That bill says nothing whatsoever about banning proprietary software.
Please, at least be honest with yourself.
Read Section 3, which basically states that any company wanting to sell software to the State of California must give up it's Copyright.
Oooooh, another consultant tells me why I should be using Windows instead, this time because a bunch of pimply 13-year-olds make Linux look bad.
I don't recall the article saying you should use Windows. It simply questioned the business justification of a religious argument.
He's also the first person I've read who actually takes all of SCO's claims seriously, which is sort of bizarre.
Interesting, I've seen several such articles. But then I tend to read a variety business rags and trade journals, not just Linux specific sites for my news. I guess it must be easier living in a world where your notions are never questioned.
I thought you said the main criterion should be whether Linux does the job or not?
Actually I believe I asked you if that shouldn't be the main criterion. You agreed. Do you want to distance yourself from that agreement now that your anti-IP views are coming to the surface?
In contrast, the proposed law to which you refer give control of software to the people for the good of the government.
It is unclear to me how you can interpret the banning of commercial software in government purchases as anything other than an attempt to exert state control on the software industry.
Oh yes, it's "presumably for the good of the people".
Some people may have their doubts as to how benign Linux is, but they are mostly trolls.
And you aren't a troll?
So would laws banning the gifts in the bidding stage.
In most states I am familiar with it is already illegal to give gifts to government employees, has been for many years. The prohibitions are quite extreme, govt employees can't even accept a paid lunch, but possibly a pen or a pad of paper. I don't see many people giving up their careers for office supplies.
Yeah, trains aren't as flexible, they work well for bringing people into central locations. You almost need a system like London or Chicago has with commuter trains bringing you into the central district, and then subways canvassing that area.
I work in a suburb which is in a direct line between where I live and our downtown district, so a train system would likely benefit me.
Still, I find it far more desirable to change the location I live to be convenient to work and transit than to try to find a way to carpool. If we had a commuter train system tha extended outwards, I would consider living in a remote town.
"They appeal to the vast majority of Windows' market."
It's funny. My parents talked about buying a new computer, and I actually suggested maybe they should buy a Mac since all they tend to do is web browsing and a bit of word processing.
My mom said, "No, I want a computer that just works. Like that Windows 2000 one we already have."
The author of the project is completely justified in feeling bitter that he's having a hard time putting food on the table. However, this is not (and he does point this out) totally the fault of open source.
No, it's not the fault of open source, it is the fault of choices that the author made. He's the one who choose to use an open source model, if he had been more concerned with employement he should have used a different model.
"The fact of the matter is that the market is a horrible, horrible place for brilliantly useful ideas to thrive if they aren't (tadaaaaa!) marketable... "
As it should be. But I think from the LRP author's perspective, the idea was marketable, or at least several companies were reselling products based upon it. But since he choose to license it as Open Source, those companies making money from his work have no legal obligation to pay him back.
One could say they had an ethical obligation, but such obligations won't buy you a cup of coffee.
But that sweet deal is gone, boys and girls, and it's probably never coming back.
I don't know. Those of us who didn't waste our time with the dot-cons are still doing well.
However, the catch-22 is that, as the economy gets shittier, the more people need cheap software.
Well I'm optimistic, and think the economy has room for growth. A lot of this depends on whether or not we can restore fiscal responsibility at the government level, and that's dependent upon voting Republicans out of office which may or may not happen.:(
Let's get off our high horses. We lucked out for a few years in the 90's, but it's ridiculous to assume that we could be a part of that club for very long.
Well that's certainly a lousy defeatest attitude. I bought my first BMW last year, and I like to think there will be many more.
As far as I'm concerned, my IT skills are worth as much as the suit's business skills. If you want to undercut me, go for it, but by taking minimum wage for skilled work you're only hurting yourself.
We have HOV lanes here in Minnesota, and they've been a collosal failure.
Part of the failure was in the way they were implemented, as they are simply a third or forth lane with a sign overhead. The result is that when traffic goes to a standstill in the right lanes, the left lane initially keeps flowing at HIGH SPEED. So now you have traffic moving 55-65 in the left lane, and 15-25 in the right lane... and then someone decides they have to be over in the HOV lane and pull out and BAM! Now traffic is really messed up. They did build one section of HOV in the new I-394 stretch that is seperated by barricades from the other highway, which works until someone has an accident there and now emergency vehicles can't get to the accident because of the walls on both sides.
So they create a safety problem.
Furthermore, the lane is underutilized, but people don't understand that because...
The majority of people using the lane shouldn't be in the lane. A good 25% of the people are over there illegally, i.e. single person in car alone. But nearly half the cars driving in the HOV lane are parents with a child in the backseat.
Since when is taking a child to daycare carpooling? Little Joey isn't going to be driving himself.
And finally, not everybody is able to carpool for a wide variety of reasons. We have dynamic schedules, don't know people who live nearby who work at same place, etc.
At least in the case of HOV lanes, Govt trying to change social behavior has been a failure. The money would have been better spent building a train system, which is less costly than adding a lane of traffic but harder to justify politically.
At least with a train I could come and go as I pleased, plus I could save a tremendous amount of money by not driving my car as much, risking accidents, etc.
I haven't even heard RMS weigh in on the SCO lawsuit, so why drag his distinctively weird opinions into this?
Because you brought up Communism and how you are disgusted by the label. Unfortunately, SCO's protest signs had a ring of truth to them... That ring of truth is all you need to coerce public perception.
"Oh, by the way, the Communism thing isn't funny any more."
The Software Communist sentiment comes from the continued attempts by certain members of the "Open Source Community" to lobby for laws which ban commercial software.
If Linux does the job for you, that's all it should take, in a free market, to want to adopt it, correct?
"You are talking solely about prices and think prices create wealth/work/etc."
In order to fund work you need to charge something.
"Wealth is created by products and services."
Which are sold... For a PRICE.
"We are talking about free software vs. commercial. Wealth is created, when this software is somewhat useful. Say: Gives fun. Creates better pictures for medicines. Or education software."
Absolutely! I have bought Word from Microsoft. Microsoft makes money, and then I make money by utilizing Word to improve my own business. That's how wealth is created!
"I hope you see the difference between inflation and more wealth. It's the product and/or the service that matters, not the price."
Never said it didn't. But you're building a strawman argument. First Microsoft isn't increasing prices. Second as a consumer you have a choice as to whether or not to buy the product from Microsoft even if the price increases. If you do not see a value proposition then you don't buy and you are not out money.
"I don't have anything against prices or sth., I'm just making the statement, that free products/software are not the end of the world."
Sure they aren't. But the idea that wealth is created through free software might be fine for the enduser, but the producer get's nothing. Such a model is not sustainable in a large scale economy.
But really you just want to hide the cost of the product from the enduser. Rather than charge them directly, you wish to tax them and use this govt funding to pay the developers. This is not an efficient model for technology production in that the Adam Smith invisible hand doesn't take place. Now the enduser doesn't get the choice of deciding if the value proposition exists with the software, they're going to pay for it anyway. If they think it's crap(like most OSS) then they not only pay for it, they also have to go out and pay a second time to buy something they find useful from a commercial software maker.
I just don't think govt should compete with the private market unless we are talking about vital needs... food, shelter, protection, etc. Software is not a vital need, it's a luxury product.
3. Open source software is usually developed and tested by the same core group, usually a small group. There is an inherent risk that bugs will not be identified as such because of the familiarity the people have with how the code works, as well as the peer pressure resulting from personal relationships. On the other hand in larger companies testing and development are usually two distinct groups, as such there is an independence granted to the tester to identify bugs openly and honestly with the resulting goal of the company shipping a better product.
The question you have to ask yourself is which is more true.
I have done testing in the past, and I've seen projects done both ways. How often have you seen this exchange between user and developer...
User: "Well when I click on button B after checking off box A the app blows up."
Developer: "You idiot! You're not supposed to click on Button B after checking off box A, you're only supposed to click Button C."
Developer then proceeds to document this call as an enduser training issue.
A Tester would report it as a defect in that Button B should be disabled when box A has been checked"
Unfortunately the situation is far too common than many would like to admit.
WOO HOO! Argumentation by assertion! I've lost, I'm just going to go home now and pout.
"When some software is put in the public domain, then all companies can use this software for free and therefore have money left to invest it for something else, thus creating work."
Absolutely, which is why govt funded software should be put into the public domain.
"When the software is closed and costs lots of money, the money is just transferred from the buyer to the seller."
Which is the entire basis of the US economy, so you're absolutely right!
"There is absolutely no wealth created anywhere inbetween. It's a zero-sum-game."
Oh dear, you don't understand economics.
"I think the idea, that the BSD may be better license for some things, is discussable, just your assumptions that closed source creates work and open source doesn't is wrong."
If it's wrong, I would love it if you could prove that with a logical argument.
"It's correct, when you look exclusivly at the IT-sector, but it's not correct when you look at the customers too. Someone has to pay the bill"
So everything should be free, because we wouldn't want anyone to ever have to pay bills.
FREE ELECTRICITY!
FREE TRAVEL!
FREE BEER!
FREE CARS!
A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND A 65" HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION IN EVERY LIVING ROOM! ALL FOR FREE!!!!
Some how I just don't think your idea of an economy which has no prices, no barter system, no buying or selling is going to create much in the way of jobs. Just a hunch though.
"Why should corporations have the right to base their code off work created for all the public without giving back exactly the same priviledges to the govt and populace?"
Because corporations are part of the public, just as much as you are.
"The fact that there is a hypothetical economic benefit to some parties does not make something right."
It also doesn't make something wrong, which is the entire basis of your argument.
"There are also economic benefits to some people from slavery, tax evasion, copyright infringement, privatised police forces, universal automatic gun ownership, and cross media domination."
None of these things are remotely the same as private use of government funded infrastructure. Should we prevent corporations from using roads because the govt created them for the public? That seems to be your claim.
"In case you don't realise, creating jobs is not the same as giving back to the commons."
This concept of commons that you have seems to be screwed up. It's not the same concept of commons that Adam Smith wrote about in Wealth of Nations, where he discusses the concepts I am promoting... that by allowing individuals and companies to profit, we create jobs, which funnels additional wealth to the citizenry, etc.
"However, it opens up the door for proprietary extensions and purposefully introduced incompatibility, which can never be fixed without going back to the original and recreatign all the work done by the proprietary authors. "
Yes it does, none of which are bad things.
"I'm amazed at how little effort some people make to understand other peoples arguments."
I'm sorry, I understand your argument... The problem is it is short sighted and has little validity, as I've pointed out in my responses.
"So why can't corporations adapt, and use govt code in the way that brings the most benefit to all of society?"
I agree absolutely, which is why the government should create software under a BSD license.
"There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it."
Whose locking up anything?
Under the BSD license the code is FOREVER free. The only thing locked up is the extra contributions added to it, which is their work and they have the right to decide what they want to do with their own work, right?
"The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax."
Are you saying the govt should never fund software development?
"Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?"
They give back in other ways, by creating jobs.
I'm amazed at how ignorant some people are with regards to economics.
"The argument is that the AT&T license means IBM must treat anything it adds to Unix as if it were original AT&T code, and thus violated its license to Unix when it added RCU."
No that seems to be the way the slashbot mob is interpreting it.
But from the article last week, SCO showed a variety of analysts code snippets it claims were copied byte by byte right from SCO Unix into Linux.
So that indicates to me that the lawsuit is about pure copyright infringement.
"SCO cannot sue directly for copyright infringment per se, since neither SCO or Caldera/SCO ever registered a change in copyright ownership."
Huh? Where would they register this?
"The copyrights, whether or not Novell sold them, are still in Novell's name, which means SCO is not allowed, under copyright law, to litigate them directly."
No, someone at Novell initially claimed that, but it was later retracted. SCO pays Novell a royalty based on their contractual agreement. Whether SCO "owns" the copyright, they most certainly "manage" the copyright.
I'd love to hear you legal explanation for how my downloading SP4 and agreeing to a click-through EULA for SP4 suddenly causes me to also be aggreeing to a click-through EULA for 3 prior service packs, despite the fact that I did not download or install those.
"Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. "
It's my understanding that SCO is claiming copyright infringement. So it doesn't matter who created RCU, or who first implemented it. What matters is whether or not the code was cut-n-pasted line for line from SCO's implementation.
The previous articles indicated that it was, right down to the comments.
So the parent post is irrelevant to the actual merits of the case.
"Balmer talks about how the GPL is a virus, and you were talking about how it destroyed copyright. The part what wasn't shining through was it destroyed it in a positive way"
Nathanh described RMS' vision wonderfully.
However you have both misinterpreted it as something being positive where it most clearly is not.
The goal in destroying software copyright is to destroy the ability to make money off of software, i.e. to destroy the trade of software development.
That copyright has problems, I will not disagree with. Where I do disagree is this notion of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Since the implementation of the New Deal and the Great Society, poverty rates have declined in the United States. The rates of malnutrition has declined. The average life expectancy has increased. The death rate in infants has declined.
The unemployment rate was 25% in the depression. We've not seen that rate since. Even with the 6% unemployment rates today, people are better off because of safety net in place.
And you call all of this a failure?
"You should address those issues, even if that "it's politcally incorrect" thing in your brain starts to protest."
Ok, so the New Deal and the Great Society only fixed 80% of the problems, we still have the 20% left.
I take it you're one of these glass half-empty types, shouting out Doom and Gloom so that people will listen to you.
"That $44 trillion of US Federal debt provides a tremendious amount of liquidity to world financial markets and a "safe" investment to park cash in. "
Wait a minute. $44 trillion? Where did you get that number from. The US Federal debt is like $6.5 trillion, still high but my god! The US GNP is only like $10 trillion. That'd be over 4 times the GNP!
"Eliminating it or even reducing it below certain levels wouldn't be a good thing."
I don't see why not. Money that is tied up in US Federal Debt is not being used in private investment.
"Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform."
I agree. Unfortunately the Republicans just want to completely eliminate Social Security, which isn't helping this debate at all.
Fascinating... If this was true you wouldn't have made this statement:
"Obviously, if you are in the US, you will naturally defend your amazing system of measurement, and not understand why the rest of the world sees this resilience as funny."
I think what's funny is that you even care. The metric system has neither helped nor hindered the US economy. It makes no difference.
Slashdot Mirror
That bill says nothing whatsoever about banning proprietary software.
Please, at least be honest with yourself.
Read Section 3, which basically states that any company wanting to sell software to the State of California must give up it's Copyright.
Oooooh, another consultant tells me why I should be using Windows instead, this time because a bunch of pimply 13-year-olds make Linux look bad.
I don't recall the article saying you should use Windows. It simply questioned the business justification of a religious argument.
He's also the first person I've read who actually takes all of SCO's claims seriously, which is sort of bizarre.
Interesting, I've seen several such articles. But then I tend to read a variety business rags and trade journals, not just Linux specific sites for my news. I guess it must be easier living in a world where your notions are never questioned.
I thought you said the main criterion should be whether Linux does the job or not?
Actually I believe I asked you if that shouldn't be the main criterion. You agreed. Do you want to distance yourself from that agreement now that your anti-IP views are coming to the surface?
In contrast, the proposed law to which you refer give control of software to the people for the good of the government.
It is unclear to me how you can interpret the banning of commercial software in government purchases as anything other than an attempt to exert state control on the software industry.
Oh yes, it's "presumably for the good of the people".
Some people may have their doubts as to how benign Linux is, but they are mostly trolls.
And you aren't a troll?
So would laws banning the gifts in the bidding stage.
In most states I am familiar with it is already illegal to give gifts to government employees, has been for many years. The prohibitions are quite extreme, govt employees can't even accept a paid lunch, but possibly a pen or a pad of paper. I don't see many people giving up their careers for office supplies.
Yeah, trains aren't as flexible, they work well for bringing people into central locations. You almost need a system like London or Chicago has with commuter trains bringing you into the central district, and then subways canvassing that area.
I work in a suburb which is in a direct line between where I live and our downtown district, so a train system would likely benefit me.
Still, I find it far more desirable to change the location I live to be convenient to work and transit than to try to find a way to carpool. If we had a commuter train system tha extended outwards, I would consider living in a remote town.
I love my Linux desktop because *I*, not Steve J or Bill G, am in charge.
The power of the computer is not in the desktop, but in the applications. The desktop is a means to an end.
That is the secret of the Mac/Windows world.
"They appeal to the vast majority of Windows' market."
It's funny. My parents talked about buying a new computer, and I actually suggested maybe they should buy a Mac since all they tend to do is web browsing and a bit of word processing.
My mom said, "No, I want a computer that just works. Like that Windows 2000 one we already have."
This appeal that you think exists is illusionary.
The author of the project is completely justified in feeling bitter that he's having a hard time putting food on the table. However, this is not (and he does point this out) totally the fault of open source.
:(
No, it's not the fault of open source, it is the fault of choices that the author made. He's the one who choose to use an open source model, if he had been more concerned with employement he should have used a different model.
"The fact of the matter is that the market is a horrible, horrible place for brilliantly useful ideas to thrive if they aren't (tadaaaaa!) marketable... "
As it should be. But I think from the LRP author's perspective, the idea was marketable, or at least several companies were reselling products based upon it. But since he choose to license it as Open Source, those companies making money from his work have no legal obligation to pay him back.
One could say they had an ethical obligation, but such obligations won't buy you a cup of coffee.
But that sweet deal is gone, boys and girls, and it's probably never coming back.
I don't know. Those of us who didn't waste our time with the dot-cons are still doing well.
However, the catch-22 is that, as the economy gets shittier, the more people need cheap software.
Well I'm optimistic, and think the economy has room for growth. A lot of this depends on whether or not we can restore fiscal responsibility at the government level, and that's dependent upon voting Republicans out of office which may or may not happen.
Let's get off our high horses. We lucked out for a few years in the 90's, but it's ridiculous to assume that we could be a part of that club for very long.
Well that's certainly a lousy defeatest attitude. I bought my first BMW last year, and I like to think there will be many more.
As far as I'm concerned, my IT skills are worth as much as the suit's business skills. If you want to undercut me, go for it, but by taking minimum wage for skilled work you're only hurting yourself.
We have HOV lanes here in Minnesota, and they've been a collosal failure.
Part of the failure was in the way they were implemented, as they are simply a third or forth lane with a sign overhead. The result is that when traffic goes to a standstill in the right lanes, the left lane initially keeps flowing at HIGH SPEED. So now you have traffic moving 55-65 in the left lane, and 15-25 in the right lane... and then someone decides they have to be over in the HOV lane and pull out and BAM! Now traffic is really messed up. They did build one section of HOV in the new I-394 stretch that is seperated by barricades from the other highway, which works until someone has an accident there and now emergency vehicles can't get to the accident because of the walls on both sides.
So they create a safety problem.
Furthermore, the lane is underutilized, but people don't understand that because...
The majority of people using the lane shouldn't be in the lane. A good 25% of the people are over there illegally, i.e. single person in car alone. But nearly half the cars driving in the HOV lane are parents with a child in the backseat.
Since when is taking a child to daycare carpooling? Little Joey isn't going to be driving himself.
And finally, not everybody is able to carpool for a wide variety of reasons. We have dynamic schedules, don't know people who live nearby who work at same place, etc.
At least in the case of HOV lanes, Govt trying to change social behavior has been a failure. The money would have been better spent building a train system, which is less costly than adding a lane of traffic but harder to justify politically.
At least with a train I could come and go as I pleased, plus I could save a tremendous amount of money by not driving my car as much, risking accidents, etc.
The ranting of a few delusional leaders in the FSF does not represent the opinion of the many professionals who use, develop, or promote Linux.
One would think so, but this delusion is has spread much further than just the FSF.
I haven't even heard RMS weigh in on the SCO lawsuit, so why drag his distinctively weird opinions into this?
Because you brought up Communism and how you are disgusted by the label. Unfortunately, SCO's protest signs had a ring of truth to them... That ring of truth is all you need to coerce public perception.
Yes. What's your point?
The Linux "Community" should be more concerned about the bad public image they are creating for themselves.
"Oh, by the way, the Communism thing isn't funny any more."
The Software Communist sentiment comes from the continued attempts by certain members of the "Open Source Community" to lobby for laws which ban commercial software.
If Linux does the job for you, that's all it should take, in a free market, to want to adopt it, correct?
"You are talking solely about prices and think prices create wealth/work/etc."
In order to fund work you need to charge something.
"Wealth is created by products and services."
Which are sold... For a PRICE.
"We are talking about free software vs. commercial. Wealth is created, when this software is somewhat useful. Say: Gives fun. Creates better pictures for medicines. Or education software."
Absolutely! I have bought Word from Microsoft. Microsoft makes money, and then I make money by utilizing Word to improve my own business. That's how wealth is created!
"I hope you see the difference between inflation and more wealth. It's the product and/or the service that matters, not the price."
Never said it didn't. But you're building a strawman argument. First Microsoft isn't increasing prices. Second as a consumer you have a choice as to whether or not to buy the product from Microsoft even if the price increases. If you do not see a value proposition then you don't buy and you are not out money.
"I don't have anything against prices or sth., I'm just making the statement, that free products/software are not the end of the world."
Sure they aren't. But the idea that wealth is created through free software might be fine for the enduser, but the producer get's nothing. Such a model is not sustainable in a large scale economy.
But really you just want to hide the cost of the product from the enduser. Rather than charge them directly, you wish to tax them and use this govt funding to pay the developers. This is not an efficient model for technology production in that the Adam Smith invisible hand doesn't take place. Now the enduser doesn't get the choice of deciding if the value proposition exists with the software, they're going to pay for it anyway. If they think it's crap(like most OSS) then they not only pay for it, they also have to go out and pay a second time to buy something they find useful from a commercial software maker.
I just don't think govt should compete with the private market unless we are talking about vital needs... food, shelter, protection, etc. Software is not a vital need, it's a luxury product.
"Though slashdot is not quite a serious site, I doubt that they would post biased studies and false statistics (besides the polls)."
*COUGH*
I've been reading and posting to slashbot since 1997. You're obviously very new around here.
There's very little that is posted to slashbot relating to Open Source that shouldn't be picked up with a doggie doo scoop.
Point 3 could be rewritten this way as well:
3. Open source software is usually developed and tested by the same core group, usually a small group. There is an inherent risk that bugs will not be identified as such because of the familiarity the people have with how the code works, as well as the peer pressure resulting from personal relationships. On the other hand in larger companies testing and development are usually two distinct groups, as such there is an independence granted to the tester to identify bugs openly and honestly with the resulting goal of the company shipping a better product.
The question you have to ask yourself is which is more true.
I have done testing in the past, and I've seen projects done both ways. How often have you seen this exchange between user and developer...
User: "Well when I click on button B after checking off box A the app blows up."
Developer: "You idiot! You're not supposed to click on Button B after checking off box A, you're only supposed to click Button C."
Developer then proceeds to document this call as an enduser training issue.
A Tester would report it as a defect in that Button B should be disabled when box A has been checked"
Unfortunately the situation is far too common than many would like to admit.
"No sorry, IMHO you are wrong too."
WOO HOO! Argumentation by assertion! I've lost, I'm just going to go home now and pout.
"When some software is put in the public domain, then all companies can use this software for free and therefore have money left to invest it for something else, thus creating work."
Absolutely, which is why govt funded software should be put into the public domain.
"When the software is closed and costs lots of money, the money is just transferred from the buyer to the seller."
Which is the entire basis of the US economy, so you're absolutely right!
"There is absolutely no wealth created anywhere inbetween. It's a zero-sum-game."
Oh dear, you don't understand economics.
"I think the idea, that the BSD may be better license for some things, is discussable, just your assumptions that closed source creates work and open source doesn't is wrong."
If it's wrong, I would love it if you could prove that with a logical argument.
"It's correct, when you look exclusivly at the IT-sector, but it's not correct when you look at the customers too. Someone has to pay the bill"
So everything should be free, because we wouldn't want anyone to ever have to pay bills.
FREE ELECTRICITY!
FREE TRAVEL!
FREE BEER!
FREE CARS!
A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND A 65" HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION IN EVERY LIVING ROOM! ALL FOR FREE!!!!
Some how I just don't think your idea of an economy which has no prices, no barter system, no buying or selling is going to create much in the way of jobs. Just a hunch though.
"Why should corporations have the right to base their code off work created for all the public without giving back exactly the same priviledges to the govt and populace?"
Because corporations are part of the public, just as much as you are.
"The fact that there is a hypothetical economic benefit to some parties does not make something right."
It also doesn't make something wrong, which is the entire basis of your argument.
"There are also economic benefits to some people from slavery, tax evasion, copyright infringement, privatised police forces, universal automatic gun ownership, and cross media domination."
None of these things are remotely the same as private use of government funded infrastructure. Should we prevent corporations from using roads because the govt created them for the public? That seems to be your claim.
"In case you don't realise, creating jobs is not the same as giving back to the commons."
This concept of commons that you have seems to be screwed up. It's not the same concept of commons that Adam Smith wrote about in Wealth of Nations, where he discusses the concepts I am promoting... that by allowing individuals and companies to profit, we create jobs, which funnels additional wealth to the citizenry, etc.
"However, it opens up the door for proprietary extensions and purposefully introduced incompatibility, which can never be fixed without going back to the original and recreatign all the work done by the proprietary authors. "
Yes it does, none of which are bad things.
"I'm amazed at how little effort some people make to understand other peoples arguments."
I'm sorry, I understand your argument... The problem is it is short sighted and has little validity, as I've pointed out in my responses.
"So why can't corporations adapt, and use govt code in the way that brings the most benefit to all of society?"
I agree absolutely, which is why the government should create software under a BSD license.
"There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it."
Whose locking up anything?
Under the BSD license the code is FOREVER free. The only thing locked up is the extra contributions added to it, which is their work and they have the right to decide what they want to do with their own work, right?
"The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax."
Are you saying the govt should never fund software development?
"Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?"
They give back in other ways, by creating jobs.
I'm amazed at how ignorant some people are with regards to economics.
"The argument is that the AT&T license means IBM must treat anything it adds to Unix as if it were original AT&T code, and thus violated its license to Unix when it added RCU."
No that seems to be the way the slashbot mob is interpreting it.
But from the article last week, SCO showed a variety of analysts code snippets it claims were copied byte by byte right from SCO Unix into Linux.
So that indicates to me that the lawsuit is about pure copyright infringement.
"SCO cannot sue directly for copyright infringment per se, since neither SCO or Caldera/SCO ever registered a change in copyright ownership."
Huh? Where would they register this?
"The copyrights, whether or not Novell sold them, are still in Novell's name, which means SCO is not allowed, under copyright law, to litigate them directly."
No, someone at Novell initially claimed that, but it was later retracted. SCO pays Novell a royalty based on their contractual agreement. Whether SCO "owns" the copyright, they most certainly "manage" the copyright.
Wow, talk about FUD city.
I'd love to hear you legal explanation for how my downloading SP4 and agreeing to a click-through EULA for SP4 suddenly causes me to also be aggreeing to a click-through EULA for 3 prior service packs, despite the fact that I did not download or install those.
"Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. "
It depends on how you obtained the product. Volume Licensing users automatically have this right.. (search for downgrade)
Retail purchasers are supposed to ask for permission.
You mean you wouldn't complain about us not using a new rope when we hang you for Blaspheme for going against the slashbot mob mentality?
Amazing! You obviously don't belong here.
I'm confused.
It's my understanding that SCO is claiming copyright infringement. So it doesn't matter who created RCU, or who first implemented it. What matters is whether or not the code was cut-n-pasted line for line from SCO's implementation.
The previous articles indicated that it was, right down to the comments.
So the parent post is irrelevant to the actual merits of the case.
"Balmer talks about how the GPL is a virus, and you were talking about how it destroyed copyright. The part what wasn't shining through was it destroyed it in a positive way"
Nathanh described RMS' vision wonderfully.
However you have both misinterpreted it as something being positive where it most clearly is not.
The goal in destroying software copyright is to destroy the ability to make money off of software, i.e. to destroy the trade of software development.
That copyright has problems, I will not disagree with. Where I do disagree is this notion of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Out of curiousity...
Since the implementation of the New Deal and the Great Society, poverty rates have declined in the United States. The rates of malnutrition has declined. The average life expectancy has increased. The death rate in infants has declined.
The unemployment rate was 25% in the depression. We've not seen that rate since. Even with the 6% unemployment rates today, people are better off because of safety net in place.
And you call all of this a failure?
"You should address those issues, even if that "it's politcally incorrect" thing in your brain starts to protest."
Ok, so the New Deal and the Great Society only fixed 80% of the problems, we still have the 20% left.
I take it you're one of these glass half-empty types, shouting out Doom and Gloom so that people will listen to you.
"That $44 trillion of US Federal debt provides a tremendious amount of liquidity to world financial markets and a "safe" investment to park cash in. "
Wait a minute. $44 trillion? Where did you get that number from. The US Federal debt is like $6.5 trillion, still high but my god! The US GNP is only like $10 trillion. That'd be over 4 times the GNP!
"Eliminating it or even reducing it below certain levels wouldn't be a good thing."
I don't see why not. Money that is tied up in US Federal Debt is not being used in private investment.
"Both social security and medicare are in need of massive reform."
I agree. Unfortunately the Republicans just want to completely eliminate Social Security, which isn't helping this debate at all.
"As I said, I really don't care."
Fascinating... If this was true you wouldn't have made this statement:
"Obviously, if you are in the US, you will naturally defend your amazing system of measurement, and not understand why the rest of the world sees this resilience as funny."
I think what's funny is that you even care. The metric system has neither helped nor hindered the US economy. It makes no difference.