To me, the word 'hacker' has always meant a cowboy-coder. It implies an unprofessional, undisciplined, look-before-you-leap approach to software development. Hacker's don't care that their code is unreadable, often thinking it really 'COOL' to name all the variables in their code after literary characters or their favourite sports teams. Hackers pay little attention to extensibility, maintainability, reliability, and quality, in general. That's why I've never called myself a hacker.
I prefer to call myself a 'software engineer' or 'software designer'. Engineering implies a professional, disciplined, forward-thinking approach to software development. Engineers think its really 'COOL' to be able to develop software that can be easily understood and maintained by developers not involved in the original work. Engineering implies that you care that your code is extensible, maintainable, and reliable.
Where hackers code, engineers design. Where hackers attack a problem, engineers analyze and understand a problem. Hackers live by the seat of their pants. Engineers live by time-proven engineering principles and techniques.
That's why I won't ever call myself a hacker.
Now that's not to say that everybody that is calling themselves a hacker today fits into my personal definition of the word hacker. Indeed, some of the best software being produced today is being planned, designed and engineered by people that call themselves hackers. I just don't understand why they are calling themselves 'hackers'.
To me, the real issue here is not that EULAs are going to suddenly be more enforcable (after all, it is a legal binding agreement - if you break it you should be willing to live with the consequences that you originally agreed to - even if that means that you lose the right to run the software) but that the body responsible for the enforcement is the issuer of the license.
This is same as having a law that would allow landlords to unilaterally evict tenants. It is a case where all the power in an agreement between two parties is held by only one of the parties.
Its clear here that no consideration was given to GPL'ed software. If the 'vendor' has the unilateral authority to block usage of software by users in violation of the user agreement. Where does that power reside in free software where anybody can be a vendor? Since anybody can be a vendor, does that imply that anybody can block the misuse of GPLed software? Can I shut down my competition because they are in violation of the GPL? Are we going to end up in a world where everybody is a software police officer an there are no courts or judges?
What is needed is an impartial third-party, whether it be the courts or a separate Software License Tribunal, to whom vendors and users alike can argue their cases. We do need license enforcement or the GPL is useless but we need that enforcement to unbiased.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the word 'hacker' has always meant a cowboy-coder. It implies an unprofessional, undisciplined, look-before-you-leap approach to software development. Hacker's don't care that their code is unreadable, often thinking it really 'COOL' to name all the variables in their code after literary characters or their favourite sports teams. Hackers pay little attention to extensibility, maintainability, reliability, and quality, in general. That's why I've never called myself a hacker.
I prefer to call myself a 'software engineer' or 'software designer'. Engineering implies a professional, disciplined, forward-thinking approach to software development. Engineers think its really 'COOL' to be able to develop software that can be easily understood and maintained by developers not involved in the original work. Engineering implies that you care that your code is extensible, maintainable, and reliable.
Where hackers code, engineers design. Where hackers attack a problem, engineers analyze and understand a problem. Hackers live by the seat of their pants. Engineers live by time-proven engineering principles and techniques.
That's why I won't ever call myself a hacker.
Now that's not to say that everybody that is calling themselves a hacker today fits into my personal definition of the word hacker. Indeed, some of the best software being produced today is being planned, designed and engineered by people that call themselves hackers. I just don't understand why they are calling themselves 'hackers'.
To me, the real issue here is not that EULAs are going to suddenly be more enforcable (after all, it is a legal binding agreement - if you break it you should be willing to live with the consequences that you originally agreed to - even if that means that you lose the right to run the software) but that the body responsible for the enforcement is the issuer of the license.
This is same as having a law that would allow landlords to unilaterally evict tenants. It is a case where all the power in an agreement between two parties is held by only one of the parties.
Its clear here that no consideration was given to GPL'ed software. If the 'vendor' has the unilateral authority to block usage of software by users in violation of the user agreement. Where does that power reside in free software where anybody can be a vendor? Since anybody can be a vendor, does that imply that anybody can block the misuse of GPLed software? Can I shut down my competition because they are in violation of the GPL? Are we going to end up in a world where everybody is a software police officer an there are no courts or judges?
What is needed is an impartial third-party, whether it be the courts or a separate Software License Tribunal, to whom vendors and users alike can argue their cases. We do need license enforcement or the GPL is useless but we need that enforcement to unbiased.
That's my two cents.