Not just Linux coders but a lot of other free developers as well. People who contribute GNOME, KDE, GNU, and all of them nice applications--among others. I'm using Mozilla right now which is also not Linux.
The goal, since 1984, has been to give users freedom to the software they use. This means the right to copy, use, and modify the software. This is what free software is and this is why GNU/Linux exists.
Free software is what makes GNU/Linux different from ever other proprietary operating system and is what allows collaborative development to work. The goal has always been freedom.
This means we do not barter away freedom for popularity and we do not barter away freedom for business. And we definitely don't barter away freedom for more software. Sorry Lindows but if you want to use community software you need to follow community rules.
Also, I would hesitate to call this an attack. From the article it doesn't seem like we're at that stage yet. Release the source and I don't think anyone would be upset.
OFFTOPIC
I just wanted to mention that while normally an Open Source crowd, this article has seemed to produce quite a bit of Free Software Movement sentiment. It seems you guys aren't outraged by the lack of pragmatic benefits of the software (no one has yet said that they wanted software that doesn't suck) but rather concerned about the ethics of not providing source to the software they use. Could it be that the open source hype is dissolving and people are returning to their free software roots?
The point is that it is a society backed measure to spread artistic costs across society, rather than limiting them to certain benefactors.
With
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
--Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal
Then you're right. But I think there are some differences here and your use of "free-loaders" is bound to confuse anyone.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with credit card numbers. The reason I say this is because it seems that most people don't think a whole lot about their credit cards.
Yes its a generalization, but I know this from experience--at least from where I live.
I work at Subway. We take credit card orders all the time. It would be trivial for me to copy down the credit card numbers we have in a little paper sack we keep the reciepts in. Am I legally responsible if I distribute these reciepts? Not that I know of.
Of course, I wouldn't do anything like that for the ethics of that. But there are a lot of people who perhaps wouldn't think that way.
Customers, I've found, don't give a rats ass about the security of their credit card. Think about it. Do you sign it? Where I work, we don't check the signatures anyway. I've began checking though but too often the signatures are too faded or unreadable anyway. Many of the more security conscious customers write "See I.D." in place of the signature. I asked someone for their ID the other day and they were surprised. It seems that our store isn't alone.
The big problem is that no one is trained properly for swiping cred cards. Basically employees train employees and so people only know what they need to know to get the job done.
It isn't all our fault either. Too many customers hand me their credit card before I've even rung up their meal. If they don't check the price on their reciept before they sign it, which I am sure most don't, I could easily run the credit card for an extra fifteen bucks, and then take fifteen bucks out of the register. Chances are, no one would know any better.
Credit card numbers are not secure and any fear on getting them over IRC is just empty hype. Of course we all know that. Credit cards could be relatively secure, but there are too many weak links in the chain. In the end, its up to you to protect yourself. Personally I would avoid using a credit card for small purchases. Only purchase at places where they *always* check your ID and always get a reciept.. The government isn't going to protect you and certainly these online tabloids aren't. Its up to you.
Actually, copyright was instituted in the times after the printing press and has nothing to do with "free-loaders". Your argument is not based on fact.
I almost kick myself everytime I read one of these "re-inventing the wheel with open source" tidbits. I'm not sure what your experience is but it doesn't sound like you have a foot in the free software community.
Because it is a community and the community isn't hiring people from Universities with CS degrees, rather within the community people are learning to code. They are getting experience. Some of us are rather new to coding so you will see "Hello World" re-implemented thousands of times. You'll see hundreds of the most routine shell scripts. And you'll see dozens of IRC clients all from a different code base. Why?
Its part of the fun of computing. Honestly, it is less fun (IMO) to start from someone else's program than from starting from scratch--especially when someone else's program already has all the features you want. The beginning stages of a software project are probably the most exciting.
Of course there are other things. Like it is more difficult to grok a large code base than a smaller one. And sometimes more experienced coders pull tricks that newbies don't quite grok yet--so decide to use more simpler and apparent methods.
Free Software isn't going away and I think you're going to see a lot more of this. Programmers going through different stages of experience and writing software that demonstrates different levels of skill.
One thing I've noticed is that software is becomming more and more complex. We may see what I call generational programming. Basically, instead of one programmer understanding a code base or even an entire community understanding a code base we may get to the point where several generations are needed to understand and contribute to a code base (or it may be a conveniant excuse for the TUNES project:).
Hey there Arandir. I remember you. You're still at it I see.
Again, you make no sense. Not that you're going to agree with this sentiment. But...
The "GNU/Linux" naming convention was created for a reason. Not that I entirely agree with this reason, but it is a rational argument.
They've been developing GNU since 1984. Thats 18 years now. However, Linux beat the Hurd in development. Somehow, the OS was called "Linux" after the operating system kernal rather than after the rest of the OS. So I feel that adopting "GNU/Linux" is a compromise in the kernal's favor since it would take a lot more work to make Linux into a Unix-like OS than to make GNU into a Unix-like OS.
Not that any of this matters. This is all pretty much ancient history. People can call it whatever they like. But I like to keep in mind that the system is a GNU system just as much as it is a Linux system. By whatever name.
Also, claiming Mozilla is GNU software is a very silly statement to make. Not that you don't already know this. In fact, there's a process that software has to go through to become GNU software. This is actually beneficial to free software projects in many ways. Here's the GNU Software Evaluation Guidelines if you're at all interested. Hopefully apparent from this is that becoming GNU software is voluntary.
What you quoted was taken quite out of context. No one argues that Mozilla or Linux are GNU software. But they are free software (or open source if you rather). So you're free to install the software on your existing system and modify it to suit your needs and all that. And thats what GNU has done with X Windows. I'm sure BSD has done the same with X Windows. And Apple used its rights to take BSD and modify it into their proprietary kernal. Yet, somehow, you don't find anyone arguing that Mac OS X should be called FreeBSD (by naming it after the kernal). No one even argues that it should be called Apple/BSD. No compromise in this regard--its just MacOS X.
So on the whole, you're entire post is a pretty silly thing to say. But does it really matter?
Actually, not that anyone cares--but Hurd is part of the GNU system and so is everything else (almost). So the OS with the Hurd and all the GNU stuff on top is called, quite simply, GNU. And that's been the point of the GNU project since 1984--to produce a complete free UNIX-like operating system called the GNU Operating System.
Is this kind of thing even legal? I mean, how can they enforce such a stupid license? If they want to distribute information, how can they tell us how to use that information?
(Note: I have not read the article.)
License: By reading this comment you agree to shoot yourself in the head. Twice.
(RMS really doesn't need a defense here. But since pretty much everything said in the parent post was addressed in the talk, I though I might as well use Stallman's words for his defense. Everything here is out of context but I try to preserve the meaning.)
RMS creates a paper tiger and is nearly mauled by it... One does not patent ideas, one patents implementations. He knows this as should you all. The expression of ideas is covered by copyright and, indeed, the creation of a symphony is thus covered and the questions of originality that RMS warns us that a composer would have to be wary of do indeed exist - as copyright violations.
RMS: For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was written. At that time there was no patent on the LZW (compression) algorithm, but the LZW patent was pending at the time, and was granted in 1985. Over next few years those who distributed Compress started getting threats. All the Compress programmer did was use an idea he had found in a journal, just like software authors had always done.
Patents would cover aspects of the implementation of the idea. For example, the use of a bow run across tight strings to produce sound might be a patent. Stretching animal skin across a hollowed cylinder could be patented. These might limit the choice of instruments a composer would utilize in his production if agreements could not be arrived at but, remarkably, both the composer and the patent holder seem to nearly always find some terms if the invention and idea are truely useful. It would be folly for a composer to consider how to create a 220 hertz tone from a stretched catgut while writing his composition so RMS' comparision is specious at best.
RMS: Most people who tell you about the patent system have a stake in it, and so they want you to like it. But patents are like the lottery because they only rarely bring benefits to people. Lotteries invite you to think about winning, never about losing, and it is the same with the patenting system.
RMS' apparent confusion does betray his underlying premise, however. That is - his belief that no one should own the fruits of their own labour if they are not tangible. This is to deny the very existence of real property rights by reducing the argument to that of how one can physically control and protect what is his.
RMS: However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else--a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Intellectual property is fundamental to the peaceful progress of such societies and, without them, everything does break down to the very concept of "might makes right" that RMS claims to fear now.
RMS: Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property.'' This term carries a hidden assumption---that the most natural way to think about the issue of copying is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of them as property.
But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference.
Even the US legal system does not entirely accept this analogy, since it does not treat copyrights just like physical object property rights.
RMS' folly is his blindness to the fact that the result of his efforts will not be the utopia he seeks, but rather, a condition several orders of magnitude worse than what he decries today.
Me: ?
(Okay, so not entirely a successful excercise but interesting nonetheless. I hope some of what RMS is trying to say is seen from this post. You are certainly allowed to disagree with someone but I doubt you can accuse him of "Intellectual dishonesty or any such nonsense.)
When!? Where!? It bothers me on how many here agree with this yet I find no evidence of it. Stallman is a very concise writer and rather than "preaching" as so many put it (which I've never seen it done) always supports his opinions and philosophies with rational argument.
I've been following the GNU project for a while now and have usually read RMS's articles and interviews with interest. Have we de-evolved so much that everyone we disagree with is suddenly a "raving nut" or is just easier to dismiss opposing arguments that way?
All this time I've seen few actual counterarguments against Stallmans position. Certainly I've seen unrational responses. Most of these are based upon misconceptions on Stallman's position. The rest are usually mixing together ethical arguments with economic arguments, which Stallman has seemed to traditionally avoid. Arguments like "It is ethically wrong because there isn't a business model that supports it," which is obviously an invalid argument.
Are people still upset about KDE? Is it the copyleft that people feel threatened by? Are employed developers afraid that free software will put them out of work?
Please oh please, where are these misconceptions coming from?
A long time ago, I wrote an article called "The Rise and Fall of OS Empires". It concluded on how with free software, the software lives on beyond its environment. Underlying the article, though very subtle, was an argument against the BeOS operating system. I've always been critical of any proprietary operating system since the control of the software always rests with the developer.
Now first, a minor argument before I continue on. Names are like symbols in that they stand for something. So when people think of BeOS they think of a great many things, mostly good. But with software, these kinds of symbols aren't very useful and often serve to confuse things. To say that BeOS has come back from the dead is a definite misconception.
Any software is a mix of algorithms and technologies--each which are more general than the code itself. So to reintroduce these things in another piece of software can be said to in a sense recreate that software.
This new AtheOS, from my perspective, is welcome. Hopefully this software will provide interesting technologies which can be implemented in other software.
Hopefully BeOS users and developers are more aware of the risks present in proprietary software. I'd hate to see the same mistake being made a again.
Actually, they were observations. Not arguments. And I think may have jumped to one conclusion. But I suppose whether one *likes* Apple or not is subjective so I feel I'm entitled to an opinion.
Sorry for your confusion.
(BTW, I wanted to email you personally but you don't have an email address listed.)
Free software *has* decreased the ability to control software. Slowly, its becomming less taken-for-granted that users have no rights with the software they use. I think that people--hackers and power users for now--are realizing that when developers keep control of the software they sell...they are indirectly controlling the people they sell too. Free software means more freedom. It means you have complete control over the software you use.
But...but...I'm sorry. We're talking about the Open Source Movement? Oh...then all we're in it for is free labor and less bugs right?
Look at Red Hat. They're a company. They have shareholders. Yet they manage to take in contributions from anyone.
The problem is Apple wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants to free a part of the operating system, yet remain a proprietary product. It wants to be more open with the community, yet retain Non-disclosure agreements.
Lets face it folks. Apple is a proprietary company--more proprietary than even Microsoft in my estimation. I don't know what prompted them to free Darwin (even with all them requirements upon it). Apple doesn't *think* that way. They think "this is mine, NDA, trade secret". Even the article said that Apple still hasn't grasped the principles of free software.
And don't tell me what is not possible. I don't know law and I don't think you do either. But with enough lawyers I think anything is possible.
And I think Apple has enough lawyers. Perhaps then they can be busy doing something else other than going after Aqua cloners on free systems.
"But if you tell me you didn't buy a Mac because you were too cheap, rest assured that you won't get invited to any of my parties."
Thats okay. I wouldn't come to a party hosted by someone who thought there was something wrong with people who don't have a lot of money around. IMO, "cheap" is a very bad word to use to describe people.
I just kind of want to add a voice on the other side of the line.
I'll probably never run a Mac. The real question is, why? I guess lots of people like the Aqua interface but not only is the software proprietary but the look and feel is proprietary. Personally, seeing Apple legal department threaten free themes that clone the interface causes my skin to crawl. I don't see how I could support something like that.
Another aspect is that I am really getting to appreciate the freedom I have with my current system. From a recent slashdot article, I compiled and installed TeXmacs. Its definitely a quality GNU app (though I've had a few problems) and produces quality typeset documents. But the interface is a little weird. Specifically, it has a Buffer menu on the far left of the menubar and the File menu is next to it. But the code that defines the menubar is in a scheme script! Indeed, almost everything in the interface is definable via scheme. The power to change your system is pervasive throughout the system. All the software on my system I can have access to the source code to. In stark contrast, Apple sees its source code as trade secret.
I suppose I am hung on the principles involved. Which is okay. Many people don't buy from Microsoft because they really don't like what they do. I feel the same way about Apple. And the right to copy, modify and redistribute software are things I take for granted now. Why would I want to give that up?
Actually, if I recall correctly, comets don't necessarily have tails. Tails grow larger on a comet as it get closer to the sun and the suns radiation cause gas and ice to get off away from the sun. The comet's tail isn't usually opposite of the path of the comet.
Even if this comet is close enough to the sun, its possible that the tail is pointing away or towards the earth and therefore not detectable from our point of view.
Is there any free software that will allow me to track interplanetary objects perhaps with a display? In other words, I would like to know where asteroids, comets, and even planets are at any given time in real space (I'm not much of an amateur astronomer though--so sky coordinates wouldn't be so useful for me). Is there any existing software that would do that?
If not, can someone point me to or explain to me the mathematics behind the orbits of interplanetary objects? If so, I think I would be able to write the software myself. I suppose I would need to know the conventions used for the orbits of existing objects so I could input new objects into the system.
Thanks. If you don't like public forums, you can email me at kholmes@sedona.net.
Unfortunately, you won't even oblige my simple request--to read it from the horses mouth. If you had, you certainly couldn't call his writing style as a "rant". Your post is certainly more of a rant than what RMS has ever wrote.
I will counter your belief with simple fact. Most of the software on any GNU/Linux system is a result of his influence and his reality. Its not our job to accept reality but rather to question it and make right what is wrong.
But rather you are a sheep angry at another from straying too far from the herd. How miserable.
"He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting."
That can be said of anyone you disagree with heavily. Also, it is an ad hominem attack. You disagree with him because he's a fanatatic. "fanatic" is basically your own judgement of him. You might as well say that he's wrong because he is an atheist or because he smells (not that I would know).
Think critically about what he is actually saying. That is the only way to know which is ethically correct. Yes! Ethics! Sorry...I know you don't like the word but its important when your license affects other people.
Also, only take RMS's viewpoints from his own writings. There are *many* misconceptions about him. Try www.gnu.org/philosophy/ . You may realize he is more rational than you may presume.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just Linux coders but a lot of other free developers as well. People who contribute GNOME, KDE, GNU, and all of them nice applications--among others. I'm using Mozilla right now which is also not Linux.
The goal, since 1984, has been to give users freedom to the software they use. This means the right to copy, use, and modify the software. This is what free software is and this is why GNU/Linux exists.
Free software is what makes GNU/Linux different from ever other proprietary operating system and is what allows collaborative development to work. The goal has always been freedom.
This means we do not barter away freedom for popularity and we do not barter away freedom for business. And we definitely don't barter away freedom for more software. Sorry Lindows but if you want to use community software you need to follow community rules.
Also, I would hesitate to call this an attack. From the article it doesn't seem like we're at that stage yet. Release the source and I don't think anyone would be upset.
OFFTOPIC
I just wanted to mention that while normally an Open Source crowd, this article has seemed to produce quite a bit of Free Software Movement sentiment. It seems you guys aren't outraged by the lack of pragmatic benefits of the software (no one has yet said that they wanted software that doesn't suck) but rather concerned about the ethics of not providing source to the software they use. Could it be that the open source hype is dissolving and people are returning to their free software roots?
(yes, I know I'll probably get flamed for this)
If you equate
With
Then you're right. But I think there are some differences here and your use of "free-loaders" is bound to confuse anyone.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with credit card numbers. The reason I say this is because it seems that most people don't think a whole lot about their credit cards.
Yes its a generalization, but I know this from experience--at least from where I live.
I work at Subway. We take credit card orders all the time. It would be trivial for me to copy down the credit card numbers we have in a little paper sack we keep the reciepts in. Am I legally responsible if I distribute these reciepts? Not that I know of.
Of course, I wouldn't do anything like that for the ethics of that. But there are a lot of people who perhaps wouldn't think that way.
Customers, I've found, don't give a rats ass about the security of their credit card. Think about it. Do you sign it? Where I work, we don't check the signatures anyway. I've began checking though but too often the signatures are too faded or unreadable anyway. Many of the more security conscious customers write "See I.D." in place of the signature. I asked someone for their ID the other day and they were surprised. It seems that our store isn't alone.
The big problem is that no one is trained properly for swiping cred cards. Basically employees train employees and so people only know what they need to know to get the job done.
It isn't all our fault either. Too many customers hand me their credit card before I've even rung up their meal. If they don't check the price on their reciept before they sign it, which I am sure most don't, I could easily run the credit card for an extra fifteen bucks, and then take fifteen bucks out of the register. Chances are, no one would know any better.
Credit card numbers are not secure and any fear on getting them over IRC is just empty hype. Of course we all know that. Credit cards could be relatively secure, but there are too many weak links in the chain. In the end, its up to you to protect yourself. Personally I would avoid using a credit card for small purchases. Only purchase at places where they *always* check your ID and always get a reciept.. The government isn't going to protect you and certainly these online tabloids aren't. Its up to you.
I have a thought based primarily on ignorance.
But our satellites in orbit are controlled remotely, right? Like by radio signals or something.
How difficult would it be for another entity of some kind to take control of these satellites? Do they use some sort of public key encryption?
Actually, copyright was instituted in the times after the printing press and has nothing to do with "free-loaders". Your argument is not based on fact.
I almost kick myself everytime I read one of these "re-inventing the wheel with open source" tidbits. I'm not sure what your experience is but it doesn't sound like you have a foot in the free software community.
:).
Because it is a community and the community isn't hiring people from Universities with CS degrees, rather within the community people are learning to code. They are getting experience. Some of us are rather new to coding so you will see "Hello World" re-implemented thousands of times. You'll see hundreds of the most routine shell scripts. And you'll see dozens of IRC clients all from a different code base. Why?
Its part of the fun of computing. Honestly, it is less fun (IMO) to start from someone else's program than from starting from scratch--especially when someone else's program already has all the features you want. The beginning stages of a software project are probably the most exciting.
Of course there are other things. Like it is more difficult to grok a large code base than a smaller one. And sometimes more experienced coders pull tricks that newbies don't quite grok yet--so decide to use more simpler and apparent methods.
Free Software isn't going away and I think you're going to see a lot more of this. Programmers going through different stages of experience and writing software that demonstrates different levels of skill.
One thing I've noticed is that software is becomming more and more complex. We may see what I call generational programming. Basically, instead of one programmer understanding a code base or even an entire community understanding a code base we may get to the point where several generations are needed to understand and contribute to a code base (or it may be a conveniant excuse for the TUNES project
Hey there Arandir. I remember you. You're still at it I see.
Again, you make no sense. Not that you're going to agree with this sentiment. But...
The "GNU/Linux" naming convention was created for a reason. Not that I entirely agree with this reason, but it is a rational argument.
They've been developing GNU since 1984. Thats 18 years now. However, Linux beat the Hurd in development. Somehow, the OS was called "Linux" after the operating system kernal rather than after the rest of the OS. So I feel that adopting "GNU/Linux" is a compromise in the kernal's favor since it would take a lot more work to make Linux into a Unix-like OS than to make GNU into a Unix-like OS.
Not that any of this matters. This is all pretty much ancient history. People can call it whatever they like. But I like to keep in mind that the system is a GNU system just as much as it is a Linux system. By whatever name.
Also, claiming Mozilla is GNU software is a very silly statement to make. Not that you don't already know this. In fact, there's a process that software has to go through to become GNU software. This is actually beneficial to free software projects in many ways. Here's the GNU Software Evaluation Guidelines if you're at all interested. Hopefully apparent from this is that becoming GNU software is voluntary.
What you quoted was taken quite out of context. No one argues that Mozilla or Linux are GNU software. But they are free software (or open source if you rather). So you're free to install the software on your existing system and modify it to suit your needs and all that. And thats what GNU has done with X Windows. I'm sure BSD has done the same with X Windows. And Apple used its rights to take BSD and modify it into their proprietary kernal. Yet, somehow, you don't find anyone arguing that Mac OS X should be called FreeBSD (by naming it after the kernal). No one even argues that it should be called Apple/BSD. No compromise in this regard--its just MacOS X.
So on the whole, you're entire post is a pretty silly thing to say. But does it really matter?
Actually, not that anyone cares--but Hurd is part of the GNU system and so is everything else (almost). So the OS with the Hurd and all the GNU stuff on top is called, quite simply, GNU. And that's been the point of the GNU project since 1984--to produce a complete free UNIX-like operating system called the GNU Operating System.
Now back to your fun remarks.
Is this kind of thing even legal? I mean, how can they enforce such a stupid license? If they want to distribute information, how can they tell us how to use that information?
(Note: I have not read the article.)
License: By reading this comment you agree to shoot yourself in the head. Twice.
(RMS really doesn't need a defense here. But since pretty much everything said in the parent post was addressed in the talk, I though I might as well use Stallman's words for his defense. Everything here is out of context but I try to preserve the meaning.)
RMS: For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was written. At that time there was no patent on the LZW (compression) algorithm, but the LZW patent was pending at the time, and was granted in 1985. Over next few years those who distributed Compress started getting threats. All the Compress programmer did was use an idea he had found in a journal, just like software authors had always done.
RMS: Most people who tell you about the patent system have a stake in it, and so they want you to like it. But patents are like the lottery because they only rarely bring benefits to people. Lotteries invite you to think about winning, never about losing, and it is the same with the patenting system.
RMS: However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else--a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
RMS: Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property.'' This term carries a hidden assumption---that the most natural way to think about the issue of copying is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of them as property.
But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference.
Even the US legal system does not entirely accept this analogy, since it does not treat copyrights just like physical object property rights.
Me: ?
(Okay, so not entirely a successful excercise but interesting nonetheless. I hope some of what RMS is trying to say is seen from this post. You are certainly allowed to disagree with someone but I doubt you can accuse him of "Intellectual dishonesty or any such nonsense.)
When!? Where!? It bothers me on how many here agree with this yet I find no evidence of it. Stallman is a very concise writer and rather than "preaching" as so many put it (which I've never seen it done) always supports his opinions and philosophies with rational argument.
I've been following the GNU project for a while now and have usually read RMS's articles and interviews with interest. Have we de-evolved so much that everyone we disagree with is suddenly a "raving nut" or is just easier to dismiss opposing arguments that way?
All this time I've seen few actual counterarguments against Stallmans position. Certainly I've seen unrational responses. Most of these are based upon misconceptions on Stallman's position. The rest are usually mixing together ethical arguments with economic arguments, which Stallman has seemed to traditionally avoid. Arguments like "It is ethically wrong because there isn't a business model that supports it," which is obviously an invalid argument.
Are people still upset about KDE? Is it the copyleft that people feel threatened by? Are employed developers afraid that free software will put them out of work?
Please oh please, where are these misconceptions coming from?
Sure. We should rename all operating systems "Linux".
A long time ago, I wrote an article called "The Rise and Fall of OS Empires". It concluded on how with free software, the software lives on beyond its environment. Underlying the article, though very subtle, was an argument against the BeOS operating system. I've always been critical of any proprietary operating system since the control of the software always rests with the developer.
Now first, a minor argument before I continue on. Names are like symbols in that they stand for something. So when people think of BeOS they think of a great many things, mostly good. But with software, these kinds of symbols aren't very useful and often serve to confuse things. To say that BeOS has come back from the dead is a definite misconception.
Any software is a mix of algorithms and technologies--each which are more general than the code itself. So to reintroduce these things in another piece of software can be said to in a sense recreate that software.
This new AtheOS, from my perspective, is welcome. Hopefully this software will provide interesting technologies which can be implemented in other software.
Hopefully BeOS users and developers are more aware of the risks present in proprietary software. I'd hate to see the same mistake being made a again.
Kudos.
Any such thing?
Actually, they were observations. Not arguments. And I think may have jumped to one conclusion. But I suppose whether one *likes* Apple or not is subjective so I feel I'm entitled to an opinion.
Sorry for your confusion.
(BTW, I wanted to email you personally but you don't have an email address listed.)
Free software *has* decreased the ability to control software. Slowly, its becomming less taken-for-granted that users have no rights with the software they use. I think that people--hackers and power users for now--are realizing that when developers keep control of the software they sell...they are indirectly controlling the people they sell too. Free software means more freedom. It means you have complete control over the software you use.
But...but...I'm sorry. We're talking about the Open Source Movement? Oh...then all we're in it for is free labor and less bugs right?
Sorry for my confusion.
Look at Red Hat. They're a company. They have shareholders. Yet they manage to take in contributions from anyone.
The problem is Apple wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants to free a part of the operating system, yet remain a proprietary product. It wants to be more open with the community, yet retain Non-disclosure agreements.
Lets face it folks. Apple is a proprietary company--more proprietary than even Microsoft in my estimation. I don't know what prompted them to free Darwin (even with all them requirements upon it). Apple doesn't *think* that way. They think "this is mine, NDA, trade secret". Even the article said that Apple still hasn't grasped the principles of free software.
And don't tell me what is not possible. I don't know law and I don't think you do either. But with enough lawyers I think anything is possible.
And I think Apple has enough lawyers. Perhaps then they can be busy doing something else other than going after Aqua cloners on free systems.
"But if you tell me you didn't buy a Mac because you were too cheap, rest assured that you won't get invited to any of my parties."
Thats okay. I wouldn't come to a party hosted by someone who thought there was something wrong with people who don't have a lot of money around. IMO, "cheap" is a very bad word to use to describe people.
Cheers.
I just kind of want to add a voice on the other side of the line.
I'll probably never run a Mac. The real question is, why? I guess lots of people like the Aqua interface but not only is the software proprietary but the look and feel is proprietary. Personally, seeing Apple legal department threaten free themes that clone the interface causes my skin to crawl. I don't see how I could support something like that.
Another aspect is that I am really getting to appreciate the freedom I have with my current system. From a recent slashdot article, I compiled and installed TeXmacs. Its definitely a quality GNU app (though I've had a few problems) and produces quality typeset documents. But the interface is a little weird. Specifically, it has a Buffer menu on the far left of the menubar and the File menu is next to it. But the code that defines the menubar is in a scheme script! Indeed, almost everything in the interface is definable via scheme. The power to change your system is pervasive throughout the system. All the software on my system I can have access to the source code to. In stark contrast, Apple sees its source code as trade secret.
I suppose I am hung on the principles involved. Which is okay. Many people don't buy from Microsoft because they really don't like what they do. I feel the same way about Apple. And the right to copy, modify and redistribute software are things I take for granted now. Why would I want to give that up?
Actually, if I recall correctly, comets don't necessarily have tails. Tails grow larger on a comet as it get closer to the sun and the suns radiation cause gas and ice to get off away from the sun. The comet's tail isn't usually opposite of the path of the comet.
:)
Even if this comet is close enough to the sun, its possible that the tail is pointing away or towards the earth and therefore not detectable from our point of view.
No, I'm an expert. Yes, its a nice image
Is there any free software that will allow me to track interplanetary objects perhaps with a display? In other words, I would like to know where asteroids, comets, and even planets are at any given time in real space (I'm not much of an amateur astronomer though--so sky coordinates wouldn't be so useful for me). Is there any existing software that would do that?
If not, can someone point me to or explain to me the mathematics behind the orbits of interplanetary objects? If so, I think I would be able to write the software myself. I suppose I would need to know the conventions used for the orbits of existing objects so I could input new objects into the system.
Thanks. If you don't like public forums, you can email me at kholmes@sedona.net.
You can email me at kholmes@sedona.net. Hopefully then we can stop playing King of the Hill.
Unfortunately, you won't even oblige my simple request--to read it from the horses mouth. If you had, you certainly couldn't call his writing style as a "rant". Your post is certainly more of a rant than what RMS has ever wrote.
I will counter your belief with simple fact. Most of the software on any GNU/Linux system is a result of his influence and his reality. Its not our job to accept reality but rather to question it and make right what is wrong.
But rather you are a sheep angry at another from straying too far from the herd. How miserable.
"He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting."
That can be said of anyone you disagree with heavily. Also, it is an ad hominem attack. You disagree with him because he's a fanatatic. "fanatic" is basically your own judgement of him. You might as well say that he's wrong because he is an atheist or because he smells (not that I would know).
Think critically about what he is actually saying. That is the only way to know which is ethically correct. Yes! Ethics! Sorry...I know you don't like the word but its important when your license affects other people.
Also, only take RMS's viewpoints from his own writings. There are *many* misconceptions about him. Try www.gnu.org/philosophy/ . You may realize he is more rational than you may presume.