Well, I only have your word for it, but what the hell, life's too short to worry about that sort of thing. Bygones.
We're on the same side - you're just fifty years in the future and I'm right now.
So let's just agree to have different interpretations of the situation and be pals.
I guess I should be honored that you went to the effort of using your other/. account to abuse me anonymously, but I guess it's the closest I'll get to an admission by you that your arguments are flawed and based on utopian ideals that are incompatible with human nature.
Huh? Who said anything about asking them to enforce an EULA?
You're clutching at straws now. I guess your next argument will be "if the corrupt government won't enforce the GPL, what's to stop them just killing you and taking all your money".
But since you've already resorted to having an alter-ego abuse me, I guess this discussion is over.
Well for a start the developer would be paying taxes in that country, and employing locals, and helping the economy. Governments tend to support that kind of thing.
You can't have a world without copyright, so what's the point of your comment?
By your argument I'm reading this scenario EXACTLY right.
Since it is the importers of illegal software who are breaking the law, the developers are laughing - they just collect the money with no fear or possibility of being punished.
Oh, and anyway, how do you know the proprietary product contains infringing source? The buyers of the software certainly won't. They won't even know a crime has been committed.
If people don't release the source code, it's closed source.
And why are you assuming that employees want to give their hard work away for free when they can take it to their next employer and increase their own value?
You're being sarcastic, right? I'm talking about people STEALING code and putting it in closed-source programs, so NOTHING gets given back to the community. That's not what Stallman wants at all.
So if the copyright holders lose this case, that means it will be open season on copyright infringement.
Simply find a corrupt country that refuses to recognize the GPL etc., and do all your software development there. Steal the code from any and all open source software, and distribute the software from servers located within that country. International law won't be able to touch you.
Copyright and patents need to be standardized AND world-wide, or they are useless in this day and age.
If you're a small developer being leaned on by a larger company that thinks you've used their patented idea, just tell them politely to go screw themselves. They'll take you to court. You defend yourself. You lose. You refuse to comply with the court order to stop producing the software. You're in contempt of court. You go to jail for a short time.
But your case will show the futility of the system, and the public outcry will be large enough to bring change.
If people can't or won't pay for software now, what makes you think they'll pay for a support contract? They'll just pirate the upgrades and the tutorials.
>Due to the very nature of open source, eventually, the best (general) programs will be open source programs. Period.
The "eventually" and "general" qualifications you make unfortunately make this statement useless - if you look at it the other way...
"Now and for the foreseeable future, the best specialized programs are NOT open source. Period."
Is that really what you wanted to say?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called Karma-whoring.
Well, I suppose the deterrent value would reduce piracy and thus drive up real sales, so the artists would profit that way.
That's how they'd justify it, anyway.
Not a legal precedent, obviously, but if unscrupulous developers see there's no retribution for doing this, they're just going to do it again.
Even worse, if someone doesn't step up and fight, it could set a precedent and make it open season for Open Source.
Is this the first time a high-profile alleged breach of an Open Source licence has happened?
4. Profit!!!!
You've obviously never hired a teenage babysitter...
Everybody lives overseas... :)
If you're not worried about that then why are you posing as AC? :)
Lesson 3: Profit!
Oh, sorry, I don't have the hang of this yet...
So you could package it as closed source and sell it under a different name...
Well, I only have your word for it, but what the hell, life's too short to worry about that sort of thing. Bygones. We're on the same side - you're just fifty years in the future and I'm right now. So let's just agree to have different interpretations of the situation and be pals.
I guess I should be honored that you went to the effort of using your other /. account to abuse me anonymously, but I guess it's the closest I'll get to an admission by you that your arguments are flawed and based on utopian ideals that are incompatible with human nature.
Huh? Who said anything about asking them to enforce an EULA? You're clutching at straws now. I guess your next argument will be "if the corrupt government won't enforce the GPL, what's to stop them just killing you and taking all your money". But since you've already resorted to having an alter-ego abuse me, I guess this discussion is over.
Good theory. Just like Marxism.
Meanwhile, in the real world, my comments are still valid.
Well for a start the developer would be paying taxes in that country, and employing locals, and helping the economy. Governments tend to support that kind of thing.
You can't have a world without copyright, so what's the point of your comment?
By your argument I'm reading this scenario EXACTLY right.
Since it is the importers of illegal software who are breaking the law, the developers are laughing - they just collect the money with no fear or possibility of being punished.
Oh, and anyway, how do you know the proprietary product contains infringing source? The buyers of the software certainly won't. They won't even know a crime has been committed.
If people don't release the source code, it's closed source.
And why are you assuming that employees want to give their hard work away for free when they can take it to their next employer and increase their own value?
You're being sarcastic, right? I'm talking about people STEALING code and putting it in closed-source programs, so NOTHING gets given back to the community. That's not what Stallman wants at all.
Which of my statements is already the case?
So if the copyright holders lose this case, that means it will be open season on copyright infringement.
Simply find a corrupt country that refuses to recognize the GPL etc., and do all your software development there. Steal the code from any and all open source software, and distribute the software from servers located within that country. International law won't be able to touch you.
Copyright and patents need to be standardized AND world-wide, or they are useless in this day and age.
If you're a small developer being leaned on by a larger company that thinks you've used their patented idea, just tell them politely to go screw themselves. They'll take you to court. You defend yourself. You lose. You refuse to comply with the court order to stop producing the software. You're in contempt of court. You go to jail for a short time.
But your case will show the futility of the system, and the public outcry will be large enough to bring change.
It just takes enough victims to say "Hell, no!"
I'm sorry, but if they're having problems like that on XP, they'd still have problems on Linux or OSX (given the same unhelpful ISP).
If people can't or won't pay for software now, what makes you think they'll pay for a support contract? They'll just pirate the upgrades and the tutorials.
Doesn't a high proportion of spam come from the USA?
>Due to the very nature of open source, eventually, the best (general) programs will be open source programs. Period. The "eventually" and "general" qualifications you make unfortunately make this statement useless - if you look at it the other way... "Now and for the foreseeable future, the best specialized programs are NOT open source. Period." Is that really what you wanted to say?