You seem to suffer from some sort of belief that being a statist makes your argument non-specious:)
Seriously, though, your ``argument'' was:
Nonsense. The law treats all monopolies equally. A corporation that doesn't have a monoply is not the same thing as one that does.
In your and the courts' opinion. I (obviously) disagree. What I'm arguing is that the courts should overturn the laws; as a Libertarian I think I have every right to make that argument outside of the courts, and I don't care about speciously strong appeals to false authority. (The courts are experts, but they're not infallible.)
By your logic, we should all be able to prescribe drugs, because otherwise Doctors and non-Dcotors [sic] would be treated unequally before the law. Think before you type.
In other words, if I really believed what I said, I would also believe something else I believe. That is perfectly true. Whether it is relevant I leave as an exercise for the reader.
I should probably mention that, according to the Curry-Howard isomorphism, Computer Science (actually that subset of CS that studies algorithms) and (constructive) proof theory are interchangeable.
Yes, I believe we should all be allowed to ingest any substance we have legally obtained (i.e., produced ourselves or obtained with the permission of the former owner). And we should be allowed to recommend any action to any person who wants to listen to us. So, yes, we should all be able to prescribe drugs.
Btw., I thought it was obvious I was a pretty radical Libertarian. Think before you type.
The problem is that there are two differing definitions of ``freedom''. The first is the Capitalist definition, going back at least to Adam Smith:
You are permitted to use your property in any way which does not infinge on the reciprocal rights of others.
The second is the Socialist definition, going back to (I believe) John Dewey:
You are physically capable of doing whatever you want, as long as getting you your capabilities does not impare the capabilities of others.
Stallman, when he describes the GPL as ``free'', is using the Capitalist sense. Granting that Free Software is more ``free'' than Proprietary Software, FS must be a property right (in the broad Libertarian sense). So, then, any ``freedom'' to infringe on the freedom of others is not Capitalist freedom. It is, of course, quite possibly Socialist freedom, but that's not what Stallman is talking about.
Executive summary: Stallman is using a completely different (albiet legitimate) definition of ``freedom'' from yours. So, arguing with him (or his supporters) about whether the GPL is ``free'' is pointless: you're both right.
In my mind, the guy does more harm than good for the Linux & Open Source movement,
That's the goal! Stallman thinks his association in people's minds with ``Linux & Open Source'' is helping those movements and the expense of GNU and Free Software. So, he has to destroy that association to help his movement. I'm sure he knows that'll hurt ``Linux & Open Source'', and I'm sure he doesn't care.
Linux alone actually runs quite well, though not doing much of interest. But by adding only a few (non-GNU, I believe) tools to the kernel, it is quite capable as, for example, a router.
Perhaps you're not familiar with this, but when all Un*x kernels (including Linux) boot, they automatically run a program called `init', which, in turn, invokes/bin/sh to run all the basic system services. According to the LSB, the Linux shell is GNU Bash (sorry, can't find the link right now). So, an LSB-compliant system requires Bash to boot!
The deviations around GCC recently (2.95/96->3.0) are a prime example of that. I'm still downloading projects that require a particular version of GCC because the earlier version doesn't support something correctly (often templates) or the later version breaks something that was supported earlier.
I suspect most of that is actually due to gyrations in the C++ ``standard''...
I was continuing a metaphor comparing Microsoft vs. Open Source to the American Revolution,
Actually, I think the metaphor should be continued, to ask should we:
hold the citizens of any country personally responsible for the actions of their governments
hold the employees of any company personally responsible for the actions of their management.
And before you answer ``yes'' to either, please make sure your government & management have never done anything you don't want to be held responsible for.
Iraq was simply one example where I think most geeks on/. can see the right answer. (As opposed to, say, the US:)
Better yet, charge maybe $5 for a +1 bonus (in addition to any +1 bonus from excess karma). That way, the same people will be weeded out, but those who don't have money can earn their +1 bonus in other ways (early posts, karma whoring, the odd intelligent post, etc.)
I'm sure I'll lose karma over this, but: Way to create nonsense posts! You could probably convince the average English major the parent is grammatically correct. Mod parent up!
I don't see the distinction you're making between ``artificial'' and ``real''. If it exists on a computer, it exists mathematically. If it exists mathematically, what better can you ask for?
the lack of it in the Constitution also does not mean that it should not exist.
Right. This is precisely what the 9th ammendment is for---protecting rights (right to privacy, freedom of contract, ect.) that the Founding Fathers never imagined could/would be violated.
LOL! Well, at least 1998 was when ESR found out about ``Open Source'', or at least when he changed CatB to use it (link here, about half-way down the page, revision 1.29).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, though, your ``argument'' was:
In your and the courts' opinion. I (obviously) disagree. What I'm arguing is that the courts should overturn the laws; as a Libertarian I think I have every right to make that argument outside of the courts, and I don't care about speciously strong appeals to false authority. (The courts are experts, but they're not infallible.)
In other words, if I really believed what I said, I would also believe something else I believe. That is perfectly true. Whether it is relevant I leave as an exercise for the reader.
I should probably mention that, according to the Curry-Howard isomorphism, Computer Science (actually that subset of CS that studies algorithms) and (constructive) proof theory are interchangeable.
Nah, that's assuming their common sense exceeds their power lust. I wouldn't bet on it.
``Prescribe'' is such a strong word...
Yes, I believe we should all be allowed to ingest any substance we have legally obtained (i.e., produced ourselves or obtained with the permission of the former owner). And we should be allowed to recommend any action to any person who wants to listen to us. So, yes, we should all be able to prescribe drugs.
Btw., I thought it was obvious I was a pretty radical Libertarian. Think before you type.
You mean the solvable subset?
So you're telling me my Haskell compiler allows me to implement non-algorithms that nevertheless return a useful result?
And, for that matter, you're saying the xinetd program running on my computer does not implement any algorithm?
If algorithms fall so short of describing what we can actually do with computing machines, why do CS people spend so much time on them?
Would you like to inform us what you think the Halting Problem is all about?
Quote one provision of the GNU GPL that places any more restrictions on the software than are on a random book.
In other words, anti-trust laws eliminate equality before the law for corporations.
The second is the Socialist definition, going back to (I believe) John Dewey:
Stallman, when he describes the GPL as ``free'', is using the Capitalist sense. Granting that Free Software is more ``free'' than Proprietary Software, FS must be a property right (in the broad Libertarian sense). So, then, any ``freedom'' to infringe on the freedom of others is not Capitalist freedom. It is, of course, quite possibly Socialist freedom, but that's not what Stallman is talking about.
Executive summary: Stallman is using a completely different (albiet legitimate) definition of ``freedom'' from yours. So, arguing with him (or his supporters) about whether the GPL is ``free'' is pointless: you're both right.
HTH
That's the goal! Stallman thinks his association in people's minds with ``Linux & Open Source'' is helping those movements and the expense of GNU and Free Software. So, he has to destroy that association to help his movement. I'm sure he knows that'll hurt ``Linux & Open Source'', and I'm sure he doesn't care.
Perhaps you're not familiar with this, but when all Un*x kernels (including Linux) boot, they automatically run a program called `init', which, in turn, invokes
I suspect most of that is actually due to gyrations in the C++ ``standard''...
Why wouldn't the opinions of the author of the license and the licensor be most important in determining the meaning of the license?
Only if yacc is not normally distributed with the ``major components'' of the target OS. See GPL Section 3, fifth paragraph.
Actually, I think the metaphor should be continued, to ask should we:
And before you answer ``yes'' to either, please make sure your government & management have never done anything you don't want to be held responsible for.
Iraq was simply one example where I think most geeks on
Just like the Iraqi people are currently starving and wallowing in misery, remembering how they tried to screw everyone over?
Yeah, I know this is flamebait & offtopic, but so is my parent. It wasn't modded down, please don't mod me down.
Better yet, charge maybe $5 for a +1 bonus (in addition to any +1 bonus from excess karma). That way, the same people will be weeded out, but those who don't have money can earn their +1 bonus in other ways (early posts, karma whoring, the odd intelligent post, etc.)
Just a thought.
I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks in a general, Linux community kinda way. Unfortunately, he doesn't.
Linus gets on my nerves--he's too nice! :)
I'm sure I'll lose karma over this, but: Way to create nonsense posts! You could probably convince the average English major the parent is grammatically correct. Mod parent up!
I don't see the distinction you're making between ``artificial'' and ``real''. If it exists on a computer, it exists mathematically. If it exists mathematically, what better can you ask for?
Best damn description of Socialism I ever heard!
Right. This is precisely what the 9th ammendment is for---protecting rights (right to privacy, freedom of contract, ect.) that the Founding Fathers never imagined could/would be violated.
LOL! Well, at least 1998 was when ESR found out about ``Open Source'', or at least when he changed CatB to use it (link here, about half-way down the page, revision 1.29).