Re:Wrong on all counts
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
namely the four freedoms the Free Software Foundation stands for
Not to be pendantic, but the FSF actually doesn't stand for freedom.
In other words, any part of our history (the vast majority of it) when copyrights did not exist, but artists were nevertheless able to make a reasonable living, are off limits because you have no reasonable counter argument to offer?
No, but you suffer from selective historical memory so I thought I'd help you along. You first do not take into consideration the advances in technology, nor do you even take into considerations the arguments put forth by the very artists to encourage copyright.
Interesting. Ignore the vast portion of human experience which runs counter to the assumptions and arguments you wish to promote.
Actually this is the argument you are promoting... ignoring past history to try to prove a point.
An example: TW makes a space opera based on my work, using my characters, etc. Now, if someone else wants to make a space opera based on my work and characters, they are confronted with a series of legal landmines they must avoid, lest the infringe on TW's copyrights.
Actually no, because that someone else can reference the original public domain work, stating quite clearly that TW doesn't own the story concept.
As an example here is a website which lists variations upon the story of Cinderella: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dkbrown/cinde rella.html
Obviously while Disney owns a copyright upon their particular adaptation of the story, they don't own any rights to the story itself.
Good Lord, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
It would appear not given your argument which keeps contradicting itself.
Can you see the difference yet?
Ok, I see your problem. You see dead people. Er, I mean you are seeing differences which in fact do not exist.
Indeed, in some respects it is why the BSD folks release their stuff under the BSD license, rather than simply put it in the public domain
Umm, no. The purpose of the BSD license is simply to make certain the original authors are given credit for their work.
You might wish to read the BSD license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-l icense.htm l
Ohwell, I see now why there is so much conflict when people don't even take the time to understand how copyright law works before they go off criticizing it.
Besides, I think your 'free software' was mostly public-domain, which is quite different, actually.
Other than the notion that public-domain was more free than what RMS proposes, not really...
The world I came from is the world which RMS claims to yearn for. But he was faced with a problem which you can read about in the GNU Manifesto. People will not willingly give their software into the public domain if they think people will instead pay them for it.
So RMS devised the GPL as a manipulation mechanism, a way to force software to be free.(well for certain limited definitions of free anyway)
That's how I see it from reading his rants.
The essential problem was that the market matured from an amateur environment to a professional one, and he didn't like that. So like the luddites, he decided to throw his show into the gears to try to halt the machine.
It seems as though you have not taken the time to read the history of why copyright came into being, and the history of those who in the past tried to abolish it.
You might want to start with the French Revolution, as they basically held the same ideas you are expousing.
Ahh, that's what makes software so confusing... you can compare to any number of existing models.
I guess I see it as still like a book, or like engineering plans. You want to eventually have access to how something is built so that future persons can work from that as a starting point. i.e. the notion of standing on the shoulders of giants.
I don't wish to begrudge people the right to earn a living, and I definately think the 1 sale = 1 customer makes sense... like a book, cd, piece of art, whatever. You can sell it to someone else, but then you no longer have it. But I'd like to be able to fix it for my own use, share those fixes with others(since they are my work) as well as back to the company, and even read the source to better understand the program operation.
I guess my point is that this theory fulfills virtually every complaint that the GNU apologists have, with one exception... The giving it away for free clause which undercuts the market.
I honestly don't understand the FSF guys at all, whether it be keeping source secret or coming up with workable solutions. They are definately anti-Corporation, and don't understand economics. That is the fundamental problem, without that basis of understanding and acceptance there really can be no further discussion with them.
What's unfortunate is that they have taken over the market discussion, as it were, if you believe that nonsense from the Cluetrain Manifesto. I think it's because they never learned how to share as a child.:)
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
One example is fan fiction.
Ok, so in this case copyright promotes innovation.
Imagine how boring the world would be if the only characters in all books were Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
Hmm, interestingly Lucas based his story off existing public domain stories... myths and legends from ages gone by. But he at least had the decency to change the names.
What is more, you are equaiting two different things: the right to copy and build on something v. the requirement to cite and credit a source.
Odd since they are the same thing. If I am referencing a work of Stephen Ambrose, I am in fact building upon his work... using it as a stepping point for my own.
As an example, what you are saying is equivelent to "Legalizing cigarrettes would be equivelent to allowing cigarette smoking in school"
No it's not at all the same. You don't understand logic very well if you are going to resort to such arguments.
Re:An Inaccurate Characterization
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Thus far, our society hasn't tried any alternatives of note, at least not until Richard Stalman's recent "social hack" known commonly as "copyleft". Now, as to some of your other points.
Stallman's copyleft hack relies upon the existence of copyright to work.
Quite the contrary, often a musician such as Bach or Mozart would become more widely known, more in demand, and hence more successful, the more widely their works were copied and performed.
Ok, can we keep this discussion contemporary?
I am such a creative person [expressivefreedom.org], and can easilly point out the fallacy of your argument. If I release my work into the public domain under current copyright laws, anyone from Hollywood studios to Time Warner records to Joes Publishing could take my work, restrict it from use by others by simply putting a wrapper around it and claiming copyright on the whole, and thereby make my own work less accessible for use by others by, in effect, surrounding it with copyright landmines.
How so? If you release your work into the public domain, nobody can take that away from the public. Your work will always be there. What you are talking about is value-add. Yes, you are right... Time Warner could take your work and use it in a movie without asking you.
But now you are apparently saying this is wrong, which is an admission that you approve of our copyright laws. "Strange that is" says Yoda.
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
There are other ways to insure artists are compensated, without granting them (or, more likely, their publishers) an exclusive monopoly on their work, for any length of time.
Please, don't keep me in suspense...
What are these other ways?
monopolies which are antithetical to free markets, to freedom of speech, and ultimately, to freedom itself.
I'm also curious how copyright limits your freedom of speech. It seems the same would be true of plagarism rules in our academic environments.
All copyrights must be held by a private individual. No corporate entity may hold a copyright.
If a team of 100 people create a piece of software, who owns the copyright? I'm sorry but I see a need for corporate ownership, however I do think that musicians should have the same privileges as authors in that the copyright should not fall to the publisher.
Copyright terms may vary up to a period of 17 years (depending on content type -- To Be Specified), with a single renewal for the same period of time
I think 35 years is fair. That would be one generation.
Copyright expires upon the death of the copyright holder.
No, stick with the fixed time period with the copyright passing to the heirs.
Copyrights cannot be assigned to another entity
If I want to negotiate this as the creator of the work I should have the freedom to do so.
On Patents, I still disagree with your anti-corporate attitude.
A working implementation of the patented process must be provided (upon request of USPTO)
This I agree with...
Re:One thing I've NEVER seen here....
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
It's mainly the result of the USPTO not having good examiners and allowing simple or stupid things to be patented... like business processes. Nobody can sell something with the single click of a button, etc.
Then there is the silliness of patenting an idea that you yourself haven't really implemented. I could patent the use of computers to read minds, even though it's never been done and I certainly can't implement it. But if someone did do it within the next 20 years, they'd owe me some money.
I'll be convinced when I start seeing a large contribution to free software by nations who do not take part in the G7 economic summit.
Until then it appears to be nothing more than pro bono work resulting from wealth created by an already well established commercial industry.
One can make the same claim of benefit to poorer nations as when the US drug companies give pills away for free. It certainly does benefit the poorer nations, but it is because the drug companies subsidized this cost with profits made off wealthy US citizens.
Are you sure the effect isn't the reverse of your perception?
I haven't seen any increase in the anti-OSS trolling, and I'm one of the main trolls. Instead I'd have to say I've seen an increase in the anti-Commercial trolling by far.
But let me get this clear. You seem to be saying that if this law in Peru ends up killing the IT landscape of that nation, it's not the laws fault, but rather the fault of certain companies using dubious methods?
I'm personally of the belief that it is simply anti-US legislation, sort of a polite way of creating a barrier to trade encapsulated in an intellectual argument. Sometimes a poor developing nation creating a barrier to trade can be a good thing. Look at Japan as an example of this.
Thus it confounds me to see people proclaiming a trade barrier as some sort of victory for open source.
I read the post, and it made the assumption that everybody who quotes Orwell is McCarthian.
This defense tactic seems to be somewhat typical of those who defend and embrace communism. That to speak out against it implies you believe in McCarthyism.
I'm sorry, but I find such logic insane. It is quite possible to speak out against Communism without supporting McCarthy and Orwell is a prime example of that situation.
Possibly, and I think that's ultimately what bugs RMS, that the popularity of Linux is greater than the popularity of his own projects. Which is why he's now trying to take credit for Linux.
You speak of selfishness, but yet that's what the GPL stands for.
If you were truly a selfless coder you would give everything you create away under the BSD license. You would not be manipulative and put pre-conditions on your gift.
So I'm sorry but I find your arguments quite laughable.
I was trying to think of what to add, and I was looking for an interesting quote. Unfortunately while I couldn't find the quote on google, I did find this web page about relationships.
I thought it was kind of interesting, and to go back to the parent poster trying to claim software was a important component of society and it was your duty to be nice... Look at all of the recommendations for how to be a good person in a relationship, and then ponder just how many of these RMS and GPL proponents follow.
I can't find a single one except maybe #8... because they sure aren't willing to see any alternative views to their own.:)
"Stallman is not demanding you give up what is yours, he is reminding you of your obligation to the Art."
Well actually he is demanding you give up what is yours. That's sort of one of the fundamental tenants of the GPL.
I think I understand where your problem stems from... beyond just inexperience with the issues you are talking about.
The concept of intellectual property as embodied in the Constitution is to grant a limited monopoly. Copyright has obviously gone beyond that limited right.
But there was also a great deal of confusion that came into play when software came along. Nobody was quite certain how to handle it because you had to copy it to use it and so forth. Laws were enacted that tried to make the best of it.
Others far wiser than I have put forth a different notion, that of the source code should always be available for software. Thus, like a book, you will know how the software was constructed and you can learn from it so as to advance the knowledge of programming. But like a book, you cannot plagarize or cut-n-paste passages to place in your own book. You can only read it, take notes, and then re-formulate the ideas into your own words for use in your own software.
This is in fact the way the software world worked in the early days, unlike your claim which was only true in the Academic world. IBM and others did make the source available for their OS and their systems. You could modify this source as it pertained to your system. You could learn from it and utilize similar techniques in your own programs. But since the full program belonged to IBM you didn't have the right to redistribute it to someone who hadn't also bought it from IBM. You just had the right to use it yourself.
I don't know how one should word this, but I can certainly see the benefit. Plus I think it would provide all the benefits which you advocate, without any of the limitations to freedom that RMS advocates.
Your example of John Carmack is an interesting one. Carmack doesn't give away his source as long as his program is financially viable, only after it's stopped selling. While giving away the source does further the programming field, he is still doing hord-n-sale while he can.
This speaks more to the notion of having a limited monopoly. In Carmack's case, and probably the case for most all software, the commercial viability is about 5 years. I once wrote a paper for an Ethics course recommending software copyrights be limited to a shorter period for a similar reason. That and the problems presented by abandonware... i.e. my VIC-20 is worthless to me because I can't find software for it.
I think if you toned down your rhetoric, stopped making ridiculous claims, you may have a chance to be taken more seriously. As it is now you do sound like a raving lunatic.
I am confused as to why you think the concept of intellectual property is in anyway analogous to the concept of slavery.
One is the ownership of another person, control over their work, their life, and so forth. Today we also hold indentured servitude with the same repulsion, so lest you think the issue is just being bound in chains.
The other is the ownership of the output of my own work, my own thoughts.
If anything the two concepts are diametrically opposed to one another. If you look at slavery as the control of another person's physical labor output, you will see the distinction. If anything to claim that you have the right to use the output of my intellectual labor output without fair compensation is in essence intellectual slavery. Rather it should be my choice whether to share this with you, and on what terms. Just as it is today with bartering for my physical labor output.
I was using free software back in 1982, primarily Ward Christensen's Modem7 but other programs as well. This continued on through my later years playing with Commodore computers... typing in programs published in Compute, Compute's Gazette, RUN and so forth. A few years later I bought Fred Fish collection floppies for my Amiga and had a wealth of additional free programs to use.
Later in '92 I begun to use Linux. It wasn't until then, well actually probably more like six months after I started to use Linux, that I even heard of GNU or Richard Stallman. You see, I was so used to free software that I never even bothered to read the license agreement for Linux.
So that's 10 years of my using, contributing, and being involved in a free software community without the name of Richard Stallman ever appearing.
Now maybe it's true that Linux wouldn't have come about without gcc. Maybe it would have been different, hard to say.
But don't think for a minute that BSD wouldn't have fought AT&T to gain redistributable rights. On this point you give RMS entirely too much credit.
The vision of free software existed before RMS, it existed in parallel with RMS, and it exists despite RMS. RMS's vision is really quite meaningless in the whole big world of free software. Rather, if anything, it has been damaging to the cause with his anti-commercialism.
The only reason we even talk about the GPL today is because a man by the name of Linus Torvalds made the decision to release Linux under that license. If he had not, GNU would be irrelevant. Without that kernel there would be no OS, there would be no distribution that was nearly entirely based off of GNU pieces. Without that kernel no further work would have proceeded on GNU projects. Without the popularity given to GNU from that kernel, RMS would now be a small footnote on a web page somewhere.
It's a chicken and egg scenario. Both are dependent upon on another.
While Microsoft may bundle UltimateTV functionality in with the games... It is highly doubtful that they will make the XBox into a full-fledged home computer.
They have good relationships with their OEM partners and do not want to screw that up. If you read the licensing agreement for the XBox development kit you'll notice that it specificially mentions that the system is only intended for games, and you are not allowed to make non-game software.
As for the mandatory software subscriptions, that sounds an awful lot like TiVo's business model which has been a collosal failure. It takes more than that to make money, you have to provide a product that customers want to buy to begin with. I agree that they want the subscription revenue, but they also know that to get it they need to do something people want. The system has to provide enough functionality to be purchased on it's own, and create enough value to encourage the subscriptions later.
Your predictions seem to try to play against emotions, but it's unfortunate you lack some common sense to balance them.
Come over to my house sometime and watch me play Gotham Racing on my 16:9 HDTV... The PS2 doesn't support widescreen and other modes with it's games.
The other day I was in Best Buy and they had a XBox sitting out attached to a Mitsu HDTV set playing Rallisport. If Microsoft were smart, they'd pay Best Buy to put a PS2 side by side on the same HDTV set. Not only would they sell more XBox, they'd also start selling more widescreen televisions.
"I know all of this as well - my online bank does all of this for me. "
Only if all of your accounts are with one bank. While I do have credit card, checking and savings with one bank... my car loan is handled by someone else, my mortgage is handled by another bank, I have 401k with Fidelity, IRAs with Putnam, annuities with TIAA-CREF and so forth. All of these have online access as well, but it's nice to pull it all together.
"You don't need Quicken to do this kind of thing. Maybe in 1994 you did."
In 1994 we didn't have online access, and so you were limited to whatever information your last statement said, or what you could obtain with automated phone systems.
In 2002 you still need Quicken/Money if you want to pull all the divergent pieces of data together.
Slashdot Mirror
namely the four freedoms the Free Software Foundation stands for
e rella.html
l icense.htm l
Not to be pendantic, but the FSF actually doesn't stand for freedom.
In other words, any part of our history (the vast majority of it) when copyrights did not exist, but artists were nevertheless able to make a reasonable living, are off limits because you have no reasonable counter argument to offer?
No, but you suffer from selective historical memory so I thought I'd help you along. You first do not take into consideration the advances in technology, nor do you even take into considerations the arguments put forth by the very artists to encourage copyright.
Interesting. Ignore the vast portion of human experience which runs counter to the assumptions and arguments you wish to promote.
Actually this is the argument you are promoting... ignoring past history to try to prove a point.
An example: TW makes a space opera based on my work, using my characters, etc. Now, if someone else wants to make a space opera based on my work and characters, they are confronted with a series of legal landmines they must avoid, lest the infringe on TW's copyrights.
Actually no, because that someone else can reference the original public domain work, stating quite clearly that TW doesn't own the story concept.
As an example here is a website which lists variations upon the story of Cinderella:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dkbrown/cind
Obviously while Disney owns a copyright upon their particular adaptation of the story, they don't own any rights to the story itself.
Good Lord, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
It would appear not given your argument which keeps contradicting itself.
Can you see the difference yet?
Ok, I see your problem. You see dead people. Er, I mean you are seeing differences which in fact do not exist.
Indeed, in some respects it is why the BSD folks release their stuff under the BSD license, rather than simply put it in the public domain
Umm, no. The purpose of the BSD license is simply to make certain the original authors are given credit for their work.
You might wish to read the BSD license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-
Ohwell, I see now why there is so much conflict when people don't even take the time to understand how copyright law works before they go off criticizing it.
Besides, I think your 'free software' was mostly public-domain, which is quite different, actually.
Other than the notion that public-domain was more free than what RMS proposes, not really...
The world I came from is the world which RMS claims to yearn for. But he was faced with a problem which you can read about in the GNU Manifesto. People will not willingly give their software into the public domain if they think people will instead pay them for it.
So RMS devised the GPL as a manipulation mechanism, a way to force software to be free.(well for certain limited definitions of free anyway)
That's how I see it from reading his rants.
The essential problem was that the market matured from an amateur environment to a professional one, and he didn't like that. So like the luddites, he decided to throw his show into the gears to try to halt the machine.
It seems as though you have not taken the time to read the history of why copyright came into being, and the history of those who in the past tried to abolish it.
You might want to start with the French Revolution, as they basically held the same ideas you are expousing.
Ahh, that's what makes software so confusing... you can compare to any number of existing models.
:)
I guess I see it as still like a book, or like engineering plans. You want to eventually have access to how something is built so that future persons can work from that as a starting point. i.e. the notion of standing on the shoulders of giants.
I don't wish to begrudge people the right to earn a living, and I definately think the 1 sale = 1 customer makes sense... like a book, cd, piece of art, whatever. You can sell it to someone else, but then you no longer have it. But I'd like to be able to fix it for my own use, share those fixes with others(since they are my work) as well as back to the company, and even read the source to better understand the program operation.
I guess my point is that this theory fulfills virtually every complaint that the GNU apologists have, with one exception... The giving it away for free clause which undercuts the market.
I honestly don't understand the FSF guys at all, whether it be keeping source secret or coming up with workable solutions. They are definately anti-Corporation, and don't understand economics. That is the fundamental problem, without that basis of understanding and acceptance there really can be no further discussion with them.
What's unfortunate is that they have taken over the market discussion, as it were, if you believe that nonsense from the Cluetrain Manifesto. I think it's because they never learned how to share as a child.
One example is fan fiction.
Ok, so in this case copyright promotes innovation.
Imagine how boring the world would be if the only characters in all books were Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
Hmm, interestingly Lucas based his story off existing public domain stories... myths and legends from ages gone by. But he at least had the decency to change the names.
What is more, you are equaiting two different things: the right to copy and build on something v. the requirement to cite and credit a source.
Odd since they are the same thing. If I am referencing a work of Stephen Ambrose, I am in fact building upon his work... using it as a stepping point for my own.
As an example, what you are saying is equivelent to "Legalizing cigarrettes would be equivelent to allowing cigarette smoking in school"
No it's not at all the same. You don't understand logic very well if you are going to resort to such arguments.
Thus far, our society hasn't tried any alternatives of note, at least not until Richard Stalman's recent "social hack" known commonly as "copyleft". Now, as to some of your other points.
Stallman's copyleft hack relies upon the existence of copyright to work.
Quite the contrary, often a musician such as Bach or Mozart would become more widely known, more in demand, and hence more successful, the more widely their works were copied and performed.
Ok, can we keep this discussion contemporary?
I am such a creative person [expressivefreedom.org], and can easilly point out the fallacy of your argument. If I release my work into the public domain under current copyright laws, anyone from Hollywood studios to Time Warner records to Joes Publishing could take my work, restrict it from use by others by simply putting a wrapper around it and claiming copyright on the whole, and thereby make my own work less accessible for use by others by, in effect, surrounding it with copyright landmines.
How so? If you release your work into the public domain, nobody can take that away from the public. Your work will always be there. What you are talking about is value-add. Yes, you are right... Time Warner could take your work and use it in a movie without asking you.
But now you are apparently saying this is wrong, which is an admission that you approve of our copyright laws. "Strange that is" says Yoda.
There are other ways to insure artists are compensated, without granting them (or, more likely, their publishers) an exclusive monopoly on their work, for any length of time.
Please, don't keep me in suspense...
What are these other ways?
monopolies which are antithetical to free markets, to freedom of speech, and ultimately, to freedom itself.
I'm also curious how copyright limits your freedom of speech. It seems the same would be true of plagarism rules in our academic environments.
All copyrights must be held by a private individual. No corporate entity may hold a copyright.
If a team of 100 people create a piece of software, who owns the copyright? I'm sorry but I see a need for corporate ownership, however I do think that musicians should have the same privileges as authors in that the copyright should not fall to the publisher.
Copyright terms may vary up to a period of 17 years (depending on content type -- To Be Specified), with a single renewal for the same period of time
I think 35 years is fair. That would be one generation.
Copyright expires upon the death of the copyright holder.
No, stick with the fixed time period with the copyright passing to the heirs.
Copyrights cannot be assigned to another entity
If I want to negotiate this as the creator of the work I should have the freedom to do so.
On Patents, I still disagree with your anti-corporate attitude.
A working implementation of the patented process must be provided (upon request of USPTO)
This I agree with...
It's mainly the result of the USPTO not having good examiners and allowing simple or stupid things to be patented... like business processes. Nobody can sell something with the single click of a button, etc.
Then there is the silliness of patenting an idea that you yourself haven't really implemented. I could patent the use of computers to read minds, even though it's never been done and I certainly can't implement it. But if someone did do it within the next 20 years, they'd owe me some money.
I'll be convinced when I start seeing a large contribution to free software by nations who do not take part in the G7 economic summit.
Until then it appears to be nothing more than pro bono work resulting from wealth created by an already well established commercial industry.
One can make the same claim of benefit to poorer nations as when the US drug companies give pills away for free. It certainly does benefit the poorer nations, but it is because the drug companies subsidized this cost with profits made off wealthy US citizens.
Are you sure the effect isn't the reverse of your perception?
I haven't seen any increase in the anti-OSS trolling, and I'm one of the main trolls. Instead I'd have to say I've seen an increase in the anti-Commercial trolling by far.
But let me get this clear. You seem to be saying that if this law in Peru ends up killing the IT landscape of that nation, it's not the laws fault, but rather the fault of certain companies using dubious methods?
I'm personally of the belief that it is simply anti-US legislation, sort of a polite way of creating a barrier to trade encapsulated in an intellectual argument. Sometimes a poor developing nation creating a barrier to trade can be a good thing. Look at Japan as an example of this.
Thus it confounds me to see people proclaiming a trade barrier as some sort of victory for open source.
I read the post, and it made the assumption that everybody who quotes Orwell is McCarthian.
This defense tactic seems to be somewhat typical of those who defend and embrace communism. That to speak out against it implies you believe in McCarthyism.
I'm sorry, but I find such logic insane. It is quite possible to speak out against Communism without supporting McCarthy and Orwell is a prime example of that situation.
No, but you are also making the implicit assumption that everybody who quotes Orwell is McCarthian, which is what I object to.
I think you are making the same mistake you accuse your opponents of... i.e. one of stereotyping.
I speak out against Communism all the time, and yet hold many Socialist principles dear.
Possibly, and I think that's ultimately what bugs RMS, that the popularity of Linux is greater than the popularity of his own projects. Which is why he's now trying to take credit for Linux.
You speak of selfishness, but yet that's what the GPL stands for.
If you were truly a selfless coder you would give everything you create away under the BSD license. You would not be manipulative and put pre-conditions on your gift.
So I'm sorry but I find your arguments quite laughable.
Well said!
:)
I was trying to think of what to add, and I was looking for an interesting quote. Unfortunately while I couldn't find the quote on google, I did find this web page about relationships.
I thought it was kind of interesting, and to go back to the parent poster trying to claim software was a important component of society and it was your duty to be nice... Look at all of the recommendations for how to be a good person in a relationship, and then ponder just how many of these RMS and GPL proponents follow.
I can't find a single one except maybe #8... because they sure aren't willing to see any alternative views to their own.
"Stallman is not demanding you give up what is yours, he is reminding you of your obligation to the Art."
Well actually he is demanding you give up what is yours. That's sort of one of the fundamental tenants of the GPL.
I think I understand where your problem stems from... beyond just inexperience with the issues you are talking about.
The concept of intellectual property as embodied in the Constitution is to grant a limited monopoly. Copyright has obviously gone beyond that limited right.
But there was also a great deal of confusion that came into play when software came along. Nobody was quite certain how to handle it because you had to copy it to use it and so forth. Laws were enacted that tried to make the best of it.
Others far wiser than I have put forth a different notion, that of the source code should always be available for software. Thus, like a book, you will know how the software was constructed and you can learn from it so as to advance the knowledge of programming. But like a book, you cannot plagarize or cut-n-paste passages to place in your own book. You can only read it, take notes, and then re-formulate the ideas into your own words for use in your own software.
This is in fact the way the software world worked in the early days, unlike your claim which was only true in the Academic world. IBM and others did make the source available for their OS and their systems. You could modify this source as it pertained to your system. You could learn from it and utilize similar techniques in your own programs. But since the full program belonged to IBM you didn't have the right to redistribute it to someone who hadn't also bought it from IBM. You just had the right to use it yourself.
I don't know how one should word this, but I can certainly see the benefit. Plus I think it would provide all the benefits which you advocate, without any of the limitations to freedom that RMS advocates.
Your example of John Carmack is an interesting one. Carmack doesn't give away his source as long as his program is financially viable, only after it's stopped selling. While giving away the source does further the programming field, he is still doing hord-n-sale while he can.
This speaks more to the notion of having a limited monopoly. In Carmack's case, and probably the case for most all software, the commercial viability is about 5 years. I once wrote a paper for an Ethics course recommending software copyrights be limited to a shorter period for a similar reason. That and the problems presented by abandonware... i.e. my VIC-20 is worthless to me because I can't find software for it.
I think if you toned down your rhetoric, stopped making ridiculous claims, you may have a chance to be taken more seriously. As it is now you do sound like a raving lunatic.
So let me get this straight...
Because Orwell spoke out against Communism in Animal Farm he was infected with McCarthyism?
That's insane.
"Linux isn't about politics for the most part. It's about a technically superior OS"
Actually no, Linux is about politics.
If you were just looking for a technically superior OS you'd be using Solaris or Windows XP, etc.
I am confused as to why you think the concept of intellectual property is in anyway analogous to the concept of slavery.
One is the ownership of another person, control over their work, their life, and so forth. Today we also hold indentured servitude with the same repulsion, so lest you think the issue is just being bound in chains.
The other is the ownership of the output of my own work, my own thoughts.
If anything the two concepts are diametrically opposed to one another. If you look at slavery as the control of another person's physical labor output, you will see the distinction. If anything to claim that you have the right to use the output of my intellectual labor output without fair compensation is in essence intellectual slavery. Rather it should be my choice whether to share this with you, and on what terms. Just as it is today with bartering for my physical labor output.
You give RMS way too much credit.
I was using free software back in 1982, primarily Ward Christensen's Modem7 but other programs as well. This continued on through my later years playing with Commodore computers... typing in programs published in Compute, Compute's Gazette, RUN and so forth. A few years later I bought Fred Fish collection floppies for my Amiga and had a wealth of additional free programs to use.
Later in '92 I begun to use Linux. It wasn't until then, well actually probably more like six months after I started to use Linux, that I even heard of GNU or Richard Stallman. You see, I was so used to free software that I never even bothered to read the license agreement for Linux.
So that's 10 years of my using, contributing, and being involved in a free software community without the name of Richard Stallman ever appearing.
Now maybe it's true that Linux wouldn't have come about without gcc. Maybe it would have been different, hard to say.
But don't think for a minute that BSD wouldn't have fought AT&T to gain redistributable rights. On this point you give RMS entirely too much credit.
The vision of free software existed before RMS, it existed in parallel with RMS, and it exists despite RMS. RMS's vision is really quite meaningless in the whole big world of free software. Rather, if anything, it has been damaging to the cause with his anti-commercialism.
The only reason we even talk about the GPL today is because a man by the name of Linus Torvalds made the decision to release Linux under that license. If he had not, GNU would be irrelevant. Without that kernel there would be no OS, there would be no distribution that was nearly entirely based off of GNU pieces. Without that kernel no further work would have proceeded on GNU projects. Without the popularity given to GNU from that kernel, RMS would now be a small footnote on a web page somewhere.
It's a chicken and egg scenario. Both are dependent upon on another.
Please don't feed the egos.
While Microsoft may bundle UltimateTV functionality in with the games... It is highly doubtful that they will make the XBox into a full-fledged home computer.
They have good relationships with their OEM partners and do not want to screw that up. If you read the licensing agreement for the XBox development kit you'll notice that it specificially mentions that the system is only intended for games, and you are not allowed to make non-game software.
As for the mandatory software subscriptions, that sounds an awful lot like TiVo's business model which has been a collosal failure. It takes more than that to make money, you have to provide a product that customers want to buy to begin with. I agree that they want the subscription revenue, but they also know that to get it they need to do something people want. The system has to provide enough functionality to be purchased on it's own, and create enough value to encourage the subscriptions later.
Your predictions seem to try to play against emotions, but it's unfortunate you lack some common sense to balance them.
Come over to my house sometime and watch me play Gotham Racing on my 16:9 HDTV... The PS2 doesn't support widescreen and other modes with it's games.
The other day I was in Best Buy and they had a XBox sitting out attached to a Mitsu HDTV set playing Rallisport. If Microsoft were smart, they'd pay Best Buy to put a PS2 side by side on the same HDTV set. Not only would they sell more XBox, they'd also start selling more widescreen televisions.
"I know all of this as well - my online bank does all of this for me. "
Only if all of your accounts are with one bank. While I do have credit card, checking and savings with one bank... my car loan is handled by someone else, my mortgage is handled by another bank, I have 401k with Fidelity, IRAs with Putnam, annuities with TIAA-CREF and so forth. All of these have online access as well, but it's nice to pull it all together.
"You don't need Quicken to do this kind of thing. Maybe in 1994 you did."
In 1994 we didn't have online access, and so you were limited to whatever information your last statement said, or what you could obtain with automated phone systems.
In 2002 you still need Quicken/Money if you want to pull all the divergent pieces of data together.
"That was all I was really saying."
That's not what I read.
"(Here, I don't see me getting an Xbox bundled with every TV purchase.)"
That's because Microsoft doesn't make TVs.
However, you might get a PS2 bundled with every TV purchase.