My vote's for Sen. Hollings. Uh, let me rephrase that... my vote is to make him the target!;-)
How do you eat an elephant?
on
Lessig @ OSCON
·
· Score: 3
One bite at a time.
Keep talking to your friends. Show them articles you come across about the evil effects of laws like the DMCA. Bring some copies of your coolest personal CDs to work to play, and mention that you won't be able to make those copies much longer. If your co-workers don't believe in the existence of Tux, give them a Knoppix CD-ROM to play with.
Sure, most people are asleep, I've found that too, but it's a funny thing; every one who gets interested in this stuff starts talking to other people about it too.
Oh, and let's not forget; give your support to the EFF and others, write to your elected representatives, or if they're utterly hopeless like my own Sen. Hollings write to their opponents; try to persuade them over to the Light Side, offer them your support (financial and otherwise) if they do support your issues.
Remember, if you can't support them financially, maybe they could use some volunteer Web support, or an envelope stuffer. Have you been to your local library lately? Librarians are usually a pretty strong free-speech demographic, and library patrons are the kind of people you're likely to reach best. Make up CD-Roms with fun free games, useful utilities and some interesting presentations on important issues; give them away to everyone you meet.
It's not going to be effortless, but you're not as helpless as you think. You undoubtedly have skills and resources you haven't even touched yet.
Re:Yes, but why does Microsoft need a stand...
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 2
After all, who is going to take a working Linux application and move it to a Windows box? That makes no sense at all.
Why doesn't it?
1)Write great programs on Linux.
2) Recompile them for Windows.
3) Purvey to the unenlightened, being sure to let them know that they'd work even better on Linux.
4) When the end users are using almost nothing but apps which are also available on Linux, migration might not seem such a scary thing.
That's assuming, of course, that you think a better market share for Linux is a positive thing. Oh, and just for completeness:
5) ???
6) Profit!!!
Well, someone else was going to do it anyway...;-)
NO, dad-blast it, I did not miss the point, because that is your point, not McCullagh's! And I agree with it, too, but it does not appear in the article. If you want to make a further point by all means do, and it's a good point you're making, but don't tell me I missed it. I've re-read the blamed article several times, just to be sure, I've parsed it most carefully, and I still see the same thing; he is saying do not bother getting involved in the political process at all, if you are a coder; just write cool and groundbreaking code, instead.
He is not suggesting a two-pronged attack of both coding and being politically active, nor is he suggesting that geeks make more of an effort to ensure that their political activism is effective. I would approve of both those stances. It's two leaps across a chasm to get from there to "geeks should just code, they shouldn't bother getting involved in the process." Maybe he exhibits a more intelligent and comprehensive approach elsewhere in his body of work, but I'm responding to this article. Here, his point is that political activism by coders is wasted effort. I strongly disagree.
To answer your point; YES, absolutely, you should always write clear, concise letters that precisely articulate your concerns, rather than rambling rants. That's obvious, or should be, and certainly there are inarticulate 18 year olds with shallow views among us, just as there are in most demographics. (Ours also includes a hell of a lot of well-educated, highly paid and articulate professionals in positions of business influence.)
Politicians pay attention to two things: first, they pay attention to the articulate and well expressed letters of people who are likely to be able to influence others. This includes people like ministers in churches, and it includes people like system administrators in successful companies. The second thing they pay attention to, Mr. McCullagh to the contrary, is large volumes of letters which express identical views, no matter how badly written, as long as they are written by voters. Do you suppose politicians dismiss the concerns of deeply religious Christians as a group because some proportion of them write badly reasoned and uninformed screeds in crayon? Hell no, and especially not if very large numbers of them do so in unison on a clearly defined issue.
Geeks need to be more, not less, politically involved and aware. Coding is a powerful hammer in affecting the world, but not every problem is a nail, and we need a bigger toolbox if we are to handle the social and political problems we're increasingly facing.
Sorry, brainfart. I think I elided his first and last names, or something.
BTW, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not calling McCullagh himself an idiot here. I don't know his larger body of work well enough to make that judgement. This is a boneheaded article, though.
Yes, I actually read the article, and if he were advocating a two-pronged attack I'd be fully with him. He isn't. He's saying not to bother being politically involved, just stick to writing code.
That, to me, is a stupid and short-sighted attitude. You can write all the easy file-sharing code you want to, and that's a good and worthwhile activity, but if a law gets passed making it illegal to transmit files then all you've done is make it easy to be a criminal.
Yes, geeks write code better than lawyers, so there's a very superficial level of plausibility there - but lawyers can stop geeks from legally writing code, and if geeks aren't involved in the process that's exactly what they'll do.
I want to be able to write and use cool programs. I'd rather not be forced to break a stupid law to do that when a little effort can help prevent the stupid law, and McLellan is being should not be discouraging us from making that effort.
Apparently he's decided not to fight any war at all. This was flat out just a remarkably naive and stupid article. Why settle for only keeping coders unaware and docile? Why don't we all, coders and non-coders alike, just ignore everything the politicians are doing and get on with our respective jobs?
BTW, Mr. Declan, that was a voice vote for the DMCA. It doesn't mean the bill had 100% support, only that the actual tally wasn't enumerated. Maybe you should pay closer attention.
If they have to spend the money to develop a clean room version, that is money that comes out of their profits, ergo, they do not pay taxes on money spent to develop their clone of Collaborate.
Where has MS spent extra money on developing a clone of Collaborate? That's right, it's gone into the pay packets of programmers instead of adding to the mountain of cash. Those programmers are going to pay income tax, and that money is going to be travelling into the economy.
How many Windows workalikes do you see?
That's kind of the point, isn't it? Why should I allow my government to use a proprietary system and thereby lock me into using it too?
while OpenOffice may be free, the costs of implementation, training and support for it are not. Particularly when they have to support both OpenOffice to do business with the government, and MS Office to do business with everyone else.
Whereas there are no costs involved in implementing, training for, or supporting using MS Office? As for having to maintain both, that's a ridiculous argument. If the government is using open formats supported by OpenOffice, MS is going to support those formats too. If they don't, then their product will quite rightly fail in the marketplace.
IIRC BSD is what OS X is based on. And it's a good bet that one of the reasons they chose a BSD licensed product over a GPL licensed product such as Linux is that they are able to withhold enhancements that give them a competitive advantage.
And this benefits me as a taxpayer how, exactly? By ensuring that Apple gets the extra money that I might otherwise have frittered away on another product?
Consider this scenario: Microsoft decides that, in order to remain competitive, they need to market a unix-based OS in addition to Windows. But they want to include the Windows API's in it, in order to make porting Windows apps to it easy. What OS do you think they would use as the basis for such a product? Linux, which would require them to put their proprietary API's in the public domain, or BSD, which would not?
And I should care why? If MicroSoft wants to develop a unix-like OS with Windows APIs, let them. I don't feel at all sorrowful that they'll have to pay programmers in order to keep the code base proprietary; why should they get a free ride on my tax dollars? If MicroSoft needs to do something to stay competitive they will; it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to make it easy for them.
I did vote, as I have every year of my majority in this great United States of ours, although amazingly enough the office I was most concerned with last election (the Presidency) not only did not go to the guy I voted for (a chance you always take), it went to a guy most people didn't vote for. Thank you for your condescending congratulations on my vote that made no objective difference.
Being a resident of South Carolina and a keen proponent of new technology I have a view on my elected government which you apparently don't have in your home town. Specifically, I have a nonentity, Rep. Brown, who doesn't appear to represent anyone's views particularly, not even his own, Senior Senator Thurmond, whose main claim to fame is that he holds the record for filibustering (against the Civil Rights Act, I'm so proud), and Junior Senator Hollings, who is so well known here on Slashdot.
I'm registered, I'm ready and waiting to vote again. So now I've met your criteria for complaining, and I still don't think either that my vote is strong enough without constant public complaint on my part, or that I'm obligated to stop trying to improve the issues that bother me until I've solved world hunger and internecine warfare.
I have all the information I need to take lives right here in my apartment. I found the formula for the ANFO explosive McVeigh used (or one very similar) in my aging Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
Now, should I be arrested? Should my Encyclopaedia, which I purchased at quite some personal cost while I was a seaman in the United States Navy, be taken from me lest I use the dangerous information it contains? Or does that only apply to electronically-conveyed information?
Re:Legislation goes a bit too far
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
we've all heard the rumors that microsoft has put in back door so the cia or nsa or whoever could get in, now imagine if you're a country who doesn't get along with the US(now or in the future)...
I'll go you one better - imagine you're a US President who doesn't get along with MicroSoft. Better yet, imagine you're a citizen in an America with a President that does.
I get the feeling that if microsoft wasn't a US company,they'd all feel differently. What if it was located in Iraq? Russia?
Now imagine that we live in a world where stocks in a Washington company are openly traded on international stock exchanges.
Quoting myself earlier (well, I'm not going to retype the exact same points again - mod me redundant, ok?)
It is indeed about choice, but it's also about freedom and accountability, and it's not an arbitrary complaint. If its operations are secret and proprietary, then I (and my government) are not free to alter it to our best usage; if the software is controlled by a private party, it is not accountable to me or my elected government.
This is software which will be used by my government. I want to be able to audit its inner workings myself, especially if it is being used to count my vote, or store my personal data including my SS account information.
If the tools of government are not controlled by or even available to the people, but are controlled by private and unelected parties, then the power of the people's government has been taken from the people and handed over to private parties. Therefore, no matter what other benefits a proprietary package may bring to the table, it is not the best for this purpose.
With all the problems that face society in general today, these jokers are going to march in support of open source software? I mean, really.
Are you suggesting that there are problems with our American way of life, Commie? What are you, some kind of terrorist?
At least you don't seem to be in favor of the public - I mean the unwashed hippies (damn, how do they do that thing with the H key?)- knowing anything they don't need to about how the government collects data.
Blocking proprietary software and mandating non-proprietary software are the same thing.
Suppose someone creates and application. What difference does it make to him whether it's Microsoft or the FSF that takes over an application he wrote? It's still not his any more.
P.S. learn how to write. Is english your first language?
The word is English. It begins with a capital E.
Furthermore, someone creates "an" application, not "and" application.
Learn to write in a language before you cast aspersions on another person's usage.
If my government is using software purchased with my tax money to make or implement decisions concerning my welfare, I should have the right to examine that software, in as much detail as I wish.
How else can I determine whether I can trust that software to do the job? This is the vital question for me, and for my son when he grows up.
Picture this: You're applying for a job as a Postal Inspector. You submit your resume, carefully handcrafted over the last five days using your local library's copy of Microsoft Word 95. After waiting a week or so, you ask your local Employment Bureau bureaucrat what the heck happened.She informs you with a sorrowful, sympathetic smile that all applications must be in WinWord 2006, since their software can't even open Word 95 documents.
You're kind of pissed, so you try to look up what idiot is representing you that allowed such a thing to happen, using the computer at the local library. Unfortunately, it won't allow you to access the Website of your local Representative or either of your Senators, because your library has been legally obliged to install NetNanny and their Web presences are marked with the words "tit", "prick", "winkle" and "vibraphone".
Suddenly filled with political fervour, you go to vote.
Warily, you study up on the issues beforehand, by reading not only the local rag, the Podunk Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) but also the large-circulation state paper, the State Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) and a respected national paper, the Papink USA (which, eerily, recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values). Now you're fully prepared when it comes time to decide on your country's future.
Proudly, you step into the brand-spankin'-new booth, which looks like an ATM, but that doesn't intimidate you because you're a digerati, you can configure Outlook and everything, so you select your candidates, rapid-fire, cha-ching cha-ching, until you've had your say. The ATM tells you in comforting green phosphor that your vote has been duly recorded.On the way out, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Representative.
Over the next few months you are promoted several times, despite the downturn in headcount. It would appear that your company, whose primary customer is the Government, is forced to use Outlook because that's what the Governmwent in using. Because you use Outlook yourself at home, you are far more knowledgeable about viruses (or virii as you like to call them) than any of your co-workers. As a result, you know much more about re-installing Windows XXXP.
All things considered, it's a darn shame that you have to pay 72% tax on your new earnings. Those DARN terrorists! Darn them all to heck, you mutter (sronger language wouldn't be advisable, Jeffy the mail boy listens to everything you say). All is not bad news, though! Thanks to Q____'s nifty and innovative new software, you've just slipped in under the wire on April 15th, and the IRS got your filing in on time due to that terrific new Web software. Ain't technology grand?
Pity that your tax bill was pretty much doubled by the cost of the software you had to buy in order to file, but that's just the cost of doing business, you tell yourself. After all, the government's got expenses too, they have to pay for the software that collects those taxes! As you exit, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Senator.
Fault this description if you can: There exist two organizations in the United States of America whose primary goals are self-perpetuation and the accumulation of political power. Together, they control well over 95% of nationally elected officials, and nearly as high a percentage of state and local office holders. They have written themselves into the tax code so that the money they receive as income is not taxed. No other competitor has been able to seriously challenge either of these groups in almost a century, let alone both combined. They are, hands down, the most powerful and dangerous organizations in the U.S. today. Their names, as you will have guessed, are the Democratic and Republican parties.
AC or not, agree with your general tenor or not, I definitely have to hand it to you for that paragraph. Well done!
Quite apart from the probable inference that MicroSoft's books are not at all likely to be clean, given their edge-skating tactics in general, arteficially inflating or deflating stock prices is not ethical accounting.
You're assuming MS would be forced to use the GPL code and contribute their improvements back to the community. Actually, the more likely outcome is that they would eschew the GPL code altogether, and simply develop their own product which re-implemented the features of Collaborate. They gain nothing by being forced to make their improvements public. Anyone else could take the code and simply repackage it. Thus, they lose any competitive advantage, and hence their investment, they put into development, and have no incentive to make any improvements to the software whatsoever. Whereas if they create their own closed source implementation of Collaborate, they maintain control over their own IP.
So MicroSoft's plan would be this:
1. Re-implement clean-room equivalent of software that's already freely available.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
The grandparent suggested a way in which MicroSoft could fill in step 2, provided a)the license is BSD, PD or some similar more-or-less 'unconditional' type, and b)MicroSoft still has an effective monopoly.
If the license is GPL or LGPL, then MicroSoft may be able to use the code by not integrating it into their main product, which would likely be klugey, or they could follow your plan. Since they're not market-stupid, any proprietary equivalent they come up with will have to have genuine innovation or they won't be able to sell it to private concerns. The taxpayer dollars are thus indeed maximised ; the government has an entirely usable product which is also freely available to the public under the GPL's terms. The public also has a proprietary version available which necessarily must be better or MicroSoft wouldn't have bothered making it, by your own argument.
The other situation in which the poster's scenario won't work is if MicroSoft can no longer effectively wield monopoly power. Good enough for me, I like a level playing field; if MicroSoft doesn't want government contracts wherein they don't get the license they want, I'm sure we can find someone else to do so. If MicroSoft or some other pure software company develops a terrific new proprietary application that the government simply has to have, then the government can get one of MicroSoft's competitors (remember, in this scenario they have some) to develop a workalike - which will then be available to the public, again maximizing taxpayer return.
One final point: You are entirely correct that a pure software house like MicroSoft is unlikely to invest research time and money into developing innovative products for licensing under the GPL; however, the flaw in your argument is that they would have no motive for developing BSD software either! They have every motive for using it, and if they remain a monopoly they have every motive to break its utility for others, but they have no more motive to produce innovative work for BSD licensing than they do for GPL licensing.
It's about choice, people, every bit as much as the Open Source camp purports to be. Locking patented technologies out of open standards means that you cannot choose the best technology for a given task because of someone's arbitrary complant about the 'freeness' of a part of it. To me, that's as chilling as saying we must all be locked into proprietary software, and it worries me when I hear the people supposedly on this side of the argument trying to determine my rights for me.
It is indeed about choice, but it's also about freedom and accountability, and it's not an arbitrary complaint. If the software's operations are secret and proprietary, then we are not free to alter it to our best usage; if the software is controlled by a private party, it is not accountable to me or my elected government.
This is software which will be used by my government. I want to be able to audit its inner workings myself, especially if it is being used to count my vote, or store my personal data including my SS account information. Since I expect my government to outlast any given software manufacturer, I consider it important that my government should be able to maintain its own software should the manufacturer fail to do so. I do not think it appropriate that my government should be beholden to any private concern to maintain its tools; necessary revisions of existing software should be available for bid , not locked into a particular company's proprietary code base.
If the tools of government are not controlled by or even available to the people, but are controlled by private and unelected parties, then the power of the people's government has been taken from the people and handed over to private parties. Therefore, no matter what other benefits a proprietary package may bring to the table, it is not the 'best' for this purpose.
Last time I checked, Attorney General was an appointed position, so voting him out is going to be a bit of a problem.
I do intend to do my best to vote Bush out. Since I'm not a member of Congress, impeaching him is a bit beyond my powers at the moment, but you go right on ahead, tiger.
Puh-leeeeeez. That's what corporations do. It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit. Period, end of sentence.
Not necessarily. The corporate officer's duty is defined by the corporation's charter, and these can and sometimes do specify, for example, that the officer's duty includes maximising benefits to the community at large. As far as I know, there is no law which restricts a publicly traded company from including long-term benefit to the community in its charter.
The charter of the company I work for (Robert Bosch Corporation) is a great example, though it isn't a publicly traded company. Besides requiring that directors act both legally and ethically, the charter specifies that a large portion of the company's earnings must be funneled back into the long-term development of the business, and a further large chunk must be funneled back into a wide variety of charities and hospitable foundations, before any distribution to the stockholders takes place.
And before anyone says that a company which doesn't put profit first and foremost can't compete in the marketplace, I suggest you examine the financial profile of the Bosch Group. It's one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
My vote's for Sen. Hollings. Uh, let me rephrase that... my vote is to make him the target! ;-)
Keep talking to your friends. Show them articles you come across about the evil effects of laws like the DMCA. Bring some copies of your coolest personal CDs to work to play, and mention that you won't be able to make those copies much longer. If your co-workers don't believe in the existence of Tux, give them a Knoppix CD-ROM to play with.
Sure, most people are asleep, I've found that too, but it's a funny thing; every one who gets interested in this stuff starts talking to other people about it too.
Oh, and let's not forget; give your support to the EFF and others, write to your elected representatives, or if they're utterly hopeless like my own Sen. Hollings write to their opponents; try to persuade them over to the Light Side, offer them your support (financial and otherwise) if they do support your issues.
Remember, if you can't support them financially, maybe they could use some volunteer Web support, or an envelope stuffer. Have you been to your local library lately? Librarians are usually a pretty strong free-speech demographic, and library patrons are the kind of people you're likely to reach best. Make up CD-Roms with fun free games, useful utilities and some interesting presentations on important issues; give them away to everyone you meet.
It's not going to be effortless, but you're not as helpless as you think. You undoubtedly have skills and resources you haven't even touched yet.
Why doesn't it?
1)Write great programs on Linux.
2) Recompile them for Windows.
3) Purvey to the unenlightened, being sure to let them know that they'd work even better on Linux.
4) When the end users are using almost nothing but apps which are also available on Linux, migration might not seem such a scary thing.
That's assuming, of course, that you think a better market share for Linux is a positive thing. Oh, and just for completeness:
5) ???
6) Profit!!!
Well, someone else was going to do it anyway... ;-)
He is not suggesting a two-pronged attack of both coding and being politically active, nor is he suggesting that geeks make more of an effort to ensure that their political activism is effective. I would approve of both those stances. It's two leaps across a chasm to get from there to "geeks should just code, they shouldn't bother getting involved in the process." Maybe he exhibits a more intelligent and comprehensive approach elsewhere in his body of work, but I'm responding to this article. Here, his point is that political activism by coders is wasted effort. I strongly disagree.
To answer your point; YES, absolutely, you should always write clear, concise letters that precisely articulate your concerns, rather than rambling rants. That's obvious, or should be, and certainly there are inarticulate 18 year olds with shallow views among us, just as there are in most demographics. (Ours also includes a hell of a lot of well-educated, highly paid and articulate professionals in positions of business influence.)
Politicians pay attention to two things: first, they pay attention to the articulate and well expressed letters of people who are likely to be able to influence others. This includes people like ministers in churches, and it includes people like system administrators in successful companies. The second thing they pay attention to, Mr. McCullagh to the contrary, is large volumes of letters which express identical views, no matter how badly written, as long as they are written by voters. Do you suppose politicians dismiss the concerns of deeply religious Christians as a group because some proportion of them write badly reasoned and uninformed screeds in crayon? Hell no, and especially not if very large numbers of them do so in unison on a clearly defined issue.
Geeks need to be more, not less, politically involved and aware. Coding is a powerful hammer in affecting the world, but not every problem is a nail, and we need a bigger toolbox if we are to handle the social and political problems we're increasingly facing.
BTW, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not calling McCullagh himself an idiot here. I don't know his larger body of work well enough to make that judgement. This is a boneheaded article, though.
That, to me, is a stupid and short-sighted attitude. You can write all the easy file-sharing code you want to, and that's a good and worthwhile activity, but if a law gets passed making it illegal to transmit files then all you've done is make it easy to be a criminal.
Yes, geeks write code better than lawyers, so there's a very superficial level of plausibility there - but lawyers can stop geeks from legally writing code, and if geeks aren't involved in the process that's exactly what they'll do.
I want to be able to write and use cool programs. I'd rather not be forced to break a stupid law to do that when a little effort can help prevent the stupid law, and McLellan is being should not be discouraging us from making that effort.
BTW, Mr. Declan, that was a voice vote for the DMCA. It doesn't mean the bill had 100% support, only that the actual tally wasn't enumerated. Maybe you should pay closer attention.
The moral of the story is, knee-jerk voting for any political party isn't the solution.
You have to pay attention, do research, get involved, vote intelligently.
Where has MS spent extra money on developing a clone of Collaborate? That's right, it's gone into the pay packets of programmers instead of adding to the mountain of cash. Those programmers are going to pay income tax, and that money is going to be travelling into the economy.
How many Windows workalikes do you see?
That's kind of the point, isn't it? Why should I allow my government to use a proprietary system and thereby lock me into using it too?
while OpenOffice may be free, the costs of implementation, training and support for it are not. Particularly when they have to support both OpenOffice to do business with the government, and MS Office to do business with everyone else.
Whereas there are no costs involved in implementing, training for, or supporting using MS Office? As for having to maintain both, that's a ridiculous argument. If the government is using open formats supported by OpenOffice, MS is going to support those formats too. If they don't, then their product will quite rightly fail in the marketplace.
IIRC BSD is what OS X is based on. And it's a good bet that one of the reasons they chose a BSD licensed product over a GPL licensed product such as Linux is that they are able to withhold enhancements that give them a competitive advantage.
And this benefits me as a taxpayer how, exactly? By ensuring that Apple gets the extra money that I might otherwise have frittered away on another product?
Consider this scenario: Microsoft decides that, in order to remain competitive, they need to market a unix-based OS in addition to Windows. But they want to include the Windows API's in it, in order to make porting Windows apps to it easy. What OS do you think they would use as the basis for such a product? Linux, which would require them to put their proprietary API's in the public domain, or BSD, which would not?
And I should care why? If MicroSoft wants to develop a unix-like OS with Windows APIs, let them. I don't feel at all sorrowful that they'll have to pay programmers in order to keep the code base proprietary; why should they get a free ride on my tax dollars? If MicroSoft needs to do something to stay competitive they will; it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to make it easy for them.
Being a resident of South Carolina and a keen proponent of new technology I have a view on my elected government which you apparently don't have in your home town. Specifically, I have a nonentity, Rep. Brown, who doesn't appear to represent anyone's views particularly, not even his own, Senior Senator Thurmond, whose main claim to fame is that he holds the record for filibustering (against the Civil Rights Act, I'm so proud), and Junior Senator Hollings, who is so well known here on Slashdot.
I'm registered, I'm ready and waiting to vote again. So now I've met your criteria for complaining, and I still don't think either that my vote is strong enough without constant public complaint on my part, or that I'm obligated to stop trying to improve the issues that bother me until I've solved world hunger and internecine warfare.
Now, should I be arrested? Should my Encyclopaedia, which I purchased at quite some personal cost while I was a seaman in the United States Navy, be taken from me lest I use the dangerous information it contains? Or does that only apply to electronically-conveyed information?
I'll go you one better - imagine you're a US President who doesn't get along with MicroSoft. Better yet, imagine you're a citizen in an America with a President that does.
I get the feeling that if microsoft wasn't a US company,they'd all feel differently. What if it was located in Iraq? Russia?
Now imagine that we live in a world where stocks in a Washington company are openly traded on international stock exchanges.
It is indeed about choice, but it's also about freedom and accountability, and it's not an arbitrary complaint. If its operations are secret and proprietary, then I (and my government) are not free to alter it to our best usage; if the software is controlled by a private party, it is not accountable to me or my elected government.
This is software which will be used by my government. I want to be able to audit its inner workings myself, especially if it is being used to count my vote, or store my personal data including my SS account information.
If the tools of government are not controlled by or even available to the people, but are controlled by private and unelected parties, then the power of the people's government has been taken from the people and handed over to private parties. Therefore, no matter what other benefits a proprietary package may bring to the table, it is not the best for this purpose.
Are you suggesting that there are problems with our American way of life, Commie? What are you, some kind of terrorist?
At least you don't seem to be in favor of the public - I mean the unwashed hippies (damn, how do they do that thing with the H key?)- knowing anything they don't need to about how the government collects data.
We'll give you a Pass(tm) for now.
Please, please, please can I recommend Senator Fritz Hollings from my dear ole home here in Dixie?
I'd enumerate the reasons why, but come on... do I really need to?
I will if I have to. Hell, I'll geek... in the old sense of the word.
Furthermore, someone creates "an" application, not "and" application.
Learn to write in a language before you cast aspersions on another person's usage.
How else can I determine whether I can trust that software to do the job? This is the vital question for me, and for my son when he grows up.
You're kind of pissed, so you try to look up what idiot is representing you that allowed such a thing to happen, using the computer at the local library. Unfortunately, it won't allow you to access the Website of your local Representative or either of your Senators, because your library has been legally obliged to install NetNanny and their Web presences are marked with the words "tit", "prick", "winkle" and "vibraphone". Suddenly filled with political fervour, you go to vote.
Warily, you study up on the issues beforehand, by reading not only the local rag, the Podunk Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) but also the large-circulation state paper, the State Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) and a respected national paper, the Papink USA (which, eerily, recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values). Now you're fully prepared when it comes time to decide on your country's future.
Proudly, you step into the brand-spankin'-new booth, which looks like an ATM, but that doesn't intimidate you because you're a digerati, you can configure Outlook and everything, so you select your candidates, rapid-fire, cha-ching cha-ching, until you've had your say. The ATM tells you in comforting green phosphor that your vote has been duly recorded.On the way out, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Representative.
Over the next few months you are promoted several times, despite the downturn in headcount. It would appear that your company, whose primary customer is the Government, is forced to use Outlook because that's what the Governmwent in using. Because you use Outlook yourself at home, you are far more knowledgeable about viruses (or virii as you like to call them) than any of your co-workers. As a result, you know much more about re-installing Windows XXXP.
All things considered, it's a darn shame that you have to pay 72% tax on your new earnings. Those DARN terrorists! Darn them all to heck, you mutter (sronger language wouldn't be advisable, Jeffy the mail boy listens to everything you say). All is not bad news, though! Thanks to Q____'s nifty and innovative new software, you've just slipped in under the wire on April 15th, and the IRS got your filing in on time due to that terrific new Web software. Ain't technology grand?
Pity that your tax bill was pretty much doubled by the cost of the software you had to buy in order to file, but that's just the cost of doing business, you tell yourself. After all, the government's got expenses too, they have to pay for the software that collects those taxes! As you exit, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Senator.
Quite apart from the probable inference that MicroSoft's books are not at all likely to be clean, given their edge-skating tactics in general, arteficially inflating or deflating stock prices is not ethical accounting.
1. Re-implement clean-room equivalent of software that's already freely available.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
The grandparent suggested a way in which MicroSoft could fill in step 2, provided a)the license is BSD, PD or some similar more-or-less 'unconditional' type, and b)MicroSoft still has an effective monopoly.
If the license is GPL or LGPL, then MicroSoft may be able to use the code by not integrating it into their main product, which would likely be klugey, or they could follow your plan. Since they're not market-stupid, any proprietary equivalent they come up with will have to have genuine innovation or they won't be able to sell it to private concerns. The taxpayer dollars are thus indeed maximised ; the government has an entirely usable product which is also freely available to the public under the GPL's terms. The public also has a proprietary version available which necessarily must be better or MicroSoft wouldn't have bothered making it, by your own argument.
The other situation in which the poster's scenario won't work is if MicroSoft can no longer effectively wield monopoly power. Good enough for me, I like a level playing field; if MicroSoft doesn't want government contracts wherein they don't get the license they want, I'm sure we can find someone else to do so. If MicroSoft or some other pure software company develops a terrific new proprietary application that the government simply has to have, then the government can get one of MicroSoft's competitors (remember, in this scenario they have some) to develop a workalike - which will then be available to the public, again maximizing taxpayer return.
One final point: You are entirely correct that a pure software house like MicroSoft is unlikely to invest research time and money into developing innovative products for licensing under the GPL; however, the flaw in your argument is that they would have no motive for developing BSD software either! They have every motive for using it, and if they remain a monopoly they have every motive to break its utility for others, but they have no more motive to produce innovative work for BSD licensing than they do for GPL licensing.
This is software which will be used by my government. I want to be able to audit its inner workings myself, especially if it is being used to count my vote, or store my personal data including my SS account information. Since I expect my government to outlast any given software manufacturer, I consider it important that my government should be able to maintain its own software should the manufacturer fail to do so. I do not think it appropriate that my government should be beholden to any private concern to maintain its tools; necessary revisions of existing software should be available for bid , not locked into a particular company's proprietary code base.
If the tools of government are not controlled by or even available to the people, but are controlled by private and unelected parties, then the power of the people's government has been taken from the people and handed over to private parties. Therefore, no matter what other benefits a proprietary package may bring to the table, it is not the 'best' for this purpose.
But at least the dog has a name.
I do intend to do my best to vote Bush out. Since I'm not a member of Congress, impeaching him is a bit beyond my powers at the moment, but you go right on ahead, tiger.
Not necessarily. The corporate officer's duty is defined by the corporation's charter, and these can and sometimes do specify, for example, that the officer's duty includes maximising benefits to the community at large. As far as I know, there is no law which restricts a publicly traded company from including long-term benefit to the community in its charter.
The charter of the company I work for (Robert Bosch Corporation) is a great example, though it isn't a publicly traded company. Besides requiring that directors act both legally and ethically, the charter specifies that a large portion of the company's earnings must be funneled back into the long-term development of the business, and a further large chunk must be funneled back into a wide variety of charities and hospitable foundations, before any distribution to the stockholders takes place.
And before anyone says that a company which doesn't put profit first and foremost can't compete in the marketplace, I suggest you examine the financial profile of the Bosch Group. It's one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world.