Lack of touch seriously hinders emotional development (by that I mean innocent touch, such as when playing tag (!)). The school are acting in order to avoid liability. The lesson should be that they cannot avoid liability in quite such a brain-dead and controlling fashion. With a good lawyer, a potential liability can be made near-certain, and this piece of brain-dead control-freakery can be reversed.
Autism is more than inability to communicate. Milder forms reveal another side: stronger visualisation.
Maybe children are adapting to our more technological world? Certainly there'll be those who fall off the end of the Bell curve, but it would seem a shame to me if the medical response was "Deviance. Let's eradicate it!"
Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"
Significant means that it's a likely factor given the data, not that it's a large one. I suspect that it is neither significant, nor sizable, but it's the kind of weaselling that we should be looking out for.
It's about how law and technology is being used unnecessarily. Indeed, I have a journal entry about exactly this.
Sharing affects profitability roughly neutrally; we should purchase items as getting an illegal copy is an abuse of trust, rather than because sharing harms the artist (same issue as the GPL). However, the measures being taken are in response to a phantom threat, and the honest amoungst us are having our fair use eliminated, and our freedom to tinker decimated because of this imaginary foe.
our treatment of addiction as a personal, legal responsibility, rather than a medical problem is indicative of our bias towards personal responsibility.
I get the impression that is isn't addiction that is being tackled, but engaging in socially disapproved activites. Personal responsibility in the case of tacking marijuana consumption, for example, means recognising one's responsibility to conform, not one's ability to exercise sound judgement.
Maybe it was, but you shouldn't moderate upon projected intent, IMO.
A bit of context and humour would have shown that it was the incorrect mod. Posts should stand or fall on their own merits. 'Social' context only matters for redundancy. Political correctness is a reversal of this policy.
Okay, I'll hand you diamonds (the argument, not real diamonds!:p)
The justification for free market capitalism is simply that it inherently optimizes for the maximum production of wealth within the economy (as a subjective value).
I'd say that the real justification for capitalism is freedom; there are other good reasons too, but I'm afraid that the above justification doesn't quite work. It fails in the perenthesies, for people do not value wealth linearly; it would be less wrong to say that they value wealth logarithmically. That said, that does not in itself imply that you can beat the market: didn't a famous economist say that socialism eliminates wealth and redistributes poverty? Sum {log wealth} is an envy free measure that still wouldn't satisfy many egalitarians.
It's an irony that democratisation of values and the decline of (real) authority has had this effect, inducing a movement towards the 'right', to put a label on it, but I would have predicted it. The potency of 'memes' wins out over earnt expertese, and we can no longer make social gains as a culture.
I've been marked as a snob by the left a few times, but truely, I don't think that they know their fellow man.
I get your point, but I do think that it's a trade. In the case of I2P, precisely because the software itself enhances freedom in its very functionality, greater and faster penetration is worthwhile at the expense of guarding against reduced freedom to make alterations further down the line.
The GPL forces a bifocation into free and non-free, which actually enhances market efficiency, since free software development doesn't subsidise proprietry software development, making for cleaner competition.
The GPL can attract, as well as repelling derived works (which you acknowledge), so which licence to use does depend upon context, since you'll want to be working with the grain of those who might wish to contribute. If I wished you to help me on some future project, for example, we'd have to discuss licences, and would maybe reach compromise (eg. the LGPL), or maybe, depending on the project, I'd judge that your help was more valuable than maximal user freedom for that project, which might lead me to capitulate.
Lawsuits are an important reason, but most larger companies will avoid knowingly breaking the law even without them. GPL Violations is a project that attempts to gain compliance through raising public awareness, and you may well find that the FSF will help you out, even if you don't donate your code to them (which I wouldn't do, since I'd like to have the right to close-source my own efforts). If your code is of any importance, you might find that IBM (say) intervenes upon your behalf, as part of the value proposition to them is that they can compete upon services, and closed (illegal) competition is a game that they've decided not to play.
You get to choose your licence: that's fundemental.
Okay, Communism isn't a slur, but I don't think that it's quite right. Certainly it's in the direction of Communism, in that it diminshes private intellectual 'property', but the nature of the GPL is closest to (say) antitrust law. Certainly the licence is viral, but its potency is limited to volentary interations, and doesn't appeal to anyone's sense of a superior society, except insofar as people generally follow the law. Certainly that appeal is an attraction, but it isn't necessary. The licence does not require ideology to work.
I lean towards anarchism myself, so I understand what you're saying; I think that acting for "the greatest freedom of the greatest number" is in fact a very balanced way to act, and only appears extreme when issues have been politicised with ulterior agendas (not necessarily of the part of the speaker; it's the frame of reference that has been shifted). In the limit, it may tend towards anarchism, but given our society, it implies law, IMO.
The GPL enhances third-person freedom: this was the point that I intended to mention, but got swallowed when I wrote "total freedom". If one acts in a social context, and wishes to give something to the world, it's a good licence for doing just that. I'm doing a spot of game level design at the moment, which I will be releasing under a creative commons licence, and when I get back into coding (I've been recovering from a breakdown), I intend to release code under the GPL version 3, unless I can enhance freedom more in some other way (example: I2P).
The first person freedom of the GPL is simply that you have held onto some leverage. This is power more than freedom, but the effect is that there is more choice in what you do with your code in future. One way of looking at this is that you were less generous in the first place, but I would argue that you were differently generous; rather than giving to the next coder, you gave to the user. Indeed since the code's value derives from its ultimate utility, I would rather give to the user, but I also understand your way of thinking.
Linus is arguing against GPL version 3, essentially because it is less like the BSD licences.
I disagree with the rest of your reasoning, BTW, but I do not believe it to be worth a flamebait mod: it's a reasonable opinion.
If you are in fact an anarchist, your reasoning is sound, but most people recognise the purpose of (justifiable) law: you restrict freedom selectively, so so to maximise overall freedom, thus legislation is a utilitarian enterprise. If you believe that law always diminishes total freedom, then it is reasonable to argue the same of the GPL, either version two, or version three. Otherwise, you should find it a much harder case to argue. A lot of software out there that I can hack is GPLed, so it's certainly enhanced my freedom.
Generally, I would say that proprietry licences maximise first-person freedom; practically speaking, you still have the choice of what you are going to do with the software later. Although open sourcing leaves you with the physical freedom, you may well lose the opportunity.
BSD-style licences maximise second-person freedom. A great act of generousity to be sure.
GPL-type licences maximise total freedom, according to my analysis at least. More derived works will be available to the world, and many coders would want to contribute without feeling that their code would be close-sourced, adding still further. The various GPLs add to first-person freedom too, in that you can still licence your software privately; the opportunities to do so may be fewer than with proprietry licences, but they are more likely to be present than would be the case with BSDed code.
There is one piece of flamebait: the charge of Communism. To charge that a utilitarian licence that seeks to maximise freedom, volentarily chosen by the coder and accepted implicitally by subsequent uses of the code, is somehow Communist, is a slur.
This is of course rubbish. To use the GPL version 3 is simply a statement that you do not wish your work to be close-sourced by stealth. To insist that everyone use GPL v3 may be zealotry, but to use it yourself is not. To suggest that only mindless zombies would use the GPL version 3 is zealotry on your own behalf.
As for GPL version 2 being popular, well, why not let the market sort it out? The GPL version 3 may well prove itself in due course.
How is wanting people to respect the terms of your licence 'far left' in any case?
Slashdot Mirror
That way, folks'll learn to spell right, sooner.
Or at least hit "preview"!
Try rhyming ;o)
Ridiculousness should be met with ridiculousness.
Lack of touch seriously hinders emotional development (by that I mean innocent touch, such as when playing tag (!)). The school are acting in order to avoid liability. The lesson should be that they cannot avoid liability in quite such a brain-dead and controlling fashion. With a good lawyer, a potential liability can be made near-certain, and this piece of brain-dead control-freakery can be reversed.
Autism is more than inability to communicate. Milder forms reveal another side: stronger visualisation.
Maybe children are adapting to our more technological world? Certainly there'll be those who fall off the end of the Bell curve, but it would seem a shame to me if the medical response was "Deviance. Let's eradicate it!"
...but I am glad to hear it :o)
Let all be punished in heck, I say!
Specifically, IQ measures how slim you are!
I read lower down that it's the effect of the tobacco industry as a whole that he's talking about (including agriculture).
You have to watch both the politicans and the pundits.
I hope that Google's tools to come catches such weaselling on all sides, but I doubt it.
WRT the rest, I agree with you; I replied not so much to you, but to "the audience".
It's about how law and technology is being used unnecessarily. Indeed, I have a journal entry about exactly this.
Sharing affects profitability roughly neutrally; we should purchase items as getting an illegal copy is an abuse of trust, rather than because sharing harms the artist (same issue as the GPL). However, the measures being taken are in response to a phantom threat, and the honest amoungst us are having our fair use eliminated, and our freedom to tinker decimated because of this imaginary foe.
...is somewhat disingenuous.
Maybe it was, but you shouldn't moderate upon projected intent, IMO.
A bit of context and humour would have shown that it was the incorrect mod. Posts should stand or fall on their own merits. 'Social' context only matters for redundancy. Political correctness is a reversal of this policy.
Okay, I agree with you there.
My point is that the criteria are partly subjective on the part of the licencor, not that there's anything sneeky going on.
Well okay, but my point is that you can't tell open from closed source by looking at their list, as there are other criteria for being on that list.
The definition may be consistent, but it is not the criterion for OSI approval.
It's an irony that democratisation of values and the decline of (real) authority has had this effect, inducing a movement towards the 'right', to put a label on it, but I would have predicted it. The potency of 'memes' wins out over earnt expertese, and we can no longer make social gains as a culture.
I've been marked as a snob by the left a few times, but truely, I don't think that they know their fellow man.
I get your point, but I do think that it's a trade. In the case of I2P, precisely because the software itself enhances freedom in its very functionality, greater and faster penetration is worthwhile at the expense of guarding against reduced freedom to make alterations further down the line.
The GPL forces a bifocation into free and non-free, which actually enhances market efficiency, since free software development doesn't subsidise proprietry software development, making for cleaner competition.
The GPL can attract, as well as repelling derived works (which you acknowledge), so which licence to use does depend upon context, since you'll want to be working with the grain of those who might wish to contribute. If I wished you to help me on some future project, for example, we'd have to discuss licences, and would maybe reach compromise (eg. the LGPL), or maybe, depending on the project, I'd judge that your help was more valuable than maximal user freedom for that project, which might lead me to capitulate.
Lawsuits are an important reason, but most larger companies will avoid knowingly breaking the law even without them. GPL Violations is a project that attempts to gain compliance through raising public awareness, and you may well find that the FSF will help you out, even if you don't donate your code to them (which I wouldn't do, since I'd like to have the right to close-source my own efforts). If your code is of any importance, you might find that IBM (say) intervenes upon your behalf, as part of the value proposition to them is that they can compete upon services, and closed (illegal) competition is a game that they've decided not to play.
+3 Funny, IMO.
You get to choose your licence: that's fundemental.
Okay, Communism isn't a slur, but I don't think that it's quite right. Certainly it's in the direction of Communism, in that it diminshes private intellectual 'property', but the nature of the GPL is closest to (say) antitrust law. Certainly the licence is viral, but its potency is limited to volentary interations, and doesn't appeal to anyone's sense of a superior society, except insofar as people generally follow the law. Certainly that appeal is an attraction, but it isn't necessary. The licence does not require ideology to work.
I lean towards anarchism myself, so I understand what you're saying; I think that acting for "the greatest freedom of the greatest number" is in fact a very balanced way to act, and only appears extreme when issues have been politicised with ulterior agendas (not necessarily of the part of the speaker; it's the frame of reference that has been shifted). In the limit, it may tend towards anarchism, but given our society, it implies law, IMO.
The GPL enhances third-person freedom: this was the point that I intended to mention, but got swallowed when I wrote "total freedom". If one acts in a social context, and wishes to give something to the world, it's a good licence for doing just that. I'm doing a spot of game level design at the moment, which I will be releasing under a creative commons licence, and when I get back into coding (I've been recovering from a breakdown), I intend to release code under the GPL version 3, unless I can enhance freedom more in some other way (example: I2P).
The first person freedom of the GPL is simply that you have held onto some leverage. This is power more than freedom, but the effect is that there is more choice in what you do with your code in future. One way of looking at this is that you were less generous in the first place, but I would argue that you were differently generous; rather than giving to the next coder, you gave to the user. Indeed since the code's value derives from its ultimate utility, I would rather give to the user, but I also understand your way of thinking.
Linus is arguing against GPL version 3, essentially because it is less like the BSD licences.
I disagree with the rest of your reasoning, BTW, but I do not believe it to be worth a flamebait mod: it's a reasonable opinion.
If you are in fact an anarchist, your reasoning is sound, but most people recognise the purpose of (justifiable) law: you restrict freedom selectively, so so to maximise overall freedom, thus legislation is a utilitarian enterprise. If you believe that law always diminishes total freedom, then it is reasonable to argue the same of the GPL, either version two, or version three. Otherwise, you should find it a much harder case to argue. A lot of software out there that I can hack is GPLed, so it's certainly enhanced my freedom.
Generally, I would say that proprietry licences maximise first-person freedom; practically speaking, you still have the choice of what you are going to do with the software later. Although open sourcing leaves you with the physical freedom, you may well lose the opportunity.
BSD-style licences maximise second-person freedom. A great act of generousity to be sure.
GPL-type licences maximise total freedom, according to my analysis at least. More derived works will be available to the world, and many coders would want to contribute without feeling that their code would be close-sourced, adding still further. The various GPLs add to first-person freedom too, in that you can still licence your software privately; the opportunities to do so may be fewer than with proprietry licences, but they are more likely to be present than would be the case with BSDed code.
There is one piece of flamebait: the charge of Communism. To charge that a utilitarian licence that seeks to maximise freedom, volentarily chosen by the coder and accepted implicitally by subsequent uses of the code, is somehow Communist, is a slur.
This is of course rubbish. To use the GPL version 3 is simply a statement that you do not wish your work to be close-sourced by stealth. To insist that everyone use GPL v3 may be zealotry, but to use it yourself is not. To suggest that only mindless zombies would use the GPL version 3 is zealotry on your own behalf.
As for GPL version 2 being popular, well, why not let the market sort it out? The GPL version 3 may well prove itself in due course.
How is wanting people to respect the terms of your licence 'far left' in any case?
See my last JE.