Joseph Graham has written a very short blog post about software freedom and the direction we might take to achieve it.
The free software movement, founded in the 80s by Richard Stallman and supported by the Free Software Foundations 1, 2, 3, 4, preaches that we need software that gives us access to the code and the copyright permissions to study, modify and redistribute. While I feel this is entirely true, I think it's not the best way to explain Free Software to people.
I think the problem we have is better explained more like this:
"Computer technology is complicated and new. Education about computers is extremely poor among all age groups. Technology companies have taken advantage of this lack of education to brainwash people into accepting absurd abuses of their rights."
Source : The Free Software movement is Barking up the wrong tree
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:32PM (16 children)
then write it. Don't be mad at companies that profit off of other's laziness (not wanting to learn how to build hardware, program computers and software, etc.). If you want software that is free or open source, then you're going to have to make it. Don't expect Apple, MS, etc. to give it to you. Make it and make it better - if you can. Otherwise, don't complain.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:44PM (13 children)
Does advocating for sane copyright and patent terms count as complaining?
(Score: 4, Funny) by turgid on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:00PM (4 children)
It's worse than that, it's Un-American Communism(TM).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:09PM (3 children)
Yeah, somehow government-granted monopolies are considered an example of the free market by some people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:17PM (2 children)
Then define your perfect world and government and make it happen.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:20PM
How do you make "perfect" happen? Perhaps a philosopher could explain?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:44AM
The problem is that there are only two possibilities to make something happen: Either you force everyone to comply with it through absolute control, or you try to convince people of it.
The first option, even if one actually happens to be able to pull it off, should be off the table for anyone ethical. The second option, on the other hand, is exactly what you are complaining about.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:08PM
Probably, but define sane. I believe sanity is based on frame of reference. My sanity is probably not the same as yours. But I could write books on my sanity (or lack there of, if based on your reference)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:55PM (6 children)
In order to get a copyright, shouldn't you have to publish that work?
...or at least make that text available to all?
sane [...] patent terms
The terms are quite clear:
If a 7 year old could come up with the same process, what you have done (1-click) is not patentable.
The problem is the revolving-door bureaucracy and the business-friendly/consumer-hostile courts.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:47AM (5 children)
So you write a book, and just as you are ready to publish it, someone gets hand on it and publishes it himself. Don't you think copyright should protect against that?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:41AM (2 children)
I was thinking specifically how M$ makes claims that someone reused some of their copyrighted code but didn't pay them.
Without a copy of that code on file somewhere where it can be compared against, it's impossible for someone outside M$ to determine the veracity of their claim.
Pretty sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
More like this: You can have secrets or you can have intellectual property protection; not both.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:06PM (1 child)
If you sue, you must prove. So if MS does not have that code on file somewhere, they better have some other very good evidence that the code is theirs. No evidence, no chance at court. At least assuming the courts work as they should (but if not, even the best law won't adequately protect you).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:13PM
It's interesting how many companies won't challenge the big dog and instead just pay the geld.
This gets into the (bogus) software patents thing too.
M$ typically claims a bunch of infringements (and they won't supply the ID numbers of those) and if you balk at 1 of those in the process, they'll trot out another among their stable of (bogus) patents to take its place.
It's their covert nature and requirement for NDAs that was/is their power base.
It wasn't until Barnes and Noble (and, later, the Chinese gov't) saw the specifics of M$'s claimed patents (without signing NDAs) that things started to fall apart for M$.
Add the Alice and the TC Heartland cases for good measure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:18PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:01AM
Oh, man. Now we have to make all our stuff rhyme and have meter?? [google.com]
8-D
...and, yeah. I liked it better before USA signed on to the Bern Convention (back before things got automatic copyright, without an application).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:51PM
Yes, don't you dare complain about how we live in a world filled with computers and yet so many of them are essentially just black boxes that may or may not be doing nefarious things under the hood. That is actually a very dangerous situation and you're extremely short-sighted if you think the problem starts and ends with people just needing to write some Free Software. That is something people should do, but the abuse of society by proprietary software companies cannot be overlooked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:32PM
nobody is mad at them for charging for their work. we're mad at them because they are too stupid, lazy or evil to use a business model and license that doesn't victimize their customers. they can charge for convenience without enslaving their users.