The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material.
No it's not! I don't write any code under the GPL because I think it's too restrictive, but I wouldn't call it unfair by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to write and sell a proprietary compiler or an operating system based on GPLed software - you can't - so go write your own code, don't expect other people to give you their code for free, that's all the GPL is saying!
Yeah, good point, there's this very weird argument prevalent on Slashdot, k5 etc. - "stop whining about x, let the market sort it out" - well if no-one whines about x, how is the vast majority of the market going to know about it?
Newish protocols like gnutella can be changed fairly easily to get around specific prohibitions. The real question is, how will they outlaw gnutella-like systems without also outlawing Windows File Sharing, - or the Web itself?
The reason they gave for this being something new was "filtering software doesn't filter it". Well, duh. Newsflash: filtering software can't prevent kids seeing porn on the web, either (okay, unless it sticks to a limited whitelist). It can't - you'd need artificial intelligence for that.
Plus, Internet Explorer and Netscape both already have options to remember all your passwords. So it's not even "single sign-on", it's merely "one-time registration".
It so clearly is not illegal! If we both sell our CDs to a second-hand shop, and then buy them back again, instead of making a direct swap, that wouldn't be illegal. So how is swapping illegal?
However, the record companies probably don't care about it very much, because the scale is considerably less severe than the grand-scale freeloading the napster cult took part in.
The "grand-scale freeloading" is where a typical user on a 56k modem shares out some files a few times and downloads some files a few times. It's not necessarily very grand-scale at the individual level with Naspter, either.
We already have suitable archive servers that could take up some of the strain - e.g. all the Sunsites accross the world, Ibiblio (used to be a Sunsite), and www.mirror.ac.uk. They carry gigabytes of software already. As far as I know there's no need for long committee meetings to decide what to add.
How long have you been using MS products? Many releases were plagued with problems. DOS 4.0 was notorious. Access had/has data corruption problems. SQL Server, as reported on Slashdot recently, has subtle bugs that were reported to occur in about 1 in 1000 queries (for certain types of queries). IIS has had numerous boneheaded security problems. etc. etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Noam Chomsky's view is, to put it in one sentence, "BMD is irrational when viewed from the perspective of survival, but rational when viewed from the perspective of US hegemony, i.e. using the threat of overwhelming force to deter resistance elsewhere". Or, even more simply, "The ultimate effect of BMD is offensive, as opposed to defensive.":
He quotes Andrew Bacevich (National Interest, Summer 2001) as saying BMD "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad".
He also makes the point made above that smuggled attacks are far more likely that ballistic missile attacks.
His previous work on "rogue states" being a propaganda term is well worth reading. Just look on google.
Since I know that many slashdotters are too lazy or busy to click on links (myself included), here are the first few paragraphs of the article:
Hegemony or Survival Part One
By Noam Chomsky
At the end of June,, the UN Conference on Disarmament concludes the second of its year 2001 sessions. Prospects for any constructive outcome of disarmament efforts are slim. Discussions have been blocked by US insistence on pursuing ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs, against near-unanimous opposition.
On the purpose of BMD, there is a fair measure of agreement across a broad spectrum. Potential adversaries regard it as an offensive weapon. Reagan's SDI ("Star wars") was understood in the same light. China's top arms control official simply reflected common understanding when he observed that "Once the United States believes it has both a strong spear and a strong shield, it could lead them to conclude that nobody can harm the United States and they can harm anyone they like anywhere in the world. There could be many more bombings like what happened in Kosovo" -- the reaction of most of the world to what was perceived as a reversion to the "gunboat wars" of a century ago, with the "colonial powers of the West, with overwhelming technological advantages, subduing natives and helpless countries that had no ability to defend themselves," doing as they choose while "cloaked in moralistic righteousness" (Israeli military analyst Amos Gilboa). The reaction to the US-UK Gulf War was much the same among the traditional "natives and helpless countries." Fortunately for its self-image, Western ideology is well-insulated from such departures from right thinking.
China is also well aware that it is not immune. It knows that the US and NATO maintain the right of first use of nuclear weapons, and knows as well as US military analysts that "Flights by U.S. EP-3 planes near China...are not just for passive surveillance; the aircraft also collect information used to develop nuclear war plans" (William Arkin, _Bull. of Atomic Scientists_, May/June 2001).
Canadian military planners advised their government that the goal of BMD is "arguably more in order to preserve U.S./NATO freedom of action than because U.S. really fears North Korean or Iranian threat." Prominent strategic analysts agree. BMD "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad, Andrew Bacevich writes (National Interest, Summer 2001): "By insulating the homeland from reprisal -- albeit in a limited way -- missile defense will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment elsewhere." He cites approvingly the conclusion of Lawrence Kaplan: "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance," for "hegemony."
[Clarification:] Don't get me wrong - ironically, I'm heavily in favour of ethical boycotts - being a vegan and all. But lets not lose all track of reality! Coercion from the judicial branch is often more effective at getting a corporation to stop doing something, than attempts at boycotting alone.
Enterprise customers don't tolerate computational errors either and the proof is in the marketplace, where SQL Server is gaining marketshare, not losing it.
Oh, so then I guess because "enterprise customers do not tolerate crashes", and the Windows line has the largest desktop OS marketshare, that means that the Windows line hardly ever crashes.
Marketshare is not proof of quality, any more than winning an election was proof of Hitler's moral worth. There are many other factors involved.
This poll is of course completely unscientific (like all Slashdot polls). Reason #1: Most people who don't care, like me, won't even bother to vote. The only difference is, this one doesn't have the "if you're doing anything with these results, you're crazy" disclaimer.
Moreoever, it's a completely irrelevant answer as regards the Fair Use Act. Realplayer doesn't have any Save As feature for its streaming media, but that doesn't make it violating the Fair Use Act AFAIK - or we'd surely have heard about that by now... right?
Let me just clarify - I think that limiting corporate size and personal wealth is primarily a moral issue about power, because to me personally, it is immoral and dangerous to give any selfish person or group of people that much power to cause so much suffering and destruction (unless there is absolutely no alternative, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, average /. poster != average coder. Average coder is probably too busy coding to post much to /.
No it's not! I don't write any code under the GPL because I think it's too restrictive, but I wouldn't call it unfair by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to write and sell a proprietary compiler or an operating system based on GPLed software - you can't - so go write your own code, don't expect other people to give you their code for free, that's all the GPL is saying!
Please can someone give me a coherent answer?
No, I didn't think so.
It so clearly is not illegal! If we both sell our CDs to a second-hand shop, and then buy them back again, instead of making a direct swap, that wouldn't be illegal. So how is swapping illegal?
However, the record companies probably don't care about it very much, because the scale is considerably less severe than the grand-scale freeloading the napster cult took part in.
The "grand-scale freeloading" is where a typical user on a 56k modem shares out some files a few times and downloads some files a few times. It's not necessarily very grand-scale at the individual level with Naspter, either.
Unfortunately this does not necessarily happen, as I can personally vouch for.
Noam Chomsky's view is, to put it in one sentence, "BMD is irrational when viewed from the perspective of survival, but rational when viewed from the perspective of US hegemony, i.e. using the threat of overwhelming force to deter resistance elsewhere". Or, even more simply, "The ultimate effect of BMD is offensive, as opposed to defensive.":
0 3c homsky.htm
http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2001-07/
He quotes Andrew Bacevich (National Interest, Summer 2001) as saying BMD "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad".
He also makes the point made above that smuggled attacks are far more likely that ballistic missile attacks.
His previous work on "rogue states" being a propaganda term is well worth reading. Just look on google.
Since I know that many slashdotters are too lazy or busy to click on links (myself included), here are the first few paragraphs of the article:
Hegemony or Survival Part One
By Noam Chomsky
At the end of June,, the UN Conference on Disarmament concludes the second of its year 2001 sessions. Prospects for any constructive outcome of disarmament efforts are slim. Discussions have been blocked by US insistence on pursuing ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs, against near-unanimous opposition.
On the purpose of BMD, there is a fair measure of agreement across a broad spectrum. Potential adversaries regard it as an offensive weapon. Reagan's SDI ("Star wars") was understood in the same light. China's top arms control official simply reflected common understanding when he observed that "Once the United States believes it has both a strong spear and a strong shield, it could lead them to conclude that nobody can harm the United States and they can harm anyone they like anywhere in the world. There could be many more bombings like what happened in Kosovo" -- the reaction of most of the world to what was perceived as a reversion to the "gunboat wars" of a century ago, with the "colonial powers of the West, with overwhelming technological advantages, subduing natives and helpless countries that had no ability to defend themselves," doing as they choose while "cloaked in moralistic righteousness" (Israeli military analyst Amos Gilboa). The reaction to the US-UK Gulf War was much the same among the traditional "natives and helpless countries." Fortunately for its self-image, Western ideology is well-insulated from such departures from right thinking.
China is also well aware that it is not immune. It knows that the US and NATO maintain the right of first use of nuclear weapons, and knows as well as US military analysts that "Flights by U.S. EP-3 planes near China...are not just for passive surveillance; the aircraft also collect information used to develop nuclear war plans" (William Arkin, _Bull. of Atomic Scientists_, May/June 2001).
Canadian military planners advised their government that the goal of BMD is "arguably more in order to preserve U.S./NATO freedom of action than because U.S. really fears North Korean or Iranian threat." Prominent strategic analysts agree. BMD "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad, Andrew Bacevich writes (National Interest, Summer 2001): "By insulating the homeland from reprisal -- albeit in a limited way -- missile defense will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment elsewhere." He cites approvingly the conclusion of Lawrence Kaplan: "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance," for "hegemony."
Oh, so then I guess because "enterprise customers do not tolerate crashes", and the Windows line has the largest desktop OS marketshare, that means that the Windows line hardly ever crashes.
Marketshare is not proof of quality, any more than winning an election was proof of Hitler's moral worth. There are many other factors involved.