Then there are countries which never joined EU in the first place even thou they are in Europe, are in "Shengen", etc.: Norway, Switzerland. Did I forgot some?
While "Darl in Jail" (TM:) sounds logical to many (at least many/.-ers) I suspect it wont happen: he either die early (from enjoying his fortune fast while he still got it), relocate somewhere else or... there is nothing to put him in jail.
SCO may go to bankrupcy but I think he's that kind of person with some golden parachute alredy deployed. And IMO, justice works differently for rich people. (try imagine some Little Self Employed Joe Average Without Huge Cash Reserves doing such stunt as SCO with just one lawyer... suing IBM, suing Novel, suing all those other big companies...)
Try giving someone a $20k car and see what happens.
Little addition:... and tell the tax collection agency about it.
You know, they have a lot of work so if you do not notify them, they may accidentaly overlook this transaction thus the result of your experiment will be: nothing happens, except that someone being maybe happy thus not proving the point of "You obviously do not know how to think like a bureaucrat".
Another reason to do that is because (at least if you live in democratic country) those public servants are always honest with you so you should be too.:)
If we don't, I can already see that by 2009 or so, at the latest, I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.
I hope I can be that optimistic as you are!
You know, the other day I've got discusion here on/. with other guy about drivers. Problem is, that "kernel folks" in an attempt to rid themselves of the need to maintain a lot of backward-compatibility layers do not provide stable driver API. (there are of course also other reasons, but there is not point in diging into that here.)
On the other hand, Microsoft provides a lot of backward compatibility in Windows OS.
I do not know whether you are programmer or not and whether at some point of your developement career you maintained some backward compatibility layer, but I think we can agree on a statement that maintaining such layers is hard.
And it is also harder to secure them because sometimes "the bug" is not in the code but in the specification. So, if you want to fix it, you have to change the specification thus breaking the backward compatibility.
So, I realy do hope that Microsoft will get the security right - it may not be enought to convince me to switch from Linux but I'm quite sure I'll still benefit (by getting less SPAM thaks to reduced amount of zombie PCs on the Net, etc.).
But I suspect that securing the whole Windows OS+bundled apps will take much more time and effort than improving inferior web browser.
Especialy when we consider that for a lot of years Microsoft designed products essentialy ignoring security.
So again, I hope they succeed after Bill Gates' security memos, but I suspect it wont be that soon (and it wont be Vista, either).
Well, IMO (at least some) companies are susceptible to the same problem: key person dies and project... is in deep problems.
Yes, companies (especialy big ones) can throw other people and money at the problem but in such cases customers would be maybe far better off if they were just given the source code. Rather than accept "improvements" or "fixes" done by people which do not understand the code, were not willing to work on it and did so under threat and pressure.
But yes, companies with more that one guy for the problem are supposed to better handle such loses of individuals. It costs, but it is ussualy good idea to be "insured".
So at the end it's only the question of whether you (I, whoever - as customer) want to be "insured" and willing to pay for it.:)
As others wrote and as recent Microsoft effort at testing and signing drivers indicates, a lot of instability problems of Windows comes from poor drivers. Drivers written by HW manufacturers.
I also assume that Microsoft and other parties are required to spend a lot of effort to maintain backward compatibility with old drivers while improving the kernel (speed, security, features,...).
That demonstrates, that even if you do give HW vendors something to ease their work on drivers, you are not always rewarded by excelent drivers from them.
That being said, I agree with you that it is hard for people/companies to provide binary only drivers for Linux kernel.
But those "kernel folks" are trying to save themselves a lot of time by not maintaining a log of backward compatibility layers so that HW manufacturers can spend less time maintaining theirs drivers.
And as those HW companies are "bitching" about "kernel folks", they are "bitching" about Microsoft certifying and signing the drivers too. Why? More effort, thus costs to them.
But.
You (I suppose) as a Windows user (and thus customer of Microsoft) do enjoy benefits from recent Microsoft's efforts even if it hinders your ability to get right away decent (or any) drivers for the HW you purchased. Even if it makes harder for HW vendor to produce drivers.
Same for me, I do enjoy benefits from the efforts of those "kernel folks".
But I do not "purchase" the Linux from those "kernel folks" so they are not obliged to provide drivers for my HW. They ussualy do, and I'm happy for that (even if it is "later"), but I have no right to force them.
On the other hand, I'm giving money to HW manufacturers. That's the reason to get from them not just HW itself, but also drivers.
If the drivers are not provided (and not on my terms, which are essentialy same as those of "kernel folks" - I'm not running Linux because its cheap), then there is no purchase or the purchase goes to other, more willing HW vendor.
Of course, given Linux "market share" my bargaining position is not that strong as those purchasing HW for Windows system, but I have to say that it is getting better (even if there are some temporary hindrances, like with graphics cards or WiFi).
But, IMO, such improvement do not comes thaks to people whose opinions on drivers is similar to yours. To the contrary - I do get good drivers for the Linux from people and companies who do realize at least some points of Open Source and Free Software.
For all that Microsoft does to make our life harder, they create more jobs for everybody supporting windows.
You mean all those jobs for all those sons, daughters, brothers, doughters-in-law, nephews,... and other faminly members, close or distant friends, friends of family, family of friends,... which performs this support and maybe sometimes even get something for it (except of ussual psychological problems, if they do it for too long)?
Can you imagine a football team with your attitude?
Yes, I can. It is quite ussual football team playing according to rules and fair-play (i.e. no fouls,...).
The team walks out on the field, gets the ball, then just wanders around stupidly saying stupid things like...
It looks like I forgot to higlight some points in my post (I use bold this time to emphatize more): "you're helping others out from their poor state (but not by just giving them money...". Plus I take a liberty of reminding us that we're talking about buying cheaper product from those poor fellows thus also helping ourselves.
Thank you for feedback, so I have a chance to clarify.
I compared wealth to water and stated, that it has a natural tendency to level even.
I still think it is quite appropriate analogy but I have to clarify:
There is a perception problem and/or problem of physics on small scales.
Perception problem:
A lot of people in poor countries know, that... say... USA is a rich country (with all the cars, TVs, DVDs, fat food,...).
So they try to participate (in some cases even exploit) that wealth thus distributing this wealth more broadly thus leveling it.
But in case of rich people it is harder to properly assess their wealth thus they are better able to hide it thus this welth is not distributed that much.
So it may be something like Matrix: there is no wealth (no spoon) so rich people can partialy use that to lure away potential candidates for redistribution.:)
Or from other angle, problem of physics at small scales:
There is this surface tension of the water which at small scales produces some quite strange effects.
So same with wealth owned by individuals (as opposed to countries). Individuals may be much better at keeping their wealth together.
It fascinates that so many who claim to be "Christians" are also social Darwanists...
Little correction here: I'm not christian nor any other believer of any god. For Darwinists... well, such label maybe may be applied to me.
But back to the point which you brought to our attention which I did not address in the original post:
So what you are saying in essence is might equals right that those who can't make it in the global market place should be left to suffer at the side of the road?
Well, yes, I prety much support such idea.
But with "little" addition: Such people should get help. And they should get it from those who are successfull (and willing to help).
I'm against any "help" which is forced upon people under the threat of police and jail (a.k.a. you do not pay taxes, you go to jail).
People should be able to choose whom and how they help. Because one can not help everybody. And everyone has different idea about what a good help is.
(And those who can help but do not... well, they'll be remembered and helped accordingly when they'll be in need - i.e. maybe they'll be helped anyway, but that may change their attitude even if their upbringing did not.)
IMO, one should first help his family. When there are still some resources left, one should choose on whom else and how it is spent.
I'm totaly against my taxes being used to help people I know nothing about in a ways I do not approve of. If I want to help, I help either directly the people who need it or I find (or in extreme cases found) a charity, which will help others in a way I prefer.
Why such attitude? Well, it has roots in what we call "unemployment insurance" in my country: if you're employed, you must pay it. If you're unemployed, you are eligible to receive some money from state for a while - supposedly to bridge the time 'till you find a new job. Problem is, a lot of people clearly do not want to work and I think they are not eligible to get such money. But they are getting them. Same with "social insurance" (in rougth terms same as "unemployment i." but you get less money but the period of time is not limited). 1)
So, if I advance my "proposition" from the "local" to the "global", then IMO those unsuccessfull in the global market will have some family or friends or neighbours or in worst case some charity, who will be able and willing to help them to survive. And problem solved.
side note 1):
Anonymous and state sanctioned help plus big taxes spent on who knows what are IMO the reason why a lot of people do not actively help others by themselves - they either a) think they alredy helped by paying taxes, or b) do not have enough resources left to help, or something like that. Then, at best, they drop few cents onto some massive charity or into the hat of some beggar. (of course I wrote "a lot of people are..." which can also be understood by some as "I am...":)
So if I'm right about that state sanctioned help, than a lot of people are in reality libertarians, at least in this special case, according to article by Harry Browne:
When a neighbor isn't willing to contribute as much to a social project as you are, you'd never think of:
Using a gun to force him to contribute;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn't contribute;
Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn't contribute -- because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don't comply.
(except of course in reality it may be other way around: you do not want others to point a gun at you if you do not contribute "enough" - that's the more selfish and "darwinian?" point of view:).
Sorry, I wont give you precise item list but I'll try to answer.
Name some non-government-subsidized product made in the US that has decimated a third world/developing country workforce. I am not trying to be pissy. I'd just like to know.
All those shiny, good looking, good performing or at least highly worshiped things which at the end helped to disintegrate Eastern Block thus causing a lot of trouble for all the workers in countires starting with Russia and ending with Albania.
Of course, Russia is not considered 3rd world country, "the meltdown" in Eastern Block was not just economical, etc. But I hope it'll sufice as answer or example.
From what I've seen of the management in big companies, the inability to speak clear english is an asset...
:)
Way to go!
This "strange language thing" about big companies amazemes me too. But it's also same with my "native" field which is IT: it too is quite often full of buzzwords, but I suspect it is mainly just the "import" forced upon us by Sales&Management(R)(TM)(whatever).
You mentioned one possible solution for this problem: americans should buy products and sevices done by americans. But this is essentialy isolation from the rest of the world, if you want that to work properly, because you need to use just your resources. And also because you have to guard your R&D (if you are good enough, your R&D will be better than that of the rest of the world and you do not want cheap products based on your R&D but foreign cheap labor to tempt americans:) . Or, alternatively, if your R&D wont be better, you have to essentialy deny that the rest of the world exists otherwise americans wont buy "domestic but inferior" products.
So, IMO, such isolation wont work - it's something similar to what eastern block tried during Cold War or something which China has been doing for quite a long time and is now ceasing to do.
But what other choice other that isolation is there?
Well, openess.
But openess does not mean "we, americans, can do everything, all of you others can do nothing". So no barriers should be used to block others from access to american market.
But to maintain edge over others (in terms of economic production, standards of living,...) is like maintaining a "water hill" in the lake - without walls you can to that to some extent only by perpetualy pumping water like fountain (or by manipulating gravity, but I want dwell into such things for now).
In such analogy, such pump should be something similar to what amaricans used in the past to get the edge: good R&D, freedom,...
Of course, your wealth will always try to flow to poorer countries (because of market forces: cheeper labor, more thus cheaper natural resources, better location,...) but you can view it also in good light:
it is a good reason for your standard of living not to overgrow your own production capabilities (i.e. no deficit in foreign trade which can't be maintained in long term and ends ussualy quite dramaticaly, IMO)
you're helping others out from their poor state (but not by just giving them money but by giving them work to do and paying for it) - TheUglyAmerican wrote it: "Salaries for IT candidates in India are increasing very rapidly" - something not possible without US participating in free world trade and I thing far better than just giving Indians money for doing nothing thus making them unable to take care of themselves
So yes, maintaing the edge in free world trade is not easy. But it's same with everything else, whether you're trying to be better skier, better swimmer, better hunter, better mathematician, better painter - you have to work on that, not just sit there and claim you are better.
Same with me: for now I may be enjoying increase in business coming from the US and western Europe to midle-east Eurore but I know that if I go too far (asking too great price not backed by something appropriate: good quality, good performance,...) my business will go elsewhere very soon - maybe even back the where it came from.
But that's reality (and openess about the reality).
IMO, in case of stupid and/or obvious patents (like the one described by TheWoozle) prior art never prevents the patent from being granted nor does it ever allow it to be invalidated.
Why?
We're talking stupid and/or obvious patents here. Logic and logical arguments does not count.
If that what you write about (first partnering with makers of portable music players than abandoning them as soon as all the "cool stuff" has been learned and "their own" device is almost ready) turns out to be true, then it would be just re-performance of Microsoft's "old trick".
Something similar happened with joint development of Next Generation Windows (a.k.a. Windows NT) by duo Microsoft+IBM: they started together with IBM doing a lot of important work on modern (by that time) 32-bit, multitasking, etc., etc. operating system later being picked up by Microsoft with IBM being left alone strugling to make something off of the past effort by trying to sell OS/2.
I'm sure others will add more examples.
Microsoft is so far very consistent in its actions.
That being said, everybody should be very wary about partnering with Microsoft on anything unless some very big changes happen inside that company.
Except that those same media companies may in the future with high probability consider providing say Britney Spears' "tracks" (sorry, if I spelled her name wrong) for re-purchase as a "not interesting from operating profit point of view" thus consumers will be unable to repurchase thus they lose their beloved tracks. Or become criminals.
Feel free to replace "Britney Spears" with any other name from current "popular music" (or even past "popular music").
However, I also write free software, which I release under the MIT license.... This means that I can not use any GPLed code in my free software projects.
Yup, so here I was assuming wrong thing - you wanting to include GPLed code into commercial product. My bad. I'm sorry.
This also means that we generaly do not have argument, because differences between free as in GPL and free as in MIT are nothing big compared to what's troubling me most: someone taking work released as free software and profiting from it without giving something proportionaly usefull back to authors of that free software.
In other words, they do this not to protect their code, but to grab other people's code. By writing ten lines of code that get incorporated into a ten million line project they are claiming that the project should therefore be made available not just to them, but to everyone! Where is fairness in that?
I'm going to speak just for myself but maybe others will agree: by GPLing my code I'm not aiming at sneaking it in say BSD or Solaris kernel thus making that kernel GPL'ed thus making it possible to take code from those kernels into Linux kernel (which is under GPL). I just want my code to stay under GPL even if somebody else want to and adds few lines into it.
So fairnes is there, IMO.
But of course if there is somebody who is using tactics similar to submarine patents to "sneak" GPLed code into other non GPL free/open projects to force them to be GPL-ed, well... that's sneaky, bad, unfair,... Such people do not have my support nor sympathy, GPL or not.
The "few" should not be in quotes. FSF's brainwashing of developers has indeed been paying off and sane licensing of free software is declining.
The "few" is in quotes precisely because I do not think there is little amount of code available under BSD and alike licences.:)
Well, you better stay away from the GPL then, 'cause you'll never make any money from selling your code that way.
If it's my GPL-de code (i.e. I have copyright on the code), I disagree. But that's quite theoretical question given precise state of projects I'm involved in. But thanks for advice.
The purpose of the GPL is precisely to give you the rights to the code developed by others. The code you write yourself needs no such protection, since you already have it. If you uploaded it somewhere, then everyone else can get it as well. What the GPL gives you is the right to own any modifications to your code or any code that uses your code in any way. That code was not written by you, and is not your code, and yet by licensing your project under the GPL you are laying claim to that code. Yes, nobody is forced into this arrangement; if I do not use your code, I do not have to give you my code, but that is really quite irrelevant. A disease is no less infectious if you know how to avoid being infected.
Here I disagree and I reapeat: By using GPL I want my code to stay free ("free" as defined by GPL, it is IMO quite clear at least to both of us thet free has many definitions if it comes to free software).
You may compare it to disease but I would merely compare it to protecting my own and being honest about it upfont. If there is something I would call disease, than it would be EULAs - which you are supposed to respect but you do not know their content before agreeing to it.
And I do thing that something is less infectious if its target knows how to avoid being infected - the knowledge lowers the possibility of infection thus reducing the level of infectiousness.
Got suckered into the FSF's communist philosophy, didn't you? This is precisely the "from each by ability, to each by his need" mindset, which results in a community of beggars, living on mutual charity, never getting fairly com
I would like to second Kjella to answer you and also kbonin:
What your complaint about GPL being viral realy means is that:
you want to make your life more convenient by using someone else's code
but you do not want someone else have same chance making their life more convenient.
So, as Kjella put it: hypocrisy.
I assume that you refer to "commercial developers" when writing "they write new code" because in a lot of "non commercial" cases it does not apply (ussualy it's free code and precise free licence can be worked out).
Those who release code under GPL do so (maybe, also, partialy,...) because they do not like their code to be incorporated into commercial product without either getting improvements of that commercial product for same "price" (e.i. under GPL conditions) and/or without sharing part of revenue from that commercial product.
This aspect of GPL which you call "viral" is the only protection for such cases: say GPL allows inclusion of one line of GPL'ed code into non GPL'ed code without requiring this derivative code to be GPL'ed. Well, all the interested parties will start incorporating GPL'ed code one line at a time. At the end, a lof of GPL'ed code will be reused in some nonGPL'ed derivative work.
So you do not like GPL'ed code. I assume that you also do not like any other proprietary code (except your own).
That leaves you with only "few" other places which can makes your coding more convenient: code licensed under BSD and similar licences.
I am developer too. And I too want to make some money from my work. And while I have all the rights to my code, I certainly do not have right to code developed by others except those few cases it comes with a licence which gives me some rights. And my need to make my life/coding more convenient does not give me any rights to the code of others - my (your,...) need for convenience is not more than your (mine,...) ownership of your (mine,...) work.
You certainly would not want others to set-up a shop in your house without your consent just because it's convenient for them.
Btw, as a profesional developer, I make code for those who pay under condititions we agreed upon. But when I'm doing work for free, I ussualy choose GPL, not BSD. Why? Mainly because I'm selfish: if I did not make money on it, I want nobody else to do so.:) But more precisely: I use a lot of free code to make my life and work more convenient (Linux desktop,...). Thus I want to give something back. And to ensure it will generate more "free" feedback, I'm avoiding BSD and alikes, so that my "free" stuff wont be transformed into "non free". Call it "viral" but I do not change it just to make life easier for few instead of many.
Slashdot Mirror
Same as with those "tubes" err "pipes" - telcos want you to pay more so that they can actualy deliver the speeds they alredy sold you.
Sorry for bringing this subject up again. :)
Well, Greenland alredy left (sort of) and Aaland threatens to leave (btw, I do not smoke and please do not take this link as smoking advertising from me).
Then there are countries which never joined EU in the first place even thou they are in Europe, are in "Shengen", etc.: Norway, Switzerland. Did I forgot some?
While "Darl in Jail" (TM:) sounds logical to many (at least many /.-ers) I suspect it wont happen: he either die early (from enjoying his fortune fast while he still got it), relocate somewhere else or ... there is nothing to put him in jail.
SCO may go to bankrupcy but I think he's that kind of person with some golden parachute alredy deployed. And IMO, justice works differently for rich people. (try imagine some Little Self Employed Joe Average Without Huge Cash Reserves doing such stunt as SCO with just one lawyer ... suing IBM, suing Novel, suing all those other big companies ...)
Little addition: ... and tell the tax collection agency about it.
You know, they have a lot of work so if you do not notify them, they may accidentaly overlook this transaction thus the result of your experiment will be: nothing happens, except that someone being maybe happy thus not proving the point of "You obviously do not know how to think like a bureaucrat".
Another reason to do that is because (at least if you live in democratic country) those public servants are always honest with you so you should be too. :)
It's good to see that you quoted precisely and left this part:
Otherwise I would be compeled to disagree with you. :)
I hope I can be that optimistic as you are!
You know, the other day I've got discusion here on /. with other guy about drivers. Problem is, that "kernel folks" in an attempt to rid themselves of the need to maintain a lot of backward-compatibility layers do not provide stable driver API. (there are of course also other reasons, but there is not point in diging into that here.)
On the other hand, Microsoft provides a lot of backward compatibility in Windows OS.
I do not know whether you are programmer or not and whether at some point of your developement career you maintained some backward compatibility layer, but I think we can agree on a statement that maintaining such layers is hard.
And it is also harder to secure them because sometimes "the bug" is not in the code but in the specification. So, if you want to fix it, you have to change the specification thus breaking the backward compatibility.
So, I realy do hope that Microsoft will get the security right - it may not be enought to convince me to switch from Linux but I'm quite sure I'll still benefit (by getting less SPAM thaks to reduced amount of zombie PCs on the Net, etc.).
But I suspect that securing the whole Windows OS+bundled apps will take much more time and effort than improving inferior web browser.
Especialy when we consider that for a lot of years Microsoft designed products essentialy ignoring security.
So again, I hope they succeed after Bill Gates' security memos, but I suspect it wont be that soon (and it wont be Vista, either).
Yeah, it's like giving a teenage boy a home arrest without taking computer from his room: he can than play games and surf all day long.
Assuming a lot of teenage boys like playing games and surfing the Net on computer it would be realy "awfull" for them to be locked in the room.
Such punishment may be considered reward and then, what's the point of such punishment?
Well, IMO (at least some) companies are susceptible to the same problem: key person dies and project ... is in deep problems.
Yes, companies (especialy big ones) can throw other people and money at the problem but in such cases customers would be maybe far better off if they were just given the source code. Rather than accept "improvements" or "fixes" done by people which do not understand the code, were not willing to work on it and did so under threat and pressure.
But yes, companies with more that one guy for the problem are supposed to better handle such loses of individuals. It costs, but it is ussualy good idea to be "insured".
So at the end it's only the question of whether you (I, whoever - as customer) want to be "insured" and willing to pay for it. :)
As others wrote and as recent Microsoft effort at testing and signing drivers indicates, a lot of instability problems of Windows comes from poor drivers. Drivers written by HW manufacturers.
I also assume that Microsoft and other parties are required to spend a lot of effort to maintain backward compatibility with old drivers while improving the kernel (speed, security, features, ...).
That demonstrates, that even if you do give HW vendors something to ease their work on drivers, you are not always rewarded by excelent drivers from them.
That being said, I agree with you that it is hard for people/companies to provide binary only drivers for Linux kernel.
But those "kernel folks" are trying to save themselves a lot of time by not maintaining a log of backward compatibility layers so that HW manufacturers can spend less time maintaining theirs drivers.
And as those HW companies are "bitching" about "kernel folks", they are "bitching" about Microsoft certifying and signing the drivers too. Why? More effort, thus costs to them.
But.
You (I suppose) as a Windows user (and thus customer of Microsoft) do enjoy benefits from recent Microsoft's efforts even if it hinders your ability to get right away decent (or any) drivers for the HW you purchased. Even if it makes harder for HW vendor to produce drivers.
Same for me, I do enjoy benefits from the efforts of those "kernel folks".
But I do not "purchase" the Linux from those "kernel folks" so they are not obliged to provide drivers for my HW. They ussualy do, and I'm happy for that (even if it is "later"), but I have no right to force them.
On the other hand, I'm giving money to HW manufacturers. That's the reason to get from them not just HW itself, but also drivers.
If the drivers are not provided (and not on my terms, which are essentialy same as those of "kernel folks" - I'm not running Linux because its cheap), then there is no purchase or the purchase goes to other, more willing HW vendor.
Of course, given Linux "market share" my bargaining position is not that strong as those purchasing HW for Windows system, but I have to say that it is getting better (even if there are some temporary hindrances, like with graphics cards or WiFi).
But, IMO, such improvement do not comes thaks to people whose opinions on drivers is similar to yours. To the contrary - I do get good drivers for the Linux from people and companies who do realize at least some points of Open Source and Free Software.
You mean all those jobs for all those sons, daughters, brothers, doughters-in-law, nephews, ... and other faminly members, close or distant friends, friends of family, family of friends, ... which performs this support and maybe sometimes even get something for it (except of ussual psychological problems, if they do it for too long)?
:|
I have a sincere request for moderators to mod the AC up at least to +1.
I may not agree with him (not implying I do not :) but certainly one does not see clear but not straight abusive comment from AC too often.
Thank you in advance.
Yes, I can. It is quite ussual football team playing according to rules and fair-play (i.e. no fouls, ...).
It looks like I forgot to higlight some points in my post (I use bold this time to emphatize more): "you're helping others out from their poor state (but not by just giving them money ...". Plus I take a liberty of reminding us that we're talking about buying cheaper product from those poor fellows thus also helping ourselves.
Thank you for feedback, so I have a chance to clarify.
You do have a point.
I compared wealth to water and stated, that it has a natural tendency to level even.
I still think it is quite appropriate analogy but I have to clarify:
There is a perception problem and/or problem of physics on small scales.
Perception problem:
A lot of people in poor countries know, that ... say ... USA is a rich country (with all the cars, TVs, DVDs, fat food, ...).
So they try to participate (in some cases even exploit) that wealth thus distributing this wealth more broadly thus leveling it.
But in case of rich people it is harder to properly assess their wealth thus they are better able to hide it thus this welth is not distributed that much.
So it may be something like Matrix: there is no wealth (no spoon) so rich people can partialy use that to lure away potential candidates for redistribution. :)
Or from other angle, problem of physics at small scales:
There is this surface tension of the water which at small scales produces some quite strange effects.
So same with wealth owned by individuals (as opposed to countries). Individuals may be much better at keeping their wealth together.
Little correction here: I'm not christian nor any other believer of any god. For Darwinists ... well, such label maybe may be applied to me.
But back to the point which you brought to our attention which I did not address in the original post:
Well, yes, I prety much support such idea.
But with "little" addition: Such people should get help. And they should get it from those who are successfull (and willing to help).
I'm against any "help" which is forced upon people under the threat of police and jail (a.k.a. you do not pay taxes, you go to jail).
People should be able to choose whom and how they help. Because one can not help everybody. And everyone has different idea about what a good help is. ... well, they'll be remembered and helped accordingly when they'll be in need - i.e. maybe they'll be helped anyway, but that may change their attitude even if their upbringing did not.)
(And those who can help but do not
IMO, one should first help his family. When there are still some resources left, one should choose on whom else and how it is spent.
I'm totaly against my taxes being used to help people I know nothing about in a ways I do not approve of. If I want to help, I help either directly the people who need it or I find (or in extreme cases found) a charity, which will help others in a way I prefer.
Why such attitude? Well, it has roots in what we call "unemployment insurance" in my country: if you're employed, you must pay it. If you're unemployed, you are eligible to receive some money from state for a while - supposedly to bridge the time 'till you find a new job. Problem is, a lot of people clearly do not want to work and I think they are not eligible to get such money. But they are getting them. Same with "social insurance" (in rougth terms same as "unemployment i." but you get less money but the period of time is not limited). 1)
So, if I advance my "proposition" from the "local" to the "global", then IMO those unsuccessfull in the global market will have some family or friends or neighbours or in worst case some charity, who will be able and willing to help them to survive. And problem solved.
side note 1) :
Anonymous and state sanctioned help plus big taxes spent on who knows what are IMO the reason why a lot of people do not actively help others by themselves - they either a) think they alredy helped by paying taxes, or b) do not have enough resources left to help, or something like that. Then, at best, they drop few cents onto some massive charity or into the hat of some beggar. (of course I wrote "a lot of people are ..." which can also be understood by some as "I am ..." :)
So if I'm right about that state sanctioned help, than a lot of people are in reality libertarians, at least in this special case, according to article by Harry Browne:
(except of course in reality it may be other way around: you do not want others to point a gun at you if you do not contribute "enough" - that's the more selfish and "darwinian?" point of view :) .
Sorry, I wont give you precise item list but I'll try to answer.
All those shiny, good looking, good performing or at least highly worshiped things which at the end helped to disintegrate Eastern Block thus causing a lot of trouble for all the workers in countires starting with Russia and ending with Albania.
Of course, Russia is not considered 3rd world country, "the meltdown" in Eastern Block was not just economical, etc. But I hope it'll sufice as answer or example.
:)
Way to go!
This "strange language thing" about big companies amazemes me too. But it's also same with my "native" field which is IT: it too is quite often full of buzzwords, but I suspect it is mainly just the "import" forced upon us by Sales&Management(R)(TM)(whatever).
You mentioned one possible solution for this problem: americans should buy products and sevices done by americans. But this is essentialy isolation from the rest of the world, if you want that to work properly, because you need to use just your resources. And also because you have to guard your R&D (if you are good enough, your R&D will be better than that of the rest of the world and you do not want cheap products based on your R&D but foreign cheap labor to tempt americans :) . Or, alternatively, if your R&D wont be better, you have to essentialy deny that the rest of the world exists otherwise americans wont buy "domestic but inferior" products.
So, IMO, such isolation wont work - it's something similar to what eastern block tried during Cold War or something which China has been doing for quite a long time and is now ceasing to do.
But what other choice other that isolation is there?
Well, openess.
But openess does not mean "we, americans, can do everything, all of you others can do nothing". So no barriers should be used to block others from access to american market.
But to maintain edge over others (in terms of economic production, standards of living, ...) is like maintaining a "water hill" in the lake - without walls you can to that to some extent only by perpetualy pumping water like fountain (or by manipulating gravity, but I want dwell into such things for now).
In such analogy, such pump should be something similar to what amaricans used in the past to get the edge: good R&D, freedom, ...
Of course, your wealth will always try to flow to poorer countries (because of market forces: cheeper labor, more thus cheaper natural resources, better location, ...) but you can view it also in good light:
So yes, maintaing the edge in free world trade is not easy. But it's same with everything else, whether you're trying to be better skier, better swimmer, better hunter, better mathematician, better painter - you have to work on that, not just sit there and claim you are better.
Same with me: for now I may be enjoying increase in business coming from the US and western Europe to midle-east Eurore but I know that if I go too far (asking too great price not backed by something appropriate: good quality, good performance, ...) my business will go elsewhere very soon - maybe even back the where it came from.
But that's reality (and openess about the reality).
IMO, in case of stupid and/or obvious patents (like the one described by TheWoozle) prior art never prevents the patent from being granted nor does it ever allow it to be invalidated.
Why?
We're talking stupid and/or obvious patents here. Logic and logical arguments does not count.
:)
Little correction: patent lawyer!
Some may argue that it is even worse than simply lawyer.
But of course it depends on which side of patent cases he'll take.
If that what you write about (first partnering with makers of portable music players than abandoning them as soon as all the "cool stuff" has been learned and "their own" device is almost ready) turns out to be true, then it would be just re-performance of Microsoft's "old trick".
Something similar happened with joint development of Next Generation Windows (a.k.a. Windows NT) by duo Microsoft+IBM: they started together with IBM doing a lot of important work on modern (by that time) 32-bit, multitasking, etc., etc. operating system later being picked up by Microsoft with IBM being left alone strugling to make something off of the past effort by trying to sell OS/2.
I'm sure others will add more examples.
Microsoft is so far very consistent in its actions.
That being said, everybody should be very wary about partnering with Microsoft on anything unless some very big changes happen inside that company.
:)
As the saying goes: everything has two sides - one good, one bad.
Except that those same media companies may in the future with high probability consider providing say Britney Spears' "tracks" (sorry, if I spelled her name wrong) for re-purchase as a "not interesting from operating profit point of view" thus consumers will be unable to repurchase thus they lose their beloved tracks. Or become criminals.
Feel free to replace "Britney Spears" with any other name from current "popular music" (or even past "popular music").
Yup, so here I was assuming wrong thing - you wanting to include GPLed code into commercial product. My bad. I'm sorry.
This also means that we generaly do not have argument, because differences between free as in GPL and free as in MIT are nothing big compared to what's troubling me most: someone taking work released as free software and profiting from it without giving something proportionaly usefull back to authors of that free software.
I'm going to speak just for myself but maybe others will agree: by GPLing my code I'm not aiming at sneaking it in say BSD or Solaris kernel thus making that kernel GPL'ed thus making it possible to take code from those kernels into Linux kernel (which is under GPL). I just want my code to stay under GPL even if somebody else want to and adds few lines into it.
So fairnes is there, IMO.
But of course if there is somebody who is using tactics similar to submarine patents to "sneak" GPLed code into other non GPL free/open projects to force them to be GPL-ed, well ... that's sneaky, bad, unfair, ... Such people do not have my support nor sympathy, GPL or not.
The "few" is in quotes precisely because I do not think there is little amount of code available under BSD and alike licences. :)
If it's my GPL-de code (i.e. I have copyright on the code), I disagree. But that's quite theoretical question given precise state of projects I'm involved in. But thanks for advice.
Here I disagree and I reapeat: By using GPL I want my code to stay free ("free" as defined by GPL, it is IMO quite clear at least to both of us thet free has many definitions if it comes to free software).
You may compare it to disease but I would merely compare it to protecting my own and being honest about it upfont. If there is something I would call disease, than it would be EULAs - which you are supposed to respect but you do not know their content before agreeing to it.
And I do thing that something is less infectious if its target knows how to avoid being infected - the knowledge lowers the possibility of infection thus reducing the level of infectiousness.
I would like to second Kjella to answer you and also kbonin:
What your complaint about GPL being viral realy means is that:
So, as Kjella put it: hypocrisy.
I assume that you refer to "commercial developers" when writing "they write new code" because in a lot of "non commercial" cases it does not apply (ussualy it's free code and precise free licence can be worked out).
Those who release code under GPL do so (maybe, also, partialy, ...) because they do not like their code to be incorporated into commercial product without either getting improvements of that commercial product for same "price" (e.i. under GPL conditions) and/or without sharing part of revenue from that commercial product.
This aspect of GPL which you call "viral" is the only protection for such cases: say GPL allows inclusion of one line of GPL'ed code into non GPL'ed code without requiring this derivative code to be GPL'ed. Well, all the interested parties will start incorporating GPL'ed code one line at a time. At the end, a lof of GPL'ed code will be reused in some nonGPL'ed derivative work.
So you do not like GPL'ed code. I assume that you also do not like any other proprietary code (except your own).
That leaves you with only "few" other places which can makes your coding more convenient: code licensed under BSD and similar licences.
I am developer too. And I too want to make some money from my work. And while I have all the rights to my code, I certainly do not have right to code developed by others except those few cases it comes with a licence which gives me some rights. And my need to make my life/coding more convenient does not give me any rights to the code of others - my (your, ...) need for convenience is not more than your (mine, ...) ownership of your (mine, ...) work.
You certainly would not want others to set-up a shop in your house without your consent just because it's convenient for them.
Btw, as a profesional developer, I make code for those who pay under condititions we agreed upon. But when I'm doing work for free, I ussualy choose GPL, not BSD. Why? Mainly because I'm selfish: if I did not make money on it, I want nobody else to do so. :) But more precisely: I use a lot of free code to make my life and work more convenient (Linux desktop, ...). Thus I want to give something back. And to ensure it will generate more "free" feedback, I'm avoiding BSD and alikes, so that my "free" stuff wont be transformed into "non free". Call it "viral" but I do not change it just to make life easier for few instead of many.
I'm quite sure I know. :)