The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux • Hacker News Board

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#101

Post by mikegerwitz » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 4:14 AM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #100

mikegerwitz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect those users do care about freedom. I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear. > The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people. There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential. > The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well becau…

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom". If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms:

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works are also free. This hack on copyright is called Copyleft, and it uses copyright to grant rights _back_ to the user.

  https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Copyright needs to be used because, in many countries, works are proprietary by default; there is no choice; in the US, if you do not explicitly grant rights to others, then all rights are reserved.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#102

Post by rmsrmsrms » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 5:04 AM UTC

mikegerwitz wrote: post #101

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom". If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works a…

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license.

I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright in practice is to use a permissive license.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#103

Post by ryao » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 6:27 AM UTC

speeder wrote: post #22

gear54rus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That abomination of a system called win10 came out just a few years ago, not in 90s. Is spying on everyone and constantly sending telemetry even when disabled (to the extent people actually wrote a tool to go to every corner and forcefully disable it and even then it didn't work) not nefarious? What are you even talking about here, they haven't changed a slightest bit. Maybe I want to have updates that cannot be disa…

I came from the gamedev side of things. In there Microsoft now is perfectly still the 90s Microsoft. From my point of view, the Linux on Win10 is a strategic move to incentive people use Windows as their sole desktop (since with this move many people won't have any reason whatsoever to use Linux at all). I tried to convince lots of people on the Linux community that they need to react... of course, not blocking Micro…

Having configuration files provides a superior experience to the Windows registry.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#104

Post by belorn » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:30 AM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #102

mikegerwitz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works a…

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom? The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license. I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also w…

I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL.

I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer permissive licenses.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#105

Post by belorn » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:48 AM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #100

mikegerwitz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect those users do care about freedom. I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear. > The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people. There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential. > The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well becau…

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom". If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

Freedom is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society.

Anarchy is the lack of laws, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

Freedom need laws, because the alternative is the law of nature.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#106

Post by rmsrmsrms » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #104

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom? The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license. I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also w…

I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL. I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer…

It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue over IP.

The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software patents in there, those are stupid.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#107

Post by belorn » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:22 AM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #106

belorn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL. I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer…

It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue ov…

The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate, cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on.

If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific aspect into an enforceable contract. Contract don't need to use men with guns if everyone choose to honor it, which was the historically method used back when people lived in tribes and villages made out of a handful houses. No one would dare to break their word, risking that others would start to do the same.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#108

Post by rmsrmsrms » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #107

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue ov…

The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate, cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on. If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific as…

Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman. Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#109

Post by belorn » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 12:05 PM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #108

belorn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate, cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on. If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific as…

Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman. Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

A deal is a deal. If you want to retain the option to change your mind and sue people over IP, then that is your decision. I won't be enabling that kind of behavior, nor will I donate code to it.

The best option would of course be that the law was changed and IP abolished by political change. Copyleft and permissive licenses would go away, artist could stand on the shoulders of giants without fear, and compensation would be addressed before the art was made rather than afterward. A fitting end to the flame wars.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#110

Post by mikegerwitz » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

rmsrmsrms wrote: post #102

mikegerwitz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works a…

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom? The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license. I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also w…

> If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

Do you not need men with guns to enforce your other freedoms, like the freedom of speech under the First Amendment? (I don't know if you're a US citizen.)

We're focusing on a very specific set of freedoms---a subset of all freedoms that individuals should have.

> I want to abolish copyright

We have to work within the system we have, and abolishing copyright is unlikely to happen any time soon. There's things that work now.

In the case of the GPL, we still need copyright to ensure that we can enforce the right for the users' to have their freedoms; otherwise, public domain works can be used in proprietary software.