Copyright laws are among the most significant in shaping the world as we know it. Copyright laws are not about entertainment, but rather, about thought control.
As a species we are standing on a crossroads never before faced by any species on the planet.
I argue that the single most significant contributor to our supremacy over this planet is our capacity for meme-exchange. We have taken mammalian peer-learning to an unprecedented level. The fact that every member of our species frequently expends great energy in the singular business of meme-aquisition, and that we spend just as much energy in the business of meme-distribution, serves as a testament to its survival-utility and evolutionary effectiveness.
Are we to embrace this freedom, allow the currents of information to flow unrestrained, and see where our exponentially-increasing rate of technological evolution (which, from a more metaphysical perspective, is not so different from our genetic evolution) takes us?
Or are we, on the other hand, going to lock ourselves down and block this flow, all in the name of preserving the economic prosperity of a select few?
Is our future one of wild change and uncertainty, or one of regularity and control?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 16:50
>>40
No matter what, you're still being a bad neighbor if you just delete things randomly without any notice to anyone. Of course you can do whatever the hell you please, but it's still bad practice.
>>41
No one said anything about deleting things "randomly without any notice to anyone". We were talking about what happens if you lose the source code. But nice try.
6/10
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 19:43
What exactly do you think gives you the right to licence other peoples' code, GNUtards?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 19:46
>>42
I was talking about being a bad neighbor by removing source code randomly. If you lose the source code by accident, obviously that's an entirely different issue. Please re-read what I wrote.
I'm a car designer.
I designed the fuel cap of a car; therefore the whole car's design belongs to me and everybody must do what I command them too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 20:31
I agree with everyone else that GPL is not a true free software license. Public domain is that.
Those that think that GPL can actually protect your freedom are mistaken, if someone doesn't want to follow it, they can just do this:
1. Take GPL code
2. Make application to accept some sort of weird custom external interface
3. Make a wrapper for the GPL code which is compatible with said interface.
4. Release wrapper+original gpl'ed code to the public
5. Use/distribute your application as you wish.
This complies to the GPL (and I've seen plenty of companies doing it) and doesn't force them to release any of their code. The only thing they're releasing is a useless(to anyone but them) small wrapper and the original GPL'ed lib(which was available before). The interface is done as a plugin, so the application can work without it, but in reality it's used all the time.
This is how one incorporates GPLed code in his application while still remaining closed source.
The GPL does not protect anything except your original code and is nothing more than a license to lock in people into releasing modified code. Public domain/no licese is superior. The world would be a better place if people realized that licenses are stupid and they should just release the code without being forced by anyone/anything to do it(example: GPL ), alas human nature is a bitch.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 20:32
too
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:29
>>46
How about we write the GGPL, Greater GNU Lesser Public License. To be able to use or modify the code at all, you must release the modified code- and release any other source code that you have access to, if the licensing of any other source code you can access does not permit you to release it then you may not use the GGPL'd code for any purpose. That way, people will have true freedom from proprietary software.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:43
>>46
Once again, the GPL does not force anyone to do anything. You are confused about what the GPL does.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:44
>>44
the GPL doesn't differentiate between those situations. losing the source code violates the license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 22:07
You people are misunderstanding us. When we talk about free software, we are referring to freedom. RMS has identified four specific freedoms that one must have in order to remain as a free and upstanding member of society http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .
The freedoms that we value specifically allows us to maintain our sovereignty (our right to help ourself) and allows us to live as upstanding citizens (our right to share computer software). When citizens lack the right to practise any of these freedoms, the citizen cannot say that she is living in freedom: how one live in freedom when one is forbidden to help oneself or forbidden to live as a good neighbour.
This sort of freedom works only the basis of mutual respect. In the case of computer software, this means that users should possess the four freedoms of free software. This also means that users must have access to the related computer software source code.
The GNU General Public License is a free software simply because ALL users of the software licensed under the GPL possess the four freedoms. The simplest way to maintain compliance with the GPL is to publish source code together with the binary program (as they are two different forms of exactly the same thing) AND inform the recipient about their rights AND the distributor should not impose restrictions that will take restrict the recipient's rights. It is really that simple: publish the source code together with the binary, let them know of their rights, do not take actions to prevent them from practising their rights.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 22:23
>>51
Just because RMS makes four criteria for "freedom" doesn't mean it defines freedom. You already established that you don't have the freedom to distribute a binary without the source code. The GPL might be free according to those criteria, but it's not free in a definitive sense because there are other definitions of free which are reasonable and widely used in the programming world.
>>50
Right, but I wasn't talking about the GPL specifically. I was just saying that arbitrarily removing code is bad practice and makes you a bad neighbor.
>>53-54
What business is it of anyone else‘s what code I keep on my computer and what I delete after I‘m done compiling it? Your being is ridiculous.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:03
>>55
I'm talking about whatever code you may happen to put up online with the intent to distribute said code. I'm not talking about code that is just lying around on your hard drive for your own personal use.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:09
linux is communist, therefore it fails
I mean, look at russia, they started off as an underdeveloped agrarian shithole and reached about the 60% of the size of the American economy by the 70's, becoming the second in the world, became the #1 in heavy industry, started the space age, and... okay bad example, but you get what I mean. You cannot deny bill or steve his profits.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:22
>>57
Communist? You're thinking of the BSDs, not Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:34
>>57 Traceback (most recent call last):
Post 57, line 1, in <Switch to GPL now>
linux is communist, therefore it fails
LogicError: conclusion not supported by predicate