LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-27-2012, 03:40 AM   #61
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,953

Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727

I am a hard case and probably make RMS sound a little wishy-washy, so I won't trouble everyone here with endless arguments (it is enough that I know that I am right! ).

I have not read this entire book but recently ran across it online - go read the first chapter to see how the artificial monopoly game is played, to the detriment of all concerned.

Against Intellectual Monopoly

The very concept of "intellectual property" is an absurdity.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:48 AM   #62
gezley
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware64, NetBSD
Posts: 507

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Personally, I'm not willing to make that kind of sacrifice. Using Linux is hard enough without further complicating matters.
As I said, just look at how little RMS's machine can do.
I think that's a bit insulting to Stallman. Do you know of anything Emacs can't do?
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:52 AM   #63
gezley
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware64, NetBSD
Posts: 507

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
A few posters in this thread take the position "as long as it works, I don't care if it's free or not". I can certainly sympathize with that, and on the surface it seems like a pragmatic and quite sensible approach. There's just one problem: You really have no idea how or even if any given closed-source software actually works, and should it ever stop working, there could be dire consequences.

Example: In the Microsoft Office suite, there's a rather nice-looking (OK, that's a matter of opinion) e-mail/groupware application called Outlook. It has a decent interface (IMHO), and integrates very well with Microsoft's e-mail offerings, as one would expect. It's closed-source and uses proprietary file formats and communication protocols, but hey, as long as it works, right?

The 2003 version (and all prior versions) of Outlook has a nasty bug that causes it to corrupt the local mail store if the file size exceeds 2 Gb. When this happens, you may not be able to open your inbox. The corruption can occur gradually, so you backups may be partly useless. Microsoft offers no solution. Had the application been Free (or even just Open Source), you could have fixed it yourself or hired someone to do it. But it isn't, and as a result your mail archive is effectively unavailable to you.
Indeed. I got hit with this bug. Luckily I recovered the data. I started using a wonderful Windows mail program called Becky after that, and gradually moved further and further away from Microsoft software in other areas as well.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 12:19 PM   #64
BlackRider
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 261

Rep: Reputation: 82
Quote:
The very concept of "intellectual property" is an absurdity.
Lets see how would a world without "intelectual property" work:

The GPL, BSD and such licenses would be not valid because there is no copyright (copyleft?) holder.

A big company could grab a piece of code released by a nice person, use it in its own product and release this product in binary form (not code). Thus, the Free Software idea of the GPL is defeated.

You could get the source code of an app and distribute it unchanged without the legal disclaimers which are enforced nowadays. This means you could purposely make the original coder liable for any defect of the software, even when he has really placed a disclaimer(consequences vary form country to country)

If industrial patents are voided, industries will simply keep their designs and secrets undisclosed. You won't get specifications for the machinery you use and such.

I could write a book, and an editor would just print it and sell it and earn lots of megabucks without telling people who the author is, nor paying him, nor nothing.

Just saying. This is why taking extremist positions in this kind of area suck. I agree the laws are a damn mess, but the concept is not evil by itself.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-27-2012, 01:07 PM   #65
lolnameless
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: Hong Kong
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
In legal parlance, "idea" and "invention" are different and that's what matters.

Not the definition of philosophers.

Look up any legal text for more information on these concepts from a legal angle.

But in reality, patent offices grant patents without application of mind. As I said before, poorly educated and ill-informed, overworked patent examiners...

The patent system serves a very useful purpose in the manufacturing industry, protecting heavy R & D investments of companies and giving companies legal protection for their investment, and encouraging them to share the knowledge of their invention which would be available to the public after a fixed number of years. It is abused by software creators.

Patents are necessary in industries which require heavy investment in research and manufacturing. Without patent protection, companies could simply copy designs of their competitors by industrial espionage and manufacture and sell them much cheaper than the original innovator could (because the innovator has to recoup his R&D costs spent over the years) while the copycat has no such costs.
I think you forgot the fact that such effect applies in the software world, too. Just different in scale, but large enough to cause problems.

Imo, patent is a bad way to compensate the lost in research by design, even if no one abuses it.

The way people think "the lack of transparency of almost any product in the market is sane" is directly caused by patent and nothing else. Imagine if there's no patent in the first place, the social value changes back to normal, say, people immediately think "hiding things in a product we use is inherently evil", unlike people in the 21st century, who like to think that "who hides the most things have the biggest balls, that's why they win and are reliable", the change in social value means that we don't require a person to be like a freedom zealot like richard stallman and talk about good things like "freedom" to notice the problem we have today.
If there's no patent, there's simply no reason for any government to allow any product sells in general public as far as there is no blueprint or equivalence of such product in public domain, nor any sane people would like to buy any unkown products manufactured by people who have something to hide.

That said. Consider the harm it causes in the world and China in particular. There's no vaildity on patent other than being a half-truth harming people, if one claims that patent is the unique solution to address "the lack of innovation" problem, really, i think i am not the only one who prefer not to evolve at all!
I would also like to see how no one won't even attempt to make new things/ideas(including new mechanism to address this problem) ,well, even if they have nothing better to do by then....
and how people just sit and watch even if they acknowledge the fact that they are much less competitive than the rest of the world.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 01:14 PM   #66
Celyr
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Location: Italy
Distribution: Slackware+Debian
Posts: 314

Rep: Reputation: 77
Stallman pissed everyone off, he is a fondamentalist and like every fondamentalist he is wrong.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 01:24 PM   #67
BlackRider
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 261

Rep: Reputation: 82
Bring the sorcerers and spellcasters here. I smell a troll in this dungeon!
And not, I am not referring to anti-copyright people.

Back to the topic...

Quote:
Imagine if there's no patent in the first place, the social value changes back to normal, say, people immediately think "hiding things in a product we use is inherently evil"
Mistake. Industry would just make copying impossible as long as they could, enforcing physical obstacles.

You say I can't patent my machine? Ok, every machine I make has a self destruction device so you can't see its innards without breaking it all. Or I can just release not documentation or specifications, which is enough in many cases. In fact, many firms choose NOT to patent because patenting would force them to disclose how things work, but keeping them unpantented allows them to keep them secret.

This applies to copyright in another way. You say everyone can copy my videogames? Eat DRM, m0therf4cker!!!

Quote:
I would also like to see how no one won't even attempt to make new things/ideas
See above.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:28 PM   #68
Soderlund
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Sweden
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 120

Rep: Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
As I said, just look at how little RMS's machine can do.
I'm sorry if that offends some, but I buy computers to do the things I want of them not to help anyone's cause. I would not, in fact, buy a computer at all if it were limited to free software only.
I only have free software on this computer (using Debian Squeeze). The only thing I can't use is Flash, but Flash sucks anyway, and the reason is probably because it's proprietary trash.

I've only ever had to get non-free blobs for network and video cards, and that can be avoided by using other brands. It's not much of a sacrifice if you are aware of it before buying the hardware.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:48 PM   #69
lolnameless
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: Hong Kong
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRider View Post
Mistake. Industry would just make copying impossible as long as they could, enforcing physical obstacles.

You say I can't patent my machine? Ok, every machine I make has a self destruction device so you can't see its innards without breaking it all. Or I can just release not documentation or specifications, which is enough in many cases. In fact, many firms choose NOT to patent because patenting would force them to disclose how things work, but keeping them unpantented allows them to keep them secret.

This applies to copyright in another way. You say everyone can copy my videogames? Eat DRM, m0therf4cker!!!
sure, there're many ways to break the current laws, and in this case, they should gain no benefit on doing what you suggested as far as they have to release specifications in either public domain or release as people requested and the unpatented works can be defeated by requiring the specifications to be complete enough so one can verify whether it's feasible to do the same thing as the specifications stated, so we may at worst lose efficiency on doing the same thing as the inventor did but still better than nothing.

The reason why they will have to release specifications or equivalence to human readable and verifiable format (if the problem you stated arise, or appropriate rules will be added to ensure the closure as more unimaginable problems arise) is that we human in general are not quite sane in the current century, we are deeply overwhelmed by the linkage of "intellectual property"(whoever coined this term, you are smarter than einstein) and human rights,
and i believe that the resistance to defend freedom for original/derivative work will be enlarged (pls read my previous post carefully), if "intellectual property" is gone.
Maybe, at best, evolve to the extend that we don't need to defend it at all, say, in any developed country, we don't need to protest against killing people in general...
People on the other hand, don't want to kill people without good reason because it's virtually against everyone even though he thinks he's right.

It's true that every producers would like to forge methods to get around the laws but it's also true that producers also consume from consumers
if "intellectual property" is gone, the linkage between "intellectual property" and human rights is gone as well,so more resistance arise, less aggressive they are used to be.

i don't want to talk about bad things which i think is caused by patent (basically what i thought in my previous post), it's not quite related anyway.
Indeed, i admit that these things make me want to wipe "intellectual property" out entirely so bad as well as many other bad things but i don't think it makes me a fundatmentalist.
If anyone(I am not referring to you) thinks i'm trolling, i suggest you go live in china for a year or two and tell me what you think.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 04:32 PM   #70
BlackRider
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 261

Rep: Reputation: 82
I understand your points, lolnameless. I was just declaring that, even if the patent system was taken out without "backfire" (e.g: ruining GPLed software), firms would still trying to hold the control of their creations. Maybe less aggressively, maybe not.

Even if we could travel back in time and make the copyright and patent system disappear, the need for them would be invented by someone, or enforced underground (by disclosing the details of machinery under Non Disclosure agreements only, for example).

Quote:
We don't need to protest against killing people in general...
People on the other hand, don't want to kill people without good reason because it's virtually against everyone even though he thinks he's right.
I understand what you say, but even when there is an ethic standard, the perceived need usually beats it.

For example, in some countries, the moral standard is to carry no weapons around, which could easily be illegal. However, if a person thinks there is a good reason for him to carry it (let's say, the Mob is after him and Police is no use in that nation), he is going to circumvent the problem somehow. Maybe he breaks the rules by buying a weapon in the dark market, or he finds a loophole to carry something which is not considered a weapon by the law but kills anyway. This is the equivalent to say "A firm will use illegal tactics to hold the specifications, or find obscure means to keep them secret legally".

When there is a problem, you can bet the law will be ignored if it's worth it.

Last edited by BlackRider; 08-27-2012 at 04:36 PM.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 09:29 PM   #71
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
deleted.

Last edited by vharishankar; 11-02-2012 at 12:27 PM.
 
Old 08-28-2012, 04:29 AM   #72
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 806

Rep: Reputation: 362Reputation: 362Reputation: 362Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodhlann View Post
So, they say that slackware isn't free because It also ships with the nonfree image-viewing program xv.
That's funny, because Slackware also contains the well-known and well-working cdrtools which are considered non-free by some Debian maintainers because of the CDDL. (Not by me, I'm perfectly fine with CDDL, I think, it's even more free than GPL). They even replaced cdrtools with a dysfunctional fork, sabotaging their users only for fighting a license war.

So beating the dead horse xv from 1994 looks a bit outmoded for me.
 
Old 08-28-2012, 05:14 AM   #73
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,411

Rep: Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund View Post
I only have free software on this computer (using Debian Squeeze). The only thing I can't use is Flash, but Flash sucks anyway, and the reason is probably because it's proprietary trash.

I've only ever had to get non-free blobs for network and video cards, and that can be avoided by using other brands. It's not much of a sacrifice if you are aware of it before buying the hardware.
I won't go into it all again but Flash is the only option for online video -- if you don't want that that's fine but it's one reason I bought a computer in the first place.
Without binary blob drivers video cards don't perform correctly. If you can live with that, fine, but if it weren't for the NVIDIA binary blob I'd still be using Windows to this day.
 
Old 08-28-2012, 09:50 AM   #74
Rodhlann
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 8

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Without binary blob drivers video cards don't perform correctly. If you can live with that, fine, but if it weren't for the NVIDIA binary blob I'd still be using Windows to this day.
Nvidia is this kind of firms that emphasize the necessity of a next step, the promotion of open-source hardware. And it's possible to resolve the nvidia problem and to work for free software at a different level... Don't buy Nvidia's cards!

I let Linus Torvalds conclude!
 
Old 08-28-2012, 10:12 AM   #75
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,411

Rep: Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794Reputation: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodhlann View Post
Nvidia is this kind of firms that emphasize the necessity of a next step, the promotion of open-source hardware. And it's possible to resolve the nvidia problem and to work for free software at a different level... Don't buy Nvidia's cards!

I let Linus Torvalds conclude!
Yep, because the ATI open-source driver is perfect and never has any problems. Oh, no, wait that has problems also.
Like I said, if you don't need accelerated 3D and video working well then that's up to you, but without them Linux would be pointless to me and I've no doubt to some others too.
For me a computer has to do what I want or it's a waste of my time and money. As things stand I'm missing two programs that I consider important and if it weren't for one being due to my specific distro and not Linux I'd probably have bought a Mac when I bought a new PC recently.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-26-2011 07:22 AM
LXer: Free Software Foundation Europe says I Love Free Software LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-15-2010 07:50 PM
Slackware, GNU and free software. camphor Slackware 16 02-11-2010 07:54 AM
Is Slackware Completely Free Software? -{Jester}- Linux - General 50 11-01-2008 03:06 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration