Think about Rwanda (...) where the UN might as well not have showed up for all the good that wasn't done.
Indeed, it's hard to intervene when the biggest military power in the world is pushing in the other direction. The dispute over the term 'Genocide' in document 14 is a fine example of political craftmanship, as agreeing that a Genocide was taking place would have required ALL nations, including the US, to intervene.
Now, I'm not saying that other nations haven't failed Rwanda either, but considering the example given by the US in this matter, it's not a big surprise that the UN failed...
Well, I must be the only one here, but I do believe that an anti DRM and Software Patent clause in the GPL is a good idea.
For a start, people have got to realise that the GPL was never meant to be a "nice" license. This license was born out of the continuing threat against developers and against their desire to share sourcecode with others (If you think the desire to share code is not under threat, check for a specific clause in your contract with your employer that states that all software you develop is theirs).
So yes, in a sense, and as it has long been accused, the GPL is viral, and this is being demonstrated here. But it's no more viral than the first article of the Human Rights declaration. And in essence, the GPL is the equivalent of the Human Rights declaration for Software.
A lot of whining going on around the GPL, and it being too restrictive already, can be pretty much interpreted to people using the first article of the declaration of Human Rights to their advantage ("Hey, I'm as egal as anybody else, so give me the rights to access your GPL'd sourcecode"), but then complaining that it is in some way too restrictive to their interest ("Couldn't I be more equal than others and not share the code I developed out of GPL'd elements?"). And here lies the true secret of the GPL. The GPL is not directed at helping you. It is directed at helping others "benefit" from you!
Understood, it is hard to relinquish your rights from something you invested a lot of time and effort in, and not profit from it. But I think it is time we collectively realize that unchecked capitalism will never profit mankind as much as the free (as in free beer) sharing of resources. Of course, some of you will disagree with this last statement. But then, have you started seeing a trend between increased capitalism and an even smaller number of individual controlling more and more of the planet's resources? How long till you are excluded from that small circle and trying to play catchup with people who will not relinquish any of their developments (because, after all, they have no incentive to do so whatsoever)?
Oh, and while we're at it, does my believing that capitalism is notthe ultimate answer make me a communist? I sure hope not!
Now, why would they want to add a clause against DRM and Software Patents to the GPL? The answer is fairly simple if you consider how viral capitalism really is (even more so than what Microsoft has been accusing the GPL of)
When no safeguard exist between a capilastic and a somewhat nicer and more altruistic approach, which one do you think will prevail? Which one do you think will try to use the other to its advantage?
Just consider where we would be if the greatest ideas in science had been patented and DRMed from the beginning of the 20th century onwards?
Do you really think you would be posting on/. for a start?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'm not saying that other nations haven't failed Rwanda either, but considering the example given by the US in this matter, it's not a big surprise that the UN failed...
Well, I must be the only one here, but I do believe that an anti DRM and Software Patent clause in the GPL is a good idea. For a start, people have got to realise that the GPL was never meant to be a "nice" license. This license was born out of the continuing threat against developers and against their desire to share sourcecode with others (If you think the desire to share code is not under threat, check for a specific clause in your contract with your employer that states that all software you develop is theirs). So yes, in a sense, and as it has long been accused, the GPL is viral, and this is being demonstrated here. But it's no more viral than the first article of the Human Rights declaration. And in essence, the GPL is the equivalent of the Human Rights declaration for Software. A lot of whining going on around the GPL, and it being too restrictive already, can be pretty much interpreted to people using the first article of the declaration of Human Rights to their advantage ("Hey, I'm as egal as anybody else, so give me the rights to access your GPL'd sourcecode"), but then complaining that it is in some way too restrictive to their interest ("Couldn't I be more equal than others and not share the code I developed out of GPL'd elements?"). And here lies the true secret of the GPL. The GPL is not directed at helping you. It is directed at helping others "benefit" from you! Understood, it is hard to relinquish your rights from something you invested a lot of time and effort in, and not profit from it. But I think it is time we collectively realize that unchecked capitalism will never profit mankind as much as the free (as in free beer) sharing of resources. Of course, some of you will disagree with this last statement. But then, have you started seeing a trend between increased capitalism and an even smaller number of individual controlling more and more of the planet's resources? How long till you are excluded from that small circle and trying to play catchup with people who will not relinquish any of their developments (because, after all, they have no incentive to do so whatsoever)? Oh, and while we're at it, does my believing that capitalism is notthe ultimate answer make me a communist? I sure hope not! Now, why would they want to add a clause against DRM and Software Patents to the GPL? The answer is fairly simple if you consider how viral capitalism really is (even more so than what Microsoft has been accusing the GPL of) When no safeguard exist between a capilastic and a somewhat nicer and more altruistic approach, which one do you think will prevail? Which one do you think will try to use the other to its advantage? Just consider where we would be if the greatest ideas in science had been patented and DRMed from the beginning of the 20th century onwards? Do you really think you would be posting on /. for a start?