However, "I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community" IMHO is a little harsh:-).
I don't think it's "harsh" at all, I think it's realistic: it's impossible for any organization to be unbiased or for it to advocate or work in the best interest of something as diverse as "the FOSS community". You just acknowledged that again by saying that you have rejected FOSS projects because they don't fit your philosophy. That's what I have been criticizing you for. It's also completely unnecessary for you to take such a dogmatic and intolerant approach. You have at least two simple choices.
Either, you can separate your advocacy from your services; that is SFC services can provide legal and infrastructure services to any project that satisfies basic FOSS criteria, without being rejected on philosophical grounds.
Or, you can explicitly acknowledge your biases and preferences. Call yourself the "[Something] Software Freedom Conservancy" and acknowledge your biases, ideology, and preferences, and don't pretend that you are a single, neutral representative of all FOSS users:
[Something] Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization incorporated in New York. Software Freedom Conservancy helps promote, improve, develop, and defend select Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects conforming to certain ideals we consider important, including _______________. Conservancy provides a non-profit home and infrastructure for select FLOSS projects that meet our criteria and agree with our philosophy. Our advocacy focuses on a ______ view of FLOSS.
And, looking from the outside, I can't help but wonder whether this issue isn't at the heart of your trademark dispute with the SFLC in the first place; that is, whether the SFLC didn't want the SFC to be more of a neutral service provider, as opposed to an advocacy group driven by a particular social and ideological agenda and closely linked to a few companies and interests.
Having money and being a Free Software advocate are not mutually exclusive.
You're not merely wealthy, your wealth is intimately connected with a company with a definite agenda (and Google generally prefers open source software to free software), and that calls your judgment into question as a board member of a free software advocacy group. (Besides, anybody can be an advocate for anything; it says nothing about their motivations.)
For the best example of this, look at John Gilmore who is a tech multi-millionaire and a strong proponent of Free Software (that's how he made his money).
Well, which raises the question of whether his advocacy of specific licenses was motivated by his financial interests, rather than the good of the community. (BTW, Gilmore's career started with a company that turned BSD UNIX into proprietary SunOS, tried to replace standards like X11 with proprietary software, and mostly used GPL licensing as a poison pill to push people into proprietary licenses.)
I'm confident in the track record, biases and potential conflicts of interest documented by Conservancy. I think Conservancy's transparency is the right thing to do here.
I commend you for being as transparent as you are. But disclosure of potential conflicts of interests or biases doesn't immunize you against them. To the contrary, the point of transparency is so that people can make informed decisions. And what you disclose is ties to big corporations, significant self-interest, plus a lot of advocacy that has little to do with the core issue of software freedom.
I don't believe you are deliberately deceptive, and I'm sure you are genuinely convinced you are "the good guys", I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community. And since there is no need for anybody to sign up for anything with the SFC, I simply urge caution and reflection for anybody considering applying to be "an SFC project".
To be fair, for people who think that at age 30, they are entitled to a 3000 sq ft home in the center of Mountain View, within walking distance of both work and shops, the idea of having to get a "roommate" is indeed an "innovation" of sorts.
By 'admitting guilt' I didn't mean accepting responsibility and/or feeling remorse. I meant they will tell you they did the act that got them locked up
Yes, I know what you meant, I was criticizing it. "Mens rea" is a necessary element of many crimes; that is, without "mens rea", you cannot be found legally guilty of the crime. If you don't admit "mens rea" and only admit committing the act, you are not admitting guilt.
Hence you are confirming the OP's statement: "prison is full of people claiming to be innocent", in the sense that they admit the act without admitting guilt.
It may have escaped your notice, but promoting Free Software *is* political activism. This is what Conservancy was founded to do.
It didn't escape my notice at all. That is exactly why one should be careful about who one entrusts the power that comes from having developed successful free software projects. For one, I think an organization that has Google millionaires and employees as its board members cannot be trusted to be an advocate of free software.
The above from doctorvo is spectacularly bad advice. And FOSS developers - please don't assign your copyrights to anyone unless you really have to. I've always kept my own copyrights, and I encourage you to do so.
As I was saying, I hadn't paid much attention to the SFC before this story, but I'm convinced now that I don't want you people anywhere near my projects, in any way, shape, or form.
My advice to free software developers remains: you probably don't need to get in bed with an open source organization at all in order to have a successful free software or open source project; and if you're looking for an source organization, look carefully at their track record, their biases, and their potential conflicts of interest.
Seriously folks, if we want a better world we need to at least do the math and figure out the consequences of our choices, and when our models are inadequate, we improve them, or just use historic data for predictions
We can't predict the consequences of our policy choices in many cases, historical data is just as bad as models. And foremost, a lot of policy decisions ultimately come down to values and tradeoffs: economic growth vs air quality, inequality vs property rights, individual liberties vs average health outcomes, etc.
For example, leftists like to debate whether free market economies are economically "better" than socialism. This isn't even an issue to classical liberals: free market economies are the only system that respects individual liberties; even if socialism produced faster growth or less inequality, it would be morally wrong to classical liberals.
Very few people in jail or prison claim to be innocent. Most freely admit their guilt*.
Psychological, the most common thing criminals do is blame externalization: "yes, I robbed the bank, but I couldn't help myself because...", "yes, I killed him but he...", "yes, I did it, but if I hadn't had a Republican judge, I would have gone free like most other people committing the same act", etc.
Admitting guilt doesn't just mean admitting that you committed the act, it means acknowledging full personal moral responsibility for your actions.
Worse, the benches are stacked with Republican nominated justices. Some of these guys act like they are extensions of the prosecutor's offices.
They aren't "stacked with" anybody. Judges are simply appointed by whatever administration is in power, and presidents generally appoint roughly equal numbers of judges regardless of party.
Although I don't know of any evidence supporting this, it is possible that Republican appointees are less likely to consider class or race as extenuating circumstances. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether that's a good thing.
How much extra are you willing to pay in taxes to ensure that happens? That's basically what it comes down to.
No, what it comes down to is decriminalizing 95% of what is covered by criminal law and replacing most of that by civil law and civil lawsuits (which can cover both damages and penalties). Not only do civil lawsuits result in avoiding punishment for victimless crimes, they also handle court costs and negotiations differently.
Issues related to drug abuse shouldn't be handled by the legal system at all.
have seen many of the disasters that can befall projects that don't take care of the copyright and legal details
Try taking an objective look at SFC from the outside. SFC is embroiled in a legal battle (see the article) over its name with the very organization that launched the SFC in the first place; you are a board member while simultaneously holding millions of dollars in Google stock and being employed by Google; other SFC board members seem politically active and mix their political activism with SFC activities (just look at the blog); and by your and Bruce's own description, SFC engages in many activities unrelated to "copyright and legal details". That is not the profile of an organization focused on "taking care of the copyright and legal details", it's the profile of an organization that is using copyright assignment as a means to other ends. You're somewhat younger, so maybe you haven't experienced mission creep or collapse in non-profits yet, I have.
There are significant risks associated with transferring copyrights to any third party, which means that people need to weigh whether they should do this carefully in the first place. And if they reach the conclusion that they need a third party to transfer their copyright to, the SFC seems like a pretty poor choice.
So, FOSS developers, if you're looking for an organization to assign your copyrights to, look for an organization that keeps a low profile, focuses on legal and financial issues, and scrupulously avoids any potential conflicts of interest.
Now can, and clearly will, spin Conservancy's actions as being the most negative and devious of activities
I have no idea what the SFC has or hasn't done; I have not paid much attention to the organization before this story. I am going by what Bruce and you hare saying about the SFC and what it does, and the risks inherent in any copyright assignment to an organization like the SFC.
At the time we did not allow corporate ownership of code in Samba, as we didn't want corporations to have the ability to do enforcement actions on their own,
It's naive to think that setting up a non-profit prevents misuse of enforcement actions. The people in charge of non-profits all have their own interests, and they are going to use the non-profits they control to advance those interests, and those interests are not just ensuring that people comply with open source licenses: you have repeatedly confirmed this yourself.
I feel it necessary to set the record straight for any readers.
Well, and I feel it necessary to ask readers to reflect on whether Bruce's and your arguments for copyright assignment actually make any sense or just represent FUD and mission creep.
The upshot is: I have never felt a need to assign copyrights to any organization like the SFC (and I have been approached about it), and what you and Bruce have said only strengthens my belief that that was the right decision.
Enforcment is the SFC's primary function; that's what it gets copyrights assigned for. But unfortunately, as you point out, that isn't its primary activity. Its primary activity is evidently to turn its control over important open source copyrights into an empire, and the fact that it wants to hold onto the "SFC" trademark so desperately is symptomatic of that.
The *overwhelming* majority of staff time is spent on maintaining projects (doing accountancy, running conferences, handling expense reports and contacting etc.).
There is no logical reason why the organization that holds the copyrights in order to do license enforcements should do accounting, conference management, outreach, community management, advocacy, or any of the other functions that SFC engages in. Copyrights should be held by an organization whose activities are strictly limited to license enforcement, with strict prohibitions against any other kind of activity. A separate organization can provide all the other functions without holding any of the copyrights.
I have no idea whether concerns like this are the basis of the SFLC lawsuit, and I really haven't paid much attention to any of these FOSS-related organizations in recent years. But as a FOSS developer, this lawsuit has put a spotlight onto SFC for me, and I don't like what I see. I think an organization like the SFC is a threat to open source software in the long term.
That's why we have more than one organization like SFC. But since all of those projects are aggregated in one 501(c)3 which is SFC, there is indeed a risk.
The vast majority of open source projects have no 501(c)3; none of mine do. In fact, many open source projects exist primarily outside the US (imagine that!); are you saying they all need to set up US non-profit organizations and get IRS approval? Furthermore, open source projects that have some kind of associated non-profit need to be set up in a way in which the project can survive the death of the organization; that's the whole point of open source, in case you forgot.
But we aren't even talking about a threat to SFC as an organization, we are talking about a trademark. The SFC's primary function is GPL compliance enforcement. Now, even if you think that GPL compliance enforcement is really, really important, the name of the organization doing the enforcing is irrelevant: claiming that dozens of open source projects are "at risk" because "Software Freedom Conservancy" has to change its name to "Fat Daddy's GPL Litigations" is absurd.
So, your arguments make no sense and you're spreading FUD. Why you are doing that is anybody's guess, but you're not doing yourself or the SFC any favors.
These are the member projects of SFC. An attack on SFC is an attack on these members as well. This is a catalog of 46 of the most respectable Free Software / Open Source projects.
The whole point of open source licenses is that long term availability of the software shouldn't depend on the survival of individual organizations. If the continued existence of SFC is actually important to these software packages, then there is something seriously wrong with SFC.
In any case, it's a bit unrealistic to criticize the scenarios used in the 4th IPCC report
I wasn't "criticizing the scenarios", I pointed out that they rely on economic predictions, rather than "basic physics" or "basic science".
Separately, I pointed out that a realistic worst case scenario at this point should probably use constant emissions. That's not just an extrapolation of the last few years, it's based on an understanding of what actually happened economically and technologically in the last few years.
Bruce Perens... The Software Freedom Law Center... Linux-Foundation... FSF... Software Freedom Conservancy... Eben Moglen... sued in Germany for violating the GPL... Karen Sandler
Sorry to break it to you, but while a lot of these were involved in the early days of open source, they just don't matter much anymore.
I notice you don't bother to cite any data supporting your claim of a trend of "constant or declining carbon emissions".
Look, we have established that IPCC forecasts involve economic guesses about the future, and so are not just based on "basic science"; you have admitted that now. Stop trying to derail the discussion by sharpshooting on side issues. If the answer to the question interests you, go look up the data yourself and work through the scenarios.
I don't see much real information in the rest of your post, you're arguing your opinion and policy, and not significantly disputing facts. You're saying you don't like the models because you don't understand the feedbacks,
I understand the feedbacks just fine, I am simply pointing out that they are not rooted in "basic physics" but involve numerous assumptions, empirical models, and guesses far outside "basic physics".
I made, and continue to make, an argument that we should pay attention to the science, and that global warming is real.
Indeed we should. And when "we pay attention to the science", namely "the science" that is actually based on "basic physics" and reasonable economic forecasts, as opposed to guesswork and absurd extrapolations, we find that there appears to be no need for political intervention right now. The conclusion might change in a decade, but it's what "the science" tells us now. You just keep denying it.
Your graph cuts off in 2010. Furthermore, you need to look separately at developing and developed nations; most of the growth for the last 30-40 years has been due to developing nations; their emissions will flatten out as they become developed.
If you're quibbiling, Manabe and Wetherald's calculated climate sensitivity was 2.4, not 2.0. [...] (with your rounding of "2.4" down to "2" corrected)
I didn't round, that's what the paper says: "According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C". You really need to read the paper, instead of random blog posts.
My objection stands.
Well, you are objecting to an argument I didn't make. The argument I have been making is that their worst case scenario, combined with "basic physics" only predicts a little over 2C warming between now and 2100. I'm pointing out that their worst case scenario is "absurd" not in order to accuse them of dishonesty, but in order to get across that even their worst case scenario is actually far above any realistic estimate. So, when you combine a realistic estimate of future carbon emissions with basic physics, you end up with even more modest increases in global average temperatures, and even less noticeable increases in most populated regions.
You've been asserting that some of the science is weak,
Yes, in the sense of "weak" = "not derived from basic physics". Are you serious wanting to claim that every aspect of these models, the albedo predictions, the ecological response, the emissions projections, the economic models are all derived from "basic physics"?
you quote a climate sensitivity within the error bars of the current best estimate.
Error bars don't work that way: you can't say "2C is within the error bars of the 3C estimate, therefore we can make predictions with the 3C estimate". The best estimate according to basic physics and the best estimate according to climate models differ substantially.
And your whole line of reasoning is symptomatic of climate change activists and scientists: they string together little exaggerations, small assumptions here and there, and the occasional half truth, and when you add them all up, it looks like you end up with a substantial threat while still pretending that every single step is fully justified by basic science.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, you seem to actually agree with the conclusions of the report
There is nothing "paradoxical" about it; irrational climate change deniers are largely a figment of your imagination. The basic physics is clear: 2C per doubling. It's just that if you put the basic physics together with a reasonable economic projection of future carbon emissions, there simply is no need for action, since temperatures will remain within the range that even the IPCC considers acceptable. If you go beyond basic physics and end up with 3C per doubling and combine that with reasonable economic projections of future carbon emissions, you still end up with something only a little more serious.
The only way you can concoct an imperative for action out of that is by making unreasonable economic assumptions and the proposing equally unreasonable government interventions, interventions that will harm billions of people for no tangible benefit.
I suggest to study your enemy... instead of having wild ideas. That might help if you actually have/want to fight him.
Well, you're the one with wild ideas and you're the one who labels people as enemies.
I don't view Muslims as my "enemies", I simply don't want them immigrating to the US in large numbers, just like I don't want Europeans immigrating to the US in large numbers either.
A guy who dies with 20, could have worked 40 - 45 more years. If he pays 10k in taxes each year that is 450.000 in taxes, lost.
Given that government spends about $25k/capita/year in the US, that's actually $675k saved. In any case, that's not how lung cancer from pollution works. Lung cancer from pollution tends to kill people in their 60's, just as they retire.
Strange... in my country it is treated. Some even get transplants.
In the US, about 160000 people die from lung cancer every year, but there are only 2000 lung transplants. Germany has about 45000 deaths from lung cancer per year and about 300 lung transplants (rough numbers from various years since 2010). Observations: there are few lung transplants relative to cancer (and most lung transplants aren't even for cancer), and the US performs lung transplants at twice the rate of Germany. Also note that the rate of lung cancer is somewhat higher in Germany. Lung transplants simply aren't a big deal relative to the number of lung cancers.
I would say the people living from providing vacation spots beg to differ.
Given that the money to pay for those retirees usually comes from public coffers anyway, if you wanted to make those "people living from providing vacation spots" happy, you can simply give them the money directly; it's actually more efficient.
The KGB and Kremlin have been doing this forever. For the most part, we took control of the media in the sense that no foreign adversaries were able to poke through on a large scale.
The USSR infiltrated numerous US organizations and parts of the US government; they did a lot of damage post-WWII.
But we still survived, and dealing with this crap is the price we pay for living in a free society. Freedom also means the freedom of stupid Americans to listen to hostile foreign powers if they choose.
Where should the reasoning and policy conclusions use the discount rate?
Discounting was explained in detail in the 2007 report; in 2016, they still mention it, but I don't see any methodological explanation anymore. In fact, based on the bits of explanation, they may even be using it wrong.
The effects of a 2.5C increase are estimated at 0.2%-2% of GDP, more likely to be higher than this range than lower.
The cost to the economy of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energies is at least comparable to that (i'd argue it's much worse), and we start incurring it immediately. If you do the math and make some reasonable assumptions, you find that we end up much worse preventing climate change now than growing for longer and paying the cost of dealing with climate change later.
In fact, climate change prevention becomes even less attractive when you realize that slower growth means both slower innovation in the development of competitive renewables and a lessened ability of countries to deal with the effects of climate change.
The question "what happens if current trends continue" seems like a reasonable thing to ask
20th century patterns aren't "current trends". Current trends suggest constant or declining carbon emissions.
But, by the way, why should "current trends continue" be "economically utterly implausible"? It's not economically implausible now, why does it suddenly switch to being implausible?
Because the price of fossil fuels goes up as they are exhausted and the price of carbon neutral sources are steadily falling. Not taking that into account is absurd.
Basically, you took a whole array of different scenarios put forth by IPCC to look at the effect of all sorts of different possible things that could happen, you took the most extreme one, and you say "look at their prediction! It is absurd!". That wasn't their "prediction". That was their analysis "here is the result if this one particular scenario takes place."
I gave this as an example of their use of economic predictions; they use economic predictions in all their analyses, as well as predictions about the effects of government policies. Their other scenarios suffer from analogous problems, it's just not worth going through every one of them to get my main point across, namely that their conclusions are not just rooted in "basic physics" but require lots of other assumptions that are far more speculative and not rooted in any science.
As you pointed out very clearly in your previous post, the current IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity, 3 plus or minus 1.5 degrees per doubling, is pretty much identical to the one-dimensional constant-humidity model of Manabe and Wetherald.
No, their most likely prediction of 3C is not the same as 2C, it's 50% larger.
I'm annoyed at people attacking the science because they don't like proposed policies
Stop pretending that there is something like "the science". People attack some of the science in the report because some of the science is in fact weak. Scientific conclusions and arguments are only as strong as the weakest link, that's why many people consider the overall conclusion of the report to be weak even if they (like me) agree that parts of it are strong.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's "harsh" at all, I think it's realistic: it's impossible for any organization to be unbiased or for it to advocate or work in the best interest of something as diverse as "the FOSS community". You just acknowledged that again by saying that you have rejected FOSS projects because they don't fit your philosophy. That's what I have been criticizing you for. It's also completely unnecessary for you to take such a dogmatic and intolerant approach. You have at least two simple choices.
Either, you can separate your advocacy from your services; that is SFC services can provide legal and infrastructure services to any project that satisfies basic FOSS criteria, without being rejected on philosophical grounds.
Or, you can explicitly acknowledge your biases and preferences. Call yourself the "[Something] Software Freedom Conservancy" and acknowledge your biases, ideology, and preferences, and don't pretend that you are a single, neutral representative of all FOSS users:
And, looking from the outside, I can't help but wonder whether this issue isn't at the heart of your trademark dispute with the SFLC in the first place; that is, whether the SFLC didn't want the SFC to be more of a neutral service provider, as opposed to an advocacy group driven by a particular social and ideological agenda and closely linked to a few companies and interests.
You're not merely wealthy, your wealth is intimately connected with a company with a definite agenda (and Google generally prefers open source software to free software), and that calls your judgment into question as a board member of a free software advocacy group. (Besides, anybody can be an advocate for anything; it says nothing about their motivations.)
Well, which raises the question of whether his advocacy of specific licenses was motivated by his financial interests, rather than the good of the community. (BTW, Gilmore's career started with a company that turned BSD UNIX into proprietary SunOS, tried to replace standards like X11 with proprietary software, and mostly used GPL licensing as a poison pill to push people into proprietary licenses.)
I commend you for being as transparent as you are. But disclosure of potential conflicts of interests or biases doesn't immunize you against them. To the contrary, the point of transparency is so that people can make informed decisions. And what you disclose is ties to big corporations, significant self-interest, plus a lot of advocacy that has little to do with the core issue of software freedom.
I don't believe you are deliberately deceptive, and I'm sure you are genuinely convinced you are "the good guys", I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community. And since there is no need for anybody to sign up for anything with the SFC, I simply urge caution and reflection for anybody considering applying to be "an SFC project".
To be fair, for people who think that at age 30, they are entitled to a 3000 sq ft home in the center of Mountain View, within walking distance of both work and shops, the idea of having to get a "roommate" is indeed an "innovation" of sorts.
Yes, I know what you meant, I was criticizing it. "Mens rea" is a necessary element of many crimes; that is, without "mens rea", you cannot be found legally guilty of the crime. If you don't admit "mens rea" and only admit committing the act, you are not admitting guilt.
Hence you are confirming the OP's statement: "prison is full of people claiming to be innocent", in the sense that they admit the act without admitting guilt.
It didn't escape my notice at all. That is exactly why one should be careful about who one entrusts the power that comes from having developed successful free software projects. For one, I think an organization that has Google millionaires and employees as its board members cannot be trusted to be an advocate of free software.
That, in fact, was my advice. Then Bruce and you became abusive and insulting. You, on the other hand, are talking out of both sides of your mouth, since the SFC very much seeks copyright assignment.
As I was saying, I hadn't paid much attention to the SFC before this story, but I'm convinced now that I don't want you people anywhere near my projects, in any way, shape, or form.
My advice to free software developers remains: you probably don't need to get in bed with an open source organization at all in order to have a successful free software or open source project; and if you're looking for an source organization, look carefully at their track record, their biases, and their potential conflicts of interest.
We can't predict the consequences of our policy choices in many cases, historical data is just as bad as models. And foremost, a lot of policy decisions ultimately come down to values and tradeoffs: economic growth vs air quality, inequality vs property rights, individual liberties vs average health outcomes, etc.
For example, leftists like to debate whether free market economies are economically "better" than socialism. This isn't even an issue to classical liberals: free market economies are the only system that respects individual liberties; even if socialism produced faster growth or less inequality, it would be morally wrong to classical liberals.
Psychological, the most common thing criminals do is blame externalization: "yes, I robbed the bank, but I couldn't help myself because...", "yes, I killed him but he...", "yes, I did it, but if I hadn't had a Republican judge, I would have gone free like most other people committing the same act", etc.
Admitting guilt doesn't just mean admitting that you committed the act, it means acknowledging full personal moral responsibility for your actions.
They aren't "stacked with" anybody. Judges are simply appointed by whatever administration is in power, and presidents generally appoint roughly equal numbers of judges regardless of party.
Although I don't know of any evidence supporting this, it is possible that Republican appointees are less likely to consider class or race as extenuating circumstances. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether that's a good thing.
No, what it comes down to is decriminalizing 95% of what is covered by criminal law and replacing most of that by civil law and civil lawsuits (which can cover both damages and penalties). Not only do civil lawsuits result in avoiding punishment for victimless crimes, they also handle court costs and negotiations differently.
Issues related to drug abuse shouldn't be handled by the legal system at all.
Try taking an objective look at SFC from the outside. SFC is embroiled in a legal battle (see the article) over its name with the very organization that launched the SFC in the first place; you are a board member while simultaneously holding millions of dollars in Google stock and being employed by Google; other SFC board members seem politically active and mix their political activism with SFC activities (just look at the blog); and by your and Bruce's own description, SFC engages in many activities unrelated to "copyright and legal details". That is not the profile of an organization focused on "taking care of the copyright and legal details", it's the profile of an organization that is using copyright assignment as a means to other ends. You're somewhat younger, so maybe you haven't experienced mission creep or collapse in non-profits yet, I have.
There are significant risks associated with transferring copyrights to any third party, which means that people need to weigh whether they should do this carefully in the first place. And if they reach the conclusion that they need a third party to transfer their copyright to, the SFC seems like a pretty poor choice.
So, FOSS developers, if you're looking for an organization to assign your copyrights to, look for an organization that keeps a low profile, focuses on legal and financial issues, and scrupulously avoids any potential conflicts of interest.
I have no idea what the SFC has or hasn't done; I have not paid much attention to the organization before this story. I am going by what Bruce and you hare saying about the SFC and what it does, and the risks inherent in any copyright assignment to an organization like the SFC.
It's naive to think that setting up a non-profit prevents misuse of enforcement actions. The people in charge of non-profits all have their own interests, and they are going to use the non-profits they control to advance those interests, and those interests are not just ensuring that people comply with open source licenses: you have repeatedly confirmed this yourself.
Well, and I feel it necessary to ask readers to reflect on whether Bruce's and your arguments for copyright assignment actually make any sense or just represent FUD and mission creep.
The upshot is: I have never felt a need to assign copyrights to any organization like the SFC (and I have been approached about it), and what you and Bruce have said only strengthens my belief that that was the right decision.
Enforcment is the SFC's primary function; that's what it gets copyrights assigned for. But unfortunately, as you point out, that isn't its primary activity. Its primary activity is evidently to turn its control over important open source copyrights into an empire, and the fact that it wants to hold onto the "SFC" trademark so desperately is symptomatic of that.
There is no logical reason why the organization that holds the copyrights in order to do license enforcements should do accounting, conference management, outreach, community management, advocacy, or any of the other functions that SFC engages in. Copyrights should be held by an organization whose activities are strictly limited to license enforcement, with strict prohibitions against any other kind of activity. A separate organization can provide all the other functions without holding any of the copyrights.
I have no idea whether concerns like this are the basis of the SFLC lawsuit, and I really haven't paid much attention to any of these FOSS-related organizations in recent years. But as a FOSS developer, this lawsuit has put a spotlight onto SFC for me, and I don't like what I see. I think an organization like the SFC is a threat to open source software in the long term.
The vast majority of open source projects have no 501(c)3; none of mine do. In fact, many open source projects exist primarily outside the US (imagine that!); are you saying they all need to set up US non-profit organizations and get IRS approval? Furthermore, open source projects that have some kind of associated non-profit need to be set up in a way in which the project can survive the death of the organization; that's the whole point of open source, in case you forgot.
But we aren't even talking about a threat to SFC as an organization, we are talking about a trademark. The SFC's primary function is GPL compliance enforcement. Now, even if you think that GPL compliance enforcement is really, really important, the name of the organization doing the enforcing is irrelevant: claiming that dozens of open source projects are "at risk" because "Software Freedom Conservancy" has to change its name to "Fat Daddy's GPL Litigations" is absurd.
So, your arguments make no sense and you're spreading FUD. Why you are doing that is anybody's guess, but you're not doing yourself or the SFC any favors.
The whole point of open source licenses is that long term availability of the software shouldn't depend on the survival of individual organizations. If the continued existence of SFC is actually important to these software packages, then there is something seriously wrong with SFC.
I wasn't "criticizing the scenarios", I pointed out that they rely on economic predictions, rather than "basic physics" or "basic science".
Separately, I pointed out that a realistic worst case scenario at this point should probably use constant emissions. That's not just an extrapolation of the last few years, it's based on an understanding of what actually happened economically and technologically in the last few years.
Sorry to break it to you, but while a lot of these were involved in the early days of open source, they just don't matter much anymore.
Translation: you have conceded all the other points and are now grasping at straws and straw men.
Since you seem to be unable to use Google, here is the first hit on Google:
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
Developed vs third world:
http://www.energytrendsinsider...
Look, we have established that IPCC forecasts involve economic guesses about the future, and so are not just based on "basic science"; you have admitted that now. Stop trying to derail the discussion by sharpshooting on side issues. If the answer to the question interests you, go look up the data yourself and work through the scenarios.
I understand the feedbacks just fine, I am simply pointing out that they are not rooted in "basic physics" but involve numerous assumptions, empirical models, and guesses far outside "basic physics".
Indeed we should. And when "we pay attention to the science", namely "the science" that is actually based on "basic physics" and reasonable economic forecasts, as opposed to guesswork and absurd extrapolations, we find that there appears to be no need for political intervention right now. The conclusion might change in a decade, but it's what "the science" tells us now. You just keep denying it.
Your graph cuts off in 2010. Furthermore, you need to look separately at developing and developed nations; most of the growth for the last 30-40 years has been due to developing nations; their emissions will flatten out as they become developed.
I didn't round, that's what the paper says: "According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C". You really need to read the paper, instead of random blog posts.
Well, you are objecting to an argument I didn't make. The argument I have been making is that their worst case scenario, combined with "basic physics" only predicts a little over 2C warming between now and 2100. I'm pointing out that their worst case scenario is "absurd" not in order to accuse them of dishonesty, but in order to get across that even their worst case scenario is actually far above any realistic estimate. So, when you combine a realistic estimate of future carbon emissions with basic physics, you end up with even more modest increases in global average temperatures, and even less noticeable increases in most populated regions.
Yes, in the sense of "weak" = "not derived from basic physics". Are you serious wanting to claim that every aspect of these models, the albedo predictions, the ecological response, the emissions projections, the economic models are all derived from "basic physics"?
Error bars don't work that way: you can't say "2C is within the error bars of the 3C estimate, therefore we can make predictions with the 3C estimate". The best estimate according to basic physics and the best estimate according to climate models differ substantially.
And your whole line of reasoning is symptomatic of climate change activists and scientists: they string together little exaggerations, small assumptions here and there, and the occasional half truth, and when you add them all up, it looks like you end up with a substantial threat while still pretending that every single step is fully justified by basic science.
There is nothing "paradoxical" about it; irrational climate change deniers are largely a figment of your imagination. The basic physics is clear: 2C per doubling. It's just that if you put the basic physics together with a reasonable economic projection of future carbon emissions, there simply is no need for action, since temperatures will remain within the range that even the IPCC considers acceptable. If you go beyond basic physics and end up with 3C per doubling and combine that with reasonable economic projections of future carbon emissions, you still end up with something only a little more serious.
The only way you can concoct an imperative for action out of that is by making unreasonable economic assumptions and the proposing equally unreasonable government interventions, interventions that will harm billions of people for no tangible benefit.
Well, you're the one with wild ideas and you're the one who labels people as enemies.
I don't view Muslims as my "enemies", I simply don't want them immigrating to the US in large numbers, just like I don't want Europeans immigrating to the US in large numbers either.
Given that government spends about $25k/capita/year in the US, that's actually $675k saved. In any case, that's not how lung cancer from pollution works. Lung cancer from pollution tends to kill people in their 60's, just as they retire.
In the US, about 160000 people die from lung cancer every year, but there are only 2000 lung transplants. Germany has about 45000 deaths from lung cancer per year and about 300 lung transplants (rough numbers from various years since 2010). Observations: there are few lung transplants relative to cancer (and most lung transplants aren't even for cancer), and the US performs lung transplants at twice the rate of Germany. Also note that the rate of lung cancer is somewhat higher in Germany. Lung transplants simply aren't a big deal relative to the number of lung cancers.
Given that the money to pay for those retirees usually comes from public coffers anyway, if you wanted to make those "people living from providing vacation spots" happy, you can simply give them the money directly; it's actually more efficient.
The USSR infiltrated numerous US organizations and parts of the US government; they did a lot of damage post-WWII.
But we still survived, and dealing with this crap is the price we pay for living in a free society. Freedom also means the freedom of stupid Americans to listen to hostile foreign powers if they choose.
You mean this tiny thing?
Or these tiny noise canceling earbuds?
Discounting was explained in detail in the 2007 report; in 2016, they still mention it, but I don't see any methodological explanation anymore. In fact, based on the bits of explanation, they may even be using it wrong.
The cost to the economy of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energies is at least comparable to that (i'd argue it's much worse), and we start incurring it immediately. If you do the math and make some reasonable assumptions, you find that we end up much worse preventing climate change now than growing for longer and paying the cost of dealing with climate change later.
In fact, climate change prevention becomes even less attractive when you realize that slower growth means both slower innovation in the development of competitive renewables and a lessened ability of countries to deal with the effects of climate change.
20th century patterns aren't "current trends". Current trends suggest constant or declining carbon emissions.
Because the price of fossil fuels goes up as they are exhausted and the price of carbon neutral sources are steadily falling. Not taking that into account is absurd.
I gave this as an example of their use of economic predictions; they use economic predictions in all their analyses, as well as predictions about the effects of government policies. Their other scenarios suffer from analogous problems, it's just not worth going through every one of them to get my main point across, namely that their conclusions are not just rooted in "basic physics" but require lots of other assumptions that are far more speculative and not rooted in any science.
No, their most likely prediction of 3C is not the same as 2C, it's 50% larger.
Stop pretending that there is something like "the science". People attack some of the science in the report because some of the science is in fact weak. Scientific conclusions and arguments are only as strong as the weakest link, that's why many people consider the overall conclusion of the report to be weak even if they (like me) agree that parts of it are strong.