Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 312 312

I can't explain the point he was trying to make. I don't think his analogy helped. I think his claim was that the GPL removed freedom.

Without a licence I can possess a copy of someone else's software and have the capability but not freedom to distribute copies.

With the GPL licence I get a freedom to distribute copies.

The licence added freedom I did not have before.

The licence is only relevant to one who does not have rights of ownership to the software and therefore has capability but not freedom.

He can argue that the BSD licence gives more freedom and he would be right, but the GPL gives preserves freedom to more people.

But he didn't argue that.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 312 312

I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.

I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.

I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.

It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.

I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.

It doesn't illustrate any point, because it is about tangible objects, to which you have ownership rights.

Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.

I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.

You're grasping at straws without addressing the argument. I have no use for the manual. Maybe I lost it.

You made an argument about a car and manual which you own, which does not correspond to the software situation where you are the licensee, as I described above.

Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and don't want to give it to him. Whatever the case, it's a bullshit argument to say I've taken away from somebody's freedom when I gave them a car. They didn't have a car before, now they do. They could have refused the car. They can still attempt to fix the car on their own. That's freedom. Would they have an easier time with the manual? Yes, but that's capability.

But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.

Yes, but if you do that you place a restriction on the new owner of the car.

You don't place the restriction on the owner of the car. They place it upon themselves. But it doesn't apply to software because the licensee who receives a COPY is not the new owner.

They are less free. It may result in more capabilities and an overall better outcome, but it's not one based on freedom.

Less free than what? This is where the car analogy breaks down again. As the new owner of the car they may feel less free because as owner they have obligations that you did not have as owner, but it is not about a car. Your analogy is hindering you because it is fault.

With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee. They may use the software without owning it! A new freedom! Just as they may use the car but they are not the owner of the software and have no inherent rights to it distribute it. But yet they may distribute it! A new freedom! As long as they follow the license.

But they do not have to distribute it (and it is not theirs to distribute). They can continue to use it without worrying about any of the license terms! They only have to follow the terms as they excercise the permitted freedoms, not as a price of those freedoms but as definitions of those freedoms.

But to keep you your car analogy, if they buy the software (the ownership of the software, not a license) from the OWNER or the OWNER donates the software then they are not bound by the license (do you know what license means? It means "permission") because they don't need the license. They operate as owner, not licensee. And so when we stick properly to your misapplied car analogy we see that freedom has not been restricted at all because the license does not restrict the owner.

You misunderstood the difference between owning the software/car and licensing the software/car.

To stick to your analogy, you cannot sell a car that you only hired. You have the capability - yes, but not the freedom. But its not yours...

You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?

"Free Software" requires the binding of copyright to be enforced. Stallman has argued that if copyright laws were to go away, a law that requires giving source for software should be put in its place.

I don't know if he argued that it should be put in place or that it should be put in place if the FSF clauses were to remain in force. But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.

That's a consumer protection law, not freedom. It shows exactly how the GPL is not based on freedom.

Which brings me to the second analogy I gave, that being the consumer protection law of requiring ingredients to be listed on packaged food. You could argue that it gives people the "freedom" to choose food appropriately, but that's capability, not freedom, and we know these are regulations that curtail the free market but most people are in favor of them anyways without crying "freedom!".

Your analogies are not helping you and I can't see how this one does any more than demonstrate your misuse of the terms capability and freedom. I don't think there is any doubt what RMS means by the term freedom, and I don't think there is any doubt that you confused license from the owner to distribute a copy, with ownership.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 312 312

I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.

It was in a fight back against loss of previous common freedom, that are not so common these days. Having been born into a greater captivity than Stallman you maybe never had those freedoms and do not feel the loss.

"When Stallman noticed the jamming tendency in the Xerox laser
printer, he thought of applying the old fix or "hack" to this printer.
In the course of looking up the Xerox laser-printer software, however,
Stallman made a troubling discovery. The printer didn't have any
software, at least nothing Stallman or a fellow programmer could read.
Until then, most companies had made it a form of courtesy to publish
source-code files--readable text files that documented the individual
software commands that told a machine what to do. Xerox, in this
instance, had provided software files only in compiled, or binary, form."

http://www.quora.com/What-is-t...

It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.

Tip: Analogies are good for explanations but not good for arguments. Often the point in discussion has implications on whether or not the analogy applies. Your analogy may only make sense to people who already take your view.

But in this case your analogy is faulty.

I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.

More specifically because your analogy is incorrectly applied.

No-one compels you to give YOUR car with YOUR manual. But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.

This analogy as applied means that if you choose to COPY or DISTRIBUTE someone else's copyrighted works, you may only do so lawfully, which means by license or by legal recognized exceptions (e.g. fair use). You may therefore accept the terms of the license, or refrain from copying, or be in breach of copyright.

The license clearly grants additional freedoms that copyright does not grant.

You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?

Submission + - Comic strip shows that vision is always prey to execution->

samjam writes: So many conflicts between technology and marketing are manifest in this short comic strip. Vision is destroyed by execution which is forced by finance, technology is destroyed by the need to sell to ignorant but wealthy customers. Does Zambian represent Apple or Google to you? Or a variety of other companies? Maybe it is a dogfood failure: perhaps Zambian developers are not permitted to use two-monitor setups? Have you ever had an executive make his first "executive decision" to release something that is totally broken?
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:But they support it already (Score 1) 178 178

What is this rubbish? Didn't we have these talks a long time ago already?

- Office 2007 and Office 2010 support ODF 1.1

- Office 2013 also supports ODF 1.2

Go open your Microsoft Office, and the option to save in OpenDocument is right there in the Save As dialog.

Whether anyone actually uses it, is the real question.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+o...

"Office 365" refers to subscription plans that include access to Office applications plus other productivity services that are enabled over the Internet (cloud services), such as Lync web conferencing and Exchange Online hosted email for business, and additional online storage with OneDrive and Skype world ...

It doesn't seem to be the same as Office 2007 or Office 2010 or Office 2013.

There was a bit of a clue in the name, but we don't read articles and we don't even read the summary these days

Comment MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access (Score 2) 178 178

I always wondered why Microsoft weren't terminally ashamed that they were the only company in the world that could

1. produce a very good web based email/calendar client
and
2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE

surely that fact hurt them when bidding for contracts?

But I don't doubt that their ODF implementation will be equally poor.

Comment Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score 1) 461 461

>> It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.

> Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.

I get it. Because MOST people don't fight YOUR cause, THEY are the insufferable ones. Gotcha.

Comment Re:Only if they give you immunity. (Score 1) 220 220

There is a point that you have to accept that you are not in control of the situation; when there is nothing you can do,

The poor sister didn't want to believe that there was nothing she could do and so she accepted the lie that there was something she could do to make it better.

And so she spoke when she should have been silent.

Comment Elop NOT Eich (Score 1) 448 448

When in office Condi supported warrentless wiretaps and so opposed the interests of the service that Dropbox provides to it's customers - secure storage.

They have a right to question whether her intentions have change or just the position from which she plans to execute them. Maybe it's easier to do this fro the boadroom before going back into politics.

This is more Elop than Eich.

The Eich case is merely: I don't want my political opponents to work again in this town.

The Elop case is: Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin I will not let the big bad wolf in.

Condi is clearly the Elop case, as she opposes the interests of the service, which is more than just an "unfortunate" political affiliation (i.e. not on my side) and "dubious" moral history (i.e. not what I would have done).

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.

Working...