On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 	Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
> 	incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

True in casual setting, but false in professional field. Incompetence is equivalent to malice there.

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 11:44 +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote: […]
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_Investor_State_Dispute_Settlements_.28ISDS.29
> 
> I don't want to live on this planet anymore >_<
> ..yet again.

But we have to!

In a sense this is just the multinational corporations doing what they should do create a market to maximize shareholder value. Sadly it is an indirect return to a feudal system on a massive scale.

Today in the UK was a big day of 38 Degrees and The Green Party trying to create public consciousness of the issues. The Conservative and LibDems here are just up for signing TTIP because of the good bits (of which there are some), The Greens are against because of all the bits that are bad for UK voters and UK society (of which there are many, many). Labour are saying they both support and don't support it.

The core problem here is that most politicians are directly or indirectly reporting to these corporations as much as to the voters.


-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

 This doesn't bode well...

 Capcom is currently trying to sue another company on a patented function which basically allows a game to be updated/modified/expanded, yet there are examples of those techniques being used for 20 years before they patented their function.

 Although M$ doing this seems more like a move in order to muscle their way in for other things. Take the actions of their actions regarding Novell.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

[quote]
Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited protection from Microsoft patents to Novell's customers.
[/quote]

 It feels like they are trying to make a monopoly where they are the only ones able to make compilers, and anything with 'more useful features' have to pay them royalties or get a very expensive & limited license in order to be left alone.

 Of course there's other cases similar where idiots try to copyright the symbol pi, so they can then exploit it in order to sue companies and individuals for easy cash...

On 8/30/2014 9:49 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>
>   Although M$ doing this seems more like a move in order to muscle their
> way in for other things. Take the actions of their actions regarding
> Novell.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
>
> [quote]
> Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the
> Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents
> to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and
> made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited
> protection from Microsoft patents to Novell's customers.
> [/quote]
>
>   It feels like they are trying to make a monopoly where they are the
> only ones able to make compilers, and anything with 'more useful
> features' have to pay them royalties or get a very expensive & limited
> license in order to be left alone.
>
>   Of course there's other cases similar where idiots try to copyright
> the symbol pi, so they can then exploit it in order to sue companies and
> individuals for easy cash...

Y'know, that link above is a good example of why FSF and GPL bug me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "GPL vs BSD" guy. I genuinely believe both have their place, and the difference lies in is what your, and your project's, exact goals are.

And I completely agree with the full extent of Stallman's famously ultra-strict villainization of closed-box proprietary shackle-ware. That shit pisses me off far more than it does most people.

And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically* be cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way and used on paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so, based on what little anyone actually *can* comprehend of the incomprehensible GPL).

I *do* agree with Stallman's views, even most of the more extreme ones, I *want* to like FSF and GPL, but...

...but then there's stuff like that link above.

He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.

The FSF constantly sounds just like one of those worthless pro-issue #XX / anti-issue #XX asshats we have to put up with every voting season:

Stallman: MS is being EEEEeeevil!!

Me:       Um. Ok. I honestly don't doubt that. How are they doing this?

Stallman: They're being evil!! With the evil MS-Novell pact!

Me:       God dammit, Rick, *HOW*?!?

Stallman: ...

Stallman: EEEVIIILL!!!

Me:       Fuck. Fine. Forget it. So tell me about your GPL v3.

Stallman: It stops the MS eeeeviiil!!! Tivoization is bad! Upgrade to GPL v3!

Stallman: (But don't feel pressured to upgrade. But do it anyway. Have I used the word "tivoization" yet?)

Me:       Ok, *how* does your GPL v3 stop the MS evil?

Stallman: [Full, detailed explanation of DVD's anti-competitive backdoor shenanigans]

Me:       Yes, I'm well aware of that. Let's try this again: How does your GPL v3 stop *the MS-Novell evil* that you were just...sort of...telling me about?

Stallman: It stops it. Duh. Because it's freedom! FREEDOM! Did I mention I live under my desk?

Me:       ...

Stallman: Also, my awesome GPL(v3) is so fucking awesome IT EVEN FREAKING **BANS ITSELF(v2)**! How freaking FREEDOM is that!?! Sweet, right?! FREEEEDOOOOMMM!!!

Me:       Goddammit Stallman, GTF out of here.

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 04:25:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.

 If it's something like being on the news floor where they are talking to him, he doesn't have time. The loopholes he is talking about could take an hour of talk, not only in legal speak but in references and how things connect from law A to law B to law C, and how things actually work to the written letter of the law for an individual state (not to mention the whole country). They honestly aren't going to give him more than 5 minutes of screen time which means quite often for the large majority of people you have to greatly simplify it and keep it understandable for the general populous.

 The impression i got on the Novell pact: M$ would have acquired certain copyright ownership of all the programs that the OS contained. This would include programs such as: sort, awk, sed, grep, sh, tar, cpio, cp, mv, etc. Now since they have partial ownership, rights of all related programs that duplicate their effects fall under M$'s curfew (regardless who wrote them); They could start hampering on anyone trying to distribute OSes that involve any of these programs required to make the OS run, or sue them into the ground for infringing on copyright or patents; Thereby either you paid to keep the software somewhat free (probably each and every version/subversion) or they would gain total monopoly and Windows is the only OS you can get your hands on which you pay your usual $100-$200 for.

 I'm not sure how close i hit the bullseye, but i would imagine i'm not too far off. And if taken to court, they have the money and the influence to win regardless if they are right or wrong.

On 8/30/2014 10:04 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>>     Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
>>     incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
>
> True in casual setting, but false in professional field. Incompetence is
> equivalent to malice there.

I admit: I would never claim that malice isn't common. It certainly is, *especially* where suit-type professions occur (mba's, sales, etc).

It's just that I'm also convinced that stupidity, OTOH, is freaking *pandemic*.

Plus, if you ask me, a certain amount of stupidity is a necessary component of malice. If someone's being malicious about something, it's difficult to imagine there isn't *some* form of stupidity swimming around in their line of reasoning (if there even is a line of reasoning at all. And if not...well, lack of reasoning *is* a classic form of stupidity).

On 8/31/2014 12:57 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 04:25:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil
>> MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD
>> on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to
>> just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate
>> whores he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.
>
>   If it's something like being on the news floor where they are talking
> to him, he doesn't have time. The loopholes he is talking about could
> take an hour of talk, not only in legal speak but in references and how
> things connect from law A to law B to law C, and how things actually
> work to the written letter of the law for an individual state (not to
> mention the whole country). They honestly aren't going to give him more
> than 5 minutes of screen time which means quite often for the large
> majority of people you have to greatly simplify it and keep it
> understandable for the general populous.
>

Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman, not a TV sound bite.

>   The impression i got on the Novell pact: M$ would have acquired
> certain copyright ownership of all the programs that the OS contained.
> This would include programs such as: sort, awk, sed, grep, sh, tar,
> cpio, cp, mv, etc. Now since they have partial ownership, rights of all
> related programs that duplicate their effects fall under M$'s curfew
> (regardless who wrote them); They could start hampering on anyone trying
> to distribute OSes that involve any of these programs required to make
> the OS run, or sue them into the ground for infringing on copyright or
> patents; Thereby either you paid to keep the software somewhat free
> (probably each and every version/subversion) or they would gain total
> monopoly and Windows is the only OS you can get your hands on which you
> pay your usual $100-$200 for.
>
>   I'm not sure how close i hit the bullseye, but i would imagine i'm not
> too far off. And if taken to court, they have the money and the
> influence to win regardless if they are right or wrong.

Yea could be. And again, I don't doubt it. I just wish Stallman would have stepped out of evangelist mode long enough to be straightforward about things. And not pretend that "GPL incompatible with GPL" somehow isn't one hell of a gaping whole in that big 'ol "GPL == Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very unfortunate habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism get in the way of the practical realities of actually *attaining* said goals and successfully getting the messages across.

Another example of that self-defeat:

The OS distros which staunchly exclude non-open software (codecs, drivers, etc). Heck, I'm totally with Stallman that that stuff is horrible and we need to work against it.

But if you're saying...

"Here, use our OS, it's more ethical. Oh and BTW it won't let you watch your beloved dancing pig Flash animations without putting up a fight. (Or even easily connect to the internet at all if you have the wrong wireless chipset...You *DO* know the make and model of the chipset your motherboard uses for 802.11 don't you? Huh? Whadda mean 'Greek'?? It's Engl...oh.)"

If you're doing that, then all you accomplish is hijacking your own cause.

Nobody cares about your/our/his cause, they care about their dancing pigs and bowling elves. People will just stick with systems that are even LESS open, not more. It just won't work. That's why we have Mint and such. To make the transition easy and painless enough that even minor, unappreciated reasons like "ethincs" and "freedom" are enough to draw them over and hurt the shackleware peddler's bottom line.

And that kinda leads to another example:

I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now? Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts people from the more important matters.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:53:07 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean
may i ask you: is DMD "open" and "open source"? and why the heck i can't fork it and redistribute, if it's "open"?

everyone has it's own definition of what is "open" and what is "free".

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 05:53:39 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman, not a TV sound bite.

 Would you really be able to sift though possibly a 10-100 page description that you can't properly decipher unless you were a lawyer?

> straightforward about things. And not pretend that "GPL incompatible with GPL" somehow isn't one hell of a gaping whole in that big 'ol "GPL == Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

 The updated GPL handles cases that weren't come up with before the previous version was drafted. Like you mentioned with Tivoization.

> In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very unfortunate habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism get in the way of the practical realities of actually *attaining* said goals and successfully getting the messages across.

 He is strict probably because taking any steps back could have horrible consequences. Sometimes you can't accept the lesser evil.

> I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now? Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts people from the more important matters.

 I always thought he was quite clear on what kind of 'free' he was talking about. But i guess more importantly is to see things from his view.

 Stallman was around when software was free and sources were open; There was no copyright in effect, and everyone helped with everything; You shared source and specs and programs and got your work done. Then NDA (Non-disclosure agreements) and closed source from corporations preventing you from being able to help everyone because they didn't want to share the source or specs on how to use it. (At the time it was XeroX printers i believe) which was a big warning of what was to come.

 He watched first hand as software and the computer industry went from thriving and open and growing, to closed and proprietary and secretive. His goal and wish is never to have it all so closed again that can't do anything besides sell your ethics or soul to get by day to day.



On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 06:19:24 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> everyone has it's own definition of what is "open" and what is "free".

 With lack of understanding, it's similar to comparing what is sweet when you have grapefruit coated with sugar vs an orange.  Stallman has a strict criteria of what is 'free', but he refers to it as a programmer. You are free to run the program, to look at the source, to improve the source, to share the source... It has nothing to do with price/money.

 'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else. Really comes down to the license it's attached to.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:59:34 +0000
Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>   'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else.
> Really comes down to the license it's attached to.
that's why i'm using the term "Free and Open Source Software" instead of "Open Source Software" (which ESR promotes).