PDA

View Full Version : Free vs. Free v2.0



Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 01:37 AM
I now understand that Free sometimes means Open Source, or all free, and sometimes it means "You can use it, but not modify it."

But my question is...

What makes some people so hard-core about ONLY using free (Open Source) only? i.e. I have an Nvidia card, but will only use the NV (Open Source) drivers, and not the ones provided by Nvidia.

Simon17
December 16th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

3rdalbum
December 16th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Read the preamble of the GPL (type "man gpl" into the terminal). Proprietary software, whether it's pay-for or zero-cost, imposes restrictions on the user.

Note that the NV driver is a very poor example; it's technically open-source, but in reality it is obfuscated by Nvidia's engineers to try and avoid giving out information about their hardware. Information that anyone can get from reading the source code of Nouveau, which is the driver that an open-source purist would actually be using.

Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 02:07 AM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

I don't know about that. If you invested as much money in a project like "MS Office" the way Microsoft has, I don't think you'd just hand it out for free.

murderslastcrow
December 16th, 2009, 02:08 AM
Perhaps you have an impulse to desire open cooperation on all projects. Imagine what the drivers would be like if they weren't closed and worked on by a limited number of programmers? I think it may simply be the desire to encourage open development.

After all, there is also the risk of the closed-source components having no new development. If nVidia stops developing their driver, but Linux keeps adding new ways to interact with that hardware, what then? I think when you think about it, it's just a natural desire for improvement and disclosure.

Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 02:15 AM
Perhaps you have an impulse to desire open cooperation on all projects. Imagine what the drivers would be like if they weren't closed and worked on by a limited number of programmers? I think it may simply be the desire to encourage open development.

After all, there is also the risk of the closed-source components having no new development. If nVidia stops developing their driver, but Linux keeps adding new ways to interact with that hardware, what then? I think when you think about it, it's just a natural desire for improvement and disclosure.

I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.

If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.

tc3000
December 16th, 2009, 02:34 AM
I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.

If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.

That's the point of the GPL. You can't just take the code and tweak it and control it. You have to give your modifications back to the community (If you distribute it).

Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 02:39 AM
That's the point of the GPL. You can't just take the code and tweak it and control it. You have to give your modifications back to the community (If you distribute it).

So...


Read the preamble of the GPL (type "man gpl" into the terminal). Proprietary software, whether it's pay-for or zero-cost, imposes restrictions on the user.

...the GPL imposes restrictions as well.

alphaniner
December 16th, 2009, 02:43 AM
So...
...the GPL imposes restrictions as well.

Oh, but it just restricts people from restricting, so it doesn't really count as restrictive. It's like a double negative. :rolleyes:

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 02:55 AM
So...



...the GPL imposes restrictions as well.
What's your point? The BSD license(s) also imposes a restriction. Not all restrictions are equal.

Xbehave
December 16th, 2009, 02:55 AM
I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.
Erm that isn't how hardware drivers work, they provide support for their hardware, no software rendering*, so that situation is ridiculous.

*BTW SGI who did a lot of this on their high-end server did give it away when it was no longer giving them a competitive edge.


If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa. Pepsi would hand over the person to Coke and not use it, both have thier own markets and while getting the others formula would be easy for either it doesn't interest either. Both would still be evil corporations that sponsor kill-the-gay music festivals/Columbian drug gangs/pollute Indian water/etc and neither will see any of my money any time soon.

alphaniner
December 16th, 2009, 03:15 AM
Not all restrictions are equal.

You're right. The 'restrictions,' as you call them in, the BSDL are solely for liability purposes. They place no burdens whatsoever on the user/developer/distributor. Or, in other words, they aren't restrictions.

clanky
December 16th, 2009, 03:07 PM
But my question is...

What makes some people so hard-core about ONLY using free (Open Source) only?

Spending too much time listening to half-wits like RMS.

The ideals of open source / free software is great, but those ideals don't mean much if you can't do what you have to do.

Example, I use CAD, I have to use CAD for work, not only is there no open source CAD package worth a damn, there is also no CAD package of any source worth a damn which runs on an open source / free platform. Result, I use Windows and AutoCAD, now there are some people within the free software movement who would have you believe that this si an immoral choice, but what would they have me do, draw everything by hand?

bryonak
December 16th, 2009, 04:42 PM
I now understand that Free sometimes means Open Source, or all free, and sometimes it means "You can use it, but not modify it."

But my question is...

What makes some people so hard-core about ONLY using free (Open Source) only? i.e. I have an Nvidia card, but will only use the NV (Open Source) drivers, and not the ones provided by Nvidia.

Hmm... I'm not sure you really understand, or maybe just I don't understand that you understand ;)

There is proprietary software, which usually comes with a comparatively very restrictive license and whose source code is usually closed.
You have software that is for free (gratis, as in free beer), which simply tells you that you don't have to pay anything.
There is Open Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) software, which is often used to imply the open availability of the source code. The official definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) however is quite a bit stricter, resulting in almost the same as:
Free (as in freedom or free speech) software. This is software which is licensed with respect to the Four Freedoms of Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). It is usually also gratis, but that's just a side effect, since it's not forbidden to charge for Free software.


Most parts of Ubuntu are licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and thus Free software. Almost all of the rest (with a few exceptions) is also Free software, licensed under one of the many Free licenses (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html).
When talking about "free" in Linux-centric communities, we usually refer tho the "freedom" meaning of "free", not the price, and often capitalise the F.



Spending too much time listening to half-wits like RMS.

The ideals of open source / free software is great, but those ideals don't mean much if you can't do what you have to do.

Example, I use CAD, I have to use CAD for work, not only is there no open source CAD package worth a damn, there is also no CAD package of any source worth a damn which runs on an open source / free platform. Result, I use Windows and AutoCAD, now there are some people within the free software movement who would have you believe that this si an immoral choice, but what would they have me do, draw everything by hand?

Let's just for a moment accept the premise that proprietary software is unethical. Now if you are in a situation where you have to use proprietary software to get your work done, I think the choice is simple: just use it. The FSF pushes for people to chose Free software in general, not in specific cases.

Here's a somewhat exaggerated analogy just for the sake of understanding (and I'm not trying to equal human rights with software distribution rights here...):
I think we all can agree on slavery being unethical. Now what should a slave do when his slavemaster orders him to plow a field with only a stick? Stand up to him and get beaten, continue resisting and maybe get killed... or just get done with it for now and try other ways to combat slavery, and generally have a stance opposed to slavery?

Now I think Stallman would also recommend the latter. I'm not aware that he ever forced anyone to refrain from using proprietary software. Or even to accept that it should be unethical. Everyone is entitled to his/her free opinion, don't try to make a militant extremist out of a peaceful one ;)

Besides, before calling someone a half-wit, I recommend reading at least his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman).
He has his opinions, and he consequently holds to them.
And even though I myself disagree on quite a bunch of his views, I wouldn't exactly call Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Prof. Prof. Stallman a half-wit ;D

LeifAndersen
December 16th, 2009, 04:46 PM
I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.

If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.

No they couldn't. Just because it's Open Source and 'copyleft', they still will have patents on the driver.

forrestcupp
December 16th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

Lol.

Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want. It doesn't mean that you can make me say what you want me to say.

It's my right to release my software under whatever license I choose, even if it is proprietary.

jwbrase
December 16th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

I wouldn't quite say that. Freedom zero of the four freedoms is the only one that I'd say really is unethical to restrict.

However, corporations and individuals that decide to restrict the other three freedoms with regards to their software often do do unethical and immoral things (including the restriction of freedom 0) for the purpose of enforcing those restrictions. Also, current copyright laws are not really sensible in the digital age.

Un-libre software is not immoral, I'm just not sure if business models based on the sale of un-libre software can be simultaneously economically and ethically sound. When a developer is giving out software gratis, however, either as support to a product he's charging for, or just because it's more of a hobby project than anything, he doesn't have to worry about whether the software itself is making him anything, so he doesn't have economic motivations tempting him in to doing unethical things. Un-libre software given out gratis can certainly be moral.

jwbrase
December 16th, 2009, 06:00 PM
I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.

Not quite. ATI and NVidia aren't quite so worried about each other as they are about new startups copying their designs.

And they're not so much worried about what people would do with the drivers if they released them open source (they give the drivers out for free anyways) as they are that having the source code for the drivers would allow people to figure things out about the internal workings of the hardware that would allow the production of a competing card that could use the same drivers.



If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.

Nope. Pepsi and Coke both have very successful recipes that cater to their own markets. It wouldn't be a great disaster if Pepsi found out Coke's recipe or Coke found out Pepsi's. (They're both trying to convince the public that their recipe is *better*, so if Pepsi suddenly got their hands on Coke's recipe and started producing it, it would be more an admission of defeat than anything). What they're really worried about is Joe Sixpack getting his hands on their recipes so that he doesn't have to buy anything from them.

gnomeuser
December 16th, 2009, 06:01 PM
What makes some people so hard-core about ONLY using free (Open Source) only? i.e. I have an Nvidia card, but will only use the NV (Open Source) drivers, and not the ones provided by Nvidia.

I'll try to give an example using the nvidia driver but the general points apply to other pieces of software as well.

The nvidia driver:

1) Security

It's several megabytes of code running in your kernel with access to all kinds of things. You can't see what it's doing and it has been subject to at least one major security issue. We can't fix it, if nvidia doesn't find the problem worth the effort then we either have to remove the driver or leave users vulnerable to attack as a distribution.

2) Portability

The nvidia driver only runs on the platforms Nvidia deems they can support. This means e.g. that right now PS3 owners who wishes to run Linux on their machines (a fully supported feature from Sony btw. though not on the Slim models) are left out of 3D acceleration.

3) Stability

Looking over the top kernel oopses a clear trend is that kernels with the nvidia driver (and the ati proprietary driver) are high scoring components of these and related problems. Users can (and have) experience crashes in applications, which have their root cause in poor code in these modules. Such problems we can't fix since we aren't privy to the code, we are depending on the vendor providing such support in a timely fashion.

As a Linux distribution you might also encounter problems with users getting a poor experience and thus losing customers - meaning nvidia in theory could hold distributions at ransom till an open alternative appears with the same functionality or we do as they tell us. This scenerio though due to the public backlash it would cause seems absurd.

What isn't though is that nvidia has their own development schedule and if we want to develop our stack we occasionally have to make changes that change APIs and thus breaks the nvidia driver (this has happened). This forces us to either break this piece of the functionality for users when we import the new underlying stack or hold it back till nvidia decides to release a compatible version. This effectively lets nvidia dictate the development pace and release process of a large part of Linux.

4) Support for outdated/unavailable for sale hardware and saving the environment

Nvidia regularly moves older devices into a subset of their driver called legacy. This driver isn't well maintained, on purpose to lessen their support burden and naturally to sell new videocards. We thus can't support users existing hardware, therefor we (in reality nvidia) force them to upgrade their machines or stay on their existing platform. Preventing distributions from gaining users and thus also potential customers. It also lessens the applicability of the age old benefit Linux always was known for, running on your old clunker.

E.g. I participate in a project that sends old hardware to Africa to use in schools. When the time comes that the machines that come in through the door contain nvidia chips that aren't supported we give poor African children machines that do less than they can, are less fun, will interest them less. Making school a less exciting break in what must otherwise be a pretty bleak day. Yes - I did just manage to invoke starving African kids in a debate on software. Please do not see this as an emotional argument but rather a matter of making education as appealing as we can to allow these societies perhaps a slightly improved chance to bootstrap themselves out of surely bad situation.

The environment, every time you are forced to upgrade perfectly working hardware to get to a supported version of Linux (even Ubuntu LTS releases are only supported for 3½ years on the desktop) you are left with spare hardware. Often this ends up getting thrown out, replacing it thus forces upon us amongst others the following problems:

- Needlessly depleting our natural resources more
- Needlessly imposing more waste which contains toxic chemicals.
- Wasting production capacity
- Wasting money

With Open Source drivers we have the means to take these problems into our own hands.

I hope that answers the question.

jollysnowman
December 16th, 2009, 06:04 PM
I feel like the BSD license is less "restrictive" than GPL, spefically toward how it treats developers (vs. users). That, and having met and talked to Richard Stallman, I feel he's a bit hypocritical and hardheaded.


I use Windows and AutoCAD, now there are some people within the free software movement who would have you believe that this si an immoral choice, but what would they have me do, draw everything by hand?

Obviously you have to use GIMP. :)

jwbrase
December 16th, 2009, 06:23 PM
Spending too much time listening to half-wits like RMS.

The ideals of open source / free software is great, but those ideals don't mean much if you can't do what you have to do.

Example, I use CAD, I have to use CAD for work, not only is there no open source CAD package worth a damn, there is also no CAD package of any source worth a damn which runs on an open source / free platform. Result, I use Windows and AutoCAD, now there are some people within the free software movement who would have you believe that this si an immoral choice, but what would they have me do, draw everything by hand?

Certainly not! Even when you go to the extreme and say that proprietary software is immoral *to develop*, I find it quite a stretch to say that it's immoral *to use*. The rationale for it being immoral to develop is that in being proprietary it places unreasonable restrictions on the user. If the user can use it for what he needs it for within the scope of those restrictions, then why place the restriction upon him that he can't use it just because there are unreasonable restrictions on it that don't apply to him?

I suppose arguments can be made that it's immoral to let your rights be violated (Give me liberty or give me death sort of thing), or that it's immoral to give support to companies that are doing something immoral, but in the first case I'd say that this only applies if your rights actually are being violated (you can't use the software for the purposes you need it for within the scope of its restrictions), and the second argument is best decided on a company-by-company or even product-by-product basis.

alexfish
December 16th, 2009, 06:35 PM
I now understand that Free sometimes means Open Source, or all free, and sometimes it means "You can use it, but not modify it."

But my question is...

What makes some people so hard-core about ONLY using free (Open Source) only? i.e. I have an Nvidia card, but will only use the NV (Open Source) drivers, and not the ones provided by Nvidia.
Ask Microsoft

Seq
December 16th, 2009, 06:45 PM
I had been a Linux user and generally favoured open-source. I did, and still do, use proprietary software when no other alternative exists.

My interest in actually trying to use as little proprietary software as possible comes from having used a ppc platform with nvidia graphics. I had a great GPU (at the time) that didn't do anything. It also used quite a lot of power to put essentially cpu-rendered pixels on screen. My ATI ibook was much better as at least those specs were open.

Now that it seems I'm moving back to an nvidia-based display, at least I have nouveau, which seems to be making impressive improvements (although no power management quite yet). I won't have to worry about checking for compatibility of X updates, building my own kernel, bugs nobody can fix, etc.

saulgoode
December 16th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Lol.

Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want. It doesn't mean that you can make me say what you want me to say.

It's my right to release my software under whatever license I choose, even if it is proprietary.
But copyright IS about freedom of speech: it dictates what others are NOT permitted to say. When a poet, songwriter, or author makes one of his works public, everyone else is prohibited by copyright from repeating it. When your software is "released" (or any other copyrighted work), those who receive it are prohibited by copyright from repeating it (through copying it).

Copyright is about taking away everybody else's rights, it is not about retaining your rights. You would still have the right to distribute your software (or other creative work) even if copyright did not exist -- what copyright changes is that other people are denied that same right.

The Free Software movement takes the view that this denial of software users' rights is not beneficial to society. The GNU licenses are intended to effectively restore the users' rights taken away by copyright law. The BSD-style licenses also do this, but they still permit the recipients of the software to deny their users these rights. The GNU licenses attempt to guarantee that everybody receiving the software has the absolute minimum amount of rights being denied. Thus the GNU licenses grant all rights except the right to deny any rights*.


* ...except the right to deny any rights**
** ...except the right to deny any rights***
*** ...except the right to deny any rights****
**** ...(and so on...)

clanky
December 16th, 2009, 08:19 PM
Obviously you have to use GIMP. :) That made me laugh, unfortunately the ship is sailing soon and I have to go and fill in some more paperwork (I remember the days when sailing meant I had to go and start the engines :( ) so I don't have time to reply to those who replied to my post, I will try and remember to come back to this when we are in port next, but what I will say is thank you all for reasoned well thought out arguments rather than the usual ZOMG WIDOZE IZ TEH EVILZ nonsense which I have seen so often on here.

sudoer541
December 16th, 2009, 09:40 PM
I don't know about that. If you invested as much money in a project like "MS Office" the way Microsoft has, I don't think you'd just hand it out for free.

+1
without competition there is no evolution!

doas777
December 16th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Lol.

Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want. It doesn't mean that you can make me say what you want me to say.

It's my right to release my software under whatever license I choose, even if it is proprietary.


and it is my right to make a slightly different product based on your software, and release it under whatever license I choose.

licensing is not a huge problem, but software and business process patents are. they must be abolished

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 09:56 PM
and it is my right to make a slightly different product based on your software, and release it under whatever license I choose.
Quite the sense of the entitlement.

doas777
December 16th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Quite the sense of the entitlement.

perhaps. much like this guy i heard about, who demanded the code to minix, and when he didn't get it, he threw a fit, started a philosophical movement, and a foundation.

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 10:13 PM
perhaps. much like this guy i heard about, who demanded the code to minix, and when he didn't get it, he threw a fit, started a philosophical movement, and a foundation.
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal, either way I generally don't care about RMS. I think my avatar gives people the wrong impression, I have it because: a.) I thought it's a cool picture b.) ironic considering some of my views.

I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm legitimately curious. What makes you think you have the right to take someone else work, modify it, and relicense it? Do you mean only when it's BSD'd or all software?

t0p
December 16th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Spending too much time listening to half-wits like RMS.

I don't think I'd describe Stallman as a half-wit. He's certainly done a bunch of techie stuff that I'm not capable of matching. What about you? Where do you stand in the wit stakes, in comparison to Stallman's 0.5?



The ideals of open source / free software is great, but those ideals don't mean much if you can't do what you have to do.

Example, I use CAD, I have to use CAD for work, not only is there no open source CAD package worth a damn, there is also no CAD package of any source worth a damn which runs on an open source / free platform. Result, I use Windows and AutoCAD, now there are some people within the free software movement who would have you believe that this si an immoral choice, but what would they have me do, draw everything by hand?

I don't know if I've ever heard of a FOSS advocate seriously contending that someone in your position should just do without the proprietary software you need. But I think Stallman might say you ought to somehow contribute to the development of decent free CAD software so one day you, and others like you, may know true freedom.

But that's just my opinion. I wouldn't dream of putting words in Stallman's mouth. Unlike some people...

Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm legitimately curious. What makes you think you have the right to take someone else work, modify it, and relicense it? Do you mean only when it's BSD'd or all software?

By that rationalization, we would only have Zenith televisions today.

t0p
December 16th, 2009, 10:19 PM
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal, either way I generally don't care about RMS.

doas777 wasn't talking about Stallman! Do you not recognise the tale of Linux's creation when you see it!?

EDIT: Hang about, maybe he was talking about Stallman. The bit about "a foundation" is certainly RMS-y. But I thought it was Linus who wanted to emulate Minix. Stallman wanted the code for a printer, I believe.

EDIT2: Yes, it was a printer. Read all about it (http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html) in "For want of a printer" from Free as in Freedom. Which looks to be an interesting book. And available to read online!

szymon_g
December 16th, 2009, 10:23 PM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

LOL x 100
what is unethical in running non-free (i.e closed OR non-gpl open source) programs (of course, if they were bought legally etc)? i shall not comment 'immorality', because this argument is just stupid.

and no, free speech is 'a bit' more basic right than so called 'software freedom'

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 10:24 PM
doas777 wasn't talking about Stallman! Do you not recognise the tale of Linux's creation when you see it!?

EDIT: Hang about, maybe he was talking about Stallman. The bit about "a foundation" is certainly RMS-y. But I thought it was Linus who wanted to emulate Minix. Stallman wanted the code for a printer, I believe.
That's why I said I wasn't sure it was completely accurate either way. AFAIK, Stallman never demanded the code to MINIX (neither did Linus), and Linus certainly didn't start a philosophical movement.

doas777
December 16th, 2009, 10:37 PM
perhaps I am smerging them. it;s been a long time since i studied the history of oss.

ok, look at a oven. it is an evolution of technologies, starting with a firepit, then add a spit, and then some walls, replace the fuel source, add controls, give it a window and a light, offer it in colors to match kitchens...

patents are all about keeping useful information from being lost to society ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."). the protection is just the hook, the point is to get people to register their ideas, so that others can later take them and make bigger better ideas.

theres more than one way to skin a cat. this concept is true of all older patents. if you pattent one type of bushing, I am allowed to think of another kind of busing that does not infringe. this does not prevent folks from coming up with ideas that fulfill the same need/goal, but in a differant manner.

with software/algorithmic/business process patents, however, it is the goal state that is being patented, not the attributes of the process. once I get a patent on downloading stuff from the internet, no one else may try to develop an alternate means of downloading from the internet. we are in this case restricting the ideas.

there is an ongoing case, where a company patented a machine that takes blood, checks it for a level of a natural chemical indicator, and if it reacts one way you have a vit B deficiency (indicator is less than x) and another if you don't. in this case, a hospital decided to manually draw the blood and do their own lab work to check the level of the indicator. the company then sued them, claiming that any means used to determine the level of the chemical in the blood violated their patent, even if their machine was not involved. this of course, is a lot like patenting the process of looking for ice, in places where there is water and the temp is below 0C.

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 10:43 PM
perhaps I am smerging them. it;s been a long time since i studied the history of oss.

ok, look at a oven. it is an evolution of technologies, starting with a firepit, then add a spit, and then some walls, replace the fuel source, add controls, give it a window and a light, offer it in colors to match kitchens...

patents are all about keeping useful information from being lost to society ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."). the protection is just the hook, the point is to get people to register their ideas, so that others can later take them and make bigger better ideas.

theres more than one way to skin a cat. this concept is true of all older patents. if you pattent one type of bushing, I am allowed to think of another kind of busing that does not infringe. this does not prevent folks from coming up with ideas that fulfill the same need/goal, but in a differant manner.

with software/algorithmic/business process patents, however, it is the goal state that is being patented, not the attributes of the process. once I get a patent on downloading stuff from the internet, no one else may try to develop an alternate means of downloading from the internet. we are in this case restricting the ideas.

there is an ongoing case, where a company patented a machine that takes blood, checks it for a level of a natural chemical indicator, and if it reacts one way you have a vit B deficiency (indicator is less than x) and another if you don't. in this case, a hospital decided to manually draw the blood and do their own lab work to check the level of the indicator. the company then sued them, claiming that any means used to determine the level of the chemical in the blood violated their patent, even if their machine was not involved. this of course, is a lot like patenting the process of looking for ice, in places where there is water and the temp is below 0C.
OK, so are you saying you have the right to take/modify/re-license the idea? what about the implementation?

t0p
December 16th, 2009, 10:46 PM
Man, software patents is a whole other can of worms. Like you say, it's allowing the patenting of ideas - which is just crazy. Who bribed whom so the US Patents Office started accepting software patents?

I don't know exactly where the legislation has got to, but there's been at least talk about allowing software patents in the EU. I really hope it doesn't/hasn't get/got past the talking stage.

ibuclaw
December 16th, 2009, 10:51 PM
I understand the disclosure part. Nvidia doesn't Open Source their drivers for many reasons. Imagine if they did? ATI could download the source, tweak it, and make it their own. In a competitive market, you have to stay somewhat discreet.

If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.

This has probably already been mentioned, but you are mistaken (again).

If NViDIA open sourced their drivers under GPL, and ATi took them, improved them. They too would have to release the drivers under GPL. To which NViDIA can take the improvements from ATi and add it to their own improvements, then ATi from NViDIA, and back again, in one big continuous circle.

In the end, you end up with two (or more) companies working together with a shared gene pool, but in direct competition at the same time. Always with one goal in mind - going one better with technology, so all can benefit.

Shibblet
December 16th, 2009, 10:52 PM
patents are all about keeping useful information from being lost to society.

The wheel wasn't invented because they couldn't get it past the marketing department. They were hung-up on what color it needed to be. This, for those who don't know, is from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series.

It's parody, and allegory for that matter of how some things come to a grinding halt, even when they're incredibly simple.

Open Source can cure this problem, and assist with other inventions in the process. But Open Source can also destroy an idea that a person had who isn't "quick" enough to release.

t0p
December 16th, 2009, 10:52 PM
OK, so are you saying you have the right to take/modify/re-license the idea? what about the implementation?

Implementation needs no patent protection as it's already covered by copyright (assuming we're talking about software). In which case, the code's appropriation/modification/re-license would depend on its original license.

Or are you asking if doas777 feels he has the moral right to modify and re-release any software he chooses?

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Or are you asking if doas777 feels he has the moral right to modify and re-release any software he chooses?
This. He said so earlier, but I don't know if he was just referring to BSD software, or if he was referring to the idea the software's trying to implement, or if he's referring to the actual implementation of the idea, or what.

t0p
December 16th, 2009, 11:09 PM
Open Source can cure this problem, and assist with other inventions in the process. But Open Source can also destroy an idea that a person had who isn't "quick" enough to release.

Can you give an example of how "open source" can kill an idea when its creator isn't quick enough to release? I don't necessarily mean a real-world example of this happening (though that would be nice too) - I just want a picture of how this process would work.

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 04:00 AM
OK, so are you saying you have the right to take/modify/re-license the idea? what about the implementation?
you've hit on my meaning exactly. copyright (not patents) covers implementation the same way it covers music and literature: if you directly copy, you have infringed.

sorry for the delay in my response. had to go see the little buggers christmas play. they're cute, but the kid with the trombone really needed a mute...

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 04:14 AM
This. He said so earlier, but I don't know if he was just referring to BSD software, or if he was referring to the idea the software's trying to implement, or if he's referring to the actual implementation of the idea, or what.
no it was not my intent to say that i would decompile/disassemble or otherwise gain illicit access to the code itself, to copy, but instead the purpose and ideas implicit therein.
I was trying to imply that once an original idea is presented to folks, competition inevitably arises. OSS is the only case where this phenoma is not found, unless there are technical reasons for multiple products that do simmilar things. in oss, it simply isn't necessary to recreate your own version of the wheel, just so you have a product in that particular marketing niche.

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 04:53 AM
But copyright IS about freedom of speech: it dictates what others are NOT permitted to say. When a poet, songwriter, or author makes one of his works public, everyone else is prohibited by copyright from repeating it. When your software is "released" (or any other copyrighted work), those who receive it are prohibited by copyright from repeating it (through copying it).

Copyright is about taking away everybody else's rights, it is not about retaining your rights. You would still have the right to distribute your software (or other creative work) even if copyright did not exist -- what copyright changes is that other people are denied that same right.

The Free Software movement takes the view that this denial of software users' rights is not beneficial to society. The GNU licenses are intended to effectively restore the users' rights taken away by copyright law. The BSD-style licenses also do this, but they still permit the recipients of the software to deny their users these rights. The GNU licenses attempt to guarantee that everybody receiving the software has the absolute minimum amount of rights being denied. Thus the GNU licenses grant all rights except the right to deny any rights*.


* ...except the right to deny any rights**
** ...except the right to deny any rights***
*** ...except the right to deny any rights****
**** ...(and so on...)

Bravo!!!

++ for being one of the few people who actually get it. :)

nrs
December 17th, 2009, 05:42 AM
no it was not my intent to say that i would decompile/disassemble or otherwise gain illicit access to the code itself, to copy, but instead the purpose and ideas implicit therein.
Oh, then I absolutely agree, and I apologize for my entitlement remark.

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 05:10 PM
Oh, then I absolutely agree, and I apologize for my entitlement remark.

np yo. I found your comment ironic, not insulting. cheers!

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 05:32 PM
Non-free software is unethical and immoral.

No it isn't. Closed-source software provides tremendous benefits to humanity where free software has yet to spread, because not all programmers can afford to do this much work for free. Life costs money (a token of exchange representing material benefit), and money doesn't just fall from the sky.



Software freedom is as basic a human right as free speech.

You are confusing negative and positive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) - the former are real, the latter are not. You do have a Natural Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) to free speech because you can speak, or write, or type, etc, and the government and everyone else may not initiate aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) against you by violating that right.

You do not have a "positive right" to free tongue surgery if your tongue is damaged and you cannot speak for that reason, or to a free computer if you don't have one, or to free software. Where would those things come from? What slaves are responsible for providing you with those things? Most "positive rights" are a logical fallacy: you cannot have them because they violate the rights of others. (Possible exceptions may include the "right to free exit" requiring cooperation from the property owner, the "right to a fair trial" requiring subpoena power, the "right to emancipation" requiring parents to offer some transparency to make sure their children aren't being abused too much - and that's pretty much it.)

You have a right to create and use free software, and you may believe that all software should ideally be free, but that isn't the same as a universal positive "right to free software". There's no such thing as a right to hold a gun to someone's head and force that person to write software the way you want it, or to steal (i.e. "tax") money to pay for it!

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 05:56 PM
No it isn't. Closed-source software provides tremendous benefits to humanity where free software has yet to spread, because not all programmers can afford to do this much work for free. Life costs money (a token of exchange representing material benefit), and money doesn't just fall from the sky.




You are confusing negative and positive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) - the former are real, the latter are not. You do have a Natural Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) to free speech because you can speak, or write, or type, etc, and the government and everyone else may not initiate aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) against you by violating that right.

You do not have a "positive right" to free tongue surgery if your tongue is damaged and you cannot speak for that reason, or to a free computer if you don't have one, or to free software. Where would those things come from? What slaves are responsible for providing you with those things? Most "positive rights" are a logical fallacy: you cannot have them because they violate the rights of others. (Possible exceptions may include the "right to free exit" requiring cooperation from the property owner, the "right to a fair trial" requiring subpoena power, the "right to emancipation" requiring parents to offer some transparency to make sure their children aren't being abused too much - and that's pretty much it.)

You have a right to create and use free software, and you may believe that all software should ideally be free, but that isn't the same as a universal positive "right to free software". There's no such thing as a right to hold a gun to someone's head and force that person to write software the way you want it, or to steal (i.e. "tax") money to pay for it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8dYL3an9k

You like the beat? Pretty good right? Oh wait, it's muted now!

Well you know, the reason why that song is muted is because it's from an illegal album. You can not ever legally listen to that song.

Proprietary software (or proprietary media) violates freedom of speech (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8510029&postcount=24).

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 05:59 PM
[...] The GNU licenses are intended to effectively restore the users' rights taken away by copyright law. The BSD-style licenses also do this, but they still permit the recipients of the software to deny their users these rights. [...]

Wow, talk about irrational spin... [-X

GNU licenses are based on copyright law (i.e. government force), and are used to take away the Natural Rights of people to use any open source software they come across however they see fit, like copying some code into a non-GPL project they're writing. GPL lawsuits are growing in number as well as in frivolity, and any non-GPL / proprietary software author can be sued for even small snippets that might even somewhat resemble code that was GPL'ed by someone somewhere - and have to spend huge amounts of money to defend themselves in court! (I actually suspect GPL may be a part of a larger conspiracy to bring all software under government control, because it makes free market software development economically unsustainable.)

BSD and other "just cover our legal butts" licenses are just one small step away from Public Domain - no restrictions, no government force under any circumstances. If someone chooses to create a proprietary fork of a BSD software package, the downstream code they've used doesn't somehow magically disappear - no one's rights are violated! The only software that becomes proprietary are the changes the last developer has made, and it is his right to distribute his own work however he sees fit.

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 06:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8dYL3an9k

You like the beat? Pretty good right? Oh wait, it's muted now!

Well you know, the reason why that song is muted is because it's from an illegal album. You can not ever legally listen to that song.

Proprietary software (or proprietary media) violates freedom of speech (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8510029&postcount=24).
+1 excellent point.

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 06:01 PM
Wow, talk about irrational spin... [-X

GNU licenses are based on copyright law (i.e. government force), and are used to take away the Natural Rights of people to use any open source software they come across however they see fit, like copying some code into a non-GPL project they're writing. GPL lawsuits are growing in number as well as in frivolity, and any non-GPL / proprietary software author can be sued for even small snippets that might even somewhat resemble code that was GPL'ed by someone somewhere - and have to spend huge amounts of money to defend themselves in court! (I actually suspect GPL may be a part of a larger conspiracy to bring all software under government control, because it makes free market software development economically unsustainable.)

BSD and other "just cover our legal butts" licenses are just one small step away from Public Domain - no restrictions, no government force under any circumstances. If someone chooses to create a proprietary fork of a BSD software package, the downstream code they've used doesn't somehow magically disappear - no one's rights are violated! The only software that becomes proprietary are the changes the last developer has made, and it is his right to distribute his own work however he sees fit.

Can you post the first amendment to the US Constitution here?

forrestcupp
December 17th, 2009, 06:02 PM
The Free Software movement takes the view that this denial of software users' rights is not beneficial to society. The GNU licenses are intended to effectively restore the users' rights taken away by copyright law. The BSD-style licenses also do this, but they still permit the recipients of the software to deny their users these rights. The GNU licenses attempt to guarantee that everybody receiving the software has the absolute minimum amount of rights being denied. Thus the GNU licenses grant all rights except the right to deny any rights*.
I totally understand the point of the Free Software movement, and I also agree with the point of it. But since the FSF's rules aren't the law of the land, I have the inherent right to choose whether or not I participate in that. Because it is not national law, no one has any "right" to force me to participate with my own software.


and it is my right to make a slightly different product based on your software, and release it under whatever license I choose.How do you get that it is your right to base your variation on my code? That is only your right if I choose to release my code under a license that allows it. If I choose to release the code that I authored under a proprietary license, you don't have any "rights" at all unless I give them to you. In the speech realm, what you're talking about is called "plagiarism" and it's against the law.

Hey people, I'm not saying I don't agree with FOSS. What I'm saying is that you don't have some inherent "right" that allows you to force me to do with my code what you want me to do.

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Wow, talk about irrational spin... [-X

GNU licenses are based on copyright law (i.e. government force), and are used to take away the Natural Rights of people to use any open source software they come across however they see fit, like copying some code into a non-GPL project they're writing. GPL lawsuits are growing in number as well as in frivolity, and any non-GPL / proprietary software author can be sued for even small snippets that might even somewhat resemble code that was GPL'ed by someone somewhere - and have to spend huge amounts of money to defend themselves in court! (I actually suspect GPL may be a part of a larger conspiracy to bring all software under government control, because it makes free market software development economically unsustainable.)

BSD and other "just cover our legal butts" licenses are just one small step away from Public Domain - no restrictions, no government force under any circumstances. If someone chooses to create a proprietary fork of a BSD software package, the downstream code they've used doesn't somehow magically disappear - no one's rights are violated! The only software that becomes proprietary are the changes the last developer has made, and it is his right to distribute his own work however he sees fit.

but you are forgetting that if we are talking about natural rights, then i would be allowed to decompile/disassemble any peice of closed source software I wanted to. when you look at it that way, there is no such thing as open or closed source.

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 06:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8dYL3an9k

You like the beat? Pretty good right?

Well you know, the reason why that song is muted is because it's from an illegal album. As an, you can not ever legally listen to that song.

Proprietary software (or proprietary media) violates freedom of speech (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8510029&postcount=24).

You seem to be confused. You're the one arguing for government force here, except of course for your own benefit. How can you expect to use government force for your benefit (GPL) and not have the corporations use it for theirs (patents, implicit EULA's, DRM, etc)?

A lot of Anarcho-Capitalist literature has been written on the issue of "intellectual property" - I suggest you read some of it. True freedom comes from not violating the Non-Aggression Principle at all, in which case you can get that song / video on any P2P site instead.



Can you post the first amendment to the US Constitution here?

Rights don't come from the US Constitution any more than the empirically-observable laws of mathematics come from your math textbook.

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 06:07 PM
You seem to be confused. You're the one arguing for government force here, except of course for your own benefit. How can you expect to use government force for your benefit (GPL) and not have the corporations use it for theirs (patents, implicit EULA's, DRM, etc)?

A lot of Anarcho-Capitalist literature has been written on the issue of "intellectual property" - I suggest you read some of it. True freedom comes from not violating the Non-Aggression Principle at all, in which case you can get that song / video on any P2P site instead.

Because the GPL is a retaining force to stop people from violating the rights of others. Just like the first amendment is a restraining force, the GPL is the first amendment applied to software.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment is a RESTRICTION. Are you going to claim we are less free because of it?

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 06:08 PM
Rights don't come from the US Constitution any more than the empirically-observable laws of mathematics come from your math textbook.

Rights come from the ideas of man, such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Richard Stallman.

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 06:11 PM
You seem to be confused. You're the one arguing for government force here, except of course for your own benefit. How can you expect to use government force for your benefit (GPL) and not have the corporations use it for theirs (patents, implicit EULA's, DRM, etc)?

A lot of Anarcho-Capitalist literature has been written on the issue of "intellectual property" - I suggest you read some of it. True freedom comes from not violating the Non-Aggression Principle at all, in which case you can get that song / video on any P2P site instead.

Because the GPL doesn't result in outright censorship. Actually, the GPL's only purpose is to stop censorship. A GPL'ed work can never be made illegal under copyright law, simply because it can never be made proprietary.

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 06:18 PM
How do you get that it is your right to base your variation on my code? That is only your right if I choose to release my code under a license that allows it. If I choose to release the code that I authored under a proprietary license, you don't have any "rights" at all unless I give them to you. In the speech realm, what you're talking about is called "plagiarism" and it's against the law.

why is it that more than one company has an antivirus application for sale then? or differant kinds of OSs, or differant kinds of office/collaboration platforms? one word processor is much the same as any other, so the behavior you are railing against is the basis for the current closed source commercial software world. someone came up with the original idea, and everyone else just reimplements and adds features (which are mostly the same as their competitors).

as for natural rights, if that is the basis, then I can actually decompile your code, recompile it with my branding, and redistribute it at will, all just because i can. I'm not saying that that is a right granted under us law, just that if we are talking about natural rights, the entire issue is defenestrated.

remember, in America you have every right that has not explicitly been taken away. the copyright and patent laws do take away certain rights. exclusive rights work the same way. you have not gained exclusive distribution rights for your copyrighted material; what you have done, is to exclude anyone else from having that right (notice how exclusive and exclude are the same word?)

doas777
December 17th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Rights come from the ideas of man, such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Richard Stallman.
don't forget hobbes!
cheers

iKonaK
December 17th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Rights don't come from the US Constitution any more than the empirically-observable laws of mathematics come from your math textbook.
:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:
This type of analogy is typical to religious argument.
If "x" + "y" = "z" that means "a" is sin.

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 06:31 PM
but you are forgetting that if we are talking about natural rights, then i would be allowed to decompile/disassemble any peice of closed source software I wanted to. when you look at it that way, there is no such thing as open or closed source.

Why would you assume I'm forgetting that? :confused:

In a free society companies like Microsoft would not be able to initiate aggression against you for downloading their software on P2P networks, but they would still be able to make some money though hardware bundles, business contracts, education / certification contracts, services, advertising, etc, etc, etc.




Because the GPL is a retaining force to stop people from violating the rights of others. Just like the first amendment is a restraining force, the GPL is the first amendment applied to software.

Once again, copying a C++ class from a tar file I found on the Internet without obeying its copyright.txt does not violate anyone's rights. You don't lose anything as the result of me doing that! You don't get the programs I've pasted that class into under your terms, but they are a result of MY labour. You don't get to dictate what I do with my computer!




The first amendment is a RESTRICTION. Are you going to claim we are less free because of it?

First of all - I don't recognize the U.S. Constitution as the final word on Natural Rights, especially when you consider how badly it has failed to restrain the power of the U.S. government in the centuries since. Natural Rights are an empirical concept observable through econometric analysis, which in my opinion has been best accomplished by the so-called Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) of economics, and its Anarcho-Capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) successors like Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) and David Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman).

Secondly, the First Amendment is a restriction on government power over its "subjects", and thus a promise of greater liberty. A 21st century software-related extrapolation of that could read "Congress shall make no law respecting distribution of software [...]", not "congress shall make laws forcing all software to be distributed just the way Richard Stalinman likes it"! GPL is a restriction on what individuals are allowed to do with a piece of software, and how copying pieces of that software will impact their rights over their own derived works.

nrs
December 17th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Once again, copying a C++ class from a tar file I found on the Internet without obeying its copyright.txt does not violate anyone's rights. You don't lose anything as the result of me doing that! You don't get the programs I've pasted that class into under your terms, but they are a result of MY labour. You don't get to dictate what I do with my computer!
This dude's essentially arguing it's OK for him to take from you, but not you from him. :lolflag:

but they are a result of MY labour.
It's not exactly your labour -- or at least entirely -- if you're going around downloading other peoples work now is it?

phrostbyte
December 17th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Once again, copying a C++ class from a tar file I found on the Internet without obeying its copyright.txt does not violate anyone's rights. You don't lose anything as the result of me doing that! You don't get the programs I've pasted that class into under your terms, but they are a result of MY labour. You don't get to dictate what I do with my computer!

GPL is a restriction on what individuals are allowed to do with a piece of software, and how copying pieces of that software will impact their rights over their own derived works.


I think you misunderstand the GPL. And this is a common, common misunderstanding on the GPL.

The GPL has zero restrictions on usage.

The right to use the software for anything you want is something protected under the GPL, and one of the main reasons the GPL was written.

The so called "restrictions" on the GPL everyone complains about is it asks that you provide the same freedom to others you give the software to. It's really not different then the concept of "freedom of speech", you can say what you want, freedom of speech is not restricting what others can say.

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 06:51 PM
People who presume to understand the U.S. Constitution from the pro-government brainwashing they received in a government-controlled school would be in for a rude awakening if they pursued a more objective analysis, and can start with this video lecture series by Michael Badnarik (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159#) - but, like I said above, the U.S. Constitution is neither an accurate summation of Natural Law nor a binding contract that you or I are subject to.



Rights come from the ideas of man, such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Richard Stallman.

So if I live in a land that has never heard of those people, then murder is a-OK? And how would you differentiate the "rights-giving prophets" who are correct in identifying rights and those who aren't? You have much to learn, grasshopper...

In reality, Natural Rights come from the principle of competitive advantage: a society that violates Natural Rights the least would have an empirically-observable materialistic advantage over other societies that violate them more. It's almost as clear-cut as penicillin, except of course you can't observe human societies through a microscope, and the lenses of history are blurred by pro-government bias that funds and controls most knowledge-related institutions.

A society that tolerates murder has never made it out of the hunter-gatherer phase of human development. A society that tolerates theft is very unlikely to build a successful and stable economy. A society that believes in a false construct called "animal rights" (which violates actual Natural Rights of humans) wouldn't advance as well scientifically, due to the necessity of using animals for lab experiments. A society that believes in various false constructs called "positive rights" (ex. right to free food, healthcare, unicorns, etc) will discourage economic productivity, experience flight of brains and capital, higher taxes, and it will eventually simply run out of competent people to tax (read Ayn Rand). Etc.

saulgoode
December 17th, 2009, 07:06 PM
Wow, talk about irrational spin... [-X

GNU licenses are based on copyright law (i.e. government force), and are used to take away the Natural Rights of people to use any open source software they come across however they see fit, like copying some code into a non-GPL project they're writing.
GNU licenses do not "take away the Natural Rights of people", the existing copyright law does. The GNU licenses provide a means to restore those rights.


BSD and other "just cover our legal butts" licenses are just one small step away from Public Domain - no restrictions, no government force under any circumstances. If someone chooses to create a proprietary fork of a BSD software package, the downstream code they've used doesn't somehow magically disappear - no one's rights are violated! The only software that becomes proprietary are the changes the last developer has made, and it is his right to distribute his own work however he sees fit.
If someone distributes proprietary software, rights are indeed violated: the rights of the general public to do what they wish with that software.

If someone distributes GPLed software, rights are also violated; but in this case the rights being violated have been chosen to afford the maximum amount of rights available to everyone.

It is impossible to have absolute freedom for everyone. If someone has absolute freedom, that means they have the freedom to restrict anothers's freedom.

The most you can hope for is to maximize the amount of freedom shared by everyone. This is what the GNU licenses attempt to accomplish. The "Four Software Freedoms" are not arbitrarily chosen, they are designed to accomplish the goal of maximizing everyone's freedom.

Alex Libman
December 17th, 2009, 07:17 PM
This dude's essentially arguing it's OK for him to take from you, but not you from him.

Copying is not stealing. Imagine I put a post-it note on my forehead that says "if you can see me that means you automatically accept this license, and from now on I own the image you saw in your head, and you can't draw a picture of a face that looks like mine unless you do so under the following terms..." Would that license be enforceable?



It's not exactly your labour -- or at least entirely -- if you're going around downloading other peoples work now is it?

The part that isn't my labour is no longer "property" if it exists on the Internet and anyone can download it, just like my face is already in your memory after the light that's reflected from it reaches your eyes (or your camera). If you don't want your face to be seen by other people, wear a hijab.

The concept of property rights exists as the result of scarcity. With intellectual property there's virtually no scarcity (except for the cost of operating networking equipment and storage media, the cost of which is falling into every-tinier fractions of a penny (and the value of the penny is also falling because of the government's expansionary monetary policy)). This topic was recently covered by the Complete Liberty Podcast (http://completeliberty.com/) [RSS] (http://completeliberty.libsyn.com/rss) - I highly recommend for everyone here to have a listen.

KiwiNZ
December 17th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Closed for review

KiwiNZ
December 18th, 2009, 06:10 PM
opened following review

clanky
December 18th, 2009, 08:30 PM
That made me laugh, unfortunately the ship is sailing soon and I have to go and fill in some more paperwork (I remember the days when sailing meant I had to go and start the engines :( ) so I don't have time to reply to those who replied to my post, I will try and remember to come back to this when we are in port next, but what I will say is thank you all for reasoned well thought out arguments rather than the usual ZOMG WIDOZE IZ TEH EVILZ nonsense which I have seen so often on here.

OK, sorry for the delay, back in port again and the thread has been opened again (Thanks Kiwi)


Let's just for a moment accept the premise that proprietary software is unethical. Now if you are in a situation where you have to use proprietary software to get your work done, I think the choice is simple: just use it. The FSF pushes for people to chose Free software in general, not in specific cases.

Here's a somewhat exaggerated analogy just for the sake of understanding (and I'm not trying to equal human rights with software distribution rights here...):
I think we all can agree on slavery being unethical. Now what should a slave do when his slavemaster orders him to plow a field with only a stick? Stand up to him and get beaten, continue resisting and maybe get killed... or just get done with it for now and try other ways to combat slavery, and generally have a stance opposed to slavery?

Now I think Stallman would also recommend the latter. I'm not aware that he ever forced anyone to refrain from using proprietary software. Or even to accept that it should be unethical. Everyone is entitled to his/her free opinion, don't try to make a militant extremist out of a peaceful one ;)

Besides, before calling someone a half-wit, I recommend reading at least his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman).
He has his opinions, and he consequently holds to them.
And even though I myself disagree on quite a bunch of his views, I wouldn't exactly call Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Prof. Prof. Stallman a half-wit ;D

I have read the Wiki and I stand by my comments, I do not doubt the man's obvious intelligence, but his arrogance, his obsession with the idea that proprietary software is somehow immoral and illegitimate and his crusade to rid the world of it overshadow all of that to the point where his message gets lost and people only see an obsessive lunatic. In my opinion he does more harm to the FOSS community than good.


Certainly not! Even when you go to the extreme and say that proprietary software is immoral *to develop*, I find it quite a stretch to say that it's immoral *to use*. The rationale for it being immoral to develop is that in being proprietary it places unreasonable restrictions on the user. If the user can use it for what he needs it for within the scope of those restrictions, then why place the restriction upon him that he can't use it just because there are unreasonable restrictions on it that don't apply to him?

I suppose arguments can be made that it's immoral to let your rights be violated (Give me liberty or give me death sort of thing), or that it's immoral to give support to companies that are doing something immoral, but in the first case I'd say that this only applies if your rights actually are being violated (you can't use the software for the purposes you need it for within the scope of its restrictions), and the second argument is best decided on a company-by-company or even product-by-product basis.

But my point is this, the immoral folks over at AutoCAD have produced something which works, they have done so because for some things the open source model does not make business sense, there is a place in the World for both open source AND proprietary software and the sooner that certain elements of the FOSS community realise that and stop preaching microsoft hatred and Novell boycotting the sooner the FOSS movement will move forward.


I don't think I'd describe Stallman as a half-wit. He's certainly done a bunch of techie stuff that I'm not capable of matching. What about you? Where do you stand in the wit stakes, in comparison to Stallman's 0.5?

As above, I don't doubt the man's intelligence, but all the other stuff to me makes him a halfwit, if he focussed his intelligence (at least in public) more on developing the quality of FOSS projects rather than on telling everyone about the evils of proprietary software he would do much more for FOSS.




I don't know if I've ever heard of a FOSS advocate seriously contending that someone in your position should just do without the proprietary software you need. But I think Stallman might say you ought to somehow contribute to the development of decent free CAD software so one day you, and others like you, may know true freedom.

But that's just my opinion. I wouldn't dream of putting words in Stallman's mouth. Unlike some people...

I would rather pay for someone else to develop the software I need, that's how the world works, if I don't like the food from one shop I go to another shop, I don't set up my own whole-food collective. I know that this is stretching the analogy a bit, but to me it is the same thing, if Stallman had his way there would be no proprietary software at all, but much of the proprietary software in existence is of the quality that it is because people were prepared to pay for it's development, as I said above there is a place in the world for both proprietary and free software, but IMO there is no place for those who claim one or the other to be immoral and illegitimate.

Once again thank you for the responses it is a genuine pleasure to find people here who are willing to debate in a grown up manner rather than take the fanboy / zealot approach.

Unfortunately I am about to leave the UK again and lose my interwebz, should be back on Sunday so hopefully everyone will behave until then and the thread won't be closed.

utnubuuser
December 18th, 2009, 08:41 PM
If Pepsi got their hands on the Coke recipe, Coke would be finished, and vice versa.
Pepsi is Coka Cola. -- You just made a great point. More often than not, licensing is meant to obfuscate the issues, not clarify. While you're considering the difference between Coke and Pepsi, Coka Cola has made off with your money on both fronts. The only "inteligent" decision would have been not to buy Coke or Pepsi, because both are equally bad.

forrestcupp
December 18th, 2009, 08:41 PM
But my point is this, the immoral folks over at AutoCAD have produced something which works

Lol. "the immoral folks" :lol: