I was simplifying for the purposes of arguement. I was in no way suggesting having a job made one an inherently more valuable human being. It does however add value to a human being. I choose two extremes to illustrate my case, the hard working manual labourer and the career criminal. As for not being able to feed oneself on Jobseekers allowance. When I was a littlen' My family did just that. So I know a thing or two about the opertunity of those less fortunate. Now it was very hard to got by on the dole, especially with us children about. But you can still eat. You cant have fun and your kids will be wearing crap clothes but you can survive. As for this guy breaking into your house and you having the right to kill him for it. No you don't have the right to kill him. But if as a consequence of you protecting yourself and you family he dies should you have to face criminal proceedings? Unless you happen to be able to know just by looking at someone the force needed to knock them out without damage and can predict precisely how long it will take the police to arrive I think you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. In addition as a side note I don't know what the employment prospects of our criminal are but if he is so regularly unemployed that he cannot feed his family without turning to crime he shouldn't have kids. Self defence should extend to intent not consequences. We cant all be expert in unarmed combat so that means sometimes the result of necessary physical engagement are unfortunate. But these acts should not be crimes.
Only if one does not use an even hand with such actions. You assume that economic contribution is that which will be used as a judge. There are many social parasites who are of the upper and middle classes. If we took someones social worth into account then the CEO of Enron would not have got away with his crime as he had because I'm certain any reasonable individual recognises him as a social paracite. Do not be so quick to assume a degree of meritocracy in the legal system would not go some way to benefitting the hard working poor.
If you are in my house, and stealing my TV the only way I can guarentee that you will cease to be a threat to myself or the people I care about is to incapacitate you (if you run, you might come back, if you surrender, you might be bluffing). As such I feel it is acceptable to use extreme force to incapacitate you. No I'm no expert in combat, nor do I know how to knock a person out. I feel it is acceptable that the law reflect the fact that if I'm being attacked my best and reasonable defence might well be for my attacker to end up dead. Is it a nice end? No. Is it what we want? Not really. Is it what I would do. Doubt it. Is it reasonable defence when under attack. Yes.
My point is that we should consider in these matters the value that the people involved contribute to society. My builder could be a well love, employed, hard working family guy who normally wouldn't hurt a fly. His robber, a run away who never did a days work in his life and who has been a constant drain economically, socially and culturally. All I'm saying is the law should take that into account.
I simply feel deterrence is pointless. Most criminals are repeat offenders and these criminals are principally concerned with getting caught not what happens afterwards. If I had my way serious criminals would be imprisoned in isolation from other prisoners, and would not be released until they had undergone corrective training for thier behaviour (if need be by breaking down thier existing personality and rebuilding them from scratch). They would then be required to proove thier capacity to generate an income upon release and been given the okay by psychologists.
Justice is pointless. We should do what benefits society most, not uphold some ideal that doesn't give the ends everyone desires.
Ask yourself this. Which is worse, my builder gets away with murder against a person of zero or near zero value to humanity, or my builder goes to jail for protecting himself, wasting a person with value whoes taxes pay my medical bills and to whom I am eternally greatful to?
The problem there is that the family of the burgalar would not be benefitting society if they eliminated you. You are not a problem or a drain on society, or at least I presume you are not.
A burglar who is not dealt with is such a drain. Society needs a way to deal with these people but all the methods arrived at so far either psychologically damage a person in the wrong way or worse train them at art of getting something for nothing by means society has deemed immoral.
I don't think killing a burgalar is the solution, but I do think we waste our time when we go after productive citizens in the name of "justice" and don't stop to address those who drain societies resources.
A builder who kills a guy who tries to Rob him is not producing anything in jail, is an expense and could be making the world a better place by plying his trade. The optimal solution would be for the builder to get away with his 'crime'.
We should concerntrate on providing justice for those who provide for a better future, and make those who engage in what is widely percieved as immoral acts a secondary concern.
We should also make punishments about correcting the way a person behaves and thinks. Not retribution, not serving a debt to society, not deterring other criminals. Correction alone. We have become so obsessed with 'justice' that we haved stopped doing what is in our best interests.
Violence, wrong? According to you perhaps, but fortunately you are not judge, jury and executioner. Violence is from my perspective unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Was it necessary here? Not in my opinion. Is the consequence beneficial to society, probably. I'd say we have no idea what the cause is, but it smells like a mob killing to me. Has all the markings of a "don't pay up and this happens" message. At the end of the day some human beings are a drain on the rest of us and if we as a species are going to get by, we have to accomodate them or deal with them. In this case, a drain on society was dealt with for us. If the method with which he was dealt with is so unpalletable perhaps we should have found another way to cope with the situation. All humans might be created equal, but we don't all end up equal, and I for one have no dosire to support societies paracites or lose much sleep when one of them ceases to waste my time.
As far as I can tell all this does is repeatedly warn the spammer to stop spreading spam. First by warning them that they could recieve a large number of complaints, then sending them a large number of complaints by the only available avenue, the forms on thier site. The only thing that seems to be illegal here is that the stated intent is a DDOS attack (however it's phrased in TA it is a DDOS attack) instead of a coordinated "consumer union" which just so happens to result in servers being brought down because of the large number of complaints they generate at the same time. Personally had they called themselves a consumer watchdog rather than a security firm I'd have given them a clean bill of health from a legal/technical stand point (of course my opinion means jack all, is there a lawyer in the house?). I mean, in principle the slashdot effect is a DDOS attack but thats not the intent. In this case fair warning for the website about to be slashdotted is a reasonable responce. In the case of spammers, the problem is clearly with the spammer, who should stop sending spam.
Right now, I don't care who did it or what they want. I'm going to listen to the cricket and when I have calmed down I will think about what my position is.
My first attempt to get Linux running was Gentoo. Newbies without supervision should not be let near that distro.
I don't get the authors attitude to Gentoo. It isn't a good learning experiance for a newbie. The flexibility it offers is fantastic and once I'm smart enough I want to use it as my main distro, but if you have no idea what you are doing, run Ubuntu or Debian for a bit first...
IBM are unlikely to have a totally Open Source catalogue. Why would they? But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction. As soon as someone else Open Sources a similar product to a proprietary product a company owns it is time to consider Open Sourcing it unless you have patents or a monopoly (I doubt IBM are going to go on a patent offensive against F/OS developers). Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share. I will bet IBM has plans for proprietary products for an aweful long time (read as long as they are in business). But they are a company and will do what must be done to maintain thier assets (developer IQ assets) and support thier growing support business. I fail to understand this 'Open Source it all' desire. I avoid proprietary software for moral reasons. I expect corporate support for my ideology based on sensible business practices. Not out of blind devotion to the cause, a company who does this wont be around to help F/OSS very long anyway.
That depends... You have a right to defend yourself if attacked. If someone is in your shop, takes your stock and tries to leave you can stop them. I'm not saying you DoS thier box after they are done but if there are otherwise illegal but reasonable defences available that could stop an attack in progress why deny them because they happen to usually be illegal? As for zomied boxes I'm in two minds. I don't think it is reasonable to take one out to stop a DoS attack.
The problem with Microsoft bundling is they are a convicted monopoly. You aren't supposed to use monopoly powers to leverage a monopoly in another market. KDE is not a monopoly so the rules are different. Is it unfair... Yes. Is there a better way to do it? I've no idea.
Fair point, well made. IBM is shifting towards a more service based model of operation though. That is eaier to compliment with the Open Source develoment model than it is with the proprietary model. Like one of the parents said, lets be patient and see how good they make on thier promise.
As you say, it makes no sense to Open Source the big money makers this product cycle. You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money). And market variation means at some point more open source release from IBM are probable.
Releasing OS/2 on an Open Source license makes good business sense however. There are some real OS/2 fanatics who would love the chance to work on it and that has the potential to improove IBMs software portfolio. Lets not kid ourselves here Big Blue are supporting Open Source to make profit. Thats a good thing, it means IBM thinks Open Source works.
China, both individually and collectively cannot become as readily locked in by F/OSS. This is different from dependent. When I say dependent I mean unable to change strategy. If China is going to build a software industry, it's best option is F/OSS because they can rapidly catch up. But once you start down that path it becomes economically painful to turn back. And the Chinese government at the moment cannot afford econmically painful. If you are suggesting that F/OSS is not going to liberate any individual Chinese today I concur. But organising resistance is made easier by 1. A large middle class in opposition of the part line such as that found in Europe circa 1980's. 2. Improved communications technology with open standards circa the printing press through to modern day mass media, especially when assisted from the outside. I don't think the Chinese have any intention of loosening thier iron grip either. I just think by embracing F/OSS they are giving thier citizens another tool with which to perhaps pry a pinky finger free. I doubt it is enough on it's own, but I don't think it is on it's own either.
You criticise my point again while in effect supporting it. The internet is a relatively new technology and is maturing fast. You point out that at present considerably (although not total) control is possible. I agree. You state my points are purely academic then say that some day in the future they will become valid. I'm not arguing China is about to implode *now*. I'm pointing out that by embracing F/OSS technology today they making the positive equivilant of a pact with the devil. Grow the software industry now, deal with the implications later. You yourself have admitted there are consequences later so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you agree with my sentiment and simply feel I have overstated my case. If that is so and you are attempting to restore balance by suggesting that by arguements do not amount to the eventual collapse of the Communist Chineese authority, I concur and thank you for you clarification.
"That would have no effect." Part of my point and an extension to it. Of course the situation is far worse than that since not all F/OSS software is under the GPL, so modifying the GPL alone would not have as big an affect. Your suggestion merely reinforces the point that the parent was suggesting the pointless. "I'm sorry but your point is not practical, it is academic." History sets a precedent which disagrees with you. Poland found technology vital in their efforts against the communist state. Sure 'democracy' and 'freedom' are here being banned from a major portal. The DDR likewise, the press and media were vital. Rudolf Bahro and 'Die Alternative', the DDR government tried to stop that getting through to the population and failed inspite of imprisoning and deporting him. If this is the effect of conventional mass media, and publishing from the west, consider what the effect the internet is having in China. Already the Chinese are acting against blog owners. Sites outside China are blocked but listening to radio outside the DDR was banned and people still found ways to do it. Opening up the protocols and educating people about computer use is going to make matters worse for the Chineese government, not better.
You state no one suggested modifying the GPL, but the only way you could stop China using F/OSS software is to modify the GPL, at least as far as I can see. Unless you are just calling for a general denouncement of communism, in which case I'm sure Eric Raymond will be more than happy to help you out. You then talk about the philosophies and fail to seperate the effects. Microsoft is a large centrally control organisation which uses marketing and ethically questionable methods to control access to information and markets, much like China only to a considerably smaller extent. F/OSS activity does the opposite. Sure the ideology that China claims to support is much like the ideology of many F/OSS contributors advocate, but the reality is vastly different. In real practical terms (which after all is what matters) the F/OSS movement presents problems for China because by opening up protocols and methods they leave themselves open to loosing control of information flow. Your comparison is flawed on another level. It is no use 'owning' the result of some work in and of itself. People don't want to the proceeds of thier work simply to own it, they want to own it so they can do something with it. What is being introduced to China in economic terms at the moment really changes very little. Before the government owned all thier work and they got no economic or ego gratification from it. Now a corporation can own thier work and they get limited economic or ego gratification from it. Another revolutionary idea being introduced to China via F/OSS is the idea that you can be rewarded for your work without the state or a corporation necessarily owning it. If you made it and it's F/OSS then you can probably support it better than most, you now have economic and social power. If you contributed to a major F/OSS project you are reward through ego gratification. You introduce capitalist economics to a psuedo-communist state. Worse still you might generate a large well educated middle class which is not necessarily part of the party but is necessary for economic stability. From the point of view of maintaining control that is a disaster. Microsoft are behaving as any business would and going along with what makes them money. However if we want to affect change in China one method of doing this is to put pressure on Microsoft to stick it's neck out. Getting RMS or Linus to stick thier neck out over China does nothing because China really couldn't care less what they think. China is short term dependent on MS and MS has leveraging power. Thats why people scream 'complicit' when Microsoft goes along with this kind of thing. If we persuade western companies that standing up to China a bit will improve sales (through good PR) we can affect change. I still contest the only way to stop Red Flag developers is to change (read ruin) the GPL. This will neither carry the same weight nor effects the same end. Worse still it will remove the non-discriminatory aspect of the GPL which is part of what makes it so sucessful. This means if the GPL was changed in this manner large numbers of developers would insist thier code revert to the old GPL, totally defeating the point. If you can think of a way to stop development by Red Flag without altering the GPL, I'd be interested to hear it. However I think you are rather to concerned with an ideological desire to defend Microsoft in the name of fairness rather than a practical desire to effect positive change because the latter invites one to treat F/OSS developers different from Corporate entities.
They cant. And it would sort of defeat the point of F/OSS software to do so. More importantly the Chineese move to embrace F/OSS is a desperate one. They need a software industry but are embracing a Libitarian or pseudo-Libitarian philosophy to build one. That sets a dangerous precedent in China (from the perspective of the Chineese government). RMS and Linus can do far more to improve things in China by making the Chineese dependent on F/OSS than they can by modifying the GPL to discriminate against specific nations. In addition by including the Chineese developers in the F/OSS community things can improve here as well as bugs are fixed faster, localisation support is improved, etc. Sometimes the best way to fight an opponent isn't to give them a black eye, but to make them utterly dependent on your way of doing things.
Of course that doesn't apply if you have a cartel or monopoly, then people will pay what they are told to pay... And if they don't you can always get high priced lawyers and lobbiest to ensure the courts 'encourage' them to pay your prices. The music and movie industries need opening up to the free market, and that means breaking up the cartels and monopolies. Of course our governments wont do that because who do you think gives them thier campaign donations? And in our so called democracies it's campaign donations that win elections.
When a large portion of the development community are bordering on cheering your continuing demise, you have probably done something wrong. I know there are bad implications when a company goes down, but SCO is causing so much damage with it's crazy lawsuits to companies and nations alike that I think it's best all round if they lie down and die. Oh and whoever it was who thought "I've got a good idea, instead of changing our business model and trying to make a living in the emerging market, lets sue everything in sight when we have no case what so ever and then go down the pan costing ourselves, our employee, our shareholders, peoples who pensions funds invested in our stock and just about anyone thinking of using Linux a royally bad time" needs to be found, and gently reminded that sueing customers is almost always a really bad idea, and is always a bad idea when you have no case what-so-ever.
So what you are saying is Microsoft see the writing on the wall, and have embraced open formats to save thier MS Office business? Sorry, big stuggle here. That all makes sense but that means this amounts to an admission from Microsoft that people will no longer put up with thier lock in. It makes perfect business sense when you put it that way. But it is going to take time to assimilate. I guess there is some fundamental incompatibility here with my perception of Microsoft and the reality... I'm still expecting the strongly implied in Halloween documents style crush the open source movement with patent lawsuits attack, not the if you cant beat them join them approach, even in this limited style (limited from a relative standpoint to just handing over the source code and releasing under the GPL, if they actually do this it is huge since for SME OOo should be an extremely viable option once/if these new formats are implemented).
If what you say is true... isn't Microsoft essentially commiting business seppuku in the Office market? Are they really being hurt that bad by government switching to open formats (bad enough even to surrender a cherished monopoly)? No seriously I don't get the logic here. Someone please help, why would they do this?
Afraid I cant follow what you mean without more info. You wrote a open source piece of software and then someone closed the project on you? If you own the copyright thats (as far as I know and I'm not a Lawyer) a copyright infringement and you are entitled to compensation for it.
If proprietary software did the same thing as your code does then they didn't use your code so nothing has been taken from you. Could you provide more details?
The relevant portion of the GPL is: "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." You can charge for the act of transfering (this is added value since you providing the service of transfering the software). You may not charge for the software without adding value though. You cannot 'sell the code'. This was the point I was making.
Slashdot Mirror
I was simplifying for the purposes of arguement. I was in no way suggesting having a job made one an inherently more valuable human being. It does however add value to a human being.
I choose two extremes to illustrate my case, the hard working manual labourer and the career criminal.
As for not being able to feed oneself on Jobseekers allowance. When I was a littlen' My family did just that. So I know a thing or two about the opertunity of those less fortunate. Now it was very hard to got by on the dole, especially with us children about. But you can still eat. You cant have fun and your kids will be wearing crap clothes but you can survive.
As for this guy breaking into your house and you having the right to kill him for it. No you don't have the right to kill him. But if as a consequence of you protecting yourself and you family he dies should you have to face criminal proceedings? Unless you happen to be able to know just by looking at someone the force needed to knock them out without damage and can predict precisely how long it will take the police to arrive I think you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
In addition as a side note I don't know what the employment prospects of our criminal are but if he is so regularly unemployed that he cannot feed his family without turning to crime he shouldn't have kids.
Self defence should extend to intent not consequences. We cant all be expert in unarmed combat so that means sometimes the result of necessary physical engagement are unfortunate. But these acts should not be crimes.
Only if one does not use an even hand with such actions. You assume that economic contribution is that which will be used as a judge. There are many social parasites who are of the upper and middle classes.
If we took someones social worth into account then the CEO of Enron would not have got away with his crime as he had because I'm certain any reasonable individual recognises him as a social paracite.
Do not be so quick to assume a degree of meritocracy in the legal system would not go some way to benefitting the hard working poor.
I will address some minor issues first.
If you are in my house, and stealing my TV the only way I can guarentee that you will cease to be a threat to myself or the people I care about is to incapacitate you (if you run, you might come back, if you surrender, you might be bluffing). As such I feel it is acceptable to use extreme force to incapacitate you. No I'm no expert in combat, nor do I know how to knock a person out. I feel it is acceptable that the law reflect the fact that if I'm being attacked my best and reasonable defence might well be for my attacker to end up dead. Is it a nice end? No. Is it what we want? Not really. Is it what I would do. Doubt it. Is it reasonable defence when under attack. Yes.
My point is that we should consider in these matters the value that the people involved contribute to society. My builder could be a well love, employed, hard working family guy who normally wouldn't hurt a fly. His robber, a run away who never did a days work in his life and who has been a constant drain economically, socially and culturally. All I'm saying is the law should take that into account.
I simply feel deterrence is pointless. Most criminals are repeat offenders and these criminals are principally concerned with getting caught not what happens afterwards. If I had my way serious criminals would be imprisoned in isolation from other prisoners, and would not be released until they had undergone corrective training for thier behaviour (if need be by breaking down thier existing personality and rebuilding them from scratch). They would then be required to proove thier capacity to generate an income upon release and been given the okay by psychologists.
Justice is pointless. We should do what benefits society most, not uphold some ideal that doesn't give the ends everyone desires.
Ask yourself this. Which is worse, my builder gets away with murder against a person of zero or near zero value to humanity, or my builder goes to jail for protecting himself, wasting a person with value whoes taxes pay my medical bills and to whom I am eternally greatful to?
The problem there is that the family of the burgalar would not be benefitting society if they eliminated you. You are not a problem or a drain on society, or at least I presume you are not. A burglar who is not dealt with is such a drain. Society needs a way to deal with these people but all the methods arrived at so far either psychologically damage a person in the wrong way or worse train them at art of getting something for nothing by means society has deemed immoral. I don't think killing a burgalar is the solution, but I do think we waste our time when we go after productive citizens in the name of "justice" and don't stop to address those who drain societies resources. A builder who kills a guy who tries to Rob him is not producing anything in jail, is an expense and could be making the world a better place by plying his trade. The optimal solution would be for the builder to get away with his 'crime'. We should concerntrate on providing justice for those who provide for a better future, and make those who engage in what is widely percieved as immoral acts a secondary concern. We should also make punishments about correcting the way a person behaves and thinks. Not retribution, not serving a debt to society, not deterring other criminals. Correction alone. We have become so obsessed with 'justice' that we haved stopped doing what is in our best interests.
Violence, wrong? According to you perhaps, but fortunately you are not judge, jury and executioner. Violence is from my perspective unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Was it necessary here? Not in my opinion. Is the consequence beneficial to society, probably.
I'd say we have no idea what the cause is, but it smells like a mob killing to me. Has all the markings of a "don't pay up and this happens" message.
At the end of the day some human beings are a drain on the rest of us and if we as a species are going to get by, we have to accomodate them or deal with them. In this case, a drain on society was dealt with for us. If the method with which he was dealt with is so unpalletable perhaps we should have found another way to cope with the situation.
All humans might be created equal, but we don't all end up equal, and I for one have no dosire to support societies paracites or lose much sleep when one of them ceases to waste my time.
As far as I can tell all this does is repeatedly warn the spammer to stop spreading spam. First by warning them that they could recieve a large number of complaints, then sending them a large number of complaints by the only available avenue, the forms on thier site.
The only thing that seems to be illegal here is that the stated intent is a DDOS attack (however it's phrased in TA it is a DDOS attack) instead of a coordinated "consumer union" which just so happens to result in servers being brought down because of the large number of complaints they generate at the same time.
Personally had they called themselves a consumer watchdog rather than a security firm I'd have given them a clean bill of health from a legal/technical stand point (of course my opinion means jack all, is there a lawyer in the house?). I mean, in principle the slashdot effect is a DDOS attack but thats not the intent. In this case fair warning for the website about to be slashdotted is a reasonable responce. In the case of spammers, the problem is clearly with the spammer, who should stop sending spam.
Right now, I don't care who did it or what they want. I'm going to listen to the cricket and when I have calmed down I will think about what my position is.
Now is a time for defiance, and contemplation.
My first attempt to get Linux running was Gentoo. Newbies without supervision should not be let near that distro.
I don't get the authors attitude to Gentoo. It isn't a good learning experiance for a newbie. The flexibility it offers is fantastic and once I'm smart enough I want to use it as my main distro, but if you have no idea what you are doing, run Ubuntu or Debian for a bit first...
IBM are unlikely to have a totally Open Source catalogue. Why would they? But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction.
As soon as someone else Open Sources a similar product to a proprietary product a company owns it is time to consider Open Sourcing it unless you have patents or a monopoly (I doubt IBM are going to go on a patent offensive against F/OS developers). Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share.
I will bet IBM has plans for proprietary products for an aweful long time (read as long as they are in business). But they are a company and will do what must be done to maintain thier assets (developer IQ assets) and support thier growing support business.
I fail to understand this 'Open Source it all' desire. I avoid proprietary software for moral reasons. I expect corporate support for my ideology based on sensible business practices. Not out of blind devotion to the cause, a company who does this wont be around to help F/OSS very long anyway.
That depends... You have a right to defend yourself if attacked. If someone is in your shop, takes your stock and tries to leave you can stop them. I'm not saying you DoS thier box after they are done but if there are otherwise illegal but reasonable defences available that could stop an attack in progress why deny them because they happen to usually be illegal?
As for zomied boxes I'm in two minds. I don't think it is reasonable to take one out to stop a DoS attack.
The problem with Microsoft bundling is they are a convicted monopoly. You aren't supposed to use monopoly powers to leverage a monopoly in another market. KDE is not a monopoly so the rules are different. Is it unfair... Yes. Is there a better way to do it? I've no idea.
Fair point, well made. IBM is shifting towards a more service based model of operation though. That is eaier to compliment with the Open Source develoment model than it is with the proprietary model.
Like one of the parents said, lets be patient and see how good they make on thier promise.
As you say, it makes no sense to Open Source the big money makers this product cycle. You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money). And market variation means at some point more open source release from IBM are probable.
Releasing OS/2 on an Open Source license makes good business sense however. There are some real OS/2 fanatics who would love the chance to work on it and that has the potential to improove IBMs software portfolio.
Lets not kid ourselves here Big Blue are supporting Open Source to make profit. Thats a good thing, it means IBM thinks Open Source works.
China, both individually and collectively cannot become as readily locked in by F/OSS. This is different from dependent. When I say dependent I mean unable to change strategy. If China is going to build a software industry, it's best option is F/OSS because they can rapidly catch up. But once you start down that path it becomes economically painful to turn back. And the Chinese government at the moment cannot afford econmically painful.
If you are suggesting that F/OSS is not going to liberate any individual Chinese today I concur. But organising resistance is made easier by 1. A large middle class in opposition of the part line such as that found in Europe circa 1980's. 2. Improved communications technology with open standards circa the printing press through to modern day mass media, especially when assisted from the outside.
I don't think the Chinese have any intention of loosening thier iron grip either. I just think by embracing F/OSS they are giving thier citizens another tool with which to perhaps pry a pinky finger free. I doubt it is enough on it's own, but I don't think it is on it's own either.
You criticise my point again while in effect supporting it. The internet is a relatively new technology and is maturing fast. You point out that at present considerably (although not total) control is possible. I agree.
You state my points are purely academic then say that some day in the future they will become valid. I'm not arguing China is about to implode *now*. I'm pointing out that by embracing F/OSS technology today they making the positive equivilant of a pact with the devil. Grow the software industry now, deal with the implications later. You yourself have admitted there are consequences later so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you agree with my sentiment and simply feel I have overstated my case. If that is so and you are attempting to restore balance by suggesting that by arguements do not amount to the eventual collapse of the Communist Chineese authority, I concur and thank you for you clarification.
"That would have no effect."
Part of my point and an extension to it. Of course the situation is far worse than that since not all F/OSS software is under the GPL, so modifying the GPL alone would not have as big an affect. Your suggestion merely reinforces the point that the parent was suggesting the pointless.
"I'm sorry but your point is not practical, it is academic."
History sets a precedent which disagrees with you. Poland found technology vital in their efforts against the communist state. Sure 'democracy' and 'freedom' are here being banned from a major portal. The DDR likewise, the press and media were vital. Rudolf Bahro and 'Die Alternative', the DDR government tried to stop that getting through to the population and failed inspite of imprisoning and deporting him.
If this is the effect of conventional mass media, and publishing from the west, consider what the effect the internet is having in China. Already the Chinese are acting against blog owners. Sites outside China are blocked but listening to radio outside the DDR was banned and people still found ways to do it. Opening up the protocols and educating people about computer use is going to make matters worse for the Chineese government, not better.
You state no one suggested modifying the GPL, but the only way you could stop China using F/OSS software is to modify the GPL, at least as far as I can see. Unless you are just calling for a general denouncement of communism, in which case I'm sure Eric Raymond will be more than happy to help you out.
You then talk about the philosophies and fail to seperate the effects. Microsoft is a large centrally control organisation which uses marketing and ethically questionable methods to control access to information and markets, much like China only to a considerably smaller extent. F/OSS activity does the opposite. Sure the ideology that China claims to support is much like the ideology of many F/OSS contributors advocate, but the reality is vastly different.
In real practical terms (which after all is what matters) the F/OSS movement presents problems for China because by opening up protocols and methods they leave themselves open to loosing control of information flow.
Your comparison is flawed on another level. It is no use 'owning' the result of some work in and of itself. People don't want to the proceeds of thier work simply to own it, they want to own it so they can do something with it. What is being introduced to China in economic terms at the moment really changes very little. Before the government owned all thier work and they got no economic or ego gratification from it. Now a corporation can own thier work and they get limited economic or ego gratification from it.
Another revolutionary idea being introduced to China via F/OSS is the idea that you can be rewarded for your work without the state or a corporation necessarily owning it. If you made it and it's F/OSS then you can probably support it better than most, you now have economic and social power. If you contributed to a major F/OSS project you are reward through ego gratification. You introduce capitalist economics to a psuedo-communist state. Worse still you might generate a large well educated middle class which is not necessarily part of the party but is necessary for economic stability. From the point of view of maintaining control that is a disaster.
Microsoft are behaving as any business would and going along with what makes them money. However if we want to affect change in China one method of doing this is to put pressure on Microsoft to stick it's neck out. Getting RMS or Linus to stick thier neck out over China does nothing because China really couldn't care less what they think. China is short term dependent on MS and MS has leveraging power. Thats why people scream 'complicit' when Microsoft goes along with this kind of thing. If we persuade western companies that standing up to China a bit will improve sales (through good PR) we can affect change.
I still contest the only way to stop Red Flag developers is to change (read ruin) the GPL. This will neither carry the same weight nor effects the same end. Worse still it will remove the non-discriminatory aspect of the GPL which is part of what makes it so sucessful. This means if the GPL was changed in this manner large numbers of developers would insist thier code revert to the old GPL, totally defeating the point.
If you can think of a way to stop development by Red Flag without altering the GPL, I'd be interested to hear it. However I think you are rather to concerned with an ideological desire to defend Microsoft in the name of fairness rather than a practical desire to effect positive change because the latter invites one to treat F/OSS developers different from Corporate entities.
They cant. And it would sort of defeat the point of F/OSS software to do so. More importantly the Chineese move to embrace F/OSS is a desperate one. They need a software industry but are embracing a Libitarian or pseudo-Libitarian philosophy to build one. That sets a dangerous precedent in China (from the perspective of the Chineese government). RMS and Linus can do far more to improve things in China by making the Chineese dependent on F/OSS than they can by modifying the GPL to discriminate against specific nations. In addition by including the Chineese developers in the F/OSS community things can improve here as well as bugs are fixed faster, localisation support is improved, etc.
Sometimes the best way to fight an opponent isn't to give them a black eye, but to make them utterly dependent on your way of doing things.
Of course that doesn't apply if you have a cartel or monopoly, then people will pay what they are told to pay... And if they don't you can always get high priced lawyers and lobbiest to ensure the courts 'encourage' them to pay your prices.
The music and movie industries need opening up to the free market, and that means breaking up the cartels and monopolies. Of course our governments wont do that because who do you think gives them thier campaign donations?
And in our so called democracies it's campaign donations that win elections.
When a large portion of the development community are bordering on cheering your continuing demise, you have probably done something wrong.
I know there are bad implications when a company goes down, but SCO is causing so much damage with it's crazy lawsuits to companies and nations alike that I think it's best all round if they lie down and die.
Oh and whoever it was who thought "I've got a good idea, instead of changing our business model and trying to make a living in the emerging market, lets sue everything in sight when we have no case what so ever and then go down the pan costing ourselves, our employee, our shareholders, peoples who pensions funds invested in our stock and just about anyone thinking of using Linux a royally bad time" needs to be found, and gently reminded that sueing customers is almost always a really bad idea, and is always a bad idea when you have no case what-so-ever.
So what you are saying is Microsoft see the writing on the wall, and have embraced open formats to save thier MS Office business?
Sorry, big stuggle here. That all makes sense but that means this amounts to an admission from Microsoft that people will no longer put up with thier lock in. It makes perfect business sense when you put it that way. But it is going to take time to assimilate.
I guess there is some fundamental incompatibility here with my perception of Microsoft and the reality... I'm still expecting the strongly implied in Halloween documents style crush the open source movement with patent lawsuits attack, not the if you cant beat them join them approach, even in this limited style (limited from a relative standpoint to just handing over the source code and releasing under the GPL, if they actually do this it is huge since for SME OOo should be an extremely viable option once/if these new formats are implemented).
If what you say is true... isn't Microsoft essentially commiting business seppuku in the Office market? Are they really being hurt that bad by government switching to open formats (bad enough even to surrender a cherished monopoly)?
No seriously I don't get the logic here. Someone please help, why would they do this?
Afraid I cant follow what you mean without more info. You wrote a open source piece of software and then someone closed the project on you? If you own the copyright thats (as far as I know and I'm not a Lawyer) a copyright infringement and you are entitled to compensation for it. If proprietary software did the same thing as your code does then they didn't use your code so nothing has been taken from you. Could you provide more details?
The relevant portion of the GPL is:
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
You can charge for the act of transfering (this is added value since you providing the service of transfering the software). You may not charge for the software without adding value though. You cannot 'sell the code'. This was the point I was making.