If it's your code, you have the copyright to it, and thus the right to decide if you want to share it or not. No arguments there. So if Ford wants to lock up their blueprints, it's their right.
The problem is, and what RMS is fighting for, is that some would like to eliminate the free software competition by making it wrong to use free software. If people can continue to read open source when the author wishes it that way, no problem. But that is a freedom, a right, that needs to be protected from those who would take it away.
It's the idea that someone can check the details. You may not want to learn how to fix the car, but it's good to know that any mechanic who puts in the time to learn can do so. If they outlaw mechanics, you become at the mercy of the auto manufacturer who can then jack up the price of repairs. Being able to do it yourself, even if you personally don't avail yourself of that right, is what prevents this from happening.
Now imagine a world of software where everything comes from Microsoft and it is against the law to view the code. Do you trust them to look after your interests? Don't you feel more comfortable knowing there is open software that allows people to audit what is going on?
Some things should be black boxes, but the proponents of free software are not demanding knowledge of every device on earth. Just software. And for very important reasons.
Open source is about source code to computer programs, an intellectual expression of ideas. A Ford car is a tangible object that costs money to produce and has intrinsic value tied up with the materials. Ruin the materials, the car loses its value. An idea, on the other hand, can be shared with no loss to you. In fact the value grows with sharing (see: revolution, for instance).
"I'm also a bit confused as how 'free software' = 'freedom'. So... you lose your individual freedom if you buy software?"
Free software is about the freedom to use and view your software code, to make modifications if you wish, and to verify that nothing is going on behind the scenes you wouldn't want. If we lose that freedom, we become at the mercy of those who control the software. If it becomes illegal to look at the software code, freedom is lost. This is primarly a freedom issue, not a monetary issue.
Your opinions are not worthless. Of course people should be allowed to charge for their software if that is what they want. Free software advocates are all about freedom. They just don't want to closed software people to take away their freedom, and thus the patent issue you bring up in a timely fashion.
Fair enough. I meant the word in the sense that the parent poster described very well the attitude that causes people to lose out on privileges or freedom before they even realize it. But you are right, there are other aspects that can play into this, including secrecy. But the parent poster's description fits here as well: Inappropriate secrecy only works as long as people couldn't care less that things are being kept secret.
"Yeah, and the means by which freedom is gained -- if I produce something that is useful and people are willing to pay for, I can eat."
No, the post I was commenting on talked about people who don't care about ideals but take whatever is given to them as being good enough. You are talking about a less-passive approach, actively taking a step on behalf of your family. Apples and oranges. My point was that if you don't care about freedom, you lose it.
And yes, you can make money from free software. Lots of companies do it. It's not the either/or situation the anti-free software types make it out to be.
If either the grandparent or the parent poster had read the article, they would know why their comments are off the mark. RMS meant "Linux" in this context, as he explains right there in the article.
Your humor aside, I'm surprised at how many people in America ask similar questions in a serious way, as if they really do want someone to tell them how to think. Well, some of us totally ignored the anti-French propaganda of a couple of years ago. We think for ourselves.
Any time you put yourself in a position where you allow others to think on your behalf, you become completely dependent on their honesty and integrity. Throw in the saying about power corrupting, and you have a recipe for disaster every single time. Think for yourself.
"On the other hand, I'd really like to go see "Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference", especially if it was in Mandarin with subs."
Scene opens on a hilly vista, bamboo trees in the near foreground, and two men dressed in black face each other.
Man 1: You killed my triggers and erased my stored procedures. For this, you will die like a dog.
Man 2: I was seeking my rightful revenge for your destruction of my parent process. Now I will finish the job by applying pressure points to your SQL until it bleeds.
I wasn't arguing for downloading copyright material, merely asking if there was actual evidence of direct harm.
"It's no different then stealing a car from your local car lot and then saying "I was only borrowing the car from your lot to see how I liked it". If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it."
There is a difference. If you put wear and tear on a car, you have harmed it phyiscally, and there is only one version of that car. It will never be the same. An electronic copy of a movie is not the original. The original is not harmed. The only thing you can say is that there is a potential for future economic loss if the viewer decides not to go to the theater when it is released. My point is that no one knows for sure if there is such an effect that counters the other possible effects: Fanboy goes anyway cuz he is so into it; Person who never planned to see the movie downloads it just because, sees it, gets into it, and now starts going to those types of movies in the future; and so on.
Nothing physical is being harmed. And any future economic impact seems to me to be on both sides of the ledger. Does downloading help or hurt on balance? In music, it seems to have helped. In movies, we don't know.
"...how the countless "shared folders" containing "prerelase copyrighted works" on untold numbers of compromised Windows boxes on university campuses will be handled..."
Simple. Lock up every college kid in the country, and then see what their parents think of this new legislation.
"Why? The damages are greater to the copywrite [sic] holder."
What supporting evidence do you have to make such a statement? What makes you think that the number of people who see the unreleased film and decide to not go to the theater is greater than the number of people who look to download the unreleased film because they cannot wait to see it in the theater -- and then they do go to the theater to see it on the big screen?
Heh, nothing kills a joke like explaining it, huh?:)
In fact, I was just fooling around with the concept, but yeah, in the back of my mind what I wrote is the type of scenario I could foresee happening someday if patent rights holders get as greedy as copyright holders have in recent years. I mean, who'd have thought back in the day when we were making cassette tapes of our favorite songs to play for our friends that one day we'd see record companies suing 8-year-olds? Or that a Russian programmer would be locked up for copyright violation when he came to the U.S. to give a speech? Or a teen in Norway would be sued for making a contraption that let him watch his own movie on his own computer?
Greed unchecked can lead to all sorts of Huh? moments in life. My little joke (now totally ruined by this serious discussion ) was not meant to be taken literally of what I think will happen one day, but you never know...
Yeah, I was surprised this was modded "Troll." I could understand "Off-topic" if the mod didn't want a lame joke in the thread, or "Funny" if they were in a good mood. But "Troll"? I'm not even anonymous!;)
"Starwars has been moving more and more to a TV soap opera type thing for a while now using tired old tools many of which have been borrowed from other films of the past. Yoda hanging on to a ledge? This seems to be a common theme in Star Wars films and perhaps action films of all kinds. Remember the quote from another geek fav? Run you fools!. Slapstick comments from C3PO and the scream of R2D2 are just stereotyped now. "
Yes, and deliberately so. That's what Lucas was trying to do was to return to the form of the old film serials of the past, and to use the usual Campbell Myth plots to tell that story. Of course this stuff is familiar -- it's meant to be!
SF can be innovate in writing, but only when doing something innovate in design. When you deliberately set out to resurrect the cheesey serials, you get high cheese factor as a matter of course. As for getting away from the High Quest themes, good luck buddy. Ain't nothing new there since Homer. Good writing or bad writing, all stories are going to revolve around a handful of plot archetypes.
"one collective is demanding an incredible 25% of the gross revenue of music download services as well as 15% of webcasters' gross revenue and 10% of gamers gross revenue"
And 7% of gross revenue from hamburger sales since it's been shown that copyright violaters eat them, and 11% of posters of 70s rockers in cheesy poses since their images retain valuable copyrightable money-making potential, and 3% of the sale of every wheelbarrel since they can be used to haul off copyrighted material, and 1% of every breath you take since that's part of a copyrighted song lyric...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, and what RMS is fighting for, is that some would like to eliminate the free software competition by making it wrong to use free software. If people can continue to read open source when the author wishes it that way, no problem. But that is a freedom, a right, that needs to be protected from those who would take it away.
Now imagine a world of software where everything comes from Microsoft and it is against the law to view the code. Do you trust them to look after your interests? Don't you feel more comfortable knowing there is open software that allows people to audit what is going on?
Some things should be black boxes, but the proponents of free software are not demanding knowledge of every device on earth. Just software. And for very important reasons.
Open source is about source code to computer programs, an intellectual expression of ideas. A Ford car is a tangible object that costs money to produce and has intrinsic value tied up with the materials. Ruin the materials, the car loses its value. An idea, on the other hand, can be shared with no loss to you. In fact the value grows with sharing (see: revolution, for instance).
Free software is about the freedom to use and view your software code, to make modifications if you wish, and to verify that nothing is going on behind the scenes you wouldn't want. If we lose that freedom, we become at the mercy of those who control the software. If it becomes illegal to look at the software code, freedom is lost. This is primarly a freedom issue, not a monetary issue.
Your opinions are not worthless. Of course people should be allowed to charge for their software if that is what they want. Free software advocates are all about freedom. They just don't want to closed software people to take away their freedom, and thus the patent issue you bring up in a timely fashion.
It's the general apathy that is the key danger.
No, the post I was commenting on talked about people who don't care about ideals but take whatever is given to them as being good enough. You are talking about a less-passive approach, actively taking a step on behalf of your family. Apples and oranges. My point was that if you don't care about freedom, you lose it.
And yes, you can make money from free software. Lots of companies do it. It's not the either/or situation the anti-free software types make it out to be.
If you say so!"
Very good. I was wondering when someone would notice this contradiction. Excellent response to my imperative statement.
Agreed, sadly, that this is typical human nature. It is also the precise mechanism throughout history by means of which freedom gets lost.
If either the grandparent or the parent poster had read the article, they would know why their comments are off the mark. RMS meant "Linux" in this context, as he explains right there in the article.
I'll be contacting you tomorrow with your instructions for the rest of the week. Don't worry, you can trust me to think for you...
Your humor aside, I'm surprised at how many people in America ask similar questions in a serious way, as if they really do want someone to tell them how to think. Well, some of us totally ignored the anti-French propaganda of a couple of years ago. We think for ourselves.
Any time you put yourself in a position where you allow others to think on your behalf, you become completely dependent on their honesty and integrity. Throw in the saying about power corrupting, and you have a recipe for disaster every single time. Think for yourself.
Scene opens on a hilly vista, bamboo trees in the near foreground, and two men dressed in black face each other.
Man 1: You killed my triggers and erased my stored procedures. For this, you will die like a dog.
Man 2: I was seeking my rightful revenge for your destruction of my parent process. Now I will finish the job by applying pressure points to your SQL until it bleeds.
Man 1, flying through the air: Aaaiii!!!
"It's no different then stealing a car from your local car lot and then saying "I was only borrowing the car from your lot to see how I liked it". If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it."
There is a difference. If you put wear and tear on a car, you have harmed it phyiscally, and there is only one version of that car. It will never be the same. An electronic copy of a movie is not the original. The original is not harmed. The only thing you can say is that there is a potential for future economic loss if the viewer decides not to go to the theater when it is released. My point is that no one knows for sure if there is such an effect that counters the other possible effects: Fanboy goes anyway cuz he is so into it; Person who never planned to see the movie downloads it just because, sees it, gets into it, and now starts going to those types of movies in the future; and so on.
Nothing physical is being harmed. And any future economic impact seems to me to be on both sides of the ledger. Does downloading help or hurt on balance? In music, it seems to have helped. In movies, we don't know.
Simple. Lock up every college kid in the country, and then see what their parents think of this new legislation.
What supporting evidence do you have to make such a statement? What makes you think that the number of people who see the unreleased film and decide to not go to the theater is greater than the number of people who look to download the unreleased film because they cannot wait to see it in the theater -- and then they do go to the theater to see it on the big screen?
In fact, I was just fooling around with the concept, but yeah, in the back of my mind what I wrote is the type of scenario I could foresee happening someday if patent rights holders get as greedy as copyright holders have in recent years. I mean, who'd have thought back in the day when we were making cassette tapes of our favorite songs to play for our friends that one day we'd see record companies suing 8-year-olds? Or that a Russian programmer would be locked up for copyright violation when he came to the U.S. to give a speech? Or a teen in Norway would be sued for making a contraption that let him watch his own movie on his own computer?
Greed unchecked can lead to all sorts of Huh? moments in life. My little joke (now totally ruined by this serious discussion ) was not meant to be taken literally of what I think will happen one day, but you never know...
911: "FIRE up your browsing experience with the new MSN Search, your comprehensive portal to the web!"
Caller: "Augh!"
911: You seem to be referencing Charlie Brown. Accessing Peanuts archive...
"911 Operator. What is the nature of the emergency?"
"HELP! There's a criminal trying to break into my house!"
"We will have someone there right away, Ma'am. Just tell me your name, your address, and your patent use approval identification number."
"This is Mary Smith of 123 Maple Drive, and what?-- patent thingamabob?"
"Your patent use approval identification number, the proof that you can properly use this protected 911 service."
"He's got a gun! Hurry!"
"Ma'am, I'm sorry, but this seems to be a patent violation. Our enforcement officers will be out there immediately to collect payment plus penalty."
Yeah, I was surprised this was modded "Troll." I could understand "Off-topic" if the mod didn't want a lame joke in the thread, or "Funny" if they were in a good mood. But "Troll"? I'm not even anonymous! ;)
Oh, OK, it's archives from yesterday, but I'll bet I'm the only person who put a California surfer accent to the story...
Advertiser: Ignore my ad, willya? Fine, I'll make it blink!
User: Ugh, it blinks! Block, block, block.
Advertiser: Block my ad, willya? Fine, I'll make it pop up!
User: Grrrr, I hate those pop-ups! Suppress, suppress, suppress.
Advertiser: Suppress my pop-ups, willya? Fine, I'll wire your eyeballs open while I play this movie for you--
(Sorry, that last step is from the near future.)
Wow. You're right, and I thank you for the correction. I cannot believe I never noticed that before.
Yes, and deliberately so. That's what Lucas was trying to do was to return to the form of the old film serials of the past, and to use the usual Campbell Myth plots to tell that story. Of course this stuff is familiar -- it's meant to be!
SF can be innovate in writing, but only when doing something innovate in design. When you deliberately set out to resurrect the cheesey serials, you get high cheese factor as a matter of course. As for getting away from the High Quest themes, good luck buddy. Ain't nothing new there since Homer. Good writing or bad writing, all stories are going to revolve around a handful of plot archetypes.
And 7% of gross revenue from hamburger sales since it's been shown that copyright violaters eat them, and 11% of posters of 70s rockers in cheesy poses since their images retain valuable copyrightable money-making potential, and 3% of the sale of every wheelbarrel since they can be used to haul off copyrighted material, and 1% of every breath you take since that's part of a copyrighted song lyric...