I switched because the Linux kernel is released under the GPL which respects my freedom. It can be combined with other free programs to make a complete operating system respecting my freedom. There are other reasons why I switched but they are all trivial compared to having freedom.
"Is software truly free if you have to distribute any changes you make to it?"
I have never heard of any law that requires one "to distribute any changes you make to [free software]". This only happens in the proprietary and some of the open source worlds. That is, if you make software while under a traditional non-disclosure agreement, you are required by law to distribute that work to the company with whom you've signed a contract with (and with everyone else too if it is under a particular open source license).
Your entire argument was based on this supposed law that says if you have free software you must distribute it. This is not reality as far as I'm aware of. Could you please clarify so we can continue or please tell me where such a license exists?
"You" also say:
"BSD does not step on anyone else's freedom, it makes code truly free."
Yes it is truly free, but I do not agree that it does not step on anyone else's freedom. I agree if you mean directly, but the hidden costs are obviously there but impossible to quantify. You can't "measure" what harm it brings when you give people the opportunity to dominate others (i.e. proprietary software). And yes, the BSD is doesn't directly dominate but much of its resultant energy goes into dominative software. So the connection between the BSD and the strengthening of the harmful social effects of the proprietary world is obviously present but not measurable outside of anecdotal evidence. Now you can believe that the harm is not significant but that is where we would part ways. You can believe that proprietary software is a valid approach to the distribution of software. I don't agree. But I say that here is your conditioning that leads you to defend the proprietary model...
"The GPL is for zealots who think nobody should be able to code for profit."
The world does not owe you a living. I don't know where you get the assumption that the world owes you a paycheck for programming a computer. Money is being made producing and supporting free software and if you are not good enough to make enough to live on, then get a second job. Surely if you can program a computer you are clever enough to hold down a second job. Or do you really think that people who program computers are entitled to enormous silicon-valleyesque paychecks for writing code that ends up controlling and dominating everyone who agrees to install it? I don't know why you follow this mantra of "GPL zealots don't want programmers to make a profit" but look at the data. There are people making money from producing and supporting free software. In fact, the more the proprietary model is actually promoted - either directly or indirectly, the less the FOSS programmers can make. And unfortunately, the amount of huge money proprietary models make is not justified considering the harm proprietary software brings to society as compared to a free model. To justify the profits over the public is narrowly focused.
"The GPL is very good at accelerating collaboration, except when you can't accept the terms of the GPL."
I do not understand, the choice of acceptance of the GPL is made when one installs the GPLed software. I am at a wit's end trying to imagine a situation where "you can't accept the terms of the GPL". As far as I am aware, there are no programs that abort if you click "I Agree" when a chance to "accept" is presented to you. Now I suppose you could write a proprietary software license that dictated that free software could not run side by side with this package...is this what you are saying? I'm sorry, could you expand upon what you mean?
"Relativism can be viewed..."
My understanding of "philosophy" is to avoid viewing a view. I don't have any clue as to what you mean regarding "converting Africans". I mean, I do - considering I live in Africa and see religious folk attempting to "convert" Africans (and anyone for that matter) to their religious identity or worship of some historical figure. But I don't understand the connection with that and -
"Don't frame restrictions as freedom because you think you're right and someone else is wrong.
I totally agree with this. Obviously one should not frame anything based upon what one thinks is right or wrong. One should only frame their conclusion around what evidence is presented before them whilst being wary of possibly tricking themselves with a potentially hidden bias that they are not seeing. Indeed, I may be biased but I am at a loss as to where my reason has failed me. Could you be more specific in regards to that please?
Evil is a possible result of a free choice and a necessary result of a restriction."
I don't agree with this and suggest that you may be biased toward "restriction". That is, you may have been restricted too much in the past and have not found the right kind of relationship with restriction. Perhaps you were raised religious - in an organized sense? I'm not sure if this is the case I'm just trying to read from what you told me about "converting Africans". I'm not personally for converting anyone to anything in particular. I'm simply a human being and nothing more in that regard.
Anyway, I don't agree with this because obviously there are situations where restriction is good and after reviewing the evidence I keep seeing that it is good in the case of the GPL.
The GPL discourages collaboration. If you want to encourage collaboration you need a license like BSD. The GPL allows restricted collaboration, but only between GPL fans. The BSD license allows collaboration for everyone.
You are using the word "collaboration" in a deceitful manner. Kind of like the way George Bush uses the word "freedom".
More accurately would be...
The GPL encourages collaboration. If you want to encourage collusion you need a license like BSD. The GPL prevents collusion within a collaborative community. The BSD license allows anyone to collude to work against freedom.
The BSD mentality is really twisted. How many hits of the bong does it take to come up with this perspective?...
"The GPL is restrictive! You should have the freedom to take away people's freedom or else you don't truly have freedom!"
I'm amazed that this posting received an "Insightful" remark. Insight into what exactly?
"yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X""
Of course they don't call it "X". The dispute comes over what is considered to be an "operating system". X is a windowing system. Linus Torvalds has decided to use a computing scientist's viewpoint and propagate it as mainstream. Which is insane - but not if you want the world to believe they are using "Linux". Even Linus himself is caught in contradiction. He says the operating system that many of us use should be called "Linux" but then admits that a users never use an operating system - the users use programs which in turn use the operating system.
Linus's injection of the computer scientist's viewpoint into the mainstream world has served his interests and Open Source interests well. However, that trick has hurt the Free Software movement's philosophy. The trade off is the fact that OSS developers have contributed many programs to free software in exchange for obfuscation of the philosophy. But bottom line, to propagate the notion that an "operating system" is a kernel to anyone other than a fellow computer scientist is disingenuous. He's using that specialized angle to further his ego and downplay the socially charged topic of "freedom".
One should call the system "GNU/Linux" not for a sake of "credit". Richard Stallman doesn't want people to call it "GNU/Linux" so that people drool over his name. RMS wants people to call it this so they do not forget that freedom is what is at stake here. Linus wants people to call it "Linux" so he can stake out the spotlight for his ego. He has admitted many times he has an ego the size of the sun.
Torvalds should be thankful that Richard Stallman calls it Gnu+Linux. He needn't. The intent was to create a complete operating system called "the GNU system". The FSF had no intention of ever calling it "the GNU+Hurd system" or "GNU+anything system". They would only do so to differentiate between variants that may be created (i.e. Linux) - it just so happens to be the case.
Here's my opinion -
Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.
"I agree that some tactics of the proprietary software industry are less than desirable, but how many of us would be able to earn a living without them?"
Please don't associate the expression "make a living" with the "proprietary software industry". Proprietary software is about explotation toward the maximization of profit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "making a living".
If one is not able to make enough income from free software, then get another job until you are able to. It's that simple. If proprietary software developers were honest with themselves, they would say - "But how am I supposed to squeeze the absolute maximum amount of money out of society to put in my bank account if I don't oppress computer users?" rather than, "But how can I make a living?"
Asking the latter in the context of proprietary software is disingenuous.
Don't pursue education as a means to an end. If you pursue education simply for the love of it, income will take care of itself.
Your question is off-kilter.
Chasing classes with an extrinsic intent is destructive to yourself and therefore, society as a whole.
Pursue what you are passionate about - not what society says will reap a flashy resume and a 'secure' job. Your passion will take care of your needs so long as you do not abandon it. If you do not have faith in that, you are lost to begin with.
I cannot back up my claim with quantitative evidence - and that is the beauty of it.
The point is moot if the software is FOSS. It's only an issue if you believe that out-of-house non-free software is socially acceptable.
Oh wait...I'm one of those freaks that sees software licensing as an ethical issue as well as a technical one. Oh, silly, zealous, religious, extremist me...
Please forgive me for caring about society as a whole.
"I just find it pathetic that you are screwing your students"
The AP classes can be done independently. I have never told my students not to take the AP Computer Science exam. And I would be more than glad to help them find resources and answer questions to the best of my ability. Because I find the AP program to be vastly inferior to the IB program - after scrutinizing both to death (how about you?) - this does not imply I am "screwing [my] students". Now if I had come here and said -
"I am a technology teacher but I refuse to teach programming" and you said I was crazy and was doing the students a disservice, you would be correct.
Please see my response to "Anonymous Coward" (much of it applies to you) and once you've done some more research into both programs, feel free to send me your thoughts. If you continue to use an abrasive and insulting tone, I am afraid I will likely lose interest in what you have to say. I would very much like to hear your thoughts - that is, if you can enter into the act of persuasion rather than antagonism.
"But you're the teacher.."
In this dialogue I am not. We are equals. Now please take the time to do your homework, and offer me something that can be reflected upon. And don't extol the "virtues of Java". I know that Java is an excellent (although "sexy") language - but this is not what is in question. There are many fine languages to choose from. This is not what is in question. What is in question is an approach to learning. The fact that Java is proprietary is actually a secondary issue with me - but it is still a kick in the face.
I see you are not interested in a serious discussion. A discussion that we could both learn from.
The AP "choosing" - or more accurately - dictating - what language will be taught is not in accordance with constructivist teaching. The AP (registered trademark of the College Board btw) curriculum is structured in a way that encourages competition as a means of learning.
In case you did not read my last post or do any investigation yourself, I highly recommend you look at the IB (International Baccalaureate) program. It does not require a specific language. Obviously you think that the language IS the standard - which is baloney and a superficial way of looking at the process of learning when it comes to computer programming. To become a good programmer, you must understand concepts - concepts that are language independent. For example, to teach inheritance or polymorphism, you do not need to standardize the language. You simply need to choose a language that supports the concepts you wish to cover.
If you wish to discuss this with me further and perhaps convince me through reasoning that I am doing something unethical by encouraging a more abstract approach to computer programming, then you will have to discontinue the attempt to insult me with your posts. Your nature of communication is not one that bothers me, but makes me disinterested in your ideas. Perhaps you have some good ideas to offer and it would be a shame if I was not enlightened with them due to your abrasive and rude nature of communication.
However, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and feel free to get back to me once you've examined both the AP and IB programs, and can come up with a reasoned critique as to why you feel the AP is a superior approach and advocation of another program is harmful to my students education.
Since I am "stupid" and you are an aware and intelligent person, I would like to hear what you have to say - but you will have to learn to respectfully communicate. Remember, I am a human being - not a borg in cyberspace. If your immediate reaction is to throw an insult out, I wish you much luck in your face-to-face communication with other beings during the course of your life. You will need it.
"The students are there to learn, not to have your value system enforced upon them."
I don't understand your logic. The AP Computer Science structure is put forth in such a way that forces students to learn java.
The IB (International Baccalaureate) program, however, forces no language upon the students. The language is chosen by the teacher and programming is taught in a much more conceptual manner. It is a much more solid and educationally sound program.
So yes, my "value system" - as you call it - is one where the students have more choice in how they will learn the fundamental concepts in a class.
I suppose that "teaching" - in your ideal definition - is a profession that should never question the status quo and build students up to become mechanical cogs in the clockwork of society. No, I have a much different view of what it means to educate - sorry to disappoint you when I advocate free-thinking, choice, and independence when it comes to learning.
Sorry I am letting you and society down being a "shitty teacher" by not getting students to follow what is popular. I apologize for being a human being with "values". As "they" say - "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
As a technology teacher, I have yet to embrace teaching the Advanced Placement Computer Science course to high school students. The reason? I do not wish to teach students using a proprietary language. The AP Computer Science course requires learning Java.
Not only does this one-language narrow approach limit the teacher and student, but the whole proprietary aspect of it just acts as a kick in the face.
I see what you are getting at. I think I'd want to see the actual law as conclusions based upon a journalistic article may be lacking.
Keeping with the article though, it does use a "boolean" AND in the intro -
"(ISPs) will face fines of up to $55,000 if they can be used to access child pornography and do not refer the information to the police."
This "and" refers to information and the way the article is written one might assume the "information" is the blanket statement that all ISPs can harbor child pornography. Although that statement can read that way I think it means specific information reported yet not refered to the police. In that case, both conditions must be present for the ISP to be liable. As you have stated, the first condition is automatic. The fact that they are an ISP means the first condition is true. But if condition #2 is not true then liability is not present. At least, that's how I'd interpret the law and I'm doubting any ISP will be found liable simply based on condition #1 if child pornography surfaces at their site without them being made aware beforehand. But yes, if the law is actually written to say that liability is present simply by being an ISP then the law needs to be rewritten. As long as the Internet exists in its current form, information cannot be 100% controlled - therefore to find an ISP guilty based upon only those grounds is not justified.
"You have made them aware of it, by telling them."
I don't understand. You haven't told anyone anything - except something that everyone knows already - that the internet is not 100% controllable. That's not awareness. That's like telling me I have to eat or I'll starve to death. Ummm, thanks for the tip.
"As long as it is true, which it is in this case"
Again, I do not understand. Which case? You have still not demonstrated that my ISP has this condition you speak of. Please come to my ISP, investigate, and draw up a report outlining the status and THEN I will be aware. Do not just say "all ISPs have this inherent flaw in them and now that you are all aware you are liable". That does not work and any judge with half a brain would not allow that approach. I highly doubt that is what is meant in the article. The "awareness" issue is much to vague to hold up in a court if it is used in that manner. I'm not even a lawyer and I'm sure I'd slam shut the book on anyone who tried to argue that my business should be shut down because someone announced on world news that "all ISPs can potentially be vehicles for child pornography" and claim that I am now "aware" of what content is flowing over my wires. Everyone already knows this is the case - this is the nature of the internet.
Surely what is meant by "awareness" means that someone has actually reported an incident and the ISP has neglected to follow up their "awareness" on THAT by forwarding the information to the authorities. Interpreting "awareness" in your blanket manner is unrealistic and wouldn't hold water in court. Furthermore, only someone with the intent to take your business down (not protect children) would even take it that far. To say this opens the door for those who wish to harm your business is a little on the paranoid side.
ATTENTION AUSTRALIAN ISPs: You're service can be used to access child pornography via the use of the NNTP, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, P2P and many other protocols.
So now that all the ISPs are aware they have to report it to the police."
---
You have not provided any evidence that my ISP can be used to access child pornography. You have simply stated a blanket claim that would not hold water in a court of law. Please visit my (theoretical) ISP and demonstrate to me that child pornography can be accessed.
The author asks - "How on earth are the ISPs... supposed to enforce this?"
This question is misguided according to the article.
"(Liability) if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
The ISPs are not the enforcers, the police are. Furthermore, it does not state that it is the duty of the ISP to try to track down infringment - but simply forward any reported infringement that comes their way. I do not find anything unreasonable here. It simply says that if the ISP is made aware that such activity is happening through their service they, by law, must report that to the police. It does not state that if such activities are happening then the ISP is liable no matter what. They are only liable if they are "made aware" and then neglect to act. I don't see anything wrong with this.
I would have to see more specific information on the law to consider it unjust. But from what the article states, I do not understand the author's alarm.
Putting aside the technical issues, I prefer the Linux platform over Windows because it respects my freedom. The license allows me to share the software with others without requiring anyone's permission and I can modify it to suit my needs (or hire someone to do so if I wish) without having to sign an agreement (like the Shared-Source agreements) that forfeits my freedom.
Obviously, it is important for companies to produce profit. However, there are many creative ways to do so in the software industry.
My question:
Do you feel it is appropriate to generate revenue for Microsoft at the expense of computer users' freedom?
Yep. Anyone who tries to use the argument that monetary incentive is required or innovation will not take place doesn't know their history nor do they have any common sense. That may be true for them, but projecting their own self-centered approach to life upon humanity as a whole is misguided and inaccurate. Free software existed with the beginning of computer programming. The phrase "free software" may not have come into being until Richard Stallman coined it, but the practice has been around for decades upon decades...
The notion that FOSS is about passion - not profit - reminds me of the movie "A Beautiful Mind".
Remember the scene in the bar when the genius contemplates what it would mean if nobody went after the girl?
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to make the world a better place, pursue your interests. Do not pursue a position, power, fame, money, or even a living. As long as you pursue what you truly love, the rest will take care of itself. This is not spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Only the most jaded and closed-minded of folks lambaste the FOSS movement as a 'software industry destroyer' and ask superficial questions like "But how do you make a living writing free software?".
Do what you love. Do what you are passionate about. The money will take care of itself.
This 2-parter from BBC was about as exciting as watching a lawn-bowling match among seniors.
The only challenging question was around the Euro case and Billy completely dodged the question as expected.
Surely Bill often agrees to interviews with stipulations concerning what questions can be asked in advance - lame, but that's what you get with power. I find it odd that the BBC gets a 2-part interview with Gates and the topic of free software isn't brought up at all. Perhaps Bill is afraid to let slip another ignorant 'commie' remark.
There is only one word to describe this interview...
I guess I'm not clear as to what you mean. I thought IBM was a hardware company as well as a software company. I don't mean they should get rid of all patents...just a long-term plan to be rid of software patents.
Are you saying that IBMs main source of income is through software IP rights? I'm not sure if it is but perhaps you could offer some insight into this. Would IBM really shut down completely without software patents or would it be a matter of downsizing? Downsizing and "eradication" are two different states.
I think that depends on how you refuse. If IBM came up with a publicly-posted, long-term action plan to eradicate their patent holdings there could be success in that. IP rights are not IBMs only source of income.
Sometimes you have to take a hit for the team.
IBM supposedly believes in Open Source. If this is true and they are not just piggy-backing this monumental revolution, then they should look for creative ways to aid the movement. But yes, they are just another big, self-centered corporation so I'm not holding my breath. But hey, anything can happen.
Yep, Java has to be free. One day I'd like to try teaching AP Computer Science to high school students...but not as long as Java is in chains. It is, unfortunately, the required and standard language for the course.
Last year IBM took a significant step forward in cooperation with the free software community, by offering blanket licenses for 500 of its patents to all free software developers.
I never thought I'd say this...but RMS seems to be taking things a little lightly. I don't buy the whole "IBM releases software patents" news. The 500 patents are a drop in the bucket.
Releasing patents and receiving praise for such action is (and yes, this is hyperbole) like releasing a few slaves whilst chaining most of them and then being hailed an emancipator.
Slashdot Mirror
I switched because the Linux kernel is released under the GPL which respects my freedom. It can be combined with other free programs to make a complete operating system respecting my freedom. There are other reasons why I switched but they are all trivial compared to having freedom.
I have never heard of any law that requires one "to distribute any changes you make to [free software]". This only happens in the proprietary and some of the open source worlds. That is, if you make software while under a traditional non-disclosure agreement, you are required by law to distribute that work to the company with whom you've signed a contract with (and with everyone else too if it is under a particular open source license).
Your entire argument was based on this supposed law that says if you have free software you must distribute it. This is not reality as far as I'm aware of. Could you please clarify so we can continue or please tell me where such a license exists?
"You" also say:
Yes it is truly free, but I do not agree that it does not step on anyone else's freedom. I agree if you mean directly, but the hidden costs are obviously there but impossible to quantify. You can't "measure" what harm it brings when you give people the opportunity to dominate others (i.e. proprietary software). And yes, the BSD is doesn't directly dominate but much of its resultant energy goes into dominative software. So the connection between the BSD and the strengthening of the harmful social effects of the proprietary world is obviously present but not measurable outside of anecdotal evidence. Now you can believe that the harm is not significant but that is where we would part ways. You can believe that proprietary software is a valid approach to the distribution of software. I don't agree. But I say that here is your conditioning that leads you to defend the proprietary model...
The world does not owe you a living. I don't know where you get the assumption that the world owes you a paycheck for programming a computer. Money is being made producing and supporting free software and if you are not good enough to make enough to live on, then get a second job. Surely if you can program a computer you are clever enough to hold down a second job. Or do you really think that people who program computers are entitled to enormous silicon-valleyesque paychecks for writing code that ends up controlling and dominating everyone who agrees to install it? I don't know why you follow this mantra of "GPL zealots don't want programmers to make a profit" but look at the data. There are people making money from producing and supporting free software. In fact, the more the proprietary model is actually promoted - either directly or indirectly, the less the FOSS programmers can make. And unfortunately, the amount of huge money proprietary models make is not justified considering the harm proprietary software brings to society as compared to a free model. To justify the profits over the public is narrowly focused.
Thanks for your reply,
Peter Rock Lacroix
I do not understand, the choice of acceptance of the GPL is made when one installs the GPLed software. I am at a wit's end trying to imagine a situation where "you can't accept the terms of the GPL". As far as I am aware, there are no programs that abort if you click "I Agree" when a chance to "accept" is presented to you. Now I suppose you could write a proprietary software license that dictated that free software could not run side by side with this package...is this what you are saying? I'm sorry, could you expand upon what you mean?
My understanding of "philosophy" is to avoid viewing a view. I don't have any clue as to what you mean regarding "converting Africans". I mean, I do - considering I live in Africa and see religious folk attempting to "convert" Africans (and anyone for that matter) to their religious identity or worship of some historical figure. But I don't understand the connection with that and -
I don't agree with this and suggest that you may be biased toward "restriction". That is, you may have been restricted too much in the past and have not found the right kind of relationship with restriction. Perhaps you were raised religious - in an organized sense? I'm not sure if this is the case I'm just trying to read from what you told me about "converting Africans". I'm not personally for converting anyone to anything in particular. I'm simply a human being and nothing more in that regard.
Anyway, I don't agree with this because obviously there are situations where restriction is good and after reviewing the evidence I keep seeing that it is good in the case of the GPL.
Anyway, thanks for responding,
Peter.
The GPL discourages collaboration. If you want to encourage collaboration you need a license like BSD. The GPL allows restricted collaboration, but only between GPL fans. The BSD license allows collaboration for everyone.
You are using the word "collaboration" in a deceitful manner. Kind of like the way George Bush uses the word "freedom".
More accurately would be...
The GPL encourages collaboration. If you want to encourage collusion you need a license like BSD. The GPL prevents collusion within a collaborative community. The BSD license allows anyone to collude to work against freedom.
The BSD mentality is really twisted. How many hits of the bong does it take to come up with this perspective?...
"The GPL is restrictive! You should have the freedom to take away people's freedom or else you don't truly have freedom!"
I'm amazed that this posting received an "Insightful" remark. Insight into what exactly?
Of course they don't call it "X". The dispute comes over what is considered to be an "operating system". X is a windowing system. Linus Torvalds has decided to use a computing scientist's viewpoint and propagate it as mainstream. Which is insane - but not if you want the world to believe they are using "Linux". Even Linus himself is caught in contradiction. He says the operating system that many of us use should be called "Linux" but then admits that a users never use an operating system - the users use programs which in turn use the operating system.
Linus's injection of the computer scientist's viewpoint into the mainstream world has served his interests and Open Source interests well. However, that trick has hurt the Free Software movement's philosophy. The trade off is the fact that OSS developers have contributed many programs to free software in exchange for obfuscation of the philosophy. But bottom line, to propagate the notion that an "operating system" is a kernel to anyone other than a fellow computer scientist is disingenuous. He's using that specialized angle to further his ego and downplay the socially charged topic of "freedom".
One should call the system "GNU/Linux" not for a sake of "credit". Richard Stallman doesn't want people to call it "GNU/Linux" so that people drool over his name. RMS wants people to call it this so they do not forget that freedom is what is at stake here. Linus wants people to call it "Linux" so he can stake out the spotlight for his ego. He has admitted many times he has an ego the size of the sun.
Torvalds should be thankful that Richard Stallman calls it Gnu+Linux. He needn't. The intent was to create a complete operating system called "the GNU system". The FSF had no intention of ever calling it "the GNU+Hurd system" or "GNU+anything system". They would only do so to differentiate between variants that may be created (i.e. Linux) - it just so happens to be the case.
Here's my opinion -
Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.
I choose the latter.
Please don't associate the expression "make a living" with the "proprietary software industry". Proprietary software is about explotation toward the maximization of profit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "making a living".
If one is not able to make enough income from free software, then get another job until you are able to. It's that simple. If proprietary software developers were honest with themselves, they would say - "But how am I supposed to squeeze the absolute maximum amount of money out of society to put in my bank account if I don't oppress computer users?" rather than, "But how can I make a living?"
Asking the latter in the context of proprietary software is disingenuous.
Don't pursue education as a means to an end. If you pursue education simply for the love of it, income will take care of itself.
Your question is off-kilter.
Chasing classes with an extrinsic intent is destructive to yourself and therefore, society as a whole.
Pursue what you are passionate about - not what society says will reap a flashy resume and a 'secure' job. Your passion will take care of your needs so long as you do not abandon it. If you do not have faith in that, you are lost to begin with.
I cannot back up my claim with quantitative evidence - and that is the beauty of it.
Oh wait...I'm one of those freaks that sees software licensing as an ethical issue as well as a technical one. Oh, silly, zealous, religious, extremist me...
Please forgive me for caring about society as a whole.
The AP classes can be done independently. I have never told my students not to take the AP Computer Science exam. And I would be more than glad to help them find resources and answer questions to the best of my ability. Because I find the AP program to be vastly inferior to the IB program - after scrutinizing both to death (how about you?) - this does not imply I am "screwing [my] students". Now if I had come here and said -
"I am a technology teacher but I refuse to teach programming" and you said I was crazy and was doing the students a disservice, you would be correct.
Please see my response to "Anonymous Coward" (much of it applies to you) and once you've done some more research into both programs, feel free to send me your thoughts. If you continue to use an abrasive and insulting tone, I am afraid I will likely lose interest in what you have to say. I would very much like to hear your thoughts - that is, if you can enter into the act of persuasion rather than antagonism.
"But you're the teacher .."
In this dialogue I am not. We are equals. Now please take the time to do your homework, and offer me something that can be reflected upon. And don't extol the "virtues of Java". I know that Java is an excellent (although "sexy") language - but this is not what is in question. There are many fine languages to choose from. This is not what is in question. What is in question is an approach to learning. The fact that Java is proprietary is actually a secondary issue with me - but it is still a kick in the face.
"You're stupid."
I see you are not interested in a serious discussion. A discussion that we could both learn from.
The AP "choosing" - or more accurately - dictating - what language will be taught is not in accordance with constructivist teaching. The AP (registered trademark of the College Board btw) curriculum is structured in a way that encourages competition as a means of learning.
In case you did not read my last post or do any investigation yourself, I highly recommend you look at the IB (International Baccalaureate) program. It does not require a specific language. Obviously you think that the language IS the standard - which is baloney and a superficial way of looking at the process of learning when it comes to computer programming. To become a good programmer, you must understand concepts - concepts that are language independent. For example, to teach inheritance or polymorphism, you do not need to standardize the language. You simply need to choose a language that supports the concepts you wish to cover.
If you wish to discuss this with me further and perhaps convince me through reasoning that I am doing something unethical by encouraging a more abstract approach to computer programming, then you will have to discontinue the attempt to insult me with your posts. Your nature of communication is not one that bothers me, but makes me disinterested in your ideas. Perhaps you have some good ideas to offer and it would be a shame if I was not enlightened with them due to your abrasive and rude nature of communication.
However, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and feel free to get back to me once you've examined both the AP and IB programs, and can come up with a reasoned critique as to why you feel the AP is a superior approach and advocation of another program is harmful to my students education.
Since I am "stupid" and you are an aware and intelligent person, I would like to hear what you have to say - but you will have to learn to respectfully communicate. Remember, I am a human being - not a borg in cyberspace. If your immediate reaction is to throw an insult out, I wish you much luck in your face-to-face communication with other beings during the course of your life. You will need it.
"The students are there to learn, not to have your value system enforced upon them."
I don't understand your logic. The AP Computer Science structure is put forth in such a way that forces students to learn java.
The IB (International Baccalaureate) program, however, forces no language upon the students. The language is chosen by the teacher and programming is taught in a much more conceptual manner. It is a much more solid and educationally sound program.
So yes, my "value system" - as you call it - is one where the students have more choice in how they will learn the fundamental concepts in a class.
I suppose that "teaching" - in your ideal definition - is a profession that should never question the status quo and build students up to become mechanical cogs in the clockwork of society. No, I have a much different view of what it means to educate - sorry to disappoint you when I advocate free-thinking, choice, and independence when it comes to learning.
Sorry I am letting you and society down being a "shitty teacher" by not getting students to follow what is popular. I apologize for being a human being with "values". As "they" say - "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
Not only does this one-language narrow approach limit the teacher and student, but the whole proprietary aspect of it just acts as a kick in the face.
I see what you are getting at. I think I'd want to see the actual law as conclusions based upon a journalistic article may be lacking.
Keeping with the article though, it does use a "boolean" AND in the intro -
"(ISPs) will face fines of up to $55,000 if they can be used to access child pornography and do not refer the information to the police."
This "and" refers to information and the way the article is written one might assume the "information" is the blanket statement that all ISPs can harbor child pornography. Although that statement can read that way I think it means specific information reported yet not refered to the police. In that case, both conditions must be present for the ISP to be liable. As you have stated, the first condition is automatic. The fact that they are an ISP means the first condition is true. But if condition #2 is not true then liability is not present. At least, that's how I'd interpret the law and I'm doubting any ISP will be found liable simply based on condition #1 if child pornography surfaces at their site without them being made aware beforehand. But yes, if the law is actually written to say that liability is present simply by being an ISP then the law needs to be rewritten. As long as the Internet exists in its current form, information cannot be 100% controlled - therefore to find an ISP guilty based upon only those grounds is not justified.
"You have made them aware of it, by telling them."
I don't understand. You haven't told anyone anything - except something that everyone knows already - that the internet is not 100% controllable. That's not awareness. That's like telling me I have to eat or I'll starve to death. Ummm, thanks for the tip.
"As long as it is true, which it is in this case"
Again, I do not understand. Which case? You have still not demonstrated that my ISP has this condition you speak of. Please come to my ISP, investigate, and draw up a report outlining the status and THEN I will be aware. Do not just say "all ISPs have this inherent flaw in them and now that you are all aware you are liable". That does not work and any judge with half a brain would not allow that approach. I highly doubt that is what is meant in the article. The "awareness" issue is much to vague to hold up in a court if it is used in that manner. I'm not even a lawyer and I'm sure I'd slam shut the book on anyone who tried to argue that my business should be shut down because someone announced on world news that "all ISPs can potentially be vehicles for child pornography" and claim that I am now "aware" of what content is flowing over my wires. Everyone already knows this is the case - this is the nature of the internet.
Surely what is meant by "awareness" means that someone has actually reported an incident and the ISP has neglected to follow up their "awareness" on THAT by forwarding the information to the authorities. Interpreting "awareness" in your blanket manner is unrealistic and wouldn't hold water in court. Furthermore, only someone with the intent to take your business down (not protect children) would even take it that far. To say this opens the door for those who wish to harm your business is a little on the paranoid side.
ATTENTION AUSTRALIAN ISPs:
You're service can be used to access child pornography via the use of the NNTP, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, P2P and many other protocols.
So now that all the ISPs are aware they have to report it to the police."
---
You have not provided any evidence that my ISP can be used to access child pornography. You have simply stated a blanket claim that would not hold water in a court of law. Please visit my (theoretical) ISP and demonstrate to me that child pornography can be accessed.
The author asks - "How on earth are the ISPs ... supposed to enforce this?"
This question is misguided according to the article.
"(Liability) if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
The ISPs are not the enforcers, the police are. Furthermore, it does not state that it is the duty of the ISP to try to track down infringment - but simply forward any reported infringement that comes their way. I do not find anything unreasonable here. It simply says that if the ISP is made aware that such activity is happening through their service they, by law, must report that to the police. It does not state that if such activities are happening then the ISP is liable no matter what. They are only liable if they are "made aware" and then neglect to act. I don't see anything wrong with this.
I would have to see more specific information on the law to consider it unjust. But from what the article states, I do not understand the author's alarm.
Mr. Taylor,
Putting aside the technical issues, I prefer the Linux platform over Windows because it respects my freedom. The license allows me to share the software with others without requiring anyone's permission and I can modify it to suit my needs (or hire someone to do so if I wish) without having to sign an agreement (like the Shared-Source agreements) that forfeits my freedom.
Obviously, it is important for companies to produce profit. However, there are many creative ways to do so in the software industry.
My question:
Do you feel it is appropriate to generate revenue for Microsoft at the expense of computer users' freedom?
Thanks,
Peter.
(http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com)
Yep. Anyone who tries to use the argument that monetary incentive is required or innovation will not take place doesn't know their history nor do they have any common sense. That may be true for them, but projecting their own self-centered approach to life upon humanity as a whole is misguided and inaccurate. Free software existed with the beginning of computer programming. The phrase "free software" may not have come into being until Richard Stallman coined it, but the practice has been around for decades upon decades...
Remember the scene in the bar when the genius contemplates what it would mean if nobody went after the girl?
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to make the world a better place, pursue your interests. Do not pursue a position, power, fame, money, or even a living. As long as you pursue what you truly love, the rest will take care of itself. This is not spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Only the most jaded and closed-minded of folks lambaste the FOSS movement as a 'software industry destroyer' and ask superficial questions like "But how do you make a living writing free software?".
Do what you love. Do what you are passionate about. The money will take care of itself.
The only challenging question was around the Euro case and Billy completely dodged the question as expected.
Surely Bill often agrees to interviews with stipulations concerning what questions can be asked in advance - lame, but that's what you get with power. I find it odd that the BBC gets a 2-part interview with Gates and the topic of free software isn't brought up at all. Perhaps Bill is afraid to let slip another ignorant 'commie' remark.
There is only one word to describe this interview...
B O R I N G
Are you saying that IBMs main source of income is through software IP rights? I'm not sure if it is but perhaps you could offer some insight into this. Would IBM really shut down completely without software patents or would it be a matter of downsizing? Downsizing and "eradication" are two different states.
I think that depends on how you refuse. If IBM came up with a publicly-posted, long-term action plan to eradicate their patent holdings there could be success in that. IP rights are not IBMs only source of income.
Sometimes you have to take a hit for the team.
IBM supposedly believes in Open Source. If this is true and they are not just piggy-backing this monumental revolution, then they should look for creative ways to aid the movement. But yes, they are just another big, self-centered corporation so I'm not holding my breath. But hey, anything can happen.
It's not wrong to dream is it? :)
Yes, this is a good analogy.
Yep, Java has to be free. One day I'd like to try teaching AP Computer Science to high school students...but not as long as Java is in chains. It is, unfortunately, the required and standard language for the course.
Last year IBM took a significant step forward in cooperation with the free software community, by offering blanket licenses for 500 of its patents to all free software developers. I never thought I'd say this...but RMS seems to be taking things a little lightly. I don't buy the whole "IBM releases software patents" news. The 500 patents are a drop in the bucket. Releasing patents and receiving praise for such action is (and yes, this is hyperbole) like releasing a few slaves whilst chaining most of them and then being hailed an emancipator.