Hello!
I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's LinuxTag and have therefore a question: I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the philosophy of the FSF.
Any advice welcome, Kevin
Kevin Boergens wrote:
Hello!
I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's LinuxTag and have therefore a question: I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the philosophy of the FSF.
Any advice welcome, Kevin
Well,
since the GNU GPL is based on copyright I think it's fair to say that de fsf(e) is not anti-copyright.
greets, Wim
Wim De Smet wrote:
Kevin Boergens wrote:
Hello!
I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's LinuxTag and have therefore a question: I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the philosophy of the FSF.
Any advice welcome, Kevin
Well,
since the GNU GPL is based on copyright I think it's fair to say that de fsf(e) is not anti-copyright.
maybe fsfe, but, as far as I know, fsf (stallman) is against copyright. GPL "uses" copyright for self protection, but this does not means it believes in copyright. It's just like "use the same weapons".
In a free world copyright is not necessary. Think about this.
[]s, gandhi
In a free world copyright is not necessary. Think about this.
"If all people were good" is not interesting utopia.
Therefore, the only way I can read your statement is "to achieve freedom[1] you don't need copyright". Unfortunately, this is false. Software companies will just go on with contracts that resctrict more than what copyright mandates; publishers of other media will just join with similar contract.
And copyleft won't be effective any more.
Not for me, thanks. I prefer copyright -- although I agree that current copyright laws are more and more insane.
[1] we agree that freedom in this context only refers to information freedom.
/alessandro
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
In a free world copyright is not necessary. Think about this.
"If all people were good" is not interesting utopia.
Therefore, the only way I can read your statement is "to achieve freedom[1] you don't need copyright". Unfortunately, this is false. Software companies will just go on with contracts that resctrict more than what copyright mandates; publishers of other media will just join with similar contract.
hum... so you are saying something like "oh, copyright is ok because there are worse things..". Did you giveup before starting?
And copyleft won't be effective any more.
Are you saying free software will not exist without copyleft? Come on... you should know by now that free software is more than licenses and laws.
Not for me, thanks. I prefer copyright -- although I agree that current copyright laws are more and more insane.
Our utopias should be lived.
[]s, gandhi
Hello,
Ricardo Andere de Mello gandhi@quilombodigital.org wrote:
maybe fsfe, but, as far as I know, fsf (stallman) is against copyright. GPL "uses" copyright for self protection, but this does not means it believes in copyright. It's just like "use the same weapons".
i don't think so. Just look at the official fsf homepage they only permit verbatim copying, that wouldn't be possible without copyright. Another example would be the invariant sections of the GFDL. I think they are against the power of todays copyright law but they aren't generally against copyright.
Cheers, Bjoern
Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
Hello,
Ricardo Andere de Mello gandhi@quilombodigital.org wrote:
maybe fsfe, but, as far as I know, fsf (stallman) is against copyright. GPL "uses" copyright for self protection, but this does not means it believes in copyright. It's just like "use the same weapons".
i don't think so. Just look at the official fsf homepage they only permit verbatim copying, that wouldn't be possible without copyright. Another example would be the invariant sections of the GFDL. I think they are against the power of todays copyright law but they aren't generally against copyright.
I can say what I have talked to stallman once. He said he does not liked copyright, he just have to use it because it was one way to use the "system" against itself.
[]s, gandhi
A Seg, 2004-05-10 às 17:49, Ricardo Andere de Mello escreveu:
I can say what I have talked to stallman once. He said he does not liked copyright, he just have to use it because it was one way to use the "system" against itself.
I heard him tell this twice, so I can vouch for that. But the second time he had already found value in copyright. Without copyright we would have only contract law. And in an environment under contract law only, we'd still have proprietary software.
João Miguel Neves wrote:
A Seg, 2004-05-10 às 17:49, Ricardo Andere de Mello escreveu:
I can say what I have talked to stallman once. He said he does not liked copyright, he just have to use it because it was one way to use the "system" against itself.
I heard him tell this twice, so I can vouch for that. But the second time he had already found value in copyright. Without copyright we would have only contract law. And in an environment under contract law only, we'd still have proprietary software.
I still don't like the idea of aproving something just because there are worse options...
[]s, gandhi
A Ter, 2004-05-11 às 17:26, Ricardo Andere de Mello escreveu:
I still don't like the idea of aproving something just because there are worse options...
Have you tried? I've been studying copyright for a couple of years now with the objective of finding something better than copyright. I haven't. Everything I have is either something basic for copyright or a small change away from copyright, even when I'm supposedly building the set of rules from zero I always end up with something that is copyright under the Bern Convention.
The only change I'd do to copyright as is at the moment (the EUCD hasn't been implemented in Portugal yet), is the transmission of the reproduction and distribution right to the set of "moral rights".
Yes, I've thought about it and I haven't found anything better. If you got to any other conclusion, I'd love to hear about it.
João Miguel Neves wrote:
Yes, I've thought about it and I haven't found anything better. If you got to any other conclusion, I'd love to hear about it.
hum... maybe the answer is: "no answer", or maybe this is only possible in my utopia...
Some people (and laws) think that killing in self-defense is legitimate, I still think it is killing, in any situation. It's just an opinion. Gandhi is my nickname, but you all know Gandhi's history. He could get into guns and fight with the british, but he decided to do what he believed. He never accepted one situation because it was less worse, he just stand with his own opinion until convince more people. If some day I accept all these things that I think are wrong, I'll be certainly in grave.
[]s, gandhi
ps.: For me, Copyright elimination is an answer. I think this would naturally solve the problem. The internet is not regulated by the laws, and the information just flows. It will naturally create the dispositives to protect information and authors, just like an evolutionary algorithm.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11 May 2004 at 18:09, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Yes, I've thought about it and I haven't found anything better. If you got to any other conclusion, I'd love to hear about it.
What about a system whereby all zero-copy cost human output is recompensed via general taxation? I include books, music, video (all television), software, blueprints, designs etc.
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers. Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the thing downloaded.
1% of income tax in all countries goes into a pot. After operating expenses, the pot is divided up based on the relative proportions of copies downloaded. The artists get recompensed fairly, people get their entertainment and there's a strong competitive element for producing the best quality of output. There are no entry barriers and it's highly efficient as it's virtually entirely automated.
While people can pass around copies to each other freely, chances are you'd use the central servers as they're always there, fast to download from and it's simply more convenient. There may be problems with gangs orchestrating mass votes for crap products in order to get an illict share of the pie so some human oversight would be needed but I don't think it would be too bad (having each user register enables various statistics-based automatic red flagging).
Best of all, such a system is vastly superior to any copyright based system for all involved. Of course it means dismantling of powerful existing corporate interests and a level of international cooperation never before seen globally, but after we emerge from the Bretton Woods system collapse the environment would be right. Certainly when it collapses corporate enterprise will simply cease to exist, being replaced by highly diverse cooperatives and SME's (eg; like in Argentina).
I doubt free software as the FSF defines it will last the course. It depends too highly on there being a large body of affluent people with other sources of income. However, its cooperative mode of production is VERY interesting and strongly hints at how all future production shall be achieved especially in the non-hierarchical structure required by the likely post-collapse economy. After all if companies are never bigger than a few hundred people, the correct way to do large distributed projects is how free software currently does it.
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11 May 2004 at 18:09, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Yes, I've thought about it and I haven't found anything better. If you got to any other conclusion, I'd love to hear about it.
What about a system whereby all zero-copy cost human output is recompensed via general taxation? I include books, music, video (all television), software, blueprints, designs etc.
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers. Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the thing downloaded.
There's a little problem with this idea. the minorities. For me this idea is just an improved copyright. Why should I make something to a minority, like blind people, if I can make something to a larger audience to gain a lot more money? Why not distribute the money "equally"? People would just do what they want, simply because they would have the money to do it. Do you really think that someone that does something for a larger audience deserves more money than other that does something for minorities? Aren't we (free software guys) a minority now? Our audience is small compared to windows audience, windows programmers should gain more than we?
[]s, gandhi
just to complete my answer, some people may think that distributing equally the money/copyright would kill inovation because people would do simpler things and let the hard things undone. I will give free software as an example that prooves that inovation cames from human spirit.
[]s, gandhi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11 May 2004 at 18:03, Ricardo Andere de Mello wrote:
There's a little problem with this idea. the minorities. For me this idea is just an improved copyright. Why should I make something to a minority, like blind people, if I can make something to a larger audience to gain a lot more money? Why not distribute the money "equally"? People would just do what they want, simply because they would have the money to do it. Do you really think that someone that does something for a larger audience deserves more money than other that does something for minorities?
If you distribute the money equally, there's no incentive to produce quality work and plenty of incentive to produce as much dross as possible to try and grab the biggest slice of the pie as you can.
Also, and I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, blind people are a tiny minority. True they should receive more attention than merited by their number because it could happen to any of us but not /that/ much more attention.
If you look at things now, most blind people-specific work is done by volunteers or government grants and I'm guessing the former would be larger. In other words, it would happen anyway irrespective of any copyright system.
Aren't we (free software guys) a minority now? Our audience is small compared to windows audience, windows programmers should gain more than we?
One major gripe I have with the FSF et al is that they totally mistarget their efforts. Who needs free software ideology the most right now? Why none other than Windows users. Why the hell therefore is the lion's share of free software effort going towards non-Windows systems?
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
Anyway, point is that yes Windows programmers are far more important than any other kind of programmer though I wasn't talking about programmers per se. This is how the world has always worked - it's why all shoes are made for a European foot etc. and every attempt to work counter to how things must be fails.
[1]: Of course, technically speaking the kernel for GNU systems is meant to be the Hurd.
Cheers, Niall
Am Mittwoch, dem 12. Mai 2004 schrieb Niall Douglas:
One major gripe I have with the FSF et al is that they totally mistarget their efforts. Who needs free software ideology the most right now? Why none other than Windows users. Why the hell therefore is the lion's share of free software effort going towards non-Windows systems?
I think, writing Free Software for Windows just binds the users tighter to that unfree system!
Just recently I read an article in a magazine, which came to the conclusion, that there would be no reason to change to [GNU/]Linux, because all the software they tested is also available for Windows. :-(
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
Well, I think ReactOS can never keep up with Windows - because it is controlled by one single company. If ReactOS comes too close, Microsoft simply changes something in their system to make it incompatible. They are the ones, who have the finger at the trigger (sourcecode/specifications).
Remember OS/2 - even IBM couldn't keep up.
A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 19:07, Andreas K. Foerster escreveu:
I think, writing Free Software for Windows just binds the users tighter to that unfree system!
Just recently I read an article in a magazine, which came to the conclusion, that there would be no reason to change to [GNU/]Linux, because all the software they tested is also available for Windows. :-(
If we all believed in magazines, none of us would even know about the choices...
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
Well, I think ReactOS can never keep up with Windows - because it is controlled by one single company. If ReactOS comes too close, Microsoft simply changes something in their system to make it incompatible. They are the ones, who have the finger at the trigger (sourcecode/specifications).
Remember OS/2 - even IBM couldn't keep up.
And what's the advantage of using an operation system over another that is just a look-alike?
On 13 May 2004 at 19:27, João Miguel Neves wrote:
And what's the advantage of using an operation system over another that is just a look-alike? --
If this were true, why use Linux when FreeBSD looks almost identical and can run Linux binaries?
A free software clone of Windows would be immensely useful. For one thing it brings all the driver & application support Windows gets. It's also open source with all the advantages that brings like ability to modify, enhance & study. It would likely cost no money though that's not so important.
Most importantly of all, if this Windows clone were sufficient for most people's needs there'd be no reason whatsoever to continue to buy MS Windows. A demand would arise for PC's to come prebundled with the free Windows rather than MS's especially with razor thin PC margins. That would cut MS's income drastically, forcing it to reduce its margin from the 80% currently to something more reasonable and to play much nicer in the wider community.
Such a thing would also preclude software patents as you can't realistically ban something so fundamental as running on most of the politician's & SME's IT infrastructure. Right now the decision makers don't see Apache powering the internet every day and so don't realise how destructive anti-free software legislation is, but it would be much more apparent to them if such laws directly affected the software running on their own desktops every day.
There are oodles of good arguments for this. The best argument is the historic one - Linux would have still emerged as the leading Unix from all those competing Unices even if Windows had never existed - it is inevitable that all commonly used software will eventually get a free implementation. The arguments you made against mine equally apply to the commercial Unix vendors during the 1980's and 1990's yet they all were vanquished.
I agree that if Microsoft ratcheted up their innovativeness crank threefold they could survive but in a much reduced form. Remember their two only profitable departments are Windows and Office - everything else makes a loss.
Cheers, Niall
A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 21:54, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 13 May 2004 at 19:27, João Miguel Neves wrote:
And what's the advantage of using an operation system over another that is just a look-alike? --
If this were true, why use Linux when FreeBSD looks almost identical and can run Linux binaries?
Because GNU/Linux is my first of the two and there's no compelling reason for me to change to FreeBSD (the 1000% factor usually used in marketing).
A free software clone of Windows would be immensely useful. For one thing it brings all the driver & application support Windows gets. It's also open source with all the advantages that brings like ability to modify, enhance & study. It would likely cost no money though that's not so important.
Why isn't wine enough? And why do you think reactos will go further than wine on implementing win32?
On 13 May 2004 at 22:48, João Miguel Neves wrote:
And what's the advantage of using an operation system over another that is just a look-alike? --
If this were true, why use Linux when FreeBSD looks almost identical and can run Linux binaries?
Because GNU/Linux is my first of the two and there's no compelling reason for me to change to FreeBSD (the 1000% factor usually used in marketing).
Which is precisely the same logic why people continue to use Windows. Unless there's an obvious and compelling reason to change, the incumbant has a major advantage.
A free software clone of Windows would be immensely useful. For one thing it brings all the driver & application support Windows gets. It's also open source with all the advantages that brings like ability to modify, enhance & study. It would likely cost no money though that's not so important.
Why isn't wine enough?
1. No binary compatibility with Windows drivers. This is very important to most people 2. Few Windows games will run under WINE. And this is unlikely to change as DirectX demands a certain driver architecture Linux isn't moving towards. 3. No matter how wonderful WINE becomes, running Windows applications under it will always be a bit of a black art. Most people just want to shove in the CD and make it go. This is why Linux is unsuited to replace Windows in non-server arenas
And why do you think reactos will go further than wine on implementing win32?
Actually ReactOS incorporates WINE, they simply provide a "native" implementation layer - instead of calling Linux functions, they call reimplementations of the NT kernel API.
Cheers, Niall
A Sex, 2004-05-14 às 11:48, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 13 May 2004 at 22:48, João Miguel Neves wrote:
And what's the advantage of using an operation system over another that is just a look-alike? --
If this were true, why use Linux when FreeBSD looks almost identical and can run Linux binaries?
Because GNU/Linux is my first of the two and there's no compelling reason for me to change to FreeBSD (the 1000% factor usually used in marketing).
Which is precisely the same logic why people continue to use Windows. Unless there's an obvious and compelling reason to change, the incumbant has a major advantage.
Fortunately those reasons are appearing and growing (viruses and license restrictions).
A free software clone of Windows would be immensely useful. For one thing it brings all the driver & application support Windows gets. It's also open source with all the advantages that brings like ability to modify, enhance & study. It would likely cost no money though that's not so important.
Why isn't wine enough?
- No binary compatibility with Windows drivers. This is very
important to most people
There are some developments like the ndis wrapper driver (which I think is a bad idea, but we obviously have very different views on how quick users can drop a platform).
- Few Windows games will run under WINE. And this is unlikely to
change as DirectX demands a certain driver architecture Linux isn't moving towards.
You do now that there is a DirectX implementation of Wine and that the latest work in X.org is improving in taking advantage of the hardware.
- No matter how wonderful WINE becomes, running Windows applications
under it will always be a bit of a black art. Most people just want to shove in the CD and make it go. This is why Linux is unsuited to replace Windows in non-server arenas
I don't get why this is impossible? Binfmt and things like nautilus together with wine can do that behaviour without any problems. I don't understand why you say it isn't possible.
And why do you think reactos will go further than wine on implementing win32?
Actually ReactOS incorporates WINE, they simply provide a "native" implementation layer - instead of calling Linux functions, they call reimplementations of the NT kernel API.
So they'll also have to help develop DirectX for Wine to that. Nice to know...
On 14 May 2004 at 19:22, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Which is precisely the same logic why people continue to use Windows. Unless there's an obvious and compelling reason to change, the incumbant has a major advantage.
Fortunately those reasons are appearing and growing (viruses and license restrictions).
On a technical level, Windows should be more secure than Linux as it uses a fine-grained ACL security system. Unfortunately "should" isn't "is" :(
Both systems are equally broken with respect to good security. See http://www.eros-os.org/
There are some developments like the ndis wrapper driver (which I think is a bad idea, but we obviously have very different views on how quick users can drop a platform).
Techie types can drop platforms pretty quickly but non-techies will put up with surprisingly large amounts of pain before they'll change. If you feel out of your depth about something, you'll tend to overvalue the familiar - it's why many MacOS fans are so diehard about the issue.
- Few Windows games will run under WINE. And this is unlikely to
change as DirectX demands a certain driver architecture Linux isn't moving towards.
You do now that there is a DirectX implementation of Wine and that the latest work in X.org is improving in taking advantage of the hardware.
Absolutely. However unless they implement binary compatibility with Windows graphics card drivers they are dowsing a fire with petrol. Graphics cards evolve so fast even Microsoft has trouble keeping DirectX up with them.
As I mentioned before, the Linux driver model isn't the Windows one by any measure. Therefore to use Windows drivers they'd have to do quite a lot of emulation which attracts a heavy speed penalty. Not what gamers want!
- No matter how wonderful WINE becomes, running Windows
applications under it will always be a bit of a black art. Most people just want to shove in the CD and make it go. This is why Linux is unsuited to replace Windows in non-server arenas
I don't get why this is impossible? Binfmt and things like nautilus together with wine can do that behaviour without any problems. I don't understand why you say it isn't possible.
Are you seriously claiming that Joe Soap who doesn't even know what a command line is will ever be able to run Windows binaries transparently on any Linux ever?
Of course it can be done - like Apple did for legacy MacOS app support. But it's very tough - like pushing square pegs into round holes. And far more effort than simply cloning Windows. If you want a comparator, look at cygwin on Win32 - nearly a Unix environment, but no Joe Soap will ever be able to run an unmodified Linux binary on Windows via cygwin.
And why do you think reactos will go further than wine on implementing win32?
Actually ReactOS incorporates WINE, they simply provide a "native" implementation layer - instead of calling Linux functions, they call reimplementations of the NT kernel API.
So they'll also have to help develop DirectX for Wine to that. Nice to know...
It certainly is most interesting. I see no point in upgrading from Win2k ever except I have the horrible feeling MS will make the newest MSVC require a newer version. If I could break from MS operating systems I would.
Cheers, Niall
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 May 2004 at 20:07, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
One major gripe I have with the FSF et al is that they totally mistarget their efforts. Who needs free software ideology the most right now? Why none other than Windows users. Why the hell therefore is the lion's share of free software effort going towards non-Windows systems?
I think, writing Free Software for Windows just binds the users tighter to that unfree system!
That's the orthodox position. I also think it's completely wrong because it ignores three factors: (i) Most free software for Windows is portable, therefore a user is less bound to any one operating system (ii) When Windows users use free software they realise free software can be just as good as or better than COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software. (iii) Free software forces the user to support themselves to a much greater degree eg; seek support from a mailing list rather than buying a support contract. This is the most important thing we need to encourage in society at large for the good of mankind.
I also take issue with GNU going hell for leather making a free Java compiler. Well quite frankly that's a waste of effort - there are better fish to fry eg; ReactOS.
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
Well, I think ReactOS can never keep up with Windows - because it is controlled by one single company. If ReactOS comes too close, Microsoft simply changes something in their system to make it incompatible. They are the ones, who have the finger at the trigger (sourcecode/specifications).
You forget something - most users don't need any more features than Windows NT offers. In fact if NT had better peripheral support I'd still be using it rather than Win2k as my base system.
There are still a shocking number of computers running *Windows* *95* out there especially in SME's. After all, it does what's wanted.
Microsoft are finding it harder and harder to get people to upgrade to the latest Windows. In fact, Windows XP wouldn't have sold 85% of its copies if it weren't bundled with each & every new PC. MS are about to force people to buy it by stopping releasing security updates for Win2k but given they recently had to release updates for NT4 they're going to find that hard.
Also, lastly, MS can't just change things to make software incompatible anymore like in Win3.1 days. Too much of Windows base code depends on things being a certain way nowadays.
Remember OS/2 - even IBM couldn't keep up.
There was no technical reason IBM couldn't keep up, indeed many would say (correctly IMHO) than OS/2 Warp was far superior to Win95. IBM dropped the ball entirely due to mismanagement and crap marketing.
Cheers, Niall
A Qua, 2004-05-12 às 21:33, Niall Douglas escreveu:
One major gripe I have with the FSF et al is that they totally mistarget their efforts. Who needs free software ideology the most right now? Why none other than Windows users. Why the hell therefore is the lion's share of free software effort going towards non-Windows systems?
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
I completely disagree with you. ReactOS is a project that is condemned to guess all the mistakes MS did. I really prefer projects like GNUWin that allow you to present Free Software to windows users and then change to a Free Software system.
Anyway, point is that yes Windows programmers are far more important than any other kind of programmer though I wasn't talking about programmers per se. This is how the world has always worked - it's why all shoes are made for a European foot etc. and every attempt to work counter to how things must be fails.
Well, we have python that has the ability of being used by people well below the average age of developers.
BTW shoes are made for an european foot because most of shoe buyers have european feet.
[1]: Of course, technically speaking the kernel for GNU systems is meant to be the Hurd.
On 13 May 2004 at 19:14, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
I completely disagree with you. ReactOS is a project that is condemned to guess all the mistakes MS did.
What mistakes? Windows NT was designed by one of the most famous & respected operating system designers the world has ever known. It has a superb kernel. While it has a few structural mistakes, it has far fewer than say the 2.4 series Linux kernels [1] and remember it was designed long before Linux.
The crud in Windows is mostly but not exclusively based in the COM infrastructure most of which could be removed with a reimplementation. The new managed code infrastructure which supersedes this looks promising, but really it's MS preemptively guarding against cloning of the Win32 API and extending & embracing ISO C++ like they did to Java.
I really prefer projects like GNUWin that allow you to present Free Software to windows users and then change to a Free Software system.
If it can't run unmodified Windows binaries natively it's pointless. The thing stopping most home users is games compatibility and while WINE is excellent, it's not good right there.
Anyway, point is that yes Windows programmers are far more important than any other kind of programmer though I wasn't talking about programmers per se. This is how the world has always worked - it's why all shoes are made for a European foot etc. and every attempt to work counter to how things must be fails.
[snip] BTW shoes are made for an european foot because most of shoe buyers have european feet.
No, it's because those of European descent have the most buying power - therefore industrial production is orientated primarily around them. As a proportion of total would-be shoe buyers European feet are a small minority.
If the self-proclaimed leaders of the free software philosophy really wanted to maximise its spread, pushing a system incompatible with
85% of all systems & programmers out there is not the way to do it.
Far better clone that system [2] and beat the devil at his own game.
[1]: If you view this as inflammatory, go compare the FreeBSD 5.x series kernel with a Linux 2.4 series kernel and try not to wince too hard when looking at the latter. I've not looked at the Linux 2.6 kernel much yet.
[2]: Many (and I'd be one of them) view recent Linux advances as increasingly cloning Windows functionality but in an ABI incompatible way. There's a lot of wasted opportunity but then volunteer based software development is incredibly conformising.
Cheers, Niall
A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 21:39, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 13 May 2004 at 19:14, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Projects such as ReactOS should be getting the very fullest of weight from the FSF, not Linux [1]. I don't know why people have missed this very self-evident point.
I completely disagree with you. ReactOS is a project that is condemned to guess all the mistakes MS did.
What mistakes? Windows NT was designed by one of the most famous & respected operating system designers the world has ever known. It has a superb kernel. While it has a few structural mistakes, it has far fewer than say the 2.4 series Linux kernels [1] and remember it was designed long before Linux.
You completely misunderstood me. Any program with a thousand of lines has hundreds of little choices that were made by it's programmers. A clone like ReactOS has to get all those right. It's that task that I think it's mad.
I really prefer projects like GNUWin that allow you to present Free Software to windows users and then change to a Free Software system.
If it can't run unmodified Windows binaries natively it's pointless. The thing stopping most home users is games compatibility and while WINE is excellent, it's not good right there.
I don't think that running windows binaries is going to be an issue in less than one decade, probably 3 to 5 years.
BTW shoes are made for an european foot because most of shoe buyers have european feet.
No, it's because those of European descent have the most buying power
- therefore industrial production is orientated primarily around
them. As a proportion of total would-be shoe buyers European feet are a small minority.
So, you just said "No" but your justification said "Yes". I said buyers on purpose, not people.
If the self-proclaimed leaders of the free software philosophy really wanted to maximise its spread, pushing a system incompatible with
85% of all systems & programmers out there is not the way to do it.
Far better clone that system [2] and beat the devil at his own game.
No, running in second place by following the person that goes first is not beating "the devil at his own game". It's making sure you're always behind the first guy. Our resources are better spent on platforms that have shown themselves stable enough over the years that don't force us to reimplement our programs every 3 years.
On 13 May 2004 at 22:55, João Miguel Neves wrote:
What mistakes? Windows NT was designed by one of the most famous & respected operating system designers the world has ever known. It has a superb kernel. While it has a few structural mistakes, it has far fewer than say the 2.4 series Linux kernels [1] and remember it was designed long before Linux.
You completely misunderstood me. Any program with a thousand of lines has hundreds of little choices that were made by it's programmers. A clone like ReactOS has to get all those right. It's that task that I think it's mad.
Linux has had this problem twenty times over in trying to behave like all the different Unices out there *at* *the* *same* *time*. Following this logic, Linus should have dumped the idea of Linux and gone with forking Plan 9 instead - which while very appealing on technical grounds, it ignores how much worth legacy compatibility is worth to people.
I don't think that running windows binaries is going to be an issue in less than one decade, probably 3 to 5 years.
Precisely why Microsoft are going down the managed code route. They're going to try and get all new development over to that new proprietary API with proprietary tools & programming languages. By the time Linux is fully up to par, all the latest apps will be incompatible again.
BTW shoes are made for an european foot because most of shoe buyers have european feet.
No, it's because those of European descent have the most buying power - therefore industrial production is orientated primarily around them. As a proportion of total would-be shoe buyers European feet are a small minority.
So, you just said "No" but your justification said "Yes". I said buyers on purpose, not people.
I interpreted "shoe buyers" as those who'd like to buy shoes and are capable of paying for them in some form.
Far better clone that system [2] and beat the devil at his own game.
No, running in second place by following the person that goes first is not beating "the devil at his own game". It's making sure you're always behind the first guy. Our resources are better spent on platforms that have shown themselves stable enough over the years that don't force us to reimplement our programs every 3 years.
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
When you say "It's making sure you're always behind the first guy" I think you're ignoring how non-techies value computers. Non-techies want something they can buy some peripheral or application for with reasonable assurance it'll work - Linux doesn't and never will do this - it has more of the market now than MacOS X yet its peripheral support is far less. That's because Linux is good for techies (who are able to maintain their own kernel modules) and servers (which have a very limited set of hardware configurations).
Now if you had a free clone system capable of running 100% Win32 binaries and drivers natively you remove the obstacles preventing non- techies adopting it instead of MS Windows. If even 15% of the market use clone Windows, suddenly application developers must ensure compatibility - which means NOT using any new proprietary features tacked on like managed code (actually, if clone Windows were really good enough, you could install Microsoft's own .NET runtime :) ).
So you see what I'm driving at? Linux encourages MS to keep pushing people to use new proprietary systems. A binary compatible Windows clone makes such tactics redundant.
I'm not saying drop Linux tomorrow - I AM saying the FSF should adopt ReactOS and throw resources at it if it's really serious about creating change. Of course, this will unleash every weapon MS has got, but better do it now than in ten years when they'll have finished patenting everything Linux is made of.
Cheers, Niall
At Fri, 14 May 2004 12:18:55 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 13 May 2004 at 22:55, João Miguel Neves wrote:
What mistakes? Windows NT was designed by one of the most famous & respected operating system designers the world has ever known. It has a superb kernel. While it has a few structural mistakes, it has far fewer than say the 2.4 series Linux kernels [1] and remember it was designed long before Linux.
You completely misunderstood me. Any program with a thousand of lines has hundreds of little choices that were made by it's programmers. A clone like ReactOS has to get all those right. It's that task that I think it's mad.
Linux has had this problem twenty times over in trying to behave like all the different Unices out there *at* *the* *same* *time*. Following this logic, Linus should have dumped the idea of Linux and gone with forking Plan 9 instead - which while very appealing on technical grounds, it ignores how much worth legacy compatibility is worth to people.
GNU/Linux almost complies to an international standard called POSIX. Why would you want to throw away that standard and implement some non-standard, proprietary API which changes every few years? Don't you like open standards?
I don't think that running windows binaries is going to be an issue in less than one decade, probably 3 to 5 years.
Precisely why Microsoft are going down the managed code route. They're going to try and get all new development over to that new proprietary API with proprietary tools & programming languages. By the time Linux is fully up to par, all the latest apps will be incompatible again.
Linux is up to par with what? Do you mean wine instead of Linux?
Far better clone that system [2] and beat the devil at his own game.
No, running in second place by following the person that goes first is not beating "the devil at his own game". It's making sure you're always behind the first guy. Our resources are better spent on platforms that have shown themselves stable enough over the years that don't force us to reimplement our programs every 3 years.
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
I know from other people that most games written for win 9x work poorly or not at all on XP. Even microsoft can't make XP fully compatible with 9x, and we should be able to do so without specs, source code and knowledge of the internals? I don't think so.
When you say "It's making sure you're always behind the first guy" I think you're ignoring how non-techies value computers. Non-techies want something they can buy some peripheral or application for with reasonable assurance it'll work - Linux doesn't and never will do this - it has more of the market now than MacOS X yet its peripheral support is far less. That's because Linux is good for techies (who are able to maintain their own kernel modules) and servers (which have a very limited set of hardware configurations).
Linux will never do that? And how do you know? Can you look into the future?
Now if you had a free clone system capable of running 100% Win32 binaries and drivers natively you remove the obstacles preventing non- techies adopting it instead of MS Windows. If even 15% of the market use clone Windows, suddenly application developers must ensure compatibility - which means NOT using any new proprietary features tacked on like managed code (actually, if clone Windows were really good enough, you could install Microsoft's own .NET runtime :) ).
So you see what I'm driving at? Linux encourages MS to keep pushing people to use new proprietary systems. A binary compatible Windows clone makes such tactics redundant.
I'm not saying drop Linux tomorrow - I AM saying the FSF should adopt ReactOS and throw resources at it if it's really serious about creating change. Of course, this will unleash every weapon MS has got, but better do it now than in ten years when they'll have finished patenting everything Linux is made of.
Which resources? FSF doesn't have any resources for this at all. And I think the FSF had created enough serious change and is still doing so - or do you want to say the FSF didn't create a change the last 20 years? Do you want to say that the increasing number of GNU/Linux users isn't a change?
And about the patenting stuff, I don't think there will be software patents in Europe.
Jeroen Dekkers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 14 May 2004 at 20:27, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Linux has had this problem twenty times over in trying to behave like all the different Unices out there *at* *the* *same* *time*. Following this logic, Linus should have dumped the idea of Linux and gone with forking Plan 9 instead - which while very appealing on technical grounds, it ignores how much worth legacy compatibility is worth to people.
GNU/Linux almost complies to an international standard called POSIX. Why would you want to throw away that standard and implement some non-standard, proprietary API which changes every few years? Don't you like open standards?
That was actually my point - legacy standards are worth a lot to people. The Windows API is also pretty ancient & very stable, there's a lot of Windows 2.x and 3.x stuff in there still plus smatterings from OS/2. Of course Windows NT also provides a POSIX subsystem which was wonderful back in the day.
I don't think that running windows binaries is going to be an issue in less than one decade, probably 3 to 5 years.
Precisely why Microsoft are going down the managed code route. They're going to try and get all new development over to that new proprietary API with proprietary tools & programming languages. By the time Linux is fully up to par, all the latest apps will be incompatible again.
Linux is up to par with what? Do you mean wine instead of Linux?
I meant it in two ways - Linux in features terms and Wine in Win32 compatibility terms. Not cloning Windows makes the job of keeping up much tougher.
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
I know from other people that most games written for win 9x work poorly or not at all on XP. Even microsoft can't make XP fully compatible with 9x, and we should be able to do so without specs, source code and knowledge of the internals? I don't think so.
Almost every *application* for DOS runs fine on NT. Games less so I agree, but then Microsoft's WOW team set a target of being able to play DOS Doom in the subsystem and then it'd be considered done. Business apps were their primary concern and these run very well.
The guys at ReactOS know most about the difficulty of cloning Windows so I'll leave it to their interviews to comment. However the DDK gives a surprising amount of information.
When you say "It's making sure you're always behind the first guy" I think you're ignoring how non-techies value computers. Non-techies want something they can buy some peripheral or application for with reasonable assurance it'll work - Linux doesn't and never will do this - it has more of the market now than MacOS X yet its peripheral support is far less. That's because Linux is good for techies (who are able to maintain their own kernel modules) and servers (which have a very limited set of hardware configurations).
Linux will never do that? And how do you know? Can you look into the future?
There are some things Linux is naturally strong at. There are other things it is naturally weak at. If you balance the effort required to turn a weakness into a strength against the rewards for investing the effort then yes, you can see into the future.
I can't see Linux ever penetrating more than 2% of the home market period. I can see it making maybe 25% of office desktops which are basically glorified typewriters. I can see it gaining 75% of servers though once the giant lock is expunged from FreeBSD it'll be unstoppable for servers. We'll see if I'm right or wrong in five years time but go look at RedHat's recent marketing strategy if you want to see corroboration.
One arena I can't guess is embedded devices. Either WinCE or Symbian will grow or Linux will shrink. Very hard to call right now.
Which resources? FSF doesn't have any resources for this at all. And I think the FSF had created enough serious change and is still doing so
- or do you want to say the FSF didn't create a change the last 20
years? Do you want to say that the increasing number of GNU/Linux users isn't a change?
The self-appointed leaders of the free software movement could begin by publicly encouraging ReactOS and its ilk instead of decrying it as encouraging further lock-in into MS's evil grip (complete nonsense, but who am I to disagree with RMS?). That alone sadly enough would cause developer resources to flock to cloning Windows.
Regarding how much change the FSF has caused, well yes they have been successful in a way the more free BSD culture never was. I don't think they themselves know why that was but I do notice that they think it's because their worldview is the right one and therefore they have been given some divine mandate. I among many others find that attitude disturbing and worry where it's going. For sure, their actions don't seem to be those which most proactively advance the causes they profess to believe in.
And about the patenting stuff, I don't think there will be software patents in Europe.
Our best and only chance was via the parliament because it's something we can influence. The council of ministers is effectively closed to our voice and there's little we can do about it (that's why the old left in Britain disliked the EU, it's fundamentally anti- democratic). I personally am resting easy until the directive returns to the EP when I'll either campaign for a yes or no vote depending on whether it's good or not.
However my comments were referring to the globe. Microsoft is quietly patenting key parts of Linux and if it ever needed to, it could sue everyone using Linux for patent breach though not in the EU if the parliament amended directive were passed. Bye bye Linux if that happens.
Cheers, Niall
A Sex, 2004-05-14 às 20:57, Niall Douglas escreveu:
And about the patenting stuff, I don't think there will be software patents in Europe.
Our best and only chance was via the parliament because it's something we can influence. The council of ministers is effectively closed to our voice and there's little we can do about it (that's why the old left in Britain disliked the EU, it's fundamentally anti- democratic). I personally am resting easy until the directive returns to the EP when I'll either campaign for a yes or no vote depending on whether it's good or not.
Fortunately you're also wrong on this one. In the last few days we managed to stop the council position to be simply nodded through the council and we're getting more and more governments on our side.
However my comments were referring to the globe. Microsoft is quietly patenting key parts of Linux and if it ever needed to, it could sue everyone using Linux for patent breach though not in the EU if the parliament amended directive were passed. Bye bye Linux if that happens.
Not true also. Unlike copyright, patents have a very interesting mechanism where a country can disable the patent mechanism in the name of "national interests". Talking from a country where all the Internet infrastructure depends on free software and about 1/7th of the public administrations computers, that could probably be justified.
On 14 May 2004 at 23:39, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Our best and only chance was via the parliament because it's something we can influence. The council of ministers is effectively closed to our voice and there's little we can do about it (that's why the old left in Britain disliked the EU, it's fundamentally anti- democratic). I personally am resting easy until the directive returns to the EP when I'll either campaign for a yes or no vote depending on whether it's good or not.
Fortunately you're also wrong on this one. In the last few days we managed to stop the council position to be simply nodded through the council and we're getting more and more governments on our side.
And I'm glad that it's happened. However you must surely agree that individual crusading against the council of ministers is counterproductive. IFSO (Irish Free Software Organisation) chose to send one letter signed by all members rather than each member doing their own thing and I agree with their rationale. I am only sorry it was the Irish government who tried pushing it, we above all other countries in Europe should know better (and our MEP's did).
However my comments were referring to the globe. Microsoft is quietly patenting key parts of Linux and if it ever needed to, it could sue everyone using Linux for patent breach though not in the EU if the parliament amended directive were passed. Bye bye Linux if that happens.
Not true also. Unlike copyright, patents have a very interesting mechanism where a country can disable the patent mechanism in the name of "national interests". Talking from a country where all the Internet infrastructure depends on free software and about 1/7th of the public administrations computers, that could probably be justified.
The key battleground where software patents have and will continue to be used at their ugliest will be the US. There is crucial to all computer technology worldwide. If they could freeze Linux like AT&T did to BSD, it's all that would be needed.
However I don't think MS will choose to deploy this unless times get desperate. Bill knows it's better to get as many as possible onto proprietary managed code as he kills a few extra birds with the same stone too (eg; buffer overruns :) and Java). And Linux doesn't interrupt his core market which is home & commercial desktops. He should be far more concerned about OpenOffice than Linux.
Cheers, Niall
A Sáb, 2004-05-15 às 00:27, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 14 May 2004 at 23:39, João Miguel Neves wrote: The key battleground where software patents have and will continue to be used at their ugliest will be the US. There is crucial to all computer technology worldwide. If they could freeze Linux like AT&T did to BSD, it's all that would be needed.
I'm working in a way to solve that problem. It's strange, but possible... It's just too soon for details.
However I don't think MS will choose to deploy this unless times get desperate. Bill knows it's better to get as many as possible onto proprietary managed code as he kills a few extra birds with the same stone too (eg; buffer overruns :) and Java). And Linux doesn't interrupt his core market which is home & commercial desktops. He should be far more concerned about OpenOffice than Linux.
I'm not that sure about patent attacks from MS. They hired Phelps last year (the guy who set up IBM's patent extortion business) and they just cleaned up several litigation cases with over 3 000 million dollars in the last weeks. According to a portuguese MS employee, they aren't downsizing the litigation department.
Well, you probably can understand what I'm expecting from Redmond in the next months.
On 15 May 2004 at 0:40, João Miguel Neves wrote:
The key battleground where software patents have and will continue to be used at their ugliest will be the US. There is crucial to all computer technology worldwide. If they could freeze Linux like AT&T did to BSD, it's all that would be needed.
I'm working in a way to solve that problem. It's strange, but possible... It's just too soon for details.
I had an idea for that - I don't know if it's similar to yours - companies could throw their software patents in a mutually owned holding company. If any of the members gets sued for patent infringement, the full weight of all the other patents is used to countersue and each member agrees to contribute their share of the legal costs.
If big enough, this system could render software patents unenforceable.
I'm not that sure about patent attacks from MS. They hired Phelps last year (the guy who set up IBM's patent extortion business) and they just cleaned up several litigation cases with over 3 000 million dollars in the last weeks. According to a portuguese MS employee, they aren't downsizing the litigation department.
Well, you probably can understand what I'm expecting from Redmond in the next months.
I agree. However I think Phelps is there primarily to increase regular revenue streams as people aren't going to shell out every 18 months for new Office and new Windows forever. However I do believe he'll be working on a contingency plan as I outlined.
Right now it'd hurt MS more than help it to kill Linux. Why? Because for anti-trust reasons MS needs a competitor to point at and say "we're not a monopoly look!". It's exactly why Intel tolerates AMD, in fact has even quietly helped it out when it looked about to fold a few years back.
However if its core businesses were to fall as they surely will some day, expect the gloves to come off. MS is building for that time.
Cheers, Niall
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 14:04 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
I had an idea for that - I don't know if it's similar to yours -
I seriously doubt any good idea might come if it is based upon the assumption that software patents do any good (except maybe to lawyers and monopolists).
companies could throw their software patents in a mutually owned holding company. If any of the members gets sued for patent infringement, the full weight of all the other patents is used to countersue and each member agrees to contribute their share of the legal costs.
Lawyer heaven.
If big enough, this system could render software patents unenforceable.
If the objective is to render software patents unenforceable, I have a quicker way: respect TRIPs.
I agree. However I think Phelps is there primarily to increase regular revenue streams as people aren't going to shell out every 18 months for new Office and new Windows forever. However I do believe he'll be working on a contingency plan as I outlined.
Phelps isn't in marketting, though. So I guess his objective is a lot more aggressive.
Right now it'd hurt MS more than help it to kill Linux. Why? Because for anti-trust reasons MS needs a competitor to point at and say "we're not a monopoly look!". It's exactly why Intel tolerates AMD, in fact has even quietly helped it out when it looked about to fold a few years back.
Oh, but Microsoft has healthy, friendly and cooperative competition! Didn't you see how they even settled out of ourt with Sun? So that they can "compete" with "open" standards... So they aren't a monopoly, right?
And this isn't a matter of monopoly vs competition, it's a matter of those anti-property lunatics, they wan't to shatter the economy and drive innovation away!
Besides, EU's very fond of competition, they even said that Microsoft must license with RAND their protocols...
Now seriously, you haven't learned doublespeak yet?
However if its core businesses were to fall as they surely will some day, expect the gloves to come off. MS is building for that time.
I think that will happen earlier, under the guise of legitimate self defense against "pirates" "stealing" "their" "property".
Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 16 May 2004 at 17:03, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
companies could throw their software patents in a mutually owned holding company. If any of the members gets sued for patent infringement, the full weight of all the other patents is used to countersue and each member agrees to contribute their share of the legal costs.
Lawyer heaven.
True, but use of lawyers is a sign of insecurity. And insecurity in the west is growing rapidly - it's a malaise.
Right now it'd hurt MS more than help it to kill Linux. Why? Because for anti-trust reasons MS needs a competitor to point at and say "we're not a monopoly look!". It's exactly why Intel tolerates AMD, in fact has even quietly helped it out when it looked about to fold a few years back.
Oh, but Microsoft has healthy, friendly and cooperative competition! Didn't you see how they even settled out of ourt with Sun? So that they can "compete" with "open" standards... So they aren't a monopoly, right?
And this isn't a matter of monopoly vs competition, it's a matter of those anti-property lunatics, they wan't to shatter the economy and drive innovation away!
Besides, EU's very fond of competition, they even said that Microsoft must license with RAND their protocols...
Now seriously, you haven't learned doublespeak yet?
I think I understand how MS knows that perception is everything. Anti- trust investigations are begun not from some checklist which is ticked off but entirely by *political* decision. Thus MS gets anti- trusted by Clinton but let off under Bush.
Politicians also work almost entirely by perception. If they are perceived to not be doing enough about something (even if they are), bad things happen. Therefore it doesn't matter a jot how MS treats others so long as it doesn't APPEAR to be behaving in an anti- competitive manner.
This is why in previous posts to Jeroen I stressed the need to spread the IDEALS, the way of thinking of the free software movement. Actual free software itself is far less important. If you make Linux all singing all dancing but if MS is still raking in billions a year exploiting the users, then as far as I am concerned Linux has achieved *nothing*.
Cheers, Niall
On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 20:19 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
This is why in previous posts to Jeroen I stressed the need to spread the IDEALS, the way of thinking of the free software movement. Actual free software itself is far less important. If you make Linux all singing all dancing but if MS is still raking in billions a year exploiting the users, then as far as I am concerned Linux has achieved *nothing*.
I'm not particularly interested in the promotion of a particular kernel, like Linux.
I agree that what is important are the ideals of Free Software, but what you're saying is stick the ideals on the freezer and just show free appliations that work on non-free software.
That's not the purpose of Free Software, you're not getting the ideals, I'm afraid.
You're promoting freedom wearing shackles.
Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 16 May 2004 at 20:22, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
I agree that what is important are the ideals of Free Software, but what you're saying is stick the ideals on the freezer and just show free appliations that work on non-free software.
No, that's running free software on a non-free operating system. It's quite a different matter the other way round.
That's not the purpose of Free Software, you're not getting the ideals, I'm afraid.
Y'see, I'd say that's exactly what "the movement" is doing right now. It is obvious to anyone that some day all common bits of software will be communal. However the strategy, which this thread is about, will determine when that day arrives.
I think how we're doing things now will cause a petering out of growth. I don't see the market being able to support more than 15-20% free software boxes. That leave 80-85% of the market for MS to continue to exploit to the detriment of all mankind.
You're promoting freedom wearing shackles.
As they're noticing in Iraq, you don't spread democracy by going in and stamping it on people who don't understand it. Instead you plant the seeds and it's the people themselves who generate their own revolution.
To draw an analogy, free software has founded its own democracy but is separated by great distance from the rest of the world. The rest of the world looks at us and is impressed but feel far too uncertain to follow. Thus the repressive dictatorships continue unabashed.
If we really want to maximise the spread of this ideology (as we should for the good of mankind), we need to plant seeds. Setting an example is not enough - we need something others can take hold of and make their own revolution. That means not requiring them to install a new operating system - as BeOS, Nextstep and countless others have found, it must have hardware & software compatibility for people to feel safe enough to try it out. Hence cloning Windows! :)
Cheers, Niall
A Dom, 2004-05-16 às 20:19, Niall Douglas escreveu:
True, but use of lawyers is a sign of insecurity. And insecurity in the west is growing rapidly - it's a malaise.
In the USA it became a business cost. A founder of a portuguese SME that sells software in the USA told me that they have a full-time employee that is used to identify possible threats of litigation simply because they can't afford litigation. If they get sued they'll close down the company.
Avoiding litigation is the reason they registered software patents.
On 16 May 2004 at 21:56, João Miguel Neves wrote:
A Dom, 2004-05-16 Ã s 20:19, Niall Douglas escreveu:
True, but use of lawyers is a sign of insecurity. And insecurity in the west is growing rapidly - it's a malaise.
In the USA it became a business cost. A founder of a portuguese SME that sells software in the USA told me that they have a full-time employee that is used to identify possible threats of litigation simply because they can't afford litigation. If they get sued they'll close down the company.
Avoiding litigation is the reason they registered software patents. --
Indeed. However no one can escape the realisation that doing business this way is highly inefficient - any wealth generated is having to pay a tithe to lawyers and if the profit margin is too eroded by that (ever increasing) tithe, the incentive to generate new wealth stops.
Business needs an impartial legal system to resolve trade & contractual disputes. What it doesn't need is high costs on doing business - this is like high taxes & lots of red tape. Business is quick to blame government for rising costs of doing business but they should take a closer look at how much they are costing themselves with bad business practices such as patent disputes.
However I think all of us in here knows that already. After I get my economics degree, maybe I'll write some seminal book clearly laying out the fiscal costs! :)
Cheers, Niall
A Sáb, 2004-05-15 às 14:04, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 15 May 2004 at 0:40, João Miguel Neves wrote:
I'm working in a way to solve that problem. It's strange, but possible... It's just too soon for details.
I had an idea for that - I don't know if it's similar to yours - companies could throw their software patents in a mutually owned holding company. If any of the members gets sued for patent infringement, the full weight of all the other patents is used to countersue and each member agrees to contribute their share of the legal costs.
If big enough, this system could render software patents unenforceable.
Well, I've seen too many of those proposals, and people working on them, to believe it could work. You can't countersue a non-technical company of lawyers that holds patents. And there are too many of those nowadays.
At Fri, 14 May 2004 20:57:00 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 14 May 2004 at 20:27, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Linux has had this problem twenty times over in trying to behave like all the different Unices out there *at* *the* *same* *time*. Following this logic, Linus should have dumped the idea of Linux and gone with forking Plan 9 instead - which while very appealing on technical grounds, it ignores how much worth legacy compatibility is worth to people.
GNU/Linux almost complies to an international standard called POSIX. Why would you want to throw away that standard and implement some non-standard, proprietary API which changes every few years? Don't you like open standards?
That was actually my point - legacy standards are worth a lot to people. The Windows API is also pretty ancient & very stable, there's a lot of Windows 2.x and 3.x stuff in there still plus smatterings from OS/2. Of course Windows NT also provides a POSIX subsystem which was wonderful back in the day.
You still haven't answer my question. Why throw away POSIX, an open standard, for a non-standard, proprietary API?
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
I know from other people that most games written for win 9x work poorly or not at all on XP. Even microsoft can't make XP fully compatible with 9x, and we should be able to do so without specs, source code and knowledge of the internals? I don't think so.
Almost every *application* for DOS runs fine on NT. Games less so I agree, but then Microsoft's WOW team set a target of being able to play DOS Doom in the subsystem and then it'd be considered done. Business apps were their primary concern and these run very well.
You are switching from home users to business users. Can you make up your mind please? Home users play games, business users don't. Business users aren't the same as home users. They have system administrators who setup their system. System administrators aren't the "average Joe". We were talking about home users, and they have games which don't work on XP. So binary compatiblity doesn't work for them.
Which resources? FSF doesn't have any resources for this at all. And I think the FSF had created enough serious change and is still doing so
- or do you want to say the FSF didn't create a change the last 20
years? Do you want to say that the increasing number of GNU/Linux users isn't a change?
The self-appointed leaders of the free software movement could begin by publicly encouraging ReactOS and its ilk instead of decrying it as encouraging further lock-in into MS's evil grip (complete nonsense, but who am I to disagree with RMS?). That alone sadly enough would cause developer resources to flock to cloning Windows.
You're totally ignorant about the goal of the FSF. The goal is to provide a totally free operating system. Not a system made for non-free drivers and non-free applications. A windows clone would be just that, encouraging non-free software. Maybe you should read the essay "The Free Software Community After 20 Years: With great but incomplete success, what now?" to get a picture of what the FSF's goal is.
And about the patenting stuff, I don't think there will be software patents in Europe.
Our best and only chance was via the parliament because it's something we can influence. The council of ministers is effectively closed to our voice and there's little we can do about it (that's why the old left in Britain disliked the EU, it's fundamentally anti- democratic). I personally am resting easy until the directive returns to the EP when I'll either campaign for a yes or no vote depending on whether it's good or not.
I've been demonstrating yesterday and at least they listed to our points of view and it's just waiting what they are going to do with it. It's possible to influence the council of ministers, through national MPs and by demonstrating for example. Saying it's something we can't influence at all is wrong IMHO. In Germany, Belgium and Denmark it already resulted in that their minister would probably vote no. We only need a few countries more.
However my comments were referring to the globe. Microsoft is quietly patenting key parts of Linux and if it ever needed to, it could sue everyone using Linux for patent breach though not in the EU if the parliament amended directive were passed. Bye bye Linux if that happens.
So? That is that country's problem, it might slowdown Linux development a bit, but that's all. Most development would just move to places without such wrong laws (the EU and India for example). Just like what happened with cryptograhy software when the US had still those strict export laws.
Jeroen Dekkers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15 May 2004 at 11:20, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
You still haven't answer my question. Why throw away POSIX, an open standard, for a non-standard, proprietary API?
Whether something is proprietary or not isn't anything like as important as its ubiquity. In fact, most ISO standards start life as a proprietary interface.
POSIX has a long and good history. There are some really rotten parts of the spec but a lot of that comes from its age. However in terms of quantity of usage, the Win32 API vastly overshadows POSIX. Therefore it is more important as everyone can agree legacy compatibility is very useful.
Almost every *application* for DOS runs fine on NT. Games less so I agree, but then Microsoft's WOW team set a target of being able to play DOS Doom in the subsystem and then it'd be considered done. Business apps were their primary concern and these run very well.
You are switching from home users to business users. Can you make up your mind please? Home users play games, business users don't.
It was you who brought up games. I made a sweeping generalised statement that Microsoft places great import in maintaining backwards compatibility with legacy binaries. Someone else claimed this was the case with Linux and I sought to dispute that because it's not true - it's only very recently that an effort has been made to ensure binary compatibility, and I strongly welcome that.
You're totally ignorant about the goal of the FSF. The goal is to provide a totally free operating system. Not a system made for non-free drivers and non-free applications. A windows clone would be just that, encouraging non-free software. Maybe you should read the essay "The Free Software Community After 20 Years: With great but incomplete success, what now?" to get a picture of what the FSF's goal is.
What someone states is their goal usually isn't their goal. I distrust them, and I'm not alone - note how Linus mandates that the Linux kernel is licensed under a specific version of the GPL and not "this or any later version" as the FSF would have you do.
While we broadly agree about the important issues, when you get down to detail we diverge rapidly. Since we share common interests right now we all work together, but a split will eventually happen. It's like capitalism & communism, both nearly the same but diametrically opposed to the other.
I've been demonstrating yesterday and at least they listed to our points of view and it's just waiting what they are going to do with it.
Wow, you're seriously naïve. Professional politicians have the innate ability to make anyone think they're taking you seriously, they really agree with you privately and they'll urgently expedite action favourable to your cause. And ministers don't get to be ministers without being really good at that.
It's possible to influence the council of ministers, through national MPs and by demonstrating for example. Saying it's something we can't influence at all is wrong IMHO. In Germany, Belgium and Denmark it already resulted in that their minister would probably vote no. We only need a few countries more.
The public can get to them on two fronts primarily - through their backbenchers (the parliament) and through the media (adverse publicity). Our ability to lobby like corporate interests (ie; behind the scenes) is very limited.
I've been part of the recreational drugs reform movement for some time which has been running since the 1960's. They can teach a lot about campaigning to anti-software patent campaigners most of whom are very new to this. However, that said, if it makes you feel better to demonstrate outside parliament then it's worth doing.
So? That is that country's problem, it might slowdown Linux development a bit, but that's all. Most development would just move to places without such wrong laws (the EU and India for example). Just like what happened with cryptograhy software when the US had still those strict export laws.
Well we'll see. Cryptography was quite something else because everyone knew the US had to relax it sometime - that means investment will not be wasted. There would be deep uncertainty if patents were used in anger against Linux and while I think it'd be like the chilling of BSD from the AT&T lawsuit, these are different times. Some diehard BSD fans claim that that AT&T suit caused Linux to beat BSD to become the world's favourite Unix but I think that's underestimating why Linux is so popular.
Cheers, Niall
At Sat, 15 May 2004 23:28:11 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 15 May 2004 at 11:20, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
You still haven't answer my question. Why throw away POSIX, an open standard, for a non-standard, proprietary API?
Whether something is proprietary or not isn't anything like as important as its ubiquity. In fact, most ISO standards start life as a proprietary interface.
Sure it is. If it's proprietary it means there is no good documentation about the interface, one company can change it at their will, etc. And that is *very* important.
Almost every *application* for DOS runs fine on NT. Games less so I agree, but then Microsoft's WOW team set a target of being able to play DOS Doom in the subsystem and then it'd be considered done. Business apps were their primary concern and these run very well.
You are switching from home users to business users. Can you make up your mind please? Home users play games, business users don't.
It was you who brought up games. I made a sweeping generalised statement that Microsoft places great import in maintaining backwards compatibility with legacy binaries. Someone else claimed this was the case with Linux and I sought to dispute that because it's not true - it's only very recently that an effort has been made to ensure binary compatibility, and I strongly welcome that.
Very recently?!? Glibc is backwards compatible since version 2.0 when they started using versioned symbols. And that was in 1997.
You're totally ignorant about the goal of the FSF. The goal is to provide a totally free operating system. Not a system made for non-free drivers and non-free applications. A windows clone would be just that, encouraging non-free software. Maybe you should read the essay "The Free Software Community After 20 Years: With great but incomplete success, what now?" to get a picture of what the FSF's goal is.
What someone states is their goal usually isn't their goal. I distrust them, and I'm not alone - note how Linus mandates that the Linux kernel is licensed under a specific version of the GPL and not "this or any later version" as the FSF would have you do.
It's pretty clear what their goals are if you look what they've done in the past 20 years. However, if you don't even see that the FSF isn't a non-free software supporting organisation, this discussion is quite useless.
I've been demonstrating yesterday and at least they listed to our points of view and it's just waiting what they are going to do with it.
Wow, you're seriously naïve. Professional politicians have the innate ability to make anyone think they're taking you seriously, they really agree with you privately and they'll urgently expedite action favourable to your cause. And ministers don't get to be ministers without being really good at that.
Software patents already changed from an A-item to a B-item. I don't know what the outcome will be, we can only wait.
So? That is that country's problem, it might slowdown Linux development a bit, but that's all. Most development would just move to places without such wrong laws (the EU and India for example). Just like what happened with cryptograhy software when the US had still those strict export laws.
Well we'll see. Cryptography was quite something else because everyone knew the US had to relax it sometime - that means investment will not be wasted. There would be deep uncertainty if patents were used in anger against Linux and while I think it'd be like the chilling of BSD from the AT&T lawsuit, these are different times. Some diehard BSD fans claim that that AT&T suit caused Linux to beat BSD to become the world's favourite Unix but I think that's underestimating why Linux is so popular.
With software patents it would be the same, if this would happen the US would very soon be in a position where they are behind on the rest of world without software patents. Just thinking about having to replace all patent-infringing GNU/Linux servers with windows...
Jeroen Dekkers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 16 May 2004 at 11:44, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
You still haven't answer my question. Why throw away POSIX, an open standard, for a non-standard, proprietary API?
Whether something is proprietary or not isn't anything like as important as its ubiquity. In fact, most ISO standards start life as a proprietary interface.
Sure it is. If it's proprietary it means there is no good documentation about the interface, one company can change it at their will, etc. And that is *very* important.
And by doing so break binary compatibility with legacy applications, something anyone with a system with as much application software available for it as Windows would be loathe to do.
Just because it's proprietary doesn't prevent cold hard commercial reality. In fact Linux is *more* able to arbitrarily change interfaces due to its faster release cycle and higher technical competency of its usership (most Linux users know how to recompile an application).
But back to the point - we're moving into "what applies to techies" again. For Joe Soap computer user they value the ability to insert the CD-ROM which came with their peripheral and everything just goes. They value the ability to buy a software package in the shops without worrying whether WINE will barf on it or not. While Linux has made great strides in consistency and ease of use, it cannot conquer the home market nor the SME market until it gains far wider support which will be hard as Linux doesn't cost money. And despite best intentions, the precisely wrong way to engender this is to press ahead with an incompatible system ie; Linux.
I posit once again that Windows users are those most in need of free software principals and Linux the least (preaching to the converted) - you have suggested nothing to counter this. I posit once again that if the FSF were truly serious about advancing free software thinking, methodology & ideology into a larger world they would push hard for a binary compatible clone of Windows.
After all, implementing a totally free operating system is one thing but the spread of the thinking behind it is far more important IMHO. Software, like people, live and die but ideology can live forever and make the lives of billions of people better.
Cheers, Niall
Hi,
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
Just for fun, on a Debian Sid
modprobe binfmt_aout
ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-3.3/slakware/a5/ldso.tgz ldso.tgz 190 KB 09.08.1997 00:00:00
$ usr/bin/ldd -v usr/bin/ldd: version 1.9.5
Easy, static binary (and 1997).
apt-get install ldso libc5
ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-3.3/contrib/cvs-1.8.1.tgz cvs-1.8.1.tgz 226 KB 18.06.1996 00:00:00
More fun, with dynamic library.
$ usr/bin/ldd usr/bin/cvs libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x40017000) $ usr/bin/cvs -v
Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.8.1 (client/server)
Copyright (c) 1993-1994 Brian Berliner Copyright (c) 1993-1994 david d `zoo' zuhn Copyright (c) 1992, Brian Berliner and Jeff Polk Copyright (c) 1989-1992, Brian Berliner
CVS may be copied only under the terms of the GNU General Public License, a copy of which can be found with the CVS distribution kit.
"A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux." Free software 1 - Stats 0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 14 May 2004 at 21:44, Benoît Sibaud wrote:
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
Just for fun, on a Debian Sid [snip]
Well you're not exactly comparing apples with apples here. Many command line programs are simple enough that a FreeBSD built binary runs on Linux fine because it uses nothing more than the basic POSIX API (despite different clib's) which is of course identical on both as both are compiled with GCC.
Your typical 1996 Windows binary would contain a good portion of GUI code and possibly some MFC or COM eg; WordPad. Let's leave out the MFC and COM and assume it's a pure Win32 API application as that's roughly equivalent to X11 - say Notepad.
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
Cheers, Niall
At Fri, 14 May 2004 22:15:12 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 14 May 2004 at 21:44, Benoît Sibaud wrote:
Are we talking about the same system here? I can run my Win95 and often my DOS binaries unmodified on the latest Windows. A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux.
Just for fun, on a Debian Sid [snip]
Well you're not exactly comparing apples with apples here. Many command line programs are simple enough that a FreeBSD built binary runs on Linux fine because it uses nothing more than the basic POSIX API (despite different clib's) which is of course identical on both as both are compiled with GCC.
Totally wrong. You're talking about APIs, but compiled programs use ABIs, which is a different thing. And no, the ABIs between the FreeBSD C library and the GNU one are very different.
Your typical 1996 Windows binary would contain a good portion of GUI code and possibly some MFC or COM eg; WordPad. Let's leave out the MFC and COM and assume it's a pure Win32 API application as that's roughly equivalent to X11 - say Notepad.
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
Your assertion "A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux" is proven wrong.
And IMHO binary compatibility isn't really important. Source compatibility is a lot more important, because you can just recompile the program you have.
Jeroen Dekkers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15 May 2004 at 10:52, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Well you're not exactly comparing apples with apples here. Many command line programs are simple enough that a FreeBSD built binary runs on Linux fine because it uses nothing more than the basic POSIX API (despite different clib's) which is of course identical on both as both are compiled with GCC.
Totally wrong. You're talking about APIs, but compiled programs use ABIs, which is a different thing. And no, the ABIs between the FreeBSD C library and the GNU one are very different.
Both the GNU and BSD C libraries offer the same API's eg; size_t fread(void *buffer, size_t size, size_t count, FILE *stream). Both use the same compiler (GCC) and so therefore that API will convert into the same ABI eg; _fread using the same parameter to stack conversion mechanism (the procedural call convention).
Therefore if your program used very few extremely universal calls you could even change the entire operating system and the binary need not know any better. If Windows also used ELF binaries you could even have a good chance of running a simple Win32 binary on FreeBSD if you mapped the Win32 C library to the FreeBSD one using /etc/ld.conf (is that the right file? I always have to look it up).
My point is that simple command line executables are no test. The ANSI C specification mandated that all C implementations provide a basic subset of the Unix environment which is universal. I know this sounds like me redefining my assertion after me saying it, but I was thinking of like with like when I wrote what I did (honest!) :)
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
Your assertion "A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux" is proven wrong.
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
And IMHO binary compatibility isn't really important. Source compatibility is a lot more important, because you can just recompile the program you have.
Do even 90% of the world's computer users know what a compiler is?
That kind of foolish statement is unfortunately typical of programmers from a Unix background. Thank god we're finally getting over it.
Cheers, Niall
Both the GNU and BSD C libraries offer the same API's eg; size_t fread(void *buffer, size_t size, size_t count, FILE *stream). Both use the same compiler (GCC) and so therefore that API will convert into the same ABI eg; _fread using the same parameter to stack conversion mechanism (the procedural call convention).
That is complete and utter crap.
The ABI has nothing to do with the compiler: calling conventions, etc. are established by the operating system. Nothing guarantees that posix defined structures have the same layout or even size (and this is very much part of the ABI). Not all posix functions are actually functions, many of them may be macros. The list goes on and this does not even consider versioning schemes, library dependencies or system trap calling conventions.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15 May 2004 at 13:18, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
Both the GNU and BSD C libraries offer the same API's eg; size_t fread(void *buffer, size_t size, size_t count, FILE *stream). Both use the same compiler (GCC) and so therefore that API will convert into the same ABI eg; _fread using the same parameter to stack conversion mechanism (the procedural call convention).
That is complete and utter crap.
The ABI has nothing to do with the compiler: calling conventions, etc. are established by the operating system.
No, the ABI is determined by what compiler the operating system was compiled with. C (and C++) implementations are free to choose any procedural calling convention they like. Contrast how Mingw and MSVC mangle their C++ symbols differently. Contrast even within MSVC how you can choose between three different calling conventions. On Windows at least two calling conventions are used throughout the OS depending on what the library designer felt like.
Go read either the ANSI C or ISO C++ spec if you want confirmation of this.
Nothing guarantees that posix defined structures have the same layout or even size (and this is very much part of the ABI). Not all posix functions are actually functions, many of them may be macros. The list goes on and this does not even consider versioning schemes, library dependencies or system trap calling conventions.
In the fread() example above, FILE is an opaque pointer. It could contain anything. For major structures eg; struct stat one finds an amazing invariance of fields and their order. If the structure packing were different one might have a problem, but again everyone using GCC solves that.
I only know this because I run my Linux and FreeBSD inside VMWare with them working on a common project tree on Windows via samba. I sometimes forget which machine I'm typing into and use the wrong object files and most unfortunately it'll sometimes link and run - though with weird runtime errors.
Cheers, Niall
At Sat, 15 May 2004 23:47:06 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 15 May 2004 at 13:18, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
Both the GNU and BSD C libraries offer the same API's eg; size_t fread(void *buffer, size_t size, size_t count, FILE *stream). Both use the same compiler (GCC) and so therefore that API will convert into the same ABI eg; _fread using the same parameter to stack conversion mechanism (the procedural call convention).
That is complete and utter crap.
The ABI has nothing to do with the compiler: calling conventions, etc. are established by the operating system.
No, the ABI is determined by what compiler the operating system was compiled with. C (and C++) implementations are free to choose any procedural calling convention they like. Contrast how Mingw and MSVC mangle their C++ symbols differently. Contrast even within MSVC how you can choose between three different calling conventions. On Windows at least two calling conventions are used throughout the OS depending on what the library designer felt like.
Go read either the ANSI C or ISO C++ spec if you want confirmation of this.
That's only one very small part of the ABI of a binary. The library interface is a lot more important and decides the biggest part of the ABI.
Nothing guarantees that posix defined structures have the same layout or even size (and this is very much part of the ABI). Not all posix functions are actually functions, many of them may be macros. The list goes on and this does not even consider versioning schemes, library dependencies or system trap calling conventions.
In the fread() example above, FILE is an opaque pointer. It could contain anything. For major structures eg; struct stat one finds an amazing invariance of fields and their order. If the structure packing were different one might have a problem, but again everyone using GCC solves that.
In the fread() example, how do you get the error? By looking at errno. But errno is a macro, which actually calls a function to get the errno variable. And this function isn't available on FreeBSD.
The stat structure differs in size for every platform, I just tested this and the structure is 88 bytes on GNU/Linux and 96 on NetBSD. And there are dozen of other ABI incompatibilities.
Jeroen Dekkers
At Sat, 15 May 2004 17:38:16 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 15 May 2004 at 10:52, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Well you're not exactly comparing apples with apples here. Many command line programs are simple enough that a FreeBSD built binary runs on Linux fine because it uses nothing more than the basic POSIX API (despite different clib's) which is of course identical on both as both are compiled with GCC.
Totally wrong. You're talking about APIs, but compiled programs use ABIs, which is a different thing. And no, the ABIs between the FreeBSD C library and the GNU one are very different.
Both the GNU and BSD C libraries offer the same API's eg; size_t fread(void *buffer, size_t size, size_t count, FILE *stream). Both use the same compiler (GCC) and so therefore that API will convert into the same ABI eg; _fread using the same parameter to stack conversion mechanism (the procedural call convention).
Therefore if your program used very few extremely universal calls you could even change the entire operating system and the binary need not know any better. If Windows also used ELF binaries you could even have a good chance of running a simple Win32 binary on FreeBSD if you mapped the Win32 C library to the FreeBSD one using /etc/ld.conf (is that the right file? I always have to look it up).
Neal already explained this is totally wrong.
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
Your assertion "A Linux binary from 1996 stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux" is proven wrong.
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
I think cvs is a lot more complex than notepad.
And IMHO binary compatibility isn't really important. Source compatibility is a lot more important, because you can just recompile the program you have.
Do even 90% of the world's computer users know what a compiler is?
No. What has this to do with it?
That kind of foolish statement is unfortunately typical of programmers from a Unix background. Thank god we're finally getting over it.
What is foolish about it? Do I say the users have to recompile it? No, I don't. The recompiling can just be done by the distribution the user is using, or somewhere else the user gets his binary.
Jeroen Dekkers
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
http://sunsite.rediris.es/sites2/ibiblio.org/linux/devel/debuggers/ddd/ddd-s... It was at least available in 1996/10 (cf http://oldwww.losurs.org/docs/rhlibrary/cola/volume96/Oct/961007.11)
$ usr/bin/ddd-2.0-i586-unknown-linux-static
I got a nice X Window with:
DDD 2.0 (i586-unknown-linux), by Dorothea Lütkehaus and Andreas Zeller. Copyright © 1995, 1996 Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. (gdb)
Free software 2 - Stats 0 and ddd is probably more complex than a typical 1996 Windows binary }:-]
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 17:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
I call your bluff. How do you think Windows manages to do it? By osmosis?
*sigh*
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 17:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
More over: what he did wasn't a library emulation, he installed the required libraries to run that program.
And IMHO binary compatibility isn't really important. Source compatibility is a lot more important, because you can just recompile the program you have.
Do even 90% of the world's computer users know what a compiler is?
While they're not taught, no. While they are "trained" like monkeys at school on "software which is something they ust buy to use" they'll never understand what it is or why they should have an idea of how to use it.
That kind of foolish statement is unfortunately typical of programmers from a Unix background. Thank god we're finally getting over it.
Oh.. really? So what abot all those 90% of the people of the world who are awaking to the computer age with GNU/Linux?
Rui
"Niall Douglas" s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com writes:
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
This sounded like a fun challenge. It took me a few minutes to find a binary that old that used X11, but eventually I succeeded:
http://offog.org/stuff/mosaic.png
That screenshot shows the NCSA Mosaic 2.5 Linux binary from 1995 running happily on my GNU/Linux 2.6.5 machine. I downloaded the binary, uncompressed it, and it worked. It doesn't render my web pages very well, but it's nine years behind the state of the art in HTML. ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15 May 2004 at 22:56, Adam Sampson wrote:
If you can find me an X11 binary from 1996 than runs unmodified on a modern installation without using some legacy binary compatibility package then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
This sounded like a fun challenge. It took me a few minutes to find a binary that old that used X11, but eventually I succeeded:
http://offog.org/stuff/mosaic.png
That screenshot shows the NCSA Mosaic 2.5 Linux binary from 1995 running happily on my GNU/Linux 2.6.5 machine. I downloaded the binary, uncompressed it, and it worked. It doesn't render my web pages very well, but it's nine years behind the state of the art in HTML. ;)
Wow, I'm *impressed*. It also brings back memories, I haven't seen NCSA Mosaic in a very, very long time.
I retract my statement that you can't run unmodified Linux binaries from 1996 on modern systems. Thanks for proving me wrong.
Cheers, Niall
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers.
That sounds interesting: a public infrastructure for freedom of speech, expression and publication.
But wait a minute. Haven't we yet got such a thing that everyone (well, not everyone, but many many individuals) can publish on? It is called Internet.
The big difference is that there is no central autority that can count downloads. But having no central autority is - to my opinion - one of the big features of Internet. Just to be able to count the copies downloaded, someone have to be - more or less - in control of this central server. That's a big power for big brother.
After operating expenses, the pot is divided up based on the relative proportions of copies downloaded. The artists get recompensed fairly, people get their entertainment and there's a strong competitive element for producing the best quality of output.
I strongly disagree with this. TV has proven that bigger audience certainly does not mean better quality.
We, in France and Germany, have one cultural channel called Arte. It is the only channel I really watch for it has the best programms (documented, with intelligent comments...) that can be seen at least in France. But, infortunately, it is very far for from having such a large audience as other channels that surf on the wave of so called "real" TV and trash TV. It is not self funded. It is a public channel funded with money from taxpayers.
In a system based on audience, and supposing it would not be censored, the bigger share of income would probably go to the porn industry, followed by more "conventional" entertainment. And a very little share for scientific publications.
This would be an incentive for someone like Newton or Darwin or Einstein to become a pornstar or a catcher or a boys-band singer better than a scientist and I don't think that this well fits what is the most usefull for the public good.
-- Guillaume Ponce http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 09:16, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers.
That sounds interesting: a public infrastructure for freedom of speech, expression and publication.
But wait a minute. Haven't we yet got such a thing that everyone (well, not everyone, but many many individuals) can publish on? It is called Internet.
The big difference is that there is no central autority that can count downloads. But having no central autority is - to my opinion - one of the big features of Internet. Just to be able to count the copies downloaded, someone have to be - more or less - in control of this central server. That's a big power for big brother.
I strongly agree.
I think anyone looking at this problem, sooner or later, come to this idea of centralized control that is able to track who see what and to pay back authors and ... oh but this is exactly what DRM are for ... it is just implemented privately but hey ... can you tell me the difference? Personal accounts, and personal tracking Central control in hands of someone that monitors everything Money go to the ""authors""
Sound so Orwellian ...
I strongly disagree with this. TV has proven that bigger audience certainly does not mean better quality.
This is OT but: you can't take that as a fact as you do not consider 2 fundamental aspects:
1) publicity, that's drives a lot decisions about what to transmit In facts I never seen quality when ads where implicated massively. And that's because they prefer programs that doesn't let you think too much about social justice or the origin of some goods ...
2) Political Groups pressure. Even the most liberal Media today is subject to political pressure and that influence the programs being trasmitted.
Simo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12 May 2004 at 10:39, Simo Sorce wrote:
I think anyone looking at this problem, sooner or later, come to this idea of centralized control that is able to track who see what and to pay back authors and ... oh but this is exactly what DRM are for ... it is just implemented privately but hey ... can you tell me the difference? Personal accounts, and personal tracking Central control in hands of someone that monitors everything Money go to the ""authors""
Sound so Orwellian ...
No there's a huge difference. DRM seeks to castrate people to improve profits. A system such as the above has major differences:
(i): It is there to let producers of content deliver to consumers and be remunerated for making good content. Nothing more.
(ii): No one has to use such a system if they don't want to except that all taxpayers must pay for it whether they use it or not (many view this as deeply unfair, but then why should young people pay for old people's health care?). This is hardly like DRM which is being imposed on people against their wishes taking away rights we previously had.
(iii): You seem to imagine "central control" as some faceless bureaucracy we should distrust. I was thinking of it as say like the FreeBSD maintainers - distributed, diverse, volunteer-led and very open (all mailing lists be public). It certainly should be a self- regulating & self-maintaining system requiring extremely little intervention - perhaps the system rotates the management by introducing ten new randomly selected members per year with each member serving no more than five years? People could elect to resign at any time which causes the system to seek a random replacement - thus avoiding party politicisation, getting people who actually want to do it and is nicely adaptive.
The most important thing the free software mode of production has to teach us is that production of anything with zero replication cost will share a great deal in common. Classical economic theory still pegs free software production as impossible but as it clearly isn't, I think it's classical economic theory which needs changing.
The traditional western european model of a hierarchical autocratic command structure is totally broken by the free software mode of production - yet we are so rooted in thinking along those lines we fail to spot how easily things could be so different. I don't welcome the inevitable collapse of the Bretton Woods economic system but I do recognise it as a great opportunity for us to progress - and I have a gut feeling this new mode of production will be a foundation stone of the new era.
Cheers, Niall
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12 May 2004 at 9:16, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
That sounds interesting: a public infrastructure for freedom of speech, expression and publication.
But wait a minute. Haven't we yet got such a thing that everyone (well, not everyone, but many many individuals) can publish on? It is called Internet.
No, we're one step along a pretty long road. For one thing getting government to let money leave their control is a nightmare - note how the US has been in arrears to the UN for decades.
The big difference is that there is no central autority that can count downloads. But having no central autority is - to my opinion - one of the big features of Internet. Just to be able to count the copies downloaded, someone have to be - more or less - in control of this central server. That's a big power for big brother.
No, you're thinking in very old technology terms. There's no reason at all why the central server system has to be geographically in the same place. In fact I would think it advisable if it were as distributed as possible.
Also, you forget that the internet today is very centrally managed. The DNS servers control everything and they are directly under the control of a quasi-US government entity.
After operating expenses, the pot is divided up based on the relative proportions of copies downloaded. The artists get recompensed fairly, people get their entertainment and there's a strong competitive element for producing the best quality of output.
I strongly disagree with this. TV has proven that bigger audience certainly does not mean better quality.
TV's programming is centrally managed. The system I illustrated is entirely driven by the individual viewer's desires and the individual's wish to upload content. I myself watch only a few hours of TV per week and only known shows that I like. If I had broadband again I'd download them rather than watch them because then I can choose when I watch them rather than having to orientate my life around someone else's choice of when to air programmes.
You will find most people wouldn't watch most things on TV except for the fact that they're on during peak viewing hours. Therefore you can seriously expect quality to improve.
In a system based on audience, and supposing it would not be censored, the bigger share of income would probably go to the porn industry, followed by more "conventional" entertainment. And a very little share for scientific publications.
I think you'd be surprised. One good thing in the UK is its high rate of high-quality documentaries and everyone agrees it's due to the influence of the BBC. Weird thing is that the commercial advertising driven channels show more high quality documentaries than the BBC itself - why? Because high quality documentaries regularly attract 5- 10m viewers (compare to EastEnders at around 25-30m).
This would be an incentive for someone like Newton or Darwin or Einstein to become a pornstar or a catcher or a boys-band singer better than a scientist and I don't think that this well fits what is the most usefull for the public good.
I know what you're saying and I see your point. However I think everyone will agree that all TV is orientated around attracting young people with high disposible income which clearly shows how strongly advertising concerns influence what's on during peak viewing times.
If you remove the advertising and make it directly consumer-led, I am absolutely sure you will see a major increase in quality of programming because no longer will people who like documentaries have to put up with watching "Pop Idol".
Cheers, Niall
A Ter, 2004-05-11 às 20:01, Niall Douglas escreveu:
What about a system whereby all zero-copy cost human output is recompensed via general taxation? I include books, music, video (all television), software, blueprints, designs etc.
I've never seen such a system work. They're always pieces of art that are ignored by such systems and it usually puts to much power in the hands of those deciding what is a work under copyrgiht.
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers. Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the thing downloaded.
Technically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my work with the National Library of Portugal. We don't have the resources to manage that.
1% of income tax in all countries goes into a pot. After operating expenses, the pot is divided up based on the relative proportions of copies downloaded. The artists get recompensed fairly, people get their entertainment and there's a strong competitive element for producing the best quality of output. There are no entry barriers and it's highly efficient as it's virtually entirely automated.
While people can pass around copies to each other freely, chances are you'd use the central servers as they're always there, fast to download from and it's simply more convenient. There may be problems with gangs orchestrating mass votes for crap products in order to get an illict share of the pie so some human oversight would be needed but I don't think it would be too bad (having each user register enables various statistics-based automatic red flagging).
Best of all, such a system is vastly superior to any copyright based system for all involved. Of course it means dismantling of powerful existing corporate interests and a level of international cooperation never before seen globally, but after we emerge from the Bretton Woods system collapse the environment would be right. Certainly when it collapses corporate enterprise will simply cease to exist, being replaced by highly diverse cooperatives and SME's (eg; like in Argentina).
I doubt free software as the FSF defines it will last the course. It depends too highly on there being a large body of affluent people with other sources of income. However, its cooperative mode of production is VERY interesting and strongly hints at how all future production shall be achieved especially in the non-hierarchical structure required by the likely post-collapse economy. After all if companies are never bigger than a few hundred people, the correct way to do large distributed projects is how free software currently does it.
My bank account disagrees with you when you say free software is not sustainable, but who cares?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Content-description: Mail message body
On 12 May 2004 at 16:19, Jo=E3o Miguel Neves wrote:
A Ter, 2004-05-11 =C3=
=A0s 20:01, Niall Douglas escreveu:
What about a system whereby all zer=
o-copy cost human output is
recompensed via general taxation? I include=
books, music, video (all
television), software, blueprints, designs et=
c.
I've never seen such a system work. They're always pieces of art t=
hat
are ignored by such systems and it usually puts to much power in the =
hands of those deciding what is a work under copyrgiht.
Such a system woul= d fail if encumbered with government intervention. Consider sourceforge as= an example of what I mean - people upload projects and people download th= em. Most projects on sourceforge will only ever be of minority interest an= d probably half will be near useless due to lack of quality or attention. = However I think everyone will agree that sourceforge's structure is a grea= t facilitator for cooperative work (though it could be a lot better still)= .
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which
= are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers.
=
Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the thing downloaded.
Tech=
nically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my work
with the=
National Library of Portugal. We don't have the resources to
manage that=
.
We could end world hunger tomorrow if enough political will was present. = There is certainly no technical reason why not.
Same goes with the system I= outlined.
I doubt free software as the FSF defines it will last the co=
urse. It
depends too highly on there being a large body of affluent peo=
ple
with other sources of income. However, its cooperative mode of p=
roduction is VERY interesting and strongly hints at how all future
prod=
uction shall be achieved especially in the non-hierarchical
structure r=
equired by the likely post-collapse economy. After all if
companies are=
never bigger than a few hundred people, the correct
way to do large di=
stributed projects is how free software currently
does it.
My bank ac=
count disagrees with you when you say free software is not
sustainable, b=
ut who cares?
You are one of a very tiny minority. I would regard myself as=
technically pretty capable yet I couldn't earn a living working like you = do because I don't possess the necessary social skills such as gracefully = tolerating idiots and naturally networking with the right people.
Of the pe= ople I know who do make a living from free software, they are either emplo= yed by someone like RedHat and are of outstanding quality in the technical= field or they aren't particularly technical at all but are great organise= rs and naturally build contacts easily.
A good proportion of people just wa= nt to be told what to do at their jobs so they can serve their 9 to 5 and = get money. These people are fundamentally unsuited to working with free so= ftware which demands a high degree of self-leadership. Another good propor= tion like me lack key non-technical "soft" skills. All together we make up= an overwhelming proportion of the workforce which hence leads to my asser= tion that free software is not sustainable in its current form.
Don't get m= e wrong - we may get twenty more years before economic collapse. But free = software as the FSF defines it is intrinsically dependent on the current B= retton Woods economic system and when it goes so will gratis computer soft= ware except for very common things like operating systems and office softw= are.
Cheers, Niall
A Qua, 2004-05-12 às 22:31, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 12 May 2004 at 16:19, Jo=E3o Miguel Neves wrote:
I've never seen such a system work. They're always pieces of art that are ignored by such systems and it usually puts to much power in the hands of those deciding what is a work under copyrgiht.
Such a system would fail if encumbered with government intervention. Consider sourceforge as an example of what I mean - people upload projects and people download them. Most projects on sourceforge will only ever be of minority interest and probably half will be near useless due to lack of quality or attention.
I don't see any government creating a sourceforge... but that's just me.
Technically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my work with the National Library of Portugal. We don't have the resources to manage that.
We could end world hunger tomorrow if enough political will was present. There is certainly no technical reason why not.
Just the cost of logistics that noone ever agreed to pay for...
Same goes with the system I outlined.
Not really. I can see how that would work with an improved (highly-scalable) bittorrent tracker. My issue is that something like bittorrent doesn't guarantee the existence (preservation) of the works (maybe I'm just affected from working in a Library and that's not an important issue).
I doubt free software as the FSF defines it will last the course. It
My bank account disagrees with you when you say free software is not sustainable, but who cares?
You are one of a very tiny minority. I would regard myself as technically pretty capable yet I couldn't earn a living working like you do because I don't possess the necessary social skills such as gracefully tolerating idiots and naturally networking with the right people.
Those were all acquired skills for me. It was hard, but worth it. Realising that we're all idiots at some point helps in the tolerating part.
Of the people I know who do make a living from free software, they are either employed by someone like RedHat and are of outstanding quality in the technical field or they aren't particularly technical at all but are great organisers and naturally build contacts easily.
Maybe I could fall in the technical part, but I'd have my doubts of calling myself "outstanding". And the organiser part is way off.
A good proportion of people just want to be told what to do at their jobs so they can serve their 9 to 5 and get money. These people are fundamentally unsuited to working with free software which demands a high degree of self-leadership. Another good proportion like me lack key non-technical "soft" skills. All together we make up an overwhelming proportion of the workforce which hence leads to my assertion that free software is not sustainable in its current form.
Those people don't care about if it's free software or not. And there are already an interesting number of companies using free software.
On 13 May 2004 at 17:51, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Same goes with the system I outlined.
Not really. I can see how that would work with an improved (highly-scalable) bittorrent tracker. My issue is that something like bittorrent doesn't guarantee the existence (preservation) of the works (maybe I'm just affected from working in a Library and that's not an important issue).
That's precisely why I don't like the idea of massively distributed file sharing systems either. It's a good idea if you're trying to not get caught breaking laws but not good for measuring the popularity of an artist (and thus allocating proper credit), ensuring integrity of the work nor ensuring a complete, full & stable listing wherever & whenever you look.
One must remember that any system replacing copyright becomes the guardian of all human knowledge. That means it's very highly important not just to research, but to mankind. It also worries me because electronically stored information is much easier to lose than printed.
Cheers, Niall
A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 21:07, Niall Douglas escreveu:
On 13 May 2004 at 17:51, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Same goes with the system I outlined.
Not really. I can see how that would work with an improved (highly-scalable) bittorrent tracker. My issue is that something like bittorrent doesn't guarantee the existence (preservation) of the works (maybe I'm just affected from working in a Library and that's not an important issue).
That's precisely why I don't like the idea of massively distributed file sharing systems either. It's a good idea if you're trying to not get caught breaking laws but not good for measuring the popularity of an artist (and thus allocating proper credit), ensuring integrity of the work nor ensuring a complete, full & stable listing wherever & whenever you look.
But if preservation is an issue I can assure that no organization has the resources to do implement the system you proposed.
BTW, a bittorrent tracker is perfect for "measuring the popularity of an artist". Bittorrent is not like other P2Ps and it would be perfect for this because the tracker can be centralized without reducing the impact of data transfers.
One must remember that any system replacing copyright becomes the guardian of all human knowledge. That means it's very highly important not just to research, but to mankind. It also worries me because electronically stored information is much easier to lose than printed.
And there's no organization I would trust to do it alone.
"João" == João Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org writes:
>> Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers >> which are available to all citizens who create an account on >> the servers. Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the >> thing downloaded.
> Technically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my > work with the National Library of Portugal. We don't have the > resources to manage that.
Is this work documented somewhere?
bye,
-- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso@agnula.org AGNULA Technical Manager http://www.agnula.org/ M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 930 31 133 "Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"
A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 10:16, Andrea Glorioso escreveu:
"João" == João Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org writes:
> Technically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my > work with the National Library of Portugal. We don't have the > resources to manage that.Is this work documented somewhere?
Not yet. We intend to publish about out Digital Library and we already started releasing some tools as Free Software. But, for now, we haven't done it.
Just to give you one idea of the issues involved, we're trying to manage about 1 million pages of digitised books, websites, video and audio. Some of the digitised book pages go well over 100MB (yes, there are people studying things like the spots in the pages, and as a patrimonial library either we have to provide them with that).
Hi!
Yes, I've thought about it and I haven't found anything better. If you got to any other conclusion, I'd love to hear about it.
Tell me a way to enforce copyright. We're talking about >1000000000 humans (not sure how many people have access to a PC)
I'm not sure, but I think that a law, which can't be enforced shouldn't be imposed.
HAND, Kevin
PS: Maybe we should move to the general FSF discussion list
A Qua, 2004-05-12 às 17:37, Kevin Boergens escreveu:
Tell me a way to enforce copyright. We're talking about >1000000000 humans (not sure how many people have access to a PC)
Legalise non-commercial distribution. Remove tools prohibitions. Make all the sentences pecuniary based on income of the infringer. Legalise communication related temporary copies.
And then ask for people's help. Putting copyright closer to what normal people think it is is the only way to get it enforced. Not by increasing penalties to artificial levels and scaring people around.
I'm not sure, but I think that a law, which can't be enforced shouldn't be imposed.
It's not that easy. No law can be enforced on the strict meaning (you can't undo a murder, neither arrest someone for a murder he/she hasn't committed yet).
So the only thing possible is to make sure that law represents a deal that people recognise as theirs. I've learned that as "law follows social practice". In the last 20 years we've lost that with copyright. I hope I can help set that back in the next 10 years.
"João" == João Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org writes:
> Have you tried? I've been studying copyright for a couple of > years now with the objective of finding something better than > copyright. I haven't. Everything I have is either something > basic for copyright or a small change away from copyright, even > when I'm supposedly building the set of rules from zero I always > end up with something that is copyright under the Bern > Convention.
Are your reasonings available as essays somewhere? They'd make for some interesting reading IMO.
bye,
-- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso@agnula.org AGNULA Technical Manager http://www.agnula.org/ M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 930 31 133 "Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"
A Qua, 2004-05-12 às 19:25, Andrea Glorioso escreveu:
Are your reasonings available as essays somewhere? They'd make for some interesting reading IMO.
Not yet. My plan still is a new copyright treaty in 10 years (9 now) so I'm in the study phase. I'm starting to put somethings together. I'll probably get more things online as soon as I replace my webpage by a wiki.
Hi!
Many people detest the TCPA guys. I don't do. They just thought logically.
There are two possibilities:
1) Make sure copyright is obeyed. Therefore you need close to perfect control over all computers and media-displaying devices of the world. Additionally, the attempt to circumvent this control has to be fined heavily by law.
2) Forget about copyright. Accept that information has the desire to be copied. (An interesting essay about this can be found in Douglas R. Hofstaedters "Metamagicum")
They acknowledged that there is no possibility in between and chose number one (surprise!).
HAND, Kevin
Kevin Boergens wrote:
Hi!
Many people detest the TCPA guys. I don't do. They just thought logically.
There are two possibilities:
- Make sure copyright is obeyed. Therefore you need close to perfect
control over all computers and media-displaying devices of the world. Additionally, the attempt to circumvent this control has to be fined heavily by law.
affff.... control=big brother=???
- Forget about copyright. Accept that information has the desire to
be copied. (An interesting essay about this can be found in Douglas R. Hofstaedters "Metamagicum")
I liked this one.... ;-)
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 18:03 +0200, Kevin Boergens wrote:
- Make sure copyright is obeyed. Therefore you need close to perfect
control over all computers and media-displaying devices of the world. Additionally, the attempt to circumvent this control has to be fined heavily by law.
These measures give no help at ensuring copyright is obeyed.
How do you enforce the GPL with this treacherous scheme, if publication of distributed modifications is a must?
Rui
Wim De Smet fragmeat@yucom.be writes:
Kevin Boergens wrote:
Hello!
I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's LinuxTag and have therefore a question: I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the philosophy of the FSF.
Any advice welcome, Kevin
Well,
since the GNU GPL is based on copyright I think it's fair to say that de fsf(e) is not anti-copyright.
You could use a mirrored copyright sign to mean "copyleft"
,---. | ,-. | | | | | `-' | `---'
But I'm not sure everybody will understand ;-)
|| On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:42:36 +0200 || Kevin Boergens kevin@boergens.de wrote:
kb> I joined the people working at the FSFE-Booth on this year's kb> LinuxTag and have therefore a question:
Great - thanks for your help!
kb> I would like to wear a t-shirt showing a large copyright sign kb> that is crossed out. But I'm not sure if this contradicts the kb> philosophy of the FSF.
There is no clothing order for booth volunteers. If it became offensive in sexual or racist ways, people would probably object.
But a crossed out Copyright sign should be fine and pretty much in the spirit of the FSFE in so far as we are very critical of the current Copyright regime.
See you at LinuxTag, Georg