"I know that many/.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe."
Your analogy is flawed. The air we breathe is not the result of someone's work. Nobody had to spend time creating it and it would exist anyway. Software is created with the time and effort of individuals. Without these individuals, software would not exist.
However, while I disagree with the example, I do agree with your points. People should be free to do as they will in such a context, and be able to eventually not charge for what they create. Companies will eventually start offering products that are not so easy to implement, and money will keep flowing in, while the industry will evolve and become more competitive. Of course, if these companies expect to be selling 20 years from now the same products, they will inevitably disappear. I personally wouldn't want them to survive and make profit out of easy-to-create, obvious, and outdated technology forever.
Way to go Roche. It seems like you've gotten a lot of bad pubblicity. It's exactly in times like this that companies should forget for a second their greed, help for the sake of doing so, and get an image boost in the eyes of a big part of the world.
And of course, infringing on a patent is not theft.
Seriously, even if you think it's inmoral (I personally don't think ideas should have a propietary) you should at least realize that it's pretty different from stealing something. The whole idea that there can be "theft" when we're talking about intellectual property is just a way to try and make it look worse than it is.
MySQL made a simple business decision... right or wrong is completely subjective here. Eventually they will pay by losing some customers, but appart from that I see no reason why they should be defending their decision.
In other words, I don't think that my enemy's friends are my enemies.
On top of that, has the author considered that our priorities may be completely irrelevant to someone else? It's not like we can all take care of everything... like destroying Sco, and saving the world, and curing cancer, and feeding the poor, etc, etc, etc. At some point we have to start ignoring some of these priorities.
"I don't know how pro-PC Dvorak is. He's said (at least recently) that he thinks Microsoft is "dead in the water" because they haven't released anything useful in a long time. He's also said that he thinks Apple is doing a great job and that their marketshare is going to grow exponentially."
Bias is all about ignoring either the weaknesses or the strengths of something (a product, a company, etc). It has NOTHING to do with using a product (your post tells me you agree with this).
Basically Dvorak's concept that all Mac users are inherently biased is no different than claiming he is biased too. Especially since he provides no proof whatsoever that these reporters are purposedly ignoring information.
Sure, but that's completely different from China controlling it, as you mentioned. The UN or some other similar international body SHOULD control DNS servers, rather than one single country (any one country).
Seriously, how can the US government call itself a promoter of democracy and freedom when they are not willing to give other people with different points of view a chance to voice their opinion as well. Is the concept of US democracy for-their-citizens-only?
In any case I see no reason why other democracies of the world shouldn't be able to participate. Claiming that the US is "more free" than, for example France, is just a demonstration that the real issue lies somewhere else.
It's not a broad over-generalization. I still can't see how people that download music from p2p networks (illegaly) is "more likely" to commit other types of crimes than people that doesn't (this is what you said in your first post). It may be true, it may be not.... but it's certainly not "logical".
Is someone who downloads music illegaly "more likely" to steal cars, steal from shops, kill people, insult cops, etc, etc, than someone who does not?
Perhaps the report should state that people who use P2P for illegal purposes are more likely to commit other crimes. Which is completely logical: if you're willing to commit one type of crime, you're probably more likely to commit others.
Actually it's not logical. Copying a CD to give it to a friend of yours does not imply you are more likely to steal shops, steal cars, murder people, etc. If you want to say it's logical at least provide some evidence from unbiased and informed sources.
Here is a link to the complaints mentioned in the article. Apparently the lead developer of the Gimp didn't agree with a fork that would lead to a "terrible waste" of resources.
Near the end, though, he seems to leave a door open for those changes to be contributed back to some degree.
Innovation is not a priority anymore for many companies. Marketting, arrangements with competitiors, patents and several other beautiful things provide them with alternate and easier routes to the same goal.
I've had something similar happen to me once when I was 14, but instead of anger, it was caused by fear. I can recall I didn't move for (what I think was) a few seconds. My vision was completely blanked out. All I could see was white.
"I have always wanted to try out on my Intel box and my dream is finally coming true. I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version"
On one side Darwin allows for peolpe to easily add custom drivers, and on the other side OS X is easy to "crack" to make it run on common hardware... hmmmm.
I don't know how to put this, but maybe Apple just wants to send the message that while they won't officially support OS X in common hardware, they won't mind either if those willing to do so run it anyway...
After all, those who don't want to buy Macs but want to use the OS may change their minds in the future. They are potential customers. And on top of that, they may help turn OS X in a common and popular OS like Windows is now.
And they may even eventually contribute with Darwin's source code. New drivers, or something like that.
Even though it may not be not exactly the same thing, this patents makes me think of development IDEs, where it is not uncommon to get numbers highlighted as you type them.
The same goes for all kinds of other keywords.
Basically this patents looks to me like a further specialization of something similar. Although I could be completely wrong, since IANAL.
"I'm talking about Microsoft here, the company founded on Bill Gates' open letter saying that software freedom is theft, and who continues to this day to tell that to anyone who'll listen. I don't know which Microsoft you were thinking about."
People say lots of things the whole day. If you're going to fight all of them then good luck. I prefer to spend my time coding.
"If a guy comes into your shop to buy knives and you know he's going to kill someone, it's not good enough to step out the back and let the assistant sell them and then pretend it's got nothing to do with you."
Only problem is that with the source code, you can never know what the user will do with the code because you never meet them. It would be similar to selling knifes online... there's always the chance that they might be used to commit a crime, but that doesn't make you evil. = )
Microsoft might and might not use my code, and honestly I couldn't care less. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't make the GPL the right way to fight them. Especially since I don't want to live basing my choices on what they might or might not do.
The BSD license is "doing nothing" so long as the Bill Gates of this world want to destroy the freedom to code and to share. There is no way in which helping him wipe out your fellow programmers 's freedoms is allowing people to make choices.
Get out of Utopia and look at the real world; we're in trouble and the enemy has billions to throw into his war-effort, so at least stop giving him free tanks. It'll be rolling over your house tomorrow.
TWW "
Oh, so because you have a personal crusade against Microsoft everyone else must have one too? Sorry but I don't like your extremist point of view.
Only that you can be deprived of something you are entitled to, and not of something that doesn't belong to you. Morally speaking I see no reason why other people should be entitled to my work.
Freedom is good, but why are you endorsing the freedom to be an asshole?
Nice flame. The assholes are those who think that I, as a developer, have no rights when it comes to my own code and my own work. Make no mistakes, if I have to follow the terms of the GPL, I will... but that doesn't make other choices "morally unacceptable".
"depriving the community of patches" is harmful just as long as the community is entitled to those patches to begin with. There is no moral rule, nor law, nor nothing that says you can't keep your modifications to yourself... only the GPL. If the license is a BSD license then basically there's no reason why you shouldn't have the freedom to do what you want with your own modifications. There is no harm done to anyone involved.
"It's called free as in "working for the Man for free.", or "I'm an idiot." for short."
It's called free as in "not only you can make choices, but everyone else too". And you look like someone who has a hard time accepting that kind of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is flawed. The air we breathe is not the result of someone's work. Nobody had to spend time creating it and it would exist anyway. Software is created with the time and effort of individuals. Without these individuals, software would not exist.
However, while I disagree with the example, I do agree with your points. People should be free to do as they will in such a context, and be able to eventually not charge for what they create. Companies will eventually start offering products that are not so easy to implement, and money will keep flowing in, while the industry will evolve and become more competitive. Of course, if these companies expect to be selling 20 years from now the same products, they will inevitably disappear. I personally wouldn't want them to survive and make profit out of easy-to-create, obvious, and outdated technology forever.
Way to go Roche. It seems like you've gotten a lot of bad pubblicity. It's exactly in times like this that companies should forget for a second their greed, help for the sake of doing so, and get an image boost in the eyes of a big part of the world.
And of course, infringing on a patent is not theft.
Seriously, even if you think it's inmoral (I personally don't think ideas should have a propietary) you should at least realize that it's pretty different from stealing something. The whole idea that there can be "theft" when we're talking about intellectual property is just a way to try and make it look worse than it is.
MySQL made a simple business decision... right or wrong is completely subjective here. Eventually they will pay by losing some customers, but appart from that I see no reason why they should be defending their decision.
In other words, I don't think that my enemy's friends are my enemies.
On top of that, has the author considered that our priorities may be completely irrelevant to someone else? It's not like we can all take care of everything... like destroying Sco, and saving the world, and curing cancer, and feeding the poor, etc, etc, etc. At some point we have to start ignoring some of these priorities.
Bias is all about ignoring either the weaknesses or the strengths of something (a product, a company, etc). It has NOTHING to do with using a product (your post tells me you agree with this).
Basically Dvorak's concept that all Mac users are inherently biased is no different than claiming he is biased too. Especially since he provides no proof whatsoever that these reporters are purposedly ignoring information.
Sure, but that's completely different from China controlling it, as you mentioned. The UN or some other similar international body SHOULD control DNS servers, rather than one single country (any one country).
Seriously, how can the US government call itself a promoter of democracy and freedom when they are not willing to give other people with different points of view a chance to voice their opinion as well. Is the concept of US democracy for-their-citizens-only?
In any case I see no reason why other democracies of the world shouldn't be able to participate. Claiming that the US is "more free" than, for example France, is just a demonstration that the real issue lies somewhere else.
Nope. If you read the article again you'll notice that it's not about China, but the UN.
Is this article about broadband in America or broadband in the US?
That's because those headphones are great.
The point you are missing is huge: Apple is gaining a big group of followers simply by giving them what they want, and not through "evil" means.
Lower your weapons and think again. Popular doesn't mean evil.
Translation: "The law is not compatible with our contract. Change the law!"
It's not a broad over-generalization. I still can't see how people that download music from p2p networks (illegaly) is "more likely" to commit other types of crimes than people that doesn't (this is what you said in your first post). It may be true, it may be not.... but it's certainly not "logical".
Is someone who downloads music illegaly "more likely" to steal cars, steal from shops, kill people, insult cops, etc, etc, than someone who does not?
Here is a link to the complaints mentioned in the article. Apparently the lead developer of the Gimp didn't agree with a fork that would lead to a "terrible waste" of resources. Near the end, though, he seems to leave a door open for those changes to be contributed back to some degree.
Innovation is not a priority anymore for many companies. Marketting, arrangements with competitiors, patents and several other beautiful things provide them with alternate and easier routes to the same goal.
Just my 2 cents.
I've had something similar happen to me once when I was 14, but instead of anger, it was caused by fear. I can recall I didn't move for (what I think was) a few seconds. My vision was completely blanked out. All I could see was white.
This test, however was nothing like that.
On one side Darwin allows for peolpe to easily add custom drivers, and on the other side OS X is easy to "crack" to make it run on common hardware... hmmmm.
I don't know how to put this, but maybe Apple just wants to send the message that while they won't officially support OS X in common hardware, they won't mind either if those willing to do so run it anyway...
After all, those who don't want to buy Macs but want to use the OS may change their minds in the future. They are potential customers. And on top of that, they may help turn OS X in a common and popular OS like Windows is now.
And they may even eventually contribute with Darwin's source code. New drivers, or something like that.
Just a thought.
Jobs: "Ok, so let's talk about transitions..."
It's TRUe, again!
Even though it may not be not exactly the same thing, this patents makes me think of development IDEs, where it is not uncommon to get numbers highlighted as you type them.
The same goes for all kinds of other keywords.
Basically this patents looks to me like a further specialization of something similar. Although I could be completely wrong, since IANAL.
People say lots of things the whole day. If you're going to fight all of them then good luck. I prefer to spend my time coding.
Only problem is that with the source code, you can never know what the user will do with the code because you never meet them. It would be similar to selling knifes online... there's always the chance that they might be used to commit a crime, but that doesn't make you evil. = )
Microsoft might and might not use my code, and honestly I couldn't care less. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't make the GPL the right way to fight them. Especially since I don't want to live basing my choices on what they might or might not do.
Oh, so because you have a personal crusade against Microsoft everyone else must have one too? Sorry but I don't like your extremist point of view.
Only that you can be deprived of something you are entitled to, and not of something that doesn't belong to you. Morally speaking I see no reason why other people should be entitled to my work.
Nice flame. The assholes are those who think that I, as a developer, have no rights when it comes to my own code and my own work. Make no mistakes, if I have to follow the terms of the GPL, I will... but that doesn't make other choices "morally unacceptable".
"depriving the community of patches" is harmful just as long as the community is entitled to those patches to begin with. There is no moral rule, nor law, nor nothing that says you can't keep your modifications to yourself... only the GPL. If the license is a BSD license then basically there's no reason why you shouldn't have the freedom to do what you want with your own modifications. There is no harm done to anyone involved.
They wouldn't be stealing anything, as the license allows that kind of use.
If you try to see BSD-like licenses from the perspective that "close sourcing" == "stealing", then you might as well just avoid it.