FreeBSD is the most popular BSD flavor, however, it is not as popular as Debian/RH/Fedora/SuSE are even individually. Vote below to give us your take as to where do you pinpoint the roots of this fact.The poll is now closed, thank you for voting.
Poll: FreeBSD’s Popularity
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I use alsa, I make music. Is there an active sound scene in the BSD community?
Andrew Tanenbaum has given exact explanation of this in is book Modern Operating Systems.
http://cs.vu.nl/~ast is is home page.
I recently converted the last remaining FreeBSD server of our company to Debian GNU/Linux. FreeBSD Java support is quite horrible. The developers had to resort to restarting our web application every night at 3am to prevent mid-day crashes. The exact same application has been running rock-solid for over 2 weeks now on Debian, same as on the development system, which all run Linux. Our Zope based applications have also seen a 2x performance increase!
-fooks
I think it’s just momentum. I tried FreeBSD out when I had a a free computer. I’d already been using Linux for awhile by this point. There are some other comments on OSNews I wrote about my experiences.
In short, it actually ran a lot faster than Linux did on the same system. I didn’t investigate it too much to figure out why, but my first reaction was, “Wow.” It may well have been that I was running a lighter kernel (relatively speaking) or something, but it did impress, out of the box.
Frankly, I didn’t find anything that FreeBSD couldn’t do that my Linux desktop could. If I weren’t just so used to my specific Linux distro, and know what I know now, and was just starting out, FreeBSD might be a serious contender for my desktop. There have been some strange comments here about what FreeBSD lacks, but for me, it didn’t lack anything. It didn’t provide a whole lot (there were a few things) in addition to what I have in my preferred Linux distro, but it did match it. I had X with sound up and running without any problems.
I found installation to be quite easy – the FreeBSD handbook is quite good; make sure you read it and follow along if you’re going to do an install. Also, O’Reilly’s “The Complete FreeBSD,” recommended by someone here at OSNews, actually, turned out to be a very well written, concise guide. I actually refer to it occasionally for Linux-related questions, since a lot of information is true for both.
I would imagine that most intermediate to advanced Linux users could probably make the switch to FreeBSD with a minimum of hassle. A few things are done differently, but it’s not a major paradigm shift. From what I saw, the similarities between FreeBSD and Linux far, far outnumber the differences.
You don’t hear much about FreeBSD on the news, and you don’t see tons of FreeBSD magazines at Barnes and Noble. The only thing I can figure out is it’s momentum and marketing – at *least in terms of the desktop user*. I know several people who run Linux desktops with xBSD firewalls/routers. I think there’s room on any home network for a FreeBSD machine. As for it’s use as a server in a production environment I cannot say, but I know UC Berkeley has had some nice successes with it
I love the ports. I am happy to have a somewhat similar system in Gentoo. Package management in FreeBSD worked well for me; I had all of FreeBSD installed, with a KDE desktop running in, maybe an hour to 90 minutes, being a first timer. The installer isn’t flashy, but it’s no harder than Debian’s. It’s also well documented. You may have problems if you don’t read the easy-to-follow, concise handbook.
Maybe if I was a hardcore developer or something I’d have a distinct preference for FreeBSD or Linux, but as more of a “power user” who scripts and does web-related work, I’d be quite happy with FreeBSD. I like it quite a lot. If something were to happen to the GPL legally, or something which were to cripple Linux development for some time to come, from a technical standpoint, I’d have no problems moving to FreeBSD.
Oh I just wanted to add — I can see how people could have a serious emotional distaste for Windows if they’re forced to use it all day. For the majority of users, a desktop is a desktop, but for people who use their computers intensively, Windows can be a serious drag. Enough of one that I switched.
It seems like a lot of wasted energy (in my opinion) for BSD and Linux users to be sniping at each other. Both are more alike than they are different. Maybe it’s like why brothers fight so much; I don’t know. But I do think that people who have strong opinions between, say, FreeBSD, and Linux, ought to run the opposing OS for 6 months or so, get up to speed with it, and see if there are any dramatic differences in terms of running it daily. (And they should do this with recent versions of the OS. One thing I am positive about is that Linux of today is radically dissimilar in terms of the aggravations involved, with the Linux of even 2 years ago; things have improved drastically, especially as relates to package management).
I’m wondering whether I missed something, in the sense that details differed but it would be hard for me to get worked up about either OS, as it compares and contrasts with the other.
One other comment a few people made about FreeBSD being difficult to install — this may be the whole crux of the argument against using overly friendly Linux distros with flashy GUIs for everything – while absolutely in the beginning you save time in clicking around to get things up and running, you kind of cheat yourself a bit if you don’t get used to dealing with config files. When the latest version of a bit of software comes out, there’s always the possibility it will have a new configuration directive somewhere, and that the GUI won’t be updated to account for it immediately. What it comes down to is, if you’re used to Windows and GUIs with checkboxes, config files initially seem like a step backward to geek primitivism, but in reality, they’re not really any more complicated than GUIs are, provided configuration directives are well documented and defined.
Because I chose to run a Linux distro without any GUIs provided as the base install, I kind of got used to dealing with config files right from the beginning. Like many Linux users I came from years and years of running Windows and having little experience with UNIX-like OSes. Initially I kind of groaned about having to deal with config files, but now, years later, I have the option of using lots of GUIs like webmin and what have you, and choose not to. Nothing’s hidden from you in a config file. It’s all there to peruse, printout, reorder, deal with things like inheritance and other things that can be difficult or confusing to represent in a GUI. Speaking just from my own personal experience, you ultimately save time and will be less frustrated if you get used to editing config files, and then maybe down the road choose to use a GUI, rather than the other way around. The important thing here is that in the long run it will save you time and aggravation. The argument always goes that “my grandmother” or “Aunt Tillie” if your name is Eric Raymond, will have trouble using or installing an OS. Well in reality, both your grandmother and Aunt Tillie couldn’t probably install Windows either – remember, they get their computers from, say, Dell, where it’s already installed. And then they get viruses, spyware, and Bonzi Buddies, and you’re over there fixing things because Windows encourages (by not enforcing otherwise) people to run their system as an Administrator, for ease of use. If your grandmother tried to re-install Windows, chances are she’d blow her partitions to hell and lose all of her data. If your grandmother told you she was going to reinstall Windows, *probably* you’d say, “No, don’t do that, I’ll be right over.” So really the only people who should be installing OSes are people with some modicum of understanding of what is going on *anyway*.
Because I deal mainly with Debian and Gentoo, both of which are very text-oriented during the install (especially Gentoo, which doesn’t even have an installer), FreeBSD’s installer was, to me, trivial. It was like Debian’s, for the most part. My grandmother couldn’t do it, but there are probably many 8 year olds out there who could. Yeah, you’ll have to read some, and take a little time during the install to make sure you’re doing it right (if you’re totally new to it) – but in the end, you’ll learn something about your system, and maybe you’ll be able to troubleshoot it a little better. Aside from bugs and illogical quirks in some installers (which can make things complicated for new users indeed), I have to wonder how many people just get immediately annoyed when they don’t understand something, won’t take 5 minutes to google on it, and just write it off as a “complicated installer for geeks.” I’m not trying to flame anyone here, but man, there’s nothing complicated about installing FreeBSD, Debian, or any other OS I’ve yet used which has a text-based/curses installer.
If you’re a grandma who just doesn’t have any interest in computers beyond a few apps, it’s one thing.
But, if you decide you’re going to run a UNIX-like OS because Windows isn’t good enough for you, I find it hard to believe that anything other than, well, total sloth, is really getting in your way. If you think you need Linux or FreeBSD, you’re probably smart enough to get them installed at least to the point you can login to the console. I really do think the basic need or desire to run a UNIX-like OS corresponds with ability to at least get it installed (complicated hardware support issues aside – this is a valid exception and complaint, though it’s usually not the OSes fault as much as the manufacturer’s).
I think people know this, and I think they should patiently just take a single Saturday afternoon and try out the things they’re so quick to bash. There may be good reasons not to run FreeBSD, but the difficulty of the installer just isn’t one. Really. I’m not all that bright, don’t know C, don’t really code, and aside from having to look up a few things (how partitions are referenced, for example – different in FreeBSD, but simple enough), I’m pretty confident anyone with just basic computer experience could get this up and running without much hassle. There are places you can go for help. I didn’t find the FreeBSD people, at least on IRC where I went for help on a few things, to be crusty or elitist at all. I got the sense that another Linux user was trying out their beloved OS.
It’s natural and healthy that people would have preferences between the BSDs and Linux, but it’s strange to me that anyone would have enough of a preference to be emotional about it. Whereas, I do understand why, if you’re forced to use it for many hours a day, you might feel this way about Windows.
Seriously, if you use Linux, especially something like Gentoo, Slackware or Debian, try FreeBSD. Maybe your experience will be wildly different than mine, but I bet you’ll like it. You may not prefer it to your own Linux distro, but you’ll probably dig it nonetheless. Likewise, if you’re a FreeBSD person who hasn’t tried Linux in awhile, or has only tried the Mandrake/Suse/Fedora style distros, try Debian, Slackware, or the infamous Gentoo. Bet you’ll find things to like there.
The hardcore preferences people have just don’t make tons of sense to me. But again, I’m not a developer or kernel hacker, so maybe I’d feel more strongly if I was.
It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible – say less than 10% – portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing – >90% their own, original work – because of that is not fair.
Since when as anyone forced developers to use GPLed code? If they want to use GPL, they have to follow the rules. There is no free lunch.
You can build the World’s best mousetrap and people will come to your door…
…if they can find it.
Advertising and promotion are absolutely essential.
Did I mention I’m Canadian?
Your hostname did.
You’re grasping at straws here. “No counterpart in the natural world?” What law does?
Property ownership, freedom of speech, self protection. Pretty much all of the important ones.
Copyright may not be a basic human right, but it is a right nonetheless. And it is not only used to protect “obsolete corporate models”, but also individual IP and innovation.
It is used for the former vastly more often than it is used for the latter.
Hey, you’re the one who wrote a nonsensical statement (“the conditions are GPLed”), not me!
I made no such statement. The actual flow of conversation:
Y: Are you saying that conditions [that the GPL imposes] that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?
M: Strawman. The conditions aren’t “guaranteeing freedom”, they’re imposing conditions on using someone’s source code.
Y: Conditions guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom.
M: Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*. The original code needs no protection whatsoever to “remain free”, it just needs to remain available.
Funny, when I checked Merriam-Webster online, there were about a dozen definitions. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier: different freedoms.
So which of those definitions indicate “free” is defined as having arbitrary restrictions ?
No, I wont. The GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain free (as in “Free Software”). If you don’t like that definition of free, then you’re welcome not to use it. Meanwhile, I’m “free” to use it as much as I want.
It’s not a matter of “not liking it”, it’s a matter of it being *wrong*.
As I said, if you wish to redefine “free” as “licensed under the GPL”, then your statement holds.
Oh, I forgot, you’re obsessed with having the last word. Well, I’ll see how far you’re ready to go…
Is it relevant to anything other than your pompous conceit ?
Therefore it is possible to sell GPL software. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
I’m not quite sure how you get to that conclusion from my comment, but I never said it was literally impossible to sell GPL code, I said it was practically impossible by virtue of the fact anyone you sell it to can then give it away to the rest of the world.
Well, since I did not say any of these things (despite you using quotes) I’ll take that as a sign of desperation on your part.
It’s not meant to be quotes of your comments, it’s meant to be paraphrasing of your (repeated ad-nauseum) arguments.
Property ownership
Well, this is where you blatantly contradict yourself. Copyright is there to protect intellectual property. Saying that copyright isn’t a right amounts to saying you don’t have a right to property.
[Copyright] is used for the former vastly more often than it is used for the latter.
Irrelevant. It is used for both, and that is what matters.
I made no such statement.
I’m sorry, but you did. You even wrote it again:
“Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*.”
Unless you’re writing in fragmented sentences (which would explain some of your contradictions), the subject of the verb “are” in the above sentence is “Conditions”. You are therefore stating that the “conditions are GPLed”, which doesn’t make much sense.
So which of those definitions indicate “free” is defined as having arbitrary restrictions ?
What about “free from harm”? In order to be free from harm, restrictions must be put on everyone’s ability to harm others (including mine).
“Sugar-free” means without sugar, as in restricted from having any sugar.
But that’s besides the point, really. As I said before, you’re looking at this the wrong way. The GPL ensures that the code (and derivatives) remain free. It is concerned with the freedom of the actual code, not of developers who’d like to produce derivative works with it. The BSDL is concerned with the freedom of the developer.
GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation
BSDL = derivative can be made unfree = promotes freedom of proprietary exploitation
Both are free, but in different ways.
It’s not meant to be quotes of your comments
Sure, that’s why you put it into quotes, right?
it’s meant to be paraphrasing of your (repeated ad-nauseum) arguments.
Okay, then you won’t mind if I paraphrase your own posts:
“developers are clueless”
“intellectual property is not a right”
“it’s unfair if you can’t use someone else’s work without their permission”
“conditions are GPLed”
“the US Constitution is a poor measure of personal rights”
“there is only one definition for the word ‘free'”
“if you modify GPLed code you are forced to release it”
“you can’t charge money for GPLed software”
“private property is a natural right, but intellectual property isn’t”
“which license is more free isn’t debatable, even though we’ve been debating it quite a lot”
You’re priceless.
(Oh, and you’re welcome to report this post for moderation as well…)
Well, this is where you blatantly contradict yourself. Copyright is there to protect intellectual property. Saying that copyright isn’t a right amounts to saying you don’t have a right to property.
“Intellectual property” is a legal fiction. Ideas aren’t physical property. They’re not even remotely similar.
I’m sorry, but you did. You even wrote it again:
“Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*.”
Unless you’re writing in fragmented sentences (which would explain some of your contradictions), the subject of the verb “are” in the above sentence is “Conditions”. You are therefore stating that the “conditions are GPLed”, which doesn’t make much sense.
The subject is “derivatives”. As in the derivatives of the GPLed code. Here, I’ll write it another way you might be able to understand:
The conditions imposed by the GPL on source code ensure that derivatives of that code will also be licensed under the GPL.
What about “free from harm”? In order to be free from harm, restrictions must be put on everyone’s ability to harm others (including mine).
Untrue. They don’t _have_ to be in place by definition, only when others actually try to harm each other.
“Sugar-free” means without sugar, as in restricted from having any sugar.
Creative English if ever I’ve seen it.
But that’s besides the point, really. As I said before, you’re looking at this the wrong way. The GPL ensures that the code (and derivatives) remain free. It is concerned with the freedom of the actual code, not of developers who’d like to produce derivative works with it. The BSDL is concerned with the freedom of the developer.
No, the BSDL is concerned with “the freedom of the code”. The GPL is concerned with “the freedom of the code and any other code that might use it”.
GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation
Sure, if you consider “GPLed” and “free” to be synonymous.
BSDL = derivative can be made unfree = promotes freedom of proprietary exploitation
Personally, I like to think it promotes generosity and leading by example.
Sure, that’s why you put it into quotes, right?
Given that none of the text appeared literally in any of the posts authored by you, I figured the fact they weren’t supposed to be literal quotes would make be reasonably obvious.
Okay, then you won’t mind if I paraphrase your own posts:
Knock yourself out. Although I see you’ve managed to completely misinterpret everything I’ve said.
“developers are clueless”
A lot of Open Source developers are misinformed or have been misled by GPL zealots.
“intellectual property is not a right”
Correct. It’s a legal privilege. Like, say, being incorporated.
“it’s unfair if you can’t use someone else’s work without their permission”
The GPL has the potential to be very unfair.
“conditions are GPLed”
I don’t even know where to start with this one.
“the US Constitution is a poor measure of personal rights”
The US Constitution should not be considered the only measure of rights, nor the best one.
“there is only one definition for the word ‘free'”
There are several in the dictionary, but they all say basically the same thing.
“if you modify GPLed code you are forced to release it”
If you modify GPLed code you should be prepared to release it. You might not have to – but then again you might.
“you can’t charge money for GPLed software”
It’s practically impossible to sell GPLed software on its own.
“private property is a natural right, but intellectual property isn’t”
Physical property has a parallel in the natural world, intellectual property does not.
“which license is more free isn’t debatable, even though we’ve been debating it quite a lot”
Which license has fewer restrictions isn’t debatable.
(Oh, and you’re welcome to report this post for moderation as well…)
Thanks for the offer, but I don’t consider it something that needs moderating.
“Intellectual property” is a legal fiction. Ideas aren’t physical property. They’re not even remotely similar.
If you want to get philosophical about it, the idea of physical property is as much fiction as intellectual property. “Owning” something is a construction of the mind which has evolved into a social convention.
Meanwhile, as far as the law is concerned, intellectual property is quite real, and it’s worth billions of dollars.
So, on the philosophical side, both forms of properties are illusions, while on the legal side both are very real. In either case, you lose. Nice try.
Here, I’ll write it another way you might be able to understand
You mean, one that’s written in proper english?
Untrue. They don’t _have_ to be in place by definition, only when others actually try to harm each other.
Come on, this is getting pathetic. You should have quit two posts ago…
Okay, since people can potentially harm each other, and have done, and do so, and will do so, then those restrictions have to be in place.
Again, you don’t seem to understand the concept of law. I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on such poor rethoric – all of that because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
No, the BSDL is concerned with “the freedom of the code”. The GPL is concerned with “the freedom of the code and any other code that might use it”.
Not use it: be a derivative of it. Case in point: using a GPLed program under Windows. Plenty of code interact with the GPL code, and yet it doesn’t become GPLed code.
Meanwhile, BSDL is not concerned with the freedom of the code, but rather the developer, because said developer can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it as proprietary code.
Sure, if you consider “GPLed” and “free” to be synonymous.
No, the affirmation stands on its own. Let me repeat it:
“GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation”
You haven’t shown how any part of this sentence isn’t true. You have claimed it isn’t, but you haven’t disproved it in any way.
Given that none of the text appeared literally in any of the posts authored by you, I figured the fact they weren’t supposed to be literal quotes would make be reasonably obvious.
Given your tendency to twist around words, that is paraphrase while changing the meaning to suit your own purposes, I think you’re simply admitting to your own dishonesty here.
Knock yourself out. Although I see you’ve managed to completely misinterpret everything I’ve said.
Yes, I followed your example and did exactly as you did.
A lot of Open Source developers are misinformed or have been misled by GPL zealots.
An unsubstantiated allegation. You’re full of those, aren’t you?
Correct. It’s a legal privilege. Like, say, being incorporated.
No, it’s a right, just like the right to private property. It is in the States, it is in Canada, it is in almost every country in the world (except maybe North Korea…).
Here, knock yourself out…it seems you’ve got a lot to learn about the subject:
http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/copyright/
The GPL has the potential to be very unfair.
It’s too bad you can’t present a valid argument to support this assertion. What WOULD be unfair would be to use someone’s intellectual property without their permission.
Funny world you live in: white is black, and black is white. Next you’ll be telling me that the sky is really red…
I don’t even know where to start with this one.
Start by learning to write clear english sentences.
The US Constitution should not be considered the only measure of rights, nor the best one.
Would you care to give a better legally-binding document protecting basic rights? (Hint: the Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it’s not legally biding per se.)
This should be fun.
There are several in the dictionary, but they all say basically the same thing.
Really? I seem to remember something about “free beer”…
If you modify GPLed code you should be prepared to release it. You might not have to – but then again you might.
No, you wouldn’t have two. There is no reason why you should be forced to. There is no provision in the GPL forcing you to release modified code. None. Please read the damn thing, and try to understand it. You obviously haven’t.
It’s practically impossible to sell GPLed software on its own.
Demonstrably false, if only by the Mandrake boxed sets on the shelf above me.
Don’t ge me wrong – you won’t make billions selling it. But the question here is to know if it’s possible to do so, and the answer is yes.
Man, don’t you get tired of being proven wrong on every point you try to make? If I was in your place, I certainly would.
Physical property has a parallel in the natural world, intellectual property does not.
Uh, no it doesn’t. There are neither natural nor magical bonds that tie me to my property – it’s all part of the social contract that is known as the Law (and customs, as well).
I’d like to know which country you live in, where there are no intellectual property rights…
Which license has fewer restrictions isn’t debatable.
Please re-read the preceding paragraph. The questions is not which license has fewer restrictions, but rather which license is freer. It depends on how you define “free software”, and it is most certainly open for debate. You see, definitions are also part of the social contract.
Just agree to disagree, and we’ll get on with our lives. I’ll go on claiming that the GPL and BSDL are equally but differently free (a positive, unifying message) while you can go on pretending that the BSD is freer (perpetuating divisive flamebait).
Thanks for the offer, but I don’t consider it something that needs moderating.
If you say so – though I’ve got to wonder who else is still reading this thread…I’ll just keep blaming you, if you don’t mind.
“FreeBSD Java support is quite horrible. The developers had to resort to restarting our web application every night at 3am to prevent mid-day crashes.”
Java is “quite horrible”. Tell your “developers” to program in C++. “Problem” solved.
If you want to get philosophical about it, the idea of physical property is as much fiction as intellectual property. “Owning” something is a construction of the mind which has evolved into a social convention.
“Owning” physical property sans legal systems requires nothing more than being able to stop someone else from taking it.
Try *making* someone forget something – it’s pretty hard.
You mean, one that’s written in proper english?
There’s nothing wrong with the English of the comment I made, as long as you read it in context.
Come on, this is getting pathetic. You should have quit two posts ago…
Okay, since people can potentially harm each other, and have done, and do so, and will do so, then those restrictions have to be in place.
Because there hasn’t been a single murder since murder was outlawed, right ?
Again, you don’t seem to understand the concept of law. I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on such poor rethoric – all of that because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
I perfectly understand the concept of law. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the definition of freedom, however. Perhaps your belief is that people without law cannot be free ?
Not use it: be a derivative of it. Case in point: using a GPLed program under Windows. Plenty of code interact with the GPL code, and yet it doesn’t become GPLed code.
Heh. And you like to accuse me of twisting words.
Meanwhile, BSDL is not concerned with the freedom of the code, but rather the developer, because said developer can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it as proprietary code.
The BSDL *is* concerned with “the freedom of the code”, it’s just not concerned with “the freedom” of *derivative code*.
No, the affirmation stands on its own. Let me repeat it:
No amount of repetition will change the fact that statement only holds if you consider the GPL and “free” to be synonymous. Something that is GPLed is not “free”, it is GPLed.
You haven’t shown how any part of this sentence isn’t true. You have claimed it isn’t, but you haven’t disproved it in any way.
I’m not seeing any definitions in the dictionary for “free” that say “licensed under the GPL”.
Given your tendency to twist around words, that is paraphrase while changing the meaning to suit your own purposes, I think you’re simply admitting to your own dishonesty here.
Yet you don’t seem to be disagreeing with my paraphrasing of your arguments.
Yes, I followed your example and did exactly as you did.
Which of your arguments did I misinterpret, and how ?
An unsubstantiated allegation. You’re full of those, aren’t you?
It’s an observation – and I’m pretty sure I don’t make any more of them than anyone else.
It’s too bad you can’t present a valid argument to support this assertion.
Sure I can. Someone with a project that is 10% GPL, 90% their own work having to GPL the 90% that is their own work.
What WOULD be unfair would be to use someone’s intellectual property without their permission.
Assuming you don’t pretend it’s your own, why ?
I suppose you always used to get cranky at school whenever anyone copied off you as well, right ?
Would you care to give a better legally-binding document protecting basic rights? (Hint: the Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it’s not legally biding per se.)
Uh, how would it be relevant ?
Really? I seem to remember something about “free beer”…
Ah, I understand one of your problems. RMS’s rants are not dictionaries.
There is no provision in the GPL forcing you to release modified code. None. Please read the damn thing, and try to understand it. You obviously haven’t.
Distributing software with GPLed code in it requires you to distribute the source code. I believe it’s one of the major points.
Demonstrably false, if only by the Mandrake boxed sets on the shelf above me.
How does that falsify that selling GPLed software on its own is practically impossible ?
But the question here is to know if it’s possible to do so, and the answer is yes.
No, the question here is to know if it’s *practically* possible to do. Ie: is it a practicable method for generating sufficient revenue.
Most everyone I’ve ever met knows what the colloquialism “practically impossible” means. I’ve no doubt you do as well and I must say your faux ignorance/innocence is simply juvenile.
Uh, no it doesn’t. There are neither natural nor magical bonds that tie me to my property – it’s all part of the social contract that is known as the Law (and customs, as well).
Those “natural bonds” are being able to pick something up and not let anyone else have it.
Just agree to disagree, and we’ll get on with our lives. I’ll go on claiming that the GPL and BSDL are equally but differently free (a positive, unifying message) while you can go on pretending that the BSD is freer (perpetuating divisive flamebait).
Yes, well, it’s well known the truth is never a popular message.
If you say so – though I’ve got to wonder who else is still reading this thread…I’ll just keep blaming you, if you don’t mind.
Whatever floats your boat. But it certainly *isn’t* me.
An interesting discussion, guys. 🙂
This poll is potentially misleading. I think the concept of reputation is far more important than the concept of popularity, since it’s an OS we’re talking about.
As far as I know, FreeBSD’s commitment has always been for technical excellence, and not for crusades against Microsoft and proprietary software (note that I consider the end of Microsoft’s monopoly a very good thing for everybody).
So, I really fail to see where the issue is.
Of course, the more advocacy the better. But I would concentrate on reliability, performance and, in general, fitness to the purpose. Simply, this is what makes an OS great.
Of course I want FreeBSD to get the popularity it deserves, but above all I’d like it to remain the best Free OS available on the planet an admin could choose for most purposes.
I hope FreeBSD developers will go on with their effort (which is academic, and not political) throwing new ideas and solutions into the project, just like they’ve always done.
As far as I can understand they don’t lack sponsorship, since their great work is universally recognized (I’m thinking of Apple and Yahoo, but not only).
So, I’d just say: keep it up. 🙂
Of course I want FreeBSD to get the popularity it deserves, but above all I’d like it to remain the best Free OS available on the planet an admin could choose for most purposes.
I think both NetBSD 2.x and DragonflyBSD will be going after that place as well in the near future
Competition between FreeBSD 5.x and DragonflyBSD in terms of SMP will get very interesting…
I wonder if these Linux guys really know how much code and “inspiration” the Linux kernel has got from FreeBSD, namely VM and scheduler. Before 2.4.10 the Linux kernel had much less performance than FreeBSD.
Try *making* someone forget something – it’s pretty hard.
Sigh. You really don’t get it, do you? It’s not about knowing something, it’s about others preventing from the commercialization of IP.
There’s nothing wrong with the English of the comment I made, as long as you read it in context.
You made a fragmented, unclear sentence.
Because there hasn’t been a single murder since murder was outlawed, right ?
This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders.
You really are trying to argue that the sky isn’t blue.
I perfectly understand the concept of law.
That is not at all apparent from your posts.
I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the definition of freedom, however. Perhaps your belief is that people without law cannot be free ?
Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker.
The BSDL *is* concerned with “the freedom of the code”, it’s just not concerned with “the freedom” of *derivative code*.
Therefore, one could make the argument that the GPL is more free, because it doesn’t concern itself only with the freedom of the code, but of its derivatives as well…
No amount of repetition will change the fact that statement only holds if you consider the GPL and “free” to be synonymous. Something that is GPLed is not “free”, it is GPLed. I’m not seeing any definitions in the dictionary for “free” that say “licensed under the GPL”.
Again, you didn’t disprove any part of that affirmation, because you can’t. Thanks for playing.
It’s an observation – and I’m pretty sure I don’t make any more of them than anyone else.
If it’s not supported by some kind of data, then it’s a worthless observation, because you can’t claim to know the motives behind every (or even most) developers that choose the GPL.
It’s BS, in other words.
Which of your arguments did I misinterpret, and how ?
By your misquoting? Pretty much all of them.
Sure I can. Someone with a project that is 10% GPL, 90% their own work having to GPL the 90% that is their own work.
What if that 10% is essential to making the software work? What if it took twice as long to write that 10%?
Anyway, this is besides the point, because that 10% can only be used with the authors’ permission. End of story.
Distributing software with GPLed code in it requires you to distribute the source code. I believe it’s one of the major points.
But that’s not what you were saying. Again, you try to weasel out of a tight spot by changing your story. You were saying that conditions might force you to redistribute it – however, you’re not forced to redistribute ANY code if you don’t distribute binaries. And use within a corporation is NOT considered redistribution.
How does that falsify that selling GPLed software on its own is practically impossible ?
Because it’s done. Therefore it cannot be impossible.
No, the question here is to know if it’s *practically* possible to do. Ie: is it a practicable method for generating sufficient revenue.
Mandrake does. I’ve checked their recent reports and the club is no longer their primary source of revenue. Their main source of revenue is sale of boxed sets to individuals and corporations.
Those “natural bonds” are being able to pick something up and not let anyone else have it.
Really? Can you pick up acres of land? ’cause you can certainly own it!
Meanwhile, you can forcibly prevent someone from making money off of your IP, just like you can forcibly defend your private property. In order to prevent chaos and the rule of the strongest over the weakest, laws were introduced to protect both kind of properties. You can debate it all you want, it won’t make it less true.
Yes, well, it’s well known the truth is never a popular message.
That would be relevant if you were speaking the truth, instead of circular logic, narrow interpretations and strawman arguments.
Talk to you later, when I’ll disprove your weak arguments yet again…
I don’t use FreeBSD (or any BSD) for the same reason many of my friends do not use it. The BSD License! I have contributed a great deal to OS software because I knew that any improvements made to MY software would be given back to me. If I only had the BSD license to choose from, I would still be using Windows.
It is blatantly ignorant to believe that “if it was not for Linux/AT&T lawsuit/etc.. BSD would have become Linux.” I know too many Linux developers who would NEVER consider contributing on BSD licensed code to believe that statement is true.
@brockers
So you don’s use BSD because of the BSD license. So you don’t want to contribute code freely for all to use as they wish without restrictions out of the goodness of your heart. Gee, talk about selfish. All I hear is MY code, MY this, MY that. ME, ME, ME.
Sigh. You really don’t get it, do you? It’s not about knowing something, it’s about others preventing from the commercialization of IP.
No, it’s not. Copyright has little to do with the “commercialisation” of “IP” (at least in principle, though perhaps not in more recent times).
If the only thing copyright sought to do was stop person B commercialising person A’s “IP”, then I’d have much less of a problem with it (the concept wouldn’t be any less silly, but at least the objective would be reasonable). But, it doesn’t – copyright seeks to stop *any* copies, *regardless of their purpose. You do not need to be commercialising someone else’s “IP” to be guilty of copyright infringment (which being me back to the photographic memory example – how is someone with a photographic memory able to live without breaking copyright law ?).
You made a fragmented, unclear sentence.
The sentence is perfectly clear and stands on its own *when read in context*.
Do you pull random sentences out of the middle of newspaper articles and complain to the author because those sentences – without context – are fragmented and unclear ?
This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders.
It’s entirely relevant. Your assertion is that laws impose restrictions to ensure “freedom from harm”. However, they clearly *don’t* do that because people are still harmed.
The law doesn’t *stop* things from happening, it simply provides an avenue for action _after the fact_. The law is not a meaningful deterrent – like those little padlocks on luggage, all it does it keep honest people honest.
I sit here “free from harm” not because the invisible hand of the law is holding back the slavering hordes from harming me, but because no-one wants to harm me.
Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker.
I didn’t realise “freedom” was such a recent invention.
Therefore, one could make the argument that the GPL is more free, because it doesn’t concern itself only with the freedom of the code, but of its derivatives as well…
Or one could simply note that it is “less free” because it imposes more restrictions.
If it’s not supported by some kind of data, then it’s a worthless observation, because you can’t claim to know the motives behind every (or even most) developers that choose the GPL.
I never claimed to.
Mandrake does. I’ve checked their recent reports and the club is no longer their primary source of revenue. Their main source of revenue is sale of boxed sets to individuals and corporations.
Which is their primary source of revenue isn’t important. The issue is whether or not selling the GPLed software – and *only* selling the GPLed software – is generating sufficient revenue. I can’t say I’m interested enough to examine their financials in details, but I do see they’ve only just managed to turn a profit in the last year after some pretty big losses. Seems to me they’re still a fair way behind the curve.
I also feel compelled to point out that one or two examples doesn’t define a trend.
Really? Can you pick up acres of land? ’cause you can certainly own it!
I could stop other people from using acres of land.
Meanwhile, you can forcibly prevent someone from making money off of your IP, just like you can forcibly defend your private property.
“IP” laws aren’t about stopping people making money off of other’s “IP”. They’re about stopping people “possessing” other people’s “IP” _at all_.
Talk to you later, when I’ll disprove your weak arguments yet again…
Is there any reason why you feel the need to keep saying this ? Do you think you need to remind people what you’re doing ?
No, it’s not. Copyright has little to do with the “commercialisation” of “IP” (at least in principle, though perhaps not in more recent times).
Actually, copyright has a lot to do with commercialization of intellectual property. That’s mainly why it was invented. Here, since you like definitions, the one found in Merriam-Webster:
“the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&v…
See, commercial exploitation is right up there in the definition. They even use the word “right”.
If the only thing copyright sought to do was stop person B commercialising person A’s “IP”, then I’d have much less of a problem with it (the concept wouldn’t be any less silly, but at least the objective would be reasonable).
I can’t imagine how you can find the concept of ownership of literary, musical, artistic, and otherwise creative work “silly.” A copyright is a temporary monopoly granted on the expression of an idea: not the idea itself, nor the method – that would be patents. In my opinion, the monopoly is way too long – the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has raised to 95 years, mostly due to Disney if you ask me. But that’s besides the point. In the modern world, the concept of intellectual property is as important as that of material property.
BTW, IP consists of not only of copyrights, but also patents, trade marks (brands) and trade secrets. Not all apply equally well to software – patents are an especially bad idea in software, as they stifle innovation. If you’re looking for unfair, take a good look at patents.
The sentence is perfectly clear and stands on its own *when read in context*.
It is not up to you to judge if your sentence was clear or not, but rather up to your interlocutor, your audience.
But since you invoke context, let’s have a look at it. I wrote:
“Conditions guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free.”
The subject of the sentence is “conditions”. The predicate is “guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free.”
You wrote:
“Conditions that guarantee derivatives are GPLed.”
What is the subject of this phrase? Is it “conditions that” or “Conditions that guarantee derivatives”? The first one doesn’t sound right at all. You can easily say: “I introduced some new conditions that guarantee derivatives.” But if you can’t say “I introduced some new conditions that.”
So we can safely say that the noun phrase “conditions that guarantee derivatives” is the subject of the sentence you wrote. This leaves “are GPLed” as the predicate. The structure therefore appears to be:
[conditions that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed]
In other words, you basically said that the conditions were GPLed, which doesn’t mean anything. What you meant to say is “Conditions guarantee that derivatives are GPLed.” You inversed two words, making a sentence that was still grammatically correct but which made little sense. Hence the confusion.
I think that’s pretty much all there is to say about this. Meanwhile, I asked you in a precedent post if you could cite me legally-binding documents that protect individual rights better than the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You still haven’t provided any. I will keep asking.
“This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders.”
It’s entirely relevant. Your assertion is that laws impose restrictions to ensure “freedom from harm”. However, they clearly *don’t* do that because people are still harmed.
They don’t “ensure” freedom from harm, they “increase” it. They increase it through dissuasion and punishment, as I previously stated. Dissuasion, because some of what you call “honest” people might not be as good if there not the threat of prison or fines. Punishment, because by putting criminals away the law are prevents further crimes that they might have committed.
The law is not a meaningful deterrent – like those little padlocks on luggage, all it does it keep honest people honest.
Are you seriously claiming that things would be pretty much the same if there were no laws? Wow. I didn’t think you’d take denial that far…
I sit here “free from harm” not because the invisible hand of the law is holding back the slavering hordes from harming me, but because no-one wants to harm me.
Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
“Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker.”
I didn’t realise “freedom” was such a recent invention.
How old do you think it is? How old do you think the concept of law is?
I can’t say I’m interested enough to examine their financials in details, but I do see they’ve only just managed to turn a profit in the last year after some pretty big losses. Seems to me they’re still a fair way behind the curve.
Do you know how Mandrake lost their money? By trying to diversify into edutainment. It was a disaster, but it had nothing to do with the sale of GPLed product. They were actually turning out a profit before the edutainment fiasco.
They’re not a single example. SuSE and RedHat also make money from selling GPLed software; even though that’s not the bulk of their revenue, selling GPLed software is possible because some people like to get a box and manuals and the convenience of pre-burned CDs.
I could stop other people from using acres of land.
Without a recourse to laws, you’d have to take the matter in your own hands, i.e. use force or other methods of coercition. I don’t see why, in a similar context, one couldn’t use force or coercition to stop people from commercially using one’s intellectual property.
The more you try to make your point, the more you support mine.
“IP” laws aren’t about stopping people making money off of other’s “IP”. They’re about stopping people “possessing” other people’s “IP” _at all_.
They, among other things, are about stopping people making money off of other people’s IP without their permission. If I own IP, I can license it to others, either for money or under certain conditions.
I’m currently working with a license (a famous cartoon character) for a video game. My company will make money off of it, and so will the publisher, and so will the licensor (who owns the IP). The publisher will get limited distribution rights for the IP. This is legal because they have an agreement with the licensor. Now, if Joe Game Developer were to publish a game based on that license without ever consulting the license owner, you can bet those IP laws would prevent Joe from making money off of someone else’s IP.
Is there any reason why you feel the need to keep saying this ? Do you think you need to remind people what you’re doing ?
People? I don’t think there’s anybody else reading our long-winded rants on this thread. I’m just taunting you, that’s all.
See you tomorrow. I probably won’t be able to respond before tomorrow night, though, I’ve got a big day ahead. But I’m free all week-end – let’s take this thread to 300!
haha this prooves one point.
None of the Current BSDs are like the origional BSD.
Calling FreeBSD or NetBSD the a BSD distro is pointless!
Also, tell me an open source operating system that is popular that does not have code from other operating systems.
It dosen’t matter about linux, dosent matter about freebsd netbsd qnx solaris etc .. forget the license soap opera
just use what works faster and scales better.. oh yeah dont forget the TCO.
That’s freebsd to me for some apps.. some linux for some apps. great thing they’re both free.
time to be nice
Really… what kind of person posts a retarded poll like this? I ask you with tears in my eyes… what type?
BSD IS NOT LINUX – GET OVER IT.
People use BSD because:
a) they like it
b) they want to
c) there’s some particular thing they want to do
People use Linux because:
a) they like it
b) they want to
c) there’s some particular thing they want to do
It’s about choice – leave this idiotic flaimbait poll out of it.
I would really expact better of a site like this…
Actually, copyright has a lot to do with commercialization of intellectual property. That’s mainly why it was invented. Here, since you like definitions, the one found in Merriam-Webster:
“the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)”
It’s one factor out of three.
I can’t imagine how you can find the concept of ownership of literary, musical, artistic, and otherwise creative work “silly.”
Same reason I think the concept of “owning” a mathematical equation silly.
A copyright is a temporary monopoly granted on the expression of an idea: not the idea itself, nor the method – that would be patents.
So how much success do you think you will have recording a cover of some copyrighted song and selling it ?
In my opinion, the monopoly is way too long – the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has raised to 95 years, mostly due to Disney if you ask me.
That’s 95 years *after the death of the copyright holder*. How anyone can possibly support the idea of copyrights extending beyond the death of the author is beyond me.
But that’s besides the point. In the modern world, the concept of intellectual property is as important as that of material property.
Primarily to support corporate profiteering.
BTW, IP consists of not only of copyrights, but also patents, trade marks (brands) and trade secrets. Not all apply equally well to software – patents are an especially bad idea in software, as they stifle innovation. If you’re looking for unfair, take a good look at patents.
Patents have to be applied for and – by and large – really only do concern themselves with people profiting from other people’s “IP”. In that sense, they’re less flawed than copyright.
It is not up to you to judge if your sentence was clear or not, but rather up to your interlocutor, your audience.
You seem to be the only person who has had trouble.
But since you invoke context, let’s have a look at it.
[…]
“Conditions that guarantee derivatives are GPLed.”
What is the subject of this phrase? Is it “conditions that” or “Conditions that guarantee derivatives”?
Well, y’see, there’s actually *two* subjects to the sentence. The “conditions” – that is, the conditions imposed by the GPL, as is obvious from the context of the sentence – and the “derivatives” – that is, code that is derived from other GPLed code.
So we can safely say that the noun phrase “conditions that guarantee derivatives” is the subject of the sentence you wrote. This leaves “are GPLed” as the predicate. The structure therefore appears to be:
[conditions that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed]
Try this:
[conditions] [that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed].
It’s a follow-on sentence. A fragment of a discussion. It’s meaningless without context. I’m writing in a forum and working under the assumption readers are moving from one post to another and don’t need to be reminded at every stage of the topic under discussion. It’s supposed to be read like verbal transcript, not an essay.
Meanwhile, I asked you in a precedent post if you could cite me legally-binding documents that protect individual rights better than the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You still haven’t provided any. I will keep asking.
To what end ? Why are “legally binding documents” protecting individual rights “better than the US Constitution” even relevant to any part of this discussion ? At no stage have I suggested the Constitution is wrong. At no stage have I suggested the Constitution is bad. At no stage have I suggested any other “legally binding document” was better. All I have said is that it shouldn’t be considered the only measure of basic rights.
They don’t “ensure” freedom from harm, they “increase” it. They increase it through dissuasion and punishment, as I previously stated. Dissuasion, because some of what you call “honest” people might not be as good if there not the threat of prison or fines. Punishment, because by putting criminals away the law are prevents further crimes that they might have committed.
It’s an interesting idea, this “you are only free when they are free from harm”. When am I “free from harm” ? Is it when the law says someone can’t physically assault me ? Is it when the law says someone can’t verbally abuse me ? Is it when the law says someone can’t try and rip me off ? Is it when the law says someone can’t sell me bad food ? Is it when the law says I can’t eat whatever I want ? Is it when the law says I can’t inadvertently harm myself ? Is it when the law says I can’t deliberately harm myself ? Is it when the law says I can’t ask someone else to harm me ? Is it when the law says I can’t think “harmful thoughts” ?
At which point am I “free from enough” to be “free” ? How many restrictions does it take ?
Are you seriously claiming that things would be pretty much the same if there were no laws?
No. I am saying the concept of freedom would still exist if there were no laws.
How old do you think it is?
I would say it’s been around for as long as life has and has probably been “conceived” for as long as intelligent life has existed.
How old do you think the concept of law is?
I seem to recall some bloke called Hammurabi codifed the first set of laws. Google tells me that was back around 1800BC.
Without a recourse to laws, you’d have to take the matter in your own hands, i.e. use force or other methods of coercition. I don’t see why, in a similar context, one couldn’t use force or coercition to stop people from commercially using one’s intellectual property.
Do you think you could stop someone humming a song you played them if you couldn’t hear them ? Do you think you could make someone with a photographic memory forget a book you wrote ?
Copyright is *much* more expansive that just stopping person A commercially using person B’s ‘intellectual property’, it’s about stopping person A ‘having’ person B’s ‘intellectual property’ _at all_. If it was only about “commercialisation”, then all those people downloading music and all those people with warezed software they never even install, let alone use, wouldn’t be doing anything illegal.
Not all countries have those “fair use” principles that you’re undoubtedly going to try and use as counterpoints, either. Principles that only exist due to *legal challenges* as they are not inherent – indeed, they are directly opposed – to the principle of copyright (and I don’t think they’re codifed in the US Constitution either).
For example, in Australia it is illegal to record just about everything (there are a few exceptions) off of TV *for any purpose* (including time-shifting). Of course, no-one ever gets prosecuted for doing so but it is illegal. Moreover, it is clearly *supposed* to be illegal under the principle of copyright.
People? I don’t think there’s anybody else reading our long-winded rants on this thread.
Well, there do appear to be new posts that are from other people.
I’m just taunting you, that’s all.
Ah, you must be French-Canadian.
Sneaky, responding to a thread that has gone off the main page…
Oh well, here I go!
It’s one factor out of three.
In other words, it’s pretty important, proving you wrong. Also, the definition state that it’s a right, proving you wrong again.
Same reason I think the concept of “owning” a mathematical equation silly.
A mathematical equation is not the same thing as a text, a song, a movie or a computer program. The two don’t even come close. Once again, you are wrong.
So how much success do you think you will have recording a cover of some copyrighted song and selling it ?
Well, since a song is an expression of an idea (both through lyrics and melody), then you are simply proving my point. Thanks.
Primarily to support corporate profiteering.
Funny how you defend corporate profiteering by saying that the BSD is better than the GPL, but condemn it when deseperately trying to argue that IP rights are not important.
Anyway, forget corporate profiteering. What about authors? Songwriters? Artists? Don’t they deserve to be compensated for their original work?
You’ve dug yourself a pretty deep hole, boy. You should really have quit five posts ago. Now you just look silly.
You seem to be the only person who has had trouble.
Well, since I’m about the only person reading your posts, it seems that you should be concerned about it…
Well, y’see, there’s actually *two* subjects to the sentence.
I think you should revise your grammar: sentences can only have one subject. It can be a compound subject (i.e. “cats and lions are felines”) or it can be a noun phrase (i.e. “the chicken I ate last night was very good”), but sentences have only one subject.
In the case of a compound subject, you can actually remove either one of them and the sentence still makes sense. In the example above, you could say “lions are felines” and it still makes sense. With your sentence, what we have is “that guarantee derivatives are GPLed” which is an incorrectly structured sentence.
The more you try to weasel out of this one, the worse you come out looking. Just admit you wrote a bad sentence and that I called it out.
It’s a follow-on sentence. A fragment of a discussion.
Even as a fragmented sentence, it was confusing and meant something else that you wanted. Admit it.
To what end ? Why are “legally binding documents” protecting individual rights “better than the US Constitution” even relevant to any part of this discussion ?
Because you claimed that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not good measure of rights. I asked you to indicate which ones would be. You haven’t, because you were really talking without thinking it through.
No. I am saying the concept of freedom would still exist if there were no laws.
The concept, but not the reality. Then again, seeing as how you claim that IP is not a right despite evidence to the contrary, it seems clear that you are not interested in the real world, but would rather stay in your own bubble of rethoric.
I would say it’s been around for as long as life has and has probably been “conceived” for as long as intelligent life has existed.
I disagree. If no one is there to articulate the concept, then it doesn’t exist. And I’m pretty sure that it got articulated at about the same time as the first laws were.
Do you think you could stop someone humming a song you played them if you couldn’t hear them ? Do you think you could make someone with a photographic memory forget a book you wrote ?[i]
Humming a song is not misusing someone else’s IP. You can even make a single copy for backup purposes. These things are known as “fair use”. Learing and retaining information, even photographically, has [i]nothing to do with IP infringement. I’m sorry, but that’s a stupid example. However, if the person with photographic memory were to reproduce the book completely and then publish it, he would be infringing.
Please, learn a bit more about IP laws before debating them.
Copyright is *much* more expansive that just stopping person A commercially using person B’s ‘intellectual property’, it’s about stopping person A ‘having’ person B’s ‘intellectual property’ _at all_.
False. It is about stopping person A from reproducing and redistributing person B’s IP.
If it was only about “commercialisation”, then all those people downloading music and all those people with warezed software they never even install, let alone use, wouldn’t be doing anything illegal.
Completely false. Downloading warez or mp3s is not illegal, sharing them on the Internet is. The acquisition in itself breaks not law, but the distribution does.
You are clearly ignorant of what IP law covers. Please get a clue before arguing things that can easily be proven wrong.
Principles that only exist due to *legal challenges* as they are not inherent – indeed, they are directly opposed – to the principle of copyright (and I don’t think they’re codifed in the US Constitution either).
False again. “Fair use” is part of copyright law. Stop arguing and start reading up on it, you might look less like a fool in the next thread about this.
Well, there do appear to be new posts that are from other people.
However, that doesn’t prove that they are reading our rants.
Ah, you must be French-Canadian.
Indeed. And yet here I am correcting your english grammar…
Sorry about the missing italics closing tag. I should have used the Preview button. Oh well, I’m sure you’ll be able to work it out.
In other words, it’s pretty important, proving you wrong. Also, the definition state that it’s a right, proving you wrong again.
Where I come from, one out of three is a minority – and it states copyright is a “legal right”. Ie: one *granted* by legal precedent, not *inherent*.
A mathematical equation is not the same thing as a text, a song, a movie or a computer program. The two don’t even come close.
Unless, apparently, it’s printed on the photocopied page of a textbook.
Funny how you defend corporate profiteering by saying that the BSD is better than the GPL, but condemn it when deseperately trying to argue that IP rights are not important.
Please show where I supported corporate profiteering by saying the BSDL is better than the GPL. Heck, I don’t think I’ve even said the BSDL is better at all, just that it has less restrictions.
Anyway, forget corporate profiteering. What about authors? Songwriters? Artists? Don’t they deserve to be compensated for their original work?
Of course they do. We just need a fairer system than copyright to do it with.
I think you should revise your grammar: sentences can only have one subject.
Repeat after me. This is not an English competition. We are not writing formally. We are conversing on an informal internet forum.
The more you try to weasel out of this one, the worse you come out looking. Just admit you wrote a bad sentence and that I called it out.
Yep, you got me. It makes perfect sense in context and style, communicates precisely what I meant to say and if read alound in context wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow, but it’s technically incorrect.
Even as a fragmented sentence, it was confusing and meant something else that you wanted. Admit it.
A bit like that one there, perhaps ?
Because you claimed that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not good measure of rights.
No, I didn’t. I said:
“Please don’t tell me the US Constitution is your measure of “rights”, because it certainly isn’t mine – personally I consider health care to be much more of a “right” than gun ownership.”
‘Measure’ in this context clearly meaning ‘only’ or ‘best’. Ie: I don’t consider the US Constitution to be the single best representation of basic rights in existence.
The concept, but not the reality.
The reality is even *with* laws no-one is “free from harm” and with restrictions on what they can do, they aren’t even ‘free’ in concept.
Then again, seeing as how you claim that IP is not a right despite evidence to the contrary, it seems clear that you are not interested in the real world, but would rather stay in your own bubble of rethoric.
Well, y’see, that’s because if all anyone ever did was talk about the status quo, they wouldn’t be very interesting discussions.
I disagree. If no one is there to articulate the concept, then it doesn’t exist. And I’m pretty sure that it got articulated at about the same time as the first laws were.
Would that count as an ‘observation’ “not supported by some kind of data” and, therefore, “worthless” ?
Slavery has probably been around longer than codfied law. To me that implies freedom – at least in concept – has as well.
I would propose to you that no-one needs to “articulate the concept” for it to exist. Even a bird knows the difference between being caged and uncaged.
Humming a song is not misusing someone else’s IP. You can even make a single copy for backup purposes.
It certainly is by the concept of ‘copyright’. It’s reproducing a song without permission. Playing loud music in public is only marginally different in concept, and that’s also against the spirit of copyright (and probably the law in some places).
Or have you forgotten about that time the girl scouts got in trouble for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire ?
You can’t always make a backup either – like here in Australia, for example.
Learing and retaining information, even photographically, has nothing to do with IP infringement.
Yes, it does. You are reproducing copyrighted information in your brain. How is that any different from photocopying it from a book, copying it off the internet, or recording it from someone else’s CD ? All of these things are illegal in most countries.
Heck, the inherent nature of the internet caused (and is still causing in some places) all sorts of technical legal headaches because of all the copying it requires just to work.
I’m sorry, but that’s a stupid example.
I would have said ridiculous – but it is that way deliberately to try and illustrate the silliness of copyright.
However, if the person with photographic memory were to reproduce the book completely and then publish it, he would be infringing.
Certainly in Australia, if he reproduced it at all he would be infringing. Not to mention that such a reproduction – even if only for personal use – is ‘illegal’ by the principles embodied by copyright, albeot allowed in many jurisdictions (again, due to hard-fought legal precedents and *not* the fundamental concept of copyright).
Please, learn a bit more about IP laws before debating them.
Not everywhere has copyright laws as liberal as Canada. Most of them (that have copyright laws at all) are much more strict (one of the reasons I’m considering moving there).
I wouldn’t count on having all those “fair use” rights forever, either – the media companies are fighting tooth and nail to have them removed.
It is about stopping person A from reproducing and redistributing person B’s IP.
Again, not in all jurisdictions and certainly not in principle. Any reproduction of “IP” made without the copyright holder’s consent – even if made directly from the original and only for personal (ie: not redistribution) use – is at the very least a copyright infringement in principle (and often in law, depending on where you are).
Downloading warez or mp3s is not illegal, sharing them on the Internet is. The acquisition in itself breaks not law, but the distribution does.
Would that count as a “bad sentence” ?
Downloading warez and MP3s most certainly *is* illegal in most jurisdictions (although not in Canada, IIRC, lucky you).
You think Microsoft wouldn’t prosecute someone using an unlicensed copy of Office ?
False again. “Fair use” is part of copyright law. Stop arguing and start reading up on it, you might look less like a fool in the next thread about this.
Please decide whether you want to consider copyright a ‘law’ or a ‘right’ (since ‘rights’ are supposed to transcend ‘laws’ by being “inalienable”). Is “fair use” a ‘right’ or a ‘law’ ? If it’s a ‘right’, can you show where in, say, the US Constituion it is ? The WIPO, who insists copyright is a basic human right, certainly doesn’t consider “fair use” a right, saying it is a matter for local law.
Oh, and “fair use” certainly isn’t part of copyright law in every country.
As an aside, something I really find amazing about copyright is that socialist European societies actually produced a vastly more restrictive, individualistic and negative-for-society-at-large copyright regime than places like the US, with it’s strong capitalism/individual property ownership/every-man-for-himself culture.
Indeed. And yet here I am correcting your english grammar…
In my experience, people who didn’t learn English as a mother tongue (don’t know if that applies to you) have much better technical grammar than people who did. Conversely, they often have difficulties with non-formal grammar, colloquialisms, slang and things that are written as they would be said, rather than as they should be (formally) written.
Where I come from, one out of three is a minority – and it states copyright is a “legal right”. Ie: one *granted* by legal precedent, not *inherent*.[/i]
All rights are legal rights. There are no inherent rights. They are all derived from law.
Unless, apparently, it’s printed on the photocopied page of a textbook.
Uh, no. The formulas in a textbook aren’t covered by copyright. The text that explains them and the concepts behind them are, however.
Each new argument about this reveals your lack of knowledge. There are only two of us left reading this, and you’re spectacularly failing to convince. Of course, I’m not about to get you to admit that you’re wrong either, so we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Please show where I supported corporate profiteering by saying the BSDL is better than the GPL. Heck, I don’t think I’ve even said the BSDL is better at all, just that it has less restrictions.
So you simply don’t believe in IP rights because people can make money off of it? Okay, you’re entitled to your opinion. Personally, I believe that IP rights are important.
‘Measure’ in this context clearly meaning ‘only’ or ‘best’. Ie: I don’t consider the US Constitution to be the single best representation of basic rights in existence.
And I asked you to name me a better one. You haven’t.
It certainly is by the concept of ‘copyright’. It’s reproducing a song without permission.
Please indicate to me a single example of someone being sued for copyright infringement because they hummed a song.
Or have you forgotten about that time the girl scouts got in trouble for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire ?
I’d love a link, to see how that story turned out. I’m not saying the RIAA isn’t going overboard – I hate these guys and their tactics – but that doesn’t mean that IP rights in themselves are silly. Don’t throw the baby with the bathwater.
Yes, it does. You are reproducing copyrighted information in your brain.
Whaaaaaaaat? No you’re not, you’re perceiving copyrighted information. That’s nothing like reproducing – for starters, you can’t redistribute your brain’s perception – even if you’re one of the rare people with photographic memory.
I’m sorry, but are you trying to make me break OSNews’ posting terms by calling you a moron? Because it’s almost working. I better stop before I give in.