Yes, I didn't realise this myself, but you are right. One has to buy a commercial license before developing code, and then follow the terms of that license (which includes what you just said). I stand corrected.
But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit.
Um no.. As others have stated, the GPL is just as valid as it has always been, and anoyone can make a GPL program out of Qt and sell it and become filthy rich in the process. However, if you want to sell your newly created program without open sourcing it (which violates the GPL) you can do just that by bying a commercial lisens from Trolltech.
You don't need the commercial lisens to sell your code or binares, but you need it to sell them closed source.
This will heat up the Gtk vs. Qt arguments as a major argument against Qt no longer holds.
Not only that, but I can now win countless discussions about the GPL being "useless in commercial software development" by pointing at Trolltech! They've just proved it isn't!
From TFA: "With the GPL availability of Qt for Windows, Trolltech will offer dual licensing of Qt on all supported platforms."
I am not saying that your idea is impossible - however, it will not be easy to implement, especially in a way that office occupants find agreeable.
But it would be nice if someone did try it. Then, when everything goes to hell, they can kick out the homeless and never look back. Whenever someone comes up with this argument again and points at [big greedy corporation] they can just point their finger back and say: We tried this, and it cost us a bunch of money, work and trouble. They can blame themselves, our you can at least stop blaiming us.
However, if it did work everone wins. Homless have shelter at night, and [big greedy corporation] gets lots of nice PR (and everyone knows marketing costs tons of money).
I would likely blame the homeless-advocate who would say lots of things like you just did, and would 'protect' the homeless person by helping him bring the case.
So the legal-system is OK as it is, but anyone exploiting it (legaly, the advocate) is in for lots of bad karma?
So no fixing the legal-system then? Shouldn't things that can be exploited be changed so that it can't? Or do you think the law has to have these side-effects in order to fulfill the "corporate greedy bastard system"-vision?
Now, suppose that someone in the sausage industry comes up with a way of "open-sourcing" buns - now buns are free! This happening, you've got a bunch of customers wandering around buying sausages with an extra $0.50 in their pockets. They were clearly willing to spend more on the sausage+bun combination, so maybe you can jack up your price to $1.10 or $1.20 (very unlikely you'll be able to go to $1.50).
My first reaction would not be that saus could now be more expensive, but that the costumer now could eat more buns with sauce, thus increasing sale of saus.
Except for the reality that the first one who slipped on the freshly polished floors would immediately sue the owner.
Interesting. So are you saying that this is the homeless' fault (they'll just sue us when opportunity comes, so we can't do that), our are you blaiming the legal system for this?
Well yes, that's my point. Bill & parent poster stated that we need to standarize on software (cars), but I am saying we only need standards (same fuel input hole), not "equal software" (one car). Thus, it was a weak point.
Gates is telling the truth here. If the whole world standardized on one set of standard software, it would (obviously) make interoperability a lot easier. That's common sense. And we can understand why this vision would appeal to him, especially if the world decided to standardize on his software.
What a total weak point. It's like saying if we only had one car model in the entire world, parts would be easier to get. Well of course it would, but what a shitty car industry that would be. Just one car? What a lousy argument.
Obviously (like stated by others) we need standards. I mean most of them are already there, and companies just have to follow them (hello MS?). If their software would just follow open standards and not insist on creating their own closed ones we wouldn't have this problem. It has nothing to do with what software you use if software would do what it's supposed to do, which is to follow standards!
With patentable inventions, however, the outcome is the process and result, without nuances and styles factoring in. The art is not in the craft, but in the invention. Thus, patents need different protections, otherwise someone could easily examine a patented device, and come up with one that differs in style, but not principle, and claim independent invention.
You are indeed correct. I would however choose to live in a society where inventions that now are protected by patents actually can be copied. I was trying to make that point earlier that if it's "an obvious ripp-off" then copyright should intervene, but if it's just "a new smart way to do [thing]" that several companies suddenly started doing after company A first did it, then I personally think it's OK. [That is: if it can't be protected by copyright, it's not worth protecting.] Fewer inventors might become rich, but it would probably help society progress. Fewer inventors might exist, but I don't know, I still think society as a whole (companies and individuals) would be better off this way.
But as you said, it's ideoligy, and if a were a wealthy business man or perhaps an inventor I probably would have seen things differently. (Or maybe I've just read too much of RMS, who knows.)
The copying permission statement should come right after the copyright notices. For a one-file program, the statement (for the GPL) should look like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
(emphasis mine)
So version 3 can't be incompatible with version 2, if it is then it's another license (and has to have another name). It's like creating a legal document that doesn't follow the law, what's the point in that? (unless you want to scam someone)
The Free Software Foundation is good at this though, they won't release anything that's not legaly solid any time soon.
Copyright law doesn't cover inventions, it covers creative works. Patent law is an application of the same principle to inventions. If copyright law was extended to include inventions, what difference between that and current patent law would there be that you find offensive?
Only physical things should be protected by law, so if inventions can't be physical things then I guess we don't need to extend copyright. I thought more in the ways of "this [product] is not an exact copy of our own [product], but this piece/part right here took us years to develop, so where did they get that technology if they didn't copy it from us?" But that's as far as I think the law should go, it should protect "illegal copying," and that's it. Copyright law differs between having copied something and having made an exact replica without copying (which theoreticly isn't illegal, but that's an extreme case and perhaps would be), but patents are exclusive no matter what.
I can't think of any reason why someone should be allowed to own an "idea", I mean if it's not a "creative work" (something physical) it's not owned by anyone. It's just an idea, it's just a thought. Do something with that thought, prevent others from copying whatever you made (copyright law) and everyone's fine. But others should be allowed to come up with the same thought and make a similar product (or another product entierly) out of that idea if they (can prove they) didn't copy it off you.
Thoughts can be compared to DNA: Someone will figure out what every gene does eventually, just like somone will come up with a particular idea eventually, so it shouldn't be owned exclusively by anyone. (And yes, copyright law will/should prevent copying of information.)
The patent, like other types of "IP" law, are based on the idea that invention is a whole lot of work with no physically scarce product.
This is not a definition, but it's taken from wikipedia, and it's the origin of patents as I see it:
Per the word's original definition, one theory of patent legislation is to induce the inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity.
It says "theory", but I'm OK with that. I think it's correct. Even if it's wrong, that would mean it's created only for the reason that people should make money off their inventions. If that's the case, why are patents publicly available? If they weren't, then people could make an original product that is similar to an existing product without having copied it (*), and if that still was illegal then it's obvious that the patent system is no good. However, since it is in the public, the good old "you could have read it here first"-argument always wins, and the patentholder always wins regardless if someone actually did copy it or not.
The whole point of owning something "just because" makes no sense. You own something because you made it, and it's protected by law to prevent others from copying off your work. But what is the law protecting if they aren't copying?
Simply because you do work, you are not automatically entitled to reward.
Well.. that's regulated by law, so I guess you're right on that one. But you kind of nailed it here:
If I don't look for a patent first, then spend time and money duplicating something that I have no rights to, should I be compensated for my wasted time?
That's basicly the problem as I see it: Everyone should have the right to create whatever they want as long as they're not copying off someone else. Doesn't anything else seem unnatural? Patents deny this, which I think is taking away some freedom from everyone.
It's a complicated topic, but I really can't think of any particulary good reasons to have a patent system. It had good intentions though. Even with a strict and quality assured patent office I still think we'd be better off without it. I hope my rambling is understood by others.
(*) And if this was legal, the patent system might just work. I believe "secret" or "undisclosed" patents exists today, and even then this still is regarded as illegal, something I can't find logical (or just for that matter).
Yes, you are right. But no one reads that anyway unless they're trying to avoid being sued or something else law-related.
However, one can argue that an invention was indeed copied since it's all out there in the open. So this just strenghtens the argument that patents takes away rights (yes, it sounds a bit RMS).
Whenever a patent is granted the patent office is basicly saying "we have chosen that this invention is so great that we don't think anyone is going to come up with a similar idea in more than 20 years. We must protect society and grant this person exclusive rights to this invention so that we can all prosper from this in 20 years."
So even if someone does come up with a similar idea within 10 years or so it doesn't matter, because the patent office has decided that we as a society "couldn't take the risk of this not being invented by someone else, so we had to make him tell us the details." They decide what people are allowed to invent, or "figure out" is I put it earlier.
Protection against copying really should be handled by copyright law. If someone invents something that is so unlike something someone else invented that it isn't voilating copyright law, I don't quite see what it's voilating at all.
How is it fair for me to put in a lot of work on something, go through the trials and errors, only to have someone look at my finished project, and copy it... especially when that person will make a financial gain from it.
That's a valid point. But isn't that what we have copyrights for? Wouldn't it be easier to just enhance copyright law to take care of this and remove patents instead of trying to fix something that is almost out of control?
Protecting things from copying is fair and nice, but patents protect things that aren't even invented yet. The whole idea of patents just looks like it's begging for trouble IMO.
So, like most other things I fall squarely in the middle of the two camps, and get shot at from both sides.
Please, let me;)
Seriously though, consider this: I write a piece of software. I'm a total geek and a math wiz and it turns out I manage to create a really nice algorythm for [insert tech word here].
I want to make money off this or maybe share it to the community, regardless it's released and distributed and one beautiful morning I'm being sued for patent violations. Turns out some big company thought of this a good 10 years ago and has a patent on doing roughly the same thing my algorythm does.
What did I do wrong? Why am I being punished? Is this fair? This wasn't an obvious thing to patent, I'm just a bright kid and stumbled across it.
This is not a "nothing is perfect"-thing, this is a serious flaw. Patents (especially in software) means no one has any rights what so ever, *unless* you happen to be the first guy figuring something out, in which case you suddenly have *all* and exclusive rights.
I'm not taking about patenting obvious things: with patents no one is allowed to invent things unless they're the first one. It doesn't matter if you figured it out all by yourself, if someone beat you to it you simply have no rights.
You can build things and link to libraries that are GPL and not GPL them.
Whoopsie daysie, that's not true. From gnu.org: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
You can link non-GPL programs only with LGPL libraries.
and so the why the #$#^ care so much if someone else makes money off of software that includes your work.
The owner of the work who decides the license in the first place wants to protect his interest, and he wants other people like himself to use his code but he doesn't want some big company to ripp everyone off and make money off something they had nothing to do with.
- does GPL really protect against commerical companies taking the code over other open source licenses? in theory, it should. but many companies probably take GPL code and use it illegally, sometimes it's just hard to know (i know this isn't an argument against the GPL, just something that everyone should be aware of).
A valid point. But if companies steal GPL-code either someone will notice at some time, or the company will know it has "blood on its hands" and stay out of court whenever it comes across the GPL. And that counts for something.
So if the code taken can't be recognized over time, it's not really a mayor loss. It's unethical for the company doing so, but it's not a setback for free software in any big way.
Well come to think about it, you use your software under the mercy of MS. If they chose to release a new Windows and make something you use in windows incompatible with the old version, you're forced to spending money on upgrading, eventhough what you have is currently working just fine.
You might be forced into buying some program you use in a new version, since the software developers aren't supporting the old one for the old windows, in addition to buying a new windows. Ofcourse, your old computer isn't capable of using the new windows, so there goes a new computer as well.
This is how it works with properitary software, you really are a much more free man with free software.
I didn't mean to bash against obvious patents, my point is that anything that can be invented many times by different people at different times (because it's basicly logic after all, and all it requires is time) should not have anything to do with patents. Patents deny other people to "figure something out" just because someone "figured it out" first.
I've got one, and it might even fit with the american way of thinking (just maybe..), you've probably heard a lot of this before though:
Being granted a patent means full disclosure of the technology involved, and thus giving the owner exclusive rights over that particular technology (whatever is patented). If someone else where to lets say invent something extraordinary similar in his own basement sometime later (maybe the products with the new patented technology haven't even made the stores yet) then he would be denied his own invention (he did make it all by himself after all), just because someone came up with something basicly the same before him (and filed a patent).
Yes, the second guy could have read the patent papers, but lets say he didn't, in which case he would be denied the rights to his own invention. Se because of patents, whoever comes up with something first has certain rights (exclusive rights actually), and everyone else has butt kiss, no matter what. First guy: everything, runner up: nothing. It means that when it comes to software because of patents you have no rights what so ever, absolutely nothing, _unless_ you by any chance happen to be the first guy that _ever_ wrote something remotely like this.
This is flawed logic in my eyes. The same analogy can be used for genes. They're all there, just waiting to be labeled with a "function" or a role if you will. And whoever manages to do that first (it doesn't matter if it's somewhat obvious and a bunch of scientists figure it out 2 weeks later) gets all the rights, everyone else: nothing. Being "the first guy" somehow makes you "own" whatever you discover (for a limited time, but still). Why is this fair? It's like having the olympics, but only once every 30 years, 'cause only one guy is allowed to be "number one" (just like patents).
Copyright does not work this way, it only protects copying. This is much more fair. Anyone who figures out some great technology is allowed rights to that technology as long as they didn't copy it off someone else.
Obviously there is one flaw here, which is reverse engineering.
But commercial software still lives prosperously, and European companies aren't reverse engineering US software and duplicating this into their own products are they? The whole idea that "patents is a good thing and must exist or else everyone will rip off everyone else" is flawed, Europe does not have patents on software, and yet they aren't taking advantage of this supposedly "glaringly obvious rip off potential." Software existed quite nicely without patents. We simply don't need them, reverse engineering is only done when there's no other alternatives (like reverse engineering hardware drivers), not to ripp off competing software (which wouldn't be competing, it would be playing catch up).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I didn't realise this myself, but you are right. One has to buy a commercial license before developing code, and then follow the terms of that license (which includes what you just said). I stand corrected.
But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit.
Um no.. As others have stated, the GPL is just as valid as it has always been, and anoyone can make a GPL program out of Qt and sell it and become filthy rich in the process. However, if you want to sell your newly created program without open sourcing it (which violates the GPL) you can do just that by bying a commercial lisens from Trolltech.
You don't need the commercial lisens to sell your code or binares, but you need it to sell them closed source.
This will heat up the Gtk vs. Qt arguments as a major argument against Qt no longer holds.
Not only that, but I can now win countless discussions about the GPL being "useless in commercial software development" by pointing at Trolltech! They've just proved it isn't!
From TFA:
"With the GPL availability of Qt for Windows, Trolltech will offer dual licensing of Qt on all supported platforms."
Life is great!
I am not saying that your idea is impossible - however, it will not be easy to implement, especially in a way that office occupants find agreeable.
But it would be nice if someone did try it. Then, when everything goes to hell, they can kick out the homeless and never look back. Whenever someone comes up with this argument again and points at [big greedy corporation] they can just point their finger back and say: We tried this, and it cost us a bunch of money, work and trouble. They can blame themselves, our you can at least stop blaiming us.
However, if it did work everone wins. Homless have shelter at night, and [big greedy corporation] gets lots of nice PR (and everyone knows marketing costs tons of money).
I would likely blame the homeless-advocate who would say lots of things like you just did, and would 'protect' the homeless person by helping him bring the case.
So the legal-system is OK as it is, but anyone exploiting it (legaly, the advocate) is in for lots of bad karma?
So no fixing the legal-system then? Shouldn't things that can be exploited be changed so that it can't? Or do you think the law has to have these side-effects in order to fulfill the "corporate greedy bastard system"-vision?
Now, suppose that someone in the sausage industry comes up with a way of "open-sourcing" buns - now buns are free! This happening, you've got a bunch of customers wandering around buying sausages with an extra $0.50 in their pockets. They were clearly willing to spend more on the sausage+bun combination, so maybe you can jack up your price to $1.10 or $1.20 (very unlikely you'll be able to go to $1.50).
My first reaction would not be that saus could now be more expensive, but that the costumer now could eat more buns with sauce, thus increasing sale of saus.
True, and OSS (or at least those with copyleft) encourage people to collaborate on work, not just sharing information like P2P does.
Except for the reality that the first one who slipped on the freshly polished floors would immediately sue the owner.
Interesting. So are you saying that this is the homeless' fault (they'll just sue us when opportunity comes, so we can't do that), our are you blaiming the legal system for this?
Well yes, that's my point. Bill & parent poster stated that we need to standarize on software (cars), but I am saying we only need standards (same fuel input hole), not "equal software" (one car). Thus, it was a weak point.
Gates is telling the truth here. If the whole world standardized on one set of standard software, it would (obviously) make interoperability a lot easier. That's common sense. And we can understand why this vision would appeal to him, especially if the world decided to standardize on his software.
What a total weak point. It's like saying if we only had one car model in the entire world, parts would be easier to get. Well of course it would, but what a shitty car industry that would be. Just one car? What a lousy argument.
Obviously (like stated by others) we need standards. I mean most of them are already there, and companies just have to follow them (hello MS?). If their software would just follow open standards and not insist on creating their own closed ones we wouldn't have this problem. It has nothing to do with what software you use if software would do what it's supposed to do, which is to follow standards!
With patentable inventions, however, the outcome is the process and result, without nuances and styles factoring in. The art is not in the craft, but in the invention. Thus, patents need different protections, otherwise someone could easily examine a patented device, and come up with one that differs in style, but not principle, and claim independent invention.
You are indeed correct. I would however choose to live in a society where inventions that now are protected by patents actually can be copied. I was trying to make that point earlier that if it's "an obvious ripp-off" then copyright should intervene, but if it's just "a new smart way to do [thing]" that several companies suddenly started doing after company A first did it, then I personally think it's OK. [That is: if it can't be protected by copyright, it's not worth protecting.] Fewer inventors might become rich, but it would probably help society progress. Fewer inventors might exist, but I don't know, I still think society as a whole (companies and individuals) would be better off this way.
But as you said, it's ideoligy, and if a were a wealthy business man or perhaps an inventor I probably would have seen things differently. (Or maybe I've just read too much of RMS, who knows.)
From gnu.org:
The copying permission statement should come right after the copyright notices. For a one-file program, the statement (for the GPL) should look like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
(emphasis mine)
So version 3 can't be incompatible with version 2, if it is then it's another license (and has to have another name). It's like creating a legal document that doesn't follow the law, what's the point in that? (unless you want to scam someone)
The Free Software Foundation is good at this though, they won't release anything that's not legaly solid any time soon.
Copyright law doesn't cover inventions, it covers creative works. Patent law is an application of the same principle to inventions. If copyright law was extended to include inventions, what difference between that and current patent law would there be that you find offensive?
Only physical things should be protected by law, so if inventions can't be physical things then I guess we don't need to extend copyright. I thought more in the ways of "this [product] is not an exact copy of our own [product], but this piece/part right here took us years to develop, so where did they get that technology if they didn't copy it from us?" But that's as far as I think the law should go, it should protect "illegal copying," and that's it. Copyright law differs between having copied something and having made an exact replica without copying (which theoreticly isn't illegal, but that's an extreme case and perhaps would be), but patents are exclusive no matter what.
I can't think of any reason why someone should be allowed to own an "idea", I mean if it's not a "creative work" (something physical) it's not owned by anyone. It's just an idea, it's just a thought. Do something with that thought, prevent others from copying whatever you made (copyright law) and everyone's fine. But others should be allowed to come up with the same thought and make a similar product (or another product entierly) out of that idea if they (can prove they) didn't copy it off you.
Thoughts can be compared to DNA: Someone will figure out what every gene does eventually, just like somone will come up with a particular idea eventually, so it shouldn't be owned exclusively by anyone. (And yes, copyright law will/should prevent copying of information.)
The patent, like other types of "IP" law, are based on the idea that invention is a whole lot of work with no physically scarce product.
This is not a definition, but it's taken from wikipedia, and it's the origin of patents as I see it:
Per the word's original definition, one theory of patent legislation is to induce the inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity.
It says "theory", but I'm OK with that. I think it's correct. Even if it's wrong, that would mean it's created only for the reason that people should make money off their inventions. If that's the case, why are patents publicly available? If they weren't, then people could make an original product that is similar to an existing product without having copied it (*), and if that still was illegal then it's obvious that the patent system is no good. However, since it is in the public, the good old "you could have read it here first"-argument always wins, and the patentholder always wins regardless if someone actually did copy it or not.
The whole point of owning something "just because" makes no sense. You own something because you made it, and it's protected by law to prevent others from copying off your work. But what is the law protecting if they aren't copying?
Simply because you do work, you are not automatically entitled to reward.
Well.. that's regulated by law, so I guess you're right on that one. But you kind of nailed it here:
If I don't look for a patent first, then spend time and money duplicating something that I have no rights to, should I be compensated for my wasted time?
That's basicly the problem as I see it: Everyone should have the right to create whatever they want as long as they're not copying off someone else. Doesn't anything else seem unnatural? Patents deny this, which I think is taking away some freedom from everyone.
It's a complicated topic, but I really can't think of any particulary good reasons to have a patent system. It had good intentions though. Even with a strict and quality assured patent office I still think we'd be better off without it. I hope my rambling is understood by others.
(*) And if this was legal, the patent system might just work. I believe "secret" or "undisclosed" patents exists today, and even then this still is regarded as illegal, something I can't find logical (or just for that matter).
Yes, you are right. But no one reads that anyway unless they're trying to avoid being sued or something else law-related.
However, one can argue that an invention was indeed copied since it's all out there in the open. So this just strenghtens the argument that patents takes away rights (yes, it sounds a bit RMS).
Whenever a patent is granted the patent office is basicly saying "we have chosen that this invention is so great that we don't think anyone is going to come up with a similar idea in more than 20 years. We must protect society and grant this person exclusive rights to this invention so that we can all prosper from this in 20 years."
So even if someone does come up with a similar idea within 10 years or so it doesn't matter, because the patent office has decided that we as a society "couldn't take the risk of this not being invented by someone else, so we had to make him tell us the details." They decide what people are allowed to invent, or "figure out" is I put it earlier.
Protection against copying really should be handled by copyright law. If someone invents something that is so unlike something someone else invented that it isn't voilating copyright law, I don't quite see what it's voilating at all.
How is it fair for me to put in a lot of work on something, go through the trials and errors, only to have someone look at my finished project, and copy it... especially when that person will make a financial gain from it.
That's a valid point. But isn't that what we have copyrights for? Wouldn't it be easier to just enhance copyright law to take care of this and remove patents instead of trying to fix something that is almost out of control?
Protecting things from copying is fair and nice, but patents protect things that aren't even invented yet. The whole idea of patents just looks like it's begging for trouble IMO.
I guess just staying inside the law is not an option then? I mean who cares if he's holding up your whatnots if you just run a legit business?
So, like most other things I fall squarely in the middle of the two camps, and get shot at from both sides.
;)
Please, let me
Seriously though, consider this: I write a piece of software. I'm a total geek and a math wiz and it turns out I manage to create a really nice algorythm for [insert tech word here].
I want to make money off this or maybe share it to the community, regardless it's released and distributed and one beautiful morning I'm being sued for patent violations. Turns out some big company thought of this a good 10 years ago and has a patent on doing roughly the same thing my algorythm does.
What did I do wrong? Why am I being punished? Is this fair? This wasn't an obvious thing to patent, I'm just a bright kid and stumbled across it.
This is not a "nothing is perfect"-thing, this is a serious flaw. Patents (especially in software) means no one has any rights what so ever, *unless* you happen to be the first guy figuring something out, in which case you suddenly have *all* and exclusive rights.
I'm not taking about patenting obvious things: with patents no one is allowed to invent things unless they're the first one. It doesn't matter if you figured it out all by yourself, if someone beat you to it you simply have no rights.
How is that fair?
You can build things and link to libraries that are GPL and not GPL them.
Whoopsie daysie, that's not true. From gnu.org:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
You can link non-GPL programs only with LGPL libraries.
That's amazing! Does that mean that any ROM on any device can be read this way?
(Thank you for a fine explanation btw.)
and so the why the #$#^ care so much if someone else makes money off of software that includes your work.
The owner of the work who decides the license in the first place wants to protect his interest, and he wants other people like himself to use his code but he doesn't want some big company to ripp everyone off and make money off something they had nothing to do with.
How is that cowardly?
- does GPL really protect against commerical companies taking the code over other open source licenses? in theory, it should. but many companies probably take GPL code and use it illegally, sometimes it's just hard to know (i know this isn't an argument against the GPL, just something that everyone should be aware of).
A valid point. But if companies steal GPL-code either someone will notice at some time, or the company will know it has "blood on its hands" and stay out of court whenever it comes across the GPL. And that counts for something.
So if the code taken can't be recognized over time, it's not really a mayor loss. It's unethical for the company doing so, but it's not a setback for free software in any big way.
Well come to think about it, you use your software under the mercy of MS. If they chose to release a new Windows and make something you use in windows incompatible with the old version, you're forced to spending money on upgrading, eventhough what you have is currently working just fine.
You might be forced into buying some program you use in a new version, since the software developers aren't supporting the old one for the old windows, in addition to buying a new windows. Ofcourse, your old computer isn't capable of using the new windows, so there goes a new computer as well.
This is how it works with properitary software, you really are a much more free man with free software.
Damn it, one more thing:
I didn't mean to bash against obvious patents, my point is that anything that can be invented many times by different people at different times (because it's basicly logic after all, and all it requires is time) should not have anything to do with patents. Patents deny other people to "figure something out" just because someone "figured it out" first.
I've got one, and it might even fit with the american way of thinking (just maybe..), you've probably heard a lot of this before though:
Being granted a patent means full disclosure of the technology involved, and thus giving the owner exclusive rights over that particular technology (whatever is patented). If someone else where to lets say invent something extraordinary similar in his own basement sometime later (maybe the products with the new patented technology haven't even made the stores yet) then he would be denied his own invention (he did make it all by himself after all), just because someone came up with something basicly the same before him (and filed a patent).
Yes, the second guy could have read the patent papers, but lets say he didn't, in which case he would be denied the rights to his own invention. Se because of patents, whoever comes up with something first has certain rights (exclusive rights actually), and everyone else has butt kiss, no matter what. First guy: everything, runner up: nothing. It means that when it comes to software because of patents you have no rights what so ever, absolutely nothing, _unless_ you by any chance happen to be the first guy that _ever_ wrote something remotely like this.
This is flawed logic in my eyes. The same analogy can be used for genes. They're all there, just waiting to be labeled with a "function" or a role if you will. And whoever manages to do that first (it doesn't matter if it's somewhat obvious and a bunch of scientists figure it out 2 weeks later) gets all the rights, everyone else: nothing. Being "the first guy" somehow makes you "own" whatever you discover (for a limited time, but still). Why is this fair? It's like having the olympics, but only once every 30 years, 'cause only one guy is allowed to be "number one" (just like patents).
Copyright does not work this way, it only protects copying. This is much more fair. Anyone who figures out some great technology is allowed rights to that technology as long as they didn't copy it off someone else.
Obviously there is one flaw here, which is reverse engineering.
But commercial software still lives prosperously, and European companies aren't reverse engineering US software and duplicating this into their own products are they? The whole idea that "patents is a good thing and must exist or else everyone will rip off everyone else" is flawed, Europe does not have patents on software, and yet they aren't taking advantage of this supposedly "glaringly obvious rip off potential." Software existed quite nicely without patents. We simply don't need them, reverse engineering is only done when there's no other alternatives (like reverse engineering hardware drivers), not to ripp off competing software (which wouldn't be competing, it would be playing catch up).
IMHO.
This is very different from a wiretap. Would it be OK to have surveillance cameras secretly installed in peoples houses too, even with a warrant?