Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Day We Fight Back

thedaywefightback.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#151

Post by dllthomas »

gaius wrote: post #115
vidarh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason Aaron gets so much sympathy (EDIT: for what he did as well as for how he was treated) is that 1) a substantial portion of the JSTOR data is public domain , 2) a substantial portion of the rest is work funded with public money where it is controversial that it is only available under copyright. But even disregarding that, I don't get why you are baffled: The GPL is a hack intended to spread freedoms. Many w…

Without IP, what stops people incorporating GPL code in their closed source proprietary products? See you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you believe there is a thing called a license which travels with your product and binds the user as to how they can use it, or you don't, there isn't really any middle ground there. The alternative is "everything is public domain!" in which case, no GPL.

There is, in principle, nothing preventing us from applying "if you are distributing software, the source must be made available to your customers" to all software directly in law rather than through hacking copyright.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#152

Post by mwfunk »

arca_vorago wrote: post #122
fleitz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.

"I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as…

"Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around."

You just said that the GPL doesn't prevent people from doing anything that is allowed by the GPL, therefore the GPL doesn't prevent anything. Like, that is literally the argument you just used. Just sayin'.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#154

Post by mwfunk »

vacri wrote: post #140
gaius wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red Hat don't sell software, they sell support contracts.

That is patently not true: This Agreement establishes a framework that will enable Red Hat to provide Software and Services to Client. “Software” means Red Hat Enterprise Linux, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other software programs branded by Red Hat, its Affiliates and/or third parties including all modifications, additions or further enhancements delivered by Red Hat.

You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL software (people can just grab CentOS if that's all they want), they're making money from support, services, and non-GPL software that gets bundled along with a bunch of GPL software.

The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every bit as financially successful as a business that sells proprietary software, by asking for money for GPL software, and not having any other sources of income. Some posters seem to think this is feasible; I would disagree.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#155

Post by moocowduckquack »

mwfunk wrote: post #154
vacri wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is patently not true: This Agreement establishes a framework that will enable Red Hat to provide Software and Services to Client. “Software” means Red Hat Enterprise Linux, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other software programs branded by Red Hat, its Affiliates and/or third parties including all modifications, additions or further enhancements delivered by Red Hat.

You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL software (people can just grab CentOS if that's all they want), they're making money from support, services, and non-GPL software that gets bundled along with a bunch of GPL software. The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every b…

Quantum Leaps does dual licencing for the QP framework and commercially licences exactly the same code that it offers under the GPL. http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#156

Post by guelo »

vinhboy wrote: post #128

People always ask, why can't the progressives make their own Tea Party -- If you read through the responses on this page you'll have your answer. So much doubt and skepticism about everything... It's funny all these people putting down "social networking", when most of us here work for companies who pay a shit ton of money to advertise and gain traction on "social networks". Then, on top of that, there are many of us…

this isn't a "progressive" issue, it cuts across partisan lines.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#157

Post by DonGateley »

rmc wrote: post #59
pinaceae wrote: post #22

as a non-US citizen this won't change anything for me. "free society" here should be really re-worded to "free US society". as long as there is a intelligence apparatus in the US at all, spying on the rest of the world will continue. by definition. the NSA is monitoring all internet traffic as it would be really hard to know beforehand if it only pertains to US citizens. not sure what exactly you're trying to achieve…

The US Constitual protection for privacy only applies to US citizens. Would US citizens be willing to amend it to make it apply to everyone.

What protection is that? Search and seizure is not about privacy; it's about physical intrusion into personal space. Had they meant to address intrusion into abstract privacy they would have.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#158

Post by dragonwriter »

marcosdumay wrote: post #147
dragonwriter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give me some "good reasons" why spying on the private lives of citizens of ally countries is not an act of terrorism? Because terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence directed at civilian populations or otherwise outside the generally accepted norms of warfare to effect political change, and spying, while it may support the use or threat of violence, is, in and of itself, neither the use nor threat of…

Well, is blackmail a kind of violence? (honest question)

Doesn't really matter, because as with violence (or “other forms of violence”, if you prefer), spying isn’t blackmail, even if it might be used to support blackmail.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#159

Post by djur »

mirano wrote: post #137
Karunamon wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They operate in complete secrecy behind the scenes. You have no power over them, but they have massive power over you. We vote these people into office. We have the power. The government is people - just people we've decided get extra power so they can get things done. Please, please, please don't ever forget this. The moment you start thinking of the government as some impenetrable adversary, you've already lost. B…

When you vote, you actually give credibility to, and thus your implicit acceptance of the results, whether or not they are in your favour. You play the game that is stacked 100% in their favour, and you cannot expect to win. Your vote or that of even 1 million (or even 10 million) other people will not change 1 single micron of the overall outcome. Think of all the well-intentioned people in the past, say 100 years o…

There hasn't been a large-scale violent uprising in the United States for almost 150 years. The US and state governments of today have continuity from that point.

In that time period legitimate democratic processes have brought about the 40-hour work week; the abolition of child labor; substantial improvements in the legal rights and protection of women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities; regulatory systems to protect the purity and wholesomeness of food and the efficacy and safety of medication; programs like Social Security and Medicare which have virtually eliminated the kind of wide-scale destitution of the elderly that previous generations had seen; environmental protections for water and air; and a host of other reforms enacted for the popular interest and by popular demand.

Many other democratic nations in the world can tell the same story about the 20th century as well.

These achievements are all incomplete and flawed, and obviously there have been many outrages, but modern democracies are by and large the most humane, least violent, and most responsive governments in human history.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#160

Post by nhaehnle »

DonGateley wrote: post #157
rmc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Constitual protection for privacy only applies to US citizens. Would US citizens be willing to amend it to make it apply to everyone.

What protection is that? Search and seizure is not about privacy; it's about physical intrusion into personal space. Had they meant to address intrusion into abstract privacy they would have.

It's easy to argue that abstract privacy as a concept separate form physical privacy simply did not exist at that time in history because of a lack of electronics. A corollary is that they probably would have added abstract privacy if they had had the benefit of hindsight.
Post reply on HN