[Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
rod-lists at epbfi.com
Sat Dec 15 16:30:17 UTC 2012
My understanding is that RMs simply saying that you ought to be able to use electronic systems without proprietary bits being involved.
That is a position of choice. One most of us even in the linux world can not often do because proprietary drivers.
And let's face it, the move of computing to mobiles and tablet does endanger the freedom we were given during the microcomputer revolution.
----- DaWorm <daworm at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no way RMS affects us TODAY. But if he gets his way, THEN we
> would all be affected.
> On Dec 14, 2012 8:59 PM, "rdflowers" <base at chalice.us> wrote:
> > Stephen,
> > There is no way that RMS affects you, UNLESS this code of yours isn't
> > fully yours but you would like to incorporate someone else's code in your
> > own without fulfilling their license terms.
> > You wouldn't do that, would you?
> > I still don't see what some find to be unclear -- maybe just because it
> > just isn't convenient to them that things are as they are?
> > ----- Message from daworm at gmail.com ---------
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:13:30 -0500
> > From: DaWorm <daworm at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group <
> > chugalug at chugalug.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
> > To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group <
> > chugalug at chugalug.org>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> I don't think making money off your code will ever be an issue, companies
> >>> hire you to program, what code you use to do it is less of there concern
> >>> beyond maybe which language you use.
> >> I write embedded systems code. I control hardware via software, and the
> >> hardware is trivial to copy. While my company might continue to sell that
> >> hardware even if my software were to be free to the world, for a little
> >> while, it wouldn't be long before someone else would copy the whole lot
> >> and
> >> go into competition with us. RMS thinks that's a grand idea. When some
> >> Chinese knockoff made by nearly slave labor undercuts our prices by 50%
> >> though, it won't be long before I'm out of a job. They spent a couple of
> >> days copying the PCB, an hour or so figuring out how to compile my code,
> >> and !bam! they're in business. So the months, and sometimes years it has
> >> taken me to develop a product is now copied in a matter of days. I'm
> >> sorry, that's not the kind of world that rewards innovation.
> >> We all know its a fools errand to ask programmers to work for free, but
> >>> Stallman has a point: Companies shouldn't be allowed to copyright
> >>> individual bits of codes, a whole program? Sure, but copyrighting
> >>> individual lines and statements is like copyrighting the English language
> >>> sentence by sentence.
> >> If I come up with a sort routine that is a thousand times faster than any
> >> other out there, I (or my employer) darn well better be able to copyright
> >> that, and not just the whole program that makes use of it. However, it
> >> usually isn't copyright that provides that protection, it is patents. And
> >> software patents are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I would agree that
> >> all the bullshit about copyrighting "look and feel" needs to go. But
> >> truly
> >> novel algorithms and methodologies deserve some form of protection. The
> >> problem lately is the definition of "novel" has gotten pretty sloppy.
> >> Jeff.
> > ----- End message from daworm at gmail.com -----
> > --
> > R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga, TN, USA
> > http://chalice.us/poe/
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Chugalug mailing list
> > Chugalug at chugalug.org
> > http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/chugalug<http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug>
More information about the Chugalug