The GPL doesn't depend on any law that prohibits duplication. The only thing that GPL does compared to no IP laws at all is that it helps keep the source code available. Even then, without the IP laws, reverse-engineering and decompiling would be legal. That's not allowed now with non-free versions of say BSD, X11 and Apache, but those free projects still seem to be pretty popular. (They sort of emulate how a world without IP laws would work.)
Also - think outside the box - what about a law that's allows copying but mandates source availability? Sort of a "consumer's right" IP law. (I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I want people to see that there are multiple solutions here, and that the GPL does not depend on copying restrictions.)
how would they feel if the next mass produced plastic pop star made some record company millions by singing one of their songs without permission, accreditation or compensation?
Oh, so you're saying that without IP laws, musicians and record companies can still make millions? If that were true, some would considere that great news.
The more laws there are, the more crime there is
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 1
Do you choose your morals after the law instead of the other way around?
While I don't think it's a basic human right in the same way as clean air and water can be considered, I don't think it makes sense for basic infrastructure to be ran in a for-profit manner.
I'd love to see an organization that works similar to, say, Debian, take care of the infrastructures.
But non-free software gained hegemony pretty quickly after the 1974 copyright changes. When RMS re-proposed free software in the early eighties he was laughed at, IIRC.
I'm very happy that free software is coming back, big time.
Some, but not all, and to clarify which would mean even more debates about "what does free mean?".
One of the (many) reasons why Debian is a good building block for proprietary distros is that they've cleaned it up, so while the proprietary debian-based distros can go taint it down again, they know what they've got.
I'm personally happy with this change but I can sympathize with you. I believe that the route chosen was the one with the least bureaucratic hassle.
Half the time, the just want to be the most secure and stable Linux distro out there. The other half of the time, all that matters is the licensing aspect.
Some would say that you can't have the first without the second.
"Debian is for GNU zealots only. We don't give a damn about anyone else. If you have a need for any closed-source program or proprietary hardware, you are evil."
So what's with the non-free archive that they still have?
Frankly, what course of action do you suggest for Debian? That they "embrace non-free software as an equally valid choice"? That would be IMHO awful.
My parents, born in the fifties, play it at random all the time. It's gone to the point that it gets kind of annoying being at their house. I went through a phase where I played a randomized list of all my songs all the time but for the last few years I've returned to albums and non-random playlists. So I don't think it's a generational thing. It's just individuals finding a new non-boring way to listen to music.
or he's starting to show signs of being realistic.
Yes. This is an increasing problem in our community - witness the GFDL debate. The RMS of old was wildly - some would say blindly - utopian. "No passwords", "Everyone can learn how to program", "It's possible to write a free operating system including compiler tools and editor".
We owe a lot of the results we've seen to that lovely, crazy optimism.
Sometimes you're wrong, of course, and get bitten - but sometimes you are very right. The success of the free software movement is testament to this.
Have a separate page, labeled simply "Advertisments". Put all advertising there. Keep it away from the news and editorial content.
Provide a visible link to the ad-page from your front page and in your navigational construct. (For example, Slashdot could put this link in the left-hand link list, under it's own heading or under, say, Services.)
Keep statistics for how much this pays off. Don't knock the idea until it's been thoroughly tried.
This will force advertisers to be truly interesting. Maybe sort the ads into categories, or prioritize ads that are related to recently visited pages.
The idea is to be maximally non-annoying.
As an aside, I find google-text-ad-style ads to be very intrusive since they are harder to block. There are periods in my life (for example when I'm flush for cash) that I am extremely disinterested in (commercial and other) solicitation, and exposing me to advertising then only causes me to feel hostility towards the advertiser.
Please, spread this idea.
We experimented with this in a paper magazine I worked for - putting all the commercials in a clearly designated spot in the back. Other magazines have tried the same approach. AFAIK, however, they haven't kept statistics and neither did we.
The effects on good-will this has will be interesting to observe.
(For television, this would be analogous to putting all of a networks commercial spots on a separate channel.)
A license that allows source altering but not redistribution is no different than the pre-FSF licenses of the seventies and eighties. This is how the proprietary Unix vendors operated and this is how many lisp machine vendors worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Yuck, silly flash page. Works as a slashdot-deterrent, I guess.
If that were true, then protests and demonstrations like this can be a good thing to raise awareness.
Yeah, I've heard of them, and work with some where I live. I think it's a great idea.
Ads separated from content, which is the way to do it.
Also - think outside the box - what about a law that's allows copying but mandates source availability? Sort of a "consumer's right" IP law. (I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I want people to see that there are multiple solutions here, and that the GPL does not depend on copying restrictions.)
Oh, so you're saying that without IP laws, musicians and record companies can still make millions? If that were true, some would considere that great news.
Do you choose your morals after the law instead of the other way around?
While I don't think it's a basic human right in the same way as clean air and water can be considered, I don't think it makes sense for basic infrastructure to be ran in a for-profit manner.
I'd love to see an organization that works similar to, say, Debian, take care of the infrastructures.
Or, rather, that they get that all too well...
But non-free software gained hegemony pretty quickly after the 1974 copyright changes. When RMS re-proposed free software in the early eighties he was laughed at, IIRC.
I'm very happy that free software is coming back, big time.
Some, but not all, and to clarify which would mean even more debates about "what does free mean?".
One of the (many) reasons why Debian is a good building block for proprietary distros is that they've cleaned it up, so while the proprietary debian-based distros can go taint it down again, they know what they've got.
I'm personally happy with this change but I can sympathize with you. I believe that the route chosen was the one with the least bureaucratic hassle.
Some would say that you can't have the first without the second.
So what's with the non-free archive that they still have?
Frankly, what course of action do you suggest for Debian? That they "embrace non-free software as an equally valid choice"? That would be IMHO awful.
But is (say) the Nullsoft installer using the MSI system or is it just like a setup.exe-kind of thing?
The code in scheme is:
(for-each process list)
and in CL
(mapc process list)
In CL you may want to use the function cell:
(mapc #'process list)
It depends on what type of process it is.
Yeah, I noticed, very amusing, but I was also thinking of what the professor was saying.
Most books don't need upgrading every six months or so.
My parents, born in the fifties, play it at random all the time. It's gone to the point that it gets kind of annoying being at their house. I went through a phase where I played a randomized list of all my songs all the time but for the last few years I've returned to albums and non-random playlists. So I don't think it's a generational thing. It's just individuals finding a new non-boring way to listen to music.
Yeah, you're right. I just don't know how to solve the problem properly in a way that's fair to people all over the world.
Yes. This is an increasing problem in our community - witness the GFDL debate. The RMS of old was wildly - some would say blindly - utopian. "No passwords", "Everyone can learn how to program", "It's possible to write a free operating system including compiler tools and editor".
We owe a lot of the results we've seen to that lovely, crazy optimism.
Sometimes you're wrong, of course, and get bitten - but sometimes you are very right. The success of the free software movement is testament to this.
Interesting!
Or, if not a law, maybe an international union of some sort.
Ever hear of network effects? It's not always the best that wins out, not even in a given context.
That sounds like forth/RPN to me.
You take a number, then another number, and then you add them.
Have a separate page, labeled simply "Advertisments". Put all advertising there. Keep it away from the news and editorial content.
Provide a visible link to the ad-page from your front page and in your navigational construct. (For example, Slashdot could put this link in the left-hand link list, under it's own heading or under, say, Services.)
Keep statistics for how much this pays off. Don't knock the idea until it's been thoroughly tried.
This will force advertisers to be truly interesting. Maybe sort the ads into categories, or prioritize ads that are related to recently visited pages.
The idea is to be maximally non-annoying.
As an aside, I find google-text-ad-style ads to be very intrusive since they are harder to block. There are periods in my life (for example when I'm flush for cash) that I am extremely disinterested in (commercial and other) solicitation, and exposing me to advertising then only causes me to feel hostility towards the advertiser.
Please, spread this idea.
We experimented with this in a paper magazine I worked for - putting all the commercials in a clearly designated spot in the back. Other magazines have tried the same approach. AFAIK, however, they haven't kept statistics and neither did we.
The effects on good-will this has will be interesting to observe.
(For television, this would be analogous to putting all of a networks commercial spots on a separate channel.)
Yeah, I do, too. I usually say "Free Software" especially when not speaking english.
There are some interesting variations like "free source" and so on, as well.
A license that allows source altering but not redistribution is no different than the pre-FSF licenses of the seventies and eighties. This is how the proprietary Unix vendors operated and this is how many lisp machine vendors worked.
It's not open source.