..patents are meant to protect creative intellectual property,..
Oh, I thought that patents were a part of this mystical "intellectual property". Patents exist because we want them, not because some big corporation "deserves" them.
On the other hand, I have to take care about what hardware I buy (PDA, scanner, video cards and the like) since lots of them are not properly supported for Linux, and most of the time it is the cheapest ones; more Linux users would mean easy access to more supported components/gadgets.
Probably. But if you don't tell them to value their freedom we get only proprietary drivers, worthless shit in the long run.
I wish that they would talk about freedom. If they use only the "quality code" argumentation M$ can compete. But if they mention freedom there is no competetition with that in their current business model.
I assume that Stallman started Emacs on a commercial *nix like a PDP-11. I assume also that gcc was compiled using a comercial cc. And all those shell scripts and makefiles used to build it ran on commercial tools. So clearly non free is a good thing if its convenient. The issue isn't about commercial and non-commercial. It is about freedom. There is money involved in free software which makes it commercial, see Apple developing GCC for powerpc, MySQL and all the other companies working on free software.
You are abusing the term freedom. I am all for freedom. However why should I have the freedom to control the work I do taken from me?
Should I have the freedom to lock you in my basement? That's not freedom, it's power. It seems that you take the option of enslaving people as "freedom". You have many options, some are ethical and some aren't.
You do not have the right of taking my labor for nothing. I have the right and freedom to let you.
That's correct. Nobody is saying that you should release anything for free, zero price. It's about freedom, not price.
There is nothing wrong with closed source code. Its called capitalism. You know where you make money and don't live in your parents basement. Sorry to sound rude but by your argument any company making money is using power and removing freedom from the people.
It's not about the money, it's about freedom.
Same goes with software. If software companies just give out all their code why would I ever buy their software. There is no reason to buy into their company
If you valued freedom you could donate money. Or the company could have the $cool_software as a hostage, they would release it for certain sum of money. Developers do get paid with free software. That's not an issue.
My freedom to own what I make overrides your freedom to take what I make. Like it or not but makeing people release their work as open source is slavery.
I don't want anyone to "open source" anything. I want them not to enslave people with their software. When you make physical stuff it is already free (you can examine, change and copy its design) however you like. The restrictions of non-free software affect its every user. Of course the developers can choose, they can either be ethical and not enslave the users, or they can ignore ethics and do it.
I do not care what RMS or anyone else says closed source is not immoral.
I'm quite sure that it's the opposite of rms' view stated in the terms of Open Source movement. In Free Software movement we have the terms free and non-free software which would probably suit better for such a statement.
People should have the "FREEDOM" to keep their source closed, open it, or to charge anything they want for it as long as they are not a monopoly.
Keeping source "closed" (which is a term used by the Open Source movement) means that the users don't have freedom. When you deny others their freedom you are using power. Power is not freedom.
And here is a proud owner of a 60MHz HP pa-risc machine running the newest 2.4 series Linux with Debian. It isn't fast but it works and that's all I need.
Skype calls are encrypted end-end. Even if RIAA gets the wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs, it'll be hard for them to snoop in. And skype is just a beginning.
It's not Free software, how do you know? The intelligence agencies probably have their own back doors built in. I wish that skype will die and that it will be replaced by some open and free standard. Like the gnomemeeting guys said, skype is hype
. It would also allow opensource implementations of their media formats on linux with full drm support.
Free Software and DRM aren't compatible by definition. DRM requires that the media company can dictate how the work is used, free software requires that the user is completely in charge.
There's no way one company would be allowed to shut down a continent's IT systems.
Sure they can, they just keep the source secret and people won't be able to support their systems without it. Another reason to use only free software.
I don't give a damn about the show not being ad-free, and I don't give a damn about them even developing a technology preventing you from fast-forwarding past the advertising.
That would require that the computer would obey the companies, not you. Only non-free software can do that and it is unacceptable.
I guess so, but an open source project that uses a proprietary framework (.NET) that targets a single platform via a closed video driver spec (DirectX) strikes me as missing the point somewhat. It's a bit like an open source project coded in PPC assembler.
It's open source, they don't care of the users' freedom.
At the end of the day though, the government should decide on what gets the job done with the least amount of money.
Well, slavery is a good thing then, right? You get people working for you for free. Free Software is about freedom and ethics, like the question of slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
..patents are meant to protect creative intellectual property,..
Oh, I thought that patents were a part of this mystical "intellectual property". Patents exist because we want them, not because some big corporation "deserves" them.
On the other hand, I have to take care about what hardware I buy (PDA, scanner, video cards and the like) since lots of them are not properly supported for Linux, and most of the time it is the cheapest ones; more Linux users would mean easy access to more supported components/gadgets.
Probably. But if you don't tell them to value their freedom we get only proprietary drivers, worthless shit in the long run.
This isn't really about GNU and you shouldn't spread confusion; Open Source and GNU don't really have anything to do with each other.
I wish that they would talk about freedom. If they use only the "quality code" argumentation M$ can compete. But if they mention freedom there is no competetition with that in their current business model.
I don't think life+70 years is so excellent.
I assume that Stallman started Emacs on a commercial *nix like a PDP-11. I assume also that gcc was compiled using a comercial cc. And all those shell scripts and makefiles used to build it ran on commercial tools. So clearly non free is a good thing if its convenient. The issue isn't about commercial and non-commercial. It is about freedom. There is money involved in free software which makes it commercial, see Apple developing GCC for powerpc, MySQL and all the other companies working on free software.
You are abusing the term freedom. I am all for freedom. However why should I have the freedom to control the work I do taken from me?
Should I have the freedom to lock you in my basement? That's not freedom, it's power. It seems that you take the option of enslaving people as "freedom". You have many options, some are ethical and some aren't.
You do not have the right of taking my labor for nothing. I have the right and freedom to let you.
That's correct. Nobody is saying that you should release anything for free, zero price. It's about freedom, not price.
There is nothing wrong with closed source code. Its called capitalism. You know where you make money and don't live in your parents basement. Sorry to sound rude but by your argument any company making money is using power and removing freedom from the people.
It's not about the money, it's about freedom.
Same goes with software. If software companies just give out all their code why would I ever buy their software. There is no reason to buy into their company
If you valued freedom you could donate money. Or the company could have the $cool_software as a hostage, they would release it for certain sum of money. Developers do get paid with free software. That's not an issue.
My freedom to own what I make overrides your freedom to take what I make. Like it or not but makeing people release their work as open source is slavery.
I don't want anyone to "open source" anything. I want them not to enslave people with their software. When you make physical stuff it is already free (you can examine, change and copy its design) however you like. The restrictions of non-free software affect its every user. Of course the developers can choose, they can either be ethical and not enslave the users, or they can ignore ethics and do it.
I do not care what RMS or anyone else says closed source is not immoral.
I'm quite sure that it's the opposite of rms' view stated in the terms of Open Source movement. In Free Software movement we have the terms free and non-free software which would probably suit better for such a statement.
People should have the "FREEDOM" to keep their source closed, open it, or to charge anything they want for it as long as they are not a monopoly.
Keeping source "closed" (which is a term used by the Open Source movement) means that the users don't have freedom. When you deny others their freedom you are using power. Power is not freedom.
And here is a proud owner of a 60MHz HP pa-risc machine running the newest 2.4 series Linux with Debian. It isn't fast but it works and that's all I need.
But it's not free. You can't even redistribute it. See http://www.nokiausa.com/support/warranty/item_deta ils/1,1955,item:gatesoft,00.html
Who knows where Linux will be in 20 years? I sure as hell don't, but I have a rather optimistic view.
It will be obsoleted by the Hurd. I would be more interested in the advancement of Free Software.
But GNU would still be in a greater role than some ABI of some kernel called linux.
Skype calls are encrypted end-end. Even if RIAA gets the wiretapping rights to see if VoIP calls are really U2 songs, it'll be hard for them to snoop in. And skype is just a beginning.
It's not Free software, how do you know? The intelligence agencies probably have their own back doors built in. I wish that skype will die and that it will be replaced by some open and free standard. Like the gnomemeeting guys said, skype is hype
It has nothing to do with copyright, and it's only confusing if you don't know anything about intellectual property law.
But there is no such thing! The copyright, patent and trademark laws etc. were created for specific purposes at different times.
They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.
. It would also allow opensource implementations of their media formats on linux with full drm support.
Free Software and DRM aren't compatible by definition. DRM requires that the media company can dictate how the work is used, free software requires that the user is completely in charge.
There's no way one company would be allowed to shut down a continent's IT systems.
Sure they can, they just keep the source secret and people won't be able to support their systems without it. Another reason to use only free software.
I don't give a damn about the show not being ad-free, and I don't give a damn about them even developing a technology preventing you from fast-forwarding past the advertising.
That would require that the computer would obey the companies, not you. Only non-free software can do that and it is unacceptable.
Open Source doesn't care about freedom. Their goals are pretty same as Microsoft's: better code, more features etc. Only the method is different.
And it is non-free.
I guess so, but an open source project that uses a proprietary framework (.NET) that targets a single platform via a closed video driver spec (DirectX) strikes me as missing the point somewhat. It's a bit like an open source project coded in PPC assembler.
It's open source, they don't care of the users' freedom.
At the end of the day though, the government should decide on what gets the job done with the least amount of money.
Well, slavery is a good thing then, right? You get people working for you for free. Free Software is about freedom and ethics, like the question of slavery.
The head line says that it is about free software, not open source. The difference is remarkable.