Good luck with that
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Khamul May 30, 2012 10:35 PM EDT |
Calling on Apple to open up seems rather futile to me. I call on Microsoft to shut down all their operations and open-source all their software so users can transition to something better, but it'd be lunacy to think that MS would listen to my call for them to shut down. Same goes for Apple. They're doing what works well for them, regardless of how it affects anyone else, and since users are happily lining up to pay premium prices for Apple's freedom-killing products, why would they want to change? |
| caitlyn May 30, 2012 11:15 PM EDT |
You know, I never get FOSS people who want to deny others the right to choose proprietary solutions when those are the best fit. Apple's products aren't "freedom-killing" since you are free not to use them. There are some narrow niches where they really do have the best product. Oh, and yeah, I agree with you that Apple will open up when a squadron of pigs flies over Washington. |
| BernardSwiss May 31, 2012 12:57 AM EDT |
I thought that was a regular occurrence; doesn't that generally happen just a little before either the Upper or Lower house formally opens (or closes) a session? (That's how it goes anywhere I've ever lived, and in most every place I've ever visited.) |
| mbaehrlxer May 31, 2012 2:42 AM EDT |
caitlyn: asking a company to open their source is not denying you the right to a closed solution. if the source for that best-fit product is released it is still the best product. it shouldn't matter to you if the source is available or not. the product is not magically going to suffer from the source being out there. greetings, eMBee. |
| tracyanne May 31, 2012 3:19 AM EDT |
@mbaehrlxer, I think you missed caitlyn's point, completely. |
| caitlyn May 31, 2012 8:11 AM EDT |
tracyanne is right. I'm not opposed to asking a company to do anything just so long as you realize they have the right to ignore your request. I am opposed to Khamul's description of proprietary software as "freedom-killing" and I find that the biggest adherents to RMS/FSF philosophy often want to restrict my right to choose. They want to dictate to me based on their view of software ethics even though I don't share those views. |
| lxerguest May 31, 2012 10:29 AM EDT |
caitlin, rms has no power to restrict your right to do anything.Apple on the other hand had the power through the patent system to shut down a freer alternative to their iPad because it infringed on their inherent right to minimalist rectangular shaped tablet designs. Please don't ever confuse rms' lifelong battle to give users freedom to control their own hardware and software with restricting your freedom. |
| lxerguest May 31, 2012 11:07 AM EDT |
see how Apple restricts your freedom in real tangible ways by googling for "apple crushes samsung in german court,galaxy tab 10.1 ban is complete" and "are all web browsers on ios required to use the webkit". but apple worshippers should shield their eyes if they prefer to keep their image of their precious apple.(just kidding ;)) |
| Khamul May 31, 2012 11:32 AM EDT |
@lxerguest: The iPad isn't just rectangular, it's rectangular with rounded corners. That makes it a totally non-obvious invention and completely worthy of patent protection. [dripping sarcasm in case it's not obvious] |
| skelband May 31, 2012 12:28 PM EDT |
@caitlyn, @lxerguest: RMS and his followers seek not to reduce your choice. By means of the GNU foundation, they seek to *increase* your choice by writing free software for anyone to use. The only restrictions that they would wish to place on anyone using their software is ensure the continuation of the freedoms granted by the original author of the work. They use the copyleft license because it is the only legal mechanism to defeat those that seek to take away your freedom. Any software written entirely by a proprietary software company is free to do with it as they wish and RMS would have no objection to that. However, he would encourage people not to use it, thereby preserving their freedom. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2012 12:35 PM EDT |
"when a squadron of pigs flies over Washington" Well, Cupertino, anyway. |
| JaseP May 31, 2012 12:41 PM EDT |
RMS does have an objection to proprietary software. He believes it to be immoral. Because the nature of information is to be free, he objects to closed information systems as a matter of principal. How he reconciles this with user privacy is a little baffling. I think it boils down to him seeing the freedom part as being an individual right of the computer user, who equally has the right to keep their personal information private. |
| skelband May 31, 2012 1:15 PM EDT |
@JaseP: "He believes it to be immoral" Yes, that his true, but he does not seek to prevent people from using it. It is his opinion, no more. His solution is to produce free software that is better and to encourage people to use it instead. "How he reconciles this with user privacy is a little baffling." Software is a tool, a thing that is designed specifically to be used by people. It is fundamentally different from pure information such as user information. The difference is purely philosophical since they both have no physical form. But make no mistake, just because two things *do* have physical form doesn't make them the same either. I would like to ask RMS what he would truly feel about user privacy in a world where people did not wish to control others. Such a world is hard to define, but I suspect that RMS's real problem with user privacy (or the lack thereof) is the use to which that data is put. It is in many cases detrimental to the user to which the information relates. Therein lies the risk to freedom. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2012 1:28 PM EDT |
Skel, "but he does not seek to prevent people from using it" Not absolutely true, but true in practice. RMS has stated that he thought closed-source should be illegal, because he believes it to be immoral. This has not been heard in a long time, but I doubt he has changed his personal opinion on it. Eric Raymond is the radical Libertarian type, not RMS. On user data, from context I think RMS would agree that a person's personal data should be as secret as that person wants it to be. RMS's big push is software that gets _redistributed_, and personal data is not itself redistributed. If you catch my drift. |
| skelband May 31, 2012 1:36 PM EDT |
@Bob I would be interested in seeing a quote about that as I'm not as familiar with those views. Of course, there is a difference between wishing to make non-free software illegal, and wishing for the abolition of software copyright which achieve the same end. |
| JaseP May 31, 2012 2:02 PM EDT |
@ Skelband: I recall reading an interview to that effect (RMS wanting proprietary software to be illegal). I cannot recall where or how long ago. So, I'm with Bob on this one... |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2012 2:07 PM EDT |
Skel, It's about software that is redistributed. His objection is to software being redistributed without the source available. Abolishing software copyright would not cause Microsoft to provide a copy of the Windows source. Having software copyright does not prevent providing the source code to a pre-compiled program either. A very quick Google search yielded the following: http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Jan/64 FTA: Raymond posed Stallman and Kuhn the question whether if they could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would they? Stallman and Kuhn slightly tilted towards the legislative point of view, but never gave a straight answer whether they were for or against a codified GNU GPL. Stallman and Kuhn wrote: "We believe, though, that with time, as more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that they too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms we stand for -- just as more and more users have come to appreciate the practical value of the free software we have developed." |
| skelband May 31, 2012 2:20 PM EDT |
@Bob, Good point about copyright/source. About the quote though. The question wasn't really explicit as to what exactly would be illegal. There is a hell of a lot in EULAs that are despicable that have everything to do with restricting freedom but nothing to do with the availability of source code. I also had a quick trawl on Google and I couldn't find anything more explicit. Everyone quotes RMS's opinions on free software and equate it with availability of source. That is certainly one issue. But Freedom is a bigger issue than just whether or not you can get the source. So I don't think the quote really throws much light on his view in this respect. Of course, making something illegal is a restriction on freedom in of itself. The only exception I would make to that is the restriction on placing restrictions on others which is a bit of a recursive contradiction. :D |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2012 2:38 PM EDT |
Skel, "making something illegal is a restriction on freedom in of itself" As I said, please don't confuse RMS with anything like a libertarian. RMS has his one very well known issue of software freedom, but beyond that his views are as mixed as many other's are. Everyone has things about which they feel the liberty to choose is inviolate. The problem is that everyone's "things" are different, and few people extend that idea of "inviolate" to anything that they personally disagree with. That's why so few people are actual libertarians. "But Freedom is a bigger issue than just whether or not you can get the source." For you, yes. For me, yes. I'm sure RMS has some other "things" that he considers "inviolate" in addition to access to source code, but those other things are, as Caitlyn has made clear many times, _not_ at issue. I'm sorry that I have not been quick to provide a definitive quote on RMS and his opinion on making closed-source software illegal. I hope that the quote helps to communicate that I'm not the only person who remembers RMS expressing this opinion in the dim, dark past. Luckily, expressing an opinion, no matter how awful others may find it, is protected as "free speech." |
| skelband May 31, 2012 3:18 PM EDT |
"...and few people extend that idea of "inviolate" to anything that they personally disagree with." And I guess that if your living, as you currently make it, depends on some form of anti-freedom then I guess it will colour your views. :D I would think of myself as a libertarian at heart but obviously, I have my biases like anyone else. That doesn't stop me trying to challenge my biases on a daily basis though and I do try to do just that. I do work for a proprietary software company as a programmer and I feel a conflict with that, like I would feel conflicted if I worked at a supermarket and they wanted me to sell cigarettes. I believe that people should be free to smoke if that is what they wish, with the proviso that they don't impose their smoke on others, but I also object to selling them as they are a public evil. I should add that I do personally like the smell of cigars. <sigh> It's such a complicated world isn't it? |
| jdixon May 31, 2012 3:24 PM EDT |
> I would think of myself as a libertarian at heart but obviously, I have my biases like anyone else. That doesn't stop me trying to challenge my biases on a daily basis though and I do try to do just that. That's all any of us can do. We all have biases. > It's such a complicated world isn't it? It can be. But it's also true that sometimes people make it more complicated than it has to be. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2012 4:58 PM EDT |
"I should add that I do personally like the smell of cigars." Ugh! There's a store in my town called "Castro's Back Room" that I hold my breath to walk past. Pipes, however, smell wonderful. I don't smoke nor want to, but I fully understand how people who do smoke feel, since I know how I would feel if chocolate was being demonized "for my own good". "We all have biases." Oh yeah. Personally, I like Linux. :^) |
| skelband May 31, 2012 5:10 PM EDT |
+1 for pipes :D |
| skelband May 31, 2012 5:48 PM EDT |
Getting back to the original point that Khamul made, the danger of proprietary software for such things as media delivery means basically lock in and lack of choice. 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. |
| JaseP Jun 01, 2012 8:43 AM EDT |
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... |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 01, 2012 9:40 AM EDT |
JaseP, That's "Roe v. Wade". Rhode is either an island in the Aegean Sea, or a special perq for rich college kids. |
| caitlyn Jun 01, 2012 11:26 AM EDT |
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. |
| skelband Jun 01, 2012 12:15 PM EDT |
@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. |
| skelband Jun 01, 2012 12:23 PM EDT |
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? |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 01, 2012 12:28 PM EDT |
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. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 01, 2012 12:32 PM EDT |
"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. |
| BernardSwiss Jun 01, 2012 12:47 PM EDT |
@ eMBee.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. |
| skelband Jun 01, 2012 12:50 PM EDT |
@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. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 01, 2012 2:11 PM EDT |
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. |
| lxerguest Jun 01, 2012 9:00 PM EDT |
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. |
| lxerguest Jun 01, 2012 9:20 PM EDT |
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. |
| lxerguest Jun 01, 2012 9:27 PM EDT |
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..." |
| JaseP Jun 03, 2012 9:46 PM EDT |
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... |
| helios Jun 04, 2012 11:35 AM EDT |
"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. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2012 11:51 AM EDT |
BTW, nice to see back commenting again, Ken. Hope you're recovering quickly. |
| helios Jun 04, 2012 1:02 PM EDT |
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. |
| gus3 Jun 04, 2012 1:54 PM EDT |
Mmmm, Ritalin... |
| caitlyn Jun 04, 2012 2:23 PM EDT |
@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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!