Fair enough. I would say, though, that the campaign would probably never have worked if Firefox was only just as good as the bundled IE. User inertia keeps the bundled product dominant. This must be true since Firefox still has but 21% yet is arguably superior to IE in nearly every conceivable way. The point I was getting at was that bundling can have pronounced market-share effects.
I do think that your point regarding "no bundling at all" as a philosophy is extremely valid; however, I wonder if it is pragmatic or realistic. I think it is unavoidable that a browser gets bundled because user expectation is that they will get the "internet experience" out-of-the-box. That sentiment applies not just for Windows, of course, but for every major desktop and distro.
Which leads to a contrarian question: under the article's logic, should major FOSS desktops be bundling Firefox?
Finally, I am not sure that the claim that bundling is bad for competition is tenable as a general rule. How can Firefox exist today in its current form if that is true? I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that bundling, while bad for closed-source entrants is not particularly a deterrent for innovation and popularity when it comes to FOSS projects. In that light, I can better understand why Mozilla may not have an interest in bundling but Opera does.
You mean bundling IE did not kill Netscape, which at the time, was the dominant browser? Yes, it assuredly did. Bundling provably leads to market share when the bundled product has equivalent or near equivalent properties of the alternatives. IE currently lags far behind the alternatives -- so of course there is room for competitors. Still IE manages over %60 share and its peak (prior to *compelling* alternatives) had over 90% share. This can only be satisfactorily explained by the fact that IE was bundled with the OS that was bundled with the PCs that users were buying.
Something that seems to be missing in this thread is that the terrible secret of the theory of special relativity is that it only claims (and only can claim) the average round-trip speed of light as a constant. The one-way speed isn't conjectured. It doesn't appear to me that this experiment is configured to observe a round-trip speed but instead deduces an "infinite" speed based on apparently simultaneously coincident observations. Of course, special relativity rules out simultaneity altogether (which is why the one-way speed isn't conjectured); so while this experiment does seem fascinating, I'm not sure (or seem to be missing) what the big deal is in terms of special relativity.
There is actually a slight (but important) distinction. LGPL licensed code usually is library code -- support code; however, support code rarely stands on its own. It has to be integrated into a product and that may touch on aspects outside of the strict source code for the LGPL covered code base.
So while my 3rd point should cover the main aspect of dealing with modified versions of the LGPL code (eg: the API, as you rightly point to), there is the need to make an extra stipulation. The LGPL explicitly makes this distinction when it states that it must be *possible* for end users to swap in their own version of the LGPL'd covered code. Technically, this may require more than just the source code changes to the LGPL'd covered code. For example, it may require tooling changes or specific build scripts or other instruments. The short of it is (in my view, at least) that if your other licensed code is dependent on my LGPL'd code you are required to deliver enough code and tooling to make it possible for 3rd parties to swap out your version of my code with their own version of my code. I should be careful to note that this does not imply that you are required to ensure that your code is compatible with any other derivation of my code -- only that it should be *possible* for someone (presumably with enough savvy) to be able to adapt their derivations so that they can be reintegrated into your code. To beat this dead horse, because of the library nature of LGPL code, this could mean that to technically meet this requirement that you may need to release code/tooling otherwise outside of the LGPL'd portions of the codebase.
I'm no expert but I do work on projects that use LGPL. From my experiences, I have the following answer for you based on the following reasoning:
1) LGPL is by far the most permissive of the FSF licenses. 2) The point of the LGPL is to allow developers to separately license independent code that they write/use from the LGPL code that they may want to include. In contrast to the GPL, independently developed parts of a delivered product can be licensed separately from the LGPL'd code (ie: the LGPL does not have the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL) 3) LGPL does have specific requirements. For example, LGPL'd code that is modified must be redistributed in source form. Not surprisingly, unmodified LGPL code must also be redistributed. 4) Interestingly and importantly, a product that includes LGPL'd code must be built in such a way that it is *possible* for end-users to swap-out and otherwise replace the distributed LGPL'd portions of the codebase with complementary versions of their choosing. Eg: if parallels ships a particular wine dll, then as a user, I should be able to replace that dll with a comparable one of my choosing. If that can only be accomplished by applying patches to standard versions of the LGPL'd codebase (ie: if the distributed product modified the LGPL code) then the necessary changes for the LGPL portions must be made available. In short, modified LGPL'd source code must be redistributed. Of course, non LGPL'd source code need only be redistributed based on the license it was granted under.
The way I see it, point 4 is the crux of the issue. So, if it is true that I can't use parallels without being able to swap in my own version of the wine code that parallels uses just because parallels has made material changes to the wine code that are necessary but which they haven't made public, then the LGPL is being violated. As an LGPL developer, I don't care if you use my code in your project. The only meaningful stipulation is that if you modified my LGPL'd software in such a way that your other code is dependent on those changes, you must make those changes available to everyone you distribute your code to. Failing to do so means that you have effectively usurped the share-alike basis of the LGPL by instilling yourself as the only entity capable of incorporating the LGPL code into your software. IMHO, this is the main difference between LGPL and BSD code -- both are "non-viral" but the LGPL insists on share-alike and (perhaps more meaningfully) restricts products that would attempt to limit how users incorporate LGPL'd portions of the codebase.
Before I close I want to address why this should be important. Let's say that software company X produces product Y using LGPL'd software Z. Say I have a license for Y but that X has gone out of business. In the intervening time, Z has undergone some important updates (perhaps security related). If as a user I can't update my legally acquired Y unless the defunct X does so, then I am out-of-luck. The LGPL is meant to protect users so that they don't fall prey to the whims of their vendors for portions of their software that should be (would be) otherwise openly available to them.
What are your qualifications to be able to judge competency and correlate it with attitude? I should also say that this is only percieved attitude -- you obviously don't know Jani nor Linus.
Damn I just used up all my moderator points overrating old jokes in a cartoon thread and then I read you post. Sorry I can't plus you up but you surely deserve it.
...if it were all about marginal costs on the CPU+arch, AMD would have been a better choice...
The AMD infrastructure is still of a much lower volume than the Intel infrastructure and has fewer suppliers. Intel is still going to be cheaper in the long-run. The other costs involved in the switch are not negligible but neither are they insurmountable, especially since this time around they were porting an already provably portable OS. I wouldn't be tempted to claim the osborne effect in terms of the switch-over either -- the facts haven't borne that at all.
As for IBM/Freescale being able to keep up to the technological challenges -- I think they could (and do); however, neither really have a vested interest in doing so in timeframes that meet Apple's comptetitive retail needs while Intel (and AMD) does have such an interest. I really think Apple finally decided to evaluate suppliers that feed the retail market and decided to partner with the biggest ecosystem. By far that is Intel's.
As for Apple being priced at retail at a premium to PC products -- that really has nothing to do with marginal costs. That is simply brand power on Apple's side. Reducing costs and maintaining brand power increases earnings -- which is precisely what Apple announced in their earnings report.
What I find very interesting is the false presmise that Apple needed to switch their computing platform to Intel to be able to broker (speculatively I should add) unrelated technology deals with Intel that concern the iPod platform. There is little or no sense to that as far as I can see.
All that said, this switch to Intel certainly does give Apple many opportunities to leverage Intel's considerable product line (especially when compared to AMD) -- everything from CPUs to integrated graphics and sound, compilers (this is barely ever mentioned but I wouldn't be surprised to see announcements on this end) and so much more. I also wonder if they have signed cross-sharing agreements on their patent portfolios. All of these things a player smaller than Intel could not provide.
The goal is bug for bug as the whole point is to replicate behaviour.
There would be no point (other than academic) in Wine being "cleaner" than Microsoft's implementation of the Windows API if it meant that software that runs on Windows couldn't run under Wine.
Looking at the last earnings report from Apple it seems that the REAL reason they switched to Intel was to lower overall component costs. Scale matters -- being the only retail game for PPC was putting a premium on Apple's marginal costs; since switching to the Intel ecosystem they reap the reward of using essentially commoditized parts.
So it wasn't really about a supposed technology ramp-up which they touted and I doubt they were banking on "future" technologies. The way I see it, it was simply a matter of the bottom-line: you really can lower costs when using high-availability parts. Go figure.
Never-the-less, that's some fun technology to be watching.
I say it is a good thing that he just followed DNS naming and didn't have 15 years to think of a "better" way -- because the DNS name IS the better way since it saves a lot of useless reordering.
*sigh* I suppose you think that you stating you are correct makes you correct? I know very well the meanings of the words I am using and that you are using -- thanks. "ad hominem" does not apply every time someone states a fact about someone, sorry. It doesn't apply here because the original poster who mentioned the said fact didn't suggest that the opinion be rejected but rather that it be known who the opionion maker worked for. Do you see now? Actually, I don't care anymore.
You see, it is your choice of words to describe thing that is irritating. I did not try to "slander" you -- I was correcting you. Nor was pointing out the authors employer an "ad homeniem" attack -- it was simply presenting a fact.
Opinions are not facts. They are neither right nor wrong so accuracy has little to do with the matter. He is not making an argument, he is making an analogy -- and the reasons for him doing so are themselves interesting. That is why it is completely relevant to show his source of funding. Understand that.
No, you are wrong. He is not presenting fact -- he is presenting opinion. Pointing out who pays this fellow to write opinion pieces speaks directly towards the nature of those pieces. Your attempt to confuse this issue speaks volumes in its own right.
Are they seriously trying to argue that records that a player set, as well as numbers calculated from the tabulated performance of an athelete are not facts?
Perhaps they are admitting that the games are fiction -- so therefore fixed.
This is standard procedure for anyone in a position of responsibility -- not just IT staff. If you have access to sensitive information or controls and you declared that you are severing your relationship with the organization then you become a liability to that organization. To be honest, being sent home and being paid for that privledge is the best thing that can happen for everyone. It is, after all, a break-up -- getting it out of the way and moving on as soon as possible is professional.
If you feel all regulations are bad, don't be surprised when a thug breaks into your house, beats you senseless, and takes your wife and daughters with him - the guy's just exercising his "freedom."
of course, I never said *all* regulations are bad and I certainly didn't imply an expansion of that idea into non-market based transactions. Indeed, turning the argument in that direction makes any sane discussion impossibly futile. I should also note that economists are not so blithe to simply equate free-markets with competetive markets. A perfectly competetive market can only exist when all players have perfect information, equal access and equal opportunity -- indeed, *equal* freedoms, not necessarily absolute freedoms. In this light, we can easily apprehend how patents and copyrights are thus distortions on the market place. The concern here is whether they serve a useful function (recall: they are not natural rights but rather granted rights.) The main point is that while a perfectly competetive market can not arise of itself, artificial distortions introduced as a means of steerage must be closely examined and constantly reevaluated as to their continuing efficacy.
Whether economic actors are "equal players" has no bearing on whether a "free market" exists or not; only that those actors are free to trade with one another as they see fit (which is why regulation DOES interfere with free markets).
That is never true when actors have inequal standing. Those with superior power can always dictate better terms for themselves. If not, then they do not have superior standing.
The US/Western/Modern system has severely confused the related notions of "free markets" with "competetive markets". First, there are no free markets: they are all heavily regulated. On top of regulation, there is usury (interest), rents and taxes at multiple levels. For the most part, exchanges are not made between equal players (eg: householders vs. corporations).
Unfortunately, the entire debate of "intellectual property" is framed within the lexicon "free markets" and "property". In fact, instruments such as patent and copyright are tools that restrict use and beget monopolies rather than competitive markets. This is especially true of the modern incantations of these systems which fly-in-the-face of their original intention. Originally, these tools were meant as temporary and necessary "evils" as a means to stimulate an increase in artistic and technical know-how, artifacts and techniques for the general public's USE -- both private and public (not merely via consumption). Of course, it turns out that modern society has MANY OTHER means of establishing these goods (eg: public research, universities, community based good will, etc) but we are stuck with a system that AROSE IN AN OLDER AND LESS FREE ERA.
So, in a competitive market without patent/copyright restrictions we face the threat of the "secret guild" monopoly regime; however, we also face that under current patent/copyright law since the length of the restrictions fairly much gaurantee monopolies for the lifetime of a product/technique. Worse, in an era of scientific progress conducted in large by universities, grants and other forms of public research, this is tantamount to stealing public resources. Even worse, in technologically reliant societies, inter-relation of technology is paramount. It is in everyone's interest to share ideas. In other words, the threat of "secret guilds" is not worth protecting against at this point in our evolution.
In game-theory we can see this as a form of the prisoners dillema: everyone is better off if all co-operate, but if only one player "cheats" by not co-operating (secrecy or patent/copyright), they will do much better than everyone else. If no one co-operates, then no-one does as well as if they would all co-operate (due to interconnection of ideas and implausibility of any single entity developing all ideas on their own).
So it comes down to this: as a society, how much longer do we wish to reward (reward!!) those who do not want to naturally co-operate?
I didn't say there was anything "wrong" with it -- I said it wasn't "open" and that using that term is both unneccessary and incorrect. If you can't reproduce it freely or build on it freely then it is not open. This is not strictly about freedom either, but about the meaning of "open" in the IT world. If you think "open" means you get to read their books then I guess your definition would work. I say it means I get to *use* what I read how I want to use it. It is not merely being able to build my own processor for my own use in my own living room.
Anyways, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Best regards to you....but to the AC who says that linux is proprietary by this definition of "open" -- please go to the corner and beat yourself with a large clue stick.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. I would say, though, that the campaign would probably never have worked if Firefox was only just as good as the bundled IE. User inertia keeps the bundled product dominant. This must be true since Firefox still has but 21% yet is arguably superior to IE in nearly every conceivable way. The point I was getting at was that bundling can have pronounced market-share effects.
I do think that your point regarding "no bundling at all" as a philosophy is extremely valid; however, I wonder if it is pragmatic or realistic. I think it is unavoidable that a browser gets bundled because user expectation is that they will get the "internet experience" out-of-the-box. That sentiment applies not just for Windows, of course, but for every major desktop and distro.
Which leads to a contrarian question: under the article's logic, should major FOSS desktops be bundling Firefox?
Finally, I am not sure that the claim that bundling is bad for competition is tenable as a general rule. How can Firefox exist today in its current form if that is true? I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that bundling, while bad for closed-source entrants is not particularly a deterrent for innovation and popularity when it comes to FOSS projects. In that light, I can better understand why Mozilla may not have an interest in bundling but Opera does.
You mean bundling IE did not kill Netscape, which at the time, was the dominant browser? Yes, it assuredly did. Bundling provably leads to market share when the bundled product has equivalent or near equivalent properties of the alternatives. IE currently lags far behind the alternatives -- so of course there is room for competitors. Still IE manages over %60 share and its peak (prior to *compelling* alternatives) had over 90% share. This can only be satisfactorily explained by the fact that IE was bundled with the OS that was bundled with the PCs that users were buying.
"Didn't marshal mcluhan say something like this 3 decades ago?"
He said EXACTLY that.
Something that seems to be missing in this thread is that the terrible secret of the theory of special relativity is that it only claims (and only can claim) the average round-trip speed of light as a constant. The one-way speed isn't conjectured. It doesn't appear to me that this experiment is configured to observe a round-trip speed but instead deduces an "infinite" speed based on apparently simultaneously coincident observations. Of course, special relativity rules out simultaneity altogether (which is why the one-way speed isn't conjectured); so while this experiment does seem fascinating, I'm not sure (or seem to be missing) what the big deal is in terms of special relativity.
Hi.
There is actually a slight (but important) distinction. LGPL licensed code usually is library code -- support code; however, support code rarely stands on its own. It has to be integrated into a product and that may touch on aspects outside of the strict source code for the LGPL covered code base.
So while my 3rd point should cover the main aspect of dealing with modified versions of the LGPL code (eg: the API, as you rightly point to), there is the need to make an extra stipulation. The LGPL explicitly makes this distinction when it states that it must be *possible* for end users to swap in their own version of the LGPL'd covered code. Technically, this may require more than just the source code changes to the LGPL'd covered code. For example, it may require tooling changes or specific build scripts or other instruments. The short of it is (in my view, at least) that if your other licensed code is dependent on my LGPL'd code you are required to deliver enough code and tooling to make it possible for 3rd parties to swap out your version of my code with their own version of my code. I should be careful to note that this does not imply that you are required to ensure that your code is compatible with any other derivation of my code -- only that it should be *possible* for someone (presumably with enough savvy) to be able to adapt their derivations so that they can be reintegrated into your code. To beat this dead horse, because of the library nature of LGPL code, this could mean that to technically meet this requirement that you may need to release code/tooling otherwise outside of the LGPL'd portions of the codebase.
It is tiring to talk about these nuances, yes?
Hi.
I'm no expert but I do work on projects that use LGPL. From my experiences, I have the following answer for you based on the following reasoning:
1) LGPL is by far the most permissive of the FSF licenses.
2) The point of the LGPL is to allow developers to separately license independent code that they write/use from the LGPL code that they may want to include. In contrast to the GPL, independently developed parts of a delivered product can be licensed separately from the LGPL'd code (ie: the LGPL does not have the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL)
3) LGPL does have specific requirements. For example, LGPL'd code that is modified must be redistributed in source form. Not surprisingly, unmodified LGPL code must also be redistributed.
4) Interestingly and importantly, a product that includes LGPL'd code must be built in such a way that it is *possible* for end-users to swap-out and otherwise replace the distributed LGPL'd portions of the codebase with complementary versions of their choosing. Eg: if parallels ships a particular wine dll, then as a user, I should be able to replace that dll with a comparable one of my choosing. If that can only be accomplished by applying patches to standard versions of the LGPL'd codebase (ie: if the distributed product modified the LGPL code) then the necessary changes for the LGPL portions must be made available. In short, modified LGPL'd source code must be redistributed. Of course, non LGPL'd source code need only be redistributed based on the license it was granted under.
The way I see it, point 4 is the crux of the issue. So, if it is true that I can't use parallels without being able to swap in my own version of the wine code that parallels uses just because parallels has made material changes to the wine code that are necessary but which they haven't made public, then the LGPL is being violated. As an LGPL developer, I don't care if you use my code in your project. The only meaningful stipulation is that if you modified my LGPL'd software in such a way that your other code is dependent on those changes, you must make those changes available to everyone you distribute your code to. Failing to do so means that you have effectively usurped the share-alike basis of the LGPL by instilling yourself as the only entity capable of incorporating the LGPL code into your software. IMHO, this is the main difference between LGPL and BSD code -- both are "non-viral" but the LGPL insists on share-alike and (perhaps more meaningfully) restricts products that would attempt to limit how users incorporate LGPL'd portions of the codebase.
Before I close I want to address why this should be important. Let's say that software company X produces product Y using LGPL'd software Z. Say I have a license for Y but that X has gone out of business. In the intervening time, Z has undergone some important updates (perhaps security related). If as a user I can't update my legally acquired Y unless the defunct X does so, then I am out-of-luck. The LGPL is meant to protect users so that they don't fall prey to the whims of their vendors for portions of their software that should be (would be) otherwise openly available to them.
You mean hack.
What are your qualifications to be able to judge competency and correlate it with attitude? I should also say that this is only percieved attitude -- you obviously don't know Jani nor Linus.
Damn I just used up all my moderator points overrating old jokes in a cartoon thread and then I read you post. Sorry I can't plus you up but you surely deserve it.
The AMD infrastructure is still of a much lower volume than the Intel infrastructure and has fewer suppliers. Intel is still going to be cheaper in the long-run. The other costs involved in the switch are not negligible but neither are they insurmountable, especially since this time around they were porting an already provably portable OS. I wouldn't be tempted to claim the osborne effect in terms of the switch-over either -- the facts haven't borne that at all.
As for IBM/Freescale being able to keep up to the technological challenges -- I think they could (and do); however, neither really have a vested interest in doing so in timeframes that meet Apple's comptetitive retail needs while Intel (and AMD) does have such an interest. I really think Apple finally decided to evaluate suppliers that feed the retail market and decided to partner with the biggest ecosystem. By far that is Intel's.
As for Apple being priced at retail at a premium to PC products -- that really has nothing to do with marginal costs. That is simply brand power on Apple's side. Reducing costs and maintaining brand power increases earnings -- which is precisely what Apple announced in their earnings report.
What I find very interesting is the false presmise that Apple needed to switch their computing platform to Intel to be able to broker (speculatively I should add) unrelated technology deals with Intel that concern the iPod platform. There is little or no sense to that as far as I can see.
All that said, this switch to Intel certainly does give Apple many opportunities to leverage Intel's considerable product line (especially when compared to AMD) -- everything from CPUs to integrated graphics and sound, compilers (this is barely ever mentioned but I wouldn't be surprised to see announcements on this end) and so much more. I also wonder if they have signed cross-sharing agreements on their patent portfolios. All of these things a player smaller than Intel could not provide.
The goal is bug for bug as the whole point is to replicate behaviour.
There would be no point (other than academic) in Wine being "cleaner" than Microsoft's implementation of the Windows API if it meant that software that runs on Windows couldn't run under Wine.
Looking at the last earnings report from Apple it seems that the REAL reason they switched to Intel was to lower overall component costs. Scale matters -- being the only retail game for PPC was putting a premium on Apple's marginal costs; since switching to the Intel ecosystem they reap the reward of using essentially commoditized parts.
So it wasn't really about a supposed technology ramp-up which they touted and I doubt they were banking on "future" technologies. The way I see it, it was simply a matter of the bottom-line: you really can lower costs when using high-availability parts. Go figure.
Never-the-less, that's some fun technology to be watching.
I say it is a good thing that he just followed DNS naming and didn't have 15 years to think of a "better" way -- because the DNS name IS the better way since it saves a lot of useless reordering.
*sigh* I suppose you think that you stating you are correct makes you correct? I know very well the meanings of the words I am using and that you are using -- thanks. "ad hominem" does not apply every time someone states a fact about someone, sorry. It doesn't apply here because the original poster who mentioned the said fact didn't suggest that the opinion be rejected but rather that it be known who the opionion maker worked for. Do you see now? Actually, I don't care anymore.
You see, it is your choice of words to describe thing that is irritating. I did not try to "slander" you -- I was correcting you. Nor was pointing out the authors employer an "ad homeniem" attack -- it was simply presenting a fact.
Opinions are not facts. They are neither right nor wrong so accuracy has little to do with the matter. He is not making an argument, he is making an analogy -- and the reasons for him doing so are themselves interesting. That is why it is completely relevant to show his source of funding. Understand that.
Stop making this personal.
No, you are wrong. He is not presenting fact -- he is presenting opinion. Pointing out who pays this fellow to write opinion pieces speaks directly towards the nature of those pieces. Your attempt to confuse this issue speaks volumes in its own right.
Perhaps they are admitting that the games are fiction -- so therefore fixed.
"I have actually lost data because some tool decided it would be a good idea to switch the buttons in confirmation dialogs."
What gets me, is that this is from the same people who absolutely insist that the only way to deal with a filesystem is by using a "spatial" mode.
I was a Gnome user but KDE 3.5 made me change my mind. For now.
This is standard procedure for anyone in a position of responsibility -- not just IT staff. If you have access to sensitive information or controls and you declared that you are severing your relationship with the organization then you become a liability to that organization. To be honest, being sent home and being paid for that privledge is the best thing that can happen for everyone. It is, after all, a break-up -- getting it out of the way and moving on as soon as possible is professional.
Which ironically explains YOUR comment.
Yes, his conception of General Relativity is rather lacking. Then again, he is only 8 years old.
of course, I never said *all* regulations are bad and I certainly didn't imply an expansion of that idea into non-market based transactions. Indeed, turning the argument in that direction makes any sane discussion impossibly futile. I should also note that economists are not so blithe to simply equate free-markets with competetive markets. A perfectly competetive market can only exist when all players have perfect information, equal access and equal opportunity -- indeed, *equal* freedoms, not necessarily absolute freedoms. In this light, we can easily apprehend how patents and copyrights are thus distortions on the market place. The concern here is whether they serve a useful function (recall: they are not natural rights but rather granted rights.) The main point is that while a perfectly competetive market can not arise of itself, artificial distortions introduced as a means of steerage must be closely examined and constantly reevaluated as to their continuing efficacy.
Whether economic actors are "equal players" has no bearing on whether a "free market" exists or not; only that those actors are free to trade with one another as they see fit (which is why regulation DOES interfere with free markets).
That is never true when actors have inequal standing. Those with superior power can always dictate better terms for themselves. If not, then they do not have superior standing.
The US/Western/Modern system has severely confused the related notions of "free markets" with "competetive markets". First, there are no free markets: they are all heavily regulated. On top of regulation, there is usury (interest), rents and taxes at multiple levels. For the most part, exchanges are not made between equal players (eg: householders vs. corporations).
Unfortunately, the entire debate of "intellectual property" is framed within the lexicon "free markets" and "property". In fact, instruments such as patent and copyright are tools that restrict use and beget monopolies rather than competitive markets. This is especially true of the modern incantations of these systems which fly-in-the-face of their original intention. Originally, these tools were meant as temporary and necessary "evils" as a means to stimulate an increase in artistic and technical know-how, artifacts and techniques for the general public's USE -- both private and public (not merely via consumption). Of course, it turns out that modern society has MANY OTHER means of establishing these goods (eg: public research, universities, community based good will, etc) but we are stuck with a system that AROSE IN AN OLDER AND LESS FREE ERA.
So, in a competitive market without patent/copyright restrictions we face the threat of the "secret guild" monopoly regime; however, we also face that under current patent/copyright law since the length of the restrictions fairly much gaurantee monopolies for the lifetime of a product/technique. Worse, in an era of scientific progress conducted in large by universities, grants and other forms of public research, this is tantamount to stealing public resources. Even worse, in technologically reliant societies, inter-relation of technology is paramount. It is in everyone's interest to share ideas. In other words, the threat of "secret guilds" is not worth protecting against at this point in our evolution.
In game-theory we can see this as a form of the prisoners dillema: everyone is better off if all co-operate, but if only one player "cheats" by not co-operating (secrecy or patent/copyright), they will do much better than everyone else. If no one co-operates, then no-one does as well as if they would all co-operate (due to interconnection of ideas and implausibility of any single entity developing all ideas on their own).
So it comes down to this: as a society, how much longer do we wish to reward (reward!!) those who do not want to naturally co-operate?
I didn't say there was anything "wrong" with it -- I said it wasn't "open" and that using that term is both unneccessary and incorrect. If you can't reproduce it freely or build on it freely then it is not open. This is not strictly about freedom either, but about the meaning of "open" in the IT world. If you think "open" means you get to read their books then I guess your definition would work. I say it means I get to *use* what I read how I want to use it. It is not merely being able to build my own processor for my own use in my own living room.
...but to the AC who says that linux is proprietary by this definition of "open" -- please go to the corner and beat yourself with a large clue stick.
Anyways, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Best regards to you.