Selecting a standard screwdriver doesn't mean that you no longer use wrenches or the occasional volt meter.
It's true that you probably shouldn't use Python and Ruby or C# and Java in the same app without an excellent reason, but it seems perfectly reasonable to use x86 assembly, Power assembly, C, C++, Python, and OpenGL all in the same video game.
Theres no point saying to someone , "hey , why do you drive that car to
work when you can fly there in 2 minutes in this F-15?" if they've got no
clue how to fly an aircraft.
It also makes no sense to not use a hybrid Airplane/Truck approach for a worldwide delivery service like FedEx.
I'll admit that an Aircraft/Hovercraft/Tractor/Submarine approach is probably not the plan, but there's a perfectly good argument that moving from Airplane/Truck to Airplane/Truck/Motorcycle would be appropriate if the company decided to add high speed courier service. Such a plan should be weighed on it's benifits, and if the high speed courier serice is stopped then the motorcycles can be retired.
I think it's about the same with programming languages - use the right tool for the right job.
Code for the space shuttle is embedded systems code designed to run on an otherwise obsolete platform. Also, they can easily afford to spend a million dollars per line of code.
Real projects are a bit different. There are time and budget constraints. The choice of programming language(s) is an engineering consideration, and the choice should be made by the same people who would chose data structures and algorithms.
In the real world, working with more than one programming language can save a lot of time and effort. A competent programmer should know most of these languages anyway, and learning a new one is pretty easy.
It's not like you're Jesus Christ copying bread and fish and distributing them to the hungry.
It actually is a little bit like that.
- If you deny a baby access to food for their first five years of life, they will never develop into a functional human being because they will die.
- If you deny a baby access to human culture for their first five years of life, they will never develop into a functional human being because their brain wasn't properly stimulated during that crucial development phase.
Obviously food is of more immediate importance than knowledge, but that doesn't mean that witholding zero cost knowledge is somehow ethical. Even books, movies, videogames and music are important elements of our culture. There's no really good reason why reading Shakespeare is valuable but watching the Harry Potter movies wouldn't be.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason why sharing data files like music or downloading a data file that someone else is sharing could possibly be unethical.
I see this whole thing as being a lot like the time of day. If you ask someone on the street for the time of day and they have a watch, they'll generally tell you. If someone choses to post a clock on the side of their building, then everyone can see what time it is. The time, like any other data, is wealth that can be shared freely - it seems more likely that hoarding would be unethical rather than sharing.
Note that I explicitly mentioned that cheap paper copies should be sold. To continue further, expensive collector edition hardcovers should be sold as well. If I have any understanding of how customers minds work, people will happily pay $25 or so for a "Official Hardcover Collector's Edition" of a good novel - and they'd buy it over a $15 hardcover that can't use the author's title and cover art due to trademark law a good chunk of the time.
It's true that books would be somewhat less profitable with no copyrights, but A.) the fact is that most authors don't make a living off of writing anyway and B.) a bestseller would still net the author hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
DRM might be convinenient, but you haven't convinced me that hardware DRM is nessisary for your application.
You can implement a software-only DRM system that will accomplish everything that you want as long as the users don't reinstall the OS to bypass it. Such a system would work perfectly well with GPL v3 code.
That's the thing. The value of creating the data is non-zero, but the marginal cost of copies once the data exists is near zero.
It's just like expenses in business, once money has been spent it doesn't matter to future profit calculations for a project. What this means is that you can only get expected to pay for information creating work as you do it or before you do it, not afterwards. Once the information exists and has been publically distributed the genie's out of the bottle - you don't have the leverage to make people pay you.
A global, digital information network exists. Writable optical media that can store gigabytes of data that can then be perfectly reproduced exist. Arbitrarily saying that using these things is unethical makes absolutely no sense - it's like saying that it's unethical to go to a public beach and swim without paying.
It's not like there's any lack of information production that isn't compensated directly. Additionally, there's no lack of business models that fund information production without government-imposed artifical scarcity.
It's better than that. Google doesn't need to do anything until their services start slowing down, and then they just need to put up a small text notice saying "Your service may be slow due to your crappy ISP. We suggest upgrading to a non-crappy ISP."
No. There's no problem. Even if the owner of the BitTorrent(tm) mark choses to restrict use to the maximum extent allowed, compatible clients will still be able to say "This client is mostly compatible with the BitTorrent(tm) protocal."
RMS has a set of personal ethics. "Balance" involves "Compromise". If RMS went for balance, he'd have compromised ethics - not a good result.
If I was against eating people it would be perfectly reasonable for me to refuse to eat anyone, even if I were living in a culture where that was normal. Even though it might be rude to refuse, it would still be reasonable for me to ask what was being served before accepting a dinner invitation.
The preferred form for editing an image would be the native editor format that preserves layers. When distributing a GPLed image, I'd guess that you should probably include a changelog that notes any changes made and by who.
It would probably be more convienent to just put images in the public domain, but a GPLed image would work fine.
You know what his opinion is. You know he has principles. Why are you suprised by his statements and actions? He's being perfectly reasonable and consistant not letting his freedom be restricted and always pointing out when others are letting themselves become less free.
Would you be suprised if an NRA member repeatedly didn't want to compromise on gun ownership restrictions? "How about we just take away your handguns?" "No." "How about that semi-automatic rifle with a bannana clip." "Still no."
How about a vegatarian? "Will you eat beef?" "No." "How about pork?" "No." "If you won't eat chicken, that's just unreasonable?" "Uh... no."
How about if I came over your house and tried to get you to give me your stuff. "Can I have your TV?" "No." "How about your stereo?" "No." "Your computer?" "No." "Why won't you compromise?"
Music frequently does have source code as described in the GPL, especially modern music. In the GPL, "source code" is the "preferred form for editing the work". So for music, that would include the score and all the pre-composition samples such as each separate voice track and each instrument track.
Even though source code is less generally useful for music than for software because of music's nature as a purely artistic work (you don't generally need to "fix bugs" or "add features" with music, nor is it functional in the same way software is), that doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be a better place if music source code was generally available for those who wanted it. The GPL ends up being a perfectly valid music license.
Similar concepts apply for books and movies, although Stallman explicitly mentions that it might be inconvienent to be forced to distribute source code with published books.
Uhh... I really fail to see how you need a cryptographic assurance that your restrictions can't be bypassed even if the user takes apart their machine. I pretty sure that version numbering documents and then having the document reader support automatic network document updates would have been more than enough.
The street performer model works great for many artistic works. As an example, imagine if J.K. Roweling had released the first Harry Potter book at no charge (with paper copies for the cost of printing) with a note that said "Once I've collected $50,000 in donations I'll release the next book". Depending on how quickly she got the $100,000 she could figure out what the appropriate amount to ask for for book 3 would be.
Unfortunately, data files aren't physical objects. Expecting them to work like physical objects won't make it that way. What you suggest is both unethical (because there's no reasonable reason to limit digital copies) and impossible (because if it's possible to see or hear digital content then it's possible to make a perfect unrestricted copy of it at the quality experienced.)
How the hell can someone take more information than their fair share? I really don't understand how that works. It's not like anyone needs to go without.
Slashdot Mirror
You do, of course, realize that there's no global "give babies free food on taxpayer dollars" program - right?
It's true that you probably shouldn't use Python and Ruby or C# and Java in the same app without an excellent reason, but it seems perfectly reasonable to use x86 assembly, Power assembly, C, C++, Python, and OpenGL all in the same video game.
It also makes no sense to not use a hybrid Airplane/Truck approach for a worldwide delivery service like FedEx.
I'll admit that an Aircraft/Hovercraft/Tractor/Submarine approach is probably not the plan, but there's a perfectly good argument that moving from Airplane/Truck to Airplane/Truck/Motorcycle would be appropriate if the company decided to add high speed courier service. Such a plan should be weighed on it's benifits, and if the high speed courier serice is stopped then the motorcycles can be retired.
I think it's about the same with programming languages - use the right tool for the right job.
Real projects are a bit different. There are time and budget constraints. The choice of programming language(s) is an engineering consideration, and the choice should be made by the same people who would chose data structures and algorithms.
In the real world, working with more than one programming language can save a lot of time and effort. A competent programmer should know most of these languages anyway, and learning a new one is pretty easy.
It actually is a little bit like that.
- If you deny a baby access to food for their first five years of life, they will never develop into a functional human being because they will die.
- If you deny a baby access to human culture for their first five years of life, they will never develop into a functional human being because their brain wasn't properly stimulated during that crucial development phase.
Obviously food is of more immediate importance than knowledge, but that doesn't mean that witholding zero cost knowledge is somehow ethical. Even books, movies, videogames and music are important elements of our culture. There's no really good reason why reading Shakespeare is valuable but watching the Harry Potter movies wouldn't be.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason why sharing data files like music or downloading a data file that someone else is sharing could possibly be unethical.
I see this whole thing as being a lot like the time of day. If you ask someone on the street for the time of day and they have a watch, they'll generally tell you. If someone choses to post a clock on the side of their building, then everyone can see what time it is. The time, like any other data, is wealth that can be shared freely - it seems more likely that hoarding would be unethical rather than sharing.
The trick is that when DRM is implemented in software for use within a single organisation it doesn't conflict with the GPL v3 at all.
Note that I explicitly mentioned that cheap paper copies should be sold. To continue further, expensive collector edition hardcovers should be sold as well. If I have any understanding of how customers minds work, people will happily pay $25 or so for a "Official Hardcover Collector's Edition" of a good novel - and they'd buy it over a $15 hardcover that can't use the author's title and cover art due to trademark law a good chunk of the time.
It's true that books would be somewhat less profitable with no copyrights, but A.) the fact is that most authors don't make a living off of writing anyway and B.) a bestseller would still net the author hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
Can you send text streams with digital radio broadcasts?
You can implement a software-only DRM system that will accomplish everything that you want as long as the users don't reinstall the OS to bypass it. Such a system would work perfectly well with GPL v3 code.
It's just like expenses in business, once money has been spent it doesn't matter to future profit calculations for a project. What this means is that you can only get expected to pay for information creating work as you do it or before you do it, not afterwards. Once the information exists and has been publically distributed the genie's out of the bottle - you don't have the leverage to make people pay you.
A global, digital information network exists. Writable optical media that can store gigabytes of data that can then be perfectly reproduced exist. Arbitrarily saying that using these things is unethical makes absolutely no sense - it's like saying that it's unethical to go to a public beach and swim without paying.
It's not like there's any lack of information production that isn't compensated directly. Additionally, there's no lack of business models that fund information production without government-imposed artifical scarcity.
It's better than that. Google doesn't need to do anything until their services start slowing down, and then they just need to put up a small text notice saying "Your service may be slow due to your crappy ISP. We suggest upgrading to a non-crappy ISP."
No. There's no problem. Even if the owner of the BitTorrent(tm) mark choses to restrict use to the maximum extent allowed, compatible clients will still be able to say "This client is mostly compatible with the BitTorrent(tm) protocal."
If I was against eating people it would be perfectly reasonable for me to refuse to eat anyone, even if I were living in a culture where that was normal. Even though it might be rude to refuse, it would still be reasonable for me to ask what was being served before accepting a dinner invitation.
It would probably be more convienent to just put images in the public domain, but a GPLed image would work fine.
Would you be suprised if an NRA member repeatedly didn't want to compromise on gun ownership restrictions? "How about we just take away your handguns?" "No." "How about that semi-automatic rifle with a bannana clip." "Still no."
How about a vegatarian? "Will you eat beef?" "No." "How about pork?" "No." "If you won't eat chicken, that's just unreasonable?" "Uh... no."
How about if I came over your house and tried to get you to give me your stuff. "Can I have your TV?" "No." "How about your stereo?" "No." "Your computer?" "No." "Why won't you compromise?"
Even though source code is less generally useful for music than for software because of music's nature as a purely artistic work (you don't generally need to "fix bugs" or "add features" with music, nor is it functional in the same way software is), that doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be a better place if music source code was generally available for those who wanted it. The GPL ends up being a perfectly valid music license.
Similar concepts apply for books and movies, although Stallman explicitly mentions that it might be inconvienent to be forced to distribute source code with published books.
Uhh... I really fail to see how you need a cryptographic assurance that your restrictions can't be bypassed even if the user takes apart their machine. I pretty sure that version numbering documents and then having the document reader support automatic network document updates would have been more than enough.
Dollar + Full Port-a-john = I don't want that dollar.
The street performer model works great for many artistic works. As an example, imagine if J.K. Roweling had released the first Harry Potter book at no charge (with paper copies for the cost of printing) with a note that said "Once I've collected $50,000 in donations I'll release the next book". Depending on how quickly she got the $100,000 she could figure out what the appropriate amount to ask for for book 3 would be.
Unfortunately, data files aren't physical objects. Expecting them to work like physical objects won't make it that way. What you suggest is both unethical (because there's no reasonable reason to limit digital copies) and impossible (because if it's possible to see or hear digital content then it's possible to make a perfect unrestricted copy of it at the quality experienced.)
IgnoramusMaximus: Your nickname doesn't suit you. In your post, you've grasped one of the fundimental concepts in this debate.
How the hell can someone take more information than their fair share? I really don't understand how that works. It's not like anyone needs to go without.