Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
Thread beginning with comment 520430
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times
If.
The world already has replicators: they're called "life" or "civilisation" - and it is unclear, an open question, if very much more efficient ones are practical in our universe (something like this would have insane evolutionary advantage, hence would almost certainly show up & take over already: if not within our biosphere - obviously not, for now - then at least within likely billions other biospheres in the universe, spreading and visibly transforming it ...possibly reaching and ~consuming us by now)
That loaf of bread is already basically replicated.
(generally, those are tools of storytelling; and cargo cults, modern mythologies, really - in those we always wished for something silly to be true; plus here, silliness of lack of real implications of such tech - it would massively transform the world, much more than "instant PO box" model in Star Trek, and it would do so parallel to its gradual improvements, not immediately such advanced; oh yeah, the route progress was silly - in TOS they synthesised food, which is among the harder things; and transporters in TOS were really better replicators than replicators in TNG, and also without real implications)
Oh, and "infinite" is a very large number in a universe of finite energy, resources, with a finite time to its heat death.
What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like.
GPL itself has no real relevance on non-GPL code, doesn't say or allows/disallows anything about it.
But yeah, we can choose what licenses we personally accept, which we use and which not, what's so shocking about that? Are you proposing that the only healthy non-PD situation is when we all strive to use every possible type of license?
Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right.
Well the thing about GPL is that it pushes the stakes in favour of users, general population...




Member since:
2005-11-13
Really? According to the Wikipedia article on the GPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used free software license. It was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU Project.
It is a software license... equally as valid (or invalid) as every other software license on the planet.
On the contrary, it has plenty to say about these matters. It basically says you can run it wherever you want and install it on as many machines as you want. Just because it is much less restrictive than most other software licenses doesn't change what it is.
For digital, yes. But physical objects don't apply, because most of them are not copyable. But when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times, are we then going to set up laws that says people can't copy a loaf of bread? I am simply pointing out the lunacy of trying to use the legal system to prevent people from copying something that is infinitely copyable. Mind you, I'm speaking on pragmatic terms, not trying to give some sort of moral justification for piracy.
What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like. Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right. It's like being sold a car, and then being told where you're allowed to drive it. Sure, some dealers may be less restrictive about this than others, and some might even say 'drive it wherever the hell you want.' I'd just assume not let dealers make these decisions in the first place.
Edited 2012-06-02 08:25 UTC