tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post5368612818836503933..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: The Free Software PactGlyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-44077637840387605842009-05-24T07:42:09.816+00:002009-05-24T07:42:09.816+00:00Yes, I don't think history will be too kind to the...Yes, I don't think history will be too kind to them or their efforts to put money above ethics.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-75368150742383660902009-05-24T06:35:45.298+00:002009-05-24T06:35:45.298+00:00Glyn,
Agreed. Software is politics. I can't claim...Glyn,<br /><br />Agreed. Software is politics. I can't claim to be as prescient as RMS, but I saw this coming not long after the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses" REL="nofollow">Creative Commons Licences</A> were released in 2002. A Record Company executive was interviewed about them (no, I don't remember who, or exactly when), and his comment was <B>"The Creative Commons Licenses are not legal"</B>.<br /><br />Ihe record companies, and other Intellectual Monopolists have no interest in cultural freedom. In fact they believe it's having a negative impact on their profits, and therefore they stand against it. I didn't immediately undertand the reason. I don't know why, maybe I'm a bit slow, but then <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group" REL="nofollow">SCO Group</A> tried to claim that the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License" REL="nofollow">GNU General Public License</A> is <B>invalid</B>. The Creative Commons is just a variation on the GNU GPL.If either can be legislated out of existence, profits should increase.<br /><br />If the RIAA/MPAA can shut down Free Culture, they think that they can make more a lot money. I suspect that as "Custodians of Culture), they would try to arrange things so that the copyrights of anything published under the GPL/Creative Commons licenses would be transfed to the, at no cost. Profit!<br /><br />They have been lobbying for years change the Copyright Act, and have had some success (see the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA" REL="nofollow">DMCA</A>. This is just a logical continuation. The <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics" REL="nofollow">ethics</A> are questionable, but it appears to me that profits are more important to them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-65990150658876029082009-05-22T15:55:57.957+00:002009-05-22T15:55:57.957+00:00Absolutely.Absolutely.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-85951928541935245842009-05-22T15:31:31.788+00:002009-05-22T15:31:31.788+00:00"The other is that supporters of free software and..."<I>The other is that supporters of free software and the rest are beginning to realise that the main obstacles to spreading openness are increasingly political, rather than technical.</I>"<br /><br />Indeed. rms saw this many years ago and its counter-effort leads the ignorant to label his vision, "extremism".<br /><br />If it were really true that this is merely a technical matter, then rms and his rhetoric is utter foolishness. But any considerate individual understands that this isn't the case. Code controls.<br /><br />"Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'." isn't just a clever way of putting it...it has profound and deep meaning.Peterhttp://gnuosphere.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com