Apparently, after I mentioned I was from Canada you latched on to that and assumed this is some kind of socialist paradise. In fact, you're not allowed to collect unemployment/welfare benefits unless you are actively looking for work. I'm not sure of all the details, since I've never been out of work long enough to collect, but for unemployment at least you have to document which jobs you have applied for. In the US assault is a crime. If you get caught you go to jail. We also have pretty good police that can trace genetic evidence and get the person responsible (not that they don't make mistakes mind you they do).
Right. As opposed to Canada where assault is legal and our crimes are investigated by trained squirrels. Really, life here is not so different except for the fact that our government isn't run by religious fundamentalists and we aren't completely ignorant of the rest of the world.
Of course I wasn't literally advocating breaking the legs of GPL programmers. I'm trying to illustrate a point. A lot of other industries have unions that are meant to look out for the collective interests of the workers. In a lot of ways, that's what makes us different from 3rd world countries, 19th century chimney sweeps, etc.
The software industry has the exact opposite -- a trade organization that lobbies against the interests of the workers. It wouldn't bug me if the product was actually becoming obsolete, but last time I checked, software was still an important commodity. People on/. keep telling me I'm making buggy whips for some reason.
This is the X factor that the recording industry hasn't really bothered to look into and I find it very interesting that one of the most successful online music sites is part of a computer company (Apple).
Of course the standard for what is a successful site is a bit lower on/. than on Wall St. (I.e. they have lots of users and aren't losing that much money.)
If you live in canada then your basic needs are taken care of. You could be unemployed and won't starve.
Yeah. I could move back in with my parents... sounds great! Really there is no need for you to whine and moan about the GPL.
Right... because a bare subsistence living sounds appealing to me. Really, you over-estimate the safety net that Canada provides. The economy here ain't doing so hot either. There isn't enough money to pay for everyone to be unemployed. "You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken." Really? Which ones?
Mostly the ones where the teamsters have shady mob connections.
Yo dude, do you work for the post office? Is that why you are so unsatisfied with your life that you have to work a second job for free. You OSS types are just are like papparazi in the way you ooh and ahh over your geek heros. Real capitalist invest their money on race horses or balooning around the world. They don't undermine their own industry in a desperate bid for fame.
I, for one, don't care if I ever become famous. I just want to put in an honest days work and make enough money to play a round of golf every week. Thankfully, I already live in Canada, and not in your ridiculous country. That doesn't make me immune from the GPL, however, since lots of OSS projects are based here. You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken.
You know what pisses me off? People who have entirely dogmatic belief systems. Your adherence to capitalism is some kind of religious issue. You doggedly advocate various corolleries of capitalist systems, and yet you ignore the spirit of the idea. You don't understand how capitalism works (and when it doesn't).
If you dogmatically assume that anything capitalist is good and anything socialist is bad then fine: Let's cut taxes, abolish the minimum wage, expand free trade, and dispense with social security and medicare. You and I can slog it out for 60 cents an hour along with the rest of the third world.
I admit it. I don't want to work 80 hours a week to make less money than I did 5 years ago. What's the point of technology making our life easier if I have no free time? For some reason you want to abolish all the white colar jobs, or at least turn them into a living hell. Of course you don't state this as an actual goal, but your attitude is that if this happens then "so what, that's capitalism."
Capitalism is a sound economic system, but like anything other system, it doesn't work if you to take it to extremes. You advocate a system that bears only superficial resemblance to capitalism. But because you can come up with some bullshit analogy that converts the GPL into capitalism ("a different kind of price for a new economy"), and you dogmatically assume that anything capitalistic is good, you are able to talk out your ass.
-a
Now all we need is some miniature plastic sheeting
on
Duct Tape Goes Minature
·
· Score: 5, Funny
So if the terrorists attack when you're on the go, you can simply duct-tape yourself into the nearest phone booth.
Interesting. You don't want to write your own code, you can't find enough BSD code to steal from, you are not allowed to steal code from the GPL pool so you whine about why you can't make money because you are unable to compete with a bunch of people who code in their spare time.
If only it were so. If the only competition was from hobbyists then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there are some misguided companies out there who fund OSS development and ruin it for everyone. So instead of working harder and making better code you whine on and on about how the GPL is evil and is preventing you from making tons of money off of other peoples backs.
Well, yeah. I am kind of sick of always working harder. It used to be that startups expected you to work a lot of overtime, but they paid you well and they lured you in with tons of stock options. Now everyone is in startup mode. Thanks in large part to OSS, there's more and more players fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie. You know what you don't deserve to make money. You are just a leech on society.
Yeah... just because I advocate an economic system with a mathematical basis (as opposed to an economic system I read about in "Adam Smith for 3 year olds"), that makes me a leech on society.
As a matter of fact, many of the ingredients and equipment used to make the drinks sold in the B&N cafes is not the same ingredients and equipment you'll find in a real Starbucks cafe.
Hmmm... I'm from Canada, where the most popular bookstore to browse at is called Chapters. As far as I can tell, the Starbucks inside these Chapters stores are full-fledged Starbucks franchises serving regulation Starbucks coffee. In fact, the Starbucks usually has a separate entrance onto the street.
Isn't this why the coffee costs $3 to $5 a cup? TO make up for the books/mags you read while in the store. I always do this at Borders.
$3 to $5 a cup? I've never seen that. The Starbucks inside bookstores seem to charge regular prices (which is $3-$5 a cup if you buy some fancy espresso drink). I don't think the bookstore gets a kickback from the coffeeshop, even though they should. But then of course the publishers of the books should get a kickback from the bookstore.
Isn't everything insanely priced in Japan? I mean, I remember once about 10 years ago I paid $6 for a small coke. (Of course, that was in the airport...)
I harm no one by releaseing my code under the GPL. I could have not released it at all, I could have simply retained the copyright.
Quite untrue. You harm quite a lot of people. Admittedly, you only harm each of them a little bit, but if 100 other people think the same way you do and keep extending your code then the harm adds up.
- You harm the entrepreneur who was planning to release a commercial version of the same thing. - You harm the 50 people he would have hired. - You harm the tens of thousands of software developers looking for jobs because their bargaining power is slightly reduced. Nobody has to accept the GPL. If they want to use my code then can PAY ME.
Nobody is that desparate to use your code. Anything that one person develops alone can be easily replaced. What they would like to use is the code that has been collaboratively developed by hundreds or thousands of people. I already make enough money to live a comfortable life. My employer compensates me generously for my labors.
Fine, so does mine. (Not as much as I was making a few years ago, but quite adequate.) But I am not arrogant enough to assume that will always be the case. Like a lot of people, I was laid off last year. Fortunately, I have some very specialized skills and I quickly found a new job. However, I feel sorry for all my friends who aren't so lucky. And what about the new grads? When I look at resumes, I see guys with 10+ years of coding experience applying for jobs as testers. OSS only hurts you if you are too stupid to write your own code.
It's not a question of being too lazy to write your own code. These days, software projects are a lot bigger than they used to be, and it's impractical to re-invent the wheel. It used to be that you would license some third party libraries to provide the building blocks. But the existence of GPLed alternatives drives down your margins. You can't afford to buy the libraries, but you can't afford to use the GPLed onces either. It's a Hobson's choice. If you are too stupid to ride on the backs of BSD coders and exploit their labors then you don't deserve to make money.
The problem is there is not enough BSD stuff out there to compensate for all the GPL stuff. Nowadays, more amateur projects (including a lot of university research) are being released under the GPL, perhaps because the GPL has better propaganda and it appeals to the communistic tendencies of elitist university students/professors who have had it easy all their life. Capitalism is not a handout, nobody owes you code, nobody owes yoy anything.
Capitalism is not a perfect system; it requires government regulation./. readers are always bitching about the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. I choose to complain about the monopolist practices of the FSF.
Don't these people know there are bookstores where you can just go in, buy a coffee, sit around and read the magazine, then put it back on the shelf and leave?
You are seeing a causation where none exists. People murder with guns because guns are an effective tool for killing. Before guns people murdered with knives, arrows and swords. Guns are just a tool.
Right... and I suppose that if guns weren't easily available, we'd see a vast increase in the number of drive-by beheadings. It's exactly the fact that guns are such an effective tool for killing that makes the murder rate go up.
After watching Bowling for Columbine, I researched the stats on murder vs. gun ownership (because I didn't trust Michael Moore to fact check them). What I found was not a correlation between murder and guns in general, but a correlation between murder and handguns specifically. "But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. "
I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to anybody selling anything. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You can't just make shit up and then draw a conclusion from it.
Alright... another rephrase to satisfy your nitpicking:
But you don't believe in selling the things *you produce* for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. Not only do I believe in selling things for money, I also believe in an expanded definition of currency. In a rapidly evolving world we need to expand our ways of looking at wealth and currency
Source? It's a way of converting labor to wealth that effectively allows you to compete with Bill Gates the richest man in the world.
I.e. If you can't make the blind people see, poke out everyone's eyes so they can all compete on the same level. You are truly misinformed. When I release my code under the GPL I retain ownership of the code.
Nominally, yes. I also retain a degree of control over what happens to that code forever.
If you give everyone else all the same rights you have then you no longer have control. When you sell your code you are competing with Bill Gates. That's a fight you are going to lose because he is the richest, most powerful person on the planet.
My goal is not specifically to "beat" Bill Gates. My intent is to make enough money to live a comfortable life. There's enough room out there for more than one person out there to make money, although OSS has significantly reduced my chances. It's better the enter a fight you at least have a chance of winning.
That is one of the lamest justifications for OSS I have heard, but I have to admit it explains a lot. You view competition as a game and you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.
It's apparent to me that your value system is very narrowly defined. You define value and worth (and cost and price) strictly in terms of cash. I guess that's what makes us different.
It depends. When I'm talking about capitalism vs. communism, I use those terms in a monetary context. If you employ specific terminology without reference to the context in which you are using them, then you are apt to reach ridiculous conclusions.
(BTW, it is still not true that my entire value system is based on money.) "Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder."
Absolutely. That is dead on. COngratulations, you now get it.
Actually, that was a test to see what kind of thinker you are and you proved my point. In an earlier posting, I said that you seemed to let logic overrule common sense. It's a common flaw of geeks -- they are good at Boolean logic, but they don't seem to understand fuzzy logic and statistics. The fact is, while not every gun will kill someone, there is strong evidence of a correlation between guns and murder, so to say that guns and murder are "unrelated" is simply willful ignorance. "The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission."
Because I am not a communist. I believe in ownership and property. Those things are the bedrock of capitalism.
But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. The real question to me is *why* you believe in ownership and property. It strikes me that your beliefs are dogmatic and you might not understand *why* you believe in them. Right. Public domain will accomplish the same thing (there is very little difference between public domain and BSD). It's communism. I am not a communist, I don't believe in communism. I don't think that people should be forced or even encouraged to relquinsh their labors to others.
So basically the only reason why you don't release your code under the public domain is because you don't want to be a communist. You don't have any real reason for not wanting to be a communist; it just has bad connotations or something. Face it: you are perfectly willing to relinquish your labours to others, but only on Stallman's terms. Meanwhile, I advocate selling software for a profit and *you* are calling *me* a communist?!? "Even Stallman supports music piracy." He believes in fair use not piracy. I for one think it's immoral that a musician or their agents can punish you for singing a song.
Stallman believes in extending fair use by taking away the right of copyright owners to control how their property is distributed. Sounds like communism to me.
Right... That's why the rate of music piracy in China is over 90% (according to a/. article a few months ago). That's why you can get every conceivable pirated movie in Chinatown. That's why all my Chinese friends (at least the immigrants) pirate software. Believe me, the only thing they like about GPL'ed software is that it's free. I've talked to them about this in some detail and they have no qualms about stealing GPL'ed code either. that concern will manifest itself in China and Asia in general through the embracing of a license that puts them in the best position to compete with the worlds biggest IP horder, the U.S., and that license would be the GPL
They will embrace the license all right. They will get their edge from the fact that they steal GPL'ed code and companies in the US don't. Of course, then companies in the US will start to do it too. IBM suports the GPL and backs that up with money and developers. But then I guess you think IBM is just stupid?
IBM knows they are taking a big gamble by focusing on OSS. You think they don't known that? IBM is not stupid, but they are very good at FUD. Right now, they are bandwagon jumping. They reevalute this strategy constantly. Ironically, one of IBM's biggest mistakes was back in the 80s when they decided to focus on hardware and let other people sell the software. The hardware companies will be making their money off hardware, not software, so it will behoove them to appeal to the largest, most diverse community.
That's a rather vast oversimplification. Is Cisco a hardware company or a software company? Sure they sell custom hardware, but do you think they hire more hardware developers or more software developers?
I notice you are getting a lot of practice at arguing with what I say and not what I mean. Whenever possible, you choose to misinterpret my words and make a semantic argument rather than a logical one. "if you do feel like giving your software away..." Once again GPL has a price. People who release code under the GPL are not "giving it away".
Your objection is 100% semantic and it has no bearing on my argument. If you wish, I'll rephrase my argument in legalese to compensate for your thought impediment:
However, if you do feel like releasing your software under terms that allow redistribution of the source code without renumeration paid to the original author as cash or cash equivalents, I would rather you released it under a BSD license rather than GPL so that if someone else thinks they could make money from it, they aren't likely to be disuaded by the terms of the license. There is no appreciable difference between the code you sell and the GPLed code.
I.e. in one area (they both have EULAs) they are almost identical. That doesn't stop them from being different in a million other ways. The price is not money but it's a price nevertheless.
That's great, but it's still a metaphor because we were talking about capitalism, which is an actual economic system that was designed to deal with real money. The theory of capitalism was designed to deal with real money (or at the least, barter) so if you want to extend it less concrete types of "prices", you have to understand that not all of the same conclusions will necessarily apply. It's a new kind of price for a new kind of economy.
At least in the short run. The GPL has nothing to do with money.
Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder.
[Of course the problem with statements such as the above in an argument is that half of America will agree with it.] I am happy when people make money with my code. I just don't want them to steal it.
If you released the code as BSD, they could make money and they wouldn't be stealing. The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission. After all (as the old/. argument goes), copyright violation is not really theft because theft is when you deprive someone of property.
The BSD license doesn't deprive you of your code. If someone extends your software without BSD'ing that, it doesn't even deprive other people of your code. It just gives them more options: they can have the original code for free, or they can have the improved software for a price. "Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on/. also support music piracy," Bullshit, offtopic and irrelevent.
Even Stallman supports music piracy. Interesting on how all of his proposed revenue models for music sharing take the power out of the hands of the copyright owners and hand it over to the government. It's all very (dare I say it) communistic.
To call you a communist is absolutely accurate. You advocate that people donate their labors to public for the benefit of the public for the advancement of the public good.
This is ridiculous. As I already stated, I advocate selling software for profit. That is my #1 preference. However, if you do feel like giving your software away, I would rather you release it as BSD rather than GPL so you don't deny someone else the opportunity to make money off of it. As I stated before, the GPL is closer to captialism then public domain or BSD. GPL'ed code comes with restrictions and a price and is therefore is closer to proprietary/capitalism model.
Metaphorically, one could say that GPL'ed software has a price. However, metaphorical arguments don't prove anything. Don't you have any more substantive arguments? By the same token The folks at the FSF are not communists either and they also don't want to dump their code into the public pool."
Communists don't share the wealth with everyone. They only share with other communists. You can spread all kinds of venom and hatred towards the GPL or stallamn or whaoever you want but it only makes you look more stupid because you are not able to convince other people of your point of view using logic
Hehe. My opinion at least has a basis in pragmatism. I dislike the GPL because I think it will be bad for the economy. Contrast that with your irrational outlook, which centres around the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is making money off your work (even though it does you no harm for them to do so).
Forget logic; let's talk about common sense. Stallman says the GPL doesn't prevent you from making money from selling software; you can still charge a fee for the physical medium on which the software is stored. There's a perfect example of letting logic overrule common sense. Sure, it's technically possible to make money doing this, but the profits are so low as to be insignificant. "Yeah, but it's amazing how 90% of those people lose their ideals when it comes to the ownership of other peoples' music."
Off topic and irrelevant.
Hardly. Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on/. also support music piracy, it is clear to me that their opinions are based on convenience and egocentrism and not a coherent world view.
I'll probably be modded down for this, but let me candid here.
Funny how anyone who says this never seems to say anything the least bit contraversial. My impression is that people say this when they are looking to get modded up. Happy karma whoring to you.
In emerging markets like Asia, where the tech industries are set to take off. How will they challenge the megabucks of the oligopolies that have sweetheart deals with proprietary software companies to make their benchmarks sing? The only effective way to challenge them is to form consortiums that produce OSS to rival the proprietary offerings. Personally, I think the best choice for a license that these companies could adopt would be the GPL
I have no doubt that the Chinese tech industry is poised to take off. (In fact, I tried to invest in the Chinese tech sector a couple of years ago and I was annoyed that I couldn't find any mutual funds that invest in mainland China.)
As for which license they should use: (Let's ignore the fact that you didn't provide any justification for why they would want to choose the GPL.) It doesn't matter a whit what license they choose because nobody in China gives a lick about intellectual property anyway.
I know what the tragedy of the commons is. If you read part 1 of the article, you will see that the authors coin the term "triumph of the commons" as a rebuttal of the accusation that the GPL creates a tragedy of the commons.
I disagree. I believe IT budget pressures in this economic retrenchment are of great help in motivating IT managers to look into OSS for cost savings, even if they don't 'get' the larger benefits of escaping vendor lock-in initially.
If it's just a matter of using Apache instead of MS for their web server, I think a lot of companies are already doing that. But the article also talks about funding OSS development or forming a vendor consortium to develop a common tool. This isn't likely to happen because the companies that pay for the cost of research have a vested interest in maintaining a high cost of entry into the market.
In Part 1 of the article, the authors like to point out how OSS turns the tragedy of the commons into the triumph of the commons. Then in Part 2, they tell you how to "engage" with the OSS community in order to get higher quality software. This article is never going to convince businesses to switch to open source because it never uses the magic words: this is how to make money fast.
The "triumph of the commons" argument is a obvious example of how arguments by analogy can be used to support a ridiculous conclusion. OSS opponents deride the GPL because they say the tragedy of the commons will prevent anyone from making any money. The authors respond "No, it's the triumph of the commons because the result is high quality software." That's great, but you're still evading the real question.
Show me the money! Show me the money! Show me the money!
Most of us would love to see Open Source widely adopted as a business strategy. The major barrier to this is that business adopts the path-of-least-resistance to profitability, and changing your current strategy for a largely untested and hence managerially mistrusted one is a brave move indeed. No amount of educating managers is going to change the fact that its better to wait and see others succeed (or fail) before you try yourself.
It doesn't help that OSS gained critical mass at the same time the tech economy collapsed and most of the companies that tried this path are already in dire straights.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, after I mentioned I was from Canada you latched on to that and assumed this is some kind of socialist paradise. In fact, you're not allowed to collect unemployment/welfare benefits unless you are actively looking for work. I'm not sure of all the details, since I've never been out of work long enough to collect, but for unemployment at least you have to document which jobs you have applied for.
/. keep telling me I'm making buggy whips for some reason.
In the US assault is a crime. If you get caught you go to jail. We also have pretty good police that can trace genetic evidence and get the person responsible (not that they don't make mistakes mind you they do).
Right. As opposed to Canada where assault is legal and our crimes are investigated by trained squirrels. Really, life here is not so different except for the fact that our government isn't run by religious fundamentalists and we aren't completely ignorant of the rest of the world.
Of course I wasn't literally advocating breaking the legs of GPL programmers. I'm trying to illustrate a point. A lot of other industries have unions that are meant to look out for the collective interests of the workers. In a lot of ways, that's what makes us different from 3rd world countries, 19th century chimney sweeps, etc.
The software industry has the exact opposite -- a trade organization that lobbies against the interests of the workers. It wouldn't bug me if the product was actually becoming obsolete, but last time I checked, software was still an important commodity. People on
-a
This is the X factor that the recording industry hasn't really bothered to look into and I find it very interesting that one of the most successful online music sites is part of a computer company (Apple).
Of course the standard for what is a successful site is a bit lower on
-a
If you live in canada then your basic needs are taken care of. You could be unemployed and won't starve.
Yeah. I could move back in with my parents... sounds great!
Really there is no need for you to whine and moan about the GPL.
Right... because a bare subsistence living sounds appealing to me. Really, you over-estimate the safety net that Canada provides. The economy here ain't doing so hot either. There isn't enough money to pay for everyone to be unemployed.
"You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken."
Really? Which ones?
Mostly the ones where the teamsters have shady mob connections.
-a
Yo dude, do you work for the post office? Is that why you are so unsatisfied with your life that you have to work a second job for free. You OSS types are just are like papparazi in the way you ooh and ahh over your geek heros. Real capitalist invest their money on race horses or balooning around the world. They don't undermine their own industry in a desperate bid for fame.
I, for one, don't care if I ever become famous. I just want to put in an honest days work and make enough money to play a round of golf every week. Thankfully, I already live in Canada, and not in your ridiculous country. That doesn't make me immune from the GPL, however, since lots of OSS projects are based here. You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken.
-a
Sports technology has negatively affected golf, tennis, and hockey. Fortunately, it hasn't ruined nude jello wrestling.
-a
You know what pisses me off? People who have entirely dogmatic belief systems. Your adherence to capitalism is some kind of religious issue. You doggedly advocate various corolleries of capitalist systems, and yet you ignore the spirit of the idea. You don't understand how capitalism works (and when it doesn't).
If you dogmatically assume that anything capitalist is good and anything socialist is bad then fine: Let's cut taxes, abolish the minimum wage, expand free trade, and dispense with social security and medicare. You and I can slog it out for 60 cents an hour along with the rest of the third world.
I admit it. I don't want to work 80 hours a week to make less money than I did 5 years ago. What's the point of technology making our life easier if I have no free time? For some reason you want to abolish all the white colar jobs, or at least turn them into a living hell. Of course you don't state this as an actual goal, but your attitude is that if this happens then "so what, that's capitalism."
Capitalism is a sound economic system, but like anything other system, it doesn't work if you to take it to extremes. You advocate a system that bears only superficial resemblance to capitalism. But because you can come up with some bullshit analogy that converts the GPL into capitalism ("a different kind of price for a new economy"), and you dogmatically assume that anything capitalistic is good, you are able to talk out your ass.
-a
So if the terrorists attack when you're on the go, you can simply duct-tape yourself into the nearest phone booth.
-a
Interesting. You don't want to write your own code, you can't find enough BSD code to steal from, you are not allowed to steal code from the GPL pool so you whine about why you can't make money because you are unable to compete with a bunch of people who code in their spare time.
If only it were so. If the only competition was from hobbyists then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there are some misguided companies out there who fund OSS development and ruin it for everyone.
So instead of working harder and making better code you whine on and on about how the GPL is evil and is preventing you from making tons of money off of other peoples backs.
Well, yeah. I am kind of sick of always working harder. It used to be that startups expected you to work a lot of overtime, but they paid you well and they lured you in with tons of stock options. Now everyone is in startup mode. Thanks in large part to OSS, there's more and more players fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.
You know what you don't deserve to make money. You are just a leech on society.
Yeah... just because I advocate an economic system with a mathematical basis (as opposed to an economic system I read about in "Adam Smith for 3 year olds"), that makes me a leech on society.
-a
As a matter of fact, many of the ingredients and equipment used to make the drinks sold in the B&N cafes is not the same ingredients and equipment you'll find in a real Starbucks cafe.
Hmmm... I'm from Canada, where the most popular bookstore to browse at is called Chapters. As far as I can tell, the Starbucks inside these Chapters stores are full-fledged Starbucks franchises serving regulation Starbucks coffee. In fact, the Starbucks usually has a separate entrance onto the street.
-a
Isn't this why the coffee costs $3 to $5 a cup? TO make up for the books/mags you read while in the store. I always do this at Borders.
$3 to $5 a cup? I've never seen that. The Starbucks inside bookstores seem to charge regular prices (which is $3-$5 a cup if you buy some fancy espresso drink). I don't think the bookstore gets a kickback from the coffeeshop, even though they should. But then of course the publishers of the books should get a kickback from the bookstore.
-a
magazines are insanely priced here in Japan.
Isn't everything insanely priced in Japan? I mean, I remember once about 10 years ago I paid $6 for a small coke. (Of course, that was in the airport...)
-a
I harm no one by releaseing my code under the GPL. I could have not released it at all, I could have simply retained the copyright.
Quite untrue. You harm quite a lot of people. Admittedly, you only harm each of them a little bit, but if 100 other people think the same way you do and keep extending your code then the harm adds up.
- You harm the entrepreneur who was planning to release a commercial version of the same thing.
- You harm the 50 people he would have hired.
- You harm the tens of thousands of software developers looking for jobs because their bargaining power is slightly reduced.
Nobody has to accept the GPL. If they want to use my code then can PAY ME.
Nobody is that desparate to use your code. Anything that one person develops alone can be easily replaced. What they would like to use is the code that has been collaboratively developed by hundreds or thousands of people.
I already make enough money to live a comfortable life. My employer compensates me generously for my labors.
Fine, so does mine. (Not as much as I was making a few years ago, but quite adequate.) But I am not arrogant enough to assume that will always be the case. Like a lot of people, I was laid off last year. Fortunately, I have some very specialized skills and I quickly found a new job. However, I feel sorry for all my friends who aren't so lucky. And what about the new grads? When I look at resumes, I see guys with 10+ years of coding experience applying for jobs as testers.
OSS only hurts you if you are too stupid to write your own code.
It's not a question of being too lazy to write your own code. These days, software projects are a lot bigger than they used to be, and it's impractical to re-invent the wheel. It used to be that you would license some third party libraries to provide the building blocks. But the existence of GPLed alternatives drives down your margins. You can't afford to buy the libraries, but you can't afford to use the GPLed onces either. It's a Hobson's choice.
If you are too stupid to ride on the backs of BSD coders and exploit their labors then you don't deserve to make money.
The problem is there is not enough BSD stuff out there to compensate for all the GPL stuff. Nowadays, more amateur projects (including a lot of university research) are being released under the GPL, perhaps because the GPL has better propaganda and it appeals to the communistic tendencies of elitist university students/professors who have had it easy all their life.
Capitalism is not a handout, nobody owes you code, nobody owes yoy anything.
Capitalism is not a perfect system; it requires government regulation.
-a
Don't these people know there are bookstores where you can just go in, buy a coffee, sit around and read the magazine, then put it back on the shelf and leave?
-a
You are seeing a causation where none exists. People murder with guns because guns are an effective tool for killing. Before guns people murdered with knives, arrows and swords. Guns are just a tool.
Right... and I suppose that if guns weren't easily available, we'd see a vast increase in the number of drive-by beheadings. It's exactly the fact that guns are such an effective tool for killing that makes the murder rate go up.
After watching Bowling for Columbine, I researched the stats on murder vs. gun ownership (because I didn't trust Michael Moore to fact check them). What I found was not a correlation between murder and guns in general, but a correlation between murder and handguns specifically.
"But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. "
I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to anybody selling anything. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You can't just make shit up and then draw a conclusion from it.
Alright... another rephrase to satisfy your nitpicking:
But you don't believe in selling the things *you produce* for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism.
Not only do I believe in selling things for money, I also believe in an expanded definition of currency. In a rapidly evolving world we need to expand our ways of looking at wealth and currency
Source?
It's a way of converting labor to wealth that effectively allows you to compete with Bill Gates the richest man in the world.
I.e. If you can't make the blind people see, poke out everyone's eyes so they can all compete on the same level.
You are truly misinformed. When I release my code under the GPL I retain ownership of the code.
Nominally, yes.
I also retain a degree of control over what happens to that code forever.
If you give everyone else all the same rights you have then you no longer have control.
When you sell your code you are competing with Bill Gates. That's a fight you are going to lose because he is the richest, most powerful person on the planet.
My goal is not specifically to "beat" Bill Gates. My intent is to make enough money to live a comfortable life. There's enough room out there for more than one person out there to make money, although OSS has significantly reduced my chances.
It's better the enter a fight you at least have a chance of winning.
That is one of the lamest justifications for OSS I have heard, but I have to admit it explains a lot. You view competition as a game and you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.
-a
Actually, other than the magician himself, who the hell else is named Mandrake?
Mandrake is poison. (But you still need it to become an avatar.)
-a
It's apparent to me that your value system is very narrowly defined. You define value and worth (and cost and price) strictly in terms of cash. I guess that's what makes us different.
It depends. When I'm talking about capitalism vs. communism, I use those terms in a monetary context. If you employ specific terminology without reference to the context in which you are using them, then you are apt to reach ridiculous conclusions.
(BTW, it is still not true that my entire value system is based on money.)
"Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder."
Absolutely. That is dead on. COngratulations, you now get it.
Actually, that was a test to see what kind of thinker you are and you proved my point. In an earlier posting, I said that you seemed to let logic overrule common sense. It's a common flaw of geeks -- they are good at Boolean logic, but they don't seem to understand fuzzy logic and statistics. The fact is, while not every gun will kill someone, there is strong evidence of a correlation between guns and murder, so to say that guns and murder are "unrelated" is simply willful ignorance.
"The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission."
Because I am not a communist. I believe in ownership and property. Those things are the bedrock of capitalism.
But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. The real question to me is *why* you believe in ownership and property. It strikes me that your beliefs are dogmatic and you might not understand *why* you believe in them.
Right. Public domain will accomplish the same thing (there is very little difference between public domain and BSD). It's communism. I am not a communist, I don't believe in communism. I don't think that people should be forced or even encouraged to relquinsh their labors to others.
So basically the only reason why you don't release your code under the public domain is because you don't want to be a communist. You don't have any real reason for not wanting to be a communist; it just has bad connotations or something. Face it: you are perfectly willing to relinquish your labours to others, but only on Stallman's terms. Meanwhile, I advocate selling software for a profit and *you* are calling *me* a communist?!?
"Even Stallman supports music piracy."
He believes in fair use not piracy. I for one think it's immoral that a musician or their agents can punish you for singing a song.
Stallman believes in extending fair use by taking away the right of copyright owners to control how their property is distributed. Sounds like communism to me.
-a
Actually, I think the Chinese care a lot about IP
Right... That's why the rate of music piracy in China is over 90% (according to a
that concern will manifest itself in China and Asia in general through the embracing of a license that puts them in the best position to compete with the worlds biggest IP horder, the U.S., and that license would be the GPL
They will embrace the license all right. They will get their edge from the fact that they steal GPL'ed code and companies in the US don't. Of course, then companies in the US will start to do it too.
IBM suports the GPL and backs that up with money and developers. But then I guess you think IBM is just stupid?
IBM knows they are taking a big gamble by focusing on OSS. You think they don't known that? IBM is not stupid, but they are very good at FUD. Right now, they are bandwagon jumping. They reevalute this strategy constantly. Ironically, one of IBM's biggest mistakes was back in the 80s when they decided to focus on hardware and let other people sell the software.
The hardware companies will be making their money off hardware, not software, so it will behoove them to appeal to the largest, most diverse community.
That's a rather vast oversimplification. Is Cisco a hardware company or a software company? Sure they sell custom hardware, but do you think they hire more hardware developers or more software developers?
-a
I notice you are getting a lot of practice at arguing with what I say and not what I mean. Whenever possible, you choose to misinterpret my words and make a semantic argument rather than a logical one.
/. argument goes), copyright violation is not really theft because theft is when you deprive someone of property.
/. also support music piracy,"
"if you do feel like giving your software away..."
Once again GPL has a price. People who release code under the GPL are not "giving it away".
Your objection is 100% semantic and it has no bearing on my argument. If you wish, I'll rephrase my argument in legalese to compensate for your thought impediment:
However, if you do feel like releasing your software under terms that allow redistribution of the source code without renumeration paid to the original author as cash or cash equivalents, I would rather you released it under a BSD license rather than GPL so that if someone else thinks they could make money from it, they aren't likely to be disuaded by the terms of the license.
There is no appreciable difference between the code you sell and the GPLed code.
I.e. in one area (they both have EULAs) they are almost identical. That doesn't stop them from being different in a million other ways.
The price is not money but it's a price nevertheless.
That's great, but it's still a metaphor because we were talking about capitalism, which is an actual economic system that was designed to deal with real money. The theory of capitalism was designed to deal with real money (or at the least, barter) so if you want to extend it less concrete types of "prices", you have to understand that not all of the same conclusions will necessarily apply.
It's a new kind of price for a new kind of economy.
At least in the short run.
The GPL has nothing to do with money.
Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder.
[Of course the problem with statements such as the above in an argument is that half of America will agree with it.]
I am happy when people make money with my code. I just don't want them to steal it.
If you released the code as BSD, they could make money and they wouldn't be stealing. The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission. After all (as the old
The BSD license doesn't deprive you of your code. If someone extends your software without BSD'ing that, it doesn't even deprive other people of your code. It just gives them more options: they can have the original code for free, or they can have the improved software for a price.
"Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on
Bullshit, offtopic and irrelevent.
Even Stallman supports music piracy. Interesting on how all of his proposed revenue models for music sharing take the power out of the hands of the copyright owners and hand it over to the government. It's all very (dare I say it) communistic.
-a
To call you a communist is absolutely accurate. You advocate that people donate their labors to public for the benefit of the public for the advancement of the public good.
This is ridiculous. As I already stated, I advocate selling software for profit. That is my #1 preference. However, if you do feel like giving your software away, I would rather you release it as BSD rather than GPL so you don't deny someone else the opportunity to make money off of it.
As I stated before, the GPL is closer to captialism then public domain or BSD. GPL'ed code comes with restrictions and a price and is therefore is closer to proprietary/capitalism model.
Metaphorically, one could say that GPL'ed software has a price. However, metaphorical arguments don't prove anything. Don't you have any more substantive arguments?
By the same token The folks at the FSF are not communists either and they also don't want to dump their code into the public pool."
Communists don't share the wealth with everyone. They only share with other communists.
You can spread all kinds of venom and hatred towards the GPL or stallamn or whaoever you want but it only makes you look more stupid because you are not able to convince other people of your point of view using logic
Hehe. My opinion at least has a basis in pragmatism. I dislike the GPL because I think it will be bad for the economy. Contrast that with your irrational outlook, which centres around the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is making money off your work (even though it does you no harm for them to do so).
Forget logic; let's talk about common sense. Stallman says the GPL doesn't prevent you from making money from selling software; you can still charge a fee for the physical medium on which the software is stored. There's a perfect example of letting logic overrule common sense. Sure, it's technically possible to make money doing this, but the profits are so low as to be insignificant.
"Yeah, but it's amazing how 90% of those people lose their ideals when it comes to the ownership of other peoples' music."
Off topic and irrelevant.
Hardly. Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on
-a
I'll probably be modded down for this, but let me candid here.
Funny how anyone who says this never seems to say anything the least bit contraversial. My impression is that people say this when they are looking to get modded up. Happy karma whoring to you.
-a
In emerging markets like Asia, where the tech industries are set to take off. How will they challenge the megabucks of the oligopolies that have sweetheart deals with proprietary software companies to make their benchmarks sing? The only effective way to challenge them is to form consortiums that produce OSS to rival the proprietary offerings. Personally, I think the best choice for a license that these companies could adopt would be the GPL
I have no doubt that the Chinese tech industry is poised to take off. (In fact, I tried to invest in the Chinese tech sector a couple of years ago and I was annoyed that I couldn't find any mutual funds that invest in mainland China.)
As for which license they should use: (Let's ignore the fact that you didn't provide any justification for why they would want to choose the GPL.) It doesn't matter a whit what license they choose because nobody in China gives a lick about intellectual property anyway.
-a
I know what the tragedy of the commons is. If you read part 1 of the article, you will see that the authors coin the term "triumph of the commons" as a rebuttal of the accusation that the GPL creates a tragedy of the commons.
-a
I disagree. I believe IT budget pressures in this economic retrenchment are of great help in motivating IT managers to look into OSS for cost savings, even if they don't 'get' the larger benefits of escaping vendor lock-in initially.
If it's just a matter of using Apache instead of MS for their web server, I think a lot of companies are already doing that. But the article also talks about funding OSS development or forming a vendor consortium to develop a common tool. This isn't likely to happen because the companies that pay for the cost of research have a vested interest in maintaining a high cost of entry into the market.
-a
In Part 1 of the article, the authors like to point out how OSS turns the tragedy of the commons into the triumph of the commons. Then in Part 2, they tell you how to "engage" with the OSS community in order to get higher quality software. This article is never going to convince businesses to switch to open source because it never uses the magic words: this is how to make money fast.
The "triumph of the commons" argument is a obvious example of how arguments by analogy can be used to support a ridiculous conclusion. OSS opponents deride the GPL because they say the tragedy of the commons will prevent anyone from making any money. The authors respond "No, it's the triumph of the commons because the result is high quality software." That's great, but you're still evading the real question.
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
-a
Most of us would love to see Open Source widely adopted as a business strategy. The major barrier to this is that business adopts the path-of-least-resistance to profitability, and changing your current strategy for a largely untested and hence managerially mistrusted one is a brave move indeed. No amount of educating managers is going to change the fact that its better to wait and see others succeed (or fail) before you try yourself.
It doesn't help that OSS gained critical mass at the same time the tech economy collapsed and most of the companies that tried this path are already in dire straights.
-a