbox that you don't take the entire stack of papers. Or, that you don't wait for someone else to put in a quarter, then grab the open door and take the stack. It's called the honor system.
Just because circumvention can happen doesn't mean you are morally in the right to do it. A web site proprietary puts ads on his website with the intention that you at least give him the opportunity to view his ads (you don't have to watch them, but you at least give him the opportunity to sell to you). By circumventing that implied intent, you are morally in the wrong.
If you don't want to veiw ads, you should simply not go to a web page that has them. Now, you can't know up front, before you visit, so.. morally speaking.. if you see an ad on the a page, you should immediately close your browser and go somewhere else.
You might find the web a pretty small place though, if you refuse to go to any sites that have ads on them.
Now, what's legal and what's moral are two different things. And, you are under no moral imperative to watch any ad, but you do not morally have the right to disregard the owners wishes and block ads, not even giving him the opportunity to interest you in ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Just something I ran across that sort of illustrates my gripe about Groklaw. It's editorial masquerading as journalism.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/to_groklaws_pam.html
I do remember that a lot of my complaints were in regard to the legal analysis done on OOXML (yes, not related to SCO). They were presenting (IMO poorly thought out) opinions as facts. Many of these opinions have been reiterated by countless others on Digg, Slashdot, and pretty much any other forum they can find that makes reference to the format. I won't go into them here because they're off topic, as pretty much this sub-thread is.
Actually, let me rephrase my argument. I can't really recall any issues i've had with them over SCO in particular, but i've had numerous issues in the past with other areas they deign to proclaim themselves experts on.
I commented a number of times in groklaw threads with links and evidence that contradicted PJ (and Marbux and others) claims, however I never bothered to register for an account and they were posted anonymously, making it very difficult for me to go back and find them. This was evidence from credible sources. I asked PJ to make corrections to (otherwise) largely correct articles. She never did, and never even commented on it.
I no longer remember any of the details, but i'll do some digging and see if I can find a few cases. There are, literally, thousands of articles and hundrds of thousands of comments, so finding them isn't quite a simple as you suggest.
Hmm... This is a basically just a huge case of "I told you so".
For what it's worth, I look at this like the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Talk to virtually anyone, and they would tell you "Oh yeah, OJ's guilty as sin" despite the fact that almost none of them had seen even an iota of evidence. Perhaps they intrinsicly knew he was guilty, based on his actions. But I also think most people just wanted him to be guilty regardless of the facts.
The same was true of SCO. The Linux crowd wanted SCO to be wrong. They wanted it bad. The very idea that it was even possible for SCO to be right was so horrific to them, they just knew it couldn't be true, evidence or not.
In both cases, those people just happened to be right. But in both cases, they certainly *COULD* have been wrong. They were making judgements based on emotions, not facts.
As for Groklaw, I think it's pushing it to say they "sought the truth". In Groklaws case, they sought validation of their emotional beliefs. They refused to acknowledge the existence of anything that might question that opinion. There was frequently false, and outright dishonest information on Groklaw presented as fact, with hundreds, if not thousands of cheerleaders making snide comments.
Again, it just so happesn that the facts eventually vindicated them. But that doesn't change the fact that they were closed minded and sought only to validate their preconceptions.
I think a truly objective reporter WOULD have given SCO the benefit of the doubt. Not saying they were right, of course, cause that's just as bad. But at least continuing to use the words "alledgedly" or "claims".
In fact, I think the whole mess has been a HUGE black mark on the Linux communities image. Yes, SCO was wrong, they were right, but it left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. The ends did not justify the means.
Actually, Excel 2007's limit is 1 Million rows. Prior to that, the limit was 64K rows, OOo's limit is, IIRC, 32K rows.
The part you're confused about is that it's not an either-or situation. If the code was originally released under the BSDL, you can add the GPL to it. Adding the GPL is the optional part. Removing the BSDL part is not.
Saying you may optionally distribute it under the GPL doesn't mean you may optionally distribute it ONLY under the GPL. The code is BSDL'd, period. Whether or not you distribute under the GPL as well is up to you.
That doesn't make the BSDL viral. When you combine the licenses, the GPL overrules any freedoms that BSDL offers, making it effectively GPL'd, but doing so does not allow you to remove the BSDL's restrictions.. which are basically "don't sue us, and don't remove the license and attributions". I think you are confused about what the term "viral" means in regard to licenses.
For instance, let's say you create a new source file called "mygplcode.c" and you link it together with "yourbsdcode.c". Under the GPL, you are required to also make "yourbsdcode.c" have the GPL license. The BSD license does not require "mygplcode.c" to have the BSD license. That's what makes the GPL viral, but the BSD not.
No. While Theo may feel there is an ethical dilemma about not sharing code back with BSD developers, that's merely his opinion. He has a right to that opinion.
And no, it's not "an innocent slip" on anyones part. This was a deliberate action set out by the GPL developers. They talked about it. They, without legal counsel, decided that only one license could be valid, so they quite deliberately removed the BSD bits. The argument continues, because those on that side still believe they can remove the BSD license. Nothing has been "fixed".
That's the problem, attitudes and opinions on both sides prevail.
I think you're confusing two things. First, there is what the license says. Second is what the authors would like.
BSDers understand that people will take their code and use it in commercial products, and not contribute anything back. They're ok with that, for the most part, because they're happy that their work is being used, rather than forcing commercial developers to reimplement (probably poorly) the same function.
The problem comes in when GPL talk loudly about Freedom and Free Software, but then some of them feel that the GPL is the one true Free license (despite the fact that the FSF recognizes many licenses, including BSD, as Free). They feel it's their job to engineer situations that force everyone to use the GPL. BSDers, rightly I might add, rebel against that idea.
Further, many BSDers think that BSD and GPL are trying to achieve the same basic goals (minus Stallman's political agenda), with different means. Therefore, they feel the GPL is sort of a 'brother' license, and they get upset when they feel the brother is stabbing them in the back by not contributing their GPL'd changes back under a BSD license as well. They feel that it's only fair that if the GPL author makes use of their code, and then crow about how "Free" it is, they should give something back to the shoulders they stood on to achieve that.
Basically, they hold GPL authors to a different standard than commercial authors because GPL authors are making a big deal about software Freedom.
Now you're getting into the thorny issue of co-mingling code under different licenses. In effect, mingling the GPL and BSDL means the code is entirely under the GPL (the reverse is not true because there are no clauses in the BSDL that are viral). However, all the terms of the BSDL are also terms of the GPL (don't sue us, you must leave the license terms in place, and atributions). That's why the BSDL is compatible with the GPL which expressly restricts the adding of additional restrictions.
Since both licenses are applciable, both sets of restrictions come into play. And in both cases, the licenses say you can do anything that isn't expressly restricted.
Ummm... no.
The BSDL has 2 requirements. 1) Don't sue us and 2) Don't remove our license and attributions.
That's it. There are no requirements put on dual licensing, other than #2.
Having written several large pieces of OSS code myself I know very well that 99.9% of the people who use and talk about open source products are not in any position to take advantage of the open nature of the source code and even very good software can rot in place once the original developers stop working on it.
;)
Yeah, like this compiler I once used called... hmm.. what was it called again? Oh yeah... DICE.
Keep up the good work, BTW.
The BSD License has only only two real restrictions. 1) Don't sue us and 2) Don't remove our license or attributions. That means a commercial entity can come along, recompile the code, and so long as the source files retain the license (and alternatively, in older versions of the BSD License require publishing notice of the licese in the documentation and application) then they can do whatever they want, including slapping a EULA on it.
This is different from what the GPL developers are trying to do, which is license the code ONLY under the GPL, removing all traces of the BSD License from the source code, along with attributions of the authors.
And no, you are completely wrong. The BSDL is not viral, unlike the GPL. The term "viral" refers to the way the GPL requires any code that comes in contact with it to also be licensed under the GPL. This has lead to the FSF's category of "GPL-compatible". Code can be Free Software (according to the FSF) but not compatible with the GPL. The BSDL does not do this, ever. It puts no restrictions, whatsoever, on any code that comes in contact with it. It can be licensed under any license, including the GPL. You simply cannot remove the BSDL.
I would suggest that you understand the argument before making such comments.
They're not demanding tha GPL authors re-release their code under the BSD (though that would be nice, and the fair thing to do), rather they don't want the GPL authors stripping the code of the BSDL, removing their names and copyrights, attributions, etc... required by the BSDL.
Your argument makes no sense. First, you complain that because regular advertising wasn't effective, they've taken to even more intrusive means that cannot be easily couteracted, making it even MORE annoying to watch the programs. Then you claim that advertisers will somehow do the opposite for the web. That's highly unlikely. Blocking adverts will simply make them become more agressive and intrusive, not to mention more annoying.
I also don't understand your argument about pages that are not worthwhile. If you don't want to go to a page, why do you care if there is advertising on it or not? Logically, only pages you WANT to see would you care about, and those are the pages you most want to stick around.
No, the point is that what you do on your computer only extends so far as the network within your home. Once you go out onto the internet, what you do on your computer now affects others, since you are costing them money by visiting their site.
Actually, that's not true either. Advertisers pay more money for placement on high traffic sites. They determine traffic numbers by the number of impressions,that is, how many times the ads get loaded. That means by blocking ads, you reduce the price per click a web site receieves. That means that, yes, blocking ads does make a difference in the amount of advertising revenue they generate.
If you really think the advertising industry will figure out that people want less intrusive ads, you're not from this planet. What they'll do is find even more intrusive ways to integrate ads. It'll be an escalating war.
No, but YOU don't have the opportunity to see them.
Yes, you're correct that it's your computer. But then, just because you're in your card doesn't mean you can morally rip up the neighbors lawn. After all, there's no fence, so you should be able to do whatever you like in your car.
Or maybe, i'm in my house, so I should be able to shoot the windows out of the house across the street with a pellet gun. I'm in my house, after all, i can do what I want.
Let's face it, you're justifying behavior that is against the wishes of the website owner.
It has nothing to do with any kind of agreement that you'll click on ads. That's a red herring. TV advertisers don't require TV stations guarantee that viewers buy products either (though obviously, if they don't, advertisers won't advertise for long).
It's all about advertising *OPPORTUNITY*. Advertisers want you to have the opportunity to click on an ad, even if you never will. They want you to have the opportunity to watch an ad, even if you never do. All these arguments about being 'forced' to watch or click are just hyperbole to support invalid arguments.
Then, of course, there's the "why ruin it for everyone?" argument. Let's say someone owns a piece of property, and they don't mind if it's used for parties, or camping, or whatever... Then a bunch of people come along and litter, cut down all the trees, etc.. Then the owner says "no more" and puts up no trespassing signs, hires a guard to make sure nobody goes on the property. You just ruined it for everyone by taking advantage of the situation so now nobody can use it.
That's what the web will become if a majority of people start blocking ads.
Maybe someone forgot to tell you that the internet IS NOT free (as in cost) and in many cases is not free (as in speech) either. It costs money to run the internet. A lot of it. Everyone pays for it, somehow, either through you tuition at school, or your taxes at the library, etc..
It's easy. If you take something that costs someone money, and you do so against their wishes, regardless of whether they left the door unlocked, it's not moral.
Actually, yes. Bandwidth in a metered site means that if you use any given bandwidth, that particular bandwidth is unavailable for anyone else to use. This is easily shown by what happens when a site runs out of bandwidth. The site gets shut off. You, as the last user to view a page before that site was shut off just used the last of the bandwidth, and now nobody else can use either. Bandwidth is not infinite. It *IS* a finite commodity, no different than say, water or electricity.
Further, the paperbox doesn't say "Don't take all the papers", in fact it doesn't even say ".25 each" it just says ".25". There's nothing explicit said about not taking all the papers, but doing so would be a morally wrong thing to do. Even if you don't take all of them, only take half of them, it's still immoral.
The thing is, there's an *IMPLIED* statement of use. It's *IMPLIED* that you shouldnt' take all the newspapers, just like it's *IMPLIED* that you shouldn't block the ads wholesale, by virtue of there being ads to block in the first place.
Whether or not you're likely to click on the ads, or even look at them is irrelelvant to whether or not the advertiser has the opportunity to show those ads to you (whether or not you take advantage of that). Adblockers remove that opportunity without giving you the choice to decide to view the ad or not.
I mean, let's face it, NOBODY likes ads, but occasionally we see ads we like, and are surprised by them. The advertiser went to a lot of work to create an ad that got your attention, and it succeeded.
No, because that's a conscious decision on your part. The channel doesn't automatically change everytime a commercial comes on. If you do nothing, the commercial plays. Whether you look at it or not, is up to you.
That's already changing. I have half a dozen apps right now that use ribbons. For instance, the latest O&O Defrag now uses a ribon interface, and plenty of third party control providers now offer ribbon controls.
Much like what happened all along the line, Office sets the standard for the next several years of user interfaces, even in third party applications.
I notice you are conveniently ignoring the part of my argument in which I illustrate how a similar circumstance is obviously not moral.
Do you think it's moral to take the entire stack of newspapers from a newsbox simply because the newsvendor doesn't enforce that you pay for each one? If that is not moral, why is taking bandwidth that web site owner implicitly provides in exchange for the opportunity to view ads moral?
It's simple. Don't want to watch the ads, don't go to the web site. Just because it's publicly accessible doesn't give you a moral right to take whatever bandwidth you can without honoring the website owners wishes.
How, pray tell, does the advertiser still have the opportunity for their ads to be watched if all ads are blocked wholesale?
There is no legal agreement between you and the newspaper company either, but it's expected that when you plop a quarter into a paperbox that you don't take the entire stack of papers. Or, that you don't wait for someone else to put in a quarter, then grab the open door and take the stack. It's called the honor system.
Just because circumvention can happen doesn't mean you are morally in the right to do it. A web site proprietary puts ads on his website with the intention that you at least give him the opportunity to view his ads (you don't have to watch them, but you at least give him the opportunity to sell to you). By circumventing that implied intent, you are morally in the wrong.
If you don't want to veiw ads, you should simply not go to a web page that has them. Now, you can't know up front, before you visit, so.. morally speaking.. if you see an ad on the a page, you should immediately close your browser and go somewhere else.
You might find the web a pretty small place though, if you refuse to go to any sites that have ads on them.
Now, what's legal and what's moral are two different things. And, you are under no moral imperative to watch any ad, but you do not morally have the right to disregard the owners wishes and block ads, not even giving him the opportunity to interest you in ads.