" Ever notice how people who care too much about the attention they are getting aren't very happy, and it doesn't help them get attention either?"
As far as I can see, RMS doesn't talk about the GNU/Linux naming issue or the credit issue or even the free software/open source naming issue in the BBC interview.
PKD said that he thought he suffered through schizophrenia through all his career. He wrote great books, maybe partly due to that, and I respect him a lot.
Me and some friends did some research on this (the resin-removal of PCBs from an environmental point of view) back in high school. We figured that you could do some kind of environmentally friendly washing solution from lemons instead. That was a while ago, I hope the field has come further now.
With many of the p2p-programs, you'll only get a direct connection to the person you're downloading from, of some protocol (http in the case of pre-encryption fasttrack). There are a gazillion factors involved, so a test like this is pretty pointless. Death to Maxim.
and overall provides benefits to the people who applied for registrations (patent or trademark).
I'm more interested in what's beneficial for society. It could be interesting in some peoples minds to allow some light restrictions of use of certain techniques if it conclusively meant that there would be more inventions. However, we can't be certain of this at all.
So the patent system is good because the PTO is a cash cow? It needs to be good in it's own right, otherwise it's just a money-guzzling obstruction to society.
When I wrote 'I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to', with "this is" I meant this reform.
"For example, if I invent the supersnooper and it because really popular, then I'm protected from big boys comming over and taking my tosh."
But what if they a) find some other patent that your supersnooper happens to infringe on, forcing you to cross-license (this happens especially often with software patents).
or
b) rip you off, make enough changes to not infringe the patent
Even in the cases that the "little guy" invents something and actually have a patent that protects it from the big boys -- is this really beneficial for society (sorry to be so cynical)? Wouldn't you have invented that supersnooper anyway?
I'm one of those dirty beatniks that long for the day when inventions, software and art flows freely. Cooperation should be encouraged, competition should be permitted but not encouraged.
I didn't mean to say that less work for them was bad. It's just that some people would have this slanted as if this was some great news for the end consumers -- while the motivation for the reform seems much simpler than that. Less work & more money. Pretty easy, and not inherently good or bad.
You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer.
Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma. Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
Voluntary participatory democracy is not in conflict with anarchism. Go read some Chomsky or something.
As for taxation, you may have a point -- but I see it as fighting fire with fire. Not exactly legitimate from an anarchic viewpoint, but neither is the capitalism they want taxed. Let 'em cancel each other out.
You can read the FAQ (which does adress the GNU/BSD-question), and then choose on whether to agree or keep on arguing.
Or you could just shut up, keep calling it just "Linux", letting us call it GNU/Linux, and we could both spend our time on more creative and less idiotic things this argument.
Either is fine. If you're going to argue, then do read the FAQ.
A lot of posts have responded, saying that "the bad part of this public domain world" is not as bad as it seems, that you don't have to preserve things, that you can filter out the bad stuff and go for the good stuff.
And that's good, I agree with those posts.
Let me just add that with the current system, people are restricted from creating and enjoying great, dark gritty Batman material, unless they're involved with corporate entity Aol/TimeWarner. (Which is a company that produces great stuff like the Sandman as well as crummy things like that Batman/Robin-movie.)
Maybe we could have a world where there is trademark, or a version of trademark, but not copyright. So you could do batman but it would be distinguished from "canon"-batman. Legalized fanfic/fancomic/fanmovies, so to speak -- but clearly marked as unofficial.
Or maybe we should just let it all free. Enjoy life.
With this, you can do a lot of stuff you can't do with just browser remembrance. You're at a travel page booking a flight, and it can book the bus trip for you as well without you having to log in to the bus company.
But I agree that there are trust issues.
The other day, me and my friend Kreiger was thumbing through some dumb "technical" magazines while we were in a waiting room, and I saw the news that some phone company had joined the liberty alliance. "Cool," said I and began talking about how this could make sites easier to use, how it was more trustworthy and less evil than Hailstorm. He was saying kinda the same things you are, and I said "It's good for users".
Just minutes after that, we came upon an article about Intels new DRM-iniative. It was totally slanted! "Intel builds in protection against virii and hackers." What the...? I'm totally against DRM and the slant pissed me off! I began complaining loudly about it. Kreiger just looked at me, and said sarcastically:
"It's good for users."
What an eye opener. Paranoia against corporations is my philosophy from now on.
Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where everyone but the geeks (who ran GNU/Linux or BSD) ran OpenOffice (or free gobe, or koffice, or..) on Windows than a world where everyone but the geeks ran MS Office on GNU/Linux. Because you running windows is only bad for you (and the people you send trojans to) but you running MS Office is, because of the file formats, bad for everyone.
First and foremost: I was objecting against your argument that the law must always be followed, good or bad.
Whether current forms of the copyright act are good or bad is a different debate altogether. Which follows below.:)
Selling computer software is totally okay. Preventing others from reselling it or copies of it is not. To add restrictions to software is to lessen it's use value (while increasing it's monetary value for your self), and that's economical sabotage. It's like if car owners would require each family member to get their own car, to only use one of the four seats. Or if you would sell a stereo that would self destruct as soon as the warranty ends, so that people would have to buy new ones constantly. It's a very egoistic and destructive behaviour.
There's an even bigger problem on a lower level, as well. See, when I buy a film or a record or something like that, and my darling asks for a copy, I have two options. I can say "No way, get your own!" or "Sure, I'll make a copy".
Warez people help set a good example -- that sharing is good and hoarding is bad. Had I said "no, get your own", maybe my darling would've said the same thing the next time someone brings up the issue of sharing, and so on. It spreads like rings on the water.
Sharing is good because we're all in this earth together and it's time we learn to help each other out. Sure, there are still times where an egoism-based market economy is the best problem but to actually punish sharing and cooperation is heading in a very wrong direction.
Slashdot Mirror
" Ever notice how people who care too much about the attention they are getting aren't very happy, and it doesn't help them get attention either?"
As far as I can see, RMS doesn't talk about the GNU/Linux naming issue or the credit issue or even the free software/open source naming issue in the BBC interview.
The GNU project will release a book on this topic soon.
Anyway, this is bordering on the off-topic.
I don't have to imagine anything.
Here is a BBC interview with RMS.
I thought it was great, but then again, I like RMS.
PKD said that he thought he suffered through schizophrenia through all his career. He wrote great books, maybe partly due to that, and I respect him a lot.
Patented technology can still be peer reviewed (even though, unlike free technology, there is little-to-no incentive to do so).
That's not the real problem or danger with patents.
Me and some friends did some research on this (the resin-removal of PCBs from an environmental point of view) back in high school. We figured that you could do some kind of environmentally friendly washing solution from lemons instead. That was a while ago, I hope the field has come further now.
With many of the p2p-programs, you'll only get a direct connection to the person you're downloading from, of some protocol (http in the case of pre-encryption fasttrack). There are a gazillion factors involved, so a test like this is pretty pointless. Death to Maxim.
I'm more interested in what's beneficial for society. It could be interesting in some peoples minds to allow some light restrictions of use of certain techniques if it conclusively meant that there would be more inventions. However, we can't be certain of this at all.
So the patent system is good because the PTO is a cash cow? It needs to be good in it's own right, otherwise it's just a money-guzzling obstruction to society.
When I wrote 'I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to', with "this is" I meant this reform.
"For example, if I invent the supersnooper and it because really popular, then I'm protected from big boys comming over and taking my tosh."
But what if they
a) find some other patent that your supersnooper happens to infringe on, forcing you to cross-license (this happens especially often with software patents).
or
b) rip you off, make enough changes to not infringe the patent
Even in the cases that the "little guy" invents something and actually have a patent that protects it from the big boys -- is this really beneficial for society (sorry to be so cynical)? Wouldn't you have invented that supersnooper anyway?
I'm one of those dirty beatniks that long for the day when inventions, software and art flows freely. Cooperation should be encouraged, competition should be permitted but not encouraged.
Ah, then I hope that you go lightly on my response to your response, I hope I don't sound to harsh. :)
(The sun just broke through the clouds outside my window, for just a little while.)
I didn't mean to say that less work for them was bad. It's just that some people would have this slanted as if this was some great news for the end consumers -- while the motivation for the reform seems much simpler than that. Less work & more money. Pretty easy, and not inherently good or bad.
You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer.
Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma. Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
Thanks for the pointer.
I guess I was still trapped in a yurop-ean mindset. The European Patent Office does make money from registrations.
Higher fees means more income for them and less work. The major beneficiaries of the patent system is the patent offices themselves.
Voluntary participatory democracy is not in conflict with anarchism. Go read some Chomsky or something.
As for taxation, you may have a point -- but I see it as fighting fire with fire. Not exactly legitimate from an anarchic viewpoint, but neither is the capitalism they want taxed. Let 'em cancel each other out.
In my opinion, you have two alternatives.
You can read the FAQ (which does adress the GNU/BSD-question), and then choose on whether to agree or keep on arguing.
Or you could just shut up, keep calling it just "Linux", letting us call it GNU/Linux, and we could both spend our time on more creative and less idiotic things this argument.
Either is fine. If you're going to argue, then do read the FAQ.
A lot of posts have responded, saying that "the bad part of this public domain world" is not as bad as it seems, that you don't have to preserve things, that you can filter out the bad stuff and go for the good stuff.
And that's good, I agree with those posts.
Let me just add that with the current system, people are restricted from creating and enjoying great, dark gritty Batman material, unless they're involved with corporate entity Aol/TimeWarner. (Which is a company that produces great stuff like the Sandman as well as crummy things like that Batman/Robin-movie.)
Maybe we could have a world where there is trademark, or a version of trademark, but not copyright. So you could do batman but it would be distinguished from "canon"-batman. Legalized fanfic/fancomic/fanmovies, so to speak -- but clearly marked as unofficial.
Or maybe we should just let it all free. Enjoy life.
But GNU's not Unix, so why should it sound like that?
Calling it Linux is like calling it Stallmanix or something. Why having a single persons name dominating a system made by the masses?
Commercial software, evil? Why, RMS loves commercial software! He even says so himself.
Izzatso?
I could use the GNU utils (at least emacs/gcc) on the netbsd kernel, or hurd.
Well paid? Well, I'm not. But I do do some political work.
"But don't buy a bootleg and give them ammunition for their copy control laws."
So... to prevent them from making laws that forbid copying, we should stop copying?
Seems pretty dumb. la la la...
With this, you can do a lot of stuff you can't do with just browser remembrance. You're at a travel page booking a flight, and it can book the bus trip for you as well without you having to log in to the bus company.
But I agree that there are trust issues.
The other day, me and my friend Kreiger was thumbing through some dumb "technical" magazines while we were in a waiting room, and I saw the news that some phone company had joined the liberty alliance. "Cool," said I and began talking about how this could make sites easier to use, how it was more trustworthy and less evil than Hailstorm. He was saying kinda the same things you are, and I said "It's good for users".
Just minutes after that, we came upon an article about Intels new DRM-iniative. It was totally slanted! "Intel builds in protection against virii and hackers." What the...? I'm totally against DRM and the slant pissed me off! I began complaining loudly about it. Kreiger just looked at me, and said sarcastically:
"It's good for users."
What an eye opener. Paranoia against corporations is my philosophy from now on.
Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where everyone but the geeks (who ran GNU/Linux or BSD) ran OpenOffice (or free gobe, or koffice, or..) on Windows than a world where everyone but the geeks ran MS Office on GNU/Linux. Because you running windows is only bad for you (and the people you send trojans to) but you running MS Office is, because of the file formats, bad for everyone.
First and foremost: I was objecting against your argument that the law must always be followed, good or bad.
:)
Whether current forms of the copyright act are good or bad is a different debate altogether. Which follows below.
Selling computer software is totally okay. Preventing others from reselling it or copies of it is not.
To add restrictions to software is to lessen it's use value (while increasing it's monetary value for your self), and that's economical sabotage. It's like if car owners would require each family member to get their own car, to only use one of the four seats. Or if you would sell a stereo that would self destruct as soon as the warranty ends, so that people would have to buy new ones constantly. It's a very egoistic and destructive behaviour.
There's an even bigger problem on a lower level, as well. See, when I buy a film or a record or something like that, and my darling asks for a copy, I have two options. I can say "No way, get your own!" or "Sure, I'll make a copy".
Warez people help set a good example -- that sharing is good and hoarding is bad. Had I said "no, get your own", maybe my darling would've said the same thing the next time someone brings up the issue of sharing, and so on. It spreads like rings on the water.
Sharing is good because we're all in this earth together and it's time we learn to help each other out. Sure, there are still times where an egoism-based market economy is the best problem but to actually punish sharing and cooperation is heading in a very wrong direction.