4 ms·

Well it seems that many (if not most) of the posters here side with the girl's explanation. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I take your GPL product, i

Well it seems that many (if not most) of the posters here side with the girl's explanation. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I take your GPL product, incorporate it into my closed-source set top box and refuse to release the source. After all, it's not like I've stolen anything or deprived you of revenue.

Tichy 16y ago
Fair point, but people tend to feel differently about the issue once somebody is making money from the IP theft. Eleanore apparently is a teenager trying to become an artist, not a scammer who repackages that artists compositions for ad jingles and becomes a millionaire from it. No matter what the law says or what you think about it, aspects like that will factor into what people FEEL is right.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  The problem is that Eleanor is not a special and unique butterfly floating inside her own private quantum singularity. Instead, she's just one person among millions out there who could use the same frickin excuse she's using. "I'm special. I can't afford it. (Well, not that AND my iPod AND my cool clothes AND..." Also, technically Jason's reason for contacting her originally was not to accuse her of taking a free copy for herself. It was to ask her to stop making it free for others. Because strictly speaking, if she only took a single free copy for herself, and if the only alternative to that if a free copy was not available was that she would have to buy -- and if she literally could not afford it or would not buy it -- then yes in that circumstance she could argue reasonably that she did not deny him revenue. But that's not the argument. The argument is that she's making free copies further available to others, some of whom would have otherwise bought copies. Whether there is or is not a stimulative effect leading to more copies bought from him is not for her to reason about it -- it's literally none of her business, and not her right to decide -- only his. He created that frickin music. Let him decide, and honor his wishes. Not much to ask, really.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Why should Eleanor care about the things you mention?
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Mother: Eleanor, dear, do not steal from our neighbors, they don't like that. Eleanor: Why? Why should I care about that? They weren't using that stuff anyway. Not that I'm admitting to that. Because I'm not. ... Mother: Please don't sneak into our neighbor's home when they're gone. Even if you don't take anything, and even if the back door is unlocked. It's not nice. Eleanor: Why mom? I just want to have fun. Why is everybody always picking on me? ... Mother: Please don't throw bubble-gum on the sidewalk dear. Eleanor: I was done with it. Why do you keep pestering me. (pouts) Mother: Because dear, people walking by may not see it and step on it, getting on their shoes. It's very hard to get off, and kinda gross. Eleanor: So? Why should I care about that? Why should I care about any of the things you mention? Mother: sighs Somebody I hope you'll understand dear. I really do.
      - Tichy 16y ago
        digital goods can be copied
        mkramlich 16y ago
        cash can be copied. dollar bills can be counter-feited. banks can be broken into neighbors cars can be broken into and their stuff stolen from the seat ...ad infinitum...
kiba 16y ago
Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch". Some people, like me, just don't feel like we have anything to lose, but we also accept the fact that somebody might make a million bucks off my work and be totally fine with it. In fact, I mostly evolved a sort of indifference as I diverge from the BSD and GPL hardliner positions to "hey, let just share!" I live most of my formative years immersed in open source software. It just feel icky not to give anything back for so much of the free education that they enabled and provided for me in addition to all the great tools that I have the privilege to use. The author obviously come from a very different culture, a culture that doesn't automatically share its capitals and works, that of which is clearly alien to me, if not to hackers in general. For me, money and sharing isn't something that belong to the exclusively of one side or another, like charity and jobs. Money and sharing isn't in conflict at all. In fact, I like to think more sharing lead to more cash. It's a clash of cultures really, but it doesn't mean each culture is equally good, just with a different perspective. What's really happening is a conquest and battle of ideologies, heart and minds, and which make more money. If one culture is clearly better than the other at this, then they are truly the superior culture.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch". Yes, and some people make their artistic works available via Creative Commons or public domain. But others enforce their copyrights, just like some software authors provide their works under the GPL. The BSD license or a "clash of cultures" isn't an excuse to ignore the GPL.
  - kiba 16y ago
    Nobody is saying that it's an excuse to not respect the GPL.
john_45 16y ago
the FSF would go after closed boxes containing GPL software, and not releasing sources.
- mukyu 16y ago
  The FSF does not randomly go off and fight for GPL software projects. They only fight for those that they own the copyrights for (been specifically assigned the copyrights by the authors).
tome 16y ago
Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. This is not the basis under which they should be compared. The correct comparison proceeds by thinking about which of the two actions is ethically justifiable. You might as well have said "You want to break the speed limit to get your pregnant wife to hospital. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I break the speed limit to get to the sports game."
- Anechoic 16y ago
  You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. No, I've compared people offering products under a set of conditions and then people breaking those conditions to use those products. JB offered his products under the conditions that people pay him for the privilege and GPL authors offer their products under the condition that people abide by the GPL. Why do we get to ignore JB's conditions and yet have to abide by the GPL?
  - tome 16y ago
    OK then: Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both released under a set of conditions. The point is you haven't taken in to account the relative validity of the conditions. You can't equate them simply because they are "conditions". The conditions of the GPL are (put very simply) "you must share". The conditions of JB's work are (put very simply) "you must not share". You don't get to compare instances of infringing each of those rules unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. If you're going to say "If you do X don't be pissed if I do Y" then the onus is on you to show that X and Y are equivalent.
    - cschwarm 16y ago
      > ...unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise? In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too. Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid. Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?

Tichy 16y ago

Fair point, but people tend to feel differently about the issue once somebody is making money from the IP theft. Eleanore apparently is a teenager trying to become an artist, not a scammer who repackages that artists compositions for ad jingles and becomes a millionaire from it. No matter what the law says or what you think about it, aspects like that will factor into what people FEEL is right.

mkramlich 16y ago
The problem is that Eleanor is not a special and unique butterfly floating inside her own private quantum singularity. Instead, she's just one person among millions out there who could use the same frickin excuse she's using. "I'm special. I can't afford it. (Well, not that AND my iPod AND my cool clothes AND..." Also, technically Jason's reason for contacting her originally was not to accuse her of taking a free copy for herself. It was to ask her to stop making it free for others. Because strictly speaking, if she only took a single free copy for herself, and if the only alternative to that if a free copy was not available was that she would have to buy -- and if she literally could not afford it or would not buy it -- then yes in that circumstance she could argue reasonably that she did not deny him revenue. But that's not the argument. The argument is that she's making free copies further available to others, some of whom would have otherwise bought copies. Whether there is or is not a stimulative effect leading to more copies bought from him is not for her to reason about it -- it's literally none of her business, and not her right to decide -- only his. He created that frickin music. Let him decide, and honor his wishes. Not much to ask, really.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Why should Eleanor care about the things you mention?
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Mother: Eleanor, dear, do not steal from our neighbors, they don't like that. Eleanor: Why? Why should I care about that? They weren't using that stuff anyway. Not that I'm admitting to that. Because I'm not. ... Mother: Please don't sneak into our neighbor's home when they're gone. Even if you don't take anything, and even if the back door is unlocked. It's not nice. Eleanor: Why mom? I just want to have fun. Why is everybody always picking on me? ... Mother: Please don't throw bubble-gum on the sidewalk dear. Eleanor: I was done with it. Why do you keep pestering me. (pouts) Mother: Because dear, people walking by may not see it and step on it, getting on their shoes. It's very hard to get off, and kinda gross. Eleanor: So? Why should I care about that? Why should I care about any of the things you mention? Mother: sighs Somebody I hope you'll understand dear. I really do.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      digital goods can be copied
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        cash can be copied. dollar bills can be counter-feited. banks can be broken into neighbors cars can be broken into and their stuff stolen from the seat ...ad infinitum...

kiba 16y ago

Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch". Some people, like me, just don't feel like we have anything to lose, but we also accept the fact that somebody might make a million bucks off my work and be totally fine with it. In fact, I mostly evolved a sort of indifference as I diverge from the BSD and GPL hardliner positions to "hey, let just share!" I live most of my formative years immersed in open source software. It just feel icky not to give anything back for so much of the free education that they enabled and provided for me in addition to all the great tools that I have the privilege to use. The author obviously come from a very different culture, a culture that doesn't automatically share its capitals and works, that of which is clearly alien to me, if not to hackers in general. For me, money and sharing isn't something that belong to the exclusively of one side or another, like charity and jobs. Money and sharing isn't in conflict at all. In fact, I like to think more sharing lead to more cash. It's a clash of cultures really, but it doesn't mean each culture is equally good, just with a different perspective. What's really happening is a conquest and battle of ideologies, heart and minds, and which make more money. If one culture is clearly better than the other at this, then they are truly the superior culture.

Anechoic 16y ago
Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch". Yes, and some people make their artistic works available via Creative Commons or public domain. But others enforce their copyrights, just like some software authors provide their works under the GPL. The BSD license or a "clash of cultures" isn't an excuse to ignore the GPL.
- kiba 16y ago
  Nobody is saying that it's an excuse to not respect the GPL.

john_45 16y ago

the FSF would go after closed boxes containing GPL software, and not releasing sources.

mukyu 16y ago
The FSF does not randomly go off and fight for GPL software projects. They only fight for those that they own the copyrights for (been specifically assigned the copyrights by the authors).

tome 16y ago

Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. This is not the basis under which they should be compared. The correct comparison proceeds by thinking about which of the two actions is ethically justifiable. You might as well have said "You want to break the speed limit to get your pregnant wife to hospital. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I break the speed limit to get to the sports game."

Anechoic 16y ago
You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal. No, I've compared people offering products under a set of conditions and then people breaking those conditions to use those products. JB offered his products under the conditions that people pay him for the privilege and GPL authors offer their products under the condition that people abide by the GPL. Why do we get to ignore JB's conditions and yet have to abide by the GPL?
- tome 16y ago
  OK then: Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both released under a set of conditions. The point is you haven't taken in to account the relative validity of the conditions. You can't equate them simply because they are "conditions". The conditions of the GPL are (put very simply) "you must share". The conditions of JB's work are (put very simply) "you must not share". You don't get to compare instances of infringing each of those rules unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. If you're going to say "If you do X don't be pissed if I do Y" then the onus is on you to show that X and Y are equivalent.
  - cschwarm 16y ago
    > ...unless you can demonstrate that a requirement to share has equivalent ethical validity to a requirement not to share. You assume these have no equivalent ethical validity. But you fail to provide a rationale for your assumption. So, why should anyone accept your premise? In fact, both are equally valid: If you expect others to keep their promise to share something, you should keep your promise to share something, too. If you expect others to keep their promise NOT to share something, you should keep your promise NOT to share something, too. Both are derived from the Golden Rule and are thus equally valid. Consequently, if you feel entitled to break your promise NOT to share something, why should anyone else respect their promise to share something?