Well, I agree that Monsanto's tactics leave a lot to be desired, but remember that genetic engineering is an expensive and lengthy process. Drug and agricultural companies seem to charge a lot for their biological products, but these are typically the product of hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D and many years of research. It is hard manipulating biological systems, and most biotech companies have a hard time staying profitable.
Is this supposed to be relevant? Spending millions, billions, whatever sums of money on something should not miraculously inhibit the rights of other people. If Monsanto are in a business in which it is difficult to make a profit then I guess they have a problem. That does not mean that that problem should be transferred to farmers going about their trade. If Monsanto can't make profits in a sane way then then tough, they should go out of business.
Then explain why the FSF charges $5,000 for CDS of custom compiled software? Or why does RedHat charge $1000+ for their enterprise server package if they are only allowed to charge for distribution? How could the FSF promote charging for services if you can only charge for distribution?
The GPL permits you to charge as much as you like and I don't think anyone you're replying to has implied otherwise, so it's a little difficult to tell what your point is. The FSF charge $5,000 I imagine because they could use the money and there are, presumably, people willing to pay it. If the software is GPLd then the people who have thus acquired it can then redistribute it at whatever fee they choose, and so on.
Should free software authors start saying "don't ask me about it if you installed it from a Linux distribution; I will only answer questions about it if you installed it from the source
If they like. Or they can refuse to answer questions under any circumstances, answer all questions with seemingly random quotations that may or not be relevant, answer questions only if they were submitted in Aramaic, etc. It's not like they owe you anything, and if you don't like it then you can always take your questions elsewhere.
The whole point of Debian is, according to Debian, to be free.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether it's "commercialised" or not, as you would know if you'd read Debian Free Software Guidelines available through the link you provided.
Colloquial means that it is used in conversation, but is not valid English.
That is certainly the most absurd definition of "colloquial" that I have ever heard. Would you care to tell us where you got it from? If the authors of your dictionary are making claims as to whether words are "valid" then I suggest switching dictionaries. I doubt that they actually are though.
Yep, as long as she has all the most mainstream hardware, and X detects correctly, and configures correctly, and finds her monitor's refresh rate correctly.
Of course, she will then be told to type "startx", which will generate large quantities of error messages with meanings unknown to anyone but the inner circle of developers.
It sounds as though in your company the secretaries are expected to install the operating system for their computer. This is somewhat unusual. Assuming that the hardware wasn't detected properly, Susie would never know about it. She's either provided with a computer that works or she isn't. She isn't handed a Linux CD (or a Windows CD) or even a word processor CD and told to get on with it. The chances are she isn't even permitted to install software on the computer, let alone required to.
Likewise she won't need to use StartX, the computer will have XDM preconfigured, without her knowing anything about it.
It is what crushed Lotus 1-2-3 and made Windows/Microsoft the dominant force it is today. This piece of software is what popularized Windows as the desktop for business IMHO.
Excel 1.0 wasn't even available under Windows. I think 2.0 was the first version for Windows, 1.0 was Mac only.
Historically, rebels and whatnot tend to be AGAINST slavery and taking away rights
Other than on a "well if they want to do bad things once they're in power then we have much worse names for them than rebels" basis, would you care to support that statement?
I guess rebels tend to claim they're after more rights for, well for anyone who they see as a potential ally in attaining power, is that what you meant?
I'm happy to hear this news, but what's going to happen to the UK now?
The UK will contnue to exist tomorrow pretty much like it did today. In addition to this, software and business methods will remain unpatentable there tomorrow just as they were today, just as they have always been.
Corporations are still going to get their patents, whatever the government has to say about it. If the UK won't grant it, then they'll just take their business elsewhere.
Companies operating in markets that grant these patents will continue to obtain them in respect of those markets, whether those companies are based in the UK or anywhere else. Companies trading in the UK will continue to be unable to obtain these patents in respect of that market, whether those companies are based in the UK or anywhere else.
The UK has been an attractive location for high-tech development because of the pound's strength against the euro
Ah... economics isn't really your thing is it? The high value of the pound against the Euro means that British goods for export to the Euro zone are comparatively expensive, and imports to the UK comparatively cheap. It makes the UK less attractive as a place to set up business if you want to trade with the Euro zone, not more.
and because of Britain's efficient network of rails supporting the industries that support high tech.
Okay, I'm wondering whether this is a joke? The UK transport system in general and the rail network in particular is erm... sub-optimal.
But a shaky legal situation could undermine investor confidence and shatter these hard-won benefits.
So "we propose to leave the patent system unchanged" is a shaky legal situation?
I can't emphasize it enough: you can't fight big business with government. Governments are just another type of business and know how to look after their own. Businesses have a stronger voice than citizens because of corporate finances, and mark my words, this isn't the last we'll hear about this issue.
Rubbish. The major political parties in the UK are concerned primarily with currying favour with the electorate. At times it would be nice to see more idealism or committment to some position other than whatever will bring in the votes, but the idea that they're concerned mainly with corporate financing doesn't hold water.
The UK doesn't have a constitution
I think you meant to say the UK doesn't have a written constitution.
so all it will take is another act of parliament tomorrow to turn the tables on intellectual property yet again
Yet again? Software and business method patents have never been recognised in the UK.
Still, it's nice to see the UK serving as a role model for others, a role normally enjoyed by France.
At any rate, the Brittish experiment sounds exciting. It will give us an opportunity to see how things work under such a system.
Erm... what? The Governemt is proposing to leave things exactly as they are, i.e. software and business methods will continue to be unpatentable. There is no experiment. If you want to see how it works, well you can look (and could have looked) at any time.
I'm less sanguine about them trying to push this through the EU, and the EU in general.
There is a debate within the EU on whether to change the existing system i.e. that you can't patent software and business methods. The UK Government is intending to support the status quo.
Things like this--different nations doing things differently, are why One World government is wrong. One World govt. and economy is wrong for the same reason monoculture crops are wrong. One disease could kill the whole lot. Already the World economy causes problems, such as the US market having an impact overseas.
Well since in the whole of the US market you have patents on software and business methods, presumably you'll be happier with the sense of "balance" if the whole of the EU market continues without them.
I can't say that I think it would be a problem if all governments abandoned support of these particular monopolies though.
In your example there are three groups of people :
So, three programmers decide to create a 'viral license'. They Believe In It. They Think All Software Should Be Free. They are talented, and write a bunch of really cool stuff.
First group. They like the idea of Free Software. They give something, the software they create, in exchange for furthering their goals. Presumably they're happy.
Next, a thousand programmers who don't really care one way or the other how their software is used use a little bit of that really cool stuff in their software. Now all of it is released as GPL, because it is required, and anyway, those thousand programmers don't really care much. They just want to write cool software.
Second group. They want to be able to make use of the code provided by the first group. They give something, agreeing to licence their software under a specific set of conditions (which don't bother them one way or the other, small price) in exchange for access to the code they want. Presumably they're happy.
Now, if the GPL were more open, those of us who write software in a corporate setting could have used their stuff, and they wouldn't have found it particularly offensive.
Third group. They want access to the code written by the previous two groups, but don't like the terms it's available on.
The people who have actually contributed, the first two groups, are happy. Your problem seems to be that you fall into the third group and you want people to give you stuff and they won't. Your problem, sorry.
GPL is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause into the cause. I don't like that very much.
But whether or not you like it is besides the point, the people who are actually involved, actually giving and receiving in this bargain are happy. They either like the terms or don't mind them.
Similarly, my employers pay me to further their "cause" (which I don't care about in itself). They find that paying people is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause. Maybe you don't like that very much either. But I'm happy with the pay, they're happy with the work and well... neither they nor I care about you, sorry.
and they will take him to court again to revisit the issue of jurisdiction, and the UK court will take into account any changes in international law and territorial waters in the meantime in deciding if the UK now has jurisdiction over this individual.
More than that, if the UK Government was categorically claiming jurisdiction over Sealand then the UK courts would recognise it. I've no idea how things work in other countries, but in the UK the crown has the power to set borders, negotitate treaties, recognise (or not) foreign governments, and so on. The courts will accept whatever the government says in this regard. The courts do not regard themselves as having any power to recognise Sealand (or anywhere else) as a sovereign power and I don't believe that they they claimed to do so.
Not so. The GPL demands that the price charged for a copy (not a license, but the production of a physical copy) be reasonable.
This is not true, and I doubt that you genuinely think it is given how long you've been involved in these discussions. The GPL states that you may charge a fee for a copy of the software. It does not place any limits on the amount of that fee.
Given your usual conduct, however, I don't expect you to either acknowledge that this is so or to refrain from repeating your untrue claims in future.
If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me.
Hardly.
You seem to envisage this sort of conversation:
"Okay, I can see you could use my help so what I'll do is I'll help you out if in return you'll agree that you'll help others in future"
Surely providing an employee with source code constitutes distribution of that code?
It's open to interpretation to a degree but I think it depends on what you mean by "providing an employee with source code".
If a company has, say, 100 employees all sitting in front of company owned computers and arranges for some software to be installed on those computers then I don't think allowing those employees to use that software on those computers for the purpose of their employment constitutes distributing anything to them. If the company installs, say, Microsoft Office on its computer system then I don't think you'd say that it had "distributed" Office to its employees. Similarly I don't think you could really argue that it "distributes" GCC by insalling it on its own computers for its employees to use.
If the company were to send copies of software to consultants ot even employees to install on their own computers at home then I think it would be much easier to argue that it was "distributing" the software, but I don't think that's as typical a scenario.
OTOH, the abiding suspicion of business towards OSS would be aleviated if the right to proprietary forking were made an explicit part of the OSD.
Quite the opposite. When companies like Apple, Netscape, Trolltech, Sun etc. consider making a project open source, being able to deny people the ability to make proprietary forks is high on their list of priorities. That's why they make licences that basically follow the GPL model (whilst being incompatible with the GPL itself of course; if the derivative of the GPLd code must be GPLd and the derivative of the APSLd code must be APSLd then you can't combine code from the two sources).
I can see you might want to prevent this process continuing, but saying that businesses are generally opposed to these licences is obviously untrue.
What intellect is now being shown by a people that invented the submarine,discovered the diffusion of gases,has the largest (and fastest growing)economy in Europe and a world renowned education system
I could believe Ireland has the fastest growing economy in Europe (I don't know whether it's true or not but it's not ludicrous) but the largest? By what measure? Could you cite some sources for that? I mean reputable sources with numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I agree that Monsanto's tactics leave a lot to be desired, but remember that genetic engineering is an expensive and lengthy process. Drug and agricultural companies seem to charge a lot for their biological products, but these are typically the product of hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D and many years of research. It is hard manipulating biological systems, and most biotech companies have a hard time staying profitable.
Is this supposed to be relevant? Spending millions, billions, whatever sums of money on something should not miraculously inhibit the rights of other people. If Monsanto are in a business in which it is difficult to make a profit then I guess they have a problem. That does not mean that that problem should be transferred to farmers going about their trade. If Monsanto can't make profits in a sane way then then tough, they should go out of business.
To bad those software violate the DMCA and will be made illegal.
Yep, and then respect for the law will make it as rare as illegal parking.
Erm... actually okay he did say you could only charge the cost of distribution. You were right, he was wrong, I don't read carefully enough etc
My apologies.
Then explain why the FSF charges $5,000 for CDS of custom compiled software? Or why does RedHat charge $1000+ for their enterprise server package if they are only allowed to charge for distribution? How could the FSF promote charging for services if you can only charge for distribution?
The GPL permits you to charge as much as you like and I don't think anyone you're replying to has implied otherwise, so it's a little difficult to tell what your point is. The FSF charge $5,000 I imagine because they could use the money and there are, presumably, people willing to pay it. If the software is GPLd then the people who have thus acquired it can then redistribute it at whatever fee they choose, and so on.
Should free software authors start saying "don't ask me about it if you installed it from a Linux distribution; I will only answer questions about it if you installed it from the source
If they like. Or they can refuse to answer questions under any circumstances, answer all questions with seemingly random quotations that may or not be relevant, answer questions only if they were submitted in Aramaic, etc. It's not like they owe you anything, and if you don't like it then you can always take your questions elsewhere.
The whole point of Debian is, according to Debian, to be free.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether it's "commercialised" or not, as you would know if you'd read Debian Free Software Guidelines available through the link you provided.
Colloquial means that it is used in conversation, but is not valid English.
That is certainly the most absurd definition of "colloquial" that I have ever heard. Would you care to tell us where you got it from? If the authors of your dictionary are making claims as to whether words are "valid" then I suggest switching dictionaries. I doubt that they actually are though.
Yep, as long as she has all the most mainstream hardware, and X detects correctly, and configures correctly, and finds her monitor's refresh rate correctly.
Of course, she will then be told to type "startx", which will generate large quantities of error messages with meanings unknown to anyone but the inner circle of developers.
It sounds as though in your company the secretaries are expected to install the operating system for their computer. This is somewhat unusual. Assuming that the hardware wasn't detected properly, Susie would never know about it. She's either provided with a computer that works or she isn't. She isn't handed a Linux CD (or a Windows CD) or even a word processor CD and told to get on with it. The chances are she isn't even permitted to install software on the computer, let alone required to.
Likewise she won't need to use StartX, the computer will have XDM preconfigured, without her knowing anything about it.
And even so, with all these "Windows distributions", there is one vendor, and one place to go for tech support.
Erm... in your world is that considered an advantage? Multiple vendors and multiple sources of support is usually considered a good thing.
If you want single vendor you'd be better switching to Macintosh than running Windows on a PC.
I'm just suprised that a school can restrict freedoms that Congress seeks to protect
I think you meant that the constitution seeks to protect. It's in the constitution because they think Congress is likely to try the opposite.
What about MS Excel 1.0?
It is what crushed Lotus 1-2-3 and made Windows/Microsoft the dominant force it is today. This piece of software is what popularized Windows as the desktop for business IMHO.
Excel 1.0 wasn't even available under Windows. I think 2.0 was the first version for Windows, 1.0 was Mac only.
Historically, rebels and whatnot tend to be AGAINST slavery and taking away rights
Other than on a "well if they want to do bad things once they're in power then we have much worse names for them than rebels" basis, would you care to support that statement?
I guess rebels tend to claim they're after more rights for, well for anyone who they see as a potential ally in attaining power, is that what you meant?
But people do have a right to own explosives, guns and cocaine.
Including nuclear weaponry, or is it only certain explosives they have a right to own?
I'm happy to hear this news, but what's going to happen to the UK now?
The UK will contnue to exist tomorrow pretty much like it did today. In addition to this, software and business methods will remain unpatentable there tomorrow just as they were today, just as they have always been.
Corporations are still going to get their patents, whatever the government has to say about it. If the UK won't grant it, then they'll just take their business elsewhere.
Companies operating in markets that grant these patents will continue to obtain them in respect of those markets, whether those companies are based in the UK or anywhere else. Companies trading in the UK will continue to be unable to obtain these patents in respect of that market, whether those companies are based in the UK or anywhere else.
The UK has been an attractive location for high-tech development because of the pound's strength against the euro
Ah... economics isn't really your thing is it? The high value of the pound against the Euro means that British goods for export to the Euro zone are comparatively expensive, and imports to the UK comparatively cheap. It makes the UK less attractive as a place to set up business if you want to trade with the Euro zone, not more.
and because of Britain's efficient network of rails supporting the industries that support high tech.
Okay, I'm wondering whether this is a joke? The UK transport system in general and the rail network in particular is erm... sub-optimal.
But a shaky legal situation could undermine investor confidence and shatter these hard-won benefits.
So "we propose to leave the patent system unchanged" is a shaky legal situation?
I can't emphasize it enough: you can't fight big business with government. Governments are just another type of business and know how to look after their own. Businesses have a stronger voice than citizens because of corporate finances, and mark my words, this isn't the last we'll hear about this issue.
Rubbish. The major political parties in the UK are concerned primarily with currying favour with the electorate. At times it would be nice to see more idealism or committment to some position other than whatever will bring in the votes, but the idea that they're concerned mainly with corporate financing doesn't hold water.
The UK doesn't have a constitution
I think you meant to say the UK doesn't have a written constitution.
so all it will take is another act of parliament tomorrow to turn the tables on intellectual property yet again
Yet again? Software and business method patents have never been recognised in the UK.
Still, it's nice to see the UK serving as a role model for others, a role normally enjoyed by France.
ROFL. Okay, IHBT.
This is why countries such as Denmark consistently vote to remain out of the EU.
Denmark is a member of the EU and has been for some time.
At any rate, the Brittish experiment sounds exciting. It will give us an opportunity to see how things work under such a system.
Erm... what? The Governemt is proposing to leave things exactly as they are, i.e. software and business methods will continue to be unpatentable. There is no experiment. If you want to see how it works, well you can look (and could have looked) at any time.
I'm less sanguine about them trying to push this through the EU, and the EU in general.
There is a debate within the EU on whether to change the existing system i.e. that you can't patent software and business methods. The UK Government is intending to support the status quo.
Things like this--different nations doing things differently, are why One World government is wrong. One World govt. and economy is wrong for the same reason monoculture crops are wrong. One disease could kill the whole lot. Already the World economy causes problems, such as the US market having an impact overseas.
Well since in the whole of the US market you have patents on software and business methods, presumably you'll be happier with the sense of "balance" if the whole of the EU market continues without them.
I can't say that I think it would be a problem if all governments abandoned support of these particular monopolies though.
You flaming idiot.. that is not socialism. If anything, it is the OPPOSITE of socialism.
You're saying that Government intervening in the marketplace is the opposite of socialism? Would you care to explain your reasoning on that?
In your example there are three groups of people :
So, three programmers decide to create a 'viral license'. They Believe In It. They Think All Software Should Be Free. They are talented, and write a bunch of really cool stuff.
First group. They like the idea of Free Software. They give something, the software they create, in exchange for furthering their goals. Presumably they're happy.
Next, a thousand programmers who don't really care one way or the other how their software is used use a little bit of that really cool stuff in their software. Now all of it is released as GPL, because it is required, and anyway, those thousand programmers don't really care much. They just want to write cool software.
Second group. They want to be able to make use of the code provided by the first group. They give something, agreeing to licence their software under a specific set of conditions (which don't bother them one way or the other, small price) in exchange for access to the code they want. Presumably they're happy.
Now, if the GPL were more open, those of us who write software in a corporate setting could have used their stuff, and they wouldn't have found it particularly offensive.
Third group. They want access to the code written by the previous two groups, but don't like the terms it's available on.
The people who have actually contributed, the first two groups, are happy. Your problem seems to be that you fall into the third group and you want people to give you stuff and they won't. Your problem, sorry.
GPL is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause into the cause. I don't like that very much.
But whether or not you like it is besides the point, the people who are actually involved, actually giving and receiving in this bargain are happy. They either like the terms or don't mind them.
Similarly, my employers pay me to further their "cause" (which I don't care about in itself). They find that paying people is a great way to harness a bunch of people who DON'T CARE about a given cause. Maybe you don't like that very much either. But I'm happy with the pay, they're happy with the work and well... neither they nor I care about you, sorry.
and they will take him to court again to revisit the issue of jurisdiction, and the UK court will take into account any changes in international law and territorial waters in the meantime in deciding if the UK now has jurisdiction over this individual.
More than that, if the UK Government was categorically claiming jurisdiction over Sealand then the UK courts would recognise it. I've no idea how things work in other countries, but in the UK the crown has the power to set borders, negotitate treaties, recognise (or not) foreign governments, and so on. The courts will accept whatever the government says in this regard. The courts do not regard themselves as having any power to recognise Sealand (or anywhere else) as a sovereign power and I don't believe that they they claimed to do so.
Huh ?
You mean bunch of Cubans with guns would be harder to deal with than entire Iraq army ?
Conquering and holding Cuba would be far harder than liberating Kuwait was, if that's what you mean.
Not so. The GPL demands that the price charged for a copy (not a license, but the production of a physical copy) be reasonable.
This is not true, and I doubt that you genuinely think it is given how long you've been involved in these discussions. The GPL states that you may charge a fee for a copy of the software. It does not place any limits on the amount of that fee.
Given your usual conduct, however, I don't expect you to either acknowledge that this is so or to refrain from repeating your untrue claims in future.
If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me.
Hardly.
You seem to envisage this sort of conversation:
"Okay, I can see you could use my help so what I'll do is I'll help you out if in return you'll agree that you'll help others in future"
"HOW DARE YOU FORCE YOUR MORALITY ON ME?"
That makes no sense to me at all.
Surely providing an employee with source code constitutes distribution of that code?
It's open to interpretation to a degree but I think it depends on what you mean by "providing an employee with source code".
If a company has, say, 100 employees all sitting in front of company owned computers and arranges for some software to be installed on those computers then I don't think allowing those employees to use that software on those computers for the purpose of their employment constitutes distributing anything to them. If the company installs, say, Microsoft Office on its computer system then I don't think you'd say that it had "distributed" Office to its employees. Similarly I don't think you could really argue that it "distributes" GCC by insalling it on its own computers for its employees to use.
If the company were to send copies of software to consultants ot even employees to install on their own computers at home then I think it would be much easier to argue that it was "distributing" the software, but I don't think that's as typical a scenario.
OTOH, the abiding suspicion of business towards OSS would be aleviated if the right to proprietary forking were made an explicit part of the OSD.
Quite the opposite. When companies like Apple, Netscape, Trolltech, Sun etc. consider making a project open source, being able to deny people the ability to make proprietary forks is high on their list of priorities. That's why they make licences that basically follow the GPL model (whilst being incompatible with the GPL itself of course; if the derivative of the GPLd code must be GPLd and the derivative of the APSLd code must be APSLd then you can't combine code from the two sources).
I can see you might want to prevent this process continuing, but saying that businesses are generally opposed to these licences is obviously untrue.
What intellect is now being shown by a people that invented the submarine,discovered the diffusion of gases,has the largest (and fastest growing)economy in Europe and a world renowned education system
I could believe Ireland has the fastest growing economy in Europe (I don't know whether it's true or not but it's not ludicrous) but the largest? By what measure? Could you cite some sources for that? I mean reputable sources with numbers.