231–240 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had to use the ~200MHz Pentium to buy something from Amazon though you'd be screwed :)
I kind of doubt it. I was using my 233MHz PII up until about 3 years ago to buy things off Amazon regularly. It's amazing what you can do with some swap and a little patience. ;)
I was using a 633MHz PIII until about 3 y ago, then using it again recently when my main computer died, and its gotten a lot harder (on Linux) over those 3 y.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't take this the wrong way but I personally feel that the GPL is not a free software license, I feel it's a community software license. BSD is a free software license, BSD code is truly yours, you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it, you want to create a GPLed fork you can do it, you want to expand the BSD code base you can do it. One thing I really love about BSD licensed code is that I feel like I ow…
For everybody to have maximal rights, you have to prohibit taking away others' rights. The GPL just codifies this: we give you the right to use this however you like as long as you don't take that right away from others. You can draw a parallel to physical goods: everybody has the right to do whatever they want with whatever they've bought. However, this does not translate to being able to sell that thing to somebody…
Suppose there's a work X licensed under the GPL. You've assumed that if I create a derivative work Y, then everyone else has an automatic right to Y. If I were to restrict Y, I'd be taking away this right, and so the GPL stops me from restricting it. In fact, it severely limits what I can do with my code, but enforces everyone else's freedom to use my code.
Let us assume the opposite: that a work does not belong to the public domain until its creator chooses to share it. Then any work X that has already been shared is fully protected (by any free software license). If I create a derivative work Y and keep it secret, I in no way limit people's use of X, so I have not violated any of their rights. Similarly, if I make a restrictive license on Y, I still haven't violated their rights. They never yet had a right to Y, only to X. In this case, the GPL is violating my rights to do as I choose with my personal work, Y.
So we have two opposing assumptions and two different conclusions: If you think a work you create immediately "belongs" to the public, then the GPL protects people's rights; if you think it "belongs" to its creator until shared, then the GPL violates people's rights.
I myself am in the second camp, so I think that the GPL does not technically qualify as a fully free software license. Perhaps the distinction could be phrased this way: I believe that a potential author of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it, while the GPL is predicated upon the belief that all potential -users- of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it.
But I don't think you can have both. You either have to allow restriction of the users' options (if the author so chooses), or you have to restrict the author's options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way you describe freedom is the way some oppressive regimes start, an individual believes their way is the right way, others will benefit from their way, so their way is forced on people. With freedom of the press, the press has the freedom to choose what they publish. You as an individual have the freedom to choose not to read what they publish. You don't have the freedom to restrict what or how they publish, th…
You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice. I like your drugs and alchohol analogy. With free software, you as an individual have the freedom to do whatever you want with it in your home. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to prevent others from modifying or reproducing it. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of…
I think there are times when freedom needs to be enforced through law, as the GPL does, because the consequences of losing the freedom is too great (injury or death included). The GPL was and still is important, it helped popularize the free software movement. Twenty years ago the GPL might have been required, maybe the software landscape was such that non-GPL free software would not succeed. I think now, in 2012, it is not required for most projects. I will concede there are projects where it is still important.
If you look at some of the most successful and thriving open source projects you'll see they succeed without laws enforcing their freedom. Things like Apache httpd, nginx, Hadoop, Chromium, and X.org. People and companies contribute to them even though they are not forced to.
If think there comes a time when societies and ecosystems no longer need such strong enforcement of freedoms, and freedom is actually increased by not forcing freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"?
> Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"? Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses giv…
Stallman believes in freedom of indivisuals, _including_ the freedom of individuals down the stream. The BSD increases only your (egoistic) "freedom" to cut off other people from water supply, while decreasing everybody elses freedom to get to the water source, so it maximizes only one single peak of freedom, while everybody else loses. The GPL levels the access, it maximizes the total amount of freedom available in the ecosystem.
> That to me is true freedom.
According to that logic, a democracy is "unfree" because you are not allowed to turn it into a dictatorship, which is the "true freedom" then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. Most modern televisions, dvd players, routers and even some microwaves/refrigerators can take firmware updates also. Genuinely curious about the above - Not being a troll, just wondering how far the man really takes his beliefs. Does…
My understanding of his position is that he does not consider firmware to be independent software. The arguments by which he came to be in favor of free software do not apply to firmware. The reason that he promotes free software is because software is capable of being free, that is, it is logistically realistic that people freely copy, modify, and distribute it. From this, he extrapolates that there is a right to co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes down to how to define "freedom" for free software. RMS's is a very pragmatic (and in my opinion counterintuitive) definition: it just means that no one can conceal the source code. It's counterintuitive to me, because I would consider the maximum freedom being akin to public domain software: anyone would be able to do literally whatever they want with the software, including redistributing it without distrib…
But as soon as you redistribute it without the source, the people who get that copy don't have the same rights. This is like the old saying: "your right to swing a fist ends at my jaw"; rights should not give you the power to take away others' rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My 1978 Land Rover Series III doesn't have a single computer! It's the mechanical equivalent of the GNU project.
Awesome you still have that on the road. Im guessing you live in the south? Biggest difference I always notice about cali vs northeast is the amount of old cars on the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"?
> Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"? Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses giv…
Now, note that even someone very much aware of positive liberty could act the same way Stallman is acting. This is because we'd all be more capable if all software were free.[3] The only way to do that is stop using and making proprietary software. The problem with that is that it requires a personal sacrifice. At the consumer end, it means not enjoying some software (the proprietary ones). At the producer end, it means making less money.
In other words, we have a prisoner's dilemma[4]. Stallman is currently cooperating, and is urging everyone else to do the same. The GPL by the way is consistent with this: to some extent, it forces you to cooperate. You seem to think this is unacceptable. You'd prefer to be able to defect. But then I ask you: how do you justify this ? If you plan to cooperate, you don't need the freedom to defect. If you plan to defect, what is your moral basis for making the world a slightly worse place ?
This works even if we do not talk about you. If you think people should cooperate, why give them the freedom to defect ? If you let them defect (and they do defect), it again makes the world a slightly worse place. How would you justify this? (Note: my own moral alarm went off when I wrote that last paragraph. I suppose yours have as well. Just remember that this is probably a false positive, for the GPL actually is a give & take licence. Something like a clever Timeless Decision Theory[5] agent that will cooperate if and only if it knows you will cooperate if and only if you know it will cooperate if… infinite recursion resolved by symmetrical information —the text is laid out for all to see.)
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
[3]: This point is central. If you don't believe it, the rest of my argument doesn't work. That's why if anyone has reasons to reject it, I'd like to know about it (links to high walls of text are okay).
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
[5]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Timeless_decision_theory
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually doesn't use all of the major GNU tools it uses very few of them. GCC and the build chain is about all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the userland is from FreeBSD. And GCC and the build chain are quickly being replaced.
GCC is the most significant piece. So your point is that nearly all modern software is built on top of GNU, but some only use a small portion of the GNU stuff. I think you agree with my original point ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. I think that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Yes, Steve Jobs, the guy who wants absolute control over every single device that he sells you FOR MONEY - on both software AND hardware level is JUST LIKE Stallaman. I have to say, the quality of HN has gone so downhill recently, I might have to seek an alternative community.
If people were to pick one reason HN has 'gone downhill', disrespectful comment replies would top the list. A controversial feature request- when a new account reaches a negative karma level within a certain period, HN will display all other usernames associated with the IP address of the throwaway.