The FSF doesn't deny people the right to copy and distribute other people's software any more than it denies you the right to break into the developer's house and steal his computer. The law denies you these "rights".
First of all, you don't have a right to break into someone's house and steal his computer. You also don't have the right to copy and distribute other people's software. You do, however, have the right to copy and distribute your software which happens to have been originally written by someone else.
The FSF has threatened to sue people for violating the copyright on their software. I think that counts as denying them rights. You can argue that it is the law which denies the rights, but the FSF is just as responsible for helping the law do its job.
If you feel you should have the right to distribute others' software any way you like, you should take that up with whoever makes the laws in the country you live in.
OK, let me call him up. Oh, wait a second. I can't do that, because there isn't a single person who makes the laws inthe country I live. It's a complicated process which all of society participates in. So that's who I'm taking it up with. Society. Let me distribute my software however I want, damnit.
OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
NO, the source code is the original, pure form.
That's a good point, but then I go back to my original statement. The FSF denies people the right to copy and distribute binaries, unless they distribute the source. That's no different from someone whose license requires that you donate to charity in order to copy and distribute a binary, or that you kiss a puppy dog. But no, that's proprietary software, not free software?
The right to modify a program requires you to have the source code in order to exercise that right.
No it doesn't.
I agree with you that the GPL is not the only form of copyleft, but I don't believe for one instant that you can distribute binaries without source and not violate someone's rights.
Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?
In fact, both the Qing and C.C. licences grant you permission to make derivative works, which sort of implies an obligation to distribute the source code; as not to do so would prevent someone from creating the very derivative work you just authorised.
Absolutely not. The licenses give you permission to make derivative works. But that doesn't mean that anyone is forced to help you make any particular derivative work they want. Furthermore, lack of source code does not prevent you from making derivative works. It may be easier to create certain types of derivative works with source code, but nothing in the license agreement says anything about making things easy. The QingPL and ShareAlike 1.0 do not require you to release source code to derivative works.
Don't confuse what the law denies you with something the FSF does or doesn't do.
I'm not.
It is against copyright law to copy and distribute software without explicit permission.
And the FSF has not only chosen not to give explicit permission, but they have explicitly asserted their copyright and intention to enforce it.
The GPL grants you that permission, with the proviso that you in turn do not withhold that permission from others.
That is not the only proviso. There are others, one of which is to distribute source code.
As for copying and distributing software without source code -- software without source code is relatively useless.
Nonsense. I use software without source code all the time. It's only the rare program that I actually use the source for. And even then there are ways around it if I didn't have the source.
Oh, it might be temporarily useful on some subset of architectures and OSs for a limited time, but it's like a disposable appliance whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair.
Source code is not required to repair software. It's more like an appliance which doesn't come with detailed design instructions. More importantly, people should have the right to distribute disposable appliances whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair if they want to. The FSF shouldn't come in and use copyright law to try to stop them.
Sure, if I have a choice between software with source code and software without source code I'm going to take the source. But authors should be denied the right to distribute binaries without distributing that source.
The GPL ensures that the user always has that access to modify or repair.
Source code is hardly the panacea you make it out to be. I have the full source code to a lot of software which I have absolutely no clue how to repair.
Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?
No.
OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
As long as there is copyright on software, there is a need for the GPL.
No, as long as there is copyright, there is a need for copyleft. The GPL is a half-decent incarnation of copyleft, but it denies people the right to copy annd distribute software without copying and distributing source code unlike other copyleft licenses, such as the QingPL or ShareAlike 1.0.
What software has been written by the FSF of late?
I have no idea. But anything is better than what the EFF has done for me. I got turned off from them when they wasted their money trying to defend someone who wasn't even being sued. If I want to donate to someone who defends free speech online, I'll take the ACLU.
And the HURD has been 6 months away from being ready for at least 12 years now.
Talk about waste, huh? Yeah, you make a good point. But still, I can't think of anything the EFF has done for me. The FSF has done a lot. Whether or not they're still doing anything, I really don't know. What exactly do they spend money on, nowadays?
To be clear, I'm not advocating donating to the FSF. Personally I'd rather save up my money and use it directly to promote free software than to let the FSF use it. I'm not a big believer in donations. Most non-profits should find a way to fund themselves.
Every time they threaten someone with a lawsuit they deny them something.
This is important because without the GPL I could very well have my work stolen in the traditional sense. Example: I write a foo processor called FooFu-- and release it as public domain. Bar, Inc. takes my freely shared source and creates a competing software called Footsy, but refuses to release source code. Any attempt on my part, even though I am the original author, to use their derived work would violate federal copyright law. So what the GPL does is make it possible for me to share my work without my having to worry about it being taken this way.
Yes, the GPL does prevent that. But so does a completely proprietary license. And so does so does the Creative Commons Share Alike license. Between the three, I like the Share Alike license the best. Only the Share Alike license allows you to copy and distribute software without restriction.
If so, and if you don't contribute (cash, code, documentation, etc.) and are unwilling to give them some found money, you're part of the problem.
What problem is that? The whole idea that I owe the FSF for merely using software they wrote is the problem. If that was the case, the FSF could just charge money.
I've sent a few bug fixes to a few different authors of GPLed software. But after 3 or 4 times of having my fix ignored I've become somewhat disillusioned with that. You need some help with coding something, let me know, and if I can help you I will. I'm not going out of my way to beg people to allow me to help them.
How does my not giving you *anything* equate to my not being moral?
Enforcing copyright is not just the lack of giving something. It is taking something away, the ability to copy and distribute.
What if my belief system is different from yours, who is moral then?
Are you arguing that there is no such thing as morality? If so you might as well just quit there, 'cause that isn't going to lead to an interesting discussion about whether or not something is moral.
"Morals" are not absolutes. What may be moral in one belief system may not be in another belief system.
So murder is not necessarily immoral, then? It all depends on one's belief system?
Hey, it's a valid argument, but if you're going to use it then the rest of your argument is meaningless.
What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software.
Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL? I don't see how that is any more moral. The only way to be moral about software is to allow people to copy and distribute it without restriction.
If it exists, then they'd be hypocritical not to. I remember reading somewhere that the FSF only uses free software unless a non-free alternative is not available. And RMS has specifically stated that firmware is software.
It's unclear to me exactly how these vouchers work. From the site, it claims that you must "exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003." Now if I buy a $1000 computer, I can clearly get my $26 back from the voucher, but if I buy a $1000 computer, can I trade in 38 vouchers and get $988 back? This isn't made clear, and if not it seems these vouchers are going to be somewhat useless to the FSF.
It's also not clear that the vouchers are transferrable. Can I sell them? On eBay? That's also going to hurt the FSF, cause I sure as hell am not giving them a $26 voucher if I can get $25 for it on eBay.
that's a good way to run your business into bankruptcy.
If it makes business sense to just take the risk yourself, that's fine too. Just don't bitch when you get burned.
If i write a great new open source program, and want a dedicated homepage, I should put up $20,000 bond? Or would I go to the next $10/month hosting site?
I fail to see how you need a big enough connection to cause $20,000 in damage in order to host a website.
A better suggestion is to never allow purchases anonymously.
Sure, that's a possibility, but if you want to allow anonymous purchases, then you've gotta cover your ass. Or don't come crying to me when you get burned.
Unfortunately, the spammer can just make up a name to buy it.
If you haven't verified the name, then it's still anonymous.
A deposit is a bad idea because that makes it difficult for ANYONE to set up a website.
No it doesn't. It's not difficult to put up a deposit, and it's not difficult to prove who you are. If the deposit is too high you could buy a guarantee instead. If an ISP isn't going to do this, that's perfectly fine, but then they are taking responsibility for the actions of the person they're hosting. If an ISP wants to take that risk, they shouldn't cry when that risk burns them.
My friend charges $3.75/month for a simple site. He makes most of his money off of volume. I doubt that he could afford the time to call each and every prospective customer (possibly multiple times) to get verbal verification.
Maybe he should get a better business model, then.
I do hope you're joking.
Only a little. If you help a spammer I won't cry over any collateral damage you suffer. I only wish it weren't illegal to take these people down.
The intent is to discourage spammers, but that doesn't necessarily meen that he'll never get one (or that, when he does, he'll be able to collect his $5/email administrative fee).
He should be collecting the fee beforehand and putting it in an interest-baring account.
Sometimes they'll do things like pay with scammed (but apparently valid) Credit card data. It's really hard to stop that without shutting down the other 99.9% of legitimate users.
No it's not. A simple phone call will do the trick. Now if the credit card winds up being stolen the FBI will most likely be able to find the culprit.
Besides, spammers are used to their sites being shut down shortly after they start a run I'm sure they're prepared for that. DOSing their site is going to do more damage to collateral victims than to the spammers themselves.
That's why you require a deposit which will cover the amount of that damage.
The intent of attacks like what I'm suggesting is a more surgical strike... It attacks the spammers themselves and the economics of spamming.while (hopefully) leaving most others relatively intact.
We've gotta take the George W. Bush approach to the war on spam. We will make no distinction between the spammers that send the spam and the ISPs that harbor them.
For that matter, I believe this would leave them in a better position than now, since they'd not only have a list of people who won't buy from them (allowing them to cull their list of live email addresses a bit), but also a list of people likely to actually take steps to stop spammers.
On the other hand, it would encourage more people to be abusive towards spammers, because by doing so they'd get on the list and stop receiving spam. Eventually everyone would be on the abusive list except people who don't mind spam, and the problem of spam will be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why does the FSF support the GFDL? That looks like a rather non-free license.
But it's not for software. Free software is the primary goal of the FSF. The GFDL is supposed to assist in that goal. It certainly doesn't hinder it.
The FSF doesn't deny people the right to copy and distribute other people's software any more than it denies you the right to break into the developer's house and steal his computer. The law denies you these "rights".
First of all, you don't have a right to break into someone's house and steal his computer. You also don't have the right to copy and distribute other people's software. You do, however, have the right to copy and distribute your software which happens to have been originally written by someone else.
The FSF has threatened to sue people for violating the copyright on their software. I think that counts as denying them rights. You can argue that it is the law which denies the rights, but the FSF is just as responsible for helping the law do its job.
If you feel you should have the right to distribute others' software any way you like, you should take that up with whoever makes the laws in the country you live in.
OK, let me call him up. Oh, wait a second. I can't do that, because there isn't a single person who makes the laws inthe country I live. It's a complicated process which all of society participates in. So that's who I'm taking it up with. Society. Let me distribute my software however I want, damnit.
OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
NO, the source code is the original, pure form.
That's a good point, but then I go back to my original statement. The FSF denies people the right to copy and distribute binaries, unless they distribute the source. That's no different from someone whose license requires that you donate to charity in order to copy and distribute a binary, or that you kiss a puppy dog. But no, that's proprietary software, not free software?
The right to modify a program requires you to have the source code in order to exercise that right.
No it doesn't.
I agree with you that the GPL is not the only form of copyleft, but I don't believe for one instant that you can distribute binaries without source and not violate someone's rights.
Huh? So when I downloaded Mozilla onto my uncle's computer, I violated someone's rights?
In fact, both the Qing and C.C. licences grant you permission to make derivative works, which sort of implies an obligation to distribute the source code; as not to do so would prevent someone from creating the very derivative work you just authorised.
Absolutely not. The licenses give you permission to make derivative works. But that doesn't mean that anyone is forced to help you make any particular derivative work they want. Furthermore, lack of source code does not prevent you from making derivative works. It may be easier to create certain types of derivative works with source code, but nothing in the license agreement says anything about making things easy. The QingPL and ShareAlike 1.0 do not require you to release source code to derivative works.
Don't confuse what the law denies you with something the FSF does or doesn't do.
I'm not.
It is against copyright law to copy and distribute software without explicit permission.
And the FSF has not only chosen not to give explicit permission, but they have explicitly asserted their copyright and intention to enforce it.
The GPL grants you that permission, with the proviso that you in turn do not withhold that permission from others.
That is not the only proviso. There are others, one of which is to distribute source code.
As for copying and distributing software without source code -- software without source code is relatively useless.
Nonsense. I use software without source code all the time. It's only the rare program that I actually use the source for. And even then there are ways around it if I didn't have the source.
Oh, it might be temporarily useful on some subset of architectures and OSs for a limited time, but it's like a disposable appliance whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair.
Source code is not required to repair software. It's more like an appliance which doesn't come with detailed design instructions. More importantly, people should have the right to distribute disposable appliances whose innards are sealed against user modification or repair if they want to. The FSF shouldn't come in and use copyright law to try to stop them.
Sure, if I have a choice between software with source code and software without source code I'm going to take the source. But authors should be denied the right to distribute binaries without distributing that source.
The GPL ensures that the user always has that access to modify or repair.
Source code is hardly the panacea you make it out to be. I have the full source code to a lot of software which I have absolutely no clue how to repair.
Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL?
No.
OK. So I can distribute linux binaries without distributing the source, then?
As long as there is copyright on software, there is a need for the GPL.
No, as long as there is copyright, there is a need for copyleft. The GPL is a half-decent incarnation of copyleft, but it denies people the right to copy annd distribute software without copying and distributing source code unlike other copyleft licenses, such as the QingPL or ShareAlike 1.0.
Heh, you're right. I meant that they only use non-free software when a free alternative is not available. Oops.
What software has been written by the FSF of late?
I have no idea. But anything is better than what the EFF has done for me. I got turned off from them when they wasted their money trying to defend someone who wasn't even being sued. If I want to donate to someone who defends free speech online, I'll take the ACLU.
And the HURD has been 6 months away from being ready for at least 12 years now.
Talk about waste, huh? Yeah, you make a good point. But still, I can't think of anything the EFF has done for me. The FSF has done a lot. Whether or not they're still doing anything, I really don't know. What exactly do they spend money on, nowadays?
To be clear, I'm not advocating donating to the FSF. Personally I'd rather save up my money and use it directly to promote free software than to let the FSF use it. I'm not a big believer in donations. Most non-profits should find a way to fund themselves.
The FSF doesn't deny anyone anything.
Every time they threaten someone with a lawsuit they deny them something.
This is important because without the GPL I could very well have my work stolen in the traditional sense. Example: I write a foo processor called FooFu-- and release it as public domain. Bar, Inc. takes my freely shared source and creates a competing software called Footsy, but refuses to release source code. Any attempt on my part, even though I am the original author, to use their derived work would violate federal copyright law. So what the GPL does is make it possible for me to share my work without my having to worry about it being taken this way.
Yes, the GPL does prevent that. But so does a completely proprietary license. And so does so does the Creative Commons Share Alike license. Between the three, I like the Share Alike license the best. Only the Share Alike license allows you to copy and distribute software without restriction.
Do you use GNU software?
Hell yeah.
If so, and if you don't contribute (cash, code, documentation, etc.) and are unwilling to give them some found money, you're part of the problem.
What problem is that? The whole idea that I owe the FSF for merely using software they wrote is the problem. If that was the case, the FSF could just charge money.
I've sent a few bug fixes to a few different authors of GPLed software. But after 3 or 4 times of having my fix ignored I've become somewhat disillusioned with that. You need some help with coding something, let me know, and if I can help you I will. I'm not going out of my way to beg people to allow me to help them.
What good has the EFF actually done? At least the FSF has created a lot of free software which I use every day. The EFF hasn't done shit for me.
How does my not giving you *anything* equate to my not being moral?
Enforcing copyright is not just the lack of giving something. It is taking something away, the ability to copy and distribute.
What if my belief system is different from yours, who is moral then?
Are you arguing that there is no such thing as morality? If so you might as well just quit there, 'cause that isn't going to lead to an interesting discussion about whether or not something is moral.
"Morals" are not absolutes. What may be moral in one belief system may not be in another belief system.
So murder is not necessarily immoral, then? It all depends on one's belief system?
Hey, it's a valid argument, but if you're going to use it then the rest of your argument is meaningless.
What is immoral is hoarding the source code and denying people the right to copy and distribute software.
Doesn't the FSF deny people the right to copy and distribute software, unless they agree to the GPL? I don't see how that is any more moral. The only way to be moral about software is to allow people to copy and distribute it without restriction.
If it exists, then they'd be hypocritical not to. I remember reading somewhere that the FSF only uses free software unless a non-free alternative is not available. And RMS has specifically stated that firmware is software.
It's unclear to me exactly how these vouchers work. From the site, it claims that you must "exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003." Now if I buy a $1000 computer, I can clearly get my $26 back from the voucher, but if I buy a $1000 computer, can I trade in 38 vouchers and get $988 back? This isn't made clear, and if not it seems these vouchers are going to be somewhat useless to the FSF.
It's also not clear that the vouchers are transferrable. Can I sell them? On eBay? That's also going to hurt the FSF, cause I sure as hell am not giving them a $26 voucher if I can get $25 for it on eBay.
Something new to add to my spam filter.
that's a good way to run your business into bankruptcy.
If it makes business sense to just take the risk yourself, that's fine too. Just don't bitch when you get burned.
If i write a great new open source program, and want a dedicated homepage, I should put up $20,000 bond? Or would I go to the next $10/month hosting site?
I fail to see how you need a big enough connection to cause $20,000 in damage in order to host a website.
A better suggestion is to never allow purchases anonymously.
Sure, that's a possibility, but if you want to allow anonymous purchases, then you've gotta cover your ass. Or don't come crying to me when you get burned.
Unfortunately, the spammer can just make up a name to buy it.
If you haven't verified the name, then it's still anonymous.
A deposit is a bad idea because that makes it difficult for ANYONE to set up a website.
No it doesn't. It's not difficult to put up a deposit, and it's not difficult to prove who you are. If the deposit is too high you could buy a guarantee instead. If an ISP isn't going to do this, that's perfectly fine, but then they are taking responsibility for the actions of the person they're hosting. If an ISP wants to take that risk, they shouldn't cry when that risk burns them.
My friend charges $3.75/month for a simple site. He makes most of his money off of volume. I doubt that he could afford the time to call each and every prospective customer (possibly multiple times) to get verbal verification.
Maybe he should get a better business model, then.
I do hope you're joking.
Only a little. If you help a spammer I won't cry over any collateral damage you suffer. I only wish it weren't illegal to take these people down.
And this is my problem why?
Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve?
And yet humans can solve in minutes some things which a computer couldn't solve in a thousand years.
The intent is to discourage spammers, but that doesn't necessarily meen that he'll never get one (or that, when he does, he'll be able to collect his $5/email administrative fee).
He should be collecting the fee beforehand and putting it in an interest-baring account.
Sometimes they'll do things like pay with scammed (but apparently valid) Credit card data. It's really hard to stop that without shutting down the other 99.9% of legitimate users.
No it's not. A simple phone call will do the trick. Now if the credit card winds up being stolen the FBI will most likely be able to find the culprit.
Besides, spammers are used to their sites being shut down shortly after they start a run I'm sure they're prepared for that. DOSing their site is going to do more damage to collateral victims than to the spammers themselves.
That's why you require a deposit which will cover the amount of that damage.
The intent of attacks like what I'm suggesting is a more surgical strike... It attacks the spammers themselves and the economics of spamming.while (hopefully) leaving most others relatively intact.
We've gotta take the George W. Bush approach to the war on spam. We will make no distinction between the spammers that send the spam and the ISPs that harbor them.
Why is it that so many anti-spam proposals involve stepping on anonymous free speech rights?
You can speak freely all you want. You just gotta pay for it if you want someone to put their reputation on the line behind your free speech.
So don't sell $20 shared hosting accounts to anonymous individuals without requiring a large deposit.
For that matter, I believe this would leave them in a better position than now, since they'd not only have a list of people who won't buy from them (allowing them to cull their list of live email addresses a bit), but also a list of people likely to actually take steps to stop spammers.
On the other hand, it would encourage more people to be abusive towards spammers, because by doing so they'd get on the list and stop receiving spam. Eventually everyone would be on the abusive list except people who don't mind spam, and the problem of spam will be solved.