Allowing stupid laws like the proposed cellphone restriction is precisely WHY we have other stupid laws like the DMCA and the US Patriot Act. It's the result of a failure to use your imagination to see how a problem can be solved without using the violence of the state. -russ
Can you think of ten different ways to solve the same problem without invoking the violence of the state? Here's one to prime your pump: charge an extra $5 for a "cellphone ticket." If you want to enter the theatre with a cellphone, you have to pay the cellphone ticket price. Okay, so I can tell that your pump needs extra priming, so here's another one: before beginning the performance, the stage manager goes out on stage and says "Hi. We understand that some people simply CANNOT turn their cellphones off. If your cellphone goes off, you are obviously going to be in such a hurry to get somewhere that you'll need a police escort. So if we hear a cellphone, we're going to call the police for your escort. Enjoy the performance!"
It's quite possible to get rich at somebody else's expense: by stealing from them. Or you can get rich by redistributing their income in a "more fair" fashion. For example, let's help the poor farmer with farm subsidies. Problem is that most of the subsidies go to people who don't need them.
You neglected to say: "In a free market, if I get rich, it's not at your expense." People who think libertarianism is a cover for the rich and powerful often forget that those people don't like the free market either. -russ
Not all laws or potential laws are enforcible at a cost the government is willing to afford. If we can distribute random bits, then we can do stuff they say we shouldn't. If we can't distribute random bits, then many many Internet applications become unworkable. -russ
That's the theory behind patents. Unfortunately, the theory is seldom achieved. Most patents aren't detailed enough to allow one killed in the arts to reproduce the invention. Most often, inventions ARE obvious to one skilled in the art (because patent examiners aren't skilled in the art). And most often the best way to make money from a patent is by building the thing.
And I haven't even gotten into submarine patents, which totally subvert the process you described. -russ
I hate to whine, but did you read his white paper? The twiddler needs a strap; his doesn't. Come ON, folks, RTFWP already! -russ
what a bunch of morons you all are
on
Penguin Airlines
·
· Score: 3
Gee, I'm ashamed of you idiots! Look at you! You act like you didn't even read the interview (you probably didn't). You sound like you didn't look at the airplane. And you obviously didn't think about the fact that this is *general aviation*. No fricking security checks. No X-raying. No pat-downs. No opening up your laptop and turning it on just to prove that you didn't replace your hard drive and cdrom with explosives (which duh you could have anyway).
What they're selling is freedom, and it's freedom at a reasonable price. I'm definitely going to check these guys out next time I fly. Yeah, I won't be flying to Texas any time too soon, but still, I'll encourage them to expand as rapidly as they can.
Not only that, but they're flying from small town to small town. So intead of having to go to an "airport", you can go to your town's airport, e.g. Potsdam's. This jet can land, pick you up, and take off again in less than ten minutes. And that airport is only ten minutes from my house. -russ
The funny thing about the "Linux Girl" line is that there was indeed a little slip of a hippie girl (wearing the requisite Birks), who does indeed attend MIT, sitting two seats to my left. -russ
Gee, the people who heard it seem to have a better opinion of it than the people who are reading it. Perhaps it was Bruce's delivery, in his mild southern accent, which did it? Certainly it inspired Larry Wall's "Preach it, Brother!" -russ
People sometimes mis-spell breath "breadth". Breadth is width. Not a real great joke, but I think Bruce needs a little levity in his life. He's taking this thread WAY too seriously. -russ
Bruce, you're not thinking clearly. It matters that I have no pecuniary incentive because that invalidates his comparison to an anti-virus company. They have a clear incentive to distribute virusses. We have no incentive to make work for ourselves.
The comparison to locks is particularly appropriate, I believe. If you don't have a lock on a critical section of code, your kernel can crash. If anybody anywhere gets sued (and as you said, merely having to defend yourself is losing) because they distributed free software, and there was no valid warranty disclaimer, then WE HAVE ALL LOST.
As RGRistroph pointed out, there is a very small probability of this happening. It only needs to happen once, though, and many people will reconsider developing free software. Large consequences with a small probability is a considerable risk simply because it's hard to calculate the risk. That risk is being ignored.
Multiple legal professionals have told me that warrantees must be effectively disclaimed or they will be dismissed by the judge. Don't believe me. Go read license-discuss. Go ask a lawyer.
Bruce, you're not making any sense. Take a deep (and wide) breadth (sorry), go to bed, and reconsider this entire thread. I'm sure that once you've slept on it, you'll retract everything you've said in this thread. In other threads you've said sensible things. This one, nonsense. -russ
This one seems pretty clear to me. Where does it say that in the OSD of which you are so proud to have written?
OSI was proposed to me? I thought you were one of the founders of OSI?
it was a way of marketing Free Software to business. Given that RMS doesn't understand the need for selling ideas to people, he's going to turn it into a schism, yes. I don't see any alternative here.
And the OSD continues to diverge from the DFSG. This is the same Bruce Perens who is going to contribute a modification to the OSD. Yep, user #3872. I can only conclude that you had a stupid attack when you started this thread. Please, Bruce, don't let pride stand between you and admitting stupidity! I never do.
The folks running OSI are not representative of any Open Source community anywhere? Care to count lines of code, Bruce? CPUs running one's code (every McDonald's cash register is running my code; you lose one step from the starting line)? Should we count Slashdot submissions? Advogato articles? Boards of directors heatedly resigned? -russ
Are you fixing the kernel bug? How long is it going to take? In the meantime, there exists a userland work-around. Are you going to tell people that they shouldn't use it? Would you have us tell people that they shouldn't disclaim warranties?
Let's try it with your employer. Go tell HP that the standard method of distribution of free software doesn't allow for a legally valid disclaimer of warranty. That HP has distributed warranteed software for free. I can't imagine Mike would like that one either. -russ
Well, there is a particular bug in the Linux SMP kernel with the Intel e100b driver in use which is exercised by qmail. Your machine is causing qmail-remotes to hang forever. There is a work-around for qmail. There is no fix for the kernel.
Do you do the open source politically correct thing and allow your email service to go down until somebody fixes the kernel? Or do you fix it in userland?
Of course, this is just an analogy. The problem is that the law mandates warranties for software. The fix is obviously to change the law. A fixed UCITA would solve this problem. Unfortunately, UCITA currently requires warranties even for free software. An amended UCITA may not, but it will still require a license even for people who merely sell media containing free software.
Okay, so since the news for fixing the law looks bad, don't you think people should be disclaiming warranty in a legally supportable fashion? Don't you think OSI should have an opinion on whether such an action complies with the OSD?
Your lackadaisical attitude towards software licensing alarms me. Will you take it more seriously when a free software developer gets used and loses because the GPL isn't a contract and the disclaimer of warranty has no legal effect? You're probably the same kind of programmer who doesn't bother to lock critical variables because "none of that lock stuff is necessary".
You don't have to take licensing seriously because *we* do.
Oh, and before you compare us to a for-profit company with an interest in promoting the thing it repairs, consider that all of us are volunteers. We don't go making work for ourselves. -russ
Agreed. In the meantime should we allow Open Source contributors to protect themselves while we also work on changing the law? Should a userland program work around a kernel bug, or should it not work until the kernel bug is fixed. Answer not obvious. -russ
That's my understanding. We've all just given away our code with the understanding that "Of course there's no warranty", even all the while the existing law says that there is indeed a warranty.
If there's a bug in the kernel, and you can work around it in a user-level program, which should you fix? Is it *wrong* to work around a kernel bug in userland? -russ
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing stupid laws like the proposed cellphone restriction is precisely WHY we have other stupid laws like the DMCA and the US Patriot Act. It's the result of a failure to use your imagination to see how a problem can be solved without using the violence of the state.
-russ
Can you think of ten different ways to solve the same problem without invoking the violence of the state? Here's one to prime your pump: charge an extra $5 for a "cellphone ticket." If you want to enter the theatre with a cellphone, you have to pay the cellphone ticket price. Okay, so I can tell that your pump needs extra priming, so here's another one: before beginning the performance, the stage manager goes out on stage and says "Hi. We understand that some people simply CANNOT turn their cellphones off. If your cellphone goes off, you are obviously going to be in such a hurry to get somewhere that you'll need a police escort. So if we hear a cellphone, we're going to call the police for your escort. Enjoy the performance!"
It's quite possible to get rich at somebody else's expense: by stealing from them. Or you can get rich by redistributing their income in a "more fair" fashion. For example, let's help the poor farmer with farm subsidies. Problem is that most of the subsidies go to people who don't need them.
You neglected to say: "In a free market, if I get rich, it's not at your expense." People who think libertarianism is a cover for the rich and powerful often forget that those people don't like the free market either.
-russ
Not all laws or potential laws are enforcible at a cost the government is willing to afford. If we can distribute random bits, then we can do stuff they say we shouldn't. If we can't distribute random bits, then many many Internet applications become unworkable.
-russ
That's the theory behind patents. Unfortunately, the theory is seldom achieved. Most patents aren't detailed enough to allow one killed in the arts to reproduce the invention. Most often, inventions ARE obvious to one skilled in the art (because patent examiners aren't skilled in the art). And most often the best way to make money from a patent is by building the thing.
And I haven't even gotten into submarine patents, which totally subvert the process you described.
-russ
I hate to whine, but did you read his white paper? The twiddler needs a strap; his doesn't. Come ON, folks, RTFWP already!
-russ
Gee, I'm ashamed of you idiots! Look at you! You act like you didn't even read the interview (you probably didn't). You sound like you didn't look at the airplane. And you obviously didn't think about the fact that this is *general aviation*. No fricking security checks. No X-raying. No pat-downs. No opening up your laptop and turning it on just to prove that you didn't replace your hard drive and cdrom with explosives (which duh you could have anyway).
What they're selling is freedom, and it's freedom at a reasonable price. I'm definitely going to check these guys out next time I fly. Yeah, I won't be flying to Texas any time too soon, but still, I'll encourage them to expand as rapidly as they can.
Not only that, but they're flying from small town to small town. So intead of having to go to an "airport", you can go to your town's airport, e.g. Potsdam's. This jet can land, pick you up, and take off again in less than ten minutes. And that airport is only ten minutes from my house.
-russ
Front row, hell, he put it on the table Bruce was sitting at!
-russ
The funny thing about the "Linux Girl" line is that there was indeed a little slip of a hippie girl (wearing the requisite Birks), who does indeed attend MIT, sitting two seats to my left.
-russ
Gee, the people who heard it seem to have a better opinion of it than the people who are reading it. Perhaps it was Bruce's delivery, in his mild southern accent, which did it? Certainly it inspired Larry Wall's "Preach it, Brother!"
-russ
It's purely words strung together for effect.
Sure, and the effect is worth it. It's a rant, pure and simple, but unlike *yours*, it's a well-written rant.
-russ
45 minutes, not counting the time it took to move us from a smaller room to a larger room (duh).
-russ
Um.... um.... I forgot. Sorry.
-russ
People sometimes mis-spell breath "breadth". Breadth is width. Not a real great joke, but I think Bruce needs a little levity in his life. He's taking this thread WAY too seriously.
-russ
Bruce, you're not thinking clearly. It matters that I have no pecuniary incentive because that invalidates his comparison to an anti-virus company. They have a clear incentive to distribute virusses. We have no incentive to make work for ourselves.
The comparison to locks is particularly appropriate, I believe. If you don't have a lock on a critical section of code, your kernel can crash. If anybody anywhere gets sued (and as you said, merely having to defend yourself is losing) because they distributed free software, and there was no valid warranty disclaimer, then WE HAVE ALL LOST.
As RGRistroph pointed out, there is a very small probability of this happening. It only needs to happen once, though, and many people will reconsider developing free software. Large consequences with a small probability is a considerable risk simply because it's hard to calculate the risk. That risk is being ignored.
Multiple legal professionals have told me that warrantees must be effectively disclaimed or they will be dismissed by the judge. Don't believe me. Go read license-discuss. Go ask a lawyer.
Bruce, you're not making any sense. Take a deep (and wide) breadth (sorry), go to bed, and reconsider this entire thread. I'm sure that once you've slept on it, you'll retract everything you've said in this thread. In other threads you've said sensible things. This one, nonsense.
-russ
This one seems pretty clear to me. Where does it say that in the OSD of which you are so proud to have written?
OSI was proposed to me? I thought you were one of the founders of OSI?
it was a way of marketing Free Software to business. Given that RMS doesn't understand the need for selling ideas to people, he's going to turn it into a schism, yes. I don't see any alternative here.
And the OSD continues to diverge from the DFSG. This is the same Bruce Perens who is going to contribute a modification to the OSD. Yep, user #3872. I can only conclude that you had a stupid attack when you started this thread. Please, Bruce, don't let pride stand between you and admitting stupidity! I never do.
The folks running OSI are not representative of any Open Source community anywhere? Care to count lines of code, Bruce? CPUs running one's code (every McDonald's cash register is running my code; you lose one step from the starting line)? Should we count Slashdot submissions? Advogato articles? Boards of directors heatedly resigned?
-russ
Having another bad day, Bruce? It's never too late to post a "WHAT was I THINKING" response to your own article.
-russ
Are you fixing the kernel bug? How long is it going to take? In the meantime, there exists a userland work-around. Are you going to tell people that they shouldn't use it? Would you have us tell people that they shouldn't disclaim warranties?
Let's try it with your employer. Go tell HP that the standard method of distribution of free software doesn't allow for a legally valid disclaimer of warranty. That HP has distributed warranteed software for free. I can't imagine Mike would like that one either.
-russ
Well, there is a particular bug in the Linux SMP kernel with the Intel e100b driver in use which is exercised by qmail. Your machine is causing qmail-remotes to hang forever. There is a work-around for qmail. There is no fix for the kernel.
Do you do the open source politically correct thing and allow your email service to go down until somebody fixes the kernel? Or do you fix it in userland?
Of course, this is just an analogy. The problem is that the law mandates warranties for software. The fix is obviously to change the law. A fixed UCITA would solve this problem. Unfortunately, UCITA currently requires warranties even for free software. An amended UCITA may not, but it will still require a license even for people who merely sell media containing free software.
Okay, so since the news for fixing the law looks bad, don't you think people should be disclaiming warranty in a legally supportable fashion? Don't you think OSI should have an opinion on whether such an action complies with the OSD?
Yes, we should, Bruce.
-russ
Your lackadaisical attitude towards software licensing alarms me. Will you take it more seriously when a free software developer gets used and loses because the GPL isn't a contract and the disclaimer of warranty has no legal effect? You're probably the same kind of programmer who doesn't bother to lock critical variables because "none of that lock stuff is necessary".
You don't have to take licensing seriously because *we* do.
Oh, and before you compare us to a for-profit company with an interest in promoting the thing it repairs, consider that all of us are volunteers. We don't go making work for ourselves.
-russ
If you don't know what the law says, are you bound to obey it anyway? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so says the law.
-russ
Agreed. In the meantime should we allow Open Source contributors to protect themselves while we also work on changing the law? Should a userland program work around a kernel bug, or should it not work until the kernel bug is fixed. Answer not obvious.
-russ
the disclaimer of warranty issue
That's my understanding. We've all just given away our code with the understanding that "Of course there's no warranty", even all the while the existing law says that there is indeed a warranty.
If there's a bug in the kernel, and you can work around it in a user-level program, which should you fix? Is it *wrong* to work around a kernel bug in userland?
-russ