And throw away my software freedom to watch movies that require non-free software to play? No thanks. I'd consider free software reverse-engineered compatible codecs, though.
The "tortured prose" of this Register article is apparent in their lack of details on how the Bill Gates and Jane Fonda Wikipedia entries are "unreadable crap" (in Jimmy Wales' words). We're merely told this repeatedly, but the Register never backs their argument (or Wales'). Also, one sees another instance of the double-standards which are tolerated for judging Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Wikipedians point to flaws in the existing dead tree encyclopedias, as if the handful of errors in Britannica cancels out the many errors, hopeless apologies for entries, and tortured prose, of Wikipedia itself."
If "[s]omething that aspires to be a reference work ought to be judged by the quality of the worst entry" then why are we only allowed to judge one encyclopedia—Wikipedia—on that basis? With such a ridiculously high bar, it's easy to hand-pick articles one knows a great deal about and see if the encyclopedia in question measures up.
When I look up "gnu", "free software", or "free software movement" on Encyclopedia Brittanica's website I expect to find at least some stub article telling me that if I pay them I can read their complete entries on these topics. Instead, I learn that they have no such entries. Their substitutes are simply inadequate to explain the past 20 years of history, what philosophical differences exist, and who are the main players involved. The closest I can come to learning about the GNU operating system is to look up "linux" where EB talks about "Linux" as an operating system. But Linux isn't and never was an operating system. Linux is properly credited as a part of an operating system called a kernel. Such a view of history has no role for GNU, which predates the Linux kernel by years.
EB has an article on "open source" but its description uses the term "public domain" in a way that is, at best, ill-advised. I saw no mention of the differences between the free software and open source movements—the kind of information that would help one understand why one movement is mentioned by name in the most important free software licenses, what these licenses say, and how these licenses came to be.
EB apparently has nothing to offer about "GNU" in the context of an operating system or operating system project.
Which brings me to the next problematic criticism of these encyclopedias: drawing conclusions by weighing too small a sample. I recall that EB's former editor used exactly one entry to conclude that Wikipedia is akin to filth one is likely to find in a public bathroom (or words to that effect). The Register article's critique centers on reviews of two Wikipedia articles—Bill Gates and Jane Fonda's entries. The only way to reach the conclusion that EB has a "handful of errors" (as the Register says) is to do a survey; you can't judge articles you've never read. It seems to me that a proper review of a large encyclopedia would require a far larger sample size than a "handful" of articles in order to justify any reasonable conclusions about quality, no matter what those conclusions were.
Finally, the Register article mentions a few "respon[ses] to criticism" but doesn't actually critique these responses with a proper explanation. Just because one is told something like "this is what my critics will tell you" doesn't mean you have reason to dismiss the criticism. If one is interested in learning what's really going on, one has an obligation to think about the critique and weigh it on its merits. I "welcome the candour" as well the Register does, but I certainly want my candour to come with examples to back up points. When I evaluate EB using the guidelines I'm told to evaluate Wikipedia by, I come up with the conclusion that EB is merely different from, not better than, Wikipedia. And this conclusion I arrive at without giving any credit to Wikipedia for being free (as in the freedom to share and modify) which EB most certainly isn't. So, if I happen to be a victim of EB's "HUAC", I can't do anything to improve EB without going through the gatekeepers that registered their unwillingness to examine the above topics at all.
If you're talking about the GNU operating system combined with the Linux kernel, then yes, you're quite right (and thanks for giving GNU a share of the credit). If you're talking about the Linux kernel alone, it's fine to say "Linux". If you're talking about the GNU operating system with some other kernel (there are at least two others to choose from now), it makes sense to mention that other kernel (or kernel replacement) instead of the Linux kernel. "GNU" alone means the GNU operating system with its official kernel replacement—the HURD.
What you call it depends on what meaning you intending to convey; different words mean different things. But it is hypocritical to to be so sensitive to the differences in naming on one technical issue and dismissive of another (as so many/. posters, other than you, apparently are).
I'm surprised there aren't more people outraged at the thought of someone telling someone else what to call it. After all the lame arguments favoring calling "Linux" an operating system when it always was just a part of an operating system called a kernel. Or the arguments claiming that "open source" and "free software" are the same thing despite their different starting dates, different philosophies, and different progenitors. Why let a little thing like technical correctness and respect for what someone calls their work get in the way of what you call something?
If people weren't so eager to leverage the power some parties have (the two major business parties--the Democrats and Republicans, for instance) to keep other parties and independant candidates off the ballot or out of widely-viewed "debates", then I'd say they should have no problem hearing what the Nazi party has to say.
We should not be interested in stifling the speech of people who hold views we don't like. Let them air their views and be torn down by well-constructed logical arguments to the contrary.
The utilities you refer to which I've heard about are proprietary. Thus, using them merely illustrates a lack of comprehension of the initial problem. Proprietary software isn't trustworthy by default. Proprietary software hides a multitude of problems.
Demand nothing less than software freedom.
on
PCs Posted No Trespass
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What you think are reasonable minimum standards are so easily worked around in licensing. By the time you discover what these proprietary programs have been doing, you have no means to fix the program so it doesn't do the bad thing again. What you're asking for is effectively going to allow others to control your computer and make it do what they want, not what you want. I don't want computer software I am forbidden from inspecting, sharing, or modifying. I want the limitations of control of my computer to be in my hands and I don't want to even inadvertantly pass on problems to my friends with whom I share software. Therefore, I ask for free software by name.
Just to answer a few of the rebuttals I know are coming: It's not a question of whether I have time to inspect every program on my computer. I don't have the time or inclination to do that. It's unrealistic to think that every user is an island and it's unhealthy to divide users and hold them helpless by expecting all users to provide 100% of their own support. But collectively multiple users have time to do this work. I'm comfortable in a community where I can trust the work of others by preserving my software freedom (running, sharing, modifying programs any time I want with anyone for any reason). Hence, I run only free software on my computer and I encourage others to do the same.
Some had the same prejudice against free software 20 years ago, insisting it would never be as good as the proprietary software they could purchase. This extended to telling those who worked on writing GNU that their operating system just could not work. Now, the best choices for mail and web server programs are free software and sysadmins who have the power to select what they want to run mostly pick the free software options to do these jobs.
If you have some evidence to back up your assertion that not many programmers can write this software, please present it. But history suggests that your bias is unfounded.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with free software versus non-free software. There's nothing preventing someone from developing this stable extra hardware, documenting it, and allowing any programmer to write software to talk to it.
Also, you're confused about the term "commercial". Free software (a matter of liberty not price) is commercial software too the moment anyone uses it in commercial activity (distributing a copy of it for a fee, modifying it for a fee, building services on top of it for a fee, etc.). Commercial and non-free software do not mean the same thing. If one is disallowed from distributing copies of the program for a fee, that program is not free software for that person.
And yet both of you (assuming that there really are two different people responding in this way) provided no detailed explanation as to exactly what one is gaining and what one is giving up. Neither of you seem to appreciate software freedom, so neither of you frame the issue along the line of an exchange—in exchange for software freedom, what are you gaining by choosing some non-free software to do this job?
Such an approach would have been far more informative for the reader because it would have let each reader decide whether their freedom to share and modify the program is really worth giving up.
I think he is very wealthy, but wealth doesn't inherently make him worth seeing. It would be naive to think that he will impart what actually gave him such tremendous wealth. I don't think he is "evil incarnate" or "the most important figure in the software industry". The ticket-holders who didn't attend the lecture probably figured out how many other better things they could do with their time. Also, this false trichotomy has nothing to do with one's philosophy. The first matter is a matter of fact—either he is the world's richest person or he isn't. The other two are matters of opinion, but I don't think there's any reasonable argument (nor is it productive to characterise) in terms of "evil", and importance to an "industry" is both vague and overvalued. Business should not be the measure of all things.
Finally, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign did what they could to promote Gates' shallow talk—they distributed all available tickets very quickly. They can't force people to show up.
The tickets for his visit to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign sold out quickly too. But his talk was remarkably dull, the questioners were inarticulate (even the one person who tried to raise a FLOSS argument against Gates), and the hall was nowhere near filled. After asking around, I learned that Gates basically told the University he wanted to address the students; he essentially invited himself over. UIUC, being a large source of Microsoft employees, was perfectly willing to continue their relationship with Microsoft and promote his talk heavily. The local media didn't ask any questions (such as how he became so wealthy), nor did they refrain from expressing their unexamined adulation of money.
What would have been far more interesting (particularly considering these are ostensibly educational facilities) would have been to have a response talk from someone at the FSF that was promoted with equal vigor and University backing, and broadcast on University television just as Gates' talk was. When Brad Kuhn came to visit not that long after Gates' visit, Kuhn's talk was also sparsely attended nor was it carried on University television. But thanks to a UIUC group (Free Software Society) you can download it and hear what he had to say (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#FS S04). Kuhn's talk was far more substantive than Gates' graphics demo.
Perhaps Gates will take the opportunity to again call free software "unamerican" or a "cancer" as Microsoft reps have done on previous visits to campuses and in other tours. Then the follow-the-leader coverage of his visit will have something interesting to quote and an excuse to ask why free software matters. But I'm not holding my breath for the local media or the Universities that let him give his job pitch to supply a more thorough examination of how we got where we are.
I don't know of any free software operating system that includes only software licensed under the GNU GPL. Which free software operating system does this? Not even the GNU Project advocates for distributing only GPL-covered software. Part of GNU is made up of software licensed under the MIT X11, new BSD, and other free software licenses.
And there are a lot of small bands and individual performers who sign with RIAA's clients and don't get adequate representation either. If I were one of these performers who was probably going to have to live with inadequate representation, I'd much rather hold on to the copyrights to my recorded performances than sign them away.
"Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?"
What's more instructive is to ask how we got to the point where users are complaining to their state representatives about their problems with cell phones. Apparently, "the economics of the industry" aren't addressing these complaints. Organized complaining is far more effective than customers negotiating with cell phone businesses on their own.
I see binaries for various platforms: GNU/Linux, MacOS X, and Microsoft Windows but I don't see source code on the download site. Where is the source code for this version of Firefox?
A similar situation recently occurred with the release of the latest Harry Potter book. Not surprisingly, the lawyers interviewed took a similar view to what you're expressing (including one statement saying the public has "no right to read") and RMS did not. Again, I find RMS' logic simply more compelling because it doesn't substitute market value or contract law as the measure of all things; his measure is human freedom to live life in a cooperative society instead of a dog-eat-dog jungle. Should we apply the view you express consistently we would inevitably apply it to something more socially important than either a Star Wars movie or a Harry Potter book:
"The right to read information in text that a company published "by mistake" can be very important. Suppose it's not a work of fiction, but about the health effects of some of their products, or how to make a program that will interoperate with theirs. Suppose it gives information about corruption or government lies. The right to read is a right worth defending, and no exceptions can be tolerated."
I'm not familiar with the Half-Life 2 example you refer to, so I have no comment on that. However, I refer you to http://stallman.org/harry-potter.html to read RMS' essays on this (don't forget the linked essays for more explication).
It wasn't wrong, that's an ethical judgement and RMS makes an interesting (though underdiscussed) case for why people should be able to share verbatim copies of all published work.
It was illegal. What is legal and what is unethical are different matters that we cannot afford to conflate.
[...] but it's not as if software under an OSD-compliant license isn't Free.
Software under any 1.x version of the Apple Public Source License qualifies as open source but not free software. For more on this, consider the GNU Project's APSL essays (including the older one still published for historical reference). I also discuss this (pointing to the older APSL document) in another post I made in this thread.
Given the political power they and their friends are amassing, I not only don't agree with you, but I think that the public had better get better organized around what copyright law ought to say and how it should work so that we can better insure our needs.
Your post would have been better if you knew the difference between theft and copyright infringement—the RIAA threatens and pursues copyright infringement lawsuits. Judges and RIAA lawyers know the difference, but the RIAA public affairs uses the wrong language.
The parent poster gets it exactly right, and the grandparent poster managed to give important and interesting evidence then reach the wrong conclusion.
To build on the parent's article, one specific example of a practical benefit free software gives us that open source software does not is the freedom to make private derivatives. Private derivatives are changed versions of programs one never distributes. The open source definition has nothing to allow users to make these, but the definition of free software requires that users have this right ("You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.").
This came up in the discussion around the early version of the Apple Public Source License. It was one reason that those versions of the APSL were not free software licenses, even though they qualified as open source licenses. The earlier revisions of the APSL required notifying a central authority—Apple—of any "deployed" APSL program.
As a result, the GNU Project commented on what Apple had picked up from the then year-old "open source" movement:
Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being released under the APSL. Even if the fatal flaws and practical problems of the APSL were fixed, even if it were changed into a very good free software license, that would do no good for the other parts of MacOS whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.
Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.
I found the commentary to be apropos then and still find it to be informative and helpful today.
[W]hile the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.
Actually, Congressman Villanueva is very clear that software freedom is what he was after, what the bill seeks, and why he asks for free software by name ("software libre"). Read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft's rep who tried to reframe the debate in the same way.
The reason why Microsoft tried to reframe the debate away from software freedom and why Villanueva was so insistent that Microsoft not do so is clear—the open source movement dismisses software freedom. The open source movement does not stand for the same philosophy as the free software movement. Software freedom is what proprietors fear. They have no argument against it. As we see with Microsoft's reps talking to Massachusetts, they are constantly trying to frame the debate around the cost of software. As if what you pay for software is the single most important issue to consider. Congressman Villanueva and the rest of the free software movement know that this is not so ("It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions."), therefore they don't stand for such misrepresentation. Properly, Villanueva also insists on calling proprietary software "proprietary" and not "commercial" as so many (even on/.) will do.
The theme here is on what rights users have with the program, not how quickly it can be developed, how much money one can save, or how few bugs there are in the software. The free software movement has nothing against the development methodology that the open source movement stands for, but the free software movement says that the open source movement's philosophy isn't enough.
First, just to clarify: StarOffice is proprietary. It would not qualify as "open source" unless the OSI changed their definition of that term to let it in.
Second, I'd like to learn of the specific complaints they have.
As this pertains to switching to an open source program—OpenOffice.org: perhaps as OpenOffice.org is used in more schools it will become more commonplace to know how to work with OO.o, then your office can eventually hire people who are accustomed to OO.o to replace the workers who insist on the proprietary alternative programs from Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
And throw away my software freedom to watch movies that require non-free software to play? No thanks. I'd consider free software reverse-engineered compatible codecs, though.
The "tortured prose" of this Register article is apparent in their lack of details on how the Bill Gates and Jane Fonda Wikipedia entries are "unreadable crap" (in Jimmy Wales' words). We're merely told this repeatedly, but the Register never backs their argument (or Wales'). Also, one sees another instance of the double-standards which are tolerated for judging Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica.
If "[s]omething that aspires to be a reference work ought to be judged by the quality of the worst entry" then why are we only allowed to judge one encyclopedia—Wikipedia—on that basis? With such a ridiculously high bar, it's easy to hand-pick articles one knows a great deal about and see if the encyclopedia in question measures up.
Which brings me to the next problematic criticism of these encyclopedias: drawing conclusions by weighing too small a sample. I recall that EB's former editor used exactly one entry to conclude that Wikipedia is akin to filth one is likely to find in a public bathroom (or words to that effect). The Register article's critique centers on reviews of two Wikipedia articles—Bill Gates and Jane Fonda's entries. The only way to reach the conclusion that EB has a "handful of errors" (as the Register says) is to do a survey; you can't judge articles you've never read. It seems to me that a proper review of a large encyclopedia would require a far larger sample size than a "handful" of articles in order to justify any reasonable conclusions about quality, no matter what those conclusions were.
Finally, the Register article mentions a few "respon[ses] to criticism" but doesn't actually critique these responses with a proper explanation. Just because one is told something like "this is what my critics will tell you" doesn't mean you have reason to dismiss the criticism. If one is interested in learning what's really going on, one has an obligation to think about the critique and weigh it on its merits. I "welcome the candour" as well the Register does, but I certainly want my candour to come with examples to back up points. When I evaluate EB using the guidelines I'm told to evaluate Wikipedia by, I come up with the conclusion that EB is merely different from, not better than, Wikipedia. And this conclusion I arrive at without giving any credit to Wikipedia for being free (as in the freedom to share and modify) which EB most certainly isn't. So, if I happen to be a victim of EB's "HUAC", I can't do anything to improve EB without going through the gatekeepers that registered their unwillingness to examine the above topics at all.
If you're talking about the GNU operating system combined with the Linux kernel, then yes, you're quite right (and thanks for giving GNU a share of the credit). If you're talking about the Linux kernel alone, it's fine to say "Linux". If you're talking about the GNU operating system with some other kernel (there are at least two others to choose from now), it makes sense to mention that other kernel (or kernel replacement) instead of the Linux kernel. "GNU" alone means the GNU operating system with its official kernel replacement—the HURD.
/. posters, other than you, apparently are).
What you call it depends on what meaning you intending to convey; different words mean different things. But it is hypocritical to to be so sensitive to the differences in naming on one technical issue and dismissive of another (as so many
I'm surprised there aren't more people outraged at the thought of someone telling someone else what to call it. After all the lame arguments favoring calling "Linux" an operating system when it always was just a part of an operating system called a kernel. Or the arguments claiming that "open source" and "free software" are the same thing despite their different starting dates, different philosophies, and different progenitors. Why let a little thing like technical correctness and respect for what someone calls their work get in the way of what you call something?
This is a rhetorical question.
If people weren't so eager to leverage the power some parties have (the two major business parties--the Democrats and Republicans, for instance) to keep other parties and independant candidates off the ballot or out of widely-viewed "debates", then I'd say they should have no problem hearing what the Nazi party has to say.
We should not be interested in stifling the speech of people who hold views we don't like. Let them air their views and be torn down by well-constructed logical arguments to the contrary.
The utilities you refer to which I've heard about are proprietary. Thus, using them merely illustrates a lack of comprehension of the initial problem. Proprietary software isn't trustworthy by default. Proprietary software hides a multitude of problems.
What you think are reasonable minimum standards are so easily worked around in licensing. By the time you discover what these proprietary programs have been doing, you have no means to fix the program so it doesn't do the bad thing again. What you're asking for is effectively going to allow others to control your computer and make it do what they want, not what you want. I don't want computer software I am forbidden from inspecting, sharing, or modifying. I want the limitations of control of my computer to be in my hands and I don't want to even inadvertantly pass on problems to my friends with whom I share software. Therefore, I ask for free software by name.
Just to answer a few of the rebuttals I know are coming: It's not a question of whether I have time to inspect every program on my computer. I don't have the time or inclination to do that. It's unrealistic to think that every user is an island and it's unhealthy to divide users and hold them helpless by expecting all users to provide 100% of their own support. But collectively multiple users have time to do this work. I'm comfortable in a community where I can trust the work of others by preserving my software freedom (running, sharing, modifying programs any time I want with anyone for any reason). Hence, I run only free software on my computer and I encourage others to do the same.
Some had the same prejudice against free software 20 years ago, insisting it would never be as good as the proprietary software they could purchase. This extended to telling those who worked on writing GNU that their operating system just could not work. Now, the best choices for mail and web server programs are free software and sysadmins who have the power to select what they want to run mostly pick the free software options to do these jobs.
If you have some evidence to back up your assertion that not many programmers can write this software, please present it. But history suggests that your bias is unfounded.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with free software versus non-free software. There's nothing preventing someone from developing this stable extra hardware, documenting it, and allowing any programmer to write software to talk to it.
Also, you're confused about the term "commercial". Free software (a matter of liberty not price) is commercial software too the moment anyone uses it in commercial activity (distributing a copy of it for a fee, modifying it for a fee, building services on top of it for a fee, etc.). Commercial and non-free software do not mean the same thing. If one is disallowed from distributing copies of the program for a fee, that program is not free software for that person.
And yet both of you (assuming that there really are two different people responding in this way) provided no detailed explanation as to exactly what one is gaining and what one is giving up. Neither of you seem to appreciate software freedom, so neither of you frame the issue along the line of an exchange—in exchange for software freedom, what are you gaining by choosing some non-free software to do this job?
Such an approach would have been far more informative for the reader because it would have let each reader decide whether their freedom to share and modify the program is really worth giving up.
I think he is very wealthy, but wealth doesn't inherently make him worth seeing. It would be naive to think that he will impart what actually gave him such tremendous wealth. I don't think he is "evil incarnate" or "the most important figure in the software industry". The ticket-holders who didn't attend the lecture probably figured out how many other better things they could do with their time. Also, this false trichotomy has nothing to do with one's philosophy. The first matter is a matter of fact—either he is the world's richest person or he isn't. The other two are matters of opinion, but I don't think there's any reasonable argument (nor is it productive to characterise) in terms of "evil", and importance to an "industry" is both vague and overvalued. Business should not be the measure of all things.
Finally, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign did what they could to promote Gates' shallow talk—they distributed all available tickets very quickly. They can't force people to show up.
The tickets for his visit to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign sold out quickly too. But his talk was remarkably dull, the questioners were inarticulate (even the one person who tried to raise a FLOSS argument against Gates), and the hall was nowhere near filled. After asking around, I learned that Gates basically told the University he wanted to address the students; he essentially invited himself over. UIUC, being a large source of Microsoft employees, was perfectly willing to continue their relationship with Microsoft and promote his talk heavily. The local media didn't ask any questions (such as how he became so wealthy), nor did they refrain from expressing their unexamined adulation of money.
What would have been far more interesting (particularly considering these are ostensibly educational facilities) would have been to have a response talk from someone at the FSF that was promoted with equal vigor and University backing, and broadcast on University television just as Gates' talk was. When Brad Kuhn came to visit not that long after Gates' visit, Kuhn's talk was also sparsely attended nor was it carried on University television. But thanks to a UIUC group (Free Software Society) you can download it and hear what he had to say (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#FS S04). Kuhn's talk was far more substantive than Gates' graphics demo.
Perhaps Gates will take the opportunity to again call free software "unamerican" or a "cancer" as Microsoft reps have done on previous visits to campuses and in other tours. Then the follow-the-leader coverage of his visit will have something interesting to quote and an excuse to ask why free software matters. But I'm not holding my breath for the local media or the Universities that let him give his job pitch to supply a more thorough examination of how we got where we are.
I don't know of any free software operating system that includes only software licensed under the GNU GPL. Which free software operating system does this? Not even the GNU Project advocates for distributing only GPL-covered software. Part of GNU is made up of software licensed under the MIT X11, new BSD, and other free software licenses.
And there are a lot of small bands and individual performers who sign with RIAA's clients and don't get adequate representation either. If I were one of these performers who was probably going to have to live with inadequate representation, I'd much rather hold on to the copyrights to my recorded performances than sign them away.
"Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?"
What's more instructive is to ask how we got to the point where users are complaining to their state representatives about their problems with cell phones. Apparently, "the economics of the industry" aren't addressing these complaints. Organized complaining is far more effective than customers negotiating with cell phone businesses on their own.
It's in CVS, but there's a warning that one should get the source package instead—the source package that is not available. Apparently, others noticed this as well.
I see binaries for various platforms: GNU/Linux, MacOS X, and Microsoft Windows but I don't see source code on the download site. Where is the source code for this version of Firefox?
Thanks.
A similar situation recently occurred with the release of the latest Harry Potter book. Not surprisingly, the lawyers interviewed took a similar view to what you're expressing (including one statement saying the public has "no right to read") and RMS did not. Again, I find RMS' logic simply more compelling because it doesn't substitute market value or contract law as the measure of all things; his measure is human freedom to live life in a cooperative society instead of a dog-eat-dog jungle. Should we apply the view you express consistently we would inevitably apply it to something more socially important than either a Star Wars movie or a Harry Potter book:
I'm not familiar with the Half-Life 2 example you refer to, so I have no comment on that. However, I refer you to http://stallman.org/harry-potter.html to read RMS' essays on this (don't forget the linked essays for more explication).
It wasn't wrong, that's an ethical judgement and RMS makes an interesting (though underdiscussed) case for why people should be able to share verbatim copies of all published work.
It was illegal. What is legal and what is unethical are different matters that we cannot afford to conflate.
Software under any 1.x version of the Apple Public Source License qualifies as open source but not free software. For more on this, consider the GNU Project's APSL essays (including the older one still published for historical reference). I also discuss this (pointing to the older APSL document) in another post I made in this thread.
Given the political power they and their friends are amassing, I not only don't agree with you, but I think that the public had better get better organized around what copyright law ought to say and how it should work so that we can better insure our needs.
Your post would have been better if you knew the difference between theft and copyright infringement—the RIAA threatens and pursues copyright infringement lawsuits. Judges and RIAA lawyers know the difference, but the RIAA public affairs uses the wrong language.
The parent poster gets it exactly right, and the grandparent poster managed to give important and interesting evidence then reach the wrong conclusion.
To build on the parent's article, one specific example of a practical benefit free software gives us that open source software does not is the freedom to make private derivatives. Private derivatives are changed versions of programs one never distributes. The open source definition has nothing to allow users to make these, but the definition of free software requires that users have this right ("You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.").
This came up in the discussion around the early version of the Apple Public Source License. It was one reason that those versions of the APSL were not free software licenses, even though they qualified as open source licenses. The earlier revisions of the APSL required notifying a central authority—Apple—of any "deployed" APSL program.
As a result, the GNU Project commented on what Apple had picked up from the then year-old "open source" movement:
I found the commentary to be apropos then and still find it to be informative and helpful today.
Actually, Congressman Villanueva is very clear that software freedom is what he was after, what the bill seeks, and why he asks for free software by name ("software libre"). Read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft's rep who tried to reframe the debate in the same way.
The reason why Microsoft tried to reframe the debate away from software freedom and why Villanueva was so insistent that Microsoft not do so is clear—the open source movement dismisses software freedom. The open source movement does not stand for the same philosophy as the free software movement. Software freedom is what proprietors fear. They have no argument against it. As we see with Microsoft's reps talking to Massachusetts, they are constantly trying to frame the debate around the cost of software. As if what you pay for software is the single most important issue to consider. Congressman Villanueva and the rest of the free software movement know that this is not so ("It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions."), therefore they don't stand for such misrepresentation. Properly, Villanueva also insists on calling proprietary software "proprietary" and not "commercial" as so many (even on /.) will do.
The theme here is on what rights users have with the program, not how quickly it can be developed, how much money one can save, or how few bugs there are in the software. The free software movement has nothing against the development methodology that the open source movement stands for, but the free software movement says that the open source movement's philosophy isn't enough.
First, just to clarify: StarOffice is proprietary. It would not qualify as "open source" unless the OSI changed their definition of that term to let it in.
Second, I'd like to learn of the specific complaints they have.
As this pertains to switching to an open source program—OpenOffice.org: perhaps as OpenOffice.org is used in more schools it will become more commonplace to know how to work with OO.o, then your office can eventually hire people who are accustomed to OO.o to replace the workers who insist on the proprietary alternative programs from Microsoft.