Yes, FRAND and Free Software ARE mutually exclusive, unless your project is backed by someone with deep pockets like Google. I can't afford to pay those licensing terms. Therefore I am legally prohibited from implementing the standard in my project.
I dunno, ask Mozilla. They make millions per year, yet they act like they can't even pay the FREE license for H.264. That's nothing but pure ideology.
No, it's not. It's pragmatism. Further, you concentrate on people like Mozilla, but they're not the only ones writing free software. Unless you'd like to make it so the only people who can actually write software are big organizations with huge revenue streams.
The radicals like RMS simply don't believe in ANYONE getting paid for their work with a computer, unless it is the tin cup donation model, they believe that "computers should be free man!" and therefor think that NOBODY should be able to charge them for code, or labor,. or pretty much anything to do with a computer.
By this measure, I could easily say that the "zealots" on your side believe that ALL tech should be completely locked down, and that you should have to go and get permission from every single rightsholder in order to do anything with technology or your computer, and that you should have to pay them for every instance of that tech.
The zealots can waste their mod points and the FSF and RMS can get as pissy as they want but in the end TINSTAAFL and they do NOT have the right to demand and receive others work for free.
That's not what the argument is about at all. The argument is that, if someone sets up a standard for something, people should be able to implement that standard themselves, without having to deal with patent issues.
the FSF think they should have the right to take what others have done
No they don't. They don't want to take anybody's stuff. They simply want to be able to make standards operable code by themselves, without having to deal with patent issues.
Personally flawed as it is I'll take capitalism over the stagnation that is communism any day of the week.
If anything is causing stagnation, it's the mess involving patents, and the fact that you quite literally cannot do ANYTHING tech related without infringing on someone's patents.
you imply that government is able and willing and in principle can do this type of regulations, and that is absolutely false.
No, it's not. Further, you imply that the private sector is willing to provide these regulations, which is even more false.
The only real regulation is what government was set on destroying all these years - real actual money, real actual savings, real actual interest rates, real actual economy.
Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat up a bit. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.
Okay, here goes...you are confusing Libertarianism with anarchy.
No, I'm not. The idea behind libertarianism is that there isn't the needed government oversight.
My view of how Libertarian government should work is this: enough regulation to provide for the common good, and no more. If you aren't hurting anyone, then government should leave you the **** alone. However, if you are hurting someone, then yes, perhaps there is a need for government to step in.
And just about all Libertarians would disagree with you.
Being "heavily regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with it if the needed regulations aren't in place. There was absolutely no regulations in place that caused the crisis, and those that would have prevented it were relaxed or repealed several years prior.
WRONG. You forget that the banking industry had many of their regulations relaxed, and it was the relaxing of those regulations that caused the crash. Not any of their regulations that were still in force.
I do actually believe that a fully libertarian society could sort out the issues of restaurant food safety and elevator safety. And, fracking safety. But many people I talk to have tremendous faith in the power of government, and only government, to keep us safe.
As opposed to your faith that the "free market" will keep us safe. That the private sector will have their own inspectors, and private inspectors will take over the role of government inspectors, and everything will be peachy.
Except it won't. Take the recent case of mortgage backed securities. All of the ratings agencies were giving these pieces of shit obscenely high ratings, up until well after it was discovered they were toxic. And why were they doing that? Because of the free market rating system. If the ratings agencies didn't give them inflated ratings, the bond holders would simply take their business to someone who would. You can see the same thing with Orange County debt and one of the ratings agencies. After Orange County declared bankruptcy, and the bonds (which were rated very high) were discharged, people sued the ratings agency. The ratings agency was found not to be liable simply because they "offer advice".
Are you honestly going to tell me that the exact same fucking thing won't happen when private inspectors take over safety? Or food?
Wow, now you've just tilted the playing field even more in the favor of the big company. Tell me, what poor person is going to bother trying to bring such a lawsuit, when they know they could be potentially be liable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in legal defense fees?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Sadly, the bad guys being able to outspend 100:1 means they can hire "experts" to testify on their behalf that the plaintiff is wrong, and therefore muddying the waters enough to where the jury isn't sure, and therefore needs to vote for the defendant.
we will at least not have a government built on the ideal that grown adults are children who need a mommy and daddy to take care of them
Oh goodie! Not only will we have nothing better to redress the causing of harm, but we're now going to have even less because "adults aren't children, and therefore don't need to be told how much toxic chemicals need to be spewed in the river!" Next you're gonna tell me, "Adults aren't children, and therefore don't need to be told how much safety they need to exercise when coal mining!"
No, he concludes that the current system is better because the current system has better controls to limit the corruption. Libertarian society would have none.
And in any means, you've just said that libertarian society would be no better. So why switch?
Pure libertarianism: somebody owns that underground water. Somebody else starts fracking and chemicals get into the water. The owner of the water then sues the fracker and 0wns him in court. (Possibly literally; if the damages are high enough, the fracker might wind up indentured to the party he wronged.)
No, I'm sorry, but there's nothing backing this up whatsoever. Odds are those doing the frakking have better lawyers, and it's very, very hard to prove such things in court.
Alternative scenario. The fracker and the water owner are the same person. Now he can eat the cost of the fracking (can't sell the water anymore; it's polluted); or he can keep selling the water to his customers, in which case his customers sue him for selling tainted water, and they 0wn him in court.
Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that those being wronged can actually afford decent legal representation; that the frakker doesn't have better representation, and that the harm from the poison can be directly proven.
Or if you are really a believer in big government, you might think that government inspectors prevent accidents. That works until it doesn't; BP leaked a bunch of oil into the gulf, and government inspectors didn't prevent it.
Ahh yes, blame government for something that BP themselves did.
The libertarian alternative is you can do whatever you want, without permission, but as soon as you harm someone you are in big trouble.
Or in no trouble at all. Or the harm you caused is able to get you more profit than the costs of litigation.
The parent poster DEFINITELY meant libertarianism.
I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously at all if you're going to take all the problems involved in direct democracy and just sweep them under the rug.
No, that's not an answer. This should not be allowed, period. This retarded idea that big business can offer any terms they want has got to stop. It is NOT right.
If you bothered to check out the Kickstarter page, the "returns" start at getting a copy of the game. They even had a level of $10,000 donation which would get you lunch with Tim Schaffer. If you went to Double Fine's site, they had even higher levels than that. $15,000 would get you dinner with the dev team and Tim Schaffer. $20,000 would get you dinner and bowling.
It would mean he can. Doesn't mean he has to. If he wants to show support for this kind of thing by purchasing it on multiple platforms, more power to him.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, FRAND and Free Software ARE mutually exclusive, unless your project is backed by someone with deep pockets like Google. I can't afford to pay those licensing terms. Therefore I am legally prohibited from implementing the standard in my project.
I dunno, ask Mozilla. They make millions per year, yet they act like they can't even pay the FREE license for H.264. That's nothing but pure ideology.
No, it's not. It's pragmatism. Further, you concentrate on people like Mozilla, but they're not the only ones writing free software. Unless you'd like to make it so the only people who can actually write software are big organizations with huge revenue streams.
The radicals like RMS simply don't believe in ANYONE getting paid for their work with a computer, unless it is the tin cup donation model, they believe that "computers should be free man!" and therefor think that NOBODY should be able to charge them for code, or labor,. or pretty much anything to do with a computer.
By this measure, I could easily say that the "zealots" on your side believe that ALL tech should be completely locked down, and that you should have to go and get permission from every single rightsholder in order to do anything with technology or your computer, and that you should have to pay them for every instance of that tech.
The zealots can waste their mod points and the FSF and RMS can get as pissy as they want but in the end TINSTAAFL and they do NOT have the right to demand and receive others work for free.
That's not what the argument is about at all. The argument is that, if someone sets up a standard for something, people should be able to implement that standard themselves, without having to deal with patent issues.
the FSF think they should have the right to take what others have done
No they don't. They don't want to take anybody's stuff. They simply want to be able to make standards operable code by themselves, without having to deal with patent issues.
Personally flawed as it is I'll take capitalism over the stagnation that is communism any day of the week.
If anything is causing stagnation, it's the mess involving patents, and the fact that you quite literally cannot do ANYTHING tech related without infringing on someone's patents.
I don't ask for H.264 video. I just want the content.
Would you rather go back to the days when you had to maintain 7 different plugins and players on your computer to be able to play videos?
If by works just fine, you mean helps to uphold rent seeking behavior, then sure.
Well, most people do require some kind of income in order to pay rent.
You mean the very mechanism that led to the banning of gay marriage in California? No thanks.
Yes, how dare he mention that he's using an iPad when the article itself makes mention of phone and tablet uses.
you imply that government is able and willing and in principle can do this type of regulations, and that is absolutely false.
No, it's not. Further, you imply that the private sector is willing to provide these regulations, which is even more false.
The only real regulation is what government was set on destroying all these years - real actual money, real actual savings, real actual interest rates, real actual economy.
Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat up a bit. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.
That's a pretty terrible situation. And it's not a solution to the problem.
Okay, here goes...you are confusing Libertarianism with anarchy.
No, I'm not. The idea behind libertarianism is that there isn't the needed government oversight.
My view of how Libertarian government should work is this: enough regulation to provide for the common good, and no more. If you aren't hurting anyone, then government should leave you the **** alone. However, if you are hurting someone, then yes, perhaps there is a need for government to step in.
And just about all Libertarians would disagree with you.
No, it wouldn't have. There was absolutely no evidence at all that the company was failing.
Being "heavily regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with it if the needed regulations aren't in place. There was absolutely no regulations in place that caused the crisis, and those that would have prevented it were relaxed or repealed several years prior.
WRONG. You forget that the banking industry had many of their regulations relaxed, and it was the relaxing of those regulations that caused the crash. Not any of their regulations that were still in force.
I do actually believe that a fully libertarian society could sort out the issues of restaurant food safety and elevator safety. And, fracking safety. But many people I talk to have tremendous faith in the power of government, and only government, to keep us safe.
As opposed to your faith that the "free market" will keep us safe. That the private sector will have their own inspectors, and private inspectors will take over the role of government inspectors, and everything will be peachy.
Except it won't. Take the recent case of mortgage backed securities. All of the ratings agencies were giving these pieces of shit obscenely high ratings, up until well after it was discovered they were toxic. And why were they doing that? Because of the free market rating system. If the ratings agencies didn't give them inflated ratings, the bond holders would simply take their business to someone who would. You can see the same thing with Orange County debt and one of the ratings agencies. After Orange County declared bankruptcy, and the bonds (which were rated very high) were discharged, people sued the ratings agency. The ratings agency was found not to be liable simply because they "offer advice".
Are you honestly going to tell me that the exact same fucking thing won't happen when private inspectors take over safety? Or food?
Wow, now you've just tilted the playing field even more in the favor of the big company. Tell me, what poor person is going to bother trying to bring such a lawsuit, when they know they could be potentially be liable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in legal defense fees?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Sadly, the bad guys being able to outspend 100:1 means they can hire "experts" to testify on their behalf that the plaintiff is wrong, and therefore muddying the waters enough to where the jury isn't sure, and therefore needs to vote for the defendant.
The libertarian argument is that there are fewer opportunities for corruption in a libertarian system
Such an argument has never been proven, by the way.
we will at least not have a government built on the ideal that grown adults are children who need a mommy and daddy to take care of them
Oh goodie! Not only will we have nothing better to redress the causing of harm, but we're now going to have even less because "adults aren't children, and therefore don't need to be told how much toxic chemicals need to be spewed in the river!" Next you're gonna tell me, "Adults aren't children, and therefore don't need to be told how much safety they need to exercise when coal mining!"
No, he concludes that the current system is better because the current system has better controls to limit the corruption. Libertarian society would have none.
And in any means, you've just said that libertarian society would be no better. So why switch?
Pure libertarianism: somebody owns that underground water. Somebody else starts fracking and chemicals get into the water. The owner of the water then sues the fracker and 0wns him in court. (Possibly literally; if the damages are high enough, the fracker might wind up indentured to the party he wronged.)
No, I'm sorry, but there's nothing backing this up whatsoever. Odds are those doing the frakking have better lawyers, and it's very, very hard to prove such things in court.
Alternative scenario. The fracker and the water owner are the same person. Now he can eat the cost of the fracking (can't sell the water anymore; it's polluted); or he can keep selling the water to his customers, in which case his customers sue him for selling tainted water, and they 0wn him in court.
Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that those being wronged can actually afford decent legal representation; that the frakker doesn't have better representation, and that the harm from the poison can be directly proven.
Or if you are really a believer in big government, you might think that government inspectors prevent accidents. That works until it doesn't; BP leaked a bunch of oil into the gulf, and government inspectors didn't prevent it.
Ahh yes, blame government for something that BP themselves did.
The libertarian alternative is you can do whatever you want, without permission, but as soon as you harm someone you are in big trouble.
Or in no trouble at all. Or the harm you caused is able to get you more profit than the costs of litigation.
The parent poster DEFINITELY meant libertarianism.
And none of this shit would have been needed without the asshole in Cain Bapital stepping in and fucking everything up.
I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously at all if you're going to take all the problems involved in direct democracy and just sweep them under the rug.
No, that's not an answer. This should not be allowed, period. This retarded idea that big business can offer any terms they want has got to stop. It is NOT right.
You are only liable in a car crash if you caused it.
Exactly. However, if you'll note, there is absolutely no requirement that you intentionally caused it.
And in this situation, as wrong as it is, planting seed with Monsanto genes means that you are "causing" the infringement.
If you bothered to check out the Kickstarter page, the "returns" start at getting a copy of the game. They even had a level of $10,000 donation which would get you lunch with Tim Schaffer. If you went to Double Fine's site, they had even higher levels than that. $15,000 would get you dinner with the dev team and Tim Schaffer. $20,000 would get you dinner and bowling.
It would mean he can. Doesn't mean he has to. If he wants to show support for this kind of thing by purchasing it on multiple platforms, more power to him.