Re:Political Views
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why so angry?
If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it.
Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it
He's simply expressing displeasure about GPL folks being supposed defenders of freedom while pushing their political agenda down everyone's throat.
GPL promotes free (as in $0) software, while condemning anyone that makes an income off software as greedy and immoral. The whole license seems to be designed to prevent making profit from software. Combine outsourcing + GPL, and in less than 10 years, software will cease to exist as a real profession, paying only slightly more than burger flippers' salary. The closed source model is perfectly fine -- they demand profit in return for product, unlike open source, which encourages product for slave wages.
Just the first sentence of GPL is arrogant and deceiving:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
Umm, what freedom? You didn't create the software so you don't own it and don't have the right or the freedom to change and share it. Just as I don't own a 5-star hotel, therefore I can't change the furniture or allow my friends to share it. This is similar to the stupid argument the communists used to take over russia.
This article is excellent demonstration that loss of privacy will lead to loss of freedom and modern day slavery. Who wants to live in a society where you lose 100% freedom in order to gain protection from a 0.0001% chance of a terrorist attack or other made-up stuff.
We need to elect leaders who respect human privacy and freedom and not the puppets who are in control now.
I always wondered, if we are all writing FOSS on machines with FOSS OS's using FOSS development environments...who is making money?
Big corps and govt ultimately benefit from free labor. They get to build their products and services with minimal cost. Eg: Google using Linux for webservers, military projects will be cheaper.
Bottom line: the rich will get much richer paying nothing for OSS and charging for end services/product while the common people who work for free will never improve their financial position in life.
* charge for support
* charge for customization
* get free QC
* use all the other free tools out there for your own development
In other words, give a car away for free and charge for oil change and maintenance.. what a stupid model.
Closed source promotes competition -- if you want to build a better product than mine, go do it yourself without my help. Open source on the other hand implies that smart people work for free so the stupid people can enjoy the fruits for free.
Software developers are killing their own industry because they usually have no business sense. They simply follow what their bosses tell them and copy what their peers (aka slashdot) promotes.
At this rate, software programming profession will dwindle in the west, and all the maintenance jobs will move to the cheaper countries.
If your software is good enough and better than the FOSS alternatives, people will pay for it (bit like music).
OSS should be considered illegal, unfair competition because an inferior, sub-par OSS product can easily wipe out a superior closed source product because OSS is free. No money-charging business can compete with slave labor. In other markets this would be considered dumping.
Improving the quality won't help much, because people prefer cheap vs expensive and high quality. That's why Walmart and McDonalds are so successful.
Slashdotters will close their ears and continue to deny that OSS is not harmful, because they are addicted to the free software crack. All OSS does is wipe out wealth earned by programmers and companies until the nightmare vision of "equality" is materialized -- inferior and superior individuals earn the same salary, have same assets, just like communism.
Agreed. Patents are needed if programmers want to keep their jobs and prevent competitors from stealing their ideas and future income. However, trivial patents should not be allowed -- legally, a patent must be non-obvious before it is accepted.
I don't want the govt to read or control my thoughts. Yet another day the elites want to attack the weak, common people and steal what little they have (their minds).
How the hell is parent troll? Is there any guarantee email data won't be abused? Blindly trusting large companies and government not to abuse this data is downright stupid.
I think this foolish quest for more security at the expense of liberty is very harmful for future generations. You will just have to accept some dangers (terrorists etc.) are not worth abandoning hard-won freedom.
Wrong. Patents were created both for the benefit of society and the inventor. For without profit incentive, no inventor would invest time, money and effort in creating something that can be trivially copied by competitors who had more money or business savvy. Before patents, ideas that could benefit society were lost in the inventor's mind because the inventor didn't feel the need or benefit in documenting them, and other times hid the ideas to his grave so others couldn't profit from them.
Patent law provides temporary monopoly rights from which the inventor profits financially. In return, society benefits from use of the invention, either by saving time, money or a service previously unavailable. The profit incentive is what creates business, innovation and art. Even the simplest things like safety pins, paper clips etc., which we now take for granted would probably have not been available to us without patents.
Copyright infringement deprives the owner of "potential income" from the product. The infringer also unjustly benefits -- he gets a product without paying a penny, and without permission from the owner. Most businesses tolerate moderate amounts of piracy as it is good marketing if their product is used widely. However, they won't tolerate huge amounts of piracy, as that would mean a quick bankruptcy.
The price of a product is not just based on "how much does it cost to build the product?", but also on "how much does it benefit my customer?". If it benefits the customer, business expects appropriate compensation.
Huh? My neighbors are going to be surprised that the only way they can keep me out of their yard or their teenage daughter's bedrooms are by force. Is it the government's threat of force that stops me from taking my.45 Colt Commander and guzzling booze obnoxiously on one elderly neighbor's deck at 3 a.m. or stopping by another for a little fun with that cute little 16-year-old down the block?
Slashdotters' penchant for pendantry strikes again. If a 100 armed men came to harm you or your family, your.45 colt would be worthless. Only the military and police would be able to handle them. In case they are not on time to defend you, the offenders will be punished on your behalf. It works like this: you pay taxes and in return, the govt protects you and your right to control your property through law. If you don't believe me, read up some history of life of common people in the 1400s or so.
It's only through govt force, humans are able to prevent other humans and animals from encroaching on their property.
Are you stupid? Without intellectual property, no author can afford to spend 1 or 2 years of their lives writing books and then making money off it, if someone else can just swoop in copy it and publish it on a website or sell it for a reduced rate.
Intellectual property is the driver of creative, innovative and useful works. Without it, nobody will expend time and effort creating anything of value. To date, open source has only been about copying closed source products and whining when they can't copy because of patents.
I see so many altruistic people on slashdot that want everything free. Why don't they donate a dollar to some poor country and solve their hunger problem?
BTW, an anarchist that supports property rights is such an oxymoron. Without law and goverment military protection, you have no property rights.
Ben Franklin gave his inventions to the world, why can we not do the same? All IP is based on MINE MINE MINE and preventing people from building on your work as long as possible, under the self-interested characterization of other people as THIEVES until proven otherwise.
Franklin was a rich, slave owner.
Are you willing to work for me for free for a month? No? Why should anyone invent things for you for free? The inventor is the rightful owner of an invention although "hired to invent" clauses in job apps steal that right away.
Why are you pissed someone is profiting off their invention and hard work? There are literally millions of ideas that can be converted to something profitable. Instead, you sit here and whine that you can't steal their invention because of some law.
DRM is an evil trojan horse tech, from big brother (tm). It can be used to store encrypted data in RAM that only system software can access. Therefore, if big brother wants to spy on you, he will gather information and store it in this protected space, then transfer the data through encrypted network communication to Borg central.
DRM is a trojan horse, TPM is an evil, big brother technology, avoid it if possible. It can be used to store encrypted data in RAM that only system software can access. Therefore, if big brother wants to spy on you, he will gather information and store it in this protected space, then transfer the data through encrypted network communication to Borg central.
All humans are not altruists by nature, so you can request, but never demand they work for free.
Software is the "hardest" and therefore most valuable part of any commodity, not just computer software.
The creation verilog/VHDL code used in the manufacture of computer CPUs is the hardest and most expensive. Next time you spend hundreds of dollars on a CPU realize that the actual manufacturing cost is only around $10 to $50. The remaining is paid for the "software" and company profit.
Honda and Ford use the same physical materials (metals, plastics, cloth) to build their cars. Hondas are better because their "design" (or software) is superior
A hypothetical business A makes more money than business B because A has better processes, cheaper suppliers, bigger customer lists, etc. All of these assets are non-tangible like software
The lyrics and sheet music of a song are more valuable than who plays it
Slashdotters should have at least a basic idea of "supply and demand" economics. A typical business will charge the highest price for its product such that $unit_cost x $units_sold = maximum revenue. If demand is high relative to supply, $unit_cost will increase. Before calling this "greedy", realize that this system has existed for tens of thousands of years, and is generally fair (maximum profit to hard workers and clever people). Unfortunately, society is moving towards a direction where earning a fair share for products is considered greedy.
The free model is completely unbalanced and unfair: the people doing the hardest work (programmers) are compensated the least and end users basically get a free ride off slave labor. With OSS, big capitalists and government can hire a few cheap monkeys to combine interesting and relevant parts of OSS to build a space station or a large spaceship for 1/1000th the cost compared to paying programmer salaries. The end result is unfair: users profit, while creators suffer loss.
Exactly, the market for support is tiny. Would you rather spend $3/min to phone support or google for the fix? If you give software for free and rely on support for income, you'll be bankrupt in no time.
Another problem with the "support business" is, the more crappier the software, the more support it needs. Therefore, good software would make far less money than mediocre software. Do you want to live in such an upside down world?
Making money in support is analogous to a surgeon performing operations for free, then part-timing as a janitor cleaning toilets to make income... completely ludicrous. The hardest part of software is solving large number of difficult problems with innovative software. Programming is harder than support and should therefore make primary income.
OSS is turning out to be a complete scam whose goal is to trick developers to work for free. I don't want to live a socialist/communist utopia where programmers work for free and rely on government welfare/2nd jobs for survival.
Slashdot Mirror
He's simply expressing displeasure about GPL folks being supposed defenders of freedom while pushing their political agenda down everyone's throat.
GPL promotes free (as in $0) software, while condemning anyone that makes an income off software as greedy and immoral. The whole license seems to be designed to prevent making profit from software. Combine outsourcing + GPL, and in less than 10 years, software will cease to exist as a real profession, paying only slightly more than burger flippers' salary. The closed source model is perfectly fine -- they demand profit in return for product, unlike open source, which encourages product for slave wages.
Just the first sentence of GPL is arrogant and deceiving:
Umm, what freedom? You didn't create the software so you don't own it and don't have the right or the freedom to change and share it. Just as I don't own a 5-star hotel, therefore I can't change the furniture or allow my friends to share it. This is similar to the stupid argument the communists used to take over russia.
We need to elect leaders who respect human privacy and freedom and not the puppets who are in control now.
OSS steals ideas just like Microsoft did. MS = OSS.
What's so mysterious? Most great men in history were greedy, pushy, slave drivers.
Fair-schmair, how many slashdotters just read the title and summary and never RTFA?
Are they really stupid if their genes survive longer? They rely more on their instincts whereas the intellectuals rely more on their logic.
Can't honda redesign the 1984 civic's chassis to fit the 2007 engine? The mileage would easily be over 70 mpg.
Bottom line: the rich will get much richer paying nothing for OSS and charging for end services/product while the common people who work for free will never improve their financial position in life.
Closed source promotes competition -- if you want to build a better product than mine, go do it yourself without my help. Open source on the other hand implies that smart people work for free so the stupid people can enjoy the fruits for free.
At this rate, software programming profession will dwindle in the west, and all the maintenance jobs will move to the cheaper countries.
Improving the quality won't help much, because people prefer cheap vs expensive and high quality. That's why Walmart and McDonalds are so successful.
Slashdotters will close their ears and continue to deny that OSS is not harmful, because they are addicted to the free software crack. All OSS does is wipe out wealth earned by programmers and companies until the nightmare vision of "equality" is materialized -- inferior and superior individuals earn the same salary, have same assets, just like communism.
Agreed. Patents are needed if programmers want to keep their jobs and prevent competitors from stealing their ideas and future income. However, trivial patents should not be allowed -- legally, a patent must be non-obvious before it is accepted.
I don't want the govt to read or control my thoughts. Yet another day the elites want to attack the weak, common people and steal what little they have (their minds).
I think this foolish quest for more security at the expense of liberty is very harmful for future generations. You will just have to accept some dangers (terrorists etc.) are not worth abandoning hard-won freedom.
The price of a product is not just based on "how much does it cost to build the product?", but also on "how much does it benefit my customer?". If it benefits the customer, business expects appropriate compensation.
It's only through govt force, humans are able to prevent other humans and animals from encroaching on their property.
Intellectual property is the driver of creative, innovative and useful works. Without it, nobody will expend time and effort creating anything of value. To date, open source has only been about copying closed source products and whining when they can't copy because of patents.
I see so many altruistic people on slashdot that want everything free. Why don't they donate a dollar to some poor country and solve their hunger problem?
BTW, an anarchist that supports property rights is such an oxymoron. Without law and goverment military protection, you have no property rights.
Why are you pissed someone is profiting off their invention and hard work? There are literally millions of ideas that can be converted to something profitable. Instead, you sit here and whine that you can't steal their invention because of some law.
DRM is an evil trojan horse tech, from big brother (tm). It can be used to store encrypted data in RAM that only system software can access. Therefore, if big brother wants to spy on you, he will gather information and store it in this protected space, then transfer the data through encrypted network communication to Borg central.
DRM is a trojan horse, TPM is an evil, big brother technology, avoid it if possible. It can be used to store encrypted data in RAM that only system software can access. Therefore, if big brother wants to spy on you, he will gather information and store it in this protected space, then transfer the data through encrypted network communication to Borg central.
Slashdotters should have at least a basic idea of "supply and demand" economics. A typical business will charge the highest price for its product such that $unit_cost x $units_sold = maximum revenue. If demand is high relative to supply, $unit_cost will increase. Before calling this "greedy", realize that this system has existed for tens of thousands of years, and is generally fair (maximum profit to hard workers and clever people). Unfortunately, society is moving towards a direction where earning a fair share for products is considered greedy.
The free model is completely unbalanced and unfair: the people doing the hardest work (programmers) are compensated the least and end users basically get a free ride off slave labor. With OSS, big capitalists and government can hire a few cheap monkeys to combine interesting and relevant parts of OSS to build a space station or a large spaceship for 1/1000th the cost compared to paying programmer salaries. The end result is unfair: users profit, while creators suffer loss.
Honda, Ford, Toyota etc. should give their cars away for free and make money by charging for oil changes and maintenance.
Another problem with the "support business" is, the more crappier the software, the more support it needs. Therefore, good software would make far less money than mediocre software. Do you want to live in such an upside down world?
Making money in support is analogous to a surgeon performing operations for free, then part-timing as a janitor cleaning toilets to make income... completely ludicrous. The hardest part of software is solving large number of difficult problems with innovative software. Programming is harder than support and should therefore make primary income.
OSS is turning out to be a complete scam whose goal is to trick developers to work for free. I don't want to live a socialist/communist utopia where programmers work for free and rely on government welfare/2nd jobs for survival.