I guess reading stuff before answering is too hard... That's what the parent was talking about -- people will leak code (unless you have some military-style security on your coding compound). It's what coders do -- they talk to one another about what they did and how they did it. This is probably how you learned a lot of what you know about coding.
Copyrights and `intellectual property' laws stop this natural communication. So in answer to your question (in addition to that parent link on your post), if there were no copyrights the company would see code leaking out and would have no legal way to stop that from happening expept for NDAs (RMS is against these, too). So the earth would continue to spin and code would be spread as it always has.
On the topic of credit, that's just courtesy. In the academic world, there is no law requiring you state your sources or give credit -- they could sue you for plagarism, but only if you quoted verbatim. The credit for ideas used is based on the mindset of moral people, not on law. Also, I think the BSD license requires you to keep the license text or some form of credit visible in the program you write, so no copyright would not be like the BSD license.
Just so. I have a theory that fits in well with the 'sloppy thought' argument. I believe that a lot of our problems have to do with reductionist thinking. We are searching for the Unifying theory of Everything in science, and in Human sciences, everything is reducing to rights. And because most people have stong feelings on ownership, theft is seen as the ultimate sin.
Now, just start seeing everything in terms of theft. When I kill someone, I am stealing his life. When I infringe on their rights, I am stealing something (ideas/copyright/whatever). This is one way of looking at the world, but the useful ways are always going to require some more complex differentiation. Not everything that is illegal boils down to theft, even though it might seem like an easy way to classify actions as illegal.
I'll bite. Speaking of semantics, your definition of theft is very poor. You say that taking something without paying for it is theft. Now even assuming you mean that what you are taking belongs to someone else (or otherwise taking pictures of nature would be theft) and that has capital value related to the property you are taking (otherwise enjoying food smells from a restaurant stealing) it is still a strange definition.
I hate to be anal about this, but (and here it comes) not all of us believe in "Intellectual Property".
Of course, you might not have the same issues as the Free Software guys, but they actually started the whole scene -- not the OSS guys, so I hope that letter was very clear.
The tone of the article is very pro-copyright. I resent statements like
[Uses like]... making unauthorized copies of hundreds of copyrighted songs without paying for them, are clearly not legal...
on the basis that it does not say whether I may have hundreds of friends who sent me these files or whether these files are available for free, etc.
Not only that, but I have serious doubts as to whether 'copyright' as we know it today will exist in the future.
I especially love the blatant statement
We have the right to control the property we own the way we want to
that belies the fact that the industry is built around intellectual property, and that you get very little when you buy a CD. Information as a tradable entity is ok, but freedom to use that information in any way I see fit (including redistribution) needs to come with my trading rights.
Perhaps this means a change in business model for the entertainment industry, and perhaps it means that artists will not be in the running for mega-millions anymore. But none of this is earth-shattering.
People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.
but how many of those deaths are directly related to drug use and how many of them are because drug trading is illicit and countered by policemen with guns? During prohibition, you could have said the same thing about liquour
The moral of the story is that as soon as government starts to enforce moral standpoints on a population that does not necessarily agree with them, there is bound to be trouble. Enforcing your idea of a safe place will usually result in restricting someone's liberty. It is a thin line.
Why Emulate?
on
Ximian's Back
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Period. I must admit that the biggest problem I when explaining to people that I use GNU/Linux is `what does it look like'. I use some really strange WMs and mostly console tools, so my setup doesn't 'look' like the normal setup. It seems from your post that you think we need a unified look for Free Software to get accepted. Not true. Not even important.
Another problem for some people is the distinction that the Unix-like WMs and desktops make between the rest of the OS and the graphical interface. Network settings are not part of the WM. Desktop solutions try to do everything in one, but the Free Software world is more about small tools working well together well.
What I'm trying to say is that you should be more pissed at windows for making you think that there should be a standard place to change stuff. Not all cars have the indicator level in the same place (some right, some left). I find out when I get into the car where all the controls are, make a few mistakes and then adapt. That is what people still do a lot better than machines.
I have a large problem with this concept that is behind a lot of our current thinking about why copying is wrong. Whenever I have a conversation with someone about copyright, I get the argument: The guy worked hard to produce X, he deserves to be recompensed.
This is a very strange concept. Nobody has a 'right' to profit from anything they do (unless this is stipulated in a contract of some kind, and then it really isn't an inherent right like these people are trying to make out). If I put in a lot of hard work to create the most beautiful music/art/whatever, but nobody buys, I can't say I have a right to profit from these works. Profit is mostly good fortune, definitely not a case of the most deserving case profits most.
I think that much of the world's (IMHO broken) views on copyright stem from this one.
I agree. This is just like that company that sold operating systems without much copy protection (just an easily copied serial number). Look where they are now.
I know the intellectual property argument, and don't ascribe to the term myself. I was just referring to the fact that it is being used by the world at large and that IP is one of the concepts keeping people from understanding the whole philosophy behind Free Software as per the link.
Some of us are have moral/ethical problems with proprietary software, even if it is free of cost. I for one would pay to buy all of my software, including the source and right to redistribute. If Windows could be zero-cost tomorrow, it would not differ significantly from the price of a cheap copy from a friend, but many of the people who are just into free software because they don't want to pay will stop lending their support to the free software world. Hence the free (as in price) software undercutting the free (as in speech) software.
Unless you think that phsychology is bullshit. I don't ascribe to all the theories about my mother being the root of all evel (greatly adlibbed), but I find the inner workings of the human mind at least as interesting as the inner workings of my PC/OS/Car/Palm/etc etc etc, and I think most people reading this have at least tried to imagine what makes us 'tick'.
The problem is, of course that we can't take the human mind apart. There is no source code and there are no original plans. It is the ultimate prorietary product. So we poke and investigate and say 'maybe it works like this' in an attempt to reverse engineer ourselves. If that sounds like bullshit to you, so be it, but I think we should try to learn more about ourselves.
I agree with you that some of the posts sound like people congratulating themselves on doing stuff no-one else does. I just hope that's what bugs you most, and not the idea of trying to find some common motivators for hacking code and hacking matter.
Listen, just because you value your proletarian point of view doesn't mean elitism is wrong. You would be a much better man than I if you haven't found some group to look up to or to aspire to. You sound a bit like you're saying 'I am way more humble than you are'.
I reckon that this post is more interesting when we try to find out what kind of hobbies attract geeks. It goes even deeper -- asking 'what makes someone a hacker?'. Has been asked many times before, but it does go to understanding our collective psychology. But I suppose you don't believe in that either.
Just reading some of the posts, though, there seems to be a remarkable correlation between all these people. Probably coincidence. Nothing to do with the kind of person who reads Slashdot.
By bringing up music and calling it a personal experience, haven't you just proven the point that movies will one day go the same way? Music used to be just as much a communal experience (or more) as movies are today, because only a few people could make music. Today everyone can have a string quartet in their homes. This is what the article is trying to say (I think).
It would seem like not many people posting here have much of an idea what RMS has gone through for his beliefs. Stallman is an atheist, but he believes fervently that all proprietary licences on software are wrong. Not like 'we have to have a choice', but like 'there should be no proprietary code'. It's a big thing to believe in in the current intellectual property-laden world, but it is this belief and not just sharing code with friends that led to the making of the GNU project.
Now, you may not have the same extreme views on IP, but respect RMS and the GNU project for still doing what they said they would do - provide and advocate the use of absolutely free (as in freedom) software.
Also notice the frequent use of absoulutes here. This is the way RMS is when it comes to software. There is no middle ground where some of your code is proprietary and some isn't. It's all or nothing.
I have been following the whole SCO issue with some interest. This is exactly what closed source strategies cause: a lot of he-said-she-said finger pointing about use of 'our code' and not a lot of progress for mankind.
On the bright side, even if the whole of Linux gets rejected, someone will come up with 'clean' code (like Atheos). There will always be free (as in speech) software. Unless DRM gets global support.
This brings up an interesting question: if all art starts to be made by following this formula, will people really be happy with it? I have a feeling that when people make the 'perfect' movie and do another test, the criteria will have changed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this doen't really show causality - it's just statistics based on past experience. Just because this mix did well, doesn't mean it will again. However, this is just how the big record labels and movie houses work. Interesting.
All musicians copy other musicians work. I have often written songs and played them to my friends only to get a 'hey, but that sounds like...'
I worry about where the world is going when I can copyright a riff (which are usually just a few measures of music). Maybe I should release a huge box set of riffs (bass and guitar), which are electronically generated and then played by cheap musicians. Then I can analyse all songs written after the release of my album and sue all the artists for using 'my riffs'.
The article says that Dre hired a musician to play the baseline (and that it was a common riff anyway, according to a musicoligist he hired). I reckon this would fall into the first catagory.
Bear in mind that I haven't heard the song, but it sounds like he was 'quoting' the baseline of another song just as the parent said about all the classics.
I know that the core infrastructure might not be something you or your company would like to give to your competitors, but a large percentage of inhouse software is not really part of the company's core business. This means that they would probably be better off sharing it -- even with their competitors, as both of them will gain equally. In all probability, the originators will retain the advantage simply because they had it first.
There is already such a tool. I am using it at my office. Brilliant - dayly incremental backups, full backups every week. And all the lusers have to do is use My Documents.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess reading stuff before answering is too hard... That's what the parent was talking about -- people will leak code (unless you have some military-style security on your coding compound). It's what coders do -- they talk to one another about what they did and how they did it. This is probably how you learned a lot of what you know about coding.
Copyrights and `intellectual property' laws stop this natural communication. So in answer to your question (in addition to that parent link on your post), if there were no copyrights the company would see code leaking out and would have no legal way to stop that from happening expept for NDAs (RMS is against these, too). So the earth would continue to spin and code would be spread as it always has.
On the topic of credit, that's just courtesy. In the academic world, there is no law requiring you state your sources or give credit -- they could sue you for plagarism, but only if you quoted verbatim. The credit for ideas used is based on the mindset of moral people, not on law. Also, I think the BSD license requires you to keep the license text or some form of credit visible in the program you write, so no copyright would not be like the BSD license.
Just so. I have a theory that fits in well with the 'sloppy thought' argument. I believe that a lot of our problems have to do with reductionist thinking. We are searching for the Unifying theory of Everything in science, and in Human sciences, everything is reducing to rights. And because most people have stong feelings on ownership, theft is seen as the ultimate sin.
Now, just start seeing everything in terms of theft. When I kill someone, I am stealing his life. When I infringe on their rights, I am stealing something (ideas/copyright/whatever). This is one way of looking at the world, but the useful ways are always going to require some more complex differentiation. Not everything that is illegal boils down to theft, even though it might seem like an easy way to classify actions as illegal.
I'll bite. Speaking of semantics, your definition of theft is very poor. You say that taking something without paying for it is theft. Now even assuming you mean that what you are taking belongs to someone else (or otherwise taking pictures of nature would be theft) and that has capital value related to the property you are taking (otherwise enjoying food smells from a restaurant stealing) it is still a strange definition.
A German Professor of Law commenting on the GNU Public License... (GPL on GPL -- sounded funny at the time :-))
Great post - I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps a link to your source could make it even more credible.
I hate to be anal about this, but (and here it comes) not all of us believe in "Intellectual Property". Of course, you might not have the same issues as the Free Software guys, but they actually started the whole scene -- not the OSS guys, so I hope that letter was very clear.
Not only that, but I have serious doubts as to whether 'copyright' as we know it today will exist in the future.
I especially love the blatant statement that belies the fact that the industry is built around intellectual property, and that you get very little when you buy a CD. Information as a tradable entity is ok, but freedom to use that information in any way I see fit (including redistribution) needs to come with my trading rights.
Perhaps this means a change in business model for the entertainment industry, and perhaps it means that artists will not be in the running for mega-millions anymore. But none of this is earth-shattering.
The moral of the story is that as soon as government starts to enforce moral standpoints on a population that does not necessarily agree with them, there is bound to be trouble. Enforcing your idea of a safe place will usually result in restricting someone's liberty. It is a thin line.
Period. I must admit that the biggest problem I when explaining to people that I use GNU/Linux is `what does it look like'. I use some really strange WMs and mostly console tools, so my setup doesn't 'look' like the normal setup. It seems from your post that you think we need a unified look for Free Software to get accepted. Not true. Not even important.
Another problem for some people is the distinction that the Unix-like WMs and desktops make between the rest of the OS and the graphical interface. Network settings are not part of the WM. Desktop solutions try to do everything in one, but the Free Software world is more about small tools working well together well.
What I'm trying to say is that you should be more pissed at windows for making you think that there should be a standard place to change stuff. Not all cars have the indicator level in the same place (some right, some left). I find out when I get into the car where all the controls are, make a few mistakes and then adapt. That is what people still do a lot better than machines.
I have a large problem with this concept that is behind a lot of our current thinking about why copying is wrong. Whenever I have a conversation with someone about copyright, I get the argument: The guy worked hard to produce X, he deserves to be recompensed. This is a very strange concept. Nobody has a 'right' to profit from anything they do (unless this is stipulated in a contract of some kind, and then it really isn't an inherent right like these people are trying to make out). If I put in a lot of hard work to create the most beautiful music/art/whatever, but nobody buys, I can't say I have a right to profit from these works. Profit is mostly good fortune, definitely not a case of the most deserving case profits most. I think that much of the world's (IMHO broken) views on copyright stem from this one.
I agree. This is just like that company that sold operating systems without much copy protection (just an easily copied serial number). Look where they are now.
I know the intellectual property argument, and don't ascribe to the term myself. I was just referring to the fact that it is being used by the world at large and that IP is one of the concepts keeping people from understanding the whole philosophy behind Free Software as per the link.
Some of us are have moral/ethical problems with proprietary software, even if it is free of cost. I for one would pay to buy all of my software, including the source and right to redistribute. If Windows could be zero-cost tomorrow, it would not differ significantly from the price of a cheap copy from a friend, but many of the people who are just into free software because they don't want to pay will stop lending their support to the free software world. Hence the free (as in price) software undercutting the free (as in speech) software.
Read free as in freedom.
Unless you think that phsychology is bullshit. I don't ascribe to all the theories about my mother being the root of all evel (greatly adlibbed), but I find the inner workings of the human mind at least as interesting as the inner workings of my PC/OS/Car/Palm/etc etc etc, and I think most people reading this have at least tried to imagine what makes us 'tick'.
The problem is, of course that we can't take the human mind apart. There is no source code and there are no original plans. It is the ultimate prorietary product. So we poke and investigate and say 'maybe it works like this' in an attempt to reverse engineer ourselves. If that sounds like bullshit to you, so be it, but I think we should try to learn more about ourselves.
I agree with you that some of the posts sound like people congratulating themselves on doing stuff no-one else does. I just hope that's what bugs you most, and not the idea of trying to find some common motivators for hacking code and hacking matter.
Listen, just because you value your proletarian point of view doesn't mean elitism is wrong. You would be a much better man than I if you haven't found some group to look up to or to aspire to. You sound a bit like you're saying 'I am way more humble than you are'.
I reckon that this post is more interesting when we try to find out what kind of hobbies attract geeks. It goes even deeper -- asking 'what makes someone a hacker?'. Has been asked many times before, but it does go to understanding our collective psychology. But I suppose you don't believe in that either.
Just reading some of the posts, though, there seems to be a remarkable correlation between all these people. Probably coincidence. Nothing to do with the kind of person who reads Slashdot.
Now with added link power for those of you who do not want to google.
By bringing up music and calling it a personal experience, haven't you just proven the point that movies will one day go the same way? Music used to be just as much a communal experience (or more) as movies are today, because only a few people could make music. Today everyone can have a string quartet in their homes. This is what the article is trying to say (I think).
It would seem like not many people posting here have much of an idea what RMS has gone through for his beliefs. Stallman is an atheist, but he believes fervently that all proprietary licences on software are wrong. Not like 'we have to have a choice', but like 'there should be no proprietary code'. It's a big thing to believe in in the current intellectual property-laden world, but it is this belief and not just sharing code with friends that led to the making of the GNU project. Now, you may not have the same extreme views on IP, but respect RMS and the GNU project for still doing what they said they would do - provide and advocate the use of absolutely free (as in freedom) software. Also notice the frequent use of absoulutes here. This is the way RMS is when it comes to software. There is no middle ground where some of your code is proprietary and some isn't. It's all or nothing.
I have been following the whole SCO issue with some interest. This is exactly what closed source strategies cause: a lot of he-said-she-said finger pointing about use of 'our code' and not a lot of progress for mankind.
On the bright side, even if the whole of Linux gets rejected, someone will come up with 'clean' code (like Atheos). There will always be free (as in speech) software. Unless DRM gets global support.
This brings up an interesting question: if all art starts to be made by following this formula, will people really be happy with it? I have a feeling that when people make the 'perfect' movie and do another test, the criteria will have changed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this doen't really show causality - it's just statistics based on past experience. Just because this mix did well, doesn't mean it will again. However, this is just how the big record labels and movie houses work. Interesting.
Mmmh... I the size of hard drives keep increasing, won't that drive the adoption of 64bit archetectures just to keep the adressing simple?
All musicians copy other musicians work. I have often written songs and played them to my friends only to get a 'hey, but that sounds like...'
I worry about where the world is going when I can copyright a riff (which are usually just a few measures of music). Maybe I should release a huge box set of riffs (bass and guitar), which are electronically generated and then played by cheap musicians. Then I can analyse all songs written after the release of my album and sue all the artists for using 'my riffs'.
Sounds like a good gig.
The article says that Dre hired a musician to play the baseline (and that it was a common riff anyway, according to a musicoligist he hired). I reckon this would fall into the first catagory. Bear in mind that I haven't heard the song, but it sounds like he was 'quoting' the baseline of another song just as the parent said about all the classics.
I know that the core infrastructure might not be something you or your company would like to give to your competitors, but a large percentage of inhouse software is not really part of the company's core business. This means that they would probably be better off sharing it -- even with their competitors, as both of them will gain equally. In all probability, the originators will retain the advantage simply because they had it first.
This is what I gleaned from the cathedral and the bazaar.
There is already such a tool. I am using it at my office. Brilliant - dayly incremental backups, full backups every week. And all the lusers have to do is use My Documents.