Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 11:53 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Internet & Networking "In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a web site we need the cooperation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice." Recommended reading. I'm no fan of Stallman, but despite a bit too much dramatisation towards the end, this article aptly illustrates in layman's terms why the 'net needs to be free, open, and unregulated.
Permalink for comment 455711
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Nope !
by Kochise on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nope !"
Member since:

Well, I think that the main benefit of foss is forking (beside the meritocratic conspiracy) and able to go beyond the original authors' limitation. Reiser, while being a decent coder, has his own personal problems, so do everyone of use to some deeper or lesser extend. I think the web is nowhere more than that, a platform on which people behaves and shares common knowledges and/or curses. Would regulating the web solve the irl problems ?


Reply Parent Score: 2