Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the pull-the-other-one dept.

Upcycle Windows 7

On January 14th, Windows 7 reached its official "end-of-life," bringing an end to its updates as well as its ten years of poisoning education, invading privacy, and threatening user security. The end of Windows 7's lifecycle gives Microsoft the perfect opportunity to undo past wrongs, and to upcycle it instead.

We call on them to release it as free software, and give it to the community to study and improve. As there is already a precedent for releasing some core Windows utilities as free software, Microsoft has nothing to lose by liberating a version of their operating system that they themselves say has "reached its end."

Also at The Register and Wccftech.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:42AM (20 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:42AM (#950980) Journal
    Even RMS admits that the GPL is dependent on copyright law. Without copyrights, nobody can enforce any sort of software license that requires that distribution includes the source. Or that modified versions release the mods.
    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 30 2020, @06:12AM (19 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 30 2020, @06:12AM (#951057)

    Software should not be able to be copyrighted at all.

    • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:28PM (3 children)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:28PM (#951161)

      If that were the case then the GPL would effectively become the BSD license.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:46PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:46PM (#951179)

        That is true.

        But, is that bad?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:00PM (#951337)

          The whole reason he started the GPL was because his LISP(and maybe emacs?) project got usurped by a commercial entity who then caused trouble for him when he tried to re-implement features they had produced atop HIS own code. Long story short it radicalized him to start fighting for software freedom, from the perspective of the user-developer who needed the ability to modify, expand and bugfix his own code, as academia had been doing for many years prior with mostly isolated exceptions (although quite bad ones.)

        • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:20PM

          by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:20PM (#951459)

          That is true. [GPL becoming BSD because software is no longer copyright]

          But, is that bad?

          Not bad at all, because the primary driver for the GPL will have gone away. Mission accomplished.

          --
          It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:29PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:29PM (#951203) Journal

      I'm not sure I agree that software should not be eligible for copyright protection.

      But if it were not, I can see the arguments coming out that software should be eligible for patent protection. Which would be far worse.

      The current situation where we can have open source licenses seems to be working fine. Open source software seems to be taking over the world. Yes, Microsoft still afflicts people with broken Windows. But that is by their own (or their employer's) choice.

      Open source is used in everything around us -- not Windows.

      (some) people do get actual work done using, for example iPads or Chromebooks.

      The continued gradual rise of open source is unstoppable. Even Microsoft has had to adapt to the reality.

      So the current copyright/licensing situation, while not perfect, is also much better than some possible alternatives.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:14PM (3 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:14PM (#951386) Journal

        Right now, software patents might be better than copyright. A patent still only lasts 20 years.

        And everybody has it backwards. We only need GPL because of copyright. Without copyright GPL is just paperwork. Without copyright, everything is available for distribution as the users and coders see fit. There is no "taking without giving back". We just take it back.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:41PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:41PM (#951464) Journal

          I agree with you that GPL is only because of copyright.

          I think software patents are worse. Even 20 years is a long time. Especially for patents on amazingly trivial things that a jury or even patent examiner can be bamboozled about.

          With copyright, I don't care about someone's proprietary stuff. I can, or a team can, build our own. Just like all open source now. Copyright doesn't stop you from building your own "photoshop-like" or "office-like" application. But patents stop you dead in your tracks for 20 years. Longer if they can keep coming up with trivial patents covering trivial improvements. 20 years is several generations of software. 20 years covers MS-DOS 1.0 to Windows 2000. 20 years covers Apple II to Macintosh, to the beginnings of OS X. 20 years covers shoulder bag cell phones to iPhones. 20 years is entirely too long to not be able to build your own.

          I very much believe the current situation with software copyrights is much better. I don't WANT microsoft's code. Any of it. I want open source code. I don't want Adobe's products. I want open source. They can have their copyright. They're welcome to it. But I get the benefit of copyright law keeping open source code free.

          Let me acquaint you with how patents are granted . . .

          The patent examination process is not well understood by most people.
          Once a patent is received, the patent examiner carefully places the application into a room full of other patent applications.
          Then kittens are released into the room with PATENT GRANTED stamps affixed to their feet.
          The kittens are then returned to their holding area to await the next round of patent examination.
          The patent examiners collect the applications from the floor and look to see which patent applications were granted.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @11:18PM (1 child)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @11:18PM (#951477) Journal

            Don't know. Patents didn't stop General Motors from competing with Ford. And there was that famous fight between the Wright Bros and Glenn Curtiss [ipwatchdog.com] [very interesting take].

            Patents cover a specific method of doing the job, not the job itself. My "PictureGarage" program can hit the market without stepping on potential Adobe patents. I understand how they play "trivial pursuit" with the small changes, but that's just a loophole we have to close.

            And I doubt the government patent office is using anything faster than snails. That's the thing about power, "Make 'em wait"

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 31 2020, @04:45PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 31 2020, @04:45PM (#951815) Journal

              But litigation is expensive. An open source developer doesn't want to get into a patent fight. Especially over writing software. Even a company doesn't want that for their contributions to open source. Thank God that software is not patentable.

              I'm sure GM and Ford can afford an expensive litigation. This sounds like two direct competitors trying to gain some kind of exclusive advantage. A lot of patent litigation is patent trolling.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:00PM (9 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:00PM (#951224) Journal

      Software should not be able to be copyrighted at all.

      So then how can you pay developers? Or do you just settle for the shitty free games that the free software movement has put together? And the dysfunctional operating systems that you need to switch from one distro to another as they each in turn develop the clap?

      It's not like Gnome 3 was an improvement over Gnome 2. Or that systemd was an improvement over non-systemd systems. Or that ubuntu is any better than it ever was (though I'll give you that they finally got rid of the Halloween colour scheme and the fungus infection colour scheme, but that's merely cosmetic improvements that were obviously needed even to a child).

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:16PM (8 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:16PM (#951346)

        Copyright is not needed to pay people.

        I am also unsure what your point about Gnome 3 or Systemd is. Their problems have nothing to do with copyright.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:41PM (7 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:41PM (#951363) Journal

          Copyright is not needed to pay people.

          It is if you want to generate revenue from selling copies of the product. How else do you plan to pay people? The beggar bowl doesn't work any too well, the "Foundation" model isn't working too well either, the "we'll sell out to our corporate overlords" is working well for IBM and RedHat, but that's about it. Selling out only works once, then you've got to invent something new to sell out.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:22PM (6 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:22PM (#951388) Journal

            You generate revenue by selling and supporting the product, not the copies. Copies are advertisement, promotional material.

            Your bitterness about open source because of your personal bad luck [thought you had a journal about it] is very revealing.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:12PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:12PM (#951456)

              If support is the only thing that's monetized, the product is going to need a lot of support. :(.

              We've had intellectual property without copyright before. Music copyrights weren't terribly important until mass sheet-music printing, and they weren't really important until recording. Prior to printing and recording, music had royal courts and churches for patrons. If you take away copyright, we're back to patrons. Any corporation or wealthy person who desires software will get it, made to their order. A system without copyright is objectively pro-oligarch. You don't get the upward mobility of Gates, or better yet Jobs and Wozniak who were of more modest means when they started tinkering. If you want to keep the upper class in power, then by all means abolish copyright.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:25PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:25PM (#951461) Journal

                Any corporation or wealthy person who desires software will get it, made to their order.

                And they won't be able to prevent anyone else from getting and using it. Goes both ways.

                You have it so backwards. It is copyright that is keeping the "upper" class in power. They use it to control access to everything we have.

                There is nothing wrong with work for hire, it serves the general population much better than copyright rent seeking.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:54PM

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:54PM (#951469)

                Prior to printing and recording, music had royal courts and churches for patrons.

                Prior to printing and recording everyone made music, and that actually hasn't changed.

                If you want to get rich from recording music, copyright helps (hence the life plus lots of years copyright nonsense), but let's not pretend copyright has anything to do with the actual people who create the work, because it doesn't.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 31 2020, @03:57AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 31 2020, @03:57AM (#951635) Journal

                If support is the only thing that's monetized, the product is going to need a lot of support. :(.

                What user of a complex product doesn't need support?

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @02:03AM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday January 31 2020, @02:03AM (#951555) Journal

              Well, the free advertising model isn't working, because you can't even give it away.

              I've been saying for a decade that free software is dying. I warned that fragmentation would continue to erode quality by diverting attention away from real development. A decade later the stats back it up. Has nothing to do with my personal experience, just cynical observations after I realized that I too had been duped by a liar claiming that open source would release an unprecedented deluge of creativity.

              All it did was release a bunch of poorly written copies of existing software. and a few bright spots. Gnome was certainly not one of them.

              Open source is just not viable any more. People don't want an operating system that requires support. If it requires too much support, they'll abandon it for one that doesn't, so the "give away the software and sell support" model was dead before it was even fully born.

              But back to your claim that giving away the product and selling support is a valid model. Can you imagine a TV that requires a support contract? A microwave? Products that need continual support, tweaks, and adjusting are defective.

              RMS was pushing just that model, but he hasn't grown out of the era when cars needed an oil change and lube every 3 months, a tune-up every 6 months, new distributor cap, condenser, rotor, wires, and spark plugs every 2 years. People don't put up with any of that crap any more, because technology advanced. His ideas didn't.

              But feel free to try making and giving away software and selling support. Go hire some programmers and come up with something that you can give away and sell support for. If you're right, you'll get rich. But we both know that won't happen.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 31 2020, @02:17AM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 31 2020, @02:17AM (#951571) Journal

                Sorry, you're just exhibiting personal hurt.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..