If there were no copyright, then what CherryOS is doing to PearPC would be perfectly fine. Copyright exists in part to prevent just this sort of thing.
US Christians are always trying to claim that most people in the USA are christian, that it's a "christian nation", etc. But then point out that most people don't live by christian ideals, and the story suddenly changes: "They're not "real" christians!!". Even worse, they start playing the "persecution" card. Face it: you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
Or maybe it could be that there's more than one Christian in the world. You know, the people that say that "most people in the USA are christian" are one group of people and those that say "They're not 'real' christians!!" are another group.
Would it help if I pointed out that the people who quote the former are often people who try to do very un-christian (based on the teachings of Jesus) like things, such as justify discrimination and impose their wills on other?
But regardless, its kind of pointless to argue about it. Christianity really encompasses a wide variety of beliefs, with the common factor that these beliefs are based on a faith in Jesus. I'm sure that the "bad" Christians are just as much Christians in their minds, and the minds of others, as the "good" Christians.
It might also be worthwhile pointing out that a lot of the bad things that Christianity has wrought in the past were more politically motivated than religiously. Religion was just a rather convenient means of controlling the masses. This is why it really pains me that so many religious people don't seem to think critically about the things they learn, preach, and do.
The difference being that the government didn't fire these people. Private corporations did. They didn't lose their lives or freedoms, and they are perfectly free to move on to another job. Hardly the same as throwing someone in a Siberian prison.
These people were not stopped from speaking their mind. Said companies are not obligated to keep employees that were badmouthing thier companies, or disclosing secrets online.
The troubles surrounding him are almost entirely due to the "Penny Arcade Incident"
Basically, someone on Penny Arcade's forums made some avatars that were remarkably similar in style to Squidi's sprites. Squidi, believed that said person ripped off his sprites and modified them without giving him credit.
At any rate, he petitioned the forum moderators, Gabe, and Tycho to remove the avatars. Squidi, however, doesn't seem to have a lot of tact in certain situations, and gave the impression that he was threatening Penny Arcade with a lawsuit. He also asked his forum members to harass people in the Penny Arcade forums.
In the end, Gabe wrote some stuff about him on the front page, basically painting him in a negative light. Other webcomics, such as PvP, picked up on the drama, and did overly-exaggerated takes on the situation (basically, somewhat claiming that he was trying to copyright pixels).
In the end, it was mostly a big understanding, but Squidi seems to remain pretty bitter about the whole thing.
I like Simpson's work well enough, but he seems to have a bad habit of only seeing the worst in Republicans, and taking a more moderate view of Democrats. Although showing Republicans as intelligent, rational people wouldn't be particularly funny, so I guess I have to forgive him.
Truth is most of the Republicans I know are just as well-intentioned, intelligent, and moral as Democrats.
Evolution is a theory, just as gravity and the behavior of atoms are theories. The problem is that people often mix up theory with hypothesis and speculation.
When your average joe-six-pack thinks of a theory, he thinks of something which has little or no evidence backing it, and is mostly speculation and hypothesis. When a scientist thinks of a theory, he thinks of something which has much evidence backing it, is a solid explanation for the way an aspect of the world works, and has held up under close scrutiny by the scientific community.
A scientific theory is closer to fact than a lay-man's theory. The issue comes from the fact that your average religious person doesn't really understand this.
I loved FFXI, but this is the main reason I quit. I saw that I had two options:
1) Come home from work, log onto FFXI, play until I need to sleep.
2) Come home from work, log onto WoW for an hour or two, work on a project or socialize with friends.
For me, the choice was obvious.
I enjoy video games, but there is more I want to do with my life than play games. When I'm 90 years old, I don't think that a level 75 WHM would really make up for all the opportunities I missed in my youth.
I think the idea is that the world would be a better place, in some possibly slight degree, if the freedoms the FSF champions were more universally recognized and codified in licenses like the GPL. It's something you have to think through fully and balance in your own mind. You're asking someone to explain it to you, but it's already been fully explained. It's ok for you to come to a different conclusion, but the information is out there, so I suppose you just haven't taken the time to think it through. If you had, you wouldn't be asking for someone to explain it to you.
I suppose that I stated that in an unclear manner. I have thought it through, and my conclusion is different than the FSF's. But I perceived that RMS is saying that my point of view is wrong and anti-social, and that it is not ok for me to have that conclusion. Thus I was more asking for someone to defend that position.
Show me what any rights are based on. If you are an American, you have "rights" which are protected by the Constitution. But when push comes to shove your rights are protected by some show of violence, either by yourself (2nd Ammendment), or by the police. Is that the kind of right you mean? In that case, there are certainly no "rights" backing up the "freedoms" the FSF promotes. In fact, the "right" backing up copyright and "intellectual property", which makes the FSF, the GPL, etc. necessary in the first place, also derives (in the US) from the Constitution. So, all these rights and freedoms pretty much boil down to a public understanding that we will hurt or kill you if you fuck with us along the lines that we have laid out. Nice, huh?
Nice point. However, RMS's vision would be denying me of a very well-accepted right: the right of choice. If I develop a proprietary solution and sell it to someone, they have gained a net benefit. They can choose to not buy my software, and they will be no worse off then they were before. I know of no right that a proprietary software takes away. Unless you feel that it is your right for someone to provide you the tools to modify your products. In that case, there are a lot of products out there that are violating your rights, far beyond software.
I know it is an extreme metaphor, but here it is: Owning slaves used to be a right, a sacred property right. It was a right because it was accepted as one, because people believed that the world was a better place with slavery in it. People later decided this wasn't so, and a different set of "rights" and "freedoms" ascended. Why? Because people thought that the world would be a better place, in some possibly slight degree.
I don't really agree with this example. People didn't necessarily abolish slavery because it was a better place without slavery (which it is), but rather because people came to realize that keeping people in slavery was a basic violation of their commonly accepted rights. Rights which were codified in a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think the set of rights changed, but the enforcement of them.
One of the things about rights is that you have them simply because you are human. If something is a right, then it is a right even if other people do not believe so. Even if your government does not protect your right.
It is hard to enumerate and quantify rights (which is why the framers of the Constitution did not try to do so). Really, it is inevitible that different people have different concepts of rights. You may think that proprietary software violates your rights, but I may think that line of thinking is silly. What I was looking for was some line of reasoning that would support the claim that this should be a right. Some validation, if you will, which has been lacking in all the material that I have read.
All rights and freedoms derive from consensus. Consensus can change. The law can change. The Constitution can change. There is nothing immutable here. It's just a question of which set of "rights" and "freedoms" you t
Not at all. I said that I don't hate RMS but I dislike what he is saying. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be saying what he is saying, but rather that I disagree with what he says and dislike it. That is, in no way, trying to control what he says or do. Neither is it criticizing him for saying what people should say and do.
I dislike the fact that you choose to flame me without understanding my arguments, and decide to put words in my mouth.
Yes, yes, I've seen that page many times. However show me the rights that those freedoms are based upon. What right am I violating by developing proprietary software? Why should you take away my right to use or distribute my own creation as I wish, thus my freedom to choose how to distribute my software, for those made-up freedoms?
I'm asking for someone to explain to me why I should believe that its ok to throw away my freedoms for those. I'm not asking for people to regurgitate RMS's emotionally-charged BS.
Issues concerning "stuff" are only important because they relate to some greater civil right. Restricting what you can print on a printing press is an issue because it limits your right to free speech. The shoe example would be an important civil issue because the government is oppressing the person in question, and is violating what is an assumed right: the right to express oneself through the clothes one wears. I'm not sure that these examples apply to proprietary software.
Lets modify the example. Say I sold you a printing press that couldn't print the letter A. First of all, you are not required to buy my printing press. You could go ahead and buy RMS's printing press if you so-desired. Secondly, you are, of course, free to modify my printing press. However, that does not mean I am obligated to provide you the tools (source code) to modify it. If you do not like this situation, it is your right to take your business elsewhere. This is a more analogous situation.
Furthermore, it is not your right to copy my printing press and sell it to other people. Nor is it your right to copy other people's books using my printing press and sell them to other people.
With software, you have the ability and the right to choose what software you use. You have the right to modify that software, or reverse engineer it. You do not have a right to unmitigated access to the source code and tools used in developing this program. The denial of these tools does not violate any of your rights, while forcing inclusion of these tools violates my rights as a programmer: the right of choice.
If you could perhaps outlines what freedoms (including assumed rights, since the bulk of our rights are assumed rather than explicit), proprietary software violates, perhaps I will be more sympathetic to your cause. Of course, that depends on whether I agree with you that these rights are actually rights.
I do not take the FS movement seriously because they tend to avoid outlining what rights and freedoms proprietary software is violating, and instead appeal to emotion. I would like facts, and evidence.
I dislike that he says I shouldn't have the freedom to decide what to do with my code.
I dislike that he says I shouldn't be able to profit off of software that I have writtern. (The custom programs/modifications argument doesn't apply to all software, so please don't pretend that it does.)
I dislike the fact that he throws around the word "freedom" cheaply, without defining what freedoms are actually violated by proprietary software.
I dislike the fact that he insults me because I do not share his views.
I dislike the fact that he is trying to trample on my freedoms in some narrow-sighted campaign.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.... I wish that someone could explain to me exactly what "freedom" or right I'm violating by developing closed-source software.
Most of the people that I know that are learning Japanese draw great benefits from things like manga, anime, and Japanese video games (all in original Japanese language of course). One of the best tools I had when learning Japanese was Final Fantasy XI, in fact.
The difficulty you're having stems from the fact that you're trying to force us (those who have no problem with proprietary software) into your mindset. Of course if you look at it at your point of view and with your set of beliefs we're evil or whatnot. The difference is we don't share your beliefs.
This is the difference: I don't believe that it is your right or freedom to have unmitigated access to software I write. I don't believe that you have some vague "freedom" that is violated by proprietary software. Conversely, I believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I wish with software I write. If that involves keeping it closed-source and selling it, then that is my freedom. If you do not like the fact that my software is closed-source, then you are free to not buy my software.
You say that we have not given you any good reason as to how we can morally develop proprietary software. I say you haven't given me any reason as to why writing proprietary software is immoral. Yes, I have read RMS's papers. No, I don't agree with his reasoning.
As another poster said, that FSM advocates somehow elevates software, which I view in nearly the same manner as the computer components I buy, to some human right... frankly it baffles me. I've tried to understand where I'm comming from, but it makes about as much sense as you screaming in a department store that you have a "right" to the latest TV, and that you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Except that most adware have some clause buried deep in the EULA that indicates that they will install the adware. The user clicks OK to the EULA, so technically he has given permission.
Given that they're basing their argument on the asssumption that DirectRevenue "knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers," (Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle...) I don't think there is much to worry about. Users running ad-aware are directly giving their consent to the program to modify their system.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were no copyright, then what CherryOS is doing to PearPC would be perfectly fine. Copyright exists in part to prevent just this sort of thing.
US Christians are always trying to claim that most people in the USA are christian, that it's a "christian nation", etc. But then point out that most people don't live by christian ideals, and the story suddenly changes: "They're not "real" christians!!". Even worse, they start playing the "persecution" card. Face it: you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
Or maybe it could be that there's more than one Christian in the world. You know, the people that say that "most people in the USA are christian" are one group of people and those that say "They're not 'real' christians!!" are another group.
Would it help if I pointed out that the people who quote the former are often people who try to do very un-christian (based on the teachings of Jesus) like things, such as justify discrimination and impose their wills on other?
But regardless, its kind of pointless to argue about it. Christianity really encompasses a wide variety of beliefs, with the common factor that these beliefs are based on a faith in Jesus. I'm sure that the "bad" Christians are just as much Christians in their minds, and the minds of others, as the "good" Christians.
It might also be worthwhile pointing out that a lot of the bad things that Christianity has wrought in the past were more politically motivated than religiously. Religion was just a rather convenient means of controlling the masses. This is why it really pains me that so many religious people don't seem to think critically about the things they learn, preach, and do.
World of Warcraft also uses Bittorrent for their patching system.
The difference being that the government didn't fire these people. Private corporations did. They didn't lose their lives or freedoms, and they are perfectly free to move on to another job. Hardly the same as throwing someone in a Siberian prison.
These people were not stopped from speaking their mind. Said companies are not obligated to keep employees that were badmouthing thier companies, or disclosing secrets online.
No freedom of speech was denied.
The troubles surrounding him are almost entirely due to the "Penny Arcade Incident" Basically, someone on Penny Arcade's forums made some avatars that were remarkably similar in style to Squidi's sprites. Squidi, believed that said person ripped off his sprites and modified them without giving him credit. At any rate, he petitioned the forum moderators, Gabe, and Tycho to remove the avatars. Squidi, however, doesn't seem to have a lot of tact in certain situations, and gave the impression that he was threatening Penny Arcade with a lawsuit. He also asked his forum members to harass people in the Penny Arcade forums. In the end, Gabe wrote some stuff about him on the front page, basically painting him in a negative light. Other webcomics, such as PvP, picked up on the drama, and did overly-exaggerated takes on the situation (basically, somewhat claiming that he was trying to copyright pixels). In the end, it was mostly a big understanding, but Squidi seems to remain pretty bitter about the whole thing.
Sounds like Martian Successor Nadesico
And whats to stop them from doing the same with Credit Cards?
I like Simpson's work well enough, but he seems to have a bad habit of only seeing the worst in Republicans, and taking a more moderate view of Democrats. Although showing Republicans as intelligent, rational people wouldn't be particularly funny, so I guess I have to forgive him.
Truth is most of the Republicans I know are just as well-intentioned, intelligent, and moral as Democrats.
Evolution is a theory, just as gravity and the behavior of atoms are theories. The problem is that people often mix up theory with hypothesis and speculation.
When your average joe-six-pack thinks of a theory, he thinks of something which has little or no evidence backing it, and is mostly speculation and hypothesis. When a scientist thinks of a theory, he thinks of something which has much evidence backing it, is a solid explanation for the way an aspect of the world works, and has held up under close scrutiny by the scientific community.
A scientific theory is closer to fact than a lay-man's theory. The issue comes from the fact that your average religious person doesn't really understand this.
I use Weather Corner Alert on my home PC. I would recommend it.
I loved FFXI, but this is the main reason I quit. I saw that I had two options:
1) Come home from work, log onto FFXI, play until I need to sleep.
2) Come home from work, log onto WoW for an hour or two, work on a project or socialize with friends.
For me, the choice was obvious.
I enjoy video games, but there is more I want to do with my life than play games. When I'm 90 years old, I don't think that a level 75 WHM would really make up for all the opportunities I missed in my youth.
Or some sort of lawbot perhaps?
I think the idea is that the world would be a better place, in some possibly slight degree, if the freedoms the FSF champions were more universally recognized and codified in licenses like the GPL. It's something you have to think through fully and balance in your own mind. You're asking someone to explain it to you, but it's already been fully explained. It's ok for you to come to a different conclusion, but the information is out there, so I suppose you just haven't taken the time to think it through. If you had, you wouldn't be asking for someone to explain it to you.
I suppose that I stated that in an unclear manner. I have thought it through, and my conclusion is different than the FSF's. But I perceived that RMS is saying that my point of view is wrong and anti-social, and that it is not ok for me to have that conclusion. Thus I was more asking for someone to defend that position.
Show me what any rights are based on. If you are an American, you have "rights" which are protected by the Constitution. But when push comes to shove your rights are protected by some show of violence, either by yourself (2nd Ammendment), or by the police. Is that the kind of right you mean? In that case, there are certainly no "rights" backing up the "freedoms" the FSF promotes. In fact, the "right" backing up copyright and "intellectual property", which makes the FSF, the GPL, etc. necessary in the first place, also derives (in the US) from the Constitution. So, all these rights and freedoms pretty much boil down to a public understanding that we will hurt or kill you if you fuck with us along the lines that we have laid out. Nice, huh?
Nice point. However, RMS's vision would be denying me of a very well-accepted right: the right of choice. If I develop a proprietary solution and sell it to someone, they have gained a net benefit. They can choose to not buy my software, and they will be no worse off then they were before. I know of no right that a proprietary software takes away. Unless you feel that it is your right for someone to provide you the tools to modify your products. In that case, there are a lot of products out there that are violating your rights, far beyond software.
I know it is an extreme metaphor, but here it is: Owning slaves used to be a right, a sacred property right. It was a right because it was accepted as one, because people believed that the world was a better place with slavery in it. People later decided this wasn't so, and a different set of "rights" and "freedoms" ascended. Why? Because people thought that the world would be a better place, in some possibly slight degree.
I don't really agree with this example. People didn't necessarily abolish slavery because it was a better place without slavery (which it is), but rather because people came to realize that keeping people in slavery was a basic violation of their commonly accepted rights. Rights which were codified in a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think the set of rights changed, but the enforcement of them.
One of the things about rights is that you have them simply because you are human. If something is a right, then it is a right even if other people do not believe so. Even if your government does not protect your right.
It is hard to enumerate and quantify rights (which is why the framers of the Constitution did not try to do so). Really, it is inevitible that different people have different concepts of rights. You may think that proprietary software violates your rights, but I may think that line of thinking is silly. What I was looking for was some line of reasoning that would support the claim that this should be a right. Some validation, if you will, which has been lacking in all the material that I have read.
All rights and freedoms derive from consensus. Consensus can change. The law can change. The Constitution can change. There is nothing immutable here. It's just a question of which set of "rights" and "freedoms" you t
Not at all. I said that I don't hate RMS but I dislike what he is saying. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be saying what he is saying, but rather that I disagree with what he says and dislike it. That is, in no way, trying to control what he says or do. Neither is it criticizing him for saying what people should say and do.
I dislike the fact that you choose to flame me without understanding my arguments, and decide to put words in my mouth.
Yes, yes, I've seen that page many times. However show me the rights that those freedoms are based upon. What right am I violating by developing proprietary software? Why should you take away my right to use or distribute my own creation as I wish, thus my freedom to choose how to distribute my software, for those made-up freedoms?
I'm asking for someone to explain to me why I should believe that its ok to throw away my freedoms for those. I'm not asking for people to regurgitate RMS's emotionally-charged BS.
Issues concerning "stuff" are only important because they relate to some greater civil right. Restricting what you can print on a printing press is an issue because it limits your right to free speech. The shoe example would be an important civil issue because the government is oppressing the person in question, and is violating what is an assumed right: the right to express oneself through the clothes one wears. I'm not sure that these examples apply to proprietary software.
Lets modify the example. Say I sold you a printing press that couldn't print the letter A. First of all, you are not required to buy my printing press. You could go ahead and buy RMS's printing press if you so-desired. Secondly, you are, of course, free to modify my printing press. However, that does not mean I am obligated to provide you the tools (source code) to modify it. If you do not like this situation, it is your right to take your business elsewhere. This is a more analogous situation.
Furthermore, it is not your right to copy my printing press and sell it to other people. Nor is it your right to copy other people's books using my printing press and sell them to other people.
With software, you have the ability and the right to choose what software you use. You have the right to modify that software, or reverse engineer it. You do not have a right to unmitigated access to the source code and tools used in developing this program. The denial of these tools does not violate any of your rights, while forcing inclusion of these tools violates my rights as a programmer: the right of choice.
If you could perhaps outlines what freedoms (including assumed rights, since the bulk of our rights are assumed rather than explicit), proprietary software violates, perhaps I will be more sympathetic to your cause. Of course, that depends on whether I agree with you that these rights are actually rights.
I do not take the FS movement seriously because they tend to avoid outlining what rights and freedoms proprietary software is violating, and instead appeal to emotion. I would like facts, and evidence.
I don't hate RMS, but I dislike his "movement".
I dislike that he says I shouldn't have the freedom to decide what to do with my code.
I dislike that he says I shouldn't be able to profit off of software that I have writtern. (The custom programs/modifications argument doesn't apply to all software, so please don't pretend that it does.)
I dislike the fact that he throws around the word "freedom" cheaply, without defining what freedoms are actually violated by proprietary software.
I dislike the fact that he insults me because I do not share his views.
I dislike the fact that he is trying to trample on my freedoms in some narrow-sighted campaign.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.... I wish that someone could explain to me exactly what "freedom" or right I'm violating by developing closed-source software.
Most of the people that I know that are learning Japanese draw great benefits from things like manga, anime, and Japanese video games (all in original Japanese language of course). One of the best tools I had when learning Japanese was Final Fantasy XI, in fact.
The difficulty you're having stems from the fact that you're trying to force us (those who have no problem with proprietary software) into your mindset. Of course if you look at it at your point of view and with your set of beliefs we're evil or whatnot. The difference is we don't share your beliefs. This is the difference: I don't believe that it is your right or freedom to have unmitigated access to software I write. I don't believe that you have some vague "freedom" that is violated by proprietary software. Conversely, I believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I wish with software I write. If that involves keeping it closed-source and selling it, then that is my freedom. If you do not like the fact that my software is closed-source, then you are free to not buy my software. You say that we have not given you any good reason as to how we can morally develop proprietary software. I say you haven't given me any reason as to why writing proprietary software is immoral. Yes, I have read RMS's papers. No, I don't agree with his reasoning. As another poster said, that FSM advocates somehow elevates software, which I view in nearly the same manner as the computer components I buy, to some human right... frankly it baffles me. I've tried to understand where I'm comming from, but it makes about as much sense as you screaming in a department store that you have a "right" to the latest TV, and that you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
I don't know, how many were? Can you name some? This is a serious question. I really don't know.
Except that most adware have some clause buried deep in the EULA that indicates that they will install the adware. The user clicks OK to the EULA, so technically he has given permission.
I don't really see a lesser of two evils, just two evils squabbling over who gets to screw you over.
Given that they're basing their argument on the asssumption that DirectRevenue "knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers," (Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle...) I don't think there is much to worry about. Users running ad-aware are directly giving their consent to the program to modify their system.