Alexis de Toqueville would spin in his grave if he would know that an institude with his name is publishing a report slandering free (as in freedom) software. They should maybe study Alexis' book about the US democracy a little more !!!
2) I have lived a long time in the USA and have been able to see and feel the differences, there I have not only I theoretical background.
3) In the EU the principle is what serves the state. The proposed EU constitution does not even talk about the people, but about the EU being a legal person !!! It is really a fundmental difference in mentality.
4) In the USA people openly discuss the Patriot Act. In the EU such measure a re just taken, no discussion about it at all.
5) In the EU there are bad violations of civil rights, i.e. the arrests and imprisonments and for weeks and torture of peaceful demonstrators during the G8 in Genua, Italy. Nobody talks about it. A lot of people talk about such violations happening under US control.
Nothing is perfect in this world, however the USA is far more leaning towards individual rights, while Europe is far more based on the restriction of individual rights for a "common purpose". That is just a fact.
I know this is not very well understood in the USA, but the civil liberties in the USA are still far ahead of the ones in the EU.
While I agree, that it is time for the US to revert back to a sane patent system, that might happen anyway when they find out that small businesses can not compete on the legal front against the big ones.
I think the only reason the software patent laws in the EU have so much trouble is because the citizens are more experienced in grassroot movement because of the lack of civil liberties
There are rumours that it would be very beneficial for the world if the patent laws would be inacted.
I have heard Microsoft's is planning in such a case to immediately stop all development and sales of Windows products and lay off all technical staff and transform into a accounting firm just skinning the patent license from all linux products that will take the place of Windows.
Good news -- Windows is out, Linux is in
Bad news --- Everybody must pay a compulsory license tax directly to Microsoft.
If 3 countries vote against the directive in the EU Council it is dead. Belgium and German will definately vote against it, but a third country is needed.
However, unfortunately there are already 30,000 software patents accepted by the EU patent office.
What is really needed would be an EU directive explicitly tender them invalid.
That reminds me when I had to fold A0 drawings in order to fit them on A4 rings binders in a way, that you could unfold them without taken them out of the rings.
Is something like this ever done with non-metric paper ?
Does the hesienberg principle is true as well for shadow protons ? I would think it does. So what can we do with them ?
What is the difference of shadow protons and anti-matter?
All the points raised I have found to annoy me when I used proprietory software. Even currently I have those problem with a software I battle with at my workplace.
Concluding I have to say, software of any license type has good and bad examples. Open Source is not a quality statement, but a license statement. To take user rights away does not make software or documentation better.
I think this author is as religious as claimed some Open Source developers supposedly are.....
i let it gather to about 100 emails in my inbox, then i forward each of them individually to every address that sent it.
Unfortunately this just increases the spam that an innocent bystander gets. A lot of spammers use forged but real e-mail addresses they have picked-up as the sender address. You would now spam that unrelated person and not the spammer.
Secondly, if the spammer uses his own address as sender than you have just confirmed to the spammer that you exist, and they have even more reason to spam you.
Unfortunately it seems, the best way is to ignore spammers.
The idea that a copyright owner can charge what ever they want for the use of their property is lost on some people.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point a little. I do not think most people here saying free as free beer, but free as liberty.
For some reason, big business is dirty for wanting to profit on their IP
There is no problem that big companies make big money if they do it on the field of fair competition. However, what constitudes property ?
Property is either a constitutional or natural right, or it is granted by society for the benefit of society. In case of IP, there is no natural right for IP. Until the Gutenberg press nobody ever calim copyright on anything. And because of the Gutenberg press the English crown first introduced a copyright law. Interestingly not to protect the IP of somebody, but to protect the crown from libale as they saw it.
Therefore why is IP protected and how should it be ?
In the US contitution Congress is authorized to make law to protect inventions and writings if it help for progress of sciences and useful arts. This is the only reason to grant such monopolies as copyrights and patents.
Most IP today would never mustard that test. However, what does this test mean. It asks the question if innovation is raised or society benefits in other ways by the grant of such a monopoly. While one can probably discuss forever if strict IP control is good or bad, or free IP is better or worse, nobody has a natural right to IP. If somebody has this right than it was granted by society in the form of laws, and it should be to the benefit of society and not only to a few like in a feudal system in the medieval ages...
The interesting question starts now, how can this be achieved. And btw. it has nothing to do with socialism v. capitalism. Both models fight who serves the people in a better way. At the end the question for me is over control v. freedom
In an age of acces through networks, is it possible to trust any private organization enough to not oversee them with what they are doing ?
Or is it almost obligatory to know exactly what a particular device/computer etc. does, or at least have the possibility of own, or third party assessment.
I think this discussion shows an interesting point.
Who should have the right of choice ?
The person that has a mobile phone and wants to choose to be reachable or not (btw. a mobile phone still have an off button as well).
An employer who wants to decide if people are reachable or not (Which is not fine enough grenuality in this case. I guess the employer would like to filter out personal calls from business calls and let them through on the premises
The movie theater that wants to allow people watching a movie without distubances
The community that is annoyed about all those noise pollution that is called music nowadays and finds it ways to mobile ringers within days of publishing
or a lot of other entities that claim a right of control....
I believe it is time to step back and learn some manners again and then let everybody act responsible without contolling everything. Situations are different and people are different. I think the intriguing part of our society is the right and ability of choice. Lets not throw it away because people misuse it. Social distaste as punishment is often severe enough....
Unfortunately, I can't imaging M$ will not go after this in any legal and not so legal they can...
I applaud the creativity and innovative force of the guys writing this stuff. And I hope they will survive teh forces of their feudal principality M$....
Slashdot Mirror
And countersue SCO for Slander. BTW. Did Novell countersue SCO for SCO's slander suit against Novell ?
Alexis de Toqueville would spin in his grave if he would know that an institude with his name is publishing a report slandering free (as in freedom) software. They should maybe study Alexis' book about the US democracy a little more !!!
Haven't I praised China for being a green revolution for a long time ....
Just for your information.
1) I am not an American, also I wish I would be.
2) I have lived a long time in the USA and have been able to see and feel the differences, there I have not only I theoretical background.
3) In the EU the principle is what serves the state. The proposed EU constitution does not even talk about the people, but about the EU being a legal person !!! It is really a fundmental difference in mentality.
4) In the USA people openly discuss the Patriot Act. In the EU such measure a re just taken, no discussion about it at all.
5) In the EU there are bad violations of civil rights, i.e. the arrests and imprisonments and for weeks and torture of peaceful demonstrators during the G8 in Genua, Italy. Nobody talks about it. A lot of people talk about such violations happening under US control.
Nothing is perfect in this world, however the USA is far more leaning towards individual rights, while Europe is far more based on the restriction of individual rights for a "common purpose". That is just a fact.
I know this is not very well understood in the USA, but the civil liberties in the USA are still far ahead of the ones in the EU.
While I agree, that it is time for the US to revert back to a sane patent system, that might happen anyway when they find out that small businesses can not compete on the legal front against the big ones.
I think the only reason the software patent laws in the EU have so much trouble is because the citizens are more experienced in grassroot movement because of the lack of civil liberties
There are rumours that it would be very beneficial for the world if the patent laws would be inacted.
I have heard Microsoft's is planning in such a case to immediately stop all development and sales of Windows products and lay off all technical staff and transform into a accounting firm just skinning the patent license from all linux products that will take the place of Windows.
Good news -- Windows is out, Linux is in
Bad news --- Everybody must pay a compulsory license tax directly to Microsoft.
If 3 countries vote against the directive in the EU Council it is dead. Belgium and German will definately vote against it, but a third country is needed.
However, unfortunately there are already 30,000 software patents accepted by the EU patent office.
What is really needed would be an EU directive explicitly tender them invalid.
China was leading the green revolution for a long time .... With a lot of traditional bycicles....
You still have to notify the internal revenue about it within 3 month.
That reminds me when I had to fold A0 drawings in order to fit them on A4 rings binders in a way, that you could unfold them without taken them out of the rings. Is something like this ever done with non-metric paper ?
Isn't the whole problem Diebold's greedy management and not the e-voting in principle ?
Does the hesienberg principle is true as well for shadow protons ? I would think it does. So what can we do with them ? What is the difference of shadow protons and anti-matter?
Reading the article, I just have to say:
Did the author talk about proprietory software ?
All the points raised I have found to annoy me when I used proprietory software. Even currently I have those problem with a software I battle with at my workplace.
Concluding I have to say, software of any license type has good and bad examples. Open Source is not a quality statement, but a license statement. To take user rights away does not make software or documentation better.
I think this author is as religious as claimed some Open Source developers supposedly are.....
That would show the real colors for a change...
So far a lot of companies always say: "In fact we are against software patents, but as long as the competition is doing it, we have no choice ..."
Give me a break !!!
...and later on 13 June are elections for the EU parliament...
I guess it is time to ask the candidate about their trackrecord and stand on the issue of software patents ...
It proves that it is possible with commodity hardware (and a lot of time) to break ciphers that are regarded as pretty strong.
You don't need to have any hardware to prove this. Every cipher in the world can be cracked given enough time
The real queustion is how long would it take if it wouldn't been what cipher and length has been used
i let it gather to about 100 emails in my inbox, then i forward each of them individually to every address that sent it.
Unfortunately this just increases the spam that an innocent bystander gets. A lot of spammers use forged but real e-mail addresses they have picked-up as the sender address. You would now spam that unrelated person and not the spammer.
Secondly, if the spammer uses his own address as sender than you have just confirmed to the spammer that you exist, and they have even more reason to spam you.
Unfortunately it seems, the best way is to ignore spammers.
Maybe those categories don't fit anymore, and the representative democracy needs to be spiced up with some more direct influence.
The idea that a copyright owner can charge what ever they want for the use of their property is lost on some people.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point a little. I do not think most people here saying free as free beer, but free as liberty.
For some reason, big business is dirty for wanting to profit on their IP
There is no problem that big companies make big money if they do it on the field of fair competition. However, what constitudes property ?
Property is either a constitutional or natural right, or it is granted by society for the benefit of society. In case of IP, there is no natural right for IP. Until the Gutenberg press nobody ever calim copyright on anything. And because of the Gutenberg press the English crown first introduced a copyright law. Interestingly not to protect the IP of somebody, but to protect the crown from libale as they saw it.
Therefore why is IP protected and how should it be ?
In the US contitution Congress is authorized to make law to protect inventions and writings if it help for progress of sciences and useful arts. This is the only reason to grant such monopolies as copyrights and patents.
Most IP today would never mustard that test. However, what does this test mean. It asks the question if innovation is raised or society benefits in other ways by the grant of such a monopoly. While one can probably discuss forever if strict IP control is good or bad, or free IP is better or worse, nobody has a natural right to IP. If somebody has this right than it was granted by society in the form of laws, and it should be to the benefit of society and not only to a few like in a feudal system in the medieval ages...
The interesting question starts now, how can this be achieved. And btw. it has nothing to do with socialism v. capitalism. Both models fight who serves the people in a better way. At the end the question for me is over control v. freedom
It is just interesting that the highest turnover is done in industries claiming monopolies through copyrights and not in "productive" industries....
Something seems to be wrong here
Oh I remember it just like under Roi Louis XIV...
I think the point is:
In an age of acces through networks, is it possible to trust any private organization enough to not oversee them with what they are doing ?
Or is it almost obligatory to know exactly what a particular device/computer etc. does, or at least have the possibility of own, or third party assessment.
That fix, be-it an actual removal of the userid/password, or a paranoid password change, is just as installable, either way.
no. it just changes the user/password pair to another one, only know to Cisco until somebody hacks it.... ;-)
I think this discussion shows an interesting point.
Who should have the right of choice ?
The person that has a mobile phone and wants to choose to be reachable or not (btw. a mobile phone still have an off button as well).
An employer who wants to decide if people are reachable or not (Which is not fine enough grenuality in this case. I guess the employer would like to filter out personal calls from business calls and let them through on the premises
The movie theater that wants to allow people watching a movie without distubances
The community that is annoyed about all those noise pollution that is called music nowadays and finds it ways to mobile ringers within days of publishing
or a lot of other entities that claim a right of control....
I believe it is time to step back and learn some manners again and then let everybody act responsible without contolling everything. Situations are different and people are different. I think the intriguing part of our society is the right and ability of choice. Lets not throw it away because people misuse it. Social distaste as punishment is often severe enough....
Unfortunately, I can't imaging M$ will not go after this in any legal and not so legal they can... I applaud the creativity and innovative force of the guys writing this stuff. And I hope they will survive teh forces of their feudal principality M$....
Congress is only authorized to grant monopolies in form of copyright and patents for things that give progress to sciences and useful arts.
Most written code does neither, therefore shouldn't it be free (as speech) ?
However, I am still waiting to see a business model that allows me to be as free as the code ... That would be nice, wouldn't it?