Without the GPL, software might be free of charge, but we have no way to ensure that it remains Free.
Umm... free from what? No, really. I mean it.
I mean it's not the software that wants to be free. GNU theology notwithstanding, software doesn't give a toss. The important thing the GPL does is safeguard certain freedoms of human beings. I can't find the reference I was looking for, but
Wikipedia
gives these freedoms as
the freedom to run a program
the freedom to study and modify a program
the freedom to redistribute the program and
the freedom to improve the program and release the improvements to the public
Now it does this in a very outside-the-box sort of way, by using the legal mechanisms that software vendors typically use to deny these people - copyright and licence agreements - in order to safeguard same for GPL licenced code. It's like one of those martial arts that uses an opponents strength and weight against them.
It's a very clever trick. All hail Richard Stallman
Now suppose we remove all IP laws. Stallman's judo ceases to function, certainly, but so does the threat it was designed to defend against. So I still don't see a downside. Opposing the abolition of IP because it invalidates the GPL is like opposing the abolition of slavery because it would undermine the emancipation movement: probably well intentioned, but woefully missing the point.
So like I say: free for what? Freedom is a relatve concept - it's only meaningful in the context of being free to do something, or of being free from some condition. So which are the freedoms you feel are be threatened by the policies of the Pirate Party?
Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well.
mmm... I can see it now.
The Pirate Party passes legislation that invalidates the protection of Copyright. Everyone's favourite Evil MegaCorps open offices in Sweden to take advantage of the bonanza, rip of the Linux kernel and sell it for money because the free versions have presumably vanished in a puff of logic, and besides which they can rely on Sweden's newly repealed IP laws to protect their own closed source kernel and... you know, that doesn't sound right somehow.
Or maybe the grand master plan is to make lots of changes in Sweden, and then to sell the product in other countries... where the GPL does function and where they will be forced to release the source their changes... nah, still doesn't work, does it?
Are you sure you've thought this one through? In the absence of strong legal IP protection, is there still a need for the GPL? It seems a bit like saying, "if there were no guns, there'd be nothing to stop the bad guys from shooting people".
However, there are those among the FSF that are telling people that they won't be given the choice to give up certain of their freedoms voluntarily
Umm... and who, precisely, is doing this? How are they saying this? What words are they using? I can't see anything from TFA to suggest this is the case?
While we're at it - which people are they talking about? Everyone? And what are the precise freedoms that these people will supposedly be forced to retain?
Who or what is it that will prevent them from surrendering these freedoms?
Cthulhu is a unique, singluar and fictional deity invented by HP Lovecraft. The description given fits Lovecraft's Elder Gods, as well as a horde of more mortal monsters he created in support of his pantheon.
The British East India company operated under a Crown charter giving it exclusive permission to trade in the East Indies...
Conceeded.
...so a poor example.
I disagree. Regulation of a market is only possible to the extent of the regulatory authority's authority. Up until 1773, the British Government had no means of enforcing their will in India, so their grant of exclusive access didn't amount to much in the face of international competition.
And for a while after 1773, what influence they did have waqs directly due to the military might the East India Company had acccumulated to stop competitors infringing on what they regarded as their turf.
The same East India Company that was repeatedly granted trade monopolies by the British government and later functioned as an arm of the British government?
However, the grant of a monopoly back in 1600 didn't count for an awful lot. Granted, the company could defend it's monopoly in England against English competitors, but the real competition came from other national trading companies. That market, I think you'll agree was very deregulated, if for no other reason than the powerless of the governments involved to enforce their edicts so far from home.
The result was the Company setting up its own private army to defend it's interests.
It didn't gain any official governmental status until one and three quarter centuries after it's creation.
Mercantilism is not capitalism.
Granted. Likewise, Capitalism is not Libertarianism, Libertarianism is not Facism, and Aardvaarks are not Custard.
If I remember correctly the East India Company used to maintain a private army to enforce its self proclaimed monopoly over trade in India. Eventually Britain came to depend on that trade so much it sent its own troops to protect British interests, and ended up conquering the place. But in the beginning, the East India Company enforced its own monopoly. In blood, if need be.
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market.
In a purely deregualted market, MEGABIGCO will create it's own barriers to entry. Quite possible by sending men round with hammers to break up your equipment and hospitalise your staff.
But if you pass law against organised violence and intimidation, then you're interfering with the market. That may not be the primary intent of the law, but if you have a business model that relies on violence and intimidation for income then you probably won't see it that way.
From that, I think it's clear that some level or regulation is required, unless we want the the markets to be dominated solely by the vicious, brutal and unprincipled.
On the other hand, I don't think this completely invalidates your points either. Bad regulations can be abused, and often seem designed to be abused, in order to enable monopolies.
I think the problem is binary thinking. The question is not "is regulation good or is regulation evil?" The question we should ask is "what level of regulation best serves the public interest, and while we're at it, how do we thing the public interest is best served?"
Incidentally, please don't take this personally. I agree with a lot of hat you write. On this occasion though, I think you're arguing mainly from theology.
Offer prizes with kiddie appeal to get the young 'uns in. Get formal agreement to a Shared Source NDA, so Microsoft have a paper trail for future use.
Then, if at some future date, one of these bright sparks decides to do some open source coding, or even just to work for anyone who dares compete with microsoft for that matter, MS can say: "That's our IP! They signed an NDA!" and steal the rights to the code.
Not of course that they'd be unprinicpled as to do anything like that. Why, I bet it never even occured to them...
Watch the haters with their head in the sand say something like, "Oh, well we'll see if this is really innovation or if it's just another bug-filled DRM'd release that the government uses to spy on you."
Yep, I really hate that knee-jerk wait-and-see attitude. I mean how irrational can you get?
Windows is not a spyware magnet. Internet Explorer is. Don't use Internet
Explorer (yes, you don't have to use IE on Windows!) and you're fine.
mmm... I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. There's all the folk who got r00ted by Sony for example. Or the ones who installed something legitmate seeming that brought uninvited company. Rumour has it that even Bill Gates uses Ad-Aware. 'course, Gatesy probably uses IE too, so maybe that doesn't count:)
But even granting the point, I think the original point was that the proposed
driver security for Vista was going to make it easier for commerical concerns to
install Sony style drivers and harder for the user to undo the mess afterward.
Which seems to fit sadly well with my perception of the direction MS taken over
the last 10 years or so.
I will admit to dual booting Windows, purely because the games available for Linux are still catching up with the commercial offerings.
That's one way of putting it...
...and possibly being a little generous to the current state of Linux gaming, granted.
All the same, I think it's a fair point. As frameworks and engines mature, I think
the games market is going to be increasingly driven by the quality of the story
over rather than the realism of the graphics. I'd play DeusEx (the original) over Doom 3
any day of the week, for example. Ultimately, it's going to come down to creativity
and resources, and the open source world makes more efficent use of them, mainly
because it can't just throw money at the problem.
I mean if I want a strategy game, FreeCiv and Wesnoth already scratch
my itch better than any of the commercial offerings. Freecraft (or
whatever it's called now) needs some better art but was coming along
nicely otherwise, and some of the free shooters using the QII and QIII
engines are lookng very promising. We're still missing a FreeSim games
and probably a couple of others. Overall though I'll stick to my guns:
I think Linux is going to catch up, and if need be, I'll wait for it
to happen
All the big houses are shifting the consoles which they see as less
demanding in terms of development and support and less prone to
unauthorised distribution of their software.
You really think nobody will release games for PCs anymore? They're a
massive market. Far more people have PCs than have the latest consoles,
and some types of games simply don't translate well to consoles (e.g
the original Sims, strategy games...).
Do you really find it so hard to believe? Over the last five years I've
seen PC games drop from taking up about half my local games store, to
taking up two segments, stuck round the back where no one is likely to
see them unless they know to look. MS and Sony are both pressurising
software houses to release to console only in order to drive console
sales, and the little that is reaching the PC is getting there late.
One day, the big games companies are just going to announce that there
isn't enough of a market to justify the overhead in development and anyone
who doesn't like it is a freeloading pirate loser who should spend some
money and buy a proper gaming platform. Or maybe I'm being overly cynical?
That's fair enough. I have nothing against people using Linux or whatever,
just people who go around claiming Windows/Microsoft are some kind
of satanic evil in the world and that everyone should shift to Linux
(which for most people is nowhere near sufficient) because they say so.
I think my viewpoint is closer to "Microsoft are not your friends, and in the long run you'll probably be better off with Linux". As far as I'm concerned, open source is about everyone getting to choose. Most folks will get there in the end, I reckon.
HL2 works, and the Sims I can live without. I don't know what F.E.A.R is, but I don't
suppose it's going to be good enough to make it worth while putting up with a whole new
level of Spyware support from Microsoft.
I will admit to dual booting Windows, purely because the games available for Linux
are still catching up with the commercial offerings. The trouble is, I'm pretty much resigned to the death of windows as a gaming platform. All the big houses are shifting
the consoles which they see as less demanding in terms of development and support
and less prone to unauthorised distribution of their software.
If it comes to a choice between enjoing only those entertainments that make moeny for Microsoft and Sony, or of doing what I damn well please with my own machine, I think I'll stick with Linux. However, your mileage may well vary, and I wish you joy in your choice of software platform.
You don't have to buy stuff from Blizzard or any other company that is using evil DRM thingies. It's just like when I'm buying music on these pre-Vista-days. I pick the music store which doesn't have DRM stuff or their policy is accetable for me. Music, games, films and such aren't like food or water which you have to buy every day.
Yep, always read the label and if there's a sticker that says "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS EVIL", then don't buy it. Or I guess you could stick with reputable and well established compaines. Like, errm, Sony...
Seems to me, what that boils down to is "if you don't want spyware, don't use your computer"
Maybe "don't use Microsoft" might be a better solution for those of us who like to have fun with our computers?
In general, rain doesn't make things wet.However rain can make things wet if they're left outside, and rain can make things wet if the rain water get carried inside, and..."
All I'm saying is that you could make (what I take to be your) point more clearly if you said
in general, rain makes things wet. However, that doesn't have to happen if you bring a thing inside, or make sure it's under cover.
That way you need fewer special cases, and your general case is propably going to be more in tune with your reader's personal experience. This way, you point gets made more powerfully.
I think you could simpllify that a lot by inverting the logic. How about this:
In general, ads do ruin websites
That said, if you're careful to ensure your ads are neither too numerous nor overly-instrusive, then you probably won't upset your community members who might otherwise complain or go elsewhere
See? Says pretty much the same thing but doesn't sound nearly so self contradictory, and it avoids sneering at those members of your community who might disagree as to where the threshold of annoyance might lie.
We can use this information to do other wonderful things too, like pay-per-use roads.
mmm... I wonder if that's the best idea. The net seems to work better when everyone pays a flat fee for access. Every time someone tries to introduce use based fees, it always seems to end up overpriced, with relatively few users.
I can see ithow the same mindset could be applied to meatspace transport. Road tolls rise every time the govt is strapped for cash - which is always. Big haulage firms complain, lobby for road tax breaks. Before you know it, there's a two tier charging system - after all it happened for income tax.
You end up that the only people who can afford to travel are on corporate business, rich, or criminals who
know how to spoof the system. What's scary is that I'm sure there are those out there who see this as a desireable outcome.
Not that I'm not proposing this as an inevitable outcome - it's very much a tin foil helmet scenario. I just don't think I'm ready to accept per-use charging as automatically beneficial.
You however I believe, are suggesting that the only cost is knowledge. And as the knowledge becomes 'common' the cost will drop to zero.
I confess, I'm not really comfortable with all these different ways of demonstrating that linux isn't really zero cost - it all smacks of those desperate contortions we see from everyone's favourite software house. You know, Linux isn't free because of TCO and all that, but windows is because it comes pre-installed. Maybe I'm just a little over sensitive to the issue, but I think I'd perfer to evaluate the cost of an option in terms of the money it costs here and now. Then we can consider other factors (such as the practicalities of adoption to different demongraphic groups as separate issues.
So, and for that reason, I think I'll stand by my guns and assert that there is a
zero cost option. With that established, I'll be happy to concede that for a large but shrinking segment of the population there may well be secondary costs, and that these costs may well overshadow the savings, at least in the short term.
The thing is, if you know that a zero cost option exists, then acts as a driver encouraging people to cultivate the skillset needed to make the option practical. That, I think is why Microsoft are so keen to confuse the issue with all these misleading metrics, and that's why I think it's important not to lose sight of the basic fact: that there is a zero cost option.
So no, you are wrong. it is NOT a 'zero cost' alternative, that is just completely naive.
Nope, I'm afraid he's right. There is a zero cost option. The fact that requisite knowledge and skill base are still slowly propagating themselves throughout society doesn't make that option unavailable, it just means isn't yet practical for a lot of users.
But then, having home computer wasn't practical for a lot of people twenty years ago. A little over ten years ago the internet was complicated enough to place it beyond the grasp of the average consumer as well.
These things change. In ten years using a propretary OS for your home computer may well seem as archaic as loading software from an audio cassette does now. And as was the case with internet access, the it could happen very quickly given the right circumstances. This of course is Microsoft's nightmare scenario, which is why they're trying to talk up the supposed hidden costs of Linux.
But ulitmately, it is a zero cost option, and utimately it's going to win out.
if you apply for a patent and the pto grants it you deserve the rights that come with that patent.
If you apply for a patent and the PTO grants it you can claim a legal entitlement to the privileges that come with it. When you use language like "deserve" and "rights" it suggests a moral dimension to what is entirely a legal construct. I feel it's better to avoid such terms in this context - alltogether too many people are trying to conflate the moral and legal aspects as it is wthout slashdot joining the fray.
I feel patents are necessary to promote the arts and sciences. Are there other ways to do so?
A better question might perhaps be "are patents useful toward this end?" Certainly they are having a chilling effect on research in many areas of science, where people are increasingly reluctant to invest time and effort in original research when there is a high risk of having the fruits of their work hijacked by a wealthy corporation with a broadly worded patent thicket. Meanwhile, if you examine regimes that rejected the patent convention for a time, you tend to find that research sky-rocketed there. Not just as a result of them using work patented by others, either, but because they felt free to take that work and build on it.
Absolutely. Our government and most governments around the world thought and still do think patents help meet those goals.
I'm not sure the appeal to authority argument works very well when applied to so nebulous an entity as a government. You could argue that the set people who cnstituted the US government held such a view at
one particuar point in time. Since then, simple inertia would probably be enough to keep the statue on the books.
I don't really think we can infer anything much about the opinions of our legistators from this, and that's
assuming they are a credible authority to begin with.
As much as everyone on slashdot touts the advantages of free disclosure and GNU, there are disadvantages.
Umm... what disadvantages specifically, disadvantages to whom? I mean I can see disadvantages to large corporations - specifically that they lose a number of weapons for surpressing
competition and maintaining the status quo. I can't see any downside for the public as a whole however.
The problem is that the intended function of the patent mechanism may be neither helpful nor desirable.
If their patent is valid then they deserve the monopoly under the current system.
Umm... no. Let's try not to muddle the separate issues of what an entity may legally, with what that same entity may deserve. A law could be passed tomorrow giving me legal right to all your goods and assets now and in perpetuity - would that make me deserving of those resources>
After a certain duration passes, the license will be unnecessary and the cost will come down.
You're jumping the gun a little there.
Stating that the patent will be unnecessary after "a certain duration" presupposes t
hat the patent is neccessary now - which is the very point the GP was challenging. So before we can
accept that argument, you need to explain that necessity.
In particular, I'm interested in
the purpose for which you feel patents are necessary
You only have to read a slashdot story on Climate Change (and the amount of time posters call it "global warming"
What significance do you attach to that difference in terminology?
I've been led to belive that the "climate change" tag was something crafted by Tony Blair's spin doctors as being laden with negative associations. Typical Blair if so - trying to change public perception when he could be addressing the problem itself.
Is there some fine distinction between the two that I'm missing? Other than that of being "on message" of course:)
Here's some emphasis, since you seem to have some difficulty understanding the point.
Now, now. There's no need to be unpleasant.
Is there a possibility that the patent system is working right in this case?
You see, that's presupposing that it has a non-broken mode of operation. I (and I suspect the GP would agree with me) do not agree that this is the case. Modern patents, particularly software patents it would seem, are more about creating unearned monopolies to protect failing business models than looking out for the little guy.
Imagine a marketplace where a gang of traders have hired a bunch of thugs to stop outsiders from setting up stalls and competeing with them. It's a bad thing: bad for trade, bad for prices, bad for the local economy and bad for the travelling merchant who get beaten and robbed.
The thing is, every once in a while the visitor might turn up with enough guard to win a battle and make a bit of money. That doesn't mean the system is working; it just means that for once, the long odds came up and the underdog got away without losing his shirt.
That is really the question though, would a consumer seeing a "superhero comic" make any assumptions as to who created it, and expect the same quality as other comics labelled as "superhero comics".
That's taking a fair bit for granted. For instance, you seem to be presupposing that Marvel and DC have superior quality output, which isn't by any means a given. Even were I to conceed that, you stlll seem to presuppose that a low quality offering from a competitor would weaken the offerings of the Big Two. Having lived throught the Radioactive Adolescent Black Belt Hampsters, the fall of First and Eclipse, and the 90s Artists-Without-0Writers fad, I can say that such is emphatically not the case.
But even that presupposes that Marvel and DC have a property that is theirs to protect. Their claim seem legally dubious; the "generic term" carries considerable weight, and whatever legal weight their claim may have had is undermined by lack of enforcement. The desirability of
upholding their claim is also open to debate; is anyone really better serverd by giving these two companies such a privilege?
Now if the company in question was calling it's offering "Marvel Super Heroes" or "DC Super Heroes" then they might have a point. Using such a trademark violation to slap down an indie fan mag would still be pretty sleazy, but I would have to have sympathy for the point of law. This however looks like just another IP land grab, and we'd be well advised to view it with the contempt it deserves.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... free from what? No, really. I mean it.
I mean it's not the software that wants to be free. GNU theology notwithstanding, software doesn't give a toss. The important thing the GPL does is safeguard certain freedoms of human beings. I can't find the reference I was looking for, but Wikipedia gives these freedoms as
Now it does this in a very outside-the-box sort of way, by using the legal mechanisms that software vendors typically use to deny these people - copyright and licence agreements - in order to safeguard same for GPL licenced code. It's like one of those martial arts that uses an opponents strength and weight against them.
It's a very clever trick. All hail Richard Stallman
Now suppose we remove all IP laws. Stallman's judo ceases to function, certainly, but so does the threat it was designed to defend against. So I still don't see a downside. Opposing the abolition of IP because it invalidates the GPL is like opposing the abolition of slavery because it would undermine the emancipation movement: probably well intentioned, but woefully missing the point.
So like I say: free for what? Freedom is a relatve concept - it's only meaningful in the context of being free to do something, or of being free from some condition. So which are the freedoms you feel are be threatened by the policies of the Pirate Party?
mmm... I can see it now.
The Pirate Party passes legislation that invalidates the protection of Copyright. Everyone's favourite Evil MegaCorps open offices in Sweden to take advantage of the bonanza, rip of the Linux kernel and sell it for money because the free versions have presumably vanished in a puff of logic, and besides which they can rely on Sweden's newly repealed IP laws to protect their own closed source kernel and... you know, that doesn't sound right somehow.
Or maybe the grand master plan is to make lots of changes in Sweden, and then to sell the product in other countries... where the GPL does function and where they will be forced to release the source their changes... nah, still doesn't work, does it?
Are you sure you've thought this one through? In the absence of strong legal IP protection, is there still a need for the GPL? It seems a bit like saying, "if there were no guns, there'd be nothing to stop the bad guys from shooting people".
I'm havng difficulty worrying about this one.
Umm... and who, precisely, is doing this? How are they saying this? What words are they using? I can't see anything from TFA to suggest this is the case?
While we're at it - which people are they talking about? Everyone? And what are the precise freedoms that these people will supposedly be forced to retain?
Who or what is it that will prevent them from surrendering these freedoms?
Let's have some details to back up the innuendo
Cthulhu is a unique, singluar and fictional deity invented by HP Lovecraft. The description given fits Lovecraft's Elder Gods, as well as a horde of more mortal monsters he created in support of his pantheon.
Yes, I'm being pedantic.
Yes, I'm probably missing the point.
No, I don't care.
True enough, if we're talking about the same government. Otherwise. we're just tralking about a wider marketplace.
Conceeded.
I disagree. Regulation of a market is only possible to the extent of the regulatory authority's authority. Up until 1773, the British Government had no means of enforcing their will in India, so their grant of exclusive access didn't amount to much in the face of international competition.
And for a while after 1773, what influence they did have waqs directly due to the military might the East India Company had acccumulated to stop competitors infringing on what they regarded as their turf.
I think the example stands
Yes, The British East India Company as distinct from those of Denmark, France, Holland and Sweden.
However, the grant of a monopoly back in 1600 didn't count for an awful lot. Granted, the company could defend it's monopoly in England against English competitors, but the real competition came from other national trading companies. That market, I think you'll agree was very deregulated, if for no other reason than the powerless of the governments involved to enforce their edicts so far from home. The result was the Company setting up its own private army to defend it's interests.
It didn't gain any official governmental status until one and three quarter centuries after it's creation.
Mercantilism is not capitalism.
Granted. Likewise, Capitalism is not Libertarianism, Libertarianism is not Facism, and Aardvaarks are not Custard.
Did you have a point to go with the platitude?
mmm... and are there no exceptions?
If I remember correctly the East India Company used to maintain a private army to enforce its self proclaimed monopoly over trade in India. Eventually Britain came to depend on that trade so much it sent its own troops to protect British interests, and ended up conquering the place. But in the beginning, the East India Company enforced its own monopoly. In blood, if need be.
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market.
In a purely deregualted market, MEGABIGCO will create it's own barriers to entry. Quite possible by sending men round with hammers to break up your equipment and hospitalise your staff.
But if you pass law against organised violence and intimidation, then you're interfering with the market. That may not be the primary intent of the law, but if you have a business model that relies on violence and intimidation for income then you probably won't see it that way.
From that, I think it's clear that some level or regulation is required, unless we want the the markets to be dominated solely by the vicious, brutal and unprincipled.
On the other hand, I don't think this completely invalidates your points either. Bad regulations can be abused, and often seem designed to be abused, in order to enable monopolies.
I think the problem is binary thinking. The question is not "is regulation good or is regulation evil?" The question we should ask is "what level of regulation best serves the public interest, and while we're at it, how do we thing the public interest is best served?"
Incidentally, please don't take this personally. I agree with a lot of hat you write. On this occasion though, I think you're arguing mainly from theology.
Offer prizes with kiddie appeal to get the young 'uns in. Get formal agreement to a Shared Source NDA, so Microsoft have a paper trail for future use.
Then, if at some future date, one of these bright sparks decides to do some open source coding, or even just to work for anyone who dares compete with microsoft for that matter, MS can say: "That's our IP! They signed an NDA!" and steal the rights to the code.
Not of course that they'd be unprinicpled as to do anything like that. Why, I bet it never even occured to them...
Yep, I really hate that knee-jerk wait-and-see attitude. I mean how irrational can you get?
mmm... I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. There's all the folk who got r00ted by Sony for example. Or the ones who installed something legitmate seeming that brought uninvited company. Rumour has it that even Bill Gates uses Ad-Aware. 'course, Gatesy probably uses IE too, so maybe that doesn't count :)
But even granting the point, I think the original point was that the proposed driver security for Vista was going to make it easier for commerical concerns to install Sony style drivers and harder for the user to undo the mess afterward. Which seems to fit sadly well with my perception of the direction MS taken over the last 10 years or so.
I mean if I want a strategy game, FreeCiv and Wesnoth already scratch my itch better than any of the commercial offerings. Freecraft (or whatever it's called now) needs some better art but was coming along nicely otherwise, and some of the free shooters using the QII and QIII engines are lookng very promising. We're still missing a FreeSim games and probably a couple of others. Overall though I'll stick to my guns: I think Linux is going to catch up, and if need be, I'll wait for it to happen
Do you really find it so hard to believe? Over the last five years I've seen PC games drop from taking up about half my local games store, to taking up two segments, stuck round the back where no one is likely to see them unless they know to look. MS and Sony are both pressurising software houses to release to console only in order to drive console sales, and the little that is reaching the PC is getting there late.
One day, the big games companies are just going to announce that there isn't enough of a market to justify the overhead in development and anyone who doesn't like it is a freeloading pirate loser who should spend some money and buy a proper gaming platform. Or maybe I'm being overly cynical?
I think my viewpoint is closer to "Microsoft are not your friends, and in the long run you'll probably be better off with Linux". As far as I'm concerned, open source is about everyone getting to choose. Most folks will get there in the end, I reckon.
Plenty of time :)
I will admit to dual booting Windows, purely because the games available for Linux are still catching up with the commercial offerings. The trouble is, I'm pretty much resigned to the death of windows as a gaming platform. All the big houses are shifting the consoles which they see as less demanding in terms of development and support and less prone to unauthorised distribution of their software.
If it comes to a choice between enjoing only those entertainments that make moeny for Microsoft and Sony, or of doing what I damn well please with my own machine, I think I'll stick with Linux. However, your mileage may well vary, and I wish you joy in your choice of software platform.
Yep, always read the label and if there's a sticker that says "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS EVIL", then don't buy it. Or I guess you could stick with reputable and well established compaines. Like, errm, Sony...
Seems to me, what that boils down to is "if you don't want spyware, don't use your computer"
Maybe "don't use Microsoft" might be a better solution for those of us who like to have fun with our computers?
In general, rain doesn't make things wet.However rain can make things wet if they're left outside, and rain can make things wet if the rain water get carried inside, and ..."
All I'm saying is that you could make (what I take to be your) point more clearly if you said
in general, rain makes things wet. However, that doesn't have to happen if you bring a thing inside, or make sure it's under cover.
That way you need fewer special cases, and your general case is propably going to be more in tune with your reader's personal experience. This way, you point gets made more powerfully.
See? Says pretty much the same thing but doesn't sound nearly so self contradictory, and it avoids sneering at those members of your community who might disagree as to where the threshold of annoyance might lie.
Put like that, I quite agree with you ;)
mmm... I wonder if that's the best idea. The net seems to work better when everyone pays a flat fee for access. Every time someone tries to introduce use based fees, it always seems to end up overpriced, with relatively few users.
I can see ithow the same mindset could be applied to meatspace transport. Road tolls rise every time the govt is strapped for cash - which is always. Big haulage firms complain, lobby for road tax breaks. Before you know it, there's a two tier charging system - after all it happened for income tax.
You end up that the only people who can afford to travel are on corporate business, rich, or criminals who know how to spoof the system. What's scary is that I'm sure there are those out there who see this as a desireable outcome.
Not that I'm not proposing this as an inevitable outcome - it's very much a tin foil helmet scenario. I just don't think I'm ready to accept per-use charging as automatically beneficial.
I confess, I'm not really comfortable with all these different ways of demonstrating that linux isn't really zero cost - it all smacks of those desperate contortions we see from everyone's favourite software house. You know, Linux isn't free because of TCO and all that, but windows is because it comes pre-installed. Maybe I'm just a little over sensitive to the issue, but I think I'd perfer to evaluate the cost of an option in terms of the money it costs here and now. Then we can consider other factors (such as the practicalities of adoption to different demongraphic groups as separate issues.
So, and for that reason, I think I'll stand by my guns and assert that there is a zero cost option. With that established, I'll be happy to concede that for a large but shrinking segment of the population there may well be secondary costs, and that these costs may well overshadow the savings, at least in the short term.
The thing is, if you know that a zero cost option exists, then acts as a driver encouraging people to cultivate the skillset needed to make the option practical. That, I think is why Microsoft are so keen to confuse the issue with all these misleading metrics, and that's why I think it's important not to lose sight of the basic fact: that there is a zero cost option.
Nope, I'm afraid he's right. There is a zero cost option. The fact that requisite knowledge and skill base are still slowly propagating themselves throughout society doesn't make that option unavailable, it just means isn't yet practical for a lot of users.
But then, having home computer wasn't practical for a lot of people twenty years ago. A little over ten years ago the internet was complicated enough to place it beyond the grasp of the average consumer as well.
These things change. In ten years using a propretary OS for your home computer may well seem as archaic as loading software from an audio cassette does now. And as was the case with internet access, the it could happen very quickly given the right circumstances. This of course is Microsoft's nightmare scenario, which is why they're trying to talk up the supposed hidden costs of Linux.
But ulitmately, it is a zero cost option, and utimately it's going to win out.
Interesting. The OED defines terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation in persuit of political objectives.
I personally find that definition superior, since it doesn't tie the practice to any particular relihgous faith or form of government,
If you apply for a patent and the PTO grants it you can claim a legal entitlement to the privileges that come with it. When you use language like "deserve" and "rights" it suggests a moral dimension to what is entirely a legal construct. I feel it's better to avoid such terms in this context - alltogether too many people are trying to conflate the moral and legal aspects as it is wthout slashdot joining the fray.
I feel patents are necessary to promote the arts and sciences. Are there other ways to do so?
A better question might perhaps be "are patents useful toward this end?" Certainly they are having a chilling effect on research in many areas of science, where people are increasingly reluctant to invest time and effort in original research when there is a high risk of having the fruits of their work hijacked by a wealthy corporation with a broadly worded patent thicket. Meanwhile, if you examine regimes that rejected the patent convention for a time, you tend to find that research sky-rocketed there. Not just as a result of them using work patented by others, either, but because they felt free to take that work and build on it.
Absolutely. Our government and most governments around the world thought and still do think patents help meet those goals.
I'm not sure the appeal to authority argument works very well when applied to so nebulous an entity as a government. You could argue that the set people who cnstituted the US government held such a view at one particuar point in time. Since then, simple inertia would probably be enough to keep the statue on the books. I don't really think we can infer anything much about the opinions of our legistators from this, and that's assuming they are a credible authority to begin with.
As much as everyone on slashdot touts the advantages of free disclosure and GNU, there are disadvantages.
Umm... what disadvantages specifically, disadvantages to whom? I mean I can see disadvantages to large corporations - specifically that they lose a number of weapons for surpressing competition and maintaining the status quo. I can't see any downside for the public as a whole however.
The problem is that the intended function of the patent mechanism may be neither helpful nor desirable.
If their patent is valid then they deserve the monopoly under the current system.
Umm... no. Let's try not to muddle the separate issues of what an entity may legally, with what that same entity may deserve. A law could be passed tomorrow giving me legal right to all your goods and assets now and in perpetuity - would that make me deserving of those resources>
After a certain duration passes, the license will be unnecessary and the cost will come down.
You're jumping the gun a little there. Stating that the patent will be unnecessary after "a certain duration" presupposes t hat the patent is neccessary now - which is the very point the GP was challenging. So before we can accept that argument, you need to explain that necessity.
In particular, I'm interested in the purpose for which you feel patents are necessary
What significance do you attach to that difference in terminology?
I've been led to belive that the "climate change" tag was something crafted by Tony Blair's spin doctors as being laden with negative associations. Typical Blair if so - trying to change public perception when he could be addressing the problem itself.
Is there some fine distinction between the two that I'm missing? Other than that of being "on message" of course :)
Now, now. There's no need to be unpleasant.
Is there a possibility that the patent system is working right in this case?
You see, that's presupposing that it has a non-broken mode of operation. I (and I suspect the GP would agree with me) do not agree that this is the case. Modern patents, particularly software patents it would seem, are more about creating unearned monopolies to protect failing business models than looking out for the little guy.
Imagine a marketplace where a gang of traders have hired a bunch of thugs to stop outsiders from setting up stalls and competeing with them. It's a bad thing: bad for trade, bad for prices, bad for the local economy and bad for the travelling merchant who get beaten and robbed.
The thing is, every once in a while the visitor might turn up with enough guard to win a battle and make a bit of money. That doesn't mean the system is working; it just means that for once, the long odds came up and the underdog got away without losing his shirt.
I bet people in Redmond spend a lot of time walking into doors these days
That's taking a fair bit for granted. For instance, you seem to be presupposing that Marvel and DC have superior quality output, which isn't by any means a given. Even were I to conceed that, you stlll seem to presuppose that a low quality offering from a competitor would weaken the offerings of the Big Two. Having lived throught the Radioactive Adolescent Black Belt Hampsters, the fall of First and Eclipse, and the 90s Artists-Without-0Writers fad, I can say that such is emphatically not the case.
But even that presupposes that Marvel and DC have a property that is theirs to protect. Their claim seem legally dubious; the "generic term" carries considerable weight, and whatever legal weight their claim may have had is undermined by lack of enforcement. The desirability of upholding their claim is also open to debate; is anyone really better serverd by giving these two companies such a privilege?
Now if the company in question was calling it's offering "Marvel Super Heroes" or "DC Super Heroes" then they might have a point. Using such a trademark violation to slap down an indie fan mag would still be pretty sleazy, but I would have to have sympathy for the point of law. This however looks like just another IP land grab, and we'd be well advised to view it with the contempt it deserves.