Maybe it's impossible to do anything complex with just vi but I wouldn't know.
I'm going to come down on the side of saying that it's impossible to do anything complex with just vi. Trying to write out a complex 3D scene by hand would be roughly equivalent to entering the binary for Quake III into the computer via Morse code every time you wanted to run it.
Do you really believe the only people that should be able to distribute information widely are those that can afford to pay for high end services?
I believe that the list of things to which people are entitled is very, very short. If something is offered as a service and you are unable to pay for it, then you don't get it. If somebody comes up with a free implementation of what Akamai currently charges money for, I'm all for it, but until then it's pay-to-play.
Arranging an ftp mirroring system is not scalable or accessible to any significant number of people.
Works fine for distributing things like Linux, doesn't it?
I'll repeat, the law does not agree with you with respect to prior restraint of speech for which there is possible noninfringing uses.
I'll repeat, I could not care less what the law says on this matter. I am telling you my opinion, and if the law disagrees with me then it is my opinion that the law could be improved a bit.
The introduction of every new technology which can copy has seen cries to strangle it, photocopiers, VCRs, even the printing press.
Ah, excellent. I'm glad you brought up VCRs. Do you know why they're legal? Because the Supreme Court found that there are significant legitimate uses for them. Not merely possible, but significant. If the case against P2P were brought up today, do you seriously think that the court, faced with the epidemic of piracy taking place through these networks, would make a similar finding?
Most p2p systems by default share what has been downloaded.
Wonderful, more fuel for the fire. Imagine John Doe, who in a moment of weakness signs on to Kazaa and illegally downloads the latest Britney Spears single. Thanks to Kazaa's automatic sharing feature, John is no not only a recipient of an illegal copy, but is actively participating in piracy himself by offering up his illegal copy for others to download.
This is great stuff. Keep it coming.
Second, I thought we were engaging in a civil discussion.
By Slashdot standards, this is a love-in. Trust me, nobody is taking this personally. Don't get offended by my flippant remarks.
Richard Stallman explains very clearly what the purpose of the GPL is on the FSF website, notes clearly what freedoms are required to make a license a "free software" license, and how the GPL fills these freedoms.
Have you read his "very clear" explanations? They're the worst kind of collectivist propaganda. I implore everybody lurking on this thread to read Stallman's "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" (here) and behold his rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. I particularly like the way he sets up the SPA as a straw-man and compares them to the USSR. Really classy, Rich.
The GPL allows anyone to create and license derivative works, just like the BSD license does. The set of restrictions to such redistribution is slightly different (BSD license requires attribution, GPL requires same license terms) but neither denies anyone the right to modify, distribute, or sell derivatives for however much money you want.
Wrong twice. First, the GPL expressly prohibits the licensing of derivative works under less restrictive terms than the GPL itself. Specifically, it says, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." In other words, works derived from GPL-licensed works are automatically covered under the GPL. That's one.
Two: you cannot sell any works derived from software licensed under the GPL. It's prohibited by the license. The GPL says, "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you... cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." In other words, if you create and distribute a work derived from a GPL-licensed work, you must give it away to everybody.
The BSD license is not truly free; it does not allow anyone to redistribute or modify without attribution. The only truly free license is no license at all, which is known as "Public Domain."
Okay, I'll go along with that. So in the hierarchy of freedom, we have public domain (completely unrestricted), the BSD and similar licenses (restricted only in attribution), and then the GPL (restricted in many ways). Tell me again how a license that is demonstrably more restrictive that two others (if you could PD as a license for sake of discussion) is somehow "free?"
I can think of only one thing you can't do with the GPL (redistribute without GPL'ed source).
You might want to consider actually reading the GPL then. The list of musts and must nots numbers no fewer than 10 by a cursory count.
As is calling BSD-licensed software "free," by your definition.
I'll even accept that. But of all software that is not in the public domain-- that is, software that is licensed at all-- that which carries the BSD license is freest by far.
Isn't it nice that RMS and the FSF give very clear, concise definitions of such terms, so we don't have to sit here and fight about it?
Except for the fact that they are hijacking the word "free" in so doing. Let's say I released some software that I called "free." On my web site I gave a clear and concise definition of "free" that read, "You can use this software for anything you want at all, without restrictions. If you accept this license, you agree to give me the liver and sweetbreads of your firstborn." Would this be deceptive? Would this be fraudulent? Would it be reprehensible?
Playing semantic games with a word that has already been clearly and unambiguously defined by the FSF in order to push your own (badly-considered) propaganda is deceptive.
Who are you accusing? Are you saying that I am playing word games in order to push my own propaganda? Then what, pray tell, is the FSF doing??
Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.
You *don't even have to accept* the GPL to use the software. To me that's definitely freedom.
Yes. You are granted the freedom to do whatever you want. Except the stuff that's prohibited, of course, but we won't talk about that because it's all to the greater good and "free" really only means "mostly free, most of the time" anyway, right?
If the GPL were the "freest" license around, that'd be one thing. But that's not the case at all. The "free software foundation" advocates the use of a license that makes their software demonstrably and significantly less free than other licenses. So the "free" part of their name is one big fat lie.
Why do folks like you waste your time bashing the FSF, when there's so much other stuff you could be bashing?
You didn't write Readline, so why on Earth do you expect the right to be able to do whatever you like with it?
Of course I shouldn't. But if somebody says to me, "Here, this is free," that sets a certain expectation. If somebody said "you can read this, but you can't copy it," that would be just fine. But when somebody says, "this is free" and it turns out not to be, I get pissy.
Their license allows all users of Readline basically unlimited Freedom to use and redistribute the code however they wish.
That is not true. Nobody is, in fact, free to redistribute the code however they wish. I wish to redistribute the code under a less restrictive license than the GPL. I am not allowed to do this. Q.E.D.
The *only* stipulation is that you may not relicense your modified version.
That's not remotely the only stipulation. The GPL consists of page after page of stipulations. For example, the GPL says you can't sell the software. It says you can "charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but you can't licenses to use the software. The same is true of derivative works, which you must cause "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties."
The GPL says that anybody who receives a copy of your software must be allowed to give that copy away to anybody else. In other words, even if you could sell GPL-licensed software, the greatest number of copies you could ever hope to sell would be one. Everybody else will simply get it from that guy.
But, as it turns out, that's not relevant anyway. The GPL says that you have to provide anybody who asks with a machine-readable copy of your source code at cost. So the idea of making money with your software under the GPL is completely out the window by this point.
To say that that's the only stipulation of the GPL is a gross oversimplification.
You see, Free Software is written in and by a community
WHAT!? Software is written by individuals. Sometimes those individuals collaborate, but that doesn't change the fact that they are individuals who happen to be working together. Nothing ever got done by a "community." It got done by people. High-minded talk of "communities" will get you nowhere.
The best user interface that I have yet found is still a command line.
When you figure out how to draw a picture with the command line, or edit a video, or make a 3D model, or even play checkers, let me know. Until then, graphical interfaces are here to stay.
Any useful and practical freedom necessarily has limitations.
Problem is that the limitations placed by the GPL are arbitrary and unjustified. The BSD license accomplishes the exact same thing that the GPL does-- ensuring that a given piece of software will be available in source code form to anybody who wants to see it-- without taking away the user's freedom to create and license derivative works.
It all boils down to this: the BSD license results in software that is truly free. Anybody can use it for any purpose. The GPL results in software that is less free. There is a list of things that one cannot do with GPL-licensed software.
Calling GPL-licensed software "free" then is incorrect. At best, it is "partially free." Deliberately continuing to call it "free" when one knows that doing so is incorrect is deceptive. Doing so on a large scale with an agenda in mind is fraudulent.
The perspective you are missing is that the freedom has to do with the ability of the software to remain free.
Oh, so it's the software that gets to enjoy the benefits of freedom, is that it? People are restricted in order for the software itself to have essential liberty?
This is, in a word, nuts. "Software-slaver?" People are free in that sense; software is an inanimate object, and as such is not. To talk of software in this sense is simply absurd.
The GPL as it stands, enhances your rights to a work over and above basic copyright.
Except for the fact that the FSF requires that the copyright on all software included in their collection be signed over to them. Let's not forget that. They're very adamant about trying to close the copyright loophole. If the FSF had their way, even authors would be bound by the restrictions of the GPL.
You really seem to have issue with copyright law.
Since when? I have issues with the FSF, and with the GPL.
"That bit" is there to stop the license being useless, as its aim is to keep software being written in the interests of the community, rather than a few parties.
Ah, yes. Let's put the good of this nebulous idea called "the community" ahead of the good of the individuals. That logic has worked so well in the past, you know.
This all boils down to the same thing: redefining "freedom" to suit one's own ends. Orwell had a name for that; he called it "newspeak."
Let's drop the euphemisms and speak plainly: the GPL is a restrictive license, just like any other restrictive license. The GPL differs from other restrictive licenses only in what activities it does and does not allow; it is not fundamentally different from any other restrictive license.
If you don't own the copyright, then no you can't steal it and release it under your own license.
How can I steal it if it's "free?" If it's "free" I should be able to do what I want with it, right? Let's take a very reasonable case: let's say I want to create a derivative of Readline. (Imagine some neato improvement to Readline, like allowing it to support Unicode [if it doesn't already].) Let's say that I want to release my derivative under the LGPL.
Damn! Can't do it! Readline is only available under the GPL, so people who create derivative works from it aren't allowed to release those works under any license less restrictive than the GPL.
Yeah. That's "free" for you. It astounds me that the same Slashdotters-- not necessarily yourself, though you may be one of them too-- can deride things like the DMCA and the Department of Homeland Security while upholding the FSF as standing for "freedom." The FSF commits Franklin's fallacy more blatantly than anyone else: those who would sacrifice liberty for security-- as the GPL most certainly does, in restricting the liberty of the user to ensure the continued availability of derivative works-- deserve neither.
Life is all about compromise. If you want to license your software under restrictive terms for your own ends, be my guest. But don't be so arrogant as to call what you're doing "freedom," and what others want to do "stealing."
Free Software gives you freedom in terms of use...
Except for that bit about not being allowed to change the license terms. That's a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?
I've been lobbying for some time to get them to change their name to the "Partly Free Software Foundation," or the "Mostly Free Software Foundation," or the "Free-as-in-Restricted Software Foundation," or the "Free As Long As You Do What We Say Software Foundation." Strangely, none of these ideas have garnered much of a positive response from them.
Because neither of the options you suggest, pay Akamai or setup an FTP mirroring system, are available to most people.
What? Is Akamai turning away paying customers now? Or did you mean that most people are too poor or too cheap to pay to have their content distributed? That may be true. But if that's the case, then they certainly don't need their content distributed, do they?
And as for FTP mirroring, all you have to do is say, "Hey, mirror my content, please!" It's that easy. Free, too, for you cheapskates out there.
Given that at any one time on Kazaa alone there are 3.5 million people sharing 4 petabytes of information I feel comfortable with making that assumption.
Don't you mean that there are 3.49 million pirates sharing 3.99 petabytes of pirated material? Be that as it may, those people are sharing content of their own choosing. It's not like your files will get automatically mirrored on somebody else's system. Somebody has to do it deliberately, just like an FTP mirror. The important distinction is that with a P2P system nobody can tell the legal stuff from the illegal stuff. If you used an FTP server instead, you'd have a convenient little "read me" describing the copyright status of your content, granting explicit permission to download and mirror your content.
The only reason to use P2P is if you want to hide from the authorities.
Actually the US's legal tradition disagrees with you that that is the most important thing. Prior restraint of speech for which there are noninfringing uses is a no no.
What the hell do I care? "King of the world," remember? I'm telling you how things would be if I were in charge.
You are suggesting that a useful method of distribution for noninfringing information be scrapped altogether because it can also be used for infringing uses. Should we get rid of photocopiers, telephones, etc?
Why do you keep trying to distort the argument? If a tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, that tool shouldn't be around. Are photocopiers used primarily for illegal purposes? Of course not. How about phones? Of course not. But P2P? Yes, definitely.
There's one simple way to change my opinion on this subject. Get the college kids and whomever to stop using P2P for widespread, large-scale piracy. At the very least, get the ratio of legal to illegal users up to 50/50. If you can do that, I'll accept that P2P is legitimate technology. But until then, it's not, and people who make and distribute it are aiding and abetting the pirates, and should be held accountable.
The laws should be enforced rather than a whole medium of communication banned.
No, the laws should be enforced and the medium banned. The medium makes it possible for your average anybody to anonymously and safely distribute copyrighted material. It is not possible, then, to enforce the laws as long as P2P exists. Furthermore, these tools are clearly being marketed toward children and other innocent people who have no idea that using them to share music and movies and other media will turn them into pirates. That's irresponsible in the extreme, and should be stopped.
This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
So is ignoring the plague of lawlessness and piracy that Napster and its successors brought about. Turns my stomach, it does.
There is every indication that we will see more projects maing use of them.
Like I said, if you can get the ratio up to 50/50, we'll talk. Until then, P2P networks are dens of lawlessness and piracy, and will be shut down just as soon as I get through taking over the world. Could be any time now.
1. Linux is not more difficult to use or install than Windows; it is merely different.
This is demonstrably untrue. Try the mom test and you'll see what I mean.
2. I prefer Linux to Windows.
I don't see where that really matters in context of this discussion. I'm being objective, while you're being subjective.
3. All of my devices and software work under Linux. They work well.
Only after a still-undisclosed number of hours spent making everything work just so.
The Linux desktop works well. My friends who have tried it like it very much.
As above, I don't see where that's relevant. Unless your friends are about 2,000 people chosen at random, of course.
4. I do not spend hours and hours banging away at system libraries.
I doubt that very much. If you've never had to resolve a shared library dependency, then you're either very lucky or you just haven't used your system that much.
5. I find Windows confusing.
I find you confusing. These things you're saying, they just make no sense. But since we're talking about Linux, I find Linux to be inconsistent, incomplete, unpolished, unprofessional, undocumented, and downright frustrating. And that's on a good day. On a bad day I find it to be uninstalled.
6. I find Mac OS X unstable (yes, on Apple hardware) and somewhat limiting.
Since you've already admitted that you find Windows confusing, it's not terribly surprising that you can't wrap your head around the much simpler Mac OS X. Earlier versions of the OS had some fairly serious problems. These have been largely eradicated since version 10.1. I own four Macs running OS X; the one I'm using now I bought in August, and it's been up continuously without a single interruption since. I rebooted it once to move it, and once for each kernel update. Your experience is definitely not typical.
7. I am perfectly willing to admit that others feel that Mac OS and Windows are easier to use that Linux. You, however, are not willing to admit that some people like myself might legitimately find Linux to be a perfectly viable desktop system.
I am more than happy to admit that people like yourself find Linux to be viable. I'm just arguing that you're wrong.
Maybe that's the source of your confusion. This is not a matter of opinion; it's pure objective fact. Mac OS X is far easier to use than Linux. Linux is so hard to use, in fact, that they literally can't give it away.
So your saying that the 10 to 15 GB of amature racing videos and my physche iso's that people are always downloading from me are not legitimate use of P2P?
I'm saying that that use, if it is legitimate, is not non-trivial. One guy who may or may not use P2P for legal purposes does not outweigh the millions-- literally!-- of people who use it solely for illegal purposes.
What % of non infringing/infringing matierial do you find acceptable to be considered legitimate?
Let's start with 50/50 and work our way up from there. If you figure out a way to get the ratio to 50/50, let me know.
Should we shut down alt.binaries?
Since you asked, perhaps. I haven't used Usenet since the late 80's, so I have no idea what the ratio of legal to illegal content is on that set of groups. If more than half of the content is illegal, then yes, it should be shut down.
What about IM file xfers?
Same thing. If it's used for illegal purposes more than for legal purposes, it should go.
What about MS file and print sharing or Samba?
Yup.
What about cdr's?
Yup.
Each has illegal and non illegal uses, fractions of what it is used for will vary greatly depending on what else is around.
Yes, that's true. But if something is used primarily for illegal purposes, that something shouldn't be around.
If P2P goes away I am losing my right to my 100% legal use of it.
You don't have a right to use P2P, any more than I have a right to a free lunch and sex with supermodels. You have a right to do certain broad things, like the right to express yourself and the right to assemble peacefully and such, but the specific details of precisely how you are and are not allowed to do those things are left as an exercise, as long as you are allowed to do them.
You are no longer trying to prove your point from a technical perspective, you are now using your opinion.
Jesus Christ, dude, at what point was I not expressing my opinion? This whole thing started when I said I would abolish P2P if I were king of the world! That's about as "opinion" as you can get!
Let's say I've got a CD's worth of (legitimate) information that's pretty popular, and I can only pay for a small amount of bandwidth. Why would I not want to use a p2p network?
The question is, why would you want to use P2P? If you share your CD full of stuff via a P2P network, people who want to download copies still have to hit your computer to do it. You're assuming that those people will, in turn, share their copies on the P2P network, making it possible for people to download the files from them rather than from you. That's a bit of a leap-- there's no inherent aspect of the system that guarantees that this will happen-- but I'll stipulate it for sake of argument.
Now, you would have been better off if you'd either set up an FTP server or a web page on your computer with the files, along with blanket permission to mirror those files. Anybody who wants to can download the files from your computer, and anybody who wants to has express permission to mirror the files. See? Nice and simple.
And-- this is the most important thing-- if it turns out that you're breaking the law by offering the files, then you, personally, can be tracked down and stopped. That way we don't have to have an argument about whether FTP is a legitimate technology, see?
Basically the argument that P2P is legitimate because it can be used for distributed distribution (heh) is full of shit. If it were true, you'd be downloading software updates from Kazaa instead of from an FTP mirror or an Akamai content server.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's impossible to do anything complex with just vi but I wouldn't know.
I'm going to come down on the side of saying that it's impossible to do anything complex with just vi. Trying to write out a complex 3D scene by hand would be roughly equivalent to entering the binary for Quake III into the computer via Morse code every time you wanted to run it.
Do you really believe the only people that should be able to distribute information widely are those that can afford to pay for high end services?
I believe that the list of things to which people are entitled is very, very short. If something is offered as a service and you are unable to pay for it, then you don't get it. If somebody comes up with a free implementation of what Akamai currently charges money for, I'm all for it, but until then it's pay-to-play.
Arranging an ftp mirroring system is not scalable or accessible to any significant number of people.
Works fine for distributing things like Linux, doesn't it?
I'll repeat, the law does not agree with you with respect to prior restraint of speech for which there is possible noninfringing uses.
I'll repeat, I could not care less what the law says on this matter. I am telling you my opinion, and if the law disagrees with me then it is my opinion that the law could be improved a bit.
The introduction of every new technology which can copy has seen cries to strangle it, photocopiers, VCRs, even the printing press.
Ah, excellent. I'm glad you brought up VCRs. Do you know why they're legal? Because the Supreme Court found that there are significant legitimate uses for them. Not merely possible, but significant. If the case against P2P were brought up today, do you seriously think that the court, faced with the epidemic of piracy taking place through these networks, would make a similar finding?
Most p2p systems by default share what has been downloaded.
Wonderful, more fuel for the fire. Imagine John Doe, who in a moment of weakness signs on to Kazaa and illegally downloads the latest Britney Spears single. Thanks to Kazaa's automatic sharing feature, John is no not only a recipient of an illegal copy, but is actively participating in piracy himself by offering up his illegal copy for others to download.
This is great stuff. Keep it coming.
Second, I thought we were engaging in a civil discussion.
By Slashdot standards, this is a love-in. Trust me, nobody is taking this personally. Don't get offended by my flippant remarks.
Richard Stallman explains very clearly what the purpose of the GPL is on the FSF website, notes clearly what freedoms are required to make a license a "free software" license, and how the GPL fills these freedoms.
Have you read his "very clear" explanations? They're the worst kind of collectivist propaganda. I implore everybody lurking on this thread to read Stallman's "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" (here) and behold his rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. I particularly like the way he sets up the SPA as a straw-man and compares them to the USSR. Really classy, Rich.
The GPL allows anyone to create and license derivative works, just like the BSD license does. The set of restrictions to such redistribution is slightly different (BSD license requires attribution, GPL requires same license terms) but neither denies anyone the right to modify, distribute, or sell derivatives for however much money you want.
Wrong twice. First, the GPL expressly prohibits the licensing of derivative works under less restrictive terms than the GPL itself. Specifically, it says, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." In other words, works derived from GPL-licensed works are automatically covered under the GPL. That's one.
Two: you cannot sell any works derived from software licensed under the GPL. It's prohibited by the license. The GPL says, "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you... cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." In other words, if you create and distribute a work derived from a GPL-licensed work, you must give it away to everybody.
The BSD license is not truly free; it does not allow anyone to redistribute or modify without attribution. The only truly free license is no license at all, which is known as "Public Domain."
Okay, I'll go along with that. So in the hierarchy of freedom, we have public domain (completely unrestricted), the BSD and similar licenses (restricted only in attribution), and then the GPL (restricted in many ways). Tell me again how a license that is demonstrably more restrictive that two others (if you could PD as a license for sake of discussion) is somehow "free?"
I can think of only one thing you can't do with the GPL (redistribute without GPL'ed source).
You might want to consider actually reading the GPL then. The list of musts and must nots numbers no fewer than 10 by a cursory count.
As is calling BSD-licensed software "free," by your definition.
I'll even accept that. But of all software that is not in the public domain-- that is, software that is licensed at all-- that which carries the BSD license is freest by far.
Isn't it nice that RMS and the FSF give very clear, concise definitions of such terms, so we don't have to sit here and fight about it?
Except for the fact that they are hijacking the word "free" in so doing. Let's say I released some software that I called "free." On my web site I gave a clear and concise definition of "free" that read, "You can use this software for anything you want at all, without restrictions. If you accept this license, you agree to give me the liver and sweetbreads of your firstborn." Would this be deceptive? Would this be fraudulent? Would it be reprehensible?
Playing semantic games with a word that has already been clearly and unambiguously defined by the FSF in order to push your own (badly-considered) propaganda is deceptive.
Who are you accusing? Are you saying that I am playing word games in order to push my own propaganda? Then what, pray tell, is the FSF doing??
Right on, brother.
You *don't even have to accept* the GPL to use the software. To me that's definitely freedom.
Yes. You are granted the freedom to do whatever you want. Except the stuff that's prohibited, of course, but we won't talk about that because it's all to the greater good and "free" really only means "mostly free, most of the time" anyway, right?
If the GPL were the "freest" license around, that'd be one thing. But that's not the case at all. The "free software foundation" advocates the use of a license that makes their software demonstrably and significantly less free than other licenses. So the "free" part of their name is one big fat lie.
Why do folks like you waste your time bashing the FSF, when there's so much other stuff you could be bashing?
Because the FSF is so deserving of it.
Maybe you just hate RMS?
Never met the gentleman.
You didn't write Readline, so why on Earth do you expect the right to be able to do whatever you like with it?
Of course I shouldn't. But if somebody says to me, "Here, this is free," that sets a certain expectation. If somebody said "you can read this, but you can't copy it," that would be just fine. But when somebody says, "this is free" and it turns out not to be, I get pissy.
Their license allows all users of Readline basically unlimited Freedom to use and redistribute the code however they wish.
That is not true. Nobody is, in fact, free to redistribute the code however they wish. I wish to redistribute the code under a less restrictive license than the GPL. I am not allowed to do this. Q.E.D.
The *only* stipulation is that you may not relicense your modified version.
That's not remotely the only stipulation. The GPL consists of page after page of stipulations. For example, the GPL says you can't sell the software. It says you can "charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but you can't licenses to use the software. The same is true of derivative works, which you must cause "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties."
The GPL says that anybody who receives a copy of your software must be allowed to give that copy away to anybody else. In other words, even if you could sell GPL-licensed software, the greatest number of copies you could ever hope to sell would be one. Everybody else will simply get it from that guy.
But, as it turns out, that's not relevant anyway. The GPL says that you have to provide anybody who asks with a machine-readable copy of your source code at cost. So the idea of making money with your software under the GPL is completely out the window by this point.
To say that that's the only stipulation of the GPL is a gross oversimplification.
You seem dangerously divorced from any concepts of plurality.
Damn right. Except for the "dangerously" part, of course.
Do you have an orginal response to the issues raised in twitter's post?
;-)
There were issues? I couldn't see them for all the typos. My bad.
You see, Free Software is written in and by a community
WHAT!? Software is written by individuals. Sometimes those individuals collaborate, but that doesn't change the fact that they are individuals who happen to be working together. Nothing ever got done by a "community." It got done by people. High-minded talk of "communities" will get you nowhere.
'Passing around bits of paper' wasn't a particularly good tactic for widespread exchange of information then, and it still isn't now.
Yeah, the Federalist didn't make a lasting impression at all, did it?
Not to be a smartass, but checkers is indeed one game where a CLI could work.
It could work for any task. But it would be horrible. Similarly, you could do any task over the phone, or with mittens on. But it would suck.
Holy cats. Your post has more typos in it than I've ever seen. I quit counting when I found six in the very first sentence.
Amazing.
The best user interface that I have yet found is still a command line.
When you figure out how to draw a picture with the command line, or edit a video, or make a 3D model, or even play checkers, let me know. Until then, graphical interfaces are here to stay.
Any useful and practical freedom necessarily has limitations.
Problem is that the limitations placed by the GPL are arbitrary and unjustified. The BSD license accomplishes the exact same thing that the GPL does-- ensuring that a given piece of software will be available in source code form to anybody who wants to see it-- without taking away the user's freedom to create and license derivative works.
It all boils down to this: the BSD license results in software that is truly free. Anybody can use it for any purpose. The GPL results in software that is less free. There is a list of things that one cannot do with GPL-licensed software.
Calling GPL-licensed software "free" then is incorrect. At best, it is "partially free." Deliberately continuing to call it "free" when one knows that doing so is incorrect is deceptive. Doing so on a large scale with an agenda in mind is fraudulent.
The perspective you are missing is that the freedom has to do with the ability of the software to remain free.
Oh, so it's the software that gets to enjoy the benefits of freedom, is that it? People are restricted in order for the software itself to have essential liberty?
This is, in a word, nuts. "Software-slaver?" People are free in that sense; software is an inanimate object, and as such is not. To talk of software in this sense is simply absurd.
The GPL as it stands, enhances your rights to a work over and above basic copyright.
Except for the fact that the FSF requires that the copyright on all software included in their collection be signed over to them. Let's not forget that. They're very adamant about trying to close the copyright loophole. If the FSF had their way, even authors would be bound by the restrictions of the GPL.
You really seem to have issue with copyright law.
Since when? I have issues with the FSF, and with the GPL.
the GPL restricts no liberties rather it inhibits the ability to restrict the freedom of the code
Wow. That's some mighty impressive circumlocution you've got goin' on there.
"The GPL restricts no liberties. Rather, it inhibits the ability..."
Amazing.
"That bit" is there to stop the license being useless, as its aim is to keep software being written in the interests of the community, rather than a few parties.
Ah, yes. Let's put the good of this nebulous idea called "the community" ahead of the good of the individuals. That logic has worked so well in the past, you know.
This all boils down to the same thing: redefining "freedom" to suit one's own ends. Orwell had a name for that; he called it "newspeak."
Let's drop the euphemisms and speak plainly: the GPL is a restrictive license, just like any other restrictive license. The GPL differs from other restrictive licenses only in what activities it does and does not allow; it is not fundamentally different from any other restrictive license.
If you don't own the copyright, then no you can't steal it and release it under your own license.
How can I steal it if it's "free?" If it's "free" I should be able to do what I want with it, right? Let's take a very reasonable case: let's say I want to create a derivative of Readline. (Imagine some neato improvement to Readline, like allowing it to support Unicode [if it doesn't already].) Let's say that I want to release my derivative under the LGPL.
Damn! Can't do it! Readline is only available under the GPL, so people who create derivative works from it aren't allowed to release those works under any license less restrictive than the GPL.
Yeah. That's "free" for you. It astounds me that the same Slashdotters-- not necessarily yourself, though you may be one of them too-- can deride things like the DMCA and the Department of Homeland Security while upholding the FSF as standing for "freedom." The FSF commits Franklin's fallacy more blatantly than anyone else: those who would sacrifice liberty for security-- as the GPL most certainly does, in restricting the liberty of the user to ensure the continued availability of derivative works-- deserve neither.
Life is all about compromise. If you want to license your software under restrictive terms for your own ends, be my guest. But don't be so arrogant as to call what you're doing "freedom," and what others want to do "stealing."
Free Software gives you freedom in terms of use...
Except for that bit about not being allowed to change the license terms. That's a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?
I've been lobbying for some time to get them to change their name to the "Partly Free Software Foundation," or the "Mostly Free Software Foundation," or the "Free-as-in-Restricted Software Foundation," or the "Free As Long As You Do What We Say Software Foundation." Strangely, none of these ideas have garnered much of a positive response from them.
Because neither of the options you suggest, pay Akamai or setup an FTP mirroring system, are available to most people.
What? Is Akamai turning away paying customers now? Or did you mean that most people are too poor or too cheap to pay to have their content distributed? That may be true. But if that's the case, then they certainly don't need their content distributed, do they?
And as for FTP mirroring, all you have to do is say, "Hey, mirror my content, please!" It's that easy. Free, too, for you cheapskates out there.
Given that at any one time on Kazaa alone there are 3.5 million people sharing 4 petabytes of information I feel comfortable with making that assumption.
Don't you mean that there are 3.49 million pirates sharing 3.99 petabytes of pirated material? Be that as it may, those people are sharing content of their own choosing. It's not like your files will get automatically mirrored on somebody else's system. Somebody has to do it deliberately, just like an FTP mirror. The important distinction is that with a P2P system nobody can tell the legal stuff from the illegal stuff. If you used an FTP server instead, you'd have a convenient little "read me" describing the copyright status of your content, granting explicit permission to download and mirror your content.
The only reason to use P2P is if you want to hide from the authorities.
Actually the US's legal tradition disagrees with you that that is the most important thing. Prior restraint of speech for which there are noninfringing uses is a no no.
What the hell do I care? "King of the world," remember? I'm telling you how things would be if I were in charge.
You are suggesting that a useful method of distribution for noninfringing information be scrapped altogether because it can also be used for infringing uses. Should we get rid of photocopiers, telephones, etc?
Why do you keep trying to distort the argument? If a tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, that tool shouldn't be around. Are photocopiers used primarily for illegal purposes? Of course not. How about phones? Of course not. But P2P? Yes, definitely.
There's one simple way to change my opinion on this subject. Get the college kids and whomever to stop using P2P for widespread, large-scale piracy. At the very least, get the ratio of legal to illegal users up to 50/50. If you can do that, I'll accept that P2P is legitimate technology. But until then, it's not, and people who make and distribute it are aiding and abetting the pirates, and should be held accountable.
The laws should be enforced rather than a whole medium of communication banned.
No, the laws should be enforced and the medium banned. The medium makes it possible for your average anybody to anonymously and safely distribute copyrighted material. It is not possible, then, to enforce the laws as long as P2P exists. Furthermore, these tools are clearly being marketed toward children and other innocent people who have no idea that using them to share music and movies and other media will turn them into pirates. That's irresponsible in the extreme, and should be stopped.
This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
So is ignoring the plague of lawlessness and piracy that Napster and its successors brought about. Turns my stomach, it does.
There is every indication that we will see more projects maing use of them.
Like I said, if you can get the ratio up to 50/50, we'll talk. Until then, P2P networks are dens of lawlessness and piracy, and will be shut down just as soon as I get through taking over the world. Could be any time now.
1. Linux is not more difficult to use or install than Windows; it is merely different.
This is demonstrably untrue. Try the mom test and you'll see what I mean.
2. I prefer Linux to Windows.
I don't see where that really matters in context of this discussion. I'm being objective, while you're being subjective.
3. All of my devices and software work under Linux. They work well.
Only after a still-undisclosed number of hours spent making everything work just so.
The Linux desktop works well. My friends who have tried it like it very much.
As above, I don't see where that's relevant. Unless your friends are about 2,000 people chosen at random, of course.
4. I do not spend hours and hours banging away at system libraries.
I doubt that very much. If you've never had to resolve a shared library dependency, then you're either very lucky or you just haven't used your system that much.
5. I find Windows confusing.
I find you confusing. These things you're saying, they just make no sense. But since we're talking about Linux, I find Linux to be inconsistent, incomplete, unpolished, unprofessional, undocumented, and downright frustrating. And that's on a good day. On a bad day I find it to be uninstalled.
6. I find Mac OS X unstable (yes, on Apple hardware) and somewhat limiting.
Since you've already admitted that you find Windows confusing, it's not terribly surprising that you can't wrap your head around the much simpler Mac OS X. Earlier versions of the OS had some fairly serious problems. These have been largely eradicated since version 10.1. I own four Macs running OS X; the one I'm using now I bought in August, and it's been up continuously without a single interruption since. I rebooted it once to move it, and once for each kernel update. Your experience is definitely not typical.
7. I am perfectly willing to admit that others feel that Mac OS and Windows are easier to use that Linux. You, however, are not willing to admit that some people like myself might legitimately find Linux to be a perfectly viable desktop system.
I am more than happy to admit that people like yourself find Linux to be viable. I'm just arguing that you're wrong.
Maybe that's the source of your confusion. This is not a matter of opinion; it's pure objective fact. Mac OS X is far easier to use than Linux. Linux is so hard to use, in fact, that they literally can't give it away.
So your saying that the 10 to 15 GB of amature racing videos and my physche iso's that people are always downloading from me are not legitimate use of P2P?
I'm saying that that use, if it is legitimate, is not non-trivial. One guy who may or may not use P2P for legal purposes does not outweigh the millions-- literally!-- of people who use it solely for illegal purposes.
What % of non infringing/infringing matierial do you find acceptable to be considered legitimate?
Let's start with 50/50 and work our way up from there. If you figure out a way to get the ratio to 50/50, let me know.
Should we shut down alt.binaries?
Since you asked, perhaps. I haven't used Usenet since the late 80's, so I have no idea what the ratio of legal to illegal content is on that set of groups. If more than half of the content is illegal, then yes, it should be shut down.
What about IM file xfers?
Same thing. If it's used for illegal purposes more than for legal purposes, it should go.
What about MS file and print sharing or Samba?
Yup.
What about cdr's?
Yup.
Each has illegal and non illegal uses, fractions of what it is used for will vary greatly depending on what else is around.
Yes, that's true. But if something is used primarily for illegal purposes, that something shouldn't be around.
If P2P goes away I am losing my right to my 100% legal use of it.
You don't have a right to use P2P, any more than I have a right to a free lunch and sex with supermodels. You have a right to do certain broad things, like the right to express yourself and the right to assemble peacefully and such, but the specific details of precisely how you are and are not allowed to do those things are left as an exercise, as long as you are allowed to do them.
You are no longer trying to prove your point from a technical perspective, you are now using your opinion.
Jesus Christ, dude, at what point was I not expressing my opinion? This whole thing started when I said I would abolish P2P if I were king of the world! That's about as "opinion" as you can get!
Let's say I've got a CD's worth of (legitimate) information that's pretty popular, and I can only pay for a small amount of bandwidth. Why would I not want to use a p2p network?
The question is, why would you want to use P2P? If you share your CD full of stuff via a P2P network, people who want to download copies still have to hit your computer to do it. You're assuming that those people will, in turn, share their copies on the P2P network, making it possible for people to download the files from them rather than from you. That's a bit of a leap-- there's no inherent aspect of the system that guarantees that this will happen-- but I'll stipulate it for sake of argument.
Now, you would have been better off if you'd either set up an FTP server or a web page on your computer with the files, along with blanket permission to mirror those files. Anybody who wants to can download the files from your computer, and anybody who wants to has express permission to mirror the files. See? Nice and simple.
And-- this is the most important thing-- if it turns out that you're breaking the law by offering the files, then you, personally, can be tracked down and stopped. That way we don't have to have an argument about whether FTP is a legitimate technology, see?
Basically the argument that P2P is legitimate because it can be used for distributed distribution (heh) is full of shit. If it were true, you'd be downloading software updates from Kazaa instead of from an FTP mirror or an Akamai content server.