- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Should Apple Open up, and What Does Liberty Have to Do With It
|
|
|
Comments (43)
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
There's an argument to be made for fair use of codecs and things like libdvdcss2, at least as being reverse engineering for compatibility. Also, there's an argument for privacy to extend so far as not to permit inquiry as to whether a person is violating the DMCA as far as personal (non-internet streaming) use is concerned. After all Rhode v. Wade was fought and won on a privacy right that was not enumerated in the Constitution... It may not be the strongest legal argument, but if I ever happened to be accused of violating the DMCA, that's where I would go...
JaseP,
That's "Roe v. Wade".
Rhode is either an island in the Aegean Sea, or a special perq for rich college kids.
That's "Roe v. Wade".
Rhode is either an island in the Aegean Sea, or a special perq for rich college kids.
First, my reference to RMS/FSF limiting freedom is, indeed, their view that proprietary software is immoral/unethical and should be banned. If they had their way they would limit my choices and therefore my freedom.
Apple, OTOH, does not limit my freedom in any way, shape or form. They contribute to Open Source (i.e.: their stewardship and ongoing development of CUPS) and I do not see them as evil in any way.
They have patents? In today's world a proprietary software company has no choice but to load up on patents so that they can countersue if an aggressive patent troll arises. Having the portfolio of patents and deep pockets makes them an uninviting target for litigation. What separates Apple from Oracle or Microsoft is that they are not aggressively using the legal system or legal blackmail to collect royalties or negatively impact FOSS. Hopefully the recent rulings in the Oracle vs. Google case will make patent trolling seem like a less than satisfactory way of bringing in income.
Apple, OTOH, does not limit my freedom in any way, shape or form. They contribute to Open Source (i.e.: their stewardship and ongoing development of CUPS) and I do not see them as evil in any way.
They have patents? In today's world a proprietary software company has no choice but to load up on patents so that they can countersue if an aggressive patent troll arises. Having the portfolio of patents and deep pockets makes them an uninviting target for litigation. What separates Apple from Oracle or Microsoft is that they are not aggressively using the legal system or legal blackmail to collect royalties or negatively impact FOSS. Hopefully the recent rulings in the Oracle vs. Google case will make patent trolling seem like a less than satisfactory way of bringing in income.
@caitlyn:
I wouldn't paint Apple in such a great light. Although they haven't been attacking free software directly, they have been very aggressive in their use of patents against competitors and in ways that don't seem always entirely reasonable. The design patent issue for example.
Yet I agree with you that if indeed RMS has gone as far to say that proprietary software should be banned, then insomuch as I don't know his exact opinion, I would have to disagree with him. He would be basically arguing against "secrets" and I would strongly count being able to "keep a secret" among other human rights.
However, if his belief is against some of the unreasonable practices often found in software "licences" or EULAs, then I probably agree with him.
I wouldn't paint Apple in such a great light. Although they haven't been attacking free software directly, they have been very aggressive in their use of patents against competitors and in ways that don't seem always entirely reasonable. The design patent issue for example.
Yet I agree with you that if indeed RMS has gone as far to say that proprietary software should be banned, then insomuch as I don't know his exact opinion, I would have to disagree with him. He would be basically arguing against "secrets" and I would strongly count being able to "keep a secret" among other human rights.
However, if his belief is against some of the unreasonable practices often found in software "licences" or EULAs, then I probably agree with him.
Just to turn the discussion in a different direction, I wonder what other peoples views are on "trademarks" often lumped in with that awful nebulous term "Intellectual Property".
We don't see much about trademarks in the news and it doesn't seem to be a very hot topic.
I actually believe very strongly in the need for trademarks for the original purpose in which they were intended and the very old idea that one must associate a trader or craftsman with his/her work for the cultivation of reputation.
The only issue I would have is that concept is distorted by the ability to sell a trademark. A trademark represents reputation and it pertains to the original owner having traded and built a reputation under that "brand". Transferring it to another with no such association seems to me a failing in that mechanism. Post-transfer, the trademark now has no context or meaning within the wider community.
Cadbury chocolate is a great example here. A trademark built up over many years and is sold to Hersheys with a very different association with chocolate, at least in the UK. I won't express my personal view, but the reputation is very different :D So what exactly does "Cadbury" as a trademark mean now?
We don't see much about trademarks in the news and it doesn't seem to be a very hot topic.
I actually believe very strongly in the need for trademarks for the original purpose in which they were intended and the very old idea that one must associate a trader or craftsman with his/her work for the cultivation of reputation.
The only issue I would have is that concept is distorted by the ability to sell a trademark. A trademark represents reputation and it pertains to the original owner having traded and built a reputation under that "brand". Transferring it to another with no such association seems to me a failing in that mechanism. Post-transfer, the trademark now has no context or meaning within the wider community.
Cadbury chocolate is a great example here. A trademark built up over many years and is sold to Hersheys with a very different association with chocolate, at least in the UK. I won't express my personal view, but the reputation is very different :D So what exactly does "Cadbury" as a trademark mean now?
apple limits the freedom of choosing any license for software for ipad or iphone as the rules are incompatible with the GPL and thus i am not free to publish GPL licensed applications on apples market.
greetings, eMBee.
caitlyn: sorry, i did indeed misread your comment.
greetings, eMBee.
caitlyn: sorry, i did indeed misread your comment.
"I wonder what other peoples views are on "trademarks""
Yes, they are indeed lumped into the catch-all of "Intellectual Property" in most people's minds.
Personal Opinion: Prosecute fraud.
For example, under present trademark law, if my name was MacDonald, I could not open a business and call it "MacDonald's". The MacDonald's Restaurant corporation actively "enforces its trademark" against anyone who uses the MacDonald name, even if they do so without any evidence that they are trying to leverage the "good name" of the MacDonald's corporation fraudulently.
There's always reasons for this, but I have to ask, just who is being harmed?
The customers. Not the MacDonald's restaurant corporation.
Yet it's the corporation which tries to enforce its trademark, and to which trademark law is addressed, rather than the customers who thought they were buying one thing when they were actually buying another.
To muddy the water yet more, just what was trademark law instituted to do? What was its purpose?
To protect vested interests, the Guilds, who had the legal monopoly on various trades and would mark their work.
The law was never intended to protect individuals from fraud.
Yes, they are indeed lumped into the catch-all of "Intellectual Property" in most people's minds.
Personal Opinion: Prosecute fraud.
For example, under present trademark law, if my name was MacDonald, I could not open a business and call it "MacDonald's". The MacDonald's Restaurant corporation actively "enforces its trademark" against anyone who uses the MacDonald name, even if they do so without any evidence that they are trying to leverage the "good name" of the MacDonald's corporation fraudulently.
There's always reasons for this, but I have to ask, just who is being harmed?
The customers. Not the MacDonald's restaurant corporation.
Yet it's the corporation which tries to enforce its trademark, and to which trademark law is addressed, rather than the customers who thought they were buying one thing when they were actually buying another.
To muddy the water yet more, just what was trademark law instituted to do? What was its purpose?
To protect vested interests, the Guilds, who had the legal monopoly on various trades and would mark their work.
The law was never intended to protect individuals from fraud.
@ eMBee.
Just to clarify the point I believe you were making...
"... as the rules are needlessly, deliberately and arbitrarily incompatible with the GPL.."
Furthermore, Apple has been quite willing to go to much greater lengths to accommodate other licences, than accommodating the GPL would require.
Quoting:"apple limits the freedom of choosing any license for software for ipad or iphone as the rules are incompatible with the GPL and thus i am not free to publish GPL licensed applications on apples market.
Just to clarify the point I believe you were making...
"... as the rules are needlessly, deliberately and arbitrarily incompatible with the GPL.."
Furthermore, Apple has been quite willing to go to much greater lengths to accommodate other licences, than accommodating the GPL would require.
@Bob: "The law was never intended to protect individuals from fraud."
Yet that is a very laudable aim.
Interestingly, I do debate the need for patents and copyrights, but I have never doubted the need for trademarks. I think it has to do with honesty and fair dealing which is a basic need in business. Without trust, there is no way to trade.
Yet that is a very laudable aim.
Interestingly, I do debate the need for patents and copyrights, but I have never doubted the need for trademarks. I think it has to do with honesty and fair dealing which is a basic need in business. Without trust, there is no way to trade.
Skel,
"Without trust, there is no way to trade."
Absolutely! And when B deliberately imitates A in order to fraudulently convince people that they are buying from A when they are not, B owes those people restitution.
But just to be clear, the problem lies between B and the defrauded customers. A is uninvolved.
Because of this need for reliable reputation, I believe registration agencies have a real place in the market. And that need includes "I {wrote, developed} this {book, code, device}, not someone else."
As a consumer, if I'm going to pay for a McCoy Bearing Oiler, I want to receive the Real McCoy.
"Without trust, there is no way to trade."
Absolutely! And when B deliberately imitates A in order to fraudulently convince people that they are buying from A when they are not, B owes those people restitution.
But just to be clear, the problem lies between B and the defrauded customers. A is uninvolved.
Because of this need for reliable reputation, I believe registration agencies have a real place in the market. And that need includes "I {wrote, developed} this {book, code, device}, not someone else."
As a consumer, if I'm going to pay for a McCoy Bearing Oiler, I want to receive the Real McCoy.
Guys/gals, if you want to hear rms opinion straight from the horse's mouth, search on Youtube for "Linux Action Show Stallman" and you will find the rms interview on season20episode10 (LAS s20e10).
It is 1:15min long but he says "if I could stop it I would" (proprietary sw)between 0:10 and 0:20, and gets into somewhat heated argument with the host after 0:50 on whether it is more ethical for the host to feed his daughter by selling proprietary sw or to lose his (current)job for the sake of free software.But I recommend you watch the whole thing (or listen to the OGG from the website),for a nice refresher of rms views.
My take on it is:rms believes using or sharing a copy of something should not be controlled by someone else just because they decide the rules should be that way,even if you are dumb or powerless enough to accept those terms.
Maybe similar to it being unethical to paying someone slave wages ,even though people would take these jobs of their own free will. On a fundamental level,how can anyone forbid you from using or sharing your copy? Who would not want to stop or make illegal an abuse of fundamental rights?Also his views are clearly in favor of user privacy.
It is 1:15min long but he says "if I could stop it I would" (proprietary sw)between 0:10 and 0:20, and gets into somewhat heated argument with the host after 0:50 on whether it is more ethical for the host to feed his daughter by selling proprietary sw or to lose his (current)job for the sake of free software.But I recommend you watch the whole thing (or listen to the OGG from the website),for a nice refresher of rms views.
My take on it is:rms believes using or sharing a copy of something should not be controlled by someone else just because they decide the rules should be that way,even if you are dumb or powerless enough to accept those terms.
Maybe similar to it being unethical to paying someone slave wages ,even though people would take these jobs of their own free will. On a fundamental level,how can anyone forbid you from using or sharing your copy? Who would not want to stop or make illegal an abuse of fundamental rights?Also his views are clearly in favor of user privacy.
Caitlyn,Apple being the instigator in using bogus patents (see my example in my first 2 posts) to shut down competitors from selling their own rectangular tablets (with rounded corners,thx khamul),is not a defensive action.
CUPS and webkit are gpl-type licensed projects which are shared with the world thanks to the foresight of people like rms.Our free Linux system came about when Linus chose the GPL and started programming with GNU tools and gcc. Apple exploited the freedom of FreeBSD to get them where they are ,and now won't let you run firefox or opera on ios,or sync without itunes or sell gpl sw in the app store. Pretty soon it could be software that spies on you or hardware that won't let you run free software.RMS is is fighting for freedom from these kind of things,and is sad that you are putting Apple on a pedestal above him as far as freedom as concerned.
CUPS and webkit are gpl-type licensed projects which are shared with the world thanks to the foresight of people like rms.Our free Linux system came about when Linus chose the GPL and started programming with GNU tools and gcc. Apple exploited the freedom of FreeBSD to get them where they are ,and now won't let you run firefox or opera on ios,or sync without itunes or sell gpl sw in the app store. Pretty soon it could be software that spies on you or hardware that won't let you run free software.RMS is is fighting for freedom from these kind of things,and is sad that you are putting Apple on a pedestal above him as far as freedom as concerned.
Last sentence should be "...and it is sad that you are putting Apple on a pedestal above rms as far as sw freedom is concerned..."
Quoting: That's "Roe v. Wade".
That's a spell checker on an Android tablet thinking it knows better than me what I want to say...
"That's a spell checker on an Android tablet thinking it knows better than me what I want to say..."
It does that ship to me all the time.
It does that ship to me all the time.
BTW, nice to see back commenting again, Ken. Hope you're recovering quickly.
Getting better by stages. It wasn't the cancer that almost killed me, it was the "cure"
This time, it was pretty rough but most of it is attributed to radiation fatigue. Unfortunately, that lasts months after treatment. Fortunately, Ritalin helps with it some. Thanks.
This time, it was pretty rough but most of it is attributed to radiation fatigue. Unfortunately, that lasts months after treatment. Fortunately, Ritalin helps with it some. Thanks.
Mmmm, Ritalin...
@lxerguest: I didn't put Apple "up on a pedestal" at all. They are a proprietary software company and therefore are an anathema to anyone who supports the RMS/FSF view of "software freedom," including most people who post on LXer.com. I understand that. Once again, I do NOT share that view of "software freedom" at all and simply find it a different version of limiting my freedom of choice. FSF and Apple, to me, represent two very different views of software, neither of which really has anything to do with my freedom. One is commercial (Apple) and one is ideological (RMS/FSF).
Which is worse? I honestly don't know, but generally I tend to lean in favor of a pragmatic, non-ideological support of FOSS.
Which is worse? I honestly don't know, but generally I tend to lean in favor of a pragmatic, non-ideological support of FOSS.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Yes, you are free to choose to not use that software, but if you want to watch the DVD that you bought and paid for, then you either have to use proprietary software or you have to risk breaking the law (at least in the US anyway). That's not much of a choice.
If you have to access a website that will only work with Internet Explorer, then again you have no choice. You either use IE or you can't use the service. This is potentially a big problem if you are trying to file taxes online or access some government resource.
If you need to access something that uses Silverlight, well you're stuck again.
If you go to school, and they mandate the use of Microsoft Office (more fool them I say) then you're stuck with proprietary software, or you cannot participate.
If you want to read a digital book that you have paid for...well you get the picture.
Vendor lock-in is not the same thing as closed-source software but it is one of the tools used to enforce it.