I think you misunderstand. I think he is really saying software should have no owner. You could own your copy. But you cannot dictate what others do with their copies.
And the abstract software procedures/objects/organizations should have no owner.
That's not to say the people who wrote the software shouldn't get paid. But only once.
I admit I don't understanding why the distinction is crucial. He was arguing the 'owner' of the code should not dictate how I should use my copy. So what's the pratical difference as far as the 'software industry as we know it' goes? (I know, I am switching my claim a bit)
Not to boost anything... If I do not understand these topics, you simply could not blame that others are confused.
It's not lack of understanding. It's a differnce of moral value.
GPL is different. It's pragmatic. It's design to keep software free forever, using existing copyrights mechanism. If he could repel, copyrights, there would be no need for GPL.
I think he is willing to compromise by shortening software copyrights to say five years.
I'd suggest that if RMS has his way he would embolish software copyrights as he really believes proprietary software is immoral, and software, once created, could be reproduced easily.
You seems never experience the pain of proprietary system. Otherwise you would understand RMS better. You might still disagree with him, but at least you won't flame him.
The exact point of free software, from RMS point of view, if you ever experience the pain of being trapped in a proprietary system, you would not inflict this on other people by writing proprietary system yourselves.
Personally, I agree with you. But Linus public argument is not yours. I don't think he understands the pain involved.
Innovation? I think the universities in China produce a lot of top-notch research and publications.
Its human rights situation is bad, no doubt. But we do know how to generate knowlege and not getting taken advantage by US and its puppets like World Bank and IMF.
:) Let's see when PRC would let its currency float.
"typical christian values."
But that's stretching, isn't it? There may not be typical christian values, unles you count anti-abortion as anti-women choice.
So, what if your kid ask for internet to email with his or her friend? To game sites? You couldn't lie to him. And you don't want to appear too restrictive?
"In other words, you really think there are people out there who base their beliefs upon WHEN those beliefs came into being?"
Of course there are. You know too few people. Some people do hold the heuristic that new ideas are better than old idea in general.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstand. I think he is really saying software should have no owner. You could own your copy. But you cannot dictate what others do with their copies.
And the abstract software procedures/objects/organizations should have no owner.
That's not to say the people who wrote the software shouldn't get paid. But only once.
I admit I don't understanding why the distinction is crucial. He was arguing the 'owner' of the code should not dictate how I should use my copy. So what's the pratical difference as far as the 'software industry as we know it' goes? (I know, I am switching my claim a bit)
Not to boost anything ... If I do not understand these topics, you simply could not blame that others are confused.
It's not lack of understanding. It's a differnce of moral value.
It's there in the title :)
GPL is different. It's pragmatic. It's design to keep software free forever, using existing copyrights mechanism. If he could repel, copyrights, there would be no need for GPL.
I think he is willing to compromise by shortening software copyrights to say five years.
Just thinking ... Have you ever known a rape victim?
Well, he did say that from his point of view he does not think software should have owner.
You need to change it to "...public good that once created is ...".
You still need to pay for someone to create the software first, unless you have force labour like communist government.
I'd suggest that if RMS has his way he would embolish software copyrights as he really believes proprietary software is immoral, and software, once created, could be reproduced easily.
You seems never experience the pain of proprietary system. Otherwise you would understand RMS better. You might still disagree with him, but at least you won't flame him.
The exact point of free software, from RMS point of view, if you ever experience the pain of being trapped in a proprietary system, you would not inflict this on other people by writing proprietary system yourselves.
Personally, I agree with you. But Linus public argument is not yours. I don't think he understands the pain involved.
Perhaps you should donate to gimp project? You know, photoshop could disappear one day.
I think both are ok.
At least it makes open source a little more acceptable to PHBs (with clue or clueless).
Split into infrastruture and fee? I think you would end up paying more.
Canada? There are many things you just can't do. Like doctors collect money from patient.
Can't you use online bill payment? You could set up pre-payment.
Finally a sane person :)
I think Sun Workstations is overkill but Sun Servers are not going anywhere. Especially for a college environment.
But Sun???
Nothing. Just there is more than one definition of the word. He likes the newer definition. What could you do?
At the minimum you should show him where liberalism comes from (JS Mill, etc.)
I think you underestimate Chinese.
Innovation? I think the universities in China produce a lot of top-notch research and publications.
Its human rights situation is bad, no doubt. But we do know how to generate knowlege and not getting taken advantage by US and its puppets like World Bank and IMF.
:) Let's see when PRC would let its currency float.
"typical christian values." But that's stretching, isn't it? There may not be typical christian values, unles you count anti-abortion as anti-women choice.
You need to justify the definition. Not him.
That's a low blow. Stallman believes that?
He thinks non-free software is immoral, that's all.
So, what if your kid ask for internet to email with his or her friend? To game sites? You couldn't lie to him. And you don't want to appear too restrictive?
"In other words, you really think there are people out there who base their beliefs upon WHEN those beliefs came into being?" Of course there are. You know too few people. Some people do hold the heuristic that new ideas are better than old idea in general.
I don't think there are many.
I think you are giving Paul Graham too much credit.