It is exclusion-free capitalism; in essence an idealistic implementation of free markets without the concentrated power of corporations or governments gaining the exclusive right to sell you a particular service. The GPL de-monopolizes the software environment.
So one cannot exclude their work from others? What if I want to live alone? Do I not in either case have the moral right to do so? I know that seems naive, but consider the position for a moment. If one could not exclude others through control of one's associations then one could not in any case have trueist form of freedom. Why? Because as long as one assumes one has no right to exclude others from one's own association in any case, then one cannot be free to do as one wishes with one's self or one's work. It must be said, that this sounds like collectivism, not capitalism. And it seems to be a push toward a public society rather than a private society. Personally, I prefer the latter, and I love my freedom to exclude others from my work[so-called IP, I don't consider it real property] and my body, and my property.
At any rate, what do I know? I bet lots of folks think it's bad to be selfish.;)
There is no "CC license" and there are some that don't allow tinkering, unfortunatly CC is a licensing mess.
Not according to the CC site. Also, one has the freedom to restrict others access. Unless, you support collectivism, I think you too would support this moral principle of exclusive association. It is that freedom that allows individuals to cooperate and live parallel lives without fear of reprisal. If someone wishes to retain control over their own projects and retain the right to access to the source, then it follows one wishes to retain the right of exclusive association. It seems odd that individuals some how feel this is a bad thing. I'll have to check with people eating their lunch if they can share theirs with me since it seems the idea of exclusive association is some how bad....
Does that infer one is owe something for nothing? This is in reply to 'no place to go.' Because if that is so, then what moral theory is one applying? The last time I checked, no one is owed anything intrinsically since rights in themselves are not intrinsic eithter.
Also, the claim that there is no where else to go is erroneous since it assumes two possible states in the market; perfect instability[competition] and perfect stability[non-competition]. There is no perfect states in the market, as such the market follows its own course, thus one cannot assume one is absolutely going to be wanted for their specific trade in a job position or not. Since that would require all market conditions to be exact in their initial state, and more specifically that these conditions can be known.
And yes, people do look twice at unions since it is often the case that unions statistically harm an industry over helping it. Especially, in the form of restricting future business development. More often than not, if one wishes to startup even a small business on home building, whether it's subcontract or not, one now becomes slave to the cluster of unions within that field. I've even seen unions attempt to force individuals that wish to DYI their home in some places not to do so without moral or legal merit. I prefer MS to control its own wages, since that makes MS responsible for the quality of its work. It puts pressure on them to make their jobs marketable on wage, and it puts pressure on programmers to be marketable as well since they will have to justify the above average wage. To have some government or union intervential methodology applied will pretty much guarantee market stagnation and mediocrity within the industry.
Then vote with your feet and find a better business that applicable to your needs. The fantasy that one is owed a specific wage of any size is fallacious considering the trader principle still applies. I do agree no one works for free, but to assert one is owed more than one is paid and that it should be met automatically without reason to do so is rather silly. There are millions of workers in the United States in jobs that don't get raises primarily in customer service and building maintainance. I don't hear of some Viva Revolution from janitors. Why? Because the work does not value as high as one assumes it to be. It's time the myth of the living wage to be axed!
Again I think Zuck may have a definition of freedom that includes maximizing potential for growth of capital irrespective of whether that growth is democratically accessible or via concentrated centers of power.
Since when has one's labor become free? Programmers do their work for both the love of the trade and the profit it brings. Take away one of these elements and then the programmer becomes a slave. It's really no different than when it was a crime for non-appointed scribes to ply their trade in the Middle Ages. It took the 'Rebirth' of Europe to allow for free market capitalism of such scribes to work for anyone and for any price. Under GPL, especially v3, it makes it clear any profit is against the license. And I find that abhorent. It's really no different than DRM. But atleast, DRM isn't law and the same can be said for GPL. As long as neither become law, more power to them, but if they want to have a corporatist or communist revolution on my PC, they can think again.
I think it's high time programmers and businessmen take a stand against both initiatives, and bring back the freedom to where it belongs; software authors and individuals that fund them.
When one examines two elements that are constantly supposed as being opposites, free enterprise and free speech, one is left with a question in mind: How can they can be really in opposition to each other?
Free enterprise requires free speech to exist for it to operate. Whenever there were guilds, state corporations, and/or industries controlled by a political regime, such nations were often inpoverished and lacking in all necessity and luxury. Particularly, free speech was non-existent in such societies as well because to be free to do business as you wish also follows that one must be free to speak their mind too since it in all industries it takes free speech to promote one's business or to promote a particular innovation to improve one's business.
In short, free enterprise and free speech are logical correlaries, both are necessary and both are consistent with each other.
Now, how does this apply to the issue at hand? It applies primarily in that the FSF's GPLv3 license is as stifling as the DRM proposal. It eliminates flexibility to do business without adding to the freedom to be flexible in one's own 'tinkering.' If that is so, as I suppose, then what use is the GPLv3 license? It has no use, it's an idealogical dead end. That is why individuals such as Lessig left GPL in the dust, it was self-limiting, it wasn't about freedom of speech it was about enslavement of the working programer, of the businessman, and of the free market.
If 'free' means the freedom to tinker, then GPLv3 doesn't add to it, GPLv2 was fine and CC is much better. In the end, GPLv3 is the product of the support for collectivization of programmers not individuation. Then again, what do I know?
Slashdot Mirror
So one cannot exclude their work from others? What if I want to live alone? Do I not in either case have the moral right to do so? I know that seems naive, but consider the position for a moment. If one could not exclude others through control of one's associations then one could not in any case have trueist form of freedom. Why? Because as long as one assumes one has no right to exclude others from one's own association in any case, then one cannot be free to do as one wishes with one's self or one's work. It must be said, that this sounds like collectivism, not capitalism. And it seems to be a push toward a public society rather than a private society. Personally, I prefer the latter, and I love my freedom to exclude others from my work[so-called IP, I don't consider it real property] and my body, and my property.
At any rate, what do I know? I bet lots of folks think it's bad to be selfish. ;)
-- Bridget
Not according to the CC site. Also, one has the freedom to restrict others access. Unless, you support collectivism, I think you too would support this moral principle of exclusive association. It is that freedom that allows individuals to cooperate and live parallel lives without fear of reprisal. If someone wishes to retain control over their own projects and retain the right to access to the source, then it follows one wishes to retain the right of exclusive association. It seems odd that individuals some how feel this is a bad thing. I'll have to check with people eating their lunch if they can share theirs with me since it seems the idea of exclusive association is some how bad....
-
Also, the claim that there is no where else to go is erroneous since it assumes two possible states in the market; perfect instability[competition] and perfect stability[non-competition]. There is no perfect states in the market, as such the market follows its own course, thus one cannot assume one is absolutely going to be wanted for their specific trade in a job position or not. Since that would require all market conditions to be exact in their initial state, and more specifically that these conditions can be known.
And yes, people do look twice at unions since it is often the case that unions statistically harm an industry over helping it. Especially, in the form of restricting future business development. More often than not, if one wishes to startup even a small business on home building, whether it's subcontract or not, one now becomes slave to the cluster of unions within that field. I've even seen unions attempt to force individuals that wish to DYI their home in some places not to do so without moral or legal merit. I prefer MS to control its own wages, since that makes MS responsible for the quality of its work. It puts pressure on them to make their jobs marketable on wage, and it puts pressure on programmers to be marketable as well since they will have to justify the above average wage. To have some government or union intervential methodology applied will pretty much guarantee market stagnation and mediocrity within the industry.
-- Bridget
-- Bridget
Since when has one's labor become free? Programmers do their work for both the love of the trade and the profit it brings. Take away one of these elements and then the programmer becomes a slave. It's really no different than when it was a crime for non-appointed scribes to ply their trade in the Middle Ages. It took the 'Rebirth' of Europe to allow for free market capitalism of such scribes to work for anyone and for any price. Under GPL, especially v3, it makes it clear any profit is against the license. And I find that abhorent. It's really no different than DRM. But atleast, DRM isn't law and the same can be said for GPL. As long as neither become law, more power to them, but if they want to have a corporatist or communist revolution on my PC, they can think again.
I think it's high time programmers and businessmen take a stand against both initiatives, and bring back the freedom to where it belongs; software authors and individuals that fund them.
-- Bridget
Free enterprise requires free speech to exist for it to operate. Whenever there were guilds, state corporations, and/or industries controlled by a political regime, such nations were often inpoverished and lacking in all necessity and luxury. Particularly, free speech was non-existent in such societies as well because to be free to do business as you wish also follows that one must be free to speak their mind too since it in all industries it takes free speech to promote one's business or to promote a particular innovation to improve one's business.
In short, free enterprise and free speech are logical correlaries, both are necessary and both are consistent with each other.
Now, how does this apply to the issue at hand? It applies primarily in that the FSF's GPLv3 license is as stifling as the DRM proposal. It eliminates flexibility to do business without adding to the freedom to be flexible in one's own 'tinkering.' If that is so, as I suppose, then what use is the GPLv3 license? It has no use, it's an idealogical dead end. That is why individuals such as Lessig left GPL in the dust, it was self-limiting, it wasn't about freedom of speech it was about enslavement of the working programer, of the businessman, and of the free market.
If 'free' means the freedom to tinker, then GPLv3 doesn't add to it, GPLv2 was fine and CC is much better. In the end, GPLv3 is the product of the support for collectivization of programmers not individuation. Then again, what do I know?
-- Bridget