No - look at the definition on the front page of the FSF web site http://fsf.org/. It's just another example of the latest round of hypocrisy from Stallman (or have you forgotten his connection with the FSF?) Two weights, two measures...
It's the same hypocrisy that he's demonstrated for decades. The same hypocrisy that says "the GPL extends enough rights to protect developers sharing code and end users... except for when developers want to add their code to GNU, in which case, a license under the GPL isn't enough - gimme your copyright, b*tch".
He's a control freak. Just look at the xemacs vs emacs debacle. It's the same as his reputation for being late all the time (passive-aggressive behavior), being blatantly offensive (inappropriately touching his privates, picking his nose, eating boogers, not bathing, etc - again, a pattern of forcing his offensive BO and habits on others as a way of "marking his territory").
He's well past his due date (judging by the smell, that occurred LONG ago). We don't need a "social movement" - we need stable code. The GPL promotes forks rather than getting the fix done at the source.
Remember all the complaints about forking in the Unix universe? Now, Unix is pretty much standardized, and it's GPL-based linux that has hundreds of distros with incompatabilities.
I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that people should be free to do whatever they want if the author doesn't give them permission to... just that RMS is a hypocrite when he points fingers at Google and Android, because his GPL fails the test of being "free" based on what the front page of the FSF web site says...
He also has a history of minimizing the freedom of the developer by demanding the assignment of copyrights for any contribution to GNU software. Funny how the GPL wasn't "good enough" if it's someone else holding the copyrights, hmm?
He's a hypocrite, and both he and the FSF have been generating FUD for the last month. It's time we grew up as a community, and realized that we need to walk away from the freetards - they've gone slightly power-mad in thinking that they can lie with impunity.
The problem is that people are open to blackmail over debt because the screeners make it an issue.
It used to be the same for being gay or lesbian - it was possible to blackmail people over their sexual orientation because the screening process raised a red flag if you weren't straight.
The *proper* fix is to not use debt as part of the screening process. A person may have fantastic credit because they're mobbed up, a crook, a cheat, etc.
Screen based on their capabilities, nothing more. That ends the possibility of blackmail based on a person's personal life.
Someone else who can't read what I wrote? My point was that the GPL does not meet the standard of freedom laid down on the FSF web site's front page, so Stallman is being a hypocrite when he talks about how his software is supposedly "free" and Android is "less free." The GPL is "less free" as well, when held up to the standard published for the world to see on the front page of Stallman's FSF web site.
My argument had ZERO to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of the GPL, or copyright law, so there was no reason for you to bring that up.
Your whole argument is one massive straw man. Now, instead of getting angry with me, why not read what I actually wrote, instead of what you thought I was writing, and address that instead, hmm?:-)
Is Stallman being a hypocrite (again)? If not, why not?
Then why does his software license prohibit charging for the software?
In theory it doesn't (it even says you can charge, both for the initial software, and for copying)... in practice, pretty much, because anyone else can distribute for whatever price they set, including zero.
"If they really just wanted manufacturers to commit to timely updates then they could have GPL3'd critical components of the OS. That has anti-tivoization provisions, which means that users would be more likely to end up with phones running BSD or Windows7 or QNX or Symbian."
What copy restrictions are there? What redistribution restrictions are there?
Please read the GPL. It most certainly has restrictions. BTW, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, why not read what I wrote instead of making a straw-man argument.
I'm not saying (or even implying) that the GPL is evil or the spawn of satan - different licenses for different folks and all that. What I *am* saying is that Stallman is a hypocrite for pointing out the supposed failures of others while claiming on the FSF website to be in favour of free software, but his own license (the GPL) doesn't meet the definition on the FSF front page.
This is far from the first time that the FSF and Stallman have trolled.
LISP is not the be-all and end-all, and Stallman is not a rock star. The world has moved on, and smelly aged hippies who have a reputation for eating their boogers and foot cheese, touching themselves inappropriately, and not bathing often enough are unacceptable as "the face of free software" nowadays.
The fact that the FSF has already lied about Android and Linux in order to promote their own more restrictive GPL3 and AGPL 3 means that it's time to walk away from them.
You seemed to miss the point - Stallman is in no position to point fingers when the front page of his own FSF has a definition of freedom that his own license doesn't meet in any respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of one license over another, and everything to do with Stallman's hypocrisy.
Richard Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, marketing free software?
He's switched from the restrictive GPL ("you can't link to xyz, you must follow these conditions or you can't share it, etc.") to the "free as in both speech and beer" BSD and MIT licenses? That is news.
1. "free from restriction"? The GPL license is full of restrictions, on copying, on redistribution, etc. That's not "free as in free speech".
2. "free to share and copy"?... but only within the restrictions of the GPL. That's not free as in "free speech" either.
3. "free to learn and adapt?" While you're free to learn, you are NOT free to adapt, except within the restrictions of the GPL. Once again, that's not free as in "free speech" either.
4. "free to work with others"? Have you seen the restrictions on linking in the GPL? Or the list of licenses that it's not compatible with? That's not free as in "free speech" either.
Stallman is a hypocrite to be taking pokes at Google, while claiming his own license is "free as in free speech". Most licenses, by their nature, impose restrictions. Nothing wrong with that - but don't claim that yours doesn't when it does, and then be a bigger hypocrite by claiming others aren't "free".
2) When I do need to run cable, such as telephone wire for my fax machine, I put the cable in the middle of the room. Then I buy a big rug, and place it over the top of the cable.
so 5 cables later you've got 5 rugs piled up?
Nah, he just adds another room, you insensitive clod!
[_] If they're so clever, they can durn well manage themselves!
[_] Is that why the cable bill goes up when you're not looking?
[_] Wireless FTW!
[_] We cut the cable, cut the satellite, and get everything in HD with a cheap pair of bunny-rabbit ears.
[_] Are you kidding? There goes my job security!
[_] We're still on token ring, you insensitive clod!
[_] We color-code them by length. No exceptions. So, when we're out of a certain length, you have to move the computer/desk/user. Your new location is the broom closet.
[_] I'll believe it when I see it.
[_] Duct tape. LOTS of duct tape. And a tennis ball with a slit in it. And some RC cars with cams so we can pull cable in places that, when it breaks, we'll never be able to fix it.
[_] No thanks... CowboyNeal lays enough cable every morning during break.
Apple bans Flash, they are heroes backing open standards, and not at all dicking over a company that was largely responsible for the Mac being a relevant computing platform in the first place.
Microsoft bans all plug-ins, and they are screwing over Adobe for not selling to MS.
The difference is, Apple wasn't trying to buy Adobe a few months ago.
Funny how people claim that the stock market does better than inflation - by ignoring all those companies that went bust. Where would the DOW be if you included the losses from bankrupt Union Carbide, bankrupt GM, bankrupt Chrysler, bankrupt Distilling & Cattle Feeding, dissolved US Leather Co, bankrupt American Smelting, bankrupt National Steel, bankrupt Bethlehem Steel, dissolved American Can, defunct International Harvester, bankrupt Johns-Manville, Anaconda Copper (negative worth), currently in bankruptcy ASARCO, Nash Motors (eventually part of bankrupt American Motors), Hudson Motors (eventually part of bankrupt American Motors), bankrupt Paramount Publix, liquidated Fuller Company, Studebaker, Baldwin Locomotive, Republic Steel, US Leather, serial bankrupt Colorado Fuel and Iron, defunct Pacific Mail Steamship Co.,... there's more, but I think I made my point.
Including those bankrupt businesses (and the others that were once part of the DOW) would chop the DOW by what, half or more?
The shares themeselves are never worth anything - it's only what they represent that has value, whether it's a piece of a business or the right to buy corn pr pork bellies in the future.
If people actually traded the goods, or, in the case of futures contracts, be required to take physical deliver, then we wouldn't have the problems we have now - people would understand that the stock market is not the measure of "wealth", but the underlying goods.
The stock market really is a zero-sum game, because nothing in it really exists, it's even less a fiat method of exchange than fiat currency is - which is why it can vary so much. If it accurately represented "worth" or "value", it would not fluctuate wrt the real world commodities it represents.
The stock market goes up 1% - the nation did not increase in value by 1% in that single day - that would represent an annual compound rate of 3,740.93%. In other words, if the stock market began the year at 8,000, by now it should be at 1,116,733.31.
And yet, people expect the stock market to go up 1% a day, when it should only be going up in relation to the actual value of the REAL market - the outside world. Morons.
The iron isn't "worth three times it's previous value." What has happened is your money has LOST 2/3 of its' value, because it only buys 1/3 as much.
That's why the "rising stock market creates wealth" is a myth - in theory, it should only rise to the extent that production rises, because ultimately, it's just a proxy for the underlying assets - anything more means the dollar is losing value.
Think of it - in the last generation, the dollar has dropped in value by 95%. Getting paid 20x more doesn't make you 20x richer than your parents were at the same age - especially with a greater % of income going to taxes.
Except that there's a difference between "the economy" and "the stock market" which your analysis fails to take into account. Please try again. The stock market IS a zero-sum game. It's easy enough to see - when a company is liquidated and their stocks go to zero, the real-world assets don't magically cease to exist.
All the stock market is, is a way to gamble legally.
The stock market doesn't affect the amount of wealth in the real world - it just lets you exchange tokens that represent that real world weath.
The amount of iron in the universe doesn't suddenly triple if someone issues 3x as much iron stock. Just like the number of tons of iron in a warehouse doesn't suddenly triple if the stock of the warehouse operator triples.
Ultimately, it is, because ultimately, every trade has a winner and a loser, and ultimately, the value of every stock goes to zero. We just haven't seen the game played out long enough yet (though we came pretty close recently).
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same hypocrisy that he's demonstrated for decades. The same hypocrisy that says "the GPL extends enough rights to protect developers sharing code and end users ... except for when developers want to add their code to GNU, in which case, a license under the GPL isn't enough - gimme your copyright, b*tch".
He's a control freak. Just look at the xemacs vs emacs debacle. It's the same as his reputation for being late all the time (passive-aggressive behavior), being blatantly offensive (inappropriately touching his privates, picking his nose, eating boogers, not bathing, etc - again, a pattern of forcing his offensive BO and habits on others as a way of "marking his territory").
He's well past his due date (judging by the smell, that occurred LONG ago). We don't need a "social movement" - we need stable code. The GPL promotes forks rather than getting the fix done at the source.
Remember all the complaints about forking in the Unix universe? Now, Unix is pretty much standardized, and it's GPL-based linux that has hundreds of distros with incompatabilities.
I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that people should be free to do whatever they want if the author doesn't give them permission to ... just that RMS is a hypocrite when he points fingers at Google and Android, because his GPL fails the test of being "free" based on what the front page of the FSF web site says ...
He also has a history of minimizing the freedom of the developer by demanding the assignment of copyrights for any contribution to GNU software. Funny how the GPL wasn't "good enough" if it's someone else holding the copyrights, hmm?
He's a hypocrite, and both he and the FSF have been generating FUD for the last month. It's time we grew up as a community, and realized that we need to walk away from the freetards - they've gone slightly power-mad in thinking that they can lie with impunity.
The problem is that people are open to blackmail over debt because the screeners make it an issue.
It used to be the same for being gay or lesbian - it was possible to blackmail people over their sexual orientation because the screening process raised a red flag if you weren't straight.
The *proper* fix is to not use debt as part of the screening process. A person may have fantastic credit because they're mobbed up, a crook, a cheat, etc.
Screen based on their capabilities, nothing more. That ends the possibility of blackmail based on a person's personal life.
My argument had ZERO to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of the GPL, or copyright law, so there was no reason for you to bring that up.
Your whole argument is one massive straw man. Now, instead of getting angry with me, why not read what I actually wrote, instead of what you thought I was writing, and address that instead, hmm? :-)
Is Stallman being a hypocrite (again)? If not, why not?
In theory it doesn't (it even says you can charge, both for the initial software, and for copying) ... in practice, pretty much, because anyone else can distribute for whatever price they set, including zero.
"If they really just wanted manufacturers to commit to timely updates then they could have GPL3'd critical components of the OS. That has anti-tivoization provisions, which means that users would be more likely to end up with phones running BSD or Windows7 or QNX or Symbian."
FTFY.
Please read the GPL. It most certainly has restrictions. BTW, instead of a knee-jerk reaction, why not read what I wrote instead of making a straw-man argument.
I'm not saying (or even implying) that the GPL is evil or the spawn of satan - different licenses for different folks and all that. What I *am* saying is that Stallman is a hypocrite for pointing out the supposed failures of others while claiming on the FSF website to be in favour of free software, but his own license (the GPL) doesn't meet the definition on the FSF front page.
This is far from the first time that the FSF and Stallman have trolled.
Just asking, because it seems that ... oh wait, someone's at the doo#(*(*@&@&NO_CARRIER
Would you please stop posting with a LISP?
LISP is not the be-all and end-all, and Stallman is not a rock star. The world has moved on, and smelly aged hippies who have a reputation for eating their boogers and foot cheese, touching themselves inappropriately, and not bathing often enough are unacceptable as "the face of free software" nowadays.
The fact that the FSF has already lied about Android and Linux in order to promote their own more restrictive GPL3 and AGPL 3 means that it's time to walk away from them.
You seemed to miss the point - Stallman is in no position to point fingers when the front page of his own FSF has a definition of freedom that his own license doesn't meet in any respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of one license over another, and everything to do with Stallman's hypocrisy.
He's switched from the restrictive GPL ("you can't link to xyz, you must follow these conditions or you can't share it, etc.") to the "free as in both speech and beer" BSD and MIT licenses? That is news.
The fact is that his own software fails to meet the ideals laid down on the front page of the fsf website:
1. "free from restriction"? The GPL license is full of restrictions, on copying, on redistribution, etc. That's not "free as in free speech".
2. "free to share and copy"? ... but only within the restrictions of the GPL. That's not free as in "free speech" either.
3. "free to learn and adapt?" While you're free to learn, you are NOT free to adapt, except within the restrictions of the GPL. Once again, that's not free as in "free speech" either.
4. "free to work with others"? Have you seen the restrictions on linking in the GPL? Or the list of licenses that it's not compatible with? That's not free as in "free speech" either.
Stallman is a hypocrite to be taking pokes at Google, while claiming his own license is "free as in free speech". Most licenses, by their nature, impose restrictions. Nothing wrong with that - but don't claim that yours doesn't when it does, and then be a bigger hypocrite by claiming others aren't "free".
Maybe it's another side effect of eating too much foot cheese, just like the FSF pushing anti-google / anti-linux FUD last month in a lame effort to get some attention for that ugly stepchild, the GPLv3, as reported on slashdot.
I'd suggest Stallman first clean up his own act, except that his apparent disdain for the frequent use of soap and water makes that unlikely.
Nah, he just adds another room, you insensitive clod!
Clever cable management?
[_] If they're so clever, they can durn well manage themselves! ... CowboyNeal lays enough cable every morning during break.
[_] Is that why the cable bill goes up when you're not looking?
[_] Wireless FTW!
[_] We cut the cable, cut the satellite, and get everything in HD with a cheap pair of bunny-rabbit ears.
[_] Are you kidding? There goes my job security!
[_] We're still on token ring, you insensitive clod!
[_] We color-code them by length. No exceptions. So, when we're out of a certain length, you have to move the computer/desk/user. Your new location is the broom closet.
[_] I'll believe it when I see it.
[_] Duct tape. LOTS of duct tape. And a tennis ball with a slit in it. And some RC cars with cams so we can pull cable in places that, when it breaks, we'll never be able to fix it.
[_] No thanks
The stock market has no connection with GDP.
Face it, the economy continues to build wealth during the hours that the stock market is closed. And on weekends.
Including those bankrupt businesses (and the others that were once part of the DOW) would chop the DOW by what, half or more?
The shares themeselves are never worth anything - it's only what they represent that has value, whether it's a piece of a business or the right to buy corn pr pork bellies in the future.
If people actually traded the goods, or, in the case of futures contracts, be required to take physical deliver, then we wouldn't have the problems we have now - people would understand that the stock market is not the measure of "wealth", but the underlying goods.
The stock market really is a zero-sum game, because nothing in it really exists, it's even less a fiat method of exchange than fiat currency is - which is why it can vary so much. If it accurately represented "worth" or "value", it would not fluctuate wrt the real world commodities it represents.
The stock market goes up 1% - the nation did not increase in value by 1% in that single day - that would represent an annual compound rate of 3,740.93%. In other words, if the stock market began the year at 8,000, by now it should be at 1,116,733.31.
And yet, people expect the stock market to go up 1% a day, when it should only be going up in relation to the actual value of the REAL market - the outside world. Morons.
That's why the "rising stock market creates wealth" is a myth - in theory, it should only rise to the extent that production rises, because ultimately, it's just a proxy for the underlying assets - anything more means the dollar is losing value.
Think of it - in the last generation, the dollar has dropped in value by 95%. Getting paid 20x more doesn't make you 20x richer than your parents were at the same age - especially with a greater % of income going to taxes.
Really - so we should either be in boom times this last year, or the DOW should be around 3000. Take your pick.
They've consistently proven that they don't.
All the stock market is, is a way to gamble legally.
The stock market doesn't affect the amount of wealth in the real world - it just lets you exchange tokens that represent that real world weath.
The amount of iron in the universe doesn't suddenly triple if someone issues 3x as much iron stock. Just like the number of tons of iron in a warehouse doesn't suddenly triple if the stock of the warehouse operator triples.
Microsoft had already decided to ditch silverlight long before they started talking about buying adobe, so what's your point again? :-)
Ultimately, it is, because ultimately, every trade has a winner and a loser, and ultimately, the value of every stock goes to zero. We just haven't seen the game played out long enough yet (though we came pretty close recently).
An *unplugged* camera can't be illegal, since it's not actually watching anything, now is it?