Thank you for the sermon. The choir is now enlightened on the gospels.
I really don't care about one idea that came out of Thomas Jefferson's head. Are his ideas about ideas, the end of discussion? If he wants information freedom, why does he want you to believe his idea of information? Sounds like freedom to me. There is no freedom to think that information should be anything but their definition.
Ideas are owned. You just don't see it. Every idea in your head right now, that no one but you can examine, are owned by you. What difference does it make if you take those ideas, in your head, and place them in your computer? Your brain, your computer.
I'm really sorry you brought Thomas Jefferson in. I mean, the man didn't even know what he wanted. He tore apart the bible in the White House and removed Jesus as lord. He then claimed he was still a Christian, even though he believed Jesus was only a good _man_ with good beliefs or morals. And it shows how much he really believed in those morals, since it is likely he had an affair w/ his _slave_. While others, perhaps Washington, had already freed their slaves.
Despite popular Slashdot belief, ideas can be a scarcity. If someone uses my idea that was going to help me make money, get a job, get laid, whatever, then I have to find a new one. How do you create a new idea? You must _spend_ time creating one. You aren't paying money (unless you purchase books), but you are spending something, such as time (which _is_ a scarcity).
Ownership is an imaginary concept placed over physical goods, whereas copyright is an imaginary concept placed over non-physical goods. They are both the same concept, just different legal specifics like you pointed out. Whether one should be limited and the other not is debatable. Government could say "there is no ownership." Someone could borrow your car then, but you haven't lost anything. You might not have a car when you need it, but thats orthogonal to the point. If there was no concept of ownership, then you, like everyone else, owns everything. Someone takes your car? Go take any car you see. They are all "yours" (and everyone elses'). Thus, there is no real scarcity. If the same amount of cars was produced, as in America today, then there would generally be a car to use every time you needed one. You should be wondering now, "how will cars be made?" Or where the incentive is. Same thing can be said about information. Ultimately, you can't keep selling the same idea just as you can't keep selling the same cars. Ideas need changing just as much as physical goods.. to keep consumers interested. So, IMO, the debate over information ownership is moot.
To the point: Copyright = Ownership for every intent and purpose. One simply has an expiration (that keeps growing), the other doesn't. It's pedant to point out a difference so small when I gave no hint that I didn't know the difference. Which is why I called it "propaganda." You are using simple terms, such as "ownership" and "copyright" to pursuade an audience to believe in your concept of information. Then you whip out good old Thomas Jefferson to point out that copyright is a monopoly. And we all know monopolies are bad, mmkay?
Uhm. Competition is about battling for the same resource. It isn't about playing nice. I don't know where you get these absurd ideas about capitalism. The self-correcting part is there, but it is a result of competition (battles). Ultimately, consumers do get better deals in the end. This is the result of every battle. More battles = good for consumer.
The government's job is not to make business play nice. Business IS war. To think otherwise is to not know the true nature of business. Keep purchasing what you want (voting with your dollars) and the market DOES correct itself.
Please check out your sources better. The "Toolbar" in KDE has been around for a long while. Ideas of representing running applications with icons or buttons have been around long before Windows was even thought of.
I never said it was new. I said they are modeled after Windows. Most window managers for X have a toolbar of some sort. Not all have one running down the bottom of the screen and has a left-hand side button that is identical in functionality to Windows' "Start" button. Nor do other toolbars have application buttons in that toolbar.
On the other hand: does windows have the same toolkit for everything? Old applications written for Windows 3.x still have the same white background. Applications written for 95 don't have the same UI style as those written for XP. Many applications under Windows use their own 'personalised' toolkit (example: SoundBlaster software).
Of course. But the degree of difference between applications is greater on *ix than in Windows. The way applications function under Windows is for the most part consistent. There really is no competing widget sets on Windows, which helps coherency.
Then turn your face towards the Qt/KDE toolkit. Not only do these toolkits allow much better window design, it also is consistent, skinable, more userfriendly, easier to code, better integration etc. etc. (this list is endless).
And I could say that *ix is all those things and GTK+ and Motif. Windows is Windows. *ix is X, GGI, WindowMaker, fvwm, KDE, GNOME, etc. It really doesn't matter how good Qt's usability is, if the system itself is not up to Qt's standards of usability.
About the piping ASCII text from one program to another, this idea is based on flexibility. Allowing experienced users to filter data between programs is still a much better way to handle data than to supply a userinterface for each thinkable relation between two or more data providers/processors.
But it doesn't have to be this way. COM/OLE/ActiveX/etc. is not the last nail in software interaction's coffin. It's time to move into the 21st century.
Plan 9 is a very good new alternative to those who would like to work with a well designed system.
That's what I'm saying. The original poster's attitude against Windows users is absurd when his OS of choice, Unix, is by no means a superior OS in this day and age. It's as if hes poking fun at Windows users by claiming OS superiority, yet he is guilty of the same thing.
All that truely matters is what works. There is no reason to call Windows users "sheep." They are using what works for them--they don't care about stuff below the GUI level. I'm 100% certain that the poster is ignorant on some subject any Window's user is. While he is studying Unix learning all the archaic commands, a Windows user may be studying biology, or something.
H.o.G. Harley Owners Group. They meet at Harley stores quite frequently. They must be doing good now, since our local Harley store moved from a nice sized store on a busy street to a huge (twice the size as previous) new building on the same street.
Though, I don't know if Mandrake could have that particular kind of club because of brand awareness. It's sorta like Yamaha having a users' meeting when Honda and even BMW are really really close in brand identity. Harley has that aged "American" brand identity. When a guy in leather chaps w/ a leather jacket that has an American flag on the back walks down the street you just know hes getting on a Harley, and not some Japanese motorcycle.
Yes, that is a nice play on words that essentially means the same. If you have some insight besides this "information wants to be free" propaganda, I'd like to hear it.
Unix users are only content if they are in charge of their system.
That does not mean it should remain as it is. I for one would like to see some of the powerful CLI stuff migrate/evolve to a GUI. But it would be a complete waste of effort to do this with a Unix system. Windows may not be your idea of usability, but Unix is definately not mine.
You also complain about things which are almost Unix trademarks.
Why can't they use plain English instead of their stupid euphemisms for god knows what?
You have to be kidding me, right? cat, lpr, grep, sed, ln, ldd. Figuring out "man" took me at least a week. I still do not like to go near "info" unless I must.
Finally, the desktop. Gnome and KDE win hands down.
Is this a pathetic joke? They are both modeled after Windows. Replace the "K" icon and the foot icon with a "Start" icon and you have Windows GUI. But, it's not even as coherent as Windows. Not all X applications use the same widget set.
Windows is a completely different market than what you are probably in. Windows is for people who need to do spreadsheets, word processing, and home users who wish to play games or take on hobby-like multimedia projects. You think everyone who does not care about computers as you do, is part of the herd? This attitude is why progressive computer interfaces will never become widely used. In ten years I see people still piping ASCII text between command-line programs in a Unix clone. Perhaps we will finally be up to Unicode, but what difference would that even make? Nothing new, just a fatter pipe between _programs_. We will still be using stupid file/user/group permisions with brain-dead files on a very brain-dead OS. Where is the superior technology? Capabilities? Persistence? I'd really like less Unix-style control of my computer and more of a higher level control.
Well.. software can be written and released (distributed) without copyright claim. Occasionally people will write "public domain" in the source code or documentation, to make it clear that it comes without a license or copyright and may be used in any manner the finder of the software wishes.
int main() { printf("hello public domain!"); return 0;}
This bit of code here is public domain. I do not have to explicitly tell you it is public domain though. The public domain is anything which has no ownership (i.e. the air). If you are looking for examples search for "code snippets" via google. You can find short things like hash table code, etc. In some cases the source code actually says "public domain" in it.
Hopefully I answered your question, but perhaps I'm missing what you are asking..
Creating a story called "The Little Mermaid" and releasing as public domain would probably qualify as free speech. You might be able to sell it, but someone could come along and steal your work, modify it, and claim they created it all.
The thing to get is this: you _aren't_ claiming ownership. You might have written the story, but you aren't legally claiming ownership to the work.
The only way I see Disney suing is perhaps trademark infringement. If they don't have a trademark on "The Little Mermaid" then it shouldn't be a problem, as you are not stealing copyrighted work either.
Copyrighting free software is done for licensing purposes; to claim legal ownership of software so enforcement of the license is possible. It can discourage the use, but that depends on the type of license the software is under. The GPL, for example, discourages proprietary shops from using it in a number of ways. But it also guarantees that the software licensed under it must remain free (for as long as the software is in use regardless if the public still has a copy). Public domain has no such guarantee. If a public domain software package gets incorporated into a proprietary package, the source code may completely disappear from the public at some point in time never to be seen again. Copyright also allows people to gain credit for their work. This is a big motivating factor in the open-source world, IMO. A license such as BSD is mostly a "credit" license. A while back you had to preserve the "Berkeley message" in any advertising material for BSD-licensed software. Today the BSD license merely retains copyright and disclaims any warranty. Other than that, it is equal to public domain software.
As for being sued from someone copyrighting public domain software, this can't happen. IANAL, of course, but public domain software is not owned by anyone. There can be no original author. If the person who created the software is sued by another who copyrights the software, he can simply deny _ownership_ of the software. There is no basis for suing and no legal action which could be taken. Ownership != creator. The only real reason to copyright free software is for 1) credit or 2) to force freedom (GNU's definition of freedom, which some people would claim is a limited definition of course).
Your logic is wrong. Re-read. The licenses it names includes GPL/LGPL, _and_ anything like it. It doesn't have to specify _what_ the GPL/LGPL are. It simply has to name them. The other characteristics are there to filter out licenses similar in characteristic to GPL/LGPL. Renaming GPL won't do. They probably named the GPL to give a specific idea, or reference, in case legal action came up or perhaps make the license easier to understand for lay-folks.
Quiz: name one innovative Linux/free software/Open Source(TM) technology.
What's that I hear? The sweet sound of silence.
Microsoft is afraid of the GPL because it thinks, for no particular reason, that it is anti-capitalist.
What is your particular reason that the GNU philosophy of free software is pro-capitalism? Oh. "No particular reason?" I see now... double standards.
They think can't make money on their product if they incorporate GPL stuff into it because they will have to open other elements.
Show me a company that actually makes money using the GPL and I will show you a fraud a leech or a hypocrit. Or I can also show you the deceased.
Give Microsoft a valid reason to use the GPL that benefits them instead of just a community of greed and you will have a friend for life. Otherwise get off your freeloading ass and get out there and create clones of the software that Microsoft makes, but licensed under the GPL.
And what I'm saying is there is no possible remedy because there is no monopoly in the first place. Say IE did not exist. What would we be left with? Navigator. The inferior product. Let's say there was no Microsoft Office. What then? Word Perfect? Lotus SmartSuite? If you talk about features, then these programs are nowhere near that of MS Office. You cannot say this is because of closer integration with Windows. If you take a look at StarOffice on Linux you will see it is nowhere near what MS Office is. Now look at MS Money and Intuit Quicken. I'm willing to bet that MS Money is nothing compared to Quicken, in terms of features.
At some point people need to give Microsoft some credit for actual creating quality software. Occasionally they bomb, occasionally they succeed. I have MS QuickC version 1.0. Now that was a bomb. On the other hand, QuickBASIC v4.x was a superior product at the time (the first BASIC compiler that I know of)--which led to Visual Basic. MS Bob? Bomb. MS Flight Simulator? The best. Windows 1.x? Utter garbage. Windows 3.x? Amazing. And this isn't because MS is buying software out from others. IE was nothing when SpyGlass owned it (nor was DOS for that matter). It was MS that really made it what it is today.
If you look past this image of instability and poor quality that comes from Windows95/98 you will see that Microsoft makes some very good software and much of the competition's is crap.
We will soon find out how much of a monopoly MS really has when restrictions are placed on them and no quality software emerges.
Microsoft's position as the producer of a fundamental dependency as well as a competitor is the source of the problem: they are in a position where they can make use of their control of one area to compete in other areas.
Name one. Let's use something other than Netscape. Tell me _exactly_ how Microsoft is putting Real Player and Apple's QuickTime out of business with Windows Media Player, but using _just_ Windows (not money, advertising, etc., but the thing that brings them this control over everything). I just now gave you an easy example. Windows Media Player comes with Windows. Tell me how they are using any power to kill off competitors.
Microsoft is coming up with a definition of what their operating system is that conveniently includes applications of theirs that are competing with alternatives. The definitions aren't technical, they're tactical - Microsoft is doing it in order to make use of it's operating system power to compete in other areas.
Oh, please. This argument is so distorted. Look closely at what Windows includes and what it does not and look at what markets Microsoft "owns." Microsoft has a finance program, Microsoft Money, which attempted to gain a foothold against Quicken. It _failed_. They did not attempt to graft a finance program into Windows--even though nearly everyone using Windows has a need in this domain (personal finance). Why? Because finance is _not_ a Windows' goal or vision. Integrating IE with Windows fits perfectly their vision for.NET.
Microsoft wants to claim that a browser is part of the operating system? Then why can I use any one of about half a dozen different ones, that have no ties to the OS other than the published interfaces? The linkage has nothing to do with the requirements of the operating system, and everything to do with Microsoft's competition with Netscape.
And what about Netscape integrating Java into Navigator? They are essentially taking Windows functionality and putting it into a web browser. How can you be so blind to this? Microsoft has no power other than 1.) power of wealth which anyone has and 2.) power of modifying their product.
Microsoft wants to claim that a browser is part of the operating system? Then why can I use any one of about half a dozen different ones, that have no ties to the OS other than the published interfaces? The linkage has nothing to do with the requirements of the operating system, and everything to do with Microsoft's competition with Netscape.
You just proved that Microsoft can not stop competition with using their OS alone. Netscape still runs fine. If people want to use Netscape they can. You know what I hear? Netscape _sucks_. You know what I heard before IE became a part of Windows? Netscape _sucks_. People didn't just jump ship to IE because it was a part of Windows. They moved from crappy bloated garbage to something that was better.
they're using their freedom of thought to gain an unfair advantage
Oh my God! No way! Welcome to reality. Business is war, and there are _no_ unfair advantages. Infact, I dare you to think of one "fair" advantage anywhere. It's impossible. Think the better product wins? Think again. Marketing wins consumers. Product quality, functionality, etc. wins loyalty. The "unfair" advantage here is that the company had enough to spend on advertising and the product--they win. Consumers are hurt everyday like this. How many times do you buy a brand name rather than a no-name with quality that can not be determined? More than you are probably aware (as most people do). This hurts you when you do this, because the less-advertised product could be superior _and_ cheaper. But you would never know it because ads cost and the company could not afford them. Most likely you bought the well-advertised, but cheap quality product--at an expensive price.
If you really want to complain about monopolistic power, please talk about Coke and Pepsi and their mini-monopolies. Some days I would like to just go to Disney and not have to pay $2 for a can of Coke, when right outside the park they are $0.50. I mean, what if I even wanted a Pepsi? Such inconsiderate bastards, I swear.
Ok, then how does this argument translate into forcing Microsoft to "open" their operating system?
The reason I brought up WebTV, is because Microsoft owns WebTV. You want to know what WebTV is? It is an OS that has a web-browser built-in and all functionality built-in. There is _no_ third-party modifications possible (software-based anyhow). To demand that Microsoft remove their web browser from Windows, but not from WebTV is contradictory.
You have no right and the government has no right to demand Microsoft to change their view of what Windows consists of.
they turn on Windows to do listen to a song or type a document
And in what way is Microsoft breaking the law by giving you this functionality with an OS, but also making it possible to use third-party functionality which is the same? How are they false advertising in a way that makes you believe this functionality is possible under Windows, but is not in reality?
unless you're going to argue that Office is part of Windows, that's hardly just a "modification"
_Technically_, it is a modification. You click on install.exe and _Windows_ executes it. Then Office install program tells _Windows_ where it needs files copied, registry modified, etc. Windows is now modified by Office to use Office. Your view of applications is way too narrow. Stop thinking in terms of seperate programs like DOS days (where everything resided in a small directory and did not depend on the OS for much other than loading and basic I/O). The "operating system" is not a seperate entity like you still believe. I don't care what you plan on doing with your computer. My point is that there is only _one_ software system on any computer. This system has traditionally been seperated into "applications" and "operating system." This does _not_ have to be so, but this metaphor has worked in dividing functionality into useful segments. Noone but Microsoft, owner of the lowest dependency (Windows), has the right to define how functionality should be divided.
But it is not anyone's right, or freedom to define this _for_ Microsoft. If they call their invention an OS, then it is an OS. It may not be what you believe it to be, or work how you would like. It is Microsoft's freedom to choose what it consists of. They can very well toss in Office or what have you and still call it an "OS." They don't because the goals of Office are not the same as Windows. "Paint" is one example of what you would consider application territory, but has become part of the OS.
People are really _really_ too late to start bickering about IE being part of Windows. Before Microsoft built a GUI into DOS would have been a better time. It was arguable that a GUI is not needed for "OS" functions (and this _was_ argued). Now noone cares--everyone does it. Every application besides Microsoft's was running under regular DOS. Now even Linux has things like frame buffers and GGI which are built into the kernel. I imagine very few Linux users would use Linux if there was no X. I doubt very few would use Linux if there was no web browser either. Microsoft is _allowing_ other browsers such as Netscape to run. They are only _depending_ on IE, though.
Say you have some program in Linux which depends on lynx's text-output (say, the -dump flag). Now imagine that many other programs use this same feature of lynx and _depend_ on it. That does not mean you can't use Netscape. It simply means that you need lynx for those other programs to work correctly. And this is true for Linux already. To have most things work correctly you need 'bash'. Otherwise things break tremendously. You could probably form an argument that because of bash, other shells can not compete because bash's functionality is so depended on and almost a part of Linux. No one in their right mind would argue that shell programs need to be "modular," or have an interface which is exactly like each other's. Then there would truely be no difference. One would be an exact copy of the other, just implemented slightly different. The argument that removing IE would allow consumer choice is a load of bullshit. Anyone who writes a browser would then _have_ to conform to IE's interface methods and could _not_ add features. They would simply be clones of IE. Not much good to anyone.
This is why when you look at the all the interfaces published for the various IE components (and yes, they are all documented and available to anyone that wants to write to it or write their own version of it), you'll see interfaces like IHTMLDocument, IHTMLDocument2, IHTMLDocument3, etc...
And the big fuss about IE is what exactly.. ? If it's all available and replaceable then there should be no fuss.
Every third-part application adds functionality to the software system. Applications have to know about the system and the system has to know about the applications. They are not completely independent entities, even if this metaphor has been around since pre-DOS days. Third-parties can replace certain things the manufacture lets them (or makes it easy for them).
Think about cars. You can add modifications like an alarm, or replacements like tires and things. If you try replacing the body it will be a major task and once you are done the car will not be the same type of car it was.
Acrobat works on other platforms because that product was created for other platforms. It will not work on _every_ platform, even if it were ported to Java. Therefore, Acrobat is _dependent_ upon Windows and each system each port was written for. A Linux Acrobat will _not_ work in Windows.
People don't buy computers to run hard drives and refresh memory, but those tasks must come with the computer. Some manufacturers try to hide the fact that they have an OS by placing it in ROM chips or read-only drives. This makes it impossible for MS to gain a foothold in these devices. You don't hear the public crying to make the OS mutable/replaceable, do you? You can not even have applications on things like network computers (i.e. the now defunct Netpliance's iOpener, or WebTV). And somehow people think Microsoft is wrong for defining an OS how they want. They have no obligation to make IE replaceable. I really don't see why there would be a desire to replace it either. The web is supposed to be _standard_. It's not supposed to be the hodgepodge of pseudo-standards like JavaScript, which Netscape is responsible for doing. There should be no competition in the browser market. And if you don't like IE you can _still_ use whatever browser you want. Who really cares if things like the help system are still using IE? I don't see what the big deal is.
Make no mistake: MS has gone to a/lot/ of trouble to make the dependencies within their OS as complicated as possible
I seriously doubt that. Software engineering is a complex task as it is. I do not believe anyone would make it more complex on purpose, when complexity comes naturally. Look no further than GNOME as an example.
On top of this you can expect various other methods of communication and dependency. Shared memory, CORBA calls, etc.
Why should MS be forced to provide a stable third-party software atmosphere for modifying and using _their_ operating system? Aren't they allowed to define what their operating system is? Telling them that they cannot call their abstractions what they want is a little too Orwellian for me. If you tell them explicitly what a "module" is and what it must consist of, what is the difference between that and the Thought Police?
That kind of crap is all well and good when you're not a monoply (though it's/always/ bad software engineering), but MS/is/, and that kind of thing involves abuse of their monopoly power. That's illegal, and they should be slapped down/hard/ for it.
What Microsoft is being held for is basically a thoughtcrime. Software is intellectual property. To define Microsoft's definition of "Operating System" is to infringe on their right to freedom of thought.
Please note that this whole issue started when Netscape bitched about IE bundling. Sun and Netscape were in on this together. They tried to create a virtual OS, using the network and Java. You will never hear either talk of it that way, though. They use myths like "write once, run anywhere" to fool people into believing this is somehow different in functionality than what an OS does--it is not. Think of Java as the actual loader program and interface (think DOS interrupts, Linux libc, or what have you) of an OS, and Netscape as the component that manages the resources and permissions. If you think of it like this then it is easier to see why Microsoft would have claimed IE is a part of their OS.
What would the difference between a Sun Microsystems computer running Java code _native_ via a browser such as Netscape, and a x86 PC running Windows code _native_ via a browser such as IE.
Sun Microsystems _was selling computers_. This was why they were in it with Netscape. There is no true innovation, just a redefinition of terms. The only benefit this had on anyone is it brought the internet (and a global hypertext system) to the masses.
You must not be a programmer, else you would not talk about modules in this way. What consists of a "module?" At what point does an entire system become a module? Microsoft claims IE is an integral part of the OS. OK, let's examine the situation if Microsoft publishes the interface between what constitutes "IE" and what constitutes "Windows." If Microsoft published a snapshot of the interface from Windows to IE, this would only be good for one version of IE. Until Microsoft decides to add a function to "IE" and decides to use that function from "Windows." Then the interface breaks. There is no vendor in the entire world that could keep up with this, nor would they want to. Microsoft has decided that _their_ product, Windows, relies heavily on IE (which is not really a seperate product at all, since they don't sell it). They have every right to include IE with Windows because that is _their_ invention. It is nothing more than putting a GUI ontop of MS-DOS and calling it part of an OS. Who in their right mind would have argued that a GUI does not belong with the OS? _Plenty_ did. And you know what? They were wrong. GUI with the OS makes perfect sense today. It creates coherency and a focal point, or direction. Tomorrow an OS without a web browser will seem utterly foolish (and who today would argue that, even?).
The problem with computer software is terminology and abstraction. What you define as one thing is not always going to be what others are thinking of. No one owns abstractions. Microsoft has no obligation to keep the metaphor of "programs" around either, yet they do. What law forces a company to pander to third-party addons? That is basically what an "application" is. A third-party modification to a software system. More food for thought: PC manufacturers do not have to pander to Microsoft. Many times they break standards, etc. and Microsoft must deal accordingly. Hardware manufacturers are allowed to define what their product can and will do. You don't see Microsoft bitching because they aren't able to place their OS on network computers, or Sony Playstations, or network "drives." You see where I'm going? People are holding expectations of Microsoft that are not held for anyone else; as if they alone are responsible for holding software order. They are _not_ a government facility. They are a free entity just like anyone else. What they invent and call a product is just as valid as what you and I invent and call a product.
Think of Windows as _the_ product. Think of Photoshop, Quicken, Acrobat, etc. as "modifications" to that system. It makes much more sense this way because for one thing, those applications only work _for_ Windows. Just like Java applications work only for Java. They claim "write once run anywhere," but what they forget to tell you is that Java _is_ a platform. It _is_ Windows, but under a different name. You can _not_ remove Java.
Just as Windows is to x86, Java is to Java Virtual Machine. JVM gets ported to a variety of hardware, but you are still using the Java Virtual _Machine_.
There are various levels of modularity. Take Mozilla and plug-ins for instance. That is one type of modularity. Then you have modularity between libraries. To replace a library module you practically have to rewrite the complete API which is an enormous task (ask the guys who did Mesa's OpenGL compatible lib about that). Source code modularity, which you are talking about, has been done since computers have been around. It is always done in a program bigger than, say "cat." And even then I'm fairly certain there are well seperated data structures, which could be considered modular. That does not mean the interface between programs is always going to be "modular."
I wouldn't say Microsoft is distorting the truth. Many things probably do depend on IE and removing it is probably no easy task. And if it was possible, do they not deserve the right to define what their OS is capable of or what consists of their OS? It is _theirs_ afterall. It's not a government owned tax-payer funded highway, which people can have a say in the matter. They should be allowed to make the OS anything they want it to be.
All new ideas come from old ideas. The fact that there is a fancy GUI on a spreadsheet is a new idea (or was, rather). Placing a GUI on a hypertext system was a new idea. No ideas are truly new in the sense you mean. If you think Linux has the best ideas out there in computing and cannot be improved then you are seriously mistaken.
Shhhhh!! Don't let the steam out of this "article" so quickly. We have to let JonKatz write about something. I mean, do we really need another dot-commer out of work?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the sermon. The choir is now enlightened on the gospels.
I really don't care about one idea that came out of Thomas Jefferson's head. Are his ideas about ideas, the end of discussion? If he wants information freedom, why does he want you to believe his idea of information? Sounds like freedom to me. There is no freedom to think that information should be anything but their definition.
Ideas are owned. You just don't see it. Every idea in your head right now, that no one but you can examine, are owned by you. What difference does it make if you take those ideas, in your head, and place them in your computer? Your brain, your computer.
I'm really sorry you brought Thomas Jefferson in. I mean, the man didn't even know what he wanted. He tore apart the bible in the White House and removed Jesus as lord. He then claimed he was still a Christian, even though he believed Jesus was only a good _man_ with good beliefs or morals. And it shows how much he really believed in those morals, since it is likely he had an affair w/ his _slave_. While others, perhaps Washington, had already freed their slaves.
Despite popular Slashdot belief, ideas can be a scarcity. If someone uses my idea that was going to help me make money, get a job, get laid, whatever, then I have to find a new one. How do you create a new idea? You must _spend_ time creating one. You aren't paying money (unless you purchase books), but you are spending something, such as time (which _is_ a scarcity).
Ownership is an imaginary concept placed over physical goods, whereas copyright is an imaginary concept placed over non-physical goods. They are both the same concept, just different legal specifics like you pointed out. Whether one should be limited and the other not is debatable. Government could say "there is no ownership." Someone could borrow your car then, but you haven't lost anything. You might not have a car when you need it, but thats orthogonal to the point. If there was no concept of ownership, then you, like everyone else, owns everything. Someone takes your car? Go take any car you see. They are all "yours" (and everyone elses'). Thus, there is no real scarcity. If the same amount of cars was produced, as in America today, then there would generally be a car to use every time you needed one. You should be wondering now, "how will cars be made?" Or where the incentive is. Same thing can be said about information. Ultimately, you can't keep selling the same idea just as you can't keep selling the same cars. Ideas need changing just as much as physical goods.. to keep consumers interested. So, IMO, the debate over information ownership is moot.
To the point: Copyright = Ownership for every intent and purpose. One simply has an expiration (that keeps growing), the other doesn't. It's pedant to point out a difference so small when I gave no hint that I didn't know the difference. Which is why I called it "propaganda." You are using simple terms, such as "ownership" and "copyright" to pursuade an audience to believe in your concept of information. Then you whip out good old Thomas Jefferson to point out that copyright is a monopoly. And we all know monopolies are bad, mmkay?
Uhm. Competition is about battling for the same resource. It isn't about playing nice. I don't know where you get these absurd ideas about capitalism. The self-correcting part is there, but it is a result of competition (battles). Ultimately, consumers do get better deals in the end. This is the result of every battle. More battles = good for consumer.
The government's job is not to make business play nice. Business IS war. To think otherwise is to not know the true nature of business. Keep purchasing what you want (voting with your dollars) and the market DOES correct itself.
All that truely matters is what works. There is no reason to call Windows users "sheep." They are using what works for them--they don't care about stuff below the GUI level. I'm 100% certain that the poster is ignorant on some subject any Window's user is. While he is studying Unix learning all the archaic commands, a Windows user may be studying biology, or something.
H.o.G. Harley Owners Group. They meet at Harley stores quite frequently. They must be doing good now, since our local Harley store moved from a nice sized store on a busy street to a huge (twice the size as previous) new building on the same street.
Though, I don't know if Mandrake could have that particular kind of club because of brand awareness. It's sorta like Yamaha having a users' meeting when Honda and even BMW are really really close in brand identity. Harley has that aged "American" brand identity. When a guy in leather chaps w/ a leather jacket that has an American flag on the back walks down the street you just know hes getting on a Harley, and not some Japanese motorcycle.
Yes, that is a nice play on words that essentially means the same. If you have some insight besides this "information wants to be free" propaganda, I'd like to hear it.
You also complain about things which are almost Unix trademarks. You have to be kidding me, right? cat, lpr, grep, sed, ln, ldd. Figuring out "man" took me at least a week. I still do not like to go near "info" unless I must. Is this a pathetic joke? They are both modeled after Windows. Replace the "K" icon and the foot icon with a "Start" icon and you have Windows GUI. But, it's not even as coherent as Windows. Not all X applications use the same widget set.
Windows is a completely different market than what you are probably in. Windows is for people who need to do spreadsheets, word processing, and home users who wish to play games or take on hobby-like multimedia projects. You think everyone who does not care about computers as you do, is part of the herd? This attitude is why progressive computer interfaces will never become widely used. In ten years I see people still piping ASCII text between command-line programs in a Unix clone. Perhaps we will finally be up to Unicode, but what difference would that even make? Nothing new, just a fatter pipe between _programs_. We will still be using stupid file/user/group permisions with brain-dead files on a very brain-dead OS. Where is the superior technology? Capabilities? Persistence? I'd really like less Unix-style control of my computer and more of a higher level control.
Well.. software can be written and released (distributed) without copyright claim. Occasionally people will write "public domain" in the source code or documentation, to make it clear that it comes without a license or copyright and may be used in any manner the finder of the software wishes.
int main() {
printf("hello public domain!");
return 0;}
This bit of code here is public domain. I do not have to explicitly tell you it is public domain though. The public domain is anything which has no ownership (i.e. the air). If you are looking for examples search for "code snippets" via google. You can find short things like hash table code, etc. In some cases the source code actually says "public domain" in it.
Hopefully I answered your question, but perhaps I'm missing what you are asking..
IANAL but...
Creating a story called "The Little Mermaid" and releasing as public domain would probably qualify as free speech. You might be able to sell it, but someone could come along and steal your work, modify it, and claim they created it all.
The thing to get is this: you _aren't_ claiming ownership. You might have written the story, but you aren't legally claiming ownership to the work.
The only way I see Disney suing is perhaps trademark infringement. If they don't have a trademark on "The Little Mermaid" then it shouldn't be a problem, as you are not stealing copyrighted work either.
Copyrighting free software is done for licensing purposes; to claim legal ownership of software so enforcement of the license is possible. It can discourage the use, but that depends on the type of license the software is under. The GPL, for example, discourages proprietary shops from using it in a number of ways. But it also guarantees that the software licensed under it must remain free (for as long as the software is in use regardless if the public still has a copy). Public domain has no such guarantee. If a public domain software package gets incorporated into a proprietary package, the source code may completely disappear from the public at some point in time never to be seen again. Copyright also allows people to gain credit for their work. This is a big motivating factor in the open-source world, IMO. A license such as BSD is mostly a "credit" license. A while back you had to preserve the "Berkeley message" in any advertising material for BSD-licensed software. Today the BSD license merely retains copyright and disclaims any warranty. Other than that, it is equal to public domain software.
As for being sued from someone copyrighting public domain software, this can't happen. IANAL, of course, but public domain software is not owned by anyone. There can be no original author. If the person who created the software is sued by another who copyrights the software, he can simply deny _ownership_ of the software. There is no basis for suing and no legal action which could be taken. Ownership != creator. The only real reason to copyright free software is for 1) credit or 2) to force freedom (GNU's definition of freedom, which some people would claim is a limited definition of course).
Your logic is wrong. Re-read. The licenses it names includes GPL/LGPL, _and_ anything like it. It doesn't have to specify _what_ the GPL/LGPL are. It simply has to name them. The other characteristics are there to filter out licenses similar in characteristic to GPL/LGPL. Renaming GPL won't do. They probably named the GPL to give a specific idea, or reference, in case legal action came up or perhaps make the license easier to understand for lay-folks.
"this, that, _and_ those"
"GPL, LGPL, _and_ others"
What's that I hear? The sweet sound of silence. What is your particular reason that the GNU philosophy of free software is pro-capitalism? Oh. "No particular reason?" I see now... double standards. Show me a company that actually makes money using the GPL and I will show you a fraud a leech or a hypocrit. Or I can also show you the deceased.
Give Microsoft a valid reason to use the GPL that benefits them instead of just a community of greed and you will have a friend for life. Otherwise get off your freeloading ass and get out there and create clones of the software that Microsoft makes, but licensed under the GPL.
And what I'm saying is there is no possible remedy because there is no monopoly in the first place. Say IE did not exist. What would we be left with? Navigator. The inferior product. Let's say there was no Microsoft Office. What then? Word Perfect? Lotus SmartSuite? If you talk about features, then these programs are nowhere near that of MS Office. You cannot say this is because of closer integration with Windows. If you take a look at StarOffice on Linux you will see it is nowhere near what MS Office is. Now look at MS Money and Intuit Quicken. I'm willing to bet that MS Money is nothing compared to Quicken, in terms of features.
At some point people need to give Microsoft some credit for actual creating quality software. Occasionally they bomb, occasionally they succeed. I have MS QuickC version 1.0. Now that was a bomb. On the other hand, QuickBASIC v4.x was a superior product at the time (the first BASIC compiler that I know of)--which led to Visual Basic. MS Bob? Bomb. MS Flight Simulator? The best. Windows 1.x? Utter garbage. Windows 3.x? Amazing. And this isn't because MS is buying software out from others. IE was nothing when SpyGlass owned it (nor was DOS for that matter). It was MS that really made it what it is today.
If you look past this image of instability and poor quality that comes from Windows95/98 you will see that Microsoft makes some very good software and much of the competition's is crap.
We will soon find out how much of a monopoly MS really has when restrictions are placed on them and no quality software emerges.
If you really want to complain about monopolistic power, please talk about Coke and Pepsi and their mini-monopolies. Some days I would like to just go to Disney and not have to pay $2 for a can of Coke, when right outside the park they are $0.50. I mean, what if I even wanted a Pepsi? Such inconsiderate bastards, I swear.
The reason I brought up WebTV, is because Microsoft owns WebTV. You want to know what WebTV is? It is an OS that has a web-browser built-in and all functionality built-in. There is _no_ third-party modifications possible (software-based anyhow). To demand that Microsoft remove their web browser from Windows, but not from WebTV is contradictory.
You have no right and the government has no right to demand Microsoft to change their view of what Windows consists of. And in what way is Microsoft breaking the law by giving you this functionality with an OS, but also making it possible to use third-party functionality which is the same? How are they false advertising in a way that makes you believe this functionality is possible under Windows, but is not in reality? _Technically_, it is a modification. You click on install.exe and _Windows_ executes it. Then Office install program tells _Windows_ where it needs files copied, registry modified, etc. Windows is now modified by Office to use Office. Your view of applications is way too narrow. Stop thinking in terms of seperate programs like DOS days (where everything resided in a small directory and did not depend on the OS for much other than loading and basic I/O). The "operating system" is not a seperate entity like you still believe. I don't care what you plan on doing with your computer. My point is that there is only _one_ software system on any computer. This system has traditionally been seperated into "applications" and "operating system." This does _not_ have to be so, but this metaphor has worked in dividing functionality into useful segments. Noone but Microsoft, owner of the lowest dependency (Windows), has the right to define how functionality should be divided.
But it is not anyone's right, or freedom to define this _for_ Microsoft. If they call their invention an OS, then it is an OS. It may not be what you believe it to be, or work how you would like. It is Microsoft's freedom to choose what it consists of. They can very well toss in Office or what have you and still call it an "OS." They don't because the goals of Office are not the same as Windows. "Paint" is one example of what you would consider application territory, but has become part of the OS.
People are really _really_ too late to start bickering about IE being part of Windows. Before Microsoft built a GUI into DOS would have been a better time. It was arguable that a GUI is not needed for "OS" functions (and this _was_ argued). Now noone cares--everyone does it. Every application besides Microsoft's was running under regular DOS. Now even Linux has things like frame buffers and GGI which are built into the kernel. I imagine very few Linux users would use Linux if there was no X. I doubt very few would use Linux if there was no web browser either. Microsoft is _allowing_ other browsers such as Netscape to run. They are only _depending_ on IE, though.
Say you have some program in Linux which depends on lynx's text-output (say, the -dump flag). Now imagine that many other programs use this same feature of lynx and _depend_ on it. That does not mean you can't use Netscape. It simply means that you need lynx for those other programs to work correctly. And this is true for Linux already. To have most things work correctly you need 'bash'. Otherwise things break tremendously. You could probably form an argument that because of bash, other shells can not compete because bash's functionality is so depended on and almost a part of Linux. No one in their right mind would argue that shell programs need to be "modular," or have an interface which is exactly like each other's. Then there would truely be no difference. One would be an exact copy of the other, just implemented slightly different. The argument that removing IE would allow consumer choice is a load of bullshit. Anyone who writes a browser would then _have_ to conform to IE's interface methods and could _not_ add features. They would simply be clones of IE. Not much good to anyone.
Every third-part application adds functionality to the software system. Applications have to know about the system and the system has to know about the applications. They are not completely independent entities, even if this metaphor has been around since pre-DOS days. Third-parties can replace certain things the manufacture lets them (or makes it easy for them).
Think about cars. You can add modifications like an alarm, or replacements like tires and things. If you try replacing the body it will be a major task and once you are done the car will not be the same type of car it was.
Acrobat works on other platforms because that product was created for other platforms. It will not work on _every_ platform, even if it were ported to Java. Therefore, Acrobat is _dependent_ upon Windows and each system each port was written for. A Linux Acrobat will _not_ work in Windows.
People don't buy computers to run hard drives and refresh memory, but those tasks must come with the computer. Some manufacturers try to hide the fact that they have an OS by placing it in ROM chips or read-only drives. This makes it impossible for MS to gain a foothold in these devices. You don't hear the public crying to make the OS mutable/replaceable, do you? You can not even have applications on things like network computers (i.e. the now defunct Netpliance's iOpener, or WebTV). And somehow people think Microsoft is wrong for defining an OS how they want. They have no obligation to make IE replaceable. I really don't see why there would be a desire to replace it either. The web is supposed to be _standard_. It's not supposed to be the hodgepodge of pseudo-standards like JavaScript, which Netscape is responsible for doing. There should be no competition in the browser market. And if you don't like IE you can _still_ use whatever browser you want. Who really cares if things like the help system are still using IE? I don't see what the big deal is.
ldd `which gnome-help-browser`
Or, if you prefer KDE:
ldd `which kdehelp`On top of this you can expect various other methods of communication and dependency. Shared memory, CORBA calls, etc. Why should MS be forced to provide a stable third-party software atmosphere for modifying and using _their_ operating system? Aren't they allowed to define what their operating system is? Telling them that they cannot call their abstractions what they want is a little too Orwellian for me. If you tell them explicitly what a "module" is and what it must consist of, what is the difference between that and the Thought Police? What Microsoft is being held for is basically a thoughtcrime. Software is intellectual property. To define Microsoft's definition of "Operating System" is to infringe on their right to freedom of thought.
I'd also like to add..
Please note that this whole issue started when Netscape bitched about IE bundling. Sun and Netscape were in on this together. They tried to create a virtual OS, using the network and Java. You will never hear either talk of it that way, though. They use myths like "write once, run anywhere" to fool people into believing this is somehow different in functionality than what an OS does--it is not. Think of Java as the actual loader program and interface (think DOS interrupts, Linux libc, or what have you) of an OS, and Netscape as the component that manages the resources and permissions. If you think of it like this then it is easier to see why Microsoft would have claimed IE is a part of their OS.
What would the difference between a Sun Microsystems computer running Java code _native_ via a browser such as Netscape, and a x86 PC running Windows code _native_ via a browser such as IE.
Sun Microsystems _was selling computers_. This was why they were in it with Netscape. There is no true innovation, just a redefinition of terms. The only benefit this had on anyone is it brought the internet (and a global hypertext system) to the masses.
You must not be a programmer, else you would not talk about modules in this way. What consists of a "module?" At what point does an entire system become a module? Microsoft claims IE is an integral part of the OS. OK, let's examine the situation if Microsoft publishes the interface between what constitutes "IE" and what constitutes "Windows." If Microsoft published a snapshot of the interface from Windows to IE, this would only be good for one version of IE. Until Microsoft decides to add a function to "IE" and decides to use that function from "Windows." Then the interface breaks. There is no vendor in the entire world that could keep up with this, nor would they want to. Microsoft has decided that _their_ product, Windows, relies heavily on IE (which is not really a seperate product at all, since they don't sell it). They have every right to include IE with Windows because that is _their_ invention. It is nothing more than putting a GUI ontop of MS-DOS and calling it part of an OS. Who in their right mind would have argued that a GUI does not belong with the OS? _Plenty_ did. And you know what? They were wrong. GUI with the OS makes perfect sense today. It creates coherency and a focal point, or direction. Tomorrow an OS without a web browser will seem utterly foolish (and who today would argue that, even?).
The problem with computer software is terminology and abstraction. What you define as one thing is not always going to be what others are thinking of. No one owns abstractions. Microsoft has no obligation to keep the metaphor of "programs" around either, yet they do. What law forces a company to pander to third-party addons? That is basically what an "application" is. A third-party modification to a software system. More food for thought: PC manufacturers do not have to pander to Microsoft. Many times they break standards, etc. and Microsoft must deal accordingly. Hardware manufacturers are allowed to define what their product can and will do. You don't see Microsoft bitching because they aren't able to place their OS on network computers, or Sony Playstations, or network "drives." You see where I'm going? People are holding expectations of Microsoft that are not held for anyone else; as if they alone are responsible for holding software order. They are _not_ a government facility. They are a free entity just like anyone else. What they invent and call a product is just as valid as what you and I invent and call a product.
Think of Windows as _the_ product. Think of Photoshop, Quicken, Acrobat, etc. as "modifications" to that system. It makes much more sense this way because for one thing, those applications only work _for_ Windows. Just like Java applications work only for Java. They claim "write once run anywhere," but what they forget to tell you is that Java _is_ a platform. It _is_ Windows, but under a different name. You can _not_ remove Java.
Just as Windows is to x86, Java is to Java Virtual Machine. JVM gets ported to a variety of hardware, but you are still using the Java Virtual _Machine_.
There are various levels of modularity. Take Mozilla and plug-ins for instance. That is one type of modularity. Then you have modularity between libraries. To replace a library module you practically have to rewrite the complete API which is an enormous task (ask the guys who did Mesa's OpenGL compatible lib about that). Source code modularity, which you are talking about, has been done since computers have been around. It is always done in a program bigger than, say "cat." And even then I'm fairly certain there are well seperated data structures, which could be considered modular. That does not mean the interface between programs is always going to be "modular."
I wouldn't say Microsoft is distorting the truth. Many things probably do depend on IE and removing it is probably no easy task. And if it was possible, do they not deserve the right to define what their OS is capable of or what consists of their OS? It is _theirs_ afterall. It's not a government owned tax-payer funded highway, which people can have a say in the matter. They should be allowed to make the OS anything they want it to be.
All new ideas come from old ideas. The fact that there is a fancy GUI on a spreadsheet is a new idea (or was, rather). Placing a GUI on a hypertext system was a new idea. No ideas are truly new in the sense you mean. If you think Linux has the best ideas out there in computing and cannot be improved then you are seriously mistaken.
Yes, I noticed that too.
Little inappropriate and a little over-zealous, IMO.
Shhhhh!! Don't let the steam out of this "article" so quickly. We have to let JonKatz write about something. I mean, do we really need another dot-commer out of work?