Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday December 26 2017, @07:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the interesting-viewpoints dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:55PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:55PM (#614507)

    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)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:47AM (#614659) Journal

    In order to get a copyright, shouldn't you have to publish that work?

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:41AM (#614693)

      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)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:06PM (#614736) Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:13PM (#614873)

          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)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:18PM (#614875) Homepage
      If you interpret "get" as "register", then his question makes sense. However, if he doesn't understand the difference between registered and unregistered IP, he's out of his depth. (Little things like punitive verses compensatory damages upon proven violation, etc.)
      --
      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:01AM (#614939)

        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]