i agree, that is the heart of the specific disagreement.
Yes, GPLv2 is efective for most freedoms, in most cases. But since it has a few holes, the freedoms it protects could perfectly go to hell completely, in some cases.
To prevent those cases, we need to broaden the restrictions on rights that the GPL enforces.
You are opposed on principle to these restrictions, or think that the restrictions imposed should be as little as needed. I think that we are entitled and morally obligated to restrict as much as is needed, not more, nor less.
We could argue that fundamental disagreement, but i *seriously* doubt that we are going to be able to solve here in a reasonable amount of time.
Now, i agree with the rest of what you said: a lot of flame has been thrown at this, and a lot has been exagerated. I think that having past the flame throwing between us, we can live with the really relevant fundamental disagreement (or keep talking about it, but then these posts are going to get *really* long) about the relation between rights and freedoms, and wether we should judge their restrictions on a relative scale (and minimize them on principle), or an absolute scale where you either let or don't let do (and enforce what we need, no more no less).
(incidentally, this is the issue that i thought you did not understand. but this is not personal, half of contemporary political philosophers think the same, and are confused in the same sense... starting with rawls and what we call liberals everywhere but the united states. I must say that i didn't intended it to be as offending as to get a "condescending ass" thrown back at me, but he!, i guess i can sound a little harsh sometimes, sorry:)
I disagree with the last part of your post: i don't think the GPLv3 is going to affect the proliferation of CC and OH licenses. I could even argue that the advances in the protection of freedoms in one of this distinct but related aspects are always beneficial to the other two, and that i take the GPLv3 as an advance.
In the end, i don't see a valid reason to *oppose* to the GPLv3. Not in principle (i don't give a rat's ass about tivo's or EMI's rights), not tactically (i don't think is going to affect adoption a big deal), not strategically (i think that it's going to help CC and OHL, actually).
1.- the right to legal action upon circunvention is the right to legal action against modification, wich is one of the specific freedoms (freedom 1) that the GPL wants to defend. It is against the spirit of the GPL. If you want to use GPLed work, you must not forbid or penally persecute those trying to make modifications. As Bruce Perens has already stated in this very same thread, that does not prohibit the implementation of DRM techonology at all, it just states that if you use GPLed work, this can not be taken into consideration for purposes of aplication of anticircunvention clauses cotained in the DMCA or any other such act.
I just want to point out that you just went form the legitimate user trying to acces DRMed content (whose rights allegedly we where affecting and shouldn't) to content creators and third parties that do not, in principle, have nothing to say in a software license, and whose rights should be (and are) defended somewhere else.
2.- No, it does not defeat the purpose of the user that you put up as a counter example: i want to run signed binaries in my hardware for security reasons. This is legit, and permited under the GPL. I want to give you a computer with GPLed code, and means to modify and update that code, but locked up behind a crypto key or signature. This is not legit, and forbidden. If you use GPLed work, and need it to be updatable, then you must accept all updates. If you use GPLed work, and do not want to accept third partie's mods, put it in a ROM, and distribute updates thru other means (ROM replacement? online auth?). If you want to be the only one to be able to make changes to the software under any circumstance, do not use free software, as what you want to do it's, by definition, un-free. ie, stay away from our free code. and our license. and our movement.
3.- it does not impose restrictions on hardware, only to software. You are still free to produce any hardware that you want, provided that IF you include GPLed works inside it, you do not take steps to actively prohibit the freedoms that we want to preserve. You are still free to design and implement DRM schemes, provided that you do not persecute does trying to examine (even perfect?) said schemes.
Nobody forces you to put GPLed works inside this kind of artifacts, you are always free to reimplement the same features as a locked source under any other license. Which comes down to the obvious: GPL covers only work licensed under the GPL. Hardware is not licensed under the GPL. Content is not licensed under the GPL. Software that interacts with them is, and if you need closed source, propietary software, then why o why do you want to use GPLed work?
4.- I disagree. The heat is not upon the OSIers, but against the FSF, who has been called traitors to say the least. This whole issue has shown who among our movement have a real interest in freedom, and who have an interest in free beer and open source. But i couldn't care less who's got more heat, really.
The issue finally comes down to: if you truly believe that freedom to run, study, modify, copy, distribute, improve and release and execute software are freedoms that need to be defended (as stated by the FSF since 1986), then you should use GPLv3, GPLv2 is not effective to protect those very same freedoms. If you have reassons to stick with GPLv2, then you are not interested in freedom, just in open source. So yes, if you appear in public speaking for free software, and calling the fsf traitors, and pontificating about what the FSF should do (and i'm not saying this of you, honestly. You might be commenting, by you are not in a possition to pontificate. not here at least, so, honestly, i'm talking about linus and ESR and the like) out of your alleged interest in freedom, and decide to stick to GPLv2, you are going to get heat.
Now i'm getting worried. What you just said about the GPLv3 is simply not true. let's see.
1.- "Many end users want to use Free Software, but might want to listen to the occasional restricted content. By making that an illegitimate activity, it's limiting the end user".
FALSE!
The GPL does not restrict any user form using GPLed software to ACCESS drm-protected content. Even more, the GPL does not restrict any user from *implementing* DRM schemes using GPLed software. The only thing that GPL provides for in regards to DRM, is a waiver of the rights of developers to enforce anti circunvention law over GPLed works, something that has NOTHING to do with the software (anticircunvention, i mean).
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures
2.- "The end user might want to use an OS kernel that's free, but might for security reasons need to run a signed kernel on a particular machine. If you take the freedom from Tivo by saying you can't run the software as a signed binary, though, you're also taking it from the person who's signing it himself for his own use."
FALSE!
The GPL does not forbid the execution of signed binaries. The GPL does not even prohibit hardware that checks for signatures or cryptographic keys in itself, it only requires that you do not use GPLed code to enforce such restrictions *against the user*. It specifically requires that you distribute keys needed for execution along with the software (and hardware, obviosly). If you want to use your own keys, for security reassons, you are welcomed. BUT, if you *distribute* a "consumer product" cotaining GPLed code and said consumer product requires keys/passwords/signatures, you must provide them, or means to circunvent them. To the end user. To run, for example, his own crypto-system, with his own keys.
Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the license provides you--whether through patent law, technology, or any other means.
EVEN MORE! the GPLv3 doesn't even prohibits you from enforcing checks outside the GPLed work. For example, in a network that requires authentification of the executed binary in the clients for access. This is *specifically* covered in the text of the GPL, probably as an alternative to kernel-signing (see Section 6, paragraph 6).
Finally, what you say in the end is wrong too. This is a free software license that seeks to defend the freedoms asociated with software from the impossitions ON SOFTWARE that restrictions for hardware or content entail. You are still free to make and distribute systems with hardware or content restrictions, but if you do, those restrictions must not tamper with the freedoms associated to software.
I think you are missing that
1.- the restrictions to hardware and content are there only because and in the measure that they do restrict the freedoms associated with software.
3.- this restrictions are *necessary* if we want to *preserve* the freedom of software.
the problem is very simple: if you want to preserve freedom X, you must prevent every possible restriction to freedom X. If you prevent one restriction, but allow others, you are not effectively protecting freedom X.
I do not want to allow you power to restrict my freedom in any way. if I forbid you to restrict it in way 1, but do not do anything over way 2, I have allowed you power to restrict my freedom.
If in the past, we only knew of way 1 of attacking freedom, and consequently forbid it, and then sudenly way 2 rears its ugly head, it is our (moral? political?) imperative to forbid way 2 also, if we want to keep avoiding attacks on freedom.
Now, the real problem, is that i don't trust the free convictions of people who say that GPLv3 is some kind of treason. I do not doubt their practical interest in the openness of software, but by allowing some ways of restriction to freedom, they are (practically) abandoning the pretension of freedom at all. there's no middle ground in this. SO, where are the arguments *in favor* of GPLv2 over GPLv3? why should we NOT restrict some possible method of attacking our freedom?
Should we care about adoption of software? shold we make licenses so Big Biz inc. can use our software, and in that effort leave gaping holes in the protection of our freedom? should we have any interest in preserving the hardware manufacturer's right to enforce vendor lock in, or implement DRM?
i don't see why.
And since not forbiding those rights of Big Biz inc. and hw manufacturers puts our freedom in danger (and they have shown in the past that that's exactly what they will do if we give them the chance) then it would be irresponsable for us not to do it.
ps: i think that you used the word "value" in a economical sense. open source has a lot of (economic) value, as it is a superior method for building software. But i used the word value in a moral sense. In this sense, OS has no value at all, except as a prerequisite for software to be free, wich is the real moral value we are trying to preserve.
well, yes, that's what the whole disagrement eventually comes down to: open source... but open source for what? the GPLv2 was good enough when the main obstacle towards substantial freedom (to sum it up somehow) was the closed source of distributed software. It was a practical impediment. Open source in itself has no vlaue at all.
Now there are other impediments. equally practical. they must be overcome. GPLv3 is not only a good execution of steps towards the defence of freedom, is a necessity.
and Linus... he says he doesn't care enough to worry about. In practical terms that's the same as "he doesn't care", i don't give a damn what he cares for or not in the privacy of his house. Not caring enough to worry about = not giving a damn, in practical terms.
ehem. i think you built a strawman of my original possition and my subsequent reply and proceeded to bash it. in regards to that:
1.- i have not said that i have the only valid possition. I have not said that all other possitions are invalid. I'm only saying that you originally made the mistake of believing that the fsf should generally defend the greater freedom (abstractly) in the use of software (and software only).
2.- From that mistake stems your point about the fsf "restricting some freedoms is bad precedent". To me is the other way around: the fsf HAS to limit freedoms, the question is not about how much freedom, or if it restricts the freedom at all, is about which freedoms. I was ONLY arguing THAT PART. at least until now.
Now to the rest of what you say:
You could interpret the intentions of the fsf in a restricted sence, as a movement for the freedom to "see the source", applicable only to software. Or you can interpret the intentions of the fsf as a movement for the freedom to tinker and to share the results of your tinkering with your fellow human beings.
If you believe the first, then yeah, the anti-tivoization clauses could seem out of place to you in the effort to preserve the "freedom to see the source". If you believe the second, then the anti-tivoization clauses are just common sense.
The OSI crowd and ESR and Linus believe the first... They "like" the bazaar model and all that just because they believe that it is an "efficient" way to make "Good Software". They have no interest in the freedoms preserved by the fsf and gnu per se, but just as means to make Good Software. This is a completely different movement, with a completely different agenda. But jumping on the wagon of the fsf, using its licenses, presenting yourself as some kind of evangelist of the movement and then crying foul when the fsf takes the obviuos steps needed to acomplish its objectives is, at least, opportunistic.
So, yeah, you can keep showing the "fallacies" in my argument, and insist on the spoureous relation between kernel-signing and the "freedom to see the source". But i am NOT talking about this. I dont give a damn about your "freedom to see the source".
if you say that the fsf limiting the free use of software per se is a bad precedent, then you are not understanding the basic fact that the defense of fredom X necesarilly implies the restriction of right Y.
The FSF does not have to "defend the greater freedom", or even try to minimize the "amount" of freedom that it restricts in its efforts, it must only care for the protection of the particular freedoms that are of interest to its political objectives.
You did not, and still do not understand the issue (and me being or not being a condescending ass won't have any effect on your capacity to understand, i'm affraid), as it's clear when you say something like
"When someone calls themselves the "Free Software Foundation", they should be limiting the free use of the software as little as possible to further its greater freedom"
Believing that is naive. Or wicked.
The rest of you rant is preetty predictable given that basic misunderstanding.
then it is clear that you do not understand the issue: the FSF is just one actor in a very common political conflict between rights and liberties of different individuals. The GPL's objective in this conflict is to limit the freedom of those who could use their privileged possition (as developers or manufacturers) to limit the freedoms of end-users.
"the FSF limiting the free use of software" is not a bad precedent, it's just the FSF doing its best to protect the liberties that its political objectives demand protected, because the *ONLY* way in wich you can defend any given liberty is restricting someone's rights, somewhere.
To me, the problem is clear: linus doesn't give a damn about freedom as a political priciple or value. He just likes the GPL because it works to make better software. He does not endorse the movement on philosophical grounds, but purely practical ones. I think that this possition (like the OSI's) is oportunistic. he is a genius when it comes to programming, though.
fair enough, but your last point doesn't follow from your premise, ie, the private/public character* of organizations has nothing to do with the openness of their use licences. I reckon that for profit/not for profit normally is related, but not necesarilly. And i agree with you.
You can call me logic nazi:)
No, but seriously, when it comes to freedoms in the cyber age, it's specially important to separate those issues. I may be a little paranoid about it, given context, but it is important nevertheless.
* i don't know if you can use character in that sense in english. i hope what i mean is understood.
please clarify. I said that *after* a cruel dictatorship, where people *was* detained and disapeared by things of the like of having relatives speaking in public, we have the liberty to do that, and not be imprisoned or disappeared, cause that dictatorship was toppled.
That dictatorship was sponsored and financed by the us. In my country, the US did not help any freedom, but help crush them, as in a lot of other countries.
Now, you were saying that i have complete freedom to do as i'm told and say what you are told to think. why would that be?
Either a) you didn't understand shit of what i was saying, and i reckon that this could be because of my bad english (i'm not a native speaker) or b) you don't know shit of what you are talking about, especially considering that you probably don't know where i'm from.
In any case, my point was against that typical belief among united states citizens that the world at large needs some kind of big brother to live peacefully and in freedom. In most parts, the US has not been of help in that particular front, but all the opposite. My country is one of those places.
So please clarify your comment, because i don't want to jump into conclusions about your political education or standing, and believe honestly that one of us is not understading the other.
I had replied to you yesterday, but/. db system was down, apparently.
I take it that you understand my previous points about the fallacy of god, and its invalidity as a foundational premise. This has a corollary: it is invalid as a foundational premise because faith (or beleif, or whatever it takes to recgnize the validity of "there is god") is not something that we can expect from everybody. That is what makes it invalid in itself, not its fallacy per se.
I don't have a complete and fully thougt out alternative, and humbly reckon that i need to study a lot more of moral philosohpy (IANAL, although i live my life with one), but i'd say that democracy fills that gap, as it requires that all parts present their possitions in an accesible way to everybody else, and that is rationally. Even the consequences of religious foundations might be considered valid if they can be supported independently, and subject to the same level of criticism that all other premises endure.
The above has two critical corollaries that make democracy invaluable: 1.- it forces people to identify their individual interest with the general interest. 2.- it reduces the amount of arbitratirness in social decissions, as, theoretically, all premises should be argued in full, and justified, without references to some parts that are only accesible to me, like the religious.
Since we are forced to live with people of various beliefs, we should not fund our public possitions, or those that we are willing to demand of others, in beliefs that by definition, are not shared by the community as a whole. *Because* we are capable of independent thought is that god is not enough to overcome the state of nature.
I read the article you sent. It was very interesting. With all due respect, you jews have a *very* special form of rellationship with god. very very special.
the obvious distinction that you english speakers need to make between gratis and libre is not only a difference between degress of freedom in an object, it's a difference between two differnet things, as gratis refers to the cost of access to something. Nothing is per-se gratis, unless it is a publicly available, non-exclusive good with no costs associated to its distribution or consumption. like air. Anything else, is gratis for someone. in this case, fotr the user, but not for google, or the advertisers.
Now libre, in the other hand, has nothing to do with costs at all, but to the rights confered upon third parties to use, distribute, or modify the good distributed. Specifically, it relates to the freedoms you are entitled to upon receiving said good, disregarding all cost considerations.
The "Ads by google" may probably be relevant from a costs point of view, but it has NOTHING to do with its libre standing, notwithstanding the fact that normally, when goods are distributed for-profit, even if gratis to the user, they tend to be distributed un-librely. but this is correlation, not necessity. Its a contingent association.
the wikimedia foundation IS a private organization, google may very well devise a similar licensing scheme to not own the content, or wp could change the licensing terms to enforce copyright on submissions. Google being a for-profit enterprise has nothing to do with the ownership of the content, in principle.
Now, you could argue that normally, for-profit organizations wouldn't have any incentive to let go of the ownerhips of the content, or whatever, but the dichotomy bewteen public-private has nothing to do with it, they are two very different issues.
well, that's exactly what they said about concorde, and it could never show blue numbers. The problem is not if there are some execs willing to pay, is that these execs are not enought to make it profitable, or are not willing to pay enough to make it profitable, given how few of them there are.
go read a little about theories of justice, or right and liberties, or law. every right imposes restrictions on someone elses liberties. In general, the mechanisms that must be set up for the protection of material property impose tolerable restrictions, as there are quite explicit means to enforce the will of the propietor, ie, he can lock his doors, and it wouldn't be presentable to call fowl over the fact that your right to move freely is affected by his decission.
In the case of Imaginary property, like digital goods, the problem is much more complex, and normally, you could end up comitting a CRIME, for wich you could have to pay a lot of money, just by donwloading a file, wich ios not presentable as a grave violation of the will of a third party to defend thier rights.
So yes, the issue ALWAYS is about my rights, and how my rights affect the liberties of others, and vice versa.
Don't be naive to believe otherwise, right and liberty are not empty words, and can not be talked about without consideration for their necesary material consequences, specially if this are enshrined in judicially effective LAWS.
i've always suspected that jewish theology is a little more complex that what we are used to in christian countries, and your posts confirm that suspicion. I find it interesting that judaism is so concerned about rational foundations for the belief in god, and although i respect it, i simply don't agree with the idea that a well documented historical event has as its only explanation the existence of a supreme omnipotent god, but i don't think that we need to take this derivation of the discussion. i'd be interested in your references, though, religion in itself is a very interesting matter to me, specially rational discourse about it.
Now, the rest of the argument goes something like: there ar eseparate private and public morals. I refer as private to any moral that you might personally use to conduct your life, and that you can suggest to others as guidelines for them to live their lives. Religion certainly has a place here, as long as its role is strictly moral, as guidelines for personal life of yourself and others.
Public moral, in the other hand, is not a suggestion, but a rule. It materializes itself as law and public, state sponsored acts. In this space we must be very very careful, in two senses: 1.- we should be completely sure of the truth of our premises, specifically, of the truth of the relation of forbidden acts to the values that we cherish as a society. 2.- the premises of these rules should be evident to any rational human being, rationality being taken as a minimum requirement for intelligent discourse and comunication.
Religion fails in this both critical aspects. I have a right to be an athean and believe "there is no god". Religious people have the rigth to be religious and believe "there is god". No one has the right to impose rules or take actions that affect other party interests on the basis of either of those premises, as they are fallacies.
My problem is with *that* use of religion, wich i think is the problematic one. with the other i have no (necessary) quarrel. In my case, the church in my country has a lot of power, and this has affected a lot of public health measures, for example. This is unaceptable.
More generally, killing another man in the name of a non-existent being is anathema to me. Said being is non-existent until proven otherwise; the burden of proof is always in the positive statement, as ockam said: Entia non sunt muntiplicanda praeter necesittatem. The simplest explanation is usually the correct. God is not the simplest explanation.
I think we've moved on from the initial disagreemen, and have enjoyed discussing with you, too.
One final comment: it's been a long time since i studied logic, so my terms might be a little un-accurate. Fallacy is my personal tranlation of wht in spanish is called a "falacia", meaning a statement about which its not logically possible to determine its truth or false status. More over, my logical formation might be a little outdated, surely there are more precise terms for this, but i'm not aware of them. So in short, yes, fallacy means unverifiable.
in my country, the only regimen under wich you would be imprisoned and disappeared if you had a relative speaking in public was sponsored and financed by the US.
We have that liberties now, after 20~ years of military dictatorship, and without a quarter of our budget being spent on weapons.
Ever read Orwell's 1984? you should. Your possition is perfectly illustrated by a slogan in that book: War is peace. That's the country you live in.
There are far nastier regimes in the world than the US one, and none of them have any tolerance for pacifists, except for ones in countries they consider an enemy. Come to think of it, they're not too keen on people talking about politics at all.
what the fuck are you on mate? the US is BY FAR the nastier regimen on earth, not to its citizens, of course, but to the world as a whole. I don't give shit about what the north koreans and south koreans want to do between them, but when the us decides to impose any kind of measure on almost anything, my life is personally affected, and this measures tend to be fascist, unilateral and with no consideration for my dignity. I do not want to be treated like a criminal in airports, but now the US decided to do just that, and here, all the way across the world, we suffer, adn this is just ONE example.
The same thing happens preetty much on every other aspect of life. I don't know what the fuck they teach people about politics up there, but you elect some freaking monkeys as leaders and we all suffer. I really don't have nothing to worry about Kim Young Il or what-his-name, but truly, thinking that dubya and his henchmen are in charge in the US of A gives me the chills.
A lot of people might have fougth for those liberties, sure thing. Down here at least, they fought AGAINST the US.
Right. It's dandy if you are from afghanistan, somalia, irak, and colombia too.
You people seem to believe that this planet has room for a few selected, occidental, "democratic" country, and bomb the hell out of anybody else.
No country has been more agressive to other countries than the US, in the whole history of mankind. We didn't ask the us to protect us, we don't want their "protection", and for us, that awfull lot of guns, in a country where kids regularly go to school to shoot their classmates, their governmente makes up shit to justify bombimng and invading of other countries, and just to follow a lead on some saudi guy allegedlly hiding somewhere decide to bomb the hell out of a third country and invade them, and threaten their neighbour to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't help them do it is in no way an asset for world peace.
i'd say that the fucking idiot is not him. Guns already are a liability, and everybody knows that, except some fucking idiots who believe any stupidity their fucking idiot and lying leaders tell them. I don't think GP is one of them.
ok, let's start wrapping this up, i don't have much hope of reaching any agreement. First, i tend to write in a somewhat obtuse tone, if you felt offended personally by some of comments, i am truly sorry. Now...
I really don't intend to make a dstinction between one monotheistic religion or another. To me, they all start from the assertion that "there is a god".
If there is a god, there must be some measurable consequence of its existence, ie, some phenomena for wich there is no other possible explanation than that god actually exists. I don't care if originally that explanation came form the personal revelation given to one man, or if that man is alive or not. If he can't produce this "crucial test", ie, this phenomena for wich there's no other plausible explanation, then what he is saying, or said, or someone said that said is still a logical fallacy. As such, it is NOT a rational foundation of knowledge, and all knowledge built upon it is irrational, in the sense that it rest on premises not available to rational scrutiniy.
All other assertions have some form of testing, or when these are not available, are presented as hypothesys, or theories, wich are a valid part of discourse until disproven. History in particular seldom leaves the realm of possibilities, and that is why we say that History is not a nomothetic science, and does not pretend to give general explanations for reality. In this regard, is fundamentally distinct from physics or religion.
If you say something so bold as "there is a god", the burden of proof falls on your side. As such, its not a valid argument in general, and its not a valid argument i particular when the object of discussion affects my interests and rights. Bombing people back to the stone age is an extreme example, but in lamer parts of the world we still have such conflicts: abortion, euthanasy, divorce (wich was illegal here until a few years ago:S), religious education, etc. I'm not saying that we should fail in favor or against of one of the possition a priori, i'm only saying that religious arguments in this discussions are unaceptable, please provide valid reassons for your possition, as i do not believe in god (Actually, i believe that there is no god, but i would never use my atheism, or the assertion that "there is no god" as reasson for anything, as i could not expect that fallacy to have any argumentative power)
I'm not saying that everybody forget about their beliefs, i'm only saying: "please provide some fundament that we, as rational human beings, can relate to, without the need to believe in fallacies for wich we have no (rational) reasson to believe".
and finally: wether is one man, or several of them, is not important in the sense that the quantity of believers does not in itself make a belief any more rational. until a few years ago, people believed that you could catch AIDS by being near a people with with AIDS, and the amount of believers in such nonsense did nothing to make it any less nosense.
Out of curiosity, isn't judaism founded on the divine revelation experienced by Moses, in private? how is that more rational than the devine revelation experiencied by Muhammad in private? and i ask this out of ignorance: i'm not familiar with jewish theology at all, so i don't know why the reference to ancestors should be more rational than a reference to other personal testimony.
i agree with you. the point is that that phenomenon is hardly exclusive to the music industry.
Who makes nike shoes? some chinese laborman. Let's say he makes a couple hundred pair of shoes a month. His salary is nowhere near the 12.5% of the cost of a couple hundred pair of nike shoes.
I know, i't s a tricky analogy, but give it a spin: how many cents does the original designer that worked in any given pair of nike shoes get for each shoe sold? i bet is much much much less than 12%, or whatever.
Yes, musicians are under-paid. But in capitalism, EVERYBODY that does not own his own bussiness is under paid, and that includes a vast vast vast majority of people, specially in other countries (other than the us, that is).
1.- I have not said that i personally have any more morality to say anything about anything. I am only saying that falacious arguments are not valid arguments, specially in public political discussions.
2.- Unless you can back up your statements about god with proof, or at least some kind of thing that remotely resembles an assertion that is aplicable to a True/False test, even if this test is beyond our current material possibilities, i really *really* don't care how many of your ancestors believe your original ancestors and their divine revelation. "God exists" has the same logical value as an assertion about the giant-sun-devouring-squid, or the already mentioned flying spagheti monster and his noodly appendage. It doesn't matter how many rabi's you throw at this, the original premise (there is a god) keeps being fundamented in FAITH, not REASSON. Now, a different set of problems arise from the pondering of the logical conclusions that derive from faith, but faith, by its pure definition, is irrational, and the basic premise on which all monotheistic religions are based is that god exists, and that is a fallacy (even if not necesarilly false. fallacy != false)
3.- The whole point of religion is that it's irrational in its foundation. The whole point of considering faith a virtue is its irrational exercise of trust in god. If you say that the knowledge of god is subject to rational scrutiny, then religion, grace, divine inspiration and revelation all fall down to pieces as a special, or even particular form of knowledge. I don't think that that is what religious people think.
4.- my nick is galoise, nice to meet you. I read your nick the first time, but i really don't think that the fact that you personally are a jew has anything to do with the validity or not of religious discourse, the logical consistency of a statement such as "there is no god" or "god exists". You are a jew? good for you. i am an athean.
5.- "what's so wrong about trying to do the right thing? do you lack the self confidence necessary to trying? are you afraid of failure?" sounds a lot to me like you think i 1.- am affraid of doing the right thing 2.- are not doing the right thing and 3.- i'm trying to say that doing the right thing is somewhat wrong (wich is an oxymoron, by the way). I could have taken it personally, but i'm not too fond of personal allusions in any discussion. not even when my morality is put in question, by someone that believes that the content of his nick is somewhat considerable in the context of a discussion.
6.- There is no proof of the flying spaghetti monster. Why you can say that God exists invoking the testimony of millions of ancestors and get away with it, and i have to provide proof other than the assertion itself and the testimony of a few thousand fellow belivers like me? DO you think that TFSM is ridiculous? would you consider it absurd and invalid if it were waived as political argument? now you see my point of view. And i'm not making it up, actually. There ARE a few thousand felow believers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster/. the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster is its absurdity.
Slashdot Mirror
i agree, that is the heart of the specific disagreement.
:)
Yes, GPLv2 is efective for most freedoms, in most cases. But since it has a few holes, the freedoms it protects could perfectly go to hell completely, in some cases.
To prevent those cases, we need to broaden the restrictions on rights that the GPL enforces.
You are opposed on principle to these restrictions, or think that the restrictions imposed should be as little as needed. I think that we are entitled and morally obligated to restrict as much as is needed, not more, nor less.
We could argue that fundamental disagreement, but i *seriously* doubt that we are going to be able to solve here in a reasonable amount of time.
Now, i agree with the rest of what you said: a lot of flame has been thrown at this, and a lot has been exagerated. I think that having past the flame throwing between us, we can live with the really relevant fundamental disagreement (or keep talking about it, but then these posts are going to get *really* long) about the relation between rights and freedoms, and wether we should judge their restrictions on a relative scale (and minimize them on principle), or an absolute scale where you either let or don't let do (and enforce what we need, no more no less).
(incidentally, this is the issue that i thought you did not understand. but this is not personal, half of contemporary political philosophers think the same, and are confused in the same sense... starting with rawls and what we call liberals everywhere but the united states. I must say that i didn't intended it to be as offending as to get a "condescending ass" thrown back at me, but he!, i guess i can sound a little harsh sometimes, sorry
I disagree with the last part of your post: i don't think the GPLv3 is going to affect the proliferation of CC and OH licenses. I could even argue that the advances in the protection of freedoms in one of this distinct but related aspects are always beneficial to the other two, and that i take the GPLv3 as an advance.
In the end, i don't see a valid reason to *oppose* to the GPLv3. Not in principle (i don't give a rat's ass about tivo's or EMI's rights), not tactically (i don't think is going to affect adoption a big deal), not strategically (i think that it's going to help CC and OHL, actually).
1.- the right to legal action upon circunvention is the right to legal action against modification, wich is one of the specific freedoms (freedom 1) that the GPL wants to defend. It is against the spirit of the GPL. If you want to use GPLed work, you must not forbid or penally persecute those trying to make modifications. As Bruce Perens has already stated in this very same thread, that does not prohibit the implementation of DRM techonology at all, it just states that if you use GPLed work, this can not be taken into consideration for purposes of aplication of anticircunvention clauses cotained in the DMCA or any other such act.
I just want to point out that you just went form the legitimate user trying to acces DRMed content (whose rights allegedly we where affecting and shouldn't) to content creators and third parties that do not, in principle, have nothing to say in a software license, and whose rights should be (and are) defended somewhere else.
2.- No, it does not defeat the purpose of the user that you put up as a counter example: i want to run signed binaries in my hardware for security reasons. This is legit, and permited under the GPL. I want to give you a computer with GPLed code, and means to modify and update that code, but locked up behind a crypto key or signature. This is not legit, and forbidden. If you use GPLed work, and need it to be updatable, then you must accept all updates. If you use GPLed work, and do not want to accept third partie's mods, put it in a ROM, and distribute updates thru other means (ROM replacement? online auth?). If you want to be the only one to be able to make changes to the software under any circumstance, do not use free software, as what you want to do it's, by definition, un-free. ie, stay away from our free code. and our license. and our movement.
3.- it does not impose restrictions on hardware, only to software. You are still free to produce any hardware that you want, provided that IF you include GPLed works inside it, you do not take steps to actively prohibit the freedoms that we want to preserve. You are still free to design and implement DRM schemes, provided that you do not persecute does trying to examine (even perfect?) said schemes.
Nobody forces you to put GPLed works inside this kind of artifacts, you are always free to reimplement the same features as a locked source under any other license. Which comes down to the obvious: GPL covers only work licensed under the GPL. Hardware is not licensed under the GPL. Content is not licensed under the GPL. Software that interacts with them is, and if you need closed source, propietary software, then why o why do you want to use GPLed work?
4.- I disagree. The heat is not upon the OSIers, but against the FSF, who has been called traitors to say the least. This whole issue has shown who among our movement have a real interest in freedom, and who have an interest in free beer and open source. But i couldn't care less who's got more heat, really.
The issue finally comes down to: if you truly believe that freedom to run, study, modify, copy, distribute, improve and release and execute software are freedoms that need to be defended (as stated by the FSF since 1986), then you should use GPLv3, GPLv2 is not effective to protect those very same freedoms. If you have reassons to stick with GPLv2, then you are not interested in freedom, just in open source. So yes, if you appear in public speaking for free software, and calling the fsf traitors, and pontificating about what the FSF should do (and i'm not saying this of you, honestly. You might be commenting, by you are not in a possition to pontificate. not here at least, so, honestly, i'm talking about linus and ESR and the like) out of your alleged interest in freedom, and decide to stick to GPLv2, you are going to get heat.
indeed there is.
1.- "Many end users want to use Free Software, but might want to listen to the occasional restricted content. By making that an illegitimate activity, it's limiting the end user".
FALSE!
The GPL does not restrict any user form using GPLed software to ACCESS drm-protected content. Even more, the GPL does not restrict any user from *implementing* DRM schemes using GPLed software. The only thing that GPL provides for in regards to DRM, is a waiver of the rights of developers to enforce anti circunvention law over GPLed works, something that has NOTHING to do with the software (anticircunvention, i mean).
Literally, from Section 3, paragraph 2:
2.- "The end user might want to use an OS kernel that's free, but might for security reasons need to run a signed kernel on a particular machine. If you take the freedom from Tivo by saying you can't run the software as a signed binary, though, you're also taking it from the person who's signing it himself for his own use."
FALSE!
The GPL does not forbid the execution of signed binaries. The GPL does not even prohibit hardware that checks for signatures or cryptographic keys in itself, it only requires that you do not use GPLed code to enforce such restrictions *against the user*. It specifically requires that you distribute keys needed for execution along with the software (and hardware, obviosly). If you want to use your own keys, for security reassons, you are welcomed. BUT, if you *distribute* a "consumer product" cotaining GPLed code and said consumer product requires keys/passwords/signatures, you must provide them, or means to circunvent them. To the end user. To run, for example, his own crypto-system, with his own keys.
From the "Quick guide to the GPLv3"
EVEN MORE! the GPLv3 doesn't even prohibits you from enforcing checks outside the GPLed work. For example, in a network that requires authentification of the executed binary in the clients for access. This is *specifically* covered in the text of the GPL, probably as an alternative to kernel-signing (see Section 6, paragraph 6).
Finally, what you say in the end is wrong too. This is a free software license that seeks to defend the freedoms asociated with software from the impossitions ON SOFTWARE that restrictions for hardware or content entail. You are still free to make and distribute systems with hardware or content restrictions, but if you do, those restrictions must not tamper with the freedoms associated to software.
I think you are missing that
1.- the restrictions to hardware and content are there only because and in the measure that they do restrict the freedoms associated with software.
3.- this restrictions are *necessary* if we want to *preserve* the freedom of software.
the problem is very simple: if you want to preserve freedom X, you must prevent every possible restriction to freedom X. If you prevent one restriction, but allow others, you are not effectively protecting freedom X.
I do not want to allow you power to restrict my freedom in any way. if I forbid you to restrict it in way 1, but do not do anything over way 2, I have allowed you power to restrict my freedom.
If in the past, we only knew of way 1 of attacking freedom, and consequently forbid it, and then sudenly way 2 rears its ugly head, it is our (moral? political?) imperative to forbid way 2 also, if we want to keep avoiding attacks on freedom.
Now, the real problem, is that i don't trust the free convictions of people who say that GPLv3 is some kind of treason. I do not doubt their practical interest in the openness of software, but by allowing some ways of restriction to freedom, they are (practically) abandoning the pretension of freedom at all. there's no middle ground in this. SO, where are the arguments *in favor* of GPLv2 over GPLv3? why should we NOT restrict some possible method of attacking our freedom?
Should we care about adoption of software? shold we make licenses so Big Biz inc. can use our software, and in that effort leave gaping holes in the protection of our freedom? should we have any interest in preserving the hardware manufacturer's right to enforce vendor lock in, or implement DRM?
i don't see why.
And since not forbiding those rights of Big Biz inc. and hw manufacturers puts our freedom in danger (and they have shown in the past that that's exactly what they will do if we give them the chance) then it would be irresponsable for us not to do it.
ps: i think that you used the word "value" in a economical sense. open source has a lot of (economic) value, as it is a superior method for building software. But i used the word value in a moral sense. In this sense, OS has no value at all, except as a prerequisite for software to be free, wich is the real moral value we are trying to preserve.
well, yes, that's what the whole disagrement eventually comes down to: open source... but open source for what? the GPLv2 was good enough when the main obstacle towards substantial freedom (to sum it up somehow) was the closed source of distributed software. It was a practical impediment. Open source in itself has no vlaue at all.
Now there are other impediments. equally practical. they must be overcome. GPLv3 is not only a good execution of steps towards the defence of freedom, is a necessity.
and Linus... he says he doesn't care enough to worry about. In practical terms that's the same as "he doesn't care", i don't give a damn what he cares for or not in the privacy of his house. Not caring enough to worry about = not giving a damn, in practical terms.
ehem. i think you built a strawman of my original possition and my subsequent reply and proceeded to bash it. in regards to that:
1.- i have not said that i have the only valid possition. I have not said that all other possitions are invalid. I'm only saying that you originally made the mistake of believing that the fsf should generally defend the greater freedom (abstractly) in the use of software (and software only).
2.- From that mistake stems your point about the fsf "restricting some freedoms is bad precedent". To me is the other way around: the fsf HAS to limit freedoms, the question is not about how much freedom, or if it restricts the freedom at all, is about which freedoms. I was ONLY arguing THAT PART. at least until now.
Now to the rest of what you say:
You could interpret the intentions of the fsf in a restricted sence, as a movement for the freedom to "see the source", applicable only to software. Or you can interpret the intentions of the fsf as a movement for the freedom to tinker and to share the results of your tinkering with your fellow human beings.
If you believe the first, then yeah, the anti-tivoization clauses could seem out of place to you in the effort to preserve the "freedom to see the source". If you believe the second, then the anti-tivoization clauses are just common sense.
The OSI crowd and ESR and Linus believe the first... They "like" the bazaar model and all that just because they believe that it is an "efficient" way to make "Good Software". They have no interest in the freedoms preserved by the fsf and gnu per se, but just as means to make Good Software. This is a completely different movement, with a completely different agenda. But jumping on the wagon of the fsf, using its licenses, presenting yourself as some kind of evangelist of the movement and then crying foul when the fsf takes the obviuos steps needed to acomplish its objectives is, at least, opportunistic.
So, yeah, you can keep showing the "fallacies" in my argument, and insist on the spoureous relation between kernel-signing and the "freedom to see the source". But i am NOT talking about this. I dont give a damn about your "freedom to see the source".
And more importantly, the fsf doesn't too!
if you say that the fsf limiting the free use of software per se is a bad precedent, then you are not understanding the basic fact that the defense of fredom X necesarilly implies the restriction of right Y.
The FSF does not have to "defend the greater freedom", or even try to minimize the "amount" of freedom that it restricts in its efforts, it must only care for the protection of the particular freedoms that are of interest to its political objectives.
You did not, and still do not understand the issue (and me being or not being a condescending ass won't have any effect on your capacity to understand, i'm affraid), as it's clear when you say something like
"When someone calls themselves the "Free Software Foundation", they should be limiting the free use of the software as little as possible to further its greater freedom"
Believing that is naive. Or wicked.
The rest of you rant is preetty predictable given that basic misunderstanding.
then it is clear that you do not understand the issue: the FSF is just one actor in a very common political conflict between rights and liberties of different individuals. The GPL's objective in this conflict is to limit the freedom of those who could use their privileged possition (as developers or manufacturers) to limit the freedoms of end-users.
"the FSF limiting the free use of software" is not a bad precedent, it's just the FSF doing its best to protect the liberties that its political objectives demand protected, because the *ONLY* way in wich you can defend any given liberty is restricting someone's rights, somewhere.
To me, the problem is clear: linus doesn't give a damn about freedom as a political priciple or value. He just likes the GPL because it works to make better software. He does not endorse the movement on philosophical grounds, but purely practical ones. I think that this possition (like the OSI's) is oportunistic. he is a genius when it comes to programming, though.
and in cuba. but you have problems with that too, beyond agro-protectionism, IIRC.
fair enough, but your last point doesn't follow from your premise, ie, the private/public character* of organizations has nothing to do with the openness of their use licences. I reckon that for profit/not for profit normally is related, but not necesarilly. And i agree with you.
:)
You can call me logic nazi
No, but seriously, when it comes to freedoms in the cyber age, it's specially important to separate those issues. I may be a little paranoid about it, given context, but it is important nevertheless.
* i don't know if you can use character in that sense in english. i hope what i mean is understood.
please clarify. I said that *after* a cruel dictatorship, where people *was* detained and disapeared by things of the like of having relatives speaking in public, we have the liberty to do that, and not be imprisoned or disappeared, cause that dictatorship was toppled.
That dictatorship was sponsored and financed by the us. In my country, the US did not help any freedom, but help crush them, as in a lot of other countries.
Now, you were saying that i have complete freedom to do as i'm told and say what you are told to think. why would that be?
Either a) you didn't understand shit of what i was saying, and i reckon that this could be because of my bad english (i'm not a native speaker) or b) you don't know shit of what you are talking about, especially considering that you probably don't know where i'm from.
In any case, my point was against that typical belief among united states citizens that the world at large needs some kind of big brother to live peacefully and in freedom. In most parts, the US has not been of help in that particular front, but all the opposite. My country is one of those places.
So please clarify your comment, because i don't want to jump into conclusions about your political education or standing, and believe honestly that one of us is not understading the other.
I had replied to you yesterday, but /. db system was down, apparently.
I take it that you understand my previous points about the fallacy of god, and its invalidity as a foundational premise. This has a corollary: it is invalid as a foundational premise because faith (or beleif, or whatever it takes to recgnize the validity of "there is god") is not something that we can expect from everybody. That is what makes it invalid in itself, not its fallacy per se.
I don't have a complete and fully thougt out alternative, and humbly reckon that i need to study a lot more of moral philosohpy (IANAL, although i live my life with one), but i'd say that democracy fills that gap, as it requires that all parts present their possitions in an accesible way to everybody else, and that is rationally. Even the consequences of religious foundations might be considered valid if they can be supported independently, and subject to the same level of criticism that all other premises endure.
The above has two critical corollaries that make democracy invaluable:
1.- it forces people to identify their individual interest with the general interest.
2.- it reduces the amount of arbitratirness in social decissions, as, theoretically, all premises should be argued in full, and justified, without references to some parts that are only accesible to me, like the religious.
Since we are forced to live with people of various beliefs, we should not fund our public possitions, or those that we are willing to demand of others, in beliefs that by definition, are not shared by the community as a whole. *Because* we are capable of independent thought is that god is not enough to overcome the state of nature.
I read the article you sent. It was very interesting. With all due respect, you jews have a *very* special form of rellationship with god. very very special.
the obvious distinction that you english speakers need to make between gratis and libre is not only a difference between degress of freedom in an object, it's a difference between two differnet things, as gratis refers to the cost of access to something. Nothing is per-se gratis, unless it is a publicly available, non-exclusive good with no costs associated to its distribution or consumption. like air. Anything else, is gratis for someone. in this case, fotr the user, but not for google, or the advertisers.
Now libre, in the other hand, has nothing to do with costs at all, but to the rights confered upon third parties to use, distribute, or modify the good distributed. Specifically, it relates to the freedoms you are entitled to upon receiving said good, disregarding all cost considerations.
The "Ads by google" may probably be relevant from a costs point of view, but it has NOTHING to do with its libre standing, notwithstanding the fact that normally, when goods are distributed for-profit, even if gratis to the user, they tend to be distributed un-librely. but this is correlation, not necessity. Its a contingent association.
the wikimedia foundation IS a private organization, google may very well devise a similar licensing scheme to not own the content, or wp could change the licensing terms to enforce copyright on submissions. Google being a for-profit enterprise has nothing to do with the ownership of the content, in principle.
Now, you could argue that normally, for-profit organizations wouldn't have any incentive to let go of the ownerhips of the content, or whatever, but the dichotomy bewteen public-private has nothing to do with it, they are two very different issues.
well, that's exactly what they said about concorde, and it could never show blue numbers. The problem is not if there are some execs willing to pay, is that these execs are not enought to make it profitable, or are not willing to pay enough to make it profitable, given how few of them there are.
Besides, they already have alternatives
go read a little about theories of justice, or right and liberties, or law. every right imposes restrictions on someone elses liberties. In general, the mechanisms that must be set up for the protection of material property impose tolerable restrictions, as there are quite explicit means to enforce the will of the propietor, ie, he can lock his doors, and it wouldn't be presentable to call fowl over the fact that your right to move freely is affected by his decission.
In the case of Imaginary property, like digital goods, the problem is much more complex, and normally, you could end up comitting a CRIME, for wich you could have to pay a lot of money, just by donwloading a file, wich ios not presentable as a grave violation of the will of a third party to defend thier rights.
So yes, the issue ALWAYS is about my rights, and how my rights affect the liberties of others, and vice versa.
Don't be naive to believe otherwise, right and liberty are not empty words, and can not be talked about without consideration for their necesary material consequences, specially if this are enshrined in judicially effective LAWS.
ps: IANAL, just a guy with common sense.
i've always suspected that jewish theology is a little more complex that what we are used to in christian countries, and your posts confirm that suspicion. I find it interesting that judaism is so concerned about rational foundations for the belief in god, and although i respect it, i simply don't agree with the idea that a well documented historical event has as its only explanation the existence of a supreme omnipotent god, but i don't think that we need to take this derivation of the discussion. i'd be interested in your references, though, religion in itself is a very interesting matter to me, specially rational discourse about it.
Now, the rest of the argument goes something like: there ar eseparate private and public morals. I refer as private to any moral that you might personally use to conduct your life, and that you can suggest to others as guidelines for them to live their lives. Religion certainly has a place here, as long as its role is strictly moral, as guidelines for personal life of yourself and others.
Public moral, in the other hand, is not a suggestion, but a rule. It materializes itself as law and public, state sponsored acts. In this space we must be very very careful, in two senses:
1.- we should be completely sure of the truth of our premises, specifically, of the truth of the relation of forbidden acts to the values that we cherish as a society.
2.- the premises of these rules should be evident to any rational human being, rationality being taken as a minimum requirement for intelligent discourse and comunication.
Religion fails in this both critical aspects. I have a right to be an athean and believe "there is no god". Religious people have the rigth to be religious and believe "there is god". No one has the right to impose rules or take actions that affect other party interests on the basis of either of those premises, as they are fallacies.
My problem is with *that* use of religion, wich i think is the problematic one. with the other i have no (necessary) quarrel. In my case, the church in my country has a lot of power, and this has affected a lot of public health measures, for example. This is unaceptable.
More generally, killing another man in the name of a non-existent being is anathema to me. Said being is non-existent until proven otherwise; the burden of proof is always in the positive statement, as ockam said: Entia non sunt muntiplicanda praeter necesittatem. The simplest explanation is usually the correct. God is not the simplest explanation.
I think we've moved on from the initial disagreemen, and have enjoyed discussing with you, too.
One final comment: it's been a long time since i studied logic, so my terms might be a little un-accurate. Fallacy is my personal tranlation of wht in spanish is called a "falacia", meaning a statement about which its not logically possible to determine its truth or false status. More over, my logical formation might be a little outdated, surely there are more precise terms for this, but i'm not aware of them. So in short, yes, fallacy means unverifiable.
in my country, the only regimen under wich you would be imprisoned and disappeared if you had a relative speaking in public was sponsored and financed by the US.
We have that liberties now, after 20~ years of military dictatorship, and without a quarter of our budget being spent on weapons.
Ever read Orwell's 1984? you should. Your possition is perfectly illustrated by a slogan in that book: War is peace. That's the country you live in.
There are far nastier regimes in the world than the US one, and none of them have any tolerance for pacifists, except for ones in countries they consider an enemy. Come to think of it, they're not too keen on people talking about politics at all.
what the fuck are you on mate? the US is BY FAR the nastier regimen on earth, not to its citizens, of course, but to the world as a whole. I don't give shit about what the north koreans and south koreans want to do between them, but when the us decides to impose any kind of measure on almost anything, my life is personally affected, and this measures tend to be fascist, unilateral and with no consideration for my dignity. I do not want to be treated like a criminal in airports, but now the US decided to do just that, and here, all the way across the world, we suffer, adn this is just ONE example.
The same thing happens preetty much on every other aspect of life. I don't know what the fuck they teach people about politics up there, but you elect some freaking monkeys as leaders and we all suffer. I really don't have nothing to worry about Kim Young Il or what-his-name, but truly, thinking that dubya and his henchmen are in charge in the US of A gives me the chills.
A lot of people might have fougth for those liberties, sure thing. Down here at least, they fought AGAINST the US.
Right. It's dandy if you are from afghanistan, somalia, irak, and colombia too.
You people seem to believe that this planet has room for a few selected, occidental, "democratic" country, and bomb the hell out of anybody else.
No country has been more agressive to other countries than the US, in the whole history of mankind. We didn't ask the us to protect us, we don't want their "protection", and for us, that awfull lot of guns, in a country where kids regularly go to school to shoot their classmates, their governmente makes up shit to justify bombimng and invading of other countries, and just to follow a lead on some saudi guy allegedlly hiding somewhere decide to bomb the hell out of a third country and invade them, and threaten their neighbour to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't help them do it is in no way an asset for world peace.
i'd say that the fucking idiot is not him. Guns already are a liability, and everybody knows that, except some fucking idiots who believe any stupidity their fucking idiot and lying leaders tell them. I don't think GP is one of them.
ok, let's start wrapping this up, i don't have much hope of reaching any agreement. First, i tend to write in a somewhat obtuse tone, if you felt offended personally by some of comments, i am truly sorry. Now...
:S), religious education, etc. I'm not saying that we should fail in favor or against of one of the possition a priori, i'm only saying that religious arguments in this discussions are unaceptable, please provide valid reassons for your possition, as i do not believe in god (Actually, i believe that there is no god, but i would never use my atheism, or the assertion that "there is no god" as reasson for anything, as i could not expect that fallacy to have any argumentative power)
I really don't intend to make a dstinction between one monotheistic religion or another. To me, they all start from the assertion that "there is a god".
If there is a god, there must be some measurable consequence of its existence, ie, some phenomena for wich there is no other possible explanation than that god actually exists. I don't care if originally that explanation came form the personal revelation given to one man, or if that man is alive or not. If he can't produce this "crucial test", ie, this phenomena for wich there's no other plausible explanation, then what he is saying, or said, or someone said that said is still a logical fallacy. As such, it is NOT a rational foundation of knowledge, and all knowledge built upon it is irrational, in the sense that it rest on premises not available to rational scrutiniy.
All other assertions have some form of testing, or when these are not available, are presented as hypothesys, or theories, wich are a valid part of discourse until disproven. History in particular seldom leaves the realm of possibilities, and that is why we say that History is not a nomothetic science, and does not pretend to give general explanations for reality. In this regard, is fundamentally distinct from physics or religion.
If you say something so bold as "there is a god", the burden of proof falls on your side. As such, its not a valid argument in general, and its not a valid argument i particular when the object of discussion affects my interests and rights. Bombing people back to the stone age is an extreme example, but in lamer parts of the world we still have such conflicts: abortion, euthanasy, divorce (wich was illegal here until a few years ago
I'm not saying that everybody forget about their beliefs, i'm only saying: "please provide some fundament that we, as rational human beings, can relate to, without the need to believe in fallacies for wich we have no (rational) reasson to believe".
and finally: wether is one man, or several of them, is not important in the sense that the quantity of believers does not in itself make a belief any more rational. until a few years ago, people believed that you could catch AIDS by being near a people with with AIDS, and the amount of believers in such nonsense did nothing to make it any less nosense.
Out of curiosity, isn't judaism founded on the divine revelation experienced by Moses, in private? how is that more rational than the devine revelation experiencied by Muhammad in private? and i ask this out of ignorance: i'm not familiar with jewish theology at all, so i don't know why the reference to ancestors should be more rational than a reference to other personal testimony.
...
i agree with you. the point is that that phenomenon is hardly exclusive to the music industry.
Who makes nike shoes? some chinese laborman. Let's say he makes a couple hundred pair of shoes a month. His salary is nowhere near the 12.5% of the cost of a couple hundred pair of nike shoes.
I know, i't s a tricky analogy, but give it a spin: how many cents does the original designer that worked in any given pair of nike shoes get for each shoe sold? i bet is much much much less than 12%, or whatever.
Yes, musicians are under-paid. But in capitalism, EVERYBODY that does not own his own bussiness is under paid, and that includes a vast vast vast majority of people, specially in other countries (other than the us, that is).
1.- I have not said that i personally have any more morality to say anything about anything. I am only saying that falacious arguments are not valid arguments, specially in public political discussions.
2.- Unless you can back up your statements about god with proof, or at least some kind of thing that remotely resembles an assertion that is aplicable to a True/False test, even if this test is beyond our current material possibilities, i really *really* don't care how many of your ancestors believe your original ancestors and their divine revelation. "God exists" has the same logical value as an assertion about the giant-sun-devouring-squid, or the already mentioned flying spagheti monster and his noodly appendage. It doesn't matter how many rabi's you throw at this, the original premise (there is a god) keeps being fundamented in FAITH, not REASSON. Now, a different set of problems arise from the pondering of the logical conclusions that derive from faith, but faith, by its pure definition, is irrational, and the basic premise on which all monotheistic religions are based is that god exists, and that is a fallacy (even if not necesarilly false. fallacy != false)
3.- The whole point of religion is that it's irrational in its foundation. The whole point of considering faith a virtue is its irrational exercise of trust in god. If you say that the knowledge of god is subject to rational scrutiny, then religion, grace, divine inspiration and revelation all fall down to pieces as a special, or even particular form of knowledge. I don't think that that is what religious people think.
4.- my nick is galoise, nice to meet you. I read your nick the first time, but i really don't think that the fact that you personally are a jew has anything to do with the validity or not of religious discourse, the logical consistency of a statement such as "there is no god" or "god exists". You are a jew? good for you. i am an athean.
5.- "what's so wrong about trying to do the right thing? do you lack the self confidence necessary to trying? are you afraid of failure?" sounds a lot to me like you think i 1.- am affraid of doing the right thing 2.- are not doing the right thing and 3.- i'm trying to say that doing the right thing is somewhat wrong (wich is an oxymoron, by the way). I could have taken it personally, but i'm not too fond of personal allusions in any discussion. not even when my morality is put in question, by someone that believes that the content of his nick is somewhat considerable in the context of a discussion.
6.- There is no proof of the flying spaghetti monster. Why you can say that God exists invoking the testimony of millions of ancestors and get away with it, and i have to provide proof other than the assertion itself and the testimony of a few thousand fellow belivers like me? DO you think that TFSM is ridiculous? would you consider it absurd and invalid if it were waived as political argument? now you see my point of view. And i'm not making it up, actually. There ARE a few thousand felow believers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster/. the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster is its absurdity.