Linked by snydeq on Sat 10th Mar 2012 20:29 UTC
Linux The open source community should feel a little safer from software patent attacks, writes InfoWorld's Simon Phipps. "The Open Invention Network, a consortium of Linux contributors formed as a self-defense against software patents, has extended the definition of Linux so that a whopping 700 new software packages are covered, including many developer favorites. Just one hitch: The new definition also includes carve-outs that put all Linux developers on notice that Phillips and Sony reserve the right to sue over virtualization, search, user interfaces, and more."
Thread beginning with comment 510356
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: How sincere
by agb242 on Tue 13th Mar 2012 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How sincere"
agb242
Member since:
2012-03-13

Funny how capitalism was most likely the reason you are using a computer today, have good transportation, have enough food to eat blah, blah, blah. Making a profit provides businesses the ability to expand, innovate and so forth.

Plus, FOSS is really about making the code available for everybody. You can certainly make a profit off the software. Hell you can repackage whole distro and sell it if you want...plus your most likely not speaking of true capitalism...

Hey come to think of it FOSS is like capitalism; you agree to a contract; we share knowledge and ideas about the code & usibility; build it; package it and if we want to we can sell the software or services for the software without government intervention. Yep sounds a lot like laissez-faire capitalism to me.

Making a profit is not a bad thing.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: How sincere
by spiderman on Wed 14th Mar 2012 07:47 in reply to "RE[5]: How sincere"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I actually don't agree with you but I take it you believe in capitalism and debating it would be pointless so let's go beyond that.
Even if you believe that the computer, the internet, the web and the technology was invented by private people seeking profits, the profit was not the end. The end was the computer, the internet and the web.
I'm not saying profits are necessarily bad but that they are not the only thing you should be concerned about. It's a mean to an end. So seeking profit for the sake of profit is useless, and can be harmless at times. I think even the most extreme capitalists can agree on that. There are higher aims than profit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: How sincere
by agb242 on Wed 14th Mar 2012 21:15 in reply to "RE[6]: How sincere"
agb242 Member since:
2012-03-13

You are correct. I feel the best thing about making money is having the ability to share with others. But again very difficult to do those things without people/business making a profit. Plus, business profit margins are very low.

Plus, if you really want to change the world business are really the only ones who can do that. Get involved in the local schools and colleges; teach them the ethical things they can do in business to help the world. Business creates wealth. Government steals wealth. The government can not make wealth.

Edited 2012-03-14 21:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: How sincere
by zima on Sat 17th Mar 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[5]: How sincere"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Funny how capitalism was most likely the reason you are using a computer today, have good transportation, have enough food to eat blah, blah, blah. Making a profit provides businesses the ability to expand, innovate and so forth [...] plus your most likely not speaking of true capitalism...

"True capitalism" is exactly what he called it, a religion - and like all such, not so rosy in what it really leads to in practice, especially if followed ardently by true believers.
Sure, it's very useful in many ways, but a) not to the exclusion of other models b) often missing the larger picture...
...like your examples.

Capitalist forces tend to easily dismantle "good transportation" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://www.kyon.pl/img/18980,car,bus,traffic,.html ), which does heavily depend on sensible & coordinated large-scale planning (say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba#Public_transport ) ...things for which we do ~govs for.

Food: our present agriculture doesn't exist thanks to capitalism, it exists thanks to taking resources from the past and somewhat spoiling the future ones (don't try to to convince anybody it doesn't, with half of all species gone by the end of the century, smth that will be one of most rapid extinction events in geological record) - our agriculture runs on fossil fuels ...which is slightly insane ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_welfare_and_ecological_foot... ) but, yes, you can argue also "capitalist" or smth.

Computers: many fundamental research necessary for modern computers, major earlier usages of machines which led to them, or to modern computer networks, were financed in not exactly capitalist fashion - either considered too risky, or with its outright focus on activities done by govs, censuses and such.
(which weren't very exclusive to stereotypical capitalist places; and, touching on sustainability & ignoring real costs: computers and electronics in general being among most "dirty" and resource-intensive things, yay)


The above touched on the larger picture that I mentioned - what really gave us "the ability to expand, innovate and so forth" was... stumbling on easy availability of cheap energy, while ignoring its real long-term costs (but such free lunch might very well end one day).
Hence capitalism (also it, of course) is a religion because it has really only mild relation to the true nature of our "ability to expand, innovate and so forth" in the past 2 or 3 centuries, it shrouds the dynamics of what was happening in myths.



Those contracts, that you cherish, work only because of... yup, gov stewardship. At the very least, thanks to a threat of intervention.
Govs provide framework in which we can sensibly do business and wealth, it's far from stealing it.
Also, curiously, the most decent places to live happen to have fairly extensive and functional systems of of governance (and BTW, places popularly derided as "nanny states" have highest social mobility, the measure of how much your position results from your own efforts) ...but I'm sure you'd dismiss it as just coincidence. Like you seem to not remember about immense contributions of, say, various UN bodies (sort of top expression of us and our govs) to stabilise the world... (which does include limiting outright exploits of commercial interests)

Edited 2012-03-18 00:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2