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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:52AM (27 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:52AM (#951054) Journal
    "The only reason the GPL works is copyright law."

    True, but flip the coin.

    The other side says, the only reason the GPL is needed is copyright law. It was an impediment to progress when RMS tried to get the docs to solve that fateful printer problem, but it's gone positively berserk since that time.

    "You don't get to pick and choose whose rights aren't worth enforcing."

    Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Let's explore the implications of it.

    Copyrights are not actually rights. They're privileges, granted by the government. This is why the Constitution needed a specific clause to authorise their grant. There's no clause for granting actual rights in the Constitution. Particularly in the Bill of Rights, there are clauses forbidding government from violating them, but they pre-exist the government. As the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, they are granted by an authority greater than the Constitution itself.

    Copyrights are privileges, granted by the government for the purported purpose of encouraging the arts and sciences. Their effect is to infringe on real rights, though particularly in earlier days they might have been characterised as relatively minor infringements that affected few and were for the purpose of the greater good.

    So, if we take your maxim to heart, we don't get to choose, we just enforce rights - then we should amend the Constitution to strike Article I Section 8 Clause 8.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:03PM (22 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:03PM (#951225) Journal

    The "printer problem" wasn't that hard to solve. Over the subsequent years, devs became quite good at getting printers to do all sorts of things. Not because copyright law prevented them - it doesn't. The whole printer story is bullshit wrapped in a lie.

    But that's what most myths are based on.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:07PM (21 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:07PM (#951227)

      The whole printer story is bullshit wrapped in a lie.

      Please explain. RMS from accounts is a very earnest and straightforward person, you think he based his entire life around a lie?

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:07PM (20 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:07PM (#951270) Journal
        RMS a very honest and straightforward person? You swallowed that bilge? Here are the first two links about "richard stallman epstein rape survivor", so you can't accuse me of cherrypicking, The first one goes over his history of creepiness back to 2003, so it's not like people didn't know he was fucked up in the head:

        Forced to resign [splinternews.com]

        Computer scientist Richard Stallman resigned from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Monday following his comments on the late accused sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and rape of teenage girls.

        In emails, Stallman wrote that one of Epstein’s victims, in the “most plausible scenario,” “presented herself” as “entirely willing.” Just so we are clear this is not what happened! Please feel free to pause here to take a shower and then return to keep reading.

        Stallman was referring to a case in which a 17-year-old girl was allegedly forced by Epstein, an MIT donor, into a sexual encounter with late MIT professor Marvin Minsky.

        When someone tried to explain that the person was 17, Stallman emailed: “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”

        In 2003, Stallman wrote on his personal blog in a post that’s still visible: “I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”

        How old were you when you started college? Imagine being a smart kid, maybe you study hard, skip a grade or graduate early, and you make it to MIT before you’re 18, only to have to be face-to-face with a person like this who cannot accept the fact that people are entitled to autonomy over their own bodies... and he has power over students’ futures?

        Stallman wrote on his blog Monday that his resignation was “due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations,” so I looked at his other recent posts to see if I could clarify some matters.

        On September 14, Stallman addressed his earlier post: “Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per [sic.] psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.”

        What were these personal conversations like? Were these with friends? Was he required by MIT to have these conversations? Did someone stage an intervention?

        He clearly still doesn’t get it. On September 5, he wrote: “I think that ‘affirmative consent for each step’ is a little too strict for sex.”

        What are the steps? Is it exactly like a home run in baseball?

        What is this phenomenon where men think that making sure their sexual partner is having a fun time is too... what, nice? I suspect that anyone worried about discussing consent too often doesn’t want to respect the word “no.” Consent can be revoked at any time! That means any time, Richard!

        In August, Stallman seemed very concerned about men having to take consequences for their actions, writing: “In ‘me-too’ frenzy, crossed signals about sex can easily be inflated into ‘rape’. If people rush to judgment, in an informal way, that can destroy a man’s career without any trial in which to clear his name.”

        First of all, way more victims of sexual harassment have their careers destroyed than the perpetrators. If you’ve read this far hopefully you already know this, but nobody goes through the exhausting process of accusing someone of sexual assault or rape because of “crossed signals.” Men like this spend way too much time thinking about the thought process of the accused and not the victim. If you rape someone because you misunderstood them, guess what? Still rape.

        The fat fuck hasn't got a clue about consent. Never did. No wonder he defended Epstein. And here [boston.com]:

        A prominent computer scientist at MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory has resigned following recent remarks he made debating a former professor’s alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex ring.

        Richard Stallman, a MacArthur genius grant recipient and Internet Hall of Fame inductee, wrote in an email to the MIT community Monday that he was “resigning effective immediately” from his position as visiting scientist at CSAIL.

        “I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations,” Stallman said.

        The 66-year-old leader of the free software movement, which promotes the freedom of developers to use and share their computer programs, recently argued in an email thread last week that Marvin Minskey, the late AI pioneer and longtime MIT professor, was unfairly accused of sexual assault and that one of the underage girls in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation likely presented herself as “entirely” willing to have sex.

        Last month, an unsealed deposition revealed that one of Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, had told prosecutors that one of Epstein’s associates had directed her to have sex with the then-73-year-old Minsky, among other high-profile figures, while at the late financier’s estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2001. Giuffre was 17 at the time.

        The day after the deposition was unsealed, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell from an apparent suicide while awaiting trial on new sex crime charges. In a discussion over email about the media coverage implicating Minsky in Epstein’s sex ring, Stallman said the use of the word “assaulting” was an “injustice.”

        “The term ‘sexual assault’ is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X,” he wrote, adding that the word “presumes that [Minsky] applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.”

        “We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing,” Stallman added. “Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.”

        Others in the thread pointed out that sex between a 73-year-old and a 17-year-old amounted to statutory rape, aside from the fact that Guiffre said she was coerced, and that, additionally, debating definitions of “rape” and “sexual assault” wasn’t a productive conversation.

        “When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire community,” one person replied. “Regardless of intent, this thread reads as ‘grasping at straws to defend our friends’ around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn’t a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.”

        The thread was written about on Medium last week by an angered MIT alum and a full copy was obtained and published by Vice’s tech magazine Motherboard, which headlined their article: “Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As ‘Entirely Willing.'”

        Stallman also stepped down Monday as president and as a member of the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based nonprofit group that he founded in 1985. The foundation said in a post Monday night that it would begin looking for a new president “immediately.”

        The renowned computer scientist is just the latest member of the MIT community to resign over the university’s ties to Epstein, who donated at least $800,000 to the Cambridge institution and facilitated millions more in financial gifts.

        Joi Ito, the director of the MIT Media Lab, resigned last week after a New Yorker investigation revealed how university employees worked to conceal the financial relationship to the disgraced hedge-fund manager and philanthropist. Two other Media Lab members also resigned last month in protest of Epstein’s ties to MIT.

        Stallman doesn't get the power imbalances involved in statutory rape, or in sexual relationships with people in positions of authority. For someone who claims to be so smart, he's one dumb fuck. And has been since at least 2003, based on his own writings.

        Remember when he wrote, after Steve Jobs death, how "I'm not happy that he's dead, but I'm happy that he's gone." There are plenty of people who are happy he's finally gone too. He's been an embarrassment long enough.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @06:26PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @06:26PM (#951317)

          No problem with the big issues about assault you discussed in parent.

          However, you seem to have missed the comment by an eyewitness at the time, can't find the reference just now, but I think it was a physicist who was also at "the Island" and said bluntly, "Minsky turned down the girl's overtures."

          Knowing Minsky (I worked on projects that he was also part of), this is exactly in keeping with his personality--he might have been amused (he usually had a real twinkle in his eyes), but would never agree to this kind of encounter with a young girl. This (I believe) is what RMS was trying to say in his (widely misconstrued) comments.

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:13PM (3 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:13PM (#951342) Journal

            Stallman's statements were quite clear. He claimed that the girl most likely was a willing participant. A lot of us immediately condemned him, and the knee-jerk reaction from the "community" just reinforced the huge bloc of misogynists in the linux/free software community.

            There is no "misconstruing" of "most likely a willing participant" possible.

            Same as there is no misconstruing possible of some of his other comments. That a guy "misreads the situation" is not a defence of rape, but this is the exact position Stallman takes. Same as "she said No but she really meant Yes", "she didn't say no often enough", "she didn't say no", "she changed her mind but I couldn't stop myself", "she was drunk and she didn't say no, so I just assumed ...", "She said no but I knew she really wanted it."

            All of these are actual defences that people try to use in court to justify rape and sexual assault. Imagine if I walked into your place and you were passed out drunk and I said "hey, can I borrow your car?" and walked out with the keys, and when I'm arrested for theft saying "I asked, and they didn't say no ..."

            As for any witness, we'll see what happens in court. My bet is there is no witness. The thing is, Epstein's place was a "safe space" for predators, who could get away with things they couldn't elsewhere, so they could give in to their appetites without fear. Any witness is going to have an "interesting" time explaining their presence. Just look at Randy Andy. He thought he could "explain away" everything, didn't work out that way.

            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @09:04PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @09:04PM (#951424)

              Let's go back to school and analyze the paragraph.

              We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

              Try approaching the sentence as a puzzle to see if you can figure out where your interpretation of the words were wrong.

              Stallman objected to the phrasing that Minsky sexually assaulted someone, because assault implied the use of force, while what really happened was that Epstein and his wife used young girls to seduce and blackmail influential people.

              This relate very well to the news item about perception of reality because, it baffles me how people don't care about the truth, but blindly gossip away unverified bullshit as if it was reality.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @01:04AM (1 child)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday January 31 2020, @01:04AM (#951524) Journal

                The facts were already out. Stallman, being the bloviated idiot that he his, chose to not bother even asking questions before making up shit. And that's exactly what he did - made up shit in direct contradiction to the facts that were already available at the time.

                There is no excuse. There is no "logic puzzle" to solve here. He fucked up, like he always does.

                Stallman objected to the phrasing that Minsky sexually assaulted someone, because assault implied the use of force,

                Sexual assault doesn't "imply" anything about force. It's sex without proper consent. No need to use force if someone is unable to consent because they're passed out drunk, or afraid to resist.

                Many victims just freeze up. I know I did when I was sexually assaulted in broad daylight in the subway. It's a reflex, and in my case it worked because the guy loosened his grip and I was able to get away. This is a VERY common reaction, but it leaves the impression that because you didn't resist, you consented, which is total bullshit.

                it baffles me how people don't care about the truth, but blindly gossip away unverified bullshit as if it was reality.

                Stallman didn't give a shit about the truth. He just acted like he always does, ignoring the facts. There is no defence possible for his actions. And the defence of Minsky ignores everything we know about Epstein and the way he operated. Minsky operated "safe havens" where females felt that they didn't really have a choice. You're on an airplane and you're told to "be nice" to someone ... what are you going to do, jump out without a parachute? Say no and not have any way to get off the private island?

                The men hanging around Epstein knew what was going on. Just look at how Randy Andy keeps ducking police interviews, and his denials of ever meeting one of his alleged victims are contradicted by pictures. Sounds very Trumpian.

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @06:23AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @06:23AM (#951671)

                  You don't care about facts. You just talk and talk and talk.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @09:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @09:08PM (#951426)

            Greg Benford.
            https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ [pjmedia.com]

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:32PM (13 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @08:32PM (#951399) Journal

          So, open source software is bad because you feel personally slighted and don't like what Stallman says?

          You trying to start a new "temperance movement" or something?

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @01:40AM (12 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday January 31 2020, @01:40AM (#951539) Journal

            No, the facts are clear - the open source model has failed in terms of end users, in terms of developer jobs, and in terms of innovation and support.

            The software ecosystem available from open source is pitiful. Really pitiful. And without a thriving software ecosystem, who gives a shit about even looking at using the operating system?

            You'd expect to find plenty of geeks and nerds running linux on steam, but only 1 in 300 users are running any version of linux. Even OSX has almost 10x as many users on steam. And of course, more than 95% are running Windows.

            Linux on the desktop has dropped since the turn of the century. That says it all. Nobody wants it, even if it's free. I gave up giving it away a decade ago, because everyone who tried it went back to Windows or bought a Mac.

            It's pretty bad when you can't even give it away. The market has spoken, and there is no viable software market for linux, because everyone wants everything for free. So you get what you pay for. And you don't get what you don't pay for.

            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 31 2020, @01:50AM

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 31 2020, @01:50AM (#951546) Journal

              They are clear for you. For other people it works just fine. Maybe you're using the wrong metric. You are expressing strong personal feelings more than anything else.

              And who gives a damn about the market??

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:11AM (10 children)

              by toddestan (4982) on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:11AM (#952100)

              No, the facts are clear - the open source model has failed in terms of end users, in terms of developer jobs, and in terms of innovation and support.

              The software ecosystem available from open source is pitiful. Really pitiful. And without a thriving software ecosystem, who gives a shit about even looking at using the operating system?

              Really? So that's why hardly any servers run Linux. And nobody uses Apache, nobody uses Wordpress to build their website. No software is ever written in Python or Perl or Go or whatever the kids use today, and no one would ever compile their source code with tools like clang. And no one would ever use git to store their source code either. No one would trust their data in an open source database like PostgreSQL or MySQL. Nobody use LaTeX to render documents in a publishable format. All the major web browsers are, of course, completely closed source propriety software. No major movie studio would use Blender on a major Hollywood release. I could go on and on.

              Maybe you better open your eyes and look more closely at all the open source software you are most certainly using every day. And of course all the open source software you are interacting with anytime you do just about anything online. And you better chuck that iPhone and all that shiny Apple gear, with its BSD roots, right into the trash with all that other open source software you like to bash belongs.

              You like to complain about how bad printing is on Linux for some reason. But most what Linux distributions use for printing is....CUPS! An open source printing system, distributed under the Apache license, which is primarily developed by.... Apple! And is used as the printing system in OSX! Imagine that!

              Yes, Linux on the desktop is still a fairly small percentage. But to use that to paint a broad brush over all of open source software really shows how completely ignorant you really are. Or maybe you are just trolling, in which case you really shouldn't be surprised at all the down mods you are getting.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:41AM (9 children)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:41AM (#952109) Journal

                Users don't give two shits what OS a server runs. That's the whole point of running crap on a server - they don't have to worry about the stuff working - if it stuffs up, not their problem.

                Also, I never said that FreeBSD was crap because it's licensing scheme, unlike linux, encourages use. Hence OSX. If linux had used a more permissive license, it might have been the #2 consumer desktop and laptop operating system. But nope, the GPL screwed that up.

                Apple contributes on a regular basis to open source projects - last time I checked it was something like 200. So, contrary to the crybabies who say Apple takes and doesn't give back, they do. And linux users benefit from it. All because FreeBSD isn't GPL.

                You probably were so enraged that anyone could poke fun at RMS that it prevented you from seeing what I was saying.

                The GPL caused a market failure with linux and FOSS in general. People like to have choices. Both Microsoft and Apple have no problems with people using FOSS. But FOSS variants that use the GPL have a BIG problem with proprietary software.

                Stallman keeps saying that people should have the freedom to use the software any way they want, but the GPL prevents that. The BSD license doesn't. Look at all the commercial software available for both Windows and OSX. Now look at how little is available for linux. Some of us have no moral or ethical problem using both. Proprietary software supports jobs, same as drinking milk supports dairy farmers and taking the bus supports bus drivers. Is taking public transit evil because it isn't free? Because I can't take it just when and where I want, but have to follow the schedules? Because I can't use it to haul 20 tons of gravel? Of course not. Proprietary software is not evil; it's based on the same sort of transactions as we've been doing since before money was invented - I give someone something they want, I get something I want. Or is barter evil now?

                At least with Windows and OSX people have a multitude of choices, both free and proprietary. Linux users, because of market failure due to licensing, don't have that range of choices. It's a walled garden. Same as Android. Same as Chromebooks.

                20 years from now we'll look at 2,000 linux distributions and you'll be saying "see, twice as many choices." I'll be saying "all with the same old software bundles, just more of them unmaintained."

                People want to run software, not operating systems. It's like I said before, it's like toilet paper. It needs to meet 100% of my needs. If it only gets 90% of the poop, and leaves the other 10% on my hand, it's 100% a failure and I need to find an alternative that actually works 100% of the time.

                Linux is that cheap 1-ply that doesn't do everything most people need done. Try giving it away, like I did. People don't want it, and I can't blame them. It's like adopting a dog with 3 legs - you do it out of pity, not because you expect it to do everything a 4-legged dog can do. And you know ahead of time that there will be issues.

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:25AM (8 children)

                  by toddestan (4982) on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:25AM (#952245)

                  Users don't give two shits what OS a server runs. That's the whole point of running crap on a server - they don't have to worry about the stuff working - if it stuffs up, not their problem.

                  Lets see, you were just trashing "open source" software. Yet open source is very successful on the server. And users use open source (based) web browsers, and web sites and services powered by open source software, and so on.

                  Also, I never said that FreeBSD was crap because it's licensing scheme....

                  Your ignorance is showing. The BSD license is open source, so yes you did.

                  You probably were so enraged that anyone could poke fun at RMS that it prevented you from seeing what I was saying.

                  There's plenty to make fun of RMS for. I mean, he created emacs for god's sake *ducks*.

                  The GPL caused a market failure with linux and FOSS in general. People like to have choices. Both Microsoft and Apple have no problems with people using FOSS. But FOSS variants that use the GPL have a BIG problem with proprietary software.

                  I guess by some standards GPL software can be considered a market failure, I mean the cost of the software is free so it's not like you can count sales. It's just not something that free software (GPL, BSD, etc.) competes in. I'm not going to argue that there aren't zealots that have problems with propriety software, a lot of GPL proponents and users have no problem with propriety software either. Unless you mean that by choosing to use free and open source software instead of buying Windows or OSX as "having a problem".

                  Stallman keeps saying that people should have the freedom to use the software any way they want, but the GPL prevents that. The BSD license doesn't.

                  Once again, your ignorance is showing. The GPL has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on how you use the software. Do whatever you want with GPL software. But if you distribute your changes, you have to distribute the source. That's all. BSD doesn't have that restriction. So yes, that means that BSD code shows up in closed source software - Apple does it, so does Microsoft, and GPL code doesn't. Well, sometimes propriety software vendors do it anyway, and sometimes they get caught. Sure, a problem for them, but easily avoided by not doing stupid shit like that.

                  Look at all the commercial software available for both Windows and OSX. Now look at how little is available for linux. Some of us have no moral or ethical problem using both. Proprietary software supports jobs, same as drinking milk supports dairy farmers and taking the bus supports bus drivers. Is taking public transit evil because it isn't free? Because I can't take it just when and where I want, but have to follow the schedules? Because I can't use it to haul 20 tons of gravel? Of course not. Proprietary software is not evil; it's based on the same sort of transactions as we've been doing since before money was invented - I give someone something they want, I get something I want. Or is barter evil now?

                  When did I say propriety software was evil? I use both, I don't have a problem with propriety software, I use Windows, I buy games, I pay for NOD32, I use a bunch of freeware, closed source utilities and programs. I don't buy a lot of software because I don't see the need because often there's a free alternative that'll work, just like I don't see the need for a Windows license for most of my computers either. I don't see how that makes me a bad person because I don't shower propriety software vendors with money, but if you want to create propriety software and if I deem it worth the money to buy it, I will.

                  and unlike you, I don't have a problem with open source software either.

                  At least with Windows and OSX people have a multitude of choices, both free and proprietary. Linux users, because of market failure due to licensing, don't have that range of choices. It's a walled garden. Same as Android. Same as Chromebooks.

                  Haha, what? With Windows, your choice is.... Windows. You can use Windows 10 with it's telemetry and forced updates, or Windows 8.1 for a few more years if Microsoft will even license you a copy, or continue unsupported with an older version with a license you already have (Microsoft won't sell you a new license for unsupported Windows versions). OSX is the much same, except with a very limited choice of supported hardware.

                  With Linux you have all sorts of choices, choices of different hardware and architecture, choice of distributions, choice of desktop environments (if you even want one), choice of packages, no restrictions on what you can install, no one telling what you can and can't install it on, or what you can or can't do with it. Do you even know what a walled garden is? Linux is way more than Android and Chromebooks, though you can choose to use those too.

                  People want to run software, not operating systems. It's like I said before, it's like toilet paper. It needs to meet 100% of my needs. If it only gets 90% of the poop, and leaves the other 10% on my hand, it's 100% a failure and I need to find an alternative that actually works 100% of the time.

                  Linux is that cheap 1-ply that doesn't do everything most people need done. Try giving it away, like I did. People don't want it, and I can't blame them. It's like adopting a dog with 3 legs - you do it out of pity, not because you expect it to do everything a 4-legged dog can do. And you know ahead of time that there will be issues.

                  As if Windows and OSX don't have their problems? At least with open source software, I can do something about it. With propriety software I don't have a lot of choice. Don't like the direction that Microsoft is taking Windows with their forced updates and telemetry? Tough, either deal with it or don't use Windows. Don't like the limited selection of overpriced Apple hardware that can run OSX? Tough, either suck it up or don't use OSX. For some reason people put up with this. The situation is even worse on mobile where it's either iOS or Android, or not a smartphone. Apple and Google know you don't have a lot of choice, and it shows. And for some reason people put with this too.

                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:59PM (7 children)

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:59PM (#952364) Journal

                    The GPL has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on how you use the software. Do whatever you want with GPL software. But if you distribute your changes, you have to distribute the source. That's all. BSD doesn't have that restriction.

                    That's my point. You say that there are "absolutely NO restrictions" - your words - "Do whatever you want with GPL software", then cite something you CAN'T do, which is a restriction. You can't distribute modified GPL software without distributing the modified source. That is a HUGE restriction. And that's the point, isn't it?

                    BSD is a free license, the GPL is a restrictive license. And that's why BSD, not Linux, is the #2 desktop OS. And why most linux distributions contain the same old limited variety of software. The same shitty games, many of which no longer even work with newer graphics chips.

                    With Linux you have all sorts of choices, choices of different hardware and architecture, choice of distributions, choice of desktop environments (if you even want one), choice of packages, no restrictions on what you can install, no one telling what you can and can't install it on, or what you can or can't do with it.

                    FreeBSD does all this as well, except that you're wrong with your last sentence. The GPL limits what you can or can't do with it.

                    Haha, what? With Windows, your choice is.... Windows.

                    Yep, I'm going to go to Home Hardware and complain that they only sell hardware, not a Whopper and Fries. We can turn your example on its head - why doesn't FOSS supply Windows and OSX? So the FOSS choices are also limited.

                    And plenty of people have older versions of Windows with licences floating around. They don't care if it's unsupported, it's the same level of support as "RTFM or fix it yourself and submit a patch" that FOSS falls back to often.

                    At least with open source software, I can do something about it.

                    And therein lies the problem. Most people would rather pay to have Microsoft or Apple "do something about it" for their software needs, because FOSS doesn't meet all their needs. Like I said before, crappy toilet paper that only gets 90% of the shit when you wipe is not "good enough". People would rather pay more and not have to be getting their hands dirty all the time. Or having to maintain two computers, because their FOSS one doesn't do all the jobs they want. Easier to just have one computer that does it all.

                    FOSS hasn't really advanced much in 2 decades in terms of software. Back in 2000 the future looked bright. Linux on every desktop. Tons of new programs, both free and paid. Twenty years later, none of that happened. 20 years from now none of that will happen. The same FOSS that runs today's surveillance-as-a-service crap enabled that situation, and sowed the seeds of its senescence. Because FOSS is now like a doddering old'un, looking back on what could have been, reliving their fantasies of future greatness in their minds, ignoring what is and where it's heading.

                    There's a market for someone else to take FreeBSD and make another proprietary OS. Shuttleworth was too stupid to recognize that FOSS is not the way to go, even though he had the examples of 1,000 struggling distros on the one hand, and OSX on the other, to learn from.

                    Maybe someone else will take up the ball and either make billions in sales or make billions in a buy-out.

                    --
                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                    • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:03PM (6 children)

                      by toddestan (4982) on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:03PM (#952430)

                      That's my point. You say that there are "absolutely NO restrictions" - your words - "Do whatever you want with GPL software", then cite something you CAN'T do, which is a restriction. You can't distribute modified GPL software without distributing the modified source. That is a HUGE restriction. And that's the point, isn't it?

                      The GPL is a distribution license. Much like the right of first sale, you can do whatever you want with something like a physical book, except for distributing copies of it. Except with Linux, you can distribute copies of it. You just have to make the source available. By your standards, BSD also has restrictions. You can't just use BSD code in your software without providing attribution and a copy of the license.

                      Compared to most proprietary software, you have tons of freedom with Linux. Have you ever bothered to try to read the EULA that comes with most any propriety software packages? EULAs (attempt to) take away your rights and add restrictions. Most of it is bullshit and they know it, but they try anyway. The GPL allows you to do things. I find it utterly amazing that you call the GPL restrictive, but seem to be all for mile-long legalese EULA's that come with propriety software. Are you really so dense as to not see the difference?

                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:04PM (4 children)

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:04PM (#952460) Journal

                        You can't just use BSD code in your software without providing attribution and a copy of the license. -

                        Read the license. You don't even have to say that parts of the source are copyright by the copyright owners unless the user asks by taking a specific action while running the program . You can redistribute without providing source, or redistribute without providing a copy of your modifications. Can't do that with the GPL. You don't even have to show the copyright at any time of your program running, just in the documentation.

                        Try getting away with that with the GpL. Normally you'd include their and your copyright notices and disclaimers of warranty together, because you would be stupid not to include your copyright and disclaimer, so you just ad your name to the list of copyright holders. A lot easier than devising your own license and copyright - though you can place any restrictions you want on binaries, including not allowing redistribution, if it contains some of your own code and you don't distribute source, in which case you just say "portions copyright bad, you, redistribution without permission of the program without permission from all copyright holders is forbidden. Somewhere in the reader or license.txt or an about box. Can't do that with the GPL, which is as restrictive as many other licenses in that respect.

                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:02PM (1 child)

                          by toddestan (4982) on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:02PM (#952815)

                          Yet your argument is that Linux and free software has failed in comparison to propriety software due to how restrictive the GPL is, yet there is absolutely nothing that can do with most any propriety software that you can't do with GPL software. The GPL only comes into effect when you redistribute it, and you can't redistribute software like Windows or OSX. Even for propriety software you can redistribute, shareware and closed source freeware and the like, you're only allowed to redistribute unmodified copies - whereas the GPL allows you to also distribute modified versions. Basically, you can dance around it all you want, but your argument is completely nonsensical.

                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:23PM

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:23PM (#952917) Journal

                            You fail to notice the point I made about how shitty the selection of open source software is. What good is being able to give away software nobody wants because it doesn't do the job people want it to do?

                            Compare that to the wide selection of software available for $$$ that is closed-source.

                            Your argument might as well be about shit sandwiches - doesn't matter if they're free, nobody wants them when they can get something that tastes good for a few bucks.

                            But I guess you think everyone should be a copraphiliac - "Eat shit - 1-0 trillion flies can't be wrong."

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 06 2020, @02:08PM (1 child)

                          by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 06 2020, @02:08PM (#954738) Homepage Journal

                          Read the license. You don't even have to say that parts of the source are copyright by the copyright owners unless the user asks by taking a specific action while running the program . You can redistribute without providing source, or redistribute without providing a copy of your modifications. Can't do that with the GPL.

                          Which is exactly why Apple based OS X on BSD instead of Linux.

                          -- hendrik

                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday February 06 2020, @04:31PM

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday February 06 2020, @04:31PM (#954778) Journal
                            My point exactly. And that's how BSD has about 100x the desktop penetration of Linux.

                            I'm not going to count closed spyware systems like Chromebooks and Android, because, well, for most people they're closed systems, same as the iPhone.

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:11PM

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:11PM (#952468) Journal
                        Also, I found Borlands license terms quite satisfactory. I could do anything I wanted with the software, treating it like a book. I could even pass it on to someone else providing I gave them everything I received from Borland when I bought it, plus any backups.

                        Or even sell it under those conditions. I could also sell them add-one I created without giving them the source for them. How is this unreasonable? The answer is that it's not.

                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:22PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:22PM (#951246) Journal

    If the clause "for limited times" were sharply curtailed in duration, a lot of the problems of copyright and patent would go away. There would be a period where a commercial provider could take advantage of an early exclusive market. But would not be half a lifetime.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:04PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:04PM (#951452)

      Copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or if there is no author (work for hire, anonymous works, etc.), the first of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. I'd like to know what miracle of science you are aware of where the minimum of 70 years + 1 day is half a lifetime, let alone the possible 120 years or longer.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 31 2020, @05:03AM (1 child)

        by Arik (4543) on Friday January 31 2020, @05:03AM (#951653) Journal
        Originally we only had 14 year terms. You could apply for another 14 at the end, if you were still alive and interested.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @09:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @09:02PM (#951957)

          I understand that. I was trying to convey that the current situation is more than half a lifetime. It is much longer than that, by at least treble.