Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
Who could be upset by a scheme that allows free use of software? Well, Gervase Markham has found one Trading Standards officer who is
Who could possibly be upset with the Mozilla Foundation for giving away its Firefox browser?
One of my roles at the Mozilla Foundation relates to copyright licensing. I'm responsible for making sure that the software we distribute respects the conditions of the free software licences of the underlying code. I'm also the first point of contact for licensing questions.
Most of the time, this job involves helping people who want to use our code in their own products understand the terms, or advising project members who want to integrate code from another project into our codebase. Occasionally, however, something a little more unusual comes along.
A little while ago, I received an e-mail from a lady in the Trading Standards department of a large northern town. They had encountered businesses which were selling copies of Firefox, and wanted to confirm that this was in violation of our licence agreements before taking action against them. * Click here to find out more!
I wrote back, politely explaining the principles of copyleft – that the software was free, both as in speech and as in price, and that people copying and redistributing it was a feature, not a bug. I said that selling verbatim copies of Firefox on physical media was absolutely fine with us, and we would like her to return any confiscated CDs and allow us to continue with our plan for world domination (or words to that effect).
Unfortunately, this was not well received. Her reply was incredulous:
"I can't believe that your company would allow people to make money from something that you allow people to have free access to. Is this really the case?" she asked.
"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."
I felt somewhat unnerved at being held responsible for the disintegration of the UK anti-piracy system. Who would have thought giving away software could cause such difficulties?
However, given that the free software movement is unlikely collectively to decide to go proprietary in order to make her life easier, I had another go, using examples like Linux and the OpenOffice office suite to show that it's not just Firefox which is throwing a spanner in the works.
She then asked me to identify myself, so that she could confirm that I was authorised to speak for the Mozilla Foundation on this matter. I wondered if she was imagining nefarious copyright-infringing street traders taking a few moments off from shouting about the price of bananas to pop into an internet cafe, crack a router and intercept her e-mail.
However, the more I thought about it, providing a sensible reply to that question is somewhat difficult. How could I prove I was authorised to speak for the Foundation? We're a virtual organisation – we have three employees, one in Vancouver, one in Virginia and one in leafy North London, with no office or registered trading address in the UK. As far as the Mozilla part of my life goes, my entire existence is electronic.
In the end, I just had to say that the fact that I am capable of receiving and replying to e-mail addressed to licensing@mozilla.org would have to be sufficient. She would just have to take it on trust that I was not a router-cracking banana merchant. She must have done so, as I never heard from her again.
While the identity verification aspect of this incident is amusing, what is more serious is the set of assumptions her e-mails implied. It demonstrates how the free software model disrupts the old proprietary way of doing things, where copying was theft and you were guilty until proven innocent.
In a world where both types of software exist, greater discernment is required on the part of the enforcers. I hope this is the beginning of the end of any automatic assumption that sharing software with your neighbour must be a crime.
Gervase Markham says that he works for the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting choice and innovation on the internet. Of course, he may just be a banana seller. His blog is Hacking For Christ
The "daddy" of closed source software got his start by stealing computer time at Harvard. He only avoided expulsion and jail time because his father (a corporate IP lawyer) sent lots of money to Harvard.
Everything since has been one theft after another.
There was commiting fraud on IBM by selling something that he didn't have.
There was stealing code from Stac software.
I could go on.
So, as long as you want to make the argument about who's daddy is more evil, you better clean up your own back yard first.
Begone, foul troll.
Like most here, I support OSS, but RMS doesn't speak for me.
These facts I think all of us here can agree on...
The major business model of many websites is to give at least portion of their services free to lure you in and sells you on the "upgrade" or just charges for advertisers.
I'm guessing this fella thinks that network TV is communist as well, seeing as how I can get it free (with rabbit ears).
Biggest and most single minded, maybe. But certainly not the best. I know of trolls way more skilled, and the absolute best are the ones I can't even catch a sniff of.
Well it's time you admit that "whacko" is the father and face of your movement, and until you get rid of him, which you never will, you can't just wish him away. We all saw Torvalds wilt before him just last week.
Here is what Stallman actually said about his motivations for GNU.
His statements don't seem at all anti-capitalist in bent, but very pro-freedom, and fully intending to promote the intention of the Founders in increasing human knowledge through LIMITED patent and copyright rights. The man is unquestionably utopian in bent, but I don't see him as intending an end to capitalism through GNU at all, just moving to the idea of a "post-scarcity world." And even were his aims anti-capitalist, he will not end capitalism simply throught distribution of free software.
I never said RMS is the father or the face of OSS. Yes, he's the most well-known figure, and one that MS shills (like you) love to associate with any OSS advocate they meet.
RMS is to most of the OSS community as Lincoln Chafee is to the Republican Party--a total hack who most good people ignore.
Prove that Torvalds wilted to RMS~Last I heard, Torvalds said no way to GPL v.3.
Yeah, sounds like he wilted to me. /sarc
True, a really skilled troll will suck people in in a more subtle manner. I've been on the internet since before the 'web' even existed. Most interactive activity took place on listservs and newsgroups, and I've seen all kinds. Our primary 'tech troll' does seem to have the ability to engage people here from its sheer bloody single mindedness. People don't want to leave the uninformed to think that he may have a point. Personally, I just really don't care about such things beyond pointing out the fact that it uses this conservative political forum here on FreeRepublic for its own amusement.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who noticed how much more pleasant the tech threads were during December and the early part of January when the resident troll was apparently otherwise occupied. If you look back through the threads, there were disagreements about things, as is the natural course of things, but it was much more pleasant, as people were interested in contributing to the threads, and not just picking a single point to drive the thread down his chosen path to eliminate any signal present and drown it out in complete and utter noise.
I don't think I've met a FReeper who would disagree with that.
and 75+ percent of "open source" is released under his license.
Not so fast. I said I've heard numbers around there, never said I believed them since the spread of numbers I've heard is so wide.
Stallman admits that the "movement" was common practice at MIT by the time he got there. In the acadamic world software was shared with those who asked for it, and re-shared, and re-shared. What set him off was when they got a PDP and he was suddenly told he had to sign an NDA and couldn't share anything anymore. So he just started writing his own OS, the beginning of GNU, thus the "free software movement" as you know it.
Really what the GPL/GNU/FSF tries to do is recreate the rules that the old hacker community lived by before Stallman even joined it.
Page rank is the name of their search engine and is what decides whether you show up at all. Who knows why submission didn't work, they don't guarantee it on the submission page, but somewhere deep down in the bowels of Page Rank is the reason why you're not showing. It isn't related to payment though.
Don't forget the literally hundreds of Red Hat kernel developers.
Really, you can't argue with someone who just makes up random numbers off the top of his head.
OK, Buzzy. Back away from the computer and repeat after me:
It's only an internet forum...
It's only an internet forum...
It's only an internet forum...
^^^^^^^^^^You get more ridiculous with every post. Capitalism is based on private ownership of property^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's an important cornerstone of capitalism, but that's not what it's about.
Capitalism is an economic system based on individual rights. You have the right to privately own (pick something) but to limit capitalism simply to ownership shows how flawed your argument is.
To a business owner, employees are important capital but you don't own them. Capitalism is not limited to ownership.
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm
^^^^^^Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.^^^^^^^^^
Including, but not limited to. There's more to capitalism than just money and property.
Don't let GE get away with that. Capitalism is not based on private ownership. It's based on individual rights.(of which private ownership is an important cornerstone)
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are almost all of my posts being done from my Palm Treo then? If I was a MS shill I'd obviously be using a Windows Mobile device. Your pathetic attempts to pigeonhole me fail, again.
From Wikipedia, the "open source encyclopedia", again all very straightforward, except for those seemingly attempting to cover it all up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Richard Matthew Stallman (frequently abbreviated to RMS) (born March 16, 1953) is the founder of the free software movement, the GNU project, and the Free Software Foundation. An acclaimed programmer, his major accomplishments include Emacs (and the later GNU Emacs), the GNU C Compiler, and the GNU Debugger. He is also the author of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL), the most widely-used free software license, which pioneered the concept of the copyleft.
^^^^^^Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.^^^^^^^^^
Yet, you've hilariously attempted to claim that giving one's property away to the community was quote "*THE VERY DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM*" emphasis yours. HA, then you wonder why all I do is laugh at you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.