The blurb on Slashdot's front page claims that the article referenced here is "well argued." After reading it, however, I must disagree. Judging from the article, the author is -- very simply, a "Stallmanista" -- one who accepts Richard Stallman's views entirely uncritically. He never stops to question whether Stallman's "religious" views make any sense. For example, he sidesteps entirely the issue of whether Stallman's belief that there's something inherently wrong about selling one's work is justified. He therefore comes across -- unfortunately -- as an orthodox fundamentalist arguing the fine points of a radical religion without ever questioning whether its basic premises are wrongheaded. Which, IMHO, they are.
I encountered yet another example just this week: D-Link refuses to publish the source code for the firmware inside its DFL-80 firewall router -- even though it clearly has GPLed code inside. (The log messages betray this.) Why do many companies do this? Because they recognize that the GPL's enforceability is questionable. And they are, quite likely, right.
The big problem (though it's not new) is that Debian still considers GPLed software -- even though it's encumbered by a long, complex, and incredibly restrictive license -- to be "free." (They even capitalize "Free," indicating religious faith rather than rational thinking.) Any software license that is so complex that it takes up more than a page (or even a few paragraphs) certainl is not "free."
Many municipalities, including mine, don't require businesses to be licensed. What's to keep any customer who buys the package from saying he's from such a place?
One of the greatest virtues of the old Apache license was that it was not "viral." If a viral license can be stamped on the code at will, it may eventually lead to a situation in which one must be subjected to the restrictions of the GPL to use the work. This would not be a good thing.
If what this person is doing is ethical, what's to keep reporters from claiming that they're on the scene in Baghdad -- or Kabul -- when in fact they're safe in the US?
The GPL requires you to license, at no charge, derivative works to all and sundry. Trouble is, licensing a copyrighted work is a contract. So, the GPL is a contract that requires you to make another contract.
Such a "meta-contract" is invalid under the basic principles of contract law. It wouldn't stand up in court.
Searching for steganography is like airport security, and equally futile. Both assume that it's possible to recognize anything that can possibly used to do ill, even when you don't know what it is, how it works, or what it's for. 99% of the time, you'll have a false alarm; the other 1% of the time, you'll find a really dumb crook who wasn't competent enough to do any real harm anyway. (If he was, you wouldn't have caught him.)
Heresy and the FSF "religion"
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps the worst "heresy" one can post on Slashdot is the notion that the GPL is not holy writ, or that it is the result of one man's adolescent trauma and lifelong vendetta (even though this is, in fact, true).
You cannot "put" BSD-licensed code under the GPL. You can only license your own additions to it under the GPL. What's more, when you do so, you're obliged to keep the BSD license on every copy. You can't just shred someone else's license, even if it does permit you to create derivate works.
The essay referenced in this article directly contradicts Stallman's own statements, which actually advocate the use of the GPL to "pry" intellectual property away from institutions and businesses. In his essay, "What is Copyleft?", Stallman writes:
People who write free software
often work for companies or universities
that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to
contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may "see
green" and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product.
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the
improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides
to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
So, this apologist for the FSF is apparently attempting to sweep its true intentions under the rug.
The FAT file system format was never patentable to begin with, since there was nothing particularly novel about it when it was created. What's more, it has been in use for more than 20 years (the lifetime of a patent) and nothing about it was patented within a year of its implementation and release to the public. So, Microsoft has no rights here. Its claims to the contrary are absurd.
If Cisco were merely promoting a standard that anyone could implement, a scheme such as this would be reasonable. But if it requires that "approved" software be used, and that the vendor of the software buy a license from Cisco, it's anti-competitive and probably illegal.
Even though this code is for Linux, it would be better if it were licensed under an MIT or similar license. That way, it could be incorporated into many non-Windows operating systems, from Linux to NetBSD.
Interestingly, an MSN search for the term "
FreeBSD Windows returns more than half a million
hits. In other words, Microsoft is filtering searches for Linux and not FreeBSD. (Perhaps this is
because the BSDs haven't declared war on all
commercial software vendors, including Microsoft?)
Unfortuantely, while the FCC is giving lip service to wireless broadband, its proposed rules actually hurt it rather than help it. The "new" spectrum can't be used outdoors, and the transmitters have to shut up if a signal that looks anything like radar is detected. (Can you say "DoS attack," boys and girls? I knew you could.) What's more, older transmitters operating on that band would have to be removed. So, the FCC's proposed rules are a step backward, not a step forward.
According to the all-too-credulous Declan McCullagh, Time pulled the excerpt from their archive because they'd only been given permission to publish it for a short time. But this is a lame excuse. Had Time been given permission to publish the excerpt for a short period, it would likely have been a month or two, not six years. The fact that it was pulled only two months ago clearly indicates a political motivation -- perhaps the same one that caused CBS to pull its miniseries on Ronald Reagan.
Another of Borland's failures to read the market
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
Borland's entire history, alas, has been one of great technology and failed product strategies. The root of the problem is that, while the company has always been gutsy technologically, it has always been so cowardly in its marketing and product plans that it never has been able to get a leg up.
This trait dates back to the 1980's, when Borland was founded. When Digital Research's GEM -- the first usable GUI for the PC -- came out, I offered to produce (and even prototyped!) a version of Turbo Pascal that worked with it. But Borland wouldn't go for it. (It later developed for the Mac -- a minuscule market -- and Windows, where competitor Microsoft held all the cards.) At the time, Philippe Kahn said that he didn't want to develop for GEM because it was a small market. To which I replied, "Of course; it's new! But with good development tools, you can make it a big market."
Philippe didn't listen, and got his butt kicked (and his developers stolen) by Microsoft.
More recently, responding to media hype, Borland leaped onto the Linux bandwagon with Kylix. This was another big mistake. Few Linux users will pay even a penny for development tools, and many are in fact ideologically opposed to doing so. I told Borland at the time that it should support BSD, which lacked the anti-business zealotry that's found in so much of the Linux and GPL communities, would pay for good compilers, and wanted non-GPLed tools But did Borland listen? Of course not -- their craven "me too" attitude once again caused them to make the wrong choice. Instead of promoting (and sharing) the success of a platform, they became a weak offering on one where they could not possibly make money.
Given this poor track record, I'm actually amazed that Borland is still in business at all.
The company's press release mentions a "single photon generator," but neglects to mention the cat that must be included inside the box for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to work. It also doesn't mention kitty litter, catnip, or other necessary supplies. Perhaps they're using Cat5?
Slashdot Mirror
The blurb on Slashdot's front page claims that the article referenced here is "well argued." After reading it, however, I must disagree. Judging from the article, the author is -- very simply, a "Stallmanista" -- one who accepts Richard Stallman's views entirely uncritically. He never stops to question whether Stallman's "religious" views make any sense. For example, he sidesteps entirely the issue of whether Stallman's belief that there's something inherently wrong about selling one's work is justified. He therefore comes across -- unfortunately -- as an orthodox fundamentalist arguing the fine points of a radical religion without ever questioning whether its basic premises are wrongheaded. Which, IMHO, they are.
And then, ironically, the FSF tells you all the things you're not free to do with the code. GPLed software isn't free.
I encountered yet another example just this week: D-Link refuses to publish the source code for the firmware inside its DFL-80 firewall router -- even though it clearly has GPLed code inside. (The log messages betray this.) Why do many companies do this? Because they recognize that the GPL's enforceability is questionable. And they are, quite likely, right.
The big problem (though it's not new) is that Debian still considers GPLed software -- even though it's encumbered by a long, complex, and incredibly restrictive license -- to be "free." (They even capitalize "Free," indicating religious faith rather than rational thinking.) Any software license that is so complex that it takes up more than a page (or even a few paragraphs) certainl is not "free."
If it were commercially usable, it might help companies compete with Microsoft. Alas, with the GPL's poison pill, it won't.
Sounds like a great way to revoke access to software unless the poor vict... er, user pays more dough.
does the FCC does not understand?
Many municipalities, including mine, don't require businesses to be licensed. What's to keep any customer who buys the package from saying he's from such a place?
One of the greatest virtues of the old Apache license was that it was not "viral." If a viral license can be stamped on the code at will, it may eventually lead to a situation in which one must be subjected to the restrictions of the GPL to use the work. This would not be a good thing.
If what this person is doing is ethical, what's to keep reporters from claiming that they're on the scene in Baghdad -- or Kabul -- when in fact they're safe in the US?
Such a "meta-contract" is invalid under the basic principles of contract law. It wouldn't stand up in court.
Searching for steganography is like airport security, and equally futile. Both assume that it's possible to recognize anything that can possibly used to do ill, even when you don't know what it is, how it works, or what it's for. 99% of the time, you'll have a false alarm; the other 1% of the time, you'll find a really dumb crook who wasn't competent enough to do any real harm anyway. (If he was, you wouldn't have caught him.)
Perhaps the worst "heresy" one can post on Slashdot is the notion that the GPL is not holy writ, or that it is the result of one man's adolescent trauma and lifelong vendetta (even though this is, in fact, true).
That's not what Stallman and the FSF say.
You cannot "put" BSD-licensed code under the GPL. You can only license your own additions to it under the GPL. What's more, when you do so, you're obliged to keep the BSD license on every copy. You can't just shred someone else's license, even if it does permit you to create derivate works.
People who write free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may "see green" and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product.
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
So, this apologist for the FSF is apparently attempting to sweep its true intentions under the rug.
The FAT file system format was never patentable to begin with, since there was nothing particularly novel about it when it was created. What's more, it has been in use for more than 20 years (the lifetime of a patent) and nothing about it was patented within a year of its implementation and release to the public. So, Microsoft has no rights here. Its claims to the contrary are absurd.
If Cisco were merely promoting a standard that anyone could implement, a scheme such as this would be reasonable. But if it requires that "approved" software be used, and that the vendor of the software buy a license from Cisco, it's anti-competitive and probably illegal.
Even though this code is for Linux, it would be better if it were licensed under an MIT or similar license. That way, it could be incorporated into many non-Windows operating systems, from Linux to NetBSD.
Interestingly, an MSN search for the term " FreeBSD Windows returns more than half a million hits. In other words, Microsoft is filtering searches for Linux and not FreeBSD. (Perhaps this is because the BSDs haven't declared war on all commercial software vendors, including Microsoft?)
Unfortuantely, while the FCC is giving lip service to wireless broadband, its proposed rules actually hurt it rather than help it. The "new" spectrum can't be used outdoors, and the transmitters have to shut up if a signal that looks anything like radar is detected. (Can you say "DoS attack," boys and girls? I knew you could.) What's more, older transmitters operating on that band would have to be removed. So, the FCC's proposed rules are a step backward, not a step forward.
According to the all-too-credulous Declan McCullagh, Time pulled the excerpt from their archive because they'd only been given permission to publish it for a short time. But this is a lame excuse. Had Time been given permission to publish the excerpt for a short period, it would likely have been a month or two, not six years. The fact that it was pulled only two months ago clearly indicates a political motivation -- perhaps the same one that caused CBS to pull its miniseries on Ronald Reagan.
This trait dates back to the 1980's, when Borland was founded. When Digital Research's GEM -- the first usable GUI for the PC -- came out, I offered to produce (and even prototyped!) a version of Turbo Pascal that worked with it. But Borland wouldn't go for it. (It later developed for the Mac -- a minuscule market -- and Windows, where competitor Microsoft held all the cards.) At the time, Philippe Kahn said that he didn't want to develop for GEM because it was a small market. To which I replied, "Of course; it's new! But with good development tools, you can make it a big market."
Philippe didn't listen, and got his butt kicked (and his developers stolen) by Microsoft.
More recently, responding to media hype, Borland leaped onto the Linux bandwagon with Kylix. This was another big mistake. Few Linux users will pay even a penny for development tools, and many are in fact ideologically opposed to doing so. I told Borland at the time that it should support BSD, which lacked the anti-business zealotry that's found in so much of the Linux and GPL communities, would pay for good compilers, and wanted non-GPLed tools But did Borland listen? Of course not -- their craven "me too" attitude once again caused them to make the wrong choice. Instead of promoting (and sharing) the success of a platform, they became a weak offering on one where they could not possibly make money.
Given this poor track record, I'm actually amazed that Borland is still in business at all.
The company's press release mentions a "single photon generator," but neglects to mention the cat that must be included inside the box for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to work. It also doesn't mention kitty litter, catnip, or other necessary supplies. Perhaps they're using Cat5?
Traveling Software/Laplink's PC Sync, which was out quite some time ago, is prior art.