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

161–170 of 192 posts

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#161

Post by DonGateley »

nhaehnle wrote: post #160
DonGateley wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, it certainly existed. Conspicuously no stricture on unwarranted spying for purposes of investigation was stated and that had to be read into it later by the courts (which I consider juristic legislation.) It's not clear to me that the framers didn't intend to reserve that right for investigation.

I'm not saying it is wrong to restrict it, just that the constitution should have been so amended for it to be considered a constitutional question.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#162

Post by BrandonMarc »

In January 2012 we defeated the SOPA and PIPA censorship legislation with the largest Internet protest in history.

Funny ... no mention of CISPA, which interestingly was not heavily protested like SOPA and PIPA were, is reputed to be worse, and while initially passed in November 2011 was passed again in April 2013 after SOPA and PIPA were defeated.

Thankfully, it never passed the Senate ... but I wouldn't call that a "win" compared to the victory over SOPA / PIPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#163

Post by belorn »

gaius wrote: post #116
chc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the GPL restricts is restrictions. Going with BSD allows more restrictions to be placed on the software by others. It's similar in essence to forbidding slavery — some rhetorician might suggest that it abridges people's freedom to own each other, but the actual intent is to preserve a greater amount of freedom.

But the underlying principle that all parties would have to agree on is that there are these things called "laws".

The underlying principle has been given a name by philosophers and political scientists. Its called "Negative Right".

Taken from wikipedia:

  Negative rights are permissions not to do things,
  or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction
  is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right
  as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a 
  right against being assaulted.

  Rights considered negative rights may include civil and
  political rights such as freedom of speech, private property,
  freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus,
  a fair trial, and freedom from slavery.
for more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#164

Post by belorn »

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…

It is a common method to monetize software development by the use of exclusion, and threaten ones customer with lawsuits if they don't comply.

Is such abuse the most effective way to reach financially success? Maybe. Does it matter?

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#165

Post by MaulingMonkey »

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.

> Without IP, what stops people incorporating GPL code in their closed source proprietary products?

You can do this even with IP... if you're building SaaS instead of shrinkwrap, due to the GPL's most relevant restrictions here all hinging on the act of distribution of the actual software.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#166

Post by bambax »

marcosdumay wrote: post #145
bambax wrote: post #136

The often mentioned quote from B. Franklin (reproduced in the linked site) about "any society" giving up a little liberty for a little security and deserving neither is I think quite funny, because giving up liberty in exchange for security is the very definition of society. Society is not about liberty; it's about control, surveillance, obedience, in exchange from keeping aliens at bay. If everyone's my brother I do…

Society is a bunch of people gathering togheter because they are happier that way. If everybody is your brother, you won't be any better living alone in a field. Yeah, other people always come with some kind of surveilance and disagreement, but that's a consequence, not the goal.

> Society is a bunch of people gathering together because they are happier that way.

How is that? You're born in a given society (country) and usually you never change societies, so there's no choice involved.

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#167

Post by whatevsbro »

Karunamon wrote: post #134
whatevsbro wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's true. Think about it for a moment. They operate in complete secrecy behind the scenes. You have no power over them, but they have massive power over you. Clearly, neither the NSA nor the government are accountable to you or people in general because you simply have no recourse against any injustice they commit against you. If the government imprisons you without due process, for example, you're effecti…

>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…

> We vote these people into office. We have the power.

That's exactly the way they want you to think. To imagine you can affect "policy" through writing something on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box. See how absurd that idea sounds when put like that?

-But that's exactly how it's supposed to work. You realize that a piece of paper with text on it doesn't actually compel any politician to do anything for you or anyone else. They're still very much free to break all their campaign promises, which they invariably do, and they'll be doing whatever they want until it's time to tell you what you want to hear again.

Elections are a sham. A distraction meant to give us the illusion that we have a say in anything. Again, the real and only solution is to stop believing that anyone has the right to rule over anyone else. In other words, stop believing in "political authority": http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#168

Post by Create »

We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.

This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.

http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html

http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-t...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ciscosystemsrouteratcern....

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#169

Post by nl »

mcherm wrote: post #142
gaius wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would expect that nearly any supporter of the GPL would also support a change to the law that eliminated copyright restrictions on the use of code. The purpose of the GPL is not to prevent people from modifying and building on the code. The purpose... well, let me quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html : There are four freedoms that every user should have: the freedom to use the software for…

I would expect that nearly any supporter of the GPL would also support a change to the law that eliminated copyright restrictions on the use of code.

WTF?!? No way! (although to be fair I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "use of code").

Companies would still be free to "protect" their code through secrecy: releasing only the compiled version and not the source code

This is exactly what the GPL is designed to avoid.

As you quoted above "the freedom to change the software to suit your needs" - that requires the source code!

Re: The Day We Fight Back

#170

Post by nl »

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…

I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant.

No you wouldn't. The GPL doesn't allow you to restrict the end user's ability to redistribute it. That "not allow it to be public" clause violates that.

Post reply on HN