>a proprietary tool can never be the best for the >job if the author/copyright holder is a complete dick.
The real lesson here is that a proprietary tool can never truly be the best tool for the job, period. Unless you don't mind putting your balls in a vise with someone else's hand on the lever.
>they [the terrorists] have strong feelings based upon belief and are >reacting to what actions they see being perpetrated >upon them and their beliefs.
Right. Some of their beliefs are:
- Women should be clothed in burkas in public; those that are not should be beaten.
- Homosexuals should be put to death.
- Jews and Christians should live in a state of subordination to Moslems and Islamic Law; other religions (Buddism, Hinduism, etc) are impermissable.
And so on. These are not exagerations, these, and even more extreme ideas, are what Al Qaida ideologists and their associates proudly proclaim.
>What many Americans have a problem with is that >not everyone in the world wants to be like us and >we need to respect that.
Many Americans would like to believe that simple formulations like this will make us safe. The reality is that the enemy has a comprehensive, sophisticated world view and a vision of life that is fundamentally incompatible with our own. It is not a question of "live and let live" since they do not desire to simply live their own lives in a manner they choose; their beliefs require them to attempt to impose their system of life on others, both their fellow countrymen and the world.
My point is that your idea that if only we could prevent people from feeling "disenfranchised" there would be no conflict is wrong. Enfranchisement is not the issue, a fundamental clash of value systems is.
> The music labels do add value. The thing that > makes a song popular is not that it is good, it is > because it is promoted.
So they are promoting bad songs... and this "adds value" precisely how?
>If we got rid of marketing, then it would perhaps >be a good thing, but it would drastically change >the face of music.
And... so what?
What if the RIAA went out of business, completely, tomorrow? What if there were no more music copyright lawas, tomorrow?
Would music stop? Hardly. Artists would just freely distribute their stuff to get attention for selling other goods or live shows. Would it be impossible to find good stuff? No; promoters, critics, DJs and others would make it easy.
The RIAA's time has passed. They exist now only as ball and chain on society, holding us back from moving on to something better by bribing our legislators into passing special laws for their benefit.
If candlestick makers had had the power the RIAA does now, we might still not be using electric lights.
The RIAA is a collection of corporate monopolists in an industry with a long history of mob ties, criminality and unfair treatment of artists.
They have, over the years, through a system of ongoing bribes, induced our legislators into passing laws giving them extraordinary monopolistic rights of great commercial value. These monopolistic rights are totally at variance with the interests and values of artists, consumers, computer users and citizens in general.
For a long time, the great majority of people took little notice of the continuous stream of legislation that gave these extraordinary rights to this group, since it's direct impact on the average person was limited. With the advent of new technologies, however, these laws have now come into direct conflict with the public interest. These new technologies have sparked the creation of new resources and channels that are of great use and interest to the public.
The RIAA, to protect their enourmous profits, are determined to destroy the new resources and restrict the public's use of technology, so that they may continue to live lavish lifestyles while producing nothing but artifical scarcity. They plan to do this through the expenditure of large sums of money on bribes to the powerful, and propoganda to fool and divide the general public.
Every time the file sharing issue comes up, some people bring out this old saw. Reality: under the current system, with the exception of a miniscule percentage of "stars," e.g. Britany Spears, musicians get nothing, or virtually nothing, from CD sales. The onerous contracts that the monopolistic recording industry imposes on artists ensures this.
Humans were making music long before the concept of "intelectual property" existed... and we will be making music long after the concept of "copyright" is a distant memory.
Artists have always found a way to make enough money to survive and to create, struggle though they may. The current system of granting special monopoly rights to the copyright "owners" benefits only RIAA excecutives, politicians, and a few mostly mediocre "stars." It harms the rest of us by forcing us to give up our freedoms to shore up a system that benefits only the few and is doomed to soon collapse.
No, you don't kid YOURSELF about what YOU are doing.
You have posted a list of colloquial names for several different acts, suggesting they are all equivilant and are all "stealing." They are not. Each of the acts you listed is different legally and ethically.
As the previous poster said:
To 'steal', you take someones tangible good/property. Now you have it, they do not - you have deprived them of their property. Not so with so-called IP.
If you disagree with that statement, say so and present your reasoning. Don't try to cloud the issue by drawing equivilances where there are none. By doing so, you are distorting our language, and only serving the needs of RIAA and their ilk.
I would like this idea better if I could set the address that my BIOS contacts... and obviously that the BIOS-server interface were documented. That way the server that controls the laptop would be under my control. I wouldn't need to trust Phoenix.
I agree with your premise, that people ignoring absurd digital patent and copyright laws is natural and a form of civil disobedience. I think you are being very naive, however, in your assertion that since people are ignoring these (IMO wrong-headed) laws, they aren't really a problem.
Look at the history of digital copyright laws. At first they were widely ignored on the internet, to the great common benefit... it was possible to get music, lyrics, etc. very convientiently and for free. Gradually, as the ownership class* realized they were losing the profits they could reap by creating artificial scarcity, they struck back by buying legislation** and bringing the power of law enforcement*** and media propoganda**** to bear against the new competitors.
The same thing will happen with software patents... first, sneak throught the legislation as "clearing up grey areas", while greasing palms as appropriate... then, since it is "illegal," get tough enforcement laws enacted with criminal pentalies...
After the first enterprising young college student gets 5 years in jail for distributing an illegal computer program, we will see how many other people will wish to be involved in maintaining, distributing or linking to such software.
Anonymity you say? Do you really think they will continue to allow you to be anonymous if that would cost them profits? Think again. A fully locked-down internet, DRM everywhere, with passive consumers absorbing "content" from centralized powers for money is much more convenient for the owners than the chaotic free-for-all of free people expressing, exchanging and sharing as they choose. This is what we are heading for.
Do not underestimate the power of the ownership class, those who hold the patents and the copyrights... they are a tiny percentage of the population, but they control enourmous wealth, media resources, and have tremendous influence on the governments that are supposed to serve the people. They are smart and they are patient. They will work deliberatly, cleverly, insidiously and relentlessly to protect their interests. If that means you losing your freedom, they don't care.
It's not hopeless... if we organize, educate, agitate and fight we have a chance... but civil disobedience alone without being active in the political process as well will get us nothing but marginalized as dangerous "pirates," "theives," or even "terrorists."
It's great that this meeting took place. Since KDE is now 100% Free Software there is no reason for any serious contention.
I have no relationship with RMS or the Free Software Foundation, but I would like to respond (perhaps preemptively) to some of the common anti-RMS flames that inevitably come up in any discussion involving RMS.
Anti-RMS argument #1) "I don't like RMS because he says GNU/Linux instead of Linux."
It may be quixotic of RMS to want this, but it
is certainly not malicious, and he has presented solid ethical and practical reasons for his argument. Essentially, by including GNU, we give acknowlegement to the philosophy of freedom behind the OS, not just to the individual who provided leadership in creating one important part of it, the kernel.
This angers some people because they feel he is "telling them what to do." He's not telling you, he's ASKING you, and he has provided good ethical arguments supporting his position. If you disagree, fine, but don't say that he's "telling you what to do." He's not.
Others feel he is slighting Linus Torvolds... this is hardly the case, RMS always gives Linus high praise for his leadership in creating the Linux kernel. In the unlikely event that everyone did start saying "GNU/Linux," Linus would still be the only person (that I know of) whose name is the basis of the name of a major OS.
Anti RMS argument #2) "RMS is too much of an idealist / extemeist"
Can we please give the man some credit? Because of his "extremism," KDE is now free software instead of proprietary. Without RMS and his "extremism" I think it is likely that Free Software would be a truly marginal movement today, rather than the large scale success it has become.
Anti RMS argument #3) "RMS is too biased towards the GPL, other free software licences are just as good." OR "the GPL isn't as free as some other licences", etc.
Only a tiny minority of people who make this argument understand what they are talking about. Please read about and try to get a basic understanding of the issues involved. I did, and once I did I was surprised to find myself in agreement with RMS.
Anti RMS argument #4) "GNU/Hurd is so late, it will never get working, blah blah blah."
Yes, eveyone knows GNU/Hurd is late... so what? Nobody's suffering waiting for it, they can use the Linux kernel. This is part of the beauty of Free Software. We don't need to wait for a central authority to create tools we need... we can get them from other people or do it ourselves.
* * * *
I think that the more you understand the issues involved, the more you understand how critical it is to be aware of the PHILOSOPHY behind free software, not just the "coolness" of it. The main purpose of free software is to help us remain free, not just to be good practical tools or to save us a few dollars (though these are also important).
I have met many people in person who express a negative view of RMS and/or the GPL. Most of the time, once they learn about the issues involved, the majority change their views. I implore anyone who feels negativly about RMS to at least read about the FSF philosophy.
Now harmless junkmail is ok, but imagine if medical records got crisscrossed, or criminal records? And it doesn't even have to be family, imaging if you are TT-1231-12512 and TT-2231-12512 is a wanted terrorist?
SAM: Are you Mrs Buttle?
The WOMAN nods very slightly without looking at him.
SAM: My name is Lowry - Sam Lowry. I'm from the Ministry of Information.
(no response) I've come to give you a cheque.
SAM takes the cheque out of his pocket and puts it on the
table to tempt MRS BUTTLE into a flicker of interest but
she fails to notice it - or him for that matter. SAM
pushes the cheque a little way towards MRS BUTTLE but she
does not respond.
SAM: (indicting cheque) It's a refund... I'm afraid there
was a mistake.
MRS BUTTLE: Mistake?
SAM: (encouraged) Yes. Not my department... I'm only
records. It seems that Mr Buttle was overcharged by Information Retrieval.
I don't think they usually make mistakes... but, er... I suppose
we're all human.
SAM looks around and sees the hole in the ceiling.
SAM: Oh... what happened to the...?
He gets nothing back.
SAM: Actually, my bringing this here is rather unorthodox... Usually any
payments are made through the central computer... but, er... there were
certain difficulties, and rather than cause delay, we thought you might
appreciate this now... it being Christmas.
So if I use MusicBrainz to tag my music files... won't MusicBrainz then have a list of all my files aong with my IP address? What if the RIAA or some other entity demands to see the list?
From the article: > Note that I am not advocating open source > licensing for commercial software.
Why not? Since the basis for your advocacy of including source code is your desire to improve software development overall, why not go all the way and also allow the consumer to improve that source code and share their improvements with others? This is what would solve the "reinventing the wheel" problem.
The right to freely modify and redistribute are at least as importatant as the right to view source code. It seems to me that you are advocating something like Microsoft's so called "shared source" licencing.In some ways, this form of licencing is even more restrictive than closed source code. If the software consumer is tied up by patents, non-disclosure agreements, etc., all the "shared source" does is create the risks... if you develope and release software yourself, the owner of the "shared source" could claim you "stole" their code or even their algorithim... even completely meritless charges could tie you up in court.
Another question: why are you using the term "open source" for your anything-but-open-source proposal? Why not call it "revealed but restricted source?"
Certain very large proprietary software organizations would love to see the meaning of the term "open source" muddied. We should be very clear in our use of terms to prevent this.
Who else has thought about this: what if, durring the first moon landing, the astronauts had successfully landed on the moon... but had been unable to take off to return home?
Obviously, this didn't happen, but the White House was aware of this posibility at the time, as this fascinating memo indicates (written by William Safire, now the NYTimes columnist and english language maven).
I fail to see what Redhat is doing that could so offend Bero
Bero made his reasons pretty clear in his post to the kde-devel list:
I don't want to work on crippling KDE, and they don't want an employee who
admits RH 8.0's KDE is crippleware.
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
he is only creating a larger problem...over something that appears to be rather benign
It may "appear benign" to you, but Bero has a different opinion. And I seriously doubt that you know more about KDE on RedHat than he does.
Looks like big egos will always get in the way of better software.
Sure, why not throw in a gratuitous personal attack? But isn't it at least as likely that Bero recognized RedHat's intention to covertly favor Gnome by crippling their KDE implementation, and chose not to be a part of it -- like he says?
If this is the case, as I strongly suspect, then we owe Bero our thanks for the warning. If RedHat or its users take heed, this will help us get better software in the long run.
You know, I had some doubts, but after taking a look at their
Steering Committee, I have all the confidence in the world that these people should control what I watch and listen to on my computer.
Please remember that it's quite possible to have totally independant programs within the same rpm or tarball.
Perhaps, but the question here is whether the proprietary elements (spyware & adware) should be legally considered part of the NeoAudio work as a whole. If so, those components of NeoAudio must also be distributed under the GPL.
From section 2 of the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Emphasis mine)
Let me get this straight: in your posts you (repeatedly) call Stallman a propagandist, "inhumanly" arrogant and "dangerous, subversive in the bad sense of the word;" but you now claim you aren't engaging in ad hominem attacks on him because, after all, if you had really wanted to attack him you'd have called him a Communist...which you didn't. So in your mind, you haven't attacked Stallman at all.
To quote from the link I posted for you: "Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it."
The point is that you try to discredit Stallman's ideas by saying bad things about him personally...things that are untrue, in my opinion. The fact that you could have said even nastier (in your mind) things about him doesn't change the fact that yes, you are attacking him.
I read Stallman's ideas incessantly...keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go.
Again, my suggestion was that you read Stallman's ideasand give them some thought, instead of just getting steamed because his ideas persuasively conflict with your entrenched world view. Keeping your mind closed to new ideas is a bad way to protect yourself from propaganda.
I disagree with much of what Stallman has said and written over the years. It wouldn't bother me so much were it not for his continued use of evocative propaganada in his writings.
What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view. Rather than rethink that world view in light of the new information, you emotionally reject it as "propaganda." This is, in fact, a very human reaction. It is often difficult for people to accept new ideas, even good ones, that conflict with their entrenched existing ideas. This is particularly true when the person in question has an economic interest in maintaining their current world view, as you do.
In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda." And no, simply stating that you hold some particular belief as fundamental (e.g. "I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it") is not a rebuttal.
When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.
Indeed. These are emotional issues to those who understand them; DRM legislation, for example, could potentially have a devestating long-term impact on our society. I find Stallman's ideas to be exceptionally well-reasoned and logical. Clearly, you react to them very emotionally; I suggest you read Stallman's
ideas again and
give them some thought.
The failure of governments to enforce proprietary software usage restrictions in schools actually helps proprietary software makers and hurts the Free Software movement.
The schools train their students in the use of proprietary software, increasing the supply of workers skilled in the use of such software. This creates (or increases) market pressure for companies to purchase such software. Why should companies go to the trouble of training someone to use Open Office, for example, if a ready supply of people trained in the publicly-subsidized schools to use proprietary products is available?
In effect, the taxpayers of Malaysia (and most other countries) are providing massive subsidies to the proprietary software firms. The taxpayers pay for the hardware, the buildings and the instructors to train workers in the use of proprietary, closed source products.
If, on the other hand, the publicly-funded schools taught their students the use of Free Software, those skilled students would create (or increase) the demand for the use of such software throughout society. This would be a boon to the economy overall (particularly in developing countries), since it would reduce the need for firms to spend large amounts of money on proprietary software. It would also greatly strengthen Free Software overall by increasing the supply of people qualified to work with and contribute to the movement, leading to more and better software.
It would also, in my opinion, lead to a better educated population of citizens able to think for themselves.
A truly wise education policy would be the exact reverse of what Minister Yassin has proposed. Rather than encourage the use of proprietary software, legally or illegally, he should encourage the use of Free Software wherever it is feasible.
I know everyone hates Microsoft but they are a big corporation and they do have a major influence on the rest of the American economy. Right now, the US needs Microsoft.
Microsoft has spent the past decade illegally using its monopoly power to levearage its usually inferior, often unstable software products throughout society. These products, deliberatly designed to be incompatible with widely accepted standards, and to drive competitors (often with superior products) out of business, have been responsible for uncountable damage to our economy, due to needless system crashes, excessive vulnerability to viruses, poor security, and intentional incompatiblity.
At the same time Microsoft has drained countless billions of dollars from average Americans, much of it through the "Microsoft Tax" it used its monopoly power to illegally impose through PC vendors, Microsoft has paid relativly little in taxes; in fact, over the past two years their tax rate was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
Some people think, anecdotaly, that Microsoft products have improved their lives, but on closer examination it inevitably becomes apparent that these products are inferior to and more expensive than products offered by competitors, or products that would have been offered had those competitors not been driven out of business or intimidated from even entering into a business that Microsoft might percieve as a threat to their monopoly.
The U.S. "needs" Microsoft only in the sense that a heroin addict "needs" their dealer to keep them supplied with smack. What they percieve as the thing that is absolutely essential is in fact the thing that is slowly draining their life away.
Peru and other developing countries would be well advised to stay as far away from Microsoft as they can. Embracing open source and standards-based computing will be a vastly better alternative for their whole society, in the short and long runs.
As for us (North) Americans, the sooner we can get the Microsoft Monkey off our backs the better off we, and the world, will be.
Writing to our elected officials is important. We also need to remember that there are some very good organizations that really understand these issues and are out there fighting for our rights every day. They need and deserve our support.
Even small donations will make a difference. There are a lot of us, people; once we get into the habit of putting our money where our mouths are, the **AA's will be in deep trouble.
If you can afford it, consider donating $100 a year to each of these organizations, as I do. It's really worth it.
The ABSOLUTE worst is that it gets really hot and melts - which is very bad, but very rare
Thanks for the comforting information. Tell me, though, is a meltdown any less rare, if, say, a full loaded 747 airliner, or, say, a Leerjet packed with high explosives, crashes into a nuclear plant? It is? Well, good thing THAT could never happen then.
A complete meltdown is a disaster, but not the end of the world.
Not the end of the world? That's good to know. So if I ever do hear on TV that a nuclear plant in my vicinity has been hit by a plane, and that vastly more radiation than was released in Chernobyl is pouring into the air, I won't need to worry, because it won't be the end of the world. Great.
Chernobyl had no containment building to speak of, and was run by idiots.
Well, it's certainly a good thing that OUR nuclear plants are run by a much higher class of person, and guarded by at least 30 - 40 armed rent-a-cops. So there's no way a highly trained squad of fifty or a hundred suicidial terrorists could ever successfully attack one of them. Yes sir, your post has certainly put my mind at ease.
Slashdot Mirror
>a proprietary tool can never be the best for the
>job if the author/copyright holder is a complete dick.
The real lesson here is that a proprietary tool can never truly be the best tool for the job, period. Unless you don't mind putting your balls in a vise with someone else's hand on the lever.
>they [the terrorists] have strong feelings based upon belief and are
>reacting to what actions they see being perpetrated
>upon them and their beliefs.
Right. Some of their beliefs are:
- Women should be clothed in burkas in public; those that are not should be beaten.
- Homosexuals should be put to death.
- Jews and Christians should live in a state of subordination to Moslems and Islamic Law; other religions (Buddism, Hinduism, etc) are impermissable.
And so on. These are not exagerations, these, and even more extreme ideas, are what Al Qaida ideologists and their associates proudly proclaim.
>What many Americans have a problem with is that
>not everyone in the world wants to be like us and
>we need to respect that.
Many Americans would like to believe that simple formulations like this will make us safe. The reality is that the enemy has a comprehensive, sophisticated world view and a vision of life that is fundamentally incompatible with our own. It is not a question of "live and let live" since they do not desire to simply live their own lives in a manner they choose; their beliefs require them to attempt to impose their system of life on others, both their fellow countrymen and the world.
My point is that your idea that if only we could prevent people from feeling "disenfranchised" there would be no conflict is wrong. Enfranchisement is not the issue, a fundamental clash of value systems is.
> The music labels do add value. The thing that
> makes a song popular is not that it is good, it is
> because it is promoted.
So they are promoting bad songs... and this "adds value" precisely how?
>If we got rid of marketing, then it would perhaps
>be a good thing, but it would drastically change
>the face of music.
And... so what?
What if the RIAA went out of business, completely, tomorrow? What if there were no more music copyright lawas, tomorrow?
Would music stop? Hardly. Artists would just freely distribute their stuff to get attention for selling other goods or live shows. Would it be impossible to find good stuff? No; promoters, critics, DJs and others would make it easy.
The RIAA's time has passed. They exist now only as ball and chain on society, holding us back from moving on to something better by bribing our legislators into passing special laws for their benefit.
If candlestick makers had had the power the RIAA does now, we might still not be using electric lights.
Looks like the RIAA has started a counter-campaign.
> Hasn't worked for the millions of pot smokers being persecuted
True. But that is an argument for legalizing pot, not for criminalizing file sharing.
>So WHAT exactly is the EFF campaigning against?
The RIAA is a collection of corporate monopolists in an industry with a long history of mob ties, criminality and unfair treatment of artists.
They have, over the years, through a system of ongoing bribes, induced our legislators into passing laws giving them extraordinary monopolistic rights of great commercial value. These monopolistic rights are totally at variance with the interests and values of artists, consumers, computer users and citizens in general.
For a long time, the great majority of people took little notice of the continuous stream of legislation that gave these extraordinary rights to this group, since it's direct impact on the average person was limited. With the advent of new technologies, however, these laws have now come into direct conflict with the public interest. These new technologies have sparked the creation of new resources and channels that are of great use and interest to the public.
The RIAA, to protect their enourmous profits, are determined to destroy the new resources and restrict the public's use of technology, so that they may continue to live lavish lifestyles while producing nothing but artifical scarcity. They plan to do this through the expenditure of large sums of money on bribes to the powerful, and propoganda to fool and divide the general public.
THIS is what the EFF is campaigning against.
I hope this answers your question satisfactorily.
Every time the file sharing issue comes up, some people bring out this old saw. Reality: under the current system, with the exception of a miniscule percentage of "stars," e.g. Britany Spears, musicians get nothing, or virtually nothing, from CD sales. The onerous contracts that the monopolistic recording industry imposes on artists ensures this.
Humans were making music long before the concept of "intelectual property" existed... and we will be making music long after the concept of "copyright" is a distant memory.
Artists have always found a way to make enough money to survive and to create, struggle though they may. The current system of granting special monopoly rights to the copyright "owners" benefits only RIAA excecutives, politicians, and a few mostly mediocre "stars." It harms the rest of us by forcing us to give up our freedoms to shore up a system that benefits only the few and is doomed to soon collapse.
No, you don't kid YOURSELF about what YOU are doing.
You have posted a list of colloquial names for several different acts, suggesting they are all equivilant and are all "stealing." They are not. Each of the acts you listed is different legally and ethically.
As the previous poster said:
To 'steal', you take someones tangible good/property. Now you have it, they do not - you have deprived them of their property. Not so with so-called IP.
If you disagree with that statement, say so and present your reasoning. Don't try to cloud the issue by drawing equivilances where there are none. By doing so, you are distorting our language, and only serving the needs of RIAA and their ilk.
I would like this idea better if I could set the address that my BIOS contacts... and obviously that the BIOS-server interface were documented. That way the server that controls the laptop would be under my control. I wouldn't need to trust Phoenix.
I agree with your premise, that people ignoring absurd digital patent and copyright laws is natural and a form of civil disobedience. I think you are being very naive, however, in your assertion that since people are ignoring these (IMO wrong-headed) laws, they aren't really a problem.
Look at the history of digital copyright laws. At first they were widely ignored on the internet, to the great common benefit... it was possible to get music, lyrics, etc. very convientiently and for free. Gradually, as the ownership class* realized they were losing the profits they could reap by creating artificial scarcity, they struck back by buying legislation** and bringing the power of law enforcement*** and media propoganda**** to bear against the new competitors.
The same thing will happen with software patents... first, sneak throught the legislation as "clearing up grey areas", while greasing palms as appropriate... then, since it is "illegal," get tough enforcement laws enacted with criminal pentalies...
After the first enterprising young college student gets 5 years in jail for distributing an illegal computer program, we will see how many other people will wish to be involved in maintaining, distributing or linking to such software.
Anonymity you say? Do you really think they will continue to allow you to be anonymous if that would cost them profits? Think again. A fully locked-down internet, DRM everywhere, with passive consumers absorbing "content" from centralized powers for money is much more convenient for the owners than the chaotic free-for-all of free people expressing, exchanging and sharing as they choose. This is what we are heading for.
Do not underestimate the power of the ownership class, those who hold the patents and the copyrights... they are a tiny percentage of the population, but they control enourmous wealth, media resources, and have tremendous influence on the governments that are supposed to serve the people. They are smart and they are patient. They will work deliberatly, cleverly, insidiously and relentlessly to protect their interests. If that means you losing your freedom, they don't care.
It's not hopeless... if we organize, educate, agitate and fight we have a chance... but civil disobedience alone without being active in the political process as well will get us nothing but marginalized as dangerous "pirates," "theives," or even "terrorists."
To start with, have you given these guys money?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
*RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc.
**DMCA, etc.
***Jon Johanson, 2600 etc.
****File sharing = "piracy", encryption="terrorism", internet="immorality" etc.
It's great that this meeting took place. Since KDE is now 100% Free Software there is no reason for any serious contention.
I have no relationship with RMS or the Free Software Foundation, but I would like to respond (perhaps preemptively) to some of the common anti-RMS flames that inevitably come up in any discussion involving RMS.
Anti-RMS argument #1) "I don't like RMS because he says GNU/Linux instead of Linux."
It may be quixotic of RMS to want this, but it is certainly not malicious, and he has presented solid ethical and practical reasons for his argument. Essentially, by including GNU, we give acknowlegement to the philosophy of freedom behind the OS, not just to the individual who provided leadership in creating one important part of it, the kernel.
This angers some people because they feel he is "telling them what to do." He's not telling you, he's ASKING you, and he has provided good ethical arguments supporting his position. If you disagree, fine, but don't say that he's "telling you what to do." He's not.
Others feel he is slighting Linus Torvolds... this is hardly the case, RMS always gives Linus high praise for his leadership in creating the Linux kernel. In the unlikely event that everyone did start saying "GNU/Linux," Linus would still be the only person (that I know of) whose name is the basis of the name of a major OS.
Anti RMS argument #2) "RMS is too much of an idealist / extemeist"
Can we please give the man some credit? Because of his "extremism," KDE is now free software instead of proprietary. Without RMS and his "extremism" I think it is likely that Free Software would be a truly marginal movement today, rather than the large scale success it has become.Anti RMS argument #3) "RMS is too biased towards the GPL, other free software licences are just as good." OR "the GPL isn't as free as some other licences", etc.
Only a tiny minority of people who make this argument understand what they are talking about. Please read about and try to get a basic understanding of the issues involved. I did, and once I did I was surprised to find myself in agreement with RMS.Anti RMS argument #4) "GNU/Hurd is so late, it will never get working, blah blah blah."
Yes, eveyone knows GNU/Hurd is late... so what? Nobody's suffering waiting for it, they can use the Linux kernel. This is part of the beauty of Free Software. We don't need to wait for a central authority to create tools we need... we can get them from other people or do it ourselves.
* * * *
I think that the more you understand the issues involved, the more you understand how critical it is to be aware of the PHILOSOPHY behind free software, not just the "coolness" of it. The main purpose of free software is to help us remain free, not just to be good practical tools or to save us a few dollars (though these are also important).
I have met many people in person who express a negative view of RMS and/or the GPL. Most of the time, once they learn about the issues involved, the majority change their views. I implore anyone who feels negativly about RMS to at least read about the FSF philosophy.
Now harmless junkmail is ok, but imagine if medical records got crisscrossed, or criminal records? And it doesn't even have to be family, imaging if you are TT-1231-12512 and TT-2231-12512 is a wanted terrorist?
SAM: Are you Mrs Buttle?
The WOMAN nods very slightly without looking at him.
SAM: My name is Lowry - Sam Lowry. I'm from the Ministry of Information. (no response) I've come to give you a cheque.
SAM takes the cheque out of his pocket and puts it on the table to tempt MRS BUTTLE into a flicker of interest but she fails to notice it - or him for that matter. SAM pushes the cheque a little way towards MRS BUTTLE but she does not respond.
SAM: (indicting cheque) It's a refund ... I'm afraid there
was a mistake.
MRS BUTTLE: Mistake?
SAM: (encouraged) Yes. Not my department ... I'm only
records. It seems that Mr Buttle was overcharged by Information Retrieval.
I don't think they usually make mistakes ... but, er ... I suppose
we're all human.
SAM looks around and sees the hole in the ceiling.
SAM: Oh ... what happened to the ...?
He gets nothing back.
SAM: Actually, my bringing this here is rather unorthodox ... Usually any
payments are made through the central computer ... but, er ... there were
certain difficulties, and rather than cause delay, we thought you might
appreciate this now ... it being Christmas.
So if I use MusicBrainz to tag my music files... won't MusicBrainz then have a list of all my files aong with my IP address? What if the RIAA or some other entity demands to see the list?
From the article:
... if you develope and release software yourself, the owner of the "shared source" could claim you "stole" their code or even their algorithim... even completely meritless charges could tie you up in court.
> Note that I am not advocating open source
> licensing for commercial software.
Why not? Since the basis for your advocacy of including source code is your desire to improve software development overall, why not go all the way and also allow the consumer to improve that source code and share their improvements with others? This is what would solve the "reinventing the wheel" problem.
The right to freely modify and redistribute are at least as importatant as the right to view source code. It seems to me that you are advocating something like Microsoft's so called "shared source" licencing.In some ways, this form of licencing is even more restrictive than closed source code. If the software consumer is tied up by patents, non-disclosure agreements, etc., all the "shared source" does is create the risks
Another question: why are you using the term "open source" for your anything-but-open-source proposal? Why not call it "revealed but restricted source?"
Certain very large proprietary software organizations would love to see the meaning of the term "open source" muddied. We should be very clear in our use of terms to prevent this.
Who else has thought about this: what if, durring the first moon landing, the astronauts had successfully landed on the moon... but had been unable to take off to return home?
Obviously, this didn't happen, but the White House was aware of this posibility at the time, as this fascinating memo indicates (written by William Safire, now the NYTimes columnist and english language maven).
I fail to see what Redhat is doing that could so offend Bero
Bero made his reasons pretty clear in his post to the kde-devel list:
I don't want to work on crippling KDE, and they don't want an employee who admits RH 8.0's KDE is crippleware.
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
he is only creating a larger problem...over something that appears to be rather benign
It may "appear benign" to you, but Bero has a different opinion. And I seriously doubt that you know more about KDE on RedHat than he does.
Looks like big egos will always get in the way of better software.
Sure, why not throw in a gratuitous personal attack? But isn't it at least as likely that Bero recognized RedHat's intention to covertly favor Gnome by crippling their KDE implementation, and chose not to be a part of it -- like he says?
If this is the case, as I strongly suspect, then we owe Bero our thanks for the warning. If RedHat or its users take heed, this will help us get better software in the long run.
You know, I had some doubts, but after taking a look at their Steering Committee, I have all the confidence in the world that these people should control what I watch and listen to on my computer.
Please remember that it's quite possible to have totally independant programs within the same rpm or tarball.
Perhaps, but the question here is whether the proprietary elements (spyware & adware) should be legally considered part of the NeoAudio work as a whole. If so, those components of NeoAudio must also be distributed under the GPL.From section 2 of the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Emphasis mine)
Let me get this straight: in your posts you (repeatedly) call Stallman a propagandist, "inhumanly" arrogant and "dangerous, subversive in the bad sense of the word;" but you now claim you aren't engaging in ad hominem attacks on him because, after all, if you had really wanted to attack him you'd have called him a Communist...which you didn't. So in your mind, you haven't attacked Stallman at all.
To quote from the link I posted for you: "Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it."
The point is that you try to discredit Stallman's ideas by saying bad things about him personally...things that are untrue, in my opinion. The fact that you could have said even nastier (in your mind) things about him doesn't change the fact that yes, you are attacking him.
I read Stallman's ideas incessantly...keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go.
Again, my suggestion was that you read Stallman's ideas and give them some thought, instead of just getting steamed because his ideas persuasively conflict with your entrenched world view. Keeping your mind closed to new ideas is a bad way to protect yourself from propaganda.
I would particularly suggest this essay.
I disagree with much of what Stallman has said and written over the years. It wouldn't bother me so much were it not for his continued use of evocative propaganada in his writings.
What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view. Rather than rethink that world view in light of the new information, you emotionally reject it as "propaganda." This is, in fact, a very human reaction. It is often difficult for people to accept new ideas, even good ones, that conflict with their entrenched existing ideas. This is particularly true when the person in question has an economic interest in maintaining their current world view, as you do.
In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda." And no, simply stating that you hold some particular belief as fundamental (e.g. "I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it") is not a rebuttal.
When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.
Indeed. These are emotional issues to those who understand them; DRM legislation, for example, could potentially have a devestating long-term impact on our society. I find Stallman's ideas to be exceptionally well-reasoned and logical. Clearly, you react to them very emotionally; I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.
The failure of governments to enforce proprietary software usage restrictions in schools actually helps proprietary software makers and hurts the Free Software movement.
The schools train their students in the use of proprietary software, increasing the supply of workers skilled in the use of such software. This creates (or increases) market pressure for companies to purchase such software. Why should companies go to the trouble of training someone to use Open Office, for example, if a ready supply of people trained in the publicly-subsidized schools to use proprietary products is available?
In effect, the taxpayers of Malaysia (and most other countries) are providing massive subsidies to the proprietary software firms. The taxpayers pay for the hardware, the buildings and the instructors to train workers in the use of proprietary, closed source products.
If, on the other hand, the publicly-funded schools taught their students the use of Free Software, those skilled students would create (or increase) the demand for the use of such software throughout society. This would be a boon to the economy overall (particularly in developing countries), since it would reduce the need for firms to spend large amounts of money on proprietary software. It would also greatly strengthen Free Software overall by increasing the supply of people qualified to work with and contribute to the movement, leading to more and better software.
It would also, in my opinion, lead to a better educated population of citizens able to think for themselves.
A truly wise education policy would be the exact reverse of what Minister Yassin has proposed. Rather than encourage the use of proprietary software, legally or illegally, he should encourage the use of Free Software wherever it is feasible.
I know everyone hates Microsoft but they are a big corporation and they do have a major influence on the rest of the American economy. Right now, the US needs Microsoft.
Microsoft has spent the past decade illegally using its monopoly power to levearage its usually inferior, often unstable software products throughout society. These products, deliberatly designed to be incompatible with widely accepted standards, and to drive competitors (often with superior products) out of business, have been responsible for uncountable damage to our economy, due to needless system crashes, excessive vulnerability to viruses, poor security, and intentional incompatiblity.
At the same time Microsoft has drained countless billions of dollars from average Americans, much of it through the "Microsoft Tax" it used its monopoly power to illegally impose through PC vendors, Microsoft has paid relativly little in taxes; in fact, over the past two years their tax rate was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
Some people think, anecdotaly, that Microsoft products have improved their lives, but on closer examination it inevitably becomes apparent that these products are inferior to and more expensive than products offered by competitors, or products that would have been offered had those competitors not been driven out of business or intimidated from even entering into a business that Microsoft might percieve as a threat to their monopoly.
The U.S. "needs" Microsoft only in the sense that a heroin addict "needs" their dealer to keep them supplied with smack. What they percieve as the thing that is absolutely essential is in fact the thing that is slowly draining their life away.
Peru and other developing countries would be well advised to stay as far away from Microsoft as they can. Embracing open source and standards-based computing will be a vastly better alternative for their whole society, in the short and long runs.
As for us (North) Americans, the sooner we can get the Microsoft Monkey off our backs the better off we, and the world, will be.
Writing to our elected officials is important. We also need to remember that there are some very good organizations that really understand these issues and are out there fighting for our rights every day. They need and deserve our support.
Even small donations will make a difference. There are a lot of us, people; once we get into the habit of putting our money where our mouths are, the **AA's will be in deep trouble.
If you can afford it, consider donating $100 a year to each of these organizations, as I do. It's really worth it.
- The Free Software Foundation
(click on "Donate", or volunteer, or contribue hardware or expertise)
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
Yale is dumb.
Princeton is unethical.
Harvard is laughing it's ass off.
Thanks for the comforting information. Tell me, though, is a meltdown any less rare, if, say, a full loaded 747 airliner, or, say, a Leerjet packed with high explosives, crashes into a nuclear plant? It is? Well, good thing THAT could never happen then.
A complete meltdown is a disaster, but not the end of the world.Not the end of the world? That's good to know. So if I ever do hear on TV that a nuclear plant in my vicinity has been hit by a plane, and that vastly more radiation than was released in Chernobyl is pouring into the air, I won't need to worry, because it won't be the end of the world. Great.
Chernobyl had no containment building to speak of, and was run by idiots.Well, it's certainly a good thing that OUR nuclear plants are run by a much higher class of person, and guarded by at least 30 - 40 armed rent-a-cops. So there's no way a highly trained squad of fifty or a hundred suicidial terrorists could ever successfully attack one of them. Yes sir, your post has certainly put my mind at ease.