If Congress decided to abolish copyright, it would be abolished by legislation, but if they wanted to abolish the right to free speech they would have to amend the Constitution.
I hate to nitpick, but in this case a distinction is important: the Congress (or anyone!) cannot abolish one's right to free speech, or any other natural right. A Constitutional amendment could, of course, abolish or limit the government's ability to enforce such a right.
Copyright is a good thing, but not how it is implemented today. I'd like to see copyright law be as it was 150 years ago, back when our legislators were less insane.
As much as I'd like to believe that our Congressional representatives and senators were less beholden to special interests a century and a half ago, in fact I'm fairly sure they were just beholden to different special interests (150 years ago would be 1860, so I guess that would be slaveholding and abolitionist lobbies).
It's the scene from The Princess Bride where Westley (and Buttercup) and the Prince confront each other. Although using it here is not most encouraging since at the time Westley can barely move, having only just recovered from being mostly dead.
Yes, if you're awarded an honorary doctorate, you can use it, although in many (most? all?) disciplines it's considered poor manners to use any title you haven't earned. And why go to all the trouble and expense to get an honorary doctorate if you can't use it around the people whom you presumably got it to impress?
Semi-unrelatedly, at some colleges, the highest administrator (Chancellor, President, whatever) is referred to as "Doctor" regardless of his or her actual academic achievements (and permitted to wear doctoral academic regalia at suitable occasions). Once they quit/get fired, they go back to being whatever they were before.
It's a common attorney tactic to say what will win the argument - and sometimes the truth suffers.
This is more than a "common attorney tactic," Mr. Perens, it's their job—attorneys are professional arguers, after all. I will grant you that perhaps the truth does sometimes suffer, but—at least in theory—preventing that is the reason why both sides have attorneys.
Whatever you call it, Red Hat has agreed to keep the settlement secret - and I discussed this with a really good attorney who had no problem with my referring to the settlement as sealed,
Everyone agrees that the settlement was sealed, but that's not what you said. In the article, you explicitly say that the case is sealed. This is a fairly large difference. If the case were sealed, you wouldn't have anything to base your speculation on.
All of which is—I'll be diplomatic and say interesting, I suppose, but nonetheless completely beside the point. The fact remains that, as I said, "Mr. Perens has no idea what the terms of the settlement are." Any speculation he makes is simply that. Perhaps he was basing that speculation on this FireStar case you mention (which I'm not familiar with), but it's impossible to say for sure since he doesn't mention it.
Mr. Perens has no idea what the terms of the settlement are. No one does, other than the parties and the judge. I don't know what his animus is against Red Hat, but the way this article is written is simply FUD.
It makes me an inattentive reader, obviously. Which of course puts me in the somewhat dubious company of most of the Congress and nearly every state legislator—and not a few judges. I apologize.
I do look forward to reading—with more attention, one hopes—your actual reply to Andrew Cody, if and when you make one.
So..."Andrew Cady" gave you a thoughtful, moderate answer, and you responded by operating from presumption and reiterating the same (overly simplistic) argument as before. What does that make you?
Your point is well-taken, and I agree. Nonetheless, wouldn't it be nice to have intelligent, humble, uncorruptible, passionate people in office, who have the citizens' best interest in mind?
If games are getting easier, I think you need look no further for the reason than the rising average age of the gamer demographic. When I was in college, I could spend six hours a day for a week on games if I wanted to. Now I have a job and a family, and I might have an hour a day in which I could play games—but probably not. On those rare occasions I do play something, well, it wouldn't be very exciting to play for an hour and just make it through the tutorial.
Poor documentation Again, Ubuntu helps. But even that is spotty compared to Windows. And the "documentation" website of many distros (and Linux software apps) is little more than a bugfix list.
This in a nutshell is why I've switched to the BSDs, where a bug report for a documentation error is given equal weight with a software error.
Wow, you're condescending, ain't you? I'm half convinced you just want to troll, but I'll bite.
Although for the past couple of years my primary desktop has run a BSD, I solely used Linux (mostly Debian, but quite a few others, including some that don't exist anymore) for the twelve years before that (except where required by work). So I'm quite aware of the traditional distinction between "OS" versus "applications." I say traditional because when it comes to Linux—as from your post I'm sure you know—this distinction completely breaks down. Everything is an add-on, an "application," including coreutils, the compiler, awk, Emacs, vi, Firefox, an ftp client, Shotwell, whatever—everything except the kernel. This is, after all, the whole point of a Linux distribution in the first place (Linux from Scratch notwithstanding), to let somebody else assemble a whole system which they then "distribute" and you download. That's fine. That's good, even.
The issue is not that there are multiple distributions; that's fine and good for the software ecosystem. The issue is that, for example, Debian's page for the virtual www-browser package lists no less than twenty-six packages which satisfy installing it. This is what I meant by "being all things to all people." I, the user, should not have to choose between 26 different web browsers. That's simply absurd. (For those people that actually want or need for some reason to install Chimera (the latest date in the copyright notice, by the way, is 1997), well, they're certainly entitled to./configure && make && make install.) But for most users, this is too much choice. They've already chosen Ubuntu or Debian or Mint or whatever. Why should they then have to decide what web browser, or text editor, or office suite they want? It is the responsibility of distributions to pick reasonable defaults. I'm painting in broad strokes, obviously, but it seems like instead, nobody wants to say "No" so everything just goes in, and then the user chooses. And making the user choose means that Linux distributions will never have the userbase (because people are put off by too many choices) or the polish (because developer effort is dispersed where it could be concentrated) of commercial operating systems. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Notable counterexamples would be Ubuntu (on the shiny side) and Slackware (on the austere side). But note what both have in common: they both have somebody who can say "No." So I guess they're really not counterexamples at all.
Oh, and to address your strawman: nobody, least of all me, said that an OS should tell a user to "get stuffed" when they try to install something not included with the OS. As I mentioned above, a user can always install from source. Or get someone to. Or application authors can provide statically-linked binaries. Et cetera.
This is exactly the problem. By and large, distributions try to be all things to all people instead of creating a whole OS; in my view the point of a distribution should actually be to limit the available software to a reasonably maintainable level. Nobody, though, wants to be the bad guy—or is even in a position to be the bad guy—and say "No. MyLinuxDistribution 3.14 has standardized on ThisApp. I don't care how much you love YourFavoriteApp; it's not going in." The difficulty is of course compounded the larger the committee making decisions gets, which is why Debian contains everything under the sun.
Slackware is the obvious exception, but then it's also a project headed and (to my understanding) largely done by one man.
Yes, let's subtract "technical people" from people who buy stuff so that we can pretend "consumers" don't purposefully buy Android phones. Let's also define "technical people" as "people who know what OS their phone runs" so that we aren't talking utter bullshit.
I think parent would define "technical people" as "people who care what OS their phone runs." Lots of people know what OS their phone runs—they just care about whether they can run that cool app their brother/wife/husband/sister/pet/whatever just showed them.
Slashdot Mirror
If Congress decided to abolish copyright, it would be abolished by legislation, but if they wanted to abolish the right to free speech they would have to amend the Constitution.
I hate to nitpick, but in this case a distinction is important: the Congress (or anyone!) cannot abolish one's right to free speech, or any other natural right. A Constitutional amendment could, of course, abolish or limit the government's ability to enforce such a right.
Copyright is a good thing, but not how it is implemented today. I'd like to see copyright law be as it was 150 years ago, back when our legislators were less insane.
As much as I'd like to believe that our Congressional representatives and senators were less beholden to special interests a century and a half ago, in fact I'm fairly sure they were just beholden to different special interests (150 years ago would be 1860, so I guess that would be slaveholding and abolitionist lobbies).
It's the scene from The Princess Bride where Westley (and Buttercup) and the Prince confront each other. Although using it here is not most encouraging since at the time Westley can barely move, having only just recovered from being mostly dead.
Representative Thompson is my congressman. He'll be getting a letter from me expressing my opposition to this measure.
Yes, if you're awarded an honorary doctorate, you can use it, although in many (most? all?) disciplines it's considered poor manners to use any title you haven't earned. And why go to all the trouble and expense to get an honorary doctorate if you can't use it around the people whom you presumably got it to impress?
Semi-unrelatedly, at some colleges, the highest administrator (Chancellor, President, whatever) is referred to as "Doctor" regardless of his or her actual academic achievements (and permitted to wear doctoral academic regalia at suitable occasions). Once they quit/get fired, they go back to being whatever they were before.
It's a common attorney tactic to say what will win the argument - and sometimes the truth suffers.
This is more than a "common attorney tactic," Mr. Perens, it's their job—attorneys are professional arguers, after all. I will grant you that perhaps the truth does sometimes suffer, but—at least in theory—preventing that is the reason why both sides have attorneys.
Whatever you call it, Red Hat has agreed to keep the settlement secret - and I discussed this with a really good attorney who had no problem with my referring to the settlement as sealed,
Everyone agrees that the settlement was sealed, but that's not what you said. In the article, you explicitly say that the case is sealed. This is a fairly large difference. If the case were sealed, you wouldn't have anything to base your speculation on.
I didn't say it made his argument(s) valid, just that it explained his interest.
All of which is—I'll be diplomatic and say interesting, I suppose, but nonetheless completely beside the point. The fact remains that, as I said, "Mr. Perens has no idea what the terms of the settlement are." Any speculation he makes is simply that. Perhaps he was basing that speculation on this FireStar case you mention (which I'm not familiar with), but it's impossible to say for sure since he doesn't mention it.
Mod parent up.
Since he's the original author of Busybox, Mr. Perens' interest in anything involving it is easy to understand, at least.
This might be more difficult than you think: can you think of a rhyme for "patent infringement"?
Mr. Perens has no idea what the terms of the settlement are. No one does, other than the parties and the judge. I don't know what his animus is against Red Hat, but the way this article is written is simply FUD.
Consistency is all I ask
It makes me an inattentive reader, obviously. Which of course puts me in the somewhat dubious company of most of the Congress and nearly every state legislator—and not a few judges. I apologize.
I do look forward to reading—with more attention, one hopes—your actual reply to Andrew Cody, if and when you make one.
So if Ruby programmers are Democrats, and COBOL programmers are Republicans, what are Lisp programmers?
Mod parent up. Actual conservatives haven't been in power in the Republican Party for thirty years.
So..."Andrew Cady" gave you a thoughtful, moderate answer, and you responded by operating from presumption and reiterating the same (overly simplistic) argument as before. What does that make you?
Your point is well-taken, and I agree. Nonetheless, wouldn't it be nice to have intelligent, humble, uncorruptible, passionate people in office, who have the citizens' best interest in mind?
I'd also like a unicorn.
If games are getting easier, I think you need look no further for the reason than the rising average age of the gamer demographic. When I was in college, I could spend six hours a day for a week on games if I wanted to. Now I have a job and a family, and I might have an hour a day in which I could play games—but probably not. On those rare occasions I do play something, well, it wouldn't be very exciting to play for an hour and just make it through the tutorial.
Shorter games are better for busy people.
"Good news, everyone! Due to budget cutbacks, I've hired a new, expendable crew—made entirely of robots!"
I
Poor documentation Again, Ubuntu helps. But even that is spotty compared to Windows. And the "documentation" website of many distros (and Linux software apps) is little more than a bugfix list.
This in a nutshell is why I've switched to the BSDs, where a bug report for a documentation error is given equal weight with a software error.
Wow, you're condescending, ain't you? I'm half convinced you just want to troll, but I'll bite.
Although for the past couple of years my primary desktop has run a BSD, I solely used Linux (mostly Debian, but quite a few others, including some that don't exist anymore) for the twelve years before that (except where required by work). So I'm quite aware of the traditional distinction between "OS" versus "applications." I say traditional because when it comes to Linux—as from your post I'm sure you know—this distinction completely breaks down. Everything is an add-on, an "application," including coreutils, the compiler, awk, Emacs, vi, Firefox, an ftp client, Shotwell, whatever—everything except the kernel. This is, after all, the whole point of a Linux distribution in the first place (Linux from Scratch notwithstanding), to let somebody else assemble a whole system which they then "distribute" and you download. That's fine. That's good, even.
The issue is not that there are multiple distributions; that's fine and good for the software ecosystem. The issue is that, for example, Debian's page for the virtual www-browser package lists no less than twenty-six packages which satisfy installing it. This is what I meant by "being all things to all people." I, the user, should not have to choose between 26 different web browsers. That's simply absurd. (For those people that actually want or need for some reason to install Chimera (the latest date in the copyright notice, by the way, is 1997), well, they're certainly entitled to ./configure && make && make install.) But for most users, this is too much choice. They've already chosen Ubuntu or Debian or Mint or whatever. Why should they then have to decide what web browser, or text editor, or office suite they want? It is the responsibility of distributions to pick reasonable defaults. I'm painting in broad strokes, obviously, but it seems like instead, nobody wants to say "No" so everything just goes in, and then the user chooses. And making the user choose means that Linux distributions will never have the userbase (because people are put off by too many choices) or the polish (because developer effort is dispersed where it could be concentrated) of commercial operating systems. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Notable counterexamples would be Ubuntu (on the shiny side) and Slackware (on the austere side). But note what both have in common: they both have somebody who can say "No." So I guess they're really not counterexamples at all.
Oh, and to address your strawman: nobody, least of all me, said that an OS should tell a user to "get stuffed" when they try to install something not included with the OS. As I mentioned above, a user can always install from source. Or get someone to. Or application authors can provide statically-linked binaries. Et cetera.
This is exactly the problem. By and large, distributions try to be all things to all people instead of creating a whole OS; in my view the point of a distribution should actually be to limit the available software to a reasonably maintainable level. Nobody, though, wants to be the bad guy—or is even in a position to be the bad guy—and say "No. MyLinuxDistribution 3.14 has standardized on ThisApp. I don't care how much you love YourFavoriteApp; it's not going in." The difficulty is of course compounded the larger the committee making decisions gets, which is why Debian contains everything under the sun.
Slackware is the obvious exception, but then it's also a project headed and (to my understanding) largely done by one man.
No.
Yes, let's subtract "technical people" from people who buy stuff so that we can pretend "consumers" don't purposefully buy Android phones. Let's also define "technical people" as "people who know what OS their phone runs" so that we aren't talking utter bullshit.
I think parent would define "technical people" as "people who care what OS their phone runs." Lots of people know what OS their phone runs—they just care about whether they can run that cool app their brother/wife/husband/sister/pet/whatever just showed them.
(there's an MLB out-of-market channel, but I haven't tied into it yet to see if it's live or delayed).
Assuming it's the same in 2010 as it was in 2009, it's live except in blackout areas.