Capitalism is not about maintaining market share. It's about making money. If I have 99% market share but have not made a penny, my shareholders are not going to be happy.
The problem with open source is that it lacks a motivation for people to write their software in the first place. If someone wants only to have market share and customers (which is a goal in the current inflated stock market), then open source is great. If they want to make money, things are more problematic.
Not at all. Competition is when someone else creates a product to compete with yours. When someone simply duplicates your product, they have a huge advantage over you: you have spent huge amounts of time developing software, but now someone else who has not spent a second on your software can simply type "cp" and sell your software just as easily as you can.
You mention the idea of a monopoly often. A monopoly is not gained by being the only person to sell a piece of software, it's gained by being the only, or dominant, person to sell a certain type of software. Compare this to the world of books. If I write a book and publish it with copyright, you can't really say that I have a monopoly. A monopoly is if, say, I restrict anyone else from writing novels.
My point is that "free beer" arguments apply against "free speech" projects. Because of the impracticality of selling free software, all "free speech" projects will be "free beer" projects.
And yes, you can say that selling software is great and encouraged, but the fact is that the GPL makes selling software near-impossible. RMS realizes this; anyone should realize this. RMS is very much against selling software, most likely because of the necessary proprietary nature of software that is sold.
By selling, I mean what the author of this article means: earning money from your own software. Yes, of course, if the most basic definition of "selling" is used, then anything offered in exchange for money is sold.
But the author's point was that the GNU people believe that making (non-trivial) money by selling one's own software is wrong. This is true because the GPL prevents you from selling your software in any seriousness.
You fell for his redefinition of terms techniques.
Not really. First, he includes "source code available" in his definition; this is a core and important point which differentiates his definition from "free beer". It's true that the definition does not include certain aspects of the GNU definition (unlimited redistribution, derivatives also GPLed), but all of its elements are part of the GNU definition.
Everyone here has been saying that "free speech" software has only to do with freedom, not money. This is not true. Yes, the GPL supposedly permits you to sell software, but it doesn't really. Everything you sell can be redistributed by the purchaser. In other words, it's entirely possible and likely that you sell one copy of your software and then the buyer puts it on an FTP server and you never sell another copy. If your software is distributed under a "free speech" license, it must by common sense also be "free beer". So all of his arguments against "free beer" software are equally valid against "free speech" software.
It is a common technique used often, oddly enough, by cults.
That's not true: the Leader told me it wasn't.
Actually, speaking of common techniques, using an extreme example of something and then damning by association is just as much of a ploy and logical fallacy as using an incorrect definition.
First, he does acknowledge, right at the beginning, that availability of source code is a core element of free software.
Second, the fact that the software has zero cost is much more than an artifact; while it's true that it's a result of source being freely distributable, it's one of the central elements of open source software.
The qualifications of the author to write about subject X are just as important as what the author says about subject X.
So an argument is necessarily invalid if the line above it says "by Bernard Meyer" but it is (at least possibly) valid if the line above it says "by Ernest Brookner"? This makes no sense. Certainly, the history of someone can be used to provide perspective on other things that the person has done, but for anything to be given serious consideration, it must be considered in isolation.
Put differently: you are a drunkard. Someone tells you to stop drinking, that it will kill you soon. That person, however, is also drunk a lot. Does that mean that the advice is bad? No: alcoholism WILL harm you. The quality of the advice is independent of the person giving it.
Meyer wasn't criticizing a programming language; he was criticizing the people who had used that language.
He's saying that those who choose to use C are likely to program by the principles used in C -- after all, they chose to use C. That's hardly an unethical or evil thing to say. If someone chooses, and therefore presumably prefers, to program in a non-object-oriented language, chances are they will not be the best people to program in an object-oriented way.
Not really. If you sell free software, the person who buys it from you has the right to redistribute it themselves. That is, it's perfectly possible and likely that you sell one copy of a piece of software and then the recipient puts it up on an FTP server and you never sell another copy.
This can't really be considered selling, and it's not economically feasible.
First, attacking the author is not a valid way to attack an argument. The arguments in the article should be considered independently of the author. (An ad hominem logical fallacy, if you want the details.)
Second, criticising a programming language, and by extension those who use those programming languages, is hardly a profoundly unethical thing to do. What's he's said, in essence, is that C is a language which is very much against object-oriented principles and that those who choose C as their preferred programming language will probably not be the best people for object-oriented projects. Hardly a extreme or immoral statement.
Huh? Writing an article which refutes someone else's point of view is a pretty standard practice. In fact, that's what critics and reviewers do for a living. Not to mention what most Slashdot comments do. A world in which only positive things were written would consist primarily of non-verbal fuzzy characters with televisions in their stomachs.
Anyway, this post is an example of attacking the author rather than the argument. This is much like someone suggesting a new political policy but being drowned out by shouts of "Commie!" -- whether or not the person is a communist is irrelevant, just as the purpose of the author in writing this article has no bearing on the validity of the arguments.
quoting the whole document is reasonable because all of it (or all of the part that Microsoft wrote) was relevant to the discussion.
Let's day that I'm a university English professor. I'm writing a piece of criticism on a newly-released novel, still in hardcover. I analyze the novel in great detail, and deal with every single chapter. I'm also going to have my book published by an academic press.
Can I reproduce the entire novel as an appendix to my book? Of course not. Whether or not you're discussing the entirety of a work, fair use only allows for limited reproduction.
That's not ironic, that's the point. The extensions on the list are those that are part of Windows or that belong to MS applications. There are plenty of other applications that could also be dangerous -- if you install Perl, for instance,.pl files are just as dangerous as.vbs files -- but Microsoft is letting the vendors of those products add extensions to the banned list themselves. (Disallowing files belonging to other companies could be seen as anticompetitive.)
Because at least they would only affect one user's files, not system files, libraries, etc.
Does that mean I really expect problems similar to the ILOVEYOU virus? Not any time soon.
What about the ILOVEYOU virus requires root? It needs to read your address book, send e-mail, and replace personal documents (.jpg and.mp3 files). Doesn't sound to me like system file modification is necessary...
It's true that Windows is easy to use partly because it's so pervasive, but it's also true that it's easy (-ish) to use because some thought has been put into the interface.
Help is constant, for instance. Linux tends to have poor help, particularly context-sensitive help. (Example: the ? button on Windows dialog boxes.)
More importantly, interfaces are more-or-less consistent. Of course there are exceptions, but most well-designed and frequently-used applications follow the same conventions. The same basic menus (File, Edit, View, Tools, Help) are used in many different applications; a toolbar at the top of applications is extremely common; the list goes on. Lack of consistency is one of the big usability problems with Unix GUIs -- often, you'll have three applications running and all three will be using different widget sets, for instance.
However, if anyone else accessed this home page I am suddenly a copyright criminal?
No. The person who's accessing it is, as you didn't intend to leave the page open. If you deliberately leave the page open, then yes, you're a copyright criminal.
This isn't particularly odd. I keep my (legal, ripped off CDs) MP3 collection on my computer, which runs a web server. I sometimes access it when away from home. But if I open it up to the public, there's no question that that would be illegal, and rightfully so. This isn't really much of a grey area.
When I'm out of town I ask my friend to tape shows for me. When I get back, he gives me the tape, I watch my show, no media execs were harmed in the making of this tape, etc., etc. Sounds pretty legal still.
Actually, I don't think this is legal. Not positive, but I think taping and distributing is illegal under any circumstances.
In situations like the one you described, the law will never be enforced and was never designed to be enforced -- it's in nobody's interest to prevent you from doing that. But what if your friend decides to make a few more copies and gives them out to other people he knows? What if he sells the copies at the mall? That's what this situation is -- this company is taping things then redistributing them for profit.
Piracy is an act of violent robbery on the high seas, involving armed robbery, rape, and murder.
Right. And rape is the refuse of grapes left after the extraction of the juice in winemaking. Both of these definitions are correct, but in common usage both of these words have new meanings. Piracy means unauthorized copying, usually of something stored on a digital medium. Language changes -- not that I'd need to tell that to thee.
Oh yes they do, if their use of the field and non-disclosure of relevant technical details...
Well, yes, the DOJ may force them to release it. But that's a special case; exempting direct government involvement under the Sherman Act, what they've done is not illegal. After all, closing the source of software is a decision made in order to harm competition and benefit themselves, not to benefit customers.
It's against more than that: it's also against ethics, against the interests of their customers, against the interests of consumers in general and finally, against the law (my opinion).
I agree that it's against the interests of consumers. But how is it against the law? They've created a spec (actually, an extension to an existing spec) and kept it closed. A proprietary protocol is not illegal.
I doubt that this would be considered perjury; perjury is deliberately lying when under oath.
If, for instance, you're asked for your phone number in court and you transpose a couple of digits, you're not going to be accused of perjury. To be accused of perjury, you'll have to do something like claim that you were with someone at a particular time when you weren't and you knew very well that you weren't.
So anything that is distributed for free can automatically be redistributed? This would mean that it would be possible to record a TV show and then rebroadcast it yourself. This would mean that you can copy articles from your local free weekly newspaper and put them on the Internet at will. This would, essentially, be a complete perversion of the copyright system and would encourage people to charge money for things (if they didn't, they wouldn't get copyright protection).
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is not about maintaining market share. It's about making money. If I have 99% market share but have not made a penny, my shareholders are not going to be happy.
The problem with open source is that it lacks a motivation for people to write their software in the first place. If someone wants only to have market share and customers (which is a goal in the current inflated stock market), then open source is great. If they want to make money, things are more problematic.
Not at all. Competition is when someone else creates a product to compete with yours. When someone simply duplicates your product, they have a huge advantage over you: you have spent huge amounts of time developing software, but now someone else who has not spent a second on your software can simply type "cp" and sell your software just as easily as you can.
You mention the idea of a monopoly often. A monopoly is not gained by being the only person to sell a piece of software, it's gained by being the only, or dominant, person to sell a certain type of software. Compare this to the world of books. If I write a book and publish it with copyright, you can't really say that I have a monopoly. A monopoly is if, say, I restrict anyone else from writing novels.
My point is that "free beer" arguments apply against "free speech" projects. Because of the impracticality of selling free software, all "free speech" projects will be "free beer" projects.
And yes, you can say that selling software is great and encouraged, but the fact is that the GPL makes selling software near-impossible. RMS realizes this; anyone should realize this. RMS is very much against selling software, most likely because of the necessary proprietary nature of software that is sold.
By selling, I mean what the author of this article means: earning money from your own software. Yes, of course, if the most basic definition of "selling" is used, then anything offered in exchange for money is sold.
But the author's point was that the GNU people believe that making (non-trivial) money by selling one's own software is wrong. This is true because the GPL prevents you from selling your software in any seriousness.
Not really. First, he includes "source code available" in his definition; this is a core and important point which differentiates his definition from "free beer". It's true that the definition does not include certain aspects of the GNU definition (unlimited redistribution, derivatives also GPLed), but all of its elements are part of the GNU definition.
Everyone here has been saying that "free speech" software has only to do with freedom, not money. This is not true. Yes, the GPL supposedly permits you to sell software, but it doesn't really. Everything you sell can be redistributed by the purchaser. In other words, it's entirely possible and likely that you sell one copy of your software and then the buyer puts it on an FTP server and you never sell another copy. If your software is distributed under a "free speech" license, it must by common sense also be "free beer". So all of his arguments against "free beer" software are equally valid against "free speech" software.
It is a common technique used often, oddly enough, by cults.
That's not true: the Leader told me it wasn't.
Actually, speaking of common techniques, using an extreme example of something and then damning by association is just as much of a ploy and logical fallacy as using an incorrect definition.
First, he does acknowledge, right at the beginning, that availability of source code is a core element of free software.
Second, the fact that the software has zero cost is much more than an artifact; while it's true that it's a result of source being freely distributable, it's one of the central elements of open source software.
So an argument is necessarily invalid if the line above it says "by Bernard Meyer" but it is (at least possibly) valid if the line above it says "by Ernest Brookner"? This makes no sense. Certainly, the history of someone can be used to provide perspective on other things that the person has done, but for anything to be given serious consideration, it must be considered in isolation.
Put differently: you are a drunkard. Someone tells you to stop drinking, that it will kill you soon. That person, however, is also drunk a lot. Does that mean that the advice is bad? No: alcoholism WILL harm you. The quality of the advice is independent of the person giving it.
Meyer wasn't criticizing a programming language; he was criticizing the people who had used that language.
He's saying that those who choose to use C are likely to program by the principles used in C -- after all, they chose to use C. That's hardly an unethical or evil thing to say. If someone chooses, and therefore presumably prefers, to program in a non-object-oriented language, chances are they will not be the best people to program in an object-oriented way.
Yes, I know -- I was referring to a previous post, not this article.
First, many Red Hat CDs are sold by people like CheapBytes or LinuxMall at low cost -- Red Hat gais no money from this.
Second, official Red Hat CDs contain several things beside software, most importantly documentation & support licences.
Basically, Red Hat makes their money (which they don't make all that much of) from support and, to a lesser extent, documentation.
Not really. If you sell free software, the person who buys it from you has the right to redistribute it themselves. That is, it's perfectly possible and likely that you sell one copy of a piece of software and then the recipient puts it up on an FTP server and you never sell another copy.
This can't really be considered selling, and it's not economically feasible.
First, attacking the author is not a valid way to attack an argument. The arguments in the article should be considered independently of the author. (An ad hominem logical fallacy, if you want the details.)
Second, criticising a programming language, and by extension those who use those programming languages, is hardly a profoundly unethical thing to do. What's he's said, in essence, is that C is a language which is very much against object-oriented principles and that those who choose C as their preferred programming language will probably not be the best people for object-oriented projects. Hardly a extreme or immoral statement.
Huh? Writing an article which refutes someone else's point of view is a pretty standard practice. In fact, that's what critics and reviewers do for a living. Not to mention what most Slashdot comments do. A world in which only positive things were written would consist primarily of non-verbal fuzzy characters with televisions in their stomachs.
Anyway, this post is an example of attacking the author rather than the argument. This is much like someone suggesting a new political policy but being drowned out by shouts of "Commie!" -- whether or not the person is a communist is irrelevant, just as the purpose of the author in writing this article has no bearing on the validity of the arguments.
Let's day that I'm a university English professor. I'm writing a piece of criticism on a newly-released novel, still in hardcover. I analyze the novel in great detail, and deal with every single chapter. I'm also going to have my book published by an academic press.
Can I reproduce the entire novel as an appendix to my book? Of course not. Whether or not you're discussing the entirety of a work, fair use only allows for limited reproduction.
cat ~/.addressbook
the various gaping holes allowing access
ILOVEYOU exploited no gaping OS holes that I'm aware of.
the general problems of macro scripts
#!/usr/bin/perl
print "Looks like a macro script to me!";
That's not ironic, that's the point. The extensions on the list are those that are part of Windows or that belong to MS applications. There are plenty of other applications that could also be dangerous -- if you install Perl, for instance, .pl files are just as dangerous as .vbs files -- but Microsoft is letting the vendors of those products add extensions to the banned list themselves. (Disallowing files belonging to other companies could be seen as anticompetitive.)
Does that mean I really expect problems similar to the ILOVEYOU virus? Not any time soon.
What about the ILOVEYOU virus requires root? It needs to read your address book, send e-mail, and replace personal documents (.jpg and .mp3 files). Doesn't sound to me like system file modification is necessary...
How does removing executable attachments hurt the little guy any more than it hurts the big guy?
In Outlook:
- Right click on the attachment
- Choose edit (opens in Notepad)
- Choose save, then open in your favourite text editor.
Not too hard...
It's true that Windows is easy to use partly because it's so pervasive, but it's also true that it's easy (-ish) to use because some thought has been put into the interface.
Help is constant, for instance. Linux tends to have poor help, particularly context-sensitive help. (Example: the ? button on Windows dialog boxes.)
More importantly, interfaces are more-or-less consistent. Of course there are exceptions, but most well-designed and frequently-used applications follow the same conventions. The same basic menus (File, Edit, View, Tools, Help) are used in many different applications; a toolbar at the top of applications is extremely common; the list goes on. Lack of consistency is one of the big usability problems with Unix GUIs -- often, you'll have three applications running and all three will be using different widget sets, for instance.
No. The person who's accessing it is, as you didn't intend to leave the page open. If you deliberately leave the page open, then yes, you're a copyright criminal.
This isn't particularly odd. I keep my (legal, ripped off CDs) MP3 collection on my computer, which runs a web server. I sometimes access it when away from home. But if I open it up to the public, there's no question that that would be illegal, and rightfully so. This isn't really much of a grey area.
Actually, I don't think this is legal. Not positive, but I think taping and distributing is illegal under any circumstances.
In situations like the one you described, the law will never be enforced and was never designed to be enforced -- it's in nobody's interest to prevent you from doing that. But what if your friend decides to make a few more copies and gives them out to other people he knows? What if he sells the copies at the mall? That's what this situation is -- this company is taping things then redistributing them for profit.
Right. And rape is the refuse of grapes left after the extraction of the juice in winemaking. Both of these definitions are correct, but in common usage both of these words have new meanings. Piracy means unauthorized copying, usually of something stored on a digital medium. Language changes -- not that I'd need to tell that to thee.
Well, yes, the DOJ may force them to release it. But that's a special case; exempting direct government involvement under the Sherman Act, what they've done is not illegal. After all, closing the source of software is a decision made in order to harm competition and benefit themselves, not to benefit customers.
It's against more than that: it's also against ethics, against the interests of their customers, against the interests of consumers in general and finally, against the law (my opinion).
I agree that it's against the interests of consumers. But how is it against the law? They've created a spec (actually, an extension to an existing spec) and kept it closed. A proprietary protocol is not illegal.
I doubt that this would be considered perjury; perjury is deliberately lying when under oath.
If, for instance, you're asked for your phone number in court and you transpose a couple of digits, you're not going to be accused of perjury. To be accused of perjury, you'll have to do something like claim that you were with someone at a particular time when you weren't and you knew very well that you weren't.
So anything that is distributed for free can automatically be redistributed? This would mean that it would be possible to record a TV show and then rebroadcast it yourself. This would mean that you can copy articles from your local free weekly newspaper and put them on the Internet at will. This would, essentially, be a complete perversion of the copyright system and would encourage people to charge money for things (if they didn't, they wouldn't get copyright protection).