Hey Bowie, Nice to see you decided to stick around Slashdot. You wrote a few days ago: After submitting this post, I'll be nuking my Slashdot bookmark and switch over getting my daily fodder from GeekNews.net.
(What can I say, after your tizzy with VA Linux you're famous now. Congratulations.) Anyways.:)
Personally, I agree with most of what Meyer points out in his article. It's never been fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) why attempting to make money off your own work (and exclusively your own work) is taboo. I've heard people scream bloody murder at me for years for simply trying to sell various little odds and ends i've made, rather than just declare it public domain and give it out for free.
The thing is Meyer misrepresents ESR and RMS's views. They never said trying to make money is wrong. In fact they say quite the opposite. (see www.gnu.org or www.tuxedo.org/~esr) He intentionally made his definition of free meaning free beer, then used that to attack our definition of free meaning free to improve are share with your neighbor.
Ford isn't "depriving" people of transportation by demanding that you pay money for one of their cars.
Once again, wrong "free." You fell for his redefinition of terms techniques. It is a common technique used often, oddly enough, by cults.
For the record I don't think it is fair for anyone to ask that you release your work as public domain.
Oh yes, and I had to laugh at Meyer's odd little interjection that it's unethical for the Free Software Foundation to use the word "free" because it's so highly valued by many people.
It makes me cringe when I see TV commercials intentionally use both definitions of "free" in a play on words. I can't think of any specific examples but once you get used to looking for the different uses of the word free, it kind of sticks out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the offers for "free" stuff (is it really free (as in beer) if you have to buy something else first? Well, anyway.). It's like the "now you have real freedom because our calling plan is free!" That kind of thing. Oh well, maybe it's just me.:)
(Sorry about my other message. Let me try formatting that again.)
His arguments are based on a skewed definition of free software. He defines free as available for free (as in free beer).
Is available from at least one source without payment
He says that they say it is immoral to sell software.
The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software.
He uses this incorrect definition of free software (HIS definition, not the GNU definition which he is trying to discredit)
In any case the idea that a low reproduction cost should imply a free product has no rational basis. In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.
Either this guy is an idiot or he is intentionally misrepresenting free software. This is not surprising since he believes the ends justify the means:
Aside from other reasons, limiting ourselves to judging deeds, not thoughts, is easy to justify on purely pragmatic grounds: you can observe my actions, or at least their results; you cannot tell whether my excuses are real or imagined.
OMFG. This guy is just a raving hatchetman.
[on ESR]It is high time for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to state publicly that they do not endorse the views of the gun lunatics, and that their cherished notion of freedom has nothing to do with the freedom to kill children and other innocents.
Once again. Free speech not free beer.
8.Demand (in the spirit of faithful advertising) that the economic origin of "free" software be clearly stated, and that the products be classified as one of "donated", "taxpayer-funded" and the other categories described in this article.
This article was so close, yet so far, to being a good essay. I think it is great that there is a discussion going on about the "uncomfortable" issues of ethics of free software. (which RMS accuses ESR of avoiding). Yet his arguments rely so much on a misunderstanding of free software it misses the mark. His definitions change... his arguments are slippery as fish, which is typical of apologists.
His arguments are based on a skewed definition of free software. He defines free as available for free (as in free beer). Is available from at least one source without payment He says that they say it is immoral to sell software. The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software. He uses this incorrect definition of free software (HIS definition, not the GNU definition which he is trying to discredit) In any case the idea that a low reproduction cost should imply a free product has no rational basis. In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost. Either this guy is an idiot or he is intentionally misrepresenting free software. This is not surprising since he believes the ends justify the means: Aside from other reasons, limiting ourselves to judging deeds, not thoughts, is easy to justify on purely pragmatic grounds: you can observe my actions, or at least their results; you cannot tell whether my excuses are real or imagined. OMFG. This guy is just a raving hatchetman. [on ESR]It is high time for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to state publicly that they do not endorse the views of the gun lunatics, and that their cherished notion of freedom has nothing to do with the freedom to kill children and other innocents. Once again. Free speech not free beer. 8.Demand (in the spirit of faithful advertising) that the economic origin of "free" software be clearly stated, and that the products be classified as one of "donated", "taxpayer-funded" and the other categories described in this article. This article was so close, yet so far, to being a good essay. I think it is great that there is a discussion going on about the "uncomfortable" issues of ethics of free software. (which RMS accuses ESR of avoiding). Yet his arguments rely so much on a misunderstanding of free software it misses the mark. His definitions change... his arguments are slippery as fish, which is typical of apologists.
Wrong. You can start with any bible that is already in the public domain and create your own translation, or any other kind of original work and copyright it. A lot of bibles are copyrighted. Also, I'm sure you can take some kind of public domain version of the bible, and copyright your specific typesetting or other unique features. This prevents people from just making copies. Anybody interested in making a GPL of BSD-licence version of the bible?:)
When you open a text file with UNIX newline conventions in Notepad, the newlines show up as little boxes and the file comes out as one long line. Incidentally, MS-DOS EDIT.EXE actually detects this type of file and corrects it. I guess that just leaves the games...:)
I have found that the more I get involved in the Free software discussion the LESS I am likely to find that making illegal copies of All Rights Reserved-type software.
As usual, it's free as in speech not free as in beer. Just as I don't think it is right for companies to violate the GPL, I don't think it is right to violate the existing standard copyright laws. I do, however, think it is right to create free alternatives to closed software.
I do, however, BUY many games. The last game I bought was Tachyon: beyond the Fringe just a few weeks ago. Please don't stereotype us penguinistas. And especially don't use those stereotypes as a sole justification to bypass free software platforms.
Operating System, Compilers, interfaces, and Libraries, internet technologies, business process software, databases, methods of accessing information, and things like that, or too important to not be free (as in speech, duh.) Any company that doesn't respect my freedom in those important areas does not meet my vision of what computing should be like. Of course many companies and people will disagree, or will not go far enough, so it is up to me, and other like minded people to write it ourselves. It's just software after all. The non free software is take-it-or-leave-it. What's wrong with saying what they are offering is not good (free) enough, so we should create a free alternative?
Games, on the other hand, are a different matter. I will happily spend money on closed source (All Rights Reserved) software. In fact I buy lots of games. I play them on Windows if I must, N64, Playstation, whatever. I don't see what being a penguinista like myself has to do with games! No one flames Loki for releasing close source games... so your examples make no sense.
DRI and SDL are only now becoming viable. I know practically nothing about OGL and DX, but if the rumours and supposition on slashdot is right, OpenGL is losing ground to DX.... Developing for multiple platforms at the same time is overhead. This might not be a good idea unless the game is a guaranteed success - or your market is large enough that N idiots will buy it.
I haven't used SDL but I know a lot of people are using it to make games including Loki which is actually producing full commercial games. From what I understand, it is fairly low level and is pretty good for porting existing games from Windows to Linux.
For a while I have been programming on an API called ClanLib. It is higher level than SDL and is more like a Game SDK. I like the fact that as long as you go through ClanLib (and/or any other cross platform system calls) you can recompile the same program and it will run on top of Direct[Draw,Input,Sound,etc.] in Windows, or several possible targets on Linux (including X of course).
1) Someone has taken a cue from a certain User Friendly strip and created VIGOR the vi[m] editor with an added paperclip assistant! It features helpful advice, requiring you to click on a dialog box, such as:
"You have not entered insert mode before. While you're in insert mode, remember that you need to return to command mode before entering Vigor commands!"
2) I was once shopping on a Waldensoft store and found a boxed piece of software from Microsoft which would let you create your own Office Assistants. But the EULA specifically forbade creating any kind of office assistant that appealed to the prurient interests.
Kewl, but why did you put it out under the GPL. Shouldn't you use the GNU Free Documentation License instead? How can you GPL documentation? It doesn't make sense.
Bill Joy was some kind of freakin genius and since he had access to AT&T UNIX he was able to run with it and create a greatly improved version. But then he dishoners the open source methodology because most of the eyes looking at it wouldn't see the nastiest bugs and wouldn't provide code that was good enough. That statement really illustrates how he doesn't understand open source (in the esr nomenclature since we are talking about the "many eyes" benefits in his essays) because the "many eyes" theory is NOT that thousands of eyes will together find the bugs... it is to make it POSSIBLE for that one genius out there who can fix the bug to do the job... just like Joy was that genius who could really get his head around BSD UNIX code. When I heard him give his opinions on open source at a Sun/Java conference last year in Seattle, even after going over how he was able to improve UNIX in the '70s I was really put off.
Hey Garund, I took a look at your other post and you also made references to the pillar stuff. Sounds pretty cool... Can you email me a copy of that essay? My address is above.
Bowie you are the biggest whiner I have ever seen. When things don't go away you take the "burn all bridges" route. It's not surprising that VA kicked your ass off their server.
The game developer quoth: We aren't announcing ANYTHING about Mac or Linux support. Its going to continue along the lines it has.
If I'm not mistaken Linux support consists of buying the windows version and applying a patch to make only the server portion of UT run under Linux. They do not have a Linux client. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree it is probably completely illegal under current law. Maybe it is a little bit of a gray area, or else we wouldn't be having all these lawsuits. But there is room for improvement and as you can tell by the types of issues being covered here, we think there is a lot of room for improvement in how so called intellectual property is handled on the Internet.
Anyway, what I wanted to reply to was that you use the claims at the end of the NFL broadcasts to back up your argument. What they say is probably true, but just because they say it, doesn't make it more true. It's like the small businesses that put up stupid signs saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." As if. Does that mean they have the right to refuse service to you because of your skin color? Can they point to the sign to prove it? Hell no.
I am eagerly awaiting Black & White. Peter Molyneux has consistently put out amazing, fun, and innovative (and not in the MSFT sense) games. Games like Populous, Magic Carpet, and Dungeon Keeper. From what I've seen Black & White is another type of God game where you try to get tribesmen to worship you. However you also have a giant creature which you indirectly control. I guess it is kind of like a gigantic Tamagotchi because you have to train it and keep it happy. (It'll start eating your tribesmen if it gets hungry, for instance.) Also, it can be played in a massively multiplayer online manner. One thing I'm looking forward to is that you cast spells (generating a thunderstorm for instance... which looks really awesome in the video clips I've seen) using "Gesture Recognition technology." For example the storm takes effect when you draw a circle in a certain manner. I'm not really sure what all that involves. The fact that it is going to be "Open Source" (Open Source depending on what the license really says of course) is the icing on the cake.
I consider myself a pretty smart computer user, but how the hell do you turn off javascript in IE? I looked through all the settings. I even tried the Help file. I'm sure other people would like to know as well.
(I usually use IE at work and Navigator and/or Mozilla at home.)
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Bowie,
:)
Nice to see you decided to stick around Slashdot. You wrote a few days ago:
After submitting this post, I'll be nuking my Slashdot bookmark and switch over getting my daily fodder from GeekNews.net.
(What can I say, after your tizzy with VA Linux you're famous now. Congratulations.) Anyways.
Personally, I agree with most of what Meyer points out in his article. It's never been fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) why attempting to make money off your own work (and exclusively your own work) is taboo. I've heard people scream bloody murder at me for years for simply trying to sell various little odds and ends i've made, rather than just declare it public domain and give it out for free.
The thing is Meyer misrepresents ESR and RMS's views. They never said trying to make money is wrong. In fact they say quite the opposite. (see www.gnu.org or www.tuxedo.org/~esr) He intentionally made his definition of free meaning free beer, then used that to attack our definition of free meaning free to improve are share with your neighbor.
Ford isn't "depriving" people of transportation by demanding that you pay money for one of their cars.
Once again, wrong "free." You fell for his redefinition of terms techniques. It is a common technique used often, oddly enough, by cults.
For the record I don't think it is fair for anyone to ask that you release your work as public domain.
Have a nice day.
I have reposted my comment as "[Reformatted] Free Libre, not Free Gratis" Please moderate the parent of this down as redundant. Thank you.
(I wish I could delete posts. Somehow the default formatting option was changed.)
Oh yes, and I had to laugh at Meyer's odd little interjection that it's unethical for the Free Software Foundation to use the word "free" because it's so highly valued by many people.
:)
It makes me cringe when I see TV commercials intentionally use both definitions of "free" in a play on words. I can't think of any specific examples but once you get used to looking for the different uses of the word free, it kind of sticks out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the offers for "free" stuff (is it really free (as in beer) if you have to buy something else first? Well, anyway.). It's like the "now you have real freedom because our calling plan is free!" That kind of thing. Oh well, maybe it's just me.
(Sorry about my other message. Let me try formatting that again.)
His arguments are based on a skewed definition of free software. He defines free as available for free (as in free beer).
Is available from at least one source without payment
He says that they say it is immoral to sell software.
The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software.
He uses this incorrect definition of free software (HIS definition, not the GNU definition which he is trying to discredit)
In any case the idea that a low reproduction cost should imply a free product has no rational basis. In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.
Either this guy is an idiot or he is intentionally misrepresenting free software. This is not surprising since he believes the ends justify the means:
Aside from other reasons, limiting ourselves to judging deeds, not thoughts, is easy to justify on purely pragmatic grounds: you can observe my actions, or at least their results; you cannot tell whether my excuses are real or imagined.
OMFG. This guy is just a raving hatchetman.
[on ESR]It is high time for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to state publicly that they do not endorse the views of the gun lunatics, and that their cherished notion of freedom has nothing to do with the freedom to kill children and other innocents.
Once again. Free speech not free beer.
8.Demand (in the spirit of faithful advertising) that the economic origin of "free" software be clearly stated, and that the products be classified as one of "donated", "taxpayer-funded" and the other categories described in this article.
This article was so close, yet so far, to being a good essay. I think it is great that there is a discussion going on about the "uncomfortable" issues of ethics of free software. (which RMS accuses ESR of avoiding). Yet his arguments rely so much on a misunderstanding of free software it misses the mark. His definitions change... his arguments are slippery as fish, which is typical of apologists.
His arguments are based on a skewed definition of free software. He defines free as available for free (as in free beer). Is available from at least one source without payment He says that they say it is immoral to sell software. The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software. He uses this incorrect definition of free software (HIS definition, not the GNU definition which he is trying to discredit) In any case the idea that a low reproduction cost should imply a free product has no rational basis. In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost. Either this guy is an idiot or he is intentionally misrepresenting free software. This is not surprising since he believes the ends justify the means: Aside from other reasons, limiting ourselves to judging deeds, not thoughts, is easy to justify on purely pragmatic grounds: you can observe my actions, or at least their results; you cannot tell whether my excuses are real or imagined. OMFG. This guy is just a raving hatchetman. [on ESR]It is high time for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to state publicly that they do not endorse the views of the gun lunatics, and that their cherished notion of freedom has nothing to do with the freedom to kill children and other innocents. Once again. Free speech not free beer. 8.Demand (in the spirit of faithful advertising) that the economic origin of "free" software be clearly stated, and that the products be classified as one of "donated", "taxpayer-funded" and the other categories described in this article. This article was so close, yet so far, to being a good essay. I think it is great that there is a discussion going on about the "uncomfortable" issues of ethics of free software. (which RMS accuses ESR of avoiding). Yet his arguments rely so much on a misunderstanding of free software it misses the mark. His definitions change... his arguments are slippery as fish, which is typical of apologists.
I'm confused. Is he saying there is going to be 6 more books in the series? It looks like you can only order one 360 page book.
> DEL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WSCRIPT.EXE
> DEL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CSCRIPT.EXE
FYI, my WSCRIPT.EXE was in c:\windows
and my CSCRIPT.EXE was in c:\windows\command
so, YMMV.
Wrong. You can start with any bible that is already in the public domain and create your own translation, or any other kind of original work and copyright it. A lot of bibles are copyrighted. Also, I'm sure you can take some kind of public domain version of the bible, and copyright your specific typesetting or other unique features. This prevents people from just making copies. Anybody interested in making a GPL of BSD-licence version of the bible? :)
You've obviously never met an IT manager. If most /.ers took this advice they'd be unemployed.
:) I've had three IT jobs. Two of my managers were/are great, and I enjoyed/enjoy my jobs/job. One of my jobs was a living hell.
Obviously.
I think you guys had better start listening to your lawyers instead of Jon Katz and his teenage fan club.
You don't think that qualifies as flamebait??
I am so glad I quit my job at microsoft. I can have self respect again.
Never work for someone you don't respect.
-- Life's Little Instruction Book [i think]
Bug Free Software
:)
...
Notepad
When you open a text file with UNIX newline conventions in Notepad, the newlines show up as little boxes and the file comes out as one long line. Incidentally, MS-DOS EDIT.EXE actually detects this type of file and corrects it. I guess that just leaves the games...
I have found that the more I get involved in the Free software discussion the LESS I am likely to find that making illegal copies of All Rights Reserved-type software.
As usual, it's free as in speech not free as in beer. Just as I don't think it is right for companies to violate the GPL, I don't think it is right to violate the existing standard copyright laws. I do, however, think it is right to create free alternatives to closed software.
I do, however, BUY many games. The last game I bought was Tachyon: beyond the Fringe just a few weeks ago. Please don't stereotype us penguinistas. And especially don't use those stereotypes as a sole justification to bypass free software platforms.
Operating System, Compilers, interfaces, and Libraries, internet technologies, business process software, databases, methods of accessing information, and things like that, or too important to not be free (as in speech, duh.) Any company that doesn't respect my freedom in those important areas does not meet my vision of what computing should be like. Of course many companies and people will disagree, or will not go far enough, so it is up to me, and other like minded people to write it ourselves. It's just software after all. The non free software is take-it-or-leave-it. What's wrong with saying what they are offering is not good (free) enough, so we should create a free alternative?
Games, on the other hand, are a different matter. I will happily spend money on closed source (All Rights Reserved) software. In fact I buy lots of games. I play them on Windows if I must, N64, Playstation, whatever. I don't see what being a penguinista like myself has to do with games! No one flames Loki for releasing close source games... so your examples make no sense.
DRI and SDL are only now becoming viable. I know practically nothing about OGL and DX, but if the rumours and supposition on slashdot is right, OpenGL is losing ground to DX. ... Developing for multiple platforms at the same time is overhead. This might not be a good idea unless the game is a guaranteed success - or your market is large enough that N idiots will buy it.
I haven't used SDL but I know a lot of people are using it to make games including Loki which is actually producing full commercial games. From what I understand, it is fairly low level and is pretty good for porting existing games from Windows to Linux.
For a while I have been programming on an API called ClanLib. It is higher level than SDL and is more like a Game SDK. I like the fact that as long as you go through ClanLib (and/or any other cross platform system calls) you can recompile the same program and it will run on top of Direct[Draw,Input,Sound,etc.] in Windows, or several possible targets on Linux (including X of course).
1)
Someone has taken a cue from a certain User Friendly strip and created VIGOR the vi[m] editor with an added paperclip assistant!
It features helpful advice, requiring you to click on a dialog box, such as:
"You have not entered insert mode before. While you're in insert mode, remember that you need to return to command mode before entering Vigor commands!"
and:
"Are you sure you want to move left?"
Screenshots
2)
I was once shopping on a Waldensoft store and found a boxed piece of software from Microsoft which would let you create your own Office Assistants. But the EULA specifically forbade creating any kind of office assistant that appealed to the prurient interests.
Kewl, but why did you put it out under the GPL. Shouldn't you use the GNU Free Documentation License instead? How can you GPL documentation? It doesn't make sense.
Bill Joy was some kind of freakin genius and since he had access to AT&T UNIX he was able to run with it and create a greatly improved version. But then he dishoners the open source methodology because most of the eyes looking at it wouldn't see the nastiest bugs and wouldn't provide code that was good enough. That statement really illustrates how he doesn't understand open source (in the esr nomenclature since we are talking about the "many eyes" benefits in his essays) because the "many eyes" theory is NOT that thousands of eyes will together find the bugs... it is to make it POSSIBLE for that one genius out there who can fix the bug to do the job... just like Joy was that genius who could really get his head around BSD UNIX code. When I heard him give his opinions on open source at a Sun/Java conference last year in Seattle, even after going over how he was able to improve UNIX in the '70s I was really put off.
Hey Garund,
I took a look at your other post and you also made references to the pillar stuff. Sounds pretty cool... Can you email me a copy of that essay? My address is above.
Bowie you are the biggest whiner I have ever seen. When things don't go away you take the "burn all bridges" route. It's not surprising that VA kicked your ass off their server.
The game developer quoth:
We aren't announcing ANYTHING about Mac or Linux support. Its going to continue along the lines it has.
If I'm not mistaken Linux support consists of buying the windows version and applying a patch to make only the server portion of UT run under Linux. They do not have a Linux client. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree it is probably completely illegal under current law. Maybe it is a little bit of a gray area, or else we wouldn't be having all these lawsuits. But there is room for improvement and as you can tell by the types of issues being covered here, we think there is a lot of room for improvement in how so called intellectual property is handled on the Internet.
Anyway, what I wanted to reply to was that you use the claims at the end of the NFL broadcasts to back up your argument. What they say is probably true, but just because they say it, doesn't make it more true. It's like the small businesses that put up stupid signs saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." As if. Does that mean they have the right to refuse service to you because of your skin color? Can they point to the sign to prove it? Hell no.
saw this on Blue's News:
"one of the reasons for this is the fact that they have direct input to Microsoft as to the development of the API"
I am eagerly awaiting Black & White. Peter Molyneux has consistently put out amazing, fun, and innovative (and not in the MSFT sense) games. Games like Populous, Magic Carpet, and Dungeon Keeper. From what I've seen Black & White is another type of God game where you try to get tribesmen to worship you. However you also have a giant creature which you indirectly control. I guess it is kind of like a gigantic Tamagotchi because you have to train it and keep it happy. (It'll start eating your tribesmen if it gets hungry, for instance.) Also, it can be played in a massively multiplayer online manner.
One thing I'm looking forward to is that you cast spells (generating a thunderstorm for instance... which looks really awesome in the video clips I've seen) using "Gesture Recognition technology." For example the storm takes effect when you draw a circle in a certain manner. I'm not really sure what all that involves.
The fact that it is going to be "Open Source" (Open Source depending on what the license really says of course) is the icing on the cake.
I consider myself a pretty smart computer user, but how the hell do you turn off javascript in IE? I looked through all the settings. I even tried the Help file. I'm sure other people would like to know as well.
(I usually use IE at work and Navigator and/or Mozilla at home.)