Because it is journalism's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things, regardless of popular interest. These stories aren't important because of commercial market response. Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.
The contacts mainstream media covets aren't worth much to begin with. Being a stenographer to power isn't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups, lies, and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations. The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, and the NYT carried David Barstow's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as "analysts" before and during the Iraq war.
Barstow couldn't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism. Democracy Now! invited him on the air for what became an exclusive interview:
AMY GOODMAN: I think what's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it's the lack of reporting on this by the networks. Of course, you know, that is your subject here, how the networks use them. How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks' use of these pundits?
DAVID BARSTOW: You know, to be honest with you, I haven't received many invitations--in fact, any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can't say I'm hugely shocked by that.
On the other hand, while there's been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had--sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere. And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.
So it's been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere.
To date there has been no serious expose of NYT's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We know they're capable of such an act: they did it for Jayson Blair's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person. Back then there was a full color spread about Blair, his stories, and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience (CSPAN carried it). But back in 2004, Goodman put the NYT's Iraq run-up lies in perspective as well.
Not only does this new deal not cover every country (the Internet has this global presence to it) but this new deal doesn't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US. Support artists who aren't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels, support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further, and you'll find there's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed. Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new.
jadoon88 writes to share a series of old Atari 7800 games that have been unofficially open sourced.
No, but whomever wrote that headline is making a common mistake. The use of the term "open source" tells us that "open source" is apparently no more clear to people than what that movement tried to supplant—free software. While "free software" has an ambiguity problem, that problem is easily resolved by saying the "free" refers to freedoms to run, share, and modify the software, not a reference to price. "Open source" is also widely misunderstood:
The official definition of "open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating.
but not easily cleared up. As that essay points out, "the explanation for "free software" is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of "free speech, not free beer" will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of "open source" and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.".
From what I can tell, there's no permission given to share any of these programs, no permission to modify any of these programs, and no permission to distribute these programs commercially.
The blog poster claims "In an official release, Atari has quoted that the purpose of the release is to give potential developers insight into the Atari's gaming platform so they may possibly build upon the 7800 series." but there is no link to the official release from the copyright holder. Therefore the provenance of this source code is unclear. I would consider these programs to be neither open source nor free software. This looks like an offer to download source code for proprietary software then make the mistake of distributing unauthorized derivative works based on these programs. It might be fun to program new Atari 7800 games, but copyright lasts a very long time and there's too little information to verify what the blogger claims.
Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can? If not, I don't see the advantage. The story says that these hackers added features Canon didn't; that's added value to me. That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase. Thanks to their work, I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware. Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to learn can pick up the job, or I can hire others to work on my behalf. And because the software isn't just free but copylefted under the GPL, I stand a better chance of benefitting from any distributed/conveyed derivative work based on this firmware. All of this future-proofing exists because of the freedoms of free software.
I think Kappos having been brought up in IBM will make him more open to (or at least less skeptical of) open source-type ideas than any of the other former directors, and his computer/engineering background will also make him more critical of our patent system, and not as focused on ratcheting protections up as far as they can go.
I don't know what being "more open to open source-type ideas" means. Nor would I use the term "IP" as you did. Software patents hurt all developers except those at IBM because IBM holds the most patents. Holding the most patents means IBM can cross-license far more easily than any other patent holder. In fact, we know how valuable cross-licensing is to IBM because IBM has told us. IBM has told us cross-licensing outweighs the value of collecting patent license fees by an order of magnitude. IBM got ten times the value of using patents held by others than licensing its own patents. This means IBM alone can skirt the trouble the patent system causes everyone else. IBM can completely undo the alleged advantage the patent system is supposed to give smaller organizations trying to commercially launch their work. You really should read Richard Stallman's examination of the US patent system as it applies to software development for a fuller description of the details on how IBM's statement in 1990 reveals the harm done to all software developers under the USPTO's thumb.
The solution is to completely deny anyone software patents so software developers can go back to relying on trademark and copyright law which is sufficient to avoid defrauding consumers and enforcing licenses, respectively. But I doubt the world's largest patent holder is in favor of disempowerment, and now that they have a man running the USPTO I doubt we'll see that office seeking to make software algorithms unpatentable.
I think what we're seeing here is just another instance of how corporate-friendly President Obama is. The more I read self-identified "open source" adherents saying how good this move is, the more I think that the open source movement is too corporate-friendly as well. Mere affiliation with a movement that isn't fighting for software freedom isn't doing you any favors; raise your critical standards and keep on fighting for the end of software patents.
Perhaps stop buying music from artists who sign with RIAA labels, but I see no reason to stop buying music from labels who treat artists and listeners fairly and reasonably. Quite to the contrary, those are the artists and businesses we should reward for showing that we can still enjoy commercial recorded music and help the artists we like without being called "pirates" or denying ourselves the fun of sharing stuff we like.
I don't like to repeat so much of what I recently posted, but a lot of these details are apropos in this thread as well. Magnatune is one music vendor offers a compelling deal to artists and listeners—you can get the music in multiple pre-encoded forms and/or on a physical CD (your choice), you can pay on a sliding scale (minimum of $5/disc, I believe), there are subscriptions for download and streaming available where you pay regularly or pay a large lump sum and get downloads forever (I did this), you can listen to their entire catalog online via Flash or via music players in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis, and all of the freely available tracks are licensed to share. Customers are told they can share a few tracks with others as well.
Artists get a good deal too which includes 50% of the take per track, licensing to Magnatune means artists keep their copyrights and enter non-exclusive deals with Magnatune instead of turning over control to a label and going into the label's debt only to get out at the label's permission ("That track isn't up to your standards! Record another track for us."),
Of course Magnatune doesn't accept everything that comes their way. There's no guarantee you'll be able to distribute through any label. But that's to be expected; part of the value of a label is their (metaphorical) discriminatory ear. I buy from Magnatune because I don't want to preview everything, I want them to filter out a bunch of junk for me. I might not share Magnatune's definition of "junk" but that's to be expected too; beauty is subjective. If you, the artist, want guaranteed distribution you should try another venue that doesn't discriminate and take the trade-off of being the gem in the pile of junk waiting for others to discover you.
Perhaps, but this activity is the kind of thing Apple used as reason to not allow users their software freedom with their own phone. Around the time of the iPhone's introduction Steve Jobs told Newsweek:
"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
Leaving one to wonder about that other network called the Internet. Even when viewed only from a security standpoint, this was a tall order to fill. It appears that Apple has failed to fill it.
If Universal had a deal where the artist gets half of the take, you'd have far less reason to suspect an all-you-can-hear deal because you'd know you're helping artists and encouraging them to publish more music. As it is, there's nothing in this deal which even suggests a better arrangement for artists (the people corporate copyright holders love to trot out whenever illicit copying and distribution comes up).
The catalogs aren't the same, and neither is the history of pay-for-play, but compare the deal Universal is touting to the deal Magnatune has offered for years. Both are all-you-can-hear, but Magnatune lets you set the price (above a specified minimum), you get more choice in what types of files you want (I like FLAC, it's unencumbered, lossless, and I can transcode to something lossy if I choose), the half-goes-to-the-artist deal still stands, and artists license Magnatune which allows artists to retain their copyrights. Magnatune has no history of pay-for-play but all of the biggest music publishers do; I see no reason to reward that history with my sale. I didn't have to worry about risk: anyone can listen to Magnatune's entire catalog online at no charge. I don't have to worry about risking my Internet connection if I share Magnatune tracks either; even if Magnatune had the power to suspend my Internet connection I've got license to share. I put my money where my mouth is and I've bought an unlimited subscription from Magnatune. I'll not do the same with Universal until their deal gets a lot better for me and the artists whose interests they claim to care about.
One would like to believe it's that easy, but I doubt most people know enough about computing to make decisions so that they can fully control what their computer does. Proprietary software + Internet access can easily equal someone else determining what's on someone's computer. Proprietary software is untrustworthy by default, no amount of testing an executable binary's behavior makes that program trustworthy because the program can be written to do something undesirable after a delay. Other than source code examination, there's no easy way to conclude that a proprietary program isn't going to grant access to someone else who could do computing on your computer without your consent. We can't examine the source code for everything we run, but we can spread out this work so people with those skills have little incentive and opportunity to mess with others. Therefore we all need the freedoms of free software to collectively help one another and get the best chance we're running binaries we can trust.
Advocating the use of the GPL is not necessarily advocating for the social solidarity at the heart of software freedom. Linus Torvalds, for example, doesn't like software freedom and uses the GPL because it achieves his technical ends best not because it helps people organize around social principles of mutual aid and defending the freedom to share and modify. Initially the kernel Torvalds developed wasn't under the GPL, Torvalds initially licensed his kernel under a non-free license. You can also see Torvalds non-freedom mindset in how Torvalds doesn't mind what Stallman and others refer to as "Tivoization" in reference to the Tivo's DRM which prevents one from running a modified Linux kernel their own Tivo device. Torvalds doesn't even want GNU to share in the credit he unfairly exclusively receives when people call an OS with the Linux kernel "a Linux system". Torvalds maintains an illogical argument where giving GNU a share of the credit is somehow confusing, when actually GNU/Linux a far more technically accurate and fair-minded name for systems that are the union of the GNU OS with the Linux kernel. How many major players you want to name is up to you, but it seems unfair to leave GNU off in these instances. This is a position Torvalds grew into as more people were willing to give him sole credit for an entire OS (most of which he did not write). Torvalds was initially willing to recognize a system called GNU. The GNU project wants us to recall GNU when we're talking about a GNU system so it helps bring software freedom to mind.
There is no mention of software freedom in the definition of "open source" as published by the OSI. In fact, as I point out in the article I linked to, for most of the OSI website's existence it used namecalling to refer to freedom activism ("ideological tub-thumping"). I look forward to OSI explicitly advocating for freedom for its own sake but I don't see that going on.
But if you must conflate GPL use with supporting software freedom, the link you point to is unconvincing. That link is a remarkably poorly written essay entitled "Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project". So not only does it make reference to the wrong movement to talk about software freedom, it encourages readers away from using the GNU GPL. The essay says nothing of social solidarity, software freedom; nothing about the ethical underpinnings of the free software movement. Instead, the essay directs readers toward a license which purposefully does nothing to preserve software freedom for derivative works, (and now under GPLv3) protect users from patent lawsuits, or automatically restoring license rights upon correcting violations (violators must beg the copyright holder to get their rights back under the modified BSD license whereas under GPLv3 they can automatically get their rights back in certain circumstances). On top of that, the description of the GPL is wrong: the GPL has never said that "any modifications that were made to a GPL program were required to be given back to the GPL community". One may make private modifications to GPL'd works and use them. The GPL requires distributing complete corresponding source code upon distribution/conveyance not modification. Apparently the author isn't aware that licenses which deny private modifications and private use of those modifications are not free software licenses. That essay also erroneously claims that "any program that used or linked to GPL code was required to be under the GPL": mere use is not controllable via copyright license without a license manager (which, thanks to the freedoms the GPL protects for its users, can be edited out of any GPL'd programs that have them) and the GPL doesn't attempt to govern mere use of a GPL'd program. Programs which call GPL'd programs via the fork and exec system (or equivalents elsewhere) are not derivative works; so proprietary programs can call GPL'd programs without becoming GPL'd programs themselves. The essay you link to also mixes up the terms "commercial"
I won't object to communities getting source code to voting machines under free software licenses, but when voting machines are used only to prepare voter-verified paper ballots never to count ballots (as they should be), security concerns for these machines drop dramatically. I shouldn't have to use such a machine in the first place, but if I choose to use a machine to prepare my voter-verified paper ballot source code concerns drop to making sure that bugs in the program won't stop me from using the program under unforseen conditions. Communities deserve software freedom, and that is sufficient justification for communities to run their own voting systems completely.
Proprietors are quite ideologically pure. It's their way or the highway.
The software isn't just a "tool", thinking that way is a trick proprietors use to get you to forget about freedom concerns or dissuade you from learning about software freedom in the first place. For proprietors the goal is to get you to depend on them forever so they control how you use your computer. This is both profitable and valuable for control (both ends unto themselves).
As we see more and more with DRM, proprietors want more and more control over every aspect of one's computer use even if it won't make them money. The trick for them is to find out ways to exert that control over users without users noticing the bad sides (cooking the frog slowly), particularly in comparison to the freedom-respecting older technologies (like books).
Proprietors don't want their would-be customers comparing the old with the new: people might learn that eBooks aren't as freedom-respecting as regular books. Anyone who "just wants to watch the movie" or read the book is disappointed to learn that they're on the wrong side of the tracks (which the proprietor knows via GPS unit data) and the proprietor has disabled their movie from being watched in that area. Or at that time (via a clock in the watching device). Or for users who don't type in the right code, or pay the rent on time. Or based on any other restriction the proprietor deems worthy.
So this is properly a fight for one's freedoms, and the "hotbed" you describe has existed all along. It's just a matter of making people aware of these political concerns and getting them to understand the consequences of proprietary control/user subjugation.
People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part. As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom. So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely. Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7 when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point:
Unnamed Questioner: Last year, Eric Raymond came to FISL and said that [the] Free Software Foundation didn't like [the] Open Source Initiative though they-
Richard Stallman: That's true.
Unnamed Questioner: [laughs] -though they wanted to be friendly and work together.
RMS: Well, their idea of working together is that together we should advocate just what we have in common, and what we have in common happens to be their position. The reason is the philosophy of free software, of the free software movement which I founded in 1983, focuses on freedom and community; on human rights for software users. Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things, to hush them up, bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software. Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches. So here's what I say, and here's the part they say. Except that they've gone in more depth on it, and that is useful. You know, making the case to businesses that they'll get some practical advantage out of releasing, under usually a free software license. That's useful. But the point is, it's still a more superficial part of the issue. So what they're really saying is they want to cooperate and they wish we would cooperate by forgetting about what we consider the most important thing and joining them in saying only the superficial part. This is the way Eric Raymond puts it; he's very clever at asking us to abandon the most important thing and making it sound like he's only being reasonable.
Later, Michael Tiemann says the following in response to RMS' statement on Raymond:
Michael Tiemann: Hi Richard, I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked earlier about Eric Raymond. I wanted to point out a fact: which is that while Eric Raymond was formerly the president of the OSI he no longer is. Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI. I would also like to clarify that as president of the OSI I have always supported the GPL as a model license for developers. It's the license-it's the only license I have chosen to work under other than the LGPL for my own programming. And I recognize your position, which is to say that if I am not talking about freedom first and foremost I am burying freedom but I think myself differently-
RMS: Well, you might be doing something in between. There are things in between. When Eric Raymond was the president of the OSI I could perceive this intention to bury talk of freedom very clearly, and there are others who talk about open source and clearly are trying to bury talk of freedom. That doesn't apply to everyone who uses the term ["open source"]. What is true of their use of the term is that it generally doesn't call attention to freedom very much.
Tiemann: But in this conference I do want to support that what you are doing is incredibly valuable and I respect it tremendously.
RMS: Well thank you.
Also, when it comes to being practical, it's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL. People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also. So I am not con
Quite true, in fact all the talk about using an OS which currently doesn't have the (proprietary? This raises security issues all its own) client software is tacitly accepting the Client Security Agent policy, not challenging the policy.
Students who switch to non-Windows OSes in order to avoid running the Client Security Agent are acknowledging that the policy is right and proper for those who run Windows. There are plenty of good reasons to reject Microsoft Windows, software freedom chief among them. But when it comes to running a proprietary program in order to gain security, I don't buy it. Instead of challenging the policy (which would require students to think about underlying principles they deem important), the students hope they will be given a pass and be able to use the network. Thus when the university distributes clients for their OSes, students will have little legitimate argument to reject running the CSA software. At least resolving something by lawsuit requires one to know the law, understand one's rights, and think up a convincing argument to present to the court.
Better policies would ditch the CSA program, make each student responsible for the use of their login credentials, and document consequences for violations of policy. But I can't say I know what freedoms these students value and are willing to fight for.
I don't recall Major League Baseball refunding accounts for their subscribers when MLB left their subscribers out in the cold. Maybe they restarted their on-demand recorded baseball viewing service with another DRM provider, but I'm referring to the people who did not continue doing business with MLB. Did they get a prorated refund for the service they were not able to use? I'm guessing that DRM-riddled services nowadays include language in the contract that says when the service dies the customer agrees to forfeit the remainder of their subscription fee, so it will be up to consumers to organize and make state/federal law that forces providers to give prorated refunds.
I saw this kind of thing coming when I thought about the implications of copy prevention ("copy protection" is pro-publisher propaganda) back in the 1980s, as I'm sure many posters here did. Without the freedoms of free software (one can only really implement digital restrictions management in user-subjugating/proprietary software) the implications of DRM are even more important (librarians take note!). Today I still think about the implications of DRM (1,2). As a result I only do business with media distributors that don't screw me or the people they work with (Magnatune, for example, has far better policies than any of the other more well-advertised media distributors). I mention this because/. posters all too often believe that one "votes" with their money and should spend accordingly. I don't agree that money should constitute votes, but I do think our spending reflects our values. Yet I don't see many posters on this discussion forum actually talking about spending their money wisely.
Name-calling and quarrelling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.
Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them. I don't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity. My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests: convenience, ease-of-use, and reliability. These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors—the people and organizations that don't respect software freedom.
When it comes to teaching freedom, I don't have the trouble some say they have. I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues. I didn't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference. More recently, I find that the essay "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source. One of the essay's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software. Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor, free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user's software freedoms:
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?
A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it. The FSFE essay doesn't make that clear, despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end.
It's important not to conflate easy compliance with infringement forgiveness. When we're talking about infringement we're talking about the set of people/organizations who have already decided to not go the easy route and meet the license's (possibly very easy) terms and what those people/organizations must do to regain their rights under the license. Easy compliance doesn't do anything to help infringers regain what they have forfeited—their rights under that license.
So it sounds like you agree with me then that the new BSD license has no infringement forgiveness language in it; but you believe the new BSD license has no need for such language whereas I haven't given my opinion on the need for that language.
As we always do in violation cases, we began a process of working with Cisco to help them understand their obligations under our licenses, and how they could come into compliance. Early on it seemed likely that we could resolve the issues without any fuss.
While we were working on that case, though, new reports came in. Other Cisco products were not in full compliance either. We started talking to the company about those as well--and that's how a five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole began. New issues were regularly discovered before we could finish addressing the old ones.
During this entire time, Cisco has never been in full compliance with our licenses. At first glance, the situation might look good. It's not difficult to find "source code" on the Linksys site. But you only have to dig a little deeper to find the problems. Those source code downloads are often incomplete or out-of-date. Cisco also provides written offers for source, but we regularly hear about requests going unfulfilled.
Despite our best efforts, Cisco seems unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to come into compliance and stay in compliance. We asked them to notify customers about previous violations and inform them about how they can now obtain complete source code; they have refused to do this, along with the other reasonable demands we have made to consider this case settled. The FSF has put in too many hours helping the company fix the numerous mistakes it's made over the years. Cisco needs to take responsibility for its own license compliance.
In some programs extensions can modify the behavior of other extensions; programs often don't provide impenetrable barriers between extensions. In my experience writing and using extensions for various programs, it's best never to develop strong dependencies on extensions because they often aren't upgraded to work with the latest version of the base application (when the extensions no longer work with the latest base software, the features those extensions provided will vanish. This is particularly true if you're not a programmer who is willing to hack source code to keep your favorite extensions up to date.
As a user who is less interested in hacking code then I used to be, I still appreciate the freedoms of free software (and strongly encourage those freedoms for their own sake). But I find it more productive to scale back my needs to meet with whatever the base program can do for me and learn variations on a theme as I go from program to program. For example, most word processors do mail merge but no two word processors do mail merge in exactly the same way. So I learn the concept, a few variations in mail merge interfaces, and I'm prepared to implement mail merge functionality with various programming languages by writing my own program if necessary. Some preparation by learning multiple approaches gives me a backup means of doing this tedious task if the one mail merge interface I prefer most doesn't work out.
A citizen's desire to ensure their freedom is entirely appropriate. With software the only way to do that is to exclusively use free software and open standards. Proprietors aren't stupid; sometimes they write powerful software. But no matter what that software does it is always non-free. Powerful proprietary software has a master, an individual or organization that controls its destiny and thus what the user can do and how the user can do that job. People accustomed to the idea that programs should be decided on certain vaguely-stated values ("their own merit") and not a user's freedom—the freedoms of free software—need to reevaluate their views in light of what public service means. Governments should not be under the thumb of proprietors, no matter how powerful their software. We are better off improving free software to make up for any technical limitations it has so that it can do what citizens need it to do; thus less powerful free software is preferable to more powerful proprietary software.
And kudos to Cisco for supporting the GPL in the end, even if a few hard-headed managers had to get larted.
I wouldn't be so quick to hand out these kudos; the non-compliance can return. This, I suspect, is why Cisco needs a Free Software Director who regularly reports back to the FSF. As the FSF's Compliance Engineer Brett Smith pointed out in 2008, "Despite our best efforts, Cisco seems unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to come into compliance and stay in compliance." (emphasis mine). Smith wrote that 5 years after the FSF learned that Cisco was not complying with the GPL and the FSF had been getting nowhere with its attempt to silently get Cisco to comply—what Smith called "a five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole". Cisco and the FSF recently arrived at their agreement. It will take years to convince the public that Cisco is compliant and will remain compliant with those that treat Cisco so nicely as to share their work in whole with Cisco. "The end" you refer to is nowhere near here. Good will to correct wrongdoing on this scale takes time to sow.
So perhaps Cisco settled because their lawyers were made aware of the FSF's warnings of litigation, chose to stonewall the FSF, received a copy of the FSF's complaint, saw that the FSF was serious and examined the GPL licenses, examined what their programmers had been doing, figured that they could not win in court, and concluded it wasn't worth fighting?
Eben Moglen, longtime GPL defender, says this is how it often goes down (""Why would you want to pay serious money," we have asked, "for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?" Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question." he said in 'Enforcing the GNU GPL' and similar discussion at his talks). Getting compliance out of multiple large organizations who could easily pay for lengthy million dollar lawsuits sounds to me like an affirmation of the validity of the GPL.
I'm not sure how that is relevant. Cisco multiply infringed on FSF's copyrights for software intended to grant everyone software freedom. This turned a would-be partner into an adversary in court. No matter how big the Cisco corporation is or what they were trying to do, they should not be allowed to deny their users software freedom. So I don't understand how we can know what Cisco was trying to do nor do I see how it matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it is journalism's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things, regardless of popular interest. These stories aren't important because of commercial market response. Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.
The contacts mainstream media covets aren't worth much to begin with. Being a stenographer to power isn't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups, lies, and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations. The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, and the NYT carried David Barstow's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as "analysts" before and during the Iraq war.
Barstow couldn't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism. Democracy Now! invited him on the air for what became an exclusive interview:
To date there has been no serious expose of NYT's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We know they're capable of such an act: they did it for Jayson Blair's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person. Back then there was a full color spread about Blair, his stories, and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience (CSPAN carried it). But back in 2004, Goodman put the NYT's Iraq run-up lies in perspective as well.
Not at all. But all proprietors see things this way. That's why their stuff is proprietary in the first place.
Not only does this new deal not cover every country (the Internet has this global presence to it) but this new deal doesn't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US. Support artists who aren't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels, support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further, and you'll find there's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed. Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new.
No, but whomever wrote that headline is making a common mistake. The use of the term "open source" tells us that "open source" is apparently no more clear to people than what that movement tried to supplant—free software. While "free software" has an ambiguity problem, that problem is easily resolved by saying the "free" refers to freedoms to run, share, and modify the software, not a reference to price. "Open source" is also widely misunderstood:
but not easily cleared up. As that essay points out, "the explanation for "free software" is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of "free speech, not free beer" will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of "open source" and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.".
From what I can tell, there's no permission given to share any of these programs, no permission to modify any of these programs, and no permission to distribute these programs commercially.
The blog poster claims "In an official release, Atari has quoted that the purpose of the release is to give potential developers insight into the Atari's gaming platform so they may possibly build upon the 7800 series." but there is no link to the official release from the copyright holder. Therefore the provenance of this source code is unclear. I would consider these programs to be neither open source nor free software. This looks like an offer to download source code for proprietary software then make the mistake of distributing unauthorized derivative works based on these programs. It might be fun to program new Atari 7800 games, but copyright lasts a very long time and there's too little information to verify what the blogger claims.
Try Magnatune. They:
Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can? If not, I don't see the advantage. The story says that these hackers added features Canon didn't; that's added value to me. That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase. Thanks to their work, I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware. Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to learn can pick up the job, or I can hire others to work on my behalf. And because the software isn't just free but copylefted under the GPL, I stand a better chance of benefitting from any distributed/conveyed derivative work based on this firmware. All of this future-proofing exists because of the freedoms of free software.
I don't know what being "more open to open source-type ideas" means. Nor would I use the term "IP" as you did. Software patents hurt all developers except those at IBM because IBM holds the most patents. Holding the most patents means IBM can cross-license far more easily than any other patent holder. In fact, we know how valuable cross-licensing is to IBM because IBM has told us. IBM has told us cross-licensing outweighs the value of collecting patent license fees by an order of magnitude. IBM got ten times the value of using patents held by others than licensing its own patents. This means IBM alone can skirt the trouble the patent system causes everyone else. IBM can completely undo the alleged advantage the patent system is supposed to give smaller organizations trying to commercially launch their work. You really should read Richard Stallman's examination of the US patent system as it applies to software development for a fuller description of the details on how IBM's statement in 1990 reveals the harm done to all software developers under the USPTO's thumb.
The solution is to completely deny anyone software patents so software developers can go back to relying on trademark and copyright law which is sufficient to avoid defrauding consumers and enforcing licenses, respectively. But I doubt the world's largest patent holder is in favor of disempowerment, and now that they have a man running the USPTO I doubt we'll see that office seeking to make software algorithms unpatentable.
I think what we're seeing here is just another instance of how corporate-friendly President Obama is. The more I read self-identified "open source" adherents saying how good this move is, the more I think that the open source movement is too corporate-friendly as well. Mere affiliation with a movement that isn't fighting for software freedom isn't doing you any favors; raise your critical standards and keep on fighting for the end of software patents.
Perhaps stop buying music from artists who sign with RIAA labels, but I see no reason to stop buying music from labels who treat artists and listeners fairly and reasonably. Quite to the contrary, those are the artists and businesses we should reward for showing that we can still enjoy commercial recorded music and help the artists we like without being called "pirates" or denying ourselves the fun of sharing stuff we like.
I don't like to repeat so much of what I recently posted, but a lot of these details are apropos in this thread as well. Magnatune is one music vendor offers a compelling deal to artists and listeners—you can get the music in multiple pre-encoded forms and/or on a physical CD (your choice), you can pay on a sliding scale (minimum of $5/disc, I believe), there are subscriptions for download and streaming available where you pay regularly or pay a large lump sum and get downloads forever (I did this), you can listen to their entire catalog online via Flash or via music players in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis, and all of the freely available tracks are licensed to share. Customers are told they can share a few tracks with others as well.
Artists get a good deal too which includes 50% of the take per track, licensing to Magnatune means artists keep their copyrights and enter non-exclusive deals with Magnatune instead of turning over control to a label and going into the label's debt only to get out at the label's permission ("That track isn't up to your standards! Record another track for us."),
Of course Magnatune doesn't accept everything that comes their way. There's no guarantee you'll be able to distribute through any label. But that's to be expected; part of the value of a label is their (metaphorical) discriminatory ear. I buy from Magnatune because I don't want to preview everything, I want them to filter out a bunch of junk for me. I might not share Magnatune's definition of "junk" but that's to be expected too; beauty is subjective. If you, the artist, want guaranteed distribution you should try another venue that doesn't discriminate and take the trade-off of being the gem in the pile of junk waiting for others to discover you.
Perhaps, but this activity is the kind of thing Apple used as reason to not allow users their software freedom with their own phone. Around the time of the iPhone's introduction Steve Jobs told Newsweek:
Leaving one to wonder about that other network called the Internet. Even when viewed only from a security standpoint, this was a tall order to fill. It appears that Apple has failed to fill it.
If Universal had a deal where the artist gets half of the take, you'd have far less reason to suspect an all-you-can-hear deal because you'd know you're helping artists and encouraging them to publish more music. As it is, there's nothing in this deal which even suggests a better arrangement for artists (the people corporate copyright holders love to trot out whenever illicit copying and distribution comes up).
The catalogs aren't the same, and neither is the history of pay-for-play, but compare the deal Universal is touting to the deal Magnatune has offered for years. Both are all-you-can-hear, but Magnatune lets you set the price (above a specified minimum), you get more choice in what types of files you want (I like FLAC, it's unencumbered, lossless, and I can transcode to something lossy if I choose), the half-goes-to-the-artist deal still stands, and artists license Magnatune which allows artists to retain their copyrights. Magnatune has no history of pay-for-play but all of the biggest music publishers do; I see no reason to reward that history with my sale. I didn't have to worry about risk: anyone can listen to Magnatune's entire catalog online at no charge. I don't have to worry about risking my Internet connection if I share Magnatune tracks either; even if Magnatune had the power to suspend my Internet connection I've got license to share. I put my money where my mouth is and I've bought an unlimited subscription from Magnatune. I'll not do the same with Universal until their deal gets a lot better for me and the artists whose interests they claim to care about.
One would like to believe it's that easy, but I doubt most people know enough about computing to make decisions so that they can fully control what their computer does. Proprietary software + Internet access can easily equal someone else determining what's on someone's computer. Proprietary software is untrustworthy by default, no amount of testing an executable binary's behavior makes that program trustworthy because the program can be written to do something undesirable after a delay. Other than source code examination, there's no easy way to conclude that a proprietary program isn't going to grant access to someone else who could do computing on your computer without your consent. We can't examine the source code for everything we run, but we can spread out this work so people with those skills have little incentive and opportunity to mess with others. Therefore we all need the freedoms of free software to collectively help one another and get the best chance we're running binaries we can trust.
Advocating the use of the GPL is not necessarily advocating for the social solidarity at the heart of software freedom. Linus Torvalds, for example, doesn't like software freedom and uses the GPL because it achieves his technical ends best not because it helps people organize around social principles of mutual aid and defending the freedom to share and modify. Initially the kernel Torvalds developed wasn't under the GPL, Torvalds initially licensed his kernel under a non-free license. You can also see Torvalds non-freedom mindset in how Torvalds doesn't mind what Stallman and others refer to as "Tivoization" in reference to the Tivo's DRM which prevents one from running a modified Linux kernel their own Tivo device. Torvalds doesn't even want GNU to share in the credit he unfairly exclusively receives when people call an OS with the Linux kernel "a Linux system". Torvalds maintains an illogical argument where giving GNU a share of the credit is somehow confusing, when actually GNU/Linux a far more technically accurate and fair-minded name for systems that are the union of the GNU OS with the Linux kernel. How many major players you want to name is up to you, but it seems unfair to leave GNU off in these instances. This is a position Torvalds grew into as more people were willing to give him sole credit for an entire OS (most of which he did not write). Torvalds was initially willing to recognize a system called GNU. The GNU project wants us to recall GNU when we're talking about a GNU system so it helps bring software freedom to mind.
There is no mention of software freedom in the definition of "open source" as published by the OSI. In fact, as I point out in the article I linked to, for most of the OSI website's existence it used namecalling to refer to freedom activism ("ideological tub-thumping"). I look forward to OSI explicitly advocating for freedom for its own sake but I don't see that going on.
But if you must conflate GPL use with supporting software freedom, the link you point to is unconvincing. That link is a remarkably poorly written essay entitled "Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project". So not only does it make reference to the wrong movement to talk about software freedom, it encourages readers away from using the GNU GPL. The essay says nothing of social solidarity, software freedom; nothing about the ethical underpinnings of the free software movement. Instead, the essay directs readers toward a license which purposefully does nothing to preserve software freedom for derivative works, (and now under GPLv3) protect users from patent lawsuits, or automatically restoring license rights upon correcting violations (violators must beg the copyright holder to get their rights back under the modified BSD license whereas under GPLv3 they can automatically get their rights back in certain circumstances). On top of that, the description of the GPL is wrong: the GPL has never said that "any modifications that were made to a GPL program were required to be given back to the GPL community". One may make private modifications to GPL'd works and use them. The GPL requires distributing complete corresponding source code upon distribution/conveyance not modification. Apparently the author isn't aware that licenses which deny private modifications and private use of those modifications are not free software licenses. That essay also erroneously claims that "any program that used or linked to GPL code was required to be under the GPL": mere use is not controllable via copyright license without a license manager (which, thanks to the freedoms the GPL protects for its users, can be edited out of any GPL'd programs that have them) and the GPL doesn't attempt to govern mere use of a GPL'd program. Programs which call GPL'd programs via the fork and exec system (or equivalents elsewhere) are not derivative works; so proprietary programs can call GPL'd programs without becoming GPL'd programs themselves. The essay you link to also mixes up the terms "commercial"
I won't object to communities getting source code to voting machines under free software licenses, but when voting machines are used only to prepare voter-verified paper ballots never to count ballots (as they should be), security concerns for these machines drop dramatically. I shouldn't have to use such a machine in the first place, but if I choose to use a machine to prepare my voter-verified paper ballot source code concerns drop to making sure that bugs in the program won't stop me from using the program under unforseen conditions. Communities deserve software freedom, and that is sufficient justification for communities to run their own voting systems completely.
Proprietors are quite ideologically pure. It's their way or the highway.
The software isn't just a "tool", thinking that way is a trick proprietors use to get you to forget about freedom concerns or dissuade you from learning about software freedom in the first place. For proprietors the goal is to get you to depend on them forever so they control how you use your computer. This is both profitable and valuable for control (both ends unto themselves).
As we see more and more with DRM, proprietors want more and more control over every aspect of one's computer use even if it won't make them money. The trick for them is to find out ways to exert that control over users without users noticing the bad sides (cooking the frog slowly), particularly in comparison to the freedom-respecting older technologies (like books).
Proprietors don't want their would-be customers comparing the old with the new: people might learn that eBooks aren't as freedom-respecting as regular books. Anyone who "just wants to watch the movie" or read the book is disappointed to learn that they're on the wrong side of the tracks (which the proprietor knows via GPS unit data) and the proprietor has disabled their movie from being watched in that area. Or at that time (via a clock in the watching device). Or for users who don't type in the right code, or pay the rent on time. Or based on any other restriction the proprietor deems worthy.
So this is properly a fight for one's freedoms, and the "hotbed" you describe has existed all along. It's just a matter of making people aware of these political concerns and getting them to understand the consequences of proprietary control/user subjugation.
People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part. As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom. So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely. Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7 when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point:
Also, when it comes to being practical, it's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL. People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also. So I am not con
Quite true, in fact all the talk about using an OS which currently doesn't have the (proprietary? This raises security issues all its own) client software is tacitly accepting the Client Security Agent policy, not challenging the policy.
Students who switch to non-Windows OSes in order to avoid running the Client Security Agent are acknowledging that the policy is right and proper for those who run Windows. There are plenty of good reasons to reject Microsoft Windows, software freedom chief among them. But when it comes to running a proprietary program in order to gain security, I don't buy it. Instead of challenging the policy (which would require students to think about underlying principles they deem important), the students hope they will be given a pass and be able to use the network. Thus when the university distributes clients for their OSes, students will have little legitimate argument to reject running the CSA software. At least resolving something by lawsuit requires one to know the law, understand one's rights, and think up a convincing argument to present to the court.
Better policies would ditch the CSA program, make each student responsible for the use of their login credentials, and document consequences for violations of policy. But I can't say I know what freedoms these students value and are willing to fight for.
I don't recall Major League Baseball refunding accounts for their subscribers when MLB left their subscribers out in the cold. Maybe they restarted their on-demand recorded baseball viewing service with another DRM provider, but I'm referring to the people who did not continue doing business with MLB. Did they get a prorated refund for the service they were not able to use? I'm guessing that DRM-riddled services nowadays include language in the contract that says when the service dies the customer agrees to forfeit the remainder of their subscription fee, so it will be up to consumers to organize and make state/federal law that forces providers to give prorated refunds.
I saw this kind of thing coming when I thought about the implications of copy prevention ("copy protection" is pro-publisher propaganda) back in the 1980s, as I'm sure many posters here did. Without the freedoms of free software (one can only really implement digital restrictions management in user-subjugating/proprietary software) the implications of DRM are even more important (librarians take note!). Today I still think about the implications of DRM (1,2). As a result I only do business with media distributors that don't screw me or the people they work with (Magnatune, for example, has far better policies than any of the other more well-advertised media distributors). I mention this because /. posters all too often believe that one "votes" with their money and should spend accordingly. I don't agree that money should constitute votes, but I do think our spending reflects our values. Yet I don't see many posters on this discussion forum actually talking about spending their money wisely.
Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them. I don't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity. My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests: convenience, ease-of-use, and reliability. These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors—the people and organizations that don't respect software freedom.
When it comes to teaching freedom, I don't have the trouble some say they have. I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues. I didn't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference. More recently, I find that the essay "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source. One of the essay's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software. Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor, free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user's software freedoms:
I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it. The FSFE essay doesn't make that clear, despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end.
It's important not to conflate easy compliance with infringement forgiveness. When we're talking about infringement we're talking about the set of people/organizations who have already decided to not go the easy route and meet the license's (possibly very easy) terms and what those people/organizations must do to regain their rights under the license. Easy compliance doesn't do anything to help infringers regain what they have forfeited—their rights under that license.
So it sounds like you agree with me then that the new BSD license has no infringement forgiveness language in it; but you believe the new BSD license has no need for such language whereas I haven't given my opinion on the need for that language.
Given what Brett Smith said about Cisco's trail of infringements spanning 5 years, I'd say you don't have your facts straight and Cisco probably was willfully infringing. I find it hard to reconcile the following description with some kind of series of accidents:
In some programs extensions can modify the behavior of other extensions; programs often don't provide impenetrable barriers between extensions. In my experience writing and using extensions for various programs, it's best never to develop strong dependencies on extensions because they often aren't upgraded to work with the latest version of the base application (when the extensions no longer work with the latest base software, the features those extensions provided will vanish. This is particularly true if you're not a programmer who is willing to hack source code to keep your favorite extensions up to date.
As a user who is less interested in hacking code then I used to be, I still appreciate the freedoms of free software (and strongly encourage those freedoms for their own sake). But I find it more productive to scale back my needs to meet with whatever the base program can do for me and learn variations on a theme as I go from program to program. For example, most word processors do mail merge but no two word processors do mail merge in exactly the same way. So I learn the concept, a few variations in mail merge interfaces, and I'm prepared to implement mail merge functionality with various programming languages by writing my own program if necessary. Some preparation by learning multiple approaches gives me a backup means of doing this tedious task if the one mail merge interface I prefer most doesn't work out.
A citizen's desire to ensure their freedom is entirely appropriate. With software the only way to do that is to exclusively use free software and open standards. Proprietors aren't stupid; sometimes they write powerful software. But no matter what that software does it is always non-free. Powerful proprietary software has a master, an individual or organization that controls its destiny and thus what the user can do and how the user can do that job. People accustomed to the idea that programs should be decided on certain vaguely-stated values ("their own merit") and not a user's freedom—the freedoms of free software—need to reevaluate their views in light of what public service means. Governments should not be under the thumb of proprietors, no matter how powerful their software. We are better off improving free software to make up for any technical limitations it has so that it can do what citizens need it to do; thus less powerful free software is preferable to more powerful proprietary software.
I wouldn't be so quick to hand out these kudos; the non-compliance can return. This, I suspect, is why Cisco needs a Free Software Director who regularly reports back to the FSF. As the FSF's Compliance Engineer Brett Smith pointed out in 2008, "Despite our best efforts, Cisco seems unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to come into compliance and stay in compliance." (emphasis mine). Smith wrote that 5 years after the FSF learned that Cisco was not complying with the GPL and the FSF had been getting nowhere with its attempt to silently get Cisco to comply—what Smith called "a five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole". Cisco and the FSF recently arrived at their agreement. It will take years to convince the public that Cisco is compliant and will remain compliant with those that treat Cisco so nicely as to share their work in whole with Cisco. "The end" you refer to is nowhere near here. Good will to correct wrongdoing on this scale takes time to sow.
So perhaps Cisco settled because their lawyers were made aware of the FSF's warnings of litigation, chose to stonewall the FSF, received a copy of the FSF's complaint, saw that the FSF was serious and examined the GPL licenses, examined what their programmers had been doing, figured that they could not win in court, and concluded it wasn't worth fighting? Eben Moglen, longtime GPL defender, says this is how it often goes down (""Why would you want to pay serious money," we have asked, "for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?" Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question." he said in 'Enforcing the GNU GPL' and similar discussion at his talks). Getting compliance out of multiple large organizations who could easily pay for lengthy million dollar lawsuits sounds to me like an affirmation of the validity of the GPL.
I'm not sure how that is relevant. Cisco multiply infringed on FSF's copyrights for software intended to grant everyone software freedom. This turned a would-be partner into an adversary in court. No matter how big the Cisco corporation is or what they were trying to do, they should not be allowed to deny their users software freedom. So I don't understand how we can know what Cisco was trying to do nor do I see how it matters.