Linus, at the Linuxworld conference in Moscone last month you posited that using Microsoft tools would never become a tax on computer use because that is the prerogative of governments. With XP's current emphasis on adding digital rights management how will Linux be able to continue if it cannot be used in conjunction with emerging media?
Answer : I don't really care about emerging media and never look at it.
And by doing so you're being discourteous to all the other guys who wrote stuff that you make a living from. I speak of such stuff as the kernel, XFree86, Perl, Mozilla, Python, tcl, KDE, Apache, Samba, MySql, openssh, webmin, and many more besides.
Not really, because they don't seem to care. His point, if I understood correctly, was that he feels that he has reason to show gratitude to the FSF and the FSF have expressed the wish that he call the system GNU/Linux, so he does so. I don't think the other projects you referred to have any desire to be recognised by those means so there is no ingratitude implicit in treating them differently.
I generally call the system "Linux" myself, it's shorter, simpler, and most importantly has name recognition. I'd just as happily call it GNU if that had the name recognition instead, but it doesn't.
If they have to change it to be able to use it, how do they benefit? They have the responsibility to distribute the original code and they have the right to limit distribution of their own code.
If they can achieve the same exact same ends by starting from scratch with no loss of time/money/anything as they do by changing the existing code then why don't they? Or more importantly, if they don't lose any benefit from being unable to make proprietary changes to the existing code then what's your problem? If they choose to change some existing code then of course there's some benefit to them in having that code or they wouldn't bother.
Because that 3rd party did not create the new code.
What? The situation is that the first party has written a piece of software. You're saying that a second party should have a right to make money from any changes they make to that software, howver you also seem to be saying that that second party can make it proprietary thus excluding any third party from making a profit in the same way from changes they make to the software. Why do you think the second party (who makes changes) is entitled to make a profit but that the third party (who makes changes) is not?
Incidentally, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding illegally redistributed proprietary software that has been improved in one way or another, do you think that the improver has a right to profit by distributing the improved program as their proprietary product?
Under non-GPL Freedom, you have the right to all the changes you make. You have the right to share all changes you make. You do not have a right to changes someone else makes, though you do not lose your right to your own changes.
So you're saying that you DON'T have a right to any changes I make? Then why would you object to me putting them under the GPL? Or if you don't mind me putting "changes" under the GPL why would you object to me putting an original work under it?
Your copyright remains on any shared changes, regardless of changes made by another party, thereby requiring your source be made available.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of there. It looks like you're talking about non-GPL free software e.g. BSDL but what you actually say is more true of GPL. Nothing under BSDL requires source to be made available. Possibly you meant to say "permitting your source to be made available"? Or what did you mean?
The GPL restricts freedom by restricting source code augmentation to only those who have nothing to gain by releasing changes.
This is so obviously untrue I don't see why you'd bother to say it. Clearly most of the people augmenting software must feel they are gaining something by so doing whether what they're gaining is a salaray, fun, a sense of achievement, a program that is useful to them personally, money (e.g. Cygnus, IBM, makers of embedded systems...) or anything else.
Yes, this means that, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of GPL-Free software is crap and no person or company can be held responsible for its crappiness.
There you go then, there isn't a problem. Most GPL software is in your view crap so you can happily ignore it and get on with your life.
I disagree. When the attitude of its advocates is to try to take over projects that use their license [slashdot.org]
Have you any idea what you're talking about? Glibc doesn't just use the GPL, it is and always has been a GNU project.
If you'd read the release notes that are linked to from that article you might have noticed they start "Release 2.2.4 of the GNU C library is now available at...".
That's right, GNU as in GNU. It's a GNU project. It was started as a part of GNU. It continues to be a part of GNU.
Not jumping to conclusions too soon and wanting to hear the evidence as the case progresses is very reasonable.
The thing about language is just a red herring though, even leaving aside the fact that English is the closest thing we have to an international language. I don't think you could reasonably conclude from English language menus that a product was destined for the USA but I would expect he was aware of the markets in which his company trades anyway; I just don't think that makes him liable for his employer complying with the laws in those countries or failing to do so.
For example, if a man works writing computer games and is asked to translate the messages in the game into French (whether he does the translation himself or whether he just inserts text provided to him by his employer) then I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that he should be liable to prosecution if the game is illegal under French law for e.g. excessive violence. All he should have to worry about is whether it is lawful for him to write the game in the jurisdiction in which he does so and to enter into the contract with his employer in the jurisdiction in which he does so. Expecting him (as opposed to his employer or the distributor or whoever was actually trading in those markets) to obtain legal advice on all aspects of the product for all export markets is wholly unreasonable.
I don't know what you do for a living but you can apply this reasoning to most products. "You designed this seat belt for Ford, you knew one of their markets is Turkey, you are liable for the failure to comply with the Turkish law that requires..."
How do you know? Besides, if you murder someone under company orders you can't hide behind your employer.
Of course not. But if your employer goes out and murders someone then that does not make you guilty of murder unless you were actually involved in the murder. That's the point. Dmitry didn't sell the software in the USA. He doesn't need to "hide" behind his employer. The people who did distribute the software might well be guilty of a crime, that doesn't mean that Dmitry, who did not sell the software in the USA, is.
Why do you think that working as a company representative absolves him of responsibility?
It doesn't. Why do you think that working for a company makes him responsible for the acts of other people working for that company who do not answer to him?
I'm not going to walk you through the indictment [usdoj.gov]. If you don't want to read it that's fine, but please refrain from replying until you obtain at least the slightest bit of information about the case, such as what he's charged with.
I have read it. What I'm wondering is whether you have. None of it mentions Dmitry Sklyarov being involved in selling software in the USA. It talks about him authoring it in Russia, where it was lawful for him to do so, it talks about his employers selling it through a distributor in the USA, it talks about him being scheduled to give a speech at a conference in the USA.
Whether any business anywhere committed any offence under any law isn't even an issue here.
Well, since Elcomsoft is listed as a defendent, I'd say it is.
To the charges against Elcomsoft, sure. But not to the charges against Dmitry Sklyarov. He did not sell software in the USA.
This is pretty standard - if you smuggle in drugs they don't drop the charges just because you're working for a drug lord. "I was just following orders" went out in the 40s.
But NOTHING in the indictment suggests that Dmitry Sklyarov did anything remotely analogous to smuggling in drugs. He wasn't selling or otherwise distributing the software in the USA.
No, to keep the analogy someone else acting for the first jay walker's employer ran a red light in New York, so the first person gets arrested under some bizarre sort of reverse-vicarious liability.
No, what you meant to say is "What he did should be legal if the DMCA is ruled to be unconstitutional"
The DMCA isn't unconstitutional just because someone posted a webpage quoting slashdot. Like you said, it'll take a trial to establish this.
So, for the time being, the DMCA is constitutional, therefore what he did is still illegal.
NO. The DMCA either is constitutional or it is not. As yet the courts have not determined whether it is or not. What they determine is whether it has ever been constitutional. It's not a case of it being constitutional until they decide otherwise. If the courts find that it is unconstitutional what they will be saying is that it has never been a valid law. If the courts find that it is constitutional then they will be saying that it has always been a valid law.
The DMCA is not "constitutional for the time being", it either is constitutional or is not. We can differ in opinions as to which it is and ultimately the courts will determine which of us is right.
The software was sold in the United States, by a distributer in the United States. That means his employer, and possibly he himself, appear to have broken the law in the United States.
It means that the distributer appears to have broken a law in the United States. Are they even being indicted?
I can see how Elcomsoft's use of that distributor could in turn be seen as them acting illegally in the United States. Where do you get "possibly he himself" from though? And do you think that "possibly" should be enough to get someone into a prison cell, even on a temporary basis? It's possible that you've committed any number of crimes, I'd hope there's at least some evidence that YOU have done before you get handcuffed and marched away.
The software was sold in the United States. Read the articles.
But NOT by Dmitri Sklyarov.
Suppose you work for a computer games company. You produce a game that is perfectly legal to produce and sell in the country that you live in. It is then sold by your employers, and by people who buy it from your employers. Some of those sales are over the internet.
Somewhere in the world it is illegal (or might be illegal, there hasn't been a test case on the new anti-violent computer games law yet) and it can be purchased from there.
In this situtation, should you, the author, be subject to imprisonment? I can understand the prosecution of whoever is selling it over the internet, though it does cause problems, but I don't understand the idea that there is a basis for prosecuting the author, who did nothing illegal in the jurisdiction in which they acted.
So what are you saying he was arrested for? That document details that he wrote a program, in Russia not in the USA. It details that his employer, for whom he perfectly lawfully wrote the program (in Russia, remember?) sold the program over the internet. It also details that he was scheduled to talk at a conference.
Which action by him, NOT his employer are you saying he was arrested for? The ONLY thing that document says he did on US soil was being scheduled to give a speech at a conference. Is that it?
I assume you did actually read the substance of the allegations, not just the charges?
But they imported the software & primarily distributed to the US. You need to read the indictment because they specifically cite actions that happened on US soil.
Actions by Dmitry Skylarov?
Businesses incorporated in the US can't go around breaking the law in the US just because some of their employees are not US citizens.
Whether any business anywhere committed any offence under any law isn't even an issue here. The question is whether Dmitry Sklyarov did. The idea of arresting someone on the basis of allegations against his employer is utterly abhorrent.
You think so? I'd say the opposite. On UK political issues the BBC go out of their way to avoid bias, under previous governments and under this one. On international news though they always favour what they perceive to be Britain's "side" e.g. if the British government gives one version of events (undisputed by UK opposition parties) and an opposing country gives another then the British government view is liable to be reported as what happened and the other version whilst reported is clearly the alternative, what the other country "says". If Britain isn't directly involved then generally another country takes the place of "our side" e.g. if the USA is involved and Britain isn't then the USA side is likely to get favourable treatment (depending on who else is involved).
It isn't utterly terrible. The "other side's" version is generally presented and reasonably fairly too. "Our side" tends to get presented with favourable bias whereas the "other side" tends to be preented objectively.
If the international issue is controvertial as an issue in our national politics then they try to report objectively. If it isn't then they don't.
I suspect your perception that they are unbiased in international news is because they generally present the view that you agree with (they generally present the view that I agree with on international issues too, that doesn't make it unbiased) but since I have no idea what your views are I could be totally wrong there:)
I can't say that I pick up on any bias with them in respect to the pound / Euro but it's not an issue I have strong views on. I suspect it's more that they aren't biased towards your viewpoint, but again I could be wrong.
A good test of ethics is to ask, "What if EVERYBODY did it"
As in "what would happen if EVERYBODY" worked as a programmer?" Nobody would be a farmer, or at least only in their spare time, we wouldn't be producing enough food to sustain the population, nobody would be working in healthcare or other essential services, all sorts of diseases and other problems would be rampant, nobody would even be producing the computers for all these programmers to use! It'd be a catastrophe. By the "what if EVERYBODY did it" test I think we can safely conclude that becoming a programmer is unethical.
Then again, what if EVERYBODY avoided doing anything that would cause problems if EVERYBODY did it? Seems to me that would cause a good few problems too. I think the "what if EVERYBODY did it" test may fail itself.
Ingredients labels are there for people with food allergies.
Can you give a cite for that being the only or primary purpose of ingredient lists?
In my opinion they are (or should be) there to enable people to decide whether they want to consume that item based on whatever criteria they choose e.g. allergy you meantioned but also more generalised health concerns, ethical concerns such as vegetarianism, religious requirements, taste or totally arbitrary objections.
You can reasonably claim that knowing what you are eating is more fundamentally important to people than knowing what's in the code they're running. I'd agree with that. Saying the only concern over food is allergies is just silly though.
And what a wonderful incentive for creating a product with good usability that approach gives...
If the users didn't find emacs usable in comparison to the alternatives then presumably they would have used the alternatives instead, not paid for changes to emacs. Clearly there was an incentive to make emacs not only usable but preferable to anything else.
If people found it has usability problems and were willing to pay for the changes then yes, it was directly incentivising usability changes. All changes were free software of course.
How is there less incentive to make it usable this way than for any other for-pay product? How does selling an initial product and then subsequent upgrades create a greater incentive to make it usable in the first place? The only difference here is that the upgrade process is more directly driven by the wishes of the paying users.
Only according to your arbitrary definition that the legal system & the majority of people do not accept as valid.
Wrong. The legal system accepts theft as appropriating the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Copyright infringement is illegal but is not theft.
If you are being tried for copyright infringement you are not charged with theft. The actus reas is not the same as theft. The mens rea is not the same as theft. The available defences are not the same as for theft. The penalties are not the same as for theft. Your statement that the legal system regards copyright infringement as theft is utterly wrong.
None of that, of course, has anything to do with the morality of copyright infringement. None of it denies that copright infringement is illegal. It is not however theft, any more than parking on a yellow line is theft or than murder is theft. All these things are illegal but they are all different offences.
Sounds like she should be a witness for the defense in the DeCSS cases. She could explain to the court how easy it is for people to circumvent CSS without DeCSS, removing any justification for banning it.
Office workers aren't a fair test of whether Linux is easy to use as they don't have to do enough on their machines. They turn up, use the word processor, spreadsheet and e-mail program (or whatever - you get the idea) they go.
You're saying that ordinary computer users using their computers for their everyday tasks is not a valid usability test?
If it breaks, or if anything needs changing, they call the office support person.
Yes, of course, and if this simple procedure is what they expect and are comfortable with and if it fixes their problem then that's good.
The significant usability problem with Linux, from what I see, isn't in normal use but in modifying the config which remains hard and which these people don't have to do.
So if they don't have to do it then they don't need to be able to do it. So long as the computers are usable for the tasks they are performing then what's the problem?
Ergo, they're not a valid test of usability here.
I think maybe I've wandered into the twilight zone and just didn't notice the creepy music.
I'll be 33 next month and I'm not expecting to suddenly go all pro DMCA on my birthday:)
Seriously, although your coworker is presumably intelligent that's not incompatible with being close minded. Telling you that a conversation is over because you refer to free speech doesn't suggest he's preprared to even consider viewpoints other than his own, he clearly doesn't want to discuss them. Dismissing someone's viewpoint on the grounds of their youth is even worse.
Just hope that when you're 33 that whatever you have come to believe you won't be so arrogant and dismissive.
Oh, last point, the world (or at least society) works the way that we collectively make it work.
Slashdot Mirror
Linus, at the Linuxworld conference in Moscone last month you posited that using Microsoft tools would never become a tax on computer use because that is the prerogative of governments. With XP's current emphasis on adding digital rights management how will Linux be able to continue if it cannot be used in conjunction with emerging media?
Answer : I don't really care about emerging media and never look at it.
And by doing so you're being discourteous to all the other guys who wrote stuff that you make a living from. I speak of such stuff as the kernel, XFree86, Perl, Mozilla, Python, tcl, KDE, Apache, Samba, MySql, openssh, webmin, and many more besides.
Not really, because they don't seem to care. His point, if I understood correctly, was that he feels that he has reason to show gratitude to the FSF and the FSF have expressed the wish that he call the system GNU/Linux, so he does so. I don't think the other projects you referred to have any desire to be recognised by those means so there is no ingratitude implicit in treating them differently.
I generally call the system "Linux" myself, it's shorter, simpler, and most importantly has name recognition. I'd just as happily call it GNU if that had the name recognition instead, but it doesn't.
If they have to change it to be able to use it, how do they benefit? They have the responsibility to distribute the original code and they have the right to limit distribution of their own code.
If they can achieve the same exact same ends by starting from scratch with no loss of time/money/anything as they do by changing the existing code then why don't they? Or more importantly, if they don't lose any benefit from being unable to make proprietary changes to the existing code then what's your problem? If they choose to change some existing code then of course there's some benefit to them in having that code or they wouldn't bother.
Because that 3rd party did not create the new code.
What? The situation is that the first party has written a piece of software. You're saying that a second party should have a right to make money from any changes they make to that software, howver you also seem to be saying that that second party can make it proprietary thus excluding any third party from making a profit in the same way from changes they make to the software. Why do you think the second party (who makes changes) is entitled to make a profit but that the third party (who makes changes) is not?
Incidentally, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding illegally redistributed proprietary software that has been improved in one way or another, do you think that the improver has a right to profit by distributing the improved program as their proprietary product?
Under non-GPL Freedom, you have the right to all the changes you make. You have the right to share all changes you make. You do not have a right to changes someone else makes, though you do not lose your right to your own changes.
So you're saying that you DON'T have a right to any changes I make? Then why would you object to me putting them under the GPL? Or if you don't mind me putting "changes" under the GPL why would you object to me putting an original work under it?
Your copyright remains on any shared changes, regardless of changes made by another party, thereby requiring your source be made available.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of there. It looks like you're talking about non-GPL free software e.g. BSDL but what you actually say is more true of GPL. Nothing under BSDL requires source to be made available. Possibly you meant to say "permitting your source to be made available"? Or what did you mean?
The GPL restricts freedom by restricting source code augmentation to only those who have nothing to gain by releasing changes.
This is so obviously untrue I don't see why you'd bother to say it. Clearly most of the people augmenting software must feel they are gaining something by so doing whether what they're gaining is a salaray, fun, a sense of achievement, a program that is useful to them personally, money (e.g. Cygnus, IBM, makers of embedded systems...) or anything else.
Yes, this means that, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of GPL-Free software is crap and no person or company can be held responsible for its crappiness.
There you go then, there isn't a problem. Most GPL software is in your view crap so you can happily ignore it and get on with your life.
A developer that improves code does not benefit from the original code, but benefits the original code.
If using it didn't benefit their aims then they wouldn't be using it.
The person who makes those improvements should have the right to make money off those changes.
Why should they? Or why should a third person not then have the right to make money by changing their code?
I disagree. When the attitude of its advocates is to try to take over projects that use their license [slashdot.org]
Have you any idea what you're talking about? Glibc doesn't just use the GPL, it is and always has been a GNU project.
If you'd read the release notes that are linked to from that article you might have noticed they start "Release 2.2.4 of the GNU C library is now available at...".
That's right, GNU as in GNU. It's a GNU project. It was started as a part of GNU. It continues to be a part of GNU.
A speeding ticket is not a criminal offense (in most jurisdictions, I'm sure there's an exception out there to make me wrong).
It is certainly a criminal offense in the UK, and I'd be most surprised if it isn't in other common law jurisdictions such as the USA.
Not jumping to conclusions too soon and wanting to hear the evidence as the case progresses is very reasonable.
The thing about language is just a red herring though, even leaving aside the fact that English is the closest thing we have to an international language. I don't think you could reasonably conclude from English language menus that a product was destined for the USA but I would expect he was aware of the markets in which his company trades anyway; I just don't think that makes him liable for his employer complying with the laws in those countries or failing to do so.
For example, if a man works writing computer games and is asked to translate the messages in the game into French (whether he does the translation himself or whether he just inserts text provided to him by his employer) then I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that he should be liable to prosecution if the game is illegal under French law for e.g. excessive violence. All he should have to worry about is whether it is lawful for him to write the game in the jurisdiction in which he does so and to enter into the contract with his employer in the jurisdiction in which he does so. Expecting him (as opposed to his employer or the distributor or whoever was actually trading in those markets) to obtain legal advice on all aspects of the product for all export markets is wholly unreasonable.
I don't know what you do for a living but you can apply this reasoning to most products. "You designed this seat belt for Ford, you knew one of their markets is Turkey, you are liable for the failure to comply with the Turkish law that requires..."
How do you know? Besides, if you murder someone under company orders you can't hide behind your employer.
Of course not. But if your employer goes out and murders someone then that does not make you guilty of murder unless you were actually involved in the murder. That's the point. Dmitry didn't sell the software in the USA. He doesn't need to "hide" behind his employer. The people who did distribute the software might well be guilty of a crime, that doesn't mean that Dmitry, who did not sell the software in the USA, is.
Why do you think that working as a company representative absolves him of responsibility?
It doesn't. Why do you think that working for a company makes him responsible for the acts of other people working for that company who do not answer to him?
I'm not going to walk you through the indictment [usdoj.gov]. If you don't want to read it that's fine, but please refrain from replying until you obtain at least the slightest bit of information about the case, such as what he's charged with.
I have read it. What I'm wondering is whether you have. None of it mentions Dmitry Sklyarov being involved in selling software in the USA. It talks about him authoring it in Russia, where it was lawful for him to do so, it talks about his employers selling it through a distributor in the USA, it talks about him being scheduled to give a speech at a conference in the USA.
Whether any business anywhere committed any offence under any law isn't even an issue here.
Well, since Elcomsoft is listed as a defendent, I'd say it is.
To the charges against Elcomsoft, sure. But not to the charges against Dmitry Sklyarov. He did not sell software in the USA.
This is pretty standard - if you smuggle in drugs they don't drop the charges just because you're working for a drug lord. "I was just following orders" went out in the 40s.
But NOTHING in the indictment suggests that Dmitry Sklyarov did anything remotely analogous to smuggling in drugs. He wasn't selling or otherwise distributing the software in the USA.
And yet strangely neither this US company nor its officers or employees are being prosecuted.
None of this explains the basis on which Dmitri Sklyarov is being accused of a crime.
No, to keep the analogy someone else acting for the first jay walker's employer ran a red light in New York, so the first person gets arrested under some bizarre sort of reverse-vicarious liability.
No, what you meant to say is "What he did should be legal if the DMCA is ruled to be unconstitutional"
The DMCA isn't unconstitutional just because someone posted a webpage quoting slashdot. Like you said, it'll take a trial to establish this.
So, for the time being, the DMCA is constitutional, therefore what he did is still illegal.
NO. The DMCA either is constitutional or it is not. As yet the courts have not determined whether it is or not. What they determine is whether it has ever been constitutional. It's not a case of it being constitutional until they decide otherwise. If the courts find that it is unconstitutional what they will be saying is that it has never been a valid law. If the courts find that it is constitutional then they will be saying that it has always been a valid law.
The DMCA is not "constitutional for the time being", it either is constitutional or is not. We can differ in opinions as to which it is and ultimately the courts will determine which of us is right.
The software was sold in the United States, by a distributer in the United States. That means his employer, and possibly he himself, appear to have broken the law in the United States.
It means that the distributer appears to have broken a law in the United States. Are they even being indicted?
I can see how Elcomsoft's use of that distributor could in turn be seen as them acting illegally in the United States. Where do you get "possibly he himself" from though? And do you think that "possibly" should be enough to get someone into a prison cell, even on a temporary basis? It's possible that you've committed any number of crimes, I'd hope there's at least some evidence that YOU have done before you get handcuffed and marched away.
The software was sold in the United States. Read the articles.
But NOT by Dmitri Sklyarov.
Suppose you work for a computer games company. You produce a game that is perfectly legal to produce and sell in the country that you live in. It is then sold by your employers, and by people who buy it from your employers. Some of those sales are over the internet.
Somewhere in the world it is illegal (or might be illegal, there hasn't been a test case on the new anti-violent computer games law yet) and it can be purchased from there.
In this situtation, should you, the author, be subject to imprisonment? I can understand the prosecution of whoever is selling it over the internet, though it does cause problems, but I don't understand the idea that there is a basis for prosecuting the author, who did nothing illegal in the jurisdiction in which they acted.
So what are you saying he was arrested for? That document details that he wrote a program, in Russia not in the USA. It details that his employer, for whom he perfectly lawfully wrote the program (in Russia, remember?) sold the program over the internet. It also details that he was scheduled to talk at a conference.
Which action by him, NOT his employer are you saying he was arrested for? The ONLY thing that document says he did on US soil was being scheduled to give a speech at a conference. Is that it?
I assume you did actually read the substance of the allegations, not just the charges?
But they imported the software & primarily distributed to the US. You need to read the indictment because they specifically cite actions that happened on US soil.
Actions by Dmitry Skylarov?
Businesses incorporated in the US can't go around breaking the law in the US just because some of their employees are not US citizens.
Whether any business anywhere committed any offence under any law isn't even an issue here. The question is whether Dmitry Sklyarov did. The idea of arresting someone on the basis of allegations against his employer is utterly abhorrent.
You think so? I'd say the opposite. On UK political issues the BBC go out of their way to avoid bias, under previous governments and under this one. On international news though they always favour what they perceive to be Britain's "side" e.g. if the British government gives one version of events (undisputed by UK opposition parties) and an opposing country gives another then the British government view is liable to be reported as what happened and the other version whilst reported is clearly the alternative, what the other country "says". If Britain isn't directly involved then generally another country takes the place of "our side" e.g. if the USA is involved and Britain isn't then the USA side is likely to get favourable treatment (depending on who else is involved).
:)
It isn't utterly terrible. The "other side's" version is generally presented and reasonably fairly too. "Our side" tends to get presented with favourable bias whereas the "other side" tends to be preented objectively.
If the international issue is controvertial as an issue in our national politics then they try to report objectively. If it isn't then they don't.
I suspect your perception that they are unbiased in international news is because they generally present the view that you agree with (they generally present the view that I agree with on international issues too, that doesn't make it unbiased) but since I have no idea what your views are I could be totally wrong there
I can't say that I pick up on any bias with them in respect to the pound / Euro but it's not an issue I have strong views on. I suspect it's more that they aren't biased towards your viewpoint, but again I could be wrong.
A good test of ethics is to ask, "What if EVERYBODY did it"
As in "what would happen if EVERYBODY" worked as a programmer?" Nobody would be a farmer, or at least only in their spare time, we wouldn't be producing enough food to sustain the population, nobody would be working in healthcare or other essential services, all sorts of diseases and other problems would be rampant, nobody would even be producing the computers for all these programmers to use! It'd be a catastrophe. By the "what if EVERYBODY did it" test I think we can safely conclude that becoming a programmer is unethical.
Then again, what if EVERYBODY avoided doing anything that would cause problems if EVERYBODY did it? Seems to me that would cause a good few problems too. I think the "what if EVERYBODY did it" test may fail itself.
Ingredients labels are there for people with food allergies.
Can you give a cite for that being the only or primary purpose of ingredient lists?
In my opinion they are (or should be) there to enable people to decide whether they want to consume that item based on whatever criteria they choose e.g. allergy you meantioned but also more generalised health concerns, ethical concerns such as vegetarianism, religious requirements, taste or totally arbitrary objections.
You can reasonably claim that knowing what you are eating is more fundamentally important to people than knowing what's in the code they're running. I'd agree with that. Saying the only concern over food is allergies is just silly though.
And what a wonderful incentive for creating a product with good usability that approach gives...
If the users didn't find emacs usable in comparison to the alternatives then presumably they would have used the alternatives instead, not paid for changes to emacs. Clearly there was an incentive to make emacs not only usable but preferable to anything else.
If people found it has usability problems and were willing to pay for the changes then yes, it was directly incentivising usability changes. All changes were free software of course.
How is there less incentive to make it usable this way than for any other for-pay product? How does selling an initial product and then subsequent upgrades create a greater incentive to make it usable in the first place? The only difference here is that the upgrade process is more directly driven by the wishes of the paying users.
Only according to your arbitrary definition that the legal system & the majority of people do not accept as valid.
Wrong. The legal system accepts theft as appropriating the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Copyright infringement is illegal but is not theft.
If you are being tried for copyright infringement you are not charged with theft. The actus reas is not the same as theft. The mens rea is not the same as theft. The available defences are not the same as for theft. The penalties are not the same as for theft. Your statement that the legal system regards copyright infringement as theft is utterly wrong.
None of that, of course, has anything to do with the morality of copyright infringement. None of it denies that copright infringement is illegal. It is not however theft, any more than parking on a yellow line is theft or than murder is theft. All these things are illegal but they are all different offences.
Sounds like she should be a witness for the defense in the DeCSS cases. She could explain to the court how easy it is for people to circumvent CSS without DeCSS, removing any justification for banning it.
Office workers aren't a fair test of whether Linux is easy to use as they don't have to do enough on their machines. They turn up, use the word processor, spreadsheet and e-mail program (or whatever - you get the idea) they go.
You're saying that ordinary computer users using their computers for their everyday tasks is not a valid usability test?
If it breaks, or if anything needs changing, they call the office support person.
Yes, of course, and if this simple procedure is what they expect and are comfortable with and if it fixes their problem then that's good.
The significant usability problem with Linux, from what I see, isn't in normal use but in modifying the config which remains hard and which these people don't have to do.
So if they don't have to do it then they don't need to be able to do it. So long as the computers are usable for the tasks they are performing then what's the problem?
Ergo, they're not a valid test of usability here.
I think maybe I've wandered into the twilight zone and just didn't notice the creepy music.
I'll be 33 next month and I'm not expecting to suddenly go all pro DMCA on my birthday :)
Seriously, although your coworker is presumably intelligent that's not incompatible with being close minded. Telling you that a conversation is over because you refer to free speech doesn't suggest he's preprared to even consider viewpoints other than his own, he clearly doesn't want to discuss them. Dismissing someone's viewpoint on the grounds of their youth is even worse.
Just hope that when you're 33 that whatever you have come to believe you won't be so arrogant and dismissive.
Oh, last point, the world (or at least society) works the way that we collectively make it work.